Monday, August 08, 2005

Grace: Your body's or Someone Else's?

Tyler asked me to read The Body's Grace by Rowan Williams - a defense of homosexuality by the future Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church in England.

The Good

My mom (and everyone else's I think) said "if you cannot say something nice, do not say anything at all"; and there are some things here that are exquisite:
The whole story of creation, incarnation and our incorporation into the fellowship of Christ's body tells us that God desires us, as if we were God, as if we were that unconditional response to God's giving that God's self makes in the life of the trinity. We are created so that we may be caught up in this; so that we may grow into the wholehearted love of God by learning that God loves us as God loves God.
This nearly erotic picture of God's love for us gives us deep understanding of the significance, acceptance, and security we have in Christ. He continues:
The life of the Christian community has as its rationale . . . the task of teaching us this: so ordering our relations that human beings may see themselves as desired, as the occasion of joy
Indeed, all Heaven celebrates when any one of us is saved. The core of all evangelism is to have non-believers see that God loves them; desires them to share in that loving relationship with Him; and that nothing they have done in their life alters that.

Williams shows the true heart of a loving sexual relationship: that each partner's sexual pleasure comes in pleasing the other and not themselves. He comes close to calling heterosexual sex in a legal marriage perversion if "in that they leave one agent in effective control of the situation - one agent, that is, who doesn't have to wait upon the desire of the other." and later mentions 1 Corinthians 7
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Of course, I think in this case he is better served mentioning any of the "one flesh" quotes; but oh well. Also, he mentions Ephesians 5:
28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,
All in all, him and I agree that the sexual relationship God wants is one where the partners unite mind, body and soul; treat each other unselfishly sexually; and put their partner's needs on all of these levels over their own. This is the relationship that serves God and glorifies Him; it is what marriage in His name should be; and being heterosexual and married does not imply you have this. Finally, he "tantalizes" with this:
I suspect that a fuller exploration of the sexual metaphors of the Bible will have more to teach us about a theology and ethics of sexual desire than will the flat citation of isolated texts
The Bad

And delivers nothing:
"and I hope other theologians will find this worth following up more fully than I can do here."
This is what I expected him to do. He did have time to spend a third of his space on examples from the Raj Quartet by Paul Scott; and quotes from Thomas Nagel and Susan Griffin.

Now for homosexuality: Archbishop Williams argues that homosexual relationships are able to embody that complete unselfishness and abandonment of self to the other, and therefore they too will reflect and glorify God. Garry J. Williams, in The Theology of Rowan Williams:
"The method which Williams employs in his theological argument entails a significant non sequitur. He finds that God desires his people, and he identifies sexual desire with that desire in God. There may be some basis for this analogy, given that God is so often in Scripture depicted as the husband of his bride. It is, however, hermeneutically dubious to use the relation betweenGod and his people to justify specific sexual activity" [and] "There are thus two leaps here. One is from the desire or love of God for his people to human sexual desire, and the other is from heterosexual biblical examples to homosexual acts. Like the first, this second leap is consistently and conspicuously absent in the Bible . . . Scripture does not make the step which Williams makes, in that it customarily marks a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relations and compares aspects of God's relation to his people with the former and not the latter."
Archbishop Williams does approach scripture in defending homosexuality in one way: he attacks procreation as the major factor in God's view of authentic sexual relations. Here I think he is right: I do not believe reproduction is the central point in God's plan for our "one flesh" relationships; although it is certainly a point. However, he brushes by (and brushes off) what is to me the real points:
the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts [see my piece on this], or on a problematic and non-scriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures
The bold part is what he just blows by: complementarity is very much a part of every scripture on this subject. He fails to try to make a case for the opposite - so of course none is made. Garry Williams says this is a natural outflowing from his general theological mistake in dismissing revelation in favor of experience.

and The Ugly

This should have been the first thing I talked about since it explains the title of the work - The Body's Grace - but once the parallelism with Clint Eastwood hit me . . . He does not mean grace from the Body of Christ; but grace our own body shows us when we work out our "fear and trembling" over time in giving ourselves up to the mutuality of an equal relationship with another.

In scripture which is simply packed with references to "the flesh" (our bodily desires) this position that we seek the body's grace is simply wrong. We seek God's grace to work through these relationships; His strength to overcome the "fear and trembling" as we work out a true bond of mind, soul, and body. I would argue that in many cases giving in to the grace of our body separates us from the grace of God.

Archbishop Williams seems to imply that homosexuals actually have an easier time finding the body's grace once they have made those first decisions to "identify certain patterns as sterile, undeveloped or even corrupt" and "what we want our bodily life to say, how our bodies are to be brought in to the whole project of 'making human sense' for ourselves and each other." He says:
"a conventional (heterosexual) morality simply absolves us from the difficulties we might meet in doing so. The question of human meaning is not raised, we are not helped to see what part sexuality plays in our learning to be human with one another, to enter the body's grace, because all we need to know is that sexual activity is licensed in one context and in no other." [and] ". . . where [do] the massive cultural and religious anxiety about same-sex relationships that is so prevalent at the moment comes from . . . I wonder whether it is to do with the fact that same-sex relations oblige us to think directly about bodiliness and sexuality in a way that socially and religiously sanctioned heterosexual unions don't."
Not only am I wrong for following scripture on the issue of homosexuality, I am stunting my physical and emotional growth in my relationship with my wife by doing so. I suppose I need a version of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to get in touch with my bodily life and to recieve its grace.

4 comments:

  1. Tyler,

    Relax a little - the part I said was good was actually really good. And some of what you are complaining about is a misunderstanding of me. This is the key to the other Williams criticism (which incidentally I did not read until I had gone through Archbishop Williams essay about 3 times):

    The method which Williams employs in his theological argument entails a significant non sequitur.

    1.He finds that God desires his people, and he identifies sexual desire with that desire in God. There may be some basis for this analogy, given that God is so often in Scripture depicted as the husband of his bride. It is, however, hermeneutically dubious to use the relation between God and his people to justify specific sexual activity"


    I agree. Nothing in God's desire for a loving relationship with me (or me being part of the Bride of Christ) implies any condoning of any of my specific sexual acts. If you have a hermeneutics for this, write it. I see no connection at all.

    (2)"the other is from heterosexual biblical examples to homosexual acts. This second leap is consistently and conspicuously absent in the Bible . . . Scripture does not make the step which Williams makes, in that it customarily marks a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relations and compares aspects of God's relation to his people with the former and not the latter."

    True. It is these two points that Archbishop Williams has to defend scriptually - at least in framework. It is not a 100 page book. I didn't quote this from the other Williams before:

    To say that this objection is founded on a series of `very ambiguous texts' misses the force of the conservative moral argument and caricatures its basis. Certainly there is a strong case to be made from individual texts, as even a more liberal scholar such as Robert Gagnon recognizes in his seminal work on the subject. But the core of the conservative argument and the premise on which those texts themselves are built is the biblical doctrine of creation. This is not an isolated text, it is a reading of Genesis 1-­2 in the light of its key role in the canon as a whole and especially in the teaching of Jesus, where it has a normative function in sexual ethics (e.g. Matthew 19:3­1-2). For Jesus, the account of creation serves as the paradigm which God has set out for his world and relations within it. That is a basis for rejecting same­-sex relations which does not appeal to reproductivity, and which is based on neither fundamentalism nor non­scriptural theory.

    That is my criticism - he simply does not engage the obvious scriptual problems with homosexuality. Period. Since you know this is exactly what I am looking for in order to rethink my position; and you recommended I read this - you should understand if I am disappointed with (and critical of) this hole. The other Williams is writing his piece during the decision on whether Williams should be Archbishop - so the Archbishop has had 2-3 years to fill in this theoritical gap with however many pages are necessary. Did he?

    You imply that procreation is a necessary aspect of sexual life, if not the only point therein. It should follow that you oppose post-menopausal sex and birth control of any kind, right?

    Archbishop Williams: if we are looking for a sexual ethic that can be seriously informed by our Bible, there is a good deal to steer us away from assuming that reproductive sex is a norm, however important and theologically significant it may be.

    Me: Archbishop Williams does approach scripture in defending homosexuality in one way: he attacks procreation as the major factor in God's view of authentic sexual relations. Here I think he is right: I do not believe reproduction is the central point in God's plan for our "one flesh" relationships; although it is certainly a point.

    Doesn't he say procreation is a point? I gave him kudos here. I agreed with him. So huh? Whatever you think he said - I almost certainly agree with. However, it does not follow that separating procreation as part of God's plan for sex allows same-sex relations: the Biblical criticism, as the other Williams points out above, doesn't have anything to do with procreation either.

    I looked at the connection the Archbishop drew between the body's grace and God. I didn't deal with it because it doesn't address my issue. God's grace might flow through His Son; or through the Holy Spirit. Grace does not flow through our body to ourselves. If God's grace did come through our body - it would be grace to and experienced by the other person - not ourselves - and that is NOT what Archbishop Williams said.

    You brush off complementarity just as much as williams does.

    You saw the argument at your place. One flesh relationships turn two people INTO ONE PERSON - one person where the strengths and weaknesses of the two compliment each other. Besides, I said he brushed it off - and he did. If you think you know his position on this, state it. The whole Body of Christ is complimentary for that matter - and individual spiritual gifts are given to us depending on what area in which God wants us to compliment the others.

    Rowan Williams doesn't believe that every word of the Pauline corpus (except on the rare occasion where Paul says the word "opinion" or something like it) is the directly revealed word of God. Therefore I don't have to take him seriously and can ignore every point he tries to make.

    Actually, wasn't Paul all he quoted. My complaint would be that for those two major leaps of logic he ignored all scripture - not just Paul. And, I hardly disagree with every point.

    I disagreed that any grace outflows from our flesh to ourselves; and that homosexuals have some kind of advantage in being more real about their sexuality than heterosexuals.

    Me: Not only am I wrong for following scripture on the issue of homosexuality, I am stunting my physical and emotional growth in my relationship with my wife by doing so.

    You: Wait, was that a joke? Too bad, it was the truest thing you wrote in this whole post

    I consider you a friend despite our disagreements. I have never questioned the depth of your relationship with Laura, or what degree of risk and fear you have had to overcome to have a body, soul and mind connection with her (or whether you have such a relationship). This statement about my relationship with my wife is a pile of crap that was beneath you to shovel.

    Archbishops implication that having a heterosexist world view makes the fear and trembling of building a one flesh kind of relationship any less palpatable and dangerous is an equally high pile of crap.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tyler,

    As I said under the good part, there is an exquisiteness to Williams understanding of the full dimension of what God wants a one flesh relationship to mean. I say he should have attempted to wrestle that away from "penis" and "vagina" as a necessary Tab P and Slot V for this type of relationship because he will have to to make his point (and after all, my own sex life doesn't always include Tab P AND Slot V). The other Williams is after all an Anglican - as are the African Anglicans. He doesn't have just us crazy fundamentalists to worry about. If he cannot "rehabilitate" those passages of scripture he is doomed.

    To me the least important part of the biblical marriage presentation is the actual sex act. One of the arguments for celibacy before marriage is that the mind and soul unity should come first - with the body unity last as a reflection of a lasting committment. I believe the sex act reaches a level of transcendence that the Archbishop would admire, and that few people experience, when it is held to that standard. The other Williams quotes the Archbishop as agreeing with the conservative positions on pre-marital sex; and questions how this jibes with allowing homosexual sex. I have no problem with the Archbishop here since I do not view "marriage" as either a church or a state rite; but as instituted with the actual sex act whenever you have it. That allows me the room to say you and Laura are "married"; but of course then broadens the number of people committing adultery in a biblical sense.

    Admittedly, both points under "the Ugly" are my own (the other Williams mentions neither). The weaker of the two was the last; but I think the Archbishop really says that since Gays are in essence "going out on a longer limb" to build their relationships that they experience deeper and greater grace. Frankly, he may have been pandering to the crowd - but either way it was a crock.

    And by his argument, wouldn't a AMB as a bisexual experience even greater grace by choosing her current partner. Doesn't she endure even greater risk; greater embarrassment; and greater possibility of even a worse disaster in this relationship. The core of my argument about seeking God's grace, rather than our body's, isn't that a gay man needs to be celebate; but that a gay men in choosing to be celebate with men may open God's grace in his life to finding a true mind, soul and body relationship with a women. In the Archbishop's argument, wouldn't there be astounding bodily grace in this. Certainly absolute celebacy would be better than some poor marriage selected because it was "the right thing to do".

    Oprah (I know, why was I watching that stuff) had a couple on the other day. The husband (they had been married for quite a number of years) had before they were married been transgender. They were married, body/soul/mind, and had children. He finally "couldn't stand it anymore" and had a sex change operation. The new "she" and her wife were on the show; and they made it clear that they were still committed to a lifetime, but celebate, relationship with each other. This is a beautiful thing to me. It was disgusting that Oprah (after being told about this committment TWICE) was still wondering if the new "she" wasn't itching to take the new Slot V for a test drive with some Tab P.

    I didn't catch the whole interview to know what the faith base of these folk were, if any - but it is God's grace acting through the wife that kept this marriage together "for better or worse". Whatever deep spiritual things this couple learns about sexuality in this process is again grace from God - and neither of their bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tyler,

    Actually, one of those holdovers from my relationship with Women's Liberation in my radical days is a deep-seated belief that my partner's orgasism comes before mine. So sex is a work of giving for me - really always and for years. There are no quickies in my bedroom - no "get mine and run". My wife is actually a more often initiator than me in my old age. I get your point though.

    I am not saying it is more desirable or not for gay men to marry women. I am saying it is not at all clear to me that it is desirable for gay men to marry men under God's eyes and grace. If that falls outside, then the options are celebacy or women. I agree with Williams that a relationship that is "sterile, undeveloped or even corrupt" (hetero or homo) is not pleasing to, or honoring of, God; so "settling" for a women because God didn't like you with men isn't good either.

    I said in that other thread that if I were Gay I would have married and told everyone else to hang. I also said I would be taking my chances with God's opinion of that. As the other Williams said in his last part of his article - it is very possible that may lead me to eternal isolation from God. Not a good thing to have; and certainly a bad thing to advocate for others.

    I do not think I implied that celebacy for a gay "couple" would be better or worse than celebacy for a straight "couple". In the Oprah couple it was the partner who started out as a women who said they were "of course" remaining celebate even while remaining committed. I admit to a long-term curiosity about whether that will remain so; or given the history whether theologically it should remain so - that is one "lesbian" relationship where I am pretty sure sex would not be a sin. (It is an interesting paradox which I thought you and AMB would enjoy). The sex change is probably sin; but that would be the husband's problem. Certainly staying married is an amazingly non-sinful thing - incredible on the wife's part. Does the "equipment" in this case impact whether the sex act is sin?

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, I missed that reference. Its the only way I can keep track of which women started that way.

    Couldn't remember how to spell it.

    ReplyDelete

How to debate charitably (rules are links to more description of rule):
1. The Golden Rule
2. You cannot read minds
3. People are not evil
4. Debates are not for winning
5. You make mistakes
6. Not everyone cares as much as you
7. Engaging is hard work
8. Differences can be subtle
9. Give up quietly