Marriage is a reflection of the relationship between God and humanity.
I understand that I am not the first one to say this stuff, in fact, it was reflecting on my limited knowledge of the Theology of the Body that inspired me to think of it. I wanted to figure out why God became a male. My professors and peers were claiming that it was an accidental event, or, if it wasn't accidental, that God HAD to become a male in order for people to respond to him. However, I think that the answer comes from our understanding of teleology -- the idea that life has a plan, a purpose, and a promise, and the Christian understanding is that this design comes from an intelligent designer, one who is personal, benevolent, and just. This of course raises many other questions, such as the problem of evil, which we will not discuss at this time, but if God is teleological, then why was his masculine incarnation purposeless?
First of all, we can understand why God would want to visit us. We are tactile people; we receive love by touch, and being near our loved ones provides comfort and joy. Therefore, it is natural to think that a God who loves us beyond our understanding would want to touch us, would want to be near to us.
Secondly, Christians think of God as a being who accommodates, and the incarnation, his taking on flesh -- becoming a human to the fullest extent of what it implies to be a human -- is the best example of this reality. The question is, however, what was he accommodating, society and its laws, or the human individual who was an inseparable member of the Jewish community? Of course we can apply this question to modern times, since the issue of Christ the Accommodator is very real to the many facets of social and religious thought. Nonetheless, if Christ was appealing to public sentiment, then he would be, in fact, guilty of sexism in one of two ways: through a sin of omission or a sin of commission--in other words, involuntary of voluntary acts, respectively. That is, Christ's sin could be seen as implicit, by simply becoming a male in order to appease popular thought, or explicit, by intentionally condoning such an ideology. To claim, then, that the Incarnation was an inherently sinful event, is heretical since it denies the unfathomable love that the Father has for us.
Furthermore, we know that God is teleological. He is intentional. He deliberates and acts upon what is best. Therefore, it cannot be an accident that Jesus Christ came as a male, and that he gives his body to us in the Eucharist. God wants to encounter us, or rather, he wants us to encounter him. Touch: a spiritual, psychological, emotional, and sexual connection between God and us is what he longs for. He chooses to need it, to be incomplete without our union with him. Marriage, then, is the only human relationship that fits this type of love and commitment. Hence, this all-loving, accommodating God is calling us to be in a marital covenant with him.
But why marriage? Because marriage is an intimate union between the sexual, emotional, and intellectual traits of a male and a female. It demands a converging, an encounter with the other, as spouse and partner. Marriage demands a death to the ego of the individual, and a vibrant unity of two wills. Marriage necessitates touch; it requires an emotional, sexual, psychological, and physical intimacy between the lovers. Without this, their relationship is incomplete. The desire for the union of marriage ontologically subsists within our human nature.
The analogy of marriage, then, reminds us that Christ came as a male so we could be the female, so we could receive and incubate his divine life within our hearts. He wanted to enter a marital relationship with us. Therefore, if we claim that he came as a male to appease the unjust social maxims of his day, or that it was purely accidental that Christ came as a male, then we do nothing less than cheapen the incarnation and its relevance to the intrinsic nature of our humanity.
October 19, 2007
September 2, 2007
Man: The "She" of Creation
*** An interesting note: without realizing it, this post was origianlly written on the 7th day of the 7th month of the 7th year. I wanted to change the date so that my next topic would be right above it. Still, I thought that was kinda neat, since I will be discussing humanity's relationship with the Trinity ***
I would like to hear some thoughts on this one. I was listening to Christopher West's take on the Theology of the Body, and this phrase popped in my head while I was trying to make sense of what he was saying: "Man is the 'she' of creation." In my next few blogs, I want to try to discuss what that phrase might mean, and what might be its implications.
The "she" of humanity, the female, the woman, is receptivity. Women, who naturally espouse this receptivity, are "incubators," much like soil, in that they receive a word, an idea, or a concept, and allow it to germinate, take root, and blossom. This kind of receptivity is also evident in their physiology, since their bodies are even hardwired to receive and incubate life. Men, on the other hand, generally shuffle information much like a cd player, moving form one song to the next, often with no record of the previous song. Again, the male physiology mirrors this -- especially in our sexuality (and the same goes for women). Have you ever heard of the cliche, "men are like microwaves, women are like slow-cookers"? It refers to is our sex drive -- push a button, and the male is ready to go, while it takes a little while for the female to get ready (generally speaking, of course). The female incubates, the male plants. Although the degree to which each male or female plants and incubates varies, no matter how you look at it, there will always be this stark difference in how we process and recieve information. Spiritually speaking, the male must become like the female in this respect. The male must move from planting to receiving in his relationship with God. In fact, all of humanity must somehow become this "she" in order to find fulfillment; in other words, the "he" of our humanity must become like the "she." We must be willing to receive from God, the source of our humanity, if we want to become fully human.
But the question that I have is this (and I want to talk about this later): if we are to become the "she" of creation, then what does that make God? Do we continue to treat God as a complete genderless being and speak of God as some sort of androgynous entity? Or is there wisdom in the words of Christ: "This is how you ought to pray: 'Our Father...'"? Furthermore, is it purely an acidental phenomenon that Christ came as a male?
I would like to hear some thoughts on this one. I was listening to Christopher West's take on the Theology of the Body, and this phrase popped in my head while I was trying to make sense of what he was saying: "Man is the 'she' of creation." In my next few blogs, I want to try to discuss what that phrase might mean, and what might be its implications.
The "she" of humanity, the female, the woman, is receptivity. Women, who naturally espouse this receptivity, are "incubators," much like soil, in that they receive a word, an idea, or a concept, and allow it to germinate, take root, and blossom. This kind of receptivity is also evident in their physiology, since their bodies are even hardwired to receive and incubate life. Men, on the other hand, generally shuffle information much like a cd player, moving form one song to the next, often with no record of the previous song. Again, the male physiology mirrors this -- especially in our sexuality (and the same goes for women). Have you ever heard of the cliche, "men are like microwaves, women are like slow-cookers"? It refers to is our sex drive -- push a button, and the male is ready to go, while it takes a little while for the female to get ready (generally speaking, of course). The female incubates, the male plants. Although the degree to which each male or female plants and incubates varies, no matter how you look at it, there will always be this stark difference in how we process and recieve information. Spiritually speaking, the male must become like the female in this respect. The male must move from planting to receiving in his relationship with God. In fact, all of humanity must somehow become this "she" in order to find fulfillment; in other words, the "he" of our humanity must become like the "she." We must be willing to receive from God, the source of our humanity, if we want to become fully human.
But the question that I have is this (and I want to talk about this later): if we are to become the "she" of creation, then what does that make God? Do we continue to treat God as a complete genderless being and speak of God as some sort of androgynous entity? Or is there wisdom in the words of Christ: "This is how you ought to pray: 'Our Father...'"? Furthermore, is it purely an acidental phenomenon that Christ came as a male?
July 8, 2007
Before We Got Married
In the winter of 2002, I had a dream. I was wearing a tuxedo and pacing in front of an altar. There were people present, and the groomsmen were looking on. It was my wedding, but I was pacing because it was happening too fast. I kept asking myself how I got here so soon, and what am I going to do. Then the scene panned to Kara, my wife, walking, pensively, up the isle to the altar. She had an expectant smile, one that showed hope, but one that seemed to share the same concerns of getting married too soon. Were we ready; was I ready? The dream didn't seem to tell us not to get married, but, rather, to move a little more slowly. You see, our circle of friends, at that time in our lives, were very adamant that not only do you not date without the intention to get married, but that you do not date very long at all. Any delay in the process of marriage was to delay the fulfillment of the will of God -- and who would want the will of God to be delayed? But there we were, in the dream at least, feeling the need to slow down, but feeling the pressure from friends to speed up.
Shortly after that dream, anxiety began to crept into my life. It seemed to pervade my heart and almost burn me up inside. I did many poustinias and I had a spiritual director because I needed to find out why this anxiety was happening during our engagement. Was God trying to tell me something? I continued to ask Him for some light and reprieve from the pain, but I heard nothing. His silence was deafening. There was nothing out there for me to hold onto, but I had to let go. One desire that grew during that time was that God would unite my will to His. In fact, it seemed that all I could do was pray, "I give you my will."
I did receive some consolation, though. I usually experienced it during my meetings with my spiritual director and after my poustinias. I felt that marrying Kara was the right thing to do. After all, I didn't hear any other word from God, but I did experience peace when I thought about moving forward with our plans to marry. But the desolation never stopped. It seemed like all I could do was to go forward, because it was the only thing that I knew I should be doing. We kept asking the Lord to cease our relationship if it wouldn't glorify Him, and we kept surrendering our wills to Him, but we both felt that we should continue to move forward. In fact, I should mention here that Kara's experience was completely different. She was convinced that we were following God's plan. She received visions, consolations, and confirmations that God was leading us in this direction. So we kept moving. I knew I had to move, and the only way that I could go was forward--until the Lord said otherwise.
During all this another thing that continued to grow was my desire to marry Christ. I wanted to seek Him out as my husband. I know that this may sound odd to some of you, but my heart yearned to marry Jesus Christ. I still don't understand all the implications of such a relationship, only that I wanted to become united with Christ.
Nonetheless, on our wedding day, the anxiety persisted, but it couldn't take away the fact that our wedding day was also very exciting. It was such a fun day, and it was great to see so many old friends, and meet my wife's family -- which is extremely HUGE (I still don't remember all their names)! But aside from all that, I was very aware that in marrying Kara, I was marrying Christ. That He would be my spouse, and from my spousal relationship with Him, my relationship with Kara would continue to blossom.
Shortly after that dream, anxiety began to crept into my life. It seemed to pervade my heart and almost burn me up inside. I did many poustinias and I had a spiritual director because I needed to find out why this anxiety was happening during our engagement. Was God trying to tell me something? I continued to ask Him for some light and reprieve from the pain, but I heard nothing. His silence was deafening. There was nothing out there for me to hold onto, but I had to let go. One desire that grew during that time was that God would unite my will to His. In fact, it seemed that all I could do was pray, "I give you my will."
I did receive some consolation, though. I usually experienced it during my meetings with my spiritual director and after my poustinias. I felt that marrying Kara was the right thing to do. After all, I didn't hear any other word from God, but I did experience peace when I thought about moving forward with our plans to marry. But the desolation never stopped. It seemed like all I could do was to go forward, because it was the only thing that I knew I should be doing. We kept asking the Lord to cease our relationship if it wouldn't glorify Him, and we kept surrendering our wills to Him, but we both felt that we should continue to move forward. In fact, I should mention here that Kara's experience was completely different. She was convinced that we were following God's plan. She received visions, consolations, and confirmations that God was leading us in this direction. So we kept moving. I knew I had to move, and the only way that I could go was forward--until the Lord said otherwise.
During all this another thing that continued to grow was my desire to marry Christ. I wanted to seek Him out as my husband. I know that this may sound odd to some of you, but my heart yearned to marry Jesus Christ. I still don't understand all the implications of such a relationship, only that I wanted to become united with Christ.
Nonetheless, on our wedding day, the anxiety persisted, but it couldn't take away the fact that our wedding day was also very exciting. It was such a fun day, and it was great to see so many old friends, and meet my wife's family -- which is extremely HUGE (I still don't remember all their names)! But aside from all that, I was very aware that in marrying Kara, I was marrying Christ. That He would be my spouse, and from my spousal relationship with Him, my relationship with Kara would continue to blossom.
May 4, 2007
Addictions
Addictions. What are they, really? I see them as cancers that eat at our humanity until nothing is left but the drug -- whatever that "drug" may be. It's like that scripture, John 3:30: "I must decrease, He must increase." It seems that we cannot devote ourselves to a particular goal without handing over a piece of who we are. What is that now cliche scripture, "no one can serve two masters ... you must serve God or manna," pretty true isn't it? We seem to serve political paradigms, philosophies, faith, the world, self, money, morality, praise ... should I go on?
Let me share something with you: when I tried to fill my life with booze, sex, sports, and anything loud and distracting, I became more and more lonely. I really did. Looking back I could literally feel this gaping hole growing and enveloping all of who I was. I wanted peace, but all I got was angst. I became angry, alone, I lusted for more and more and more, and I was never satisfied. My life became empty, bereft of meaning and purpose. I thought the only thing left for me to do was to remain a lonely drunk. Then, out of nowhere, I saw God in the sky. I saw him in the northern lights. Not just ideologically, like "wow, nature must be made by something greater," but literally. Out of the blue, the Northern lights began to form a bunch of eyes -- in all sorts of dazzling colours. Then the eyes disappeared and an image of Mary holding the infant Jesus faded into the sky -- outlined by the Northern Lights! Then they disappeared, and an image of a dove was painted onto the sky with the Northern Lights. Soon, that image faded away, and the Northern Lights returned to their original colour and position in the sky -- the northern part (go figure!). Six months later, He spoke to me. I heard a voice inside of me, that was not my own, tell me that it loved me. The voice came from an image, a copy of a painting that some poor Polish nun composed -- a depiction of a vision that she saw, a vision of Jesus Christ.
What was significant about that voice was that it seemed to drown out every other noise that I had tried to fill my mind with. It penetrated my psyche, my intellect, and my loneliness. It offered me a choice: to "pick up my cross" and follow Christ, or not, and it was as if every single event in my life led me up to that choice. When I was confronted with it, I had a very lucid experience of viewing my entire life, and seeing it culminate to that very moment -- the moment of being confronted by Love. I said "yes," and At that moment my thirst was quenched and my longing was satisfied. That gaping hole was filled. I was filled. I wasn't empty any longer, and I knew that I had to strive to encounter Jesus Christ more intimately.
After, things weren't all that rosy. Although I had experienced many amazing supernatural things, I had to deal with the mess that was me. It was almost as if I experienced a type of detox from all the booze, sex, sports, and noise that I tried to fill that void with. It wasn't easy, and in many ways I am still experiencing that difficult and often confusing withdrawal.
I think that is what an addiction is like. It starts with a pain, a longing, and a thirst for happiness, a want to feel cool and to belong. We see on TV that sex satisfies those wants, that alcohol can make us forget, make us belong. Or if only we were rich, then we could have freedom, then we could buy anything we wanted, go anywhere and do anything -- then we would be happy. If monetary comfort, alcohol, and casual sex make us so happy, then why are we never satisfied? Addictions. They lead us away from genuine satisfaction:
If we want genuine satisfaction, then we need to hand Him not only a piece of who we are, but every fibre of our being. We need to give Him our hearts.
Let me share something with you: when I tried to fill my life with booze, sex, sports, and anything loud and distracting, I became more and more lonely. I really did. Looking back I could literally feel this gaping hole growing and enveloping all of who I was. I wanted peace, but all I got was angst. I became angry, alone, I lusted for more and more and more, and I was never satisfied. My life became empty, bereft of meaning and purpose. I thought the only thing left for me to do was to remain a lonely drunk. Then, out of nowhere, I saw God in the sky. I saw him in the northern lights. Not just ideologically, like "wow, nature must be made by something greater," but literally. Out of the blue, the Northern lights began to form a bunch of eyes -- in all sorts of dazzling colours. Then the eyes disappeared and an image of Mary holding the infant Jesus faded into the sky -- outlined by the Northern Lights! Then they disappeared, and an image of a dove was painted onto the sky with the Northern Lights. Soon, that image faded away, and the Northern Lights returned to their original colour and position in the sky -- the northern part (go figure!). Six months later, He spoke to me. I heard a voice inside of me, that was not my own, tell me that it loved me. The voice came from an image, a copy of a painting that some poor Polish nun composed -- a depiction of a vision that she saw, a vision of Jesus Christ.
What was significant about that voice was that it seemed to drown out every other noise that I had tried to fill my mind with. It penetrated my psyche, my intellect, and my loneliness. It offered me a choice: to "pick up my cross" and follow Christ, or not, and it was as if every single event in my life led me up to that choice. When I was confronted with it, I had a very lucid experience of viewing my entire life, and seeing it culminate to that very moment -- the moment of being confronted by Love. I said "yes," and At that moment my thirst was quenched and my longing was satisfied. That gaping hole was filled. I was filled. I wasn't empty any longer, and I knew that I had to strive to encounter Jesus Christ more intimately.
After, things weren't all that rosy. Although I had experienced many amazing supernatural things, I had to deal with the mess that was me. It was almost as if I experienced a type of detox from all the booze, sex, sports, and noise that I tried to fill that void with. It wasn't easy, and in many ways I am still experiencing that difficult and often confusing withdrawal.
I think that is what an addiction is like. It starts with a pain, a longing, and a thirst for happiness, a want to feel cool and to belong. We see on TV that sex satisfies those wants, that alcohol can make us forget, make us belong. Or if only we were rich, then we could have freedom, then we could buy anything we wanted, go anywhere and do anything -- then we would be happy. If monetary comfort, alcohol, and casual sex make us so happy, then why are we never satisfied? Addictions. They lead us away from genuine satisfaction:
If we want genuine satisfaction, then we need to hand Him not only a piece of who we are, but every fibre of our being. We need to give Him our hearts.
"Our Hearts are restless until they rest in you." - St. Augustine of Hippo
April 10, 2007
How We Got Married
A friend of mine asked me to share how I met my wife and how she became my wife. I actually met her when I was on outreach during bible school. The girls on my team stayed at her house and we spent a lot of time there -- they had a trampoline. I do remember meeting her and speaking with her, and I recall that there was something about her that set her apart from others, but I never dwelt on it. That was in May of 1998.
After bible school I lived as a type of missionary, off and on, until 2001. What I mean is that I had three years where I did Christian missionary work full time, and two years were spent doing retreats here and there, but not quite full time. In the fall of 2000, after a trip to Rome, I entered the seminary with the Companions of the Cross. I felt that I really had to discern the priesthood, since I wanted to give my life completely to Christ, and a few people had told me that I would make a good priest. So I checked it out. I enjoyed my time spent with the other guys in the sem. I learned how to play ping pong, and how not to cook. My time wasn't always peachy -- another gentleman and I had very similar stubborn qualities, needless to say, we clashed.
In the sem I had a chance to work on my spiritual life. I began to understand the spousal nature of my relationship with Jesus Christ, and I learned a little more about who I am. I was also introduced to the wide world of philosophy through an excellent college, College Dominicain. During my time there, I began to realize something very odd: that God wanted me to be happy. Imagine that. This God, whom we are told loves us, also wants to give us the desires of our hearts -- to make us happy here on earth. This concept was so foreign to me. I thought that I was destined to become a priest, not to become happy (the two were like a dichotomy for me).
Anyway, the people in charge of formation wisely discerned that I ought to begin thinking about leaving, about changing directions for a while and see where God might lead me. I did, and I wound up back in Radway, AB to work at the Bible School's farm as a maintenance person. That was where I met Kara.
She had received a vision that summer, before I met her, that God would bring a man into her life, and that she wouldn't need to approach him, but that he would approach her -- she told me that after we started dating. When I saw her the first time, there was something about her that made me say, "Lord, I want to marry THAT one!" So I took my time and tried to get to know as best as I could. I was well aware of the problems of infatuation, and I didn't want to make a mistake. I would often pray that the Lord would provide an opportunity for me to speak with her and get to know her better, and every time that I prayed that prayer, an opportunity knocked. For example, out of the blue she decided to eat at the Bible School farm, where I had quietly planned to have my lunch too. That is just one example, but there were many.
The next month I had decided to go to Ireland for another mission trip. Before I left, I made sure to tell her how I felt, and ask if she was interested in pursuing a relationship that might lead to marriage. The rest is history.
I will cut it short here, because this post is about to become too long. But if anyone wants to hear the rest of the story (there were a few bumps along the way), let me know, and I will post the rest.
After bible school I lived as a type of missionary, off and on, until 2001. What I mean is that I had three years where I did Christian missionary work full time, and two years were spent doing retreats here and there, but not quite full time. In the fall of 2000, after a trip to Rome, I entered the seminary with the Companions of the Cross. I felt that I really had to discern the priesthood, since I wanted to give my life completely to Christ, and a few people had told me that I would make a good priest. So I checked it out. I enjoyed my time spent with the other guys in the sem. I learned how to play ping pong, and how not to cook. My time wasn't always peachy -- another gentleman and I had very similar stubborn qualities, needless to say, we clashed.
In the sem I had a chance to work on my spiritual life. I began to understand the spousal nature of my relationship with Jesus Christ, and I learned a little more about who I am. I was also introduced to the wide world of philosophy through an excellent college, College Dominicain. During my time there, I began to realize something very odd: that God wanted me to be happy. Imagine that. This God, whom we are told loves us, also wants to give us the desires of our hearts -- to make us happy here on earth. This concept was so foreign to me. I thought that I was destined to become a priest, not to become happy (the two were like a dichotomy for me).
Anyway, the people in charge of formation wisely discerned that I ought to begin thinking about leaving, about changing directions for a while and see where God might lead me. I did, and I wound up back in Radway, AB to work at the Bible School's farm as a maintenance person. That was where I met Kara.
She had received a vision that summer, before I met her, that God would bring a man into her life, and that she wouldn't need to approach him, but that he would approach her -- she told me that after we started dating. When I saw her the first time, there was something about her that made me say, "Lord, I want to marry THAT one!" So I took my time and tried to get to know as best as I could. I was well aware of the problems of infatuation, and I didn't want to make a mistake. I would often pray that the Lord would provide an opportunity for me to speak with her and get to know her better, and every time that I prayed that prayer, an opportunity knocked. For example, out of the blue she decided to eat at the Bible School farm, where I had quietly planned to have my lunch too. That is just one example, but there were many.
The next month I had decided to go to Ireland for another mission trip. Before I left, I made sure to tell her how I felt, and ask if she was interested in pursuing a relationship that might lead to marriage. The rest is history.
I will cut it short here, because this post is about to become too long. But if anyone wants to hear the rest of the story (there were a few bumps along the way), let me know, and I will post the rest.
March 26, 2007
The Virtue of Hope
Quite a few friends of mine have often told me that if I expect the worse, then I will never get disappointed. I never really had much of a reply to them, although I felt that somehow their depressing mantra was wrong. The reason why I never had a reply was that I hadn't really suffered yet.
The past few years of my life, although they have been amazing, have been riddled with anxiety. The kind of anxiety that doesn't seem to have any purpose, no beginning or "why" it started in the first place, or what it was trying to tell me. The Christians would say that I am anxious because I don't trust God enough, or that I must have done something to deserve it, that I made a wrong decision or something. The degree to which the above statements are true is debatable -- although I do not doubt that anxiety can often be an internal marker that tells us when something is wrong.
Another source of suffering, lately, has been arthritis. At 30 years old, I have debilitating arthritis that prevents me from working the jobs I enjoy, or doing some of the activities I used to love. But before I start giving you a sob story, I want to mention that it wasn't until I began to suffer like this that I began to understand the virtue of hope.
Hope is strengthened by despair and suffering. Rather, it is strengthened by the choice to move forward in spite of despair and great suffering. Pope John Paul II, when he addressed the people of Communist Poland, he told them to do two things: hope and pray. There, was a people who had been crushed and oppressed by an unjust Communist occupation of their precious homeland. They had nothing left but a will to live, and here was Pope John Paul II reminding them to do only two things, two things that would liberate them from Communist oppression: to hope, and to pray. So they did. Inspired by John Paul II's exhortation, the Polish Solidarity Movement pushed back their oppressors and paved the way for the destruction of Communist Russia -- only because they did two things: they hoped, and they prayed. They hoped in spite of their suffering, and they prayed in spite of the apparent death of God.
This is the gospel paradox, isn't it, that we need to enter into the passion of Christ, before we can enter His resurrection. That we need to embrace suffering before we can truly hope. The passion of Christ, our "passion," our "way of the cross," is Hope's garden. The torment, the anxiety, the uncertainty, and the apparent despair of this garden is what nourishes Hope and what allows it to blossom. It is watered by the pierced heart of Christ, tilled by his dragging cross, and pruned by his death.
All I want is to "know Christ, to know the power of His resurrection and to share in His sufferings, so that I may become like Him in death, in the hope that somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead" (Philippians 3:10,11). "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mark 8:34).
The past few years of my life, although they have been amazing, have been riddled with anxiety. The kind of anxiety that doesn't seem to have any purpose, no beginning or "why" it started in the first place, or what it was trying to tell me. The Christians would say that I am anxious because I don't trust God enough, or that I must have done something to deserve it, that I made a wrong decision or something. The degree to which the above statements are true is debatable -- although I do not doubt that anxiety can often be an internal marker that tells us when something is wrong.
Another source of suffering, lately, has been arthritis. At 30 years old, I have debilitating arthritis that prevents me from working the jobs I enjoy, or doing some of the activities I used to love. But before I start giving you a sob story, I want to mention that it wasn't until I began to suffer like this that I began to understand the virtue of hope.
Hope is strengthened by despair and suffering. Rather, it is strengthened by the choice to move forward in spite of despair and great suffering. Pope John Paul II, when he addressed the people of Communist Poland, he told them to do two things: hope and pray. There, was a people who had been crushed and oppressed by an unjust Communist occupation of their precious homeland. They had nothing left but a will to live, and here was Pope John Paul II reminding them to do only two things, two things that would liberate them from Communist oppression: to hope, and to pray. So they did. Inspired by John Paul II's exhortation, the Polish Solidarity Movement pushed back their oppressors and paved the way for the destruction of Communist Russia -- only because they did two things: they hoped, and they prayed. They hoped in spite of their suffering, and they prayed in spite of the apparent death of God.
"Even though I walk through the valley of the shaow of death ..." (Ps. 23)Hope can be strengthened by disappointment, only in so far as we move forward in spite of it. We move forward in spite of our dreams being crushed; in spite of our goals, thwarted; and in spite of our joys, dampened. Hope strives to struggle and reach for the things that seem so fleeting.
This is the gospel paradox, isn't it, that we need to enter into the passion of Christ, before we can enter His resurrection. That we need to embrace suffering before we can truly hope. The passion of Christ, our "passion," our "way of the cross," is Hope's garden. The torment, the anxiety, the uncertainty, and the apparent despair of this garden is what nourishes Hope and what allows it to blossom. It is watered by the pierced heart of Christ, tilled by his dragging cross, and pruned by his death.
All I want is to "know Christ, to know the power of His resurrection and to share in His sufferings, so that I may become like Him in death, in the hope that somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead" (Philippians 3:10,11). "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mark 8:34).
February 5, 2007
The Problem of Same-Sex Marriage
hAlthough I have outlined in detail my logical response to an illogical institution, and outlined the various failures in objective thought that the "institution" of same-sex marriage holds, there is still a few more things that I would like to add. The issue of same-sex marriage carries a lot of stigma with it that seems to prevent some people from truly grappling with it at its core. The stigma is homophobia. Who wants to be known as homophobic? Not me, but the thought is that if one is against same-sex marriage, then that person is immediately pinned to be homophobic -- a stigma that carries with it such sentiments as "gay-hater," and is reminiscent of sexism and racism. I think that this association makes people afraid to oppose same-sex marriage, and forces them to suspend their "bias" in the name of tolerance. In fact, one of the major arguments that the proponents of same-sex marriage claim is that the opponents of same-sex marriage hold the same sentiments that fostered sexism and racism within our European culture. This is a sneaky attack against our logic, in fact it is a logical fallacy if you want to get technical. This presents to us a dichotomy that on one hand can clearly observe the inherent differences between marriage and same-sex unions, while on the other hand we are presented with a repulsion against anything "-phobic." This must stop. We must separate our fear of being seen as "homophobic" or "socially out-of-date" from the issue of same-sex marriage. We need to move forward, and the only way that society can move forward is if it adopts principles that sustain its existence and build up its nature. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron which does not see the future of society as its aim, and it is an "institution" that can neither sustain our society, nor build it up.
January 24, 2007
Same-Sex Marriage: Sexual Identity
Since a major component of marriage is the complementarity of the sexes, can a homosexual couple fulfill this requirement? Let's look at what the word "complementarity" implies before we answer the above question.
The term "complementarity of the sexes" refers to the ways in which a husband and wife compliment each other. That is, it signifies the way in which the female "makes up" where the male lacks, and visa versa. To say that the relationship between the heterosexual spouses is complimentary, however, is not the same as two male or female partners making up where the other is lacking -- as in two business partners whose unique gifts and skills "complete" each other in order to form a unified and whole team. Although that is certainly a part of what is going on in the complimentary nature of heterosexual spouses, it delves further into the sexuality of the couple. What I mean is this: males and females differ in many ways other than just physically -- they live differently, they think differently, they act differently, they deliberate differently, in fact these differences lay deep within the core of who they are as individual persons (the core of what makes a male a male, and a female a female). It is this complimentary difference in the nature of the sexes that makes the marital relationship so unique. It is also precisely this inherent difference that children need in order to become fashioned into active, positive, and full members of our society. Within a heterosexual marriage they not only view the ebb and flow dynamic of their parents' relationship, but they are forced to live in it and experience firsthand the parents' interaction and communication. It is precisely this interaction, the complementarity of the sexes, that same-sex couples can neither facilitate nor reproduce. This leads me to my next point: can surgery change a person's sexual identity. This is relevant to my argument since if a male were to become a female, then he (now a she, according to pop-culture) will become complimentary to a male partner.
Let me answer it with a question. Suppose a female lost her sexual organs in a tragic accident. Is she no longer a female? Since she doesn't have a penis, can she be considered to be a male? Is she, therefore, genderless, neutered by fate? How would she see herself? Would she relate to others as a female, would she still think, act, and feel as a female feels? I don't think that we really know what it means to have a sexual identity if we continue to relate it with our sexual organs --since the person who has lost her genitalia still thinks, receives, feels, and communicates as a female. There seems to be something inherent, then, about our sexual identity, something that subsists within our soul, the core of our being. Something that only finds completion in the opposite sex. So will a simple surgery, a lifetime of medication, and a change in attire make a male a female? To put it negatively, would the usurping of a female's sexual organs make a male a female? The answer is no; there is something inherent within our being that makes us male or female, our sexual organs are the physical manifestation of that inherent quality of the human person.
Since a gay male couple can never occupy the role of a female in a marriage, and visa versa, same-sex marriage is oxymoronic by definition, and a failure in logic -- since a same-sex union can never be the same as a heterosexual marriage due to the lack of the complimentary nature of the sexes.
The term "complementarity of the sexes" refers to the ways in which a husband and wife compliment each other. That is, it signifies the way in which the female "makes up" where the male lacks, and visa versa. To say that the relationship between the heterosexual spouses is complimentary, however, is not the same as two male or female partners making up where the other is lacking -- as in two business partners whose unique gifts and skills "complete" each other in order to form a unified and whole team. Although that is certainly a part of what is going on in the complimentary nature of heterosexual spouses, it delves further into the sexuality of the couple. What I mean is this: males and females differ in many ways other than just physically -- they live differently, they think differently, they act differently, they deliberate differently, in fact these differences lay deep within the core of who they are as individual persons (the core of what makes a male a male, and a female a female). It is this complimentary difference in the nature of the sexes that makes the marital relationship so unique. It is also precisely this inherent difference that children need in order to become fashioned into active, positive, and full members of our society. Within a heterosexual marriage they not only view the ebb and flow dynamic of their parents' relationship, but they are forced to live in it and experience firsthand the parents' interaction and communication. It is precisely this interaction, the complementarity of the sexes, that same-sex couples can neither facilitate nor reproduce. This leads me to my next point: can surgery change a person's sexual identity. This is relevant to my argument since if a male were to become a female, then he (now a she, according to pop-culture) will become complimentary to a male partner.
Let me answer it with a question. Suppose a female lost her sexual organs in a tragic accident. Is she no longer a female? Since she doesn't have a penis, can she be considered to be a male? Is she, therefore, genderless, neutered by fate? How would she see herself? Would she relate to others as a female, would she still think, act, and feel as a female feels? I don't think that we really know what it means to have a sexual identity if we continue to relate it with our sexual organs --since the person who has lost her genitalia still thinks, receives, feels, and communicates as a female. There seems to be something inherent, then, about our sexual identity, something that subsists within our soul, the core of our being. Something that only finds completion in the opposite sex. So will a simple surgery, a lifetime of medication, and a change in attire make a male a female? To put it negatively, would the usurping of a female's sexual organs make a male a female? The answer is no; there is something inherent within our being that makes us male or female, our sexual organs are the physical manifestation of that inherent quality of the human person.
Since a gay male couple can never occupy the role of a female in a marriage, and visa versa, same-sex marriage is oxymoronic by definition, and a failure in logic -- since a same-sex union can never be the same as a heterosexual marriage due to the lack of the complimentary nature of the sexes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
