Is it Sex???

I am in the second phase of the ordination process with the Presbyterian Church (USA). Like many of my peers at Union Theological Seminary, I meet with my ordination committee annually. Ideally, these meetings are a time for the candidate for ministry to talk with the committee about where they are in their process of discernment, education, etc. and for the committee to affirm and helpfully challenge the candidate as she continues on the path of ordination. Sometimes this process works beautifully, but sometimes these meetings can be anxiety-producing for people in the ordination process, especially for queer/LGBT folks for whom the ability to even enter into the ordination process and being out is a recent development in many denominations, including my own (and in many it has yet to happen).

Because of all the recent conversations and policy-changes around ordination of queer/LGBT folks in mainline denominations, there is a lot of buzz around the sexuality and sex lives of ministry candidates. I'm not sure if it was like this in the past, but several of my Presbyterian friends have been asked about their sex lives--whether they've been faithful in their marriage, whether they've ever had sex with someone of the same gender--and many of my peers in other denominations are asked or required to publicly state that they are celibate.

Some of my peers who are in denominations that require a vow of celibacy in singleness do not have sex because it's a personal choice and/or because it is important to them to follow the rules of the ordination process in this way. Many of them do have sex and lie about it. I also know several people who do have sex but believe they're being truthful when they tell their committees that they are not having sex.

Wait, what? Yes. It depends on the definition of sex, and I think many people--in the world, in the ordination process, and on ordination committees--have a very narrow definition of what sex is.

The long and short of it is that when we say "sex" we often think that means the act of a penis in a vagina that ends with the person with the penis achieving orgasm (and it's a bonus if the person with the vagina achieves orgasm, but it's not necessarily a requirement for it to be sex). I attribute a lot of this very boring understanding of sex to our ideas about the morality of sexuality that seems to go back to property and inheritance laws. If you were a man, you wanted to be sure any kid who stood to inherit your property was actually yours so the right person would inherit your money and land after you died. Therefore, regulating who was having sexual-intercourse-that-could-potentially-produce-offspring-who-would-then-stand-to-inherit-everything-after-you-died became really important, and those actions became the definition of sex so that those actions could then be regulated. Also, it’s the most androcentric, heteronormative definition of sex and we live in a very androcentric, heteronormative culture of which the Church is a part.

This definition (hopefully) sounds ridiculous, but I think it's still largely the definition out of which we operate. So under this definition, some friends and I have come up with a helpful list for people who are worried about going in front of their ordination committees that may (or definitely will) ask them if they have had sex or not. Especially if those committees are expecting you to say "no" in order to continue with the ordination process, we hope this is helpful. (*Note: I'm publishing this blog post, because my committee doesn't have any hard and fast rules about celibacy. Others who contributed do have committees who take a black-and-white view to sexual morality, so those friends prefer to remain anonymous).

IS IT SEX?????

Fingers touching or in vagina? IT'S NOT SEX!

Fingers touching penis? IT'S NOT SEX!

Anything involving the clitoris? DEFINITELY NOT SEX!

Penis (or anything else) in anus? IT'S NOT SEX!

Are you using toys? IT'S NOT SEX!

Is there licking, sucking, kissing, biting, etc of genitals? IT'S NOT SEX!

Clearly, we're being facetious. All of these actions are sex. Sex should be an experience that is mutual, life-giving, vulnerable, pleasurable, intimate, fun, funny, serious, playful, messy, physical. Sex does not always include all of these things all of the time, but sex should ideally have the potential for all of these things. And so should ministry. So why do so many denominations expect their candidates for ministry to be celibate? If the candidates choose to do so, they should be able to explain how being celibate contributes to their own well-being and experience of life, the health of their community, and their connection to the divine. And if they do choose to have sex, they should be able to explain why and how it contributes to their own well-being and experience of life, the health of their community, and their connection to the divine. That’s it.

May it be so.

Invisible Knapsacks

Some key words for conversations at Union (and I would guess many progressive seminaries and other similar circles):

• unpack ("Let's unpack that idea a little more")
• deconstruct ("we need to deconstruct the false binary of gender")
• Godself/God's (gender-neutral language please!)
• context ("What's your context?")
• privilege (white, male, hetero, US, etc)

My classmates and I sometimes laugh at ourselves and the way we throw around these terms, but language is important, and it often expresses ways of thinking and being that we often assume are universal.  We spent a lot of the first semester "deconstructing" some of those ways of thinking--recognizing the ways in which people of privilege (whether by race, gender, economic status, education level, sexual orientation, citizenship, etc.) assume that their experience or way of thinking is universal or "normal."  

One of the clearest analyses of this kind of examination of privilege (and the powers that accompany it) is an essay call the White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.  The author, Peggy McIntosh, is a white woman who uses her understanding and experience of sexism to begin to "unpack" her own white privilege.  Much of my first semester of seminary has been exposing me to different invisible knapsacks, which ones I wear, and the experiences of those knapsacks by people who do not wear them.  

I came into seminary with a decent understanding of the way sexism functions in our society and my own life.  I also, as a result of my years as a Young Adult Volunteer in Guatemala and Nashville, had some experience in understanding myself as a person of privilege by my US citizenship and how that plays some part in all of my relationships with people who are from different countries.  I even understood that non-US citizen women faced different challenges than non-US citizen men and than US-citizen women.  What I didn't understand was specifically how others may experience oppression and that their goals and ideas of what is liberative are often different than mine, even when the ultimate goal is to challenge oppression in various forms.  

I've listed below (in no particular order) some of the books I read this semester that best helped me understand others' experiences and perspectives and, thus, opened me to new ways of seeing God and of creating my own theology.  

• Sisters in the Wilderness by Delores Williams 
• A student of James Cone and former professor at Union, Williams talks about womanist theology, and her examination of Hagar changed the way I understand the Abraham story as well as giving me a glimpse into the experiences of African American women who are concerned not with liberation but with survival according to Williams.  She also gives a convincing critique of atonement theory, saying that anything that is forced suffering cannot be liberative or redemptive. (Womanism is a black women's movement that looks at power within the intersection of gender and race--it is often a direct response to feminism, which many women of color rightly accuse of being largely a white middle-class women's movement)
• Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology by Patrick Cheng  
• This is a very introductory-level book about queer theology but was possibly the book that most challenged my notions of God and Jesus.  It's a good starting point for queer theology.
• Sister Outsider by Audre Lorde
• Continuing on the queer theology vein, this book is a collection of essays by black lesbian feminist Audre Lorde that examines lots of the -isms in our society and how they are inter-related
• The Cross and the Lynching Tree by James Cone
• This is my theology professor's most recent book that is an easy-to-read (but not easy-to-stomach) that examines the ways in which the lynching tree where so many black (and a few white) Americans were killed is a modern-day cross.  Dr. Cone is the founder of black liberation theology in the US and describes his theology as being influenced by both Dr. King and Malcom X

If any of you do read some of these books I'd love to hear your thoughts about these books and/or what you might add to this list.  Happy Reading!

Catching up to God

On Thursday, Vic, Allison, and I went to Clarksville with Susan to the Middle TN Presbytery meeting. We had about 5 minutes to speak after lunch during the "celebrations" time to tell people about the YAV program and, more specifically, what each of us are doing this year.

I used my minute and a half to tell a story about one Conversemos pair this semester who have been meeting at a Nashville public library since January. The native Nashvillian partner has become interested in and passionate about immigration issues now that she has sat down and talked and shared with a Guatemalan man and heard about his experiences living in the US without papers--how difficult it is to advance in his job, even though he is a responsible and dedicated employee who has 8 years with his company. It is very hard to hate someone once you've sat down and talked with them, and when you've begun to be friends with and care about someone, listened to their stories and experiences, it's difficult not to care about the issues and injustices that affect them. The Conversemos program is a language exchange program, but it is also a relationship-building program, and I am honored to be a part of something that is doing Christ's work building bridges between people and communities and reconciling us to one another.

I have to admit, though, that while I was being completely honest in my story, I chose the story and the angle with some ulterior motives. Not that I think that I would sway anyone in that meeting with my minute and a half story about Latinos and Gringos in a language exchange program, but the themes of hospitality, acceptance, and reconciliation were at the front of my mind that day.

On Tuesday, Middle Tennessee Presbytery voted on amendment 10-A. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about but are interested, click here. Basically, though, amendment 10-A would amend the Book of Order (our constitution) to say the standards for ordination are based on the "candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of the office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements." As it is currently written, the ordination standards set in G.6.01.06 include this requirement: "to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness," thus excluding LGBTQ persons from ministry in the PC(USA).

It was a tense, but very civil day at Presbytery. When the moderator announced final vote, 93 yes-86 no, a few people made some kind of noise (what I assumed was disappointment), but the moderator moved the discussion right along to the next item, and there was very little deal made of the whole thing, but the mood afterward was joyous. With Middle Tennessee Presbytery's vote, we only needed 2 more affirmative votes to pass 10A, one of which we got today.

I am embarrassed to admit it, but I still watch Grey's Anatomy from time to time, one of those times being yesterday. On this episode, two of the female doctors are planning to marry, despite one very unsupportive mother who refused to attend the ceremony. One of the brides-to-be is upset and confides that she things maybe she shouldn't get married after all since her mother and the government and the Church don't approve. The other character replies that God is in you and me and here between us, where there is love. God is already here, she says, the Church just hasn't caught up yet.

But I hope and I think that it will. And if--when--we pass 10A (maybe as soon as Tuesday) it will be a momentous step on the journey toward full inclusion of all members of the body of Christ. We are slowly but surely catching up to God.

Mutual Love Trumps What We've Been Taught

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to hear Bishop Gene Robinson give a lecture at Vanderbilt entitled "Being Gay: Does it Really Get Better?" If you don't recognize the name, Bishop Robinson was the first openly gay bishop ordained in the Episcopalian Church. To see his video message for the It Gets Better Project, click here. (Here's a link explaining a little more about the It Gets Better Project if you don't know much about it... read and then watch some of the videos on the site!)

Bishop Robinson spoke honestly and poignantly about his own experiences of growing up, getting married, coming out, getting divorced, meeting his current husband, and his career in the Church. His personal story was moving, but what stuck with me the most was the way he lovingly criticized the Church. Obviously, he loves and is committed to the Church, but he also reminds us that "The Church is responsible for most of the pain caused to LGBT youth and adults," meaning that most of the arguments against homosexuality and gay people have their roots in religion and the Bible, and it is Un-Christ-like and unacceptable.

He used racism in an example to explain what he means by that for those of us who are not committing hate crimes against LGBT people or being intentionally exclusionary or discriminating: "Unless I am working to dismantle a racist society, I am a racist, because I am benefitting from it." The same could be said of most other "isms"--that unless we stand up against discrimination and especially systemic discriminations, we are complicit in sustaining and perpetuating it.

The same is certainly true today with regard to the LGBTQ movement. The Church and Christians often use certain Bible verses to justify their hatred and fear and exclusion, but this won't be the first time that the Church has had to repent for our actions against certain people and groups of people, and I hope that we do that before I have children and have to decide whether or not to take them to a church and ask them to participate in a faith that openly excludes people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. (We're getting close in the PC(USA)!)

Bishop Robinson ended his lecture on a hopeful note regarding the future of the Church and the Christian community's attitude toward LGBT people. He said that change happens when an experience challenges our worldview. We then enter into a time of chaos in which we question our worldview, and we come out of that chaos either in denial of that challenging experience or with a new worldview. Some change has already happened, he says, because so many people have come out and challenged the worldview of many of their loved ones. In the end, he says, it usually happens that our "mutual love for one another trumps what we've been taught." I hope so.