Thank God it's Thursday!
We have classes Monday through Thursday, with Friday off. I believe this is because of the fact that during one's last two years (the middler and senior years) one has a field placement, and so is essentially in school that day too.
As a result, Thursdays always feel like Fridays used to. I am always SO glad it is here, and I usually have trouble convincing myself to get any work done on a Thursday night. I really need to get something done tonight, though -- there is far too much looming in the next week to slough off too much.
Today's most interesting class was "Philosophical Foundations for Theology." After we discussed our readings in the area of Aristotle's ethical vision, the professor asked the women in the class a question following up on a comment made a few weeks ago about the masculine orientation of the Platonic material we were reading. He asked if they felt similarly put off by Aristotle. The response from the women in the class (who outnumber the men, by the way) was mixed. Some continued to feel put off by the material; others saw this as a non-issue.
I thought it was fascinating to listen to such widely-diverging points of view on this subject. I feel that, as a gay man, I can in some ways relate to the "reinterpretation" many women must do to relate to these classical readings. But I also know that the hurdle they must get over is much, much higher than the one I have to cross -- whereas women were known to these writers, if only as inferior beings, homosexuality was not even conceived of as a construct. It's hard to be offended by a bias against something that is not even comprehended by the writer.
Maybe this relates to the current state of affairs in the Anglican Communion. Many of those who so want to condemn homosexuality have absolutely no concept of a committed, caring relationship between two people of the same sex. Unlike our American brothers and sisters, I think African Anglicans cannot comprehend this possibility. Does that ignorance excuse their hurtful response? Maybe, I think.
But likewise, if the American bishops agree to deny the sacred relationships that we as gay people have, when they know us and know that those relationships have integrity, they will be guilty of a greater sin against the gospel than those whose culture does not yet understand this particular complexity of human interaction.
So, as one blog writer said, we in the Episcopal Church have been handed something akin to "Sophie's Choice" between members of our church and the Communion - which love do we abandon?
Once again, I would not want to be in the Presiding Bishop's shoes...
As a result, Thursdays always feel like Fridays used to. I am always SO glad it is here, and I usually have trouble convincing myself to get any work done on a Thursday night. I really need to get something done tonight, though -- there is far too much looming in the next week to slough off too much.
Today's most interesting class was "Philosophical Foundations for Theology." After we discussed our readings in the area of Aristotle's ethical vision, the professor asked the women in the class a question following up on a comment made a few weeks ago about the masculine orientation of the Platonic material we were reading. He asked if they felt similarly put off by Aristotle. The response from the women in the class (who outnumber the men, by the way) was mixed. Some continued to feel put off by the material; others saw this as a non-issue.
I thought it was fascinating to listen to such widely-diverging points of view on this subject. I feel that, as a gay man, I can in some ways relate to the "reinterpretation" many women must do to relate to these classical readings. But I also know that the hurdle they must get over is much, much higher than the one I have to cross -- whereas women were known to these writers, if only as inferior beings, homosexuality was not even conceived of as a construct. It's hard to be offended by a bias against something that is not even comprehended by the writer.
Maybe this relates to the current state of affairs in the Anglican Communion. Many of those who so want to condemn homosexuality have absolutely no concept of a committed, caring relationship between two people of the same sex. Unlike our American brothers and sisters, I think African Anglicans cannot comprehend this possibility. Does that ignorance excuse their hurtful response? Maybe, I think.
But likewise, if the American bishops agree to deny the sacred relationships that we as gay people have, when they know us and know that those relationships have integrity, they will be guilty of a greater sin against the gospel than those whose culture does not yet understand this particular complexity of human interaction.
So, as one blog writer said, we in the Episcopal Church have been handed something akin to "Sophie's Choice" between members of our church and the Communion - which love do we abandon?
Once again, I would not want to be in the Presiding Bishop's shoes...
posted by Sam | 4:13 PM
2 Comments:
It's good to have you back, Sam! And today's piece helped me better understand the North-South split over homosexuality in our communion. Thanks.
Sam,
Thanks for your note and the chance to read your blog.
I've been a big fan of George Herbert for many years. I especially like his poem Pied Beauty, at least I think that's the name. He uses lots of alliteration and rhyme. He's one of my favorites.
Let Lent lift you and lash you with love,
Joan
Post a Comment
<< Home