Sunday, February 22, 2009

Clumsy and Clumsier, Part 1

So all of a sudden, the 2nd month of 2009 is almost over, and I'm just now realizing that I haven't written a non-Rumours of Another World post since last year (and yes, I did just use a double negative. I decided I'm allowed to do that every couple of months here in Sarah-world.). Obviously, I need to remedy that situation, and what better way to do that than with a humorous account of the past month that allows me my full range of snarky, irreverent expression?

Now, I know I referred to the past month, but for the sake of my brevity and your sanity, I'll focus on the events of a couple of selected days during the past month...events that should once and for all put a cork in any argument over whether or not I am one of the clumsiest, unluckiest inhabitants of God's good green earth. At least, that's the conclusion I've come to in my own mind. I invite you to continue reading and judge the truth of the above assertion for yourself.

So about a month ago, I went to the doctor and had a physical. (I also briefly considered renaming my blog www-dot-pap-smears-are-the-DEVIL-dot-com, but I refrained.) I had previously made plans with my mom to visit her after my doctor's appointment, but I got out of the clinic a lot earlier than I'd anticipated, and when I called my mom I found out she was still on her way home from Cleveland. She told me where to find the spare key to her house, so I thanked her and hung up.

Since I don't have a car, I travel everywhere in this town by bus, which for the most part works pretty well for me. However, when it's less than 20 degrees out with a thick coating of snow and/or ice on every visible surface ~ i.e., sidewalks, driveways, streets, etc. ~ and one has to do a lot of walking on said surfaces in between the bus stop and one's final destination, public transportation becomes, oh, let's say, quite a bit less appealing. That was definitely the case on the day in question, seeing as how the quickest route from the nearest bus stop to my mom's house required me to navigate a completely road-salt-forsaken Arctic minefield of polar ice caps that doubles in the summer as a sidewalk cutting across a large park.

Now, a reasonable person put in this situation might have chosen to walk around the park altogether, but 1) I have never claimed the exalted status of a "reasonable" person, and 2) I was in a good deal of pain that walking only served to exacerbate, and therefore my own, uh, unique brand of personal logic dictated that the fewer steps I took, the better, potentially life-threatening though said steps turned out to be.

Eventually, I reached my mom's house and trudged through the snowdrifts around back, where the spare key was hidden. I then took it upon myself to spend the next 15 or so minutes poking, prodding, and prying around the hiding place without success. Now normally, I'd just laugh it off, since I have never been any good whatsoever at those hidden-object-finding games, whether in books, on the computer, or in reality. In fact, I am almost as visually challenged as I am directionally challenged, and trust me when I say that is saying a heck of a lot. By now, however, my shoes, socks, and jeans were soaked, and I was freezing at the teeth-chattering level and very unhappy, so I called my mom again. I spent a few minutes on the phone with her while describing my surroundings in hopes that we could find the key together, to no avail.

Finally, having hit rock-bottom-last-straw territory, I called my dad at work, since he'd come up with the idea about exactly where to hide the key. I then discovered that I'd spent the past 20 minutes looking for the key in the wrong section of the hiding place. For the next few minutes, I managed to restrain the colossal urge to elbow-beat the side door into oblivion...which I may have done anyway had I not FINALLY found the darn key. It was so well hidden that I swear no reasonable person or one of those burglars my parents worry about, let alone a visually challenged, pain-hazed Sarah, could have found it. Like, ever.

The next morning I woke up, still in pain and very tired from lack of a comfortable position to sleep in the previous night. So it would naturally figure, of course, that I had something very important on my schedule for which I had to look halfway decent ~ namely, a job interview. Which, of course, was extremely crucial for me, since I'm a temp and had already been out of work for about 6 weeks at that point. Yep, I have the best luck in the world. Heck, make that the entire smackin' solar system.

So I got through the job interview without fainting or saying anything incredibly stupid, which again is saying something, especially given my nerves and pain level. Next stop: downtown and my bi-weekly appointment at the plasma center. Now, since I had to do a good deal of walking to get there, you'd think I would have brought along some comfortable, flat-soled shoes to change into after my interview, since I possess an exceptional propensity for stumbling and falling over every little thing in tarnation. But no, it never occurred to me beforehand, and sure enough, on my way to the appointment, I stepped off the sidewalk wrong and twisted my left ankle. Granted, the only thing about this that surprised me was that I had twisted the left ankle, since in the past, I had always twisted the right ankle when being clumsy, but apparently my ankles desire equal-opportunity twisting a bit more than I ever gave them credit for. And at least it gave me a new source of pain to take my mind off the pain I'd been feeling since the previous day's doctor's appointment. Hey, when you're blessed with my uniquely bad luck, you learn to be grateful for small blessings.

Now hobbling, I eventually made it to my appointment at the plasma center. A couple of hours later, I hobbled back out and stopped at the local Taco Bell for supper. Then I left to walk to the library, where a friend of mine was picking me up to take me to setup duty for that weekend's church-sponsored clothing swap. At this point, much like the previous day during the spare key hunt, I was cold, tired, in pain, and fed up in general. After all, the day (and week) couldn't get any worse, could it?

Wrong. Less than a block out of the Taco Bell, while traversing one of downtown's most pedestrian-heavy thoroughfares, I lost my balance and twisted my left ankle again, this time collapsing in a heap from the pain and completely unable to get out. Yes, that was exactly the type of notoriety I've always wanted: being sprawled out on the sidewalk in the middle of downtown State College, getting treated to the sight of passersby looking at me unsure of whether I'm having a heart attack or just plain crazy. Now, to give them credit, a few people did stop and ask me if I needed any help, but I was too embarrassed and in pain to do anything other than grind out a brief "No, thank you."

Eventually, however, I realized that 1) I really needed to get to the library to meet my friend on time, and 2) I couldn't very well keep on taking up the middle of one of the busiest sidewalks downtown, so I reluctantly accepted help from a group of very nice young men ~ emphasis on the word group, since it ended up taking all 5 or so of them to pull me (and my backpack) to my aching feet. After thanking them profusely, I limped the rest of the way to the library (I couldn't very well ask aforesaid nice men to lift and carry me on their collective shoulders, after all), where I met my friend just in time to flop into her car and declare my undying idiocy and hopelessness.

Some week, huh? Nothing could top it, right? So I thought...completely forgetting, of course, that I have a special talent for being wrong when it comes to being mindful of the sheer breadth and depth of my innate clumsiness and bad luck. Stay tuned for Part 2.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "Stereoscopic Vision"

Guess how many chapters are in Rumours of Another World? Fourteen. And guess which chapter I'm posting notes on today? That's right, # F-O-U-R-T-E-E-N! Which means...guess what? This is my last Rumours post, and therefore I have actually finished a (non-knitting-related) project I started within the past 12 months! Hallelujah!

"We Now Interrupt This Program"
In “Stereoscopic Vision,” Yancey ends his book on a global note. Having spent the previous 13 chapters elaborating on the basic principles of the “sacramental”/“two-worlds” view, as well as its applications in various specific areas of life (e.g., sexuality, sin, guilt, etc.), he offers several examples of “saints” who applied the “two-worlds” view to all areas of their lives. Christians today, he suggests, should make every effort to emulate these “torchbearers” by “tuning in” to the “signals” transmitted from the “city of God.” He even offers a parting shot from each of the three worldviews we’ve come to know and love so well.
  • The schizophrenic world view rejects the idea of a “city of God” altogether, believing instead that humans are biologically destined to behave like animals, fighting each other tooth and nail so that the “fittest” survive to partake of every sexual and violent pleasure they can imagine. In terms of the adage Yancey quotes on page 227, those who subscribe to this view are “so earthly minded as to be of no heavenly good.”
  • The schizophrenic church view agrees with the two-worlds principle, but tends to vacillate between the extremes of hypocrisy on the one hand (pretending to believe in both worlds, but ignoring God’s commands and the “signals” from His “city” just as badly as any subscriber to the “schizophrenic world” view) and the spiritual “survival of the fittest” mentality on the other – in terms of the previous comparison, Christians on this side of the equation tend to be “so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly good.”
  • The sacramental view walks the delicate line between extremes. Its subscribers make deliberate and conscientious efforts to live in both worlds; they use the foundations of the city of God to try and make the city of this world a better place.

Based on the above definitions, how would you answer the following questions?

  • Where do you see examples of each worldview in the world around you?
  • Consider Yancey’s descriptions of Clarence Jordan and Fannie Lou Hamer, the “saints” whose stories appear on pp. 231-237, and his conclusions on p. 238 that they and others like them are “torchbearers who cast a different light on familiar surroundings” who “refuse to breathe the air, to accept the lie without protest.” How exactly did their actions demonstrate their “two-worlds-mindedness”? How can each of us emulate them, given our personal talents and circumstances?
  • Let’s take the logic of the above point further. How can we emulate our “torchbearing” forebears without falling into the “schizophrenic church” trap and being so “heavenly minded” that we withdraw from the world due to our disdain for its evils? How can using everyday acts of obedience help to balance out that tendency? How about serving God wherever He leads us, even within “worldly” professions (business, law, etc.)?
  • Read the quote by Clarence Jordan on pp. 235-236. Is widespread application of the “schizophrenic church” view within Christianity one of the reasons why, as Jordan so sadly observed, society’s laws were doing a better job of implementing Christian principles within the secular world than the churches were doing within Christianity itself? Do you believe that Jordan’s observation is still true of America, even the world in general, 50 years later? Why or why not?

"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "Eyes of Faith" & "Practising the Existence of God"

So...first of all, a belated "Happy New Year!" to all & sundry. Second, without further ado, I now present my notes on Chapters 12 & 13 of Rumours of Another World:

Through a Glass, Darkly
In Chapters 12 and 13, Yancey tackles further real-world applications of the “two-worlds” principles he articulated in “Why Believe?” and “Earth Matters” (i.e., Chapters 10 and 11). Working from the bottom up, he elaborates, as always, on the ramifications of the three major world views on the issues:
  • “Schizophrenic world” view: See pages 195-199 & 201. According to this view, the physical/natural reality, i.e., the world experienced by our five senses, is it; there’s no certainty of life after death, and everyone has to fight for his/her share of life’s pleasures; only the fittest & strongest end up earning the rewards of a fulfilling existence.
  • “Schizophrenic church” view: See pages 200-202, 209, 214, & 221. The “Pharisee view” of the bunch officially acknowledges the spiritual/supernatural side of reality, but alternately ignores it and convolutes it into a spiritualized “schizophrenic world” view. Think “prosperity theologians,” as well as Christian leaders who scorn and dismiss people struggling with “moral failures.”
  • Sacramental view: See pages 197-202, 212, 214-217, & 220-224. This view is the only one that doesn’t subscribe to the “survival of the fittest” mentality. According to Yancey, it sees the world “upside down” – it focuses on people’s hearts rather than their appearances, on kindness and love rather than the (physical or spiritual) “dog-eat-dog” mentality, and on spiritual rather than physical currency.

How do your perceptions of the three views listed above, as well as their logical consequences, inform your opinions about the following questions?

  • Consider the story of the “Elephant Man” and how Yancey uses it to illustrate the “sacramental” view, as well as his description of Friedrich Nietzsche’s utter scorn for it. Do you agree with Yancey about the logical consequences of the diametrically opposed “sacramental” and “schizophrenic world” views (i.e., “schizophrenic world” = Nazism & genocide, “sacramental” = valuing the weak as much as the strong)? How does the “schizophrenic church” view fit in? Why do you think Christianity has so widely assumed its spiritual “survival-of-the-fittest” mentality? Is this type of schizophrenia even more dangerous than the “schizophrenic world” type? Why or why not?
  • Discuss the “Hardship” and “Death” sections of Chapter 13 (“Practising the Existence of God”). The “schizophrenic world” view tends to scorn the “sacramental” view’s focus on the spiritual world over the physical, dismissing it as a “pie in the sky when you die” scheme intended to keep down the “have-nots” at the expense of the “haves.” Are these assertions true, even partially? How can we combat them, and are we fighting against the church itself to do so in some cases? How can we learn to value quality of life in both worlds?
  • Look closely at pages 201-202, where Yancey describes God “making his appeal” to the “schizophrenic world” at large through both Christians and the poor/weak of this world. Why does Yancey “shudder at the sheer audacity of God” here, especially in light of the “schizophrenic church” view? How do you perceive the gap between the “appeal” God wants to make vs. the “appeal” Christianity as a whole is making right now? How can we bridge that gap?

Monday, November 17, 2008

"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "Why Believe?" & "Earth Matters"

Well, for once in my life ~ OK, year then ~ I have finished what I set out to do...on schedule (even if said schedule had to be revised just a little)! Here are my latest notes, which cover Chapters 10 and 11 of Rumours of Another World.

Two-Faced
In tonight’s chapters, Philip Yancey hosts yet another foray into the murky depths of schizophrenia vs. sanity. This time, he shines the spotlight on the “two-faced” nature of reality – a coin, as it were, with two sides: the physical/natural and the spiritual/supernatural. Once again, he touches on what each of the three major views – schizophrenic world, schizophrenic church, and sacramental – has to say on the topic.
  • Schizophrenic world view: On the one hand, any idea not based on the concrete here-and-now is suspect; no reasonable person should believe in ancient superstitions. On the other hand, the world is big enough for everybody’s beliefs; whatever you think regarding the existence of another dimension of reality can be right for you – just don’t start insisting that there absolutely is a “spiritual world.” That’s dangerous. (See pages 164-165 & 181-182.)
  • Schizophrenic church view: Yancey barely even touches on this viewpoint, but shadows of it appear in both chapters. On the one hand, it emphasizes the division between the “two worlds” at the expense of the connection and loudly preaches about the “evil” of the “sinful” physical/natural realm (think of the superstitions perpetuated by the church in the Middle Ages). On the other, all too often, the church as represented in “First World” nations ignores the evils Yancey names as part of affluent societies that have forgotten God. (See pages 164, 167-168, & 186.)
  • Sacramental view: This view acknowledges a double-edged reality containing two tragically separated yet mysteriously entwined facets, physical/natural and spiritual/supernatural. People of faith can see God at work in both; He seeks to make Himself and the spiritual side more visible to people focused on the physical side, and He wants to use us to fulfill this purpose.

How do these views inform your opinions about the following ideas/questions?

  • On page 165, Yancey asserts, “Building a society on a myopic view of reality, one that does not take into account a spiritual world, to which we are accountable, can lead to catastrophe.” He then cites several examples – the Soviet empire, the Rwandan genocide, and the WWII prison camp, to name a few. Are symptoms of this “myopic” outlook always so violent and catastrophic? What symptoms do you (and Yancey) see in “civilized” modern nations that are more subtle, but perhaps just as deadly? Can you add to the list Yancey gives on pages 167 and 183-184?
  • It’s very easy to fall into either the trap of seeing reality as just a one-note existence (the “schizophrenic world” view) or its evil twin, the trap of perceiving only two harshly divided worlds – spiritual (good) and natural (evil) (the “schizophrenic church” view). What effects can you (and Yancey) see (historical or present-day) of falling into one (or both) of these traps? How would people located in each “trap,” in addition to a person of faith, view such events as the Holocaust, the Soviet empire, etc., differently?
  • What makes it so easy for us to fall into either of the “two evil traps” – especially the “schizophrenic world” one – and so difficult to believe in the sacramental view, according to Yancey? What are some of the rewards of choosing to see with “sacramental” eyes? Do you agree with Yancey that people will see only with the eyes they choose to see with? Why or why not?

"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "The Good Life" & "The Gift of Guilt"

And after Chapters 7 and 8, there were Chapters 9 and 10...believe it or not!

Goodness & Guilt
In tonight’s chapters, Yancey outlines the principles and logical consequences of three different views about sin, guilt, and fulfillment:
  • The (schizophrenic) world's view generally sees sin as an outdated concept, guilt as a pesky problem that needs to just go away, and God as the Big Spoiler in the Sky.
  • The schizophrenic church, or religion-based, view, sees Christianity as a religion that's all about rules, and emphasizes the consequences of disobeying them to the exclusion of all else.
  • The sacramental, or relationship-based, view sees Christianity as being centered around the person's love-based relationship with God.

I have listed below several concepts contained in tonight’s chapters. What does each view have to say about these concepts? What natural consequences result from living according to each of these views?

  • Who is God, and how should I approach/relate to Him?
  • What is sin, and where do its consequences come from?
  • What is guilt? How do I deal with it? What is its relationship to repentance?

In addition, consider these questions:

  • Do you agree with Yancey’s assertion on pp. 129-130 that modern society has “redefined” sin? If so, what consequences can you think of from the “sin revolution” in addition to the ones he lists? Why do you think so many people still ignore the obvious physical consequences of, say, promiscuity?
  • Notice that Yancey makes reference to Mormon rules and how they, as well as Christian rules, can help prevent the negative physical consequences rampant in much of the rest of society. Is it true that any religion with certain prohibitions can help prevent these effects? If so, why choose Christianity?
  • Notice Yancey’s explanation of “cognitive dissonance” on p. 146. Where can you find examples of this phenomenon, both within and outside of Christianity?
  • On p. 154, Yancey details three responses to sin. Which response comes from each worldview? Why do you feel, as Yancey points out on p. 148, that we will do almost anything to avoid the last and healthiest option?

"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "Out of Order" & "A Word Unsaid"

I started yesterday's posting session with optimistic expectations about getting all of my "Rumours of Another World" analysis notes up before I went to bed, but, as you can see, that didn't happen, mainly because a) I started posting around midnight or so and b) I hadn't anticipated the colossally lovely idiosyncrasies of converting (and re-formatting) a bulleted document from Word to Microsoft e-mail back to Word and then to Blogspot. (Whew!) Therefore, I am (optimistically) hoping to get the job done tonight. So, without further ado, here are my notes from Chapters 6 and 7 of Rumours.

“Sin, Sin, Sin”

Schizophrenia: The Redux (a.k.a., Chapters 6 & 7 from Philip Yancey’s “Rumours of Another World”
* The 'Schizophrenia: Severing, Suffering, and Sacrament' scheme we used to talk about sex last week also applies to the metanarrative (that is, overarching) concept of sin in general, and any good, God-given desire it has corrupted in particular (like, for example, sex).
* In these two chapters, we see the return of the 'schizophrenic world,' 'schizophrenic church,' and 'sacramental' (sorry, 'designer sex' doesn't apply to the 'ideal' view this time around) views.
  • The 'schizophrenic world' view (pp. 105-107, 116-121): Yancey says it is forced to acknowledge sin, even if only in terms of 'monstrous evil' such as genocide, terrorism, gruesome murders, etc. However, most other sins are determined OK, even good -- we're just fulfilling our natural desires, even when they lead to the 'seven deadly sins.' 'Healthy-minded' (pp. 122-123)? You be the judge.
  • The 'schizophrenic church' view (pp. 107, 114-116): This one, according to Yancey, acknowledges but over-emphasizes sin and trades free-flowing desire for hypocrisy. It also makes the fatal error of excluding grace.
  • The 'sacramental' view (pp. 100-103, 121-125): 'Morbid-minded' (pp. 122-123) as it is, it acknowledges the depth and gravity of sin but doesn't stop there, as the 'schizophrenic church' view does. Rather, it looks deep enough to understand that sins are perversions of our natural, God-given desires, and also makes room for grace.

* Do you agree with Yancey that 'We have a deep intuition about how the world should operate, and how it should not' (p. 100)? Would you agree with his assertion on p. 116 that this concept applies to all humans (not just Christians), who have consciences that can detect sin for what it is? In other words, would you agree that each of the three major worldviews/schools of thought acknowledges the presence of sin/evil in our world? How does Yancey say each one deals with sin? What real-world examples can you think of that apply to each view's conception of sin/evil?

* Severing: Read pp. 99 & 101. How does each view relate the concept of separation to sin?

* Suffering: Read pp. 120-121. How does each view relate the concept of suffering to sin?

* (Anti-) Sacrament: Read pp. 104-105, 115. How does each view see sin in relation to our God-given desires?

* Structure: Read p. 107. Non-Christian worldviews think up all sorts of “cures” for sin. Ironically, both “less structure” (“schizophrenic world” view – i.e., let people follow their inherently good hearts; just give them a good environment to blossom in & they’ll be fine) & “more structure” (“schizophrenic church” view – religious systems, laws, etc.) have been proposed – equally to no avail. Why? What are the motivating factors behind each of the two solutions? Where do they get it right & where do they get it wrong?

* Scripture: What does the Bible say in regard to some of Yancey’s assertions?

  • On original sin, see Romans 7:14-20. How does this address Yancey’s assertions of widespread human consciousness of sin and the inadequacy of human structures & rules in dealing with it?
  • On God’s ways of dealing with sin, see Galatians 3:15-25. After reading this passage, do you agree with Yancey that God used the Old Testament Law (and the saying could also apply to modern legal & religious systems) in tandem with swift, severe punishments as “overt behaviour-modification techniques” (p. 104)? Would it be more accurate to say that all of those things were used by Him as “pointers” or “schoolmasters” to help people see their need for Him? What things (circumstances, events, consequences, etc.) does He use as “pointers” in our world today?

Sunday, November 16, 2008

"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "Designer Sex"...a.k.a. Promises Kept

In "Homeboys," my previous post, I mentioned Philip Yancey's impressive book Rumours of Another World, which I am currently reading and analyzing every week with my Wednesday night friends. What I didn't mention was that, for the past few weeks, I have been typing notes & questions to focus our discussion on each week's chapter (or chapters). At my friends' behest, I am now posting them here...which is why I have subtitled this post "Promises Kept." To my Wednesday night ladies...enjoy! To everyone else: I definitely recommend this book, whether you read it alone or as part of a study group, because of the authentic, thought-provoking, user-friendly ways in which it addresses human beliefs (or lack thereof) in a spiritual side to reality, as well as the ramifications of those beliefs. The following (& future) notes are meant to serve as supplements, not substitutes, for Yancey's excellent ideas. (Also, I began writing notes during the week we covered Chapter 5, so in case you're wondering where the notes for Chapters 1-4 are, there aren't any, at least not yet; I may write & post them at a later date.)

So without further ado, I now present my notes, beginning with Chapter 5, entitled "Designer Sex":


Sex, Lies, and Rumors:

“Designer Sex” from Philip Yancey’s Rumours of Another World

The Disclaimer
The following viewpoints and thoughts are just that – viewpoints and thoughts that I gleaned from reading this chapter. However, I am human and often wrong. Please feel free to interrupt me, agree, disagree, call me out, add your own thoughts, etc. Discussion is a beautiful, eye- and mind-opening experience, so share – don’t be shy!
"We Three Theorems"
  • In this chapter, Philip Yancey discusses three major approaches to sexuality:

* The "schizophrenic world" view (see pages 76-77)
* The "schizophrenic church" view (see pages 74 & 81)
* The "designer sex" view (see pages 85, 88, 92, & 93)

  • What are the basic beliefs of each view?

The Severing

  • "Schizophrenic" can be used to mean "of multiple personalities" or "out of touch with reality" (thank you, Psychology 111!). In this context, the former is perhaps the better definition. In particular, I see it as implying dichotomy and hypocrisy. It's particularly applicable to the concept of severing/severance. (See page 79.)
  • The "schizophrenic world" view:

* According to Yancey, "Never has sex been so disconnected from personal relationship." (page 76)

* What does this say about the "severing" of the physical and emotional aspects of sex propagated by the "schizophrenic world" view? Does the spiritual component of sex even enter the picture here? Is either the emotional or spiritual component really needed at all, according to this viewpoint?

  • The "schizophrenic church" view:

* What aspects of sex, if any, does this view disconnect from each other?

* Certainly, Yancey sees a great deal of hypocrisy in this viewpoint. Would you agree that this hypocrisy causes the "schizophrenic church" view to be fragmented/schizophrenic?

* Would you argue that this view doesn't suffer from fragmentation/schizophrenia as much as it suffers from the wrong emphases, i.e., emphasis on negatives vs. positives, consequences vs. rewards, etc.?

* Do you agree with Yancey that this view, historically held by the Christian church(es), helped lead to the propagation of the "schizophrenic world" view due to its negativity & repression (see page 81)? What other elements do you think led to the transition from the predominance in Western culture of this view to the predominance of the "schizophrenic world" view (or do you think the "schizophrenic world" view has really always predominated)?

  • The "designer sex" view:

* How does this view try to integrate ALL the aspects/components of sexuality (i.e., physical, emotional, spiritual, positive, negative, etc.)?

* What visible results would come from a practical application of this view, as opposed to the "schizophrenic church" view, throughout Christianity today?

The Suffering

  • See page 85. Yancey asserts that sex and sexual desires are inextricably linked with suffering. How is that played out in each of the three views?
  • The "schizophrenic world" view:

* Is suffering even supposed to happen, according to this view? How does the view deal with the actual suffering that does result from fulfillment of sexual desires (i.e., STDs, unintended pregnancies, etc.)

* "If it feels good, do it." Do you think this is a fair summary of this view's attitude toward sex and desire? Why or why not?

  • The "schizophrenic church" view:

* Consider the anecdotes on pages 80-81 about how some historical church figures dealt with the concept of suffering in relation to both fulfilling and resisting sexual desires. How does the modern-day Christian church apply the "darned if you do, darned if you don't" concept?

* Does this view go too far to the opposite of the "schizophrenic world" view ~ i.e., glorifying sex-related suffering as opposed to denying it? In its haste to condemn "immorality," has the church intentionally or unintentionally exacerbated the amount of suffering resulting from improper fulfillment of sexual desires?

* “If it feels good, don’t do it.” Is this a fair statement to make about the “schizophrenic church” view?

  • The "designer sex" view:

* How do we acknowledge the inherent danger & power in sex & desire – and stay mindful of possible negative consequences – without overemphasizing the suffering aspect of sex?

* What is Yancey’s take on how Christians can avoid the two extreme views on suffering (i.e., either no suffering or constant suffering) and find a happy medium?

The Sacrament

  • The "schizophrenic world" view:

* Does this view even leave room for a “sacramental” outlook on sex at all?

* What about the cultural elevation of sex as the ultimate way to personal satisfaction, which Yancey seems to suggest is so pervasive in modern Western societies? Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not?

  • The "schizophrenic church" view:

* Would you say that this view involves a proper appreciation of the “explosive” power Yancey attributes to sex on page 83? If so, where does it go wrong?

* Under this view, does sex come off as a “sanitized sacrament” to you, something the church alternately shuns, sanitizes, and watches like a hawk? Why?

  • The "designer sex" view:

* How can we have a proper appreciation for the power and destructive potential of sex while at the same time appreciating it as a good gift from
God?

* What do you make of Charles Williams’s “eternal identity” theory (page 89)? How does this correlate to Yancey’s assertion on page 92 that “In one sense, we are never more Godlike than in the act of sex”?

* According to Yancey, how can we keep this appreciation for sex while stopping short of elevating it to the highest pedestal, as the “schizophrenic world” view does? What are your own thoughts on this concept?