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":
“Designer Sex” from Philip Yancey’s Rumours of Another World
The Disclaimer
- 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?
No comments:
Post a Comment