Author Archives: Sarah and Lindsey

10 Misconceptions about Celibate Partnerships

Posted on by

Even as we thought about naming our blog before we began writing, we knew there would always be people who misunderstand our way of life. There are many misconceptions about celibacy in general, and it’s understandable that there are even more about celibate partnerships like ours. Seeing as we already spent some time clarifying the nature of our relationship last week, we thought that it might be a good time to expound upon some misconceptions we’ve encountered about celibate partnerships since beginning our writing project together.

1. We entered into celibate partnerships because we are lonely. Without a doubt, this is the most common of all misconceptions we hear. Whether it’s the suggestion that we are to be pitied because “it must be so difficult to get through life alone” or oppositely, the assertion that we need to suck it up and realize that being lonely is just our “cross to bear” as LGBT people, we hear some form of this on a regular basis. We can’t speak for others who have decided to pursue celibate partnerships, but our decision to do life together was in no way related to fear of or difficulty coping with loneliness and isolation. To understand more of what we mean, read the post we wrote on that topic.

2. We are trying to imitate marriage. Some of our acquaintances have asserted that the only way to understand words like “couple” and “partnership” is within the context of a pathway to marriage. Because we have shared that we are not interested in a sacramental marriage and would not be eligible for one within our faith tradition even if we did want that, we’ve heard it said that we must be imitating marriage. Frequently, we have noted parallels between the marital vocation and various celibate vocations, stating that certain aspects like intimacy and vulnerability are present within all types of vocations. Seeing parallels between our kind of vocation and another kind does not mean that we are attempting to imitate the other. Within the past week especially, we’ve discussed this further with our friends who are also in celibate partnerships, and no one we’ve ever talked to about this has seen his/her celibate partnership as an imitation of marriage.

3. We endanger our partners’ personal commitments to celibacy. Again, we can’t speak for other people here, but as for the two of us, we find that doing life together strengthens both our personal commitments to celibacy. Though we often hear folks wondering why we don’t see the life we share as a near occasion of sin, the possibility that   we might encourage each other to abandon celibacy seems totally unrealistic to us. We learn a great deal from each other, and we see each other growing in virtue as a result of living together and sharing in various aspects of life.

4. Our relationships are sexually abstinent, but not truly celibate because there must be some element of eroticism. Some folks have the idea that because we consider ourselves “partners,” we must be struggling against lust for one another. From there comes the assumption that celibate partnerships may be sexually abstinent, but not celibate in the most honest sense of the word. Speaking from personal experience, our relationship has never been based upon physical attraction, arousal, or desire. Near the beginning of our relationship, we had many conversations about what does draw us toward each other since neither of us remotely fits the physical type to whom the other is attracted. We saw easily that our common ties were commitment to doing life with another person who also feels called to celibacy, similar intellectual interests and capabilities, and willingness to help each other grow in holiness. Eroticism has never been part of the picture for us.

5. Only women enter into celibate partnerships. Sometimes we hear it posited that only women–and more specifically, only women with low sex drives–would be able to maintain celibate partnerships. We do know several other celibate LGBT couples, and believe it or not, none of them are female. All other celibate LGBT couples whom we have the pleasure of knowing at this time are men, and some have been together far longer than we have.

6. We choose “liberal, unorthodox” spiritual directors who will tell us only what we want to hear about our relationships. This misconception is one of the most frustrating because it implies that 1) no theologically orthodox spiritual father would ever support our manner of living for any reason, and 2) individual spiritual fathers cannot be trusted to guide those who seek their counsel. The two of us see receiving strong, theologically orthodox spiritual direction as absolutely necessary. We would not feel comfortable seeing a priest for confession and spiritual direction if he were advocating that we do whatever we want or see ourselves as exceptions to the expectations of our Christian tradition. Our respective spiritual fathers are fully aware of our relationship to one another, and both have offered us great encouragement. They are also committed firmly to upholding traditional Christian teachings, and we’ve never had any reason to doubt their orthodoxy.

7. Our relationships are defined by exclusivity. An objection to celibate partnerships that we’ve heard more recently is that it’s inappropriate for two unmarried people to have an exclusive relationship with one another. We’re going to say something controversial here: we don’t think any healthy relationship, celibate or otherwise, is entirely exclusive. Certainly, marriages within Christianity would view sex as one specific area of exclusivity, but even our married friends (at least those who see their marriages as thriving) don’t view their spouses as their everything. It’s impossible for one person to meet all emotional and spiritual needs for another. That goes for us just as much as for people living other vocations. We don’t see our relationship as exclusive. In fact, we’re confident that it wouldn’t work if we didn’t also have other important people in our lives whom we consider our family of choice.

8. Doing life together is nothing more than a matter of convenience. This misconception comes in two variants: 1) the idea that we chose to share life because it’s convenient, and 2) the belief that if we don’t view our shared life in this way, we should. To address the first variant, we’ve stated in numerous places that our doing life together was an organic development. But that doesn’t mean there was no intentionality behind it. Though we do know some celibate LGBT couples who have begun sharing life merely for the sake of convenience, we view our own relationship as focused first and foremost on helping each other to grow closer to God. To address the second variant…well…we’re actually confused by this one. Why would it be better to live together for the sake of convenience than to live together because we feel called to helping each other journey toward Christ? Is this intention suitable only for married couples and monastics? Were someone to answer “yes,” we would heartily disagree.

9. We are actively seeking to redefine traditional Christian teachings. We’ve written in other places on the blog about just how hurtful this assumption is. Based on our own experience and those of other celibate LGBT couples we know, nothing could be farther from the truth. Every celibate LGBT couple with whom we are personally acquainted has expressed a strong desire to live fully in accordance with traditional Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality, and this is true even for couples we know whose decision to pursue celibacy is not rooted in a belief about sin.

10. We don’t see each other as friends. We find it troubling how often people attempt to place all relationships within a “marriage” and “friendship” binary. In the near future we hope to do a full post on this topic, but we find it rather insensitive and condescending when people tell us, “There’s already a name for what your relationship is, and that’s ‘friendship.'” That said, there seem to be just as many people who want to tell us that we see our relationship as a marriage (or imitation) because we clearly don’t view ourselves as friends. This isn’t true. As we’ve said over and over again, finding the most fitting terms for describing our relationship is a struggle for us, and probably will be for a long while if not for the rest of our earthly lives. But other terms we may use–partners, couple, family, team–do not negate the fact that we are also friends.

Are there other misconceptions about celibate partnership that we did not discuss in this post? Is there something you are interested in knowing more about relative to myths and realities about celibate partnership? Feel free to leave those and any other relevant discussion items in the comments section.

Comment Policy: Please remember that we, and all others commenting on this blog, are people. Practice kindness. Practice generosity. Practice asking questions. Practice showing love. Practice being human. If your comment is rude, it will be deleted. If you are constantly negative, argumentative, or bullish, you will not be able to comment anymore. We are the sole moderators of the combox.

A Review of The Third Way

Posted on by

Recently, we’ve received several emails asking us for our thoughts on The Third Way. One reader indicated that this film “explains exactly what you’re talking about with your lives.” With such a ringing endorsement from a person who had watched the video, we thought that it would make sense to feature The Third Way among our resource reviews. Because this resource is a film, we’ve provided a significant synopsis of The Third Way to help readers understand the reasoning behind our critiques. As such, this review is a bit lengthy. Nonetheless, we hope that providing detail will help our readers locate the most relevant sections for their own needs and interests.

It seems fitting that this film will be the third resource we’ve reviewed. You can also click on the following links to read our reviews of God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines and Generous Spaciousness by Wendy VanderWal-Gritter. As with all of our reviews, this one will attempt to answer two questions: What does this resource have to say to LGBT Christians who are living celibacy or exploring the possibility of celibate vocations? How does this resource contribute to conversation about celibacy as a way of life that LGBT Christians might choose?

According to the film’s promotional materials, “The Third Way will dispel common misconceptions about homosexuality and unveil the [Roman Catholic] Church’s truly compassionate and forward-thinking position on the issue.” Produced by Rev. John Hollowell and directed by John-Andrew O’Rourke, it runs just over 38 minutes. The video is comprised largely of different people speaking with their faces to the camera about experiences with same-sex attraction and the Roman Catholic Church. The voices include those with direct, personal experience of same-sex attraction and straight Catholics known for their public presentation of official teaching on sexual ethics. We thought that The Third Way had some strong points relative to the lives of celibate LGBT Christians, but we are concerned that the people interviewed in this film do not represent the diversity of LGBT Christians committed to celibacy.

After an opening sequence featuring scenes of violence against the LGBT community and the question, “Is there another way?” we meet seven Catholics, identified simply by first name, who describe how they came to know their experiences of same-sex attraction. Almost immediately, the film turns toward emphasizing various negative experiences as causal mechanisms for homosexual orientation such as a troubled home life, sexual trauma, an emotionally dependent friendship that became too close, and a disconnect with a positive cisgender identity. Specifically, David mentions that his father was an alcoholic who physically abused him, stating emphatically, “Everything about masculinity scared me, terrified me, I hated it. ” Julie says that her relationship with her mother “was like ice.” She shares, “I grew up hating men. I had been molested as a child, and in my mind, men were just vicious brutes who just only wanted one thing from you. And I wanted nothing to do with them.” Joseph speaks well of his parents and his upbringing. Charles describes how he grew up feeling very depressed because his mother frequently told him that he was unwanted. Richard expresses not fitting in with his father’s expectations of manhood. Christopher describes how his being artistic and creative lead to trouble bonding with other boys his own age. Of all the people who describe their home lives and upbringings, Joseph is the only person has anything positive to say about how he grew up. The other stories featured have many elements used by the ex-gay movement to justify “reparative therapy” in order to reorient a person’s sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to straight. The film does not advocate such therapies directly, but LGBT people who have survived abuses within the ex-gay world will likely find these stories troubling.

Melinda Selmys, who appears in the film but whose growing-up story was not featured, expressed concerns about looking at a person’s home life and upbringing to explain the causes of homosexuality. After The Third Way was released, she published a blog post about how an unintended consequence of this documentary might be the shaming of good parents for “causing” their son or daughter’s sexual orientation. We considered Melinda’s contribution one of the film’s highlights. In the middle of this montage about the causes of homosexuality, she explains, “You have to understand that for women especially it’s very often not so much a matter of strong physical attractions to one gender or the other gender. It’s a matter of how you emotionally interact with people.” This quote is the film’s only indication that gay people may not view their sexualities as being principally orientated towards a desire for sex, but rather as an indicator of a broader way of interacting with other people. Melinda’s viewpoint may resonate with celibate LGBT Christians who don’t see their sexual orientations and gender identities as being primarily about desire and attraction.

A strength of The Third Way is that it gives voice to the realities of bullying based on real or perceived sexual orientation, and both celibate and non-celibate LGBT Christians will find commonality with the interviewees’ stories of mistreatment. Nearly all of them talk about the cruelty they experienced in school, among church members, or within their families. David shares about how his peers were relentless, flicking him on the back of the head while spouting anti-gay slurs. Christopher describes how he didn’t feel like he could talk to people at church about the bullying he experienced so he sought refuge within the gay community. Julie tells about an experience in a Pentecostal church where she was told that it wasn’t enough for her to “leave the gay lifestyle,” and that she also had to become heterosexual in order to be a good Christian. Elements of all these tales are familiar to LGBT Christians who might view The Third Way.

Touching on ex-gay rhetoric once again, the film then moves into discussing the emptiness of “the gay lifestyle.” We hear from Julie about how she was involved in gay community organizations to the point of “pretty much [running] the gay church.” Charles shares that he had a boyfriend with whom he broke up with because “this isn’t who I am at my core.” David says, “I felt extremely depressed living in this life. The depression was overwhelming. The loneliness was overwhelming.” Christopher says, “I was really stuck in the middle of not being able to connect with men and not being able to have a healthy relationship with women.” This segment might have resonance with some celibate LGBT Christians, but will likely strike others as overly generalizing and relying on harmful stereotypes.

Throughout all of the interviews, we see two young actors walking outside in the snow. The young man and young woman are featured in isolation from one another. Eventually they end up in an abandoned, derelict building with graffiti featuring phrases like “Goodbye Tomorrow” and “Go where you love.” The meaning of this sequence is unclear and could be read in many ways. The actors might be walking alone in the snow to portray the isolation felt by the interviewees growing up. The empty shell of a building could be an attempt to portray the false promises of “the gay lifestyle.” The building might be (and closer to the end of the film, seems to be) an old church that has been defaced, perhaps trying to shame members of the Catholic Church into providing additional support. From context, it seems like the dilapidated building is trying to describe “the gay community” as a poor substitute for the community one should find in church. As the participants share their stories of living “the gay lifestyle,” the actors stand beneath a doorway reading “Out” contrasted against another doorway reading “In.” We found that bit of symbolism rather disconcerting.

At the 17 minute mark, the video begins to shift to the interviewees’ stories of why they became Catholic or became more fully committed to the Catholic Church. For a film based on Catholic experiences of spirituality, some of these stories have curious echoes of the American evangelical Protestant “and then I got saved” narrative. Julie chokes up with emotion as she says, “I was just so lost and so broken. And I knew that I needed God. And I knew that the Catholic Church was the right church and there was something that I didn’t have.” David notes changes that started to happen when he focused on God: “I stopped sex, I stopped alcohol, I stopped drugs, and I verbally forgave my dad.” Joseph reflects on how a confessor made himself available to hear more about his story and help him process his experience, being a real father to Joseph, supporting him on his journey. Celibate LGBT Christians may find the separation between one’s “gay life” and one’s “Christian life” as portrayed in the film distressing, particularly as ex-gay rhetoric continues to permeate this segment. However, Joseph’s contrasting story with being able to talk through questions about sexual orientation with a spiritual director will be encouraging. We would have appreciated hearing more about the roles of other people’s spiritual directors in helping them navigate questions of sexuality and vocation.

Celibate LGBT Christians might be aware of key places where popular sources misrepresent Catholic teaching. The Third Way highlights three such places: homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, homosexual persons as called to chastity, and Catholics as called to combat unjust discrimination that targets homosexual persons. Five well-respected Catholic educators, who–unlike the gay interviewees–are identified by their full names and occupational titles, explain discrepancies between how people perceive Catholic teaching and what the Catholic Church officially teaches. Together, these voices present what “disordered” means in the Catholic Church and argue that this tradition’s teachings are not actually bigoted against LGBT people because everyone has disordered desires of some kind. Rev. Michael Schmitz says, “All of us are in the exact same boat. Every human being, regardless of what you actually desire, you’re made for more than what you might desire right now.” Jason Evert makes a distinction to clarify that homosexual desires are not chosen. Celibate, LGBT Christians might be encouraged to hear well-respected Catholic educators explaining what this tradition means by “intrinsically disordered” as so many who represent Catholicism have used this phrase to justify discrimination against LGBT people.

We were especially encouraged by the film’s handling of the Catholic belief that “homosexual persons are called to chastity” because it focuses upon celibacy as a meaningful way of life. Celibate, LGBT Christians who have worked hard to integrate (rather than repress) their sexualities will likely cheer when Joseph explains, “The chaste person is not the asexual person. The chaste person is somebody who knows what to do with their sexuality.” Equally, Sr. Helena Burns discusses the importance of intimacy for all people, noting that intimacy need not be sexual. As we have highlighted the importance of defining a celibate vocation by what it has rather than what it lacks, we are glad to see intimacy defined broadly. We hope this might encourage celibate LGBT Christians to continue to integrate their sexualities and find greater freedom to develop meaningful relationships with others.

The video’s next segment moves back to the topic of bullying and harassment, this time as discussed from the perspective of the film’s straight interviewees. We appreciated the forthrightness of the speakers in acknowledging that Christians, including Catholics, have contributed to LGBT bullying. Jason Evert bemoaned his own behavior as a high school student:

“You know Christianity in general is in a position where we need to start asking forgiveness for those people who have been bigoted to those who have these attractions, whether it be their own family members, whether it be their pastors, kids in their youth groups. Like we need to say, ‘I’m sorry.’ Some of these people have suffered a lot and that’s their notion of the Catholic Church. Maybe that’s all they know of the Church. You know, I’ll admit, I went to an all-guy’s high school. And I confess I took part in it. You know, this ‘You’re gay! No, you’re gay! You’re gay!’ Just this stupid, stupid behavior. And I ask, I ask forgiveness on behalf of the entire community of people who experience these attractions that you’ve experienced any of this stuff from people who claim to be Christian like me, claimed to be Catholic. I did it.”

Listening to the stories of David, Joseph, and Julie as they shared their own experience of unintentional bullying at the hands of Christians provides even more weight to Jason’s apology and the film’s call for Catholics to do more to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, it’s not until minute 31 of this 38-minute film that we actually find out what the title means. From what we inferred, the “third way” means holding to a firm belief that same-sex sexual activity is inappropriate, but loving people who experience same-sex attractions. Rev. Michael Schmitz says it this way:

“The Catholic Church puts forth a third way: to treat every person, but in this case particularly persons with same-sex attraction, to be able to say, ‘We do not in anyway hate or condemn or fear or want to isolate you. At the same time, we can’t embrace everything that you choose.’ So we’re going to choose this third way, and that third way is love. We’re going to love you.”

Though some of the film’s messages might be comforting to celibate LGBT Christians, particularly those who are Catholic, we perceive that the storyboard detracts from the broader message of The Third Way. The film begins with an aggressive portrayal of the causes of homosexuality, where each cause has potential to make people search for love “in the wrong places.” Then the film highlights the “emptiness” found in the gay community. We’ve seen many reviewers focus on the apparent disconnect between unconditional love and “We can’t embrace everything that you choose.” After the explanation of the term “third way,” many of the film’s voices describe why the Catholic Church is the place for same-sex attracted people to receive love, but it’s unclear how they would respond to LGBT people making choices that cannot be embraced within the Catholic tradition. We can appreciate this skepticism, especially as the last spoken words of the video are from David, stating, “I know that I am a Catholic man. That’s my identity. I used to think I was gay. I’m not gay. I am David, a Catholic man.”

Watching The Third Way is unlikely to change anyone’s mind about homosexuality and the Catholic Church. For all this film’s attempts to clarify Catholic teaching, many people will not be able to hear that message because the apologies are few, and for some, too little and far too late. Further, it seems that all the gay/same-sex attracted people featured are at least 30 years old, with most being older. The video does not engage with how to support young people wrestling with questions of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the latter topic is not discussed at all. We think that opening with a seventeen-minute montage about the perceived causes of and “emptiness” within homosexuality was a bad choice on the part of the producer, and many LGBT people will simply turn off the film rather than watch it in its entirety. The Third Way has potential to be a strong conversation starter in Catholic parishes about how Catholics could work to address LGBT bullying. However, we are unsure about the film’s effectiveness at presenting a more compassionate view of LGBT people because it reinforces many destructive stereotypes about those who use words like “gay” and “lesbian” to describe their sexual identities.

Comment Policy: Please remember that we, and all others commenting on this blog, are people. Practice kindness. Practice generosity. Practice asking questions. Practice showing love. Practice being human. If your comment is rude, it will be deleted. If you are constantly negative, argumentative, or bullish, you will not be able to comment anymore. We are the sole moderators of the combox.

Saturday Symposium: Feeling Affirmed

Posted on by

Good morning, folks. It’s a lovely Saturday here where we live, and we hope all of you are having an enjoyable weekend wherever you are. As usual, please allow us a bit of time to catch up on email. We’ve gotten a lot the past couple of weeks!

It’s time once again for today’s Saturday Symposium question:

How this works: It’s very simple. We ask a multi-part question related to a topic we’ve blogged about during the past week or are considering blogging about in the near future, and you, our readers, share your responses in the comments section. Feel free to be open, reflective, and vulnerable…and to challenge us. But as always, be mindful of the comment policy that ends each of our posts. Usually, we respond fairly quickly to each comment, but in order to give you time to think, come back, add more later if you want, and discuss with other readers, we will wait until after Monday to respond to comments on Saturday Symposium questions.

This week’s Saturday Symposium question: This week’s question is on a topic we would like to explore further in a future post. We’ve noticed that recently, language within the LGBT Christian conversation has been shifting. One shift we’ve observed is that many LGBT (and ally) Christian authors and bloggers are beginning to use the terms “affirming” and “non-affirming” instead of “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” (or “Side A” and “Side B”) to describe progressive and traditional positions on sexual ethics. We’re wondering: from your perspective, what does it mean to affirm LGBT Christians? If you are an LGBT Christian, what sort of things make you feel affirmed within your faith community? In general, what are your thoughts on using the terms “affirming” and “non-affirming” to describe ethical positions related to LGBT sexual practice/celibacy?

We look forward to reading your responses. If you’re concerned about having your comment publicly associated with your name, please consider using the Contact Us page to submit your comment. We can post it under a pseudonym (i.e. John says, “your comment”) or summarize your comment in our own words (i.e. One person observed…). Participating in this kind of public dialogue can be risky, and we want to do what we can to protect you even if that means we preserve your anonymity. Have a wonderful weekend!

Blessings,

Sarah and Lindsey

Comment Policy: Please remember that we, and all others commenting on this blog, are people. Practice kindness. Practice generosity. Practice asking questions. Practice showing love. Practice being human. If your comment is rude, it will be deleted. If you are constantly negative, argumentative, or bullish, you will not be able to comment anymore. We are the sole moderators of the combox.

Discerning Our Vocation as a Community of Two

Posted on by

Recently, we have encountered some criticism about our way of life in other places of the internet. It has been suggested that our using words like “partner” and “family” indicates we are trying to mimic marriage as opposed to embracing an intentionally celibate vocation. According to these critics, because we frequently use the word “partner” to describe our relationship, we must have lustful desires towards one another and cannot not possibly be living chastely. (If you don’t have any idea what we’re talking about, our post entitled Clearing the Air on “When Celibacy Fails” can direct you a bit more specifically to one of the relevant blogs.)

We do understand how people might be confused about our use of the word “partner” in our relationship. We do describe ourselves as a celibate, LGBT, Christian couple. If you look to the way “partner” is used in the broader culture, you would rarely see the couple who is using that term living into a celibate vocation. We spend a lot of time talking about important conversations we’d like to have on the blog. For several months, we’ve been discussing that we could say more about how our understanding of our vocation has been significantly shaped by monasticism. It seems to us that this latest conversation about the word “partner” provides an excellent launching point for such a conversation.

From the beginning, we have been up front about our acknowledgement that we do not have all the answers. Sarah has shared about some of the difficulty we’ve had in finding a language to describe our shared life. Lindsey frequently says that when it comes to the exact nature of our vocation, we’re building the plane while flying it. Our Christian tradition does not have a well-developed understanding of lay celibacy, so we have tried to learn as much as we can about our vocation from both married couples and monastics. We regard ourselves as works in progress, and we hope that our readers can extend us charity as we sort through some of this muddle.

In Lindsey’s post on Actively Cultivating a Celibate Vocation, Lindsey highlighted the importance of getting to know people who are living celibacy. Even before we met one another, both of us devoted significant energies to meeting various vowed religious. We have read many accounts of monastics, traveled to various monasteries, and journeyed alongside others who have been discerning specific religious vocations that carry the expectation of celibacy.

One of the most important things we’ve noticed about monasteries is that no two monasteries are the same. Each monastery has its unique sense of community that affects how the members see themselves as a monastic family extending hospitality to others. Some monasteries have the capability of hosting a huge number of pilgrims at a time, and other monasteries will welcome a small handful of overnight guests. The guest quarters in the smallest monasteries we’ve visited amount to little more than a spare room in the house. At the risk of overgeneralizing a bit, visiting large monasteries can make one feel like one has entered another world while visiting small monasteries can leave one feeling remarkably impressed by the mundaneness of the everyday. Some of the larger monasteries seem to serve every liturgical service available in well-equipped chapels, while many of the smaller monasteries pray a basic set of morning and evening prayer on either side of the work day. We’ve even had the privilege of visiting monastics who live in urban areas and work full-time during the day in a way that aligns their professional gifts with the mission of the Church.

We hope it comes as no surprise to our readers that we have made a concerted effort to learn from these various small monastic communities about how we might pattern our lives as a community of two. Specifically, we have been drawn to the concept of a skete. Sketes are small monastic communities where two or three celibates live together. Because it’s rarely practical for a community of two or three to be completely self-sustaining, skete monastics frequently interact with more sizable monastic communities or with the world at large in order to support themselves. Skete monastics often choose very particular forms of ministry to do together and may describe themselves as partners in ministry. Like other monasteries, sketes exist because of a bishop’s blessing. Many large monasteries have a skete at their origins. It’s not terribly uncommon to see a small monastic community living as a skete entreating God to give the increase to their humble beginnings.

While we do not see ourselves as establishing an actual skete, we do try to pattern our lives significantly after what we have seen from skete monastics. We see ourselves as working hard to establish a sense of what lay celibacy in the world might look like, particularly when lived together as a pair. Specifically, we have a commitment to being an open book with our spiritual fathers about our life and ministry together. We earnestly desire to live into the fullness of our Christian tradition’s teachings, and we participate regularly in our local parish. Additionally, we regularly pray and discuss our shared ministry as a team of two (some might say “partnership”).

We have been living together for just over a year; it takes time to discern what work we should be giving ourselves to. We want God to guide our steps as we consider a multitude of ministry possibilities. We try to maintain a balanced rhythm in our life together. We have established dinner as a sacred time to share with one another. For example, it works best for us when Lindsey cooks and Sarah handles the after-dinner clean-up. We also try and balance the time we have together with time we spend in larger communities of one kind or another. We view our relationship as being principally oriented outward to serve the world, and we thank God for the ways we’ve found to use our ministry gifts that are unlocked by the presence of the other to love various people we have met.

There are certain monastics that stand out to us as we think about who has taught us about our vocation. Lindsey once stayed with a nun working in a local parish. This nun served as a critical backbone to her community, observing a daily cycle of morning and evening prayer. When she wasn’t in her chapel or attending to local services, she met regularly with students to offer spiritual direction. She carried forward the work she had begun with another nun, even after her partner in ministry was moved by the bishop to another city.

Sarah has never experienced more extravagant hospitality than was showcased by a hospice nurse who attended to Sarah’s grandmother. Sarah’s grandmother had reached the last few weeks of her life. This hospice nun absolutely lit up the room while providing palliative care to Sarah’s grandmother and getting to know everyone in Sarah’s family. Eleven-year-old Sarah had taken to making a fashion statement of wearing mismatched socks. The hospice nurse told the other nursing staff about Sarah’s self-expression and encouraged them to make a special cake in Sarah’s honor: the cake had two different colors of frosting, one on each side, much like Sarah’s socks. The nun made herself emotionally available to everyone in Sarah’s family during this difficult time. Nearly 18 years later, Sarah remembers this nun teaching that whenever a person or family experiences a time of significant distress, there needs to be someone else capable of giving his or her complete self in order to care for those ailing. Although it’s wonderful when people can give a little bit in those situations, the world needs people who can give everything by turning themselves fully outward to care for those who need it.

To be sure, we’re still working on embodying the virtues we see in monastics. A shared rule of prayer is one core attribute of monasticism we want God to open up to us more fully. Because our daily schedules are so variable, we struggle to discern a common prayer rule that we can keep together. Both of us keep individual rules of prayer, we have a disciplined practice of always blessing our food together, and we occasionally share times of spontaneous prayer. Nevertheless, we do hope that God will guide us towards a shared rule of prayer that we can keep together on a daily basis. Additionally, we regard vulnerability and hospitality as defining attributes of a celibate vocation. We frequently perceive ourselves as doing reasonably well in both of these areas, but we know that God still wants us to grow towards increasing vulnerability and hospitality. Lastly, although we believe strongly that God is calling us to a shared form of ministry, we know God is still telling us more about the work we are to do together. We don’t have everything figured out already–not by a long shot.

In conclusion, we are grateful for all of the ways God helps us to discern our vocation as a community of two, revealing to us more over time how he would have us serve the world as team of two and partners in ministry. We have learned so much from monastics, especially those who live in sketes. We are lay celibates living in the world, and as such we do not pretend for an instant that we embody monastic life fully. But we rejoice because each of our failures has given us room to grow towards Christ in ways we had never imagined.

Comment Policy: Please remember that we, and all others commenting on this blog, are people. Practice kindness. Practice generosity. Practice asking questions. Practice showing love. Practice being human. If your comment is rude, it will be deleted. If you are constantly negative, argumentative, or bullish, you will not be able to comment anymore. We are the sole moderators of the combox.

Reading Romans 1 Differently

Posted on by

A reflection by Lindsey

Much of my personal sense of spirituality has been shaped by various evangelical movements within Christian traditions. When people ask me to describe my spirituality, I’ll frequently say something like “evangelical with a small ‘e.'” I understand the Gospel of Christ to be fundamentally good news, even the absolute best news to be delivered to this planet. I have a special love for the Gospel of Luke, the book written to present the story of Christ clearly to a Gentile audience. I am grateful for everyone I have met who has helped me learn how to read the Scriptures, to learn from them, and to apply them to my life.

There are certain Scriptures I’ve heard so often that they pop into my head completely unannounced. When I’m waiting for clarity in a decision, I’ll hear, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.” As I take a moment to ponder the Resurrection, my heart leaps into a chorus of “Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered.” After I have presented a request to Christ in prayer, my brain reminds me, “His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.'” When I ponder the usefulness of reading the Scriptures, I find myself hearing, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”

As much as there are certain Scriptures that organically spring to mind, there are also certain verses that often get thrown at me. Virtually every LGBT person who is or has been a Christian can talk about run-ins with 6 specific passages. Romans 1 ranks high on the list. What LGBT Christian has not sat down to lunch with a concerned Christian friend who pulls out his or her Bible to “share” these verses:

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

One of the things that always struck me about these lunchtime “heart to hearts” was how rarely the person sharing the verses thought they applied at all to him or her. After all, these verses have made the short list of what you should say when your friend indicates that he or she might be gay. I think it’s time to read Romans 1 differently. Specifically, what would happen if people began reading the Bible with the intention of seeing how the Scriptures spoke into their own lives as readers rather than focusing on how they might apply to others?

Throughout history, Scriptures have been abused by assertions that a certain verse applies exclusively to condemn a particular group of people. It’s a bit different when you start to consider yourself one of the out-group. I remember being in high school and performing in a passion play at my church. Turning to face the person playing the role of Jesus and shouting “Crucify Him!” caused me to read Matthew 27:25 a bit differently. Matthew 27:25 reads, “All the people answered, ‘His blood is on us and on our children!'” This verse historically has been used as a justification that the Jewish people bear a blood-guilt for killing Jesus. I cannot imagine the number of Christians who have used this particular verse in an attempt to justify anti-Semitic behavior.

However, it’s possible to read Matthew 27:25 differently. It’s possible for us as Christians to reflect on how we need Christ’s blood to cover us because we are people who have fallen short of the glory of God. Perhaps we will see how the crowd included those who, not even a week before, had greeted Jesus as a triumphant king. What would happen if we started to search our own hearts for ways that we all too easily reverse our attitudes towards God? My high school youth group showed me that I too could stand in the crowd shouting “Crucify Him!” More than a decade later, I can still play that memory back in full color.

The crowd gathered at the trial was the same crowd as the throng of people greeting Christ with palms shouting Hosanna. This discussion of Matthew 27:25 is relevant to how we might learn to read Romans 1 differently. After all, Romans 1 includes a significant discussion of how people have turned their backs on God: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.”

I think all of us would benefit from reflecting on Romans 1:24, which says, “ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.” The lusts of our hearts are many. We thirst for power, prestige, favor, and glory. In these pursuits, we often find ourselves dishonoring our bodies in countless ways. We punish our bodies through fad dieting and the latest exercise trends. We use our bodies to enact violence on other people or on creation. We run on the ever-present hamster wheel of materialism and deny our bodies adequate rest, nourishment, and refreshment. And that’s to say nothing about our diverse battles with concerns about sexual purity. Who among us has a perfect record of always honoring the body?

When we truly embrace that all Scripture is useful for teaching, we can see that we need to consider ourselves first among students. None of us can claim to be the head of the class. It can be hard to look at a particular passage and discern, “How does this text speak to my life? How can I possibly share how the Holy Spirit is inspiring me along my journey with Christ?” It’s all too easy to read the Scriptures and envision ourselves as the various protagonists: we can emulate Christ as he says, “Go and sin no more,” we can be the publican who prays humbly in the temple, and we can be prodigal son who has done the right thing in returning to the house of the father. It’s much harder for us to ask the Holy Spirit to show us how we might embody the people who are clearly on the wrong side of God’s judgement. How are we the Pharisees who have tied up heavy loads? How are we Judas who has betrayed Christ? And how are we like those who have exchanged the truth of God for a lie?

When we start asking those kinds of questions, we might just start reading Romans 1 a bit differently.

Comment Policy: Please remember that we, and all others commenting on this blog, are people. Practice kindness. Practice generosity. Practice asking questions. Practice showing love. Practice being human. If your comment is rude, it will be deleted. If you are constantly negative, argumentative, or bullish, you will not be able to comment anymore. We are the sole moderators of the combox.