It is true that sex is a difficult subject to discuss forthrightly in Christian Science. Tumescent urges are seldom dealt with or relieved satisfactorily by the Victorian delicacy with which they have historically been hot-potatoed in the periodicals. A friend recently directed me to "A Conversation with Ginny Luedeman" in the June 18, 2007, Sentinel.
Whew! What a read. Ridiculous sophistries and non sequiturs scamper about with the abandon of the Marx Brothers. Not for the intrepid Mrs. Luedeman is there any need to wrestle with the fussy and potentially troublesome distinction between eros, philos, and agape. Hey, when strict adherence to the Science, metaphysics, and spirit of Christian Science is relegated to post-coital pillow talk or perverted into spiritualized carnal love, you might as well let 'er rip. Hubba hubba! Mark Twain would have a field day in the erotic copse of this Palinesque conversation.
Maybe she uses a Harris (no, not Frank Harris) edition of "Science and Health" with a watered-down chapter on "Marriage", and she is a trifle fuzzy on how hot youth guiltlessly shares in the sexual delights that beckon the unmarried but still love-enraptured Scientist.
I was not enlightened by her "discussion" of chastity, and her statement "I like to think of myself kind of like a wrench in God's hand" is a hoot. At first I thought she meant "wench", but, no, wrench it is. Read it and weep, The idea that God would lend His loving hand to sexual activity --perhaps as a kind of divine stimulation--is a gross perversion of divine Science.
Many other tasty morsels could be cited, but my sides would ache and my breath be short long before I was finished. This interview only supports my stated belief that the periodicals will sink to any depth to get readers--even those with only a handful of condoms burning a hole in their pockets--but to what end?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Oh my! You have outdone yourself on this one. Bravo!!!
Brilliant! Marvelous! Can't wait for some of those commenting on your previous blog posting to get going on this one. They will tear their hair out for sure.
I'm sending this minor masterpiece to the editors in Boston. They no doubt need a laugh now and then. My sides are splitting!
Thanks for your candor. It's about high time someone blew the whistle on this un-dealt-with issue that is at the core of human life. We're still living it: none that I know of are walking on water. And the task of Christian Science is to bring the truths of divine Science to the human scene (paraphrasing MBE somewhere). As First Reader I recently did a lesson on John 21:15-17, reading first the KJV and then the original Greek, explaining "agape" and "phileia" so that people got the puns. It was uplifting and exhausting. The following week I did one on "eros," showing how it must be lifted by beyond the roiling First Degree on pl 115 of S&H by agape and phileia by what MBE refers to as " the most tender solicitude" (S&H 59:3 et passim)on the part of both partners.
I know Ginny Luedemann slightly, and she has overcome a lot of things that in a less spiritual person would have dead-ended long ago. I suspect she would have been more forthright in the Sentinel article had the editors allowed her to get into some depth in any of the topics over which she waterskiied. Thus it may not be altogether fair to compare her with impossible Palin.
And speaking of "wrench," we have MBE's use of this forceful verb on p 265 of S&H: "The pains of sense are salutary, if they WRENCH away false pleasurable beliefs and transplant the affections from sense to Soul, where the creations of God are good, 'rejoicing the heart'." It's a violent thing, but look at the reward!
What a savage wit you have. And you are a credit to divine metaphysics to boot!
Dear Writer,
When I finished this outstanding essay, do you know what I thought? That our Leader would be pleased with your clear, spot-on thinking and writing.
I sort of remember that article you speak of, but when I work in our reading room later this week, will try to run it down.
What a thinker and presenter of clear CS you are. Thank you!
Terrific blog post. I do believe you do humour best of all that you do. And your last thought sums it up for me. Is there any depth to which "they" will not go to try to interest the world in CS!
I've expressed this wish before, and probably will do so again, but if only someone like you (and no to some misguided commenter, you are not my hero!) could be making decisions for our beloved Church. We need your clarity of thought and principled stand for what is right. God is obviously upholding your important work for the Field.
You amaze me with your writing talent. When I read one of your essays, I like to go back time and again, slowly, to try to find out how you put these things together. Quite impressive. And this one was a hoot!
You hit the nail on the head for me with this phrase: "spiritualized carnal love." That is not Christian Science. And it, that interview, had no place in the Sentinel. Whatever.
Bravo, bravo is all I have to say. No, one more thing. Little wonder your blog is so widely read and admired.
I'm not sure if your funniness outweighs your seriousness in these blog posts, but I feel you do both very well. And this particular one contains hilarious material but makes vital points for any sincere student of Mrs. Eddy's teachings.
I love your essays. And I love you, Christian, for all the good you are doing for our religion.
God bless you...
Sharp, sharp, sharper than a box of tacks, is what you are, blogger. And funny on top of it.
Do you want to know why Boston has been doing the things it has been doing? Because they do not, in their hearts, have the right attiude toward Mrs. Eddy. They don't actually respect her, never mind feel deep love and gratitude for all she has given us. This explains everything to me.
I can tell you one thing, no CS writer for the periodicals, if they've read this blog post, is going to attempt an article on this topic!
Did I laugh out loud.
I think so many readers tune into your website because they feel they can trust where you're coming from. There's such a sincere interest in our Cause that comes through to me as I read your essays. That you love CS is clear, certainly to me.
A friend said I should not miss this one of yours whatever I did. And I didn't. You've got a lot of talent, in my opinion. Wonderful!
I've read it, and couldn't agree with you more that that interview should never have been in the Sentinel. What were they thinking?!
Thanks for your clear summing up of the whole thing.
Post a Comment