Please read this in context.
The conundrum of faith and morals and justice and politics gets confusing. But even more confusing is the dilemma of Christian hope in a world where homosexuality is akin to normalcy.
It's like with my mom. She's been with her partner longer than she was married to my dad. I love her dearly, I want her life to be amazing. Most of all, I want her to know the riches and joy and satisfaction and overwhelming love of Jesus, to have the freedom of being who she was made to be. But I believe that when she gets to that point, as she begins to love God back, He'll ask her to give up the woman she's loved for more than fourteen years. Heartbreak. The trappings of divorce without the social sympathy. Hurting tons of people deeply, having them not understand. It scares the crap out of me, and I won't be the one having to do it. I definitely believe that following God is worth any sacrifice, but I shudder at the brokenness that will be so hard to recover from. So even though I pray for my mom to know the incredible love of God, I know I'm praying for her to experience horrible things, too. There will be healing and wholeness on the other side. It will be amazing. But it will take a long time, and it will be the hardest thing she ever does.
So look. I don't have all the answers. I only have a God I trust implicitly, a God who's revealed himself to me in a million ways and given me a book that reveals his character and truth even more. It's a dilemma: a righteous God and redeemed lawbreakers living in a world where truth, love, and goodness are scorned, mocked, and twisted. Until Christ is ruling and there's a perfect theocracy, politics and democracy will fail us. Ultimately my interest is not in what is legal or illegal, or moral or immoral. My interest is in helping people learn about how much they are loved, and how they were meant for something incredible, and how they have the opportunity to be free to be the person God made them to be. No matter how broken and dark and mucky life is, no matter how hurt an confused a person is, God has a way out for them. He did for me. He died for me. And if that doesn't make sense to you, ask me about it.
I may have one more post about this, in response to the article Dan posted about last week. But no promises. And in the mean time, I invite your comments and questions and discussion. I know it's not completely logical, I know not every question is answered, and surely my arguments are incomplete and flawed. I'm not a philosopher, just a girl with some thoughts. Please be nice, even if you disagree with me. I promise to love you either way.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
thoughts on gay marriage, part 3
(Again, please bear in mind the context of this post.)
Let marriage be an institution of the church. Let civil unions be an institution of the government.
Ideologically, I think that's the viewpoint most consistent with the laws of this country, and the constitutional right to freedom of religion. It's not that easy, though. The thing about government is that while it may not legislate religion, it exists to uphold justice. And justice is itself ideological. So the morality of things gets all mixed up with the legality of things. And there's no way to really untangle those ideas.
Take, for example, adoption. Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt? Some states say yes, others say no (for a quick overview, check this out). Most studies show that gay and lesbian parents are no worse for children than heterosexual parents, overall. Surely having homosexual parents isn't a cakewalk for the kids, but it's less difficult as societal mores change and no worse than the other family issues that kids have to deal with. Is one parent better than no parent at all? Of course! Is two better than one? I think so.
So from my perspective, gay and lesbian couples can be awesome parents. The thing is, I think homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. I think and hope that practicing homosexuals come to know God's love for them, and accept forgiveness for all of their sins, and choose to love God back, and show it by obeying what He asks them to do. And I think that ultimately this will mean ending their homosexual relationship. So what then? Just another broken home, children who were in foster care or adopted left no better off than the millions of other kids in broken families, dealing with all the crap that comes along with it.
So can I support adoption for homosexual couples? Gah. Legally it seems fine, but ethically it seems completely wrong. I have no idea what the right answer is. The thing about the separation of church and state is that no matter how hard you try to separate it, when you get down to a very personal level, there's no telling them apart. Law. Righteousness. God. Grace. Love. Family. I just don't know. (This, by the way, is why I find voting so difficult.)
A few closing thoughts, next.
Let marriage be an institution of the church. Let civil unions be an institution of the government.
Ideologically, I think that's the viewpoint most consistent with the laws of this country, and the constitutional right to freedom of religion. It's not that easy, though. The thing about government is that while it may not legislate religion, it exists to uphold justice. And justice is itself ideological. So the morality of things gets all mixed up with the legality of things. And there's no way to really untangle those ideas.
Take, for example, adoption. Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt? Some states say yes, others say no (for a quick overview, check this out). Most studies show that gay and lesbian parents are no worse for children than heterosexual parents, overall. Surely having homosexual parents isn't a cakewalk for the kids, but it's less difficult as societal mores change and no worse than the other family issues that kids have to deal with. Is one parent better than no parent at all? Of course! Is two better than one? I think so.
So from my perspective, gay and lesbian couples can be awesome parents. The thing is, I think homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. I think and hope that practicing homosexuals come to know God's love for them, and accept forgiveness for all of their sins, and choose to love God back, and show it by obeying what He asks them to do. And I think that ultimately this will mean ending their homosexual relationship. So what then? Just another broken home, children who were in foster care or adopted left no better off than the millions of other kids in broken families, dealing with all the crap that comes along with it.
So can I support adoption for homosexual couples? Gah. Legally it seems fine, but ethically it seems completely wrong. I have no idea what the right answer is. The thing about the separation of church and state is that no matter how hard you try to separate it, when you get down to a very personal level, there's no telling them apart. Law. Righteousness. God. Grace. Love. Family. I just don't know. (This, by the way, is why I find voting so difficult.)
A few closing thoughts, next.
thoughts on gay marriage, part 2
(Again, please consider this post in the context of the previous ones.)
So far I've dealt with some of the secular issues. For many gay couples, the thing they care about is not so much legal rights as social acceptance. My earlier post about homosexuality in general addresses this issue, as does this blog post that recommends some good things to keep in mind when engaging in dialogue about homosexuality, especially as a Christian.
The thing is, this isn't the kind of acceptance that most homosexuals seem to want. They don't want a dialogue or respectful conversation about where we differ -- they want affirmation of their identity as homosexuals. Again, I've already dealt a bit with my opinions about that. But the semantics of "marriage" come into play again when we switch from what's legal to what's ideologically and socially acceptable. In the general American public, homosexuality is becoming increasingly socially normalized. But as a Christian who holds the opinions I've described, homosexuality and "marriage" can't go together.
Very traditional opening words of a protestant marriage ceremony are:
Forgive me if this seems harsh -- remember that I dearly love practicing homosexuals -- but there is no Biblical support for God's recognition of gay marriage. When the Bible speaks about homosexuality, it roundly condemns the practice. When the Bible speaks about marriage, it affirms that honorable, holy marriages are between a man and a woman. And it's not arbitrary! There are reasons that marriage is defined like it is in the Bible -- reasons literally as old as Adam. The very nature of the way our bodies are made speak to the rightness - the righteousness, if you will - of one man and one woman coming together in marriage. We were created with this in mind.
Again, please understand: I have great sympathy for those who believe they are homosexual by nature. It's not an easy thing, to have such crises of identity, to believe that you were created wrong, somehow, if this is the way God intended it. I don't have these answers, only the love of a God who wants to meet us in our deepest struggles, bind up our brokenness, fill our inner emptiness, and give us peace.
All of this is very faith-based. I believe it's completely true. And I also believe it's completely removed from the world of secular politics and government. Our country clings to the constitutional interpretation that completely separates church and state. Let it be separate, then. Don't let the government base its definitions on God's definitions, if the government is renouncing God. Let marriage be an institution of the church, one man and one woman. Let civil unions be an institution of the government, without gender restrictions.
Ideologically, I think that's the viewpoint most consistent with the laws of this country, and the constitutional right to freedom of religion. It's not that easy, though. The thing about government is that while it may not legislate religion, it exists to uphold justice. And justice is itself ideological. So the morality of things gets all mixed up with the legality of things. And there's no way to really untangle those ideas. More on this, next.
So far I've dealt with some of the secular issues. For many gay couples, the thing they care about is not so much legal rights as social acceptance. My earlier post about homosexuality in general addresses this issue, as does this blog post that recommends some good things to keep in mind when engaging in dialogue about homosexuality, especially as a Christian.
The thing is, this isn't the kind of acceptance that most homosexuals seem to want. They don't want a dialogue or respectful conversation about where we differ -- they want affirmation of their identity as homosexuals. Again, I've already dealt a bit with my opinions about that. But the semantics of "marriage" come into play again when we switch from what's legal to what's ideologically and socially acceptable. In the general American public, homosexuality is becoming increasingly socially normalized. But as a Christian who holds the opinions I've described, homosexuality and "marriage" can't go together.
Very traditional opening words of a protestant marriage ceremony are:
Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony. The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. It signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church, and Holy Scripture commends it to be honored among all people. The union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in property and adversity; and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. Therefore marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God. (cited here, forgive my sad source, this librarian is on vacation)One of the first things you notice about this ceremony is that it's decidedly not secular. This is marriage in the presence of God. It's a covenant established in the Biblical stories of creation and Jesus' life. It's holy. It represents Christ and the church. It's for joy, comfort, help, procreation, and family. It's not for tax definitions or health insurance, or even for social acceptance.
Forgive me if this seems harsh -- remember that I dearly love practicing homosexuals -- but there is no Biblical support for God's recognition of gay marriage. When the Bible speaks about homosexuality, it roundly condemns the practice. When the Bible speaks about marriage, it affirms that honorable, holy marriages are between a man and a woman. And it's not arbitrary! There are reasons that marriage is defined like it is in the Bible -- reasons literally as old as Adam. The very nature of the way our bodies are made speak to the rightness - the righteousness, if you will - of one man and one woman coming together in marriage. We were created with this in mind.
Again, please understand: I have great sympathy for those who believe they are homosexual by nature. It's not an easy thing, to have such crises of identity, to believe that you were created wrong, somehow, if this is the way God intended it. I don't have these answers, only the love of a God who wants to meet us in our deepest struggles, bind up our brokenness, fill our inner emptiness, and give us peace.
All of this is very faith-based. I believe it's completely true. And I also believe it's completely removed from the world of secular politics and government. Our country clings to the constitutional interpretation that completely separates church and state. Let it be separate, then. Don't let the government base its definitions on God's definitions, if the government is renouncing God. Let marriage be an institution of the church, one man and one woman. Let civil unions be an institution of the government, without gender restrictions.
Ideologically, I think that's the viewpoint most consistent with the laws of this country, and the constitutional right to freedom of religion. It's not that easy, though. The thing about government is that while it may not legislate religion, it exists to uphold justice. And justice is itself ideological. So the morality of things gets all mixed up with the legality of things. And there's no way to really untangle those ideas. More on this, next.
thoughts on gay marriage, part 1
As promised, some of my thoughts about gay marriage. If you haven't read my previous post wherein I share my thoughts about homosexuality in general, please do. First, some thoughts on definitions and the secular...
Recent debates in the US have centered around the "definition" of marriage. There is a federal "Defense of Marriage" law. The recent passage of Proposition 8 in California has brought the issue to the forefront again... and again, it's an issue of "defining" the term marriage.
The issue always sounds like a semantic one. Is "marriage" a commitment between any couple, or only a heterosexual couple? Certainly the semantics are important. The word "marriage" has a tremendous amount of baggage attached to it. When we hear the word, we think of the relationship between our parents. We think of a ceremony with a bride and groom. We think of special intimacy. We think of life together, through good times and bad. We think of tax implications (well, some people do). We think of marriage in the way it has been modeled around us, and that is different for everyone.
So I'd like to propose that we pause for a moment and consider not the definition of marriage, but the implications of marriage. (The effectual semantics.) In today's culture, any two people can have a relationship that mimics traditional marriage. Life together does not require a marriage certificate. Sex certainly doesn't. And all kinds of people raise children together (or apart). Call it what you will, in terms of practical lifestyle, marriage-like relationships are all over the place.
So why does it matter how marriage is defined?
A major issue is that marriage has significant financial repercussions. Married people (may) have different tax burdens than single people. And while any people can live together and share the burden of living expenses, health care is extremely expensive. It is an employer's insurance plan that dictates whether or not "domestic partners" -- people living together -- can be insured under each other's health insurance policy. (Interestingly, the policies vary by employer, not by health care company. Also, no one seems to be asking about relationships between more than two people. Yet.)
So from one perspective, the way the government and businesses define marriage is important because of these financial issues. Personally, this is where I think it is very easy to draw a sacred/secular line. When we're talking about taxes and health care costs, we're talking about secular stuff, not sacred stuff. This is where equal rights comes into play. While there's no equal rights amendment in the US Constitution, establishing justice is the second purpose statement of the constitution. Given this mission statement, I think that one couple should be treated the same as any other couple. Remember, their lifestyles are virtually indistinguishable from those of "married" couples. So I think that tax burdens and insurance requirements should be the same for any kind of couple, if there must be a distinction between couples and single people. (And there are good reasons to make that distinction. Ask me about it if you disagree.)
Of course, marriage has typically been the standard for deciding at what point a relationship is "official" enough to be recognized by businesses and the government. Without some kind of standard, any two people could decide to claim the official benefits/liabilities of couple-ness. So far, the idea of "civil union" has been the standard for distinguishing between random couples and "official" couples. It basically establishes the rights of kinship without a shared bloodline, just like marriage does otherwise. (A quick search shows that in NJ a civil union has age and same-gender requirements, as well as an "only-one-at-a-time" kind of rule). Wikipedia calls it a theoretical legal mechanism, and I think that's really all it is. A secular mechanism for determining legal status of couples. A mechanism for ensuring secular justice.
So far I've dealt with some of the secular issues. For many gay couples, the thing they care about is not so much legal rights as social and ideological acceptance. More on that next.
Recent debates in the US have centered around the "definition" of marriage. There is a federal "Defense of Marriage" law. The recent passage of Proposition 8 in California has brought the issue to the forefront again... and again, it's an issue of "defining" the term marriage.
The issue always sounds like a semantic one. Is "marriage" a commitment between any couple, or only a heterosexual couple? Certainly the semantics are important. The word "marriage" has a tremendous amount of baggage attached to it. When we hear the word, we think of the relationship between our parents. We think of a ceremony with a bride and groom. We think of special intimacy. We think of life together, through good times and bad. We think of tax implications (well, some people do). We think of marriage in the way it has been modeled around us, and that is different for everyone.
So I'd like to propose that we pause for a moment and consider not the definition of marriage, but the implications of marriage. (The effectual semantics.) In today's culture, any two people can have a relationship that mimics traditional marriage. Life together does not require a marriage certificate. Sex certainly doesn't. And all kinds of people raise children together (or apart). Call it what you will, in terms of practical lifestyle, marriage-like relationships are all over the place.
So why does it matter how marriage is defined?
A major issue is that marriage has significant financial repercussions. Married people (may) have different tax burdens than single people. And while any people can live together and share the burden of living expenses, health care is extremely expensive. It is an employer's insurance plan that dictates whether or not "domestic partners" -- people living together -- can be insured under each other's health insurance policy. (Interestingly, the policies vary by employer, not by health care company. Also, no one seems to be asking about relationships between more than two people. Yet.)
So from one perspective, the way the government and businesses define marriage is important because of these financial issues. Personally, this is where I think it is very easy to draw a sacred/secular line. When we're talking about taxes and health care costs, we're talking about secular stuff, not sacred stuff. This is where equal rights comes into play. While there's no equal rights amendment in the US Constitution, establishing justice is the second purpose statement of the constitution. Given this mission statement, I think that one couple should be treated the same as any other couple. Remember, their lifestyles are virtually indistinguishable from those of "married" couples. So I think that tax burdens and insurance requirements should be the same for any kind of couple, if there must be a distinction between couples and single people. (And there are good reasons to make that distinction. Ask me about it if you disagree.)
Of course, marriage has typically been the standard for deciding at what point a relationship is "official" enough to be recognized by businesses and the government. Without some kind of standard, any two people could decide to claim the official benefits/liabilities of couple-ness. So far, the idea of "civil union" has been the standard for distinguishing between random couples and "official" couples. It basically establishes the rights of kinship without a shared bloodline, just like marriage does otherwise. (A quick search shows that in NJ a civil union has age and same-gender requirements, as well as an "only-one-at-a-time" kind of rule). Wikipedia calls it a theoretical legal mechanism, and I think that's really all it is. A secular mechanism for determining legal status of couples. A mechanism for ensuring secular justice.
So far I've dealt with some of the secular issues. For many gay couples, the thing they care about is not so much legal rights as social and ideological acceptance. More on that next.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Homosexuality and Christianity
This post is in response to the article that Dan posted here, which refers to this article. I'll post my thoughts about gay marriage later. Here are my basic thoughts about homosexuality.
People often ask me my views of gay marriage, and I think it's my responsibility to consider the issue and have a well-thought-out answer. As the Christ-following daughter of a lesbian couple who have been together for fourteen years, I am in the unique position of having both firm moral convictions (that I believe are Biblical) and also having a vested interest in the way homosexuals are treated in the church and in the world.
First, I should say that I believe homosexual practice is unequivocally condemned by the Bible. There are scads of verses that support this stance, and if you'd like to hear more about this let me know and we'll discuss it.
Second, I firmly believe that all people, homosexuals included, are unequivocally loved by God with a fierce, passionate, deep, and righteous love. I cannot describe this love: just thinking about it makes my heart ache and sets tears of joy, thanksgiving, and sorrow flowing. It's the kind of love that you can't look at for too long, because it cuts deep and does not leave the beloved one unchanged. I firmly believe that a person who has deep feelings of love for another person of the same sex is beloved by God and should be treated as such by all the world, especially Christians.
I also believe that it is possible for a homosexual to be a redeemed, Christ-following Christian. The feelings of a person's heart toward another person of the same sex is not an insurmountable obstacle through which the grace of God cannot penetrate. Homosexuals can be Christians. But let me qualify that. If homosexuality is a sin, and it is, then a Christ-following homosexual will, at one point or other, be convicted that their lifestyle is outside the 'narrow road' that God would have them walk. Most of the time I'm pretty sure that conviction comes early on in a person's walk with God, because growth in Christ is seriously limited by the sinful patterns in our life. A homosexual who comes to Christ will have to end the active homosexual pattern of behavior in his or her life in order to walk with Christ, just as a person in a heterosexual relationship would have to end the sinful parts of their heterosexual relationship in order to grow in Christ.
I'm not insensitive, though. I'm not saying it's easy. Our culture says and many people firmly believe that their identity, the way that they were created, is to love people of the same gender. I cannot speak to the way people were created, though I believe God is both sovereign and loving as creator AND has forbidden homosexual behavior. I am good friends with people who live in the agony of feeling like they were created wrong, who hate that they cannot have the desires of their hearts fulfilled and also live according to God's revealed will. I understand why some Christ-followers choose to practice homosexuality, though as I said I think this will prevent their growth in Christ and likely facilitate their falling away from him. (Ultimately when it comes to sin there are powers of light and powers of darkness, and if we do not choose to claim the victory over sin by God's grace, the darkness gets a foothold and can reassert authority in our lives. And this goes for any pattern of sin, not just homosexuality) I think the best answer for Christ-following homosexuals is to practice abstinence. It can be excruciatingly difficult in a million ways, but I believe our God is greater than even the deep-seated things of the heart. Where it is His will, there is a way.
Again, let me just express my deepest love for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. This is a really hard topic, and it deserves to be discussed with care and respect. There's nothing I despise more than the ungrace shown by so many Christians toward homosexuals. It breaks my heart.
If you'd like to discuss this further, I'm certainly happy to oblige. Again, I have a vested interest on both sides, and I also have some unique experience dealing with both personal and institutional questions of sexuality, and also with the consequences of sexual sin and brokenness (my own and other people's). So let's talk about it. With love and respect.
Next up, a more direct response to the question of gay marriage.
People often ask me my views of gay marriage, and I think it's my responsibility to consider the issue and have a well-thought-out answer. As the Christ-following daughter of a lesbian couple who have been together for fourteen years, I am in the unique position of having both firm moral convictions (that I believe are Biblical) and also having a vested interest in the way homosexuals are treated in the church and in the world.
First, I should say that I believe homosexual practice is unequivocally condemned by the Bible. There are scads of verses that support this stance, and if you'd like to hear more about this let me know and we'll discuss it.
Second, I firmly believe that all people, homosexuals included, are unequivocally loved by God with a fierce, passionate, deep, and righteous love. I cannot describe this love: just thinking about it makes my heart ache and sets tears of joy, thanksgiving, and sorrow flowing. It's the kind of love that you can't look at for too long, because it cuts deep and does not leave the beloved one unchanged. I firmly believe that a person who has deep feelings of love for another person of the same sex is beloved by God and should be treated as such by all the world, especially Christians.
I also believe that it is possible for a homosexual to be a redeemed, Christ-following Christian. The feelings of a person's heart toward another person of the same sex is not an insurmountable obstacle through which the grace of God cannot penetrate. Homosexuals can be Christians. But let me qualify that. If homosexuality is a sin, and it is, then a Christ-following homosexual will, at one point or other, be convicted that their lifestyle is outside the 'narrow road' that God would have them walk. Most of the time I'm pretty sure that conviction comes early on in a person's walk with God, because growth in Christ is seriously limited by the sinful patterns in our life. A homosexual who comes to Christ will have to end the active homosexual pattern of behavior in his or her life in order to walk with Christ, just as a person in a heterosexual relationship would have to end the sinful parts of their heterosexual relationship in order to grow in Christ.
I'm not insensitive, though. I'm not saying it's easy. Our culture says and many people firmly believe that their identity, the way that they were created, is to love people of the same gender. I cannot speak to the way people were created, though I believe God is both sovereign and loving as creator AND has forbidden homosexual behavior. I am good friends with people who live in the agony of feeling like they were created wrong, who hate that they cannot have the desires of their hearts fulfilled and also live according to God's revealed will. I understand why some Christ-followers choose to practice homosexuality, though as I said I think this will prevent their growth in Christ and likely facilitate their falling away from him. (Ultimately when it comes to sin there are powers of light and powers of darkness, and if we do not choose to claim the victory over sin by God's grace, the darkness gets a foothold and can reassert authority in our lives. And this goes for any pattern of sin, not just homosexuality) I think the best answer for Christ-following homosexuals is to practice abstinence. It can be excruciatingly difficult in a million ways, but I believe our God is greater than even the deep-seated things of the heart. Where it is His will, there is a way.
Again, let me just express my deepest love for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. This is a really hard topic, and it deserves to be discussed with care and respect. There's nothing I despise more than the ungrace shown by so many Christians toward homosexuals. It breaks my heart.
If you'd like to discuss this further, I'm certainly happy to oblige. Again, I have a vested interest on both sides, and I also have some unique experience dealing with both personal and institutional questions of sexuality, and also with the consequences of sexual sin and brokenness (my own and other people's). So let's talk about it. With love and respect.
Next up, a more direct response to the question of gay marriage.
Friday, November 7, 2008
he and i
It's been an amazing few weeks for seeing the beauty and creativity and love of God everywhere. I wanted to share this passage from He and I, a book of prayers of Gabrielle Bossis, a French woman who lived from 1874-1950. The cool thing about this book is that it's a record not so much of Gabrielle's prayers, but of God's responses to her. This excerpt is from October 4, 1948.
Today you will contemplate My beauty. Already this morning you saw that deep flush of color arrowing the eastern horizon, and as you passed under the trees you stopped to admire the long October spider webs festooned from branch to branch and spangled with drops of dew like rows of pearls in open necklaces. Then as the sun rose, the crickets that had been vocal all night long in your cherry tree suddenly ceased their singing; the Loire mirrored one hue after another in a rich medley of unearthly colors. And the herons passed over, streaking the violet sky.
If you have eyes to see, every hour of the day holds its splendor. It comes from Me, from a fragment of Me. For you, of course -- so that you may learn the lure of praise, the joy of adoration, the love of Love. And I vary my spectacles every morning to rejuvenate your hearts.
Have you anyone else so ingenious in his ways of pleasing you? You have someone to carve the clouds into the shapes you love, haven't you? And an engineer to swell the tide so that the water reaches the wall of your terrace? What tradesman placed the birds in your trees and so many butterflies around your flowers? And this morning, was it a dealter in tulle who unfolded that chiffon scarf of mist right across your island, turning it into to storeys?
Whose hand plucks the yellow leaves of your linden trees with such grace while your strawberry plants offer you their long rest for the fruit of future years?
Open your eyes wide and look at Love. It is He who is passing by.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
All-Night Vigil
I'm a big fan of liturgy. I love the repetition, the speaking of truth day after day in the same way. The way the words get into your mind and heart, until they're as familiar as breathing. No matter what your circumstances, you can join a congregation with the same liturgy and fit right in. No matter where your heart is, you can speak and sing the old, old words and be brought back to the center, the source, the Savior.
While each of the traditional services charms me in its own way, I'm particularly captivated by vespers. It's the evening service, marking the close of the day. It's an opportunity to give thanks for what the day has held, and prepare for the night ahead. (Another reason I love liturgy--it is refreshingly in-the-moment. Each day, each hour, asking for the blessing and faithfulness that that day, that hour, requires.) Dusk is always an enchanting time, a beautiful and somber time, and I love marking that with beautiful, thankful, somber prayer and worship.
Eastern Orthodoxy is really cool because it still has so many features of high church. Worship involves all the senses... seeing the pervasive, iconic art and rich vestments of the clergy, hearing the music and liturgy, smelling and breathing the incense, touching the icons, tasting the sacrament. I've never experienced the full-fledged service, but someday I will. And while the charismatic and Wesleyan sides of me will rebel against the strictures, the Catholic and Jewish sides of me will revel.
Saturday night I went to a performance of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers," part of which I sang a few years ago with the Houghton College Choir. While technically a setting of the Orthodox all-night vigil rather than the orthodox vespers texts, it makes for a captivating service. Here are a few sections of the Vespers, my favorite parts. The last one is the best.
"Amen.
COME, LET US WORSHIP God, our King.
Come let us worship and fall down before Christ,
our King and our God.
Come, let us worship and fall down before the very Christ,
our King and our God.
Come, let us worship and fall down before him."
"BLESS THE LORD, O MY SOUL, blessed art thou, O Lord.
O Lord my God, thou art very great.
Thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Blessed art thou, O Lord.
The waters stand upon the mountains.
Marvellous are thy works, O Lord.
In wisdom hast thou made all things.
Glory to thee, O Lord, who hast created all."
"REJOICE O VIRGIN Theotokos, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou has borne the Saviour of our souls."
While each of the traditional services charms me in its own way, I'm particularly captivated by vespers. It's the evening service, marking the close of the day. It's an opportunity to give thanks for what the day has held, and prepare for the night ahead. (Another reason I love liturgy--it is refreshingly in-the-moment. Each day, each hour, asking for the blessing and faithfulness that that day, that hour, requires.) Dusk is always an enchanting time, a beautiful and somber time, and I love marking that with beautiful, thankful, somber prayer and worship.
Eastern Orthodoxy is really cool because it still has so many features of high church. Worship involves all the senses... seeing the pervasive, iconic art and rich vestments of the clergy, hearing the music and liturgy, smelling and breathing the incense, touching the icons, tasting the sacrament. I've never experienced the full-fledged service, but someday I will. And while the charismatic and Wesleyan sides of me will rebel against the strictures, the Catholic and Jewish sides of me will revel.
Saturday night I went to a performance of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers," part of which I sang a few years ago with the Houghton College Choir. While technically a setting of the Orthodox all-night vigil rather than the orthodox vespers texts, it makes for a captivating service. Here are a few sections of the Vespers, my favorite parts. The last one is the best.
"Amen.
COME, LET US WORSHIP God, our King.
Come let us worship and fall down before Christ,
our King and our God.
Come, let us worship and fall down before the very Christ,
our King and our God.
Come, let us worship and fall down before him."
"BLESS THE LORD, O MY SOUL, blessed art thou, O Lord.
O Lord my God, thou art very great.
Thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Blessed art thou, O Lord.
The waters stand upon the mountains.
Marvellous are thy works, O Lord.
In wisdom hast thou made all things.
Glory to thee, O Lord, who hast created all."
"REJOICE O VIRGIN Theotokos, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou has borne the Saviour of our souls."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)