{"id":4299,"date":"2015-03-06T17:30:51","date_gmt":"2015-03-06T17:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=4299"},"modified":"2015-03-06T18:07:46","modified_gmt":"2015-03-06T18:07:46","slug":"reflective-thinking-and-deliberative-theolog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/reflective-thinking-and-deliberative-theolog\/","title":{"rendered":"Reflective Thinking and Deliberative Theolog"},"content":{"rendered":"

I struggled to work my way through Adrian Thatcher\u2019s book, God, Sex, and Gender: An Introduction<\/em>. I am sure the cover of the book is some magnificent<\/em> piece of artwork, although I could not find any credits in my copy; it was not a book I wanted to leave visible either on the computer screen or on the desktop in my study. I am sure those who have written rave reviews for Thatcher\u2019s book have a name for me; happily, I don\u2019t know what it is. The fact is I, as do all Christians and especially those in pastoral, teaching, and counseling ministries, need a biblical theology of sexuality; an understanding that is grounded in careful and thoughtful reflection. I don\u2019t like stereotyped labels; if I were given one, however, it would probably be a conservative evangelical. Thatcher, who undoubtedly also would disparage labeling, would be considered a liberal evangelical; he is clear in stating his perspective when he indicates \u201chis sympathies generally lie with progressive or revisionist themes, as long as these are deeply rooted in traditional theological sources and doctrines.\u201d[1]<\/a> The perspective of author and reader are significant, especially in theological understanding through scriptural interpretation in social settings.<\/p>\n

Thatcher addresses the complex and controversial religion and social issues that surround sex and sexuality despite the fact it is often difficult to do so. It is easy to ignore or gloss over one\u2019s position in this area of theological belief. The average Christian believer in many of our congregations today tend to accept what has been received, that is handed down by family and though \u201cSunday School style\u201d teaching without much question or reflection. It is what Howard Stone and James Duke refer to as \u201cembedded\u201d belief as juxtaposed to \u201cdeliberative\u201d belief. Embedded belief simply coasts along without thought to the underpinnings of belief that give substance and meaning to theological belief and practice. Stone and Duke define the difference between embedded and deliberative theology:<\/p>\n

Embedded theology is the understanding(s) of faith disseminated by the church and assimilated by its members in their daily lives. Deliberative theology is a process of reflecting on multiple understandings of faith implicit in the life and witness of Christians in order to identify and\/or develop the most adequate understanding possible.[2]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In Who Needs Theology: An Invitation to the Study of God<\/em>, Stanly Grenz and Roger Olson present a similar concept which they refer to as the \u201cspectrum of reflection.\u201d[3]<\/a> They note the \u201cvarious levels of theology-some less and some more reflective in their approaches to understanding Christian faith.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Microsoft<\/a><\/p>\n

The implications of the spectrum of reflection and embedded verses deliberative theology are obvious. This concept is important, at least to me, as I consider the complexity of sex and sexuality in a contemporary cultural context. I cannot afford to not think\/reflect through the questions presented by Thatcher.<\/p>\n

I want to state a couple problems, a couple good points, an application, and an example from God, Sex and Gender<\/em>. Thatcher, as I noted, clearly states his presuppositions from his perspectives and this is helpful. My take on his style of writing, the genre is apologetic (defensive); I draw this conclusion because a sense an arrogant and condescending attitude. For an example, he uses the word \u201cexhilaration\u201d as his purpose in expressing a theology \u201cabout sex, sexuality, sexual relations, and gender roles.\u201d[4]<\/a> Learning, discovery, and expanding one\u2019s knowledge in any area that affects life styles and living standards is potentially good and can expand the possibilities in one\u2019s life. In my opinion, in a theological<\/em> discussion on sex and sexuality, \u201cexhilarating\u201d is a little over the top. As further example, the questions Thatcher asks throughout the book are thought provoking, however, his comment to the questions, again in my opinion, are narrow, restrictive, and condescending to one who might be is disagreement or see a different answer. \u00a0In posing the question, \u201cIs one sex enough?\u201d (Meaning can we use \u201cman\u201d to be inclusive of male and female), he suggests we look at hymns that are sexist, such as \u201cGood Christian Men Rejoice.\u201d He notes, in referencing this hymn that celebrates the birth of the Christ Child, \u201cIf there are two sexes, then it is clearly sexist to privilege one over the other.\u201d[5]<\/a> To his credit, he acknowledges that the authors did not intend to be sexist; they were \u201cjust perpetuating the unexamined assumptions that there was one sex \u2013 man \u2013 and that women were included in this sex as silent, imperfect, and inferior members.\u201d[6]<\/a> (See note below[7]<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Reading Thatcher has created a desire (not an exhilaration) to pursue a theology of sexuality that I and the congregation I serve might be contextually and culturally relevant. I have review several books and downloaded a number of peer-review articles to broaden my understanding and expand the possibility of incarnating the Word in my context and community. Matthew Lee Anderson in an article \u201cGod Has a Wonderful Plan for Your Body\u201d highlights the significance of discussions on sex and sexuality within a diverse community. He notes:<\/p>\n

The benefit of such controversies is that they force evangelicals to seriously evaluate and articulate the proper place of the physical body within both our spiritual practices and our theology. Dissatisfaction increasingly ripples forth from within the evangelical movement, suggesting that this discussion is long overdue.[8]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Two things I appreciate in God, Sex, and Gender<\/em>, Thatcher does not shy from any topic that relates to the subject even to the smallest issue that might seem totally un-germane to a theology of sex and sexuality. He includes definitions that make it possible for those (me) who have never been reflective enough to consider the issues, engage the topics, or even encountered the sex\/sexual terminology that he introduces. This does broaden the discussion.<\/p>\n

I want to note the brashness with which Thatcher addresses some topics is difficult. There are hundreds of examples. He asks questions like, \u201cIs the body of Christ \u2018Queer\u2019\u201d and immediately dramatizes the question with \u201cThis idea is of course shocking, even potentially blasphemous.\u201d[9]<\/a> In the context of this type of confrontation I see Thatcher\u2019s \u201ctheological exhilaration.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chapter eight was the most difficult for me. Here, Thatcher has a discussion of \u201cHaving Sex with Christ?\u201d He supports his assertion on his interpretation (poor exegesis) of Gal. 3:28. He answers his questions thus:<\/p>\n

Members of the body of Christ are thought to have an intimate relationship with Him. Some of them also have a very intimate relationship with each other. It is not often understood that, according to Paul, when members of Christ’s body have sex with their partners, Christ has sex with them as well![10]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He makes the interpretation that \u201cBeing a member of the body of Christ directly affects with whom we have sex, and gives us reasons why.\u201d[11]<\/a> From this statement he is able to declare the \u201cBody of Christ\u201d (the church) as androgynous, having sex and being joined by Christ, in however he envisions this sexual act taking place. Thatcher, later in the book, does acknowledge that Gal. 3:28 is \u201cis rather about the unity of believers in Christ\u201d but it seems he only does so to indicate that \u201cPaul’s reference to \u201cneither \u2026 male nor female\u201d is a conscious reversal of Genesis 1: 27.\u201d Again this exegesis is contrary to any reading of the passage in context.<\/p>\n

Gal. 3:28 is clearly about unity, equality, and ones in the Body of Christ. It does have both spiritual and physical implications or religious and social. The real question is \u201cWho are the true sons and daughters of Abraham?\u201d[12]<\/a> And Paul indicates it is those who are united (signifying unity and equality) in Christ. Schreiner and Arnold note the possibility of miss representing the text when the spiritual and social concepts are isolated ant taken out of context. They note: \u201cwe must beware lest Paul\u2019s statement in 3:28 becomes untethered from the rest of what he wrote, so that it is wrested from its context and becomes the pretext for modern social agendas.\u201d[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

It is on the back burner for a while, but I will be back to Thatcher and seek a deliberative theology of sex and sexuality.<\/p>\n

I have to say that I barely touched on Marin’s book this week. One book that has helped me a great deal in understanding love in different contexts and through diverse expressions is Dan Kimbels book, They Like Jesus but not the Church<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0Just as Jesus loved and care, so also, by hearing the hear and listening in love, I can go into the community truly as imparting the same love that I received in my brokenness and separation.<\/p>\n

An Appendix: (sort of)<\/strong><\/p>\n

I am far out of writing room, but I want to acknowledge what I discovered\u00a0as a great application of social unity and equality through wholesome and healthy concepts of sexuality. Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook has established an onsite opportunity, Lean In<\/em>\u00a0to enhance gender relationships in all areas of life. She notes three significant ways marital, family and workplace relationships can be significantly better.<\/p>\n