more on Real Sex
I read this critical review of Real Sex today. The writer takes issue with Winner's blanket statements about extramarital sex as always distorted, bad or hurtful. She says the tradition " lies every time it denies that sex outside of marriage can be very beautiful and “real,” and, by the same token, that sex inside marriage can be very abusive and distorted."
I think the author had some interesting ideas about questioning the church's traditional distinctions about sex. It still seems that no one is addressing the things we had really hoped to find in Lauren Winner's book: how does one affirm embodied personhood and sexuality when you do not have a relationship to express it in? It seems the monastic tradition might have some answers for us, as we discussed at thorubos. Maybe it's the book we can write.
I think the author had some interesting ideas about questioning the church's traditional distinctions about sex. It still seems that no one is addressing the things we had really hoped to find in Lauren Winner's book: how does one affirm embodied personhood and sexuality when you do not have a relationship to express it in? It seems the monastic tradition might have some answers for us, as we discussed at thorubos. Maybe it's the book we can write.
posted by bethany at 7:44 AM
2 Comments:
Wow. I just read the review and am glad someone said it better than me.
When I read the book, I was frustrated with Winner's avoidance of what I thought she was going to offer all along: a compelling, consistent account of how to be single and sexual and a Christian.
I think you're right, Bethany - I'm going to start research on our book right now.
I'm afraid I'm more sympathetic to Winner on this one.
I felt the review came across as a self-righteous, shrill, and essentially representative of all that is wrong with the therapuetic culture and with liberal theology. It essentially posits human experience rather than God's revelation in scripture as the norm ("Paul, however, didn’t have a degree in couples counseling"). From that basis it moves to the claim that 2000 years of church tradition is wrong because the author knows of people who are unmarried and who have sexual relationships she considers to be beautiful, or because she knows unmarried people who struggle with their sexuality and its just mean to lay down a single hard and fast rule about sex for these people. Unless one accepts the authority of human reason over the authority of scripture, this argument is simply uncompelling. At it's core, it seems to me like just the same old modern belief that it's mean to tell people they can't do something.
She also directly engages in an ad hominem by uncharitably suggesting that Winner has only taken her position out of sheer oportunism. How could she possibly know this? It comes across as suggesting that anyone who doesn't share her perspective on sexuality must be driven by some less than honorable motive.
In the end, for Christians, it seems to me the answer to the question about sexual morality has to be set against the backdrop of a biblical view of what it means to be human, what the purpose of sex is, and what the telos of human life is. I think the more specific question that needs to be asked is "Will this really help us to be conformed to the character of Christ?" The answer to that question may involve some serious struggle, discomfort, and self-denial from us.
Post a Comment
<< Home