Read: Tender Fires - Fran Ferder and John Heagle

ok, I know it's another book post this week. but this is the last sexual/spiritual book I packed for the summer so I won't be posting another book reaction until August. and I have thoughts on other subjects but I haven't figured out how to flesh them out yet. not that I'll ever really think things through before posting them. I'm pretty sure that's Elyse's style, not mine.

Anyway. Elyse, I will loan you this book. It's worth reading. I was a bit nervous because I read a different book by these two authors and while it wasn't bad, it just wasn't what I was looking for. This book is more what I want in a spirituality/sexuality book. so that's a good thing. The authors have a couple of points where they're a bit too product-of-the-sexual-revolutiony, but they do say some nice things.

a negative: I hate the typeface. Seriously. if I had found this book in a physical bookstore instead of online, I would not have bought it because of the choices of fonts. it's a typeface I associate with weak new-agey style spiritual writings. I found it desperately distracting. but I should write something substantive, no? an actual thought I had while reading?

They talk a bit about singledom, of obvious interest to me at this point in my life. They discuss it within the context of relationship diversity, meaning the different types of relationships people have. there are different types of singledom, never married, divorced, widowed, in a relationship, living alone, living in community, consecrated, unconsecrated, whatever. this I think is an important thing to think about, because I do definitely believe that all these states of being are equally valid. and all the states of being in relationship I didn't name, of course.

They do say this:
"In some instances, people are alone, not because they want to be, but because
they haven't found someone to love."
How depressing is that?! I read this and thought "ooooh that is sooooo not me." I have many people that I love. I have many people who love me. so then I was thinking, am I alone? I'm single. I'm not involved with anyone at the moment really. I don't live in community anymore. But alone to me implies loneliness, and that I am not. reference the many people loving me. but now I am sad because I'm thinking of all those people who are alone because they have no one to love and presumably no one to love them. Makes me want to do some volunteer work or something.

They also speak of sexual diversity as being more than just orientation, which I think is also good. Elyse and I came up with this theory that because of the way that spirituality and sexuality are a part of each other, people with different spiritualities have necessarily different sexualities. This is something I will write more about later, but Ferder and Heagle don't disagree, I think. but for now, por ejemplo, the way that I understand and express my sexuality is developed from my spirituality, my relationship with and understanding of God. so if I had a different spiritual life, my sexuality would be different, even though my orientation wouldn't change perhaps. so, acknowledgement that sexual diversity is more than just sexual orientation, good. even though they're not coming at it from the same angle as I am. same ending point.

Read: Truly Our Sister - Elizabeth Johnson

I've decided that when I read books related to this blog it's not really book "reviews" that I'm writing. more book "reactions." book review implies a different sort of thing than what comes out of my head when I read a book. ok. here we go.

This book. I tried to think of a word to describe it and came up short. I'd say dense, but it's not difficult to read. Just full of a lot of information. She covers Mary, historically, culturally, theologically. I think the book came at an appropriate time in my life, obviously I'm in Mexico and there's a fierce devotion to our lady. I spend my time wondering what IS devotion to Mary. What does it mean? Where does it come from, and how does this devotion relate to my personal readings/studies/experiences of her? so how opportune that one of the books I packed for the summer was about Mary. Unplanned.

I have many thoughts. I won't blog them all. In a book with this much information, I'd be a poor student if I didn't have many thoughts. I'll keep it shortish.

Often in our Church we see Mary as the ideal Christian woman. But what does that mean? Everyone seems to read her a different way. I've never seen her as particularly meek, nor passively obedient the way that she is sometimes portrayed. There's nothing passive about childbirth. And this girl had to know that. It's not like she was raised only by men, no concept of what bearing a child is like. If she was old enough to get married she probably had friends, some of whom were already married and maybe had kids of their own. Take it from me. You don't have to be married to know what goes on during labor and pregnancy. Female friends are chatty about this stuff. And it is definitely not passive. Mary had to know. Pregnancy and childbirth isn't something that's done to you, nor could it have been for her. Seriously, science has shown that when women who are pregnant don't engage with the child, don't nest, don't get that sense of connection with the kid, then there are repercussions in the child, they don't comfort as well etc. So Mary wasn't hopping along with her pregnancy something God had done to her. It was something she had to take part in. She was a participant. So I see Mary at this point, saying yes to God, as an informed intelligent woman. While she may not have fully understood, because who among us could fully understand, she knew what she was getting herself into, she knew the power of her situation, the potential for disaster, the pain and discomfort, and she had trust in God. God's not putting one over on her.

So, Christian women! Educate yourselves! Trust God! Say yes out of a loving heart!

verbage

Lately I've been thinking a lot about love. ok that's not anything new. but my thoughts of late are fairly specifically focusing on love as an action.

I think this comes from the idea of love as a choice, a concept that's thrown around a lot but not always fleshed out. Everyone knows that love is more than just a feeling, right? Because people who are married for a long time don't necessarily feel love the way they used to feel love. You have to choose to love the person to whom you are committed. What does it mean to choose to love? It means action. You continue to give of yourself to the other person. You continue to put aside your individualism for the better of your community.

For me, love is sacrifice. If I love someone, then I am willing to sacrifice for them. I put their needs first. I buy them things they need/want, I spend time with just them, I help them with whatever they need. What is important is how I love. I ask myself in all my relationships, how can I best love this person right now? Let me tell you, if I truly think of the needs of the other person, how I should be loving them is not always how I want to be loving them.

so it comes down to this. I see love as a verb, not a noun. God loves us with an active love. God is love, and God is creator, redeemer, etc, none of which are passive. How God loves us reveals God's true nature to us. We know God through God's loving acts. Por ejemplo the Eucharist. A loving sacrifice. A total action, every mass God comes down and bam transubstantiation. So if God's love is active, how could our love be inactive? This perhaps goes into the whole "they'll know we are Christians by our love" thing. If we just sit around feeling love for people, is that truly love? I think not. The love that does not act is an empty love.

I don't have love. I do love. I love.