The Hippopotamus

It is well known that the word hippopotamus comes from the Latin and means 'river horse'. It is unsurprising that, when faced with this creature, people likened it to a horse that lives in a river. Such a comparison surely stretches the imagination, but it was the best that people could come up with at the time. The advent of DNA sequencing has revealed a number of previously unknown relationships and has clarified the tree of evolution. The hippopotamus is related to other creatures and those creatures are not horses but whales. At some point in the evolutionary journey, a creature gave rise to two different branches of its tree. One branch moved into the water and became whales. The other branch grew legs and became land-living and those creatures were the hippos.

Another modern day discovery is that dinosaurs and birds share a common ancestor. That discovery changes our perceptions. It gives us new insight into both dinosaurs and birds. The two types of creature no longer fit neatly into two unrelated boxes. They share a commonality. They belong together.

In terms of human race, a study of genetics reveals that we are all within about 0.1% of each other in genetic makeup. We have such a history of racial antagonism against anyone who seems different, whereas the truth is that we a share a common genetic base, which is that we are all human. The fact that we only vary about 3.5% from the African great apes adds another perception as to our unity with the rest of the created order.

When we consider human sexuality, I wonder whether we build constructs of perception as to who is 'us' and who is 'them' when in fact we are all one. Apart from a tiny minority, who might be described as asexual, to be human is to be sexual. Why do we, who are heterosexual, speak of lesbian and gay people as having a different kind of sexuality? Can there be a perception of human sexuality that finds a common denominator, so that human sexuality fits into one box, regardless of orientation? I believe that the-quest-for-intimacy lies behind human sexuality and that that is the common factor (the box) which encompasses the whole experience of what it means to be human. Intimacy brings with it vulnerability, which means that the risk of intimacy brings us to a place in which some will find deep healing and fulfilment, whilst for others it will have been a place of traumatic wounding.  Regardless of orientation, our sexuality can be a place of brokenness and pain. If that has resulted from others exercising power over us in an abusive way that has wounded us at the deepest level of our being, then it might be the case that we live out our subsequent lives is a way that is driven to overpower others and abuse them. Yet, if we can grow beyond the wounding of growing to maturity, we may find a delight and joy in another which brings the deepest of joys. The commonality of human experience, regardless of our sexual orientation, lies in the desire for an intimacy that can be both creative and life-giving.

There are yet more aspects of human living that we so readily place in different boxes, whereas they ought to be in the same box. Take ‘love’ for example. Eros, agape and philia are three words for ‘love’ which each has a different and distinct meaning. Eros might be deemed to be sexual love, whist the others are not. The problem is that we end up with a dualism that separate sexuality from love, so that what concerns our relationship with God ceases to have any sexual content, whereas (as has so often happened), sexuality is split off into a box marked ‘the world, the flesh and the devil’. Yet, if we can see the different pictures of love, that are expressed in the different words for love, as belonging in the same box and so sharing a commonality, then something of our human sexuality is taken up into our relationship with God. He loves us in our entirety and seeks to redeem the totality of our being. 

In Praise of Celibacy

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." Perhaps that sentence might be appropriate for the Alice in Wonderland world of the Church of England, in which words can take on a particular significance as banner-words for one group, whilst the next group is either untouched by them or else uses the words in a very different way. No more is this the case than in the vexed discussion over human sexuality. In fact the use of words so varies in meaning that, much of the time, no discussion really takes place at all. I think, for example, of a speech in General Synod, in which the speaker said that amongst his penitents he regularly heard the confessions of some twenty priests, all of whom were in same-sex relationships and all of whom lived in chastity. His words made the point that there is a number of gay clergy in relationships, but his words must have brought a degree of comfort to more conservative members of Synod, who would have heard him say that nothing ‘naughty’ was going on. Yet my definition of chastity is one I picked up from Jack Dominian, that noted Roman Catholic writer on human relationships and sexuality. In this definition of chastity, its meaning is to do with sexually integrity. All Christians are called to live in a state of chastity. Such chastity is to do with the quality of our relationships, whether they are creative, life-sustaining and person-making. So what I heard that speaker say was that all twenty of his penitents was living in a good sexual relationship, which was a blessing to them. How that sexuality was expressed could not be deduced from what the speaker said, but why would we want to know how two people express their love for each other in the privacy of their own home?

A different word, which for me has some very different meanings, is celibacy. What I mean by the world is a world apart from what many seem to mean in the heated discussion of our time. I want to write in praise of celibacy, for celibacy is a Christian vocation which has long been part of our tradition. I am not celibate, but my understanding of this word has come through the comments of two people. The first was an English priest, working in America, who perhaps said more than he ought to have done in talking of his work as confessor to a convent of nuns. He had met one or two celibates among the nuns, who had been such glorious people that it made celibacy something to be admired. However, most of those in the convent were not celibates, but women hiding from their sexuality. How I interpret this perspective, again assisted by the writings of Jack Dominian, is that celibacy is both a gift and a vocation. Far from a denial of sexuality, it is about a wholeness of sexuality in which the person concerned is released from the commitment of intimacy with one person and is therefore open to non-physical relationships with many people. Few people in the convent, in the view of this confessor, actually lived such vibrant, integrated and fulfilled lives.

The other comment was a speech, again in General Synod, in which the speaker (a nun) said that celibacy is a glorious vocation, but that forced celibacy withers the heart. There is here a sharp contrast between a glorious vocation, which is what I want to praise, and the business of heart-withering that is being so rigorously pursued by the Church of England at this time. Enforced celibacy is not celibacy at all, but a power-game in which any expression of sexuality which does not fit in with our idea of the 'norm' is suppressed. We ought to support those called to a single life, but what on earth are we doing engaging in enforced celibacy? What kind of priesthood do we expect people to exercise if, as part of the process of ordination, we seek to wither their hearts?

All I seek to do in this posting is to share what the word celibacy means to me. It is possible to say that two people are in a partnered-relationship and are celibate, as for example in a sham marriage, perhaps to qualify for citizenship. But I have no idea what it means to say that someone is partnered, yet also celibate. If you are in an emotional and committed relationship with someone else, you are not celebrate. Celibacy is about the whole person, not just what you do with your reproductive organs. And human sexuality needs to be seen in terms of the very core of what it means to be a human being, not just an impoverished view that reduces our being down to a single sexual act.

Perhaps we need to be more ready to celebrate giftedness and less strident in both condemning others and seeking to control their lives. Celibacy should be celebrated as both gift and vocation, without using it as a tool of power to suppress the joy of others. A holistic view of sexuality will lead us to celebrate with those whose lives are already blessed by God in their mutual self-giving. And what God has blessed, who are we to condemn?