PeaceBang
The manic mind of the minister -- Auntie Mame Meets Cotton Mather. Blogging about Unitarian Universalism, UU Christian spiritual practice, occasional cultural and political ravings, and the inner life of ministry. PeaceBang is the alter ego of a small town pastor serving an historic New England Unitarian Universalist congregation.
Sexuality and the Minister
December 3, 2007 on 12:28 am | In Mind of the Minister, Theological Reflection |Thanks for all your understanding comments on my Friday night post.
I’m still thinking about single clergy girl life and how much different it feels than being a regular single working girl, when I had more freedom to make mistakes with men, to have a drink in the local bar without worrying whether someone might see me, to flirt in town, and to assume that it’s acceptable to be a sexual human being.
That latter point is just horrible. What’s strange is that it’s not my congregation that expects me to be a buttoned-up, sexless being but the larger society that seems to demand it.
Today in church I used a reading by Rumi about God being fire and water — a poetic, mystical thing followed by a prayer. As part of my prayer I said, “We are not here to make sense. We are here to make love.”
And I felt fine doing it because my church isn’t the kind of place where people would snort and elbow each other in the ribs, like, “The minister said ‘make love!’”
It’s the rest of the society that behaves that way, actually. And I am so over it.
When I think of the wellness and wholeness of my family, my friends, my congregation and myself, a healthy expression of sexual intimacy is right there on the list. In the spirit of my Uncle Dick who once told me that he wished a good sex life for all his children, nieces and nephews, I am sad when I see people untouched and unloved, and I rejoice when I hear about people making good love.
It’s a shame the Church is so silent on this aspect of human relationships and that we’re only called to speak about dysfunctional, unethical or taboo aspects of sexuality. We preside over weddings and baby blessings — both of which involve sex — and say nothing about the matter at either rite of passage. When pastoring around separation, illness and death, who among us has ever acknowledged the fact that a bereaved partner has often lost their lover as well as their helpmate, and honored with words or prayers that particularly physical loss that no words of consolation can adequately address?
Sometimes when I look over the congregation of a Sunday morning I want to say, “How’s your love life, everyone? How you guys all doing? Everyone okay? To the couples: are you loving on each other like you should be? to the singles: you getting by alright? Got a dog or a cat to cuddle with?”
Maybe because it’s Advent and I’m thinking about the Incarnation, about God’s insistent desire to be born among us in human form, about the earthy blessing of all of it, that I especially grieve lately the cheapening of relationships, the addiction to pornography and objectification of the human body, the cruel ways those seeking romantic partners coldly assess, use or reject potential lovers, the widespread kissing deficit in this over-busy, having-getting-and-spending society.
For heaven’s sake, go find some mistletoe and plant one on your honey! Tell them PeaceBang sent you.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
The Mistletoe, hung where you can see.
Somebody waits for you
Kiss Them Once For Me.
Comment by Michael — December 3, 2007 #
AS an old mother, an old AYS teacher, an old RE director and a woman, I applaud and second your comments. Healthy, loving, life-enhancing sexuality is such a GIFT to humans as a way to express love. I think it is a sign of God’s genius that humans have such a capacity for physical pleasure that enhances emotional and spiritual love as well. How in the world did our American culture cheapen sex so much??
Robin
Comment by Robin Tartaglia — December 3, 2007 #
Amen, and thanks for saying it.
Comment by Mrs. M — December 3, 2007 #
Ministers and Sexuality have taken a bad hit since I was a single minister (in the south, no less). I think it’s worse now, not because of general prudishness but because of the misconduct of our colleagues in ministry (all denominations). [AMEN, sister- PB]
Still, instead of thinking that we have to keep it all wrapped up, I think our job as ministers is to set good boundaries and then be very assertive about going to the edge with them.
So what the heck is wrong with a single minister being seen talking to someone in a bar? Or even being seen enjoying a lone drink in a bar? It’s the third drink you don’t want to be seen with, not the first. Nor is it a sin to be dating, the problem is with dating a very vulnerable person or getting into the one-night stand scene (whatever it is being called now.)
I’m glad your congregation doesn’t titter over the idea of sex. And I do remember the loneliness of the single minister. I’m sorry it’s harder these days.
Comment by Christine Robinson — December 3, 2007 #
I lived for 12 years in a rural community in the Northeast as a single female pastor. The first few years I had a boyfriend back home in the Midwest. After a very bad breakup, I just sat things out for a while. When I started circulating my dossier, looking to move back to the midwest, I met somebody in the Northeast!
He’s been lovely, but I hesitated to introduce him to members of my congregation, not just because of the sex and the single clergy thing, but also because he is of a different race. I was more worried about someone saying something stupid to him than anything else.
Now I’ve got a new call in the Midwest, he’s back in the Northeast. I’m going to see him in January, he wants to come and see me this summer. So here’s a question, how does a single clergy girl in her forties have her boyfriend visit her?
[Good for you! As to your latter question, um, puts out clean towels, stocks the fridge with lots of good food, and plumps up the pillow on his side of the bed? No one needs to know whether or not he’s staying in the guest room or in your bed, or what the status is. I should think that “My friend Joe is staying with me for the next few weeks” would be sufficient, and if anyone asks for details — which they might ’cause they’re HAPPY FOR YOU! — you can smile and say, “He’s a good friend and if anything great comes of it you’ll be the first to know.” That way no one can complain about your Jezebelish habits if they’re so inclined, it’s discreet, and really, I don’t think it’s a good idea to introduce bfs to the congregation unless we’re engaged or extremely serious. Why should my congregation go through every stupid heartache with me, and see what lousy choices I make in dating!? Only my staff and maybe one or two other folks in the church ever know if I’m seeing someone. - PB]
Comment by revtoots — December 3, 2007 #
Of course it’s different for guys than it is for girls. And even more different for we natural introverts than for gregarious extraverts like yourself. But mostly it’s this issue of the expectations of larger society that has captured my attention.
I certainly didn’t sign up for a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience. But simplicity, integrity, humility…it’s a little harder to escape those stereotypes, mostly because they really do represent the kind of lifestyle I aspire to myself, and which I routinely preach to anyone who will listen.
And of course, integrity is the keystone. Because most folks will understand if you toot your own horn from time to time, or indulge yourself with a new car instead of pouring another few thousand into the old one to keep it on the road for another winter…provided it isn’t TOO over the top. But poor boundaries, or a lack of authenticity at the center of one’s soul…that’s much more dangerous territory.
Yet a boundary is not just the place where you leave off and I begin. It’s also the place where we meet and touch, and exchange honestly with one another while remaining true to who we are. And as clergy we are called to model this as well. Which at times, I suspect, even includes making honest mistakes.
At the end of the day, we can’t ever truly control other people’s stereotypes or expectations of our profession. All we can do is be true to who we are, be true to our understanding of our vocation, and try to embody…simply, and with humble integrity…the healthy and spiritually-aware lifestyle we aspire to as spiritual leaders of a liberal faith community. We all know about doing unto others as we would have others do unto us. But how about treating ourselves with the same generosity, understanding, and forgiveness we routinely extend to others who come to us seeking help?
I echo Christine’s comment about the third drink BTW. Of course, you still haven’t mentioned the OTHER problem about being a single minister — sometimes it seems like everyone in the church wants to “fix me up!”
Comment by The Eclectic Cleric — December 3, 2007 #
And here’s a postscript. Amidst the normal, natural curiosity about the minister’s social life, came a hypothetical question one morning at the office. Which do you think the church would consider more scandalous: if I partnered up with another man, or with a woman half my age? Something to think about as we struggle with these issues of expectations and stereotypes. [It’s a no-brainer, dude. Being gay doesn’t strike most adult women as a statement of creepy, sexist immaturity the way a middle-aged guy dating a 20-year old does. The church has a commitment to standing against prejudice. It does not have a commitment to indulging what looks to many of us like sad lechery. That you would even equate the two is troubling to me. - PB]
Comment by The Eclectic Cleric — December 3, 2007 #
Ah, the minister dating in a small town. I recall necking on a park bench in town on one of my first dates with my now husband. I was sure half the church was going to walk by, but they didn’t. When I told this to one of our senior colleagues, he said, They wouldn’t have seen you. It’s like when people see me at the swimming pool. They walk right by me because I’m out of context.
I ‘amen’ your advice about not introducing the BFs too soon. I found it hard not to invite them to services, for some reason I have a hard time understanding now. I was cured when I discovered a few months in that one of them read child pornography; I hated having brought him anywhere NEAR our babies.
Comment by Rev. Gidget — December 3, 2007 #
What a great point about the grieving one left behind. When my father died very suddenly, my mother alluded to that component, (in a decent way that would not make you say , “no, not you Mom - you never had sex!)
But to not have physical intimacy when you are accustomed to it must be very difficult.
Very thoughtful post.
Comment by Patrick — December 4, 2007 #
Peacebang, thanks for the kind words! And you are right, the few folks who knew back in my old call were just that, happy for me.
Gidget, your story reminded my of the small town where I had my first call. My tall, good looking brother came for a visit and everybody in town got quite excited about him walking around town with me! They were actually disappointed when they found out who he was.
Comment by revtoots — December 4, 2007 #
Our minister and congregation’s been in this situation.
She came to us single. We on the search committee were clear that we didn’t care–but we did care, for her sake, that she have a social life. Which was, of course, at the same time, none of our business.
The congregation just puddled along.
Eventually, my wife and I both being fairly close to her, things were said that made it clear that she did finally have a social life–in part it was just seeing that she wasn’t always (obsessively) available for every event or meeting if we needed her. And eventually he moved here, and moved in with her.
And no one’s batted an eyelash. People have been wonderful, so far as I can tell.
In perspective, I’d say that she may have delayed a bit in letting people know she was seriously seeing someone, because when he moved here and in… it all came out at once, which did sort of get a few blinks, simply because it was all that change at once. But I can see just how tough a set of decisions that would be. Perfect’s not necessary, and this went off just fine.
And yes, the text and subtext were simply that everyone was happy for her because she was/is happy.
Comment by Patrick McLaughlin — December 5, 2007 #
“I think it is a sign of God’s genius that humans have such a capacity for physical pleasure that enhances emotional and spiritual love as well. How in the world did our American culture cheapen sex so much??”
[applause] You and PB both have hit the nail on the head.
I always liked how on the “Vicar of Dibley” the vicar in question was fairly open about having sexual, intimate, romantic needs.
“So here’s a question, how does a single clergy girl in her forties have her boyfriend visit her?”
Just like you would if you weren’t a clergy girl; somebody has to break down the walls-and the world needs as many examples of love as possible.
Comment by NDM — December 7, 2007 #