Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion of Walker Percy

["Karey L. Perkins" <karey AT charter.net>]

Title: Message

Hi Steve - 

 

We must agree to disagree on many points, most of which I don't have time to belabor -- but I did want to respond to the gender of God, which is an interesting topic. 

 

In the original Hebrew language version of the Old Testament, "God" is referred to by many names.   Let's take the Genesis creation story.  The transcendent version of God, the creator with whom man has not personal contact, receives the name which we Christians/English language speakers translate as "Jehovah" but which in Jewish tradition is the unpronounceable (blasphemous to do so as it is sacred) four letters (all consonants, no vowels, as the Hebrew had no vowels) -- which translated is the Jewish verb meaning "I am" (or perhaps "to be" as it has no tense, as the Hebrew has no tense).  There is no gender associated with this verb.  Traditionally this transcendent God has been viewed as masculine.  The surrounding Hebrew words that are used in sentences with this name of God have masculine inflection, indicating this name is masculine.

 

In the second version of the Genesis creation story, God is referred to by a name we translate as "Elohim" which is a feminine noun.  This is the personal God - the God that walks in the garden of Eden with Adam.  In addition, the surrounding words of this name of God have feminine inflection, further emphasizing the feminine nature of this side of God.

 

As humans we anthropomorphize God.  It's the only way we can get our minds around God.  Both versions (male and female views) are inadequate reflections of God, who transcends anything we can conceptualize or imagine.  In Jewish tradition, to say that God is only male and not female is blasphemy because it is limiting God.

 

Jesus was male because in the culture he lived in, he could do nothing as female.  Whatever other reasons theologians might have hypothesized or discovered for Jesus being a male, the fact remains that he HAD to be a male to do anything in his time and culture.  Remember, theology, religion, etc., has been taught and propagated by men only (and even recently, still primarily) in a patriarchal culture for centuries.  Not only does this mean Jesus had to be male, but patriarchal attitudes infiltrate every aspect of our religion.

 

Just a little feminist theology for you. 

 

And I firmly believe not only should we not judge, but we accomplish nothing (only harm) by judging.  People are where they are, and the only thing that changes them is life.  Often we may think we are judging by a higher authority - the church's or God's laws - but the church is fallible human institution (whatever Percy's opinion on the matter was), and who has infallible insight into the mind of God?  Judging is usually "projection" of our own faults, usually an act of pride (greater than the sins we are judging), and it serves primarily to break "relationship" and create walls.  I think here of the adulterous woman and the crowd who wanted to stone her -- Jesus said "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone" as he wrote in the sand. (Some theologians speculate that what he was writing was the sins of the crowd - they dropped their stones one by one and walked away as their sins came up.) 

 

We are called to love. 

 

Jesus also never said anything against homosexuality.   Leviticus DOES say a man shall not lay with a man as a woman, but the literal interpretation means "DRESSED" as a woman (hence literally it's a polemic against cross-dressing???)(!).   Leviticus says it's an "abomination" for a man to lay with a man as a woman.  However, Leviticus says exactly the same thing about eating pork - that is, uses exactly the same word - translated an "abomination" - to describe the act of eating pork.

 

Anyone had a ham sandwich lately?

 

All this is meant in the spirit of recreational debate -- glad to see the listserv showing signs of life.  But I guess we aren't much interested in Percy's triangles or Peirce's triads?? Ah, well, I'll have to figure them out on my own, with a little help from Rhonda....

 

KP

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Parlin, Steven

To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion'

Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:08 PM

Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage

Hi Karey...

 

You've made some thoughtful remarks here, but I must disagree with some of it, err...most of it.

 

This is getting a little distressing to find so many on this list who are dedicated to understanding the work of WP, one of the only cultural critics of our age who really had his eyes open, and yet who fail to see the inverted nature of the times we are living in.

 

I don't wish to belabor this issue of 'gay marriage', but i think this is a fairly clear indicator of just how muddled our times have become, precisely the sort of thing that so troubled Percy.

 

 

You wrote: I don't think any of us has the right to judge another.  How can we truly know and judge the reasons/motivations two individuals love and marry?  
 
[SP] We do have the right to judge. We all do it every day...and it's a damn good thing too. There are any number of "wrong" behaviors that we judge everday. It's wrong to kill, lie, cheat, steal, push down old ladies, and kick small animals and so on... regardless of the motivation or reason...  I for one am quite glad that there remain some social structures, however erroded they are becoming, that "judge" my behavior. Keeps me in line.

 

Yes, the judgement comes from above; it's God's alone. However, it is our responsibility to point it out when others are in conflict with God's judgement. I fully expect others to point it out when I am in conflict with God's laws. The problem isnt that we judge too much, but that we don't do it enough! (Judge not lest you be judged? Exactly, judge not according to your own laws lest you be judged according to those same laws. God fully expects us to judge each other according to his laws).

 
You Wrote:  A man and a woman can, and often do, marry each other (enter into a heterosexual union) for all sorts of bad reasons -- the man may want a trophy wife (what about sexual appetite and gratification there?), the woman may want a comfy or luxurious high profile lifestyle (or perhaps she just wants to get out of the house), the woman's father could have a shotgun to the man's head (sexual appetite thus being the precursor to this), the man marries the boss's daughter to get ahead in his career (OK, he's not madly in love, but she's nice enough and not too bad looking), the woman marries the man because all her friends and family like him, think he's nice, a good catch, whatever, etc. etc.   Two individuals being of appropriate gender (m/f) hardly ensures admirable and spiritual reasons for entering into wedlock.  
 
[SP]  Some very good points. In fact, most of what you have cited here is a demonstration of why most marriages are not really marriages at all, at least not as far as marriage is recognized by the RC Church. Most of what you cite here constitutes an invalid marriage. However, its bad logic to say that because heterosexuals are just as deranged in their understanding of marriage, homosexuals ought to be entitled to "marry". Hmm.

Two individuals being of "inappropriate" gender does not define their love  - even eros - for each other is an evil or bad thing. 
[SP] No...just of a different nature and order.  

I think our spirits/souls ultimately transcend gender -- God has no genitals (although we traditionally and misleadingly refer to "Him" as a "He," gender is by definition a physical trait and God is not physical - only Jesus). 
[SP] This sounds very Gnostic Karey...we are embodied creatures and male and femal genitals are by design ordered to fit corespondingly. I can't eat glass or drink gasoline because these things are not ordered to my being... Why? I have a specific body for which these things are not specifically made. And, in fact they can do great harm to me. 

 

Frankly put...a penis is by design ordered to the vagina (in more ways than one!). But, a penis is NOT ordered to the anus (which according to my homosexual friends is invariably painful, and does harm to them).  Moreover...No life will ever spring from the lining of the rectum. What a thought.

 

BTW: "He" and "His" and "Him" are pronouns that describe God's nature (and his relationship to us) not his person. Of course God is genderless. But, he is masculine. Not male, but masculine. To be a little graphic: He is a penetrator (when invited in) not a receiver. He is the impregnator; not the impregnated. He is the father; not the mother.  It's a mystery of course and our language fails to apprehend it fully...but C.S. Lewis once put it best...that in our relationship to God, we are all feminine. And, moreover there is a specific reason for why Jesus was male, not female...and it has nothing to do with the time that he appeared for he was very little concerned with propriety. God is specific, orderly, and designs things for a particular purpose.

I agree with Steve that a case of two men who live together and love each other as friends (i.e.: just roommates) is very different from two gay men who are in love and wish to marry.  A homosexual "marriage" bond has far more in common with a heterosexual marriage than any other relationship between persons of the same gender - or any other present word in our vocabulary we might apply to it.   
 
[SP] Okay...but I'm curious why you agree with me because you missed my point. There is no difference here, and for that matter there is no way for the state to determine whether my love for my best friend is any different than two homosexuals wanting to be recognized as a couple. Except one --I'm not screwing my best friend. I love him, but I don't want to hump him.  In any case, marriage is not an existential reality for homosexuals. They can go through the motions (egads) but they can never really be married. It's like this...I can call myself a rabbit, yell it from the rooftops, but that doesn't make me a rabbit. That's what's going on here.

I don't know what to think about homosexuality, nor do I completely understand why two individuals of the same gender fall "in love" and wish to express that love physically -- but they do, and for them, I believe it is the same experience as two individuals of opposite gender who do the same thing.   Some homosexuals ARE in it merely for physical gratification, just as some heterosexuals have sex merely for physical gratification.  But would anyone say that all heterosexual marriages are just about sexual gratification?  Of course not.  The same is true of homosexual marriages.
 
[SP] I don't understand it either. Even after having my homosexual friends explain it to me.

The one thing I do know is it's not for me to judge others nor to impose rules on how to conduct their lives -- that's God's domain.  I've got my own stuff to worry about.  
 
[SP] You're right... it is God's domain. And if it were the case that I was presenting MY OWN judgment, I'd say you would all need to have me stoned. For no one has the right to pass THEIR OWN judgement based on THEIR OWN understanding of reality. That's extremely dangerous (and in fact is happening in Ireland right now and will likely happen here very shortly). In fact, I'm willing to wager that at least some of you on this list have already judged me...according to your own understanding of rightness and wrongness. 

 

We must Judge, but according to higher things...not our own silly notions.

 

That's precisely why we have no alternative but to rely on God's natural and moral laws. Moreover, that is in fact why the Catholic Church is the most obedient, not the most authoritarian of the faiths. She doesn't give sway to things like homosexual marriages because she CAN'T do so and remain obedient. She doesn't have the authority to make such changes.

 

 

Steve

----- Original Message -----

From: Parlin, Steven

To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion'

Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:41 AM

Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage

Dear RP

 

I'm not sure "totally" doesn't fit (though perhaps it's fruitless to speculate about WP's thoughts). In "something to displease both sides", Percy never wavered on the (total) wrongness of killing unborn children. It's insanity and "totally", not partly, wrong. He was merely pointing out the intellectual myopia that exists on both sides of the political quagmire --and there is a lot of it. But, you're probably right that Percy would have surprised and delighted and shocked with his comments.

 

Two very good friends of mine are homosexual, one is in his late 60's and I speak with him regularly about these sorts of things. He knows (and unfortunately has "known") a lot of homosexuals. I can tell you there is hardly consensus among the homosexuals about what this agenda is really about. 

 

"Truth of gay love as a personal bond"? Hmm.... I love my best friend (since kinder) probably more than I love anyone in the world, but our "personal bond" is hardly a marriage, and I hardly want to be sexual with him. But, even more to the point...what of my love for my father?  Love is not really a part of this debate.

 

The truth is, again citing my friend, homosexual "bonds" are hardly about love and committment and the like. It's mostly about sexual appetite and gratification.

 

Society's need to accept this? Society needs to accept homosexuals, but not homosexuality.

 

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert_Pauley AT oxy.com [mailto:Robert_Pauley AT oxy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:08 PM
To: percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: RE: [percy-l] gay marriage

I don't think "totally" is the right adverb for any Walker Percy position. He was too intellectually supple. Remember his piece on abortion in the New York Times -- ... "Something to displease both sides." I believe he would have found a way to deconstruct the moral and semantic choplogic of "gay marriage" while allowing for the truth of gay love as a personal bond, and of society's need to accept this, short of formal social or religious sanctification. He would, again, have displeased both sides.  

 

Best, RP  

-----Original Message-----
From: percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Piat
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:59 PM
To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage

Dear Phil,

 

I think we are all very much products of our circumstances  -- and tend to get more conservative as we age. Of his writings I like Percy's essays the most, and The Movie Goer more than The Thanatos Syndrome.  I'm not so sure Percy would be totally against gay marriage were he around today.  Times change; people change. 

 

Regards from Atlanta

Jim

I think Percy would be totally against gay marriage. But that's why I'm glad I don't walk around wearing a "WWPD?" wrist band. I think he was definitely a product of his time and place, and his later novels particularly illustrate his out-of-place feeling in the 1970's. And didn't it seem like he became more conservative and doctrinaire as he grew older? It's been a while since I've read Percy, but I remember The Thanatos Syndrome being a lot more "preachy" than his early novels...

 

Regards from Chapel Hill,

Phil

 

---

--

An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail

Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy

---

--

An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail

Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy