Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts

14 August 2026

Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2026:
99, Friday 14 August 2026

Potiphar names Joseph administrator … Potiphar is a Biblical example of a married eunuch (Bode Museum, Berlin)

Patrick Comerford

We are continuing in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar and this week began with the Tenth Sunday after Trinity (Trinity X). The Church Calendar today remembers Maximilian Kolbe (1894-1941), Friar and Martyr in Auschwitz. Later this evening, at 6 pm, there are Great Vespers with Artoclasia for the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos in the Greek Orthodox Church in Stony Stratford.

Before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, for reflection, prayer and reading in these ways:

1, today’s Gospel reading;

2, a reflection on the Gospel reading;

3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;

4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.

An icon of Saint Philip the Deacon with the Ethiopian Eunuch, by Ann Chapin (2008)

Matthew 19: 3-12 (NRSVA):

3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ 4 He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, 5 and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ 7 They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ 8 He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’

10 His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ 11 But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’

Alessandro Moreschi (1858-1922), the last surviving castrato of the Sistine Chapel’s Choir

Today’s Reflections:

This morning’s Gospel reading comes in two parts that are both difficult and painful to read, to the point that it would be easier to reflect on one of the other appointed readings in the Lectionary (Ezekiel 16: 1-15, 60-63; Psalm 118: 14-18 or the Canticle Song of Deliverance; Isaiah 12: 2-6).

As a priest who is divorced and remarried, I find the first part of the Gospel (Matthew 19: 3-11) is a challenge every time I read it, even though I have dealt with its topics on many occasions in sermons I have preached in a parish and pastoral setting, in preparing couples for marriage, and in my own life. I wish some of my priest colleagues had been as generous to me in the past as I hope they are to their own parishioners when it comes to providing true pastoral care, understanding and support.

The second part of the reading (Matthew 19: 11-12) causes me even greater confusion and all my attempts to understand its context still leave me in search of meaning and understanding. But then even the text itself warns that some readers will not be able to receive what is being said.

Jesus’ words seem to find echoes in Saint Paul’s writings when, for example, he seems to advocate remaining single if someone is called to do so (see I Corinthians 7: 24-28), yet says it is wrong to forbid marriage to anyone (I Timothy 4: 1-3). However, both Jesus and Paul stress that relatively few people were called to a life of celibacy, a lifestyle that was generally unacceptable socially in their time.

I wince and even imagine physical pain when it comes to thinking about the concept of a eunuch, thinking of references to men who had been castrated before puberty, especially the castrati or male singers who, for the sake of retaining their high voices, underwent surgical castration before puberty.

Castration affected boys’ vocal cords, but it also had a profound effect on the rest of their body. By disrupting normal growth hormones, castration could result in a variety of unusual physical attributes, including remarkable height and an abnormally large chest cavity – which, in singing terms, meant powerful thoracic muscles and extra lung capacity. As such, castrati were uniquely equipped to produce the loud, sustained, highly ornamented phrases that Baroque audiences loved.

The earliest records of castrati date from the 1550s. At the time, castrati sang only sacred music. A supposed biblical injunction against women singing in church left a dearth of singers able to sing the high parts in sacred choral works.

When opera became part of the musical scene ca 1600, the castrato’s unusual voice was quickly embraced by composers working in the new genre. Claudio Monteverdi’s opera Orfeo (1607) featured castrati singing the opera’s Prologue as well as two female roles. Yet the castrato’s vocal powers lead them to be cast as the manliest role in opera: the primo uomo, or heroic male lead.

Successful castrati were the rock stars and celebrities of their day. The castrato known as Farinelli, born Carlo Broschi (1705-1782) was knighted by the King of Spain and held a ministerial role at the Spanish court.

By the 19th century, however, changing operatic styles and new conceptions of medical ethics meant the castrato tradition was quickly dying out. The Vatican banned castrati in 1903, and the last known castrato, Alessandro Moreschi, died in 1922. Recordings of Moreschi singing are the only surviving example of this voice type.

The Biblical references to eunuchs include impotent men and men not capable of sexual relations. In this morning’s reading, however, Jesus says that some men were born this way, some were made impotent by men and some made themselves impotent to better serve the kingdom of God.

The terms also described men who were trusted in royal courts to serve as chamberlains and to care for harems (see Esther 2: 15) or men trusted in royal courts with high positions and authority (see Daniel 1: 3-18; Acts 8: 27). Because eunuchs often served in the courts of kings, the words translated as ‘eunuch’ may have come to be used as a label for many senior officials, whether or not we would now regarded them as having been castrated.

The Hebrew word in the Bible is סְרִ֨יס (sarís) and it means ‘to castrate’. But this word is translated ‘officer’ or ‘officers’ 12 times in the Old Testament (see Genesis 37: 36; 39: 1; 40: 2; and 40: 7) and as ‘chamberlain’ or ‘chamberlains’ 13 times (see Esther 1: 10, 12, 15; 2: 21; and 4: 4-5).

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word סְרִ֨יס is translated into Greek by εὐνοῦχος, and the word also has the meaning ‘eunuch’. However, in its context in the Tanakh, the word almost always refers to ministers or high servants at the court of a king. Not all of them were castrated in order to hold their posts, maybe they were merely bound to practise celibacy; the Bible, in Genesis, mentions at least one married eunuch, Potiphar, who is one of Pharoah’s courtiers in Egypt.

The Greek word εὐνοῦχοι (eunouchoi is usually understood as castrates, but the context speaks for understanding εὐνοῦχοι as ‘single’, and its etymology suggests the Greek word εὐνοῦχος (eunouchos) originally meant either ‘bedroom guard’ or ‘of good mind.’ Later, the word rendered ‘eunuch’ came to refer to a castrated man, to an impotent man and to an unmarried man.

At the time Jesus is speaking, the word ‘eunuch’ may have simply referred to a senior and trusted official in royal courts, a courtier who could be trusted not to take advantage of others, particularly people who depended on royal justice and who must not be exploited for personal financial or sexual advantage.

In the Roman world, the word eunuch was used to refer to a homosexual man. Some translations refer to ‘men who never marry,’ instead of ‘eunuchs’. Both terms were used as euphemisms for homosexual men.

Some commentators suggest that at the time of Jesus the word eunuch was used as a euphemism for people who were seen as being different or even outsiders because of their sexuality, men who were gay but dismissed as being ‘effeminate’, people who were gay and found it difficult to explain why they remained single in a society where marriage was the norm and celibacy was frowned on, individuals whose sexuality was not of their own choice but would have been unacceptable if they admitted to it publicly.

In the any case, in both the Hebrew and Christian texts, eunuchs had the same standing in God’s eyes as anyone else (see Isaiah 56: 3-5; Acts 8: 26-39).

These definitions might mean that those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are simply men who remained unmarried to spend more time seeking the Lord and spreading the Gospel.

This morning’s passage was interpreted so literally in some parts of the early Church that Origen of Alexandria (185-254 CE), in the impetuosity of youth, castrated himself. In later life he knew better. In his commentary on Saint Matthew’s Gospel, Origen rejects the literal interpretation of the words. He acknowledges that he once accepted a literal reading, but came to accept the saying should be understood spiritually and not ‘according to the flesh and the letter.’ But it was too late by then to reverse the process, I imagine, as I wince yet again this morning.

Perhaps, this passage should no more be taken literally than Christ’s words about cutting off my hand or foot, or gouging out my eye. If so, should the preceding verses on divorce be taken literally either? Perhaps they too are hyperbole, raw humour or reminders of the ideals of marriage which some may attain but many cannot live up to.

Both parts of this morning’s Gospel reading may be read more easily if we hear Jesus saying that all Christians, are representatives of the Kingdom of God, courtiers or ambassadors of that kingdom, irrespective of our marital status, our gender, our sexuality or what others may see as inappropriate or unacceptable lifestyles judged only by the cultural standards of the world today. We are called by Christ into the Church and into the kingdom, and some of us are even called to give up everything in order to pursue this calling.

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 CE), in the impetuosity of youth, castrated himself … in later life he knew better (Icon: Eileen McGuckin)

Today’s Prayers (Friday 14 August 2026):

In Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), the theme this week (9-15 August 2026, pp 28-29), is ‘Mission to the Mangyans’. This theme was introduced on Sunday with a Programme Update by the Revd Jewel B Tumaliuan, Programme Director, Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI).

The USPG Prayer Diary today (Friday 14 August 2026) invites us to pray:

God of mission, we give thanks for our partners, the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, and for the growth of the ministry to Mangyans as well as other joint projects. Bless bishops, clergy, and lay leaders, and strengthen shared work in building resilient communities and sustainable futures.

The Collect:

Let your merciful ears, O Lord,
be open to the prayers of your humble servants;
and that they may obtain their petitions
make them to ask such things as shall please you;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

The Post Communion Prayer:

God of our pilgrimage,
you have willed that the gate of mercy
should stand open for those who trust in you:
look upon us with your favour
that we who follow the path of your will
may never wander from the way of life;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Additional Collect:

Lord of heaven and earth,
as Jesus taught his disciples to be persistent in prayer,
give us patience and courage never to lose hope,
but always to bring our prayers before you;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Collect on the Eve of The Blessed Virgin Mary:

Almighty God,
who looked upon the lowliness of the Blessed Virgin Mary
and chose her to be the mother of your only Son:
grant that we who are redeemed by his blood
may share with her in the glory of your eternal kingdom;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

Joseph and Potiphar’s wife … a ceramic plate produced in Urbino ca 1537 … Potiphar is a Biblical example of a married eunuch (National Museum of Bargello, Florence)

Yesterday’s reflections

Continued tomorrow

Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org

28 December 2025

Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church
has been ‘provoking faith in the heart
of London’ for almost two centuries

Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church on Shaftesbury Avenue is in the heart of London’s West End (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)

Patrick Comerford

Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, at the New Oxford Street end of Shaftesbury Avenue, is in the heart of London’s West End, facing onto Prince’s Circle, and close to some of the best known West End theatres and venues. It is the central church of Baptists and It dates from 1848, when it was built by Sir Samuel Moreton Peto MP, one of the great railway developers in the Victorian age.

When the church almost 180 years ago opened on 5 December 1848, it was the first Baptist chapel to stand prominently on a London street, looking like a ‘church’ and reflecting the improved status of Victorian dissenters. It became Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church in 1905. In the 20th century, it became known for its work in areas of social justice, including homelessness and poverty, and it was the first place in Britain where the Revd Martin Luther King preached.

Today, the church describes itself as ‘progressive in our theology, reverent in our style of worship, and active when it comes to social justice’, and says it aspires to be inclusive and accessible, welcoming people of all genders, and it is registered for the solemnisation of marriage for couples of all genders.

The church was built or Sir Samuel Morton Peto (1809-1889) on speculation and without a congregation because he considered the area needed a church was needed in the area. Morton Peto was an entrepreneur, civil engineer and railway developer, and for more than 20 years he was a Liberal MP, sitting for Norwich (1847-1854), Finsbury (1859- 1865) and Bristol (1865-1868). He was a partner in Grissell and Peto, which built many of London’s major buildings and monuments, including the Reform Club, the Lyceum Theatre, Nelson’s Column and the Houses of Parliament, and he was once the world’s largest employer.

Peto wanted to create a visible Baptist witness in central London and chose his site with care, where Oxford Street was being extended east, between the squares of Bloomsbury and the slums of Saint Giles. It is said the Crown Commissioner was reluctant to lease the land to nonconformists with their dull architecture and no spires, to which Peto exclaimed, ‘A spire, my Lord? We shall have two!’

The west front includes a Lombardic frieze and a large rose window flanked by two round-arched windows (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)

The church was designed in 1845-1848 by the architect John Gibson (1817-1892), who had been articled to Joseph Aloysius Hansom (1803-1882) in Birmingham before becoming an assistant to Sir Charles Barry in 1835 and assisting Barry in his drawings of the Houses of Parliament.

Gibson designed the church in the Early Italian Gothic style on a rectangular plan, and it was built in grey brick with stone dressings and vertical bands. The west front is flanked by rectangular towers, and has three central moulded arch entrances below a Lombardic frieze and a large rose window flanked by two round-arched windows. The two four-stage towers have vertical bands, small windows and belfries.

The towers were once stopped by Minto’s promised spires, but the twin spires were removed in 1951, when they were no longer safe due to damage during World War II.

Inside, the church has a horseshoe-shaped auditorium with a curved gallery supported on polygonal cast-iron columns. The gallery has an arcaded-patterned front. Inside the church also has curved pews and stained glass windows with Biblical texts. The balcony is reached by wrought-iron stairs on either side of the central entrance foyer, which was refitted in the 1960s.

Peering into Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church … it has been in the heart of London for almost 180 years (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)

‘Bloomsbury’, as it is known affectionately to those who love it, has been in the heart of London for almost 180 years. The emphasis and style have changed over the generations, but it continues to proclaim Christian love and hope.

Bloomsbury Chapel opened on 5 December 1848, the first Baptist chapel to stand proudly on a London street, visibly an ‘ecclesiastical edifice’. Because of earlier restrictions, dissident previous meeting-houses were often hidden down back alleys and in upper rooms. But as civil rights and social standing improved, Victorian Baptists, along with other free churches, wanted to be seen.

When it was being built, the new chapel was still without a congregation. Peto invited the Revd William Brock from Norwich to initiate the cause. His preaching quickly drew a congregation and 62 founder members formally constituted the church on 25 July 1849. The church only practised believer’s baptism, but both communion and membership were open to professing Christians from other traditions.

At the time, it was unusual for preachers to refer to current events from the pulpit, but Brock insisted that ‘the Bible and The Times newspaper are the best materials for the preacher’, for the God of the Bible is also the God of everyday life.

When the church realised London would have many visitors for the Great Exhibition in 1851, the church announced that those Americans who practised or condoned slavery would not be welcome at the table.

Inside Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church … the large cross became the focus in the 1960s, when an enlarged rostrum over the baptistry brought the communion table closer to the congregation (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)

The church grew rapidly, with nearly 900 members in the mid-1860s, members gave both money and long hours of personal effort to the various ‘labours of love’, including the Domestic Mission in the slums nearby. The chapel basement housed a day school during the week, providing cheap elementary education for children of the ‘respectable poor’.

Brock remined at Bloomsbury until 1872, and he was succeeded by the Revd Joseph Chown (1875-1885), the Revd James Baillie (1886-1896), and the Revd Benjamin Gibbon (1897-1903). Gradually the slums were redeveloped, the area improved, and the mission moved to multi-cultural Soho. As leisure hours increased, sports clubs flourished beside Bible classes, providing a full programme for young people. Several of them later entered the ministry or went overseas as missionaries.

More and more people were migrating to the new suburbs by the turn of the century, the end of the site lease was looming and the church was struggling financially. The Baptist Union and the London Baptist Association were keen to have a ‘Central Church’, similar to those of the Methodists and Congregationalists. They bought the Bloomsbury freehold, cleared the debts, and in 1905 formed Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church.

The Revd Thomas Phillips was installed as Superintendent of the reconstituted ‘institutional church’ in 1905. The separate mission was closed, and teams of deaconesses, some still in training, acted as local missionaries and social workers.

Removing the small upper gallery in the 1960s revealed the rose window for the first time from the inside (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)

After World War I, depression, financial and spiritual, hit the work but the church pressed on, and continued to send missionaries abroad. The Revd Dr F Townley Lord became minister in 1930, again aided by deaconesses. The outbreak of World War II in 1939 emptied central London, and the London County Council requisitioned the basement as a refuge for people bombed out of their homes, and took over the top floor as a canteen.

Few resident families returned to the area in 1945 and the congregation had to be built anew. Dr Lord’s travels as President of the Baptist World Alliance (1950-1955) attracted more overseas visitors, and in 1958 he handed over a vigorous church whose members travelled in from far and wide.

Under the Revd Dr Howard Williams, a reconstruction scheme was carried out in 1962-1964. He moved organ and choir gallery, which once rose up behind the pulpit, and made the focus a soaring cross, with a large platform and pulpit below. An enlarged rostrum over the baptistry brought the communion table closer to the congregation. Removing the small upper gallery revealed the rose window for the first time from the inside, and the black-varnished pews were stripped to reveal lighter wood.

Barbara Stanford who came to Bloomsbury in 1961 as Sister Barbara, was the last in a long line of deaconesses. The order was discontinued in 1975, when serving deaconesses were recognised as Baptist ministers.

The Revd Dr Martin Luther King preached in the church in 1961 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)

The Revd Barrie Hibbert (1987-1999) came to Bloomsbury from New Zealand and Australia, and strongly promoted ecumenical contacts. Under major refurbishments in 1998-1999, marking the 150th anniversary of the church, the foyer was enlarged, with a glass screen making the sanctuary visible from the street, and a prayer chapel was created.

The Revd Dr Brian Haymes, who had spent 20 years in academic life in Baptist theological colleges, returned to pastoral ministry and served Bloomsbury in 2000-2005. He was often heard on BBC radio’s Morning Service, and he introduced new teaching programmes.

The church supported the Jubilee Campaign to end world debt, became a ‘Fair Trade Church’, supported the Peace March against British involvement in war in Iraq, and the joint Churches’ Make Poverty History campaign was launched there.

The Revd Dr Ruth Gouldbourne and the Revd Dr Simon Perry became co-ministers in 2006. Ruth Gouldbourne had previously taught doctrine and church history at Bristol Baptist College; Simon Perry returned to college chaplaincy at Cambridge in 2011. The Revd Dr Simon Woodman, who was tutor in Biblical Studies at South Wales Baptist College, became co-minister in Bloomsbury in 2012.

Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church remembers Martin Luther King’s visit in 1961 and continues to struggle for justice and against racism (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)

For many decades, a significant part of Bloomsbury’s ministry has been offering an affirming welcome to the LGBT+ community. In 2015, it became the first Baptist Church in the UK to hold a same-sex marriage. The church is involved with other local organisations, including the 2:23 Network and Soho Gathering, the Simon Community and C4WS Night Shelter, Dragon Hall, a local community centre), Ekklesia, the public issues thinktank and Churches Together in Westminster.

Today, the church describes itself as ‘progressive in our theology, reverent in our style of worship, and active when it comes to social justice. Those who find their home at Bloomsbury believe there is no one 'right' way, but rather we search together for a deeper understanding of Jesus and what it means for us to follow him.’

The church says it is ‘provoking faith in the heart of London. Our mission is to discern God’s loving and inclusive will: we nurture faith and build community, we confront injustice, create sanctuary and deepen relationships.’

The church aspires to be inclusive and accessible. It is a member of the Inclusive Church Network, believes that Black Lives Matter and is committed to becoming an anti-racist community. Recognising that gender is not binary, the church welcomes people of all genders, and is registered for the solemnisation of marriage for couples of all genders.

• Sunday services at Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church are at 11 am.

Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church describes itself as ‘progressive in our theology, reverent in our style of worship, and active when it comes to social justice’ (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)

16 August 2024

Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2024:
98, Friday 16 August 2024

Potiphar names Joseph administrator … Potiphar is a Biblical example of a married eunuch (Bode Museum, Berlin)

Patrick Comerford

We are continuing in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar and this week began with the Eleventh Sunday after Trinity (Trinity XI).

Before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, for reflection, prayer and reading in these ways:

1, today’s Gospel reading;

2, a reflection on the Gospel reading;

3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;

4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.

An icon of Saint Philip the Deacon with the Ethiopian Eunuch, by Ann Chapin (2008)

Matthew 19: 3-12 (NRSVA):

3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ 4 He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, 5 and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ 7 They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ 8 He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’

10 His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ 11 But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’

Alessandro Moreschi (1858-1922), the last surviving castrato of the Sistine Chapel’s Choir

Today’s Reflection:

This morning’s Gospel reading comes in two parts that are both difficult and painful to read, to the point that it would be easier to reflect on one of the other appointed readings in the Lectionary (Ezekiel 16: 1-15, 60-63; Psalm 118: 14-18 or the Canticle Song of Deliverance; Isaiah 12: 2-6).

As a priest who is divorced and remarried, I find the first part of the Gospel (Matthew 19: 3-11) is a challenge every time I read it, even though I have dealt with its topics on many occasions in sermons I have preached in a parish and pastoral setting, in preparing couples for marriage, and in my own life. I wish some of my priest colleagues had been as generous to me in the past as I hope they are to their own parishioners when it comes to providing true pastoral care, understanding and support.

The second part of the reading (Matthew 19: 11-12) causes me even greater confusion and all my attempts to understand its context still leave me in search of meaning and understanding. But then even the text itself warns that some readers will not be able to receive what is being said.

Jesus’ words seem to find echoes in Saint Paul’s writings when, for example, he seems to advocate remaining single if someone is called to do so (see I Corinthians 7: 24-28), yet says it is wrong to forbid marriage to anyone (I Timothy 4: 1-3). However, both Jesus and Paul stress that relatively few people were called to a life of celibacy, a lifestyle that was generally unacceptable socially in their time.

I wince and even imagine physical pain when it comes to thinking about the concept of a eunuch, thinking of references to men who had been castrated before puberty, especially the castrati or male singers who, for the sake of retaining their high voices, underwent surgical castration before puberty.

Castration affected boys’ vocal cords, but it also had a profound effect on the rest of their body. By disrupting normal growth hormones, castration could result in a variety of unusual physical attributes, including remarkable height and an abnormally large chest cavity – which, in singing terms, meant powerful thoracic muscles and extra lung capacity. As such, castrati were uniquely equipped to produce the loud, sustained, highly ornamented phrases that Baroque audiences loved.

The earliest records of castrati date from the 1550s. At the time, castrati sang only sacred music. A supposed biblical injunction against women singing in church left a dearth of singers able to sing the high parts in sacred choral works.

When opera became part of the musical scene ca 1600, the castrato’s unusual voice was quickly embraced by composers working in the new genre. Claudio Monteverdi’s opera Orfeo (1607) featured castrati singing the opera’s Prologue as well as two female roles. Yet the castrato’s vocal powers lead them to be cast as the manliest role in opera: the primo uomo, or heroic male lead.

Successful castrati were the rock stars and celebrities of their day. The castrato known as Farinelli, born Carlo Broschi (1705-1782) was knighted by the King of Spain and held a ministerial role at the Spanish court.

By the 19th century, however, changing operatic styles and new conceptions of medical ethics meant the castrato tradition was quickly dying out. The Vatican banned castrati in 1903, and the last known castrato, Alessandro Moreschi, died in 1922. Recordings of Moreschi singing are the only surviving example of this voice type.

The Biblical references to eunuchs include impotent men and men not capable of sexual relations. In this morning’s reading, however, Jesus says that some men were born this way, some were made impotent by men and some made themselves impotent to better serve the kingdom of God.

The terms also described men who were trusted in royal courts to serve as chamberlains and to care for harems (see Esther 2: 15) or men trusted in royal courts with high positions and authority (see Daniel 1: 3-18; Acts 8: 27). Because eunuchs often served in the courts of kings, the words translated as ‘eunuch’ may have come to be used as a label for many senior officials, whether or not we would now regarded them as having been castrated.

The Hebrew word in the Bible is סְרִ֨יס (sarís) and it means ‘to castrate’. But this word is translated ‘officer’ or ‘officers’ 12 times in the Old Testament (see Genesis 37: 36; 39: 1; 40: 2; and 40: 7) and as ‘chamberlain’ or ‘chamberlains’ 13 times (see Esther 1: 10, 12, 15; 2: 21; and 4: 4-5).

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word סְרִ֨יס is translated into Greek by εὐνοῦχος, and the word also has the meaning ‘eunuch’. However, in its context in the Tanakh, the word almost always refers to ministers or high servants at the court of a king. Not all of them were castrated in order to hold their posts, maybe they were merely bound to practise celibacy; the Bible, in Genesis, mentions at least one married eunuch, Potiphar, who is one of Pharoah’s courtiers in Egypt.

The Greek word εὐνοῦχοι (eunouchoi is usually understood as castrates, but the context speaks for understanding εὐνοῦχοι as ‘single’, and its etymology suggests the Greek word εὐνοῦχος (eunouchos) originally meant either ‘bedroom guard’ or ‘of good mind.’ Later, the word rendered ‘eunuch’ came to refer to a castrated man, to an impotent man and to an unmarried man.

At the time Jesus is speaking, the word ‘eunuch’ may have simply referred to a senior and trusted official in royal courts, a courtier who could be trusted not to take advantage of others, particularly people who depended on royal justice and who must not be exploited for personal financial or sexual advantage.

In the Roman world, the word eunuch was used to refer to a homosexual man. Some translations refer to ‘men who never marry,’ instead of ‘eunuchs’. Both terms were used as euphemisms for homosexual men.

Some commentators suggest that at the time of Jesus the word eunuch was used as a euphemism for people who were seen as being different or even outsiders because of their sexuality, men who were gay but dismissed as being ‘effeminate’, people who were gay and found it difficult to explain why they remained single in a society where marriage was the norm and celibacy was frowned on, individuals whose sexuality was not of their own choice but would have been unacceptable if they admitted to it publicly.

In the any case, in both the Hebrew and Christian texts, eunuchs had the same standing in God’s eyes as anyone else (see Isaiah 56: 3-5; Acts 8: 26-39).

These definitions might mean that those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are simply men who remained unmarried to spend more time seeking the Lord and spreading the Gospel.

This morning’s passage was interpreted so literally in some parts of the early church that Origen of Alexandria (185-254 CE), in the impetuosity of youth, castrated himself. In later life he knew better. In his commentary on Saint Matthew’s Gospel, Origen rejects the literal interpretation of the words. He acknowledges that he once accepted a literal reading, but came to accept the saying should be understood spiritually and not ‘according to the flesh and the letter.’ But it was too late by then to reverse the process, I imagine, as I wince yet again this morning.

Perhaps, this passage should no more be taken literally than Christ’s words about cutting off my hand or foot, or gouging out my eye. If so, should the preceding verses on divorce be taken literally either? Perhaps they too are hyperbole, raw humour or reminders of the ideals of marriage which some may attain but many cannot live up to.

Both parts of this morning’s Gospel reading may be read more easily if we hear Jesus saying that all Christians, are representatives of the Kingdom of God, courtiers or ambassadors of that kingdom, irrespective of our marital status, our gender, our sexuality or what others may see as inappropriate or unacceptable lifestyles judged only by the cultural standards of the world today. We are called by Christ into the Church and into the kingdom, and some of us are even called to give up everything in order to pursue this calling.

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 CE), in the impetuosity of youth, castrated himself … in later life he knew better (Icon: Eileen McGuckin)

Today’s Prayers (Friday 16 August 2024):

The theme this week in ‘Pray With the World Church,’ the Prayer Diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), is ‘Whom Shall I Send?’ This theme was introduced on Sunday with a programme update from the Revd Davidson Solanki, Regional Manager Asia and Middle East, USPG, on the Episcopal Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East’s new programme launched in accompaniment with USPG, ‘Whom Shall I Send.’

The USPG Prayer Diary today (Friday 16 August 2024) invites us to pray:

Lord, we pray for an end to conflict in the Holy Land. We pray for peace across the nation.

The Collect:

O God, you declare your almighty power
most chiefly in showing mercy and pity:
mercifully grant to us such a measure of your grace,
that we, running the way of your commandments,
may receive your gracious promises,
and be made partakers of your heavenly treasure;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

The Post Communion Prayer:

Lord of all mercy,
we your faithful people have celebrated that one true sacrifice
which takes away our sins and brings pardon and peace:
by our communion
keep us firm on the foundation of the gospel
and preserve us from all sin;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Additional Collect:

God of glory,
the end of our searching,
help us to lay aside
all that prevents us from seeking your kingdom,
and to give all that we have
to gain the pearl beyond all price,
through our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Joseph and Potiphar’s wife … a ceramic plate produced in Urbino ca 1537 … Potiphar is a Biblical example of a married eunuch (National Museum of Bargello, Florence)

Yesterday’s reflection

Continued tomorrow

Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org

07 January 2009

Sexuality and Spirituality

Gustav Klimt: The Kiss (ca 1907)

Patrick Comerford

Opening Prayer:


O God,
Giver of life,
Bearer of pain,
Maker of love,
affirming in your incarnation the goodness of the flesh,
May the yearnings of our bodies
be fulfilled in sacraments of love
and our earthly embracings
a foretaste of the glory that shall be
in the light of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Amen.


Jim Cotter, Prayer at Night (Sheffield, Cairns Publications, 1989), p. 65.

Opening poem:

Love

Love bade me welcome; yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lack’d anything.

‘A guest,’ I answer’d, ‘worthy to be here:’
Love said, ‘You shall be he.’
‘I, the unkind, ungrateful? Ah, my dear,
I cannot look on Thee.’
Love took my hand and smiling did reply,
‘Who made the eyes but I?’

‘Truth, Lord; but I have marr’d them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.’
‘And know you not,’ says Love, ‘Who bore the blame?’
‘My dear, then I will serve.’
‘You must sit down,’ says Love, ‘and taste my meat.’
‘You must sit down,’ says Love, ‘and taste my meat.’
So I did sit and eat.

– George Herbert (1593–1632)

Introduction:

Understanding sexuality is not the same as understanding sex. And sexuality is about much more than what we have reduced to the description of sex.

We all face general questions and issues about sexuality in the society in which we live. These include the commodification and commercialisation of sex, which we find in movies, in advertising, in popular publications and in pornography. It is important to ask questions such as: When does a movie become pornographic? When is it acceptable to use human flesh to sell a glossy magazine or a tabloid newspaper?

We all face pressures, we are all aware of changing social attitudes, when it comes to facing up to what is acceptable, and we all need to think about and reflect on our sexuality and our ministry during the process of ministerial and spiritual formation, rather than thinking the relationship is something we can deal with when we are confronted with difficulties or a crisis.

Sexuality and spirituality, your sexual maturing and maturity and your spiritual growth are related in ways that are often difficult to examine or to disentangle. For the search for sexual understanding and sexual wholeness is intimately linked with the spiritual quest and journey.

In addition, at a very early stage in your ministry, you will encounter questions about the links between sexuality and spirituality that are intimately linked in a particularly unique way.

Sexuality and spiritual growth and development:

In introducing these topics at this stage, there are four propositions or points that are worth considering at the beginning:

1, Sexuality and spirituality are linked:

The possible connection between sexuality and spiritual growth is a new and strange idea to many. Yet my body and my spirit are aligned. Living life as a call produces joy and a sense of intimacy. It leads to lifestyle choices that preserve balance and are characterised by prudent decisions made in commitment to one’s long-term best interests rather than to law or in fear.

Sexual relationships are not “just” physical, and at their deepest, truest and most committed level, the connections we make sexually are a spiritual and sexual experience.

2, Psychological maturity is necessary:

We all know people who have reached adulthood but have not yet left their prolonged adolescence – which only ends when we are no longer afraid to disappoint our parents, or parent figures.

In adulthood, we all realise we are passing through different phases of maturing, and we give that realisation expression in different phases such as “You know you’re getting older when the policemen all appear to be younger.” Or: “You know you’ve got older when all the bishops/world leaders are younger than you.”

A dramatic shift in psychological maturity appears to occur in most young people towards the end of their 20s. Before this shift, men and women often feel unable to make clear choices or to cope with life’s problems without some help from our parents.

But after that shift, we feel confident enough in our own values to make our own choices, even if those options clash with a parent’s wishes.

There may be another, less economic explanation. It may simply take 20 years or so for us to become sufficiently reflective to be truly “free” in a spiritual sense – a centred person characterised by self-knowledge, self-acceptance, and the desire for self-transcendence.

If you make choices about sexual commitment and about spiritual priorities at the same time and before reaching that stage, there may be real problems ahead later on in life. It will have been particularly difficult, or will be particularly difficult, if you find yourself confronting these problems at one and the same time.

It takes time and commitment, and each person needs that in order to set things right in herself or himself. It takes discipline each time.

3, Selectivity is increasingly common and accepted:

Young people are marrying later in life and more selectively and they are renegotiating their relationships more intentionally. Their very selectivity makes for the deferring of dreams. This leads, predictably, to some mid-life resetting of goals and redefining of “union.”

4, An interest in spirituality is connected with more openness about sexual awareness:

Although some writers and commentators would suggest that there should be a conflict between the two, in reality and in experience, an interest in and openness to spirituality is connected with more openness about sexual awareness.

For example, Professor Joan Timmerman, who has taught an elective course, “Sexuality and Spiritual Growth,” as part of the theology and women’s studies programme in the College of Saint Catherine in St Paul, Minnesota, has listened carefully over the years to what young women students are saying about spirituality and sexuality. She says young women today are generous in acknowledging, affirming, and celebrating a spiritual eroticism in their daily lives.

She has found that a sense of the transformation of awareness, value and commitment accompanies their academic study of sexuality within a theological context.

“After a lot of work,” wrote one of her students, “I came up with a mission statement for my life: to embrace, express and educate in spiritual truth. So … I will take my mission statement and my education and I will grow, celebrate, fight, and educate.”

There are mature values that should characterise sexual integrity: concern with a stewardship of desire, and the moral strength to make a choice freely to love.

Where self-control and asceticism come into play, they are the servants of freedom and love. Ultimately, they are employed freely because they are recognised as being in one’s long-term best interest.

The process of integrating sexuality with spirit belongs to all humanity. Indeed, human sexuality is a kind of call – a dynamic that is intrinsic to the person yet leads her or him to reach out in the most radical way.

As James Hillman observes in The Soul’s Code, this call is a prime fact of human existence. Sexual experience can be religious experience.

Those who want to align their lives with the call to spiritual growth can see that no accident or heartache is able finally to derail that growth toward wholeness.

We all need to strive to integrate spirituality and sexuality. If we are to have life and to have it to the full, if I am to live my life as completely as I can have it, then I need to integrate my physical and spiritual self.

Sexuality and the Church

There are issues that are culturally difficult to face within the Church.

In the Church, we have often reduced our talk about sexuality and our discussions about sexuality to sexual acts, such as, what are the permitted sexual acts and the forbidden ones, who may be engaged in them, when, where and how?

In the Church, we have often reduced our discussion of sexuality to discussing sexual behaviour. And, at the same time, we have often elevated that sexual behaviour to the highest moral debate.

In the Church, when we introduce a discussion about “moral values” we are usually about to begin a discussion about who may engage in genital sexual activity, with whom, and under what circumstances.

In the Church, when we introduce a discussion about “moral values” we are usually not going to discuss the great moral issues of the day, which must include war, violence, economic and social injustice, globalisation, racism, global warming.

And reducing any discussion of sexuality to a discussion about genital sexual activity shows a teenage immaturity. The Church – and I mean the Church in general – seems to have matured and developed morally and sexually to about the level of a 14-year-old schoolboys, who knows all the questions, all the answers, has a prurient interest in the activities of others, but has little or no self-awareness or insight into his future potential, needs and gifts.

Some Biblical foundations:

At the beginning of the creation story, only one thing is described as being not good – that someone is alone: “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’.” (Genesis 2: 18).

When we talk morally about Biblical values, or even Old Testament values, we generally fail to connect with some of the beautiful passages in the Old Testament that show the writers’ connectedness with their own sexuality:

In the Song of Solomon 1: 2-4, we read:

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!
For your love is better than wine …
Draw me after you, let me make haste.
The king has brought me into his chambers …


On Monday morning, the lectionary reading in the chapel at Morning Prayer was the story in Saint John’s Gospel of the Samaritan women who meets Jesus at the well (John 4: 7-26). It is a story in which the dialogue is dynamically animated by the sexuality and sexual awareness of both people in the conversation. They appear to have different moral values, but each displays a sexual maturity and confidence as the conversation opens and deepens.

It is a dialogue that was very relevant, and the sexual dynamics in it would have been deeply relevant to the early Christian community, which included people who had come from communities whose lifestyles reflected considerable sexual licence (see, e.g., I Corinthians 6: 9-11).

Let’s look for a moment at what the Apostle Paul has to say on marriage and on being alone:

In I Corinthians, it appears that Paul’s own clearly stated preference was for the unmarried state: “I wish that all were as I myself am” (I Corinthians 7: 6); or “those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that” (I Corinthians 7: 28); and “he who marries his virgin does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (I Corinthians 7: 38); or, again, “in my judgment she [a widow] is more blessed if she remains as she is [and does not marry again]” (I Corinthians 7: 40).

But Paul sensed that the present age will not be long drawn out: “the appointed time has grown short" (7.29); “the form of this world is passing away” (I Corinthians 7: 31). In the interim, “let even those who have wives be as though they had none” (I Corinthians 7: 29).

It is also clear from the thrust of I Corinthians 7: 25-35 that these two concerns hang together. A large part of the reason for Paul’s preference for the unmarried state is his conviction that the time is so short.

The whole of that section stands under the opening statement, “I think that in view of the impending [or present] crisis (ἀνάγκη, ananke) it is well for you to remain as you are ” (7: 26).

However, at the same time, too little weight has been given to two other factors. One is that Paul was evidently responding to a series of questions posed by the Corinthians themselves – as indicated by the letter’s first use of περὶ δὲ (peri de, “now, concerning …”) in 7: 1, and its repetition in 7: 25.

This probably indicates that the initial letter from the Corinthians to Paul put a series of questions to him, first with regard to the married people among them (7: 1-24) and then with regard to the virgins and the unmarried members of the community (7: 25-38) The importance of this point is that it compels us to recognise that the scope of Paul’s discussion was determined by the particular issues brought to his attention.

In other words, he did not set out to provide a theology of marriage. Doubtless, this was another element of scriptural teaching which he simply took for granted (cf. I Corinthians 6: 16). That presumably is why he makes no reference to what was generally regarded as the primary purpose of marriage – to procreate – although his allusion to children in verse 14 presumably indicates that he also took that as understood too.

On the other hand, one of the challenging and compelling passages in the Pauline writings is Paul’s suggestion that the love-making between a husband and a wife is a sign of the love of Christ for the Church (Ephesians 5: 28-32).

A major challenge being debated in the pastoral epistles (I Timothy, II Timothy and Titus) is the association between religion (the worship of Artemis in Ephesus) and sexual licence (religion was an excuse for the acceptance of prostitution).

Understanding the sexual culture and climate in Ephesus provides some insights too into the world that gave us the Johannine writings, including the three Johannine epistles and the Book of Revelation. For example, it explains how John the Divine could castigate the Church in Ephesus for abandoning its first love (see Revelation 2: 1-17).

What can we read from these?

Adam’s ache from being alone, his awareness of being incomplete, his search and yearning for companionship and constancy, is not portrayed as sinful desire.

The hunger to find completeness with another is a foundational existential experience. It shapes the way we live, it shapes the way we relate to others.

And in seeking relationship with others we are taking risks and we are embarking on a spiritual journey that is the quest to fulfil what we have been created for.

Human sexuality is charged with something holy. It reveals and reflects a deeper hunger for intimacy and union with God. David Runcorn says that as such it is a sign or sacrament of divine love for the world.

Historical approaches to sexuality in the Church in the past

In the past, the Church has often separated sexuality and spirituality.

Prayer and passion are often seen as being in conflict with one another rather than complementing each other. And so, celibacy was often elevated above marriage as the greater or more perfect Christian lifestyle. Yet my sexuality, your sexuality, is one of our God-given human qualities and one that makes us creative and partners in God’s creativity.

On the other hand, this has not always been the predominate attitude in the Church. There have been times when the language of passion, sexual love and erotic desire has been used in Christian teaching.

The Song of Solomon was written about in the Middle Ages more than any other book in the Bible.

The shift in attitude to sexuality is evident in the changing understanding of marriage in the Church.

Traditionally, the Book of Common Prayer said that Matrimony was ordained for:

“First, for the increase of mankind, according to the will of God, and for the due ordering of families and households, that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name;

“Secondly, for the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman, and for the avoidance of sin;

“Thirdly, for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.” [The Book of Common Prayer (1960), p. 266; see the Book of Common Prayer (2004), p. 406.]

There is a very different set of priorities when the Book of Common Prayer (2004) sets out the Church’s understanding today of the purpose of marriage, Marriage is:

1, about giving and loving;

2, comforting each other in plenty and need, in sorrow and in joy;

3, the delight and tenderness each other should know in love and bodily union;

4, children; and

5, new life together.

[See the Book of Common Prayer (2004), p. 417.]

Changes in thinking about sexuality in the Church:

Over 20 years ago, Professor James B. Nelson identified seven signs of a shift in thinking about sexuality within the churches:

1, There has been a shift from theologies of sexuality to sexual theologies.

2, There has been a shift from understanding sexuality as either incidental to or detrimental to the experience of God toward understanding sexuality as intrinsic to the divine-human experience.

3, There has been a shift from understanding sexual sin as a matter of wrong sexual acts to understanding sexual sin as alienation from our intended sexuality.

4, There has been a shift from understanding salvation as anti-sexual to knowing that there is “sexual salvation.”
5, There has been a shift from an act-centred sexual ethics to a relational sexual ethics.

6, There has been a shift from understanding the church as asexual to understanding it as a sexual community.

7, There has been a shift from understanding sexuality as a private issue to understanding it as a personal and public one.

Consequences for today:

Today we need to find a Third Way that rejects promiscuity but that at the same time refuses to fall into a false sense of being chaste.

Being chaste is often defined in terms of what one does not do. Where can we find an approach to sexuality that is not based on negative definitions but on definitions that are positive, active and life-enhancing?

We need to be aware of, friendly with, and confident of how our sexuality works, how it fuels our desires and passions, how it drives us towards intimacy and towards making meaningful links with, engagements with other human beings.

Our sexual desires are not only God-given. In the passion and vulnerability of our sexual living we can express, however falteringly, something of the mystery of God’s image and the glory, power and even vulnerability of divine desire. [Runcorn, p. 106.]

Sexuality, vocation and ministry:

Awareness is a theme common to spirituality and to the task of sexual self-acceptance. It goes without saying that unless people are aware, they can neither heal nor change.

And so there is a connectedness between self-acceptance, maturity, response to vocation, and sexuality.

In ministry, we need to know the power and the catches of sexuality.

Ordained and parish ministry calls us to engage in providing, caring and nurturing. But how we give and receive these is closely related to how sexuality works in a very hidden way.

Nurses who have been proposed to dozens of times in hospitals know this.

Many of the male opponents of women’s ordination in the early debates had not dealt with their own sexuality.

We need to know the boundaries and the borders in pastoral theology, and what is at play there, or the two become confused, ministry collapses, and we deal with the wrong questions that have been raised about our sexuality.

Sexuality and theology:

Before we conclude, I would like to make two points about sexuality and theology:

1, The churches avoid sexuality:

Many young people are critical – in a detached way – of religious organisations and traditional practices. As long as religious organisations ignore human sexuality beyond the reproductive scope, and as long as they try to repress sex education, the young people who need the most guidance are going to get their information from sources that breed harm instead of health.

Many young people have become disinterested in the churches that deem them ignorant of their concerns. Many young people brought up in church now families fight old beliefs and teachings on sex and in return feel guilty. If these beliefs and teachings are worth holding, these young people have not heard a plausible reason why.

As the Jesuit writer and theologian, Thomas J Reese, wrote (America, 21 June 1997): “In the Catholic Church the battle about sex is over and no one has won. On questions of birth control, masturbation, premarital sex, divorce and remarriage, the hierarchy has lost most of the faithful.”

Many members of the laity are muddling through making up their own minds without much help. According to Joan Timmerman: “The best thing the leadership of Church communities could do at this time would be to engage people who are living their lives with good will and realism in some important listening sessions about the signs of grace and the signs of evil in the experience of sexual and marital relationships. ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is a rule that fails to promote personal growth as consistently in religious communities as it does in families.”

2, Fighting degradation:

This generation is in painful transition regarding cultural as well as religious traditions. For example, young women are angry about pornography, and they take it personally. Why cannot pornography, with its humiliation and degradation of women’s bodies, be contained? One woman answers: “A society that is permissive toward pornography can do nothing about it when pornographic images become mainstream culture.” Another has said the level of acceptance of pornography says: “Women are hated.”

The solution to the problem is difficult to come by. But even the most liberal of students believe it to be connected to better education. As one young woman is quoted as saying: “What we need is erotic education, with healthy sexual/relational images. We cannot censor in a free, capitalist society, but we can educate instead of closing our eyes.”

Another student wrote: “What bothers me most about the porn and sex industry in our society is that the intimacy that is especially needed today is being replaced by emotional detachment and voyeurism. We should be bringing people together to touch each other’s spirits. Pornography separates us from our spirits.”

The eroticisation of violence has been a defining characteristic of male love-maps. If it is true that violence is the regurgitation of pain, Western culture has some profound rethinking to do about the relative values of pleasure and pain and which is the greater to be feared. The search for the truly erotic – that which connects and unites rather than diminishes and isolates – is the deep adventure of daily life. Where is Eros? Where is the call to union?

Listening and loving:

David Runcorn sets out eight marks of a church community where people will know they are loved, accepted and listened to:

1, A celebrating and reverencing of our shared gift of humanity

2, A sensitive awareness of our mutual vulnerability

3, A compassion for those who struggle

4, A discernment of the reality of sin and evil

5, A prayer for holiness of life

6, Grace to be gifts to each other’s fulfilling in Christ

7, Truth, forgiveness, reconciliation in facing up to disordered and destructive elements in our lifestyles

8, Support in seeking holiness and sustaining new patterns of living and loving

[David Runcorn, “Sexuality and Spirituality,” Spirituality Workbook (London: SPCK, 2006), pp. 102-108.]

Concluding thought:

“Our sexuality is the playground for prayer. It is where we tumble over our greatest needs and hungers, where the possibility of erotic desire is revealed, the limitations of self-love are exposed, and pride is purged … our sexuality remains the place of great personal intensity where we have the capacity to be most open and most closed to God because it remains a place of trouble and torment and also of the greatest earthly blessings and happiness.”

– Angela Tilby, in Fraser Watts (ed), Perspectives on Prayer (London: SPCK, 2002), pp. 94-95.

Additional reading:

James Hillman, The Soul’s Code: In Search of Character and Calling (New York: Random House, 1996).
J Nelson and S Longfellow (eds), Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources for Theological Reflection ( Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994).
James B. Nelson, “Reuniting Sexuality and Spirituality,” The Christian Century, 25 February 1987, pp 187-190 (Dr. Nelson was professor of Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, New Brighton, Minnesota).
P. Reed, “An Emerging Paradigm for the Investigation of Spirituality in Nursing,” Research in Nursing and Health 15 (1992), pp 349-357.
David Runcorn, Spirituality Workbook (London: SPCK, 2006).
Joan Timmerman, Sexuality and Spiritual Growth (New York: Crossroads, 1993).
John Toy, ‘God and Eroticism,’ Theology, Vol CX, No 857 (September/October 2007), pp 323-331.
Fraser Watts (ed), Perspectives on Prayer (London: SPCK, 2002).

Canon Patrick Comerford is Director of Spiritual Formation, the Church of Ireland Theological Institute. This essay is based on notes prepared for seminar in the Year II course, ‘Spirituality for Ministry,’ on Wednesday 7 January 2009.