Monday, August 6, 2012

Parallel Spirituality

Many people may remember when I first became a Christian...

I've since apologized for my behavior to them all.

No, I don't regret becoming a Christian, far from it...but I handled it all very immaturely, and I hurt a lot of dear people who deserved better.

On the plus side to this debacle, I learned that there are instances in Scripture that echo each other spiritually vs physically; they parallel each other, where one situation here on our earthly plane will mirror one spiritually, and vice versa.

The link between my earlier immaturity and this example is this: It's not a coincidence that new Christians are referred to as "born again", or "born anew"...and in fact are often called "baby Christians".

Consider this:

Babies are born helpless; they need to be fed, protected, and nurtured.  They're often loud.  They make stinky messes.  They spit up on people.  They can't walk on their own, nor can they even stand alone.  They can't handle real adult food; in fact, not only can't they chew it, they can't break down the stuff for the nutrients with their immature organs...in short, it would kill them to try to handle adult food, among other things.

Now, let's look at a new Christian, generally speaking:

Spiritually, they're helpless...they don't know much about right and wrong from their new world-view; they need more knowledgeable people to nurture them and help them walk through their early days.  They're telling EVERYONE about their new life, whether they want to hear it or not.  They try to "help" people, and often muck things up in their inexperience.  They "spit up" on people, metaphorically speaking.  They need support in their Christian walk, so they don't walk alone.  Paul said that new Christians need "milk", easy teachings to make a foundation, but once they mature need to put that aside and move on to more solid spiritual food, and again he says something like it in an earlier book.

So you can see how one is an example of the other...and it's a fine way to drive home the point that we always have much more to learn!

This being said, here's a point I'd like to bring up as a counter-point to my very first blog post; I realized something tonight that in all my life I never considered...and it also means that I have to admit when I'm wrong.

And that sucks.

Sadly, I'm wrong a lot.  *sighs*

For most of my life I could see no issue with polyamory or polyfidelity; from the perspective I had, it was based in love, and what's wrong with love, right?  I looked at it from a perspective that was distinctly colored and biased from my past experiences in high school and college.

Tonight though I was discussing this topic with a close friend, one of the guitar players in our band, and he made a comment that tripped a memory in my head, and I remembered how Jesus often compares the Christian church (as a body/single entity) to a bride and Himself as a groom, with the goal of illustrating to the Jewish people He was teaching in a way they could identify with.  See, in Jewish culture back then, the groom would go to build a house for his bride, and his bride would wait for him.  The groom's father would be the one to determine when it was good enough, often prompting him to going above and beyond.  As a result, only the father knew when the groom would return, and the bride would have to be ready, because it was ALSO tradition for the groom to come and "steal her away" at some odd hour.  This is exactly how Jesus described His predicted return, so His fellow Jews listening to Him would get the concept.

Now, expanding on that marriage concept, all throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments included, God has said that He wants no gods other than Him...really, it's the First Commandment, and it's also the first of the summations that Jesus delivered to the people:  "Love God with all your heart, mind and spirit".  To have another god before Him is idolatry, a big no-no for Christians and Jews.  He wants us separate, clean, and faithful, ready for His return, just like the bride in the example above.

And that's why I "get it" now, that polyamory and polyfidelity are just not right for Christians.  Being an Aspy, just being told something is wrong never works; I have to know why, because every situation is different, and a hard/fast rule doesn't always work.  Knowing WHY helps me to adapt to new situations; it gives me a litmus to apply.

Those relationships are the marital equivalent of spiritual idolatry, in essence.  You're being unfaithful to the ONE you chose to be your mate, in place of all the others you COULD have been with...and that's just not the model.

So kids...choose wisely.  Pick the right one.  It's disrespectful to your mate on many levels; even if it "works" outside of a Christian belief system, once you CHOOSE to be in that system, you're willingly forsaking other gods for the One you chose...and that's how you should choose and treat your spouse, too.

16 comments:

  1. I think, the crux of your issue is 'instinct' for both issues.
    First, We as human beings are hard wired to react favorably towards our young. Humans who did not, died off. [/intentional oversimplification] Baby humans are given much more lattitude in behavior and are held blameless because their actions are not given weight. If we are to hold baby Christians blameless they are going to need some sign which triggers in the mind to put them in the same category as human babies. Then, it becomes the direct responsibility of their Christian mothers and fathers to monitor, adjust, and apologize for their children's behavior.
    Second, it's counter to man's baser nature to limit his seed to one offspring producing vector. (Again evolution - more children=greater chance of passing on the polysexual instinct.)Supporting the continuance of the individuality. On the other-hand, we have a higher nature, a spiritual instinct if you will, to join (or return to) a greater whole. This covers everything from forming a country to bonding a mate. Becoming one with others is important to us but the more entities involved the less intimate the bond. So when you're choosing a mate (as opposed to just a sex partner) you are trying to blend your lives to as much a single unit as possible.
    How that relates specifically to polyamory? With even a second mate one instantly divides one's attention and decreases the maximum closeness potential for each mate. It takes a special mindset for all parties involved to make something like that work. Usually through acceptance of the loss. Most of the time, however, someone is going to feel it as unfair to what could be.
    I've seen very few cases where polyamory actually works for more than a relatively brief period. And the one's that do work usually do so because the primary mate has separated sex from the value of the bond. (Again, acceptance of the lost potential. Even if it is due to preferrence.)
    I would like to point out that God doesn't seem to have a problem with polyamory if you consider the old testement as acceptable behavior patterns for God-fearing men. And he also doesn't have a problem with you worshipping other gods... just don't elevate their importance to you over his. I'd imagine mates could be the same way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All valid points, to be sure.

      Perhaps I oversimplified in my rush to get to bed; I didn't hit every existing point of reference, instead choosing to stick close to the baseline. This post was the result of a conversation, and as such focused mainly on the thrust of that talk, which focused on the baseline of monogamy as a spiritual baseline for our relationship with Christ. One point I did not mention, but is also critically important, is that not only are Christians called to be different and separate, but those involved in ministry are called out SPECIFICALLY to be monogamous, married with ONE spouse; this is, of course, a New Testament verse, and places a higher calling and requirement than the standard, even though men throughout Biblical history had multiple wives and concubines.

      You are, of course, absolutely right in this regard: "the one's that do work usually do so because the primary mate has separated sex from the value of the bond." I have seen this first-hand, and the situation it worked in was PRECISELY as you described it, but again, that is outside the spiritual model of Christianity, so even if it works, it's outside of the accepted box.

      As to your first point...well, we may have to agree to disagree. Even though baby Christians are still learning, they are still expected to act at least as mature humans, and their new spiritual status doesn't excuse common courtesy; they are still ultimately responsible for their own actions, and the responsibility for adjusting and apology still falls squarely on them.

      Delete
  2. James, first of all let me tell you that I do enjoy your blog very much. It feels sincere, open, and full of doubts (which I do value.) I am always full of questions myself. Also, as a disclaimer, I am not christian. Please keep in mind that I mean no offense to you or your belief system. I respect you. So, question #1: Would you give me your thoughts on why is the christian god needed? Why the rules and regulations? Question #2: regarding the polyamory situation, why do we assume that there is The One and then the others? What if it is a flat hierarchy where all the parts are like you said in your previous blog, sharing equally in all matters (emotionally, physically, financially)? Lastly, I think that if the christian god were to be real she would would be very intrigued/amused/dismissive of the "fine print" (and it feels like it is full of fine print) placed in the contract (between her and the humans) by the lawyers involved in the transaction... Peace!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congratulations, Yolanda! My reply to your comment was so long, it wouldn't fit in the character limits of the reply, so my answers to you get their own blog post! Look for it.

      Delete
  3. We don't have to disagree at all. I wasn't trying to deny your point. Sorry if it came across like that, I don't usually respond to stuff people post for that very reason. It just triggered a line of thought in me that I felt compelled to add to. If they are responsible for their own behavior then the use of 'baby' is where our difference of opinion, if any, would lay. But I do understand why you might use the term to describe them.
    I spent 2 hours agonizing over my post trying to present some potentially helpful information in a way that neither diminished nor invalidated your opinions. I just hope I don't sound like I'm trying to 'school' somebody.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It didn't come across as a denial of the point, as much as an alternative view of the same scene I'm not certain I agree with; this would be most accurate.

      You make a very valid point at the use of the word "baby"; I debated over the inclusion of the description, because while they're "babies" in their spiritual renewal, they're still adults (or at least not infants) in their human life, and should display a certain degree of decorum. They seem to forget that in their enthusiasm.

      I'm pleased and thrilled you responded; I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts!

      Delete
  4. Monogamy is at best, anomalous is human history.

    The only thing I can see as a reason to encourage it is to put people in a perpetual state of conflict with themselves.

    All you have to do is look at how hard it is to fight your nature. All you have to do is look at the number of people that can't do it.

    It's pretty slick, it certainly makes Original Sin(tm) an easier sell.

    Basic subjugation psychology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; however, you lack one crucial bit necessary to validate your opinion...:

      Experience as a Christian.

      You also cannot base certainty over your own experience at attempts at monogamy. While there are a number of people that can't do it, there are even more that can. Except for a few short periods in my life where polyamory were the norm, the rest was monogamous, and there was no difficulty in keeping to that.

      Delete
    2. I only made it to 14 but from 8 until then I was reared in a baptist household. I was even a Royal Ambassador for a while. And while that's certainly a narrow window and time frame it does at least give me a taste of it.

      And I'm not basing my assertion about monogamy on my experience, but history. Monogamy is kind of new in the scheme of things. And it's starting to implode under a vacuum of necessity. Society has the potential to be stable without the ties of religious boundaries. Ultimately, technology and egalitarianism are going to either free us or doom us.

      Delete
    3. A very small taste...and I'm going with the latter on "free vs doom".

      Delete
  5. You missed the part about history.

    Anthropology bears it out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Monogomy is man overcoming his animal nature and focusing his attention on a higher ideal. I don't think monogomy is such a new concept but I do think it has always fallen into the minority behind self preservation. These days, when self preservation is a given, we have more leeway to focus on something greater than ourselves. That's the glory of love.[/cue Peter Cetera]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds a lot like what I said, just with more hand waving.

      Except the Peter Cetera part that is.

      Delete
  7. All the emotions associated with sex get so bound up and confused with what love really is for so many (I've been there myself). It can be impossible to sort the two as they become more inextricably linked in our minds and hearts during the course of a relationship.

    Humanity is biologically "hard-wired" to naturally seek multiple sexual partners from a standpoint of good reproductive mechanics (boy, that works on a lot of levels, doesn't it?). That's why fornication is such fun: to ensure the continuation of the species.

    By upbringing, and by cultural dynamics in play, modern humans are led to believe that monogamy is somehow spiritually superior to any alternative, but it may not be necessarily so in all cases.

    Overcoming those biases and being able to truly love (and not merely lust after) more than one spouse becomes a deadly serious game in human politics. All the players had best understand the rules up front, or someone is going to get hurt, and that ain't love, folks.

    I guess that's where I'm really going with this: As long as the rules are well understood by all the players, play whatever game you like here. Far be it from me to judge anyone else for their lifestyle choices. I play by a monogamous rules set because that's what my wife and I mutually agreed to when we first started considering marriage. That's what works for us.

    If what you do works for you, and you have peace in your heart with God about it, who am I to judge or condemn you just because it's different? You get to take that up with God - it's between the two of You.

    From Dr. Frankenputer's Laboratory, Peace!

    ReplyDelete