前一陣子,我非常的迷戀大主教
會不停的在下午工作到一個無聊時
開始瘋狂的看他的sermon
那時候我還會用孤狗訂閱大主教的新聞
結果看他一路下來
還真是常常出槌
常會講出聽起來有點偏激,會被誤會的話
回去翻舊新聞
還發現
大主教剛變成坎特柏里大主教時
媒體都說他是聖公會的child prodigy
他好像是這兩百年來最年輕的主教
然後又說他搞不好是這五百年來
最聰明的
他又是當代聖公會
極為優秀的神學家
看樣子
好像真的應了部落格偶像說的:
學者從政,通常沒好下場
今年lambeth
搞不好就會決定會不會分家了
(啊.我該不該請winston幫我跟他要簽名捏~)
以下
是當時我瘋狂在公司亂印大主教sermon的讀書心得/佳句摘錄:
Reading Archbishop of Canterbury TM Rev. Rowan Williams’ piece "The Body’s Grace" from 1989, it is ace material!
Check this out:
"Sexual ’perversion’ is sexual activity without risk, without the dangerous acknowledgement that my joy depends on someone else’s as theirs does mine. Distorted sexuality is the effort to bring my happiness back under my control and to refuse to let my body be recreated by another person’s perception."
This totally nails what I’ve known/suspected somewhat inherently or subconsciously for a while. Love the way he says "sexual perversion is [attempt to have] sexual activity without risk." All genuine relationships and interactions are risky, because we put ourselves at other’s mercy. We rely on the other to reciprocate our sentiments, our self-emptying, and our exposed nakedness.
Another line:
"Sexual faithfulness is not an avoidance of risk, but the creation of a context in which grace can abound because there is a commitment not to run away from the perception of another."
Of course, how come we never think of it this way before? It takes greater courage to stay put with one partner than to jump beds. Because long-term commitment to a single partner exposes ourselves to them: our vulnerability, our insecurity, our desire to be desired and the fear for being rejected, our fear for failure to continuously arouse the other’s desire. If we can understand that it takes greater effort and heart to preserve long-term friendships than maintain dozens of light acquaintances, how come we didn’t realise the same about relationships sooner? Damn.
在分類的時候猶豫了一下
這該算是閱讀咩
還是說
喜歡大主教
也算是一種戀物癖咩