Every now and then I put this up here again because it never grows old. I ought to see if I can persuade Hebe to actually sing it for you, because she wrote a tune for it too.
Seeing yourself – a chant on perception
When you see your face in the mirror,
Don’t be dissatisfied with what you see.
For your face is only one part of you.
There are parts of you that you cannot see.
There are parts of you that you will never know;
You cannot know how beautiful you are to others.
There is also a part of you
That others can never know;
The part of you that is only for you to see,
And it is beautiful in its mystery.
I believe there is a God,
And he knows all of you and me.
He knows the things that I cannot know –
The parts that only you can see.
But he also knows what I know,
And the parts you can never see,
God can see the whole of us –
Even that which is a mystery.
When you look at your face and your body,
Don’t be dissatisfied with what you see;
For beauty is not only in that which is visible,
But also in parts that are not seen.
And do not think that any part of you is ugly,
Even the inside part of you:
For part of the beauty that is you
Is when every part of you is together.
A body is far more beautiful alive than when it is dead;
But, when all is said and done,
We cannot know how beautiful we are
’Til we see what God sees.
And do not be afraid when you are changing –
Your face or the inside of you;
For that’s what it is to be alive.
If you ever feel misunderstood,
Ugly, or even invisible,
Know that, because I have seen you and known a part of you,
There is a part of you that is a part of me.
Can you see that we are a part of each other, then?
So what you see in the mirror is not all of you:
Don’t be trapped by feelings of inadequacy;
Let it be a mystery, and let it set you free.
So do not be unhappy with your body –
Love it, for it is part of your wholeness;
And if you cannot do that,
Love it because it is part of mine.
(Words of chant © Hebe Wilcock 2006)
9 comments:
this makes me think of the recent decision of the methodist church to stick to the 'traditional' path and shun their LGBTQ brothers and sisters. do you have any thoughts on that? why is it so easy for us to turn our backs on those that we perceive as somehow different or not worthy?
This is the United Methodist Church, isn't it? In America? The position in UK methodism is somewhat different, and should be better clarified at our Conference this June.
For the UK position, see here: https://www.methodist.org.uk/about-us/the-methodist-church/views-of-the-church/human-sexuality-including-gay-and-lesbian-issues/
The Marriage and Relationships report requested by (UK) Conference for June 2019, had the following instruction:
"The Conference also adopted Notice of Motion 203 [Daily Record 7/17/8 as amended at 8/53/1-2] which directed the Task Group to ensure that the recommendations to be brought to the Conference include options for “a way forward that is consistent with the existing commitment to live with contradictory convictions” and enable, amongst other things, “those who feel called by God to solemnise same sex marriages to do so” and “protection for ministers, probationers, members and churches prevented by conscience from participation in such services”.
This works towards the objective of holding together within the Methodist communion both those who speak in favour of gay marriage and those who are opposed.
I personally am in favour of inclusive church. That is to say, I am in favour of respecting the freedom of individuals to express their sexuality without persecution or oppression; I am in favour of kindness and understanding and the celebration of diversity; I accept that LGBTQ sexuality and gender identity belongs to some individual's nature and to seek to suppress it is cruel. I don't understand why heterosexuals have seized the high ground in the church, taking It upon themselves to tell their LGBTQ brothers and sisters what they can and cannot be and do.
BUT — and this is important to me — I am also in favour of self-discipline, responsibility and personal holiness. I believe all Christian people — let me add an "H" for "heterosexual" to make "LGBTQH" — should live under a discipline of respect and tenderness in their intimate relationships. Regardless of orientation or personal inclination, I believe sex should never be abusive or coercive, should always be respectful and responsible. I believe promiscuity is never a good expression of sexuality, because it tends to author misery and suffering. I am also wary of bandwagons in respect of sexuality — cultivation of image and following trends. I dislike the cheapening of sex intensely — the relentless sexual display required by the media, the competitiveness to be sexy, all sexual flaunting and titillation; I believe it is degrading and I dislike it.
An under-explored aspect of the whole conversation is the sub-section of "Q" represented by a-sexual and demisexual people (I would identify as the latter).
http://wiki.asexuality.org/Demisexual
I'm conscious that this in turn influences my outlook, because I experience strong distaste for all overt public sexual behaviours (eg sex scenes in TV dramas) or ogling of 'sexy' celebrities (which they seem to like and encourage). I try to remember that as a demisexual I am part of a minority and cannot expect other people to feel the same way. And I guess I'm just lucky to have been born with a sexuality that doesn't upset other people.
up until this recent devastating decision, my impression is that the united methodist church (USA) was closely in line with what you describe in the UK. it was kind of up to each church to decide how/if they wanted to proceed on issues like gay marriage or ordaining gay clergy. alas, it was the very conservative element in the church that somehow was able to force their less inclusive attitude on the church as a whole. my husband's church (United Church of Christ) was the first church in the US to ordain women. they also recognise gay marriages and have no problem with gay clergy (as along as they are either celibate or in committed relationships.) my church (catholic) sadly has a big problem with anything to do with human sexuality unless you aremarried and planning to get pregnant! oy.
i completely agree with you about the necessity for 'self-discipline, responsibility and personal holiness.' the flaunted sexuality that is permissible and even accepted makes me want to run and hide. i'd not heard of the term 'demi-sexual' until these recent discussions but most certainly fine myself firmly in that camp. as a minority we don't seem to have much influence in the society as a whole but i hope that our living example of modesty and reticence might at least be a witness to our faith. as lent approaches perhaps it's good time to ponder how our own committed relationships might be used to strengthen others.
Yes to all of that. Something that interests me particularly is what you say in your first paragraph, "it was the very conservative element in the church that somehow was able to force their less inclusive attitude on the church as a whole".
My friend Margery (of whom I often write — used to be my prayer partner, died in 2004) used to encourage everyone she knew to pray in August. She said, people go off on holiday (vacation) in August, including prayer groups, leaving only a few folk praying. She linked this with wars often starting in September. What you said about one perspective gaining sway reminds me of that — as though somehow in the decision-making we must have taken our eye off the ball, so that we didn't manage to pray through a result respecting ALL of our sisters and brothers.
I think it is important we try to shake off the assumption of an alpha group claiming for themselves a gatekeeper function over the whole body. There is no us and them; no "them" for "us" to include or exclude. We are all in this together.
I'm encouraged to hear of the church your husband belongs to, the United Church of Christ. I don't know of them — will look them up online.
the United Church of Christ (UCC) is a merging of the old Congregational Church (those pesky pilgrims on the mayflower) along with both the Evangelical and Reformed churches. if memory serves, that took place in the mid-1950s. surely those pilgrim forebears (from whom i've descended!) are turning in their respective graves over the current liberality of the church.
your friend margery was correct. my suspicion is that the more liberal element amongst the methodists went into the conference expecting fireworks but not a wholesale takeover. were they perhaps too sanguine? quite possibly. here is a link from the washington post which may give you more information: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/02/27/reeling-contentious-lgbt-vote-some-methodists-pledge-fight-while-others-mull-leaving/?utm_term=.22d757077585
Thanks, Greta!
Two thoughts. A gay man I knew who was also a Christian said that Christians should not be calling him out on whether he could be a Christian or not. He loved God and knew that no-one could take that from him. But he also said -you can, however, call me out on my promiscuity because I know that is not God's will for me and I know that sometimes I can get swept into that lifestyle. In this he knew that God's perfect will for him was no different than anyone else's.
On a different tack, I really love the line "And do not be afraid when you are changing" because I was unhappy this week when I looked in the mirror and noticed the sagginess and the lines. But it is this isn't it? - "What it is to be alive"
Wow. Thank Hebe for me, please.
Hi Nearly Martha — yes, it was that part especially spoke to me this time round, as well.
Hi Beth — thank you, yes, I'll tell her.
Post a Comment