Her first words to me were, “Please climb down off the ceiling.” I knew then how Adam felt about turning over a new leaf.
Later the doctor came in and looked over the form — the written form — and focused on the question that asked, “Do you worry?” I had checked “yes” rather than “no.” The doctor said, to me, “Presbyterians should not worry!” And so the Presbyterian minister stood corrected, rebuked and silent before the Presbyterian physician. It is very difficult to engage in a discussion of Reformed theology when one participant is wearing a long white coat and the other a transparent birthday suit. By the time I got my clothes on and my wits together, the doctor was gone.
I have often thought of that occasion. Not only is it painful to be the unrecognized world record holder for the high jump, I now worry about worrying. If I am honest I must admit that I worry about my family, my church, my country, my world, and myself. In short, I worry about everything that concerns me. I suspect most people do. On further reflection, and more than fully clothed, I submit that the correct answer to the question, “Do you worry,” is “yes” for everyone who believes in human freedom and responsibility, and “no” for everyone who believes in divine sovereignty and grace.
Doubtless that example of incisive analysis will generate profound admiration for the remarkable rational acumen of people trained in Presbyterian seminaries. However, since many Christians want to accept both human freedom and divine sovereignty — the answer is both yes and no. I will explain that issue to everyone’s complete satisfaction some other time.
For now, I need to note that our little reading group has just re-read Shakespeare’s As You Like It and the correct interpretation of this play has finally become clear to me. Rosalind is greatly praised by great critics, like Harold Bloom, but I have never liked her. For years I blamed myself for bad taste, but now I am happy to say I blame everybody else. My main objection to Rosalind may stem from the fact that I really loved my mother and never had a sister, but I think my objection is theological.
In my youth the minister of our church was a student of Otto Piper. A copy of Piper’s The Christian Interpretation of Sex was loaned to me, and I read it with teenage hormones flying. Among the things I remember was Piper’s emphasis on the “otherness” of the sexes. That is, the mysterious (and wonderful) complementarity of male and female. This meant to me that I did not need to understand women, which I have learned since was impossible anyway. I do believe, however, that it is important to be able to recognize them. Otherwise, tough guys like me, thinking only men are present will say (or do) something really disgusting. According to Karl Barth, men without women become bears and women without men become cats (Church Dogmatics III, 4, 54, p. 166). Charlie Dickens points to the same complementarity in writing of the men at Todgers, “Their rugged natures have been softened and ameliorated by the society of lovely women” (Martin Chuzzlewit).
In contrast, a well-known speech in Plato’s Symposium (190f.) begins, “Now the sexes were three.” The first sex was composed of male and female, the second was male and male, the third was female and female. These creatures became so powerful that the gods split each of the three pairs in half. This Greek myth is supposed to explain sexual attraction. On the contrary, according to Scripture, God made the human creature on earth in two varieties only: male and female (Genesis 1:27). For the sake of the Gospel, one may remain single (I Cor. 7 ), but, if one marries as a Christian, your other half is going to be the other sex.
Part of our contemporary problem is the question whether “sexual orientation” is given by nature or selected by choice. Another problem is whether “sexual identity” is fixed or flexible. Curiously, a significant number of liberal thinkers when moving between these questions shift their positions. That is, they consider the sexual orientation of heterosexuals and homosexuals to be fixed by nature. On the other hand, sexual identity for transgendering persons is a matter of individual choice. Some years ago I think I read about a Presbyterian minister who chose to have a “sex change” operation. I am glad I did not have to vote on whether the ordination and installation of Pastor John transferred naturally to Pastor Jane when he became she.
It seems obvious to me that high jumping naked is a dangerous event for both guys and gals, but in different ways because when they hit the crossbar, men and women injure different sensitivities. The whole premise of As You Like It depends on Rosalind’s pretending to be a man and convincing Orlando of this unnatural “fact.” For years I thought Orlando was a really dumb wrestler. Now I believe that Orlando had not been long in the Forest of Arden when he figured out that under that doublet the youth, Ganymede, was really his Rosalind. Moreover, I think he also realized that the only way to stay close to her was to let her play out her little feminine game until she got tired of it. Orlando was not the first guy to figure out that if your lady love does not win — you lose.
