the rainbow spectrum

a while ago my wife and i were talking with a friend about the dsm v and the fact we can all find ourselves in it without too much searching.  i think its pretty well accepted these days that almost all the so-called pathologies or mental disorders are not binary phenomena but spectra.  in other words, its not a case of having the condition/disorder/whatever or not, but of a progressive line or spectrum, from mild to severe, along which we all sit somewhere, and along which we no doubt move one way or the other during the course of our lives.  so you could perhaps say that each person's personality is the intersection point of his or her position on all the different spectra.  i happen to be more towards the 'severe' end of both the obsessive compulsive spectrum and the autism spectrum (the two are probably related) than the 'average' person, but i'm able to function relatively successfully in society and am fairly confident i would be considered by most to be within the 'normal' range (though tending towards the fringes).

all well and good and non-controversial, but it got me to thinking about another phenomenon which we tend to think of as binary but which i wonder might actually be a spectrum: sexual orientation.  in other words, i wonder if people aren't either absolutely heterosexual or homosexual, but are all somewhere along a line between the two.

no doubt this idea will not be greeted with much enthusiasm, especially by those who identify as heterosexual, because to accept it is to agree that you are at least a little bit homosexual (similarly, those who identify as gay may not like the idea that they are to some degree heterosexual).  but i think it makes some sense, and provides a solution for a number of questions around sexual orientation.  for example, the spectrum idea would account for those who identify as bi-sexual as being near the middle of the 'sexual orientation' spectrum.  similarly, people who identify as heterosexual but are comfortable with engaging in threesomes involving another of their own gender would be closer to the middle of the spectrum than those who can't abide the thought of being naked in bed with anyone sharing the same kind of genitals as themselves.

more importantly, however, i think this 'sexual orientation spectrum' idea provides an explanation for the phenomenon of homophobia.  this is of course the psychological term for those who exhibit fear of or anger towards homosexuals.  but what exactly is the fear?  it can't be a sense of any physical threat posed by homosexuals, since they are very small in number compared to society at large, and have, for the most part, far less tendency towards violence.  so it must be some kind of internal threat that is being felt, a fear maybe that if you gets too close to a gay person the 'gayness' will somehow rub off, or that if you were propositioned by a gay person, somehow you wouldn't be able to refuse (similar to the fear of heights, which is not so much a fear of being far above the ground but of not being able to stop oneself from falling/jumping).  but why would a person have this fear if they didn't subconsciously (or even consciously) suspect that they have some tendency towards homosexuality - in other words, that they are somewhere towards the homosexual side of the sexual orientation spectrum (though of course never thought of in those terms).  to suspect that you have some level of homosexual attraction would quite naturally cause a great deal of insecurity as to your whole identity, based on the assumption that sexual orientation is a binary thing.  however, if sexuality was understood as a spectrum along which everyone has a naturally different place, it stands to reason that having some level of same sex attraction would no longer cause anxiety, but would even be expected.

i'm very aware that relating same-sex orientation to what many consider to be psychological 'defects' raises a host of issues, and probably will not be greeted kindly by either 'side'.  the first answer i would give is that i don't consider the kind of psychological spectra i'm talking about (eg. autism or ocd), as defects in any objective or fundamental sense.  people at the more extreme ends of these spectra do find life in 'normal' society more difficult, but that's not because they are 'defective' but because society isn't structured to make life easy for them.  in the same way, society historically, and still now in many parts of the world, has not been structured to make life easy for homosexuals, but has by and large considered them defective, and worthy of judgement and exclusion if not worse.

the other main issue, as i see it, raised by relating sexual orientation to psychological conditions, is the question of what determines a person's sexual orientation.  i think it's fairly well established that both genetic and environmental factors contribute to some people being further towards the extremes of psychological spectra such as autism than others.  so is it also true that where one sits on the 'sexual orientation' spectrum is determined by both nature and nurture?  obviously sexual orientation isn't a physical of physiological characteristic such as a measurable difference in a particular gland or organ in the body, or even of macro-level brain structure.  nor is it a chromosomal abnormality such as down syndrome.  the only other credible option is that it arises from a combination of the neural wiring and chemical composition of part, or connected parts, of the brain.  as such it must necessarily have a genetic basis but also be susceptible to environmental influences in the same way as psychological conditions such as autism.

i suppose what I'm trying to get at is that i don't think the 'sexuality spectrum' idea, or relating sexual orientation to certain psychological conditions that appear as spectra, should be an offense to either those who identify as homosexual or those who have some degree of autism (or ocd or whatever).  there just happens to be natural variability in the human make-up, due in large part to the enormous complexity of the human brain.  and so it is simply wrong to consider one's own make-up to be superior in a moral sense to anybody else's, or to judge others for what they are, or to try to 'normalise' them.

in conclusion, i must say that i am encouraged by the general lessening of the heat surrounding discussion of gay issues that seems to be happening (in australia at least).  the sexual revolution that in a significant way enabled the acceptance of gay people as equal and normal human beings has had a mixed impact to this point overall, as it seems all steps towards freedom must.  the battle of the sexes is still raging, men still need to protect their fragile egos by dominating and objectifying women, women still seek control by alternately hiding and showing off their bodies.  but the growing acceptance of homosexuality may be an indication that we are inching towards greater security as individuals in our own sexuality, which may (or may not) include an acceptance of a degree of homo-/hetero-sexual tendencies in ourselves (depending on our primary orientation), and i believe this can only be a positive thing for society and the world as a whole.

rhythm of conversation

i've just spent a bit of time going through some old un-published drafts, and found these excellent quotes about paul's conception of christian life from mark strom's great book Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace and Community:

"The coherence Paul saw in Christ did not single out any one exegetical procedure for using the Old Testament. Nor did it predispose him to any one way of dealing with Graeco-Roman cultures. Nor again did it imply any single path of Christian experience. The imitation of the dying and rising of Christ was not an alternative moral code. Imitation required new wisdom about one's actions and choices. There was no single formula for working out the implications of weakness-strength, foolishness-wisdom, poor-rich, slave-free and suffering-joy in any new context. Paul framed each pair to provoke conversations about what it might mean to imitate Christ. They were not a means of securing conformity to new ideals for behavior.

"This point is crucial to understanding the rhythm of Paul's conversation. He was not interested in uniformity of behavior. Paul's own life embodied the dynamic transformations that he believed the Spirit sought to bring about within the ekklesiai. His teaching was provocative, not legislative. It avoided the pettiness of religious and legal controversies (cf. 2 Tim 2:14-26; Tit 3:9). Nor did he prescribe any single pattern for the gathering. His advice left room for spontaneity and diversity (1 Cor 14:26-33). Clearly, Paul did not proceed from the coherence of Christ to reduce experience, relationship and learning to intellectual abstractions and formulas. There remained an open-endedness about 'walking worthy of one's calling' (Gal 5:13,16; Eph 4:1; Phil 1:27; Col 1:10; 3:1-5,17; 1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 1:11-12; 2:15). His message offered no formula to settle in advance which way to respond to contemporary intellectual and social patterns.

"New understanding for new circumstances emerged within the communities through conversation. Indeed, the power of the story of Christ only came to its fullness in the contingencies of social life. Paul, his colleagues, and the communities were each working out the message as they went. Yet even as his thought matured, Paul continued to show no interest in formulating final statements in the sense of the doctrinal debates and creeds of subsequent generations. He remained focused on specific people and contexts. New contexts continued to prompt new responses as Paul sought to remain open to the Spirit and to his own experiences and relationships to guide his thought." (pp.195-196)

and

"Paul's conversations bore the marks of his personality: pleading, strident, exasperated, affectionate, urgent, reflective, passionate and at times impatient. They bore the marks of his close knowledge of the popular intellectualism of his day and of the social systems of status and honor. If Paul had had his way, his ekklesiai would have remained creatively messy. But his opponents wanted neatness -- and they won. Twenty centuries later, we may look back amazed that we have drifted so far. Then again, perhaps we still don't get it. It remains profoundly difficult for leaders to let go of their need to control people. It is easier to impose order and conformity through prescribing belief and practice than to acknowledge the dignity and gifting of Christ's people. It is easier to disallow the conversation than to hear the hard questions. For many, it is easier to disallow the conversation than to join it." (p.197)

i don't think i can add anything to that, except to say i wholeheartedly agree and long for such an experience of christianity in conversation with others and the world around us. why is it so hard to find?