More Reflections on Revoice

Today over at First Things, I’ve got a piece up reflecting on this year’s Revoice conference, which was the highlight of my summer. Here’s a snippet:

In a line that’s become a kind of mantra among Revoice attendees and presenters, the celibate lesbian Catholic writer Eve Tushnet has said: “[Y]ou can’t have a vocation of not-gay-marrying and not-having-sex. You can’t have a vocation of No.” What Revoice offers—and, please God, will go on offering for years to come—is a way of thinking Christianly about homosexuality and other non-straight sexual orientations that moves beyond enumerating the sins we’re called to renounce. Revoice is trying to pose the deeper question: To which forms of love and friendship and service are we called to say yes?

Please read the rest!

8 thoughts on “More Reflections on Revoice

  1. Is there a community for non-Judeo-Christians where homosexually oriented persons pursue heterosexual unions for procrreation, i.e, family making, i.e, having babies and raising them while abstaining from extra-familial entanglements. If so, please link me… I’ve suddenly become aware my gay life is a dead end and my race (white) is slated for extinction.

  2. From the article: “LGBTQ+” and “queer culture”

    Why do these identities matter? Why does any identity matter – including an “identity in Christ”?

    Why not stop playing the identity game altogether?

    Or is LGBTQ+ the Revoice team’s way of feeling/acting normal in a culture where everybody is playing the identity politics game?

  3. We should also acknowledge that modern conservative Christianity doesn’t provide much in the way of vocation to anyone. For most, their vocation is reduced to performing according to certain restrictive scripts within the nuclear family. As one commenter noted above, Christianity is arguably somewhat anti-family. Thus, the one vocation that modern conservative Christians have chosen is the kind of activity that Christianity once would have rejected as a legitimate vocation altogether.

  4. Joe, if you had one eye and folk called you Joe the Pirate your one-eyedness would define you whether you choose to play the identity game or not. If you moved to a land where everyone had one eye it would no longer define you. One is not white until one is forced to distinguish himself from colored and vice versa. It’s not a game it’s catagorizing, ordering our environment.

Leave a Reply to Joe Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s