Lately, I have been challenged to reflect on sexual ethics. In terms of sex there is the tendency for us to “just do it” (it is just sex!) instead of first thinking over its consequences. It is to our advantage to be proactive and develop some guidelines concerning things sexual.

The breaking up of relationships resulted in emotional upheavals around us. The fallout of pain and agony should not surprise us. These happenings led me to informal discussions with people who are prepared to be engaged on the issue of sexual ethics and there are only a few. It is good and timely that these situations presented opportunities for us to reflect. The pressure of events has forced us to look more critically on sexual ethics in our community. It is all about sex in FCC in the direction of discovering meaning and purpose of sex in our lives. .

When I was requested to express my views on the article on “Sexual Ethics” I realise that I could not just simple state my views and rehearse them again. I need to probe also into recent publications on the subject to find my bearings and see whether I am on the right track in the current discourse on sexual ethics. I went to the library of Trinity Theological College and searched the catalogue under the search words “Christian sexual ethics.” I explored the following books which I found useful and I interacted with the writings in seeking clarity for my positions.

I want to share the titles of these books which I found stimulating:
1. Farley Margaret A, “Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics” (New York: Continum, 2006).
Ms Farley is Professor of Christian Ethics at Yale Divinity School since 1971. She is a feminist theologian and in her scholarly work she has researched the important writings on this subject with a vast bibliography.

2. Jordan, Mark D, “The Ethics of Sex” (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002). Mr Jordan is avante-garde on Postmodern theology and writes from a non-heterosexual and marginal perspective. In the penultimate page of his book, he wrote: “Who could have imagined two decades ago (since 1970) that an introduction to the Christian ethics of sex could be written by an ‘unrepentant homosexual’”?

3. Cahill, Lisa Snowle, (Sex, Gender & Christian Ethics” (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996). Ms Snowle is a Professor of Christian Ethics at Boston College. She wrote from the perspective of a Catholic feminist theologian.

4. Dominian, Jack & Montefiore, Hugh, “God Sex & Love” (London: SCM Press, 1989). Anglican Bishop Montefiore is a marital counselor and Senior Consultant at Central Middlesex Hospital. Roman Catholic Dr Dominian is a Senior Consultant Psychiatrist in the same hospital. Both speak as committed members of their churches and dare to differ from their official teaching.

5. Countryman, L. William, “Dirt Greed & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and their implications for Today” (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Dr Countryman is Professor of New Testament at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley.

In reading through this random selection of books I found all the authors are gay-affirming and they seem to agree on some common principles of sexual ethics. Some will emphasize more on certain aspects like the Catholic bishop who shared also the concept of natural law. Others are more progressive. Farley was able to draw all the issues together and provides a basic framework for our reflection. A comprehensive view of sexuality was discussed in order to bring clarity to specific problems of sex.

They all seem to speak about one Christian sexual ethics along the lines that they understand, interpret and communicate. There is one sexual ethic applicable for the gays and the straights. They make reference to the LGBT community but they do not privilege them. One ethics fits them all – gay or straight. This is important and we no longer say that any group needs special consideration. The difference is in sexual partners – same-sex or opposite sex. The same ethic applies to both.

The peculiar situation of the LGBTG is that they have to accept their sexual orientation and then along with the straights deal with sexual ethics. Indulging in sex does not necessarily lead to affirmation of gay identity. It may create greater confusion both in acceptance of sexual orientation and in sexual ethics. Gays are not naturally more promiscuous than the straights. Gay and straight identities are not socially constructed but naturally endowed. This is what is meant when we claim we do not choose to become a homosexual. It is not a choice but a recognition and acceptance of what is given.

The question that we have to ask is the source and authority for our Christian ethic. Traditionally, we have been told to accept the authority of the Bible. For we all too familiar with the refrain “The Bible tells me so.” Then we are confronted with the teaching of the official Church that has declared what is right and what is wrong by the majority of its leaders. But when we examine more closely we have to raise the questions about the way the Bible was formed or the manner in which the pronouncements of the Church were formulated. . The literal acceptance of these important documents is not adequate. They are in reality not revealed but interpretations of the revelations by the different human authors inspired by God. Sola Scripture is not sufficient.
In my seminary training since 1952 I have been exposed to critical study of the sources of authority. A scholar of Wesleyan or Methdist theology, Albert Outler in 1964 coined the term Wesleyan Quadrilateral for the sources in our study of theology and search for truth. The four distinctive sources in arriving at theological conclusions are:
· Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
· Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
· Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
· Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ
This quadrilateral has been widely accepted by recognized scholars and has filtered down to popular usage. Farley readily admits that her version parallels the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which she regards as fairly “standard” for most scholars for the study of Christian sexual ethics. She uses the terms Scripture, tradition, secular disciplines and contemporary experience.

These four sources are distinct but inter-related. We can no longer believe that the words of the Bible were dictated by God and the metaphorical story of the Ten Commandments were carved in stone tablets and brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses who met Yahweh at the top. People of faith have received what they in faith believed as God’s revelation of truth. They must have undergone the process of reasoning to come to their conclusions. The teaching of the Church was formulated by scholars and leaders through their critical study and reflection not only of the Bible passages. What they believe to be true has to be experienced in the life of the faithful individually and corporately in community. No one source can stand alone. It must interact with one another in trying to reach truth and understanding.

When we interpret the Bible and Tradition we must recognize that it is historically based and culturally bound. They cannot be absolute and universal truth for all people and all time. We have the obligation and responsibility to investigate how they can become relevant to our contemporary situations. We have already rejected the purity laws, slavery, racial discrimination, patriarchy and it is just a matter time before the teaching that homosexuality is a sin and abomination is cast into the shredder.

With sexual ethics in mind we must note that the Bible is primarily concerned with sex solely for procreation and the patriarchal model of sexual relationships. Women were generally under the control by men and regarded to be a piece of property to be used and transacted. The Jewish tribes were concerned with the perpetuation of their people as Chosen people and the continued dominance of the male members in society. Monogamous relationship for life was valued and promoted. Adultery was punishable by death of both partners.

The Jewish faith was concerned with the issue of holiness and purity and regard the material including the body as of less worth than the spiritual. There are those who even say that sexuality violates purity laws and there is much argument about what is clean and what is unclean. It also leads to feel that erotic pleasure is disgusting and that sex is dirty.

Sex is due to the fall.. Too easily is the acceptance even within the gay community that sex is original sin and fallen nature. It is then associated not only to the weakness of the temptress Eve but with the demonic and the idolatrous.

The New Testament is clear that there is the overarching command to love God and neighbour which includes the sexual lives of the people. Seeking justice and loving mercy is more important that pursuing sex. It was concerned with the reign of God in all human activity.

The community of faith in their critical reflection and interpretation of the words and events written down in the pages of the holy text which originally circulated as oral tradition form the official teaching of the Church.
As the Bible was influenced by the pagan religions around them, the teaching of the Church was impacted by Graeco-Roman culture and the other religious and cultural conditions prevailing then. Tradition is continuing and is not frozen to the past. Through our experiences and new thinking we correct old traditions, updating them and forming new ones. This process is a continuous one. New occasions teach new duties.

The Graeco-Roman culture accepted sex as a natural part of life. It was against incest, bigamy and adultery because they covet another person’s property. Both the Greeks and the Romans know about same-sex relations for they assumed that the male sex is bi-sexual. Concubinage, male and female prostitution, sexual use of slaves were accepted. Both men and women sought sex with partners other than their spouses. Only the brides were expected to be virgins. Male homosexuality was accepted but male passivity is questioned. Lesbian relationships did not receive positive support and seen as adultery because a woman is a property of her husband.

The Christian tradition inevitably changed in succeeding generations. The ancient philosophers were against bodily passion. But the use of reason in dealing with questions of morality was encouraged. Sex was good but gone bad due to the Fall. Virginity became a virtue and extolled.

The Early Church Fathers viewed sexual passion as an evil passion that must be brought under control. Even sexual intercourse outside marriage and without the purpose of procreation was regarded as sinful. Marriage is seen as a remedy for lust. Canon law was instituted on the principle that “all sexual activity is evil unless it is between husband and wife and for the sake of procreation. Generally then they took a negative and pessimistic view of sex.

In the Middle Ages the tradition of spiritual love and sexual pleasure came together and celibacy was challenged. Later Luther advanced the idea that marriage is not a hospital for incurables but a school for character and the importance of family life. Luther along with Calvin opposed divorce, premarital and extramarital sex and homosexual relations.

Sexual ethics must necessarily be affected by new information and new technologies. The secular disciplines of philosophy, psychology, sociology, science and arts are what we can regard as the rational source. We use reason and we experiment to gain knowledge.

Karen Armstrong recently commented: “Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives.”

Is it reasonable for us to believe that when human beings came out of the waters on the shores of life they were gifted with reason to comprehend and cope with their surroundings. In this condition filled with awe and wonder they constructed their religious systems. They looked at one another and found the differentiation of male and female gender. In the new and strange environment they sought companionship and driven my inner urges they found intimacy with their partners. Through the process of observation they discovered though in a primitive sense how new life emerged.

The powerful with sheer strength and plain possessions began to dominate the weaker ones to satisfy their natural desires including sexual urges. In organizing the tribes they discovered the value of family and community in child-rearing and protecting the group.

God has also gifted humankind with a moral sense of what is good and right and the freedom to choose. We find the authority embedded in religion as well. We entered into a whole range of experiences and reflected upon them. This process is continuing.

When we look at experience as a source of authority we recognize that the Bible is a record of the experience of the people of faith and the teaching of the Church is a record of the experience of the community of faith who at a specific time of history come to agreement, in this case, on sexual issues. All claim divine revelations but even then the revelations have to be processed by the use of reason and experience.

Farley offers further the concept of “just love.” She warns us about casually saying that love is the sufficient answer to all our sexual issues. We must be able to see the right kind of the expression of love. It must be true, good and just love. She places the emphasis on the principle of justice in our loving relationships. Her definition of love that is true and just, right and good as “true response to the reality of the beloved, a genuine union between the one who loves and the one loved, and an accurate and adequate affective affirmation of the beloved.”

She then listed specific norms for a “just sex.” Our sexual relationships need to serve the cause of justice. These are the principles or guidelines: 1. Do no unjust harm. 2. Free consent of partners. 3. Mutuality. 4. Equality. 5. Commitment. 6. Fruitfulness. 7. Social justice. All these come to play when we reasoned out our own version of sexual ethics to guide our actions.

With this interpretation of authority and framework for sexual ethics we now examine some of the problematic areas. .

What is sex? Much has been said that the sexual act between male and female is for the purpose of procreation. The created human body - male and female - come together to give birth to new life. This is the natural form of ensuring life to continue on earth knowing that death is inevitable to all. This is the case with animal life. We detect the strong drive for sex which is innate that leads to intense desire and performance of the sexual act for the purpose of creating new life.

Beyond reproduction, sex also provides intimacy and pleasure. According to Cahil, “Sexual pleasure as a bodily reality involves sexual drives and attractions, and their resolution through orgasm or to less genitally focused experiences of sexual satisfaction.” St Paul acknowledges the satisfaction of desire for intimacy as a valid reason for marriage. Sex in our time in contrast with the past is focused more directly on intimacy and pleasure than in reproduction. This is a positive value of sex being an integral part of the human person with freedom and responsibility to relate and enter into relationships with others. Sex is to be regarded as a good gift from God in creating us as sexual beings.

What do we have to say about open relationships? While it is true that we cannot be easily satisfied with a monogamous relationship and even managing one, how are we to cope with multiple relationships and managing more than one. The eruptions caused by breaking relationships of a couple without open relationships will just increase exponentially for those who work on open relationships. Strong emotions swirl around in relationships and they need to be controlled and regulated.

There are levels of relationships for intimacy and pleasure. It is different between friends and partners in committed and consensual relationships. What form of sexual acts come into play between friends and between partners?

Much has been said about marriage and family values. If open relationships is acceptable what does it mean for the sanctity of marriage of gays and straights, the stability of family life and the sustaining of community.

Is sex is just not a recreational activity that we indulge in as couples or in groups as casual sex? Sexuality is not just physical activity. Sexuality has physical, emotional, spiritual, personal and social dimensions. It is not a private activity in the secrecy of our bedrooms. It has social implications as to how we view sex and the kind of human community we form when sex is only physical and recreational. We can see the chaos in the more open and competitive community in the animal kingdom where physical prowess rules. We see it when the powerful and the rich are able to control and buy sex. Sex cannot be just individualistic and bodily. Sex which is good has turned bad. Good sex has to take into account the dimensions of the body, individual and the social. Sex seeks to gratify the person and interpersonal fulfillment. That will happen when sexual norms that we listed earlier are being applied

The key to an individual, gay or straight, is not sex but true love. We do not engage in sex and destroy life of the individual and community. Sexual love must also serve the cause of justice. It is not just sex or simply sex. It is sex that is just. Have good and just sex and enjoy it.