From Gay Christian Online
Gay Christian Online - Living The Gay Christian Life - Sexual Ethics HOME
hough you, as a Gay Christian, are not bound by the Law of the Old Covenant, in searching the Scriptures of the New Covenant, I am amazed at the number of references on the topic of sexual ethics, exhortations to flee from sexual impurity, and the elevation of the purity of sexual maturity and its proper expression.
Gay Christian Life - Body Shame
Your body is not something to be ashamed of, it is and can be a thing of beauty, the earthly vessel in which you live in this world. You need to take care of it, keep it balanced and healthy. Learn how to live a healthy body life in my article on Gay Christian Athletics. The human body is beautiful, and so is sex. But, both have to be in submission to your spirit, and walk in harmony with each other. If you have a positive and healthy spirit, you will see your body in this way, and walk healthy in your body and body choices. There is nothing wrong with admiring the beauty of the human body, but rather our motivations determine the health of such admiration and our desires.
Gay Christian Life - Know The Difference Between Love And Sex
Love is not sex and sex is not Love. Sex is biological, physical, emotional and spiritual. You, as a gay person, should especially know sex is not given just for biological reasons, procreation, for not all gay people are blessed with the opportunities to parent a child. No, sex is far more. Sex is a binding thing, it joins and binds two bodies together, and it also has the potential to join and bind two hearts together. You can have sex and bond only physically, but you cannot be bound and joined together in relationship to another person without the desire to be somehow connected physically to each other. There is nothing basically evil, dirty, or sinful in sex, it is how it is expressed, and the motivation behind that expression, which can give rise to error. Therefore, it is important to learn what role and purpose God has for sex and how it is to be a part of your life as a Gay Christian.
Frosting is sweet, wonderful, inviting, hard to resist; but, eat too much and it will make you sick, throw your blood sugar off balance, or make you addicted to it, ever needing to increase the appetite to get the same "high." Cake, in and of itself, is adequate, but just barely; nutritious, yes, but by itself dull, boring, incomplete. Together, however, cake and frosting makes a wonderful dessert, the frosting elevates the cake and the cake supports the frosting.
Gay Christian Life - Sex Verses Relationship
Frosting is sex and cake is relationship. Too much sex will leave you empty, shallow, even addicted. Relationship without affection is incomplete. A relationship can exist without sex, as in the cases of couples facing illness, emotional or physical challenges, but they must be reinforced by other means of sweetness, affection. Nothing can compare with the depth of sexual pleasure achieved with someone with whom you deeply care, love and abide with in the bonds of life long relationship; what goes on in the bedroom is dependent on what goes on outside the bedroom, between the hearts of the two people bound together in commitment.
Though Scripture has often been misinterpreted regarding sexual orientation, it says a lot about its expression. Sexual expression is bound by the Law of Christ, the Law of Love, as all other aspects of being; you are to express your sexuality in Christian Love. Though there is, today, all manner of sexual expression within the straight community, there ever remains the shadow of procreation. But, for the Gay Christian, the possibility of procreation is generally removed. There are no sexual guidelines for gays and another for straights, for you are under Christ and under His Law of Love, and it applies equally to both gays and straights.
I've had people try to justify to me their sexual activities by saying they were "showing caring love to the person they were 'humping' last night." I've even heard churches compromise the Law of Love by teaching it's "ok to have sex, just do it in a loving way." Well, I boldly and without regret say to you, and believe without question, the Scriptures teach:
Gay Christian Life - Proper Sexual Expression
Any sexual expression which uses and/or abuses the other person or is motivated selfishly is Scripturally questioned and is not Christian Love."
Do I need to go further into any more detail or do you get the general picture? Any such activity, whether you're gay or straight, is not an expression of God's Love. Sex within God's Love plan is given to elevate your life. Scriptures continually admonish you to flee from sexual expressions done outside of the Law of Love. We are told not to resist sexual temptations but to flee from them, run and run fast.
Christians, whether gay or straight, are not compelled to reproduce nor be joined to another in relationship; in fact, you are encouraged to set aside all feelings of being somehow incomplete for not having a mate and to concentrate on your place in the Body of Christ. But, if you are blessed or cursed, however you look at it, with a high sexual drive, Scriptures encourage you to channel it in a Godly manner, Love.
Gay Christian Life - The Blessing Of Relationship
If God leads you to a mate, what a blessing, and God shall give you the ability to live as a good and rewarding couple; if not, what a blessing still, and God shall give you the ability to live a good and rewarding single life.
Your sexuality is to be rooted and grounded in Love just like all other aspects of your being; it is your heart which shall be revealed in your attitudes, and your attitudes revealed in your actions. Your sexuality is to be surrendered to God just as all other aspects of your being. Let me ask you this: Can you look upon another person's naked body in your neighborhood gym shower, admire it from a heart of purity and respect for the human form the same as if you viewed the same person fully clothed? Your heart knows you best.
Gay Christian Life - Admire And Respect, But Do Not Stare
Personally and truthfully, I was blessed (or cursed) with very high sex drive, I love it a lot, have difficulty controlling myself, but I write these things not because I have a hang-up about sex, but rather to share the blessings I have learned from it. I have known and experienced much pleasure and pain sexually and I know first hand the joys of its proper place and expression and the pains of failure, setting aside priorities and commitments. I have learned from God the joys of sexuality when expressed within the framework and guidelines of God's Love. If you follow the Law of Love I promise you you will not miss out on something sexually, but instead learn the wisdom of its purpose and the talent of its proper place and expression.
If you have failed to abide by God's Love in your sexuality confess it and receive forgiveness, healing and cleansing.
If you have failed to walk in Love sexually, I invite you to pray this prayer:
Dear God,
I confess I have not walked in Love regarding my sexuality. Forgive me, cleanse me. I receive Your forgiveness, I forgive myself, too, and see myself once again as new before You. Give me your Spirit to guide me and teach me how to walk in Your Love through my sexuality. In Jesus Name I pray, Amen.
EMAIL ME ABOUT SEXUAL ETHICS. chat about sexual ethics.
God will not permit you to be tempted beyond what you can handle and you must seek the power and Love of God's Spirit within you. If you need to, seek out professional help to assist you learn how to walk in Love in your sexuality. If, at this reading, you have never been sexual with another person, you are not less than others and should be applauded, difficult thought it may be for you; continue to seek God's will and strength to use your sexuality wisely. Do not deny your sexuality, for that would be denying a part of yourself, rather accept it and channel it properly through God's Love. God has a plan for your sexuality just as with other areas of your life; trust God and be at peace.
Gay Christian Life - Using The Gift Of Sex Properly
Sex is a special gift from God, and used properly it can be a blessing to you.
John 8:1-11; Rom. 13:9-10; I Cor. 5:1-13; 6:15-20; 7:1-40; 10:8, 13-14; II Cor. 10:3-5; Gal. 5:16-19, 24; Eph. 5:3-4, 11-12; Heb. 13:4; James 4:2-10; I Peter 2:11-12; 4:1-4.
See Also: Sexual Compulsions, Sex Outside of a Relationship, Pornography, Masturbation, Reproduction, Is Gay Sex Wrong?, Body Care.
ow get out there and enjoy life as a Gay Christian... have fun, be responsible, be Love in all you are and do, and maintain good and healthy relationships with yourself, with God, the Church, and with other people.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Christian Sexual Ethics
>
> Reflections on Sexual Ethics
>
> Yap Kim Hao
>
>
>
> 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 when you are ready and enjoy
> it.
> Reflections on Sexual Ethics
>
> Yap Kim Hao
>
>
>
> 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 when you are ready and enjoy
> it.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Resolution leading to UN Victory
Resolution of the UN Faith Coalition for LGBT Human Rights
Posted in United Nations Human Rights Advocacy by Rev. Dr. Cindi Love on December 20th, 2010
Resolution of the UN Faith Coalition for LGBT Human Rights
December 2010
Whereas, the international Yogyakarta Principles of 2006 state, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Sexual orientation and gender identity are integral to every person’s dignity and humanity and must not be the basis for discrimination or abuse.”
Whereas, many faith traditions support human rights, including freedom from imprisonment and execution for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.
Whereas, more than 70 countries criminalize sexual orientation and seven allow the death penalty based on sexual orientation;
Whereas, countries in Eastern Africa are increasingly treating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as criminals;
Whereas, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are promoting discrimination and persecution of LGBT people;
Whereas, basic human rights such as the right to marry and maintain custody of children and inheritances upon death are just a few of the civil liberties denied to LGBT people in many areas of the United States of America;
Whereas, all of these realities create a climate of lies and fear that promotes hatred and violence against gender non-conforming people and against those who love someone of the same gender;
Therefore, Be It Resolved, this 18th Day of December, 2010, that the UN Faith Coalition for LGBT Human Rights fully affirms and supports the proposed action by Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations to amend the Resolution by the Third Committee on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions which excludes protection of people who are vulnerable due to sexual orientation.
Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations has publicly stated her intention to propose an amendment to the Resolution by the Third Committee on or before December 20 to the General Assembly to restore the prohibition of the violent targeting and extrajudicial killing of people who are vulnerable because of their sexual orientation.
While we understand and respect that there will always be differences in understanding of human sexuality within society, we unequivocally assert that laws that criminalize people for sexual orientation and gender identity do not just violate human rights, they hinder social cohesion, economic development and public health. These laws diminish the trust and cooperation among nations, among communities, among families and co-workers that is fundamental to progress in all human endeavors.
Be It Further Resolved, that the UN Faith supports the member nations of the United Nation who determine to vote affirmatively to include sexual orientation and respectfully call for those members who cannot vote affirmatively to abstain.
Be It Further Resolved, that we call upon the United Nations to adopt and affirm the Yogyakarta Principles to bind international legal standards with which all States must comply. We call upon faith leaders and institutions to support these principles and internationally agreed standards of human rights.
Be It Further Resolved, that we call for the United States of America to work with its fellow Core Group Members of the United Nations to urge Countries which still have laws criminalizing sexual orientation or gender identity to repeal them and to develop a sustained and serious plan of action to decriminalize LGBT people around the world.
Be It Further Resolved, that we call for a model similar to that of the Responsibility to Protect to apply to the lives of LGBT people.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) represents an important step forward in the long historical struggle to save lives and guard the wellbeing of people endangered by conflict. It holds that states have the responsibilities as well as interests and duty to shield their own populations from murder. This approach is bold and important.
Repeatedly, our consciences have been seared by the horrors of genocide and today we are challenged again by that possibility when protections are publicly and officially removed from a class of people
We are reminded of our shared responsibility for the international community’s failure to act in the face of genocide in the 20th century. Our new century can and must be better than the last—more deeply rooted in humane values, more committed to universal rights.
The Responsibility to Protect was adopted by all 192 UN member states at the world summit in 2005; the Security Council reaffirmed the commitment and the related principle of protection in Resolution 1674.
Be It Further Resolved, that we call for preventative diplomacy and internal mediation which prevents anti-LGBT violence. We call for strengthening of the United States and the United Nations to engagement in the internal human rights architecture and specific intervention in any country where fines, imprisonment and the death penalty are in place or being considered for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies.
We must not wait for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing before we act. The decision to implicitly and explicitly give a license to States to tolerate or implement atrocities against gay and lesbian people is a craven decision which disregards the dignity and worth of all persons.
Humanitarian policy concerns must build up the institutions that make a society resilient in the hour of crisis; including communities, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, schools, independent media, civil society organizations and governments. These institutions must not sponsor discrimination, persecution and genocide.
Posted in United Nations Human Rights Advocacy by Rev. Dr. Cindi Love on December 20th, 2010
Resolution of the UN Faith Coalition for LGBT Human Rights
December 2010
Whereas, the international Yogyakarta Principles of 2006 state, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Sexual orientation and gender identity are integral to every person’s dignity and humanity and must not be the basis for discrimination or abuse.”
Whereas, many faith traditions support human rights, including freedom from imprisonment and execution for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.
Whereas, more than 70 countries criminalize sexual orientation and seven allow the death penalty based on sexual orientation;
Whereas, countries in Eastern Africa are increasingly treating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as criminals;
Whereas, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are promoting discrimination and persecution of LGBT people;
Whereas, basic human rights such as the right to marry and maintain custody of children and inheritances upon death are just a few of the civil liberties denied to LGBT people in many areas of the United States of America;
Whereas, all of these realities create a climate of lies and fear that promotes hatred and violence against gender non-conforming people and against those who love someone of the same gender;
Therefore, Be It Resolved, this 18th Day of December, 2010, that the UN Faith Coalition for LGBT Human Rights fully affirms and supports the proposed action by Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations to amend the Resolution by the Third Committee on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions which excludes protection of people who are vulnerable due to sexual orientation.
Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations has publicly stated her intention to propose an amendment to the Resolution by the Third Committee on or before December 20 to the General Assembly to restore the prohibition of the violent targeting and extrajudicial killing of people who are vulnerable because of their sexual orientation.
While we understand and respect that there will always be differences in understanding of human sexuality within society, we unequivocally assert that laws that criminalize people for sexual orientation and gender identity do not just violate human rights, they hinder social cohesion, economic development and public health. These laws diminish the trust and cooperation among nations, among communities, among families and co-workers that is fundamental to progress in all human endeavors.
Be It Further Resolved, that the UN Faith supports the member nations of the United Nation who determine to vote affirmatively to include sexual orientation and respectfully call for those members who cannot vote affirmatively to abstain.
Be It Further Resolved, that we call upon the United Nations to adopt and affirm the Yogyakarta Principles to bind international legal standards with which all States must comply. We call upon faith leaders and institutions to support these principles and internationally agreed standards of human rights.
Be It Further Resolved, that we call for the United States of America to work with its fellow Core Group Members of the United Nations to urge Countries which still have laws criminalizing sexual orientation or gender identity to repeal them and to develop a sustained and serious plan of action to decriminalize LGBT people around the world.
Be It Further Resolved, that we call for a model similar to that of the Responsibility to Protect to apply to the lives of LGBT people.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) represents an important step forward in the long historical struggle to save lives and guard the wellbeing of people endangered by conflict. It holds that states have the responsibilities as well as interests and duty to shield their own populations from murder. This approach is bold and important.
Repeatedly, our consciences have been seared by the horrors of genocide and today we are challenged again by that possibility when protections are publicly and officially removed from a class of people
We are reminded of our shared responsibility for the international community’s failure to act in the face of genocide in the 20th century. Our new century can and must be better than the last—more deeply rooted in humane values, more committed to universal rights.
The Responsibility to Protect was adopted by all 192 UN member states at the world summit in 2005; the Security Council reaffirmed the commitment and the related principle of protection in Resolution 1674.
Be It Further Resolved, that we call for preventative diplomacy and internal mediation which prevents anti-LGBT violence. We call for strengthening of the United States and the United Nations to engagement in the internal human rights architecture and specific intervention in any country where fines, imprisonment and the death penalty are in place or being considered for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies.
We must not wait for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing before we act. The decision to implicitly and explicitly give a license to States to tolerate or implement atrocities against gay and lesbian people is a craven decision which disregards the dignity and worth of all persons.
Humanitarian policy concerns must build up the institutions that make a society resilient in the hour of crisis; including communities, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, schools, independent media, civil society organizations and governments. These institutions must not sponsor discrimination, persecution and genocide.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Inter-religious Dialogue
ECUMENICAL NEWS
12/21/2010 14:48
TURKISH-ORTHODOX
Istanbul (AsiaNews) - On the eve of the holiday season, Bartholomew I delivered a major address before an highly qualified audience from the Orthodox world, defending the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s choice for inter-faith dialogue. "We will insist on dialogue, despite the criticism that we suffer," he said. "There is, unfortunately, a certain religious fundamentalism, a tragic phenomenon, which can be found among Orthodox and Catholics, among Muslims and Jews. These are people who think they alone have the right to exist on earth, almost as if they alone have the right to rule on this our planet according to the Old Testament. And they say there is no room for anyone else, and are therefore opposed to any dialogue. "
The Patriarch continued: "We are subject to criticism and attack because we maintain relations with the Pope (because we are strong supporters of the ecumenical dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics), with Islam and the Jewish world. But we will continue to move forward on our journey, according to the path laid by our predecessors, well aware of our actions, regardless of the criticisms of which we are object. These fringes, characterized by extreme positions, are everywhere. It is therefore natural that we suffer their criticisms, according to their ideological dictates, all of us who try to widen our horizons and have a theological view of things. Because we want the peaceful coexistence of all, based on the principles of charity and friendship. "
Bartholomew I added: "This is the credo of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and I want to remember that in 1920 the regent of the patriarchal see, along with the synod, had addressed to Catholics and Protestants an encyclical, called 'The community of churches', along the lines of the newly created 'society of nations'. That encyclical is considered today by the World Council of Churches as the 'Charter' of the ecumenical movement of our time. This is a well known fact to insiders, and it is good that it should be made as widely known to as many people as possible”.
Then Bartholomew I went on to highlight: "With regard to interreligious dialogue, it is our belief and our creed. Because we need to know each other better, to work together while respecting the religious beliefs of others, their cultural identity, without oppression. This is the only way to live in peace. For this reason, the Patriarchate, in addition to having a dialogue with other Churches and Christian denominations, has established over the past 25 years a dialogue with Islam and Judaism. We have had several successful meetings. With the Muslims and Jews, our brothers, we do not discuss purely theological issues as it would be difficult. But we talk about social issues, social issues that effect all people, all humanity, all over the world. "
Ecology has been one of the favorite themes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate since 1989. The Patriarch said: "Everything that we try to do, we do because we believe it is our duty, because the Church should be actively present in the contemporary world and be sensitive to people's problems, raise awareness and encourage them to love and protect nature like their own homes". He added: "The environment, nature, is God's creation and do not belong only to us who live today in 2010. They belong to all future generations. "
Bishop,Dositheos spokesman for the Patriarchate, commented on the Patriarch’s homily for AsiaNews, "a certain confusion prevails in some sectors of the Orthodox Christian world between the two terms, tradition and traditionalism. Tradition, to which those minorities often refer, is the ongoing search to interpret and understand the truth, while traditionalism which essentially belong to these minorities, is an intellectual sterility which often is identified with nationalism in the Orthodox world”
12/21/2010 14:48
TURKISH-ORTHODOX
Istanbul (AsiaNews) - On the eve of the holiday season, Bartholomew I delivered a major address before an highly qualified audience from the Orthodox world, defending the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s choice for inter-faith dialogue. "We will insist on dialogue, despite the criticism that we suffer," he said. "There is, unfortunately, a certain religious fundamentalism, a tragic phenomenon, which can be found among Orthodox and Catholics, among Muslims and Jews. These are people who think they alone have the right to exist on earth, almost as if they alone have the right to rule on this our planet according to the Old Testament. And they say there is no room for anyone else, and are therefore opposed to any dialogue. "
The Patriarch continued: "We are subject to criticism and attack because we maintain relations with the Pope (because we are strong supporters of the ecumenical dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics), with Islam and the Jewish world. But we will continue to move forward on our journey, according to the path laid by our predecessors, well aware of our actions, regardless of the criticisms of which we are object. These fringes, characterized by extreme positions, are everywhere. It is therefore natural that we suffer their criticisms, according to their ideological dictates, all of us who try to widen our horizons and have a theological view of things. Because we want the peaceful coexistence of all, based on the principles of charity and friendship. "
Bartholomew I added: "This is the credo of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and I want to remember that in 1920 the regent of the patriarchal see, along with the synod, had addressed to Catholics and Protestants an encyclical, called 'The community of churches', along the lines of the newly created 'society of nations'. That encyclical is considered today by the World Council of Churches as the 'Charter' of the ecumenical movement of our time. This is a well known fact to insiders, and it is good that it should be made as widely known to as many people as possible”.
Then Bartholomew I went on to highlight: "With regard to interreligious dialogue, it is our belief and our creed. Because we need to know each other better, to work together while respecting the religious beliefs of others, their cultural identity, without oppression. This is the only way to live in peace. For this reason, the Patriarchate, in addition to having a dialogue with other Churches and Christian denominations, has established over the past 25 years a dialogue with Islam and Judaism. We have had several successful meetings. With the Muslims and Jews, our brothers, we do not discuss purely theological issues as it would be difficult. But we talk about social issues, social issues that effect all people, all humanity, all over the world. "
Ecology has been one of the favorite themes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate since 1989. The Patriarch said: "Everything that we try to do, we do because we believe it is our duty, because the Church should be actively present in the contemporary world and be sensitive to people's problems, raise awareness and encourage them to love and protect nature like their own homes". He added: "The environment, nature, is God's creation and do not belong only to us who live today in 2010. They belong to all future generations. "
Bishop,Dositheos spokesman for the Patriarchate, commented on the Patriarch’s homily for AsiaNews, "a certain confusion prevails in some sectors of the Orthodox Christian world between the two terms, tradition and traditionalism. Tradition, to which those minorities often refer, is the ongoing search to interpret and understand the truth, while traditionalism which essentially belong to these minorities, is an intellectual sterility which often is identified with nationalism in the Orthodox world”
Season's Greetings
Dear Loved Ones Far and Near
Christmas tradition or myth tells us that Mary & Joseph were also displaced persons compelled to travel on a donkey back to their birthplace of Bethlehem for census-taking. The Holy Family journeyed further on to exile in Egypt before returning home to Nazareth.
Residents in that region in particular continue to be displaced by the pressure of political conflicts. Travelers are displaced by weather gyrations. Migrant workers are displaced in search of employment. Others are displaced in search of greener opportunities. We have become people on the move across this globalized situation.
Wherever you are as family members and friends, may we wish you a Meaningful Christmas and a Moving New Year of 2011. May you realize your dreams and fulfill your hopes in the days ahead.
Church Encounters
In April, I participated in the annual Methodist Pastors Retreat in Johore Bahru and Melaka in Malaysia.
Attended the General Assembly of the Christian Conference of Asia in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia as its former General Secretary. These are occasions of renewal of relationships with partners in the mission of the Church.
Family Movements
Richie's family in Dallas visited us in July together with Shirley from Orlando. We went to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. It was to discover the roots for Sandy who is originally from Saigon. Raymond from Orlando paid a filial visit to the old folks whose last visit to US was in 2008. Susan here is expected to settle in Australia in two year's time and we will be in an empty nest and wondering where to fly to.
Mission Moves in Sri Lanka
I just returned from my third tiring trip to Vavuniya, gateway to northern Sri Lanka, in connection with the establishment of the Chen Su Lan Education Centre. It is a service to the displaced persons since the cessation of the Civil War. Classes including computer use started for about 500 registered students. It is an interfaith centre for peace and reconciliation.
Took a two hour ride on a three-wheeler from Negombo to Colombo which weaved and threaded through the congested traffic to the rapidly developing modern city sense the smell and see the sights of development.
Rode on a rented SUV with relief supplies to Vavuniya which is six hours away to the Tamil majority area.
Driven by Brigadier General Napagoda in a four-wheel drive vehicle through the jungle trek 40 KM further to Bogaswewa village to displaced persons who returned to their ancestral homes three months ago. Tossing and tumbling on the road that divided the conflicting armies battling in conflict for 30 years. Some areas still display landmines warning signs.
Met with Government Agent Mrs Charles (Catholic Tamil) to seek approval for land for Turkish Muslims to build an International School in Vavuniya and providing quality education including human values and interfaith relations.
Paid farewell visit to Major General Kamal Gunaratne who led the final battle which ended the war and now headed for a course in UK before receiving a higher command in Colombo. He supported is personally in our mission moves.
Journeyed four hours to Trinconmalee to meet with the Inspector General of the Police to survey the land for possible educational development.
Along the way we joined the pilgrims walking through the jungle path and up the 308 uneven steps to the oldest and highest ancient Giribandhu Pagoda reputed to have been constructed 75 days after Buddha's enlightenment. Continuing the six hour travel in the night to cross the country to Colombo Airport and waited at the VIP departure lounge to catch the early morning flight home to Singapore.
Continuing Ministry
Supporting Free Community Church organized by LGBT and the only church that welcomes all as Pastoral Adviser. Theologically trained lesbian Pastor Su Lin was installed. Heartened by repeal of DADT signifying global moves of acceptance of LGBT. It is getting better all the time and moving to welcome LGBT home.
Engaging in interfaith activities which is gaining community-wide support in faith communities living together in mutual respect and harmony.
Personal
By God's grace, keeping reasonably good health with the expected geriatric problems of enlarged prostrate, borderline blood pressure and cholesterol levels and gout. Hee Choo discomforted by chronic back aches and acid reflux issues.
Maintaining my daily swim of 600 meters and golf at Tiara Country Melaka Golf and Country Club.
Hoping to make family visitations in 2011 to US and Australia where grandchildren Jinwei is in second year of PhD programme in neuroscience and Jinli graduating in International Relations from the University of Melbourne.
Thanking you for your kind thoughts and good wishes and wishing you and your family God's blessings in making your moves in the days ahead.
Hee Choo & Kim Hao
Christmas 2010
Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao
10E, Braddell Hill, Apt. #16-17
Singapore 579724
Tel: +65-6250-4561
Email: kimhao.yap@gmail.com
"When we lose the right to be different,
we lose the privilege to be free"
Attachment(s) from Kim Hao Yap
1 of 1 File(s)
Vavuniya Dec '10.docx
Christmas tradition or myth tells us that Mary & Joseph were also displaced persons compelled to travel on a donkey back to their birthplace of Bethlehem for census-taking. The Holy Family journeyed further on to exile in Egypt before returning home to Nazareth.
Residents in that region in particular continue to be displaced by the pressure of political conflicts. Travelers are displaced by weather gyrations. Migrant workers are displaced in search of employment. Others are displaced in search of greener opportunities. We have become people on the move across this globalized situation.
Wherever you are as family members and friends, may we wish you a Meaningful Christmas and a Moving New Year of 2011. May you realize your dreams and fulfill your hopes in the days ahead.
Church Encounters
In April, I participated in the annual Methodist Pastors Retreat in Johore Bahru and Melaka in Malaysia.
Attended the General Assembly of the Christian Conference of Asia in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia as its former General Secretary. These are occasions of renewal of relationships with partners in the mission of the Church.
Family Movements
Richie's family in Dallas visited us in July together with Shirley from Orlando. We went to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. It was to discover the roots for Sandy who is originally from Saigon. Raymond from Orlando paid a filial visit to the old folks whose last visit to US was in 2008. Susan here is expected to settle in Australia in two year's time and we will be in an empty nest and wondering where to fly to.
Mission Moves in Sri Lanka
I just returned from my third tiring trip to Vavuniya, gateway to northern Sri Lanka, in connection with the establishment of the Chen Su Lan Education Centre. It is a service to the displaced persons since the cessation of the Civil War. Classes including computer use started for about 500 registered students. It is an interfaith centre for peace and reconciliation.
Took a two hour ride on a three-wheeler from Negombo to Colombo which weaved and threaded through the congested traffic to the rapidly developing modern city sense the smell and see the sights of development.
Rode on a rented SUV with relief supplies to Vavuniya which is six hours away to the Tamil majority area.
Driven by Brigadier General Napagoda in a four-wheel drive vehicle through the jungle trek 40 KM further to Bogaswewa village to displaced persons who returned to their ancestral homes three months ago. Tossing and tumbling on the road that divided the conflicting armies battling in conflict for 30 years. Some areas still display landmines warning signs.
Met with Government Agent Mrs Charles (Catholic Tamil) to seek approval for land for Turkish Muslims to build an International School in Vavuniya and providing quality education including human values and interfaith relations.
Paid farewell visit to Major General Kamal Gunaratne who led the final battle which ended the war and now headed for a course in UK before receiving a higher command in Colombo. He supported is personally in our mission moves.
Journeyed four hours to Trinconmalee to meet with the Inspector General of the Police to survey the land for possible educational development.
Along the way we joined the pilgrims walking through the jungle path and up the 308 uneven steps to the oldest and highest ancient Giribandhu Pagoda reputed to have been constructed 75 days after Buddha's enlightenment. Continuing the six hour travel in the night to cross the country to Colombo Airport and waited at the VIP departure lounge to catch the early morning flight home to Singapore.
Continuing Ministry
Supporting Free Community Church organized by LGBT and the only church that welcomes all as Pastoral Adviser. Theologically trained lesbian Pastor Su Lin was installed. Heartened by repeal of DADT signifying global moves of acceptance of LGBT. It is getting better all the time and moving to welcome LGBT home.
Engaging in interfaith activities which is gaining community-wide support in faith communities living together in mutual respect and harmony.
Personal
By God's grace, keeping reasonably good health with the expected geriatric problems of enlarged prostrate, borderline blood pressure and cholesterol levels and gout. Hee Choo discomforted by chronic back aches and acid reflux issues.
Maintaining my daily swim of 600 meters and golf at Tiara Country Melaka Golf and Country Club.
Hoping to make family visitations in 2011 to US and Australia where grandchildren Jinwei is in second year of PhD programme in neuroscience and Jinli graduating in International Relations from the University of Melbourne.
Thanking you for your kind thoughts and good wishes and wishing you and your family God's blessings in making your moves in the days ahead.
Hee Choo & Kim Hao
Christmas 2010
Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao
10E, Braddell Hill, Apt. #16-17
Singapore 579724
Tel: +65-6250-4561
Email: kimhao.yap@gmail.com
"When we lose the right to be different,
we lose the privilege to be free"
Attachment(s) from Kim Hao Yap
1 of 1 File(s)
Vavuniya Dec '10.docx
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Viewing the Framework of Christian Sexual Ethics
Viewing Framework of Christian Sexual Ethics
VIEWING THE FRAMEWORK OF CHRISTIAN SEXUAL ETHICS
Yap Kim Hao
It was a bold step that the Free Community Church took last Sunday (5.12.10) to conduct an open discussion for its members on Christian Sexual Ethics. This is a responsibility that FCC cannot shirk to provide guidelines instead of rules, principles instead of legislation for the members ultimately to make responsible decisions and engage in sexual acts in accordance with justice and not just have sex.
The turning point of having this open session was on the submission of the Christian ministry master’s degree thesis by Gary Chan who embraced the framework of Christian sexual ethics propounded by Sister Margaret Farley, Professor Emeritus of Christian Ethics in Yale Divinity School.
Farley in her life-long study and teaching in ethics has traced the development of the theology of sex within the Christian tradition which interpreted the sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity. She acknowledged the insights from other religious communities, philosophical schools, cultural mores, physiological and psychological studies.
It resulted in the building of a framework of Christian sexual ethics. She indicated that her sources for her Christian ethics parallel the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of Albert Outler of Southern Methodist University – Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience.
The framework is inspired and informed by her understanding of the Christian faith and interpretation of the varied and sometimes conflicting teaching of the Bible linking to sexual issues. Within the religious tradition we have been on the trajectory of sex for the primary purpose of procreation, male domination & female submission , spirit over body, sex as dirty and suppression of sexual urges to pleasure of sex, sex as holy & a gift of the Creator and a defining moment in committed relationships to partners and to our God.
Sexual ethics refers to sexual morality and what is good and right in our sexual behaviour as an individual and a member of the communities to which we belong like family, church, society, nation and the human community. It is not just an individual act done in privacy singly and with partners for it has ramifications and implications for others around us.
Paul with vivid imagery (Romans 2:24ff) pictures God inscribing moral laws in human hearts and this is seen in the conscience of every person. There is a sense of right and wrong and the call to live in honesty rather than delusions, reason rather than rationalizations. Each one of us is free to accept or reject guidelines and ignore principles but ultimately sooner or later we have to face the consequences of our actions. Do we demean or edify ourselves? Do we build or destroy community?
Morality flows from the Great Commandment proclaimed by Christ, to love God with all one's heart, mind, strength, and soul, and to love one's neighbour as oneself.
This is the overarching principle that determines sexual ethics. Farley admits the fact that there is no systematic code of ethics in the New Testament. She added: “Yet moral guidelines for every sphere of human life, including the sexual, are to be gleaned from an overall command to love God and neighbour.”
All the seven principles cannot be regarded as strictly secular but they arise from the redemptive biblical teaching and have universal appeal and may even parallel or adopted by people of other faiths and even to those who have no religious affiliation.
Stemming from this commandment of love she spells out the principles in her framework of sexual ethics. Farley enumerates the seven cardinal principles - do no unjust harm, free consent, mutuality, equality, commitment, fruitfulness, and social justice.
Farley is more specific in referring to unjust harm when she gives room to “harm which is necessary to bring about greater good” like in the practice of medicine. She accepts the sacred worth of every human person which demands priority and the obligation to respect. Free consent reflects freedom of the individual and self-determination. We cannot justify rape, violence, and harassment of unwilling partners. Mutuality cuts into traditional forms of having the male as active and female as passive, male as fulfiller and female as receptacle. There needs to be mutuality of attitudes, desire, and response of both partners leading to good sex. Equality is that of power in which no one dominates the other. Even though there is no complete equality, it should be close enough and adequately balanced to ensure no one is exploited, taken advantage or abused. Commitment has to be expressed in the form of covenantal relationship or a contract between partners. Fruitfulness is not only in procreation but also in the care and nurture of new life and also of non-biological children. Further, it can mean love and care of others and making a difference and enrich life in the process. Social justice requires sexual partners to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions to others and to the community.
These principles are inter-related and seek to explicate the commandment of love. To isolate any one or two of them will cause the framework to collapse. Every one of these principles has to be acknowledged and we need not rank them in importance. We may want to justify and add other principles as long as they do not contradict one another. These are goals that we all strive for. It is always work in progress in the fulfilment of our sexual lives.
The framework of Christian sexual ethics is relevant for all - gay or straight, leaders and followers. It does not privilege any group or community.
Turning to the LGBT, Farley specifically commented: “Standing before the biblical witness as a whole, a modest conclusion can be drawn is that there exists no solid ground or an absolute prohibition or a comprehensive unquestionable blessing for same-sex relationships and actions today, not in the Hebrew or the Christian Scriptures.”
The conclusion that Farley made is this: “My own view, as should be clear by now, is that same-sex relations and activities can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities.” It is therefore not a question of imposing a straight sexual ethic on the gays and lesbians. It is an ethic that applies to the straight including me as well to make life more meaningful and responsible for all.
One of the genuine concerns from the open session is that of Casual Sex. Contrasting views were candidly expressed and it can only reveal the need to clarify further and find the responsible way to deal with this question of the question of Casual Sex. I consulted Wickipaedia which offers the following definitions.
Casual Sex
“Casual sex or hooking up refers to certain types of sexual activity outside the context of a romantic relationship. The term is not always used consistently: some use it to refer to any extramarital sex, some use it to refer to sex in a casual relationship, whereas others reserve its use for one-time encounters, promiscuity, or to refer to sex in the absence of emotional attachment or love.
Social norms and moral concerns
People's attitudes to casual sex range from conservative and religious views, the extreme of which is capital punishment for sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage, to liberal views, the extreme of which is free love. During the sexual revolution in the United States and Europe in the 1960s and 1970s, social attitudes to sexual issues underwent considerable changes. The advent of the pill and other forms of birth control, the Women's Liberation movement, and the legalization of abortion in many countries is believed to have led to a wider practice of casual sex. Most religions disapprove of sex outside of marriage.
Hook-up
A hookup (colloquial American English) is casual sex activity that could consist of manual stimulation, oral sex, or sexual intercourse. An extended hook-up sometimes refers to prolonged instances of casual sex interactions. This is a situation in which the involved parties occasionally meet for casual sex multiple times, always without a long-term commitment. This is a casual relationship specifically for sex and without any emotional aspect. Also another similar term is "no strings attached" ("NSA") sex.
Other colloquial terms used to describe two people engaged in a relationship in which there is no emotional but purely sexual involvement are "fuck buddies", "friends with benefits", "booty call", and "ami calin" (the popular French term).
Many people arrange these sexual escapades through the internet on websites such as craigslist or dudesnude.
One-night stand
One-night stand is a single sexual encounter between individuals, where at least one of the parties has no immediate intention or expectation of establishing a longer-term sexual or romantic relationship.
Anonymous sex
Anonymous sex is a form of one-night stand or casual sex between people who have very little or no history with each other, often engaging in sexual activity on the same day of their meeting and usually never seeing each other again afterwards.
Commercial
There are many specialist online dating services or other internet websites, known as "adult personals" or "adult matching" sites, which cater to people looking for a purely physical relationship, without emotional attachments. These can provide a relatively anonymous forum where people who are geographically close but in totally separate work and social circles can make contact.
When we put the template of Farley’s framework upon casual sex as described above, how can we rationalize casual sex. They even do not meet the requirement of the principles of consent and no harm. There was in our discussion about the possibility of detachment of emotion relating to feelings for one another from the physicality of sex. But emotions are conjured up in the sex act. Accompanying it is the fantasizing of the one to whom we are engaging in sex.
Casual sex is often equated with promiscuity and that is an issue that concerns not only LGBT but the straights as well. Open relationship in committed relationships in gay and lesbian communities is comparable with open marriage in the straight community.
Sex needs to be connected at the least to some level which leads to committed relationship. Some code of behaviour should distinguish the levels of relationship of acquaintance, friendship and dating.
Gay Lifestyle
Another issue is about the nature of the distinctive gay lifestyle and what defines the gay community as perceived by others. It was conceded that gays are more involved with sexual encounters than the straights. While proportionately it may be so in terms of numbers, there are social factors that are peculiar to the gays more than the lesbians and the straights. There is easier access to sex in the entering and withdrawing from the sexual encounters. The fear of unwanted pregnancies is not a factor. The disruption and destruction of the nuclear family unit is not involved. The unwillingness to commit is accepted. Careers are not being at risk. Secrecy is more easily protected. The fallout of a relationship is not as acute as in a marriage divorce. The issue is relationships and how casual sex affects them.
But there is yet another attempted justification for the pre-occupation with sex of the gays as shared by a lesbian. It could be that the gays are wired to have more sex. This is not proven by any scientific means at this time. It may be that sex is needed more since the gays feel greater rejection and sexual encounters affirm themselves and their acceptance by others. So many gays are doing it and there is this peer pressure and identification with the larger group.
All these factors may come into play but in the final analysis one has to live with honesty and authenticity with oneself. How does sexual behaviour affect us individually? Who do we see in the mirror before us in the isolation of our room? Are we emotionally and physically satisfied? We need to undergo this process of self-examination and live with our authentic self.
We also have to look beyond and view the human condition or the various communities to which we belong – family, church and society. We have individual as well as collective or corporate responsibility. What is the shape of our community going to be as a result of our sexual activities.
Each one of us is a stakeholder in the welfare of the community. We have invested time and energy in living our lives out in the different forms of relationships. This is the individual and social responsibility that we need to bear and the justice that we need to proclaim in all areas of life. Hence my concern and I trust it is yours as well.
VIEWING THE FRAMEWORK OF CHRISTIAN SEXUAL ETHICS
Yap Kim Hao
It was a bold step that the Free Community Church took last Sunday (5.12.10) to conduct an open discussion for its members on Christian Sexual Ethics. This is a responsibility that FCC cannot shirk to provide guidelines instead of rules, principles instead of legislation for the members ultimately to make responsible decisions and engage in sexual acts in accordance with justice and not just have sex.
The turning point of having this open session was on the submission of the Christian ministry master’s degree thesis by Gary Chan who embraced the framework of Christian sexual ethics propounded by Sister Margaret Farley, Professor Emeritus of Christian Ethics in Yale Divinity School.
Farley in her life-long study and teaching in ethics has traced the development of the theology of sex within the Christian tradition which interpreted the sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity. She acknowledged the insights from other religious communities, philosophical schools, cultural mores, physiological and psychological studies.
It resulted in the building of a framework of Christian sexual ethics. She indicated that her sources for her Christian ethics parallel the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of Albert Outler of Southern Methodist University – Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience.
The framework is inspired and informed by her understanding of the Christian faith and interpretation of the varied and sometimes conflicting teaching of the Bible linking to sexual issues. Within the religious tradition we have been on the trajectory of sex for the primary purpose of procreation, male domination & female submission , spirit over body, sex as dirty and suppression of sexual urges to pleasure of sex, sex as holy & a gift of the Creator and a defining moment in committed relationships to partners and to our God.
Sexual ethics refers to sexual morality and what is good and right in our sexual behaviour as an individual and a member of the communities to which we belong like family, church, society, nation and the human community. It is not just an individual act done in privacy singly and with partners for it has ramifications and implications for others around us.
Paul with vivid imagery (Romans 2:24ff) pictures God inscribing moral laws in human hearts and this is seen in the conscience of every person. There is a sense of right and wrong and the call to live in honesty rather than delusions, reason rather than rationalizations. Each one of us is free to accept or reject guidelines and ignore principles but ultimately sooner or later we have to face the consequences of our actions. Do we demean or edify ourselves? Do we build or destroy community?
Morality flows from the Great Commandment proclaimed by Christ, to love God with all one's heart, mind, strength, and soul, and to love one's neighbour as oneself.
This is the overarching principle that determines sexual ethics. Farley admits the fact that there is no systematic code of ethics in the New Testament. She added: “Yet moral guidelines for every sphere of human life, including the sexual, are to be gleaned from an overall command to love God and neighbour.”
All the seven principles cannot be regarded as strictly secular but they arise from the redemptive biblical teaching and have universal appeal and may even parallel or adopted by people of other faiths and even to those who have no religious affiliation.
Stemming from this commandment of love she spells out the principles in her framework of sexual ethics. Farley enumerates the seven cardinal principles - do no unjust harm, free consent, mutuality, equality, commitment, fruitfulness, and social justice.
Farley is more specific in referring to unjust harm when she gives room to “harm which is necessary to bring about greater good” like in the practice of medicine. She accepts the sacred worth of every human person which demands priority and the obligation to respect. Free consent reflects freedom of the individual and self-determination. We cannot justify rape, violence, and harassment of unwilling partners. Mutuality cuts into traditional forms of having the male as active and female as passive, male as fulfiller and female as receptacle. There needs to be mutuality of attitudes, desire, and response of both partners leading to good sex. Equality is that of power in which no one dominates the other. Even though there is no complete equality, it should be close enough and adequately balanced to ensure no one is exploited, taken advantage or abused. Commitment has to be expressed in the form of covenantal relationship or a contract between partners. Fruitfulness is not only in procreation but also in the care and nurture of new life and also of non-biological children. Further, it can mean love and care of others and making a difference and enrich life in the process. Social justice requires sexual partners to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions to others and to the community.
These principles are inter-related and seek to explicate the commandment of love. To isolate any one or two of them will cause the framework to collapse. Every one of these principles has to be acknowledged and we need not rank them in importance. We may want to justify and add other principles as long as they do not contradict one another. These are goals that we all strive for. It is always work in progress in the fulfilment of our sexual lives.
The framework of Christian sexual ethics is relevant for all - gay or straight, leaders and followers. It does not privilege any group or community.
Turning to the LGBT, Farley specifically commented: “Standing before the biblical witness as a whole, a modest conclusion can be drawn is that there exists no solid ground or an absolute prohibition or a comprehensive unquestionable blessing for same-sex relationships and actions today, not in the Hebrew or the Christian Scriptures.”
The conclusion that Farley made is this: “My own view, as should be clear by now, is that same-sex relations and activities can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities.” It is therefore not a question of imposing a straight sexual ethic on the gays and lesbians. It is an ethic that applies to the straight including me as well to make life more meaningful and responsible for all.
One of the genuine concerns from the open session is that of Casual Sex. Contrasting views were candidly expressed and it can only reveal the need to clarify further and find the responsible way to deal with this question of the question of Casual Sex. I consulted Wickipaedia which offers the following definitions.
Casual Sex
“Casual sex or hooking up refers to certain types of sexual activity outside the context of a romantic relationship. The term is not always used consistently: some use it to refer to any extramarital sex, some use it to refer to sex in a casual relationship, whereas others reserve its use for one-time encounters, promiscuity, or to refer to sex in the absence of emotional attachment or love.
Social norms and moral concerns
People's attitudes to casual sex range from conservative and religious views, the extreme of which is capital punishment for sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage, to liberal views, the extreme of which is free love. During the sexual revolution in the United States and Europe in the 1960s and 1970s, social attitudes to sexual issues underwent considerable changes. The advent of the pill and other forms of birth control, the Women's Liberation movement, and the legalization of abortion in many countries is believed to have led to a wider practice of casual sex. Most religions disapprove of sex outside of marriage.
Hook-up
A hookup (colloquial American English) is casual sex activity that could consist of manual stimulation, oral sex, or sexual intercourse. An extended hook-up sometimes refers to prolonged instances of casual sex interactions. This is a situation in which the involved parties occasionally meet for casual sex multiple times, always without a long-term commitment. This is a casual relationship specifically for sex and without any emotional aspect. Also another similar term is "no strings attached" ("NSA") sex.
Other colloquial terms used to describe two people engaged in a relationship in which there is no emotional but purely sexual involvement are "fuck buddies", "friends with benefits", "booty call", and "ami calin" (the popular French term).
Many people arrange these sexual escapades through the internet on websites such as craigslist or dudesnude.
One-night stand
One-night stand is a single sexual encounter between individuals, where at least one of the parties has no immediate intention or expectation of establishing a longer-term sexual or romantic relationship.
Anonymous sex
Anonymous sex is a form of one-night stand or casual sex between people who have very little or no history with each other, often engaging in sexual activity on the same day of their meeting and usually never seeing each other again afterwards.
Commercial
There are many specialist online dating services or other internet websites, known as "adult personals" or "adult matching" sites, which cater to people looking for a purely physical relationship, without emotional attachments. These can provide a relatively anonymous forum where people who are geographically close but in totally separate work and social circles can make contact.
When we put the template of Farley’s framework upon casual sex as described above, how can we rationalize casual sex. They even do not meet the requirement of the principles of consent and no harm. There was in our discussion about the possibility of detachment of emotion relating to feelings for one another from the physicality of sex. But emotions are conjured up in the sex act. Accompanying it is the fantasizing of the one to whom we are engaging in sex.
Casual sex is often equated with promiscuity and that is an issue that concerns not only LGBT but the straights as well. Open relationship in committed relationships in gay and lesbian communities is comparable with open marriage in the straight community.
Sex needs to be connected at the least to some level which leads to committed relationship. Some code of behaviour should distinguish the levels of relationship of acquaintance, friendship and dating.
Gay Lifestyle
Another issue is about the nature of the distinctive gay lifestyle and what defines the gay community as perceived by others. It was conceded that gays are more involved with sexual encounters than the straights. While proportionately it may be so in terms of numbers, there are social factors that are peculiar to the gays more than the lesbians and the straights. There is easier access to sex in the entering and withdrawing from the sexual encounters. The fear of unwanted pregnancies is not a factor. The disruption and destruction of the nuclear family unit is not involved. The unwillingness to commit is accepted. Careers are not being at risk. Secrecy is more easily protected. The fallout of a relationship is not as acute as in a marriage divorce. The issue is relationships and how casual sex affects them.
But there is yet another attempted justification for the pre-occupation with sex of the gays as shared by a lesbian. It could be that the gays are wired to have more sex. This is not proven by any scientific means at this time. It may be that sex is needed more since the gays feel greater rejection and sexual encounters affirm themselves and their acceptance by others. So many gays are doing it and there is this peer pressure and identification with the larger group.
All these factors may come into play but in the final analysis one has to live with honesty and authenticity with oneself. How does sexual behaviour affect us individually? Who do we see in the mirror before us in the isolation of our room? Are we emotionally and physically satisfied? We need to undergo this process of self-examination and live with our authentic self.
We also have to look beyond and view the human condition or the various communities to which we belong – family, church and society. We have individual as well as collective or corporate responsibility. What is the shape of our community going to be as a result of our sexual activities.
Each one of us is a stakeholder in the welfare of the community. We have invested time and energy in living our lives out in the different forms of relationships. This is the individual and social responsibility that we need to bear and the justice that we need to proclaim in all areas of life. Hence my concern and I trust it is yours as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
