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.