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.