Domination free sexuality: is Christian morality an iron chastity belt for repressing urges or a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God?

Have you ever wondered where we get our sexual ethics from - what is and is not healthy?  I'm sure a lot of people have and in the christian world there is always a tension running between what people think of as sexually permissible from the bible [2 people of the opposite sex in married union, lights on optional ;)] and what might currently be permissible in society [everything else you can imagine and a lot you can't - maybe ;)].  I use crude stereo types with a wink to highlight that a lot of our own sexual morality is our own judgement, or as a result of our history/culture/exposure/values/experiences etc which is where a lot of sexual tension/problems can arise when different value systems collide and what is disgusting to one person is a permissible pleasure to another.

Of course that is not to say that within christian world shaped as it is by the culture of the bible there is not a sexual ethic present - but then again within the text there is also that sexual ethics/world view of their time being reflected as well - so when are we today reflecting God's ideal and when are we just trying to apply ancient cultural practises/sexual world view into are time when the ancient may be no better or perhaps even worse from our own ethical standing.  What are we left with - that everything that happens between two consenting adults in private is ok?  That everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial?  Some return to OT law and Ancient Near East Hebraic practises?

Sexual mores not sexual commands:

Walter Wink highlights this discussion very well - looking at sexuality in the bible and highlights 14 cultural areas of Hebrew sexual practises in detail where we might differ culturally today.  In his conclusion on them he raises this dilemma of what is cultural based vs what is ethically based:

"....virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviours which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this).

And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviours that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13).

And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!

Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practises? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country [USA], despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners."

A free love ethic...

Once we begin untangling ourselves from a law based system of sexual dominated thought where we control what practise is or is not acceptable - what are left with.  Some people may suddenly love the freedom that comes with the liberation from sexual rule keeping, imposed sexual ideas, shame, guilt, fear etc that comes with them.  Other people may be panicking and seeing the thin end of the wedge for a panoply of perversions to break out into our culture - if christians aren't gonna be the chastity belt on society anymore who is?

Does focusing on a practise that we might see as a perversion really help - is it me trying to exercise control over you based on my understanding of "right" sexual mores, maybe using the divine to back me up?  Does it open me up to charges of hypocrisy [why highlight that aspect of OT sexual practise and not another?]?  Does it actually end up with me lessoning your humanity whilst trying to make mine look bigger?  Does it make me feel arrogant, prideful, self-righteous and at the same time you more ashamed, angry, afraid, agitated etc?

What if the ethic we need is not so much of "right" behaviour and managing that but an ethic of love that gives humanity and dignity back to people rather than seeks to oppress it or hide it?  What if the love ethic starts with me and my sexual weaknesses, hang ups, screw ups?  So when I see an attractive woman and my humanity kicks in, instead of taking her for a lust object in my mind, cheapening her humanity by making her an object of sexual gratification for me to consume,  i find ways to give her back her humanity?  Instead of exploiting, using or manipulating  people for my own sexual release i find ways to live in commitment, where i learn about giving rather than just taking.  As Walter goes on in his article to say:

"I agree that rules and norms are necessary; that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to be impressed into the service of the Domination System, and to serve as a form of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus. Defining such a love ethic is not complicated. It is non-exploitative (hence no sexual exploitation of children, no using of another to their loss), it does not dominate (hence no patriarchal treatment of women as chattel), it is responsible, mutual, caring, and loving. Augustine already dealt with this in his inspired phrase, "Love God, and do as you please."

Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment. We might address younger teens, not with laws and commandments whose violation is a sin, but rather with the sad experiences of so many of our own children who find too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming, and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date. We can offer reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviours in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole.

Christian morality, after all, is not a iron chastity belt for repressing urges, but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of same-sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus."

What do you think?

I'd be interested to hear what you think/feel  wherever you are on the liberated/terrified scale.  Do you agree with Walter?  Is it about ethics rather than sexual mores? If so, how do you feel with Walter's proposition that the question is not:

• "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my different practising sexual neighbour [whether that is homosexual or some other practise]?"
• "What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?"
• "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, and, yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?

Comments

[Jamie]

Great post.... I don't have answers to your questions, but I ran across this blog post recently..

http://loudbrashdramatic.typepad.com/loudbrashdramatic/2007/02/fasting_from_me.html

It really caused me to stop and think about how we talk about these topics so often as though there are not REAL, LIVE human beings being affected.

[sonja]

Very well done! I like the re-imagined questions ... which I will need to think about for a while.

Your whole post made me think about a recent article in the paper from my home state (Vermont ... which is considering allowing same-sex marriages, after allowing same-sex civil unions a number of years ago). The author hails from my hometown. The article is humourous and rather sarcastic, but underneath the sarcasm I think I hear some very fundamental scriptural principals being advocated (even though I'm quite sure the author wouldn't recognize them ;-) ):

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703200324

[Kamsin]

I can remember there being a big debate about the whole sex in marriage thing, and how our ideas of what marriage is are largely cultural rather than biblical, at a summer conference when I was a student. Recently I've been thinking how much of our morality with regards to sex outside of marriage was decided upon in a day when there was no birth control and so was maybe designed to protect women from unwanted pregnancies, but ended up heaped scorn and shame on those who didn't stick to the rules. Homosexuality is another issue altogether, and I guess different cultures have dealt with it in different ways. I don't have any answers really, I guess I don't really believe that people are made that way, but I also think it seems that much of our "morality" in this regards is based more on fear of that which is different than genuine love and concern for both God and our fellow man/woman.

[Paul]

Thanks Jamie - i think the point about people being involved in this is a valuable one - too often are posture can be about being correct rather than being kind, generous or loving - all of which are a lot clearer to me to be part of God's MO...

of course knowing an answer does make me feel better/safer but is that the point?

[Paul]

thanks Sonja, yes i thought they were not only good Qs but scary ones - i'm quite happy behind my white picket fence of rightness and I'm not sure i want to do anything more than curtain twitch at folks and shake my head - how about you?

[Paul]

It's an excellent point you make Kamsin - how often has our culture played with marriage and indeed as the article suggests the Nr East culture of the bible also played with marriage practices and when sex is acceptable or not - how we adjust to a change in culture but still challenge ourselves first and then others about commitment, ethics, selfishness, communication etc is maybe more in line with the values of christianity than particular social expressions/forms.

I like what you say about fear - I'd be interested to hear why do you think that most of our morality is based on that?

[David]

I must admit that my 'ol evangelical ways kick in and my first response is to push back. And yet I can't. I can't use scripture without cultural mores to push back. I really don't have much biblically to push with, unless I prooftext up the wazoo.
As I've embarked on this new journey, I found that although there are indeed black and white issues, there's a lot more gray than I was comfortable with before. I'm embracing the gray, and this, among other issue, I look forward to exploring more. For it's not the destination, but the journey.

[Molly]

Good thoughts, Paul. You know how to stir up the mud in my brain, that's for sure.

(One question that came to mind: we do see homosexuality specifically condemned in the New Testament, don't we, in Romans? So that wouldn't put homosexuality in the Levitical Law catagory, I think. This is not to say that homosexuality is my pet issue, because it's atcually something I prefer to avoid thinking about due to the fact that I'm weary of the conservative emphasis on it, and I'm aware that there are some arguments regarding whether or not those references in Romans were talking about general homosexual activity or about temple prostitution type issues, though I don't know how valid they are or aren't...

[Paul]

lol, bravely said David, it is the journey i agree but it is good to have at least a sense of orientation, a frame work to journey in - or are you pushing even beyond that?

I find it difficult in that whilst i have no quick, easy answer and that things indeed look grey i am also confident that as a community we need to talk about these issues together - and if we can do in a kind, spirit of humble searching then so much the better. SO no right answer maybe or maybe there is - but let's take this forward together rather than retreating into our own fugus of confussion - what do you think?

[Paul]

Thanks Molls, mud stirring is me speciality - altho my mud pies are pretty good too...

Yes that is a good point about Romans view of homosexuality as an expression no longer of creation worshiping the creator but creation worshipping each other - it is something that Walter highlights:

"Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.

In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was straight. He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.

Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since nonpromiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.

And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case..."

I think we can say clearly that the bible doesn't refer to homosexuality in particularly favourible terms when it does so and this is a tension we need to bare in mind in our thinking...

[Kamsin]

Hi Paul, sorry it's taken me a little while to get back to your question.
First of all, I'm not 100% sure what I mean by morality anymore, so lets simplify it by saying attitudes to what is good behaviour and what is bad behaviour. I guess my observation is based on having worked cross/inter-culturally, and to some extent different sexual orientations create cultural barriers. People are often threatened by difference and without adequate knowledge (and often with it, it is still hard to act in a contrary manner) people interpret other's behaviour from their standpoint. Which I think is what you are getting at in the comment above about Paul. He interprets others behaviour from his heterosexual male perspective and so is unable to come to any conclusion than that it is unnatural. But I guess it is human nature to assume that what is good is people like us and to feel threatend and frightened by anything which goes against this and to judge it accordingly.
Hope that makes sense!

[Molly]

Hmmm. I think I might disagree, Paul, while appreciating your very long comment--lol.

I would say that the world Paul lived in, Rome, was VERY friendly towards homosexuality...much more friendly than our culture is, I'd have to say.

So while Paul might not have been aware of all the psychological possibilities of orientation, he did live within a culture (Greek/Roman) where a man having sex with another man was viewed as perfectly normal male behaviour--even preferable.

This, in and of itself, makes me question some of Walter's assertions.

I say this while agreeing that one must be careful here...that there are people who undoubtedly experiencing homosexual attractions and I do not wish to condemn them!!!!

Yet I'm trying to wrestle with this one...how do I reconcile what I *wish* could be versus what it seems like Scripture is saying...especially when it seems like homosexuality is not part of God's initial intention, at least from what I can gather from Scripture.

If that is true, that is is not "ideal" as in Edenic, but rather just is, then could we say that homosexuality is one of the many repurcusions of living in a world where things don't usually work "ideally?" Or is it a sin, altogether? Because the other things listen in that Romans passage are sinful...

It makes me nervous to take a section out, you know, ("these verses are inspired by God, but these verses aren't") when contextually the passage does seem to be saying that acts of homosexuality are not okay, and when everything else around those verses is something we nod our heads in agreement with.

I can't stand the conservative hyper-ventilating focus on homosexuality. I think they've gone way overboard and made it some trump-all issue when it's NOT. But at the same time, I'm not sure if I'm comfortable saying that Paul's cool here, but here he's a bigot. You know that I have some struggles with Paul, but for the most part, there are some good clear culturally-in-context explanations for many of those (in regards to the place of women). The homosexuality passage, though...? In cultural context, I am having a hard time finding a way to make them not say what they appear to be saying.

Being *wincingly* NOT politically-correct here, and with NO desire to cause anybody pain,
Molly

[Paul]

Thanks Kamsin - i think that is particularly helpful comments - particularly as you are not only aware of different cultures but also probably how that is reflected in their languages as well?

In that sense there must be a lot of tension across cultures/experiences - which i think is partly being reflected in the current angst of the Anglican communion over this issue.

In some ways i wonder if that is not half our problem is that we can't/won't have conversations about this or if we do its only from within our cultural framework/language and never trying to learn the language of the other.

I wonder what that would look like if we were for the other so much that it would cost us something?

[Paul]

Molls, it's ok, i think i wrote this post just so we could start to talk about this issue, we need to be in conversation not in denial so i think it is great that you are thinking and even better pushing back at me.

I find it too easy to retreat to stock answers and wrote responses - and at least Walter is trying to create a space that maybe asks us some Qs that you respond too.

If it it nature - and whether that is genetic or not from my own experience of my sexuality i would say it becomes 'nature,' it takes on who we are/feel and therefore i think we need to get beyond that point.

Another way of approaching this is for me to say ok this happens but is it ok, or is it the best? And if we are saying there is something better which might involve say not practicing my homosexuality by having sex how much are we prepared to be communities where a) we can all share our sexual issues in an accepting way knowing that we need each other and God to help and b) am i prepared to give up some of my rights/freedoms - maybe if i am single not getting married and giving up my right to sex to support my friend who is gay who i am in effect asking him to never have sex for the rest of his life?

I think too often we as hetrosexual christians sound like a) we are better sexually b) that we because we're straight have a right to sex and you because you're gay don't have that right?

I look at my own life and ongoing sexuality confusion and think that i am at least if not more messed up, same as a large chunk of the world, and if the rest of that chunk isn't messed up about sex they are messed up about something else.

I also look at Jesus, as a man with a penis which worked and therefore how he must have chose celibacy because it wouldn't have been loving to drag a wife into what he had to do, how he understands thereofer us making choices about sexual expression.

How Jesus must have faced choices all the time to give life/humanity back to people rather than treat them as sex objects/means of gratification and therefore has not only been to the no sex place but understands sexual feelings. But also how he is for the other, how maybe gay or straight, male or female we need to learn to be affirming and appreciative of each other rather than so scared of not being able to keep it in our pants? Can we learn to be honest and open about our feelings? Are we gonna live in an environment where we are scared about falling sexaully that we can no longer relate to the opposite sex? Or an environment where we can share and confess our sexual feelings and learn to give each other our humanity back - not flirt for affection or need sex to make us feel good about ourselves but live in communinties where we feel good cos we are loved, where it is normal for us to appreciate each other and the image of God that we each reflect in personality and our bodies?

I mean writing that sounds weird - it makes me feel way uncomfortable cos i have been taught that once married its all about building barricades, about being careful, about not mixing with the opposite sex - all my worries kick in and i go man is this not asking for trouble?

Maybe another way to think about it is trouble is already there? Temptation is already there but cos we keep it hidden and in the dark it just goes on its merry way. Maybe we need to bring it out into the light? Maybe we need to to think about how as communities we need each other? How married people aren't better or single people people aren't better but that we all need each other and can learn from each other and help each other to reflect God to each other and affirm and care for each other.

Jesus said it was for our love for each other not our fear people would know that God was real. If we practice being for each other in the same way the trinity practice being for each other - where it becomes not about me and my rights but about mutually living for each other then maybe we'll have something that is not just an arguement based on reason but a way of life that encompasses love and experiences the Spirit at work amongst us, shaping us more like that?

[Molly]

Hm... I'll respond to this after some morning caffiene kicks in, but I resonate with much of what you are saying.

[Paul]

thanks molls, ah sweet caffeine addiction :)

[jon birch]

stumbled on this post, following your link from my blog... i love the tone of the conversation here. i'm a lover of ol' walter wink and it seems he brings a lot of wisdom to the table on the subject. i think nothing beats 'love god, love your neighbour'... when in doubt this is my fall back... one could debate 'how you love' for days (is acceptance love? or is tough love necessary in certain circumstances? etc.etc.)... but i think grace and mercy are key, regardless of how we feel on the subject.

i once heard a sermon preached on what god thinks of homosexuality in an ordinary middleclass church of england church... the preacher started by saing something like, 'it's not what i think that's important, it's not what you think that's important, it's what god thinks that 's important.' he then proceeded to tell us what god thought... he used sodom and gomorrah as his reference!
i don't think he meant it to be, but it was one of the most hateful sermons i have ever heard... likening people with a particular sexual orientation to the kind of people who rape angels and have no respect for anything.

thanks for this post, i really got a lot from reading everyones thoughts... hope you didn't mind me barging in!
cheers! jon.

[Paul]

thanks jon, asbo Jesus is awesome and i really enjoy your parable humour :). Thanks for barging in and your great thoughts. What is love i think is an awesome Q - i don't think it comes without a cost and an element of giving - so maybe its both of the things you suggest and more, depending on the people and situ? I tthink it is hard when we think/preach about this subject in abstract and maybe that's why the sermon you heard was so hateful - we don't care but God does - where is the love in that, if love is about self giving?

Thanks for deepening the conversation!

[Heidi]

Wow, Paul, I stumbled on your blog through the "People Formerly Known As the Congregation" conversation, and then came across this post. I don't really have much to add, except a giant thank-you for tackling these subjects and getting the conversation going. I'll be back.

[Paul]

thanks heid, my pleasure. I have a theory that it is helpful to share my own brokeness and therefore musings around it and when it comes to sexuality i am pretty broke. God, is pretty good at recycling though then again maybe this is just excellent shared therapy :)