A more positive approach to sexuality
MICHAEL INGHAM
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Christianity as a religion stands in need of a better theology of sexuality. The church must find a way to discover that human beings are sexual beings and, in the words of the creation stories in the Book of Genesis, that “this is very good.”
But this task of finding a new and positive theology of sexuality is very challenging for the church. It involves of necessity an entire reappraisal of Christian tradition, going back to the Bible itself.
For example, St. Paul understood same-sex relationships only in terms of the older-man, younger-boy relationship of the Greeks, which we call pederasty, or in other words, child abuse. It was and still is an intolerable practice, and Christians have condemned it from the very beginning.
But no difference was perceived between child abuse and adult same-sex love. Against this background, the teaching against erotic and sexual passion found its way into the foundational documents of the Christian tradition.
Today, we have a better understanding of homosexuality as a basic and natural orientation experienced by some members of the human community, just as we find the same thing among some animal species, and in Christian terms we must come to think of this as not only natural, but also God-given and good.
But these developments in the social sciences and therefore in popular understanding are still relatively new – since about the 19th century. They have not yet penetrated the church's thinking, except at the edges of its consciousness and greatly against its will. If we believe, as Christians do, that we are created in the image of God, that we carry in our very selves the icon of God's own self in our earthly existence, then we must be able to say that our sexuality is not an accident or a simple tool for making babies.
If sex is not just for having children, then we must challenge the church's condemnations throughout the centuries of such things as masturbation, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality, because it is on the basis of the doctrine of procreation that these practices have been ruled out – they do not further the goal of pregnancy. The church has reasoned that they are against God's will, but if they aren't, then the church has no moral ground to insist on their prohibition.
We know that the dualism of flesh and spirit, which is a Greek intrusion into Hebrew thought, became the basis not only for the denigration of sexuality but also for the oppression of women. Women scholars have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible itself, and all subsequent church history, has been developed and refracted through the lens of male experience.
It was women who were seen as symbols of the flesh, of the lower order, while men were held to belong to the higher order of intellect and reason, through which alone the true knowledge of God could come.
Women who espoused virginity, through ascetic or monastic disciplines, could achieve a life of purity. For the greater part of Christian history, childbearing remained for women the sole justification of their sexuality, which was regarded by the church as both morally and spiritually inferior to that of men.
This process of the subjugation of women's sexuality has had equally profound and disastrous consequences for men, particularly for male sexuality. Instead of developing along the lines of mutuality and equality, male and female sexuality have become inextricably linked to roles of dominance and submission.
For men, this means sexuality is most often expressed through power, and sometimes the use of force. A great deal of male sexual fantasy, especially male pornography (including gay pornography), features a disturbing obsession with violence and cruelty.
What then is a responsible sexuality? Here, as a Christian, I must turn to the New Testament – not to St. Paul, who for some reason has been regarded as the Bible's authority on sex, but to Jesus. I believe it is in Jesus that we see what God intends for humanity, for male and female alike, and in Jesus we see a glimpse of the “fullness of life” that God establishes through him as the new humanity.
What we see in Jesus is both an example of the single life that can be consecrated to God and lived fully and completely without genital activity, and also of a life that is lived always in relationship with others and with God, in full community with men and women and children.
We see in him an invitation to all people to live in these same loving and healthy relationships without fearfulness, without guilt, without the need to control or coerce others, and especially without the sin of rejecting our own God-given nature and sexual orientation.
Jesus does have a comment about marriage. He says “a man shall leave his father and mother and be made one with his wife.” He does not say every man shall become one with a wife, nor every woman with a husband. Indeed, Jesus himself never married, so he cannot be made into an icon of the modern family values movement trumpeted by the Christian far-right.
In Jesus's day, divorce was permitted for men only. A man could divorce his wife, but not vice versa. Divorce was much more devastating to a woman than a man in the ancient world, as it is in many countries today, because women were subject to a social stigma and ostracism after a marriage breakdown that men were not.
It is likely that Jesus's teaching about the strong bond of marriage and against divorce was out of a deep concern for the vulnerability of women, and a desire to protect the equality of relationships instead of upholding the patriarchal system of male heterosexual dominance.
What we do find in Jesus's teaching (and everywhere throughout the Bible) is an emphasis on commitment, faithfulness, and integrity in relationships. Jesus's teaching on divorce is deliberately set in the context of his rejection of infidelity. His whole life was an expression of his fidelity to God, and he spoke passionately about the promise of God's fidelity to us.
Over and over again, in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament, we learn of God's faithfulness and unconditional love, and it is frequently contrasted with the unfaithfulness of human beings, both in their relationships with each other and in their relationship to God. Integrity and commitment are what Jesus demonstrates in all his encounters with women and men in the Gospels and finally, of course, in his death on the Cross.
This suggests, then, that the primary criterion for a Christian sexual theology is not procreation but rather faithfulness and commitment. This is the supreme message of the life of Jesus and ought to be the principal standard for Christian sexual ethics – not sexual orientation, not propagation, nor even marriage.
Fidelity to one another, to one's partner, and to God, respect for the dignity of every human being and for the sacredness of the human body, a rejoicing in human sexuality as both gift and expression of divine creativity – these are the elements of a more positive approach to sexuality that the church needs to pursue.
And it must confront its own homophobia, which is a child of patriarchy and injustice. Fidelity, faithfulness and commitment are virtues of which homosexual and transgendered people are capable, just as much as heterosexuals. The church needs to open itself to new knowledge, and to the experience of all its people. Michael Ingham is bishop of the Greater Vancouver Diocese of New Westminster.
MICHAEL INGHAM
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Christianity as a religion stands in need of a better theology of sexuality. The church must find a way to discover that human beings are sexual beings and, in the words of the creation stories in the Book of Genesis, that “this is very good.”
But this task of finding a new and positive theology of sexuality is very challenging for the church. It involves of necessity an entire reappraisal of Christian tradition, going back to the Bible itself.
For example, St. Paul understood same-sex relationships only in terms of the older-man, younger-boy relationship of the Greeks, which we call pederasty, or in other words, child abuse. It was and still is an intolerable practice, and Christians have condemned it from the very beginning.
But no difference was perceived between child abuse and adult same-sex love. Against this background, the teaching against erotic and sexual passion found its way into the foundational documents of the Christian tradition.
Today, we have a better understanding of homosexuality as a basic and natural orientation experienced by some members of the human community, just as we find the same thing among some animal species, and in Christian terms we must come to think of this as not only natural, but also God-given and good.
But these developments in the social sciences and therefore in popular understanding are still relatively new – since about the 19th century. They have not yet penetrated the church's thinking, except at the edges of its consciousness and greatly against its will. If we believe, as Christians do, that we are created in the image of God, that we carry in our very selves the icon of God's own self in our earthly existence, then we must be able to say that our sexuality is not an accident or a simple tool for making babies.
If sex is not just for having children, then we must challenge the church's condemnations throughout the centuries of such things as masturbation, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality, because it is on the basis of the doctrine of procreation that these practices have been ruled out – they do not further the goal of pregnancy. The church has reasoned that they are against God's will, but if they aren't, then the church has no moral ground to insist on their prohibition.
We know that the dualism of flesh and spirit, which is a Greek intrusion into Hebrew thought, became the basis not only for the denigration of sexuality but also for the oppression of women. Women scholars have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible itself, and all subsequent church history, has been developed and refracted through the lens of male experience.
It was women who were seen as symbols of the flesh, of the lower order, while men were held to belong to the higher order of intellect and reason, through which alone the true knowledge of God could come.
Women who espoused virginity, through ascetic or monastic disciplines, could achieve a life of purity. For the greater part of Christian history, childbearing remained for women the sole justification of their sexuality, which was regarded by the church as both morally and spiritually inferior to that of men.
This process of the subjugation of women's sexuality has had equally profound and disastrous consequences for men, particularly for male sexuality. Instead of developing along the lines of mutuality and equality, male and female sexuality have become inextricably linked to roles of dominance and submission.
For men, this means sexuality is most often expressed through power, and sometimes the use of force. A great deal of male sexual fantasy, especially male pornography (including gay pornography), features a disturbing obsession with violence and cruelty.
What then is a responsible sexuality? Here, as a Christian, I must turn to the New Testament – not to St. Paul, who for some reason has been regarded as the Bible's authority on sex, but to Jesus. I believe it is in Jesus that we see what God intends for humanity, for male and female alike, and in Jesus we see a glimpse of the “fullness of life” that God establishes through him as the new humanity.
What we see in Jesus is both an example of the single life that can be consecrated to God and lived fully and completely without genital activity, and also of a life that is lived always in relationship with others and with God, in full community with men and women and children.
We see in him an invitation to all people to live in these same loving and healthy relationships without fearfulness, without guilt, without the need to control or coerce others, and especially without the sin of rejecting our own God-given nature and sexual orientation.
Jesus does have a comment about marriage. He says “a man shall leave his father and mother and be made one with his wife.” He does not say every man shall become one with a wife, nor every woman with a husband. Indeed, Jesus himself never married, so he cannot be made into an icon of the modern family values movement trumpeted by the Christian far-right.
In Jesus's day, divorce was permitted for men only. A man could divorce his wife, but not vice versa. Divorce was much more devastating to a woman than a man in the ancient world, as it is in many countries today, because women were subject to a social stigma and ostracism after a marriage breakdown that men were not.
It is likely that Jesus's teaching about the strong bond of marriage and against divorce was out of a deep concern for the vulnerability of women, and a desire to protect the equality of relationships instead of upholding the patriarchal system of male heterosexual dominance.
What we do find in Jesus's teaching (and everywhere throughout the Bible) is an emphasis on commitment, faithfulness, and integrity in relationships. Jesus's teaching on divorce is deliberately set in the context of his rejection of infidelity. His whole life was an expression of his fidelity to God, and he spoke passionately about the promise of God's fidelity to us.
Over and over again, in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament, we learn of God's faithfulness and unconditional love, and it is frequently contrasted with the unfaithfulness of human beings, both in their relationships with each other and in their relationship to God. Integrity and commitment are what Jesus demonstrates in all his encounters with women and men in the Gospels and finally, of course, in his death on the Cross.
This suggests, then, that the primary criterion for a Christian sexual theology is not procreation but rather faithfulness and commitment. This is the supreme message of the life of Jesus and ought to be the principal standard for Christian sexual ethics – not sexual orientation, not propagation, nor even marriage.
Fidelity to one another, to one's partner, and to God, respect for the dignity of every human being and for the sacredness of the human body, a rejoicing in human sexuality as both gift and expression of divine creativity – these are the elements of a more positive approach to sexuality that the church needs to pursue.
And it must confront its own homophobia, which is a child of patriarchy and injustice. Fidelity, faithfulness and commitment are virtues of which homosexual and transgendered people are capable, just as much as heterosexuals. The church needs to open itself to new knowledge, and to the experience of all its people. Michael Ingham is bishop of the Greater Vancouver Diocese of New Westminster.