Theses on Sex and Christian Ethics
There’s been some great conversation on sexual identity and ethics in theological blogs recently: genuine back-and-forth, mainly on the issue of same-sex relations, from a thoroughly Christian commitment. I post a few of these comments for the record:
- Kim Fabricius started it off with his Twelve propositions on same-sex relations and the church. “For all Christians, as the drama unfolds, the question must surely be this: How, as embodied and sexual creatures, do we live in the truth and witness to Christ?”
- Halden Doerge just posted eight other theses on sexual identity and Christian ethics, more hesitant than Kim’s but not finally decisive. In any case, his hesitations are precisely the right ones.
- Douglas Knight has called our attention to Oliver O’Donovan’s careful words on homosexuality as a theological question by posting excerpts (1, 2) of O’Donovan’s sermon, Good News for Gay Christians. O’Donovan’s take is thoughtful (as always) and creative, and his focus on “good news” is indispensable.
Thanks to all these folks, wherever they fall on the issue, for illustrating clear and faithful dialogue on such an important matter.
1 February 2007 |
Comments (6)
Tags: Ethics
![[RSS for this post]](/images/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
I guess my potentially oversimplified response to the Knight essay is that if the gospel prohibits homosexuals from loving a person of the same sex then it is simply not good news for them.
I agree with his claim that the gospel’s being good news does not mean that it offers easy comfort or reassurance. It requires asceticism, sacrifice, even martyrdom. I get that.
Surely, gays and lesbians, if they wish to be disciples, must submit themselves to the purification of their desires, they must submit to the discipline of sexual asceticism. I think his point that the gospel must mean the same thing for everyone is exactly right (though he misinterprets its implications for this discussion.) lesbians and gays must take up their cross when it comes to sexuality (which is not just desire for a particular type of sexual experience, but is the desire for a particular type of integrated, holistic relationship) just as heterosexuals do, but this does not mean they can never relate sexually to another person–it means just what it means for heterosexuals: there is holy sex and degrading sex.
If this is not true, then one of two things are true: either homosexuals are under a massive self-delusion about the reality of their existence (much in the same way that a person who thought she could fly) or the gospel is not good news: God means for homosexuals to suffer and experience deprivation in a way that God does not demand of any other group of people.
The author’s claims about it being un-christian for homosexuals to too strongly identify as homosexuals seems shady to me. This sounds much like the way members of dominant groups tend to speak about members of minority groups. White people think it odd that black people are make such a big deal about being black, not realizing that their whiteness is normative and authoritative. Men say the same about women etc. And heterosexuals tell homosexuals not to identify too strongly as gay, not recognizing that their heterosexuality is affirmed and asserted every day of their lives.
Also, the fact that this gay consciousness is historically new is itself a fact that is morally neutral. The same could be said of the position and self-understanding of women in the Western world. The same was said by Gutierrez of the poor peoples of the middle of the 20th century, who asserted their existence and subjectivity in an unprecedented way: he calls this the “irruption of the poor onto the stage of history.”
I personally think that the emergence of gay consciousness has everything to do with feminism and new a lessening of the hegemonic authority and inevitability of patriarchy and strict gender dualism, and with that, the fact that marriage is more about love and personal compatibility than survival, property, etc. Which are good things, I think.
If the expression of homosexual desire, even in its purest form can never be holy, it would seem to me as though its expression should in some way impede human flourishing and communal well-being. It would seem to me that for people who experience themselves as being homosexual, life-long celibacy should produce a life holier, more service oriented, more loving, more alive, more integrated into society, etc than one spent in loving partnership.
So, to conclude an unintentionally long post, if celibacy is not “good” for the homosexual–in the way that holiness is “good” for all people (not easy, but truly good and truly life-giving), then the gospel is simply not good news for homosexuals.
Katie, this is fantastic. I know it’s the end of the semester, but let’s hash this out as I have time. I have some questions on what you’ve said that I’ll try to write down sometime over the weekend.