Sexuality and its Expression: With Special Reference to Homosexuality
By: Graham Cole
For the purposes of this paper, sexuality is defined as the complexity of thoughts,
feelings, bodily changes and behaviours that surround the human capacity for one flesh union and
which is grounded in human biology.1 So defined, sexuality is a subset of human interpersonal
relations and is to be distinguished conceptually from gender relations. Gender is grounded in
social learning. 2 Gender relations refract therefore one’s socialisation in a given culture (for
example, whether men and women may sit together in church or synagogue, or whether it is
socially acceptable for a man to be a house-husband). This is a common distinction in social
science literature, which is important to recognise, even if difficult to apply.3 The distinction is
important with respect to the present discussion, since more specifically gender related issues
will not be canvassed (for example, sexism).
1
From a philosophical point of view, this definition is technically speaking a weak one. It
covers only some of the defining characteristics of sexuality but not all. See P.H. Hirst and R.S.
Peters for this distinction in The Logic of Education, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1973,
pp. 4-5.
2
See F.L. Scarpitti and M.L. Anderson, Social Problems, Harper and Rowe, NY, 1989,
pp. 251-255.
3
On the distinction between sex and gender understood from a Christian perspective, see
Mary Steward van Leeuwen, Gender and Grace, IVP, Leicester, 1990, p. 19. On the difficulty in
application see the article on gender by G. Lloyd in J. O Urmson and J. Ree (eds.), The Concise
Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers, Unwin Hyman, London, 1991, New
edition, completely revised. The gender issue is a huge one and beyond the scope of this paper.
Hugh Mackay in his Reinventing Australia, Angus & Robertson, Pymble, 1993, regards changes
in gender roles as the biggest area in redefinition of Australian society over the last 20 years, p.
24.
1
The phenomenon of human sexuality may be viewed from a multitude of perspectives.
Sexuality may be explored, for example: biologically (as has Derek Llewelyn-Jones),
psychologically (as has Leonore Tiefer), sociologically (as Scarpitti and Anderson),
philosophically (as has Roger Scruton) and historically (as has G. L. Simons – albeit at a popular
level).4 This paper, however, looks at human sexuality from an unashamedly theological
perspective.
Approaching any question from a theological perspective involves thinking theologically,
which in turn means recourse to the word of Revelation (the Scriptures) and the witness of
Christian thought down the ages (what, for example, Augustine taught about sexuality). It is
thinking that takes place in the context of the world of human predicament (the world outside of
Eden and this side of Christ’s return). When the task of thinking theologically is combined with
an evangelical commitment to the formal principle of Scripture as the Word of God (the source
of our knowledge) and the material principle of the gospel of grace (the burden of that
knowledge), then Scripture in this formal role becomes the touchstone in all matters of faith and
controversy. The witness of Christian thought, therefore, is always under the discipline of
Scripture, as is Christian experience and Christian reasoning. Thinking theologically is also a
work of wisdom in that it has as its starting point the fear of the Lord. It is Anselmian in its
mood. That is to say, that thinking theologically is an exercise in faith seeking understanding. It
4
See Derek Llewelyn-Jones, Every Man, OUP, Oxford, 1982, and Everywoman, Penguin
Ringwood, 1993, 6th edn; Leonore Tiefer, Human Sexuality, Melbourne, 1979; Scarpitti and
Anderson, op. cit.; Roger Scruton, Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic, Free Press,
NY, 1986 and G.L. Simons A Short History of Sex, NEL, London, 1970.
2
is a believing practice.5
The paper will endeavour to achieve three aims tackled in two parts. In the first part of
the discussion it will attempt a biblical and theological outline of human sexuality as presented in
the Scriptures. In the second, it will seek to address the problems facing the homosexual
Christian with sympathy and criticism and in so doing it will try to delineate the brief of the
Christian moralist in a pluralist post-Constantinian setting.
A broad question underlies each part. In the first part, what do the Scriptures say about
human sexual relations? In the second part, how may the scriptural teaching be communicated
by the Christian moralist in a pluralist society, with homosexual practice serving as a case point?
An excursus offers a typology of five approaches to the question of the moral propriety of
homosexual practice.
PART ONE: THE SCRIPTURAL PRESENTATION
1.
The Foundations of Sexuality (the Doctrine of God as Trinity)
A theological approach starts logically with first principles: namely, who is God? The
living God rendered in the Scriptures as the chief actor in the drama of salvation is triune. The
one God without rival in Old Testament revelation is Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the New
Testament (Dt. 6:4-5 and Matt. 28:18-20). The oneness remains but a complexity is now
revealed. God’s own ontology (or being) is not that of an undifferentiated substance prior to
5
For an elaboration of this understanding of doing theology see my ‘Thinking
Theologically’ in Reformed Theological Review, 1989, XLVIII, pp. 51-62.
3
relationships of some kind, but is constituted by those very relationships that are eternally Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. God’s being is in communion.6 God is therefore relational intradeically (ad
intra) as triune and not simply extradeically (ad extra) as Creator. The God of Scripture then is
relational with or without a creation. He needs no consort outside of the godhead. Put another
way, the will-to-relate / to covenant / to commune is in the godhead in an essential, rather than an
accidental way. This is the revolutionary concept of god that is Christianity’s treasure.
2. Sexuality Created (the Doctrine of Creation)
The complexity of God is refracted in the image of himself that he has made. Humankind
are image bearers in varied ways: as exercisers of dominion over the created order, as social
beings and in their sexual differentiation (Gen. 1-2).7 Indeed in the Genesis stories Adam is
unable to find all his significance in God. We read it was not good for Adam to be alone (Gen.
2:18). He had God and he had the rest of the animal order, but it was not enough to assuage his
loneliness. Hence God made Eve from Adam’s own being. In the leaving and the marital
cleaving of man and woman described in Genesis 2 the one creature is restored (one flesh). Put
another way, the-will-to-relate is not adequately satisfied in a Godward relationship alone, nor in
a relationship directed towards the animal kingdom alone. Another human being is needed. This
is good in God’s eyes. The-will-to-related in its sexual expression finds its proper moral context
6
For a modern concise, yet incisive study of the doctrine of the triune God, see the three
studies published by the British Council of Churches, The Forgotten Trinity 103, BCC, London,
1989-1991.
7
On sexuality and Godhead see R.C. Doyle, ‘Sexuality, personahood, and the Image of
God’ in B.G. Wedd (ed.), Explorations 1, Sydney, 1986, pp. 45-58. For a different view see C.
Sherlock, God on the Inside, Acorn, Canberra, 1991, esp. chs 6-9.
4
in the one flesh union of male and female. It is a creational good.
3.
Sexuality Distorted (the Doctrine of Sin)
Sin warps relationships. The will-to-relate becomes the-will-to-dominate or the-will-to-
withdraw. Again, the Genesis narrative is fecund in its suggestiveness. Having sinned, Adam
and Eve withdraw from God (Gen. 3). Having sinned, Adam and Eve will experience the
asymmetry of the dominator and dominated within their own relationship (Gen. 3). Sin,
therefore warps sexuality both as an expression of power (domination) and as an experience of
shame (human nakedness becomes problematical).
In the flow of the biblical narrative, canonically considered, the warping effects of the fall
are also seen in idolatrous sex (for example, male and female temple prostitution), violent sex
(for example, homosexual rape, heterosexual rape and incest), male homosexual practice, lesbian
practice, adultery and divorce.8 Historically considered, the after-shocks of the fall are seen in
the anti-sex tradition, that has grown up within Christianity itself, with its denigration of our
embodiment as creatures (Augustine in particular has been a sad influence here) and in the
idolatry of the couple or the nuclear family, either of which implicitly questions the integrity of
8
On idolatrous sex see Dt. 23:17-18; on violent sex see Gen. 19 and Judg. 19, 2 Sam. 13;
on homosexual and lesbian practice see Rom. 1:19-1-9. For differing treatments of the biblical
evidence see J. Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today, Marshalls, Basingstoke, 1984, Part IV, the
whole issue on sexuality in St. Mark’s Review, June 1981, No. 106 and J. Gaden, A Christian
Discussion on Sexuality: A Position Paper, The Anglican Church of Australia, General Synod
Paper No. 3, 1989. On the homosexual question in particular, see in addition D. Field, The
Homosexual Way-A Christian Option?, Grove, Bramcote, 1980, New edition. Also see Lance
Pierson, No-Gay Areas, Grove, Bramcote, 1992, p. 12, where he points out that the language of
abomination is used mostly in the OT of pagan idolatry (75 out of 99 times) and that reference to
homosexuality as a detestable practice need to be read in this light.
5
singleness.9 Pornography adds to the list of aftershocks.10
4.
Sexuality Celebrated (the Doctrine of Continued Creation)
In the biblical writings human sexuality though it may be warped remains a creational
good. The Song of Songs is a marvelous depiction of the joys and embodiment as expressed in
sexual arousal, desire and consummation (Song 7:1-8:4).11 Sex is indeed the poor person’s opera
as one wag as put it. There is none of the ancient Greek view of the body as the tomb of the soul
nor of the later Manichaen flight from the physical. Likewise in the New Testament, Paul attacks
the proto-Gnostic teaching that forbade marriage. For Paul, God’s creation remains good and can
be properly appropriated for human enjoyment in the context of the word and prayer (1 Tim. 4:15). Paul’s own teaching on the created order is a dialectic then between the good creation
9
On Augustine see Lewis B. Smedes, Sex For Christians, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1984,
p. 17. Augustine argued that Adam before the fall felt no sexual arousal. Indeed he maintained
that outside of Eden, original sin was passed on through sexual, original sin was passed on
through sexual desire. See also David R. Mace, The Christian Response to the Sexual
Revolution, Lutterworth, London, 1972, p. 46. On the idolatry of the nuclear family and the
difficulties that it creates for singles see J.A. Walters, A Long Way From Home, Paternoster,
Exeter, 1979, ch. 3, and especially see van Leeuwen, Gender, p. 176. My own suggestion is that
we need to recover the biblical image of the people of God as household, which is much more
inclusivist than speaking of the church as family and does not create the same overblown
expectations of intimacy.
10
A distinction needs to be made between the pornographic (that is the exploitive
depiction of the sexual), the bawdy (that is a certain kind of humorous approach to the sexual)
and the erotic (that is an aesthetic approach to the sexual). Further, I have not added sexism to
this list as I see it as a gender issue rather than a sexuality one.
11
See the excellent article by B.G. Webb, ‘The Song of Songs: a love poem as Holy
Scripture’, in Reformed Theological Review, 1990, XLIX, pp. 91-99. Significantly Webb points
out that in the LXX version agapaw is regularly used of the love between lovers (E.g., 1:3,4 &
7). This is the word used in the NT of God’s love for the world (Jn. 3:16). Agape and eros are
not necessarily antithetical.
6
continued (as in 1 Tim. 4:1-5) and a creation which itself longs for redemption from futility (as in
Rom. 8:18-25).
There is, therefore, no room in a robustly biblical Christianity for the denigration of
sexual union or more generally put, life in the body. The doctrine of continued creation is
against it.
5.
Sexuality Delimited (the Doctrine of the Good)
The biblical witness is clear and consistent. The relationally and morally proper context
for sexual union is the marriage of male and female. The rationale for such a marriage, as
presented in the Genesis story, is companionship and procreation (Gen. 1-2). Elsewhere in the
Old Testament the marital relationship is further described in covenant terms (Mal. 2:14). Indeed
again and gain in the Old Testament the marital relationship becomes the metaphor for
describing God’s own covenantal relationship with his people (for example, Hosea and Ezekial).
The New Testament evidence is of a piece with the older covenant. Jesus understands
marriage in one flesh terms (Matt. 19) as does Paul (I Cor. 6). Hence for Jesus, divorce is a very
serious moral concern and for Paul, sexual union with a prostitute can never be a can never be a
casual matter.
In a biblical doctrine of the good, relationship brings responsibility brings responsibility.
Covenants assume commitments and bring moral obligations. The proper context for the
celebration of sexuality in one flesh union is marriage, which involves - in biblical summary - a
leaving and cleaving, a commitment to companionship and procreation, and a public covenant of
some kind. Hence the biblical obligations are clear though unpopular in today’s permissive
7
world: namely, fidelity within marriage, chastity outside of marriage. The-will-to-relate in sexual
union is, therefore, delimited by God’s design.
6.
Sexuality Redeemed (the Doctrine of Redemption)
Grace does not destroy eros but redeems and disciplines it. The New Testament evangel
brought with it an ethic that flowed out of a new relationship to Christ. The Thessalonians, for
example, not only heard Paul’s call to turn away from idols to serve the living and true God, and
to wait for his son for heaven whom God raised from the dead and who would deliver them from
the wrath to come (1 Thess. 1:9-10). They also heard his call to sanctification: namely, to abstain
from fornication (1 Thess. 4:1-8). In Paul’s short three weeks with them (Acts 17:1-9), he
preached an evangel and taught an ethic. The ethic he describes as a lifestyle learned from him.
Its content was concerned with pleasing God. Its sources was the Lord Jesus. The apostle,
Silvanus and Timothy provided the conduit between Christ and his people.
Even in Corinth, notorious for its sexual libertinism, the evangel had likewise done its
transforming word. True the congregation was not without its problems: division (1 Cor. 1),
scandalous sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5) and lawsuits amongst Christians (I Cor. 6). Yet Paul
could sum up what had happened to the Corinthians in these terms:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators,
idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves,
the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these
will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some
8
of you used to be. But you were washed, you were
sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God. (I Cor. 9-11, my emphasis)
In the presentation of the New Testament, the-will-to-relate Christianly is now working
itself out in human experience and in so doing transforms and revalues even household relations;
whether between husbands and wives, or parents and children, or masters and slaves (see the
household codes in Ephesians and Colossians). Indeed in the case of a Christian union, marriage
has a Christological narrative to draw on in order to inform the roles of husband and wife (Eph.
5:22f). Husbands, for example, are to love their wives as Christ loved the church to the point of
dying on a cross. As the Epistle to Diognetus so eloquently put it in the very next century: “Life
other men, they [Christians] marry and beget children, though they do not expose their infants.
Any Christian is free to share his neighbour’s table, but never his marriage-bed.”12
7.
Sexuality Transposed (the Doctrine of the Eschaton)
The biblical drama of salvation has a plot: God is bringing many sons and daughters to
glory (Heb. 2). The movement is from old creation to new; from garden to city; from tragedy to
comedy. In the world to come there is no suggestion of endless unembodiment. The Christian
does not believe in the Greek notion of the immortality of the soul, but rather in the resurrection
of the body as presented in the Scriptures (I Cor. 15) and rehearsed in the creeds (Apostles’,
Nicene and Athanasian).
12
See Maxwell Staniforth (trans.), Early Christian Writings, Penguin, Harmondsworth,
1972, p. 177.
9
The question is whether human sexuality and expression continues in the new heavens
and new earth. Jesus cryptically said that in the new world disciples would not marry. They
would be like the angels (Matt. 22:30). The seer writes that in the world to come, there will be
marriage, but a marriage between the Lamb and his bride, the church (Rev. 19:1-10 and 21-22).
It seems that human sexual expression in one flesh union is now transposed to another plane.
Human eros now has a Christological focus. Grace has both redeemed eros and transposed it.
PART TWO: THE CHRISTIAN MORALIST
8.
Sexuality and Its Expression Critiqued
Sexuality defined as that complexity of thoughts, feelings, bodily changes and behaviours
that surround the human capacity for one flesh union, is open to critique outside of Eden. Indeed,
the idea that sexuality and its expression can be distorted. The Christian doctrine of the Fall then
is vital to any prophetic response to life in our society in general and to sexual relations in
particular. One’s view of the historic time-space fall will be a key indicator of whether one
stands in the mainstream of conservative Christianity or in its liberal parallel.
In a world of moral pluralism with its attendant relativism and where anything seems to
go expect violence and lack of consent in sex, secular psychologist Leonore Tiefer comments:
“How to choose personal sexual standards becomes a great problem in societies with unclear
rules.”13 As conservative Christians we ought not to become smug about the clarity of the
biblical teachings on sexuality or our own moral posture based on it. For our problem is how to
13
Tiefer, op. cit., p. 56
10
communicate the biblical vision for the flourishing of human relations (including the sexual) in a
context in which large numbers of our fellows see Christianity as passe at best, or inimical to
human life at worst.14
Three areas of controversy are particularly sensitive ones: the question of cohabitation,
the question of divorce and remarriage, and the question of homosexual practice. It is beyond the
scope of the present paper to address all three issues. For the purposes of this paper, however,
the question of homosexual practice will be tackled in the light of the biblical pictures sketched
in the foregoing.
It is one thing to derive a normative theological vision from the Scriptures (the work of
theology proper), but it is another thing to apply it with sensitivity (the work of theological
ethics). In the case of homosexual practice, the Christian must not lose sight of the fact that the
homosexual is our neighbour and if militantly, even violently opposed to Christian morality – as
some gays appear to be – then the militant gay is our enemy in the special biblical sense of the
word. For both neighbours and enemies are to be loved in conformatio Christi (Lk. 10:25-37 and
6:32-36, respectively). The Christian track record is not impressive here.15
14
The media has drawn attention in recent days to the Roman Catholic church in
particular on matters of sexual misconduct on the part of priests both in Australia and the USA.
Indeed on July 3, 1993 in the Weekend Australian an ad appeared offering an apology for the
misconduct in the past of some of the Christian Brothers at child care institutions, p. 10.
Sociologist Andrew Greeley estimates that 1 out of 10 of the 53,000 priests in the USA may have
been involved in sexual misconduct. See the report in Sunday Herald Sun July 11, 1993, p. 20.
Damages have cost the church over $A 700 million to date. These revelations and admissions,
together with the Roman view on birth control in an overpopulated world, and stories of
Protestant pastors falling into sexual sin make many in the watching world think that the
church’s own house is in disorder and has little moral authority to pronounce on sexual matters.
15
Nor is the track record of more general society impressive. In British law, for example,
an act was passed in 1290 to the effect that convicted sodomites were to be buried alive. Henry
11
Sadly too the Christian track record is often unimpressive when the homosexual is not
only neighbour but Christian brother or sister. Mary Stewart van Leeuwen writes of a Christian
friend who has been a celibate lesbian since her conversation to Christ in the 1950s. Her friend
was struggling at work wrestling with an alcohol problem. Another Christian in the office put
herself out to help her get through the work requirements each day, that is until she found out
about her work associate’s same sex attraction.16 All help ceased. Alcoholism invited
compassion, but sexual struggle did not.17 Homophobia is a sin, whether personal, interpersonal,
institutional or cultural.18 Hatred of the homosexual has not place in a Christian moral universe.
We all bear God’s image, Christ bore our sins whether we are heterosexual in our attractions or
same sex in our attractions.
VIII changed the method of execution in 1533. In 1861 the death penalty was replaced with life
imprisonment, which sentence was only taken of the statute books in 1967. See Field,
Homosexual, p. 6.
16
Often these days a distinction is drawn between a same sex orientation and same sex
sexual behavior. As far as I can see, the Scripture writers do not know this distinction. So for our
purposes I will speak of same sex attraction. Orientation suggests a fixed psychological structure
in a way that same sex attraction does not. Hence the usefulness of the term as it does not beg the
questions of orientation versus practice.
17
Leeuwen, op. cit., pp. 217-218.
18
On homophobia as sin see Lance Pierson, No-Gay Areas: Pastoral Care Of
Homosexuals, Grove, Bramcote, 1992, p. 7. On the various forms of homophobia see Neil
Rodgers, Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Students: The Hidden Minority in Colleges and Halls of
Residence. Melbourne, 1993 (a paper given at the Biennial Heads of Colleges and Halls
conference), p. 5. Personal homophobia, for example, is expressed in an individual’s belief that
gays are genetically defective, interpersonal homophobia in active discrimination such as name
calling, institutional homophobia in education discrimination, cultural homophobia in any social
norms that legitimise the active oppression of homosexual people.
12
9.
The Task of The Christian Moralist
How then can criticism by caring? How can the Christian moralist (that is, any Christian
person who takes public responsibility to do applied ethics) be compassionate, yet critical? For a
start, let us be wise. A distinction already implied above, needs to be drawn between same sex
attraction and same sex sexual practice.19 The Bible writers arguably were innocent of such a
distinction. Yet from a moral point of view to experience sexual attraction to and arousal in the
presence of a member of the same sex is not to be confused with sexual union. No moral blame
attaches to such attraction or arousal.
Moreover a further distinction needs to be drawn between matters of taste and matters of
morality. The thought of anal sex is distasteful to many, whether under consideration is anal sex
between heterosexuals (for example, as a method of birth control) or between homosexuals. The
issue is not of aesthetics though, but one of morality, namely, are such practices wrong? I
suspect that aesthetic distaste fuels Christian rhetoric against homosexual practice as much as
moral concern does.
Caring criticism would also work with large canvas. It would point to the biblical macropicture of human relationships, of which sexual relations are a subset. It would argue that thewill-to-relate sexually finds its proper relational and moral context in heterosexual marriage.20 In
19
I prefer this distinction to the older one of invert and pervert as a less question-begging
and prejudicial one. See Field, Homosexual Way, pp. 4-5.
20
John Stott argues in Christianity Today, April 5, 1993 that the most important teaching
in the Bible relevant to the monogamous homosexual issues is its clear and positive teaching on
heterosexual marriage as God’s foundation design for life. He thinks that any appeal to the
prohibitive texts against homosexual practice in the Bible will simply beg the hermeneutical
question, if deployed.
13
the light of this biblical ideal, homosexual practice – even if the context is a “monogamous”
relationship – falls short (one of the biblical definitions of sin), yet caring criticism would
maintain that homosexual unions are not all of the same moral quality. 21 Homosexual rape in
prison, the idolatrous homosexual practices of ancient Mesopotamia, casual homosexual sex and
homosexual sex in a committed relationship do not all stand on the same moral plane.22 In other
words, the rejection of homosexual practice as sinful would be qualified by discriminating moral
judgements and variegated pastoral moral guidance, depending upon the exact nature of the
particular homosexual practice under consideration.23
21
Sometimes the argument is put that the same hermeneutic that allows some evangelicals
to endorse the ordination of women will logically entail endorsement of the ordination of
practising homosexuals, who are in stable monogamous same-sex relationship. A form of
argument, that prima facie might attract such a criticism, might itself run that the Bible knows
neither of women’s ordination nor of stable monogamous homosexual relationships, therefore
there is liberty to relate Scripture to modern realities not then on view. But both the argument
and the criticism are flawed by their failure to recognise that the biblical language about
homosexual practice is morally loaded (like the language about the practices of drunkenness or
theft). Here St. Paul’s catalogue found in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 provides a case in point (malakos and
arsenokoitai refer to the passive and active roles in homosexual intercourse respectively). The
language about women, however, is not morally loaded per se. Consequently in Anglican terms
(going back to Cranmer himself) the ordination of women is a matter of order. The matters of
the ordination of practising homosexuals, however, is a question of faith and morals.
22
According to Gordon Wenham, the argument is flawed that runs, since Scripture
nowhere overtly condemns a monogamous homosexual relationship, such a relationship is not
forbidden. He maintains that the NT use of the word porneia as an umbrella term for sexual
immorality would exclude such a relationship too. See G. Wenham “Heterosexuality in the
bible” in T. Higton (ed.), Sexuality And the Church, ABWON, Hockley, 1987, pp. 27-38.
23
There is an important distinction in moral theology between objective moral theology
and pastoral moral guidance. This distinction covers the difference between the good that ought
to be pursued (objective moral theology) and the good now achievable given the dilemma
(pastoral moral guidance). For this useful, traditional Roman Catholic distinction see R.M. Gula,
Reason Informed Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality, Paulist Press, NY, 1989, pp. 306-308.
An example of pastoral moral guidance would be to advise a monogamous homosexual couple to
practise safe sex lest the situation become even more complicated through possible AIDS
14
With regard to homosexual union in a “monogamous” relationship, caring criticism
would recognise that genuine human needs may be fuelling the desires, thoughts, feelings and
practices, but are being met in ways other than God’s design for life.24 The testimony of a
homosexual Christian dying of AIDS and a newly converted makes the point in a tellingly
poignant way: “My homosexuality was not about sex. It was about love. I never felt anybody
loved me, and so I sought love in the wrong place,”25
We also need to acknowledge that genuine moral values may be generated in a
relationship that is other than God’s revealed design. It is these generated values, many of which
are either Christian (for example, other person-centeredness) or comport with Christianity (for
example, loyalty), that the watching world sees. As was put to me in a meeting recently, too
many conservative Christians seem fixated on genital relations. Rather the emphasis, he
maintained, should fall on the generation and maintenance of loving, committed and forgiving
relationships, arising from which genital relations may or may not follow. From this perspective,
transmission. Again, in a mission context, a missionary might advise that a newly converted
husband not set aside two of his three wives and their children (pastoral moral guidance) for
monogamous marriage (objective moral theology), lest the cast-out wives and children start, or
worse.
24
The counter argument might be put that biology is destiny: that is to say, that if there is a
genetic element in a fixed homosexual “orientation” then a moral right to express it comes too.
But biology and moral concerns are not to be woman is able to bear a child brings with it an
obligation on her to do so. As David Hume pointed out long ago the move from, what is, to,
what ought to be, is a tricky one. Such a move later became known as the naturalistic fallacy.
See the article on fallacy and Hume in A.N. Flew (ed.) A Dictionary of Philosophy, Pan, London,
1984, Second rev. edn, pp. 240-241. For a sociological critique of the ‘biology as destiny’
argument, see Scarpitti & Anderson, op. cit., 253-255.
25
Quoted in Christianity Today, April 1993, p. 17. For a moving personal account of
homosexual experience meeting a human need see H.A. Williams, Some Day I’ll Find You,
Collins, London, 1984, p. 197 especially.
15
conservative Christianity appears opposed to some of its own values, or even basic human ones,
for the sake of doctrinaire correctness.
At this point in the discussion, in the light of the above, it is worth raising the question of
whether Christians have, in whole or in part, created the present difficulties in communicating a
Christian moral position to those on the outside. We have preached a God of effectively one
moral attribute for decades: namely, love. We have presented the mature Christian person as
having the one defining characteristic, that of love. But the God of Scripture is not only love, but
light. In other words we have not preached, as a broad generalisation, the holy God who is the
God of holy love, as P.T. Forsyth lamented near the turn of this century.26 Thus our social
attitudes seem to many an outsider to pitch love against lesser values like doctrinal orthodoxy.
The fact is that we value both love and holiness (that is to say, walking in love as well as walking
in the light). Christian values are not at war with each other. The Christian person is to be both
holy and loving. In other words, the Christian person is to be like God.
10.
Recognising Moral Complexity
Returning to the present issue, one way of responding to genuine questions about moral
status of “monogamous” homosexual relationships is to realise and acknowledge that analysing a
moral situation is a complex business. Appeal to moral rules is not enough, for not only is the
action to be considered (Is it right or wrong?), the agent needs to be considered (Is the motivation
good or bad?) and the aftermath too (Did it work out as life enhancing or life diminishing?). On
26
See P.T. Forsyth, God The Holy Father, The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 1957
reissue of 1897.
16
this approach we may affirm the agent, but deplore the action, but personally tolerant of the
agent. But such a way requires that we examine moral dilemmas with more subtlety. The triple
A analysis (agent, action and aftermath) mentioned above is one tool to this end for it allows us
to qualify our moral approval or disapproval in a graduated way.
With regard to the case mentioned above of a “monogamous” committed caring
homosexual relationship, we can affirm that certain goods are generated in such a relationship.
Other person-centeredness is good and the devotion amongst homosexuals to meeting th eneeds
of lovers dying of AIDS is morally impressive. However, the moral question of right or wrong
actions remains, even if the attitudes are exemplary and the aftermath is full of good moral
features. In practical terms, the evangelical moralist needs to display the proper personal
tolerance of homosexual people in a way that does not give moral permission to homosexual
practice.
So then we need to communicate that as Christians we are not simply appealing to rules,
but to genuine human values with an appreciation of the worth of human agents as image bearers
of God and with a view to human flourishing. We also need to do so with humility as we are
simul justus et peccator (at the same time forgiven people and sinning people) as Luther has
taught us. But further our enunciation of the biblical vision requires some degree of embodiment
in our own personal and corporate relation. The latter point is important, because in our society
the church (broadly defined) is seen in the many guises of educator, of care giver, of corporate
citizen and of employer. Our moral practices, as God’s people, in each of these roles are
increasingly under public scrutiny. One of the most awful words of judgement on Jesus’ lips is
“hypocrite”. It was addressed again and again by him to the religious (Matt. 23, for example).
17
11.
Recognising the Cultural Context
The cultural uncertainties and dangers of our time are wonderfully captures in W.B.
Yeats’ poem The Second Coming where he writes:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.27
In the magnificent poem, Yeats symbolically expresses his belief that Christian
civilization is at an end and that a new brutal Anti-Christ era is at hand. The second coming will
not be that of Christ, but that of the beast.28
In such an era, we need to remind ourselves afresh that Constantinian Christianity is
dying, if not dead. Our society is pluralist and relativist. Unlike an Augustine, we cannot argue
that the unwilling should be compelled by the empire into Christian obedience.29 As the old
27
Quoted in James McAuley (ed.), Generations, Nelson, Melbourne, 1978, p. 195. Note:
‘gyre’ means spiral or circle. Yeats died in 1939.
28
I follow McAuley’s interpretation, ibid., p. 310.
29
See the account in W.H.C. Frend, The Early Church, Hodder & Stoughton, London,
1971, p. 216. Augustine appealed to the Lukan text, ‘Compel them to come in’ with regard to
the Donatists (Lk. 14:23).
18
adage has it: “he who is compelled against his will is of the same opinion still.” The setting for
our moral criticism and moral apologetic is becoming less and less like that of Augustine’s
Constantinian world and more and more like that of pre-Nicean Christianity: a world of religious
mix, cultural mix and moral mix.
Legislation is not the main key on the key-ring (although it is one of the keys in a
democratic society); being counter-cultural in a word and deed is. And let us make no mistake:
in such a world to be Christian will mean being counter cultural. It will mean in the words of
philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre that Christians be “a community within which civility and the
intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon
us.”30 Or to take up the words of Yeats’ poem, it will mean being a people with a centre that
holds. Jesus called it being both salt and light.
12.
Conclusions
The foundations of sexuality are theological. They are found in the God who is
relationally triune. The will-to-relate is in the Godhead. Human sexuality is a created good and
is expressive of, but does not exhaust, the imago dei. Sexuality and its expression are under
tension outside of Eden. The creational good continues, but so do the distorting effects of the
historic fall. Sexuality is to be celebrated still, but it also to find its one flesh expression within
the delimitations of marriage. The drives of fallen human sexuality are redeemable in Christ and
in the world to come will find their consummate expression in relationship to Christ.
In a world of easy sex, the Christian moralist adopts a counter-cultural stance that blends
30
A. MacIntyre, After Virtue, Duckworth, London, 1987, Second Edition, p. 263.
19
criticism with caring and no where more so than in the sensitive area of homosexual attraction
and practice. The Christian moralist needs to make careful distinctions between homosexual
same sex attraction and same sex sexual practice, and between moral concerns and aesthetic
matters. Further the Christian moralist needs to deploy a more subtle tool of ethical analysis than
the simple appeal to moral rules and their infringement. The moral agent, the morality of the
action on view and the moral value of the aftermath of the action all need to be factored into the
subsequent equation of moral judgement.
Above all, the Christian moralist not only enunciates ideals and argues for them, but also
seeks to embody the-will-to-relate Christianly. There is a corporate dimension to the
embodiment of that will-to-relate, which is relevant to the church, when viewed as educator, care
giver, citizen and employer.
Lastly, our own culture appears on the one hand to be increasingly and paradoxically both
more and more religious (for example, New Age, the occult and Eastern religions) and secular
(for example, humanism and hedonism). On the other hand, it seems to be increasingly less and
less Christian. In such a cultural context, there has never been a greater need for Christians to be
counter-cultural in their moral practices as individuals and as a people.
Excursus: Responses to Homosexual Practice
Five Approaches:
Adapted from R.K. Johnston’s Evangelicals at an Impasse (Atlanta, John Knox, 1979) pp. 113145.
1.
Condemnatory & Punitive: Theonomists
20
2.
Condemnatory & Non-punitive: R Lovelace
3.
Pastorally informed Rejection: G. Cole
4.
Partial Acceptance: H. Thielicke
5.
Full Acceptance: V. Mollenkott
1=Homosexual activity is criminal and is, therefore, to be punished with capital punishment
2=Homosexual activity is to be condemned without qualifications but not criminalised in law.
3=Homosexual activity of any kind is to be rejected as sinful, but not all such activity has the
same moral quality. The Scripture itself recognises differences between sins (for example, the
eternal sin of Mark 3:28-30 & the moral sin of I John 5:16-17). The pastoral response to the
homosexual recognises this reality. In some cases the pastoral guidance offered and the objective
moral theology held by the pastor may be under tension outside of Eden. For example, a pastor
might advise a homosexual couple to practise safe sex in the era of AIDS, even having just
criticised the relationship. This is my category addition to Johnston’s typology. I am using the
term “qualified” to mean “to attribute some quality to” (The Oxford Paperback Dictionary).
4=Outside of Eden sometimes we are face with choice between the lesser of two evils.
Consequently, we may need to accept a monogamous homosexual relationship as better than
promiscuous ones, especially in the AIDS era. For some gays, a stable monogamous homosexual
relationship might be counselled as “the optimal ethical possibility”. Johnston describes this
view as “Qualified Acceptance”, but I think his own argument suggests that “Partial Acceptance”
would be more accurate.
5=This is the view that there is no moral or theological impediment to monogamous homosexual
21
relationship.
22