The Biology and Spirituality of Human Sexuality
Class 10: The Ethics of Sexuality:
Mutuality of Sexual Pleasure as Grace and Gift
September 21, 2003

Review of Last Class

     In the last class, we began to develop the concept of sexual behavior as a sacrament. This was a way of starting to develop a sexual ethic; that is, a way of looking at sexual behavior (as opposed to orientation) as a symbolic act that speaks to a greater reality.

     To begin that discussion, we asked whether sexual activity itself was sacramental or sinful, and we looked at the Biblical record of Jesus' actions for guidance. Jesus was clearly a sensual person, about whom the Apostle Paul did not state was celibate. Given that Jesus was fully human, we concluded that he was likely to have experienced sexual feelings. We also noted that sexual arousal is a natural phenomenon, and that sexual responsiveness was itself a morally neutral issue. To believe otherwise would quite likely lead to the conclusion that sexual feelings were the result of the fall, and therefore something to be avoided (as in the avoidance of temptation). We concluded that Jesus, as a human being who experienced sexual feelings, was the incarnational intersection where human life, divine intention, and sexual expression all intersect.

     We read the definition of a sacrament and understood that sexual expression was indeed the outward and visible sign of the inward grace of love. As such, it is something to be cherished and shared in the context of a deep and intimate love with another human being. We also noted that theologically a sacrament also represents a union between something of the divine and something of the human during the physical act of consecration. This kind of symbolism could also be applied to sexual relations. The gift from God of the capacity to love another being is where the element of the divine can join with the specifically human act of sexual relations. It is a spiritual union of human action with divine intention to love one another.

     Given this foundation, we next looked at the variety of sexual relations ranging from ecstatic and deep union to dehumanizing and violent rape. The main points of this discussion was to talk through how the symbolism of the sexual act itself represents the level of love and commitment two people have for one another. Finally we spoke about the rituals people engage in during sexual arousal and sexual fulfillment, because these rituals - which range from eye-to-eye contact, light touching, non-genital touch, to intercourse - each symbolically represent the degree of commitment and attachment we are willing to make with one another. We talked about how when sexual relations begin with purely physical elements, the relationship can become "stuck," and the partners cannot progress and develop a complete sense of trust and intimacy. We noted how important it was for a sacramental sexual union to take place that all of the of communication and intimacy be integrated.

  Back to Top

Introduction

     It is not the purpose of this class to provide an ethic solely and exclusively about same-sex relationships. Quite to the contrary, it is to provide a some ideas for the development of a personal sexual ethic that will hopefully be sufficiently embracing of expressions of sexual desire. There are some people, however, who would be quick to argue that certain homosexual practices are morally wrong. So, even though homosexuality is not the sole subject here, I want to deal with this subject up front, so that we can move to the development of a broader sexual ethic. (Slide 2; )

Back to Top

Ethical Views of Same Sex Intercourse

     Stanley Grenz, the author of Welcoming But Not Affirming (see the bibliography), is a conservative who sees same sex activity as morally wrong even when it is conducted in the context of a loving gay or lesbian relationship.[1] He writes that same-sex intercourse is a "defiant act" from a sacramental point of view, because it cannot ritually enact the reality it symbolizes. Why does he say that? Because he views the God-given purpose of human sexuality from two points of view. The first is the obvious procreative aspect. The second is that sexual expression takes the "otherness" (that is male and female) and joins them into a oneness. He writes, "Sexual intercourse must be able to represent physically (and thus make present) the two-in-one sexual bond it symbolizes."[2] He takes exception to the validity of other body parts as substitutes for genital-genital contact. (Slide 3; ) He refers any kind of sexual expression other than genital contact as "not normally viewed as sexual" and devoid of the "symbolic dimension of two-becoming-one present in male-female sex."[3] As noted in the previous class, human sexual activity is not biologically apparently reserved only for the purposes of creating offspring, so the concern about sexual expression being reserved only for that purpose loses some of its potency (pun intended).

     The concern about the necessity that the genitals involved in sexual relations belong to a male and a female does not take into consideration the varieties of non-genital sexual expressions that can and do take place between men and women. (Slide 4; ) Charles Hefling writes that quandaries in sexual ethics often arise "precisely because sex is good in more ways than one." And he is not specifically taking about pleasure. He is speaking about moral goods. (Slide 5; ) He says,

"sex brings into being a kind of human good that is neither mere self-gratification nor offspring, a good that concerns the couple who are involved, not as individual organisms that experience pleasure, and not as members of a biological species that can propagate itself, but as persons, human in the fullest sense as members of an interpersonal community."[4]

In a very real sense, Hefling argues that sexual expression, when it occurs between two people in a bond of love, is the natural extension of their interpersonal communication. He calls sex a language, where bodily organs and physical responses are like "alphabet letters or phonemes in having the capacity to be carriers of meaning. Sex communicates, and what it says depends on the persons involved. Ultimately it is the "essence" of the person itself that is communicated.

     Grenz seems to argue that "right" (i.e., correct or licit) sexual expression only occurs when female and male genitals are involved. (Slide 6; ) I believe that such a view severely and unnecessarily limits those persons who are in loving, monogamous relationships who may have any number of physical disabilities for whom genital-genital contact is painful, impractical, or downright impossible. (Slide 7; ) It also fails to take into consideration the issue of intersexuals and how and what is meant by "right" genital contact for people with multiple genitalia or mixed gender characteristics. Finally, Grenz's view is a very forensic one that does not seem to appreciate the importance of communication and intimacy in relationship.

A Modern Sexual Ethic Based on The Gospel and Tradition

     Instead of making statements about the morality of particular sexual acts or specific groups of people, I try to look at sexual expression as that which is part of a solid and good ethical relationship. That brings us to consideration of sexual ethics. (Slide 8; )

     In developing a sexual ethic, we need to be careful that we keep one eye on scripture and our tradition to help prevent us from creating an ethical view based on societal norms rather than upon Christian principles. And although we have by now learned apply a good critical hermeneutic to our interpretation to tradition and scripture, we need to be careful that we do not look at the sexual ethics of the New Testament as irrelevant to our time, because they are not. Our Christian ethical model comes to us from the past - a past admittedly buried in a past framework of purity and property systems that no longer prevail among us. But the antiquity of the New Testament perspective relativizes the present and allows us to be transformed by the action of the Holy Spirit, and to see the world in new ways. In other words, in scripture, we have evidence of God's breaking into the ancient world in new and exciting ways. That in turn allows us to anticipate that God will break into our culture as well. The writers of the New Testament took what was familiar in their culture and reframed their cultural perspectives based on the new insights God provided them through the incarnation, the ministry of Jesus, and the death and resurrection. Those insights revitalized what was and infused the whole interpretation of their history with revelatory insight. By seeing God's continuing action in the world, we can apply the Christian principles that we inherit from the Bible and our own church tradition, and derive new principles relevant to our present situation.

     In the previous class, we talked about the Biblical perspective on Jesus' sensuality, and we concluded that the Biblical witness honors sensual experience. That leads us to the view that pleasure itself is a good. In ethical debates, one does not see the world as a place of "rights" (goods) and "wrongs, but rather a place of where there are competing goods ("Is it better to do this or that?"). Sexual pleasure, therefore is a good, and our task is to evaluate that good in light of other goods, like relationship, neighbor, etc.

     In this vein, L. William Countryman proposed that there are six "generative principles" that provide direction to deriving ethical guidelines pertaining to sexual activity and how we can evaluate sexuality as a good, and see sex as grace and gift.[5] These are: (Slides 9 and 10; )

• Membership in the Christian Community is in no way limited by purity codes. With this principle, individuals are free to follow a cultural purity code, but they cannot impose it on others. This principle puts the church to the test, because the church's demands to adhere to particular time-honored purity codes (or dogmas) may have to be revisited and revised. For example the gospel does not prohibit masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art or literature.
• Christians must respect the sexual property of others and practice detachment from their own. The ethical principle here is best understood from a first-person view: I respect my neighbor's property right to protect them against me. This view keeps me in check, and does not make my own self interest into an idol. Second, we detach our self interest in our own property rights in order to acknowledge that I do not "own" anything - everything belongs to the reign of God. In every case Countryman argues, one is to administer and care for one's property with a view toward transformation of the individual into a citizen of God's kingdom.
• Where, in late antiquity, sexual property belonged to the family through the agency of the male householder, in our own era, it belongs to the individual. This principle is more "modern" in its view and holds that the individual is primarily responsible for her/his own sexual acts. In addition, the principle holds that the principles that govern behavior follow the golden rule: respect for my individuality implies respect for the individuality of others. This comes about through the recognition that whatever governs my individuality is understandable only as an expression of those principles that render every other human being an individual, too. But what does this mean today, in terms of "property?" In addition to some ancient goods such as sexual satisfaction, legitimate heirs, etc., a modern good (or 'property right') that arises from committed relationship are trust, bonding, and intimacy. These are interior goods essential to relationship, and they are something exchanged between committed people in a true partnership. This provides a modern lens by which to evaluate the theft of these goods; i.e., adultery. In addition to the older idea of stealing another man's womb for his own offspring and thus depriving the husband of legitimate heirs, a modern concept of adultery stresses the use of sexual relationship for one's own satisfaction (making an idol of the self) with minimal regard for that of the partner.
• The gospel can discern no inequality between men and women as they stand before God's grace. Women and men are equal.
• Marriage creates a union of flesh, normally indissoluble except by death. In this principle the idea is that sexual union is constitutive of what we mean by "family." This raises a number of difficult questions for us today. A couple are: What is the role of the church in relation to marriage (how does the church legitimately bless a union before it can assess whether the union is secure)? To what degree is nonmarital or "casual sex" forbidden or permitted? When is marriage a marriage? In the modern world, where the purity of the family line is no longer the primary concern, the good sought in marriage turn more toward the development of relationship between partners. Once the early romantic enthusiasm wears thin, a transition to marital living takes place; it may become apparent that one or both partners are unable or unwilling to give anything of importance (a good) to the other. At that point, most would agree that the relationship lacks the material of a successful marital commitment.
• The Christian's sexual life and property are always subordinate to the reign of God. This ethical principle keeps God's will and God's calling to each person in the center of the radar screen. Keeping the reign (or kingdom) of God at the center of our lives means that the life of the world to come, characterized by joy, reverence for one another, and by love, is the standard by which Christian people measure our growth in faith and love of Christ. Sexual expression, therefore, is just one part of that. From that perspective, it is a gift from God in creation. This principle is what will demand the sacrifice of a lesser good to a greater good. Sex, therefore, is not central, but neither is knowledge, money, power, success, security, one's job or family or marriage or even oneself. None of these goods is wrong, but when they become our ultimate goals, they become idols. Sex in indeed a blessing, and one for which we should be thankful. But when our sexual or interpersonal behavior no longer expresses the joy, delight, love, and completeness of that understanding, then sex and the interpersonal relationship become suspect. As Countryman put it:

  "If I grab something for myself that belongs rightfully to another, whether through direct violence or through manipulation or any other means, I acknowledge that I have grabbed as a good, but I no longer confess it as a part of the whole richness of creation - a richness that includes all goods, including myself and the neighbor from whom I have robbed as well. If I make satisfaction of sexual desire the overarching goal of my life, I have put the part in place of the whole and thereby lost perspective on its real value. These considerations are what make libertinism wrong, for they condemn any pursuit of sexual pleasure which is based on megalomania and idolatry ... They also make prudery, legalism, and addiction to respectability wrong. For just as sex is not the final goal of creation, neither is works-righteousness, the fulfillment of the law, or the sense of comfort that comes from having fulfilled the expectations of my neighbors."[6]

Back to Top

Sexual Ethics and Today's World

     Let's take a look at sexual expression in today's world. In an article in the April 3, 2000 New York Times, Anne Jarrell reported that pre-teenagers go on dates which not infrequently involve sexual activity including oral sex, mutual masturbation, and nudity. (Slide 11; ) The number of young people engaged in this activity has increased since 1975; in 1997, 17% percent of 12 and 13 year-olds, and 38% of girls and 45% of boys 15 years of age have had intercourse. An adolescent medicine specialist was quoted as saying that young women often engage in oral sex which they consider "no big deal." They apparently do not see this activity as sex, "but as safe and fun and a prelude to intercourse." This is of concern to school psychologists because when it comes to oral sex, "the boys are getting it, the girls no." This seems to be borne out by the fact that one private middle school with a sex education program that begins in the fifth grade is debating the idea of distributing fruit-flavored condoms.

     This trend to experience sex short of intercourse is related to several factors. Factors preventing intercourse include fear of AIDS and the fact that about one-third of all public schools teach abstinence as the sole contraceptive method. Factors that encourage sexual exploration (other than natural biology) include sexually graphic films and videos, "MTV, lurid rap lyrics, and technosex on the internet." Apparently preadolescent and early adolescents also believe that sexual activity short of intercourse carries a smaller risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. (Slide 12; ) Psychologists are concerned about increasingly younger people engaging in sexual activity because "most young teenagers cannot handle the profound feelings that go with early sex" and may pursue bodily pleasure with such casualness that the act(s) become mechanical and dehumanizing; later in life such youngsters may have trouble forming relationships.

Back to Top

     Given that for a number of reasons, sexual activity is occurring in more young people than ever before, and granted that such activity is medically dangerous as well as potentially psychologically damaging to our youth, does the Church have a right or responsibility to enter this arena in order to provide sex education, which is what most experts agree is needed.[8] (Slide 13; ) The term "right" implies something that members of the community agree is inalienable; privileges or powers that cannot be infringed upon.[9] "Rights" often refer to the claims of individuals within a society to specific freedoms or entitlements (such as civil rights). If this definition is extended to institutions, then society has to assign that privilege to the Church. (Slide 14; ) Because of the nature of western liberalism and the strong sense of the autonomous self, and since Christian denominations have such widely disparate beliefs concerning contraception, it seems highly unlikely that mutual agreement could be achieved that would endow any Christian group with the "right" to teach sex education in any kind of public forum. However, it is possible that subaltern groups may find agreement; those groups would most likely be those within a given denomination or congregation within a denomination. However, that is not to say that the Episcopal Church should remain silent on the issue. Temple argues that "the Church must announce Christian principles and point out where the existing social order at any time is in conflict with them." Although elaboration of Christian values must also be done in ways that enhance personal virtue.[10]

     Given that the Church cannot assume the right to teach sex education, does the Church have a responsibility to do so? (Slide 15; ) At the heart of the Christian tradition is the relational norm expressed in the Baptismal covenant and in the Gospel of Mark: the first commandment is to "love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" and the second is to "love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:30-31; NIV). Christian responsibility demands honor and respect of all persons. Although the Christian norm for sexual relations within marriage presupposes a loving relationship, it does not necessarily follow that all loving relationships must be sexual, or that all sexual relationships are by definition loving ones.[11] (Slide 16; ) Ms. Jarrell's article implies that young people have difficulty making these distinctions. The function of sex is not only to produce children, but also to enhance the loving interpersonal relationship between partners.[12] Ms. Jarrell's article suggests that not only is sexual activity among pre-teenagers rising, it has taken on a very self-gratifying, hedonistic quality that debases Christian morality. William Temple pointedly comments that "only the love of God working upon [a person's] conscience, heart, and will can set [the person] free from self-centeredness."[13] (Slide 17; ) By exercising its responsibility (not its right) to encourage Christians to fulfill their Baptismal vows, the Church can (and must) reestablish in its youth a sense of morality reflecting the cardinal and theological virtues. Thus, it is a duty of the Church to become involved in sex education. What would such a program look like? Kenneth Kirk stated that through the sacraments of the Church and the "divine grace that they convey, [the church can achieve] the fullest and highest means of putting such ideals into practice."[14] Christian sex education would result in the development of an ideal that would "enshrine an element of otherworldliness and … self-denial." As a national priority the Episcopal Church should teach comprehensive sex education together with the psychology of adolescence in the context of Christian values to provide young people with the virtues needed to arm themselves and to act responsibly toward each other. Such teaching would engender feelings of genuine intimacy, mutuality, and security.[15] Such teaching efforts are empowering, and encourage the development of moral discernment and decision-making skills.

Back to Top

Some Conclusions

     Marvin Ellison has written that

"not heterosexuality, not homosexuality, not marriage, but responsibility should become morally normative for a contemporary Christian sexual ethics. The church's traditional ethic - well represented by the phrase 'celibacy in singleness, fidelity in marriage' - is woefully inadequate. It denies the rich diversity of sexual experiences and relationships that bear moral substance, and it establishes uncritically the exclusive claim of heterosexual marriage to moral propriety and sexual maturity."[16]

(Slide 18; ) Ellison believes that the church has failed to empower people to make responsible moral choices. By defining a range of sexual experiences as sinful, Ellison believes that the church has promoted guilt rather than sexual maturity; it has not helped people to learn how to accept what they need, and how to direct their own lives to enhance the joy and self-respect of other people. Countryman might say that the church has failed to help people identify and evaluate the sexual goods in their lives. Ellison feels that the church has reinforced a variety of sexisms by pressuring people into playing "proper" sex-stereotyped roles and to fear pain, fear, and guilt if they do not. The church has promoted sexism, and actively or passively oppressed and punished sexual nonconformers.[17]

     Ellison believes that to claim a modern Christian ethic, we need to break from an unjust norm of compulsory heterosexuality and gender inequality. (Slide 19; ) He believes that this unjust norm must be altered, not those who question it. He calls this an ethic of common decency. This ethic seeks justice in sexual relationships. It includes the moral obligation to promote one another's common decency and to honor our need for affection and intimacy. He writes that "our sexuality is who - and how - we experience this quite remarkable emotional, cognitive, physical, and spiritual yearning for communion with others, with the natural world, and with God."[18] Sexual desire and passion can be ennobling.

Back to Top

COMMENTS? E-MAIL ME

Biology & Spirituality of Human Sexuality Class Index Page

Bill Stroop's Sunday School Class Index Page

Bill Stroop's Home Page

[1] Grenz, Stanley J. Welcoming But Not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1998), 109.

[2] Grenz, 110-111.

[3] Grenz, 111.

[4] Hefling, Charles. "By Their Fruits: A Traditionalist Argument." In Hefling, Charles (Ed.). Our Selves, Our Souls and Bodies: Sexuality and the Household of God. (Boston, MA: Cowley Publiations. 1996), 166-167.

[5] Countryman, William L. Dirt Greed& Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1988), 240-267.

[6] Countryman, 266.

[7] Stroop, William G. "Does the Episcopal Church Have a Right or a Responsibility to Teach People Eight to Eighteen Years of Age About Sex?" A paper prepared April 2000 for Christian Ethics and Moral Theology (T-3) at the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest, Austin, Texas. Read the entire paper.

[8]Anne Jarrell. "The Face of Teenage Sex Grows Younger." New York Times. 3 April 2000. sec. B, 1; Dr. Eva Siegler said, "We shouldn't wait to talk to them about AIDS, sex and violence until they are twelve." Other psychologists are encouraging programs that provide pre-teenagers with opportunities to explore their feelings and digest the sexual messages they receive." Quoted in Anne Jarrell. "The Face of Teenage Sex Grows Younger." New York Times. 3 April 2000. Sec. B, 8.

[9]John E. Smith, "Rights." In The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, James Childress and John Macquarrie (Eds). (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1967), 556.

[10] Susan Dolan-Henderson. Presentation at the American Academy of Religion, November, 1995.

[11]Robert L. Stivers, Christine E. Gudorf, Alice Frazer Evans, Robert A. Evans. Christian Ethics: A Case Method Approach, 2nd ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994), 237; Lewis Smedes. "Respect for Covenant: The Unexplored Connections." In From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics. Wayne G. Boulton, Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey (Eds). (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994), 351.

[12] Stivers, Gudorf, Evans, and Evans. 238; Vigen Guroian. "An Ethic of Marriage and Family." In From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics. Wayne G. Boulton, Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey (Eds). (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994), 324; Beverly W. Harrison. "Misogyny and Homophobia: The Unexplored Connections." In From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics. Wayne G. Boulton, Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey (Eds). (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994), 341.

[13]William Temple. Christianity and Social Order. (New York: Penguin Books, 1942), 465.

[14] Kenneth E. Kirk. Some Principles of Moral Theology and their Application. (London, England: Longmans, Green and Co., 1920), 37.

[15] Beverly W. Harrison., 340.

[16] Ellison, Marvin M. "Common Decency: A New Christian Sexual Ethics." In Nelson, James B. and Sandra P. Longfellow, (Eds). Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources for Theological Reflection. (Lousiville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 236.

[17] Ellsion, 238.

[17] Ellsion, 238

Visits Since 17 September, 2003:

This publication, i.e. this page and the preceding document that has a link to this page, are copyrighted. Except as permitted by the Copyright Act, no part of it may in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or any other means be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or be broadcast or transmitted without the prior permission of the publisher.