Anglican Mainstream

I live on alternative sex sites – for my sins! – and have been aware of the following document on the site of Changing Attitude for some time now.  I appear to be one of the few who actually reads what is on CA’s site, though  the document I am thinking of is not readily to hand i.e. it’s located three clicks from the home page.  Entitled ‘Sexual Ethics:  A Report of the Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation Working Group’, ed. Andrew Henderson (2004) it is the only such entry and the one proper, in-depth study I could locate.  I will quote from it – but please do read the entirety for yourself.  It is clearly, nicely, elegantly written and broad in its scope, as views of other influential gay/ gay-advocacy Christian authors like Elizabeth Stuart, James Nelson, Michael Vasey and Malcolm Macourt are either cited or echoed.  But most fundamentally, it deploys a radically different paradigm of morality and sexuality from that affirmed by many of us – but one which ‘is probably valid generally for everyone, not just LGBT’s’ (p. 8).  See for yourself - indeed, try it on for size!  And then compare it with traditional Christianity’s sexual ethic. 

‘The ideal outcome may be for mature adults to live in covenantal relationships that are stable, sexually exclusive/ monogamous and permanent. This ideal is in tension with our common inheritance of genetic predispositions and developmental damage that compromise our capacity for relating, and often make serial commitments, and serial faithfulness, a more realistic aspiration.

 

Even harder to cater for and to evaluate is the degree to which any committed relationship may actually inhibit one or both partners from realising their full potential in some respects. To this scenario we must add consideration of children’s need for consistent nurturing, and responsibility for other vulnerable members of family networks.

It seems to be axiomatic that from the individual’s point of view respect for the communal norms of sexual behaviour will always be in tension not only with the realities of the human condition, but also with the radical gospel challenge to remain open to a possible call to “forsake all” to follow the Way. The role of the individual conscience comes to the fore. Here we encounter the ethical value of personal growth and creativity, the commitment to risk change in allowing one’s personal identity to expand and develop. This can lead to relational failure or conflict, where one partner grows beyond the capacity of the relationship to sustain further intimacy and growth.

Infidelity at this point may wound the partner: it can be destructive of trust and relationships – not just between the two partners, but in social networks and wider society: it can cause emotional and psychic damage to the person themselves.

Yet to leave a failing relationship can be a creative move towards allowing oneself to discover in another relationship new experiences and a new phase of growth.’  (pp. 9-10)

In other words, sometimes our psychological needs to grow and develop, to fulfil our God-given potential  – even our faith and our conscience - call us to ‘move on’ from torpid, stale relationships to more creative, empowering, authentic ones.  Infidelity (their word) becomes a sad but legitimate, undeniable necessity.  One must be true to oneself!  If those of us who are married took this line, what would happen to our marriages?  And what happens more broadly to marriage itself, with its promises of sexual exclusivity, faithfulness and death-do-us-part?           

‘Thus while it is clear to us as LGBTs when we survey the gay scene, and indeed, much of contemporary social life, that casual sex can often be addictive and destructive, we think it is important to remain open to the possibility that brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances can be occasions of grace. Risky, but then as Paul Tillich said “A Christian is safest taking risks!”

The exploration of our sexual selves can be something which benefits from involvement with more than one person. Sexual involvement does not necessarily involve any greater psychic risk to a person than does emotional involvement (though the two are deeply intertwined). We recognise that people fall in love, become involved, get hurt, experience love not reciprocated or mutuality achieved. All this is an inevitable and appropriate part of the process of finding a life partner; becoming sexually involved can be part of the process and may well cause less damage and pain than the emotional dimension. It may seem that there is an irreconcilable clash between the ethical ideal of love and the realities of our sexual lives. But maybe our human struggles to live with integrity, embracing these tensions, come closer to a greater Christian reality? One of us put it thus – “What’s real is the relationship between idealistic aspiration and so-called ‘real life’.”‘ (p. 11)

We are informed that, contrary to what we had been told in church and read in our Bibles, ’brief and loving sexual engagement’ etc. can be ‘occasions of grace’.  In essence, sexual promiscuity is given a face-lift and a white-wash and gains a trendy new lease of life.  We need not feel guilty about our one-night stands – or even our ten minute ones – for they can be experienced and understood as mediums by which we receive God’s grace, and as such, win-wins for everyone.  Even more encouragingly, we can develop (that word again!) our sexuality through having sex with more than one. From how I interpret this document, in terms of our various ‘relationships’ – with all they entail – as well as our ’one-offs’, the big idea is to locate and decide upon a ‘life partner’.  However, just how the ‘life partner’ fits in with what I described higher above (the ’serial commitments’, ’serial faithfulness’ and Move On mentality) is harder to say.   Perhaps Michael Vasey’s analysis can help.  

‘Michael Vasey has made a good case from the LGTB perspective for us to see “friendship” as a comprehensive category that can embrace all intimate and sexual relating. Current research among L&Gs in the UK shows that many of us see our friendship networks as more enduring and ultimately significant than our partnerships and sexual liaisons.’ (p. 12)

So perhaps ’life partnerships’ are less vital, less centre-stage than ’friendship’, very broadly interpreted.  

Finally, in terms of these ‘partnerships’,  ‘occasions of grace’ and ‘friendships’, some concrete guidelines were given in terms of how to do the actual sex part.  According to one of guidelines:  ’Respect for the integrity of self and others, i.e. free consent to sex; no serious physical hurt or harm; understanding and use of safe sex.’ (p. 14)  ‘No serious physical hurt or harm’ in sex – hmmmm.  Non-serious physical hurt is quite legitimate and acceptable, but causing serious damage isn’t.  For many of my readers, they will not have a clue what is being referred to.  Just how does one get seriously damaged in an act of love-making?  Well, I think this must refer to BDSM – bondage, domination, sadomasochism etc.  Certainly, BDSM is very popular in many alternative LGBT circuits (though not all, by any means). Or perhaps it is meaning the less extreme modes of sex ‘play’ found written up on gay ‘health’ sites.  See for instance   http://www.gmfa.org.uk/sex/howriskyis/index or http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/sex/how/index.html

Is this what we as Christians wish to endorse?  Is this what Desmond Tutu affirms?

http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/publications/PDF/booklets/Sexual-Ethics.pdf

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.