SCM Core Text Theology and Sexuality

Theology and Sexuality

SCM CORE TEXT

Theology and Sexuality

Susannah Cornwall

© Susannah Cornwall 2013

Published in 2013 by SCM Press

Editorial office

3rd Floor

Invicta House

108–114 Golden Lane,

London EC1Y 0TG

SCM Press is an imprint of Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd (a registered charity)

13A Hellesdon Park Road

Norwich NR6 5DR, UK

www.scmpress.co.uk

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, SCM Press.

The Author has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Author of this Work

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

978-0-334-04530-4

Kindle edition 978-0-334-04531-1

Typeset by Regent Typesetting, London

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon

Contents

Preface

1. Sex and Context

2. Sexuality, Incarnation and Erotic Love

3. Sexuality, Sex and Gender

4. Celibacy and Virginity in Christianity

5. Sex and Marriage

6. Sex Outside Marriage

7. Same-Sex Relationships and Christian Theology

Conclusion: Sexchatological Tensions: Sex in Light of the Last Things

Glossary

Works cited

Preface

Humans are sexual creatures. At the most basic level, almost all of us were born as a result of a sexual encounter between two people of different sexes. From our earliest moments, we begin to be identified and socialized according to our perceived physical sex: friends and relatives are usually very interested to know whether a new baby is a girl or a boy, and this often influences the clothes and toys they give as gifts. Through childhood and adolescence and into adult life, most of us develop a strong sense of our own sexuality, in terms both of the people to whom we’re attracted and of our relationships to the sensations of our own bodies.

Christian theologians, who are interested in thinking through what the Christian theological tradition says about being human, therefore can’t help but reflect on human sexuality. As humans we’re inescapably embodied, and many people would argue that to be embodied means to be inescapably sexual too, even if we don’t always express our sexuality physically with other people.

In this book, we’ll take a tour through some of the different aspects of human sexuality with which Christian theologians have engaged. In the first chapters, we’ll explore some broad questions surrounding human sexuality: What exactly do theologians and others mean when they use the terms sex, gender and sexuality? How does sexual orientation map onto gender and biological sex? How do considerations of sexuality fit into theological questions about the nature of God and the nature of humanity?

In the later chapters, we’ll come to think about sex in a range of contexts. How should we understand human sexuality when people are not physically sexually active, such as when they’ve taken a vow of celibacy? How do Christian theologians understand the relationship between sex and marriage? Why are same-sex relationships such a contentious topic within Christian theology? What does Christian theology have to say about other issues such as sex work, masturbation, and more unusual patterns of sexual behaviour like polyamory?

Most of the theologians whose work is cited are those who have been working in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, mainly because discussions about sex, gender and sexuality have had particular prominence during this period. However, at times the book also engages with thought from further back in the Christian tradition, right back to the early Christian theologians often known as the Church Fathers, who wrote in the first few centuries after Jesus’ lifetime. Where possible, I’ll give dates for theologians who were active prior to the late twentieth century.

Throughout the book, you’ll notice some words, or their derivatives, highlighted in bold type. These words have brief definitions in the glossary at the end of the book. You’ll also notice that, from time to time, there are breakout boxes containing questions or suggested activities. You might be using this book as a class text, in which case your tutor may ask you to use these questions and activities as a basis for individual or small group work. Alternatively, you might be reading this book by yourself. In this case, you might simply want to use the questions and activities as prompts for your thoughts, and as a chance to pause and reflect on what you have read.

* * *

I began writing this book while I was based at the University of Exeter, and greatly valued the support of colleagues in the Department of Theology and Religion and at the South West Ministry Training Course. During the writing process, I took up a new post at the Lincoln Theological Institute at the University of Manchester, where I’ve valued stimulating conversations with Peter Scott and other colleagues in the Department of Religions and Theology, and with my students.

I’ve also been enthused by virtual and face-to-face conversations with other theologians and friends, including Loveday Alexander, Philip Alexander, Richard Bastable, Tom Bohache, John Bradbury, Rebecca Catto, Gemma Burnett, Patrick S. Cheng, Frances Clemson, Jenny Daggers, Megan DeFranza, Annemie Dillen, Sharon Fennema, David F. Ford, Siobhán Garrigan, Tim Gibson, Julie Gittoes, Marion Grau, Brutus Green, Symon Hill, Mike Higton, John Hughes, James Hughesdon, Jay Emerson Johnson, Dawn Llewellyn, Gerard Loughlin, Mae Mouk, Noel Moules, Rachel Muers, Philippa Newis, Ralph Norman, Jo Penberthy, John Plant, Nicola Slee, Katja Stuerzenhofecker, Adrian Thatcher, Samuel Tongue, James Walters, Andrew Warner, Alexandra Wörn and Andrew Worthley. Natalie Watson at SCM Press has continued to be an enthusiastic and encouraging influence, and I’m grateful for her support and loyalty.

I am, as ever, thankful for my family’s love and support – especially, and always, that of my husband, Jon Morgan. I can’t say enough about all he is to me. During the preparation of this book, my mother, Jenny Cornwall née Stephen, died aged 62. She claimed not to be a theologian, but taught me, nonetheless, that all theology is love and justice. It’s dedicated to her memory.

Manchester, 2012

1. Sex and Context

What is sexuality?

Think about the following questions before you read on:

What do you understand by the words sex, gender and sexuality?

When did you first become aware of your gender? What influenced you in your gender identity then? What influences you now?

If you were a different gender, would you still be ‘you’?

What, if anything, does your gender identity have to do with the way you understand your relationships with other people and, if you are a person of faith, with God?

Sex, gender and sexuality: some working definitions

At the outset of this book, it’s important to set out some fundamental terms and the ways in which I’ll be using them. In some of the work with which I’ll engage, and in discussion at large, there’s overlap between the ways in which people understand the words sex, gender and sexuality. ‘Sex’ and ‘gender’, in particular, are often used almost interchangeably. However, I want to suggest that, for the purposes of our investigation, it will be important to recognize a distinction between them. I’ll use these terms in the following ways:

SEX: biological maleness or femaleness (or, occasionally, a biological sex which can’t easily be classified as male or female). Sex, in this initial definition, is to do with the biology of someone’s body, rather than their sense of being a man or woman.

GENDER: someone’s identity as a man, a woman, or a member of some other gender. Gender identity may not always ‘match’ biological sex: some people whose biological sex is male, for example, have a feminine gender identity and want to live as women. Many scholars assert that gender is a social category, rather than a biological one: in other words, it’s the way in which people present themselves and are recognized by the other people around them in their society.

SEXUALITY means two things, one very specific and the other more general:

Specifically, sexuality means sexual orientation: that is, the sex of a person to whom someone’s sexually attracted. We often hear the terms ‘homosexual’ (for someone sexually attracted to people of the same sex as themselves), ‘heterosexual’ (for someone attracted to people of the opposite sex to themselves) and ‘bisexual’ (for someone attracted both to people of their own sex and of the opposite sex).

More broadly, sexuality is everything about someone’s personhood and energy: the way they interact with other people and the world. In this second definition, sexuality isn’t just about the sex of the people to whom we’re attracted – it’s about everything that stimulates our excitement, creativity and engagement with the world around us.

In this book, then, although I’ll certainly be giving consideration to what Christian theologians have wanted to say about sexual orientation as homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual, this is not all I’ll mean when I use the term ‘sexuality’. Moreover, we’ll see that other Christian theologians have understood ‘sexuality’ in many different ways.

The Christian journalist, Jo Ind, describes the experience of receiving a massage from a professional masseur, whom she was interviewing for the Birmingham Post. She notes that she experienced physical arousal despite being uncertain about whether the encounter could properly be called a ‘sexual’ one:

How would I describe that experience with Phil [the masseur]? I am certain we did not have intercourse. I know the only parts of my body that he touched were my back and my head. I am sure I did not have an orgasm, but I know my vagina juiced. But which of these are the defining characteristics of a sexual experience? Is it to do with the parts of the body that get touched? Is it to do with the acts that are performed? Is it to do with the imagination, the images and fantasies evoked? … Was it sensual but not sexual or sexual but not genital? What is sexuality anyway? (Ind 2003, p. 7)

What is sexuality anyway?, asks Ind. What do you think?

Some theological accounts of sexuality

ACTIVITY 1

Some examples taken from the writings of twentieth- and twenty-first-century theologians whose work has been significant in the sexuality debate can be found in the quotations below. What exactly does each author seem to mean by ‘sexuality’? Does it chime at all with the definition I’ve set out above? How persuasive do you find each of these accounts of sexuality? Can you identify particular problems with any of them?

ACTIVITY 2

Using the same extracts, try to think of terms which seem to you to sum up the gist of each author’s account of sexuality. Here are some to get you started: RELATIONAL; HOLISTIC; EMBODIED; POLITICAL; CREATIVE; MYSTICAL. Which term do you feel best captures each writer’s understanding of sexuality?

The command of God … is the decisive sanctification of physical sexuality and the sex relationship. It sanctifies man by including his sexuality within his humanity, and challenging him even in his bodily nature and therefore in his sexual life … to be true man: to be a body but not only a body; to be also the spirit-impelled soul of his body … Because his being in its totality is at stake, physical sexuality and the sex relationship cannot remain outside the scope of God’s command. (Barth 1961, p. 132)¹

Karl Barth, a Swiss Reformed theologian (1886–1968), believed that humans could come to know God only through God’s own self-revelation. Nonetheless, he believed that human sexuality, and humans’ gendered roles as men and women, provided a useful metaphor for God’s relationship to the Church.

Man² really begins to experience his reality when he becomes aware of his sexual nature. Sexuality … is the living, flowing energy whose physical aspect is but one mode of its expression … It is also the medium that puts him in contact with other realities and other incarnate selves. Through it he is related to all creatureliness. This means that ultimately man’s awareness of creation and of the beauty of creation is a sexual awareness and cannot exist without the intermediacy of sexuality. (Sherrard 1976, pp. 41–2)

Philip Sherrard, who died in 1995, was an English theologian who lived in Greece for much of his life and converted to Greek Orthodox Christianity. Sherrard was interested in the reasons why sexuality had so often been understood negatively in the Christian tradition, and wanted to affirm that human sexuality was actually rooted in God.

Sexuality expresses the mystery of our creation as those who need to reach out for the physical and spiritual embraces of others. It expresses God’s intention that we find our authentic humanness not in isolation but in relationship. It is who we are as bodyselves experiencing the emotional, cognitive, physical, and spiritual need for intimate communion with other, with the natural world, with God. (Nelson 1992, p. 22)

James B. Nelson is a Christian ethicist from the USA who is ordained in the United Church of Christ. His work has focused particularly on ‘body theology’ and the ways in which humans’ bodies, genders and sexualities affect their interactions with and understandings of God and one another.

Sexuality … is linked not only to the incompleteness each person senses as an embodied, sexual creature but also to the potential for wholeness in relationship to others that parallels this fundamental incompleteness … Hence, sexuality is the dynamic that forms the basis of the uniquely human drive toward bonding. (Grenz 2001, p. 278)

Stanley J. Grenz, who died in 2005, was a Baptist theologian from the USA. His work focused on gender and sexual ethics in evangelical Christian perspective, and on theological anthropology.

Human sexuality is about how men and women respond to themselves as sexual beings, and how sexually they relate to each other … In remaking us as sexual beings, God, through the Holy Spirit, gives us the power and the vision to make relationships which resemble those relationships existing eternally within God. They will be mutual, reciprocal, equal, open, intimate and partner-affirming. (Thatcher 1993, p. 2)

Adrian Thatcher is an English Anglican theologian whose work has sought to ground theologies of sex, marriage and family life in assertions about the relational character of God as expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Discussion of the Church and sexuality is a proper concern of the Church with itself as a sexed body. It may seem odd to talk about the Church in this way – as a body that has sex – but it is entirely orthodox and traditional … The Church has … understood itself to be the bride of Christ, called to bodily union with him, so that the sexual joining of bodies is also part of the Church’s imagination of itself, of herself, in her union with, and difference from, the divine. (Loughlin 2004b, p. 88)

Gerard Loughlin is a British Roman Catholic theologian, whose work explores the ways in which understanding the Church as the Body of Christ is altered or affected by understanding this body as ‘queer’.

Why is it important to take a … sexual stance in doing theology? … Sexual theologies are concerned with structures such as the structures of love and knowledge which regulate affective and political decisions in our lives, run economic thought and may even have exiled God from churches and theology long ago. (Althaus-Reid 2004, p. 103)

Marcella Althaus-Reid, who died in 2009, was an Argentinian theologian, who worked in Britain. She criticized classic liberation theologies for not taking enough account of the sexuality of marginalized people and called her version of theology ‘indecent’, because it aimed to recover sexuality, including non-heterosexual sexuality, as central to the way in which humans relate to one another and to God. Althaus-Reid believed that sexual, political and economic exclusion usually went hand in hand.

Of course, other Christian theologians and scholars and thinkers outside the field of Christian theology might mean different things again when they use the word ‘sexuality’. It’s important to think about where these ideas and definitions come from.

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, there have been two main schools of thought about human sexuality and its origins: essentialism and constructivism.

Essentialism and constructivism: nature or nurture?

Since the late nineteenth century, a debate has been going on about sexuality which can be broadly characterized as essentialism versus constructivism. The central question is this: is our sexual orientation something that already exists within us from the time we are born, as part of our essence (essentialism), or is it something that comes about later, constructed either via conscious choice or because of the influences around us (constructivism)?³ This is sometimes referred to as the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate.

Essentialism

The essentialist view suggests that bodies and bodily acts have intrinsic, irreducible meanings, regardless of the time or society in which they occur, and that ‘the sexual body is universally the same, possessing certain sexual drives and needs’ (Nelson 1992, p. 47). As we’ll see in Chapter 6, lesbian, gay and queer theologians since the mid-twentieth century have often wanted to say that their sexual orientation is inborn – just part of who they are and part of how God created them – so homosexuality shouldn’t be dismissed as a sinful or perverse choice.

However, there are some problems with this essentialist, ‘nature’ understanding of sexual orientation: for one thing, it seems to imply that the only reason someone would be homosexual is that they can’t help being that way (or, that if someone could have chosen to be heterosexual, they would have done). This means homosexuality can still be dismissed as something imperfect or less than ideal, rather than as something good and worthy of celebration in its own right. It also means that some theologians can argue that homosexuality, even if it’s inborn, only exists because the world is ‘fallen’. In a perfect world without sin, runs this argument, nobody would be born homosexual. (People have made similar arguments about disabilities such as deafness and blindness.)

Essentialism might also be understood as rather passive, making us victims of our circumstances, in contrast to constructivism’s acknowledgement that, although we’re certainly influenced by social and cultural norms, there’s also an extent to which we have ‘an active role as agents, influenced by culture, in structuring our bodily realities’ (Nelson 1992, p. 46).

Constructivism

The constructivist view also recognizes that our understandings of certain words and identities don’t stay exactly the same over time. We can acknowledge that being a woman in sixteenth-century China is very different from being a woman in twenty-first century Canada, because of shifts in how the role and status of women is understood across times and cultures. (For example, women in these two contexts have faced differences in access to education, economic status, voting rights, patterns of work inside and outside the home, and the freedom or otherwise to make decisions about sexual activity and whether to have children.) Acknowledging this difference might be a good thing when it comes to how we understand bodily sexuality and sexual orientation, because it allows us to note that, for example, the ‘meaning’ of sexual intercourse between two men in our own time and culture is probably not identical with the ‘meaning’ of sexual intercourse between two men in the societies out of which the biblical texts were produced. We can therefore begin to see that, as theologians and biblical interpreters, the way we read Christian texts and the Christian theological tradition will always be coloured by the ways in which we read and respond to our own times.

However, there are also problems with the constructivist, ‘nurture’ model of sexual orientation. Constructivism asserts that sexual orientation, just like other aspects of our identity, comes about because of what’s going on around us and the social knowledge we acquire. However, this doesn’t explain why a minority of people seem to experience sexual attraction for people of the same sex even in societies where this is deemed deeply shameful and wrong: it seems unlikely that people in such societies would either consciously choose to be homosexual or somehow be socialized into homosexuality.

Both essentialists and constructivists believe that there’s an interaction between the desires and sensations we experience physically and the cultures and societies in which we find ourselves. They might, however, emphasize different aspects as more or less important. Nelson suggests that there might be some kind of fruitful ‘third way’ between essentialism and constructivism in terms of theological understandings of sexuality:

There is still something ‘given’ about our sexual orientations, however significant the social meanings that shape their expression … That I have never menstruated but do have penile erections does mean something for my interpretation of the world. Yet, just what these orientations and differently sexed bodies mean is never fixed once and for all. That is hopeful, for if sexual meanings are socially constructed, they can also be reconstructed when they are not life-giving. (Nelson 1992, p. 48)

QUESTION BOX

Are you convinced by Nelson’s suggestion that human sexuality should be understood as somehow both essential and constructed? Why?

Nelson refers to ‘sexual meanings … [which] are not life-giving’. What do you think he means by this?

ACTIVITY

Write a journal entry or blog post about the depictions of sexuality you hear and read about in theological texts, in the media and in society at large. You may want to gather examples from magazines, newspapers, television and the internet as well as theological books and articles. Do they tend to draw on essentialist or constructivist understandings of human sexuality? Which do you find more persuasive and why?

Early influences on Christian ideas about sexuality

Christian theologians, then, are people of their time who respond to the theories and models of sexuality they see around them. Many theologians and other Christians today and in the recent past have had their views coloured by contemporary assumptions and cultural norms about sexuality. In a moment, we’ll think briefly about work by influential nineteenth- and twentieth-century theorists like Sigmund Freud and Michel Foucault, which have helped to shape Western attitudes to sexuality today.

However, since much earlier on, Christian understandings of sexuality have also been influenced by other cultural factors. These include ancient Jewish understandings of sexuality and personhood which influenced Jewish self-understanding at the time of Jesus and Paul; the Greek and Roman cultural norms which were also influential on the Mediterranean societies in which the first Christians lived; the ideas and beliefs of other philosophical and religious movements and groups contemporaneous with early Christianity, such as the Gnostics and the Stoics; and their grounding in Platonic dualism – that is, the idea that there’s a split between the spirit and body and that the spirit is ‘higher’. Christian ideas about sexuality sometimes absorb these other norms and sometimes consciously seek to refute or oppose them. We’ll consider them briefly now.

Greek and Roman philosophy

Margaret Farley, a Roman Catholic ethicist, provides a useful summary of