On Being Human

Sexual Orientation and the Image of God

Kraus

• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781621890713
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Too often the biblical passages governing sexual morality are interpreted in simplistic, proof texting ways that take no account of the cultural gap between ancient Israel and the modern world. And too often the official positions of churches are determined by opinion polls and majority votes rather than a sober theological and ethical assessment of the issues involved. A third way is called for that avoids the errors of both naive fundamentalism and the Bible-dismissing zeitgeist--a way that puts theological reflection at the forefront. This little book aims to provide a theologically informed, biblical approach to help Christians find a new way forward in their dialogue over questions surrounding homosexuality. It deconstructs the Augustinian theological tradition that has defined, evaluated, and regulated sexual behavior in the western Christian traditions. Kraus maintains that the doctrine of the creation (rather than the doctrine of sin) must be the framework for understanding sexuality and sexual desire. He argues that the basic justification for erotic physical intimacy is the fulfillment of God's original intention for human community (shalom).Beginning with the definition of the image of God as a social symbol that mirrors the Trinity, Kraus calls the church to reflect that trinitarian image as it is seen in Christ. He argues that this stance at the very least calls the church to empathetic inclusion of the GLBTQ community in its ongoing discernment conversation, which, of course, means full participation in its life.

Part 1

A Theological Perspective

Introduction

How the church deals with homosexuality is a theologically based ethical question, not merely a matter of moral propriety based on cultural and political aversion and literal proof-texting. The church’s challenge is to reflect the authentic human image of God as a community under God’s authority. Thus the social issue of how the church deals with the inclusion or exclusion of minority sexual variants becomes a test of its authenticity as the body of Christ—the New Testament image it claims to represent in the world.

Many of the social and religious mores and sexual disciplines of modern conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics are based on and reference cultural-religious concepts of human nature and relationships that they in fact no longer consistently follow. One has only to compare Islamic sharia to see how far from traditional concepts and patterns of reasoning even conservative evangelical Christianity has come. The Islamic definition of humanity as a natural hierarchy of sexual relationships dominated by physical sexual anatomy is quite similar to the assumptions of ancient and medieval Christian cultures. And the revealed word of Allah is buttressed by and reinforces what Muslims understand to be the “natural order.”1 Traditional societies, such as exist in many African nations, continue to read Christian Scriptures through this cultural lens. Western conservative Protestant polemics for traditional sexual disciplines references this social paradigm selectively to suit their argument.

From both theological and empirical perspectives, sexual orientation (whether hetero or homo) is an essential aspect of human identity. It is an original, seminal reality in personal identity for which the individual is not responsible. Theologically speaking it is part of the created order. Empirically it is a physically based psychological reality with genetic, prenatal conditioning, and cultural-personal roots. It is the personal disposition that determines the direction in which those sexual attractions, affections, and desires that develop in puberty as sexual self-consciousness manifest themselves, whether toward the opposite sex, the same sex, or some combination of the two, and should not be laden with moral shame and stigma. Sexual identity, or what might be labeled ontological orientation in contrast to situational orientation, should not be labeled sinful or morally perverse, and same-sex inclination is no more morally perverse than heterosexual erotic urges. Thus I argue that moral guidelines for homoerotic attractions and sexual behavior should follow the same pattern as for heterosexual sexual fulfillment.

The social regulation of physical sexual intimacy needs to be formulated within this more broadly defined concept of human sexuality, which frames our volitional, hence moral, decisions and actions. Sexual immorality should not be automatically attached to biologically conditioned physical reflexes/attractions, but to the moral character of personal-social and spiritual relationship. Personal character that reflects the image of God in social relationships is the authenticating mark of moral behavior. Disrespect, violence, rape, abuse, narcissistic self-indulgence, abuse, and violence are always sin against the image of God regardless of the orientation of the actors. Acts of mutual affirmation, respect, and affection that enhance the image are always moral.

The moral dimension of sexuality speaks to how the attractions and desires of all sexual groups are regulated for the common good of society. God’s will for the human family is defined in the Bible as shalom, which is a human reflection of the trinitarian image of God; and while the inherent spiritual and social meaning of shalom does not change, its cultural shape and assumptions do change. At this point, cultural definitions of gender identity and roles enter the picture. Such cultural differences across both temporal and geographical boundaries have always called for adaptation or contextualization of the ancient vision of the image of God in order to maintain the original integrity of transcultural biblical values. Today scientific research has altered traditional cultural outlooks, and the contemporary church must continually adapt its moral and religious guidelines to authentically conserve the biblical vision of shalom.

Since sexual self-identity and human self-consciousness are so undivided and inseparable, we must approach the matter of sexual identity with caution and reverence, not suspicion and stigma. Psychologically speaking, demands for change in homosexually oriented individuals should be approached with empathetic deliberation. Indeed, in order to grasp the nature of the problem it may help exclusively heterosexually oriented individuals to imagine themselves being pressured to change their straight orientation or to refrain from sexual behavior unless with same-sex partners. Pressures for change, of course, are placed upon the minority for both biological and social reasons since the biological end of sexuality is clearly the preservation of the human species. But when preservation of the race is not endangered, homosexual preferences and behavior need not be treated as a moral taboo. From the church’s perspective homosexual behavior should be socially regulated as a minority variant for the fulfillment of God’s image of shalom in the human family.

I have not attempted to spell out the finer casuistic ethical issues and personal judgments that will need to be made in individual cases of discernment and membership that confront congregations. These must be made in the face-to-face context of the worshipping community. What I have tried to do is to disabuse our minds of the cultural and theological definitions, presuppositions, and categories that have so far hindered the process of dialogical discernment. Far too often biblical and theological texts have been used as defensive weapons to protect our biases and justify our fears. They have been used in a power play to stop dialogue and discernment rather than to open intelligent, questing debate. If in this small volume I have been able to present an alternative theological approach—an approach I deeply believe in—that will foster the dialogue, I will be satisfied.

1 Khouj, Islam, 149ff.

1

The “Orientation” Debate

In spite of the enormous amount of research and discussion much of our confusion in discussing the moral status of homosexual behavior still stems from semantic ambiguity in classifying sexual identity and preferences. What precisely is sexual orientation in humans? Is it more than an emotional affection, attraction, or desire triggered by social relationships? Is it an innate predisposition or sexual self-identity? Is it simply part of our mammalian instinct? If so, does it have a distinctly human personal significance? And how are identity and orientation related? For example, the statement of the Student Counseling Center of the University of Texas blends the two concepts and defines “sexual identity” as primarily a social and biological identity while defining orientation as emotional and/or physical attraction, adding that orientation is “an integral part of sexual identity.”1 What is the source, and what are the moral genus and implications of sexual self-identity?

The word “orientation” itself has different shades of meaning. For example, first time students arrive early on campus for orientation, that is, introduction and adjustment to their new situation. In psychology it is used metaphorically to describe inclinations or preferences, that is, the direction in which one is inclined. The thesaurus lists a host of synonyms: attraction, preference, predilection, proclivity, inclination, predisposition, penchant, and bent. Judging from these synonyms the concrete circumstance that provides the metaphorical meaning is location or direction, which obviously can be parsed in the direction of either attraction or self-identity.

The nature of sexual orientation itself is debated in medical, psychological, and sociological circles. To be sexually oriented would seem to indicate a sexual self-identity—a location and direction in which one is facing. Its empirical status as innate or acquired attraction is not agreed upon. The American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers consider it an innate psycho-biological identity. In a brief to the Supreme Court of California they testified that “sexual orientation is integrally linked to the intimate personal relationships that human beings form with others to meet their deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behavior, these bonds encompass nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment.”2 Thus they consider same-sex orientation a normal variant on the human sexual identity continuum, not a mental or physical illness to be diagnosed and treated. Accordingly gays and lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals should be accommodated as a normal minority in human society.

But same-sex orientation is also understood by some as simply a psychological preference, attraction, and even an appetite. Those associated with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) continue to consider it a medical disorder as the word “therapy” in their name indicates. They identify sexual orientation as an attraction and assume that it can and should be volitionally converted to conform to heterosexual norms. It is understandable, although questionable, that it would be classified with other appetitive urges since we experience the sex drive as a strong emotional compulsion or urge. Thus those who think of orientation as an attraction—even though a very deep-seated, compulsive attraction—assume that it is amenable to volitional control and change.

The question, then, is whether orientation indicates a constitutive sexual identity that is indivisible from ones self-identity as a human being or whether it is a more incidental acquired sexual attraction or desire, which although conditioned by prenatal influences is a response triggered by random cultural and social stimuli. Both science and religion have wrestled with these questions, and neither has come to an answer with which all agree. In the last two decades the scientific community has made strides in research, and the APA and NARTH have moved nearer to agreement on issues that are amenable to empirical investigation, but they continue to disagree on the morally normative implications of other-than-heterosexual orientations.

The Bible refers to what we call self-identity as the “image of God” and clearly includes sexuality in this image. But how is this sexuality to be understood? Is it essentially a biological phenomenon manifested in the physical anatomy of male and female? Does the original image spoken of in Genesis 1:28–29 refer to physical sexual complementarities of male and female and to be equated with the heterosexual orientation of individuals, as Robert Gagnon and others hold?3 Are we to understand it in terms of physical coitus (sex) and child bearing? Or is it a social and spiritual image of God reflected in the personal ordering of human society?

How we understand this sexual metaphor of the image of God is crucial to the church’s self-understanding as the people of God called to reflect God’s image. It is my contention that sexuality conditions the whole gamut of human relations, and thus is a social phenomenon. It affects all the dimensions of our personal being, not least our spirituality. It conditions our affectional preferences, our physical choices, and our rational orientation.

While the normative concern is ultimately theological, and empirical research alone cannot resolve normative issues, the church’s moral evaluation of sexual orientation must consider whether it is simply an acquired attraction or an inherent aspect in core human identity; and disagreement among empirical researchers complicates the question of sexual orientation’s normative status for the church.

The Biblical Problem

Complicating our task is the hermeneutical question of comparing ancient and modern scientific conceptions of sexuality. Awareness of same-sex attraction and behavior in the Bible is at least as ancient as the pre-diluvian corruption described in Genesis. The present-day concept of same-sex orientation, on the other hand, is a relatively recent psychological classification to accommodate the increasing evidence from empirical research. Its precise meaning and significance for social management is still being sorted out. It represents new data that scientific research is still refining, data simply not available until recent decades. Implicit is the question of whether same-sex attraction is a mental disorder, a moral perversion, a physical disability, or yet a different human phenomenon. In short, same-sex orientation is an empirical designation whose theological and moral significance is still in exploration and debate.4

As a whole, biblical regulations promoted a high standard of sexual responsibility, based on the understandings of ancient Hebrew culture. Sexual mores regulated the propagation of the hierarchical, sometimes polygamous, family system to promote social well-being, although they were not framed as consequential social rules. The proscriptions of the Holiness Code in Leviticus (Lev 17–26) are imposed as a reflection of God’s nature and character (holiness), which was the moral sanction for all social regu...

Table of contents

• On Being Human
• Foreword
• Author’s Preface
• Part 1: A Theological Perspective
• Part 2: Complementary Reflections
• Bibliography