SEXUALITY

I think that I will keep my thoughts here pretty short. I have chosen to lump together a pretty diverse group of topics. Sexuality includes sexual identity, homosexuality, pornography, sexual expression, masturbation, sexual addiction, and more. The issues surrounding each of these topics are unique and fairly specific. Additionally, I know how personal people feel about these topics. Whether it is because of their political opinions regarding homosexual marriage or because of potential shame related to masturbation, sexuality is so core to our identity as people that it also represents so much that defines us as human. A third reason I want to keep my thoughts fairly short is because I actually don’t know how I feel about many of these issues and I am not sure that I want to. For example, scripture addresses sexuality from a cultural experience that is unique. I am not suggesting that writers were influenced by what was culturally accepted, but that what sexuality meant two and three thousand years ago was very different. For example, when addressing homosexuality the issue was motivated more by the hyper sexuality of the Roman Empire and worship to pagan gods through temple prostitutes than two individuals in a committed, same sex relationship. This is not to suggest that the writers of scripture would feel that homosexuality in contemporary culture would be acceptable, but that the primary motivation for addressing this issue was different. And even if they would feel it was wrong, I am not convinced they would have been right. Jesus seemed to deliberately avoid these topics for a reason. My point being, I am just not sure what is “right” or “wrong” here. I want to be open to certain areas of not knowing. Finally, I am just giving my opinion. No grand argument for or against.

That stated, I feel that I actually hold a fairly conservative perspective on most of these issues. For example: (1) Homosexuality- While I believe that homosexuality is not a hindrance toward spiritual maturity and sanctification, that many homosexuals are vibrant leaders in the Christian community, and that homosexuals should have all the rights and protections available to heterosexuals, I also believe that contemporary, liberal culture is less concerned about truth than about advocacy. This cultural perspective inhibits honest and productive discourse within the Church causing churches to either support with the value of acceptance or reject with the value of integrity. This for or against perspective makes it difficult to discuss. And (2) Masturbation- While I don’t feel that masturbation is wrong in anyway and that it is motivated by many things, as a married man who finds satisfaction in being able to give my whole self to my wife, I feel that masturbation is inherently selfish and programs the individual to approach sex as a selfish activity. This is not to argue that is should even be discouraged, but that the current cultural acceptance of it works against intimacy.

Despite the array of topics that sexuality covers and my equally diverse views on these topics, there is a common belief that runs through them. Much like my views on how the Church is responding to environmental issues by responding to secular environmentalism, I am afraid that the Church is responding to issues related to sexuality from a reactionary perspective. Either positions are held because of stanch adherence to religious doctrine, positions are flipped because it wants to convey the message it holds to core theological values more, or tangential arguments are engaged in to avoid the real issue. And this reactionary position appears to be the best case scenario. For most people, theological positions regarding sexual issues are more about using a religious position to justify their own independent belief. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law of the Prophets, but to fulfill it. I believe what that means is that Jesus was getting pressure to claim that he was bringing a new message. While the covenant was new, it was not a new message. In the ways that matter most, Jesus was restoring an old message while building on the positives that had evolved in culture. Engaging in conversations regarding sexual issues in Christian circles is rarely engaged in from a “building on” approach. The integrity of the New Covenant existed because it was proactive and built on the wisdom of corporate experiences, refining of generations, revelation of God, and independent reflection.

But this entry is about what I believe. I believe that if I am going to become the “knight of faith” that I desire to become that I have to engage in the same approach to dealing with these issues. I have to be open to what culture is teaching us while holding to what I have always been. I have to be open to the wisdom of those I admire while seeking revelation from God. In shaping my beliefs on any of these issues related to sexuality that must be open to learning new things without rejecting what I have already learned. So, I believe most Christians are more progressive on sexual issues than what they claim is their theological position and that that this is a good thing. While the most conservative of faiths have much to teach us about the value of modesty and self control, that must be balanced with (not replaced by) more progressive attitudes. I believe that in all topics related to sexuality the goal is intimacy with others and self awareness, not repression, guilt, or endulgence. Often our own pleasures mislead us in this journey and that we need to be open to the accountability of our community and prophecy of our broader community, but that the journey is always going to be messy.

ENVIRONMENTALISM

Global warming is real. The world population has grown to such a level that the world will not be able to sustain the current needs of humanity. Natural resources are diminishing exponentially. There are species that will be extinct far sooner than the natural order of evolution would have predicted. Debating the reality of any of these is no longer relevant. The only real debates that exist at this point are the degree to which humanity is at fault and to what extent should corrective measures be taken. Despite the fact that these debates are being had by people of all walks of life with varying degrees of education, very few people are actually competent and qualified to truly engage in such debates. That is not to suggest that these aren’t issues that affect us all and shouldn’t be considered by all, but that there is simply far too much propaganda from both sides out there that is driven more by agenda than critical thinking for me to add to it. However, what I can add to the conversation is my perspective regarding the Christian response. While the role of religion in environmentalism isn’t new, perhaps the smoke has cleared enough that there are opportunities to revisit the topic and gain fresh insight.

Religion, specifically Christianity, has not been a positive voice in this discussion historically. Lynn White outlined this view in “The Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis.” There are three pillars to the theory: (1) Christianity leads to anthropocentrism; (2) Anthropocentrism leads to environmentally damaging behaviors; (3) Therefore, Christianity is the origin of the current environmental crisis. Anthropocentrism is the belief humanity is the most significant entity in the universe. It is hard to argue that Christianity has held this belief. Regarding environmental issues, many Christians still hold that despite the need for greater stewardship, man is still the only theme in the story of God. These individuals will likely pull from Genesis to argue that since God gave man dominion over all the earth, that we are simply more important. Point being- our wants and desires are more important than anything else. John B. Cobb, Jr., Ph.D. outlines the Christian history regarding environmental issues well. Cobb first addresses that the primary focus of Christian theology has been personal salvation. This situates theology to exploit its environment. More recently, there has been a shift toward the quality of life here and now. However, this has, for the most part, only shifted the focus from the supernatural to religious experience and psychology. Cobb continues to explain that there has been a secondary concern throughout Christian history with the “social-historical situation”. However, this social gospel has often focused on a liberal ideal of reconciling society. Cobb argues that the inherent dualism of these competing approaches is ultimately more philosophical (primarily Greek and modern idealism) than theological.

More recently, many Christians have had to concede that many of their beliefs were wrong. With the arrival of Christian-fundamentalist in the world of environmentalism, this shift only demonstrated the lengths to which many believers will hold to their beliefs regardless of rationale. The conversation, however, for many has moved toward the difference between facts and meaning as well as a division in all scientific circles between natural sciences and the humanities. With the many new perspectives on environmentalism and the compliance of most in scientific discoveries, a new discipline emerged: environmental ethics. The primary issue for debate is within the distinction between instrumental value (or the means to further some other end) and the intrinsic value (or the inherent value of nature in and of itself) of the environment. However, there is still a strong anthropocentric perspective within each that directs much of the conversation. Many hold that the real issue boils down to bioregionalism and that the true debate should be about social ecology. This is a pragmatic approach that attempts to validate the anthropocentric perspective. The final academic delineations regarding environmental ethics are within the theoretical definitions. Consequential Ethics hold that environmental ethics is about what is right and what is wrong determined by the consequence. Deontological Ethics maintain hold that what is right or wrong is not determined by the consequence but by our duty to the environment. And Virtue Ethics hold to a moral response based on broad values of right and wrong.

But what about the Christian response? Scripture obviously attests to need and appreciation for and stewardship of the environment. Scripture begins in Genesis 1 and 2 going into detail about the importance of creation in the story of God and humanity. Psalm 104 descriptively shows us that creation is about far more than how it serves humanity. And in Romans 8 we see the impact that the original sin of man had on the environment and the consequences therein. Regarding environmental ethics, Cobb suggests four views that Christians should have: (1) Recover the dominant Biblical view of the relation of creation and redemption where the covenant is within, not peripheral to, creation; (2) Wrestle anew with the love of the land where possession of land was balanced with health of the land; (3) To consider that we are, in fact, fellow creatures with other animals and even with nonliving things; and (4) Consider the integration of justice and ecology.

While I agree with Cobb’s suggestions and feel that they are incredibly valuable, I don’t feel that they adequately address the pragmatic issue of environmental ethical decision making from a Christian perspective. As someone who gravitates toward the left and as someone who loves nature, it would seem that I would hold a similarly liberal view on environmental issues. However, despite my values in protecting the environment rigorously, I am afraid that the Christian community has been led astray under social pressures to move toward radical environmentalism. Using ethical terminology, consequential ethics seem to be the dominant value while using deontological rhetoric. I feel that this contradicts what scripture teaches us regarding stewardship of the environment. In fact, I would contend that an anthropocentric perspective is healthy and not only compliments scripture, but prescribes a greater responsibility toward the environment. This perspective doesn’t negate either instrumental value or intrinsic value but could possibly merge the two into a dualistic and even naturalistic perspective that is descriptive of spirituality. This would also reframe social ecology where humanity is the guardian of nature.