Sexual Ethics:
Christian Theological Perspectives
Revd Dr Sue Lucas
June 2010
Starter…
Your expectations of Christian
theological ethics about sex …
The cliché or caricature…
No sex before or outside marriage
Sex sort of for pleasure but ideally for
procreation
‘Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve’
‘The woman was made for the man not
the man for the woman’
Divorce a no-no and in RC teaching not
seen as ending the marriage
At its worst –
Patriarchal, sexist, homophobic,
conservative and repressive!
Where does the cliché come
from?
Within Christianity:
The relics of ‘Christendom’
Top-down clericalism in the Roman
Church
The irresponsible use of scripture –
particularly ‘proof-texting’
The over-emphasis on sola scriptura
Outside Christianity:
A largely uncomprehending media
The isolation of Christianity from its
history and culture
GCSE, KS3 and to some extent A-level
materials that reinforce the stereotypes
The aim of this session…
Christian theological ethics about sex
and relationships is much more varied,
nuanced, radical, humane and
egalitarian than the cliché suggests
This variety is not ‘modern and trendy’
but firmly rooted in the tradition from
biblical times
Sources of Moral Authority…
Scripture
Tradition
Reason
Experience
Three Possible Theological
Pictures
The ‘Traditional’ Model
Cliché is an extreme version of this.
Not the only tradition!
Sexual intercourse fundamental aspect of
marriage – unitive and procreative
Sanctity of heterosexual marriage – deviation
from this ‘dissolution of the image of
humankind’ (Benedict XVI)
Relies on connection of Genesis 1 and 2 and
Matthew 19 – becoming ‘one flesh’ as a
sexual image
Sexual interpretation of one flesh limits sex to marriage
Gender and sexuality are fundamental to God’s purposes
Agape and eros are distinct
A necessary(?) unintended (?) connection with patriarchy
– man as ‘captain of ship’ and procreation fundamental
to sexuality
A necessary(?) unintended(?) connection to idea that sex
outside heterosexual marriage needs to be controlled.
Source – e.g. 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church
A Sexual Theology
Sexuality and desire are fundamental to both
human and divine life – Trinitarian = relational
Bodily nature is joyful – the Incarnation is part of
divine life
God is passionate and passionately involved in
his creation
Agape and Eros are one, desire is part of the life
of God
God desires us and desires us to desire him
Sexuality is central to our human nature
Jesus had a sexual life; the church has a
sexual life
Gender is not fundamental
Body, feeling, desire, communion and
incarnation are all aspects of true theology
Sources – e.g. mystical writings of Theresa of
Avila and St John of the Cross, Anselm, St
Denys; more recently James Nelson:
Embodiment
The Imago Dei as
Intersubjectivity
Draws on Aristotle: humans are social beings – ‘No-one
would choose a friendless existence on condition of
having all other good things in the world’ (NE 8:1:1)
Martin Buber: ‘In the beginning is relation’
Genesis 1:27: to be human is to be two – gender not
fundamental but self and other
Duality, not gender, makes us human (higher animals
are gendered)
Intersubjectivity makes us human – this is imago Dei.
Sources: e.g Aelred of Rievaulx: Spiritual Friendship
The Use and Misuse of Biblical
Texts:
Divorce in Mark’s Gospel
An exercise in biblical hermeneutics
What do you THINK the text says?
Expectations/first reading/pre-text
Addressing the Text:
WHAT is the context? What motivates
Jesus’ words?
WHO in that context is allowed to
initiate divorce proceedings?
WHAT is ‘hardness of heart’? WHOSE
‘hardness of heart’?
Why is this juxtaposed with the text
about children
A possible reading:
Ched Myers in Binding the Strong Man.
Context is hostile questioning by a
religious elite - powerful guardians of
tradition and salvation with whom Jesus
repeatedly clashes.
Only men can initiate divorce
‘Hardness of heart’ - YOURS, i.e.,
Pharisees - as guardians of patriarchy -
Not absolute prohibition on divorce, but
challenge to social order
That social order is what disrupts the
equality, mutuality and justice of two equal
persons becoming ‘one flesh’
Private discussion with disciples allows for
woman to ‘leave’ - unheard of.
Also allows for man to commit adultery
against his wife - could only do so to another
man in law and social practice of the time.
‘author of Mark refuses to overlook the
relations of power, no matter how
“sacred” the institution.’
Strengthened by connection with
‘children’ - ongoing critique of a social
order that marginalises them along with
women.
Responsible and Irresponsible
Readings of Tradition
Adrian Thatcher on marriage.
Suggests the ‘traditional’ model in fact
distorts tradition In particular, the history of marriage
From biblical times to 18th c. a twostage process - betrothal and marriage
- ‘spousals’ and ‘nuptials’
Betrothal more than engagement - de
facto beginning of marriage.
Some couples never got as far as nuptials ‘matrimonium presumptum,’ particularly if the
bride was pregnant!
Early part of 18th c. more than half of the
brides in England and Wales were indeed
pregnant by the time they got married.
2nd half of 18th c. - betrothal ‘quietly
dumped’ - marriage liturgies elided spousals
and nuptials
Marriage ought properly to be regarded as a
‘norm’ and not a ‘rule’ for Christians A broad set of values defining moral
behaviour and formation, not a set of rules to
be followed slavishly (c.f. ‘always tell the
truth)
Marital values? Faithfulness, commitment,
equality, justice, mutuality, the desiring of the
other’s flourishing …
Are these present in relationships other than official
marriage?
Thatcher - of course!
Many cohabiting couples who intend to marry or
even don’t get round to it effectively revisit the
tradition of betrothal.
Those who do not intend to marry may still show
some aspects of marriage. May be resistant to
marriage for pastoral or political reasons - in which
case a theologically literate and pastorally sensitive
approach is understanding not judgement!
For ‘the post-married’ - second half of life, divorced or
widowed - at this stage of life, sexual friendship or ‘living
together apart’ may be more appropriate than marriage
- here the norm of marriage can be quietly dropped.
Some lesbians and gay men want to own the
commitment of marriage (including sacramentally if they
are Christian). Others reject marriage as inherently
patriarchal and oppressive Gay community’s rediscovery of ideas of sexual
friendship, different ways of understanding covenanted,
committed, sexual love - not all monogamous.
Conclusion - Summary
- Theology of sex and relationships within the Christians
tradition more diverse, nuanced and tolerant than it is
sometimes represented.
- Not something new – a variety of approaches from earliest
times.
- Three possible approaches – traditional, ‘sexual theology,’
relational
- Scripture, tradition, reason and experience in constant
conversation
- Biblical texts need to be read with a responsible hermeneutic
– from context to context – e.g. divorce
- The tradition needs to be read historically – but it is flexible –
e.g. marriage and other kinds of ‘living together.’
‘[T]here is a way of doing ethics that can
be faithful [both] to the wisdom of the
ages and to the pastoral needs of
today’s faithful people.’ (Adrian
Thatcher)
Applying Virtuously…
Virtue Ethics and Applied to
Sexual Ethics and to Medical
Ethics
A Mistaken Criticism:
‘Virtue Ethics is of no practical help.’
Alleged Source:
Robert Louden in Some Vices of Virtue
Ethics
(1) The alleged criticism
misreads Louden
In fact rather sympathetic to VE
This article makes TWO PARTICULAR
criticisms:
SOMETIMES need for rules that are nonspecific to the person
BECAUSE it allows the individual to make an
exception of themselves.
Because of this, VE is important, but not
necessarily normative.
THIS actual critique can be
addressed:
VE DOES NOT NECESSARILY say rules
must be addressed to a particular
person.
BUT IT DOES SAY that ETHICAL
NORMS are formed by persons-inrelationships/communties/societies etc.
2. The Mistaken Critique:
Assumes the only ‘useful’ kind of ethics is one
that gives a decision procedure for difficult
dilemmas.
In fact, ethics just isn’t like this!
VE is not wholly normative, it is partly ‘metaethical’ - but DOES make claims about the
NORMS that shape our ethical thinking - in
very practical ways.
Shape by PRAXIS - i.e., serious, reflective
practicality
For example, Medical Ethics
Rosalind Hursthouse: Virtue Ethics and
Abortion
Suggests the usual approach is by way
of - when does life begin? Right to life
of foetus vs right to self-determination
of mother, the extent to which the
value of life is absolute or not
In fact, Hursthouse suggests this approach
not necessarily helpful.
Why? Responses to these standard ethical
questions shaped by the ethical position one
takes
H suggests instead focusing on abortion in
much wider contexts of what matters to us,
what enables us to flourish as human
persons.
She suggests (but not exhaustive list…)
Humans give birth to live young, with an
extended dependency
That women bear children, and are physically
capable of doing so from late childhood to
early middle age
That the rearing of children is a complex and
long term matter, typically lasting from
infancy to early adulthood
That this takes place within a network
of family relationships …
Which are amongst the most important
in our lives, but can also be amongst
the most fraught
That human infants are conceived in
circumstances of great physical and
sometimes emotional intimacy
What can we conclude from
(things like) this?
Careful reflection on abortion in terms of
what makes us flourish or not
What makes for ‘proportionate’ right emotion
here?
The moral relevance of pregnancy, birth and
childbearing as an emotional, physical and
psychological process
The sense that the termination of a
pregnancy carries more moral weight
emotionally the longer it goes on
Virtue Ethics and Sexual Ethics
Again, might draw attention to very general
facts of human sexual ‘anthropology’:
Physical sexual maturity around puberty,
emotional maturity later (in some cases much
later!)
Heterosexual relations have, until the advent
of reliable contraception, been open to the
possibility of conceiving children, with all that
implies
That it is women who are physically capable
of bearing children.
That sexual relationships are physically
intimate and often emotionally intimate
That there are social codes around
sexual behaviour (when the existence
of a sexual relationship is publicly
acknowledged, for example)
Relevance of Elements of VE
‘Golden Mean’ and proportionalism as about
appropriate emotions at appropriate stages
Central virtue of justice and what it might
mean for sexual relationships
Macintyre’s idea of a ‘practice’ as allowing
space for development of different norms sexual friendship, for example
The idea of balancing ‘partiality’ and
‘impartiality’
Again no specific recommendations - but
Insists that sexual relationships be shaped by
justice
A role for appropriate emotion
The development of norms
Respect for intimates, for others, a sense of
the kind of community or society we want to
be
Overall
Virtue ethics is of practical use
The thought that it might not be - misunderstanding that
‘usefuleness’ in ethics = ‘reading off the action from the
rules.’
VE IS partly normative - but in much more nuanced terms
than this
But also partly meta-ethical in getting its importance from
saying that ethics is not about rules in that way One way of putting this - recognises the distinction
between norms and rules - and the role of practice,
narrative, metaphor, culture in shaping the former.
That there are associations between the manner of a
child’s conception and its capacity to love and be loved.
No firm conclusions, it’s true But - recognition that abortion carries moral weight in a
variety of ways
Also psychological implications
NOT that it should either be rejected or condoned out of
hand
How we tell the story might draw attention to hitherto
unrecognised aspects of the matter - e.g. the connection
between abortion, birth and sense of ‘loss of a stage of
life.’
Virtue Ethics and Society
Think of education…
An Alternative:
‘To sustain the virtue of a nation, we
need to remember how the private
connects with the public, the poetic
with the political.’ (Phillip Pullman:
Citizen Ethics Network Pamphlet)
Citizen Ethics: The Populist
Revival of Virtue Ethics
Identifies a crisis (as writers like
Macintyre and Anscombe do) - but
more urgent and practical:
‘Fundamental questions of justice
persist but without any purchase on
public debate. This is what the crisis of
ethics is about: we have no language to
use … we have lost understanding - and
perhaps patience - with the process of
reasoning in which we have to decide
what is just.’ (Madeleine Bunting in
Citizen Ethics Pamphlet)
‘What we possess … are the fragments of a
conceptual scheme, parts of which now lack
those contexts from which their significance
derived. We possess indeed the simulcra of
morality, we continue to use many of the key
expressions. But we have - very largely, if
not entirely - lost our comprehension, both
theoretical and practical, of morality’ (Alasdair
Macintyre: After Virtue, Chapter 1: A
Disquieting Suggestion)
Principles of CE are those of
Civic Virtue:
No ready made principles (i.e. can’t
read off from the rules)
Rooted in an understanding of human
flourishing
An ongoing practice or skill
Prophetic - speaks truth to power
Prompts important questions, provokes
debate of integrity
E.g….
Localism
Academies
‘Quangocide’
Small anecdotes are as important as grand
narratives - Lord Bingham’s anecdote of his
father never using the office phone for a
personal call
The rehabilitation of the imagination in ethics
E.g. norms like ‘love thy neighbour’ in a
global culture
Need for new debate on relationship of the
private and the public and how they relate in
terms of human flourishing
Virtue ethics - perhaps an idea whose
time has come
Lively academic debate since the 1950s
Recently popular expression - Citizen
Ethics
A place of conversation and
reconciliation of sacred and secular
languages about ethics:
‘Wisdom has built her house … on the
heights, beside the way, at the
crossroads she takes her stand, beside
the gate, at the entrance of the portal
she cries out …’ - from Proverbs 8 and 9
What is the ‘Virtuous Person’?
What narratives shape our
post-modern, late capitalist
society?
© S Lucas
