A Sexuality Assignment

SUN., FEB. 20, 1992, 6:11 AM
FARM, STUDY

This morning your task, as you see it, is to lead a discussion concerning the report, Presbyterians and Human Sexuality. Even though you are prepared for a discussion with questions you need more guidance… the help only I can give. You did not specifically request this, but you knew you were to come in the semi-dark of this morning, and you just assumed I might speak to this assignment. Listen, o son, as I come to you.

This is another issue in which I am speaking differently to different Christians. One message is not “better” than the other. They just are different. The consequences of the majority report are several. It does urge you Presbyterians to view sexuality in a wider way… as not just genital action… as an aspect of spirituality… a true expression of self. It uses Scriptures which describe My actions as Jesus, rather than specific condemnations, primarily by Paul. It recommends criteria – justice-love and right relatedness – that seem quite vague and don’t tell you, directly, what to do and not do. Thus, it can be called a liberal document, though I would call it inclusive, rather than exclusive. It suggests that the Christian “family” is identified by motivations and spiritual considerations rather than by specific actions and non-actions.

Yet this seems to condone sexual acts that have been, by tradition, seen as sin and unworthy of those who truly follow Christ. This means, practically, that any sexual intercourse outside of marriage… before or after… is not to be condoned. And it implies that other sexual acts and expressions that can lead to intercourse should be severely controlled. Homosexual acts are condemned, and thus homosexual persons cannot be accepted, because they can be expected to “perform such acts.” It is a position in which only heterosexual people who are married and faithful to that partner only and celibate people can feel comfortable.

Obviously those who do fit into these two categories, whatever their spiritual motives, feel that this is best, even if difficult at times, and feel only nagging needs to include those not like them. “Many are called, but few are chosen.” “Enter the narrow gate…” “There are only a few real Christians…” These are some Scriptural and doctrinal supports for this exclusive stance.

I accept these zealots, some of whom are bigots in relation to sexuality. The Christian family is a large family, and as in large human families there are relatives who don’t like and don’t talk to others in the family… not even wanting to call them relatives. In My story usually called the prodigal son, the brother who stayed home and was either celibate or faithful to a wife could not accept his brother who was apparently being forgiven for sins which must have included sexual acts. (Isn’t that implied in “riotous living”?) He could not accept the forgiveness of these sins, for it made his cautious, virtuous life less commendable… or so it seemed. And his father seemed to lower his standards. Thus keeping high standards was more important than kinship.

Nancy’s letter reflects her struggle. She would rather remain as an ordained minister in the Episcopal Church, but to do so she must vow celibacy, in relation to other women. If she is honest about her sexual attraction the Episcopalians cannot ordain her, and her unique ministries are lost to them. So she turns to Metropolitan Community. Will they want her? Will she be happy in such a restricted ministry? Will she have admitted spiritual defeat by joining MCC? Or will she have admitted defeat by taking the Episcopal “pledge”? Or is each a possible spiritual victory? I shall surely help her decide.