"Sexuality's New Clothes"
By Ralph Spence, Jr. - May 1998
Does everyone remember the story "The Emperor's New Clothes?" In that story, the emperor was given what were described as beautiful new clothes; however, it was said that only the most intelligent and enlightened individuals could see them. The clothes were said to be invisible to common or backward thinking people. As the story goes, the emperor and everyone else pretended to see the new clothes until a small child said, "he is naked!" and the truth was revealed. The church's discussions of sexuality remind me of that story. It is being said that the "new clothes" of sexuality can only be seen by those enlightened individuals who are not blinded by tradition or the belief that scripture actually means what it appears to say. What I have failed to see in our discussions is complete agreement on the description of sexuality's "new clothes" and who should wear them.
I will not be convinced that the "new clothes" of sexuality are real, until those who describe them bear witness to the same vision. To identify that common vision, the details must be described. We need to affirm that sexual behavior which is adulterous, promiscuous, abusive, exploitative in nature or based on coercive influence is morally unacceptable. We need to verify that all believe sexual intimacy is only appropriate within loving, supportive, committed, monogamous relationships. To promote the full potential of creation and provide guidance, we should also teach that it is wrong for a heterosexual person to join in homosexual acts and that a person with bi-sexual desires should follow a heterosexual lifestyle.
I want to encourage stability in all relationships; however, even if scripture, tradition and reason are not viewed as condemning homosexuality, they certainly do not give clear support. I still need to see theological discussion and sound reasoning that would support same-sex unions. For all sexual behavior, the church needs to provide moral guidelines and goals that are well thought out and easily understood. To support these guidelines, the church should encourage discussion of the possible consequences of any sexual activity. The purpose of providing guidelines is not to control anyone's behavior, but to protect the spiritual, physical and emotional well being of those who look to the church for advice. Giving advice requires discernment, yet it is helpful to understand that it is just as judgmental to say something is right as it is to say it is wrong.
I am willing to consider that love and stability in relationships may be more important than sexual orientation. When homosexuality is found in loving, monogamous relationships that are based on life long commitments, I think I might see something there. When I compare sexual activity in these relationships with similar activity within marriage that is not intended for procreation, I can see the resemblance. Although in marriage, one must learn to satisfy another person's needs that are different than their own. I would like to respond to those individuals who cannot have heterosexual but can have homosexual relations; however, the church must insure that homosexuality is not perceived as merely a lifestyle choice. A homosexual lifestyle should only be considered for individuals who cannot be sexually aroused by members of the opposite sex.
Recent legislative efforts in the church have made the "new clothes" of sexuality hard to see because definitions of commitments and responsibilities in homosexual relationships have been ignored. Legal and financial obligations similar to marriage must be required to support stability, prevent exploitation, help avoid disputes, and to guard against encouraging cohabitation in temporary relationships. Homosexuality should not be seen as a lifestyle that disregards lifelong responsibilities and commitments. We need to make sure that the desire for ordination, partner health benefits and same-sex unions is just as strong when the lifelong commitments required to hold true to the church's teachings are addressed.
If there is any discussion of sexuality at the Lambeth Conference, defining common beliefs on sexuality could result in the greatest benefit for the church and its members. This would bring the vision for sexuality's "new clothes" into focus and help us see where the "old clothes" leave off and the proposed "new clothes" begin. Whatever we do as a church, and as individuals, in the area of sexuality is subject to the ultimate judgment of God. No one should pretend to see the "new clothes" of sexuality if they cannot describe the details and no one should wear the "new clothes" if they do not fit. I do not want our story to end with God revealing that the church's position on sexuality "has no clothes."
