Reflecting on the Most Recent Volume of the Anglican Theological Review

One of the most recent Anglican Theological Review (Winter 2011, Vol. 93 #1) is made up of papers submitted to the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church on same-sex marriage along with the regular Poetry and Book Review sections. The bulk of the pages on same-sex marriage is taken up by two papers "A View from the Traditionalists" and "A View from the Liberals", each of which was written by four Episcopalian theologians working together. They are followed by a series of responses, including one each from the Traditionalists and the Liberals. (These are the labels used in the Anglican Theological Review (ATR). I will be using them in this post for the sake of consistency.) Each of the papers is well worth reading in full and the responses are short enough that I won't try to reduce them to a summary here.

The Traditionalist "View" and response are reasonably solid but uninspiring pieces which to easily assume the correctness of Traditionalist exegesis and opinion (hardly a shocking fault among human beings). This is particularly noticeable in their exegesis of Romans 1:18-32 (Is it a divine condemnation and a reference to lesbianism, or is it a culturally grounded condemnation and a reference to anal sex? Either interpretation works with Paul's larger argument on the universality of sin, and the some of the earliest commenters saw a reference to anal sex.) and their discussion of the current scientific understanding of the origin and mutability of sexual orientation (which they seem to imply is a matter of choice).

The Liberal "View" and response, on the other hand, are inspiring (as even the Traditionalists note in their response) with a strong section grounded in an ascetical view of marriage. Their exegesis is very weak, however, and almost patristic in its penchant for unusual and implausible connections. They also tend to romanticize their subjects, sex, marriage, and even bodily life, in a way that is generally unhelpful in the ascetic task.

If these were the only weaknesses then, apart from a brief re-summation of the current science, there wouldn't be anything to say without writing a book. Unfortunately both "Views" seem to have serious problems in their anthropologies, which show up best when we ask how each anthropology fits with the existence of monasticism.

On the Traditionalist side the source of the difficulty is reasonably straightforward. Complementarity, especially in its stronger forms, insists that human fulfillment, and therefore the Christian life, is driven by maintaining and reinforcing gender differences and gender roles, and so requires being in a heterosexual marriage, preferably with children to form a family. This suggests that choosing to become a monk means repudiating human fulfillment, means refusing to be all that God calls one to be. Going this route means repudiating the faith of millenia of saints and theologians. For hundreds and hundreds of years more or less everyone 'knew' that the best and fastest way to come to heaven, to live a life faithful to God, was to join a monastery. Further, at its inception, monasticism was understood to be simply the Christian life, the attempt to love as completely as possible, lived as explicitly as possible. One could attempt to find a weaker form of complementarity, one which would be compatible with monasticism, but such an attempt is unlikely to be successful since traditional monasticism gives no space whatsoever in which gender differences are permitted to teach love. Alternatively, one might try to develop a new understanding of monasticism, but monasticism has been composed of single-sex, celibate communities for virtually its entire existence, which makes it hard to redefine monasticism in a way that would fit with complementarity.

On the Liberal side the problem doesn't come from a big, central anthropological model. It comes from the (largely) unexamined assumption that having sex and being in a sexual relationship more or less the only healthy ways to be a human being. In some ways this assumption is much more pernicious than the more blatant challenge of complementarity since it is close to the truth for most people, at least at this time. The Liberal's assumption that everyone has to be sexually active first shows up on p. 62 where, while beginning to reflect on marriage as an ascetical discipline, celibacy is dismissed as appropriate only for a great spiritual hero who has already achieved perfection, especially perfect self-control, while "it is for those who would follow Christ to be perfected in weakness for the love of another." Later, on p. 85, they again write of the importance of love of another and the solidarity that demands and again identify this solidarity with marriage (and the sexual relationship that implies) while rejecting celibacy (at least counciled celibacy) as insufficiently embodied and lacking accountability. There is a great deal wrong with this, but the Liberal's make thing even worse when they theologize sexual orientation on p. 72. Apparently "a sexual orientation ... must be ... a settled tendency by which Christ orients desire toward himself," while " a sexually oriented person is someone who develops and is morally improved through a relationship with someone of the apposite sex." Taking all this together, if we assume it to be true, what should we expect a monk or nun to be like? Apparently, they ought to be someone who loves everyone, has perfect self-control, seldom experiences sexual desire, almost certainly never experiences sexual desires powerful enough to challenge self-control, and lives a very disembodied and isolated life. Unfortunately (or perhaps very fortunately given the last aspect), this vision of monasticism is a deeply unrealistic fantasy. Monasticism is very much an embodied discipline, which has almost always been very cognizant of the demands of the body (for sex and food, but also for feelings of security and control), and has generally recommended avoiding tempting situations while recognizing that it is impossible (and unhelpful) to avoid temptation entirely. And, while monasticism aims at perfection, it has always been clear that no monastic ever achieves perfection in this life. There is always room for a monk to learn more about how to love God and his neighbors.

All in all, while I very much like the Liberals' view of marriage as an ascetic discipline, if we as a church are going to proceed on those grounds we need to take a much lower and more realistic view of sexuality. It is a powerful force that can drive a person very easily. Yes, it can make it significantly easier to lay the initial ties binding one into the school of love called marriage. Yes, it can be a source of great pleasure, which can ease the way while one grapples with a difficult lesson of love. However, it can also be a way of running away from reality and Love. It can be a way to avoid learning Love's lessons. Sexuality and having sex aren't really to the point, however. Creating, maintaining, and growing in relationship is. If same-sex marriage provides a more realistic way for some people to learn how to love then the Church should seriously consider getting out of the way, and if it provides the only realistic way for some the Church should definitely get out of the way. At the same time everyone who isn't already attached, gay or straight, should take a hard look at monasticism The assumptions current in our society about the impossibility of celibacy (and about what it takes to be a monk) have almost certainly misled folks into thinking that they couldn't possibly thrive in this ancient and very fruitful way of life.

On reflection, if marriage and the monastic life are parallel ways of life, might it be helpful to explore our theology of marriage as a Christian vocation by composing Rules for marriage?  At the very least, doing so would force us to ground our theology of marriage in the practical realities of marriage, and not just operate at the level of beautiful images entirely lacking in substance and grounding in reality.
An Addendum on the science based on the research cited by the Traditionalists and my own slight acquaintance with the field.

The Entirely Uncontroversial Points

1. We don't know how the brain comes to fix sexual desire on a class (or classes) of objects, establishing sexual orientation.
2. The process of establishing sexual orientation doesn't finish by birth.
3. Sexual orientation isn't chosen.
4. Human female sexual orientation is more complicated and ambiguous than male sexual orientation.

Points Contested by Those lacking Authority in the Psychology Community

1. Sexual orientation is immutable. There are hints of this in the information provided by ex-gay groups, especially in their definitions of success. It is also strongly suggested by the intractability of pedophilia although pedophilia is clearly not the same as homosexuality. (Pedophilia may by a sexual orientation in its own right and so be the same sort of thing as both heterosexuality and homosexuality, but this has certainly not been proven yet.)
2. Identity, including sexuality as identity, is responsive to societal conditions and is largely chosen. It also goes against the underlying biological realities some of the time.

Personally, I suspect that sexual orientation is established around puberty as part of the natural maturation of the brain and that sexual orientation is a great deal more complicated than being turned on by men, women, or both. Also, while the science can be interesting, it seems to be mostly irrelevant to the task facing theologians, ethicists, and asceticism, which should have already known that sexual desire isn't chosen and have been given many other reasons to think Natural Law a poorly grounded philosophy.