Note:
This page contains polytonic Greek
fonts and is best viewed in browser software that displays them.
Netscape 7.1 + or similar browser software is required to display
the Greek text. However, understanding Greek is not required in order to
understand the commentary.
|
Towards an Ethic of Christian Praxis An Interpretation of Ethics in Gay and Lesbian Liberation Theology praxis: (n) a process for action; the process of action and reflection that gives rise to deliberate action; a discipline or way of acting. > Gk. pra'xi" praxis, acting, activity, function; as in Matthew 16:17, "in accordance with what he did." A way of acting.
In
liberation theology, praxis is the continual interplay of action and
reflection in our lives, as we reflect upon experience, Scripture and
the way in which we live our lives in community. Praxis
determines or influences the application of ethics so that a concern
for Christian praxis influences Christian ethics.
Christian praxis is to be found in the story of Jesus and the way of the Cross: in suffering, and in solidarity with others who suffer. It is not found through an appeal to the theological code, and those
that do so are furthest removed from the actant Jesus.
In this statement, 'theological code'1 refers to the
theological tradition within which the dominant christological
formulations are made. Briefly, the theological code can be
summarised, thus;
Jesus' new way or the new code of Jesus is a way of discipleship that replaces the old covenantal codes and is based on the inner intent of religious practice and not upon the letter of the Law.4 The theological code's focus upon who Jesus was or is, as a man and predestined Christ, has diverted attention from what Jesus did. In other words, the way of Jesus (his halakah), has been subverted. Where Jesus taught a new, non-patriarchal fellowship, a brotherhood and sisterhood of relational praxis, concerns for orthodoxy (right belief) and ecclesiology (who makes up the church) have replaced the disciple-relationship to Jesus. Thus patriarchy was reintroduced and right belief supplanted the way of Jesus' praxis and right action.5 Critical concern in liberation theology is to re-establish Jesus-praxis as the paradigm for Christian behaviour. This involves a concern for right love, relation and justice-making and is therefore a radical, ethical concern. Where gay/lesbian critique is of patriarchy and aspects of the theological code, it also makes a paradigm shift to Jesus-praxis, which it interprets in terms of love, right relation and justice-making. Matthew 25:31-46 provides an insight to Jesus praxis: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Matthew 15:21-28; Luke 10:25-37 and Acts 8:27-39. This is not an exhaustive list! Christian praxis is also informed by faith through the Spirit. Through faith and the Spirit, gay
and lesbian Christians witness to release from the barriers of
restriction that have kept them entombed behind the demands of
orthodoxy. The action of the Spirit removes barriers and
brings forth those who are entombed! The
spirit of unconditional love that we have from Christ, the one in whom
barriers are removed and for whom stones are rolled away, sets them
free to be part of the new community in Christ. The church is the creation of the Spirit and was, itself, brought out
from rejection, denial and pain. The Spirit is welcoming and hospitable,
providing a community of the spirit that embraces the new person in love.
It provides a place and a space for grace that is affirming of personal
being and the process of being fully true to one's self and becoming whole.
To do otherwise is to belie the church’s own calling forth, its own coming
out from darkness of entombment and into light.
Refusal of affirmation for those "coming out" binds the unconditional
love of Christ within a new entombment, within the tomb of prejudice, sealed
with the cold stone of denial. Such prejudice arises from two
sources, from heterosexism and from homophobia. In the former, heterosexual,
procreative sex is perceived as the God-given, normative standard that
denies "normality" to any other sexual expression. In the case
of homophobia, it is an abject fear of homosexuality or of homosxual persons that drives the prejudice.
Often, heterosexism and homophobia go hand in hand, but that is not always
the case. People vary in the degree of heterosexism and homophobia
that operates in their particular understanding of sexuality and the human
condition.
In
both cases, homosexuality is seen as being inconsistent
with a biblical view of God’s Creation, in which meaning is uncovered
in terms of heterosexual constructs and the foundational belief that
homosexuality
is a "chosen life-style." This enables the belief that
"homosexual
persons" can be "converted" or changed to "heterosexual persons"
through
prayer or "a relationship with Christ." People of this
persuasion
speak of "the homosexual life-style", "self avowed practising
homosexuals",
"homosexual acts" and "coming out of homosexuality", where the moral
focus
is upon what people do in relation to the heterosexual
"norm".
To support this position, an appeal is made to the nomistic, biblical
traditions
of the Levitical Holiness Codes and the NT reprobate lists. Contrary,
Biblical traditions that are critical or stand in opposition
to the Levitical codes are ignored. Heterosexist viewpoints are
read into the
texts such that translations from the original languages of the
Scriptures
are made to fit eisogetically with the fundamentalist attitude.
Thus homosexual
relationships are spoken of as being morally flawed.
By contrast, an essential liberal persuasion can be summarised as
one in which the morality of both homosexual and heterosexual relationships
are assessed in terms of criteria of love- both agape and philia. Moral
difference in what people do is seen in the will and not in the body.
The focus is on intent. The moral line is drawn between covenanted
relationships and mutual love and loveless, exploitative relationships.
It is the liberal Christians who have sought after gaining respect for
their queer brothers and sisters. They have opened dialogue, challenged
the notion of universal heterosexism and have introduced the notion of
‘tolerance’ into the debate. The plea for tolerance, of course,
perpetuates the discrimination, in that tolerance is measured in terms
of how far one moves (deviates) from the straight norm. The
concept of tolerance both notices and marks differences and then takes
the moral higher ground in "accepting" those who are perceived as "other"
or different.
Post-liberal movements, such as feminism, have demanded not
tolerance but participation. Feminists have added social and
theological emphasis to relational values and the concept of right relation.
Respect, mutuality and reciprocity are values that interpret both action
(what one does) and the intent. People in other post-liberal movements,
such as queer theorists, have drawn connections between gender and sexuality
and have pointed out that gender is established through culture and enculturation.
Thus gender, like sexuality, is something that people do. Ethical consideration is for the quality of the action.
An approving gay and lesbian theology speaks of an ontology
based on affirming "who they are." The focus is on identity and on
faith. It allows people to speak of "being born this way" and
of "coming out" as a process of self discovery upheld by the Spirit.
The focus on identity leads to talk of "pride" in who "I am", of "being
myself" and of "sexual orientation". The concept of sexual
orientation or identity is the same concept that enables liberal Christians
to "naturalise" homosexuality as an inherent part of the human condition.
It stands counter to conservative views that label homosexuality as "against
nature" while seeking to "normalise" heterosexual behaviour. A gay
and lesbian ontology enables alternative practices to be visible, to "come
out of the closet" and to seek liberation. It does not insist on
changing anyone but seeks social justice to bring in the marginalised and
outcasts ones. It says. "this is who we are: and we want to be treated
justly."
An evangelical response to the questions of sexual identity has been
the attempt to draw a distinction between who you are and what you do sexually.
The promoted value is in trying to "love the sinner and hate the sin,"
where same-sex acts are seen as being sinful. This serves to refocus
attention onto sexual action while maintaining that normative, heterosexual,
procreative sex is the God-given standard and purpose for sexuality.
While it allows for some tolerance of perceiving homosexuality as a ‘given’
sexual orientation, it denies the legitimacy of acting out that orientation.
To do so, is by their definition, "sinful". However this only creates
a further problem, for if God created some people queer through a given
sexual orientation (perhaps through genetic or other biological processes
inherent in Creation) then to argue that God also ordained standards to
preclude queer folks from responding to needs for intimacy in their God-given
way (according to given "orientation"), diminishes the moral attributes of God.
It makes God’s law seem down right bloody minded and arbitrary. Further,
arguing ethical precepts from empirical evidence is fraught with problems,
in that the description of human nature and what is ‘natural’ is itself
is a matter of view point and is not an independent basis from which moral
judgments can be derived.
Thus viewing homosexuality as a sin on the basis that "God says so"
falls into the trap of diminishing the attributes of God, making his "laws"
arbitrary through the application of the principle, "God says so."
Can the evangelicals have it the other way around, by claiming that God
says so because it is wrong of itself? In that case, God would not
be acting arbitrarily but would be acting to reveal a pre-existing "natural"
order of what is good. That also diminishes God, by removing god’s supremacy
as prime cause, thus making an appeal to "nature" or to a morality derived from
a natural theology, untenable. Moral precepts cannot be known from
natural theology.
Support for the evangelical position comes from Karl Barth, who,
while insisting that moral precepts cannot be known from natural theology,
held that revelation in Scripture, as the Word of God, is the only source
of moral and divine knowledge. This enables the evangelicals to further
engage reductionism by focusing only on those aspects of Scripture that
appear to support their viewpoint. Thus they focus on the Old Testament
Levitical purity codes and the New Testament reprobate lists, into which they read
or project their notions of "sexual identity". The "Fall doctrine"
is also invoked as a way around the apparent arbitrary action of God in
creating people "oriented" one way while also postscribing Laws against
them. In this way "a homosexual orientation" is seen as originating
with the Fall of human nature, and not with God. This argument seems
to forget that the essential nature of the Fall applies to all humanity
and not one part of it! It also forgets that the first
part of Barth's position, that moral precepts cannot be known from natural
theology, denies use of the whole "nature" and "against nature" criteria
that frame the evangelical notion of a "chosen homosexual orientation".
While use of the concepts, ‘homosexual identity’ and ‘sexual
orientation’, may have enabled liberal Christians to counter the reductionist
views of the conservatives, it also may have perpetuated a degree
of isolation, for it creates a false dichotomy of "straight" and "gay or
lesbian". It marginalises one group as a minority (or a majority!)
defined in relation to the other. It perpetuates a dualism and systematises
the notion that queers will always be ‘queers’, i.e. against the norm.
Post-modern "queer theory" suggest that ‘queer-straight’ presents a false
dichotomy, in that human sexuality is more diverse, flexible and less easily
constrained in particular gender, sexual and cultural expressions.
There is also a Scriptural precedent for discounting a dichotomy, for
Paul argued that in Christ there is a new freedom:
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there
is no longer slave or free, there is no longer
In Christ there is no other identity apart from yourself (or your community) and Christ. There are no false dichotomies, no constraints, no straight or queer persons, for all are one in Christ! It is faith that makes the difference. It is no longer possible to assert the claim that the so called "evangelical
position" or indeed, the Western, orthodox interpretation that is based on the "theological
code", is the only correct or possible interpretation. Many groups
have revisited the biblical account of the way of Jesus and turn afresh
to that account for interpretation of Christian praxis. Some of these
are "grass roots" movements, such as those emerging from the liberation
theologies of Latin and Southern America, the African American liberation
movements, feminists and the gay liberation movements. Jesus praxis
is seen as the key to liberation and freedom. Christian Praxis and Ethics Before the 13thC., Christian ethics were based on the lex aeterna, in which God's wisdom, or will, or law, is the highest and ultimate form of morality.6
This is known as the Divine Command Theory, in which God's commands are
either seen as being good because God commands them, or that God
commands them because they are good. Hence right and wrong was defined
in terms of God's will, which was seen as being available in two ways:
From this is follows that faith must be reasonable, that is be subject
to reason according to experience and a perception of purpose or
consequences derived from nature. This a teleological view of ethics
and will be discussed below as an aspect of Natural Law. For now, it
is important to note the significance of reason in determining ethics.
Hence St Thomas could write: "To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to condemning the command of God." (Aquinas: S.T. XIX, 5.)
By reasoning, St. Thomas Aquinas viewed Divine Command Theory as
essentially flawed. For, if the first stated form of the theory is
followed (in which God's commands are seen as being good because God commands them), God is seen to act arbitrarily, rendering any concept of the
goodness of God, meaningless. The second, stated form (that God
commands them because they are good) negates
theological standards for right and wrong, for they are seen to be
independent of God's will.8 For these reasons, Aquinas
held that following the Divine Command Theory leads believers into
impious results, and, therefore, it should be rejected.9
For Aquinas, the ground of right and wrong was to be found in the
Theory of Natural Law, which attempts to present a theological standard
of right and wrong. It is built upon the following assumptions or
perceptions.
From these assumptions, Natural Law is seen as both describing things
as they are and as they ought to be. Application of Natural law to
human situations, at best, stands subject to agreement regarding the
view of human beings identified and the perceived "end" to which they
function, before moral decisions that are constructed on those views
are accepted. This is made difficult today, where differences in
social anthropology as understood between diverse groups of people,
raise issues concerning what nature exhibits. There is great, human
diversity in experience, custom and understanding, making "it may be
more difficult today to maintain that these differences are simply due
to distortions caused by error, sin or bad custom." 10
Thus it is extremely doubtful whether one can follow Aquinas reasonably
and derive human moral ends from human natural tendencies. Those
that do must of necessity deny cultural diversity in human nature and
understanding and impose a restrictive, "universal" viewpoint.
G. E. Moore has argued that Natural Law Theory follows the
naturalistic fallacy, in that it argues moral precepts from non moral
accounts of what humans are like, in order to state what they ought to
be like. Moore persuasively argued that value cannot be understood in
empirical terms.11 Consequently, arguments from Natural law are seen as being radically flawed.12
Reasoning in ways that conflate description with prescription (stating "what is" in order to rule "what ought be") is troublesome logically,
also. David Hume pointed out that "what is the case" and "what ought to
be the case" are two logically different categories, and no conclusion
about one follows from the other. 13
To the extent that Natural Law conflates facts and values,
disagreements regarding specific views of human nature are likely to be
as controversial as the moral decisions based upon them.14
The case of intimate relationships and marriage is an example, in which
disagreements arise, based on certain premises concerning human
sexuality. By restricting understanding of human sexuality to
procreational function, relational and affective functions are
overlooked or suppressed to a secondary status. The result is that
sexual intercourse is interpreted in terms of procreational function,
only. To this view Aquinas conjoined other values, such as concern
for the properly ordered emission of semen, preservation of
continuation of the species and the following of specific Biblical
rules (S.T. XIV, 26-30). The function of emission of semen is seen as
having procreation as its end. This may be so, at a simple, biological
level of comprehension. However, it is far too simplistic a view, in
the context of human sexuality and relationships. The emission of
semen in human beings takes place in a relational complex, that
involves emotional and affective factors. These, too, may be seen as
essential for human well being, besides and apart from procreation.
Procreation itself takes place within the context of a life time,
during which a person is not always procreating seeking to procreate.
Emotional and affective factors are always present during a person’s
life time, within a hierarchy of essential needs that includes
relational needs. Cultural context also influences emotional and
affective factors, where what is seen as appropriate, condoned or
natural in one culture may not necessarily be so in another. An ethic
of sexual relationships based on procreation is a restrictive view that
ignores or submerges affective human needs and cultural variation.
Aquinas' view of Natural Law rescued human sexuality from the
Augustinian captivity of fornication as sin, by declaring sexual
intercourse as "natural" and free of sin in itself (S.T. XIV, 26-30).
However, sexual function was placed within a re-statement of the
Alexandrian rule, that the proper function of sexual intercourse is to
place semen in the vagina with the view to procreation. Such a
reductionist and instrumental view of human sexuality creates problems concerning birth
control, masturbation, oral-sex, anal sex, sex after menopause and sex
among couples who know that one member is sterile - being precisely
those human aspects of sexuality that do not result in procreation.
Yet each of those aspects is visible in the human population and can be
shown to be "natural" or contributing to the common good, in exactly
the same manner that procreation is viewed.
That procreation relates to the common good, in today's overcrowded
and ecologically stressed world, is now a questionable notion. There
are ecological and economic factors to consider, as well, in regard to
poverty, birth control and providing for the common good (beneficence). Arguments can be presented,
for each of the other concerns listed above, in terms of contribution
to the common good. Thus Natural Law falls short of adequately
addressing relational values of human sexuality.
NOTESIn his more optimistic Age, Aquinas did consider the beneficence of Marriage, in so far as it sought to safe-guard security of procreation, child raising, education and support for each other in old age, as long as both partners survived to give mutual support. Thus, Marriage can be directed towards the common good. However, to view all intimate, human relationships as being met exclusively or comprehensively in Marriage, is false, for it argues a general case (all human intimate relationships) from a specific example (heterosexual marriage) and fails to consider other forms of human relationships. It ignores, for example, intimate, committed relationships between single persons or those who are not heterosexual. As Aquinas argues, the general does not always hold up under examination of the specific. With regard to homosexuality, same-sex acts can be understood as being "natural" for some persons and, from a psychological view, it is not a disordered state.15 The consideration of sexual orientation, as a psychological view, for example, was not considered by Aquinas, as such an understanding was not available for him to consider. His view of sexuality was culturally determined and, while being historically significant, cannot speak for all time and for all cultures. In each of Aquinas' examples, he reads his view of function into the object, as specific conclusions. And while he showed that sin did not rest with the body, his reductionist, natural theology leads to restricted and stereotypic views of sexuality, including practices within heterosexual marriage. The strengths of his views are in the concern for procreation, nurture, education and societal good. However, his views are simplistic and inadequate for addressing all concerns of covenanted and intimate, human relationships. Christian regard for the dignity, well-being and worth of all persons, especially of the oppressed and victims of prejudice, has made the quality of relational values significant, ethical criteria in examining ethics relating to sexuality. Modern considerations have moved significantly beyond concern for procreation and marriage.16 It is in the quality of human relationships, in terms of respect, mutuality, reciprocity, care, and love, that significant criteria are found and not in procreation. As Beach says, "the ethical line is drawn between the spiritual difference between a covenanted relationship of mutual love and a loveless or exploitive relationship." 17 Covenanted relationships of mutual love are equally plausible and moral for all persons, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. The cultural and historical determinants within this view, move beyond mere concern for procreation and bring concern for love-making, justice-making and right relationship within Christian praxis.  1. Jens Glebe-Möller, trans. Thor Hall, Jesus and Tradition: Critique of a Tradition. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1989.) p. 3. 2. Ibid. The words in this summary of "the theological code" are Jens Glebe-Möller's but the format is mine. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid., p. 37. The study, Himatia, futher explains this praxis as shown in the Gospel of Mark. 5. Ibid., p. 38. 6. John Macquarrie and James Childress (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics, s.v. "Medieval Ethics". A modern, conservative, evangelical application of this is seen in use of the concept of "God's plan" as a reference to divine will. 7. Ibid. 8. James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy. pp.46-50. 9. Ibid. p.50. 10. Robin Gill, Christian Ethics, p.86. Also see John Macquarrie and James Childress (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics, s.v. "teleological ethics". 11. E. J. Bond, Ethics and Human Well-Being, pp.103-104. 12. John Macquarrie and James Childress (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics, s.v. "Natural law". Also E. J. Bond, op cit., pp.103-105. R. Gill, op cit, p. 87, contains a reference to the view that natural tendencies accord with the will of God, as Creator and therefore a category error is not involved. Gill says that reasoning this way, is not clear. 13. Ibid. p.52. Also Robin Gill, op cit., p.86. Both argue that a conflation of description with prescription involves a category error. 14. Ibid. 15. Waldo Beach, Christian Ethics. p.62. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. Glossary androcentric: male-centred; male dominance. aretaic: (adjective) pertaining to the simple virtue or exellence of a thing or notion; in ethics, the aretaic principle refers to moral vitues such as "the good", temperance, courage, prudence, justice, common sense and the Christian, theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. arkhon: (noun) a ruler in the synogogue, the archisunagogos, a leader of the synagogue; a man of power and privilege. From 'arche', the Greek for 'first place', 'beginning', 'principality', 'corner'. arkhonic: (adjective) relating to the rule of privileged men having the status of "first place"; hence meaning. to lord it over another; a word coined by Rev. Lee Levett-Olson, pertaining to androcentric, patriarchal culture and history. deonitc: (adjective) pertaining to moral principles based on "rightness", "obligation", or "duty", in which some acts are right or wrong independetly of their consequences or ends. ecclesiology study of the church as an organisation- referring to its structure, government, liturgy and rituals; < Gk. ekklesia, assembly. Can refer to the rules by which the church acts. erotic: (adjective) pertaining to passionate love; from the Greek, eros, love; pertaining to love of life. existential: (adjective) pertaining to existence; expressing or referring to the state of existence. thus existential-ontological pertains to the way in which we have our being. exogesis: the process of uncovering meaning within a text; the opposite is eisogesis- the projection of notions or bias into a text. Gentiles: ethnic groups that are not of Judah, Israel or Samaria; non-Jews. halakah Hebrew: "the Way"; the way or teaching of a Rabbi or rabbinic school; teaching. hermeneutics: the process by which rules for interpretation are defined; the art of interpretation as distinct from the interpretation itself. hermeneutic principle: a principle used to interpret a text. ontological (adjective) pertaining to ontology, the science of being itself; orthodoxy: right belief; patriarchy rule by the "fathers"; male dominance. praxis: process for action; the process of action and reflection that gives rise to deliberate action. > Gk.pra'xi", praxis, acting, activity, function; as in Matthew 16:17, "in accordance with what he did." A way of acting. Synoptic tradition: that of the the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke that provide a summary account (synopsis) of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.
|
