(From the ACT3 Weekly Letter)
Sexuality and the Lord's Supper: Part One
February 25, 2008
John H. Armstrong
The linking of the two terms in my title seems rather shocking at first glance. What does sex have to do with Communion? How can any Christian theologian connect the two this closely? Well, the fact is this-this is exactly what theologians have done for centuries, and for very good reason. My defense for this connection comes from none other than the apostle Paul himself. In 1 Corinthians Paul moves from the subject of sexuality to that of union with Christ in the Eucharist and then back again. Thus this connection has always been rather deeply rooted in the best of Christian tradition. It is we moderns who have broken this link, especially in the last three centuries, and thereby we have destroyed sexuality as Eucharistic.
Why Our Society Has a Difficult Time with This Connection
There are at least two reasons why moderns have a hard time seeing sexuality as Eucharistic. The first is obvious. The body has been massively trivialized in our society. Since sexuality is an activity of the body and the soul this trivialization of the human body leads to the even deeper trivialization of sex itself. In the common view of things sex is a form of recreation. Or just as wrong as this idea, sex becomes something we ignore or reject as harmful or ugly, though admittedly necessary for the procreation of the race. (But given our culture's desire for death, procreation is not an issue for many.) Homosexuality is accepted increasingly, followed closely now by transgendered sexuality. But close behind, to the surprise of some, is asexuality. A new asceticism, which is not Christian at all, sees sex as simply a bother, something to be tolerated at best.
Michele Kirsch, writing in The Times (London) in March of 2005 gave a number of quotes that underscore my point. I share two of them.
"It is more disinterest than disgust. Occasionally, when I contemplate everything the sexual act involves, I think, 'Ugh, why would I want to do that?' It is just something I don't feel the need to experience!"
And an asexual writer added, in an essay, titled, "My Life as an Amoeba":
"I find that being devoid of sexuality makes my life a lot easier. By not participating in that aspect of my life, my time is freed for other activities, building shrines, memorizing cure lyrics, studying forensic psychology."
Biblical and orthodox Christianity has a much better idea about sex and humanity. The Church cherishes sexuality as basic and inherent to our humanity. St. John Chrysostom captured this in a sermon on sex when he noticed people blushing. He became quite angry and asked the congregation: "Why do you blush? Is it not pure? You are behaving like heretics" (12th Homily on the Epistle to the Colossians).
Even Thomas Aquinas, not a source that you would readily think would underscore this same point of view about sex, suggested that thinking of sexuality as repulsive is a failure of true charity (love) and "a moral defect" (Summa Theologica II.II.142.1).
The second reason our society, and the Church, has a difficult time in seeing how the Eucharist relates to sexuality is that it views the human body as an object that belongs to us. My body is my body! But Scripture plainly says, "You are not your own." Look at the various modern books on the body. They fill the front tables of our favorite book stores. Man is a machine and the owner's manual is designed so that each owner can take charge over his or her own machine. The body is a possession, indeed the ultimate possession. Thus modern thought says "It's my body and I will do with it what I want." I can mark it, abuse it and do whatever I please with it.
This thinking about the body is deeply rooted in modernity. John Locke established his philosophy of the human person on the idea of "self-ownership." We are thus "a property in [our own] person." Against this philosophy the Church's teaching seems like pure restriction!
Timothy Radcliffe, a Dominican friar in Oxford, rightly says that the Christian view of sexuality "is about [the] living relationships of gift rather than of property exchange" (What Is the Point of Being a Christian? Burnes and Oates: London, 2005, 95). That's it-gift, not property exchange. Get this point fixed in your mind and you will have truly captured the startling truth that will lead you to see how sex and the Eucharist relate.
The Church's Doctrine of Sexuality
Let's be clear about this-the Church has not always handled sexuality well. But the essential core of the matter has been pretty clear, even more so in the East than the West. (We can thank St. Augustine for some of this mistaken stuff.) The Christian teaching is that we are to engage in sexual intercourse only with those to whom we are married in a covenantal bond. That bond is to be between a man and a woman and this relationship must remain open to procreation. (This is where the Roman Catholic Church opposes birth control because it sees it as artificially refusing to remain genuinely open to procreation. I believe their point is worthy of much more thought by all Christians, especially since the modern practice of birth control is rooted in many false ideologies, but in the end I am not convinced of Rome's position. Rome's position is not held by the rest of the Christian Church, East or West.)
The reality is clear, however. Vast numbers of Christians are divorced, remarried, living with unmarried partners, even sometimes with partners of the same sex. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 stands as a very stark and strong warning that the practice of certain sins, without repentance, will lead to spiritual death. Such will "not inherit the kingdom of God" says Paul. Sexual sins are on the list but note that there are other sins there, too; e.g., greed, slander and stealing. I hear next to no serious dealing with these words by those who promote sexual malpractice in the Church. )
We must be very clear about this. There is a Grand Canyon between what the Bible says about sexual ethics and what most of us practice in our actual churches. And sometimes attempts to correct this problem, attempts which are called for biblically, are almost as bad as the problems themselves. How we measure justice and mercy is always a challenge and simplistic solutions are very often neither pastoral nor wise.
This is part of what profoundly disturbs me about the present debate over homosexuality in the Church. I stand against all acceptance of homosexual practice as normative Christian behavior. But I am also troubled by the self-righteous way that we single out homosexual sin as if this sexual sin is the only one we should attack in trying to restore moral purity to the visible Church.
How Then Should We Respond?
Timothy Radcliffe suggests that one approach to this problem is to "strongly insist on the received teaching" (What Is the Point of Being a Christian?, 95). This is the response of many conservative churches and Christians. When this is done there is a very real danger, and I've personally seen it in many contexts. The danger is this-our churches become sects, narrow groups with a virtual phobia about sex. Our sexual ethic becomes so tightly wound, at least emotionally, that we have a hard time relating to real people who live around us. We fear they will pollute our children, corrupt our homes, and destroy our culture. (We need to be careful here for sure but we also need to be wary of withdrawing us and our children from the world. We are not building ghettoes for Christian saints but gospel communities that are inclusive in their invitation to come to the feet of Christ!) We forget that the gospel is good news, both for them and for us together.
But there is another problem here. Many conservative Christians cling to certain aspects of the Church's historic teaching on sexuality, while they ignore whole other areas of serious ethical teaching. The result is a form of hypocrisy that can be seen by the wider society from miles away.
If we allow people to be cavalier about sexual ethics, and do as they please, then are we not in danger of teaching them to disregard all other Christian ethical teaching as outdated and useless in the day-to-day world? Radcliffe, writing as a Catholic, says of some people: "Others remain Catholic, but feel either burdened with guilt or second-class citizens, excluded from Communion because they are in 'irregular situations'" (What Is the Point of Being a Christian?, 95).
But if the Christian Church simply accepts (approves) modern sexual practices and ideas then she is in an even worse state. When this happens, we assimilate the world's views of sexuality and then miss the gift that God has actually given to us. This is also why we miss the connection with the Eucharist as I will attempt to show.
In his insightful essay, Radcliffe refers to the way that some Catholics resolve this tension with a "pastoral solution." In this approach the teaching of the Church is openly asserted, but "subtle hints are given that everybody is welcome" (What is the Point in Being a Christian?, 96). In evangelical churches we tend to talk about sex a lot. When we do we always make it very clear that we oppose homosexual practice. What we also do is make it equally clear, to most it seems, that we do not like homosexuals. This has had a massive impact upon us missionally.
A recent poll found that the number one thing most non-Christians thought of when the Church came to their minds was "intolerance and hatred for gays." This is likely not your own view, but it is the way your non-Christian neighbors see your church and mine. If we are serious about evangelization we have to find a solution to this very real problem. The "pastoral solution" that Radcliffe refers to is not the right one but it is a humane one, which is more than can be said for many of the approaches that we presently take.
What Is the Solution?
Timothy Radliffe admits that he doesn't know what the real solution to this issue is. But at least in terms of how we uphold the Church's ethical standards, while at the same time we remain compassionate, humane and attractional to unbelievers and Christians who struggle deeply with sexual sin, such a solution must be sought. I agree with him after reading his few pages in his essay titled: "The Body Electric."
What Radcliffe profoundly reminds me of is that the "starting point" for understanding sexuality, and for teaching it in the modern era, is the Lord's Supper.
The Last Supper is the very real story of Jesus giving himself over, in body and soul, to his disciples and his enemies. His own disciples denied him and ran. One even sold him out! But his gift to them was his body. This gift reminds us that sexuality is not separable from vulnerability. There is a deep "tenderness" (Radcliffe) here that means someone is very likely to get hurt. Someone could be, and will be, used. There is an "extreme realism" about this matter, a realism that focuses our hearts on the idea that when we give ourselves up to someone else there is real danger.
A truly Christian sexual ethic says, "Give yourself up. Take this gift from God and give it to another much like Jesus gave himself up for you in his body and soul as he now gives himself to us in the Eucharist." This is how Jesus lived and died. This is love. Love gives and love surrenders. Only when this is taught clearly, and modeled powerfully, will the Church see why Christian sexual ethics matters at all. We lost this in the 20th century, not all at once but over the course of a hundred years or so. The Church slept through that revolution. Only now have some awakened to the depth of the sexual compromise, principally because of the homosexual debate that now rages. It would be a great tragedy if we followed a course in this new century that sees the primary objective of the Church's sexual teaching as that of opposing gays and lesbians.
Next Week: How the Lord's Supper can help us regain the proper understanding of sexual ethics and theology.
No comments:
Post a Comment