Abstract
Recent contributions to discourse on sexual ethics by Mandy Ford and Karen R. Keen aim to inform and equip those who might be curious about Christian teaching on human sexuality but find themselves ill prepared to join the conversation. Ford’s slender volume, God, Gender, Sex and Marriage, is offered as a resource for continued reflection on how the church—specifically the Church of England that she serves as a member of the clergy—might restate its historic teaching on human sexuality in order better to align with the moral flux of the present age (pp. 11–12). Keen, in Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, an equally brief and easily-digested publication, addresses a potentially shifting moral paradigm on the question of same-sex relationships that she perceives within the American evangelical subculture of her upbringing (p. ix). A conceit shared by the authors is that readers might be both surprised and encouraged by how the church may interpret Scripture and instruct the faithful on sexual morality today.
The primary assertion of each book is that present uncertainties about historic Christian teachings should be met with a robust commitment to people and their experiences. Ford, drawing from her participation in the ‘Shared Conversations’ of the Church of England on human sexuality, believes that the church has ‘moved some way from a simple restatement that . . . marriage between a man and a woman is the only acceptable context for a sexual relationship’ and needs to articulate its position anew (pp. 11–12, cf. p. 18). Keen argues more narrowly for ‘a shift to the acceptance of same-sex relationships’ that ‘does not require compromising Scripture’ (pp. 102–103, cf. p. x). Together these texts imagine frontiers for Christian sexual morality that expand without simultaneously relinquishing claims to biblical authority and meaningful discipleship.
Ford begins chapter 1 by discussing the gap that has widened between ‘the traditional teaching of the church [of England] and the legal status of certain aspects of sex and family life’ (p. 18). The question of how this gap should be addressed divides the church, she contends, between those compelled by evangelism to a ‘culture that has strayed far from Christian moral teaching’ (p. 21) and those compelled by love. At issue is the potential for even a well-intentioned evangelist to perpetuate sexism and homophobia. Others, compelled by love, must not merely be willing to ‘acknowledge and accept LGBTQIA+ people on equal terms within a moral framework that includes marriage’; they must also take on the risk of ‘moving significantly away from hundreds of years of Christian practice, tradition and theological understanding’ (p. 22). That is the ‘gamble of faith’ to which Ford ultimately invites her readers (p. 117).
Chapter 2 outlines the approach to Christian decision-making foundational to Ford’s gambit. Her basic method is grounded in the Anglican via media of adherence to Scripture, tradition and reason (p. 25). Put simply: Scripture, taken seriously and interpreted properly, presents a challenge (p. 28); tradition, by way of collected ‘historic wisdom’, offers guidance (p. 29); and human reason, with its potential to probe ‘God’s purposes for us and for Creation’, provides a path to fuller knowledge (p. 31). After briefly assessing deontology (i.e., duties) and virtue (i.e., ‘things we might aspire to’) for their potential to ‘sift ethical teaching’ in the process of making moral decisions (p. 33), Ford introduces the key element of conscience. Its purpose is to help one ‘hold together the emotional and rational dimensions of ethical decision making, so that what feels right is supported by evidence that fits with the reality of the world’ (p. 39).
This definition of conscience, or at least its implementation in her method, highlights the premium Ford places on human experience in decision-making about sexual ethics. Throughout her ensuing discussion of gender (chapter 3), desire (chapters 4 and 5) and marriage (chapter 6), the method described in the first half of chapter 2 is employed. Each topic is evaluated through the lenses of Scripture, tradition and reason. Yet human experience sets the focus for each.
For example, Ford cites Gen. 1:26-27 as a foundational text supporting the argument that differences between men and women were part of God’s creative intent. However, she argues that the traditional doctrinal stance based on this passage fails to stand up against the measure of ‘reason or experience’ (p. 42). Shifting to tradition, Ford observes how the experience of women was shaped by a patristic theological commitment to the superiority of men and maleness (pp. 48–49). In the concluding section on reason Ford then turns to science to underline that the experience of gender is complex and influenced by three main factors: biology (both internal and external sexual characteristics), gender identification (a sense of self that may or may not differ from biological characteristics), and gender expression (e.g., ‘clothing, behaviour, language and other outward signs’) (pp. 55–57).
This same method and the premium placed on human experience remain consistent throughout Ford’s discussion of the remaining themes (sexual desire, same-sex desire, and marriage). She then punctuates the priority on human experience in the concluding chapter (chapter 7) by observing that aspects of our identity like ‘faith, gender and sexuality’ belong not only to one’s singular experience of the self, but to our experience of others and the linking of those experiences through time that tell each one’s story. The moral grounding for each story, she continues, is in ‘the need to feel that we are acting with integrity—truth to ourselves—and charity—love for others’ (p. 108).
Keen likewise places people at the centre of her project. She proclaims with the first line of chapter 1 that ‘there’s one thing we cannot forget’ when it comes to the question of same-sex relationships: people (p. 1). What follows in the opening chapter is a brief survey of the basic condemnation of same-sex desire running throughout most of Christian history. She identifies a hopeful turn in a letter written by C.S. Lewis suggesting that even in same-sex desire, though a tribulation, a calling of God may be found (p. 3). The remainder of the chapter outlines various conservative Christian responses to gay and lesbian people: 1) they should remain closeted; 2) they are perverts and criminals; 3) they are victims in need of healing; and 4) they are saints called to celibacy (pp. 4–11). Keen includes a fifth section that outlines a recent splintering of conservative perspectives into those calling for celibacy, conversion (toward opposite-sex attraction), resistance, and affirmation (pp. 11–13).
Keen concludes her book by imagining a future for Christianity that diverges from most of the past and present described in chapter 1. That future is one in which same-sex relationships are an affirmed part of Christian life and community. They are, for Keen, to be viewed as consistent with the witness of Scripture (pp. 103, 114) and aligned with the gospel vision ‘in which all things are reconciled in God and shalom reigns’ (p. 113).
The argument Keen employs to support this position unfolds in four parts. First, she argues that a proper interpretation of Scripture rests on a recognition that the biblical mandates set a trajectory for a ‘good and just world’ (p. 102). She supports this in chapter 2 by surveying the exclusively negative assessments of same-sex relations found in the Old and New Testaments (pp. 16–20). Placed in historical context, these relationships were either exploitative (e.g., male prostitution, p. 19) or did not count as ‘sex’ (e.g., female same-sex relations that lack penetration and ejaculation, p. 22). Therefore, she reasons, the biblical authors’ rejection of ‘prostitution or pederasty’ should not count as a rejection of ‘monogamous, covenanted’ and consensual same-sex relationships as they are known today (p. 20). For this reason, she is no longer convinced by typical ‘traditionalist’ arguments that affirm only heterosexual marriage as holy or condemn same-sex desire as sinful (see pp. 26–30). Rather, she argues that same-sex relationships can be covenantal in nature and consequently symbolize Christ’s union to the church (pp. 30–33, 39–40). Moreover, arguments from procreation hold little New Testament force (due to a vastly reduced focus on fertility in comparison to the Old Testament), and Paul’s use of ‘unnatural’ in Romans 1 lacks relevance to the lived reality of gay and lesbian people today (pp. 33–39).
Second, Keen relies on Scripture to contend for a deliberative process (p. 102). She already indicates this method by distinguishing between the traditionalist’s rejection of same-sex relations that is grounded in God’s design for creation and the progressive’s assertion that covenant fidelity and not sexual differentiation is the basis for biblical marriage in chapter 3 (p. 43). Chapter 4 continues Keen’s concern to examine the historical context and cultural relevance of Old Testament laws. A discerning reader, she maintains, must distinguish ‘the inspired message from the temporal, cultural mode of delivery’ (p. 45). A misinterpretation occurs when one focuses more on the content of the law than the reason for its inclusion in Scripture (p. 50). Laws, she contends, are included to the end of all being ‘right and well with the world’. Biblical mandates are therefore applicable today only if ‘the underlying intent of the law’ serves that end (p. 51). Keen intends that her deliberative process would first explore prayerfully the overarching intent of the law and then lead to a consideration of ‘alternative ways’ that it can be fulfilled while still accounting for the lives of gay and lesbian people (pp. 51–52).
Chapter 5 speaks to the practicality of following the deliberative process (p. 58). For Keen, reading and simply applying a command from Scripture fails to account for the complexities of the biblical narrative. Arriving at the proper end—the will of God—requires the ‘nuanced application’ of recognizing the historical context and employing careful discernment. And the key to interpreting Scripture well is to pay attention to human need (p. 63). True to her initial assertion, then, Keen places people at the heart of the deliberative process (see p. 1).
What, then, does all of this mean for gay and lesbian people? Keen sums up her application of the deliberative process by claiming that same-sex relationships may be affirmed despite biblical prohibitions. Chapter 6 arrives at this conclusion by noting the impossible situation that the requirement of life-long celibacy results in for gay and lesbian people (pp. 81–82). Consequently, she argues that the same accommodations applied to divorce and remarriage by many denominations should be applied to same-sex relationships as well (p. 80). Moreover, chapter 7 ultimately posits that same-sex desire is not a consequence of the fall if by that one categorizes it as a struggle against sin (p. 103). Relying on scientific data, Keen accepts the possibility that same-sex desire might, as a natural consequence of the fall, be part of the ‘fragility and mortality inherent to original creation’ (pp. 87–89). Outrightly rejected by the data, though, is the idea that same-sex desire is evidence of a ‘morally corrupt heart’ (p. 95). Rather, it is for Keen a ‘rare variation that has been unnecessarily shunned’ (p. 103, cf. p. 97). Consequently, she concludes that same-sex desire should be categorized as an alternative sign of ‘the familial drive that makes us want to couple with another person and build a home’ (p. 97).
Despite admitted controversy around the perspectives Ford and Keen hold, neither author takes a very defensive stance. In fact, both texts are more pastoral than apologetic in nature. Keen writes: ‘My hope is that these chapters will be life-giving’ (p. xi). Ford offers her text with the hope that its yield will be to ‘surprise . . . challenge . . . and inspire’ her readers (p. 17). Both authors draw on personal experience at various points to underline their stake in this matter (Ford, pp. 10–14, 118–21; Keen, pp. x and 108–112). The result is two books on Christian sexual ethics that, for better or worse, seek to move readers beyond the perceived doctrinal limitations of the past by focusing on people and their sexual flourishing.
These texts do serve to advance the conversation on Christian sexual ethics. Ford’s work, both from the length of the book and the brevity of the chapters, is carefully designed to welcome the uninitiated and prepare them to discuss gender, sexual desire and marriage (see p. 12). Moreover, she builds space for the exploration of these themes into the structure of her book with suggested questions for reflection and discussion listed at the end of major sections. Keen also encourages reflection through the use of questions, although not in the direct style that Ford employs. However, by narrowing her focus to same-sex relationships Keen offers a clear and well-communicated answer to the question that is conceivably most relevant to her evangelical constituency, namely, a positive affirmation that the Bible may be used to support same-sex relationships.
Perhaps the most important thing these books do is that which they do most intentionally. Ford and Keen repeatedly call for the contemporary Christian church to care for and love those whose sexuality fits poorly into the historic doctrine of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and the only licit setting for sexual acts. Where the love of God towards any of his creatures has been obscured or misrepresented, Ford and Keen issue a call for reflection and repentance.
The nature of that call, however, raises some important questions. First, while exhorting the church to love and care for people is admirable and an emphasis on human experience is likely unavoidable today, the anthropocentric nature of the two books imposes a limit on the challenge they are able to pose to Christian sexual ethics. Ford, for instance, equates integrity with being true to oneself. She at least qualifies this statement with the addendum that being true to oneself ‘will include being true to our baptismal incorporation into the body of Christ’ (p. 108). However, it still retains the sense that one is finding a place for God or the gospel in his or her story rather than taking up one’s place in God’s story. Keen offers at least an echo of the same sentiment by maintaining that ‘the only way gay and lesbian people can live healthy spiritual lives is to come to peace with their own decisions’ (p. 107). Absent, despite reference to Augustine, is the unmitigated restlessness of the human heart seeking happiness on its own terms. And nowhere is there reference to the heart’s idol-making capacity spoken of by Calvin. What remains, at least for Ford, is a gamble between doctrine and conscience (p. 117), rather than the former informing the latter (see 1 Tim. 4:16).
Furthermore, the lines drawn between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘progressives’, to use Keen’s terminology, do not seem conducive to achieving unity in matters of sexual ethics. While effective for outlining contrasting arguments, the use of binaries reduces the dialogue to a political dispute. Clearly articulated through both books, even with shared conversations and shifting paradigms, is a way forward that depends on one group joining (or at least moving toward) the other. The ideal, for both Ford and Keen, is that so-called traditionalists become more progressive. The unity of the church, however, is not achieved politically in a partisan fashion. It is first of all theological or, to be more precise, Christological. Missing from any direct discussion in either book is how Christ, the head of the church, might be the basis for unity on the matter of human sexuality as he is for any other issue that would concern the people of God. Centring the discussion on Christ would furthermore inject the questions explored with greater theological precision. It would certainly challenge the assertion that one is called to be true to him- or herself as Ford explicitly states and Keen strongly implies. Both Jesus and Paul issue calls to die to oneself and to then find true life in Christ (e.g., Mk 8:34-35 and Col. 3:1-4).
Perhaps the limited Christology in these texts helps to explain the perplexing choice by both Ford and Keen to question celibacy (i.e., sexual abstinence) without clearly situating it as a means to the end of chastity (i.e., sexual holiness) and not an end in itself. Ford mentions chastity in her final chapter but leaves the term undefined while claiming that the church has ‘failed, in most contexts, to convince people’ of its value (p. 111). Given frequent references to celibacy throughout the text and the fact that initiates and novices to sexual ethics are among her intended audience, Ford should carefully distinguish between the two terms. Keen devotes an entire chapter to celibacy (chapter 6). Yet in doing so she fails to apply a key principle of her own deliberative method, namely, she focuses more on what the rule is rather than why it is stated in Scripture (see p. 50). Although it is possible through reason alone to distinguish between celibacy and chastity and then articulate the relationship between the two, these works of Christian sexual ethics ought to provide a robust introduction to chastity. Yet neither does so adequately. In fact, absent altogether is any discussion of a key Pauline text where, when exhorting one of his fledging churches to live in a way that pleases God, the apostle begins with sexual morality (see 1 Thess. 4:1-8).
Ford, in God, Gender, Sex and Marriage, and Keen, in Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, both offer informative introductions to key topics in sexual ethics today. Each book maps out major issues of great relevance. A key challenge that neither text meets well, though, is that of moving the conversation towards a unity on this matter that can only be found in Christ and in the common Christian interest of pleasing God through the pursuit of sexual holiness.