queer http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/taxonomy/term/8232/all en Christianity and homophobia in Britain today http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/14787 <!-- google_ad_section_start --><div class="field field-type-text field-field-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <p>To tackle homophobia, we need to understand it. Recent years have seen a backlash against LGBT rights in the UK. This is partly because changing views on sexuality have become a focus for people alarmed by the declining status of what they regard as Christian morality. But it's not a morality that has much in common with the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <p><em>Many thanks to Camden LGBT Forum, who invited me to speak at their event entitled 'The Globalisation of Homophobia' on 17 May. The text of my talk is as follows (while there are slight differences between the text here and the exact words I spoke at the time, the substance is the same). </em></p> <p>Many people identify Christianity with homophobia, misogyny, social control and sexual abuse. I can hardly blame them for doing so. All manner of evil has been justified in the name of Christianity. Much of the Church is, to one extent or another, homophobic. This homophobia is perpetuated by bigots who define their faith by their hatred of gay people and by liberals who fail to speak up for inclusion out of a misplaced desire for unity. The hypocrisy which often accompanies such prejudice has been exposed in its most sickening form in recent revelations about church-based child abuse. </p> <p>But there are also many inclusive Christians. Quakers, Unitarians and the Metropolitan Community Church are ready to carry out same-sex marriages. Within larger denominations, such as the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, there are individuals and groups who back inclusion. A number of queer Christians suggest that their queerness is not incidental to their Christianity but is inspired and affirmed by their understanding of Jesus' teachings. </p> <p>And there are large numbers of Christians who have changed their minds, as well as those who have rejected same-sex relationships in the past but are now questioning their convictions and genuinely struggling with the issues. </p> <p><strong>The backlash against LGBT rights</strong></p> <p>We have made enormous strides in this country in terms of the acceptance of same-sex relationships and the legal rights of LGBT people. There is still a long way to go in terms of legal equality, not least in the area of marriage recognition. But we are also far from general social acceptance. It would be silly to pretend that same-sex relationships are universally accepted. There is a significant minority of people who reject them, as well as others who feel uncomfortable about them.</p> <p>Furthermore, we are now seeing the signs of a systematic backlash against LGBT rights. Certain groups - such as Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre - put much if not most of their energy into campaigning against the acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality. A campaign pioneered by Christian Concern resulted in the House of Lords watering down last year's Equality Act to significantly reduce the rights of employees in faith-based organisations to freedom from discrimination. At the same time, there has been a rise in the promotion of so-called therapy to "heal" gay and bisexual people. </p> <p>I'm not suggesting that Christian groups, or even religious groups generally, are responsible for all the homophobia in Britain. Media attitudes play an important role, not least in the scandal of homophobic bullying in British schools. The rise in reported homophobic and transphobic hate crime may be down to the increased visibility of LGBT people or result from the greater likelihood of hate crime being reported. But groups such as Christian Concern play a vital role in giving a façade of moral respectability to homophobia. That's why they are so frequently quoted in the <em>Daily Mail</em>. </p> <p><strong>Jesus, sexuality and "Christian values"</strong></p> <p>If we are to defeat homophobia, we must try to understand why some are so keen to promote it. This means understanding the role that disputes over sexuality have come to play within Christianity. </p> <p>And so here, please allow me to take you on a whistlestop tour through significant moments in the history of Christianity. </p> <p>We begin with Jesus, who practised radical inclusivity, challenged the powerful and taught forgiveness, nonviolence and love for all people, including enemies. He proclaimed freedom - freedom from social, political, religious and emotional oppression. They killed Jesus because he was too free. </p> <p>Jesus repeatedly broke the sexual conventions of his day. This point is constantly overlooked. He allowed women to make physical contact with him in a society that found it shocking. He redefined family, saying, "Whoever does the will of God is my brother, my mother, my sister". He condemned divorce in a society in which only a man could initiate a divorce, reducing his wife to social disgrace and often poverty. He socialised with prostitutes. This does not mean he approved of prostitution, but he saved his harshest words for the rich and powerful and for religious hypocrites. </p> <p>No wonder that Jesus has been such a profound embarrassment to Christianity.</p> <p>Today, those who talk loudest about "Christian values" are often those who pay least attention to Jesus' lifestyle and teachings. I am not suggesting that Jesus would be relaxed about sexual ethics or condone all sexual practices in our society. He condemned child abuse. His principles of love and fidelity are contrary to sexual activity that is selfish, coercive, manipulative, deceitful or without love for others involved. </p> <p>Jesus' teachings left the earliest Christians with radical forms of community that challenged the hierarchical nature of society around them. The apostle Paul in his Letter to the Galatians, wrote, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus".</p> <p><strong>Christendom and compromise</strong></p> <p>But it was not long before Christians began to compromise Jesus' values with the views of those who held power around them. I cannot judge them, for most of us are far more compromised in our principles than we would like to admit. One of the later writings in the New Testament - the Letter to the Ephesians - tells wives to obey their husbands. Ephesians is attributed to Paul although nearly all scholars agree that he did not write it. </p> <p>The drift towards social respectability continued. Later in the fourth century, the Roman Empire domesticated Christianity by making it in the imperial religion. Christian leaders found themselves defending the empire, its wars and oppression, and upholding views and values they had previously attacked. I'm sure you can think of comparisons in today's society. I'll forbear from making too many jokes about Liberal Democrat ministers. </p> <p>As the Church became part of the establishment, it became much easier to attack the sexual sins of individuals than the structural sins of exploitation and war. Theologians such as Augustine developed the notion of "original sin", arguing that sex was the means by which original sin was passed on. At the same time, they abandoned early Christian pacifism in favour of "just war" theory. The combined effect was that the focus of sin was moved away from violence and on to sex. </p> <p>This was the beginning of Christendom - a situation that continued in Europe up until the twentieth century and remains, at least in part, in other areas of the world today. The term "Christendom" describes a situation in which the Church gives moral sanction to the state and in return is privileged and protected by the state's laws and armies. </p> <p><strong>Opportunity or threat?</strong></p> <p>Over the last few decades, Christendom has been fading in Britain as our country has become more diverse and multifaith. Far fewer people are familiar with Christianity. Some Christian groups, such as Ekklesia, see Post-Christendom as an exciting opportunity to move on from Christianity's compromise with wealth and power and look again at the subversive teachings of Jesus. </p> <p>Other Christians find Post-Christendom unsettling. People who are used to privilege find it hard to give up. Indeed, they are - almost by definition - generally unaware that they are privileged, seeing the request of others for equality as an unreasonable demand. This is how the rich often respond to socialism, how lots of men have reacted to feminism, straight people to calls for LGBT inclusion, and non-disabled people to the disability rights movement. Of course there are exceptions in each case, but often the people in the privileged position genuinely do not realise how privileged they are. So it is with those Christians who are outraged that what they regard as Christian morality is no longer a guiding principle in courts, schools or the House of Commons. </p> <p>Before we rush to judge them, let's ask ourselves how good we are at adapting to change and how much we notice if we benefit form others' exclusion. We have the same human traits as our opponents. This does not mean they should not be challenged. </p> <p>Perhaps because social and legal attitudes towards same-sex relationships have changed relatively quickly, homosexuality has become a key issue for socially conservative groups such as Christian Concern and Anglican Mainstream. Indeed, it has gone beyond being a key issue. They almost define their religion by it. </p> <p>This is as theologically absurd as it is morally repugnant. Even if we were to interpret the Bible as condemning same-sex relationships, that would hardly make it the key issue for Christians to campaign on. The Bible says a great deal more about the use of money than it does about sex. Yet I've never seen Christian Concern and Anglican Mainstream campaign against the prevailing political ideology which sacrifices compassion and humanity on the altars of the free market. </p> <p><strong>Changing minds</strong></p> <p>To challenge the homophobia that these groups promote, we must recognise that it comes from a place of fear about loss of status. To understand is not to excuse. But understanding what we are up against will help us overcome it. It can help us feel compassion for those we campaign against, even while we are appalled by what they stand for. And it will give us more chance of changing people's minds. </p> <p>I speak as someone whose mind has been changed. When I became a Christian, I mistakenly thought that Christian ethics were about following rules. I suppressed much of my own sexuality. To my shame, I admit I campaigned against same-sex relationships. As my attitudes have changed, I've become conscious of the hurt to which I have contributed. Next month, I plan to walk from Birmingham to London as a pilgrimage of repentance for my former homophobia. I will give talks at churches on the way, urging them to stand up for equality.</p> <p>I will arrive in London on the day before Pride, and will speak in central London that evening. If you can make it, I'll be at Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church in Shaftesbury Avenue at 7.00 on the evening of 1st July. </p> <p>I am appalled that Christians are at the forefront of the fight for homophobia. I think it's vital that more us are at the forefront of the fight against it. </p> <p><strong>Tackling homophobia together</strong></p> <p>Having spoken a bit about the nature of Christian homophobia in Britain, I'd like to suggest four ways in which I think it can be tackled.</p> <p>Firstly, it is vital that inclusive Christians stand up and speak out firmly against the exclusion and marginalisation of sexual minorities. As long as the anti-equality lobby can claim that they represent Christianity, they are able to give the impression of having a great many supporters while they misuse the language of rights and liberty to promote their agenda. I understand that many inclusive Christians care about unity and I'm not suggesting that we should treat all those who struggle with the issues as outright bigots. Nonetheless, there are times when we must choose between the idol of unity and the God of love.</p> <p>Secondly, pro-equality Christians need to be prepared to work with people of other religions and of none to challenge homophobia, even when this means campaigning alongside non-Christians against other Christians. Similarly, we need support in our own struggles from non-Christians committed to equality. It saddens me that I am sometimes attacked by people who support LGBT rights, but who are so anti-Christian that they don't like the idea of Christians campaigning for equality.</p> <p>Thirdly, we must stand firm against homophobia without ever descending to the level of personal hatred for homophobes. As I know from my own experience, their minds may be changed. I will never support the idea that homophobes should be allowed to discriminate in, for example, the provision of bed and breakfast. But I will always support their freedom of speech. This is for reasons of both principles and tactics. They claim that they are being denied freedom of conscience. Let's not play into their hands.</p> <p>Fourthly, we must recognise that homophobia is one of many injustices in our society, that LGBT people are one of several groups who continue to experience marginalisation. Homophobia has historically been a means of social control, that keeps people in structures that serve the interests of those with wealth and power. And the powerful are always ready to co-opt previously radical movements for their own ends. In recent years, many companies and corporations have seen so-called gay culture as a moneymaking opportunity. Britain now has its "first gay wedding magazine", which peddles the same consumerist message as its straight equivalents. </p> <p>We have not fought for equality simply so that we can be economically exploited on the same basis as straight people. The fight against homophobia must be part of wider struggles against capitalism. </p> <p>Loving enemies is not the same as having no enemies. Jesus loved the powerful and urged them to repent. He confronted them nonetheless. He overturned the tables of the exploitative traders in the Jerusalem Temple. He found some of the worst injustice and hypocrisy in the Temple itself, just as we can find it in the Church today. To follow Jesus is to stand against the dominant values of our society and to face the prejudices of those who try to make us conform. Following Jesus means standing up to the powerful and, sometimes, standing up to the Church. </p> <p>---------</p> <p>(c) <strong>Symon Hill</strong> is associate director of Ekklesia. In summer 2011, he will walk from Birmingham to London as a pilgrimage of repentance for his former homophobia (see <a href="http://www.repenting.wordpress.com" title="http://www.repenting.wordpress.com">http://www.repenting.wordpress.com</a>). </p> <p>The above article was originally delivered as a talk at 'The Globalisation of Homophobia', an event at University College London on 17 May 2011, organised by Camden LGBT Forum (see <a href="http://www.camdenlgbtforum.org.uk" title="http://www.camdenlgbtforum.org.uk">http://www.camdenlgbtforum.org.uk</a>) to mark the International Day Against Homophobia.</p> </div> </div> </div> <!-- google_ad_section_end --> Religion and Society Sex and Gender News Brief civil liberties homophobia LGBT queer Symon Hill Wed, 18 May 2011 13:41:46 +0000 Symon Hill 14787 at http://www.ekklesia.co.uk Sex and nonviolence http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13591 <!-- google_ad_section_start --><div class="field field-type-text field-field-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <p>"Sex and violence" is a hot-button phrase that if often used without thinking. But what do sex and violence really have to do with one another? Christians should be untangling the connection between them, but instead we seem to be contributing to the confusion.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <p>Paul cringed with embarrassment as the semi-naked woman produced a gun and began shooting at her big-screen co-stars. As a university chaplain, he had invited several American exchange students to the cinema. They now stood up and walked out.</p> <p>“It was pretty violent, wasn't it?” said Paul, as he apologised afterwards. The students looked uncomprehending. After a brief conversation, he realised that it wasn't the guns that had offended them. It was the breasts.</p> <p>Christians have often treated sex, sexuality and even nudity as far more serious subjects than violence. It is difficult to imagine the Anglican church threatening schism because a diocese on the other side of the world appointed a pacifist bishop. A minister's position on nuclear weapons is rarely of such major concern to a congregation as who he/she sleeps with.</p> <p>The words “sex and violence” are frequently coupled, not least by Christians. This is bizarre. After all, virtually all Christians – whether pacifists or not - regard war and other forms of violence as extremely undesirable. Sex on the other hand is a gift from God and a cause for rejoicing. It can be abused, trivialised and made a means to hurt others, but in itself, when used properly, it is surely a good thing. </p> <p><strong>Bombs not sex toys</strong></p> <p>It is not only Christians who are confused about sex and violence. British society is deeply inconsistent about them. The owner of a small firm selling sex toys online told me that a major bank had refused to handle her account as they had ethical objections. The same bank has millions invested in the arms trade. </p> <p>Successive governments have condemned gun crime while subsidising arms sales to brutal regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Death penalty advocates frequently describe themselves as “pro-life”. In a society that is supposed to be sexually liberated, the people whose voices are heard least include those who are forcefully deprived of the freedom to make sexual choices – rape victims, trafficked sex workers and abused children. </p> <p>Of course, there is more sexual freedom than there was fifty years ago. We are saturated with sexual imagery. Yet for many, sexual matters remain a cause of embarrassment, low self-esteem or distress. Our history of negativity about sex is deeply ingrained – how often have you used the word “rude” when you really meant “sexual”?</p> <p>Despite the secular acceptance of divorce and homosexuality, sexuality remains constrained by highly questionable expectations. If you doubt this, watch a few mainstream romantic comedies. Singleness is presented as something to be overcome. Casual sex is the norm. Genuine friendships with ex-partners are virtually unheard of and jealousy can't be controlled. Stereotypes are reinforced, with men desperate for sex and gay people tolerated only as marginal characters. </p> <p><strong>Abusive churches</strong></p> <p>It would be good to think that Christians are bringing some clarity and truth to this situation, but much of the time we seem to be making things worse. The global child abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church has made it almost impossible in some circles for Christians to be taken seriously on matters of sexual ethics. Non-Catholics have no cause for complacency; all churches will be tainted by association. The vast majority of both Catholics and other Christians are appalled by the abuse and its cover-up, but this does not mean we can avoid asking ourselves some tough questions. The first of these is: does Christian theology really have anything helpful to say about sexual abuse?</p> <p>Christians who oppose homosexuality and all sex outside formal marriage need to consider whether they spend more time condemning these practices than working against sexual violence. Nor are things any easier for those of us who like to see ourselves as inclusive. Repelled by the Church's history of sexual repression, some Christians are so keen to be positive about sex that they seem to have forgotten its dark side: rape, child abuse, domestic violence, adultery, prostitution, trafficking, the pressure on people to have sex when they are not ready, sexual imagery in advertising to make profits for the rich, sex that is without care or respect for the other person involved. </p> <p>Of course, inclusive Christians oppose these things. But are they an add-on to our views, a disclaimer at the bottom of the page? Or is this an active opposition that flows from an understanding of sexual ethics that is as firm in working against abuse as it is about celebrating healthy, Godly sexuality?</p> <p><strong>Just war?</strong></p> <p>If we ask ourselves how Christianity got into such confusion over sex and violence, we need to go back a long way. In the fourth century, the Roman Empire ended its marginalisation of Christians and began to promote the Church. While Christians had been drifting away from Jesus' social radicalism since the first century, this was a change on a different scale. Stuart Murray Williams calls it the “Christendom shift”. For more than a millennium and a half afterwards, Christianity in Europe was allied with political and cultural power. </p> <p>With the beginning of Christendom, previously persecuted Christians found they were the new allies of empire. The empire sent troops to kill its name, and many Christians abandoned their former rejection of violence. Theologians came up with a Christian version of 'just war', a notion that had been developed by the pagan thinker Cicero. Augustine of Hippo saw war as a regrettable last resort. He told a soldier that “peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity”. His criteria for “just war”, while not always clear, would rule out the vast majority of wars ever fought. </p> <p>But over time, the definition of just war has been stretched to breaking point. In the Falklands war of 1982, Christian leaders in both the UK and Argentina claimed that their country was fighting a just war. The just war theorist Rienhold Niebuhr was even prepared to countenance the use of nuclear weapons. </p> <p>Augustine may well be turning in his grave at this abuse of his theory, but by focusing on the justifications for warfare, he and his allies had broken the automatic linking of violence with sin. </p> <p><strong>Guilty babies</strong></p> <p>This was helped along by another doctrine of Augustine's - 'original sin'. Earlier Christians had spoken of humanity's tendency to sin, but Augustine claimed that sin itself is hereditary - newborn babies are guilty. This was a new idea. It contrasted with the views of earlier Christians, such as Gregory of Nyssa, who insisted that all are born innocent. Augustine taught that sex should be used only for reproduction, but even then, the couple are transmitting sin to their child. Sex, said Augustine, “would drag through the ages the burden of original sin”.</p> <p>As Karen Armstrong puts it, Augustine's notion of original sin “would become central to the way western people view the world”. Over time, contempt for sex, pregnancy and the body fuelled the subordination of women and sexual minorities. A doctrine that puts the focus of sin on sexual behaviour has proved far more amenable to the powerful than theologies which denounce sins of warfare and oppression. </p> <p>Between them, the doctrines of just war and original sin have reverberated down the centuries, keeping the focus of sin on sex, and away from violence. </p> <p><strong>Unholy legacy</strong></p> <p>For the last half-century, Christendom has been in decline, both in Britain and elsewhere. Plurality and multiculturalism are taking its place. The end of Christendom should be good news for Christians, as it helps us to rediscover our roots on the margins of society, standing with the vulnerable and free to speak out against the powerful. Jesus never taught his followers to seek power for themselves that they denied to others. </p> <p>But we cannot simply shrug off Christendom as if it never existed. Its legacy hangs over us like an unexcorcised demon. A significant number of Christians cling on to the vestiges of Christendom – bishops in the House of Lords, privileges for faith schools, opt-outs from equality legislation. In recent years, Christians have shown themselves capable of effectively championing social justice with campaigns such as Jubilee 2000 and Make Poverty History. But the influence of Christendom still hampers churches' ability to stand up for a better world.</p> <p>Take the example of nuclear arms. A number of denominations are campaigning against the government's plan to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system. The Methodist Church has been one of the most outspoken. The Methodist Church has also produced a glossy booklet entitled <em>Celebrating 150 Years of Ministry to the Armed Forces 1860-2010</em>. It leaves ethical issues virtually unmentioned. Most other denominations also have an uncritical approach to military chaplaincy. </p> <p><strong>Unarmed forces</strong></p> <p>I have no doubt that chaplains do a very valuable job providing pastoral care to those who face danger and death in a way that is unimaginable to most of us. But military chaplaincy operates in a structure inherited from Christendom. Chaplains become members of the forces themselves, taking ranks and swearing oaths of allegiance. Their independence is compromised by loyalty to the state. And there are no formal chaplains to the unarmed forces – aid workers, human rights monitors and others who put their lives at risk in war zones while never picking up a weapon.</p> <p>Whether we see violence as always wrong or as an occasional regrettable necessity, our witness is severely weakened by allowing Christian ministers to become subordinate to an institution which requires people to engage in violence whenever ordered to do so. How much stronger would the Methodists' witness be if they declared that Methodist chaplains would encourage soldiers to disobey orders if told to deploy nuclear weapons? </p> <p>The shadows of Christendom similarly pervade our debates about sexuality and relationships. A good many Christians are still attached to 'traditional family values'. Such values have more to do with an impulse to social control and respectability than with the Christ who redefined his family as “whoever does the will of God” (Mark 3,35) and said he had come “to set a man against his father and a daughter against her mother” (Matthew 10,35). On the other side of the fence, liberal Christians can be so appalled by Christendom's history of sexual control that they are nervous of speaking of sexual sin at all and their views appear as a pale reflection of secular liberalism, however spiritual their motivations may be. </p> <p><strong>A different power</strong></p> <p>To overcome Christendom, we need to turn to Christ. Whereas Christendom sought to accommodate the Gospel to the powers of this world, Jesus pointed the way to a different type of power altogether. </p> <p>Luke tells us that before Jesus was even born, Mary praised God who has “brought down the mighty from their thrones and lifted up the lowly” (Luke 1,52). Matthew shows us the newborn Jesus already in conflict with Herod's authority. Jesus saved his harshest words for people who abused their power. This is not to say he considered others guiltless. When socialising with prostitutes and well-known sinners, there is no suggestion he condoned their sins. But he may also have seen them as the victims of others.</p> <p>Jesus lived in a society of deeply uneven power – between Roman and Jew, man and woman, rich and poor, clean and unclean. Violence generally involves a misuse of power over another person or people. Violence in this sense includes not only physical violence, but emotional violence and all that causes harm to people's relationships with each other and God. It includes the structural violence of oppressive political and economic systems. </p> <p>Jesus’ teachings on violence make sense only in the context of power. When he said, “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also”, he was addressing people used to being hit. Someone can be struck on the right cheek by the right hand only if the aggressor is using the back of his/her hand. This was the way in which people humiliated supposed inferiors. Wives were backhanded by husbands, slaves by masters and Jewish civilians by Roman soldiers. Jesus advocated neither violent resistance nor cowering submission but an assertion of dignity. Turning the other cheek signals to the aggressor that he/she has failed to humiliate the intended victim. </p> <p><strong>Love in action</strong></p> <p>As Christians, we are called to witness to a power that is radically different to the powers of violence and wealth that sustain kings and empires. The power proclaimed by Christ can work through a beaten slave, through amazed fisherman and perplexed prostitutes.<br /> The peace campaigner Helen Steven wrote of how her activism was strengthened by her deepening understanding of Jesus:</p> <p><em>"For a few moments I had experienced a power and outrage beyond myself, and this showed me that that special power which Jesus had is also available to me... It was precisely this very question of authority and source of power that constituted the offence of Jesus to the religious leaders of his time... So now it came to me with blinding clarity that claiming this power and letting it drive where it must, leads straight into trouble."</em></p> <p>It is this power that makes active nonviolence possible. Nonviolence is love in action. It rejects violence in all forms – physical, emotional and structural. We are all complicit in violence to some extent, for example by participating in an exploitative economic system. We are all sinners. Nonviolence means seeking to overcome this, changing both the system and ourselves. </p> <p>Nonviolence is not passivity, neutrality or the avoidance of conflict. Nonviolent conflict is essential to challenge the power of violence. Nor does a commitment to nonviolence involve certainty about how we would react in any given situation. It means seeking to live by a different power than the power of money, markets and military might. </p> <p><strong>Sexual violence</strong></p> <p>So if the New Testament focus of sin is on violence and power abuse, what are we to say about sex? Should we assume that sexual ethics don’t matter much? This approach is tempting to those keen to avoid controversy, but there are two major problems with it. The first is that for most people, sex and sexuality matter a great deal. The second is that some of the worst violence in the world is sexual violence.</p> <p>Sexual violence is a term that can rightly be applied to any abusive form of sexual expression – a child violated by a parent, a woman raped and beaten by her husband, a teenager pressurised into sex he does not want, a man who deceives his partner by denying he is sleeping with someone else. Sexual abuse is deeply sinful not because it is sexual but because it is violent in a sexual context. It involves the intrusion of violence into an area of life that should be full of love, affection and mutuality. </p> <p>The prevalence of sexual violence is a reminder that our own society perpetuates deeply unequal power structures. So what happens if we approach questions of sexuality from the angle of nonviolence? </p> <p>As with other areas of Jesus' teachings, his comments on sexuality are illuminated when we look at issues of power. Jesus criticised divorce in a society that generally allowed only men to initiate a divorce, which could throw a woman into desperation or poverty. He insisted that a man who looks at a married woman with a hope of sex has already committed adultery in his heart (Matthew 5,28). The Greek phrase puts the responsibility so much on the man that Kurt Neiderwimmer translates the line as “already abused her by adultery”. This was in contrast to the dominant view of the time, which blamed women for tempting men into lust. Jesus saw where power really lay and encouraged his listeners to take responsibility for their sexual behaviour.</p> <p><strong>Context is all</strong></p> <p>Living out our sexuality nonviolently cannot be reduced to a set of convenient rules that take no account of context. Certain behaviours are clearly abusive. But for many others, careful, prayerful reflection is required to discern their real nature. We cannot decide whether a form of sexual expression is violent simply by whether it looks violent at first glance. A married man may seem thoroughly respectable, but if he spends time looking at pornography without his wife's knowledge, he is abusing her trust and love. A kinky sex act involving physical pain obviously appears violent, but what if it is an expression of love between a faithful couple who have thought about it carefully and who use it to strengthen their relationship rather than damage it?</p> <p>Oceans of ink and vast reserves of energy have been thrown into Christian debates on sexuality. I suspect progress is hampered partly because we keep asking the same questions, and then shouting our contrasting answers at each other. Speaking of sexuality in terms of nonviolence provides a different starting-point, while not being without its own challenges. Like other forms of nonviolence, it is an attempt to witness to a different power than the type understood by the pimp and the arms dealer. It is an ethic more concerned with our relationships with God and with each other than with the convenience of conformity or the cop-out of tradition. </p> <p>---------</p> <p>(c) <strong>Symon Hill</strong> is Associate director of Ekklesia. This article appeared originally in the November 2010 issue of <em>Third Way</em> magazine. See <a href="http://www.thirdwaymagazine.co.uk" title="http://www.thirdwaymagazine.co.uk">http://www.thirdwaymagazine.co.uk</a>.</p> <p>Symon's book, <em>The No-Nonsense Guide to Religion</em> can be ordered from <a href="http://www.newint.org/books/no-nonsense-guides/religion" title="http://www.newint.org/books/no-nonsense-guides/religion">http://www.newint.org/books/no-nonsense-guides/religion</a>, priced £7.99.</p> </div> </div> </div> <!-- google_ad_section_end --> Peace and War Religion and Society Sex and Gender News Brief christendom homophobia just war LGBT militarism nonviolence original sin pacifism post-Christendom queer sin Symon Hill Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:46:25 +0000 Symon Hill 13591 at http://www.ekklesia.co.uk