Anglican sexual morality

[lavendersparkle]

I'm a bit confused about Anglican sexual morality. I know that there is a lot of diversity in views. I get that at one end there are some conservative evangelicals who are practically shomer negiah before marriage and avoid being alone with a member of the opposite sex they're not married or related to and at the other end there are Anglicans who think that polyamoury and one night stands with strangers are fine as long as do so in a nice way (making them tea before they leave is probably mandatory). There are also people who are celibate for life but they're hard to place because they may have all sorts of views on what sorts of things other people get up to. What I don't know is the distribution of views and behaviours. What's the median Anglican's views on what sexual behaviour is appropriate and acceptable? What sorts of things would the majority of clergy feel comfortable doing before marriage?

I've noticed that the Church of England manages to get itself into a bit of a tizwoz about what boys are or aren't allowed to do with each other without really addressing the issue of what heterosexual or bisexual or female Anglicans should get up to (or not). When are 'full genital expressions' of heterosexuality appropriate and, whilst we're at it, what the hell is a 'full genital expression' anyway?*

So wisdom of the internet, please explain to me.

*At the moment I'm imagining a cross between the Vagina Monologues and Puppetry of the Penis.

Comments

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I don't know about the CofE, but when talking about a woman who isn't your wife, Jesus said (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=31): "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

I know I shouldn't be offensive but I will be

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

This always struck me as one of the most silly things Jesus said, unless something got seriously mangled in the translation.

I remember when Alec and I first started dating and we googled about Christian sexual morality and found lots of American sites saying that you shouldn't do anything which causes you to lust. Alec said "Well in that case you'd have to wear a burqa and not move or speak so that I couldn't tell that it was you under there. I'd probably have to not know that you existed." I don't think that avoiding lust is a realistic aim unless you live in a highly gender segregated society and meet your spouse on your wedding day. Even then the lustful energy tends to just get diverted into homoeroticism.

It seems to me that sexual desire is a natural part of love and a part of love which is likely to develop before you've reached the stage of knowing that it's a good idea to commit the rest of your lives to each other. Sexual desire flows from and is a reflection of our desire for greater union with G@d. Uniting with another human, who is made in the image of G@d, through sex is the closest most people get to Edenic union with G@d. Trying to suppress that impulse until one has married seems futile and spiritually misguided.

Re: I know I shouldn't be offensive but I will be

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I can see where you're coming from, but personally I think Jesus (who is God) is probably more likely to be correct than you.

Re: I know I shouldn't be offensive but I will be

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

I think that's a very reasonable position.

Re: I know I shouldn't be offensive but I will be

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I was expecting an angry response to my comment!

I wanted to write it another way, but I was tired and couldn't think of a better way of putting it.

Re: I know I shouldn't be offensive but I will be

[mummyfrances.livejournal.com]

He may be more likely to be correct than her, but surely it is still legitimate to suggest that perhaps He may not have said that since it appears such an unrealistic representation of human sexuality?

Re: I know I shouldn't be offensive but I will be

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. Perhaps Jesus was indicating the sinfulness of all of our hearts (rather than the assumption here which is that it's meant to indicate how we can all be holy by our own careful observance of moral / religious law), or maybe what he means by 'lust' is not what you're taking to mean by lust.

I wouldn't say I generally lust after women for instance, yet I am a straight man.

Re: I know I shouldn't be offensive but I will be

[robhu.livejournal.com]

To me this is a pretty key point.

I don't think Jesus was saying "Be good because then you'll get in to heaven". I think he was saying "Be good because it's good to be good, but you're never going to be good enough which is why I had to come down to earth and take the punishment you deserve in your place".

I do lust after women in my heart. Sometimes I try not to, and sometimes dammit I do it anyway. I know that I'm a broken fallen person who despite all my inherent failings actually choose to do bad things (and I'd challenge anyone to deeply examine themselves and find that they're any different). The reason that I think I'm going to be ok on 'judgement day' is not because I am such a nice anglican person, handing out cake and tea to everyone, but because I think Jesus paid the price that I deserve for my transgressions.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

This page of the Church of England's website makes quite useful reading on the C of E's opinions, together with some of the documents it references. Remember that "Anglican" isn't the same as C of E though.

As I understand it, if there's a median opinion it's something like "the Anglican Communion allows its members to hold a wide range of opinions about consensual sexual activity, but expects its clergy to err on the conservative side of that spectrum of belief, because it's for them to do their job if their congregation isn't being scandalised about the way they conduct their relationships."

[naath.livejournal.com]

I think that expecting there to exist an "Anglican view" as maybe optimistic? My Dad's Anglican and he thinks gay people are evil and should be shunned by everyone. But equally there are gay Anglican priests. So, um.

The median Anglican view is probably "that's nice dear, have a cup of tea" :-)

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Point of clarification: No anglican theologian / bishop / statement made by the general synod / etc has ever said that gay people are evil (well, not in any other sense than Christians think that in a sense everyone is evil). It's that the official position of the global anglican church (in terms of the statements it makes collectively when bishops from throughout the anglican world get together and work out what they think) is that homosexual sex itself (not inclination) is a sin (in the same kind of a way that heterosexual sex outside of marriage or lustful thoughts are a sin).

Of course you'll get anglicans [edit: who] think that gay people are evil because of their sexual orientation, but then you get stupid hateful people of all stripes and philosophies, anglican or not.

[cathedral-life.livejournal.com]

I'd probably agree that robhu's statement about the official position of the global Anglican church is correct. However, I think it crucial to point out that the degree of disension on the matter means that whilst it may be an "official" position (since Lambeth 98), it is one that continues to go through the "listening process" re. pastoral approaches.

I'm ambiguous as to my agreement with the church's position on this matter, and I think that many theologians (even those who would agree with the official position) are still struggling to articulate many clear positions on the myriad and various sexualities that now need to be commented on eg. look at the responses that the St Andrew's Day statement garnered.