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

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.