Defeater Ethics: Sexuality (Part 2)
What makes sexuality such a supercharged issue in today's culture?
Previously, we began a discussion on Christian sexual ethics with Jesus as our guide, hopefully setting the tone that doesn't insult anyone's intelligence or dignity. But I recognize a truly helpful Christian response demands I don't dance around the essence of the ethical objection. It's disingenuous to say our culture struggles with the Christian sexual ethic as a whole. In fact, there are some areas where we still find much agreement.
Sexual consent is a Christian idea that remade our world's view of sex, and nearly everyone strongly agrees with it. Likewise, our society still recognizes the profound harm of adultery and agrees with Christians that breaking wedding vows is immoral. There are also other beliefs we hold that our culture does not share but at least is comfortable with. People may think we are weird for believing in abstinence until marriage, but they don't view this belief as harmful to society and threatening to those who do not practice it.
The true point of contention, everyone knows, is not sexual ethics in general but one part of that ethic that finds itself beyond the limits of our pluralism. The sexual ethic we hold that is no longer permissible, but instead, cultural conformity is demanded of us, is our beliefs regarding LGBTQ+. This is the real issue. We intuitively know it. And it's important not to evade it if we are going to give honest answers to our friend's honest objections. In this posting, I want to discuss why this area has become singular in its significance.
Here's the bottom-line conclusion that we will unpack: This issue is uniquely significant because it is not an ethical discussion; it's an identity discussion. Regarding cultural controversies, I am far more interested in the climate than the storms. The storms may get clickbait attention, but the climate that gives birth to the storms is what truly needs to be engaged. And I'll sum up the climate of our day with a recent Pride Month tweet from the United States Department of Education: "Everyone in the school community should feel valued for who they are and free to be their authentic self. Our message to LGBTQI+ students, teachers, and staff as we begin Pride Month: The Education Department has your back."
The storm is LGBTQI+ in public schools. That is what everyone is fighting about on both sides. But the more telling part of the tweet reveals the climate. Everyone in schools should feel valued for who they are and free to be their authentic self. Who they are. Authentic self. The climate of our culture says that sexuality and gender are no longer a part of us. They are us. When discussing a gay identity or a gender identity, it is not the word gay or gender that we're actually discussing. It's the word identity.
To disagree on the morality of sex and gender is not a moral disagreement. We all have those and are comfortable coexisting with them. Instead, it is an identity disagreement. And once it becomes an identity issue, we are no longer disagreeing with people's ethical beliefs and practices but with people's very existence. How did we get to this point?
Carl Trueman argues it began way before the sexual revolution with the much more significant revolution of self-identity. And the first key development that had to take place was the internalizing of that identity. Historically, identity was defined externally. Who am I? I am the child of my parents, a member of a tribe, a farmer, or whatever my trade may be, and, of course, the most common historical answer is I am what my religion says I am. These external markers defined our identity.
But in the 18th century, the answer started turning inward. Trueman focuses on the philosophy of Rousseau and his famous line, "Man is borne free, and is everywhere in chains." The idea is that your truest self is a free, autonomous, self-determining individual. But that individualism has been chained by external realities. He reframes the externals that used to define our identity as now a threat to our identity. Family, societal norms, and certainly your religion are dangerous because they are external authorities seeking to define you and standing in the way of your quest of self-determination. Therefore, with Rousseau, our identity is no longer a dialogue with external realities but an internal monologue of the self.
After Rousseau comes Romanticism. Whereas the Enlightenment was the age of reason, Romanticism was the age of emotions. This was an important correction to the Enlightenment as art, poetry, and music—these things that speak to our emotions more than our cognition saw a resurgence. The problem, however, is when Romanticism's emphasis on feelings is disconnected from the Enlightenment's emphasis on reason. Our emotions and cognition should never be severed, but Romanticism gone to an extreme did just that.
So, take Rousseau's philosophy of autonomous individualism, where my identity is no longer defined externally but internally, and then add to it the preeminence of Romanticism emotions, and what we now have is an internal emotional identity. We define ourselves not by an internal monologue dialogue with our brain but with our feelings. At this point, I believe philosopher Charles Taylor's Ethics of Authenticity is more helpful than Trueman. The notion of authenticity has become paramount, has it not? When someone comes out of the proverbial closet, they say, "I was living a lie." Meaning I wasn't being true to myself and authentic with who I am. Again, that tweet from the Department of Education, "We want you to know that you are free to be your authentic self."
And Taylor argues this is how we all view our identity, whether we know it or not. When we talk about our work, we don't ask whether it is an important contribution to society that allows me to provide for myself and dependents; now we ask, Am I fulfilled in my calling? Likewise, we don't define marriage by external vows for better or worse till death do us part; we ask Am I fulfilled in my marriage? Christians even tend to live their faith according to an ethic of authenticity. Rather than the external work of Christ's cross and resurrection, and the external authority of the Bible, historic creeds, and sacramental practices, we search inward for an internal emotional authentic assurance of what these externals already declare to be true.
I pause to note this only to demonstrate that all of us, not just our LGBTQ+ friends, tend to define our identity by internal feelings, even if those feelings are not sexualized. However, it is true that sexual identity has indeed risen to prominence.
Romanticism defines us by our feelings, and what is the most powerful feeling we humans experience? Our sexuality. This was the observation of Sigmund Freud. According to Freud's research, everything comes back to erotic desire. We are defined not just by desires, as the Romantics suggest, but by sexual desires specifically. Freud argued that because the strongest and most satisfying happiness we experience is sexual, we must "seek the satisfaction of happiness in his life along the path of sexual relations and that he should make genital eroticism the central point of his life."
Is this not an apt description of the way our culture approaches sex? Though many of his theories have been rejected, we remain a Freudian society. But for his ideology to go mainstream, historical norms had to be cast off. And just after Freud came the lesser-known Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey's character and research are highly controversial, but his mark on the field of human sexuality is indelible. The Kinsey Reports gave academic legitimacy to sexual desires and practices historically considered immoral. His research broke the dam of long-standing social constructs, essentially normalizing any and all expressions of sexuality, which is why he is commonly referred to as the father of the sexual revolution.
Freud convinced us that sexual happiness is ultimate happiness, Kinsey broke the bounds of that sexual happiness to include all expressions, and then comes the subsequent sexual revolution of the '60s and '70s. And how was that revolution spoken of? Liberation. But what has been liberated? Not just your sexual experiences and enjoyment, but quite literally, you. You are now free to be you because who are you? You are your sexual identity. And so now we have the internal, emotional, sexual identity of the 21st century.
Meanwhile, this identity climate change coincides with the decline of religion and the rise of secularism. Taylor argues this secular age sought to disenchant our world of transcendent religion, but the problem with the secular project is that we cannot help but be religious. Thus, we did away with traditional religions and practices, but not religion itself. Instead, the vacuum of religiosity is filled with non-traditional forms of religious orthodoxy and practices. And this is also what we have done with sexuality. More than an identity, it is a movement religious in nature, including a rigorous orthodoxy for all to follow.
In light of all this, do you see now why our friends who identify as LGBTQ view this part of them as so important? The reason is they don't view it as merely a part of them; it is them. It is their core identity, and chances are, they hold to that identity with religious fervor.
Therefore, on this singular issue, tolerance, respect, kindness, and love are not enough. Nothing short of affirmation will do. The tension we all face in this unprecedented age of sexual identity is the issue of affirmation. We must be affirming of any and all sexual and gender expressions and lifestyles. Why? Because my sexuality is now me, and therefore to not affirm my sexuality is to not affirm me as a person. You are not disapproving of my opinion or even my actions; you are disapproving of my very existence.
But I wonder if we could all take a deep breath, step away from the storms of pride parades, drag events, and books in public schools, and charitably discuss the climate of identity. That's the tension. Yes, there are ethical disagreements that I will engage in my next posting. But first and foremost, we have an identity disagreement.
Christianity defines our identity as the image of God, and in this way, all are worthy of dignity, honor, and love. Sexuality and gender are important to that image, but sex and gender are not your identity. But this image is also a fallen image, marred by sin. That sinfulness touches every part of us, including everyone’s sexuality. No sinner gets sex right, and all are in need of redeemed sexuality. But we do not define ourselves by our sexuality, whether perfect or fallen. This means that in disagreeing with sexual beliefs and practices, we do not disagree with anyone as a person, as hard as that might be to imagine. Our faith teaches us that all are worthy of love, dignity, and, indeed, affirmation. But the identity we affirm is who others are as image bearers of God, and we are profoundly image of God affirming.
Herein we come to the failure of Christians. Do we view and engage the LGBTQ+ community according to an image of God identity? Or have we too bought into the identity climate of our day? If you scorn, mock, view as less, or reject neighbors, friends, and most tragically, children or grandchildren because of this part of them, then you are buying into the same identity fallacy only on the other side.
Some celebrate a sexualized identity, while others scorn a sexualized identity, but by viewing people according to this identity, both share the same fallacy. My challenge to Christians, in particular, is to reject the entire category. And you will know it has been rejected by your love. Love allows us to disagree with ethical beliefs and practices, but love doesn't allow us to disagree with people's existence. If you view your gay neighbors according to a gay identity, then homophobia, whether overt or subtle, will likely be the outcome. If you view your gay neighbors according to an image of God identity, then you will love, serve, and welcome them with hospitality as friends. And with the assurance of friendship between fellow image bearers of God, we can calmly and charitably discuss our differences. This I hope to do in my next posting.