First, to establish what the Bible says about homosexuality... Whether one agrees with a basic reading of the narrative that homosexuality holistically is wrong and homosexuals cannot be accepted into the church, or one takes Hays's stance that homosexual actions are immoral but homosexual orientation completely acceptable (provided only celibacy is practiced,) most all Christians would agree that the Bible discourages homosexual practices.
Viewing this perspective through the lens of MFT, one can see the moral foundations operating here -- specifically, the Sanctity/Degradation foundation communicated throughout the Bible, such as in Leviticus 18:22, explaining the impurity of gay sexual conduct. In fact, it seems that throughout the Bible, all claims against homosexual actions are made based off of the sanctity/degradation moral foundation, asserting that homosexual practices are an impure threat to God's original intention for human design.
The PMBC account, however, appeals to the harm/care and justice/fairness moral foundations to justify monogamous, healthy homosexual relationships. This makes sense, as the PMBC often uses Jesus's teaching as the supreme scriptural ethical norm, and in his own teachings, Jesus intentionally placed the harm/care and justice/fairness foundations above the sanctity/degradation one (for example, He instructed his disciples not to wash their hands before eating to make the point that some sanctity/degradation purity laws of the Old Testament had become outdated or secondary in importance to His message.)
The issue, then, that we touched on in class was the idea that the PMBC account does not deal enough with the sanctity/degradation moral foundational element of homosexuality addressed in the Old Testament of the Bible. I would argue, however, that it does through its sole promotion of healthy, exclusive, monogamous relationships for both sexes.
In class, we were told that the PMBC counsel only sees the "corruption" in our society's perception of sexuality as the marginalization of homosexuals as second-class citizens of society. This account isn't accurate, though, since the PMBC only sees this as one element of society's corruption. Since PMBC only advocates healthy, exclusive, monogamous relationships period, it is implicit that the PMBC sees relationships that are not healthy, exclusive, or monogamous as equally corrupt and fallen as does Hays. The only difference between the two schools of thought is that the PMBC does not see healthy, exclusive, and monogamous homosexual relationships as corrupt, since it takes the stance that the creation narrative cannot be read as strictly specified to the relationship between a man and a woman.
Although Hays argues that his interpretation, the traditionally held one, of the creation narrative exclusively depicts a relationship between a male and a female, I assert that his view hypocritically overemphasizes human sexuality, a concept that he claims to be against. The PMBC interpretation, however, places less emphasis on the sexual identities or actions of Adam and Eve and more emphasis on their spiritual and emotional personas, so it therefore represents a perspective more aligned with the Consummation mountain peak of the Biblical text that acknowledges humans by their metaphysical qualities as opposed to their earthly sexualities.
Coming to this conclusion, I've ironically titled this post "How to Solve the Problem of Homosexuality Using The Bible & Moral Foundations Theory" because I feel that the true answer to the problem that is homosexuality is to realize that it isn't a problem, but any relationship, homosexual or heterosexual, that isn't healthy, exclusive, or monogamous should take the blame instead.
Essentially, I think that looking at the Moral Foundations, PMBC was right to credit Jesus's ethical teachings above Biblically sanctity/degradation-appealing outcries against homosexuality, since often these outcries were targeted at homosexual actions that were not within the context of healthy, exclusive, or monogamous relationships.
To tie this into my vocation, I'd like to add that gay rights are extremely important to me. In middle school, I met my best friend in 7th grade reading class and bonded with him over our love for Ralph Lauren. I knew he was gay immediately, but he didn't come out to me until less than a month ago. I have always known and accepted that aspect of his being but never pressed the issue with him because I felt that there was so much more to him than simply his sexuality. That being said, the amount that I know he wrestled with his identity and the courage I know it took for him to accept it does not compare to the pain I feel for him that many people still will not accept his orientation as a natural, inborn, and perfectly healthy part of him, and it pains me to read Hays's account that all people born with such an orientation should remain celibate, since this option oppresses their personalities and potentials for the everyday human happinesses heterosexuals in Hays's world take for granted. If you told a Christian, heterosexual person living in Hays's world at birth that they could not find their soul mates, or they could never raise a family simply because you believed them to possess a sinful nature, I think that this person would 1.) feel deeply saddened and ashamed and 2.) head for the hills and leave the church behind them. I therefore see this (celibacy) as a joke of an alternative for homosexual people. Having followed gay rights court cases since middle school, I see that our society has shifted into a more progressive mindset regarding this issue because it has been brought into the public sphere, and more people are beginning to accept homosexuality as a genetic quality and not a learned, environmental retardation of "intended" sexuality. It is only by accepting healthy, consenting, mutually exclusive homosexual relationships in which homosexual actions may take place that we can truly accept a person's sexual orientation and respect his or her humanity. Anything less is a degradation.
No comments:
Post a Comment