Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships by Karen R. Keen

Author:Karen R. Keen
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

7

Is It Adam’s Fault? Why the Origin of Same-Sex Attraction Matters

So far I have made a case for covenanted same-sex relationships from Scripture and Christian tradition. Jesus and the biblical authors teach us how to appropriate ethics from the Bible; namely, mandates cannot be applied indiscriminately, even for creation ordinances. Failure to engage in the deliberative process can lead to an outcome contrary to God’s will. Moreover, Christian tradition overwhelmingly recognizes the inability of most people to live a celibate life. One more topic, though, is helpful for considering same-sex partnerships: our concept of the fall and original sin.

If you ask most traditionalists “What causes same-sex attraction?,” the bottom-line answer is usually “The fall.” Ever since Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the garden, human beings have been prone to sin, and all our desires are distorted. Traditionalists put same-sex attraction in the same category as adulterous thoughts and addiction to pornography. Everyone experiences some form of sexual temptation. For gay people, it happens to be misguided desire for the same sex. Traditionalists typically consider these sexual proclivities symptoms of moral fallenness.

In Christian tradition, the consequences of the fall are twofold: moral fallenness, referring to our struggle with sin, and natural fallenness as displayed in the fragility of our bodies (e.g., cancer, birth defects, and death). In this chapter, I investigate whether moral fallenness is the best way to describe same-sex attraction, or whether we might consider it natural fallenness or just human variation. How we categorize same-sex attraction has significant implications for how we respond to gay and lesbian people. But before diving in, let me clarify how categories of moral fallenness and natural fallenness have shown up in theological conversation on same-sex attraction. Below are two examples provided by traditionalists.

Rosaria Butterfield places intersex people (those born with both male and female sex characteristics) in the category of natural fallenness but considers gay people morally fallen. She denies that sexual orientation exists (gay or straight). Instead, she understands all sexual desires and actions as rooted in either holiness or indwelling sin.1 Butterfield acknowledges scientific evidence of atypical sexual development (intersex conditions). But when it comes to enduring patterns of sexual attraction, she relies on spiritual explanations. Thus, being intersex is not sinful, but the gay person who experiences “unintentional” attraction that “springs up like a hiccup or reflex” exhibits the moral effects of original sin.2 Butterfield does not discuss the possibility that same-sex attraction is a congenital condition. She addresses outward physical anatomy in relation to natural fallenness, but not the brain’s neuroanatomy.3

Wesley Hill believes that same-sex relationships are a manifestation of the fall, but denies that all same-sex attraction constitutes moral fallenness.4 He accepts the American Psychological Association’s definition of sexual orientation as encompassing emotional attractions in addition to sexual desire. Everyone’s attractions, gay or straight, involve complex affectional aspects that are not necessarily lustful. Hill has a positive view of the “heightened sensitivity to and gifting for non-genital, same-sex friendship” that gay people possess.5 He argues that Paul did not condemn sexual orientation because the apostle had no concept of it.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.