In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

11 Notes to chapter 2 are on pp. 124-26. The United Church of Canada’s understanding of human sexuality , as reflected in the official Records of Proceedings, changed significantly between 1925 and the early 1980s.1 Two relevant and intertwined paradigm shifts were in process: First, the United Church’s understanding of the purpose of human sexuality moved from the conviction that such expressions must be limited to procreation and the strengthening of the union of married couples to the belief that intimate expressions of human sexuality are also important for the giving and receiving of pleasure and vulnerability within marriage. The former conviction was based partially on the fear that sexual pleasure can easily lead to temptation and, therefore, moral danger. This distrust of bodily pleasure has been bound up with distrust of women’s moral agency. As Beverly Harrison points out: “In relation to…[women’s] actions as sexual beings…there remains a lingering fear of affirming any genuine capacity to live responsibly apart from largely prohibitive and constricting action guides.”2 Second, the understanding of human sexuality has been transformed from a primarily actcentred ethic to a primarily relational ethic. Although the quality of the relationship has gained importance as a criterion for evaluating the expression of human sexuality, certain deontological ethical claims continue to play an important role in the evaluation of sexual relationships. By this I mean that in the earlier years, issues concerning sexuality were defined primarily in terms of the rightness or wrongness of certain sexual acts whereas more recently, sexuality has come to be understood primarily in terms of the quality of the relationships involved, allowing that these relationships fall within certain overarching parameters. These two paradigmatic shifts are interrelated in that, as United Church official records began to reflect an understanding of human sexuality as encompassing more than procreation and union within marriage, a greater concern for the overall quality of the relationship began to emerge. Whether a sexual ethic is primarily act-centred or primarily understood in relational terms has influence on the ways in which related issues are defined and, therefore, acted upon. For instance, primarily act-centred sexual ethics have often functioned to blur the distinction between sexuality and chapter ii The Development of The United Church of Canada’s Approach to Human Sexuality violence. A theology that limits sin to specific acts—particularly sexual acts—often reduces victims of crimes of a sexual nature to tainted goods; a primarily act-centred sexual ethic has tended to define the victim as impure rather than to focus attention on the violent assault on personhood and relationship: Victims of so-called sex crimes often are more stigmatized than the perpetrators of the crimes because such offences stereotype victims as sexually “impure.” It is time to recognize that those who are recipients of violent “sexual” acts are not sexually polluted; they have been victimized by ugly acts of human retribution, evil because of the contempt for persons they express rather than the genital contact they involve.3 This confusion between sexuality and violence slowed the naming of violence against women as a pervasive ethical issue that the church must address. Dualistic theologies have contributed to this historic tendency to a primarily act-centred sexual ethic. Dualisms such as male/female and spirit/ body, respectively, have characterized much of Christian history. Not only are the two components split apart and, therefore, rendered absurd, but also the first component is valued through the negation of the other. Historically and theologically, men have been associated with the mind and spirit whereas women have been identified with the carnal, bodily side of humanity. Further, the mind and spirit have been separated and elevated above the body, sexuality and nature. While the latter have been viewed as mutable and to a large extent uncontrollable, the mind has been perceived as the locus of rationality, reason and control. This hierarchical dualistic approach has served to both reflect and perpetuate negative and fearful views of the body, sexuality and women. The lower half of these dualisms are usually projected onto women and other marginalized people. When a theology of sexuality is grounded in these hierarchical dualisms, the rami- fications are numerous and often deadly. A patriarchal dualistic theology often holds women responsible, as temptresses, for “the basic dynamics of sexual interest and temptation.”4 Therefore women, from the perspective of such a theology, are responsible for any expression...

Share