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

39 Notes to chapter 4 are on pp. 127-31. In August 1980, amid much controversy, the Task Force on Human Sexuality submitted In God’s Image…Male and Female to General Council, where it was approved as a study document. This document and the subsequent report on human sexuality, Gift, Dilemma and Promise (1984), are central moments in the development of The United Church of Canada’s positions on sexuality, gender and the family. The next two chapters will examine these two documents as case studies with attention to the ways in which they assisted or blocked the United Church’s recognition of the issue of violence against women. Process, Methodology and Working Style The 1980 study was prepared in response to a request from the 1972 General Council: Whereas we believe that a variety of common social problems such as adultery , divorce, the need for abortion, etc., are often the result of a confused understanding of human sexuality; and whereas we understand human sexuality to be a beautiful gift of God intended to be used for creative and expressive purposes within the context of responsible human relationships and see it thus as a serious area of church concern; and whereas the Church shares society’s alarm at the steadily increasing epidemic of venereal disease, now recognized as a national medical problem; be it resolved that the Executive of General Council appoint a committee to: (a) Consider the subject of human sexuality using both presently available studies and new resources; and (b) Communicate its findings through the Executive of the General Council to church members in terms which portray human sexuality as being inter-personal rather than merely technological or physiological.1 The issue is defined as a socially “confused understanding of human sexuality ” that contributed to increasing social problems such as adultery, divorce, abortion and the rising incidence of venereal disease. At the same time, human sexuality is understood as a “beautiful gift of God.” While chapter iv Case Study: In God’s Image...Male and Female 40 Linking Sexuality and Gender the Church recognized the goodness of sexuality, fear of its misuse had dominated the Church’s officially recorded history. This new emphasis on the beauty of human sexuality was an important step in the development of an embodied theology and sexual ethic. Without the emergence of such an ethic, it would be difficult to recognize the relevance of violence against women to Christian theology; without a celebration and valuing of women’s bodies and sexuality, it is impossible to recognize and condemn violence against women. It was not until six years later, in 1978, that the Working Unit on Sexuality , Marriage and Family of the Division of Mission in Canada established a task force on human sexuality which eventually produced the study document , In God’s Image…Male and Female. This team defined the issue similarly to the 1972 understanding: “We have not been taught [in our society] to understand and appreciate ourselves as sexual beings. Because of this the power of sex in our lives is often misdirected into repression, anger, exploitation, or avoidance, when it could be liberating and fulfilling” (In God’s Image: 2). Further, because of this distortion, fear and ignorance, church members “who should know its joy and power and glory as God’s gift, are victims of the confusion and have often led the way in puritan repression” (7,2). Unfortunately, this claim that a confused understanding of sexuality is often at the root of anger and exploitation could imply that male abuse of women is solely a product of this confusion; the relevance of a systemic gender power imbalance was not yet recognized and named. Over fifteen months, this ten-person task force prepared a study on the theological and ethical implications of human sexuality. The group consisted of “four lay women, two lay men, and four ordained persons,” all of whom were very involved in the United Church. Collectively they offered “expertise…[in] biblical studies, theology, education, counselling [and the] social sciences.” All of the members contributed to the writing of the document . Members wrote separate chapters and later reviewed each other’s work (In God’s Image: vi).2 This method resulted in some inconsistencies and a lack of continuity. Most important, this working style limited the amount of critical dialogue with other groups and individuals. A staff resource person for the Working Unit on Sexuality, Marriage and Family, Dr Robin Smith...

Share