Practicing Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, and Sexuality (in general)

Traci C. West
Associate Professor of Ethics and African-American Studies
Drew University

When the church asserts that it will not allow persons who admit that they are “practicing” homosexuality to be ordained ministers, does that mean that, for the church, sexuality is something that one can choose to practice? This notion of banning anyone who “practices homosexuality” from the leadership of the church requires us to be able to recognize the practice of homosexuality. This regulation also includes basic assumptions that need clarification about what it generally means to practice one’s sexuality, whether it is labeled as homosexual or heterosexual.

When people who are “self-avowed” homosexuals practice their homosexuality, exactly what practices does that entail? For instance, if an ordained minister who is a “self-avowed” homosexual gets breast cancer and discusses the implications of the cancer in her breast and the possible removal of her breast for her own sense of sexual identity, is her sexuality being “practiced” during these conversations? (Let’s assume her thoughts and emotions are fully centered on and engaged in the subject of her “self-avowed” sexuality during those conversations.)

Moreover, when churches only allow ordained ministers who promise to practice heterosexuality or to engage in heterosexual practices to remain in ordained leadership, what exactly do we assume the practice of heterosexuality entails? For instance, rape is such a common heterosexual practice that takes place in marriages, in dating situations, and is organized by leaders during wars (e.g. Bosnia, Rawanda). In our culture heterosexual sexual assault is committed: by fathers against their daughters, by U.S. naval academy cadets against their classmates, by male prison guards against women prisoners, by male clergy against those who come for counseling. Since heterosexual sexual assault and sexual harassment is so common in U.S. society, could this behavior be considered a defining characteristic of heterosexual practice, (especially by males with some form of socially conferred power over females)? The vast numbers around the world and the ongoing trauma of those who have been sexually assaulted and harassed by “self-avowed” heterosexuals and the silence about these experiences that is routinely encouraged places a demand upon us. We have to highlight this practice in our understanding of the practice of heterosexuality. But practicing heterosexuality involves more than acts of rape, or even consensual coitus, or any other acts involving genitals, doesn’t it?

We still need more clarity about what it means to practice one’s sexuality, especially since we are banning certain people from church leadership on this basis. For “self-avowed” heterosexuals or homosexuals: when are they practicing their sexuality and when are they choosing not to practice it? Is the practice of sexuality something that one can turn on or off like a light switch as church regulations seem to teach us? I don’t think so.

Sexuality involves: 1) human physical qualities such as hormones, chromosomes, and genitals; 2) human emotions and spirituality; and 3) intimate bonds with other human beings. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are social labels that society has “made up” to describe certain patterns in how these three categories are combined and expressed. There is nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about the mixture of qualities that gets placed under these labels. Social labels for sexual identity, as for racial identity (e.g. when are you Negroid? 3/5 human? African American?), and for gender identity (e.g. what is a masculine trait? what is a feminine trait?), are all invented by people in particular societies during particular historical periods. Their meanings shift according to the distribution of power and status in society. The church should no more teach an understanding of sexuality that is tied to awarding status and power to people who wear one social label and to denying status and power to those who are assigned another social label, than it should teach that sexuality is only related to genitalia.

When qualifications for leadership in the church are linked to sexuality we need to understand sexuality in a way that recognizes God’s creation of human sexuality as good and teaches us how to honor and respect it, rather than fracture and distort it.

Sexuality should be understood as a precious dimension of each human person that is not just related to our genitals and the acts we perform with our genitals. Sexuality should be appreciated as a key ingredient of our sensory perceptions, our emotional life, our affect (the impact one’s presence has on others), our minds (ability to imagine, fantasize, delay and interrupt sensory responses) and our physicality (our body’s shape, texture, hairiness, stamina, flexibility, capacities, and movement). Furthermore, sexuality should not be understood as merely an individualistic quality because it also includes the inherent social dimensions of vulnerability and accountability to others.

For Christians who believe that human beings are part of God’s creation, sexuality should be seen as utterly precious and wonderful because it reflects the amazing complexity, mystery, and creativity of what our God can do. Thus, sexuality reflects God’s presence in our life. It would be dishonoring God to try to shut off our “practice of” sexuality. Moreover, we don’t want to create an understanding of practices that encourages people to believe it is possible to conceive of any practice as something that can be split off from one’s emotional sensitivity, spirituality, critical reasoning, intimate connection and responsibility to others, and the rest of what comprises human identity and personhood. Christian moral practices engage all of these inseparable aspects of humanness. Sexuality involves mind, body, and spirit. It is unceasingly “in practice.” Learning to respect and honor the dignity of the combined human mind, body, and spirit is crucial to the practice of healthy, God-honoring sexuality, which the church should be encouraging.

Now, legislating that there are certain humans whose body/mind /spirit selves are inferior (homosexual), deserving of fewer rights in church and society, while others are superior (heterosexual), deserving more rights and privileges, relies on a familiar notion of social hierarchy that has justified genocide, slavery, and rape by Christians throughout western history. But it’s time for such notions of inherent inequality to be abandoned, repented for, and discontinued as part of the criteria for ordination in the twenty-first century.