Caleb Day • A Time To Throw Away? • Page 1 of 39 ‘A time to throw away’? Rethinking the gender requirement for legitimate Christian sex M.T.S. Colloquium presentation • University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, U.S.A. • March 21, 2016 Caleb Day Abstract: I re-examine the traditional gender requirement for morally endorsed and ecclesially blessed Christian sex and marriage, and suggest it may be “a time to throw [it] away” (cf. Eccl. 3:6). After defining the question, I survey arguments for and against this gender requirement from three Christian ethical approaches: divine commands in Scripture, natural law, and theologies of the body, and suggest the revisionist arguments stronger in each case. Firstly, the best way to make sense of the Scriptural material on gender norms is a ‘trajectory’ hermeneutic, which Christians already apply in many situations. The Bible’s trajectory on gender points away from gender-based restrictions on social, ecclesial, and familial roles. Secondly, common rationalist natural law arguments against homosexuality, based on the procreative end, reduce to an inconsistent rule based on gender essentialism, abstracted from real procreation. The classic natural law method re-applied today can support the removal of the gender requirement, especially if brought into dialogue with newer insights from the observation of nature. Thirdly, ‘gender complementarity’ is an inadequate account of, and norm for, the bodily experience of real people, especially LGBTIQ people. Examining real embodied experiences of human flourishing and suffering provides strong arguments against the traditional gender requirement. Sex and marriage are near-universal human activities, which the Christian churches have theologically understood, morally endorsed, and liturgically blessed—at least sometimes. Traditionally, the churches have restricted their blessing, endorsement, and (arguably) understanding to (some) male-female couples. In this paper, I re-examine the traditional gender requirement for legitimate Christian sex and suggest it may be “a time to throw [it] away.” 1 By examining homosexuality, I situate myself in a long and problematic line of heterosexuals debating whether other people have specks of dust in their eyes. 2 Some could argue this topic is not my business. Others could argue that I provide a valuable neutral outsider perspective. However, I emphatically deny all claims to neutrality. My view on this topic is unavoidably affected by my sociological and ecclesial background (as a Gen-Y New Zealand evangelical Anglican), my relationships with LGBTIQ friends and family, my engagement with secular academia, and my privileged position in a hetero-patriarchal status quo (as a married heterosexual cisgender male). This is not ‘my issue,’ but it is the number one theological question Christians in my context are asking. It is also a life and death issue for many people. I hope to be an ally to queer people, and I hope to support them by challenging the heteronormative status quo that privileges me. I do not wish to leave this work to queer people, especially as it can be emotionally demanding, dangerous, and counter-productive for them. 3 I am addressing this topic because I am convinced theologians need to face this question seriously, honestly, and humbly. Why I am convinced can be summed up in four points that I outline properly in another paper. 4 Firstly, God’s LGBTIQ children are suffering greatly in this world: from those in Russia and northern Nigeria sentenced to death or lengthy imprisonment; to those in New Zealand and the United States alienated from families, churches, and communities, and suffering from mental health problems and suicide; to those around the world being murdered, assaulted, and raped. Secondly, this suffering is linked to the world’s dominant gender systems and expressions of sexuality, which privilege men, cisgender people, 1 Cf. Eccl. 3:6. 2 Matt. 7:3-5. All Biblical citations are from the New Revised Standard Version. 3 Lorde, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex,” 114. 4 Day, “God’s Memory of Suffering.”