"Pure relationships" and a Christian sexual ethic
"Pure relationships" and a Christian sexual ethic |
|
Key words: relationships, christianity, ethics, individuality, cohabitation, marriage, covenants, contracts.
One of the results of the huge sociological upheavals of the Western world in the latter half of the 20th century has been the emergence of what Anthony Giddens calls `the pure relationship`. He explores the meaning of this phrase in his book `The Transformation of Intimacy` (1) offering the following definition on page 190: `the involvement of individuals in determining the conditions of their association`. He points out that this self-determining of the nature of our relationships, free of external constraint or command, applies not only to their initiation but also to their continuance or dissolution. People enter into and stay in a relationship only as long as it brings them personal satisfaction, refusing to accept that they have any obligations greater than the obligation to themselves. Giddens has given us a helpful insight into what creates the controlling dynamic of sexual relationships today. My aim in this article will be to offer a critique of "pure relationships" from a Christian perspective.
We are all individuals
It may seem absurd to state that we are all individuals because nothing could be more obvious! However I wish to establish that the concept of individuality that we use today is of a particular kind, and a rather unhelpful one. John Habgood in his book `Being a Person`(2) traces our contemporary understanding of individuality back to the 6th century writer, Boethius, who defined a person as `an individual substance of rational nature`. By `substance` Boethius meant spiritual substance so little importance was attached to the physical or social dimension of life. In other words this definition of personhood portrayed the individual as a self-sufficient and isolated unit who may or may not form relationships with others. We find this tradition reflected in the famous dictum of Descartes: `Cogito ergo sum` (`I think therefore I am`). The activity of thinking does not per se require relationship with anyone else, however much we may argue that it would be enriched through such engagement. The `inner self` is the essence of the person and he or she looks out alone on the world around and on the presence of others. It is this kind of individuality which operates in the formation of relationships today and which undergirds the ideal of `pure relationships`. Those relationships maintain therefore an element of detachment, the cards of each being kept close to the chest and only those selected for playing actually disclosed in a calculated and almost clinical way. They are relationships marked by a certain coyness and lack of abandon, and most naturally find expression in cohabitation rather than marriage.
National Survey
It is interesting to note what was said about cohabiting couples in the National Survey of 1994 entitled `Sexual Behaviour in Britain` (3). It concluded from its evidence that the sexual behaviour of cohabiting couples more closely resembles the practice of single people than of married ones. Put more specifically, there is not a firm exclusivity about their sexual relationship with their partner. So, they feel free, if the fancy takes them, to indulge in intercourse with another person. It is perhaps no surprise either that the Survey shows marriage breakdown to be more likely among couples who have cohabited thanamong those who have not. This suggests that there is something different about the commitment involved in marriage which those who have cohabited find hard to accommodate. Marriage goes beyond the expectations of pure relationships. So how can Christians hope to respond to a sexual climate dominated by the ideal of `pure relationships`? One way which I want to outline here - and there will be others, is to offer an alternative to the modern concept of individuality.
God as three `Persons`
Undergirding most of what we say about God and the way He has acted in creation and history, and we trust will act in the future of both, is the doctrine of the Trinity. We believe that the fullness of God`s Being can only be expressed as the communion of the three Persons of the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The key word here is `Person`. We do not speak of Father, Son and Spirit as three
individuals but as three persons. We know that integral to their personhood is the communion they enjoy with one another. This is in sharp contrast to the modern concept of isolated and insulated individuality, We have a concept of personhood. The Eastern Church has been better at maintaining this idea than the West precisely because it has not been influenced by the tradition of men like Boethius. Indeed a 6th century description of the Trinity speaks of the relations between Father, Son and Spirit as a form of `perichoresis`, a word that literally means `to make room for another around oneself`. That is what is continually happening in the divine Being of God between Father, Son and Spirit. They are not existing in parallel with one another, they are living in profound union with one another and the personhood of either Father, Son or Spirit cannot be properly apprehended without those mutual relationships into which they are bound forever.
The image of God
Now it is fundamental Christian belief that we are made in the image of God, so that any consideration of what we are as persons will need to take into account what it means for Father, Son and Spirit to be Persons. This is made explicit in Genesis 1 v 27 where we read: `God made man in his own image … male and female made he them`. The image of God is not borne by an isolated individual, but by two persons in communion with one another. As Ludwig Feverback put it: `Where there is no `I` there is no `Thou`, but the distinction between `I` and `Thou`, the fundamental condition of all personality, is only real, living ardent when felt as the distinction between man and woman`. What this suggests is that human beings are better described as `persons` rather than as `individuals`. We are not made for isolated existence but for real communion with one another so that we become our true selves not through introspection but through relationship to others. We could contrast the tradition we have inherited from Descartes based on the dictum `I think therefore I am` which is a formula guaranteed to produce the damaging individualism I have been describing with the African mentality which would have been much more the Biblical mentality : `I am because we are'. It is this latter which reflects our understanding of humanity made in the image of God and it has a valuable contribution to make to a contemporary sexual ethic.
Covenants not contracts
Specifically in terms of committed relationships it will mean that it is appropriate to speak of covenants rather than contracts. Covenants are made by persons who are prepared to pledge the whole of their being to the relationship. Contracts are made by individuals who want to negotiate how much and for how long they are prepared to be involved in the relationship. Adrian Thatcher makes the contrast effectively: 'The contractarian mentality preserves self-interest; the covenantal mentality commits itself to the betrothed. The contractarian mentality protects itself against risk; the covenantal mentality accepts risk and seeks to integrate it into the growth of the relationship. The contractarian mentality anticipates an end to the contract; the covenantal mentality anticipates togetherness without end. The covenantal mentality replenishes romantic love with unconditional love. It replaces the endless self-referentiality of modern intimacy, not with an 'other-referentiality' that robs the self of individuality, but in a covenant in which each resolves before God to cherish the other in mutual self-affirmation and self-giving'4. The covenant approach to relationships is a direct critique of the modern preference for 'pure relationships' and offers great stability, depth and endurance to relationships. These will be hugely beneficial to the partners and hugely beneficial to their children who in our modern world often turn out to be hapless victims of 'pure relationships'. Thus if we get right our fundamental concept of what persons are and how they can best relate to one another, we should then be able to decide on a pattern of sexual behaviour appropriate to the integrity of persons. If sexual health matters, then it begins as far back as that question about our true identity as human beings.
References
1. The Transformation of Intimacy. Polity Press, 1992.
2. Being a Person. Hodder and Stoughton, 1998.
3. Sexual Behaviour in Britain. Kaye Wellings, Julia Field, Anne M Johnson and Jane Wadsworth, Penguin books, 1994.
4. Marriage after Modernity. Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, page 95.
©2000 Sexual Health Matters. Published Quarterly by Express Print Works, Middlesbrough,
UK
ISSN 1469-7556
http://www.sexualhealthmatters.com