Authentic Sexuality, part 3

I’ve posted twice (here and here) on issues related to our course Human Sexuality this semester. Here are just two more observations, for whatever they are worth.

Observation #1
As the Balswicks discussed their theological principles for authentic human sexuality, they emphasized the necessity of differentiation between male and female as a prerequisite for true unity. In their own words…

“…We recognize God’s holy work in not only creating humankind but creating two distinct human beings, male and female.”

“Human sexuality has a correspondence to the Godhead in that it is an encounter with a corresponding but different being.”

“Differentiation makes unity a profound possibility.”

The Balswicks’ words read somewhat like the complimentarian position on biblical gender roles. I have briefly blogged on this in another post and have stated my basic agreement with the complimentarian approach. Yet, I have an appreciation for what my egalitarian brother and sisters are saying about gender roles and I have a distaste for any position that regards women as inferior or subordinate to men. The Balswicks do, too. Accordingly, I found this bit of exegesis interesting….

“The question about whether the man was created first and therefore is in a special position of authority over the woman is still debated in Christian circles today. Genesis 2:18 proclaims that it was not good for man to be alone, so a helper was made for him. This particular verse needs to be interpreted with care and clarity. ….Helper in the original language (ezer) refers to God as the helper of humankind fifteen of the sixteen times it is used in the Bible. This verse is the one exception in which it is used to describe the relationship between human beings, namely, Eve and Adam. …Even the most inventive exegete would have to make a huge stretch to conclude that God, as our ezer, is subordinate to humankind and therefore it is beyond such an interpretation when it comes to subordination between the man and woman.”

Observation #2
After the Balswicks offer a brief summary of both the biological and sociocultural explanations of human sexuality, they remind readers of the importance of carefully examining their theological positions. Certainly our theology (when done well and with humility) should serve as the basis for understanding non-biblical data. But sometimes our theology (when done poorly or with arrogance) can cloud our judgment of non-biblical data. Consider the following phenomenon.

People who hold a more liberal theological position tend to emphasize biological/genetic explanations for the cause of homosexual orientation and behavior, but emphasize sociocultural explanations for the cause of basic gender differences. This seems a bit contradictory, right? Now consider those of us who hold a more conservative theological position. We tend to emphasize sociocultural explanations for the cause of homosexual orientation and behavior while emphasizing biological/genetic explanations for the cause of basic gender differences.

I don’t know that there is anything of much substance that ties these two observations together. I suppose if anything, they both remind me that issues are not nearly as simple as I sometimes make them out to be – instead, they can be rather complicated.