Personal, Mutual, Peer Relationships?

I was a bit puzzled by your reaction to this quote:

"An unequivocal policy which states that sexual boundaries must not be crossed in a pastoral, professional, relationship. (This is not an anti-sexual policy. It affirms sexual activity in the personal, mutual setting of a peer relationship.)"

"Sexual activity in the personal, mutual setting of a peer relationship" is supposed to be what sets apart Jewish and Christian sexuality from pagan sexuality. Remember that the Romans and Greeks habitually thought of sex in terms of the penetrator and the penetrated: the user and the usee. One person took pleasure from the body of another. Christians and Jews believe in becoming one flesh. It is personal: nobody is turned into a thing. It is mutual: the two people involved think of each other. And they are peers: Christians do not confuse sex and power by using those under their authority--slaves, children, employees, or therapy clients.

The fact that Rev. Fortune used these words instead of others may or may not reflect on her beliefs. Beware of assuming that what is not stated is not held to. Beware of confusing lack of dogma with lack of faith.

In Christ,



The "reaction" in question was:

"While most would agree with the first sentence, the part in parentheses is pretty generous considering that Marie Fortune is a Christian minister. I assume she is talking about what in a less enlightened age were called fornication and sodomy. Is there not a betrayal of trust involved in presenting oneself as a Christian minister and proposing something so contary to Jesus' teaching?..." (See article on Pedophilia)