A Preservationist Christian Sexual Ethic: Verifying and Vindicating a Contested Perspective

A preservationist Christian sexual ethic affirms heterosexuality as the only normal and natural expression of wholeness in human intimacy, relationships, and lifestyle. However, revisionist critics would maintain that the central problem of the preservationist perspective is the perceived lack of a compelling verifier. A revisionist Christian ethic embraces homosexuality as an alternative form of wholeness in human relationships and lifestyle. Preservationist critics would maintain that the central problem of the revisionist perspective is the perceived lack of a compelling verifier. They would also identify an additional problem for the revisionist position, namely, the perceived problem of self-contradiction. It may seem to some that problems alleged for a particular side cannot be leveraged to the advantage of the opposing side in this debate. Moreover, even the external judgment that a problem exists for a perspective is disputed within that perspective. This may seem to lead to stalemate between the opposing perspectives. However, it may be that a verifier or vindicator exists for one of these perspectives that would commend that perspective as more acceptable than the other. A vindicator for a perspective need only to reinforce that perspective, while a verifier must be an empirically attested ground for the perspective. In this article, I will compare verifiers and vindicators on each side of the debate and inquire whether there is an ace to be found in any of these arenas. I find that a preservationist Christian sexual ethic speaks for itself when its vehicles of verification and vindication are addressed in dialogue with a revisionist perspective. My aim is to increase the possibility of moving the discussion forward in the debate over normative human sexuality.