A patient/client (or client/patient) and I were having this conversation recently, and he suggested I post a blog on the subject. “That would shake some people up,” he said.
Not that I’m particularly interested in “shaking anyone up.” Rather, I prefer to provide the sort of information and insight–even inspiration–that may be helpful to someone.
With respect, then, to the relationship between “Sensuality and Spirituality,” here are five things to consider. All of which come from a distinctly Christian theological and ethical perspective.
1. When we typically think of “sensuality,” we usually think of “sexuality.” Not that the latter isn’t subsumed under the former, less exclusive term. ‘Though even “sexuality” should be understood more broadly than it is usually construed. In other words, our “sexuality” has even more to do with who we “are,” than necessarily merely something we may “do.”
2. The oldest heresy in Christian history is called Docetism, a form of Gnosticism, which stems from the “Platonic idealism” of that particular ancient Greek philosopher. Specifically, Docetism was the heretical claim that Jesus wasn’t “fully human,” that he was merely an angel in human disguise.
Indeed, this heretical dualistic “split” between “spirit” and “flesh” has plagued Christianity throughout its history. With “spirit” being considered “good”–and “flesh”–“bad.”
Hence, the irony of Dan Brown’s 2003 blockbuster, The DaVinci Code, and its claim that certain Gnostic Gospels were suppressed and therefore omitted from the New Testament, including the notion that Jesus fathered a child with Mary Magdalene. Except the last thing dualistic Gnosticism would embrace would be the importance of anyone’s “sensuality/sexuality,” much less that of Jesus. Orthodox Christian faith being far too “earthy” (too “sexual”?) for a Gnostic.
The Greek word for “flesh” is sarx. And it is used in two different ways in the Christian New Testament. When the Prologue to the Gospel of John speaks of “the Word” becoming “flesh,” sarx is there being used in a “good” way. Referring as it does to the Incarnation, the “humanity of God” in Jesus, as the Christ.
Whereas, when Paul (in Galatians 5) speaks of “the works of the flesh,” he is using sarx in a negative way, as a kind of hyper-sensual/materialistic/hedonistic/competitive-to-a-fault, even addictive way of living that the Bible considers “less-than-living” (when “enough” never is). Or as Paul enumerates: “Now the works of the flesh are immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like.”
How’s that for a list of less-than-human, self-defeating characteristics? Remembering, of course, that in Christian ethics, at least, yours or mine or anyone’s “problem” (our “fallen-ness,” our “sinfulness” or “broken-ness”)–it is not the consequence of “being human”–it is, rather, when we believe, feel, think or act in ways that are, tragically, “less than human.”
From a Christian perspective, at least, it’s important to distinguish soma (body) from sarx (flesh). Since in the New Testament, soma (including anyone’s “sensuality/sexuality”), unlike sarx (as it is used in Galatians 5)–it is never considered to be something “bad.”
Likewise, the Bible–for Jews and Christians (and likely even Muslims)–speaks (however mythologically/figuratively) of the “creation” of “humanity” as an inseparable blend of “spirit” and “flesh.” Or as Genesis 2:7 says it, “God breathes (“spirit,” in Hebrew) into dust” (the physical, the material) to create our “bodies” (soma), our “flesh” (sarx, in the “good sense,” as in John 1: 14).
In fact, the Christian witness to “resurrection” embraces this same non-dualistic conviction. As in I Corinthians 15, where Paul declares that “in the resurrection” we will be “re-created” with a “new spiritual body.” Whatever that may be (?), the analogy Paul uses is one of both continuity and dis-continuity, not unlike that of a “seed” and a “plant.” In other words, in biblical anthropology (the quality and nature of humanity) there is no such thing, ever, (in this life, or beyond it) as a “dis-embodied spirit.”
3. Given the history of scandalous sexual abuse, among other related tragedies, the Roman Catholic Church has obviously taken a “big hit” for its priestly “celibacy” requirement. Even though no reputable research regarding “pedophilia” suggests any particular connection to either “celibacy” or “homosexuality.” Rather, the Church’s view on the “celibacy” of its priests: it is meant to be understood otherwise.
As in Matthew 19: 12, where Jesus declares that “some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.” This is not a denial of anyone’s “sensuality/sexuality.” It is rather understood as a particular charism (a “gift,” as Paul puts it in I Corinthians 7) that can, as a “spiritual discipline,” be practiced and developed in ways meant to enhance and bless.
Indeed, the most authentic and effective Catholic priests I have known, in their “celibacy” they have been nonetheless exceedingly passionate persons, their highly sensitized “sensuality/sexuality” having been re-directed toward their “vocation,” their “calling.” In fact, their self-understanding is that of actually “being married”–including even wearing a “wedding ring”–in their case, “to the Church” (as in the “bride” analogy of Ephesians 5 and Revelation 21).
4. The essential “sexual ethic,” from a Christian perspective is: “Thou shalt not exploit, nor allow thyself to be exploited.”
This can even be understood as the most literal of contextual translations of the “seventh commandment” in the Decalogue of Exodus 20. Much less Jesus’ synthesizing of Jewish law to that of “loving God, including one’s neighbor as oneself.” (Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 10).
Few of us ever develop as “sensual/sexual” persons apart from having “exploited” or having “been exploited,” in some way or other, to whatever degree. Such is the “trial and error” nature of human development. Nevertheless, the goal remains: that of at least minimizing “exploitation” in one’s sexual relations. That’s why such an ethic is called “teleological.” It has a “humbling” quality to it, rather than promoting “self-righteousness.” For if we may never, completely, reach the goal, it yet evokes our striving.
In Christian theology and ethics the commitment of marriage is considered the optimal context for the expression of one’s “sexuality” in “minimally exploitative” ways. Except that anyone who has ever been a marriage counselor can testify to how, even in the sanctity of marriage, such “exploitation” can still (and, tragically, often does) occur (a subject that Paul, again, also addresses in I Corinthians 7). And please note: this is not, for the sake of whomever the married partners, merely a rationalization; it is, rather, a genuinely humble (indeed, humbling) confession.
5. In the Bible, there is no “spirituality” without “morality,” nor “morality” apart from “spirituality.” Nowhere is this ethical understanding more clearly expressed than in I Corinthians, chapters 12-13: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love (agape) . . . .” In other words, for a Christian, at least–as well as Jews and Muslims–one’s “morality” has to do with one’s relationship to God, just as one’s relationship to God is meant to be expressed “morally.”
Hence, from a Christian theological and ethical perspective, the essential connection between one’s “sensuality/sexuality” and one’s “spirituality.” Indeed, the purpose of our “spirituality”: it is not for excluding, nor even diminishing our “sensuality/sexuality.” The more expansive and inclusive former is meant, rather, to embrace and enhance the latter as the rich and precious gift it is, God’s having created us to be fully human.
Granted, our “sensuality/sexuality” can be expressed–often, too easily and just as tragically– in ways that are hurtful, if not disastrous to ourselves and others, a minimizing, even a forfeiting of our humanity. But to forsake our “sensuality/sexuality,” in whatever way or other, in the name of “spirituality”–this can (or may) lead to even worse consequences.
