“We talk about God as love, but we are afraid to call him a lover.”
Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age, Sallie McFague
Any religion fills the entire life of a believer. To say that you are a Christian or a Buddhist means not only to admit that you believe in Christ or Buddha - it means to live the life of a Christian or a Buddhist: eating, drinking, praying, marrying according to the prescribed canons. Religion is practical: it gives precise instructions to all believers on all occasions, down to the smallest details, such as the most godly breakfast and the appropriate time for prayer. And of course, religion determines what godly sex is.
What is sexual theology
Sexual theology deals with the issue of Christian sexuality. Within this complex of disciplines, Western theologians and philosophers of religion debate why God created sex and gave us the ability to experience orgasm, which sexual practices he considers acceptable and even desirable, and which ones are sinful, and why he so persistently demands chastity from some of his followers. Sexual theology has recently been actively discussed in the Western world, mainly in Protestant circles, which have always been more open to doubt and not afraid to challenge religious tenets and move with the times.
The term itself was coined by James Nelson in his 1979 book Embodiment: an Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology to bridge the gap between the conservative and erotophobic Christian heritage and the liberal, sexually open modern culture.
Jews, Muslims and Buddhists also have their own sexual theologies, but there are not so many scientific articles exploring them. And Christian sexual theology is studied exclusively in the West - in Protestant and sometimes in Catholic circles. And even there, some say that all these modern views are destroying traditional Christian values. Orthodox theologians would definitely agree with them: it is difficult to imagine that in our culture issues of sex and pleasure were discussed so openly and without judgment.
However, more and more modern Western theologians and philosophers of religion are talking about sex. They write scientific articles. And they are trying with all their might to destroy stereotypes in order to declare that Christ, for example, was actually a pro-feminist, and God did not consider homosexuality a sin and generally created the female orgasm only in order to confirm his existence to man.
About Orthodox sexual education
The current situation requires serious thought about Orthodox sexual education adequate to modern times. But what could it be?
All of the above is opposed, on the one hand, by the modern medical-psychological approach to the topic - although different currents are based on different worldviews - and, on the other hand, by the cultural mass consumer approach inspired by the sex industry. The first approach is very significant for modern times, the second is primitive and harmful.
Today we can seriously say that sexual life has been well studied and is part of a fairly integral and, in general, already dominant understanding of male-female relations in modern culture. The main characteristics of relations between the sexes have long been described. They talk about sex as a manifestation of love, they talk about love not only as a beautiful philosophy, but also help them recognize it in their feelings, experiences and experiences, help them distinguish love from infatuation, and insist that family life requires support and does not develop on its own.
It is clear that because of the Soviet past, the Russian people have fallen behind the rest of the world. And yet, it is not the first generation that has been brought up on such classical authors as Eric Berne, Alexander Lauren, Erich Fromm, Irvin Yalom, Carl Rogers, John Gray, Harry Chapman, etc. and so on. Such a serious legacy cannot simply be brushed aside. No matter how we treat these authors and their opinions, we must admit that it was they who set the main vector for a scientific, serious understanding of male-female relationships and sex.
It is absolutely clear that the lack of an Orthodox view of sexual relations that is adequate to modern times does not stop Christians and people who trust Orthodoxy from looking for advice and explanations of intimate life. Some turn to high-quality and professional literature on sexology or psychology or study the experience of Protestant and Catholic authors. True, one has to correlate what one has learned with the Orthodox understanding of man and family on one’s own, as best one can. There is a possibility, and for non-believers it is very high, that the source of information will be some religious or economic sect or depraved “tabloid” literature. Therefore, I am convinced that the time has come for Orthodoxy to study secular and heterodox approaches, take the best, verify it in accordance with Orthodox anthropology and develop its own detailed and public position.
Creative Christian thinking about what constitutes gender relations and family life is essential. Orthodox Christians should have the opportunity to hear not only canonical rules and high theological truths, but also reasoning about simple things that fill their lives and everyday life.
Why is Christianity erotophobic?
Christianity is erotophobic. Simply put, Christian theologians are afraid to talk about sex. Such conclusions were reached by Margaret Farley, a modern Catholic theologian, who found that Christianity inherited a negative attitude towards sex from ancient and Roman philosophers, as well as the first Christian theologians.
The Roman Stoics believed that sexual desire was dangerous because it was difficult to control.
Being carried away by sex, we want to control what is beyond our control: we desire reciprocity, we strive to please another and look sexy - although our appearance still changes over time, no matter how hard we try. The Stoics believed that sex confused thoughts and distracted from spiritual development.
The early Christians adopted this view of sex as an activity that distances us from God. And a few centuries later they declared that sex is not only potentially dangerous, as it can cause loss of control, but is also by its nature evil and sin - always, everywhere and with any partner.
Such views were promoted by Aurelius Augustine, a Christian theologian and philosopher of the 4th–5th centuries, who in his autobiography “Confessions” honestly admitted how difficult it was for him to control himself in his youth and how many sexual sins he then committed. This experience convinced him: lust is God’s punishment, and since any sex begins with this sinful desire (even that which is pleasing to God: occurs between husband and wife and leads to the birth of a child), then human sexual nature is initially sinful.
Sex is a reminder from God that we are only human, that we have failed, that we are being punished.
Farley is sure that even those positive views on sex as procreation, which were especially often preached by early Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries, have always been dominated by the stereotype “sexual desires are dangerous, they must be controlled, because people do not know how to restrain themselves.” And therefore, people need marriage and carefully written rules for the sexual life of husband and wife - all for the purpose of control, all so that people engage in this sinful and dangerous activity for the soul as rarely and as carefully as possible.
The medieval philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas allowed sex only for the purpose of procreation. One of the initiators of the Reformation, Martin Luther, believed that sexual relations between husband and wife should be built on the basis of faith in God, and Protestant theologian Karl Barth, who lived in the 19th and 20th centuries, already allowed sexual relations - as long as they were in harmony with spirituality. And although theologians have talked about sex throughout the development of Christianity, it has always had this negative shadow of sin over it.
Throughout its development, Christianity has taught: sexual desires are not completely under our control.
The flesh must be tamed and controlled. Sex is only allowed for procreation. Pleasure is a sin. It is not surprising that Christianity is perceived by most as a conservative and sex-negative religion.
In the West they are trying to destroy these stereotypes and create an updated Christian discourse about sex. In Orthodox culture, the exact opposite happens: sex is talked about only as a sin.
What is in Russian Orthodoxy today?
The third approach is folk-mythological, and it is the one that dominates today among the Orthodox in Russia. Unfortunately, there is complete confusion among Orthodox Christians regarding marital intimate relationships. Everything said about church rules in one of my notes can be applied to this topic. People who do not have special training are not able to understand the intricacies of religious doctrine and disciplinary regulations, therefore various kinds of myths, beliefs, and signs have filled the minds of very, very many. Behind a certain screen with a sign “there is no sex in Orthodoxy,” the ball is ruled by those who are “officially” authorities, that is, priests. And each of them teaches the people as he wishes. In current ideas, there is a whole range of opinions from leaving intimate issues to the discretion of the spouses (which is the only right decision) to a complete ban on sex. As a result, the whole palette of relationships and experiences in families is present, from love and joy to the deepest feelings of guilt and depression.
To streamline this topic, albeit minimally, in the year 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a very serious and important document, “Fundamentals of a Social Concept,” which also touches on issues of gender, family and sexual relations. Unfortunately, the short format and specific language of this conciliar resolution do not make it possible to rely on it in practical life, but it is enough that the intimate relationships of spouses, no matter how anyone treats them, are designated as the area of contract and responsibility of husband and wife.
Sexual theology - Christianity's new perspective on sex
In countries where Protestantism is widespread, the last thirty years have seen a radical change in views on sex. Elizabeth Clark, a scholar of patristics and the early church fathers, argues that Christianity does not have a negative view of sex at its core:
“If God gave people genitals and told the first couple “be fruitful and multiply,” then sex and having children was not evil and sin. Therefore, even all the fears of the Holy Fathers about sex always had to first challenge the assertion that it was God himself who gave us such bodies [that is, bodies having sex] and such an order. All this kept the first Christians from establishing mandatory asceticism for everyone and completely prohibiting sex.”
Women in the Early Church, Elizabeth Clark
The statement that it was God who created our bodies to desire sex and gave us the opportunity to enjoy it is a frequent argument of modern sex-positive theologians.
They all believe that the historical context, misinterpretations of the Bible and the policies that the church has pursued to strengthen its dominant role have led to the fact that sex in Christianity has so far been viewed only in one way - negatively.
But like any phenomenon, it is multifaceted and does not tolerate unambiguous interpretations. That’s why it’s so important to finally look at sex and Christianity from a different, positive side. Sometimes even going to extremes, shocking and shocking, as they do now in the West.
Religion and sex: what believers can and cannot do in bed
Representatives of three world religions gathered in the studio of the Komsomolskaya Pravda radio (97.2 FM) to discuss the problems of gender relations live. The host of the “Orthodox Encyclopedia” program, Archpriest Alexey Uminsky, the chairman of the Congress of Jewish Religious Organizations and Associations in Russia, Rabbi Zinovy Kogan and the Islamic theologian Damir-Khazrat Mukhetdinov, the special correspondent of “KP” Boris Klin and radio host Anton Chelyshev spoke on a frank topic.
Chelyshev:
— Let's start with the reason for which we have gathered today. I hope that the summer, which has finally arrived in Moscow, inspired you to come up with such a topic for broadcast.
Wedge:
— Another inspiration was the publication of a book written by Orthodox theologians Alexander Bazhenov and Yuri Belonovsky about the attitude of Orthodoxy to sex. The authors of this book indicated that the Jews had already described these things, and the Muslims had a book “Love and Sex in Islam.” And today in our studio is Archpriest Alexei Uminsky, host of the “Orthodox Encyclopedia” program, who wrote the preface to this book.
This book argues that Orthodox people can do this not only for procreation, but also for pleasure and joy. Is that right, Father Alexey?
Uminsky:
- Without any doubts. What we call marriage has as its goal not only procreation, but also, it seems to me, the most important goal is the union of two lovers into a single being, as the Holy Scripture tells us about this, and we mean that one flesh is not only marital intercourse. It’s also when love, true and real, beautiful, makes two one. And it doesn't end on earth. And in eternity he makes this married couple united on earth into a single whole. Therefore, marital relations serve this purpose. And beautiful in themselves.
Mukhetdinov:
— There is a verse in the Holy Quran, a quote in which God says: “O people! We created you from one person, from a man and a woman. They made you peoples and tribes, so that you might know each other.” Letaarafu literally means: “That you may know one another.” And sexually too. Therefore, Islam is a religion that quite strictly regulates human life. She, of course, is against people limiting childbearing. But for a period of two years, until the woman breastfeeds the child, the man can have sex. And of course, there is no such strict restriction in Islam.
Kogan:
— Sex is when two trains without brakes go towards each other. Just a joke, of course. You know, I searched through the entire Talmud and there is no sex, like in the USSR. But entire volumes are devoted to marriage, the family union of a man and a woman. Rights and obligations are assumed, both between a man and a woman, and regarding children and property. It is very important. In biblical times, marriage was performed according to the will of the parents. Now, of course, everything is different.
For us, too, sexual desires are not shameful. And, it is clear that it is better for a woman to endure an unhappy marriage than to remain unmarried. It is advisable that the bride and groom be the same age. So, at least it was previously believed, of one social origin.
Chelyshev:
— Is sex in Judaism only for procreation or for pleasure too?
Kogan:
- Of course, in order for the family to be fruitful and multiply. But at the same time you have fun.
Wedge:
— But only in combination with childbirth? Or is it possible just for fun?
Kogan:
— Without sex there would be no home, family, and so on. It's not even considered. Everything a person does, he does with pleasure and for pleasure. Including sex. Therefore, sexual desires are encouraged. They are not shameful. It's not vicious. But just for fun... Nothing happens by chance. How is it: just for fun? For fun, they run around the stadium around...
Wedge:
— Why is there such an opinion that for believers having sex is something shameful, dirty, sinful?
Kogan:
- No.
Uminsky:
— I would like to distance myself a little from the word “sex”, because this term is completely non-religious. It is not used, as Zinovy Lvovich correctly said, in any sacred book. And so we will be a little careful with this word. For example, I hate to say it in relation to marital relations, when we are talking about marital intercourse, marital things that are mysterious. And any religiosity will preserve the cloak of mystery, chastity, tenderness and care towards husband and wife. Because if this is revealed, too publicly, then, of course, we will simply devalue the marriage itself. Here for us we must say that the relationship between spouses itself is a value for us. Moving away from this word.
Archpriest Alexy Uminsky
Photo: Evgenia GUSEVA
To your question. The fact is that, unfortunately, not only marital relationships are associated with this manifestation of the life of humanity. But also those relationships outside of marriage that the church considers sinful and prodigal. And not just the church. This is what Islam thinks, as I understand it. Judaism believes so too. In this sense, we are religions of the same root, in which this was originally inherent. And the commandment “Do not commit adultery” is quite strictly formulated in all three world religious systems. This process, this secret - it must be stored and protected. And sometimes it happens that there is excess in this protective process, and you know that in Orthodoxy there is quite a strong monastic line in theology, in the church charter, regulation of relationships where a person fundamentally struggles with his flesh. Because he took monastic vows. One of them is chastity and virginity. But human nature is designed in such a way that it strives to realize this need. And therefore, the monastic work does not treat human feelings, thoughts, and views strictly enough. It actually transforms.
Mukhetdinov:
- In Islam there are no such problems, in fact. And we don't hesitate to use the word "sex." Of course, if these are not elderly people. Precisely those that were formed within the USSR, as one of the speakers mentioned: there was no sex in the USSR. Yes, the Koran speaks, first of all, using the word “movadda” - love. But we also always turn to the life of the Prophet Muhammad. And what will we see from his life? This is a man who was a very loving person. We will not call him lustful, because in his mind, the mind of Muslims, he was fulfilling his marital duty. And we must proceed within this framework. If you have sex, love and do not violate the laws of decency, the norms of Islamic Sharia, this is, first of all, your legal spouse. We are talking about intercourse between a man and a woman. THEN, within the framework of this, all this is permissible. Moreover, Muslim traditions cite such hadiths, especially among the Arabs, it was a kind of sign of honor, praise, that the Prophet Muhammad performed his contacts, sexual intercourse with one ablution. And we know that he had many wives. And the Prophet Muhammad says: “More and more in this world I liked the smell of pleasant perfume and women. But I found true pleasure only in prayer.” Here the point of view of Islam and Christianity diverges somewhat. But we never looked at sex as something dirty, sinful and depraved. But we clearly distinguish between nikah - marriage and between a person who is engaged in a depraved life. There can be no other definitions here.
Kogan:
“I can only confirm that the more sex in marriage in Judaism, the better.” We're talking about sex. The topic has been set. It is during sex with a man that a woman receives the highest pleasure.
Chelyshev:
- They say that not always.
Kogan:
- What is called an orgasm. When she gets an orgasm, as scientists say today, one hemisphere turns off. But a man’s brain doesn’t work at all during orgasm. He is completely consumed by passion.
But seriously, no one should equate the pleasure of sex with an invitation to sexual violence. We need to talk about topical things especially at the beginning of summer. Today we see how the heat forces girls to undress. And, you never know what they say... Once I attended a lecture. And I heard my colleague tell high school girls: “Don’t dress like whores to avoid sexual assault!” And he thereby seemed to accuse the high school girls themselves of provoking sexual violence. In response, one of the students told him that women have the right to dress as they like. And don't be attacked. By the way, another schoolgirl said that most girls are sexually assaulted by acquaintances, not strangers. And in most cases it happens when girls are wearing jeans or long skirts. This strict dress code turns out to be the sexiest. Maybe.
Wedge:
- Let's answer the question - what are the restrictions imposed by religion on marital relations? It is already clear that these relationships should not exist outside of marriage. But are there any restrictions for spouses or, conversely, do they not exist?
Uminsky:
“The fact is that the church has never meticulously regulated this issue. We do not have any sacred texts. Not even canons that would talk about this in detail. This is a very secret, matrimonial and intimate thing. I repeat once again: intimate. And therefore, the church has only one teaching, which was formulated by the Apostle Paul in one of his epistles. He says that “the husband is not the master of his body, but the wife. The wife is not the owner of her body, but the husband. And do not turn away from one another except during a period of exercise in prayer.” And therefore, we have a tradition that during the fasts that are celebrated in our church, marital relations cease for the duration of the fast.
Wedge:
— Not only during Lent?
Uminsky:
- Any post. Petrov's fast will begin. And traditionally in the church, although there are no strict canonical rules, the age-old tradition has developed in such a way that during Lent, spouses practice prayer. Christians live a more focused, ascetic, and prayerful life during this period. But as for the question of what is possible and what is not, here, of course, is my deep conviction that no one has the right to climb into a marital bed, including a priest. And give strict recommendations, except for one thing. Of course, there should be no outrages, no violence in this. And no perversion. What do I call perversion? Those marital relationships that do not lead, in principle, do not lead to the conception of a child.
Boris Klin
Photo: Marina VOLOSEVICH
Mukhetdinov:
“Islam, on the contrary, very strictly regulates even such relationships as married life. Again, we trace the tradition back to the Prophet Muhammad. One day a Muslim woman came to him. And she said: “Messenger of Allah! I have a question, but I’m embarrassed to ask you.” To which the prophet said: “There is no embarrassment in Islam. Ask, sister." And she said that “we, the people of Mecca, had a tradition during sexual intercourse to do it as traditionally done: the man on top, the woman below. But in Medina there were different traditions.” To which the Messenger of Allah said that if it is not anal sex, then Islam allows it. That is, there are restrictions on anal sex. A number of scientists consider oral sex to be sinful. And, naturally, during fasting and Hajj, any intercourse between a man and a woman is prohibited. These things are not that shameful. We teach in all secondary and vocational schools. And even if the students of a primary Muslim school have matured and reached puberty, Muslim books teach all this. And there is no shameful moment here. Islam clearly and strictly regulates all this.
Kogan:
— That is, anal sex is definitely prohibited. And there are different opinions about oral.
Uminsky:
- Actually, I said the same thing. Just in slightly different words.
Kogan:
“I just have to join.” We also have the same restrictions. In this sense, Muslims and I are very similar. It’s not for nothing that we lived together for five hundred years. Yes. But, of course, there are many restrictions. And they are described in sufficient detail in the Jewish holy books.
Wedge:
- Which ones exactly?
Kogan:
- Let's say, in time. Before menstruation, after women's menstruation. Let's say posts. After pregnancy, with a boy at one time. If a girl is born, then a week more. Then, women must go to a mikvah before having sex. And so on.
Wedge:
— And according to the techniques that Damir Hazrat said, anal sex is allowed?
Kogan:
- Sex is for having children. Everything else is like masturbation. And this is a sin! Just like homosexuality is considered a sin, and so on.
Chelyshev:
- The answers have been given. I would like to check with Father Alexei. You say that there is no prohibition on physical intimacy between spouses during fasting, but, nevertheless, there is a tradition that during fasting Orthodox Christians keep this physiological fast.
Uminsky:
- We do not have special canonical rules on this matter. It's just not described. But since this has been the case for centuries and millennia, and we find the advice of the Apostle Paul in his letters that spouses should avoid each other during fasting and prayer, we, accordingly, transfer this recommendation to the days of fasting as completely natural.
Chelyshev:
— Two spouses are churchgoers. One of the spouses says that there is no prohibition and we should do it, but the other says no, we shouldn’t.
Uminsky:
— In this sense, Orthodoxy allows a certain freedom to assume responsibility for the married life of the spouses themselves. And it seems to me that, after all, thousand-year-old traditions have their own meaning for every Orthodox spouse. But there are such things that one of the spouses is a churchgoer, a believer, and the other is an unbeliever - and fasting begins. And here a problem arises when one of the spouses wants to observe fasting and internal and external cleanliness. He wants to impose the burden of fasting on himself for a specific purpose in order to please God. But the other spouse does not live by this at all and, as a spouse, demands the fulfillment of marital duties. In this case, there is a general and completely obvious recommendation that, after all, the spouse is the owner of his wife’s body. And breaking the fast is not an obvious sin.
Chelyshev:
— I believe that you have literally lifted a stone from the shoulders of our Orthodox listeners...
Uminsky:
- Because marriage still has its value. And if the marriage is bursting at the seams, that someone is fasting and someone is not, then this will be wrong. Marriage itself is much more valuable.
Chelyshev:
— Another question that stuck with me from the very beginning of the broadcast. You say that physical intimacy between Orthodox people is a sacrament. It should be intimate and closed from others. But doesn't this seem like something of an anachronism to you? They teach this in school, in seventh grade or something else.
Uminsky:
- Of course, they teach. But for some reason, thanks to this science, we have the first place in divorce in the world.
Wedge:
— By the way, do you need education in the field of intimate life? What are the Orthodox and Muslim traditions? Jewish? Who did this and did they do it at all? And at what age? How did this happen?
Uminsky:
- We now live in a different world. A world that was blown up by many different revolutions, including the sexual revolution. And public consciousness is completely destroyed. And the attitude towards marriage is different. And the attitude towards intimacy is a different concept of all this. Nowadays, it is not clear to many how to remain chaste before marriage? For many people, it is promoted from the pages of glamor magazines that cheating on your spouse is normal and only strengthens family ties. This was done through the relationship between mom and dad. When a child saw how dad and mom love each other, how tender and respectful they are.
Wedge:
“They couldn’t see how tender it was, what was happening in the bedroom.”
Uminsky:
- Not in the bedroom. Being gentle and respectful isn't just limited to the bedroom.
Wedge:
— Was it customary to talk about what was in the bedroom? Before the wedding. How?
Uminsky:
- I think yes. Such traditions could exist. But this was not a special sign of churchliness. Rather, it is a sign of a certain traditional culture. Nepotism, which was passed on from generation to generation. Unfortunately, we often do not have an answer to these questions. And this book that you talked about today is the right attempt to talk about this. Indeed, we are not ready today, the church is not ready to give clear answers to the challenges of our time. But the church cannot remain silent. We need to look for answers to these questions. It’s clear that dad enlightened the boys, and mom educated the girls. At least it was like that before the revolution.
Mukhetdinov:
— In the Muslim tradition, this program probably could not have taken place for the reason that girls got married at the age of 14, 13, 15, 16. Therefore, they had to be taught this much at an early stage, and they were taught. If we talk about the Islamic tradition, then there has always been such a moment of the Muslim Kama Sutra, it was glorified. Love for a woman, a man through poetry, poetry. The Arabs, being such ardent people, always perceived it through such a prism. Therefore, of course, in families, first of all, they taught. We graduated from Soviet schools. My parents did not teach me how to have sex and love with my wife. But by instinct we all know and understand this. And, again, this is not a problem for a Muslim, since he studies this in a madrasah. We are not talking about imams. In most Muslim countries, God's law is taught in all schools. And in kindergarten, respectively.
Kogan:
“We have it all written out in great detail.” And what is called “kidyshin” - consecration, engagement. Wedding. A wedding is a marriage that says that sex is safe. This family life is safe. Both the bride and groom are as pure as angels. It is very important. Parents and relatives play a role here.
Chelyshev:
- The main thing is to observe some kind of ritual...
Kogan:
- The main thing is that the parents testify that he is not a drug addict, she is the same. They are taught how to comply. And the marriage itself, the wedding, includes both sex and sexual life.
Orgasm as proof of the existence of God
Both men and women enjoy sex. And if earlier Christians viewed orgasm as a temptation and sin, then modern Western theologians see it as proof of the existence of God.
Science does not have a clear answer to the question of why and how evolution gave women orgasms. Unlike the male orgasm, the female orgasm does not serve a specific purpose in the process of conception.
But maybe it is needed so that women want to have sex with men? Philosopher of science Elizabeth Lloyd argues that this is not true: statistically, women rarely experience orgasm from heterosexual penetrative intercourse. In addition, during masturbation, women reach orgasm much faster and with less effort than during penetrative sex with a partner. Such a device seems like a very rash decision: if evolution “wanted” the female orgasm to serve only the purposes of reproduction and as a kind of “advertising event” for penetrative sex with a partner, it would work somehow differently.
“From an evolutionary point of view, is the female orgasm useless? Hardly. It is proof of our spiritual, karmic, celestial evolution, and if we forget about it, we will lose something important.”
Female Orgasm: Proof Of God, Mark Morford
Mark Morfard, Roland Caro and other modern Protestant theologians believe that God may be the answer to the evolutionary riddle of the female orgasm. Thus, Caro proved that the same parts of the brain are active both during orgasm and during religious ecstasy. This is confirmed by personal experience.
Believers tend to describe their mystical experiences in the same way they would describe an orgasm. The connection between sexual and religious pleasure is not accidental: orgasm may have been a precursor or a more primitive version of all mystical experiences.
And the fact that people have undergone such a spiritual evolution (from orgasm to religious ecstasy) only confirms that God exists - and it was He who awarded us such an opportunity.
Of course, one can argue with such statements of Protestant theologians. But they are good because they challenge stereotypes and finally look at sex in a positive light.
Sex is not a shameful sinful pleasure, but a way of knowing God and oneself.
Such discussions of sex also change the view of why it is needed. If previously its function was reduced to procreation in Christian discourse, now it is seen both as a manifestation of love and as a spiritual practice. Since God created orgasm, it means that he wanted us to have sex not only for procreation, but for us to enjoy it. It is likely that such views were influenced by Eastern spiritual practices that became popular in the West in the 20th century. For example, ideas of self-improvement and the enjoyment of sex are common in neo-Tantra.
Love as the foundation of a family union
I wrote in more detail about men and women in one of my previous posts . Christians proclaim love as the basis and at the same time one of the goals of human life, as mutual personal free communication, giving oneself to each other. We can define love as a way of life in which the value of a loved one is regardless of age, appearance, health, education, etc. in the eyes and heart of the lover above all. For love, in the end, it doesn’t matter what the beloved has (beauty, intelligence, abilities, money), but he himself is important. Love is a way of life aimed at the fullness and joy of the existence of the one we love, it is taking full responsibility for the loved one to the best of one’s ability.
Christians say that the family reflects the way of being of God himself and can only be based on free love and self-giving of spouses to each other and children. Or let’s put it another way: the God-given form of love between a man and a woman is a family, a union of two mutually complementary beings. Today, a family in Orthodoxy is a union of a man and a woman based on love by mutual agreement. The birth of children is not the purpose of marriage, it is a natural and desirable consequence of the marital union.
Was Christ a pro-feminist?
Of course, such views on sex and pleasure, although they seem radical, do not cancel the conservative statements of Christians about marriage, divorce and the role of women in the family. It is quite possible to allow the view of sex as pleasure and at the same time preserve traditional values: they say, enjoy sex, develop your spirituality, know yourself - but in a marriage with clearly defined gender roles.
It is not surprising that many feminists in the West continue to criticize Christianity as an extremely patriarchal and misogynistic religion.
But the world is changing. More and more modern Christians (mostly Protestants) do not want to put up with such statements. Speaking about feminism, Protestant theologian Roland Caro recalls the importance of historical context. It is clear that many of Christ’s statements sound too conservative for our time: he lived two thousand years ago - and therefore they should not be taken literally.
For example, Christ really was against divorce:
“Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate. They say to Him: How did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and divorce her? He says to them: Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives, but at first it was not so; but I say to you: whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matthew: 19:7-9
But he did not prohibit divorce because he wanted people to be unhappy in marriage. He banned divorce in order to give women more rights than they had at the time.
From the quote it is clear that divorce in ancient Jewish society was a simple procedure: it was enough to give your (now ex) wife a “letter of divorce” and send her back to the family. Like, your product did not fit, it was spoiled. Women were viewed solely as property—valued (or not so valuable) objects that men exchanged to strengthen social ties and gain power. The Old Testament is imbued with these views on marriage and family.
Women were commodities for which men made deals among themselves without even thinking about their feelings. And female infidelity was so terrible only because another man dared to encroach on someone else’s property: “spoil” it and insult another man.
Christ is trying to change this consumerist attitude towards women. He constantly repeats that marriage is made in heaven, divorce is impossible, the wife is one flesh with her husband. All his words now seem conservative and old-fashioned, but to his contemporaries they sounded very progressive and feminist.
Christ preached that men and women were equal before God and tried to correct the gender injustices of his time as best he could.
This is why Protestant theologians claim that the teachings of Christ are inherently feminist. Taking quotes from the Bible and trying to apply them to modern times without knowledge of the historical context and ancient cultures distorts Christianity.
Under no circumstances should the Bible be interpreted literally and try to thoughtlessly apply everything that is described there. After all, there really is a lot described there: take, for example, polygamy (the story of Jacob, Leah and Rachel) or incest between father and daughters (the story of Lot). Stories like these, taken out of biblical context, can be used to give different—and even completely contradictory—interpretations of the Bible.
Homosexuality and Christianity: A History of Errors
One of the biggest misconceptions in the history of Christianity, according to modern Western theologians, is the story of Sodom. Even those who are far from the Christian faith are sure: God punished the inhabitants of Sodom for the sin of homosexuality.
However, if you read the chapter about Sodom in the Bible, you will notice that there is not a word about homosexuality. God is punishing the inhabitants of this city for inhospitality, unreasonable cruelty towards guests and for wanting to take advantage of them.
Of course, the Sodomites did something bad: they wanted to take advantage of the defenselessness of strangers and abuse them. It didn't matter to them what gender the guests were. The story of Sodom is a cautionary tale about the cruelty of the strong against the weak, about injustice, about rape - but not about homosexuality.
Another popularized biblical passage that Christian moralists like to use is Leviticus:
“Do not lie with a man as with a woman: it is an abomination.”
Leo: 18:22
“If anyone lies with a man as with a woman, then both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death, their blood be on them.”
A lion. 20:13
As Theodore Jennings notes, it was not until the 7th and 9th centuries that Christian theologians began to use these passages in their preaching against homosexuality. Such “blindness” can be explained by the fact that previously it had never occurred to anyone to interpret them so literally. And although the original meaning of the passages has been lost, and the various translations and versions that have come down to us have probably distorted it, researchers suggest that these warnings could mean:
- prohibition of pagan fertility cults, which may have been common before Judaism. Simply put, these laws do not prohibit homosexual sex, but the practices of old religions (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, John Boswell);
- a metaphorical prohibition of mixing different cultures and the desire to absorb foreign elements (hence “do not lie as with a woman” - that is, do not obey, do not accept). Any new religion can dissolve into the old, more widespread one, which is still more trusted, which has simply become a habit. At the time the Old Testament was written, Judaism was not the dominant religion, and therefore was under threat. The authors of these lines wanted to protect the new, still weak religion from borrowings and influence from other cultures.
The more these lines were translated, rewritten and retold, the faster their original meaning was lost.
Nowhere in the New Testament does Christ directly say that homosexuality is a sin. Moreover, some Bible stories sound like real love stories today.
Take, for example, the description of the friendship (or is it just friendship?) of Ruth and Naomi, where the women describe their feelings like this:
“Where you go, I will go, where you live, there I will... Where you die, there I will die.”
1:16-17
Or the story about the disciple whom Jesus loved and with whom he often hugged (John 13:21-26). Christ asked him on his deathbed to look after his mother Mary. And Mary herself - to treat him as a son (John 19:25-27 and 20:1-10). The mysterious “beloved disciple of Jesus” appears several times in the Bible, and while the exact relationship between them can be debated, Jennings is confident that all these passages, which few people pay attention to, show that everything is not so clear and that in the Bible there is room for different types of relationships. There is a long path of research and discovery ahead!
A separate branch of theology in the West—queer theology—is engaged in such research.
“The discovery of queer spirituality is intended not only to liberate our sexuality from its narrow confines, but also to finally liberate God from traditional theologies that prohibit sex.”
Queering Christ, Robert E. Goss
Ascetic and disciplinary view
The second approach is ascetic-disciplinary. For the topic raised, it is very important to remember the confidence of Christians that sin lives in every person. Like a disease, it struck and distorted many aspects of life, mixed in with everything. The words, actions and even thoughts of any of us can cause harm to the world around us, to other people and to ourselves. We talked about this in more detail in other posts. One of the consequences of the Fall was a disorder between the mind, will, feelings and instinctive drives, the inability of man to live whole. The sphere of sexual relations, the sphere of the strongest instinctive attraction, like no other, has become that side of life through which it is very difficult, almost impossible, to pass without sin and evil. The situation is aggravated by the fact that now the topic of sex outside of personal responsible relationships and outside of love is unrestrainedly exploited for the sake of profit and power and has become so deeply integrated into the life of society that for many it is enough for many to lose their human appearance.
Since ancient times, sexual relationships have been treated controversially; joy and even reverence were accompanied by caution, mistrust, and sometimes denial. And there is some truth in this. Christianity in this sense is no exception. Orthodox asceticism - the practical science of how to fulfill God's commandments, how to learn prayer and even inner purity of thoughts, how to fight sins - pays a lot of attention to the sexual sphere, where there is a very thin line between love and voluptuousness, lust, the consequences of which can be very destructive for a person and his family. Not only sexual relations before marriage and adultery, but also infatuation with pornography and even imagining intimate relationships are considered a sin. Sometimes both ancient and modern Orthodox authors make very clear the idea that only procreation justifies sex.
It turns out that the ascetic-disciplinary view looks at intimate life completely differently in relation to the philosophical one. This is expressed, in particular, in the fact that spouses are asked to abstain from sexual relations on fasting days and holidays, and after a night together they are sometimes considered “unclean” and even the birth process is declared “bad.”
But, and this is very important, despite the prevailing categorical opinions offered by Orthodox asceticism, church legislation has never enshrined norms regulating the intimate relationships of spouses, imposing their “correct” interpretation and insisting on procreation as the only possible justification for sex. There are no generally accepted pan-Orthodox rules that say something like this: spouses should be together then and then, so and so, for the sake of this and that. If the sexual theme does sound, it is as some kind of call for abstinence and outside the context of any punishments. Church discipline leaves intimate life at the discretion of the spouses and does not allow anyone to inquire and pry out the details of this life.
“Sexual eschatology”: what Christian sex should be like
So how should Christianity talk about sex? What criteria should be applied to it? What is considered a sin, and what, on the contrary, is encouraged?
For modern sexual theology, the number one task is to solve the problem of violence and cruelty.
Many theologians acknowledge that rape and gender inequality are commonplace in Christian families (read more in Eva Lundgren's research) because sexism and patriarchal attitudes have been taught by the church for so long.
Of course, this needs to change. We need to rewrite the established discourse.
But how? Sexual eschatology (eschatology is the doctrine of the afterlife) is concerned with this issue. She envisions what sex will be like “in heaven,” that is, ideal sex when society gets rid of all its sins and leads a righteous life. This term was coined by theologian Suzanne Cornwall, in her book Theology and Sexuality she develops a complete picture of modern theological debates about sexuality.
However, she, along with Margaret Farley, is confident that “heaven” can be achieved now if you adhere to those values that have always been important for Christians, but for some reason they were often forgotten about when they talked about sex:
- prohibition of any violence;
- consent: in order not to cause violence, you should always ask your partner if he/she wants to try this or that sexual practice;
- reciprocity;
- equality;
- fruitfulness: relationships should be fruitful not only in the sense of the birth of children, but also in the sense of the constructive development of both partners;
- social justice: any ideal relationship should be an example for others - such that others would want to build them.
Cornwall is confident that modern Christian sexual ethics should be guided only by these criteria: after all, it doesn’t matter what gender we are, who we love, or what sexual practices we prefer. For a Christian, the main thing is love, reciprocity and respect for each other.
