« What I did for...love? Part V |
Main
| photo: burning bush in March »
Learning to speak the language, part IV: creativity
Well, I thought my series was done, but then I saw this post at Cerulean Sanctum. Dan Edelen speaks primarily to homosexuality, but what he says in Sex and the Created Order got me thinking about the creative aspect of sex.
When Paul appeals to the created order in Romans 1, noting how those who flaunted it succumbed to the punishment of God by having normal affections warped against that created order, he’s not quoting Scripture but Creation. He melds the truth of general revelation with the preponderance of sexual imagery in the special revelation of Scripture. He appeals to archetypal imagery of God as Initiator and His people as the Receivers of His Spirit and riches. The Lover and the Beloved of Song of Songs. The Bridegroom and Bride. Christ and the Church.
...Our sexual dimorphism exists to create life, expressing in our sexuality the very creative power of God Himself because we’re made in His image. It reflects the union of Christ and the Church, the fecund riches of God poured into His people. The Initiator entering the Receiver. All of receptive creation is feminine against the masculinity of God expressed through His acting on us as the prime Initiator. The created order not only reflects sexual dimorphism expressed through heterosexuality, it demands it in order to show the fullness of God. Particularly in God’s highest creation, Mankind.
Interesting stuff.
When I mention creativity in the context of sexuality, I’m not suggesting bedroom gymnastics, toys, “pushing the limits” or exploring the outer boundaries of what people can do sexually, nor erotic art, nor the most obvious creative aspect of sex – producing children. What I’m conceptualizing is the many-streamed bubbling spring that quenches thirst and gives life in many forms, not just the procreative, when the language of sex is well-spoken between spouses.
First, the disclaimer: I am not an expert. I am simply a woman who seeks to know and understand those things which are relevant to her life, and as a member of the human race as well as a married woman (and a Christian one), that quest includes sex. (Martin LaBar, bless him, noted my “longstanding interest” and “occasional writing” on the topic at his blog, which I confess gave me a slightly chagrined chuckle.) Yes, I’m interested in sex...aren't you?
Dan speaks of the violence against the created order evident in acts of homosexuality. I won’t address that particular point, but will suggest that such violence is present in any sort of sex outside of the covenant bond of marriage. Violence is destructive. I can feel the latent dander rising at the mere suggestion that premarital sex, or adultery, or even masturbation might be, by their nature, violent...but they are! The intensity of a sexual act, especially one resulting in orgasm, is a potent thing by its nature. The misapplication of this potency, by nature of its potency as well as its misapplication, would seem to me to be a violent thing. Any act against God’s created order, be it decree, purpose, or formed thing, could be said to be violent – violence committed against the created order and therefore against whatever or whomever it is acted upon.
A harsh statement, I know. But look at the damage caused by sexual miscommunication within marriage. Sex can either build a couple up and make their marriage the very picture of the Song of Songs, or it can cause such distress, such consternation, such damage to emotions and trust as to make a person ill. It can affect a spouse’s every waking moment. Most of you who are married probably know what I’m talking about. The marriage bed isn’t always full of roses. Or maybe it is -- sometimes the bed is blooming, sumptuous and heady; other times it’s full of thorns. Or maybe a little bit of both. Yet in Christian marriage there is always hope, hope for grace and healing and discovery or re-discovery of everything that marital consummation can be.
It’s clear, then, that sex can be destructive even in marriage. Does this mean that sex can be creative outside of marriage? Sure. But what is being created, and does that creation ultimately lead to life in the way life is defined for the Christian by God?
There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death -- Proverbs 14:12, NASB.
Not everything that seems good is good. Not everything that looks or feels good is good. We all know that, but it doesn't always keep us from falling into this trap. Which is all the more reason to trust the wisdom and decrees of God above all else.
Bonnie,
Thanks for featuring my post on sexuality from Cerulean Sanctum. I enjoyed your additional insights.
All I can add is that when it comes to married sex, if we were to think how freely we can give ourselves to our spouse and think of his/her pleasure first, I think most problems would drop away. I think the best thing a Christian couple can do for their sex life is to burn down the hangups. That's not a license to get into degrading things, but the freedom we're allowed in Christ. He affords us the "naked and not ashamed" return to the Garden. Let's remember that!
He affords us the "naked and not ashamed" return to the Garden. Let's remember that!
Great point. Although I wonder sometimes, from what I see and hear of younger folks, whether they have some of the same inhibitions as, say, the 40+ crowd. If not physically, then perhaps emotionally.
But as for freedom in Christ, I say, "amen!"
I completely agree with Dan's comments about God's intentions vis a vis our sexuality. Heterosexuality and heterosexual relations are just like everything else in creation -- it points back to God Himself. Human sexuality gives us insight into God's creative, life-giving love-force. He is the archetype (in all He is and does) of normal sexuality. It is not only its initiator-receptor dimorphism, but also its covenantal relationship between two very dissimilar beings, the way it requires complete yielding, complete intimacy, its creative and often life-giving power -- in all of these ways sexuality brings us into a realm of experience that reveals God to us -- if we're paying attention.
We miss a significant point about sex when we fail to think of it as a window that lets us see God. And when we distort sex, we manage also to distort the image of God we hold inside of us.
Your calling sexual sin violence sounds right, given the power of sexual relationships and the power God has designed into human sexual activity. But the word really does convict me. Calling sexual disorder "violence" raises the stakes on all sorts of "innocent" indulgences that I rationalize, things that in fact have no rationalization.
Society treats sex as a game, as entertainment. I buy into that in all sorts of ways. Violence suggests that sex can wound, even kill, and as I look at the evidence, I would have to say that's right. Men and women have been deeply wounded (myself included) by doing that "which seems right," which God never intended.
Lots to think about, Bonnie.
But the word really does convict me.
Me too, Charlie.
When you dig into this topic I sort of become an observer in my thinking. You do often wrestle with the analysis ;) , while for me, sex remains very mysterious as to its workings. So all my comment here has to be read in that context.
When Charlie says "We miss a significant point about sex when we fail to think of it as a window that lets us see God." I have an experience of that- but it was always a revelation in the moment, and quite rare. Except in the Song of Songs allegory, it seems very difficult to grasp as an intellectual concept ( but my inadequacy in that probably explains the intact mysteriousness of the topic for me). I find it too individual to discuss except in very general terms.
When becoming so general then it starts to be close to impossible to apply ones own experience to ideas of what is true for everyone else. This is an area of "relativity" for me. So I always regress to the basic Bible scriptures in trying to express what may be true for all of us. All of this may just be my own narrowness on the topic.
The idea of violence is not clear in all this, with its root in "violate".
The only thing that stands out clearly in my mind is that all true intimacy plays the dance between invitation and violation. Destructive outcomes on their own would not be the litmus for legitimacy.
Legitimacy in relationships will always pivot on the standards of God, as Creator and as ...well, "God". Outcomes, as we judge them, are illusory. And face it, we are often willing to tolerate poor outcomes to satisfy present enjoyment. That is always the tripping point in sexual behaviors, I think.
I also had a very basic problem with Dan's statement
"All of receptive creation is feminine against the masculinity of God"
as it stands .
Immediately I wonder what that does to the concept that mankind is made in the image of God. How does mankind accurately reflect and picture God in His person if we are the yin to His yang? Then mankind no longer stands out from the rest of creation and we become more aligned with Eastern religious thought than with Biblical thought. We are dichotomous without ever going toward the oneness of Eastern religions, and very far from the Christian concept of oneness, or wholeness, unity, in relationship. I intuit here that this is just one more problem in the gender traditionalism that is rooted more in Victorian views than true Biblical views, but I haven't really thought it out in this particular direction, so I can't make the case.
God had specific goals in mind for the sexual relationship... but I am not sure we are closer to expressing the understanding on that. Maybe we need to get back to the basics and start with ideals of "oneness" - what those are. Paul talked about that in relation to both fornication and marriage- there is oneness simply on the basis of the sexual act.
It can't be key that we simply need to act "freely" with one another. Not that there is much clarity in that idea- we all have so many ideas of what acting freely might mean.
Thinking this through like this on the keyboard has brought something to mind. When Christ and the Church are compared to the marriage relationship there is the idea the the Church gets free from the "lameness", the hurts and badly healed parts, and becomes whole. The quality of that wholeness determines the the quality of the intimacy. There is a mutuality, then, of desire to make the other all they can be- even in the case of the perfection of God- He is magnified and appreciated the more in this process and so, "gains". We gain in capacity and perfection of being all we should be.
Can this happen in "unlawful" sexual relationships, that is, those relationships not harmonious with God and His nature and standards?
For me, the conversation would start in this place concerning homosexuality, in particular, but also all the other forms of sexuality that are sinful from the scriptural perspective.
Can you love another unselfishly, for their best good, apart from help from God? Conversely, what basis do we think that we can love others in this way; how do we insure that we tap into God's help?
As an aside point from other discussions on the topic of homosexuality:
A disturbing part of the homosexual identity is how separate it is. It supersedes other parts fo the identity and compels all other things to submit to its supremacy of recognition. In those who call themselves "gay Christians" I noticed that the "gay" part was always primary over the "Christian" part of the identification process, the "Who I Am". This is something that I observed but I don't know what to make of it exactly. It seems to fit in with discussions of what oneness actually means - and how units of oneness fit into the universal whole of the Church ... and with God.
That is for all my disconnected wonderings for now....
Ilona,
I didn't initiate that comment about all of creation being feminine when measured against God. That actually came from C.S. Lewis.
I did see that it was in quotes in your post, and doesn't seem attributed. However, my protest stands- regardless of the seeming eminence of the author of the idea as it is placed in the context of your post, Dan.
I do believe that initiation on the part of man in creation is an important part of his spiritual makeup. It segues very well with the idea of God as Father and Initiator reflected in man, who is His image. Further, if taken as an argument in gender and what men should be like- it has additional problems to see humans as merely receptors.
C. S. Lewis is a revered and cogent Christian, but he isn't infallible in all his statements and thinking. Occasionally the little guy in the crowd can point out that the Emperor has no clothes, and be found true.
Even the Chinese don't divide yin and yang as totally separate and nontransferable characteristics. In our Christian view of oneness- such dichotomy has even less place.
Another keeper. You, of course, aren't the only Christian interested in matters sexual, but you are a Christian blogger who writes well about it.
Thanks.
