Religion & Sexuality

Comment

Comment by Shannon Copp on January 3, 2010 at 1:06pm

Thanks for everyone's input so far. The idea of sexuality as healing and comforting is something I hadn't thought of, yet is very valuable! The questions Brenda raised at the very beginning are also fascinating to think on, especially the question of why God make sex pleasurable. Again, not something I'd ever really thought about, but is an extremely valid question. Thank you again!! The sessions will begin in early February, so our planning process is now in full swing. (Any Chicagoans can feel free to ask for more details). Any other questions, opinions, etc are more than welcome. =)

Best,
Shannon

Comment by Louise Macdonald on December 30, 2009 at 5:01am

A fascinating conversation and I love the idea that sexuality is a place of healing and comfort. As such I think all people have the a God given right to give and recieve this healing and comfort regardless of their orientation or marital status. I prescribe to a doctrine of right relationship in which we are all called to be in right relationship with God and with each other so that all our relationships: sexual or non sexual, with all our loved ones, and with all of God's creation are conducted with respect, compassion, gentleness, kindness and humility.

Comment by Paul Williams on December 28, 2009 at 5:12pm

Thank you, Brenda, for your comments.
But as is usual, I voice an opinion then want to amend it. As wrong and foolish as I consider marital abuse and carelessness to be, I'm not in the position to say whether those things are as "unspiritual" as rape and child sexual abuse, but they are unspiritual.
I imagine rape and child sexual abuse are worse, but it's for victims to say, not me. Apologies to any such victims who read my previous comment and felt their experiences were inappropriately grouped with other forms of abuse.
Thank you, Brenda.

Comment by Brenda Bos on December 28, 2009 at 2:00pm

Thanks for all these comments. I am drawn to both Mike's call for mutuality and Paul's emphasis on sexuality as a place for healing and comfort. I think it is in that possibility, sex as healing, in which God has come up with the most beautiful idea. And, if children come from it, I believe it was God's intention those children would be part of the healing and growing of the world. But, as with all good things, people can also ruin the good intention, and that is what has happened in so many sexual relationships, sexual oppression and child abuse or neglect. Obviously, these are huge topics, and I enjoy the contemplation of the theological aspects of this.

I think society used traditional marriage to regulate sexuality and to give us structure. This is why so many people wish to adhere to it, and I do not think they are wrong. But as you are both saying, even the past constructs of marriage or sexual relationship should evolve as society has evolved, and, hopefully, can continue to move towards mutuality and comfort. This seems MORE in line with God's intention for creaton, not less.

I smile at Paul's reference to "The DaVinci Code" and the wild controversy that came from it..."What if Jesus had been MARRIED?" It is true, as soon as we limit Jesus, or define God, as Mike says, we have taken divinity away. Isn't the entire concept based on the idea that God is unimaginable and unknowable, which then, makes God so glorious and "worthy to be praised" (an odd phrase, now that I write it, since who are WE to determine GOD'S worth? I think the phrase should be "generous to hear us").

So take the idea of God as undefinable and then move towards God's intentions being undefinable and then to God's creation being undefinable. If that is the case, perhaps we cannot define loving sexual relationships as one man, one woman for all of a human life. I do not think it can be that definable. And if God's love is healing and comforting, our love should be the same.

I think I've just written several hundred words to simply say, "Gentlemen, thank you. I agree."

Comment by Paul Williams on December 27, 2009 at 12:59am

It's a very interesting topic, and as Brenda Bos, a lot depends on your theology. My first stance here was orthodox Christian, that only married (to each other) heterosexuals had an acceptable context for a sexual relationship. No concessions to any other view of marriage, sexuality, or morality was counted.
What I have discovered is that I don't have the right to even conceive of setting that before people as the only way to express sexuality, especially as I no longer hold these views. A combination of divorce, making new friendships, re-marriage, Tantra and liberal Christianity have changed my outlook and behaviour.
When Dan Brown's book became a hit a few years ago, I asked myself "What's at stake even within normative Christian theology if Jesus was married or even not married and had a sexual relationship?" I decided there was nothing Jesus could not have done, but if marriage and sexuality would have prevented him fulfilling his ministry then the obvious conclusion is that marriage and sex are inherently sinful. I can't accept that, and prefer views that teach and facilitate the connection of spirituality and sexuality. My concept of the man from Nazareth now includes the possibility of him being a wonderful, enlightened Tantric-style lover.
Two other issues I have with conservative views on sexuality are its emphasis on when and who with rather than why and how. Marital sexual abuse and carelessness is as unspiritual any other bad-for-people sexual activity, which leads to my final point: the place of sexual relationships as agents of healing and comfort. I don't see those aspects of sexuality as specifcally tied to marriage.

Comment by Mike Ghouse on December 26, 2009 at 11:08am

Brenda,

Great questions, let me take this, "who do we think God is in this?"

To deceive ourselves, that what we do is approved by someone else and hence we are not responsible and that is the way it is.

Men of God need to start talking abou the wisdom of the rules in faith, rather than telling "God tells it so". One by one we need to come out and strip God of its Gender - God is undefinable, God is unimaginable - if we define, than there are people who will not subscribe to it, hence the veracity of it is compromised, God cannot be captured in an image, as that would not be acceptable to all. We have to redine God, or give more dimensions to accomodate differences without compromising - like we can refere to that thing God as it, he or she... God can be non-existent as a being, God can be simply the self balancing energy...

Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net

Comment by Mike Ghouse on December 26, 2009 at 11:00am

Good topic to explore.

Religion is not the culprit, it the men representing religions present it that way.

The false notion propagated by men that Sex is for them, and the perpetuation by women that "they give sex" has legitimized some the stereotyping. The idea of mutuality has got to be propogated to put a dent in the story.

We hav evolved, from genderizing hunter gatherer to universalizing the roles, it is still not pervasive, but it is happening. My son is a lawyer, we were watching the first episode of Dallas - and he revealed that right here in the United States, women did not own property, even that they owned belonged to the men upon marriage. Many a women still teach their kids gender roles - this has got to be un-institutionalized.

Men babies need to feel secure that their existence is guaranteed if they are incharge or not.

Long term security comes from being just in every aspect of life, with yourselves, with your partner, community, kids, and others. It is when men take advantage of women, it is when men look to women as sex object, that the balance is lost and insecurity accelrates.

Oops, I will be writing pages, but the point is made.

Comment by Brenda Bos on December 24, 2009 at 8:38am

I've been thinking about this topic in my own work, and have realized the most basic question is what is your theology of sex? What do we think God intended when God made us sexual beings? Why was their pleasure in our pro-creating act? If monogamy was the idea (and I think it was, although perhaps not lifelong), why? What about LGBT? What is your theology of gender? As we work in religious studies, time and again we are confronted with the most basic question - who do we think God is in this? That, of course, dictates our theology. Who is God in the sexual realm? People want to turn away from this, somehow thinking that demeans God. But it is part of God's design, so how can God be demeaned in it?