Spirituality of Sexuality

A young, Christian friend wrote wondering how not to feel guilty about sexual desire for a marriage partner. Here's my reply:

I think of Hebrews 13:14.  "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

It does not say, "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; unless they do this or that sexual act and one or the other leads." No, it is specific what defiles the bed: whoremongering and adultery.  It seems to be more who you do it with (your partner), not what you do when you do it with your partner, in my opinion.  To me, consensual sexuality is the most important aspect and offering sexual union to God as a thanksgiving.  

I recently listened to the book, "The Erotic and the Holy" by Marc Gafni for an Old Testament Jewish understanding of sex.  Rev. Richard Rohr has an excellent audio, "Gates of the Temple: Sexuality and Spirituality." that gives the Christian perspective. I'm sure there are more, but those I can recommend. 

From his website cac.org "Richard Rohr tells us that spirituality and sexuality are two sides of the same coin. Both are intended to guide us to the "gate of the temple" by leading us out of ourselves in love. Western cultures have tended to separate the two, calling one good and the other evil. While we welcome the transcendence of the Incarnation—God becoming flesh—we are bound by the dualism that equates body with pleasure as immoral and soul with disciplined intellect as virtue. We must move out of that mindset to see the union of the two." 

Some world religions have a branch that teaches the sexuality of spirituality, or  maybe that's the spirituality of sexuality. This does not include promiscuity, but evolving sex from procreation to sublime spirituality that merges the couple much deeper than physical sex alone. I think it helps them learn the unity of "Christ in me the hope of glory" and "in Him I live and move and have my being".  Sex can be a physical manifastation of a spiritual truth. 

I've wondered how I would respond if the Lord would ask at my judgment, "Did you fully enjoy the body and the sexuality I gave you?" 

I had a dream one night. God was on his throne. He poked Gabriel and said, "Look at that couple."  Gabriel astonishingly replied, "But, Almighty, they are naked and procreating."  God laughs loudly and tilts his head back in humor, "I love it when my children are enjoying the gift of sex I made for them. It makes me so happy that they are fully participating." I awoke and wondered what if all the angels of heaven are cheering and rejoicing as a couple enjoy each other sexually? 

I think that loss of inhibition and joyful participation can happen, and we can leave guilt and fear behind when we follow Biblical teaching and ignore Augustine's teaching on spirit/mind trumps physical. When we accept God gave us spirit, soul (mind, will and emotions) and a body... We can then stop elevating one above the other and return to wholistic self unity. The morals don't change, but our self-perception changes to become more like Jesus and His Jewish roots.  

Atonement Theories

What parts of the Bible a Christian focuses on depends on which one or mixture of the seven (or more) atonement theories a person believes. There are scriptures that substantiate each theory. Unfortunately, few churches teach the various theories so people can see we are all one in Christ even though we may emphasize different aspects of Christ's wonderful atonement.  

Here's a summary of seven of what I consider the major atonement theories:

(1) Moral Influence theory – Early Church

This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr. It is one of the seminal atonement theories for almost two thousand years. Augustine’s writings show this theory; this theory was defended by Abelard (1079 – 1142) when other theories were becoming popular.

(2) Christis Victor (Christ the Victor) Theory – Early Church (classic version) and 20^th Century (narrative version)

Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone, but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free. The “narrative” version of Christus Victor focuses more directly on how Jesus challenged the violent powers that kept people enslaved. He healed the sick, forgave sinners freely, demonstrated love and compassion and challenged the power structures that enslaved people. Thus, we shouldn’t act as though Christians must battle non-Christians but to love them like Christ loved the Roman soldiers, the Syrophoenician woman, the Samaritan, etc. Sin should be taken seriously but the only way to defeat it is through Christ’s way of life.  This is still the predominant theory in the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and other Eastern Christian churches after the Roman church broke away from the other churches.  The classic version was penned by Ireneaus in the second century A.D.; the narrative version is an encapsulated and slight variation version penned in the 20^th century. It was written at a time when loyalty to Christ vied with loyalty to Ceasar.  It was never held as the one true atonement theory but a starting point for new believers and expected that other theories could be amalgamated as the person was lead into maturity by the Holy Spirit.

(3) The Ransom Theory – about 200 AD

This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom (buying back) sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominate view of this theory), or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin. Penned by Origen Adamantius of Aleander (185-254); this theory may have been embraced prior to that time. Origen was the son of a Christian martyr and considered a child prodigy.  This was written at a time when Christians were heavily persecuted and were often martyrs for their faith and a time when a potential martyr could be ransomed from their captures.  

(4) The Satisfaction Theory – late 1000s

This theory was developed in reaction to the Ransom theory: that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that the ransom theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and ftherefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays back God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God). It was penned by Anselm (1033 – 1109). This was penned at a time people lived in a feudal system; a carefully managed series of reciprocal obligations. Lords living in castles offered protection to villagers (vassals) and kept the community in order by maintaining justice and the rights of the people and a time when penance (often extreme penance) was necessary for forgiveness.

(5) The Penal Substitutionary Theory – Mid 1200s

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of inputted righteousness is postulated. This theory dates back to Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who believed Jesus offered up his life as a ransom. John Calvin (1509-1564) went farther by declaring that this sacrifice was orchestrated by God the Father in order to satisfy the demands of retributive justice. This was written at a time that the court system became important to society. This is the predominant theory in North America that was brought over when people from various denominations emigrated for religious freedom.

(6) The Governmental Theory – Early 1600s

The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also begins the teaching that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models, but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death. It was developed by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and was held by some Methodists but not by John Wesley; it is espoused by the Salvation Army and the Armeniens. Grotius,, who wrote this theory, was a Dutch lawyer and wrote books about natural law and saw everything as unchangeably good or bad. He wrote this theory in opposition to the penal substitutionary theory. James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not.”

 (7)  The Scapegoat Theory – Mid 1900s

The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures are Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God. Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty.  This was written at a time when non-violence, especially as Christianity was viewed by Martin Luther King, Jr., Bishop Desmond Tutu, and in Hinduism by Gandhi who had changed their nation through non-violent actions.

If a person believes Revelation is a coming event on earth; they will search the scriptures to understand and build upon that belief.  If a person believes Revelation is what Jesus did/is doing in heaven as He prepared/prepares a place for us; they will focus their Bible reading on other areas – like how to be examples of his love (1 John 4:19) and how if we’ve seen Christ then we’ve seen the loving God. (John 14:9).  

** NOTE: Some sentences are plagiarized, if you wrote it, I'll be glad to give you credit.  

Thoughts on Immigration by an Immigrant

In 1998, I came to Canada and could legally stay for 6 months as a visitor. At the end of that time, I could be deported. After those 6 months, had I left, even for a family emergency, I would not be allowed to return until I received my approval paperwork. I know what it feels like to wonder if I could stay with my new husband and step-children or fear if I’d be deported. It’s not a comfortable feeling. But it was my reason to file quickly on the very unpopular, “spouse in Canada” application. As part of this application, I had to write an essay of why I did not follow the rules and apply in my home country. Catch 22! Word it right and I would be accepted. Word it wrong and I would be considered incapable of following instructions and thus an undesirable and possibly deported.

In hindsight this is a good method; it helps a person increase desire to fit into their new society; or makes them want to leave. It’s similar to the last trimester of a first pregnancy that is uncomfortable, can be fearful and yet increases the desire to deliver the child.  I think handing out legal immigration status without a time for personal thought, struggle and doing the paperwork is a disservice to the immigrant, and thus to the country.

I filled out 2 cm of paperwork for immigration. My ex-husband said they asked everything except how many squares of toilet paper I used in the bathroom. I had to prove my kids were of legal age and I was not abandoning them. I had to prove I was legally divorced. I had to prove I was self-supporting and would not be a drain on the Canadian economy. I had to prove I was not a criminal but was in good standing not only from the US, but each state where I had resided and the US military since I’d served. I was fingerprinted several times. I paid for a full physical. Twice I took the expensive flight from Labrador City to St. John's (about $1k each way) for interviews and to prove I could carry on a conversation in one of Canada’s national languages.  

I am proud of myself for completing my paperwork in a way it met all the criteria required and not having to resubmit it. I’m glad I received my landed immigration status in 4 months during a time most people I knew were taking 18 months to 2 years to get their work permit and legal immigration status. After paperwork approval, I was entitled to socialized medicine, job searching and working, some rights, a SIN (social insurance number), paying taxes and this also eliminated the fear of deportation as long as I didn’t commit any criminal acts.

After a specific amount of days in country (It seems like 3-1/2 years at that time), I was eligible to apply for citizenship. I flew to St. John’s to take my citizenship test, covering social studies.  At that test, I met the group of people who would be taking this step with me. A short social time while our tests were being graded gave us a chance to meet; it gave those with elementary English or French a chance to practice conversation in Canada. Finally, I met the criteria and was ready to be accepted/honored with my new Canadian citizen status. Several hours later, there was a mandatory social event where my group of new citizens sang "O Canada" in French and English.  We were new Canadians, but smiling citizens. The Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador (the appointed representative of Queen Elizabeth) shook our hands and handed us our citizenship papers. In a receiving line we were given little Canadian flags and bookmarks and had individual photos taken with an RCMP in her red uniform. This followed by a finger foods and punch for us and our guests. It was such a big day my sister and brother-in-law flew to St. John’s from Florida.

I applied before 9/11 so I presume there is even more paperwork now.  Including flights, it cost about $7,000 to achieve my immigration my dual citizenship. Had we not been able to afford that, we could have applied for grants to reduce the amount. Current price for spouse to immigrate is $1050 ($840 US) and citizenship is $750 ($600 US).

Being a legal v illegal (or documented v undocumented) immigrant is similar to leasing or owning your home.  When I rented, I was evicted because the owner decided to sell the apartment building. Now I own my home and can stay here as long as I pay my mortgage and taxes.

Because I spent so much time and money proving I would be a good match and not a drain on Canada, I find it offensive when I’m lumped with people who chose to break laws by entering the country illegally and refusing to do the paperwork. If money is the issue, they can apply to get grants to assist or fully pay immigration fees. If an immigrant can't read the French or English paperwork, they will get interpreters to help. I know that is true in Wichita as my ex was trying to apply for US immigration at Wichita and their only English speaking employee was off that week. His schoolboy French was not adequate to work with the French speaking employee.

I wish somebody would explain why in this age of political correctness, that legal immigrant v illegal immigrant or documented immigrant v undocumented immigrant are lumped together. I know the knee-jerk reaction for that statement is often having people claim I’m a racist. Huh? I've dated interracially and inter faith, so I have no prejudices. So don't pull the bigot card trying to shut me down and not listen.

I'm not denigrating illegal aliens, I'm just pointing out there is a difference that should be stated in how people are classified. Anybody who went through the bureaucracy of becoming a legal immigrant should be shown the dignity and respect of being called a "legal immigrant" or “documented Immigrant” for following the country's guidelines and jumping through the hoops.  

If I'd call a person from India an Afro-American, that would be wrong. There may be skin tone similarities, but it's not accurate and is politically incorrect and offensive.  Immigrants have the similarity of being born with another citizenship, but that’s where the similarities end. There is a difference of being in a new country legally or illegally. It's politically incorrect and rude to lump them together. I think most legal immigrants are offended when lumped together with illegals; but they are too fearful to say anything because by being lumped with illegal immigrants, they now fear the governmental powers might decide the two are the same and even after doing the work and paying the money that they could be deported anyway.

I hope people wise up and speak of these two segments with proper terminology.