Dear Friend,
I would like to respond somewhat backwards to your
questions about sex beginning with your questions, "Where are the healthy
Orthodox Christian marriages in the hagiography? and Why does the Church seem
so down on the pleasure of sex?" and then move to the matter of
ontologically-based sexual morality, and finally offer some suggestions and
some advice about how to think about this matter. I will speak directly and not
pull any punches. May God help us both!
That you only mention pleasure in reference to
Orthodox Christian teaching about sexuality and the saints in your letter
identifies you and I both as products of a post birth control, post antibiotic
generation, a very, very new phenomenon in history. The Fathers always connect the pleasure of
sex with the pain of childbearing (which includes not only the birth itself,
but also the care for and raising of children) along with other relational burdens
(such as your body no longer belonging to yourself but to your partner – cf 1
Corinthians 7) and the myriad of diseases that are the fruit of unrestrained sexual
practice. All of these are or can be part of the "pain" that
accompanies the pleasure of a relationship that is sexually intimate. That you
and I so easily separate the two perhaps shows how out of step with the Church
we are as products of this culture.
Children and the burden of caring for them and
raising them into healthy human beings is and always has been the principle
(but not exclusive) purpose of sexual intercourse – this is a fact of biology
first of all, and only secondarily a matter theology. So, not too long ago
historically speaking, the only way to avoid the responsibility of children was
to avoid sexual intercourse. If you wanted the leisure to learn to read and to
pray with any regularity and discipline, the only two practical options were
monasticism or great wealth. Anyone who was not very wealthy and yet wanted to
develop a prayer life or an intellectual life had only one option: celibacy. If
you had sex, you had kids that you had to feed, protect and shelter. If you
were celibate, you only had to care for yourself, and in an intentional
community that ate very little and worked very hard (a monastery), it was
possible to devote lots of time to prayer and study. Since the only people for
most of history who could read and write anyway were monks, it makes sense that
most of what is written about saints in the past is about celibate men and
women – or married men and women who became celibate. However, you don't have
to read too deeply to figure out that many of the saints had robust sex lives –
even though (for obvious reasons) it is not mentioned explicitly.
The parents (or one of the parents) of many of the
saints are also saints. And these saints came from large families. Something
must have been going on. Or take our Holy Foreparents Abraham and Sarah (and
Sts. Joachim and Anna, and Zachariah and Elizabeth) for example. They must have
still been sexually active in old age if they were still earnestly praying for
children in their eighties and nineties – and when they finally do have a
child, it is through God-aided regular biology, not immaculate conception. However,
the Orthodox Church very seldom addresses sex directly, except where it goes
wrong – which is how the Orthodox Church deals with just about everything: The
Church does not multiply dogma unless there is a need. Saints with children are
Saints who are having sex, and if they have a lot of children into their old
age, then they are probably enjoying lots of sex for a long time, but obviously
that is not what you want to focus on if you are a monk writing for other
monks.
If a married man and woman wanted to devote their
life to prayer and study, however, then for most of history they had to live together
as brother and sister. In such cases dealing with desire is a huge issue. And
that is why a lot of the Church's writing about sex focuses on controlling
desire. Even St. Paul talks about this in the New Testament. It has not been at
all uncommon in the Church that married people have stopped having sex – not
because the pleasure is bad, but because the freedom from responsibility for
children is more desirable than the desire for sexual pleasure. However, that
does not make the desire for pleasure go away. And that is why a lot of the
Church's writing about sex focuses on controlling desire. It is not unlike the
problem with diet. The desire to be healthy and be of a reasonable weight does
not make the desire for the pleasure of eating fattening and unhealthy foods go
away. The Fathers are quick to point out that because of the nature of the
world after the fall, pleasure is always coupled with pain, the roses always
have thorns. We have to pick our pleasures. Who do we want to be?
Which brings me to the matter of ontology – how sex
relates to what we are, to our being as creatures of God. Before the fall, we
were certainly sexual creatures, Genesis makes that pretty clear; but we were not
driven by sexual passions. So if we want to talk about sexuality rooted in
ontology, then we have to deal with the problem of passion. Ah, there’s the
rub. Human beings, male and female (together) are created in God's image. So to
understand how sex relates to our being as creatures of God, we have to look at
what God says about sex relating to Himself – and in the Bible and the
liturgies of the Church, God says a lot about Himself using sexual language.
God is the Bridegroom who betroths humanity to himself as a virgin bride. God
has no other lovers. God does not "consummate" the marriage until the
"Wedding Supper of the Lamb." God suffers everything to present to
himself a virgin bride. The sexuality of man and woman created in God's image
reflects this; or rather, the way the Church talks about God using sexual
metaphor reflects God's relationship with human kind seen most clearly in how
human beings were created to relate to one another sexually.
Ontologically speaking, we are virgins who offer our
virginity to God our Groom who has purchased us with His Life and cares for us
forever. Biological virginity is the manifestation in time and space of this
ontological reality. Thus, there are two states in Christian anthropology: the
virgin bride of God expressed in either the monastic state that iconically
manifests the virginal longing of the espoused bride for the Bridegroom, or the
married state that iconically manifest the longing fulfilled in the
fruitfulness (and faithfulness!) of God's ultimate consummated relationship
with mankind. Anything else is an aberration. Aberrations, though, are not the
end of the story. God continually calls his unfaithful spouse back to Himself. Biological
virginity is meant to be a manifestation of a deeper, inner virginity – an
inner virginity that can be restored through repentance even if the outer
virginity has been lost (i.e. St. Mary of Egypt is listed among the Holy Virgin
Women).
Stepping down from ontology to morality, we have to
admit that morality is often influenced by culture. Yes, King David had many
wives and concubines (although he did take responsibility for them and their
children for the rest of their lives). We can also point out that many
Christians (Orthodox or otherwise) completely ignore certain Biblical and
canonical prohibitions against, for example, lending money at interest and
other moral teachings of the Bible or the Church Fathers (e.g. the prohibition
against selling church properties, the commandment to tithe, the prohibition
against work on the Sabbath/Sunday or against taking a fellow Christian to
secular court). However, in spite of some pockets of cultural waffling or
slippage in some areas of the Church’s moral teaching, the moral teaching
regarding sexual behaviour has been amazingly consistent throughout both Jewish
and Christian history and in multiple different cultural settings. Even in the
midst of secular cultures that were very sexually loose, Christians have never
allowed polygamy (or polyandry for that matter) and have only reluctantly
allowed divorce (or annulment, which has become a longer and more expensive
route to the same end). Even in ancient Jewish contexts that allowed polygamy,
it was expected that the husband was to care for all wives and concubines and
their children for life. And certainly in all Jewish and Christian contexts – I
really cannot think of one exception – any sexual intercourse outside of
marriage was considered a moral failure, a failure that at least for Christians
can be forgiven and healed, but a sin nonetheless, a missing of the mark. This
universality of understanding about sexual morality is, it seems to me, quite
significant.
But what do we do now? What do we do in an age of
birth control and penicillin? And what do we do in a culture of sexual license?
Well first regarding modern medical technology, I must point out that I do know
people who are suffering terribly from physical conditions – not to mention
psychological conditions – acquired through sexual licentiousness and despite
modern medicine; and despite modern birth control, unintended pregnancy is
common and often tragically ends in the death of the child and the serious
maiming (if not physically, certainly psychologically and spiritually) of
especially the mother and also the father. Also, regarding Christian morality
in a sexually free culture, we must acknowledge that the Church has been here
before, often. It might help us to look at what the Church has actually said in
these sexually licentious cultures – but let's save that for another time (take
my word for it, the Church teaching has historically become more explicitly
strict, not less, in sexually licentious cultures).
But to be practical, let's look at dating. For a
Christian, dating is not a good idea. However,
many Christians find themselves single and living on their own. They do not
know how to get to know someone whom they might want to marry except through
dating. Yet even in a dating model, it is not that difficult to avoid physical
sexual intimacy if you really want to avoid it (which is really the issue). Physical
sexual intimacy requires privacy. If you don't want to have sex, don't go
somewhere with your date where you could have sex. In other words, only be
alone with your girl/boy friend in public settings: parks, restaurants, malls,
bowling alleys, etc. Don't park your car in a lonely spot "to talk." Talk
in a corner in the library, talk walking in a park, talk at church, talk on the
bus. Don't, for God's sake, go to each other's homes. No news here. The problem
isn't avoiding physical sexual intimacy, the problem is wanting to avoid it,
which of course we don't – u0nless we very much want to live as the Church has
taught us to live. And even then, desire does not go away; so we must, as St.
Paul says, "walk circumspectly." We have to be careful not to let
ourselves get into situations in which we could possibly do what our passions
are screaming at us to do but that we really don't want to do.
Now regarding compromise. Many have said, and indeed
this is what the general culture says, if it is "really" loving, it
is okay. But what does that mean? Legion are the people who have given in to
this line of reason only to find out a few weeks or months later that
"real" love is not really as real as they had thought. If you really
love someone (in that way) and really want to spend your life together, then
really get married. Commit. For life. That's real love. At least that is real
love as it has been revealed to us by God. It is how God loves. It is how God
has called us to love.
But, you might say, a wedding is only a ceremony, a
piece of paper. The real marriage is in our hearts – and in a technical,
theological sense, the real marriage may even be understood to be the actual
act of sexual intercourse itself with the blood of the first virginal
intercourse being the seal of the covenant. However, the fact is that we don't
really want to be married (at least not yet), and we may not even be sure, for
sure, for sure, that we want to be married to this person. We merely want to
dance but we don't want to pay the fiddler (as my foster mother used to say) – or
we don’t want to pay the fiddler yet, we’ll pay sometime later if it works out.
That is, we may devote our lives to each other as a holy icon of Christ and the
Church later, if it works out. Honestly, this argument that the ceremony
doesn't really mean much is actually an argument to wait for sex. If the sexual
act itself is indeed the symbol of the commitment (rather than the ceremony
being the symbol), then definitely the sex should wait until the commitment is
certain. That is, if sex is not really merely about mutual affection.
I'm all for mutual affection, but is that what
Christ and the Church has taught us that sex is for? Typologically, it is kind
of like treating the Holy Eucharist as a common thing (c.f. Hebrews 10:29 and 1
Corinthians 11: 17ff). Holy Communion is our participation in the very Body and
Blood of Christ. It is for the forgiveness of our sins. It is for our
sanctification. It is our uniting with Christ and His Body. But if we treat the
Holy Eucharist as a mere snack, as something we eat because we have the
munchies, then like the Corinthians to whom St. Paul was writing, we are eating
and drinking condemnation to ourselves. Why? Because the very means of our
salvation we are no longer treating as the very means of our salvation. If we
despise what God has given us for our salvation, then there is no other
salvation. It is not as though God has plan B. Sex functions similarly.
Sexual intercourse in life-long marriage is an icon
in the flesh of God's love for mankind. Sexual
intercourse is how we participate with God in the creation of new human life.
Sexual intercourse is part of the glue that keeps a man and women united for
life – the secret garden, the spring that does not run into the streets, the
hiding place of love. But can sexual intercourse be all this to us if we treat
it as a common thing, as an mere expression of mutual affection – or worse yet,
as a mere means of giving mutual pleasure? Not that sex is not or should not be
pleasurable. It should be pleasurable, just as the Holy Eucharist should taste
sweet, but mere pleasure is not the purpose. As far as the Church is concerned,
physical pleasure is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg of what sexual
intercourse is about.
And regarding this matter of compromise, I must also
point out that if someone and his/her girl/boy friend have significantly
different views on sexual morality at the beginning of the relationship, then
most likely it indicates that the foundation for a life-long monogamous
relationship does not exist. I am not saying that a relationship is impossible.
But I am saying that how you treat sex before you are married will certainly
influence how you experience and think about sex after you are married. You are
setting a pattern, a precedent for life.
Nevertheless, everything can be healed in the
Church. Nothing is impossible. But there is the easier way and the hard way and
the very hard way. What do you want sex to mean to you and your possible future
spouse for the rest of your life? Is it merely an expression of affection and
mutual pleasure or is it an icon of Christ and the Church, a commitment to be
with and for each other forever, a devotion to cling to one another throughout
your entire life no matter what? You have to decide.
My friend, I know this sounds harsh. But honestly I
would speak just as directly to a parishioner who told me that they wanted to
join the army so that they could go fight in Afghanistan. It is a serious
matter. Just like joining the army, sex eventually becomes a matter of life and
death, even if it doesn’t seem that way at first.
Source:
CONVERSATION