Spirituality and Sensuality

There is a fine line between living a spiritual and a sensual life. Clearly if God thought humanity was wholly awful the holy would not inhabit the profane as did Jesus. Further if the light were less than the darkness it would not be able to cast out light.
Jesus appears to have lived and loved being in this body despite the tendency of some to see only the 'suffering of the cross' rather than appreciate the childhood, work, friendships, weddings and suppers. Clearly most Christians 'believe' Jesus was 'celibate' but the fact remains 'erotica' and 'pornography' were not part of the 'tale'. The Essenes, the sect with which John the Baptist was thought to have been associated knew celibacy but the traditional Jewish wisdom said "a man without a woman is not a man'. It wasn't surprising to think that Jesus and Mary were 'romantically' attracted and perhaps were it not for the Romans the young carpenters son might have married and had children. However it would be wrong to think they had an illicit relationship as some have suggested. Jesus was truthful and would not have committed adultery and maintained the respect of his community. Indeed he said a person's 'thoughts' could be a sexual transgression in a day when only 'actions' were held to be accountable. Yet he did not talk about sex in detail.
His 'mission' in contrast to St. Paul's emphasized wholly different matters than the 'sexual'. St. Paul on the other hand and St. Peter actually argued over genital mutilation. The divisions in the 'church' were present from the earliest, not just with Judas. In the history of Christianity there have been those like the early church father Origen who castrated himself to avoid sexual thoughts. Women in contrast never were terribly discouraged from ribald thinking by the church. They were supposed to be fecund with their husbands but as to whether they physically enjoyed sex and sensuality was a different matter.
The church was full of gluttons. Fat ladies and fat old men were a part of all churches that I've ever been in and fat is the external expression of gluttony no diffent than bastards were an external expression of adultery. Yet this 'excess' of sensuality was tolerated as was 'avarice' .
Jesus spoke directly about the rich man not getting into heaven. Yet the church is full of wealthy people who don't see a need to give away their wealth yet might expect their gluttonous friend to forego a second helping. They certainly would frown on their neighbours mistress but would remain 'mum' if their wealth involved some 'shady' or 'clever' business practice. Jesus talked a lot more about material acquisition and fear than he did about sensuality.
Yet there was a long debate in the church whether Jesus was God, or half god half man, or whether his flesh was real flesh or sacred flesh. There's been those who rejected all 'pleasure' and 'scourged themselves' in the early Desert Father movements. Some spiritual people feel guilty about enjoying 'the taste of food'. They acknowledge they must eat but 'enjoying the taste' is unspiritual.
The same was true of sex, making babies was necessary and unavoidable but should one enjoy it. No doubt some of the quickness and lack of sensuality in the 'wham bang thank you ma'am' scenario came from this 'defecatory' approach to matters sensual. Spirituality is about matters of the sense but love appears distinguished from 'lust', enjoyment of a fine meal from hoarding food and stuffing twinkles in the wee hours of the night.
Addiction theories are principally concerned with what is 'healthy' and what is 'unhealthy' in behaviours where sensuality is so obsessively indulged as the spiritual is lost. C.S. Lewis cautioned us not to look for the Architect in the wall of the building. To this end a whole movement of Christian gentility and yuppies in the 30's to 90's felt the whole idea was 'balance' and 'moderation'. This 'middle road' approach was aimed at much as the hedonists and epicureans had countered the tenets of the stoics in their 'attitudes' to this 'world'. One was to be in the world but not of the world.
I listen to Christian shows and read Christian and spiritual writings and this is commonly at the centre of modern day discussion though often the participants seem unaware that such discussions predated Christ and were certainly a major concern in the church. The nature of Jesus is a whole area of study because clearly a half man, half god would make Jesus something akin to the Greek godmen half animal half human chimera creatures. Not at all what Jesus was, so what was he. And how can we become homo spiritus without losing 'homo sapiens' or are we indeed to leave the 'homo sapiens'behind. Why then would St. Francis refer to his body in old age affectionately as 'Brother Ass'.  There are those whose 'holiness' is a 'hot house' plant and they seem to have 'left this world' when I wonder what if God has given this world to us to live in as Adam and Eve but not to be lost in as the Tower of Babble story suggests. Certainly we don't want to be living as they did before Noah. But what was that?
 Redemption speaks to this as well. But the Spiritual and Sensual are not opposites as the some religionists would have us believe. In Celtic Christianity the world is "Gods Creation' as are we. But always in the background I see the beautiful picture by Rembrandt of the Prodigal Son. I wonder what picture Rembrandt would paint if there had been a Podigal Daughter story in the Bible.

Spirituality and Sexuality

There is an "other worldliness" associated with spirituality. Even though we know that E=MC2 and that Jesus was fully human and fully God we still maintain a kind of dualism that says this body is at war with my soul or spiritual self. This is especially true with "bodily thoughts", especially "desires" and worst "lust". Lust immediately raises the horrid sexual spectre of the two backed beast but in reality it can also refer to any passionate activity such as 'he lusted to kill the man". Indeed any extreme 'feeling' has at some time been 'banned' or 'censored' by the religious, who ostensibly were the 'spiritual' until recent times when distinctions were made. These distinctions were made mostly because the "spiritual" weren't quite ready to join in groups of people who might insist on 'disembodying' them. I frankly believe that I am a 'spiritual being travelling through a material experience." St. Francis would say in later years that he would go somewhere "Brother Ass" willing. It was common to describe walking in olden days as 'travelling by shank's mare". The body was a loved and cherished friend and vehicle for the soul. Clearly there was a 'shell' present when a person died and people had experiences of spirits departing from bodies as well as all the other inter dimensional extrasensory experiences associated with 'ghosts' and 'spirits'. Part of the 'dissociative' experience is to 'deny' desires as one's own and blame them on 'brother ass'. "I didn't want the extra piece of cake," cries the glutton, "My body made me do it." The 'double minded' person of the Bible often mixed up with the Twin Spirited person of native tradition is a person who is 'ambivalent' and caught between two prepositions. In relationship with God one becomes 'clear minded' and 'single purposed'. It is a difficult time faced with a 'dilemma' and refusing to choose as if one can have their cake and eat it. The history of church and passions has been varied and extensive. Jesus doesn't talk about sex per se but celebrates life and food and wine and lives a most bohemian lifestyle compared to the 'respectable' of his day. He's actually deeply critical of those who live their lives by rigid and multiple complex laws. In raising Lazarus he appears to demonstrate that no 'laws' of the world are above the transcendent laws of God. He says, "Follow him", often today meant to mean 'be like him' when 'to follow' means much more in some ways. The Jews in general at the time were a passionate lot. Love of food, company, wine, a good argument, song and dance are all part of the Biblical past. The Bible emphasizes the association of Jesus with David and David was every bit a man. He danced in the street. Sex with his wife was celebrated but he only seems to have gone wildly astray when he wanted another man's wife to the extent that he sent the husband into battle to be alone with his mistress. This story, like the story of Moses murdering, is usually seen as evidence that man can be 'redeemed'. It doesn't matter how far astray one goes because as the story of the prodigal son tells, God is always waiting at home for the return of his children. The Essenes were a semi monastic, some say, cult like order at the time of Jesus. He's thought to have come from this group like John the Baptist. Monks and nuns have long rejected the external pleasures of the world to live more simple and contemplative lives in the most basic of communities. In the Bible the story of Martha and Mary Jesus says that the contemplative way is indeed the better way but clearly, given his evident love of Martha and Mary, not the 'only' way. The early Christian church was attractive to the upper and lower classes. The lower classes tend to have less opportunity for 'pleasure' and make a virtue of necessity. The upper classes however have greater opportunity for pleasure and the means. Augustine who has left us his journals gives a rich account of his passionate relationship with his mother and his difficulties with managing a wife and mistress. I know the King James Bible was written by the English and the English are known for their "cold blooded" "stiff upper lips" but it's not the only way to be "Christian" as the southern climes produce as many 'hot blooded' Christians. Even Israel had it's difficulties early in the course of it's development mixing the local Mediterranean Jewish population with the incoming northern European Jewish populations. Even today the Christian church globally struggles with the 'intellectualism' of the northern European and North American and the 'southern flavour' of worship and understanding. Mozart and Black Gospel music appear opposite but are equally true in their highest renditions. There are many ways to embrace Christianity. Neo platonism was a part of the early Christian church when the ideas of ancient Greece fulminated with the early Christian Jewish traditions. The rational formulaic aspects of very Jewish St. Paul are contrasted with the much more colourful teaching of St. John of Revelations written in the Greek Islands. In the Greek tradition there is a struggle between the main themes of the schools of Stoicism, Epicureanism and Hedonism. Marcus Aurelius's journal gives a clear idea of the stoic and indeed this somewhat "warrior religion' has throughout history appealed to the combative and indeed paranoid. It's commonly seen in the monasteries that arose in reaction to the barbarism that dominated the so called 'dark ages' when political violence and war made no 'peace on earth' possible except in far away places protected from the chaos of the mobs and gangsters of the day. Epicurianism remains today in the ideas associated with 'fine living' and not normally associated with Christianity in the modern sense. Yet it was the kind of thinking that permeated the renaissance to a large extent and was embraced throughout history by multitudes of leading Christians. Today it could be likened in some sense to the "Yuppie" Christians and the movement just recently of the 'educated Christian' sets that rose out of the 50's and 60's with the 'good life' and 'love of Christ'. Hedonism has got a bad rapt today but in many ways the hedonists were superior by today's standards to the epicureans. Neither were however terribly 'other worldly' like the 'stoics' who at the extreme end are the Sado massochists of today involved in anorexia, floggings and all manner of rejecting of the body. St. John of the Cross, famous for his single word "nada" no doubt fasted but when he wasn't fasting like Jesus, enjoyed a good meal. There seems in this sense a place for both activities. I am concerned about those who speak as if they are certain they know what is "God's" plan and 'desire' because I am a Christian in the truest sense and have studied the Bible and Christianity and see that sexuality is not the opposite of the spirituality. The Christian spiritual path embraces sexuality and wants the sexual to be Christian. Like all things spiritual though the direction of activity needs to be towards God and not away from God. As a Christian I am, I believe, to give all to God and to this end I give my sexuality and all the feelings and desires associated with this sexuality. I don't want to be a eunuch for Christ unless of course that is the path I take, like Origen. But frankly I'm not there yet and I think there's a 'lie' in the church, a prudish sentimentality, that deprives it of the robustness of religion in general, which refuses to celebrate the 'creativity' of 'spirituality'. Spirituality, especially spirituality, doesn't need to be sterile or castrate to be alive.