Most of us operate from a sexual belief system that is based on assumption and unspoken messages. Peter Janetzki looks at why some of us may have come to think about sex the way we do.
Most of us operate from a sexual belief system that is based on assumption and unspoken messages. Peter Janetzki looks at why some of us may have come to think about sex the way we do.
In my work as a counsellor it is a regular occurrence that couples share their story of sexual dissatisfaction with me. On almost every occasion these people are intelligent people who know what they want (and don’t want), and in most cases have an understanding of what turns them on. So it begs the question, why do they need the help of a professional therapist? Surely if they do what the other wants all will be well? Unfortunately the underlying belief in these assumptions is that external behaviour determines internal satisfaction. Being a healthy, authentic, mature sexual man on the outside requires a person to discover what it means to be a healthy, authentic sexual man on the inside.
Popular culture and media have led us to believe that sexuality can exist in isolation devoid of morality and spirituality. Yet this is far from the truth! Every one of us has a moral frame work – a set of beliefs and values that determine how we conduct ourselves as sexual beings, which I call our sexual theology. And many of us have little or no understanding of our sexual theology let alone how it impacts our relationships.
Using the word theology may sound very religious but don’t switch off just yet! In recent years many counsellors have reclaimed the importance of understanding the impact that our social, cultural, family and religious backgrounds have on our thinking and behaviour. This also applies to our underlying beliefs about sexuality. For each one of us our sexual theology has been shaped and influenced by a number of factors.
A key factor for many of us has been the absence of clear messages about sexuality creating a sense of taboo. Dr Ward Powers (Marriage and Divorce the New Testament Teaching, 1987) points out that each society around the world has, almost without exception, passed on to the next generation knowledge about the physical aspects of sex as well as the social and moral standards governing sexual behaviour. He points out that the one major exception to this is our western culture. I know of very few men whose fathers gave them clear, healthy teaching about sex let alone male sexuality. Consequently most of us operate from a sexual belief system that is based on assumption and unspoken messages and is neither clear nor well thought out.
A second key factor, and probably one of the least acknowledged influences, is the religious background of our culture. Western society has been founded on Judeo/Christian teaching and consequently most of us have responded in one of two ways. Either we have unconsciously adopted them or we have rejected them as outdated and irrelevant.
If we have accepted them unconsciously the question begs, ‘what is it that we have accepted as the basis of our beliefs?’ For centuries the dominant sexual theology of the Christian church has been a sex negative position - what I call a prudish theology. Sexuality has been seen as evil, bad, naughty and at best something to be tolerated except in the context of having children (procreating). I have encountered many people who on one hand, believe that sex is OK in marriage, yet on the other hand, believe that to let themselves really enjoy sex would somehow be wrong.
One of the major misconceptions about the prudish theology is that its origin is the Bible. In fact it began with a teaching that emerged in the second century known as Gnosticism, which was a result of the blending of the newly established Christianity with Greek thinking.
The key principles of Gnosticism were:
-
The assumption that the physical matter (our human body) and spirit were alien to one another
-
That aspects of thinking and the mind were of a higher order and therefore spiritual and aspects of the body, “the flesh” were carnal and evil
-
And therefore a person was only spiritual if they had some special or secret knowledge
-
Consequently sexuality was carnal, of the flesh and therefore negative at best it is to be tolerated.
Unfortunately the early church father’s such as Augustine of Hippo (354- 430 AD), Jerome (347 - 420 AD), and Pope Gregory I picked up these concepts and built them into the church as major teachings. Hybels and Wilkins, (Tender Love, God's Gift Of Sexual Intimacy 1993) point out that the ‘official position of the church between the 3rd and the 10th centuries, was that sex was forbidden on Saturdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, as well as during the forty-day fast periods before Easter, Christmas, and Whitsuntide - all for religious reasons. When you added feast days and days of female impurity, one historian estimates that only 44 days a year were left for marital sex.’
Now you may be thinking, so what! I am not a church person so this doesn’t impact on me. However, Scott Peck points out in The Road Less Travelled (Arrow Books Ltd, 1978), that all of us are impacted by our worldview, and our worldview is caught not taught. Therefore many of the concepts of the church are embedded within our worldview. Hence what happens for many couples is a sense of false guilt if they enjoy their sexuality because deeply embedded within their thinking is that what they are doing is wrong.
The other end of the spectrum is what has been labelled as sexual liberation. This thinking has rejected ‘all morality’ based on the belief that morality is archaic and no longer applicable to modern life. It has adopted the belief that we can engage in any sexual practice that takes our fancy, and are thus free from moral constraints. However, this new belief is a morality based ego centric value. It suggests “I can do what I want and determine my values according to my preferences and no one has the right to impose restrictions upon me.” I call this risqué theology.
The underlying worldview of this risqué theology is a narcissistic and self-indulgent philosophy, which is the antithesis of relationship. Is it any wonder that those holding to an extreme view of this tend to have shallow relationships, which uses sexuality in an exploitative way, and maintains the gratification of self as the primary goal.
An even more subtle assumption within this view is that freedom equates with the ability to do what ever we want without consequences. It is a bit like taking a gold fish out of its fish bowl and throwing it into the air telling it to fly and be free. True freedom can only be experienced within the context for which something is made. We all must live within the confines of the atmosphere and environment that enables us to live. I believe that we are whole people – that is physical/sexual beings, emotional beings, social beings and spiritual beings and that an intrinsic part of our context for living is relational. Hence true freedom can only be experienced within the context of relationship with self, others, and God.
As someone who was not happy with the sex negative outlook of prudish theology (and its associated guilt, shame and fear) and yet not wanting to accept risqué theology (with its lack of emphasis on quality relationship) placed me in a dilemma, which became the impetus for finding an alternative view. As I started to research what the Bible had to say about sex and sexuality I was surprised and relieved. What I discovered was there were more than one hundred and seventy verses in the Bible about sex, and that the Bible was ambivalent on this topic. The apparent sex negative view was clearly confined to sex outside of a permanent relationship and in fact the Bible did not have a negative thing to say about sex in marriage. In fact a number of passages (i.e. Song of Songs, and Proverbs) held it up as something to be enjoyed and celebrated. Consequently I have had to challenge the beliefs and assumptions that were embedded in my experience and to arrive at a value system that was congruent with my growing worldview.
Out of this I have developed a holistic view of sexual theology that encompasses the four dimensions of body, mind, relationship, and spirit.
Hot Tips for a Holistic View of Sexuality!
-
Sex was created by God for the purpose of enhancing relationships within the context of permanency.
-
Sex in the context of permanency is something to be enjoyed and celebrated.
-
Sex outside the context of permanency is seen by God not only as wrong but harmful.
-
Sex is not solely for procreation and as Dr Ward Powers Marriage and Divorce in the New Testament (Family Life Movement of Australia & Jordan Books Ltd, 1987) points out, that sex resulting in producing children is a biological fact not an issue of theology.
-
True intimacy within sex is the revelation of deeper levels of myself, through sex, to my spouse.
-
The goal of healthy sexuality is giving and receiving not taking and getting.
-
Healthy sexuality grows my relationship with myself, my spouse, and God.
For me to be a healthy, authentic, mature sexual man I have had to challenge myself about my own sexual theology. I have had to examine where these beliefs have come and question the basis on which I accept them. I have rejected the messages and beliefs that flourished in the absence of well thought out and clearly communicated values. As a result, I have discovered and am continuing to discover who I am and what it means for me to be a spiritual and sexual man on the inside.
I wonder where you are in your journey?
Peter Janetzki