In the last post in this series, we saw that according to the early Church indulging in excess in anything beyond what is necessary was considered unnatural and a fundamental obstacle to holiness. Both the New Testament and the early Church insist that self-control is the foundation of holy living, i.e., communion with God.and one another.
So, eating is good. But eating in excess is unnatural and gluttonous. The things of this world are good. But, accumulating more than is necessary is unnatural and greedy. Anger that empowers us to resist and “renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God and the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 302) is good. But, anger toward other people is unnatural and sinful.
In each case, self-control is key, both in the sense of controlling our desires and of channeling them to their proper end which is the love of God and love of neighbor. This was also true when it comes to sexual behavior.
Unnatural Sex and Self-control
It is important to note that a general cultural suspicion of material/physical reality and suspicion of the female, plus Paul’s ambivalence about sex and marriage (cf. 1 Corinthians 7) influenced leaders and teachers in the early Church when they reflected on sex and marriage. Most contemporary Christians would likely be more affirming of material reality, more affirming of femaleness, and more affirming of the goods of marriage than were many of our ancestors in the faith. Even so, the scriptures and the early Church have things to teach us. One of those is the significance of the spiritual discipline of self-control. This is true in all areas of life, including sex.
The theme of self-control and its challenges has been central to the Church's thinking in the area of sexual desire. As with gluttony, greed, and anger, out of control or “excessive” sexual desire and behavior – lust – was considered unnatural. One early Church theologian observed that most other creatures only mate seasonally or that their females are only occasionally “in heat.” Only humans copulate year round, day and night. In his view, this is surely evidence that human sexual behavior tends toward an unnatural, out of control obsession.
The theme of self-control and its challenges has been central to the Church's thinking in the area of sexual desire. As with gluttony, greed, and anger, out of control or “excessive” sexual desire and behavior – lust – was considered unnatural. One early Church theologian observed that most other creatures only mate seasonally or that their females are only occasionally “in heat.” Only humans copulate year round, day and night. In his view, this is surely evidence that human sexual behavior tends toward an unnatural, out of control obsession.
One of the most important theologians of the early Church, Augustine of Hippo (354-430), wrote at length about sexual desire and self-control. For Augustine, the involuntary nature of physical sexual response is evidence of our loss of control due to the Fall. A man should be able to choose whether or not and when he has an erection. But, the body and its desires do not always respond to the will and sometimes responds against it. Augustine sees this as a serious problem. It is contrary to what is supposed to be our natural state in which our flesh is subordinate to our reason. He is also concerned with the way reason is abandoned in the midst of sexual passion. He compares it with being drunk, which is a surrendering of self-control. Unlike most of the theologians before him, Augustine did believe that Adam and Eve were meant to have sex in the Garden of Eden. But, it would have been controlled and willful, quite unlike most people experience and enjoy it. He argues that sex without the Fall would have been as voluntary as a handshake. And no more passionate or pleasurable. And the only reason for doing it would be for willed reproduction. Augustine argued that marriage (while inferior to celebate singleness or monastic life) could be a good thing characterized by fidelity, procreation, and the sacramental bond. But, he is also clear that even within marriage, sex is only for procreation. Further, given the population of the earth, Augustine believed that the injunction in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply" had been fulfilled and thus even procreation was no longer necessary.
(see City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26; On the Good of Marriage, On Holy Virginity)
Augustine believed that marriage is about more
than procreation (the faithfulness each spouse to the other and the sacredness
of the unbreakable, 'sacramental', bond), but he was convinced that procreation
is the only natural purpose of sex. Sexual desire and pleasure were both
inherently rooted in sin – lust. And he was not alone in this.
If a man marries
in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife.
He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will.
– Saint Clement
of Alexandria (150-215)
Do you imagine
that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of
children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.
– Saint Jerome
(347-420)
Eve in paradise
was a virgin . . . understand that virginity is natural and that marriage comes
after the Fall.
– Saint Jerome
(347-420)
These are not insignificant theologians and their attitudes are not unusual. They are typical of the early Church and common throughout most of the Church’s history. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) had a slightly more favorable view of sexual pleasure (Summa Theologica II.2.Q153.2, Milhaven, John Giles, Thomas Aquinas on Sexual Pleasure, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Fall, 1977), pp. 157-181). But Aquinas was just as emphatic that the only natural end of sex was procreation – thus any artificial birth-control is unnatural and analogous to murder (Contra Gentiles.3.122).
I have argued against completely separating sex from the potential for pregnancy and procreation, but, that it is not the necessary or only natural aim of sex (See here).
I have argued against completely separating sex from the potential for pregnancy and procreation, but, that it is not the necessary or only natural aim of sex (See here).
I do not share the above to suggest that the early Church theologians were silly or that their teaching is now irrelevant. I write as one who reads, appreciates, and has been shaped by their wisdom. They desired a peace that transcended the agitations and anxieties of this life. And, as we saw in the last post in this series, it was not just sexual agitations and anxieties that concerned them. If we decide Augustine and others sometimes misdirected or misapplied their concern for a life of self-control and deep peace governed by reason, the concern is still a legitimate one for Christians.
But, their suspicion of physical pleasure – especially sexual pleasure – and their suspicion of the female are sometimes at odds with the creeds and much of scripture. Further, it sometimes leads them to flirt with the anti-material heresies of Manichaeism and Gnosticism.
It is instructive to note how differently these major figures of the early and medieval Church understood what is ideal and natural vs. unnatural in sexual behavior and its purpose compared to most Christians today. Most of us would – I certainly would – want to affirm a more positive Christian understanding of sex and sexual pleasure. And of marriage more generally. And it is important to note that in their context these theologians were more positive about both than many non-Christians of their day. And there are others in the Church's tradition – a minority report, so to speak – who have been more positive about marriage and sex.
But, their suspicion of physical pleasure – especially sexual pleasure – and their suspicion of the female are sometimes at odds with the creeds and much of scripture. Further, it sometimes leads them to flirt with the anti-material heresies of Manichaeism and Gnosticism.
It is instructive to note how differently these major figures of the early and medieval Church understood what is ideal and natural vs. unnatural in sexual behavior and its purpose compared to most Christians today. Most of us would – I certainly would – want to affirm a more positive Christian understanding of sex and sexual pleasure. And of marriage more generally. And it is important to note that in their context these theologians were more positive about both than many non-Christians of their day. And there are others in the Church's tradition – a minority report, so to speak – who have been more positive about marriage and sex.
Our Christian forebears rightly recognized the power of sexual desire and the potential for it to wreak havoc as well as joy in our lives. And, thus, the concern for self-control as a basic virtue. Self-control is a central New Testament virtue (and a fruit of the Spirit) that we should reclaim. And not just in sexual matters. I’ve written more on this here: Self-Control: Neglected Fruit of the Spirit.
Self-control and homosexual sex
The theme of self-control and its challenges in the area of sexual desire was central to the thinking of the early Church (and much of pagan philosophy of the period). Excessive pursuit of sexual pleasure, along with other pleasures of the senses, was considered sinful. And this is how homosexual relationships were understood. The ancients did not think of homosexuality in terms of orientation. Rather, they saw it as out of control, excessive sexual desire – lust. Here are some examples:
Soranus of Ephesus, a Greek physician in Rome first half of 2nd century AD, asserted:
No one readily believes that effeminate or
sexually passive men (whom the Greeks call malthacoi)
are actually suffering from a disease. For this behavior does not arise
naturally in humans; rather, when modesty has been suppressed, it is lust that
coerces to obscene usage body parts that have their own specific function,
although there is no limit to desire, no hope of satisfaction when their
allotted roles do not suffice for individual parts. (Homosexuality
in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents, Thomas K. Hubbard, ed.
p. 463)
Dio of Prusa (Dio Chrysostom), a Greek orator, philosopher, and historian of the Roman Empire (AD 40-115) wrote:
Is it possible that this intemperate race [men engaging in same-sex sex] would hold off from abuse and corruption of males and impose upon themselves the clear and sufficient limit decreed by nature? Wouldn't they rather seek another greater and more illicit form of outrage once they had become in every way sated and full of their unrestrained pleasure with women? . . . The man who is boundless in such desires finds nothing rare or resistant in that race, despises what is easy and devalues female Aphrodite, since it is readily available and truly altogether feminine. Instead he will cross over to the male side, desiring to commit shameful acts with those who in the near future will be rulers, judges, and generals, finding here a difficult and rarely acquired pleasure. He experiences the same thing as hard drinkers and winos, who after long and uninterrupted binges of drinking don't want to drink any more, but intentionally create thirst through steam-baths and the serving of salty or spicy foods. (Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents, Thomas K. Hubbard, ed. p. 448)
In
his commentary on Romans, St. John Chrysostom seems to share this perspective:
You see that the whole of desire comes of an
exorbitancy [excess] which endures not to abide within its proper limits.
(The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church, vol. XI, p. 356)
The
assumption is that these men naturally desire women, but, because their desire is out of
control and excessive, they “cross over” for new sexual pleasures with other
men. It is the excess that is unnatural. This seems to me to be significant. And I believe it can inform our
reading of Romans 1. I will return to that in the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment