The Asperity of Sexual Sin: Exploring the Sexual-Spiritual Nexus

By David W. Jones

[Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587]

October 20, 1993, was a sad day for particle physicists around the world. This was the day on which the United States House of Representatives officially voted 282–143 to cancel funding for the Superconducting Supercollider Project (SSC). After ten years of research and construction, with bills totaling more than two billion dollars, the SSC was a victim of the then-growing political debate over the proposed balanced budget amendment. If it had been completely built, this seventeen-mile-long underground particle accelerator at Waxahachie, Texas, would have allowed scientists to collide protons with the force of forty trillion electron volts in order to separate and catalog the very elementary building blocks of matter. One of the chief reasons for the SSC’s inception was the scientific community’s desire to verify the existence of quarks and gravitons. Quarks and gravitons are hypothetical subatomic particles that scientists theorize exist as a result of their work with quantum physics, tenor calculus, and string theory. The only problem, however, is that without the SSC or some similar tool, particle physicists will never be able to prove that quarks and gravitons genuinely exist.[1]

This article is primarily concerned with a proposed connection between sexuality and spirituality, and secondarily with the implications of such a link for those involved in sexual sin.[2] Proving that a sexual-spiritual nexus actually exists, though, is somewhat analogous to trying to demonstrate the existence of quarks and gravitons without the SSC—that is, there is much conjectural evidence but precious little empirical proof. Given the prevalence of sexual sin in Western culture, verifying the existence of a postulated sexual-spiritual nexus is of far more importance than demonstrating something as esoteric as the existence of quarks and gravitons, for if there is a genuine connection between sexuality and spirituality, then sexual transgressions are more than just physical infractions and must be viewed in light of their spiritual significance and eternal impact.

At the outset, one should note that most religious people would agree that there is at least a superficial connection between sexuality and spirituality.[3] For Christians, this surface-level connection is seen in that the God of the Bible was concerned enough about sex to incorporate some basic commands and prohibitions regarding sexuality into His Word. In fact, the first commandment that God ever gave to humanity was to procreate. The sexual-spiritual nexus postulated in this work, however, is an orphic connection that goes beyond mere obedience (or lack thereof) to the scriptural mandates concerning sexuality. The postulated nexus, however, ought not to be equated with the Roman Catholic Church’s sacramental view of marriage,[4] nor identified in any way with ideas espoused by pagan or New Age sexuality.[5]

This treatise contains three main sections, each of which analyzes various aspects of the proposed connection between sexuality and spirituality. The first section reviews several reasons why sexuality and spirituality have been bifurcated in much modern Christian thinking. This discussion is then followed in section 2 by a presentation of evidence that substantiates the postulated thesis that a sexual-spiritual nexus does indeed exist. In the third main segment of this work, the author attempts to define the nature of the proposed bond between sexuality and spirituality. Finally, several of the implications stemming from the existence of a sexual-spiritual nexus will be considered in the conclusion.

Sex and the Spirit: The Great Rift

In his best-selling book The Screwtape Letters, British apologist C. S. Lewis noted that each time a man and a woman enter into a sexual relationship, a spiritual bond is established between them that must be either eternally enjoyed or eternally endured.[6] While claims such as these are easy to make, as has already been indicated, the sexual-spiritual nexus is difficult to prove objectively. In fact, throughout much of church history some Christians have denied the existence of a link between the sexual and spiritual altogether, preferring instead to allocate these two aspects of humanity to separate and oftentimes unequal realms. While this division of sex and spirit has not always been beneficial to Christianity at large,[7] several factors made this division all but inevitable. These factors include: the influence of Greek philosophy, the traditions of the Hebrew people, the influence of Augustine, and act-based sexual ethics.

The Gentile world of the Roman Empire into which Christianity was born was a society dominated by Greek philosophy. One of the prevailing tenants of this secular philosophy was a dualism between the physical and spiritual worlds. Essentially, this dualistic philosophy taught that material objects are inherently corrupt, while spiritual entities or ideas are favorable and capable of perfection. Although this dualism, which had its roots in Platonic idealism and Aristotelian realism, was officially condemned by the church—especially as it was manifested in Gnosticism—it nevertheless had a great impact on the church’s sexual ethics. The proof of this influence can be seen in the church’s early approval and idealization of the ascetic lifestyle, the preferment of virginity (embodied most clearly in Maryology), and the ecclesiastical endorsement of celibacy.[8] All three of these concepts focused upon a denial of the physical body in order to accentuate the spirit.

Another factor that added to the bifurcation between sexuality and spirituality in the early church was the legacy inherited from the Hebrew people. The Old Testament records sexuality as a creation of God,[9] that the distinct creation of male and female was “very good,”[10] and that the earliest humans were even given a divine command to procreate.[11] Nevertheless, the Israelites (at least the postexilic ones) did not accentuate this relationship between sexuality and spirituality. The reason for this lassitude can be found in Israel’s Sitz im Leben. Although the Hebrew Scriptures do affirm the rectitude of the sex act, it was never a component of the Old Testament sacrificial system nor related to any facet of the worship of Yahweh. The nations surrounding Israel, however, did practice sexual intercourse in conjunction with the veneration of their gods. Consequently, some of the wayward Jews were drawn into carnal idolization.[12] Since the later prophets pointed to sexual and spiritual prostitution as the main reasons for the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, many of the Jewish remnant were wary of connecting sexuality with spirituality, even in a proper context.

Ironically, the Church Father Augustine also played an important role in the divorce of sexuality from spirituality. Augustine himself realized that there is a strong connection between these two facets. Augustine’s doctrine regarding the existence of the spiritual-somatic tie did not lead to a deepening of the rift between sex and spirit. Rather, his understanding of the nature of this connection deepened it. Due in part to his own sexual misadventures and the influence of Manichiestic dualism,[13] Augustine taught that original sin is transferred through copulation.[14] Augustine believed, then, that on account of the causal relationship that exists between sex and the spirit, the body must be strictly disciplined, and sex must be regulated.[15] This particular understanding of the sexual-spiritual nexus led Augustine, and those in the church who later adopted his theology, to emphasize the immaterial to such a degree that human sexuality was neglected and distorted.

One final factor that significantly contributed to the division between sexuality and spirituality is simply act-based sexual ethics. Christians have often been guilty of reducing sexual morality to a set of laws or wooden commands. According to this vein of ethics, sexual sin is defined in terms of the wrong time, the wrong act, the wrong person, the wrong method, or the wrong purpose. This cheapens sex to a mere physical act and removes the spiritual connection a priori. This type of morality can be treacherous in that its abuse can lead to either an unhealthy suspicion of, or exploitation of, the body. Classic examples of the perversion of act-based sexual ethics include: penitential manuals from the Middle Ages,[16] the Victorian mistrust of the body,[17] modern-day penal codes, and the proliferation of sexual promiscuity—including fornication, adultery, incest, pornography, and homosexuality.

Evidence for the Sexual-Spiritual Nexus

As has previously been conceded, when one attempts to prove a connection between the sexual and spiritual realms conclusively, there is no “smoking gun” or standard verse of Scripture to quote. This being true, however, there is a substantial amount of circumstantial and conjectural evidence that suggests that a unique bond exists between sex and the spirit. Some of the evidence is exegetical while some is more logical in nature. This circumstantial corroboration will be marshaled below in an attempt to demonstrate that there is in fact an orphic connection between sexuality and spirituality.

Arguments from Two Key Biblical Passages

While there are many verses in Scripture that cryptically allude to a bond between sexuality and spirituality, two passages are especially important in that they categorically relate the man/woman sexual relationship to the Christ/church spiritual relationship. These two passages are 1 Cor. 6:15–17 and Eph. 5:22–32. They read as follows:

1 Cor. 6:15–17—Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then remove the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it not be! Or do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For ‘the two,’ Scripture says, ‘shall become one flesh.’ But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him.

Eph. 5:22–32—Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, and he is the Savior of the body Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her, that he might sanctify and cleanse her by the washing of the water of the Word, that he might present her to himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and blameless. So husbands ought to love their own wives just as their own bodies; he who loves his own wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord also does the church. For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Although these two passages were written at different times and were addressed to different congregations, they contain two commonalities that shed light upon the sexual-spiritual nexus. First, note that while both of these passages were written to give instruction on differing sexual matters, that which is normative and primary in both passages is the Christ/church relationship. In 1 Cor. 6:15–17 it is the Christ/church relationship that is threatened by the fornicatious believer/prostitute union. Paul writes that on account of the Christ/church spiritual relationship, the believer is to abstain from sexual intercourse with a harlot. In a similar manner, Paul specifies in Eph. 5:22–32 that the husband/wife marital relationship is to be patterned after the Christ/church relationship.[18] In fact, the husband is told to love his wife “just as” (καθὼς) Christ loved the church.[19] Clearly, then, these readings demonstrate that there is indeed a connection between sexuality and spirituality, for here Paul uses the spiritual Christ/church relationship both to combat sexual transgression (in 1 Cor. 6:15–17) and to command sexual fidelity (in Eph. 5:22–32).

A second similarity between 1 Cor. 6:15–17 and Eph. 5:22–32 is that in both passages Paul quotes Gen. 2:24.[20] This verse is extremely important in regard to sexual ethics, for all five canonical occasions on which it occurs are pivotal points concerning the man/woman union.[21] On the first three occasions on which this passage is cited, it is referenced solely to illustrate the sanctity of the man/woman sexual relationship (cf. Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5–6; Mark 10:8). A survey of its use in the two passages at hand, however, reveals that Paul broadens the application of the “one flesh” principle. In these two passages, the apostle quotes Gen. 2:24 in order to establish the fact that sexual intercourse unites two individuals in such a way that it necessarily impacts the spiritual union between a believer (as a member of the church) and Christ.[22] Therefore, both the man/woman and Christ/church bondings are presented in these citations as interrelated “one flesh” unions.[23] The interconnectedness of these relationships leads to distress in regard to sexual sin (1 Cor. 6:15–17); whereas in regard to marriage, the congruity is viewed as natural (Eph. 5:22–32).

Arguments from the Nature and Constitution of Man

The arguments presented above from 1 Cor. 6:15–17 and Eph. 5:22–32 are spiritually-oriented arguments in that they begin with information contained in the Scriptures (a spiritual source) and attempt to explain the sexual-spiritual nexus within the bounds of Holy Writ. Many recent investigations into the sexual-spiritual bond, however, have not conformed to this paradigm. Rather, some contemporary scholars, especially advocates of pagan spirituality, have sought to investigate the spiritual-somatic tie by beginning with the body.[24] Although this variation in the place of commencement appears to be trivial, a reading of the available literature on the subject demonstrates that indeed such a difference can have a tremendous impact upon how the sexual-spiritual tie is ultimately defined.[25] In short, if the body is the starting point from which the sexual-spiritual bond is analyzed, then the nature of the spiritual connection can be arbitrarily defined. If, on the other hand, the spiritual-somatic tie is examined within the framework of a spiritual source (e.g., the Bible), the definition of the connection will necessarily be limited to the objectivity of that particular construct.

Despite the inherent dangers of attempting to prove the existence of the sexual-spiritual nexus using the nature and constitution of man as a starting point, two arguments of this type have been employed by contemporary Christian scholars that are relevant to the current study. The first of these proofs finds evidence for the sexual-spiritual bond by viewing human sexuality in light of incarnational theology. The lead thinker in this field of study has been James B. Nelson, Professor of Ethics at United Theological Seminary (New Brigham, Minn.).[26] Professor Linda Woodhead explains one of Nelson’s primary arguments, writing that

many Christians now argue that the Christian doctrine of the incarnation of God in Christ should reorient sexual reflection by reminding us of the value and importance of the human body. They maintain that this affirmation of the goodness of the human body is the distinctive Christian affirmation which must inform sexual attitudes. Their argument is that once one realizes that the body is good, then one must realize that sex is also good.... A revolutionary Christian re-evaluation of sexuality and its importance is therefore thought to be imperative. Such re-evaluation, it is argued, must bring sexuality and spirituality back into the closest connection. By this means Christians will be freed to view sex for the first time as a proper part of the spiritual life—a road which leads to the divine rather than away from it.[27]

Nelson, then, begins with the human body and asserts that sex must be significant and spiritual in light of the fact that Jesus Christ took on a human body. Although this line of reasoning is more logical than exegetical, and is prone to grave abuse,[28] it nevertheless has some value to the current study in that it corroborates the validity of a sexual-spiritual nexus.

A second argument in favor of the sexual-spiritual bond that finds its roots in an emphasis upon the nature and constitution of man is the argument from humanity’s sexual appetite. Advocates of this line of argumentation contend that since sexual desire is not satisfied with mere physical intimacy, but rather demands emotional and psychological closeness, there must be a connection between the sexual (or physical) and spiritual (or metaphysical) realms. Scholar Marvin M. Ellison noted that this connection is self-evident as both the sexual and the spiritual drives seek after the same results. These results are: “Wholeness, well-being, integrity, and at-one-ness of human life.”[29] Furthermore, it is argued that even those Christians in the early church who advocated a dualism between body and spirit recognized the connection between sexual desire and spirituality. After all, one of the main reasons why the early church commended a repression of sexual desire was because they believed that this would profit the spirit, in a similar manner as does fasting.

Arguments from the Judgment of God

While the conclusion of this work will argue that divine judgment is a possible implication of sexual sin, divine judgment—especially as it is recorded in Scripture—can also be used to support the very existence of a link between sexuality and spirituality. Arguments for the sexual-spiritual bond using this line of reasoning can be constructed along four different fronts: the fulfillment of Rom. 1:21–28, God’s metaphorical use of sexual terms to condemn spiritual sins, biblical examples of actual judgment for sexual sin, and the New Testament emphasis on the judgment of sexual sins within the church.

In the Book of Romans, the Apostle Paul explained how God’s passive judgment falls upon those who deny God and his revelation. Paul wrote:

Rom. 1:21–28—Although they knew God, they did not honor him as God, nor were thankful, but they became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and crawling things. Therefore God also gave them up to impurity, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies with themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use [of their bodies] for that which is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their desire for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. And even as they did not desire to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.

The connection between sexuality and spirituality presented in this passage is self-evident; when men and women deny God and fail to worship Him, He passes judgment by allowing them to gratify their own corrupt sexual desires. The equation, then, is clear: spiritual sin results in sexual perversion.[30] From the pagan nations that surrounded Israel, to the modern-day relativistic writings of some who claim to be Christians,[31] the manifestation of the sexual-spiritual nexus can be clearly documented throughout history.

Another proof for the spiritual-somatic bond is God’s use of sexual terms when judging his people for spiritual sins. For example, in the Old Testament the Lord often accused Israel of adultery (נאפ),[32] harlotry (זנה),[33] and prostitution (תזנזת/תזנת),[34] when they were guilty of spiritually wandering from Him. In addition, the Old Testament prophets frequently likened the people of Judea and Israel to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah when they failed properly to honor or rely upon God.[35] Likewise, in the New Testament both the Jews and the church are described as adulterous (μοιχαλίς) on account of their spiritual sins.[36] Furthermore, the Book of Revelation describes the leader of the spiritual rebellion in the end-times as the great prostitute (πόρνη),[37] and identifies the sin of the wayward nations that follow after her as adultery (μοιχεύω).[38]

A third proof for the sexual-spiritual nexus based upon divine wrath would be the actual examples of judgment presented within the Scriptures. Examples of such divine judgment for sexual sin include the Lord’s slaying of twenty-three thousand at Sinai for orgiastic activities (Exod. 32:1–35; 1 Cor. 10:8), the death of twenty-four thousand at Shittim for a similar offense (Num. 25:1–18), the destruction of the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for sins that included homosexuality (Gen. 18–19), the condemnation and enslavement of the angels who sinned sexually (Gen. 6:1–4; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6),[39] and the threatened judgment of the churches at Pergamum (Rev. 2:12–17) and Thyatira for their sexual immorality (Rev. 2:18–25). Note that these examples of God’s wrath show that the equation suggested in Rom. 1:21–28 of spiritual corruption resulting in sexual sin is further extended to indicate that spiritual corruption produces sexual sin, which, in turn, leads to spiritual judgment.

A fourth way to illustrate the spiritual-somatic nexus from divine wrath is to note the marked New Testament emphasis on the judgment of sexual sins within the church. For example, in his letters to both the Corinthian and the Galatian churches,[40] the Apostle Paul listed several sexual sins among the transgressions that would keep one from entering the kingdom of God. In addition, in 1 Thess. 4:6 and Heb. 13:4,[41] Paul underscored the fact that the Lord himself is the spiritual avenger of sexual sins. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 5:1–5, the apostle actually urged the church at Corinth to excommunicate an unrepentant sexual sinner.[42] These citations corporately testify to the fact that in the Lord’s economy, at least in regard to judgment, there is a connection between sexuality and spirituality. In fact, in regard to spiritual judgment, no other sins mentioned in Scripture receive as much detailed attention as do sexual sins.

The Nature of the Sexual-Spiritual Nexus

Assuming that the aforementioned evidence indicates that there is indeed a connection between sexuality and spirituality, one should then define the exact nature of this bond. A reading of the available literature on this topic reveals that there are six main options to explain the spiritual-somatic tie. While the nomenclature employed by various authors varies, the six paradigms can be labeled as: the popular view, the sacramental view, the Augustinian view, the divine view, the one-reality view, and the relational view.

The Popular View

As was previously observed, most people, especially individuals with a religious bent, will admit that there is at least a superficial connection between sexuality and spirituality. For Christians, this sexual-spiritual nexus is oftentimes popularly defined in terms of acquiescence to the scriptural ordinances regarding sexuality. According to the popular view, then, the connection that exists between sexuality and spirituality is merely a surface-level bond that is related to keeping or to breaking spiritual injunctions concerning sexuality.

The Sacramental View

On account of its historical view of marriage, the Roman Catholic Church is the leading defender of the sacramental view of the nature of the spiritual-somatic tie. As was alluded to earlier in this work, Roman Catholic ecclesiology espouses that “marriage is a means of grace by which man and woman participate in the mystery of creation, incarnation, redemption, reconciliation, and perfection.”[43] Sex, therefore, as the consummate element of marriage, is an essential component in the conferral of this divine grace. The nature of the sexual-spiritual nexus, according to this view, is denned in terms of the sacramental bestowal of God’s grace upon the marriage of a couple in fellowship with the church.

The Augustinian View

As was briefly touched upon above, the Church Father Augustine taught that original sin is transferred through sexual intercourse. Augustine held this view because he viewed the body “as the symbolic condensation of a state of estrangement from the will of God, in which the mind was intimately involved as was the body.”[44] Therefore, according to Augustine’s traducian position, the nature of the sexual-spiritual nexus finds significance in terms of the causal relationship that exists between sex and original sin.

The Divine View

The divine option for the nature of the sexual-spiritual nexus is so named because its proponents believe that sexuality is a means whereby one may either attain or come into direct contact with deity. A representative of this position is Donald St. John, Professor of Religion at Moravian College (Bethlehem, Perm.). In his article, “Ecological Prayer: Toward an Ecological Spirituality,” St. John wrote:

The invention of sex by the Earth Spirit was one of the most eloquent and meaningful events in the history of the planet.. .. True eroticism and true sensuality participate in and gain sustenance from the erotic Body of the Earth.. .. Lovers, rather than living an illusion, are embedded and ground up in the energy-web of the universe. Through their dreams the Earth dreams; in their dance, dance the sun and moon, spring and fall, day and night. In their love-play the cosmos plays. They are a continuation of the mystery that moves through untold generations of men and women, now lost and forgotten, but living on in the streams of love.[45]

A similar view is espoused by former Roman Catholic monk Thomas Moore who believes that “the highest levels of spirituality are made accessible through sex.”[46]

In his text The Soul of Sex, Moore wrote:

A man or woman can inspire such deep fantasy and emotion that through the loving embrace of our partner’s body we may break through the limits of the human condition to touch upon another level of reality. The sex spirits come to us as from another world and can’t be reduced to pieces of human personality. Sex with soul is always a form of communion with another level of existence, and that quality alone may be a major reason for its compelling attraction.[47]

As these citations clearly illustrate, despite their ostensible participation in the Body of Christ, neither St. John nor Moore writes with a Christian worldview. Rather, the divine view of the nature of the spiritual-somatic bond is primarily a pagan and New Age position. This being true, in their article “Sexuality and Spirituality: Friends not Foes,” Chavez-Garcia and Helminiak suggest that sexual and spiritual integration “is open to Christian expansion.. .. [Furthermore,] within the Christian viewpoint, honest and loving human experience—including sexuality—is the vehicle not only of personal integration but also of divine life.”[48] These citations demonstrate that according to the divine option the definition of the nature of the sexual-spiritual nexus is bound together with the communion with deity.

The One-Reality View

Some scholars, correctly noting that there is more than a superficial relationship between sexuality and spirituality, have suggested that these two aspects of humanity are so closely intertwined that they are, in effect, one reality. For example, ethicist Robert McAfee Brown noted that “spirituality and sexuality, rather than being understood as opposites, should be understood as intimately and inextricably bound together, two expressions of a single basic reality rather than two different realities.”[49] Scholar Marvin M. Ellison echoed this thought as he wrote, “Sexuality, our embedded sensuous connectedness to all reality, is our human capacity for longing and communion [i.e., spirituality] with others and with God.”[50] In a similar vein, theologian Carolyn Bohler noted,

Sexuality and spirituality are integrated; one cannot say that a particular behavior or attitude is connected to one way of relating but irrelevant to the other. It is like the width and length of a rectangle. Which is responsible for the area? Both are relevant; if either is changed, so does the area. However, both dimensions need each other for there to be any area whatsoever.[51]

According to this view, the nature of the sexual-spiritual nexus rests in the notion that sexuality and spirituality are essentially one reality. Neither realm can be accessed without affecting the other.

The Relational View

While some of the views of the nature of the sexual-spiritual nexus presented above are more tenable than others, all five of the preceding positions are insufficient for one main reason: All five options fail to offer an explanation of the nature of the sexual-spiritual bond that adequately handles the entire corpus of Scripture. If I might elaborate, the popular view displays a shallow interpretation and neglect of the Scripture; the sacramental and Augustinian positions superimpose extraneous material upon the divine Word; the divine view exhibits a blatant disregard for the Bible; and the one-reality position fails to deal properly with the whole counsel of the Word of God.

In order adequately to explain the nature of the sexual-spiritual nexus, one must consider an important and reoccurring biblical theme. The theme, which ought to be a lens through which the biblical passages regarding sexuality are viewed, is the relationship between God and His people. Indeed, the relationship between God and His people is the common denominator in all of the above-cited passages. For example, in the passages dealing with God’s judgment—whether it be at Sinai, Shittim, Corinth, or in the apocalyptic churches—the justification for divine wrath constitutes the threat to the relationship between God and His people. Similarly, at Eph. 5:22–32, the relationship between God (Christ) and His people (the church) is the central theme, as it is held up as the paradigmatic example for the husband and wife to follow in marriage. This relationship, then, is the key to understanding the nature of the connection between sexuality and spirituality.

According to the relational view, there are two means by which sexual intercourse can affect the relationship between God and man. First, since the man/woman physical relationship involves the use of the body (which is Christ’s, eternal, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit), it necessarily affects the believer/God spiritual relationship. This effectual relationship, though, does not mean that sexuality and spirituality are the same reality. The one-reality view errs here, for although it is impossible to be sexual without affecting the spiritual, it is indeed possible to be spiritual apart from the sex act. The first way, then, that the believer/ God relationship can be affected through sexual relations is simply by the physical act of sexual intercourse itself. To quote the Apostle Paul, sexual sin is equivalent to “removing] the members of Christ and mak[ing] them members of a harlot” (1 Cor. 6:15).

A second and arguably more weighty way, according to the relational view, that the relationship between God and His people can be affected through sexual intercourse is by the analogical statement that is made by the sex act itself. Eph. 5:22–32 makes it clear that in marriage the husband and wife become “one flesh” through submission, love, and the sex act. In a like manner, Christ and the church become “one flesh” through submission, love, and saving faith. Therefore, the marriage relationship in general and the sex act in particular, is a picture of the intimacy present in the Christ/church relationship.[52] Sexual intercourse, when engaging in according to God’s plan, is spiritual in that it pictures, by way of analogy,[53] the Christ/church relationship. Copulation within marriage may even be an illustration of God’s future plan and ultimate purpose of bringing all things together again under one head, who is Christ (cf. Eph. 1:10). To sin sexually, then, is completely to distort the Christ/church analogy. This is why the husband/wife sexual relationship must be jealously guarded, and why the Lord punishes sexual sin so severely—that is, because sexual sin is the ultimate fleshly expression and manifestation of rebellion against God and intimacy with another. Hence, the nature of the sexual-spiritual nexus, according to the relational view, lies in the proper stewardship of one’s body and the maintenance of the intimate analogy that exists between husband and wife, and Christ and the church.

Implications and Conclusion

The presence of the sexual-spiritual nexus has enormous implications concerning sexual sin. Although there are many possible physical consequences of sexual sin (such as pregnancy, venereal disease, and abortion), and various emotional consequences (such as bad memories and carnal comparisons), the greatest danger in regard to sexual sin is undoubtedly the spiritual consequences.

A survey of the biblical record reveals that in regard to sexual sin the judgments of the Lord may be divided into two different categories: active judgments and passive judgments. Active judgments, which do not appear to be common today, include such things as death by the sword (Exod. 32:27–28; Num. 25:8), plague (Exod. 32:35; Num. 25:9), consuming fire from heaven (Gen. 19:24), and in the case of the angels who sinned sexually, everlasting chains of judgment (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). Although these active judgments are not a common event in the church age, God’s passive judgments are still frequently carried out, and are, in fact, much worse than many of the active judgments for sexual sins. Passive judgments for sexual sin include the experience of the Lord’s withdrawal,[54] being “given up” by the Lord,[55] being “delivered to Satan,”[56] and the Lord turning a deaf ear to one’s prayers.[57] Indeed, when considering the implications of sexual sin in his book Christians in the Wake of the Sexual Revolution, scholar Randy Alcorn deemed the loss of prayer as the greatest of God’s judgments—whether active or passive. Alcorn wrote:

To those living in [sexual] immorality, here is the message: Husbands don’t bother praying at meals—God isn’t listening. Wife, don’t lead out in prayer at a women’s Bible study—God won’t hear you. Young couple, don’t pray that God will bless the wedding ceremony—his ears are deaf to you. Pastor, don’t ask God’s anointing on Sunday’s sermon. If you are living in sexual sin, there is one prayer he is waiting for—the prayer of sincere confession and repentance.[58]

Moreover, the one who is involved in sexual immorality and under the Lord’s passive judgment is like Job, who had his hedge of protection removed (cf. Job 1:10). These judgments, both active and passive, corporately testify to the fact that indeed the sexual-spiritual nexus is a relational bond. Sexual sin is a manifestation of rebellion against God and will have a negative impact on the relationship between believer and God. Therefore, believers must be vigilant in personally avoiding sexual sins and in both confronting and ministering to those among whom they minister who have fallen into sexual transgressions.

Notes

1. For more information about the Supercolliding Superconductor Project, see Don B. DeYoung, “Frontiers of Physics,” Impact 174 (December 1987): 1-4; and Vladimir Chaloupka, “The Death of the SSC,” VESMIR (Oct. 20,1993): 1-2.
2. In many theological treatises, the term “sexuality” is used in reference to either the essential nature of a human being or to specific functions of gender. Cf. Helmut Thielicke, Theological Ethics: Sex, trans. John W. Doberstein (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975) 21ff.; in this work, the term is employed solely in reference to the sex act or to sexual behavior.
3. For a variety of reasons several groups in recent years, including major denominations, psychologists, and minority groups, have done basic research into the spiritual-somatic tie. Most of these studies, however, merely seek to explore the cause-and-effect relationship between sexuality and spirituality rather than explaining its significance or the nature of the bond. For example, see The General Assembly Special Committee on Human Sexuality: Keeping Body and Soul Together: Sexuality, Spirituality, and Social Justice, A Document Prepared for the 203rd General Assembly (N.p.: Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., 1991); Chuck M. MacKnee, “Sexuality and Spirituality: In Search of Common Ground,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 16, no. 3 (1997): 210-21; John Moore, Sexuality and Spirituality: The Interplay of Masculine and Feminine in Human Development (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980); Toinette Eugene, “While Love Is Unfashionable: Ethical Implications of Black Spirituality and Sexuality,” in Feminist Ethics and the Catholic Moral Tradition, ed. Charles E. Curran, Margaret A. Farley, and Richard A. McCormick (New York: Paulist Press, 1996); Anne Streaty Wimberly, “Narrative Approaches to Viewing and Addressing African-American Spirituality and Sexuality,” Journal of Pastoral Theology 4 (Summer 1994): 1-18; and Edward P. Wimberly, “African-American Spirituality and Sexuality: Perspectives on Identity, Intimacy, and Power,” Journal of Pastoral Theology 4 (Summer 1994): 19-31.
4. According to Roman Catholic Church dogma, a mystical sexual-spiritual connection exists in marriage through which divine grace is dispensed. Hence, marriage is identified as one of the seven sacraments. Although the sexual-spiritual connection articulated in this article is somewhat mysterious—although not mysterious in the biblical sense of the term (i.e., something that was hidden in times past but is now revealed)—it ought not to be understood as a means of grace nor connected with the position espoused by the Roman Catholic Church. For an excellent critique of the Roman Catholic Church’s sacramental view of marriage, see Markus Barth, Ephesians 4–6 (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 747.
5. For a prime example of pagan sexuality, see Thomas Moore, The Soul of Sex: Cultivating Life as an Act of Love (New York: Harper Collins, 1998) or Donald St. John, “Ecological Prayer: Toward an Ecological Spirituality,” Encounter 43, no. 4 (Autumn 1982): 337-48. For an excellent critique of pagan sexual morality, see Peter Jones, Spirit Wars (Mukiteo, WA: Wine Press Publishing, 1998); repr. as Peter Jones, Pagans in the Pews: How the New Spirituality Is Invading Your Home, Church, and Community (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2001); Daniel R. Heimbach, “The Unchangeable Difference: Eternally Fixed Sexual Identity in an Age of Plastic,” in Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, ed. Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 275–89.
6. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (San Francisco: Harper, 2001), 91.
7. In her article “Where There Was Split and Violence, Let There Be Healing: Theological Perspectives on Sexuality and Spirituality,” Carolyn Boher identifies three different abuses that have resulted from the separation of sexuality and spirituality. These are: (1) the praise of celibacy and virginity as sexual ideals; (2) the notion that procreation is the only purpose for marriage and sexual intercourse; and (3) the advent of sexual stereotyping. Carolyn Boher, “Where There Was Split and Violence, Let There Be Healing: Theological Perspectives on Sexuality and Spirituality,” Daughters of Sarah 22, no. 1 (Winter 1996): 21-25. Similarly, Regina Coll noted that the sexual-spiritual split resulted in the denigration of both men and women, as well as the alienation of the body from the soul. Regina Coll, “Toward a Holistic Approach to Human Sexuality,” Religious Education 84, no. 2 (Spring 1989): 266-69.
8. For more detailed information on how the dualistic philosophy of secular Greek culture affected sexual ethics in later generations of the church, see Sylvia Chavez-Garcia and Daniel A. Helminiak, “Sexuality and Spirituality: Friends Not Foes,” journal of Pastoral Care 34, no. 2 (June 1985): 151-63; Coll, “Toward a Holistic Approach to Human Sexuality,” 262–72; Jacqueline Murray, “Sexuality and Spirituality: The Intersection of Medieval Theology and Medicine,” Fides et Historia 23, no. 1 (Winter/Spring 1991): 20-36; Joan H. Timmerman, The Mardi Gras Syndrome: Rethinking Christian Sexuality (New York: Crossroad, 1984), chapter 1, “Thursday: Losing the Coin—Sex: Sacred or Profane?”
9. Gen. 1:26–27, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our own image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that moves upon the earth. So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.’” All of the Scripture quoted in this article is the author’s own translation.
10. Gen. 1:31, “And God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good.”
11. God’s command to men to “be fruitful and multiply” was first given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden at Gen. 1:28, and was reiterated to Noah and his family after the Flood at Gen. 9:1, 7.
12. Two memorable occasions of large-scale spiritual mutinies occurred at Sinai (Exod. 32:1–35; 1 Cor. 10:8) and at Shittim (Num. 25:1–18). Note that both of these uprisings were met with severe censures from the Lord.
13. In his well-known autobiographical text Confessions, Augustine records the details of his own sexual promiscuity before embracing Christianity. Apparently, after much sexual experimentation, Augustine settled down at the age of nineteen with his mistress. After nearly ten years of cohabitation and the conception of an illegitimate son named Adeodatus, Augustine was forced to dismiss his lover when a marriage to a wealthy aristocratic Milanese girl was arranged by his family. The untimely end of his illicit relationship and the promise of an arranged marriage, however, proved too much for Augustine—he relapsed into several months of promiscuity. Shortly thereafter, due in part to the preaching of Ambrose, Augustine was converted to the Christian faith and adopted the disciplined life of a pastor and scholar. Augustine also mentions in his Confessions that for a brief time, while a student in Carthage, he was a member of a group known as the Manichees. The Manichees were a religious order that was popular in the Western Empire before the fall of Rome. They espoused a Persian dualistic philosophy and a lax moral code, both of which Augustine initially found attractive. Eventually, though, Augustine left this sect on account of several inconsistencies within their own teachings. Although he spent much of the rest of his life renouncing and debating Manichean doctrine, it is widely recognized that the Manichees had at least a minimal influence upon Augustine’s theology. Cf. Augustine, Confessions (New York: Penguin, 1961).
14. For more information on Augustine’s sexual ethics and his theology of carni generatione, see Peter R. L. Brown, “Augustine and Sexuality,” in Augustine and Sexuality: Protocol of the Forty-Sixth Colloquy, 22 May 1983, ed. Mary Ann Donovan (Berkeley, CA: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1983), 1–13.
15. In his work, De Bono Coniugali Augustine stated that sex is to be practiced only within the confines of marriage; that its sole purpose is procreation and is to be tolerated so long as it does not provide enjoyment. Cf. Robert McAfee Brown, Spirituality and Liberation: Overcoming the Great Fallacy (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 99.
16. A study of the Middle Age penitential manuals constitutes an interesting study in and of itself. The overly harsh penalties prescribed in these volumes for even minor “sexual” indecencies is clear evidence of the abuse of act-based ethics. While these manuals reveal that the authorities made no overt attempt to explain a connection between their judgments and the spiritual realm, Chavez-Garcia and Helminiak suggest that there was a prevailing notion in the Middle Ages that physical punishment was somehow vicariously related to the spiritual domain. They even suggest that Anselm’s substitutionary theory of Jesus’ atonement was a manifestation of this belief. Chavez-Garcia and Helminiak, “Sexuality and Spirituality,” 154–55.
17. For a contradictory view of the sexual mores of the Victorians, see John D’Emilio and Estelle Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1988). D’Emilio and Freedman suggest that the Victorians, especially the later Victorians, may not have been as sexually stringent as is commonly thought.
18. In his study Matrimonial Spirituality, Charles A. Gallagher notes that ideally the husband/wife relationship is to go beyond reflecting the Christ/church relationship to actually mimicking inter-Trinitarian love. He writes, “The married couple can, within human limitations, mirror the inner life of the Trinity. Their vulnerability, their total presence to one another, their finding their identity in, with, and through one another are unique to human experience and express the interplay between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The most radical and fundamental love in this world, on which all other love is to be modeled is that of a married couple. It is the source and root of all our capabilities to love in any form, since each of us is a son or daughter, a living expression of a man/woman love relationship. It is the deepest and most intense experience of intimacy possible in human life.” Charles A. Gallagher, “Matrimonial Spirituality: A Prophetic Voice in the Church,” Studies in Formative Spirituality 6, no. 2 (May 1995): 201.
19. Paul’s adverbial use of the particle καθώς (180x NT) at Eph. 5:25, instead of the more common ὠς (491x NT) or even οὔτως (212x NT) is especially intriguing. Whereas ὠς and οὔτως generally indicate simple comparison, καθώς can specify a comparison of proportional degree. If that is Paul’s intended use here, then he is saying that a husband is to love his wife with the same degree of love that sent Christ to the cross on behalf of His church. Indeed, it seems as though this is Paul’s intended use as he does employ both ὠς (4x) and οὔτως (2x) in this passage, but intentionally switches to καθώς at 5:25.
20. Gen. 2:24, “A man shall leave his father and mother for this reason, and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
21. The first time in Scripture that the one-flesh principle is mentioned was in Gen. 2:24 when God established the institution of marriage. Jesus reiterated the principle in Matt. 19:5–6 and Mark 10:8 within the context of his prohibition of divorce. Finally, Paul applied the one-flesh principle in 1 Cor. 6:16 and Eph. 5:31.
22. For further discussion on Genesis 1 and 2 and their impact on the sexual-spiritual connection, see Marva J. Dawn, Sexual Character: Beyond Technique to Intimacy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 41–60; David Lee Talley, “Gender and Sanctification from Creation to Transformation: A Comparative Look at Genesis 1–3, the Creation and Fall of the Man and the Woman; and Ephesians 5, the Sanctification of the Man and the Woman in a Redemptive Marriage Context,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 6-16.
23. The analogy between the man/woman and Christ/church relationships extends much further than the one-flesh correlation. For example: (1) Just as Christ existed first and is head of the church, so man was made first and is head of the woman (1 Tim. 2:3); (2) Just as the church was made for Christ, so the woman was made for the man (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:9); (3) Just as the church has her origin and completion in Christ, so woman has her origin and completion in man (1 Tim. 2:15); (4) Just as the church was made through the opening in Christ’s side, so woman was made from the opening in man’s side (Gen. 2:21–22; John 19:34); and (5) Just as Christ and the church have a mysterious relationship, so the man and the woman have a mysterious relationship (Prov. 30:19; Eph. 5:31–32).
24. For example, see Thomas Moore, The Soul of Sex, and Donald St. John, “Ecological Prayer: Toward and Ecological Spirituality.” These two works of pagan spirituality will be cited later in this work.
25. When commenting on 1 Cor. 6:15–17 and Eph. 5:23–32, Linda Woodhead made the interesting observation that “it is not from our erotic relationships that we learn about God, but [rather] from God’s relationship with us that we learn about erotic relationships.” Although she did not make this application in her article, her observation highlights the importance of having a secure foundation from which to investigate and define the sexual-spiritual connection. Linda Woodhead, “Sex in a Wider Context,” in Sex These Days: Essays on Theology, Sexuality, and Society, ed. John Davies and Gerhard Loughlin (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 112.
26. Although many of his conclusions are questionable, Nelson has undoubtedly done more research into the sexual-spiritual connection in light of incarnational theology than any other writer. For example, see James B. Nelson, Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1978); James B. Nelson, “Reuniting Sexuality and Spirituality,” The Christian Century 104 (Feb. 25, 1987): 187-90; James B. Nelson, The Intimate Connection: Male Sexuality, Masculine Spirituality (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988); and James B. Nelson, Body Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1992).
27. Woodhead, “Sex in a Wider Context,” 102.
28. In addition to explaining the significance of James B. Nelson’s incarnational arguments in her article “Sex in a Wider Context,” Linda Woodhead also illustrates the possible abuse of this somatic-oriented line of reasoning. She writes, “The meaning of the incarnation is ... squeezed and reduced until it comes to speak only of the importance of the bodily nature of the individual and loses connection with Jesus Christ. The exhortation to take an incarnational perspective comes to mean that one should rely on one’s own individual experience in sexual reflection rather than that one should bring such reflection under the authority of God’s revelation in Christ. Moreover, whereas in traditional Christian reflection the meaning of ‘body’ is stretched in ways which signal the connection as well as the distinction between beings (as in language about the body of Christ in which all are one), here the focus upon the body is narrower and tends to emphasize only the individual’s physicality, hence that which separates and distinguishes individuals rather than that which unites them.... On this understanding, bodies are not united in Christ but only in copulation.” Woodhead, “Sex in a Wider Context,” 103. This tendency toward abuse is evident in Nelson’s works as he is a vocal supporter of feminist sexual ethics and homosexual rights. Cf. Nelson, Body Theology, 55–71.
29. Marvin M. Ellison, “Sexuality and Spirituality: An Intimate —and Intimidating—Connection,” Church and Society 80 (Nov/Dec 1989): 28.
30. This equation is testified to elsewhere in Scripture. Cf. Exod. 32:4–6; Num. 25:1–3; Jer. 7:9; 1 Cor. 10:8.
31. Two recent collections of sexual treaties written by those who claim the name of Christ yet espouse historically unorthodox views on a variety of Christian doctrines are: Adrian Thatcher and Elizabeth Stuart, eds., Christian Perspectives on Sexuality and Gender (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996); and Jon Davies and Gerald Loughlin, eds., Sex These Days: Essays on Theology, Sexuality, and Society (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Many individual essays from these volumes have been cited throughout this article.
32. Jer. 3:9; 5:7; 23:14; Ezek. 16:32; 23:37; Hos. 4:13–14; 7:4.
33. Isa. 1:21; Jer. 3:1, 6, 8; Ezek. 16:15, 16, 28, 41, 31, 35; 23:5, 19, 44; Nah. 3:4.
34. Ezek. 16:20, 22, 34; 23:8, 11, 14, 18, 35.
35. Isa. 1:10; 3:9; Jer. 23:14; Ezek. 16:46, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56.
36. Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38; James 4:4.
37. Rev. 17:1, 5, 15, 16; 19:2.
38. Rev. 2:22; 17:2; 18:3, 9.
39. There is, of course, some debate as to whether or not the “sons of God” mentioned in Gen. 6:1–4 are in fact fallen angelic beings. While it falls beyond the scope of this work to argue the identity of the “sons of God,” or to prove a connection between Gen. 6:1–4; 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude 6, the context of 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 makes it clear that both Peter and Jude are indeed referring to an unspecified group of angelic beings who were judged for sexual sin.
40. First Corinthians 6:9–10, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Gal. 5:19–21, “Now the works of the flesh are evident, they are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, contentions, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, carousing, and things of the like; of which I told you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
41. When writing of sexual sins to the Thessalonians, Paul wrote, “The Lord is the avenger of all such [sins]” (1 Thess. 4:6). The author of Hebrews noted, “Fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).
42. First Corinthians 5:1–5, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality that is not even named among the Gentiles; that a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant, and have not rather mourned, in order that he who has done this might be taken away from among you. For I indeed, as absent in the body but present in the spirit, have already judged him who has so done this deed as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, and with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
43. Barth, Ephesians 4–6, 747.
44. Brown, “Augustine and Sexuality,” 4.
45. St. John, “Ecological Prayer,” 345–46.
46. Moore, The Soul of Sex, 138.
47. Ibid., 7.
48. Chavez-Garcia and Helminiak, “Sexuality and Spirituality,” 163.
49. Brown, Spirituality and Liberation, 100.
50. Ellison, “Sexuality and Spirituality,” 28.
51. Bohler, “Where There Was Split and Violence, Let There Be Healing,” 20–21.
52. Linda Woodhead also noted this analogy. She wrote, “All the features of Christ’s love ... can, it seems, be reflected in human sexual love.... It is in sexual intercourse, in one-flesh union, that Christ’s one-flesh union finds embodiment, not in some more important spiritual union between spouses.” Woodhead, “Sex in a Wider Context,” 117–18. Similarly, Robert McAfee Brown noted, “We cannot make a clear-cut distinction between God’s love for us and our love for one another. ... We understand divine love better by reference to human love, and we understand human love better by reference to divine love.” Brown, Spirituality and Liberation, 101.
53. In his article, “The Mystery of Christ and the Church: Head and Body, ‘One Flesh,’ “ Andreas Köstenberger discusses the importance of viewing the marriage relationship as an analogy and not as a type of the Christ/church relationship. Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Mystery of Christ and the Church: Head and Body, ‘One Flesh,’” Trinity Journal 12 (1991): 88-91.
54. When writing of Israel’s spiritual and physical prostitution, the prophet Hosea wrote, “With their flocks and herds they will go to seek the Lord, but they will not find him; he has withdrawn himself from them” (Hos. 5:6).
55. As has previously been mentioned in this work, Paul wrote to the Romans, “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves” (Rom. 1:24).
56. In his judgment of a man in Corinth who was committing the sin of incest, Paul wrote, “Deliver such a one to Satan” (1 Cor. 5:5).
57. The psalmist wrote, “If I have sin in my heart, the Lord will not hear” (Ps. 66:18). Although the psalmist was not specifically writing in the context of sexual sin, the principle is stated elsewhere in Scriptures that any sin hinders one’s prayers (cf. Isa. 1:15; Mic. 3:4; 1 Pet. 3:7).
58. Randy C. Alcorn, Christians in the Wake of the Sexual Revolution: Recovering Our Sexual Sanity (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1985), 234.