Guarding His Flock Ministries

The God of Sex versus Sex God.

Believing in the wholeness and sacredness of matter and energy (i.e., monism/pantheism, the theory that God is all, and all is God), New Age/New Spirituality views that sexuality complements spirituality. [1] Sexual people are spiritual people, and sexual experiences are spiritual experiences. Sex facilitates persons getting in touch with the mystical dynamic and rhythm of life. Being one of the most vibrant experiences life offers, it is not therefore surprising that the new religionists should incorporate sex into their spirituality. As one author puts it, “Sexual ecstasy can transport us into union with the sacred Other, whether soul, God, human beloved, or nature. Uninhibited sexual opening powerfully alters consciousness . . .” [2] In a similar vein, the stunning statement of a radical Anglican priest has been noted: “Sex is the spirituality that reveals the sacramental richness of matter.” [3]

Having introduced ourselves to the thinking of the New Age/New Spiritualists, we proceed to set forth their theory that sexuality-equals-spirituality, after which, we will see how this theory seems to be influencing avant-garde evangelical authors, teachers, and leaders, and then submit sex-spirituality to the scrutiny of Holy Scripture.

“SEXUALITY” AND THE “NEW SPIRITUALITY”
Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox, the defrocked Dominican priest excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), is a proponent of Creation Spirituality. Creation Spirituality claims to be a cure for the ecological crisis the world finds itself in, a crisis the capitalist and Christian West created by separating nature from technology and science. To stop the wanton exploitation of nature by the Christian West, to stop the hemorrhaging of earth’s resources, a spiritual awakening is needed. The old Christian worldview, because it is responsible for getting us into the trouble we find ourselves in, needs to be jettisoned and a new “framing story” embraced. [4] To save the earth, consciousness needs to change. Instead of viewing earth as a machine, humanity, especially the Christian West, must turnabout and embrace the sacredness of Creation. To this end, it is believed that something like Native American spirituality must be accepted.

So Matthew Fox tenders a hypothesis that the Christ and cosmos are co-extensive. Together, they form a cosmic Christ. [5] In his spirituality, Fox advocates a mystical mixing of liturgical Christianity with the religious beliefs and spiritual rites of Native Americanism (i.e., smoking the sacred pipe, visiting the sweat lodge, dancing in circles to the steady beat of drums, etc.). In his panentheistic understanding of Christ and nature, Fox does not hesitate to relate sexuality to the spirituality of creation. He writes: “[T]he Cosmic Christ is encountered in human love and sexuality. Sexuality is revealed in a living cosmology as still one other theophany, one other transfiguration experience.” [6] Again, after extensively treating the presentation of human sexuality in the biblical book Song of Solomon, Fox writes that, “Play lies at the essence of all sexuality re-visioned in light of a Cosmic Christ paradigm.” [7] To Fox’s way of thinking, as well as other New Age/New Spiritualists, sexuality enhances one’s relationship to the spirituality of a self-creating cosmos. Hence, Fox can speak of a Christ who is present in, with, and around sex; that is, because of its value in first, enjoying life (thus endorsing homosexuality, and seemingly any other pleasurable sexual experience), and second, in propagating the life of an ever-evolving human species. Seemingly, this is one way in which sexuality plays into the spirituality of the New Age/New Spiritualists. [8]

Eckhart Tolle (who came to fame by appearing on the Oprah Winfrey Show) suggests that one hindrance for people consciously feeling at one with nature is their fear of, and consequent failure to become friends with, their “animal nature.” He writes:

Adam and Eve saw they were naked, and they became afraid. . . . Shame and taboos appeared around certain parts of the body and bodily functions, especially sexuality. The light of their consciousness was not yet strong enough to make friends with their animal nature, to allow it to be and even enjoy that aspect of themselves–let alone to go deeply into it to find the divine hidden within it . . . [9]

New Age author Neal Donald Walsch claims God talks to him. He has stenographed his conversations with his god in a series of books named, Conversations with God. In one conversation, god told Walsch not to condemn that “which you call the lower, basic, animal instincts of man.” Then Walsch records deity to have explained to him,

It is why I have said, play, play, play with sex–and with all of life. Mix what you call the sacred with the sacrilegious, for until you see your altars as the ultimate place for worship, you see nothing at all. You think “sex” is separate from God? I tell you this: I am in your bedroom every night! So go ahead! Mix what you call the profane and the profound–so that you can see that there is no difference, and experience All as One. Then when you continue to evolve, you will not see yourself as letting go of sex, but simply enjoying it at a higher level. For all of life is S.E.X.–Synergistic Energy eXchange. [10]

Such a view of sex makes God out to be a sort of cosmic “peeping Tom”! I make this crude analogy simply to ask, how far are we willing to reduce God’s holiness to crassness, God’s transcendence to immanence?

In that like a harlot the church ever desires to play with and posture toward the host culture, the question emerges, is sexual spirituality–like that of Fox, Walsch, Tolle, and other “New Lights”–influencing the church? [11] It appears to be subtly gnawing its way into the evangelical church and, in some instances, being openly promoted.

SEXUAL/SPIRITUALITY AMONG EVANGELICALS
This fall (October, 2009), one major seminary is hosting a one-day seminar on “Sacred Sexuality.” One purpose of the conference includes, “Casting a Vision for the Sexually Healthy Church,” and one workshop is titled, “Holy Eroticism: Marital Intimacy.” [12]

Though he makes some legitimate observations and provides some helpful counsel in his book Sex God, like a New Age teacher, emergent pastor Rob Bell also connects sexuality to spirituality. He writes: “Sex carries within it the power of Life itself. . . . Something given by the creator of the universe. Something divine.” [13] We should note how like Neale Donald Walsch, Bell spells “Life” with a capital “L” and “creator” with lower case “c,” [14] and how like Eckhart Tolle, Bell views sex as “divine.” [15]

A Canadian newspaper recently reported the view of one evangelical psychologist-professor summarizing it to be that, “the relationship between humans and spirituality is essentially erotic — some Christians even have peak religious experiences while being sexual.” [16] The article further states that Dr.-Professor MacKnee, “believes humans’ relationship with God is essentially erotic.” [17] Like other psychologists and philosophers, “MacKnee calls God ‘Divine Eros’.” [18]

In The United Church Observer, the in-house magazine of Canada’s largest protestant denomination, Rev. Trisha Elliott, stated: “If our ability to love makes us most like God, then it stands to reason that when we make love we might be in our most holy state. Should we break out the linens, candles, incense, flowers and wine? O God, yes! Great sex is not only possible–it’s divine.” [19]

Similarly, in his latest book, Life with God, well-known contemplative author Richard Foster states: “[T]he luscious imagery of Song of Solomon has forever linked the spiritual and the erotic with exquisite unity.” [20]

Thus we can see that the theory of sexual spirituality is asserting itself through church persons, both liberal and evangelical. The emphasis is not new. The internet user can observe the sculpture, Ecstasy of St. Theresa by Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680) displayed at the Cornaro Chapel of Santa Maria della Vittora in Rome. [21] By means of iconic visualization, the statue compares a mystical orgasm of soul to sexuality. The reporter for The Vancouver Sun writes that, “The Ecstasy of St. Teresa sculpture was inspired by the writing of 16th-century mystic St. Teresa of Avila when she described her vision of an angel who pierced her heart with an arrow ‘to leave me all on fire with a great love of God’.” [22] The sculpture visualizes that mystical moment when the marriage or union of one’s soul to God is consummated. In seeking God, monks and sisters covet such an ecstatic experience because they feel their being has been fused into God’s. Their soul to Soul union (i.e., theosis) takes place absent mediation by Christ or His Spirit (See Romans 8:9.).

SEXUALITY, THE SCRIPTURES, AND SPIRITUALITY
Some “spiritual” issues regarding sexuality include these: Does sex define who God is and what God does thereby investing him (pardon the lower case ‘Him’) , she, they, or it with sexuality? Is sex an attribute or an activity of God in heaven to which human sexual activity on earth corresponds–as above, so below? [23] Is there a mystical connection between human and divine sexuality? Does engaging in sex help people to become more spiritual on earth and more connected to God in heaven?

The issue at hand is not whether sex, when exercised within His parameters, is God’s good gift to humanity (1 Timothy 4:3). It is. Rather, the issue concerns whether sex in any way is a sacred-spiritual activity, a part of life in God’s kingdom. In relating sex to spirituality, a number of biblical issues regarding the sacred-sexual should be considered.

First, some may attempt to connect sexuality to God on the basis of Genesis 1:27. The creation narrative reads, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” On the face of it, the connection of dual gendering (i.e., “male and female”) with “the image of God” implies the sexuality of God, that a part of God’s image in man is sexual. However, the inference fails because animals, though they are sexual males and females, do not possess the image of God. Being in God’s image, i.e., the Imago Dei, is exceptional to the human race. Therefore, sexuality does not define God’s image in man. [24] God’s image is something entirely “other” than sexuality. [25]

Second, those who link sexuality to spirituality find precedent for doing so in the biblical book, Song of Solomon. Like Matthew Fox and Richard Foster, churchwoman Susan McCaslin thinks Solomon’s drama suggests, “that Spirit is more like a lover than a lawgiver or judge and that living in harmony with Spirit is more like falling in love than living up to an external standard of rightness.” [26]

But human sexuality in Song of Solomon does not translate into divine spirituality. The book depicts the ideal, wholesome, and faithful courtship and marriage between two earthly lovers. The “Song” does not describe a love affair between people and God. The love scenes are earthbound. As such, the Song may be understood “as a series of six major poems . . . put together in a sequence that builds from anticipation (Poems I-II) to consummation (Poem III) to aftermath (Poems IV-VI).” [27] Old Testament scholar David Hubbard suggested that this understanding “shies away from any allegorical handling of the text, since it [the text] contains no clue as to hidden or spiritual meanings . . ..” He concludes that, “the New Testament, which does not quote or refer to it, gives no support to attempts to spiritualize the book.” [28] Those who connect sexuality to spirituality for reason of Song of Solomon do so in spite of the fact that the book does not mention the name of God. [29]

But desperate to find some analogical reason or biblical authority to combine sensuality and spirituality, the New Spiritualists allegorize the Song to describe the sensuality between God and His lovers. Yet since the days of Origen (circa 185-254) the allegorical method of interpretation has led to many wild and fanciful scenarios. Employing Song of Solomon to infer or support the idea of sacred sex is just such a fancy.

As an aside, I appreciate how the concept of “my beloved” might be employed to describe our relationship with Christ (Matthew 25:1-13; Ephesians 5:32), and view this to be a legitimate and metaphorical application of the book. However, it is an application. By interpretively employing Song of Solomon to link the two separate realities of earth and heaven (i.e., as below, so above) compromises, I believe, the distinctiveness and separateness of the two separate spheres (i.e., flesh and Spirit). I don’t think that an application of Song of Solomon should dictate the interpretation of it.

Third, though Scripture indicates sexuality is transpersonal, such trans-personality does not equate to, nor is it analogical with, “spirituality.” Humans do not have sex with God. [30] In fact the Bible teaches that “the flesh” (e.g. “immorality, impurity, sensuality”) often “sets its desire against the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17, 19). Lusts oppose spirituality. Nevertheless, the Apostle Paul recognized the transpersonal nature of sex when he wrote: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, ‘the two will become one flesh'” (1 Corinthians 6:15-16). But just because sexuality is transpersonal does not endow it to be trans-spiritual. Soul to soul communication on earth does not translate into soul to Soul communication with heaven, especially so because as Spirit, God is asexual (See John 4:24.). This contrasts to the Near Eastern worldview in which, “the sexual activity of human beings” was believed to be “an earthly reflection of what takes place in the divine realm.” [31] But according to the biblical worldview, not every activity that happens on earth translates to be happening in heaven.

Fourth, laying The Da Vinci Code and the inferences from Gnostic writings aside, the Gospels do not portray Jesus to have been married. [32] I can think of some reasons that necessitate the singleness of Christ, and those do not include His being against sex. After all, He created it! [33] But against the backdrop of Near Eastern paganism, Jesus’ singleness clearly communicated that spirituality does not involve sexuality. They are not to be confused. Furthermore, Jesus’ singleness bears testimony to God’s asexuality. Jesus’ celibacy sends the message that Christianity is to have no part with goddess-ism. If He had married, Jesus would have opened the door to it.

Yet from Jesus’ singleness we should not deduce that spirituality demands people abstain from marriage. Jesus’ disciples were married. Church leaders are to be loyal husbands (1 Timothy 3:2). While Paul recommended singleness for the sake of giving undivided attention to the ministry (1 Corinthians 7:32-35), he stated elsewhere that celibacy for the sake of spirituality is sourced in demonism. Paul wrote: “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits . . . who forbid marriage . . . which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good” (1 Timothy 4:1-5). [34]

Fifth, Jesus stated that regards marriage, heaven and earth are worlds apart. As a safety net for the woman, the Levirate Law required that a brother provide for his deceased brother’s wife by marrying her (Deuteronomy 25:25). Based upon this law, the Sadducees asked Jesus a hypothetical question about a situation in which the eldest brother’s wife outlived six brothers who had consecutively married her, but predeceased her. As she had been married to six of the seven brothers at one time or another, the widow became a hand-me-down sister-in-law-bride. So the trick question the Sadducees asked was, whose wife would the woman become in the resurrection–brother one, two, three, four, five, or six? Jesus answered that she would be married to none of the brothers, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). My point is this: It’s presumptuous to project that because there’s sexuality on earth there’s sexuality in heaven. Furthermore, it’s dangerous to project sexuality into the spiritual being of divinity, to make the Creator out to be like His creatures. This projection, as the ancient Near Eastern worldview indicates, is the seedbed of idolatry. It is not above like it is below.

Sixth, flesh and blood have no part in God’s kingdom. Paul wrote: “And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15:49-50). The application of this “no-flesh-in-heaven” statement to some ridiculous theory that “sexuality equals spirituality” is evident. Obviously, even though it’s good (not dirty), and God’s gift in a heterosexual marital context, sex it is a flesh-and-blood activity unrelated to God’s kingdom. As such, sex is not spiritual.

Seventh, some try to inject sexuality into spirituality for reason of the biblical euphemism “know,” which stands for intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 25). One sex-pert opines that “know” expresses, “how men and women through sexuality can deeply connect, truly ‘know each other,’ in the most holistic, ecstatic and divine way.” [35] Such a convoluted idea about Scripture fails to understand that in sexual intercourse a couple grows to know each other, not God. “And Adam knew Eve his wife . . .” (Emphasis mine, Genesis 4:1). No divine gnosis is communicated via sex. Though sex is mysteriously transpersonal on a human level, it is not mystically translational to heaven. In sex, even married, heterosexual, non-Christian couples without the Spirit grow to “know” each other (See Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 7:14.).

Eighth, though it goes beyond the purpose of this essay to try and develop the nature of generic man–whether he is a trichotomous being (i.e., consisting of a body, soul, and spirit) or a dichotomous being (consisting of a body and soul)– it is necessary to point out that the “two-become-one” concept is valid for all humanity, not just for Christians indwelt by God’s Spirit. It stands to reason that if two unbelievers can become “one,” then marital sex is not “spiritual” because they “have not the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9). Those who are not “born from above” are not submissive citizens of the kingdom of God, and therefore, are not spiritual people (John 3:1-8). The very nature of their spiritual constitution (i.e., being unregenerate) militates against sex being a spiritual experience, for the couple possesses no Spirit to make it spiritual. Nonetheless, their sexual communion is transpersonal, soul to soul. They physically and psychologically become “one” on earth (Mark 10:6-9; 1 Corinthians 6:15-20).

Ninth, the Bible frequently warns against sexual lust. In fact, Jesus equated it with adultery (Matthew 5:28). While the apostle exalts the blessing of marital sex, he also sets forth the potential “spiritual dangers” of it. In defining “lusts” that war against the Spirit, the first he mentions are sexual– “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness” (KJV); or “immorality, impurity, sensuality” (Galatians 5:19, NASB). In that sex, for reason of human depravity (Mark 7:21-22), can easily degenerate into “lusts,” it’s difficult to see how the activity of it can be considered “sacred” or “spiritual.” Though horizontally, sex can be holy in that a man and a woman have in the exclusivity of their marital vows and relationship separated their sexual activity from all other men and women, this does not thereby make sex a sacred activity in a vertical sense. Just because it’s a certain way on earth does not mean it is that way in heaven.

Tenth, I think that the Bible’s metaphor of God as being masculine better represents His asexuality. By themselves, males cannot reproduce. Therefore, the masculine gender of God affirms His solitariness (i.e., monotheism) and sovereignty (i.e., authority). Infusing sexuality into God deconstructs divine monotheism by imagining a mythological way for gods and goddesses to reproduce (i.e., polytheism). It undermines divine authority by imagining a feminine counterpart equal to Him (i.e., egalitarianism). God’s asexuality also possesses Christological ramifications. It safeguards against the Arian or New Age idea that God’s Son was “birthed” in time (See John 1:1.). God’s solitary masculinity dismisses any thought that a first “christ” (i.e., Jesus) resulted from the conjugation of primal “father and mother” gods, thereby becoming the first-born of all spirit beings, i.e., the only difference between Him and us being that He was birthed before us. The myth of the Christ spirit’s primogeniture is believed by many New Age spiritualists and cults, and the idea of sacred sex is essential to perpetuate this myth.

Eleventh and last, I must wonder at how the idea of sex spirituality might influence understanding of the biblical teaching regarding Jesus’ Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23). If sex is a spiritual activity, why did God alter the way that Jesus entered the world? Evidently, it was to protect Him from the way humanity passes on depravity through sexuality.[36] As David stated, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5, NIV; Compare Romans 5:12-19.). But assuming that the process of sex is a sacredly spiritual activity, then why would Jesus’ Virgin Birth have been necessary? Sex after all, is divine, isn’t it?

I conclude that because of God’s judgment upon sin and the intergenerational passing of the sin nature via the human begetting of life, that there’s a sense in which the transcendent and holy God is distanced from the process of life. While sex is a physical, psychological and transpersonal union of two separate bodies and souls, it is not a spiritual activity. Sex does not connect earth to heaven and the human to the divine. It is not above as it is below.

“SEX GOD”
At this juncture, I return to the statement made by emergent pastor Rob Bell. Personally, I wonder why he accentuates “Life” with an upper case “L” and “creator” with a lower case “c.” (Sex God, 197) As has already been pointed out, New Age author Neale Donald Walsh repeatedly spells “Life” with an idolatrous capital “L” because in one conversation God told him, “The words ‘Life’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable.” [37] In taking a cue from New Age/New Spirituality now rooted in our host culture, did Bell get the idea of spelling “Life” with a capital “L” from some New Age spiritualist like Walsch?

Though disclaiming that men and women are, or possess the potential to become, gods, Bell does state that, “[I]n some distinct, intentional way, something of God has been placed in them. We reflect what God is like and who God is. A divine spark resides in every single human being.” (Sex God, 19) But to what does the “divine spark” refer? Does the “spark” refer to the soul-spirit of a person, or to sex?

Because of Adam’s fall into sin, and consequently, because people are born spiritually dead, mysteriously, this spiritual deadness is seminally passed on in procreation. Biblically and theologically, the “spark” therefore cannot refer to every person’s soul-spirit (John 3:3-8; Ephesians 2:1-5; Romans 8:9). To believe that it does evidences a Pelagian or mystical worldview which believes that all persons are not quite spiritually dead, or that something divine lives in every human being. Thus, Bell’s scheme suggests the “divine spark” is sex for as he states, “Sex carries within it the power of Life . . . Something divine.” (Sex God, 197)

Is Bell saying that God placed a divine “sex-spark” in His creatures? Is the “sex-spark” something God created? Or, from His being, did He pass it on to humanity? As with spirituality, is sexuality a divine attribute which partially defines God? In that Bell calls sex “divine,” states that our sexuality reflects “what God is like and who God is,” and modifies God with the attributive adjective “sex” in the title of his book Sex God, he seems to suggest that sexuality helps to define God’s being and that sexuality is something humanity shares in common with Him. Thus he creates fertile ground for goddess-ism.

I also question whether labeling it “divine” refers to the process of sex, as Bell makes it to, or to the product of sex, males and females reproduced in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). In the Genesis record, the persons God created are distinct from the process by which they are to propagate (“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth . . .”). Calling sex divine introduces eroticism into the nature of God, which becomes an interesting make-over for God, especially in light of the fact that most theologians believe He is Spirit and therefore asexual (John 4:24). But eroticism is an essential component of the goddess-ism endemic to the ancient Near Eastern religious worldview.

Thus, one must wonder whether Bell’s sex construct elevates or degrades the image of God in man, and whether it affirms or denies the transcendence and separateness of the Creator from His creation. I myself look at it like this: If it degrades God, then it degrades man. I shudder to think of the perversity that might result from thinking that sex and God belong to the same cosmic and monistic whole–as below, so above. In pagan belief, sex is the spark that ignites and perpetuates “Life” with a capital “L,” and taps into the cosmic Energy with a capital “E.” So if it is divine, why not spell “sex” with a capital “S”?

CONCLUSION
We would do well to remember that when practiced in the commitment of a monogamous and heterosexual marriage, sex is the gift of its Creator to His creatures (Proverbs 5:18). Sex draws committed couples into transpersonal oneness with each other and allows two individuals to better know one another. While in this context sex is good, it is not God, nor even a part Him. As such, we dare not to spell it with a capital “S”!

Will and Ariel Durant, a husband and wife team who were among the greatest historians of all time, state in their book, The Lessons of History: “[S]ex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group.” [38] One must wonder, with all the discussion going on about sex now-a-days in the New Age/New Spiritual culture, and among emergent Christians who have and are taking their cues from that culture and spirituality, whether such prurient interests don’t indicate that something deeper is going on, that Christians are being consigned into a state of eroticism for reason of God’s judgment. Because of the idolatrous state of their hearts, is God giving people over (i.e., reprobating them) “to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves” (Romans 1:24)?

__________________

ENDNOTES
[1] Two titles of recently published evangelical books are juxtaposed to each other; The God of Sex: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality, written by Dr. Peter Jones (Colorado Springs: Cook Communication Ministries, 2006), and Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections between Sexuality and Spirituality, written by Rob Bell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007). In the latter title, as an attributive adjective, “sex,” adds definition to God. The first title stresses God as the source of sex, as the creator. While Bell seems to make sex a part of God, Jones separates God from it. The later is the position held by this pastor. For the joyful purpose of propagating the human species, God created sex ex nihilo (i.e., out of nothing). He is the God of sex. However, it is improper to speak of the sex of God! Sex is not an extension of God. Other than the metaphorical reckoning of God to be masculine–theologians hold that, in His transcendent being, God is asexual–nowhere does the Bible speak of the sex of God. This may surprise many modern Christians who, like modern culture, are increasingly obsessed with it.
          Nevertheless, in His holiness, and because the transcendent God has not, does not, and will not propagate Himself (i.e., polytheism), He, though being provident over and knowledgeable of His creatures, must remain separate from the process by which the planet is populated (contra process theology). As it is below, so it is not above. Failure to keep this distinction leads to idolatry. If God is to be considered holy, what’s happening below must remain separated from what’s happening above. Yet with their monistic world view (i.e., all is one, all is god), and as will be documented in this paper, New Age/New Spiritualists are combining the below with the above. And in their attempt to mimic, to be “with-it,” Christian ideologists are attempting to combine sex (what happens on earth) with spirituality (what’s going on in heaven). We would do well to keep in mind that God is Being (Exodus 3:14), not becoming.
[2] Bill Plotkin, Soulcraft: Crossing into the Mysteries of Nature and Psyche (Novato, California: New World Library, 2003) 284.
[3] Jones, God of Sex, 47, citing Charles Pickstone, The Divinity of Sex.
[4] After pointing out three crises our world finds itself in–depletion of planetary resources, disparity between rich and poor, and danger of cataclysmic war–Brian D. McLaren traces their cause to a “spirituality crisis”; which is, “The failure of the world’s religions, especially its two largest religions, to provide a framing story capable of healing or reducing the three previous crises.” See Everything Must Change: Jesus Global Crisis, and a Revolution of Hope (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) 5. With his dismissal of the collective sinfulness of humanity and fallen-ness of creation as sufficient causes for these crises, the Christian religion, especially that of a fundamentalist-traditional-evangelical variety, becomes McLaren’s scapegoat. But McLaren’s “new framing story” will not stop hurricanes and earthquakes (Romans 8:22), or oppression and terrorism (Ecclesiastes 4:1).
          Though perhaps to a lesser degree, McLaren’s “new framing story” is as visionary of social, economic, and political perfection as Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. But it is difficult to see the picture when you’re inside the frame. Even though McLaren calls his framing story “eu-topian” (297), utopia is a perennial heresy. See Thomas Molnar, Utopia: The Perennial Heresy (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967.). Personally, I prefer the hope inspired by the Apostle Peter who wrote: “[A]ccording to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13).
[5] Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1988); See also his Creation Spirituality (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1991).
[6] Fox, Cosmic Christ, 169.
[7] Ibid. 171.
[9] One must wonder at how the new sexual-spirituality addresses the issue of when one person’s ecstasy is another’s agony (e.g., pedophilia and child prostitution), when one person’s pleasure might cause another’s pain.
[10] Neale Donald Walsh, Conversations with God: An Uncommon Dialog, Book 3 (Charlottesville, Virginia: Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc., 1998) 56. I am grateful to Peter Jones for drawing attention to this quote. See Jones, God of Sex, 48.
[11] Leonard I. Sweet uses the term “New Lights.” In Quantum Spirituality he links to the writings of Matthew Fox; first in his chapter “PATHOS,” Footnote #67, page 324, and then again in his chapter “THIRD TESTAMENT,” Footnote #c, page 340. Calling, “Light . . . the metaphor for the great mystery of consciousness,” New Lights are those persons who take on a “‘new minded’ approach to the planetary crisis,” those creative individuals who seek a new spirituality to avert a planetary meltdown. See Quantum Spirituality: A Postmodern Apologetic (Dayton, Ohio: Whaleprints, 1991) 43-44. Though “light” is a grand biblical metaphor describing God (1 John 1:5), Jesus (John 8:12), the Word (Psalm 119:130), Creation (Genesis 1:3), and much more, we must note that Paul states, “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14).
[12] Online: www.dts.edu:80/departments/campus/ccl/conferences/sacredsexuality/.
[13] Bell, Sex God, 197.
[14] Neale Donald Walsh, Tomorrow’s God: Our Greatest Spiritual Challenge (New York: Atria Books, 2004) 69.
[15] Tolle, Power of Now, 114.
[16] Douglas Todd, “Sex brings Christians closer to god,” The Vancouver Sun, July 26, 2008 (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=c8cd77ac-b993-4bbb-963d-7cb4dc07e5de). Todd cites the view of psychologist Chuck MacKnee, who teaches at Trinity Western University in Vancouver, British Columbia.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid. Todd quotes Rev. Trisha Elliott and The United Church Observer.
[20] Richard Foster, Life with God (New York: Harper Collins, 2008) 113.
[21] Online at: www.commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_of_St._Teresa.
[22] Todd, “Sex brings Christians closer to god.”
[23] The phrase, “as above, so below,” assigns unity (monism) and divinity (pantheism) to “everything” that exists. In his Bible paraphrase The Message, Eugene Peterson uses the phrase in Matthew 6:10. See “Decoding ‘The Message'” by Pastor Larry DeBruyn. Online: www.frbaptist.org/bin/view/Ptp/PtpTopic20080311121823.
[24] In Genesis 5:1-3 and 9:6, as well as 1:27, the Hebrew name for man (i.e., adam) “refers to every human being, male or female, not a duality of male or female. Clearly the image of God refers to the structure of the individual, and his or her capacity for companionship with a female or male respectively is an entailment.” See Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) 66, footnote #50.
[25] In a monistic worldview sexuality is part of the divine, for “God is all.”
[26] Todd, “Sex brings Christians closer to god.”
[27] David A. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon: The Communicator’s Commentary, Lloyd J. Ogilvie, General Editor (Dallas: Word Books. Publisher, 1991) 257-258. Examples of allegory are extant in the New Testament (See Galatians 4:24; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 10:1-11; etc.).
[28] Ibid.
[29] Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998) 463. Because Esther or Song of Solomon “do not explicitly quote or mention the name of the Lord at all presents certain challenges to Old Testament theologians,” writes House. The failure to mention God’s name becomes an obstacle for those trying to impute sexuality and sensuality to Him.
[30] Sacred prostitution, like that practiced among the Canaanites and adopted in ancient Israel, believes the opposite. Through the mediation of sacred prostitutes, such paganism believes that “the devoted” are having sex with gods and goddesses.
[31] “Sex,” Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, General Editors (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998) 776.
[32] Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003). Professor Teabing says to Sophie, “No, no . . . As I said earlier, the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record. . . . Moreover, Jesus as a married man makes infinitely more sense than our standard biblical view of Jesus as a bachelor.” (245) In their book Cracking Da Vinci’s Code: You’ve Read the Fiction, Now Read the Facts (Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 2004), James L. Garlow and Peter Jones remark about Jesus’ possible marriage to Mary Magdalene: “There is no credible historical record that Jesus was married. None.” (117)
[33] Colossians 1:16.
[34] On this point, we should note that some evangelical teachers counsel sexual abstinence in marriage for the sake of spiritual development. In this regard, we should note the advice of Paul: “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” (1 Corinthians 7:5, KJV). As “forbidding in marriage” is a doctrine of demons, so also sexual fasting provides Satan a special occasion for temptation. As such, sexual abstinence in marriage could lead to marital and spiritual disaster.
[35] Quoted in Todd, “Sex brings Christians closer to god.”
[36] This writer holds that traducianism accounts for how the soul, the immaterial part of a person’s being, passes on from parent to child, from one generation to the next. Our sinful nature extends to us from Adam through our parents, a negative spiritual “heirloom.” After Adam’s fall and as judgment for sin, God infused a sinful-death disposition into Adam. In that there is no placental exchange of blood between fetus and mother, this sinful death-disposition seems to come to us via the blood contained in the male sperm of our fathers. As our soul is transmitted to us, so also is our sinful nature (Romans 5:12, 15-19). Though the blood initially gives life, the death sentence in it eventually takes it. Therefore, in Jesus’ Virgin Birth, while His flesh was inherited from Mary, the unblemished blood of His life came via the Spirit’s creative impregnation of Mary’s womb. As such Jesus was the sinless Lamb of God who willingly died for our sins (Hebrews 9:12-14). While His precious blood was created, ours, with its inherent disposition to sin and death, is inherited from Adam through our fathers (Psalm 51:5). See M.R. DeHaan, M.D., The Chemistry of the Blood (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1943) 30-37.
[37] Walsh, Tomorrow’s God, 69.
[38] Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968) 35-36.