Sexuality and Authentic Spirituality

The real crisis of modern sexuality is not excess. It is disintegration.

We have torn sexuality away from spirituality and both have become distorted.

In contemporary culture, sexuality is treated as central to identity yet detached from moral meaning. Spirituality, meanwhile, is reduced to private feeling, disconnected from reality. The result is predictable: desire without direction, and religion without relevance.

But this separation is neither coherent nor true. Within the Christian tradition, sexuality and spirituality are integrated at the level of the human person.

---

Defining the Terms

Sexuality refers to the human capacity for sexual desire and union. Spirituality refers to the interior orientation of the person toward ultimate truth and God. Or according to the online Cambridge dictionary, sexuality is defined as “attitudes and activities relating to sex”, or “someone's ability to experience or show sexual feelings.” and spirituality, as “the quality that involves deep feelings and beliefs of a religious nature, rather than the physical parts of life.”

These are not separate compartments of life. Both concern the same subject: the human person.

Christian anthropology insists that the person is a unity of body and soul. The body is not an accessory to the self; it is expressive of the self. Therefore, what one does sexually is never merely physical — it is personal and spiritual.

From these definitions, it is clear that sexuality and spirituality are deeply connected. Major religions have developed specific interpretive views on sexuality, and the historical Christian perspective has been to avoid adopting non-Christian (pagan) approaches to sexuality, since these were often regarded as immoral. As the early Church decreed:

“It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us… that you abstain from… unchastity.” (Acts 15:28–29, RSVCE)

The concern is not arbitrary restriction. It is coherence: sexual conduct reveals what one believes about the person and about God.

---

Sexuality as Self-Gift

Within Christianity, sexuality is ordered toward communion — a mutual and total self-gift between husband and wife.

Authentic spirituality, Scripture teaches, is not ritual performance but moral integrity and generosity:

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God… is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (James 1:27)

True religion is self-giving and morally ordered. So is authentic sexuality.

When sexuality flows from love, it affirms the dignity of the other. It says not “I use,” but “I give.” It seeks communion rather than consumption.

This reflects the original unity described in Genesis: the man and woman were “naked and not ashamed.” Their bodies were not instruments of control but signs of mutual trust and transparency. Desire existed, yet it was integrated within love.

As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, love properly understood is “to will the good of the other.”¹ Sexuality ordered by such love becomes an embodied act of willing the other’s good.

---

When Desire Is Severed from Love

The biblical account of Amnon and Tamar makes the opposite dynamic visible.

Amnon is described as “being in love” with Tamar. Yet after forcing her, the narrative shifts abruptly:

“Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, ‘Get up, and be gone!’” (2 Samuel 13:15)

The transformation is immediate and revealing.

What was called love collapses into revulsion after sex.

St. John Paul II observed that when sensual concupiscence achieves its aim, all interest in the object disappears, “As soon as [sensual concupiscence] achieves its ends, its attitude to the object changes completely, all ‘interest’ in it disappears.”²

The distinction must be precise:

Lust consumes. Love gives.
Lust seeks possession. Love seeks communion.

Lust reduces the other person to an object of satisfaction. Love affirms the other as a subject worthy of sacrifice and commitment.

Where sexuality is driven solely by appetite, communion cannot endure. Desire, when detached from self-gift, exhausts itself.

---

Why This Matters

When sexuality is severed from authentic spirituality (aka pure religion), two distortions emerge:

• Desire becomes self-justifying.

• The body becomes a tool of expression rather than a sign of covenant and committed love.

Yet appetite cannot sustain communion. A culture that absolutizes desire inevitably produces relational instability and loneliness, because consumption cannot generate permanence.

Authentic spirituality does not repress desire; it orders it. It asks:

Does this act embody self-giving love?
Does it affirm the dignity of the other?
Does it build lasting communion?

These are not merely religious concerns. They are community building ones.

---

Recovering Integration

When sexuality is integrated within authentic spirituality, intimacy becomes covenantal rather than consumptive. The body becomes ones’ language of self-gift rather than a vehicle for personal appetite.

Sexuality within the prism of authentic spirituality, by contrast, elevates the partner rather than denigrating or humiliating them. It is generous, since it flows from love and self-giving to the other. It opens the door to deeper communion, with openness to welcome new life—a child—arising from this union. Love, by its nature, is fruitful. Seen through this lens, sexuality embodies the Christian religious values of charity, holiness, and unity.

Here the coherence of the Christian vision becomes evident:

Sexuality finds its truth in self-giving love.
Spirituality finds its credibility and relevance when it embraces embodied reality.

Separated, both are distorted.
United, both are clarified.

---

Conclusion

The crisis of modern sexuality is not that desire is too strong.

It is that sexual desire has been detached from order and, hence its meaning.

Sexuality without authentic spirituality becomes self-centered appetite.

The body is not the enemy of the soul. It is the soul made visible.

Sexuality, when lived as self-gift, becomes a path to the couple communion, while spirituality ensures that sexuality is purified of lust and directed toward love.t.

---

Notes

¹ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I–II, q. 26, a. 4.
² Karol Wojtyła (St. John Paul II), Love and Responsibility.

…..

Note: If this reflection helped you think more deeply about the integration of faith and sexuality, consider subscribing for future essays on theology, culture, and authentic Christian spirituality.

Theology of Sex: Sexuality and Gender perception

 

A short reflection I made during one of my class courses on early centuries Christians' reflection on Sex and Gender from Canonical sources to non canonical sources.

1) "Consider how Christian scripture impacts the roles that Christians can take up based on gender and sexuality."

From an academic point of view, the impact that Christian scriptures can take up on gender and sexuality will depend on which Scriptures one is drawing his reflection from. If one is basing his reflection from the Canonical Christian scriptures composed in the first century for example, one will come out of it with a view that gender for example is binary, male and female.

Mathew 19:4 - "He answered them, "Haven't you read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female'"

However, if one look at Christian scriptures beyond the canonical texts, and read the gnostic texts, one may very well look at gender not as a binary construct, but rather a fluid construct. An example comes from the gospel of Thomas which read as follow:

"(114) (1) Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life." (2) Jesus said: "Look, I will draw her in so as to make her male, so that she too may become a living male spirit, similar to you." (3) (But I say to you): "Every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.""

We can note that in this particular gnostic gospel, we can see a possible seed of the trangenderism optic about gender categories, which differs from the Canonical gospels found in the Christian Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

2) "How do scriptures intersect with cultural norms and power relations? Choose two specific examples (e.g., a passage from the Bible, a biography, or other assigned reading to illustrate your points."

Let's start the comparison first with the cultural norms and we will follow with the power relations.

First, when we compare the first century interpretation of marriage, as we can see from the Pauline letter or the unknown canonical author of Hebrews, we gather a sense that marriage is good. It may not be regarded as the highest good when compared to the gift of celibacy but it is nevertheless regarded as good and noble:

1Corinthians 7:36, 38  "If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. ... So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better." 

Hebrews 13:4, "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." 

However by contrast, when we read non-canonical texts as it was shared in the class section titled "Christian Scripture and Tradition on Sex and Marriage", we read how marriage is degraded as evil and regarded with strong aversion to the point of being compared to the very act of sin:

"Clement of Alexandria, for example, reports about some Christians in the late second century who "say outright that marriage is fornication and teach that it was introduced by the devil. They proudly say that they are imitating the Lord who neither married nor had any possession in this world, boasting that they understand the gospel better than anyone else" (Stromateis III,6.49.1)."

Second, when we come to power relations, there is a varied way one can assess this. But since Christianity present itself as salvific or salvation religion, then salvation is among the core tenet of Christianity. And here again we can see the place of gender roles in it with we compare the canonical gospels or canonical Christian texts vis a vis the non-canonical gospel from the Gnostic thinkers.

Women are believed that they are capable to attain salvation just like their male counterparts, as since in the baptism of Lydia or the baptism of whole households in the Acts of the Apostles. And even in the ambiguous text that seem to make a condition on women such as, "1Ti 2:15  Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.", women still, even in this case, are candidates to salvation.

But this is not saw as it appears from the gospel of Thomas, which requires women to make a gender transition away from their femaleness in order to be worthy of salvation, entrance into the kingdom of heaven:

"(114) (1) Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life." (2) Jesus said: "Look, I will draw her in so as to make her male, so that she too may become a living male spirit, similar to you." (3) (But I say to you): "Every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.""

It is therefore true that depending on which scriptures one relies on, this will have an impact of ones conception of gender roles and gender power relation to a certain good.

Ancient Christian assumptions on "Sex and Marriage" in light of a Canonical Biblical Text

A short reflection I made during one of my class courses on scriptural on early centuries Christians' assumptions on sex and marriage

Assignment: "Choose one passage from the unit "Christian Scripture on Sex and Marriage" and analyze it using the three assumptions given here. How does reading through that lens affect your interpretation of the Christian text(s)?”

Reflection:

One of the texts that was quoted is Hebrew 13:4 "Let marriage be kept honorable in every way, and the marriage bed undefiled. For God will judge those who commit sexual sins, especially those who commit adultery."

1) The household is a basic social and economic unit; it includes parents and children of several generations as well as slaves.

Viewed through this new testament lenses, marriage has an elevated view. It is regarded as honorable. And by honorable one can extrapolate that it is expected to be the aspired norm in any given society. We know that many modern culture and surely ancient culture also were very strong on honor and their dignity, so much so that they created social strata to separate those who are more honourable than those weren't. Hence if marriage was to be considered honorable, this implies that it must have been regarded as indispensable as a basic social and economic unit in society. At least, this was the aspiration projected by the Christian confidence about the usefulness and value of marriage.

2) "Natural sex" is understood to be phallic and it should properly reproduce hierarchical norms of class, age, and gender. This means that "natural sex" always involves a penetrating male. Moreover, the penetrated person should be of a class status (whether male or female) lower than the penetrator, be younger in age (including children), or be a female.

From the Christian ideal that set all people from different socio-class status on the same rank when it comes to their value in the eyes of God, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28 , it is unlikely that marriage was regarded as simply being a 'phallic' endeavor. And coming back to Hebrews 13:4, the text emphasis on honor bestowed to marriage, meaning on the individuals participating in this marital union, it would be a departure from its ethos if the marriage intimate act of sexuality was regarded simply as a sheer acts of sexual penetration with no other noble sentiments linked to it. I do not conceive this as being feasible based on this first century text of the New testament.

3) Sexual desire is perceived as morally problematic.

From the perspective of Hebrews 13:4, it is adultery and other form of sexual sins that are problematic and which attracts God's judgment. However, the marriage bed is expected to be distanced from unfaithfulness, a concept often linked with adultery - the breaking of one's marital vow toward one's spouse. Hence the marital bed is expected to remain undefiled by unfaithfulness.

Beside that, marriage which in itself assumes the openness to sexual activities between partners falls in the category of what makes marriage honorable according to this texts:

"Because sexual immorality is so rampant, every man should have his own wife, and every woman should have her own husband. A husband should fulfill his obligation to his wife, and a wife should do the same for her husband." - 1Corinthians 7:2-3

 Hence, there is no problematic view regarding sexual desire within marriage, it is the sexual desire outside of marriage which is regarded as problematic, and Christians readers are expected to take all necessary measures against it.

Marriage: Are There Exceptions on Submission for Religious Purposes?

Today I am hosting a good friend of mine, Michel Mbonyinkebe, answering a question which was asked in a closed forum. His intervention was quite good that I took the liberty after consultation with him that his response should be turned into a short post for future references. I hope his reaction would clarify certain things you might have had as it did to people in that forum. I have translated his notes from French to English and made few adjustment and additional notes, but in essence and for the most part, I kept his commentary unchanged and true to the original interaction.
...
QUESTION:
"Yesterday I asked this question to my husband, 'how can a spouse deal with her husband if she find herself disagreeing with him doctrinally.' I meant, if the disagreement is about fake grace."


RESPONSE:
For me it is quite simple. Submission assumes that we recognize the existence of a hierarchy, a bit like in the army. We have to keep in mind that the same scriptures that exhort us to submit to God also requires of us to submit to each other, particularly in this case, a wife to her own husband.

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." - 1 Corinthians 11:3 ESV

It is clear that St. Paul raises the question of hierarchy in the family unit with the expectation to offer harmony in the family, and submission has its role to play in maintaining the family system working. For what would happen if the household had two heads during a disagreement? A peaceful resolution would be hard to attain. Hence submission doesn't mean being in total agreement, but rather as the dictionary puts it, 'the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.'

Piggy-bagging on the scripture shared above (1Co11.3), it is clear that in the family there is a higher authority above the couple, namely Christ. Wisdom dictates therefore that submission should be due to the perceived highest authority when a conflict appears between two authorities. This is common understanding which provide a bed-rock in distinguishing the level of submission. When it pertains to the nature of the Gospel of Christ, our submission should always bow to Christ himself when it is conflicted with what the husband claims. However, when it comes to matters of behavior that will not affect the worthiness of the Gospel, a wife is exhorted to submit to her husband. This latter one is also regarded as 'bearing fruits'. This implies that even in the depth of doctrinal disagreement within the couple, the partner (a.k.a the wife) should continue to express herself with meekness and all kindness. There is never a good reason to be unkind to your partner, even for doctrinal disagreements. I think this might have been what St. Peter had in mind when he said,

"Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct." -1 Pete 3:1-2 ESV

Wee see the same analogy being displayed on a different context by St. Paul when he spoke about political authorities,

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." - Romans 13:1-2   

This is more significant if we remember the political context in which St. Paul was writing. He was under an hostile political milieu that persecuted him for his Christian faith. The Roman Emperor had little patience for Christianity as it turned out, many believers were persecuted and many died including St. Paul himself. However, the hostility didn't prevent him to recognize the Roman Emperor authority, even in his disagreement with Emperor belief. Similar stories are reported in the book of Daniel under the authority of the Babylonian King. Although their faith ran counter those leaders perspectives on religion, they nevertheless remained noble in the way they conducted themselves in their disagreements. The first Christian community expressed that contrast this fashion:

"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" - Act 5:29 ESV 

The task of the Christian therefore is to learn to recognize authorities set by God without forgetting God own supreme authority in the process. The key as I see it:

1) Respect and submit to the hierarchy. And if there is a conflict about a higher principle (doctrine),

2) Keep the attitude noble and respectful while challenging the conflicted principle because you are equally submitted to God (who remains in the family unit the highest authority); but the final decision in the household will still be that of the husband even if your are not bound by conscience to embrace his views.

Last note: Some authorities are not chosen, but they are imposed on us. We do not chose to be under certain authorities but we find ourselves being under them such as a child being born in a certain family. There is nothing we could have done about it. 

But in marriage, modern courtship makes it so that each partners choose willingly to enter into a relationship that will bind both lovers into a hierarchical order of authority. Hence it is unfair to complain all the time to have a partner you have difficulty to submit to doctrinally at home when you've made the conscious choice in the first place to submit under his authority through marriage. I understand that people can change for the better or for the worse, but in any case this doesn't change that it was your choice to begin with, hence you will have to learn to love and submit through thick and thin.