Sex in Church: SpiRitual Intercourse

Goodness me is has got lively around here again.
Interreligious dialogue? Is that dialogue between the subscribers of various religions or communication between the traditions themselves? For me it comes down to both. I have discovered something recently. The first half of my life was spent completely immersed in the church, and it has shaped who I am as surely as the craft has. It shaped my approach to the craft. The symbolism and doctrines were incorporated into my psyche when I wasn’t looking. This is something that has occurred to me dimly in the past, as I tried to make sense of it all, but now is right in my face and will not be going away. So I have been examining my roots and how inextricably bound up in my total spirituality those teachings are, and what has emerged now that a certain type of sacred marriage has taken place in my own mind. In this spirit I give you my recent thoughts.
I do not look at Eucharist as sexual in the sense some may be thinking, but if you examine the core symbology there are some correspondences. The cup represents the vessel bearing new life, yes? New life as expressed through blood, symbolized (in most traditions) by wine. The womb sheds blood, the womb shelters new life. The cup was used to symbolize the womb in many ritual traditions because this is what it made people think of, but in the tarot, the cup is also the heart. The host represents the body, the physical manifestation of a spiritual truth. So it can be thought of as the joining of heart and body, mind and spirit. Union on all levels, within the self, and with God. About as complete a mystical marriage as one could ask for.
While I am quite sure that most Christians don’t think of it specifically in that way, the implication is nonetheless there. It does not threaten, but rather enhances ones understanding of the whole meaning. Just as the claim that the church is laid out to symbolize the female reproductive organs may not seem valid to those who are uncomfortable with that imagery, the implication is there. Certainly the most transformative activity takes place at the spot where the uterus itself would be, and the developing fetus. Think of that. A sanctuary sheltering a growing, living thing. Do you disagree that that is what it is supposed to be? People say "mother church". People enter, engage in ritual union with spirit, partake of new life, and emerge reborn. That shape may ALSO represent a cross, but the cross as a sacred symbol is also older than Christianity, and what did it mean, for example, to the Celts when they incorporated it? It meant both. Don’t believe me? Look at the Celtic cross. What does that circle around it represent, I wonder? Answer: more than you think it does. Way more.
The acknowledgement that there may be undertones of sacred sexuality, of feminine power within Christian ritual tradition, does not diminish the significance of the rest, nor is it intended as some kind of obscenity as I think my priest may be thinking. When we say sacred sexuality, we are not referring only to bodily drives or a bodily process. There are deep spiritual associations in the idea of two opposite forces merging and becoming one, transforming, creating something new between them. These things are deep, universal parts of human nature and the psyche. They express themselves subconsciously even when consciously repressed, just ask Freud. The fact that some people never thought of those associations before does not mean they are not there.
Like it or not, people built the church. They expressed their innate sense of the sacred within it, of which for many sexuality was part. The idea of the body as somehow dirty and sexuality shameful was quite an alien one for some cultures.
In the same way, the towering steeple is thought to represent the masculine principle. Erect ascending, proclaiming, obvious, outer, it shelters and protects the internal. It inspires (fertilizes) the mind and heart.
All over the world, lots of the old ways were snuck into the church, because people needed to reconcile themselves somehow to the change, which they largely had no choice in making. As my beloved priest observed, you cannot change peoples thinking overnight. You cannot walk into a patriarchal society and suddenly demand that perfect equality be granted to women just like that. Just so, you cannot walk into a pagan environment and expect to eradicate deeply integral ancient tradition in one fell swoop. Of course the early spread of Christianity, and thus the overall development of the church, was influenced by the previously held beliefs and ideals of the people who converted, because, as Paul has showed us, even radical conversion will not change who you truly are at heart. To suggest that peoples whole thinking was simply transformed and none of the entire foundation of human psychology prior to that point managed to survive the advent of xianity in their respective regions is maybe a little ridiculous, a little conceited. The church did not drop entire from heaven. It was created and developed by people, fallible ones, inconsistent and sometimes self-serving ones.
I do recall the first time I proposed the idea of the church operating off co opted pagan rituals to my priest (then just a cute guy I was trying to get with) he turned to me and said “I think of them as baptized pagan rituals.”
I have no problem with that at all. I’d like to see more consciousness of it though, and possibly educate certain Christians about the deeper implications of that.
And so, just as in many places the church is still riddled with residual misogyny from the Greek and Hebrew foundations upon which it was built, not to mention the political expediency of maintaining control over women, so too have a great many pagan traditions survived that were incorporated by Celtic and Teutonic converts. This begs the question: how is Coptic Christianity different, how is Korean Christianity different, how is Indian Christianity different? All of those are unified by a central belief in the same basic precepts, but its ritual traditions are definitely influenced by the previously held beliefs of its converts. Each of those is influenced by the period in history during which it was introduced. This does not in any way diminish the validity of Christianity as a system of belief.
So, does one need to be a Jew to be a Christian? Jesus didn’t seem to think so. He himself rejected many of the ritual traditions and taboos of Judaism, though he was raised in the faith. He seems to roll right over the 10 commandments. He looked beyond religion and dogma to the truth of the divine, to the truth of people’s responsibility to one another, to the truth of his own authority to speak. He taught a way of living that was universally a good idea, relevant and applicable to anyone, not just Jews. Therefore, just as the Jews who became believers still kept many of the Hebrew laws, and continue to, so the pagans who became believers kept to many of their own traditional philosophies. It cannot be avoided I’m afraid, and i see no reason why it should be.
I do not know how the church developed its unholy terror of anything pagan, since it was the Pharisees and Sadducees, both Judaic political factions, that had the finger pointed at them by Jesus, and he doesn’t seem to have much to say to condemn paganism at all, except that he condemns all who put on an outward show of virtue but inside are unvirtuous.
Then again, I am only now renewing my study of the new testament and have only read the first three gospels so far, but I did once have a knowledge of the bible which was comparable to my current understanding of metaphysics, so this is really only a refresher, but I am of course seeing it with new eyes. Still its possible that the things I will read next may somehow contradict what I have read so far, but even that does not, for me, diminish the validity of the whole. I am accustomed to forgiving the inconsistencies in reporting and focusing purely on the core message.
And the message I am getting now looks a lot like the one I got before, which I was called sacrilegious for voicing, only now I have the benefit of a world of understanding to clarify what seem to be the inherent contradictions in what I have learned, as well as a much clearer perspective on those who said this.
Christians may not agree with me, but they don’t need to. Jesus didn’t say, “Be a good Christian.” He said love your neighbour, let your light shine, keep knocking, keep asking, it will be shown to you. Speak truth in spite of persecution. Have true faith and you can heal, be healed, change the world. Repent your hypocrisy and blindness and deafness. The kingdom of heaven is here, NOW.
Now.
That’s the part about it I find compelling.