Book Review of Making Sense of Sex by Adrian Thatcher 2012 SPCK
The issue of sex and gender is a complex and controversial subject that often generates more heat than light. Yet I am sympathetic with Adrian Thatcher’s assumption ‘that there is some possible way of understanding it, and so of arriving at a rational grasp of some of our basic instincts and drives.” (p 1).
Adrian Thatcher is a theologian and his book Making Sense of Sex attempts to offer a way of uniting spirituality and sexuality by drawing on contemporary liberal theology (p6) looking at sexism, gender differences, sex activity and sex orientation.
I wish to compare some of Thatcher’s points with the perspective of 18th-century theologian Emanuel Swedenborg. Compared with three hundred years ago, there has been a sea change in public attitudes and values regarding sex and so his book, Conjugial Love, is often now regarded as counter-cultural. Yet, I believe it offers profound truths to benefit us all if presented correctly. One approach is to consider the following contemporary questions in terms of these two theologies:
- Is sexual freedom good?
- Are human gender differences insignificant?
- Are men and women equal
- Is the same-sex relationship to be celebrated?
Is sexual freedom good?
Thatcher notices that conservatives in the churches tend to be pessimistic about the social trends towards greater sexual freedom pointing to rising rates of divorce, promiscuity, and abortion. At the same time, he points out that it is no longer a requirement to be locked in a destructive marriage; marital rape is now a crime; and being born out of wedlock is no longer a terrible social stigma.
In my view, rightly criticising Christian history, the author points out that “as the first century drew to a close, the churches (or at any rate their theologians) became increasingly fearful of sexual desire and more censorious towards all sexual behaviour, including even the enjoyment of marital sex” (p17). Augustine’s influence over Christian theology of sex had remained powerful over a long period. This was the view that sex is always sinful (though in marriage sometimes excusable). He says these traditional teachings about sex are one of the reasons why people left the UK’s churches in the 1960s (p3).
Thatcher acknowledges that “Sexual desire can lead us away from God: to selfishness, to exploitation of the other, to deceit, to reducing persons to objects”.
I would suggest that those who worry about sexual freedom refer to sexual morality. Yet there is a challenge to speak about such matters without sounding or being judgmental, moralistic, insensitive, prudish or discriminatory. Any attempt to do so does not necessarily mean stating things in a black and white way that some may expect or prefer.
Other than in relation to incest and adultery, there is little authoritative definition of sexual immorality either in the Bible or in Swedenborg’s writings. At the same time there is much in both concerning general spiritual principles which can guide people in how to think about what is appropriate sexual conduct e.g. love of the sex developing into love of one of the sex. According to a Report to the New Church on Sexual Morality 10, higher spiritual laws are universal but must be applied relative to situations, circumstances, times and cultures using rational thought. Swedenborg strongly encourages his readers to look to the Lord for enlightenment rather than blindly following the authority of the church. All this seems to be in line with Thatcher’s criticism about those Christians who turn such principles into prescriptive laws, wanting a kind of “legalism – the outer control of one’s life and thought by a strict, detailed code” and “still begging pastors and churches for the false security of other-regulated thought and life.” (p87)
One hugely important spiritual principle is love to the neighbour and Thatcher rightly says that “The practice of this love will …lead to the avoidance of promiscuous and exploitative behaviour.” (p87)
Are human gender differences insignificant?
Except for some rare biological disorders nearly everyone has either a male (XY) or female (XX) chromosome which is very important in affecting the development of one’s hormones and brain. Yet not all men are more aggressive than all women and not all women are more gentle than all men and this overlap in gender-related traits applies to a range of characteristics. On the other hand, studies have not only found overlap but average differences between the sexes in various ways such as self-reliance, risk-taking, nurturing, etc.
But what science has yet to resolve, is the importance of nature or nurture in determining these gender differences. To what extent are they caused by cultural impact on social learning or by biology? Non-scientists might add the question of conscious choice. In other words to what extent are gender differences inevitably built into human life?
In line with those who seem to feel gender differences are not inherent in human life, Thatcher argues that differences of sex, gender…will be shown to be unimportant. (p43)
This contrasts with Swedenborg’s view which is there is a spiritual origin to gender: an underlying reason for the difference between masculinity and femininity. The reason for how we are created.
“So God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1:27)
Thatcher claims the point of Jesus” remark that in the resurrection couples will be “like the angels” (Luke 20:36) is that in eternity sexual differences are brought to an end. This is opposite to Swedenborg’s position which is that we retain our sex in the next life and that a couple deeply united will continue to have sexual relations to eternity (AE 992, AE 1000). This dramatically contrasts with Thatcher’s comment that ‘the cessation – of male-and-female is the end – the telos – of humanity. Or, …sexual difference becomes a matter of indifference.” (p55)
Swedenborg writes about the heavenly marriage of good and truth. On a human level, a love unmarried to wisdom descends into sentimentality lacking good sense. In addition, a clear understanding unmarried to love is cold and harsh. He says that central to the One Divine Being is the harmony of love and wisdom. Thatcher has a different view of God as a Trinity of persons. “God is, of course, in Christian thought a Trinity of Persons” (p31). “These Persons are distinct Persons, yet their individuality does not compromise the indivisible unity that God is” (p 70). “We should root each in the sexed body and let the social construction of gender play itself out guided by the vision of the identity of and relations between divine persons.” (p54)
Swedenborgian theology is very different. It is that like each of us the Divine Itself has a trinity of heart, head and hands, only in God’s case it is an infinite heart of love, a head of wisdom and hands of power – the origin of all that is best in the universe.
For Swedenborg, unlike God, people each still have to acquire a great deal of love and wisdom. If both of these aspects of the Divine were to be created fully present in one person, we would all be perfect which we palpably are not. However, the One Creator has made us so that an inclination towards the good feelings of the heart can be present in half of humanity. Likewise, an interest in understanding using the head is present in the other half. In this way, each half can learn from the other and progress towards receiving compassion and wisdom in harmony. This is said to be the spiritual source of making us all into two sexes.
It is masculine to perceive from the understanding, and feminine to perceive from love [Conjugial Love 168, translation by Acton)
Today, many would probably say that this apparently polarized view of gender difference is outdated and sexist. Indeed Thatcher writes it is “inadequate” to suppose that the idea that the division of humanity into two sexes was an original and integral part of God’s creative plan and that womanhood expresses the human as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way. He dismisses “complementarily as a modern fantasy” (p47)
On the other hand, Swedenborg did qualify what he had said about men and women. It is a less polarised view than first glance seems to be indicated. He also suggests there is understanding of truth and affection for good in both sexes, but with differing proportions.
For man is born to be the understanding of truth, consequently that predominates in him, and woman is born to be the affection of good, consequently that predominates in her. [AE 1121]
According to this view, on average, women, are capable of a deeper and more sustained feeling of care and affection than men. In addition, on average, a man finds it easier to think in rational light and for longer: he is concerned that his actions are directed by the sensible thoughts of the head — or if they are not, he wants them to appear so. (see Conjugial Love 188) Perhaps the polarization is more relevant to deeply united couples where each partner of the opposite sex has developed a more specialised role complementing that of their partner.
I would suggest that even outside such a union what Swedenborg is saying means that the female tends towards a subjective and the male an objective mental set. This doesn’t mean she cannot be objective or he cannot be subjective, but rather that often she is orientated to the personal angle rather than the impersonal: her slant is to be concerned with practical application and implications of ideas in human relationships, whilst he is more interested in the facts, logic and principles behind ideas themselves. In other words, she inclines towards expressing her heart and he his head. On a natural level, sexual desire reflects this unconscious attraction of opposites.
In line with this view of gender, is it not uncommon for people to notice that women lean towards talking about feelings more than do men? One view is that in general women are inclined more than men to want to share and express their feelings, to both discover what their feelings are and sort them out; also as a means to get closer to a friend or to experience greater intimacy with a partner.
A similar observation is that whatever the cause, men are apt to use problem-focused coping and the “fight-or-flight” response to stress, whereas women are more likely to employ emotion-focused coping and the ‘tend-and-befriend”. The ‘tend-and-befriend” idea refers, when under threat, to the protection of offspring (tending) and seeking out the social group for mutual defence (befriending).
Are men and women equal?
Thatcher correctly criticises those Evangelical Christians who understand the Bible literally, and thus believe, in line with Eph. 5:24, that wives “should submit to their husbands in everything” (p69).
I would suggest that when the women’s movement understandably spoke up for the value of women, it rebelled against the traditional gender stereotypes and proclaimed equality between the sexes. It quite rightly opposed any idea of male superiority and female subservience. Some feared that even any talk of gender is only a short step from women being different to being inferior – thus justifying discrimination. After all, women’s pay still usually lags behind men’s despite a sea-change in social attitudes regarding sexism. And so feminists continue to advocate seeing people as individuals regardless of gender and the term “gender” is often rejected as a concept constructed socially to reinforce the power of men.
Thatcher says that in his epistle (1 Cor. 11:7) Paul showed he believed that a man reflected the image and glory of God, while a woman was a lesser reflection of God’s image and glory. According to Swedenborg however, this comes from a part of the Bible that, although useful, is not part of the canon of God’s Word written in correspondence to divine truth. Perhaps Paul just got it wrong. Or perhaps he was trying to say something in a way that doesn’t directly connect with our heavenly perception. In either case, it seems unreasonable to me to conclude, as does Thatcher that ‘the one-sex theory explains” his words (p66).
Many women become troubled at any suggestion that their main strengths are heart-centered. It felt as if this were in some way of lesser value. In one sense they are right. Sadly the materialist world does value power and the acquisition of money over the nurturing of people and expression of care. However, I would say that the equal value of men and women is not a valid argument that any differences in inclination between the two sexes is unimportant. Do men and women having equal value mean they have to be equal in their average abilities, traits, or interests?
Swedenborg’s view is that in heaven there is no predominance in marriage.
In heavenly marriages there is no predominance; for the will of the wife is also the husband’s will, and the understanding of the husband is also the wife’s understanding, since each loves to will and to think like the other, that is mutually and reciprocally. Thus are they conjoined into one. [HH 369] I think Swedenborg is saying husband and wife are equally of value to each other in the way they inwardly develop. This is because the husband’s understanding of what he has discovered is enlivened by his wife’s love of applying it, and in so far as he shares this love, he receives a greater interest in learning wise ideas. He depends on her as much as she on him.
Is the same-sex relationship orderly?
Given that each of us has both some good feelings and rational thinking within us, it might be asked whether the conjugial principle has the potential to apply equally to the relationship between two people of the same sex in the same way as between two of the opposite sex.
Thatcher asks why Christians should obey the Old Testament rule that condemns men having sex with men (Lev 18:22; 20:13) whilst not following the denouncement of having sex with menstruating women and permitting sex with slaves. He suggests these old laws were based on purity and property and are no longer necessary today.
The point that certain regulations have been repealed today doesn’t mean that all the regulations need not be observed e.g. those about incest and sex with animals. I think it is a mistake to suggest that all the verses concerning regulations for the Israelites are not significant for us, being only about purity and property (p62). Instead, Swedenborg maintains that:
Anyone who is unaware of how the matter stands may suppose that this makes the literal sense of the Word unimportant, for no attention is paid to it in heaven. But let it be known that it does not at all make the literal sense of the Word unimportant; rather, it adds strength to it. Indeed all its individual words carry weight and are holy by virtue of the spiritual sense within them; for the literal sense is the foundation and support on which the spiritual sense rests. [AC 9349]
According to Swedenborg, the inner meaning of the regulation against same-sex relations is to warn us about what “whoredom” and “adultery” spiritually signify.
Adulteration of goodness and falsification of truth is usually depicted as adultery and whoredom in the Word [AC 2466]
Thatcher points out that the term “homosexuality” was coined only in 1869. So Swedenborg doesn’t write about homosexuality – there was no word for it in his day. However, one thing Swedenborg does state (in his book Conjugial Love section 55) is that the love of a man for a man or that of a woman for a woman cannot be a deep one. He may have got it wrong, but he says that the love of a man for a man and of a woman for a woman make relatively superficial contact not leading to any deep inner union of the two. In other words, according to this view, the love between two men is more about the association between one way of thinking and another way of thinking. And the love between two women is more about the association of one state of feeling and another state of feeling. These are wholly different from the development of a conjugial love within a couple which depends on the harmony between male thought and female feeling, resulting in the presence of love and wisdom within the partnership.
The idea that there is both masculine and feminine in each person came from Carl Jung. In Swedenborg’s time in the 18th century, sex and gender were the same thing. And so he didn’t look at the modern proposal that a deep and lasting relationship is possible between masculine and feminine in two people of the same sex.
Should Christian marriage be offered to same sex-partners?
The pastoral needs of all the flock need to be considered by a Church that claims to be spiritually alive in the good of its faith. Thatcher rightly uses some strong language in referring to homophobic intolerance. “The complete package of conservative teaching about homosexuality is ghastly” (p 64). He also fairly points out, “There is no recognition of the long tradition of Bible misuse in which the traditionalists now stand. Similar uses of the Bible have endorsed anti-Semitism, the judicial murder of thousands of witches, the endorsement or racism, of slavery, of sexism and so on” (p64).
This raises a question in my mind. Given this historical social context, how then should the contemporary church reach out to those who lead unconventional lifestyles and seek these to be blessed in the sight of God? And doing this, as the author says, “Interacting together to share spiritual insight and understanding in an open and non-judgmental way, in order to promote spiritual growth through the application to life” .
I feel that Thatcher writes well about marriage as a covenant (rather than a legal contract) which facilitates our communion with God. “Couples are able to find their way to God though the love they already have for one another” (p73). He quotes Pope John Paul II “…a man and a woman express their conjugal love. Their bond of love becomes an image and the symbol of the covenant which unites God and His people.” (p 72). And quotes Rev. 19:9 which refers to the “wedding supper of the Lamb” as imagery drawn from marriage to express deeper truths about God.
Regarding the issue of same-sex marriage Thatcher writes “If the Church is to open out marriage to couples of the same sex, it would probably be the biggest change to marriage that marriage has ever undergone. He feels the arguments for change are unstoppable. He suggests marital qualities of kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control can be found in same-sex partnerships. He argues that what is good about opposite sex marriage is also good about same-sex marriage if the couple are devoted to each other, who wish to make their vows before God to love each other hoping to become a unity of heart, body and mind.
The proposed unity of heart, body and mind, in a same-sex partnership, I would suggest hinges on whether Swedenborg is right or wrong about conjugial love being only for opposite-sex partners.
These blessings are not at all possible except in a marriage of one man with one wife. This follows as a conclusion from everything that has been said previously, and it will also follow as a conclusion from everything that remains to be said hereafter. [CL 181]
Conclusion
Whether or not we think Adrian Thatcher is right in all that he says about same-sex relationships and some other matters, I would like to point out that his position sometimes is the opposite of many of the ideas about “conjugial love” found in Swedenborg’s writings.
Notes
1 Although there are some rare chromosomal disorders, the 23rd pair normally has two “X” chromosomes in females, whereas in males there’s an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in this pair.
2 Females have greater volume in the prefrontal area of the cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, superior temporal cortex, lateral parietal cortex, and insula. Males, on average, have greater volume in the ventral temporal and occipital regions. See https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/sex-differences-brain-anatomy
3 Several meta-analytic reviews of gender differences were published in Psychological Bulletin (copyright the American Psychological Association) on facial expression (2000, Vol. 126, No. 3, 424-453), moral orientation (2000, Vol. 126, No. 5, 703-726), temperament (2006, Vol. 132, No. 1, 33–72), and risk-taking (1999 Vol 125 No 3 367-383).
4 Females of all ages consistently demonstrate on average greater accuracy at identifying nonverbal cues than do their male peers
5 Although on average girls experience greater negative feelings than boys, they also experience greater positive feelings and an overall greater emotional intensity.
6 On average girls show more inhibitory control and perceptual sensitivity.
7 There are demonstrated differences (albeit small ones) in the care orientation favouring women and in the justice orientation on average favouring men.
8 Boys tend to be more active (e.g. rough and tumble play) and have more high-intensity pleasure.
9 Part of the Vision of the New Church https://www.generalconference.org.uk/our-beliefs/
10 Sexual Morality seen from a Spiritual Viewpoint: Report of a Small Study Group of The New Church Conference
Copyright 2024 Stephen Russell-Lacy
Author of The Great Questions of Life
