All right. Look.
If you’re at all thoughtful and at all interested in heaven and at all HONEST, then you have asked this question.
Haven’t you? Haven’t you??
You have. I know it.
I know it BECAUSE BLOOD BEATS IN YOUR VEINS.
But be even more honest: If this isn’t your #1 question about heaven, isn’t it at least in your top 5? Top 10 at the very most?
It IS, isn’t it? It is!
I know it BECAUSE BLOOD BEATS IN YOUR VEINS.
Frankly, I ponder this question all the time. Ad nauseum. Whenever possible. Wherever possible. In church even — my favorite place to contemplate it. So, whatevs, sue me. I am very interested in this topic and I’m convinced everyone else is too, whether they admit it or not.
Now, when I ponder this, I’m usually alone, ruminating, minding my own thoughts, etc. You know, a “controlled” environment where I can agree with myself, tell myself how brilliant I am, and not have anyone tell me I’m a naughty little minx for even thinking such things. I mean, I definitely wouldn’t discuss this with my dad. No. That would just make clear his throat and jingle the change in his pocket. (If you ever make my dad clear his throat and jingle the change in his pocket, you have made him VERY uncomfortable, okay, Crackie?) But, occasionally, over the years — yes, years — I’ve contemplated this question, I’ve brought it up with various other people who are not my dad and I have to say, I’ve gotten a little sick of the kneejerk answer to it, which is, essentially:
Oh, heavens to mercy, you little trollop! Of course, there won’t be sex in heaven, because there won’t be marriage!
Which, okay, is partly biblical, and people then throw this verse out to back themselves up:
“For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
Fine. I’ve read this hundreds of times in my life and I don’t see the reference to sex here. Nope. Don’t see it. Sorry. It may be encrypted and I’m just that stupid, but what I read here is that we will be like the angels IN THAT we will not be married to anyone, not that we will be like the angels IN THAT we won’t have sex.
We won’t BE angels. Angels are noncorporeal beings. We are — and forever will be — corporeal, but in heaven we’ll have glorified bodies, like Jesus. And who knows exactly what that means? I have no freakin’ idea. But does Jesus, now in heaven, have a penis or not? I’m not being blasphemous here; I think it’s a legitimate question. Did Jesus somehow lose his penis in the resurrection and, therefore, all men will be forever castrated in paradise? Will we all just be Ken and Barbie dolls forever? Or, wait. Barbie has those nipple-less breasts. Will I even have breasts? I mean, look, if I can’t prance about the heavenlies with these saucy mamas, everyone loses.
Surely God KNOWS that.
(And all that is a more of a “parts” tangent here, sorry. We’re all bumpy, in our own beautiful ways, so I’m very concerned about any eternal collective smoothness. Look, I have issues. Which is why you read this blog, I’m sure.)
But people make this corollary time and again:
No marriage in heaven = No sex in heaven.
But is that the right conclusion here?
I don’t think so. Nowhere in the Bible does it say, “You will not have sex in heaven.” Nowhere did Jesus himself say, “Too bad for you, suckers. No sex in heaven.” Rather, he’s silent on the topic, perhaps for good reason. If he’d flat-out said, “Oh, sure. There’s TONS of sex in heaven!” all kinds of phony goobers would be proclaiming their undying love for Jesus — all for an eternity of sexy-sexy sex. On the other hand, if he’d flat-out said, “Well, kids, tough break, but no one will be gettin’ wichoo in heaven,” all kinds of sex-crazed flaky goobers like me would say, “Seriously? No way! Uhm …. Lemme get back to you on that salvation thing, Jesus ….. you seem like a nice guy and all, but …….”
Maybe Jesus knew a rock-solid answer to the question of sex in heaven would be either a dealmaker or a dealbreaker in terms of people’s interest in him. And he wants us to be interested in him for him, not the goodies — uh, says the girl writing a post about “Oh, sweet Jesus, IS THERE SEX IN HEAVEN??? THERE’D BETTER BE!! I AM PANICKING!!”
Still, that’s why I think Jesus didn’t answer it or even address it. Nothing GENUINE to be gained by answering one way or the other.
Hence, the mystery. The question without a definitive answer.
But I think there is an answer, veiled, incomplete, but a kind of answer, if we look at creation and the character of God himself.
I think this: Sex is God’s creation and God doesn’t uncreate his creation. Sexual desire is innate to us. It’s not societal convention. It’s not learned behavior. People were doing it fine, I’m sure, long before there were books telling people how to do it better. If we’re made in God’s image, as the Book says, AND we’re sexual beings, then does this mean that our human sexual natures are mere shadows of — gasp! — God’s divine sexual nature? I know. I imagine we’re not “supposed” to think like this, but, really, I’m just following the line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. And let’s not forget the idea that we are the bride of Christ, our bridegroom. This is imagery that just cries out for consummation, doesn’t it?
How this manifests in heaven, I don’t know obviously, but I think perhaps the biblical restraints put on sex were made for fallen people in a fallen world. Heaven is expansive and divine and capable of more — infinitely more. In a perfect world, with love perfected, perhaps those restraints won’t need to be in place anymore. I’m not saying heaven is one huge orgy, but neither am I saying that heaven is one endless droning church service where everyone is well-behaved and boring and bored.
Again, I don’t think God uncreates his creation. How he made us originally. Our natures. I do think, though, he perfects his creation, and therefore, us, however he chooses.
People — fusty ol’ gammie people — also seem to like to say about this topic:
Oh, dearie, we’ll be so fulfilled in our relationship with God, we won’t even think about sex.
Really? We won’t?
Hm. That’s weird to me, gammie, because Christians believe that before the fall, Adam and Eve enjoyed perfect fellowship with God — as we will in heaven. They also HAD SEX. (Let me get your smelling salts, gams.) These two things were not mutually exclusive: fellowship with God, sex with each other. God wasn’t prowling about the garden, looking to catch Adam and Eve in flagrante delicto so he could smack their fancy bits with a switch. No. You know what he did? He let them sex each other up, is what he did. Because the two things are related: fellowship with God, sex with each other. Sex is more than just physical; it’s spiritual and, here, on a muted earth, only echoes of our ultimate fellowship with God. And if sex is spiritual and our spirits — and bodies and souls — are eternal, well, hmm ….. the possibilities ….. right?
I have to confess: I stole the title of this post from an essay by Peter Kreeft, a Catholic professor of philosophy at Boston College. He says all this much much better than I do, although, I can say I came to my conclusions before ever reading his essay, which simply confirms and expands how I view this issue. The whole essay is brilliant, spiritually and intellectually stirring, but here’s an excerpt I particularly like:
Everything on earth is analogous to something in Heaven. Heaven neither simply removes nor simply continues earthly things. If we apply this principle to sexual intercourse, we get the conclusion that intercourse on earth is a shadow or symbol of intercourse in Heaven. Could we speculate about what that could be?
It could certainly be spiritual intercourse—and, remember, that includes sexual intercourse because sex is spiritual. This spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man. We are made complete by such union: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” And God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment. The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven. Monogamy is for earth. On earth, our bodies are private. In Heaven, we share each other’s secrets without shame, and voluntarily. In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue.
Oh, I’m gonna be such a whore!
Pardon me. That was unseemly.
Look. I think if people were honest, they’d feel that a heaven without sex would not be a heaven. I’m willing to be honest here and say that’s how I feel, but I want to trust that heaven will not feel like being sent to my room without dinner forever. I want to trust that heaven will not feel like being eternally grounded. I assume an all-knowing God knows that I and others feel this way, and therefore, would have some kind of plan in place to ensure that we don’t respond to heaven the way we respond on Christmas when we open the prettiest package under the tree that turns out to be an egg timer from Aunt Duddy or a pocket protector from Uncle Merv — with those fallen, disappointed faces.
I have to believe that an all-knowing God knows what he’s doing and knows how to make sure we’ll feel that heaven is the greatest gift of all.
Maybe sex on earth is a teaser, a preview of coming attractions, a ….. stocking stuffer, if you will.
And I love a good stocking stuffer, don’t you?
I admit, I really hadn’t given it all that much thought (which probably seriously reduces my man index), but your reasoning makes a lot of sense.
And that means we can now replace the old song “In Heaven There Is No Beer” with “In Heaven There’s Lots of Sex.”
Comment by Vince — December 17, 2009 @ 7:37 am
Oh no you di’int. Oh, you did. You went there. To the forbidden. Sex and God in the same topic – wow you’ve got some guts lady. And I guess that is why we read you.
The door this topic opens is as wide as Aunt Duddy’s tush.
The whole “no marriage” in heaven bugs me. I want to be with my wife in heaven. Why would I spend 60 plus years here getting to know her and loving her if it all just ends in heaven. What’s the point? Then there’s sex. A definite must for heaven. And if heaven is God’s creation perfected and all returns to the Garden of Eden status it once was, then sex in heaven is going to be so good.
Rob Bell wrote an interesting book on the physical relationship in terms of its spirituality called Sex God. I recommend it. It explores the depth of sexuality and how our sexuality is all of the ways we strive to reconnect with our world, with each other, and with God. It’s not necessarily about sex in heaven but it touches on a great subject that many treat like Gammie does.
Comment by Brian — December 17, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Boy, do I have lowered expectations! My big hope is that I won’t have to shoot up insulin anymore.
In Heaven we will still be us - the disciples recognized the risen Lord, but we will be, to steal a phrase from the Army, all that we can be. Not only bodies that don’t need medicine, but our minds and souls will also be perfected. We confess our sins and bad attitudes here on Earth - In our heavenly state we won’t have any to confess.
Is there sex in heaven? maybe, as you have suggested God has something in mind for us that will pale in comparison.
Bottom line: It’s gonna be all good.
Comment by barking spider — December 17, 2009 @ 11:04 am
Brian — If you have a small chunk of time, I really recommend reading Kreeft’s essay. It’s great and fleshes out some ideas I merely touched on here because I’m lazy.
He brings up the notion of sexual souls — that our souls are innately sexual AND eternal. If you’re in heaven with a sexual soul, uhm, something’s gonna happen, right?
Why do I hear the crickets chirping on this post? Have I crossed the uncrossable line?
Uhm ……. I’m just that naughty minx, I suppose.
Comment by tracey — December 17, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Barking S — /My big hope is that I won’t have to shoot up insulin anymore./
Please forgive me, I shouldn’t laugh at that, but I did.
You DO have slightly lowered expectations, Barking Spider. But also: I don’t think you’ll have to shoot up insulin anymore.
You’ll be too busy having sex!!
Comment by tracey — December 17, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Well frankly, I’m relieved. If I wasn’t getting any sex in heaven, it would certainly make me a little more reluctant to go there.
Comment by Cara Ellison — December 17, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
I have never thought about it, mostly I think because I was never allowed to think about it. In my religious upbringing sex was a very taboo subject. It was always painted as dirty and sinful and somehow wrong. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why. I mean, someone somewhere is doing it, right? Or else no one would be here to discuss it in the first place.
As a result, my view of heaven has always been what you said…an endless droning church service, the whole eternally grounded thing…but somehow we wouldn’t mind. In retrospect, this makes NO sense at all. Your points are so much more logical. Why wouldn’t there be sex in heaven? If it is truly perfect and wonderous, it would have to be there, wouldn’t it? I mean for me it would, and I suspect for most people who were being honest.
So now I ask…what’s with the song referenced above regarding no beer in heaven? Please tell me beer will be there too!
Comment by Maggie May — December 17, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
I did read his article and it is a good one. Brilliant thinking like his expands our concepts and dissolves our misconceptions. I, like MM, used to think of heaven as a droning service. In one of the books I sent you, heaven is discussed by the author as looking like Yosemite. This gets me excited because Yosemite is one of my favorite places on earth and his imagery helps relieve us of the idea that heaven is a cloudy place with only white clothes. We now need someone to write how beer and pizza will be on the heavenly menu and that Converse All-Stars are the preferred footwear.
I was amazed how Mr. Kreeft made atomic theory so sexy. Lines like “orbiting around her proton and repelling other electrons” or “which tends to zoom her straight out of orbit” and “which tends to zap her down into her proton”. Hello Mr. Catholic Professor let me ask my children to leave the room. So naughty. My favorite line of his is “It is when everybody’s pipes are leaking that people buy books on plumbing.”
Comment by Brian — December 17, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
I’ve never really thought about it. Been more concerned with the question of whether there is guacamole in heaven. And can I eat Totino’s party pizzas once again? While a handbell choir provides my eternal score?
Comment by sarahk — December 17, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Peter Kreeft is wonderful. A friend of mine who attended Boston College was fortunate enough to have him for a class, and he says he’s just as good in person as he is in print - and a classic “absent-minded genius” type while out and about.
In re:
heavenly sex- er, sex in Heaven - I remember a snippet from Lewis’ space trilogy, after Ransom returns from his trip to Malacandra. A skeptical friend is going on about the foolishness of the bodily resurrection, and how people will have organs with no need to use them (food, sex, etc); Ransom shoots him down with a phrase that I wish I could quote to do justice to. As I read it, Lewis suggested that the bodily appetites would not be extinguished, but that the eternal life of God would be so immediate that it satisfied every desire, and we would be fulfilled and completed by this grace - there would be a different method of fulfilling these appetites, just as our spiritual life is different from our corporeal life.My thought is that, with the restoration of integrity upon our resurrection, we will no longer have war between our desires, our will, and our intellect, and can direct our whole self to our designed purpose. We will be perfectly ourselves in Heaven - and able to express ourselves perfectly in accord with virtue and grace. That doesn’t exactly answer the question, though, and there’s no definitive word in the Scripture. We drunken slatterns can rejoice: chastely and temperately, of course…
Comment by nightfly — December 17, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Can I say — with no offense intended at all — I’m a little bit surprised that some of you have never thought about it? I’m just wondering why. I mean, MM explained her reasons and those make sense to me. So, I’m wondering, for all of you who’ve never really thought about it: Why do you think that is? Are your reasons similar to hers? I really do want to know. I actually DO think I’ve hit on a taboo subject and ….. maybe people are uncomfortable talking about it? I don’t know. I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I do think sexual desire is SO intrinsic to who we are that it’s a natural — and not a no-no — question.
Comment by tracey — December 17, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
NF — /As I read it, Lewis suggested that the bodily appetites would not be extinguished, but that the eternal life of God would be so immediate that it satisfied every desire, and we would be fulfilled and completed by this grace - there would be a different method of fulfilling these appetites, just as our spiritual life is different from our corporeal life./
I know you’re paraphrasing Lewis here and I don’t know the quote either, but I gotta say — and I LOVE Lewis — this is a bit of the ol’ gammie response to me. “Oh, dearie. We’ll be so fulfilled with GOD, we won’t want/need/care about sex.”
I kind of disagree with him here. Or I WANT to disagree. I’m sorry, but if we have all our “parts” — as I think WILL — WHAT are they for? To be blunt, menfolk, will you enjoy walking around heaven with an eternally flaccid penis? I know. I’m going there. And if I’m gonna have my saucy Ds, I would like someone to touch them, thank you. Don’t forget: We will be eternally HUMAN. And for humans, penises get erect — YAY! — and boobs need to be touched. And, uhm ….. HUMANS like ORGASMS.
Just saying it. Bluntly.
Sorry, CS. If you don’t want sex, fine. Just go sit somewhere with the Inklings and smoke some pipes.
Comment by tracey — December 17, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
I’d be in the “haven’t really thought about it” camp, I suppose, but maybe that is because sex comprises exactly zero minutes of my time here on earth, and that doesn’t look to be ramping up anytime in the forseeable future. (But you can pray for that for me if you want
)
Also, my understanding of the Biblical boundaries for sex is marriage. Exclusively. And with the whole “not being married” thing, then, the logical extension is that there won’t be sex. I’m intrigued by your suggestion that those boundaries were set post-Fall, basically. Are you saying that if Adam and Eve had managed not to sin and instead be fruitful and multiply in the garden, that everyone would have been running around having sex with whoever, whenever, since sin wouldn’t have entered the world and God therefore wouldn’t have set boundaries on it? Not sure what I think of that, but it’s something to chew on…
Does Galatians 3:28 (neither male nor female…) have any bearing on this? I kind of don’t think so, but it’s another line to think along…
I’ve been thinking about this all day (when I was actually supposed to be thinking about Christians in the court of Kublai Khan for an Early Church History final, so thanks for that
), but waiting until I had the “brain space” say something semi-substantive.
So, I’m going to keep thinking, and if I come up with anything profound (doubtful) - I’ll add it on. I’m going to read the article you recommended, and also note that The Holy Longing by Ronald Rolheiser explores some in this direction as well.
Comment by Katie — December 17, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
I think orgasms are the ultimate physical pleasure the human body is capable of experiencing. I don’t think God would give us all this wonderful heavenly peace but then take away the physical high point of our being.
So I’ll be getting off in heaven just like I am here, and I hope God’s not watching.
Comment by Cara Ellison — December 17, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
Katie — I highly recommend the essay I linked to for further — and better — analysis of this.
As to your Galatians 3:28 reference:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
To me, this clearly means that God does not discriminate, that all are welcome, that all who come to Jesus are unified in Jesus. I think, in context, that’s what’s meant here.
It’s not saying we’re not male or female in heaven. Or, for that matter, no longer male or female when we come to Christ. I mean, everyone I’ve ever known who’s a Christian has been either a male or a female. I imagine it’s the same for you?
And we’re still human in heaven. Humans have a gender. It’s in our very DNA. To expect God to neuter us seems like expecting him to mutilate us, his creation.
And, yeah, Peter Kreeft suggests that monogamy is for earth, an earthly constraint. I think I put that excerpt in the post above.
Honestly, if I think about it, I cannot imagine that some kind of sexual intercourse isn’t present in heaven. Marriage won’t be, true, but how much of our natures would a good and loving God strip away in heaven, of all places? Natures that HE created?
Beyond that, I believe that men’s sexual natures — and the men can help me out here — are not naturally bent to monogamy. Men, in particular, desire variety. Of course, I doubt any guy on this blog would necessarily feel comfortable admitting that, but MB and I discuss this all the time and I don’t feel threatened by his male nature, which is separate and distinct from my female nature. How he’s made is one thing; how he acts on it is key. Maybe I sound sexist to say this, but for God’s sakes, the sexes ARE different, despite society’s desire to smooth us all into one genderless gender ….. er something. It simply ain’t true.
So. That said, if men’s natures can desire any number of women, oh, say in a week, just from looking at her, where does that come from? Did God perhaps make them that way? If so, WHY? Is there some ultimate, well, fulfillment of that? Or did God put that into men to torture them here on earth and leave them hanging in heaven?
(Again, I am not speaking of acting on these desires. I am speaking of the desires themselves. And I’m not speaking about specific men. I’m speaking of men in general.)
But follow me here.
After the Fall, when God renders his curse, he says this to Eve at one point:
/Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you./
Hm. Sounds to me like Eve was cursed with a desire for monogamy because of that sin. Sounds to me as if it’s possible that maybe, just maybe, pre-Fall, that may not have been her nature, either. Woman want that commitment, that one man, monogamy. POST-Fall. Adam was cursed with different set of problems, just not that one.
Eh. Just something to think about.
I kind of feel like I AM a naughty little minx for bringing up the subject. Sorry, pippa!
Comment by tracey — December 17, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
Does God ever say to Adam anything similar to that? He doesn’t curse Adam with monogamy does he?
Figures.
Comment by Cara Ellison — December 18, 2009 @ 12:54 am
Desire for variety - YES we men folk have it. My wife and I have a running joke about it. We both have body pillows to sleep with, hers is named Denzel and mine has a different name each night.
Cara - The unspoken curse that God gave man is the responsibility to NOT act on their natural desire for variety. We are to take up one wife. Do you hear that Tiger? One. Devotion - fully to one women. Man is told to suppress what his nature wants and substitute is for righteousness (right one-ness with God). For some men it is a bigger struggle or curse than others but I believe it is a struggle for all men nonetheless. This isn’t to say that the wife herself is a curse. On the contrary, she is a blessing, a true blessing that helps ease the pain of said curse. If you ever wonder what kind of struggle it is for men look up some statistics on how huge the porn industry is and the ratio of usage between men and women.
I love that you’ve brought this subject up. I doubt 96.3% of the churches in the world would talk about much of this openly. I think it is so important for women to understand men’s nature and men to understand women’s. This understanding will lend towards greater relationships and better marriages.
Comment by Brian — December 18, 2009 @ 8:47 am
I may not have thought much about sex in Heaven, but I have given a good deal of thought to monogamy. I think what God said to Eve wasn’t about cursing her with the desire for monogamy, so much as telling her the consequences of what she had done - her inherent feminine desire to settle down and home-build will be out-of-scale, so that women will often literally settle “down,” settle for far less, put up with all sorts of horrid treatment, merely to satisfy that desire - “he will rule over you.” And man’s natural instinct for adventure and discovery shall likewise grow out-of-scale and affect him in his sexual relation with woman, and he’ll be a rutting little jackrabbit, and neglectful of his home life.
There are other interpretations, and not everyone has the same problems, or to the same degree; and then not everyone deals with it in the same fashion. My observation is that women put up with a lot more than men tend to, and are much more involved with wondering how “the relationship” is going than men. A guy will often do something because he likes to or thinks it’s a good idea, without stopping to measure how it will affect The Relationship, and then be blindsided when the lady objects, and accuses him of being thoughtless - quite good guys, too, who are doing quite innocent things, and wondering why their lovely ladies are suddenly raving. The couple could be solid citizens, virtuous and faithful (to God and each other), and still run into these problems - he will rule over her, and fight for his sustenance against the world. To my mind, the curse isn’t monogamy, but that monogamy is rendered so difficult by the consqequences of what our parents did in the Garden.
I note that when Eve was first presented to Adam, he rejoiced, and it’s not like he could have been BS-ing the Lord about it - “Oh… uhm… wow? Thanks. No, really - I love it… NO, of course I won’t exchange it when you leave! Really, it’s… nice.” I think monogamy is not unnatural - I think that the natural drive to discover and explore in men, when healthy and unfallen, would move him to find a wife, and that her desire to be settled down, paired off, would make him feel welcome. She would not have to cling, he would not have to roam. As a couple they would be free to adventure together, and have a home to return to, and both would be happy and their natures satisfied.
I really wish that I could find the quote, Tracey. I suspect that I’m not doing justice to what Lewis said. And then again you have a point, it does sound old gammie-ish. (Truth be told, I’m somewhat gammie-ish myself so I didn’t notice.) Sex is really a tough topic for morality because it does go straight to the root of who we are, and our Fall struck us hard in that area. It may be that monogamy would just come naturally to unfallen creatures; it’s also possible that it would be unnecessary in a world where there is no jealousy or coveting or cruelty. It may be that, absent the effects of sin, that all our desire could be directed to one person with perfect joy and contentment; OR safely expressed to many people. All I can say for certain is that it’s hard to safely expressed here on Earth to ANYONE - even the marriage bed has hazards; even those good couples have tears and doubts and unfounded panic, can hesitate, can find their emotions and bodies at odds with what they want, and what they want at odds with what is right for each other.
Thank God, Heaven will be happier.
Comment by nightfly — December 18, 2009 @ 8:55 am
Brian — /We both have body pillows to sleep with, hers is named Denzel and mine has a different name each night./
Hahahahahahahaha! See? That’s it, right there. I’m dying!
And great clarification there, to Cara’s question.
NF — Also a great comment! I know this is — or it seems to be anyway — an uncomfortable topic for people to talk about. I guess it kind of begs the question of why it makes us feel uncomfortable. I don’t believe thinking about how sexual desire might manifest itself in heaven is a blasphemous topic, but I do understand that on the surface it seems WRONG. And I think that ties into our own issues about sex itself.
I guess I’m wondering this: If men’s natures are not monogamous — and again, different men struggle with this to different degrees — AND there won’t be marriage in heaven, does this male nature have some ultimate fulfillment and divine license?
OR what about this question: is men’s desire for variety really their created nature or part of their — phrase I’m not crazy about coming up — “sin nature”?
I’m kind of cracking up looking at these comments now: Tracey, Cara, NF, and Brian sittin’ around, talkin’ ’bout sex.
I TOTALLY wish we were doing this in person.
Who would blush first?
Honestly, pippa, that would be ME, I’m sure.
Comment by tracey — December 18, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Hm. On my last comment, I don’t mean to imply that people who aren’t commenting here have “sex issues” and I’m so free or something because I AM talking about it. It kind of sounds like I’m saying that. No, I’m just stupid and indiscreet, so I bring up stuff that makes people flinch.
Honestly, I have my own “sex issues” and so the extension of that is I think about the sex in heaven thing. I think as Christians or people raised with a “religious” (hate that word) upbringing, we operate within this “constraint” of monogamy and so thinking/talking about this maybe feels like a no-no? Is that part of it? To think of a non-monogamous place — maybe heaven — where that is OKAY feels WEIRD and WRONG within our current restraints.
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not implying a prison or chains or misery here, with monogamy. I’m quite happily participating.
Maybe thinking about this — or trying to imagine this — would be like a fish in a fish bowl trying to imagine life outside the fish bowl, walking on terra firma, breathing AIR. First, the fish doesn’t possess the brain power to remotely understand it — sorry, fish — and whatever the fish does imagine is incomplete, a mere shadow of the real thing. Besides, he’s perfectly content inside the bowl forever swimming and breathing water. We can look down at that fish and KNOW we’re living a richer, more fulfilling life, but he cannot conceive of it. He likes the confines of his bowl.
Not a perfect analogy, obviously. I mean, it’s different species, Trace, good one. BUT although we’ll still be human, maybe in heaven, in a metaphorical sense, we will be as altered in terms of our understanding and capacities as a fish becoming a human on earth would be.
I think I’ve completely lost it now. I am talking about fish.
Uhm ……. someone save me.
Comment by tracey — December 18, 2009 @ 11:39 am
I think the fish in the fishbowl is a great analogy. To continue it, will Heaven be like coming out of the fishbowl into the air, or into the ocean? How much will we change?
Comment by nightfly — December 19, 2009 @ 10:00 am
I have some thoughts on how “the church” has dealt with sex and marriage, and I use the Mary Winkler case as an example. Do you want me to post them here?
Comment by Lisa — December 19, 2009 @ 10:44 am
I certainly hope there is sex in heaven on the off-chance that I will get laid more often in the afterlife than I did on earth.
Sheila O’Malley, bringin’ down the level of discourse since 2003 …
But I speak the truth.
To me, sex is divine. I mean that in the most literal way. Tracey knows some of my background in this, because we’re friends and we talk about this stuff, but I won’t share it here. Embracing sex, and trying to “heal thyself” has taken on a spiritual element for me - and it is difficult for me (indeed, I would call it toxic) to be around people who can’t speak openly about it or who are judgmental or too easy with the call of “TMI”. It’s a trigger. Healing, gentleness, openness, and a willingness to not see things as black and white … that is the energy I choose to have in my life, in this regard. So I have no opinion about sex in heaven - I just live in hope that I’m just gettin’ started.
Comment by sheila — December 19, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Lisa, we just posted at almost the exact same time. PSYCH!
Comment by sheila — December 19, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Lisa — You can post anything you like!
Sheila — /I certainly hope there is sex in heaven on the off-chance that I will get laid more often in the afterlife than I did on earth./
Girl knows how to make it funny. That’s why I love you.
Comment by tracey — December 19, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Uhm, my comment just then first said:
Lisa — You can’t post anything you like!
Like my inner beyotch was shining through. That’s not what I meant!
CAN CAN. You CAN.
Comment by tracey — December 19, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
hahaha Lisa, you CAN’T post what you want here. that’s quite a typo!!
If there’s no marriage in heaven, then that’ll just be “same ol’ same ol’” for me, since there ain’t no marriage yet for me here on earth.
Which would be a bummer. What if I meet a hot fellow angel who looks like Ewan McGregor? Can’t I FINALLY be married in heaven? I mean, honestly!
I’m only half-kidding.
Comment by sheila — December 19, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Oh for God’s sake. I’m so passionate about it I had to say it twice, apparently.
Comment by sheila — December 19, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Thanks for the clarification - I really did find that a very illustrative explanation.
Here’s something sort of related, and I don’t mean to hijack Tracey’s thread so feel free to ignore it. But:
You know that phrase, “A woman’s place” as in, “a woman should know her place”? As I get older, I start to understand that women do have a place, and so do men, and disagreements and discord happen when women and men try to invade each other’s space. I was talking with my boyfriend about marriage. I said that I would feel completely disgusting if I asked him to marry me. It’s not my place; for me it is WRONG to do that because that is his space. It would likewise be wrong for him to do overtly female things like wear makeup, or more substantively, to look to me for leadership. That’s confusing my space.
Anyway, I’m curious if you feel the same way or if I’m just a weirdo.
Comment by Cara Ellison — December 19, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
Cara: You are not a weirdo.
Comment by Katie — December 19, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
I’m fascinated by the fact that Kreeft, at least–I’m not sure about anyone else on this point–is OK with the idea of promiscuity in Heaven, but not with homosexuality. So, what, homosexuals don’t get to go to Heaven? Or don’t get to have the kind of sex that appeals to them once there–just get to sit around and watch all the heteros getting it on? Or their sexual nature is somehow transformed into the acceptable kind in the transition to Heaven?
Just for the record, I’m not gay. Once upon a time I was hetero–now mostly just celibate, and OK with that. Based on the conversation so far–THAT should freak someone out
!
Comment by Addofio — December 20, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Addofio — Why should anyone be freaked out that you’re celibate? I’m not freaked out. Good for you.
As far as your question about homosexuality — honestly, I don’t know. I don’t. Of course they can go to heaven. Bottom line really is this: Who do you (the universal you) say Jesus is? I think that’s the entry requirement for heaven. Belief, faith, not mere intellectual assent to the notion of Jesus.
Kreeft’s point was about the “sexually complementary” which I do see as male/female by design and I guess he does too. So I see it as more of a statement of design than anything else. Transformation obviously takes place from death to new life, but, again, what that looks like, how it plays out, I have no idea, although I do LOVE to speculate. If we accept the notion that God is good and loving, that heaven is perfect, well, I assume everyone there will LIKE it.
On the other hand, I still have my own “worries” about it because I’m finite and not omniscient.
Which actually really bugs me.
Comment by tracey — December 20, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Cara — You are not a weirdo. Or at least, not about this.
One thing I love about you is your staunch, undying support of maleness and femaleness and the distinctions therein. I agree with you. I would never have proposed to MB. And he would never wear my makeup. (Although he has superlong eyelashes that every woman would DIE for and I sometimes have a compulsion to put mascara on them which he INSISTS I RESIST. But, watch out, you can’t stay awake all the time, Peaches.)
I’m one who says “Viva la difference!” as far as male/female. Sameness would be boring. I think God understands that most of all.
Comment by tracey — December 20, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Don’t you feel so envious when you see a man with beautiful long lashes? Now * I * want to put mascara on MB.
BTW, boyfriend isn’t going to propose. Ever. He’s not the marrying kind. And since I’ll never bring it up, I guess that’s just never gonna happen with him. Alas.
Comment by Cara Ellison — December 20, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
I probably sound like a brat but Lisa - I am REALLY interested in your thoughts about Mary Winkler and how it relates to all of this!! It’s like some strange sexually tormented cliffhanger - please divulge!
Comment by sheila — December 20, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
T, I have absolutely nothing substantive to add to the discussion–but I love sitting around your virtual dining room table and listening. (And Peter Kreeft is really neat to read.)
Comment by Kate P — December 20, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
I’m with Kate. My beliefs just aren’t cemented firmly enough to have anything to add. It’s a wonderful discussion, though, and I am also in your thoughts, Lisa.
Comment by Cullen — December 21, 2009 @ 7:44 am
Oh, jeez. Sorry. I’ve been waiting for some “free time” which means “work,” and I’ve just now gotten free.
First off, disclaimer. My parents are friends with Dan and Diane Winkler; I’ve known them all my life. Matt I didn’t know as well because he was a lot younger than me. As Sarahk can attest, we Church of Christ-ers are only about two degrees separated. I’m not going to address any of the physical and mental abuse allegations made by Mary against her and her children. This will only apply to the sexual things she mentioned in her trial.
I grew up in an environment where sex was not brought up AT ALL. I grew up reading the inserts in tampon boxes to see how my own body worked, until I had a health class in 7th grade. For the longest time, until that same health class, I thought babies came out of your belly button after you got pregnant by french kissing.
During my high school days, any discussion of sex when we were in a “church” atmosphere (camp, youth rallies, etc.) was only to tell us to wait until we got married. All urges should be suppressed until you stood in front of a preacher and said “I do.”
The problem with that sort of thinking is what happens AFTER you get in the car and leave the church building and go the hotel. What then? Can YEARS of saying, “Nononononono,” turn into “Yesyesyesyesyes” that quickly?
I grew up with a boy who went to Harding University (as I did — it’s one of the major CoC universities) and married a girl who was also brought up as we were. That switch in her head that would’ve allowed her to enjoy sex with her husband never turned on. She COULDN’T get past the fact that what he was wanting to do to her was NORMAL. To her, it was dirty. (They ended up divorcing.)
I think that’s what Mary Winkler was thinking too. If you read about her trial, Matt wanted her to wear stripper clothes and stripper heels during sex. He wanted oral and anal sex. The more experienced among us would say, “So?” But to Mary, those were “unnatural.” Dirty. WRONG. No one told her, “Hey. There’s different ways of expressing your sexuality other than missionary-position-in-the-dark. If you’re not comfortable with some of it, fine, but it’s not wrong. It’s not dirty. Enjoy your husband! Enjoy yourself!”
I’ve got more thoughts on this, but the end of the day is fast approaching. . .
Comment by Lisa — December 21, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
That’s tremendously interesting, Lisa. I was raised in exactly the same environment, but Southern Baptist. I went to Baptist Christian Schools until my sophomore year of high school. There was quite an adjustment. Had I not rebelled strongly in junior high, I probably would have been the proverbial Christian in the lion’s den.
It’s my experience that the majority of us raised in that kind of fundamental environment wind up rebelling and often in a dangerous way. Without some decent knowledge, a lot of kids engaging in risky behavior do so at greater risk. I mean, I want to protect my kids from lasciviousness, but I’m not about to send them out into the world without some clue.
I also believe a lot of these issues are easier for boys than girls. Those of us males with religiosity issues tend to have fewer hangups about our naughty bits, I think.
Comment by Cullen — December 21, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Lisa - yes, yes, yes - great points.
So magically you’re supposed to just “love” sex when it’s been drummed into your head forever that it’s bad? And how does THAT work?
Thankfully it does for some people, but obviously - in the case of that couple you know - it DOESN’T work for some people. Sexual desire is normal, healthy, natural, and it SHOULD be there.
People who have an issue with that are set up fo serious problems in life.
And Cullen - I think guys have just as many hangups. They come out in different ways, but it’s just as insidious. Or at least, it can be.
Comment by sheila — December 23, 2009 @ 10:27 am
“fo”?
Why am I suddenly “talking in jive”?
Comment by sheila — December 23, 2009 @ 10:36 am
They come out in different ways, but it’s just as insidious. Or at least, it can be.
I guess I can accept that. Being a guy taints my perspective, I’m sure.
Comment by Cullen — December 24, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
And having the 42nd comment makes me happy in a very geeky way.
Comment by Cullen — December 24, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
I find it fascinating how lengthy the comments have been on this one…really opened a can of worms! Obviously people have really put some thought into this subject. As for me, I can honestly say that until this post I had never given the subject any thought. Hey, thanks for giving me something to obsess about!
No really, I guess I have spent so much time obsessing over HOW to get there, that I haven’t dwelled enough on the prize itself. As I get older, though, I am looking forward to heaven more and more, and I just assume I’m going to totally love it…with or without the same earthly pleasures I enjoy here. I guess the problem I have accepting your logic is that I don’t think we will still be human in heaven. I don’t think we’ll have human bodies (or human appetites)…we will be changed. It’s possible that we won’t have bodies, as we know them, at all…it really is interesting to think about though.
Comment by ann — December 29, 2009 @ 8:07 am
[…] In the comments of the first post about sex in heaven, someone left a comment that, in part, said this: […]
Pingback by beyond the pale » more sex in heaven — January 13, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
Tracey, in case you or anyone else is still reading, a positive (though possibly speculative) case can be made that male-female relationships similar to marital bonds can continue between the redeemed into the next life. This may then also imply a romantic, physical or even sexual aspect in such a relationship. This detailed positive case (incorporating exegesis, theology and philosophy) is made on my website (click on my name) – you’re most welcome to visit.
Comment by Rez — June 3, 2010 @ 6:18 am