Lust, Sexual Attraction, and Christian Spirituality

"It would be foolish to identify every erotic feeling with lust."

Sex for Christians

"Eros, the longing for personal fulfillment, must not be confused with lust, the untamed desire for another's body. Nor is every feeling of attraction toward an exciting person the spark of lust.  It would be odd indeed if the Creator put attractive people in the world and forbade us to notice them.  But there is a difference between the awareness of someone's sexual attractions and being dominated by a desire for that person's body."

Perhaps I should have entitled this something to think about for his next comments would be so controversial in a black and white world on Christian sexuality. 

Smedes takes a hard look at Jesus' command to not commit lust.  Smedes suggests he was "striking a blow pop Judaic legalism.  He struck, too, at the legalism of Christians who enjoy the illusion that technical chastity is all that fidelity is about...Legalists are not off the hook if they happen to be too timid, too hemmed in by community pressure, or simply don't have the time or energy for extramarital affairs....But it is equally possible that we have allowed the Lord's spiritualizing of adultery to put a load of guilt on innocent consciences."

Smedes asks, "Is the person who gets excited by sexually stimulating photographs lusting?  The answer must be that all depends...A husband who is distracted, tired, depressed, and in general out of tune with his own sexuality may feel the need for sexual stimulus that his wife, unfortunately, does not provide.  If he sneaks a look at some touched-up picture of an undressed woman, he may in fact, be merely receiving the stimulus he needs to make love to his wife.  Now it may be sad that some men and women need this kind of stimulus; their spouse may have reason to put more life into their sexual styles.  But in this world of pressures and distractions, any person who insists on being the only sexual stimulus in the world for his/her spouse is courting disillusionment.  On the other hand, any spouse can become more attractive and ought to find out how.  But what needs to be admitted here is that the tired husband or wife who is turned on by an erotic picture is not necessarily lusting after the person behind the image...

We have sliced physical sex from its deep roots in the person, plastered it on the billboards of the public arena, and in general deflated human sexuality by overexposure of the sexy body.  But we must not translate the large public problem of pornography onto a moral judgment on every person who looks at sexually stimulating pictures.  On the other hand, to say being "turned on" by erotic pictures is not necessarily lusting after a person does not mean there is no personal danger involved...Some people are so threatened by the challenge of deep personal relations with living human beings that they escape into the make-believe world of sex idols." 

On adultery with intent:

"One does not need to have twenty-twenty sexual vision to realize that friendships can a disrupt marriage relationship;  friends can become lovers and, even if they do not, a spouse may fear that his/her partner's friend is a competitor for love.  Where can we possibly draw the line?  If a husband plays tennis with a neighbor's wife on Saturday mornings, he need not be a candidate for incipient infidelity...Only those who suspect that every friendship between a man and woman has sexual intercourse as its natural goal will label every friendship as adultery of intent.  The line between tolerable friendships can be recognized not by rules but by imaginative discernment."

Comments

[Christine]

Is Smedes the author of this? What's the title?

Now we have justification of pornography as not really being pornography?

Smedes has been controversial for generations, with good cause, IMO.

[Dana Ames]

I don't think he's justifying pornography. He's just saying that it's not always about "lust", or lust alone- he's fine tuning the issue, so to speak.

I think this is the point: "We have sliced physical sex from its deep roots in the person..."

[Christine]

Dana, I was referring to this statement which, to me, reads as somewhat of a justification, though I could be incorrect: " If he sneaks a look at some touched-up picture of an undressed woman, he may in fact, be merely receiving the stimulus he needs to make love to his wife. "

[Dan]

Hi Christine,

This is all Lewis Smedes. I would have liked for him to be more articulate about the pornography industry as a whole--which I don't believe he was in this subsection on the intent of lust. I don't want to speak for him, but I think he would be against the pornography industry--just my hunch.

I did select this quote intentionally--as something that is on the opposite side of the spectrum from yesterday's think about it--I believe in the grand scheme of evangelicalism--Smedes is a faithful evangelical and he would definitely be at a different place than Daniel Heimbach (yesterdaay's author).

I think Smedes here, as I read him is zeroing in on the lust of intent--not the pornography industry as a whole--and asking if a man looks at an image, is he committing lust? Smedes definitely wants to say that it is "sad" that he feels the need to, but doesn't believe every man who looks at image for "sexual stimulus" is without question, lusting.

I was interested in hearing from women on this on especially.

[Dan]

Perhaps I should have separated the subjects but it is under lust--I do agree with him on this statement:

"It would be foolish to identify every erotic feeling with lust."

[eclexia]

I'm a woman. I agree with the comment that it is foolish to identify every erotic feeling with lust.

There are many profound things to be considered in that statement. Sexuality is part of who we are.

I do, however, have a serious problem with thinking that it is okay for a husband to intentionally conjure up erotic feelings with another woman for the sake of what? Sex with me? He would have a hard time convincing me that the erotic feelings stirred up by a look at another woman were actually about me. Even if he acted on those feelings by sex with me.

While I think it is true that every sexual feeling is not lust, I think it is dangerous to assume that we can come at it backwards: "Oh, that's not lust, because now we've determined that sexual feeling is not the same as lust." I'm not a logician, so I can't pinpoint the problem I feel when I read Smedes. But it seems like he may be coming at it backwards in justifying the sneak at a sexual image.

The other thing I think is missed is that life outside the garden is FULL of unfulfilled longings. When there is the thought that I must do what it takes to have this longing fulfilled, I think we are headed for trouble. Not just with sexuality, but any of the beautiful desires God has created in us.

Intellectually, I am glad for discussion which stretches me in this area. That points out that every friendship between a man and woman does not have sexual intercourse as its natural goal. Practically, however, I am glad to continue to err on the side of caution in my relationships with men.

I am thankful to God for how my friendships with men and women wake me up, make me feel alive in certain ways. For example, I was labeled "smart" growing up, but something came alive in me when I was able to share the way I think and feel in relationship with other people who thought and felt in similar ways. I am technically alive if I never interact with another person. But I more fully alive when who I am is received and shared by others, when my aliveness is stirred and shared in relationship.

Where this becomes a problem, I think, is when I want to try to harness that aliveness I feel in relationship (whether it be intellectual, physical or emotional aliveness or any combination of all the types of aliveness I feel in relationships)so that I can be more complete or fulfilled, to satisfy me and fill me completely.

Feeling relatively more unfulfilled (in areas not just sexual) at different times of my life is an okay thing. When I embrace that unfulfilledness and all the feelings of longing that come with it, I also accept that I do not have to seek to create or conjure up stimulation in those areas to be more satisfied. Allowing the longing and (usually temporary) lack of satisfaction to remain is what creates space for (1) discovering other aspects of satisfaction and aliveness in a relationship and (2) God to be more than enough. (And I don't say that tritely, as a slap on remedy or as an attempt to deny my longings. God is becoming more than enough for me, right there in the middle of longing, pain, desire--all touched and distorted by life outside the garden.)

Thinking that my sexual frustrations have to be satisfied, no matter how tired I am or my spouse is (or if I do not have a spouse), lets us settle for less, rather than gives us more. Meaning, as a sexual being, I don't have to deny every sexual feeling. But in embracing my sexuality and sexual feelings, I think I cheat myself of something by being quick to think I have to act or do something with every sexual feeling. Freedom for "more", I think, can make me a slave to "less".

I don't know if I'm making sense here. It is something that is hard for me to articulate.

Thanks for dialoging on this topic.