LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

      Studies indicate that men’s sex drives not only tend to be stronger than women’s, but also that male and female sex drives tend to be motivated by vastly different factors, many of which cannot even be pinned down. I believe God intentionally designed these differences in brain chemistry so that marriage could mirror his relationship with us. The imbalance of sexual desire between the sexes forces him to pursue her, just as Christ pursues his bride: the church.

      The quantum principle of entanglement asserts that when you split a single entity into two pieces, no matter how far you separate them, each piece still mirrors the physical properties of the other. In the quantum world, the notion of making “two” out of that which was once “one” is physically impossible. Such is the case with the sexual union between a man and a woman.

      Several neurochemical processes occur during sex that bond lovers to one another. Men produce a bonding agent called vasopressin, and women produce oxytocin. These chemicals give physical substance to Christ’s assertion that in sex, the two are made one. This explains why sex that takes place outside of a lifelong commitment is so emotionally destructive. Attempts to make “two” out of what was once “one” are, both scientifically and spiritually, impossible.

      The problem with pornography is that the same chemicals that bind us to a spouse in lovemaking, will also bind us to images on a screen. Brain scans confirm that the thalamus, which plays a crucial role in distinguishing real from pretend, responds to inner and outer realities identically.

      Mirror neurons fire in the brain when the body is engaged in action, but they also fire when we merely observe the same action being performed by another. The neuron “mirrors” the behavior of the other, as though the observer were performing the action themselves.60 Perhaps this is why Jesus said one only needs to look at a woman lustfully, and he’s already committed adultery.

      Sexual activity also stimulates production of the same chemicals that drug use does, which explains the addictive nature of our relationships. We have a chemical need for relationship, though sexual activity isn’t required to meet this need. A sincere conversation or close hug from a trusted friend will trigger the release of dopamine in my brain. Although in seasons of isolation, when there was no embrace to be had, I have turned to Internet pornography, which mimics intimacy by releasing the same chemicals that are released through real world relationship.61

      It is in moments like these that God needs a body, because I need a hug. Loving our God and loving each other are so closely related that the New Testament uses the same Greek word to describe them both.62 If you want a deeper relationship with God, start by loving those around you. By loving their body, you are loving God’s.

      When I’m transparent with someone about my need for affection and they ask “how is your relationship with God?,” I know I’m not getting a hug. It is the polite way of being told I should get my needs met directly through the Lord.

      Such individuals have removed the body from the Christian life and, in so doing, confined the gospel to the invisible, ethereal realm where it exists only as an idea, and does no one any practical good here on earth.

      The tendency to divorce spirit from matter, coupled with spiritual socialization that posits the body as “worldy,” all serve as obstacles to integrating one’s body into their relationship with God. Why are so many uncomfortable kneeling in church to pray, or lifting their hands in the air during a worship song? Father Ryan asks, “Is it because we have been conditioned to remove our bodies from the expression of our spiritual selves?”63

      Indeed, this false division breeds a religious contempt for the body which tempts us not only to exclude it from religious life, but also to hide it from each other.

      Chapter 3—That Famous Fig Leaf

      Scripture tells us it was a cool day in the Garden when our forefathers tasted the forbidden fruit, and, in so doing, ushered in the fall of humankind. According to Genesis, “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked . . .”64

      Alan Wright, in his book Shame Off You, explains what the fall may have looked like in modern-day society:

      Imagine sitting in church and suddenly, during the sermon, a picture of you appears on the big projection screen and all of the thoughts you’ve had that week are exposed for the whole church to see. One embarrassing thought after another—moments of silent lust, jealous thoughts about other church members, critical thoughts toward the people on your pew. Now if you can imagine that horror, you’re beginning to get the sense of sheer terror that Adam and Eve suddenly felt.65

      Alan’s words illustrate that nakedness, in this context, represented far more than just physical nudity; it symbolized many other dimensions of exposure as well. The word nude is typically used when referring to bodily exposure, while the term naked is much more universal; it suggests exposure not only of the surface of the body, but of the essential self, which includes the body as well as that which lies beneath it. In this respect a person can be nude without being naked, and vice versa.

      Whereas nude only implies a lack of clothing, naked implies lack in a much broader context. Used conceptually, “the naked truth” is the truth minus the lies that previously covered it up; the “naked eye” is used to describe what the eyeball perceives when not covered by a microscope or other mechanical apparatus. Naked is a term used to describe anyone or anything that has been laid completely bare. It is in this context that Adam tells God he is naked even after he had covered himself up.66

      Initially, the bodily aspect of his, and her, exposure was not merely symbolic: Adam and Eve were both nude and naked. So what were they going to do about it?

      . . . and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.67

      And ever since this disobedient duo reached for that famous fig leaf we have all been hiding—hiding from each other and hiding from God. We don’t want people to see our wounds, imperfections, or weaknesses (the parts of our essential selves we keep covered), and we certainly don’t want them to see us without our clothes on. So in approximately 4000 BC Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves, and in 1721 the “bathing machine” was introduced to the beaches of Great Britain.68

      Swimmers would change clothes in the privacy of a fifty-square-foot box on wheels, which was then lowered into the water. The bather entered the surf through the front door, thereby preventing exposure before, during, and after completing their swim. While bathing machines were most popular in the British isles, by the late nineteenth century such devices could also be found in the United States, France, Germany, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand.

      In classical antiquity swimming and bathing were done naked. It wasn’t until the late seventeenth century that females began to wear swimwear, but men continued to wade in the nude until beaches were desegregated and “swimming costumes” became compulsory. By 1860 these “costumes” had become mandatory in the UK, and soon thereafter in the US as well.

      Male nudity in the United States and other Western countries was not a taboo prior the twentieth century, when swimming in the nude was the natural default for men in the United Kingdom, and in most of the rest of the world as well. Since this time, the association between shame and the exposed body has traveled far and wide; even permeating one of the highest political offices in the United States government.

      Draping the Spirit of Justice

      I was strolling about an outdoor mall in Peoria, Illinois with some friends, and I spotted a statue that almost made me choke on the pretzel twists in my mouth. It was a life-size rendition of a majestic lion, most likely made of bronze or clay, whose testicles were insufficient to say the least. Lions have sizable sex organs, yet this one had the genital architecture of a rat. A friend informed me that the mall had so many complaints about the original statue, whose anatomy was more realistic, that the artists who crafted it were called back to grind down the testicles.

      Similarly, in 2002

Скачать книгу