Sensuality vs. Asceticism In The Writings of St. Paul & St. Bernard
Written by Kyle Magri for a New Testament Class
Jesus, a sensual and down to earth mystic and teacher has somehow become the head figure of one of the most genophobic religions in the world. Christianity hasn’t had the best relationship with sexuality since its beginnings. Your average Christian has gotten their theology on sex from either Saint Paul or Saint Agustine or a deadly combination of both. But this is not the whole picture.
The most popular book to comment on, if you were a medieval Christian theologian, was the Song of Songs. The Song of Songs is the Bible’s most erotic and sexual book. For us today it seems odd to take this text so seriously but for both early and medieval Christian monastics, the Song of Songs was one of a very central text in understanding the path of erotic union with the divine. What we might think of as ancient pornographic poetry, the early monastics understood as clearly demonstrating the Gospels’ central message of divine eros. The great theologian Saint Bernard of Clairvaux described the whole purpose of any monastery as a “school of love.” For him, the Song of Songs helped Christians reflect upon the life of their own soul in loving union with God.
Bernard writes “All the more therefore do I pray that the intense longing of those men of old, their heartfelt expectation, may be enkindled in me by these words: ‘Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!’… hoping with every fiber of our beings that we might not be deprived of a share in a pleasure so great… For my Jesus utterly surpasses all else in his majesty and splendor. Therefore I ask of him what I ask of neither man nor angel: that he kiss me with the kiss of his mouth… The mouth that kisses signifies the Word who assumes human nature; the nature assumed receives the kiss; the kiss, however, that takes its being both from the giver and the receiver, is a person that is formed by both, none other than ‘the one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus.’ (1 Tim 2:5).... This kiss is no other than the Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus, who with the Father and Holy Spirit lives and reigns as God for ever and ever. Amen.”
How open and embodied is this theology of Saint Bernard! While not not directly encurraging sexual relations, Saint Bernards theology that is based in a book from scripture no less is embodied and flesh affirming. Saint Paul on the other hand, is not so flesh affirming. He writes “Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit” (Rom 8:5). And “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (Rom 13:14). And “Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want” (Gal 5:16-17). And “If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit” (Gal 6:8).
Saint Bernard speaks on a theology of incarnation via an erotic kiss of love between the Divine Spirit and Mortal Flesh. But Saint Paul speaks of a war of opposites between Flesh and Spirit, one which leads to everlasting salvation for those who chose the Spirit and everlasting damnation for those who chose the Flesh. For Paul flesh and spirit cannot be united, for Bernard it is their very erotic unification which saves.
The question arises as to who is right? Saint Bernards writings are often hidden in the vast wealth of Christian writings, a gem to be found by those looking for it. Saint Paul on the other hand has had his letters installed into the very canon of the Christian Bible. Therefore, it is Saint Paul’s ideas that have largely won the theological battle over sex and sin. From this, another question arises, in our post modern and sex positive society, are Paul’s writings redeemable for us today?
Many Christians have taken Paul’s phrase “the flesh” to mean quite literally “the physical body”, especially our genitalia. All the language about “not living according to the flesh” or “making no provision for the flesh” or “not sowing to the flesh,” is about denying our physical body in some way in favor of the Spirit. Often this has led to Christians rejecting bodily desires for food, drink, sex, intimacy, and more only to fail miserably. Scholars have found that the Greek word “sarx” commonly translated to mean “flesh” or “the fleshy parts of a body” could also take on a variety of figurative uses. “All flesh,” for example, really means “all living creatures.” “Flesh and blood” can mean “human beings,” or even “one’s own kin.” “One flesh” refers to “shared kinship.”
Saint Paul uses the word “flesh” in these ways throughout his letters. None of which, while it is certainly no Song of Songs, is inherently negative toward the body. Saint Paul at one point speaks positively of his body, saying “the life I now live in the flesh (sarx) I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20). Saint Paul also uses the word “body” (soma) quite a lot in a positive way. Paul describes the believer’s “body” as “a temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 6:19). He calls on the Christians community to offer their “bodies” to God as an act of worship (Rom 12:1). He insists that our future resurrected state will still involve an eternal incarnate body (1 Cor 15:35-44). It is notable to mention that, as a theologian and writer, Saint Paul likes to use binary contrasts: “flesh” in contrast to “Spirit”,“Law” in contrast to “Christ” , “this present age” in contrast to “the coming age.” etc. Perhaps the contrast Saint Paul is making is not between sexual desire vs. sexless spirit but rather something deeper.
For instance, “Living according to the flesh” could really mean “living according to a self-centeredness, or the ego” which is at the root of our sin and all its deadly consequences. While “Living according to the Spirit,” can mean “living according to a God centered, compassion oriented way of life that involves choosing to follow Jesus’ way of love with a deep devotion to God expressed through humble service and care for others.” Could it be that when Paul talks about “the flesh” in these passages, he is not talking about our natural, bodily desires for food, drink, sex but rather a call away from ego and selfishness? I think this is not only very probable but very promising! Nearly every paragraph of the Bible has been mistranslated and misinterpreted by those in power for ages. Perhaps the time is right to join Saint Paul and Saint Bernard together as two theologians with a similar understanding.
Now more than ever there is a serious divide in Christianity between those who would like to follow Saint Bernard’s path of erotic and embodied religion and those who would like to follow Saint Paul’s supposed religion of denial and abstinence. Yet maybe Saint Paul has been saying the same thing as Saint Bernard in his original language. If this is true then Saint Bernard would agree with Paul that it is only through selfless giving and compassion that we can truly have real embodied love for God and fellow human beings. As Christianity moves forward in a postmodern era, a theology of embodied love is of utmost importance! In taking a second look at Saint Paul and rediscovering the meaning behind his words we may bridge a critical gap between Pauline Christianity and the Christianity of the Mystics, a bridge upon which we can walk into modernity.
