"The carnal mind is enmity against God" (Rom. 8:7).

IN THE PAST FEW YEARS the number of articles and books published by Orthodox writers on the subject of marriage and specifically marital relations has increased. The ideas expressed in some of these works are not always consistent with Orthodox Tradition. The essence of these ideas is the deification of carnal relations, or, as some express it, the sanctification of erotic desires. Authors claim that these desires can lead one to God - to the realization of God within us - that such union is a reflection of the Godhead.

These ideas are not original. They are found in pagan writings and the works of Gnostics. They are very popular in the philosophy of the New Age Movement. New Age philosophy believes that the world is about to enter into a new period of existence, a New Order in all areas of life. Our concern here is the religion that will be the spiritual force in this New Age. The movement can be defined as:

At first glance the overall atmosphere of New Age philosophy appears to be one of tolerance and sincerity, but closer investigation reveals otherwise. On the one hand, although any religious practice or creed is acceptable for the New Age movement, on the other, the New Age rigorously opposes any attempt to promote one religious belief or philosophy as the single true faith, especially Christianity which professes to be the only path to salvation. The New Age movement believes Christianity to be just one of many inner spiritual paths, all leading to the same goal. New Agers try to convince us that the reason for all the problems of the twentieth century (and the past in general) lay in the unstable values of old religious, political, and social systems. The search for answers, they believe, must be outside of traditional religious thought ("Novyj Vek," Orthodox Russia # 24, 1996 p. 8). Those answers, they claim, are found in a more humane, less rigid approach to questions concerning man, God, life, and death. In essence, man, according to New Age teaching, is better and more capable of perfection than we assume; God is found everywhere, in all religions and practices; through understanding our mystical potential by Self-realization and the attainment of Higher Consciousness, life can be a pleasurable spiritual experience; and death is a wonderful entrance into "the light," union with a god who is much less demanding than we have been led to believe. New Agers claim that man advances not by the process of discernment, "testing the spirits," and moral struggle, but through intuitive "knowing" and "creativeness."

In order to illustrate the connection between the New Age Movement and the nontraditional ideas of various Orthodox writers we offer the following excerpts from various works with commentary.

In an essay by Laura Jones entitled, "Made in the Image of the Holy Trinity: Where Does Sex Fit into this Picture?" found in the Moscow Patriarchate journal, One Church (vol. 48, no. 5, 1994), the author introduces her theme:

The author uses extensively the thoughts of an American "mystic," Herbert Schwartz, in order to explain her theory. She claims that with the proper knowledge of love, sexuality, and the Triune God, one can attain to a higher spiritual state. She writes, "...when we use our minds rightly, knowledge leads into love." Further, "This knowledge is not something that we can attain by our understanding alone. What we can do with our understanding is seek after that which will unite us more intimately with God, for it is within this union that God reveals Himself to us." She instructs us that we must correct our understanding of love to conform to a new definition, which she summarizes as follows:

To clarify her concept she quotes her guide, the mystic Schwartz: "Just as when man is overcome by sexual desire everything else would be obliterated, so when you turn to Jesus this way there is a supernatural obliteration of everything else, and the more you do this the more you'll experience this joy...." At this point she rightly poses the question, "We may ask how this relates to sexual union...." While passing over her answer, it is sufficient here to quote her conclusion: "Rightly understood, true and holy conjugal union does reflect the Spirit of the Word from on High. It is like a mysterious love of the Father towards the Word mysteriously begotten" (Jones, p. 169-170).

Knowledge as well as carnal union, both important to New Agers, play a vital role in Mrs. Jones' spirituality. In the book, Understanding the New Age, the author, Russell Chandler, writes: "The New Age premise is that knowledge, or gnosis, is the key to being awakened from our ignorance of divinity. The slumbering 'Higher Self' can be roused. Creation and humanity are simply 'elevated' to divine status through personal transformation" (Russel Chandler, Understanding the New Age, Dallas: Word Publishing, 1988, p.32).

In the book, New Age Lies to Women (by Wanda Marrs, Austin: Living Truth Publishers, 1989), the author quotes a witch, Miriam Starhawk, who instructs that "sexuality is sacred because it is a sharing of energy...." Retreats, seminars, and courses on this subject are being introduced throughout America and the world. The concept that carnal union has a cleansing or purifying action and can lead to spiritual states, even spiritual union with the divine ("the energy that is the passion of God"), is a well known aspect of pagan cults (Marrs, p. 58). The author of this informative book rightly determines that while ancient pagans "confused fleshly desires with spiritual attainment," modern New Age teachers also lift up the act of carnal union "from the profane to higher levels of sublime spirituality" (Marrs, p. 65).

In contrast to the above teachings, the Holy Fathers consistently warn us not to mingle the carnal with the spiritual, for it interferes with spiritual growth. Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov writes the following about the union of the mind with the heart (the goal of spiritual life, and the condition for true prayer to God): "Not only does every sinful emotion and every sinful thought disrupt this union; even all natural thoughts and feelings, however subtle and disguised by an appearance of righteousness, destroy the union of the mind with the heart, and set them in opposition to one another" (The Arena, Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1991, p. 87). St. Mark the Ascetic advises, "If we no longer fulfill the desires of the flesh, then with the Lord's help the evils within us will easily be eliminated" (The Philokalia, vol. 1, London: Faber and Faber, 1983, p. 122, no. 181). St. Nilus of Sinai instructs, "If you desire to pray in the Spirit, depend on nothing carnal" (M. A. Novoselov, Mistika Tserkvi I Mistika Zapadnyh Ispovedanij, Moskow 1995 p. 59).

The New Age Movement, in complete contradiction to Orthodox thought, is replete with teachings on "spiritualized sensuality." Another example of this teaching, so foreign to the traditional Orthodox school of thought, is the book, Marriage, Sexuality, and Celibacy, a Greek Orthodox Perspective, by the Greek Archdiocesan priest Rev. Demetrios J. Constantelos (Minneapolis: Light and Life Publishing Company, 1975). Father Demetrios describes physical relations in marriage in an almost liturgical manner:

To the uninformed reader the above quote may seem at best like exaggerated poetic musings by Father Demitrios concerning marital relations. On the other hand, the reader, even if not well read in patristic literature, might, through common sense and reverent feelings, be offended by the inappropriate use of the expression "holy altar" to describe this function. Those acquainted with pagan or satanic cults which incorporate a carnal "altar" into their rituals, will see the similarity here. How do the Fathers differ from Rev. Demetrios in their view of marital relations? St. Gregory of Rome (the Dialogist) wrote to St. Augustine of Canterbury, England:

The famous Byzantine commentator on the Psalms, Zigaben, repeats the same thoughts:

St. Athanasius the Great comments on Psalm 50 in the same spirit:

The assumption that God created man and woman with the intention of their engaging in carnal, sexual relations is faulty and can lead to dangerous conclusions. God created mankind in an unfallen, sinless, pure, angelic state. Carnal relations, as we can see from the Fathers cited above, came about as a result of the fall. Finally, there came a time in the life of the Old Testament Church, when it was time for it to be replaced by the New Testament, revealed by the incarnated Word of God, in Whom man's nature was finally made whole. Man's wholeness was not accomplished through the carnal union that occurred in blessed marriages throughout the Old Testament, but rather man's wholeness was accomplished in Christ, Whos incarnation occurred without carnal relations.

The faulty understanding that from the beginning God ordained sexual relations can lead, for some, to a justification of the sin of fornication, because, supposedly, God created us with this predisposition from the start. This then can lead to blaming God for the sin that a fornicator falls into. This idea of placing the blame on the Creator (or on nature) will be discussed below in connection with the heresy of Sophiology.

Some contemporary Orthodox writers would tell us that the above interpretations refer to the human state under the Old Testament and now Grace has given a different meaning to marriage. Now we hear of "sanctified erotic desires" which are consummated upon a "holy altar." One would expect the children of such sacred unions to be spiritually more stable (New Testament) and less inclined to sin than King David (Old Testament). Is this in fact so?

Father Demetrios goes on to claim that

The term synousia, besides its basic meaning of personal, social contact, in the writings of the pagan philosophers Xenophont, Plato, and Aristotle, can indeed convey the meaning of sexual intercourse. In the period of the New Testament, for example, St. Justin the Philosopher uses this term in the following context in his thoughts on the incarnation of Christ: "If He was to have been born by intercourse [synousia] like all other firstborn, then why did God Himself say that He would give a sign, which is not common to all firstborn" (Sochinenia Sviatago Iustina Philosofa I Muchenika, "Rasgovor Sv. Iustina s Trifonom Iudeem," Moskow 1864, #84, p. 286). St. Basil did in fact use this same term when speaking of the essence of the Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity (Homily 24, 5). One should also note the use of terms derived from the word synousia - for example, synousiastis among the Appollinarians, who held that in Christ the human and divine essences (ousia) were united (syn) in one essence (Encyclopedia of the Early Church, Oxford University Press, 1992). St. Epiphanius of Cyprus employs another meaning derived from the word synousia, i.e., synousios, in order to indicate the Arian idea of a kind of participation of Christ in the essence of God the Father (G. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1961, p. 1337). The same term is used by St. Gregory of Nyssa in describing the Sabelian (heretical) mingling of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity. All of the above references illustrate the importance of understanding the term synousia as used by the Fathers of the Church, and the importance of a correct choice of theological context for its use in modern theological texts (Lampe).

Having used this term in relation to the Holy Trinity, in no way does it carry over this exalted meaning to, for example, marital relations. On the contrary, it is strange to even try to find a typological analogy between marital relations among created human beings and the Divine existence of the Holy Trinity. This use of human attributes to define God is more along the lines of the Eunomian heresy which attempted to determine the essence of God according to the attribute of "unbegottenness." In the present case these new theologians are attempting to determine the essence of God by applying to it the attribute of "copulation."

Fr. Demetrios ends his book with the words: "A theology, an attitude, or an institution must correspond to current needs and experiences if it is to continue across the generations, constructive and influential." Although his words are in agreement with the contemporary philosophy he espouses in his book, they are contrary to the Church's attitude towards tradition. There is much in contemporary "needs and experiences" which needs to "correspond" to traditional Orthodox piety and not vice versa. The Church has for centuries successfully called the faithful to repentance and renewal, but only according to the path traced by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church.

Ideas similar to some of those quoted above are found in the article "The Descent to God," by John Perkins, published in St. Vladimir's [Orthodox Seminary] Theological Quarterly (vol. 1, 40, no. 4/1996). The author expounds his theme as follows: "Modern people often must go down first - return to the earth - to rich sensuous experience - in order to reconnect with their animal natures, before they are fit candidates for Christian transformation." He instructs: "We must first come to a realistic experience and acceptance of our 'dirty' impulses and the feelings that accompany them ... we should ... not follow the temptation to reject anything prematurely... We should embrace our animal nature with love rather than denouncing it... We need to realize that sexual energy, rather than being inimical to the divine, can actually connect us to God" (p. 315). He then quotes another "lay theologian," Philip Sherrard, who writes:

Any attempt to contradict or discredit (even patristically) the above cited notions of this author are dismissed: "The notion - ubiquitous in the history of theology - that our animal natures, including our genders and our sexuality, came into being, or were superadded, as a result of the Fall is chaff that needs to be sifted from the wheat of patristic tradition" (Perkins, p. 310). He credits Bishop Kallistos Ware for this original expression concerning, "patristic 'wheat' and 'chaff."' One might inquire of Perkins which of the Holy Fathers should we begin to "sift" in order to come to a correct understanding of life according to the author? Perhaps we should begin with St. Athanasius, who was quoted earlier and whose words disagree with the present authors. Is this not pride and arrogance to assume that one knows more than the Fathers of the Church? What message does this convey to Orthodox believers? Will this not lead to a Protestant approach where each interprets at will, as the spirit moves him?

There is nothing unique in the theological innovations expressed by these Orthodox authors. Taoism, Tantric Buddhism, Hinduism and their offspring in New Age philosophy of our time are replete with information and directions on how to become more spiritual through "sacred sex." In an advertisement for the new book by Richard Craze, The Spiritual Tradition of Sex, this topic is explained as "a means of expanding and exploring spirituality." A New Age course is offered over the Internet, entitled, "Exploring Sexuality; A Philosopher's Perspective," where the professor tells us that "through all human history there has been a connection between sexuality and spirituality. Why? Because something intrinsically spiritual lies at the heart of the sexual act." A New Age instructor in spiritual enlightenment, Chris Griscom, makes the claim that "our sexual energy is the closest energy to spirit. It is the closest energy to the divine force..." (cited from the Internet). A flood of books has appeared under headings reflecting the themes and the spirit of those writers to whom Archbishop Averky referred to as "liberals and avant-garde theologians." The following are titles of just a few examples: "Eros Breaking Free: Interpreting Sexual Theo-ethics (Gilson), Body Theology (Nelson), Making the Difference: Gender, Personhood, and Theology (Graham), Eros Redeemed: Breaking the Stranglehold of Sexual Sin (White), and many others.

We encounter the above theme again in the chapter, "The Mystery of Love," in the recently published book, The Faith, Understanding Orthodox Christianity, An Orthodox Catechism, by Clark Carlton. Mr. Carlton states the following:

Expressions similar to these are very common among New Agers. A New Age witch, Irena Tweedie, has said, "Sexual energy is extremely important. Without sexual energy, a person can never realize the Self." The term "Self" is frequently employed by New Agers to "indicate the realization of the god or goddess within" (New Age Lies to Women, p. 68).

Carlton continues by quoting Archimandrite George. Archimandrite George writes:

The problem here lies in the authors confusion of terminology. St. Dionysius the Areopagite used an understanding of eros (that refers to the very hypostatic love of God Himself:

Following this, St. Dionysius immediately defines the very meaning of eros itself, explaining that he does not use the term in the pagan sense like Plato, i.e., eros meaning a human desire to achieve one's own perfection, but rather, he uses it as a name of God:

Thus St. Dionysius speaks of eros as a Divine characteristic of the supernatural existence of the Creator Himself. St. Maximus the Confessor, in his commentary on this work of St. Dionysius, explains the term as used by Dionysius in this way:

If one were to examine a dictionary of Greek terms defined according to the usage of the Holy Fathers, for example A Patristic Greek Lexicon, one would find the following examples for the word eros: 1. love, defense of term as synonym for agapi; 2. of God's love; 3. of man's love towards God; 4. of love towards saints; 5. for virtues (A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe, D. D., Oxford, 1961). On the other hand, concerning the ancient Greek pagan usage of the word eros, we find the following definitions: love, love of a thing, desire for it, loves, amours, the god of love, Eros, Amor (An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, ed. Liddell and Scott's, Oxford, p. 317). This simple study makes it clear how we should understand the word eros as the Fathers used it. A confusion of terminology could be easily avoided if proper sources are employed to define terminology, at the very least for the purposes of translating patristic texts.

Therefore, in any given exposition, if we follow the example of the Fathers of the Church, it is imperative to determine initially in what sense is the term eros used. In the section quoted in The Faith, from the work The Eros of Repentance, cited above, the "power of eroticism" is spoken of as if St. Dionysius and St. Maximus understood it as "not referring simply to human sexual desire." However, according to the thought of the Fathers, it does not only not "refer" to sexual desire, but in general has nothing to do with sexual desire - the attraction towards the opposite sex. The author of this work, The Eros of Repentance, Archimandrite George, by means of this play on words nonetheless concludes that sexual attraction is a natural desire, implanted within us by God Himself, and leads us towards Him. This opinion of Archimandrite George is not shared by St. Isaac the Syrian, who writes: "There are three means by which every rational soul can draw close to God: by burning faith, or fear, or the Lord's instruction. And no one can draw close to God's love if he is not led by one of these three means" (Sobranie Sochinenij, Moskow 1993, p. 307).

The "realization" of the image of God according to Carlton's understanding actually leads us away from the salvific way of the cross, planned for us by the Lord Himself. St. Abba Dorotheos explains a quote of St. Gregory the Theologian:

No such "sexual desire" was inherent in human nature before the fall, as St. John Damascene explains:

The famous desert dweller, George of Zadonsk, wrote to a spiritual daughter who was inquiring about Adam and Eve and marital relations:

Views expressed in the chapter, "The Mystery of Love," from the book, The Faith, and works of a similar nature, return a person once again to a fallen state, undermining the Christian ideal defined by St. Paul for all Christians (since at that time there was no established monastic state), But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord (1 Cor. 7:29-32).

Carlton continues:

Is it traditional or even proper to allow here for any analogy between sanctified, erotic [sexual] communion" among husbands and wives, and between God and man, or between the "persons of the All-holy Trinity?" A scholar of both patristics and psychology, Archbishop Chrysostomos of Oreoi (Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili), has written:

Although the present author, Mr. Carlton, is not as bold as Laura Jones, John Perkins, or others cited earlier, nonetheless, his terminology, images, and themes indicate a similar school of thought. Modern man, aside from the theological incongruencies indicated here, is far from a correct, patristic understanding of Eros. An attempt to convey the patristic term Eros as "erotic desire" can only be understood by the modern reader as it is described in the Webster's Dictionary: 1. Of, relating to, or promoting sexual love and desire: AMATORY. 2. Dominated by sexual love or desire (Webster's 11 New College Dictionary, Boston, 1995, p. 382). This carnal understanding of the word "erotic" is suggested openly by these contemporary theologians, for example: "One of these [energies] is the erotic power, the power of sexual desire" (The Faith, p. 228). Can we accept the carnal as "sacred," or sexual intercourse as "union into one flesh [as] a holy altar?" Are we to believe that "sexual energy, rather than being inimical to the divine, can actually connect us to God?" That sexual energy is "divine in its origin and sacred in its nature, and not ceasing to be sacred even where its use, through ignorance or malice, is perverted or abused?" Where will such thought lead the uninformed believer seeking salvation according to the path indicated by Tradition? Is it possible that the consequences for our flock of such theologizing are not foreseen? The very foundation of our ascetic Orthodox world outlook is threatened by such innovations. Could our pious Orthodox ancestors even a generation ago imagine that a prestigious Orthodox journal would print the words, "Modern people often must go down first - return to the earth - to rich sensuous experience - in order to reconnect with their animal natures, before they are fit candidates for Christian transformation?" If anyone is offended by any of the above ideas, is it only because they have not reached the spiritual maturity of these "enlightened" theologians?

At the end of his book, The Faith, among the books listed by Mr. Carlton in his recommended reading list (for the advanced reader) is, The Sacrament of Love, by Paul Evdokimov published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. In Evdokimov's section on birth control he quotes Father V. Palachkovsky:

Evdokimov comments that "the opinion cited expresses the Orthodox attitude very clearly and correctly... The whole person lives his eternal destiny between his conscience and the eyes of God. No third party may intervene" (The Sacrament of Love, p. 176). In these words the author has successfully excluded the spiritual father from any "interference" in this aspect of the married couple's life. What a disaster such direction implies for the majority of young people entering into marriage and raised in the hedonistic culture around us which encourages every kind of sensuality as normal and desirable. How can they discern for themselves, by means of their conscience that which they have no tradition to guide them in? If the author hopes for their growth towards spiritual maturity ("...the spouses' harmonious growth in charisms"), how can they progress without any direction?

We have noted the influence of New Age philosophy, and a misunderstanding of patristic terminology as factors contributing to the development of the above teaching. There is yet another possible source of inspiration for these new ideas, the heretical teaching of Sophiology. There are a number of similarities between Sophiology and this incursion of New Age philosophy that has appeared in religious literature. We shall examine these similarities below.

The basic premise of Sophiology is that there exists a fourth "person" in the Holy Trinity, a female entity - Sophia. One of the more corrupt ideas in the teaching of Sophiology, spread by Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, was to divide the simple essence of God into two principles - the male and female. Archpriest S. Bulgakov made an analogy between this dual principle and the image of God in man. In a 1935 Ukaz, the Moscow Patriarchate made the following observation:

The heretical concept of a "duality of sexes in the image of God in man" can lead to a "deification of sex," since if in God there is male and female and if in His image in man there is also male and female, one may conclude that if male and female unite in carnal relations they are reflecting the Divine. These ideas originated with Bulgakov himself who desired to find in the Divine and human essences male and female principles. This is contrary to the teaching of the Apostles which states that in Jesus Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28).

Bulgakov's teaching leads to the thought that the responsibility for the fall of Adam and Eve can be transferred to God in so much that God supposedly desired man to enter into carnal relations, and therefore, man had to fall to enter into this state, because in Paradise carnal relations did not exist.

The Moscow Patriarchate, in its 1935 Ukaz, explains that

A prime example of this weakening of the consciousness of sin is when, after the fall, Adam tried to transfer the responsibility for the fall onto God when he said: The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat (Gen. 3:12).

Another concept, popular among New Age theologians, that of the realization" of the image of God within us, i.e., that image being something like a particle of God (of the Divine) placed in us from the beginning by the Creator, leads to the same conclusion as Sophiology. Count Grabbe in his work against that teaching summarizes:

From the above theory, believed by many, concerning a particle of God within us (uncovered by a process of "realization"), which is in contradiction to the teaching about the fate of unrepentant sinners in the future life, we can understand one of the reasons for the widespread permissiveness of our contemporary society. Based on this concept of a particle of God within us, one can justify permissiveness by saying that we were created that way, thus excusing our fallen state by faulting the Creator. Count Grabbe concludes:

If sin cannot "overcome a being who has within it a part of the Divinity," then one can conclude that all the actions of such a being, justified by one means or another, are governed by this piece of God within the being's nature.

Finally, St. John Maximovitch, in his work against Sophiology, comments that the concept of Sophia (i.e., the female) as something abiding both in God and man, connects the natures of the Creator and the created, destroying the clear distinction between them. St. John Maximovitch states:

In conclusion, all members of the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and all Orthodox Christians who desire to save their souls and depart from the wisdom of this world should recognize and reject all such notions as contrary to Holy Tradition and the ascetic spirit of the Gospel. We are not advocating a teaching hostile to marriage, as some might infer, but rather we believe that not only in Church administration and practice, but in all aspects of our Orthodox life "let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40). We have the grievous witness of the various Christian denominations around us which have fallen under the spell of "liberated theology." Where has this led them? What spiritual and moral chaos they find themselves in because they did not check the spread of ideas hostile and foreign to traditional Christianity when they still had the opportunity to do so! Having harkened to the spirit of this world they are now lost. Archbishop Chrysostomos of Oreoi has written:

The twentieth century has witnessed to the fact that it is not from those who cling to Tradition and defend the Faith from innovation that divisions have arisen, but that rather they have arisen from those influenced by contemporary spiritual currents and politics, who in their wide embrace have lost their way, bringing many to ruin and threatening the very heart of Orthodoxy.

As the ever-memorable abbot of Holy Trinity Monastery, Archbishop Averky, noted, "Does our Church also have to go down this fashionable path, 'in step with the times,' so as 'not to be left behind'? What kind of 'church' would it be, which would permit itself all this, or at least would look upon this with all-forgiving condescension! ... No matter what is done by apostates, fallen from True Orthodoxy, which is the ascetic Faith, the Faith of struggle, we will not permit the modernization of our Church, and we will not go 'in step with the times!'"(Archbishop Averki, "V Nogu s Ìremenem ne Pojdem," Slova I Rechi, Jordanville, Holy Trinity Monastery, 1997, p. 459)

Go to the top