Lover or Plunderer?

Adrian Thatcher in his book, God, Sex and Gender: An Introduction, explores in one of his chapters the notion of desire and particularly that of sexual desire. At the beginning of his discussion he poses two polar opposite definitions of lust. The first is taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which describes lust as follows: “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolate from its procreative and unitive purposes.” (57) He juxtapose this definition with English philosophers Blackburn’s definition of lust as “the enthusiastic desire, the desire that infuses the body, for sexual activity and its pleasures for their own sake” (57) Whereas the Catholic Church emphasizes the divine order and purpose as key concepts of sexual morality and lust is the absence of these, Blackburn elevates lust out of the category of sin and seeks to celebrate it as a virtue that is essential for human survival. Blackburn approaches lust from an evolutionary perspective. Thatcher explains Blackburn’s point of view by writing,

 

Nature has seen to it that species reproduce. Embedded in our evolution there are mechanisms that bypass our conscious choices, our ‘wills.’ ‘There are … automatic sexual mechanisms that ignore the brain altogether. They underlie and contribute to the flooding of the body by desire.’ These mechanisms ‘drive’ us. We may imagine a feeling of freedom in relation to these unconscious forces, but sexual desire will inevitably end in coitus. (68)

 

Thatcher goes on to highlight what he perceives to be the limitations of both positions. He argues that the Catholic definition of lust “over-emphasizes the control and restriction of almost all sexual desire, and to an intrusive and unrealistic extent.” (61) Regarding Blackburn’s position of lust he argues that “Blackburn is unable to escape allowing for some sort of continuum, in his case between virtuous and vicious lust. For if, as he says, lust is the reason why any of us is there, then he lacks the vital distinction between the mutual desire of having consensual sex and the desire for non-consensual sex, for which lust remains an appropriate term.” (61)

 

Instead of regurgitating Thatcher’s entire chapter, I want to highlight two points that he makes in regards to desire that I found insightful and helpful.

 

First, he talks about how “Desire is crucial to the entire enterprise of global capitalism, and relentless mass advertising with its brutally effective impact upon our fragile senses, incessantly stimulates our desire to acquire, to spend, to consume, to discard ….” (63) Consumerism can powerfully shape our desires to fulfill all our desires and wants immediately regardless of the cost to us or our family. Worst, if unchecked, consumerism has the potential to shape and direct our desire away from God and the things that God desires for us. “Tim Gorringe’s … suggests that knowledge of our desires, rather than the subjugation of them, is essential to Christian discipleship. Desire needs to be educated. While the endless stimulation of our desires by capitalism turns out to be a mis-education of them, the tradition of discipleship (that is learning a discipline) goes back to Jesus himself.” (69) This is also true when it comes to sexual desires. I assume that Tim Gorringe’s has something similar in mind to what Paul calls the renewal of one’s mind (Romans 12:2). Letting God’s word and the Holy Spirit educate and shape our desires and living according to God’s pattern of life (which is life giving).

 

Second, what struck me in Thatcher’s reflection about desire was his discussion of the crucifixion of Christ and how this relates to discipleship and a Christians desires. Firstly, Christ’s sufferings become our norm and all disciples are expected to take up the cross and follow Jesus. Thus Thatcher writes, “The extinction of unruly desires then becomes a primary priority for all true followers of Christ seeking holiness.” (73) However, he clarifies that this does not mean simply putting all the desires in a Christian’s life to death. According to him, “The key distinction to be made is ‘the difference between liberation from desire (the latter equated with the insatiable self-promoting ego) and liberation of desire from the chains of my customary way of being myself.” (73) Moreover, he writes,

“The real danger to our souls is selfishness and the desires that feed it. ‘Real desire is what the cross empowers, bringing us to the death that its liberation entails. The death is the death of our present ego, whose perpetuation is the work of egoism posing as desire.’” (73) Just in case we don’t understand it he states, “Christ put first God’s desire for us over everything else. The ‘self empowerment of the cross’ is liberation from selfishness. [….] That makes ‘real desire’ possible, untainted by the ego. This desire is not the elimination of passion, but rather its intensification, because it finds it prototype in God’s passionate love for us revealed in God’s incarnation, and of course in Christ’s Passion.” (74) This final observation also highlights the fact of God’s desire for us can be clearly seen in Jesus’ death on the cross.

 

All this begs the question of what types of desires shape our life and our relationships. Are we lovers or are we plunderers?

Are the ways that we act and the type of desires that shape our life, life giving and God honoring, or are they self-serving and life depleting?