|
Nurturing
the One-Flesh Union: Implications for Counselors
Paul
A. Twelker
Professor Emeritus of Psychology
Trinity
International University
And
They Shall Become One Flesh
Four Relational Aspects of the
One-Flesh Union
I Was Afraid Because I Was Naked
Specific Ways
Sexuality is Distorted
Sexual Healing East of Eden
An
Innovative Sexual Response Model
The Link between Intimacy, Health
and Sexual Functioning
Readers
of this document are permitted to download any portion provided "all
such use is for . . . personal noncommercial benefit." Please
cite the article as follows: Twelker, Paul A. (1998). Nurturing
the One-Flesh Union: Implications for Counselors. Internet
resource available at URL:
<http://www.kamsandsinfo.com/Professional/Nurturing.htm> (last
updated 20 April 1998). This document is based on papers entitled
Innovations in Sexual Therapy: Alternative Perspectives Consistent
with the Scriptural Model of the One-Flesh Union, presented at
the American Association of Christian Counselors World Conference on
Christian Counseling, Dallas, Texas in November, 1997 (with Jan Paul
Hook) and the American Association of Christian Counselors Regional
Conference on Christian Counseling, Chicago, Illinois, April, 1998.
Copyright 1998 by Paul A. Twelker
And
They Shall Become One Flesh… "A man leaves his father and
mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one…"
(Eph. 5:31)
As
discussed elsewhere (Twelker,
1998;
Bailey, 1956; Piper, 1960), the one-flesh union is established by
sexual intercourse (I Cor. 6:15-17) when certain conditions are met:
two persons of different
gender separate from parents
mutually
consent to form a union
actively
cling or unite in relationship with the other person
Almighty
God joins the two persons (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-9);
Eph. 5:28-32) in a permanent way.
This
union illustrates another one-flesh union between Christ and His
Church, and hence individual believers (Eph. 5:28-32). Unfortunately,
the one-flesh union is subject to distortion and counterfeit by the
action of the sin nature (I Cor. 6:15-17). When the union is torn
apart, the individuals take a step back from wholeness where two
lives are bonded together. The weakest link is not related to the
glue of God’s joining the two together, but the fabric of each
individual’s life that is bonded. Something that was once a
one-flesh bond cannot be separated without rendering a serious wound
to the very center of each partners’ being. Jesus was well
aware of this when the Pharisees attempted to trap him (Matt.
19:4-6). Jesus did not resort to discussing the various rules and
schools of thought on divorce, but goes directly to God’s
blueprint for humankind and thus silences the Pharisees. If this
argument were not enough, Jesus reveals the true nature of sin’s
distortion by stating that one can become an adulterer by merely
intending to commit adultery or a murderer by having anger and ill
will directed toward another person. Sin involves motive and
attitude.
The
one-flesh union involves the bonding of two distinctly different
individuals into a single entity. This entity which will now be
referred to as simply the union, does not require the loss of
individual identities. However, the union will not move forward
without a lifelong maturation process that requires individual
adaptation for the good of the union. Since the union is a system
initially composed of two individuals, this maturation follows
principles of systems in their development, or God forbid their
disintegration.
This
union goes far beyond the typical meanings we attach to the term,
flesh. In a biblical sense, flesh has meanings related to publish,
bear glad tidings, preach and show forth. It is an inclusive term
that represents the person within the societal context. It refers to
life itself and means one’s entire self or whole personality.
Pearsall (1994) captures the beautiful intricacies of the union in
his "pentamerous" model of sexual healing that involves
five levels of connection:
Connection with self—our
complete awareness of who we are, what we are doing, and with whom,
as well as the purpose of our being sexually intimate (self-esteem).
Connection
with a significant other—a bond based on honesty and
responsibility in our sexual expression because we love the other
person (intimacy).
Connection
with s sense of purpose, meaning and manageability in life—a
sharing of our beliefs about a higher purpose of life and with whom
we find even more meaning through the act of loving, a bond that
requires a mutually expressed belief system acceptable to both
partners (coherence).
Connection
with the current moment—being aware of the present moment and
its every sensation in an unrushed manner, unimpaired by guilt,
regrets, and self-recriminations and free from distractions and
feelings of obligation (mindfulness).
Connection
with the physical body of someone you love as an intense physical
expression and manifestation of all five levels of
connection—connecting sensually with your own body and the
body of your partner (sensuality).
Note
how every aspect of personhood is captured in these five levels of
connection, including the spiritual dimension that is so often
missing from secular writings. Our purpose now is to synthesize a
framework for the development of this union toward wholeness.
Four
Relational Aspects of the One-Flesh Union
The
one-flesh union embraces four aspects of relationship:
equality
differentiation
complementarity
unity.
These
aspects were designed into the union by Creator God, and for a time
functioned in the lives of Adam and Eve in a God-honoring way. Due to
sin, these aspects of relationship were distorted. This distortion is
clearly seen throughout the pages of scripture, for the Bible is
brutally honest in its recording of the human condition. Because of
this fact, it is difficult to take biblical descriptions of marriage
recorded in the scriptures and normalize them for our lives. We must
first have to ask this crucial question: does the practice described
represent these aspects as created and laid out in the one-flesh
blueprint for humankind, or does the practice represent a distortion
of the blueprint? Let us review the way the union was created and
distorted.
I
Was Afraid Because I Was Naked… "It was the woman you
gave me who brought me the fruit, and I ate it…" (Gen
3:12)
Differentiation
The scriptures are blatantly clear on this subject. The union is
composed of a male and a female who differ from each other (Gen.
1:26-27), especially in the areas of reproduction and sexuality. It
is distorted when we think of men and women as the same, when we
demand that they act and be the same, and when we form same gender,
sexualized bonds (Rom. 1:18-32).
Equality
Male and female was created as equal co-partners in vocation and
making ethical decisions (in the case of Adam and Eve, tending the
Garden and keeping the Limit [Gen. 2: 15-18;Yee, 1990]). Societal
practices such as bride-payment (mohar) (Gen. 34:12; Gen. 29),
hierarchies and thinking of oneself as above another (Gal. 6:1-5)
create alienation, hostility and self-centeredness that act to
distort equality.
Complementarity
Scriptures clearly indicate how members of the body of Christ
complement each other and are satisfied with each other’s
roles without complaining in a self-centered way. It is an act of
love to accept the other person as possessing unique talents, gifts
and personality traits without griping about them or trying to
change them. Paradoxically, acceptance of both strengths and
weaknesses, the good with the bad, allow for a maturing of an
individual who can promote the development of the union. In this
way, personal change is possible. All other change will tend to
cause disintegration of the union (I Cor. 12; Eph. 4). Until people
can empty themselves of the need to control and change the other
person, complementarity is distorted. One partner persisting and
pushing for change, while the other partner resisting and
withdrawing characterizes the usual pattern in a dysfunctional
union.
Unity
The marvelous theme of the book of Ephesians is how individuals
may be restored to unity because of the redeeming work of Christ on
the Cross and the subsequent gifting of believers to demonstrate
unity (Eph. 4:4-24).
One
need read no further than the Fall narrative to see how sin disrupts
unity (Gen. 3:8-24). Paul speaks of the consequences of this
disruption in Ephesian 2 where two words may be used to sum up these
effects: alienated and hostile. Note that unity is not a natural
consequence of relationship. Disunity is (Gen. 3:16; Col. 1:21)!
Hipponax, a poet in Ephesus stated that "There are two happy
days in a man’s life. The one when he gets a wife, and the
other when he buries her."
There
are three other aspects of relationship that are demonstrated in the
one-flesh union:
monogamy and
exclusiveness
total
openness
integration
of the whole personality and
total
being in sexual intercourse.
These
aspects, although important, are secondary to the four major aspects
mentioned above. But they are nonetheless indispensable if the union
is to mature and act as Salt and Light in a decaying world system.
Let us review these aspects, once again keeping in mind the crucial
questions concerning whether the scriptures are revealing normative
truth or cultural and societal distortions of the blueprint for
humankind.
Monogamy and
exclusiveness There can co-exist only two unions according to
scripture: the union between Christ and the Church (and by
extension, the individual believer), and the union between a man and
a wife (I Cor. 6:15-20). There is no room for a third, alien union
jeopardizing the other two. Polygamy, concubinage, the double
standard, adultery and promiscuity all distort this principle.
Total
openness The ideal of the Creation narrative, expressed in "the
man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed" (Gen.
2:25) represents the total openness of which I speak. Sin brought
shame, blame and fear into the relationship. One of the most common
dynamic in couple’s problems involve the anxiety about
openness due to the fear of rejection or abandonment by the other.
The other partner usually mirrors this anxiety, even when one
partner is pushing for change and the other partner is resisting.
Integration
of the whole personality and total being in sexual intercourse
The one-flesh union involves the partners to the very core of their
being in various spheres (psychologically, emotionally,
biologically, neurologically, sexually, and even immunologically.
The word for flesh in the scriptures has at its root the meanings of
publish, bear glad tidings, preach and show forth. It is an
inclusive term that represents the positive (if not joyful) display
of that person within the societal context in all aspects of
personhood. Regretfully, due to the disruption of sin, individuals
become groin-focused in the sexual act. Orgasms and release without
commitment, spiritual orientation and emotional connectedness take
the place of integration. It is as though persons build compartments
around their various parts of their personhood.
Specific
Ways Sexuality is Distorted
The
seven aspects of relationship discussed above lead to a number of
observations concerning specific ways in which sin distorts
sexuality.
The act of sexual
intercourse is an act of communion, caring and attending to the
other as a matter of priority. In distortion, sex becomes something
one gets or does in the absence of genuine love, commitment and
trust. Reflex, not relationship becomes the focus of sexual
intercourse.
Sex
permeates the entire union in a wholesome and life-giving manner. In
distortion, intercourse is sexual while all other forms of intimacy
are unsexual.
The
entire union is sexualized into a holistic intimacy. In distortion,
sex is separated into a category or obligatory marital duty. Ritual,
not relationship becomes the focus of sexual intercourse.
Sex
is recognized as part of a system that involves every aspect of
daily living and operates by laws that govern all systems. In
distortion, sex is seen as related only to genital reflexes with no
bearing on other aspects of daily living.
Gender
roles develop mutually and creatively within the relationship. In
distortion, gender roles are assigned or surrendered to.
Partners
assume mutual responsibility for erotic cycles and recognize each
partner’s emotional and physical needs. In distortion,
partners assume active and passive roles in the initiation of sex.
Partners
recognize the different stages of their development and exercise
patience, endurance and love. In distortion, partners ignore their
differences and stages of development.
The
basis of the union is total honesty. In distortion, the basis of the
union is deception, either through acts of commission or omission.
The
basis of the union involves loving behaviors exhibited toward the
other partner. In distortion, intention and regrets form the basis
of the union.
Problem
solving focuses on solutions created by the partners within the
union using communication, love and prayer. In distortion, problem
solving focuses on using prescribed sets of rules that focus on
ritual rather than relationship, or it focuses on advice from
outside the union.
Sexual
Healing East of Eden "You are already following a different way
that pretends to be the Good News…" (Gal. 1:6)
Now
that the basic framework has been unpacked, let us turn our attention
to two secular models of sexuality that have received wide acceptance
in our graduate programs and that have been accepted as appropriate
by most secular and many Christian counselors. Pearsall (1987; 1994)
has discussed these models, and their shortcomings, in detail.
Albert Kinsey’s
major assumption was that society was curious and needs to be told
that sex is normal. His focus of methodology was to survey
individuals and count the number of times certain behaviors were
engaged in. Sex was thought of as a naturalistic and physiological
response where humans are no different than animals. To think so
would be to show arrogance and take sex out of its natural context.
Buildup, orgasm and aftereffects of orgasm characterized the sexual
response model.
William
Masters and Virginia Johnson’s model of sexuality built on
that of Kinsey, but went one step further in that their methodology
emphasized the watcher and helper roles. Sexual dysfunction became
the problem to be solved in that it reduced pleasure. The
cognitive-behavioral techniques that are the mainstay of all sex
therapy became the solution. Sex was treated so that pleasure and
sexual satisfaction could be enhanced through appropriate changes in
personal and relational behaviors. Energy buildup (excitement and
plateau) and energy release (orgasm and resolution) characterized
the sexual response model. Although sex was rightly seen as
involving a human system, with the need for a couple’s
interactional involvement, the primary focus usually was on
technique, not relationship.
All
clinical training in counseling sexual dysfunction is developed from
these models. Often, impressive statistics are cited to show how this
therapy solves the dysfunction. However, when one examines the
criteria of success used in these studies—often one successful
episode of sexual intercourse—the impressiveness of these data
quickly fades. Pearsall advises people to be cautious in accepting
the advice of sex experts in the media for the following reasons:
There is a paucity of
replicated, valid and current research (using legitimate criteria);
Unfounded
principles with little experimental and theoretical foundation are
involved;
Although
claims of value-free therapy are maintained, therapists often push
values that are selfish, sex-centered pleasure, and that
overemphasize intense genital stimulation;
Counseling
involves a needless invasion of privacy of clients through endless
sex-centered questions;
Adultery
and extramarital affairs are often permitted if not encouraged;
Unethical
practices are engaged in including sexual involvement with clients;
There
is a devaluing of long-term relationship by approving of premarital
sex and a type of love that is narcissistic;
There
is a failure to recognize the role of choice, thoughtfulness and
mindfulness;
There
are negative side effects of sex therapy interventions that
emphasize mechanical repair of sexual dysfunction;
There
is a lack of professional or legal regulation, the use of
questionable certification programs and the underuse of taking
adequate medical histories;
There
had developed a cultist mentality around the whole area of sex
therapy.
Pearsall
proposes his own model of sexuality that represents a giant leap
forward. As he looks at society, he sees one broken (through
disconnection, loss of intimacy and fear of sexually transmitted
disease), and one characterized by unstable relationships. Claiming
that the motivating fear of our society today is a fear of disease
and the fear of the loss of self, he sees hope in a new intimacy that
is possible when sexuality goes beyond the genitals. Rather than
using surveys or observations, Pearsall’s methodology focuses
on bringing couples to the place of experiencing of, and reflecting
on, dynamics that build long-term relationships. His focus is on
meaning, intimacy in its broadest context, and the development of a
human system where the entire marriage, seen as a lifetime
relationship, is sexualized. His sexual response model involves
components that are not linear and are not required to be present in
both partners at any one point in time: desire, interest, readiness,
excitement, physiological orgasm, psychological orgasm, refractory
period, afterglow and contemplation.
An
Innovative Sexual Response Model
Authors
on sexual therapy have long advocated moving beyond the "ladder"
form of sex toward a "circle" form where phases need not be
sequenced in any particular order (e.g., Hendricks & Hendricks,
1989). Pearsall (1987) moves our understanding of this further by
adding a number of elements to the sexual response cycle:
Desire—refers to
the frequency of sexual interaction rather than the wanting or drive
state;
Interest—refers
to the cognitive dimension of sex and can take place in the absence
of genital response;
Arousal—refers
to the affective component of sexual response and does not have to
be accompanied by any genital change;
Readiness—refers
to the body’s reflexive physiological reaction to interest and
arousal that can take place with little arousal and can be absent
even if interest or arousal are present;
Excitement—refers
to an emotional and cognitive reaction to readiness that is related
to intimacy, not a hedonistic hydraulic system;
Physiological
orgasm—refers to the contraction of the muscles in the pelvic
area (and a whole lot more) followed by detumescence and perhaps
emission of fluid;
Psychological
orgasm—refers to a psychological experience through shared
body/mind connection;
Refractory
period—a rest period following neurological or emotional
reactions where another neurological or emotional reaction is
diminished or impossible;
Afterglow—a
period of enjoyment and sharing that manifests itself as a glowing
or "suspension in time" preceding a readiness for another
experience;
Contemplation—a
sending and receiving of signals to spouses (even in silence)
following physical intimacy.
Pearsall’s
creative thinking in the area of sexual response comes from his
training in neurology, psychology and immunology. The reader is
referred to his books (Pearsall, 1987; 1994) for a complete
discussion of other assumptions touted as fact by the contemporary
sexual therapy writers, along with his challenges to these
assumptions. These innovative reflections represent a revolutionary
approach to the treatment of sexual dysfunction and marital problems.
The
Link between Intimacy, Health and Sexual Functioning
The
crux of the matter is simply stated: according to Pearsall, every act
of intimacy is an act of immunity. Sexual intercourse between loving
partners in a one-flesh union creates harmony in the mind (our
conscious awareness), in the central nervous system, and in the
immune system. In sexual intercourse, the sympathetic nervous system
turns us on while the parasympathetic nervous system calms us down.
These two systems work in harmony together when we find healthy
connection at all five levels in our relationship. However, if we
give a stressful meaning, an anxious meaning, a guilty meaning or an
embarrassed meaning to a sexual experience, the sympathetic nervous
system overreacts and the balance necessary for sexual arousal is
disrupted. In order to become sexually aroused, the parasympathetic
nervous system must be in primary control. Too much sympathetic
nervous system early on and the body gets too excited and sexual
intimacy is blocked. The resulting problems may be sexual (e.g.,
erection or lubrication problems) or health-related (e.g., allergies,
colds, flu, heart disease).
Pearsall
(1987) talks about sexual problems and the "hot times" when
the dominant emotions are hostility, impatience, and competitiveness.
When the neurohormonal system runs too hot, and the biochemistry of
the sexual system interferes with the natural sexual reflex system,
"maladaptive hyperarousal" occurs. Male problems include
hyperarousal, ejaculatory urgency, shortening of the refractory
period, absence of psychological orgasm, diminished afterglow and
contemplation, and hypersensitivity of erogenous tissue. Female
problems largely parallel the male problems. He also talks about
sexual problems and the "cold times" where the emotions
include defeat, inadequacy, learned helplessness, little perceived
hope, loss of efficacy, and passivity. Male problems include
diminished pre-ejaculatory fluid, abbreviated or absent orgasmic
contractions, diminished sensitivity, prolonged contemplation,
decreased arousal, diminished sexual interest and absence of
psychological orgasms. Female problems include decreased lubrication
and other problems that parallel the male’s.
To
be continued
Contact the author |