--Dan Brennan, Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions (20)
Humans can learn to live comfortably and joyfully without sex, and some may never struggle to do so, but people who live without sex may still ache for relational intimacy. Sex alone does not cure loneliness. Were that the case, casual sex with strangers would always make people feel better without exception. Sex is not always accompanied by emotional intimacy (i.e. prostitution, rape, objectification), and intimacy is likewise not always accompanied by sex. Ignorance of these two facts can destroy a person's understanding of human relationships.
In the fall semester of 2017, I had the inarticulable pleasure of becoming very close friends over a period of three months with a fellow student named Ashley. I absolutely treasure our friendship, despite its very brief existence, and life-giving relationships like this are rare in my life. Over the past few days I have prayed much about our relationship, thanking God for its existence and expressing to him my strong desire for the friendship to endure. I long to see her again. In such a relatively minuscule amount of time (as far as friendships go) I already love Ashley deeply. She is a best friend already. It has come about that practically all of my deep friendships are with women (I've mentioned my best friend Gabi multiple times on my blog), not because I am sexist and reject male friendship, but because of the way that my life has unfolded, though I definitely do enjoy being counter-cultural, and not just in this way. Rationalism and the truths of theonomy and egalitarianism that rationalism reveals liberate people from bondage to false ideas about friendship, sexuality, and romance.
I've written multiple posts about opposite gender friendships [1], proving that they are not in any way inevitably romantic or sexual by nature and that the Bible not only does not condemn them, but also encourages them. This topic is one that some Christians continue to desperately need the light of reason to illuminate for them. And so I decided to explore a book on the subject. Like I have been doing with Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, I will provide commentary on portions of the book Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions by Dan Brennan. This series will present a rationalistic examination of the concepts covered in the book.
Marital love and cross gender friendship love are not exclusive options in a fixed zero sum game. Intimacy in one arena does not detract from intimacy in the other, although popular bullshit cultural and church narratives would say otherwise. The modern business and social world (in the West, at least) has thrust men and women into regular interaction and enabled friendships to become far more common, meaning that my society is beginning to realize just how fallacious and false those narratives are--but there is still much that needs to be done. The lack of evangelical literature on cross gender friendship only makes the boldness and necessity of Brennan's book all the more distinct. This post will cover excerpts from the first chapter.
Brennan says that his book will likely terrify those who hold to a more traditional American view of romance and friendship:
"If you are looking for a book which surveys the shifting relational practices and attitudes between genders in the contemporary Western world, issuing an appeal to return to a 'Focus on the Family' 1950's value system . . . then this book might prove terrifying." (22)
He's correct! People who cling to the irrational beliefs of previous generations sometimes are terrified by the truth. Truth will demand a change in their lives and remind them that they reject reality, and that can be a very difficult thing to live with. Still, Brennan acknowledges that the mention of nonromantic friendships between men and women is at least being acknowledged more often than before:
"Some authors are beginning to at least mention the value of transmarital cross-sex friendships, but Western culture in general portrays male-female friendships as a stepping stone to romantic relationships or marriage." (23)
He then directs his readers to the words of two authors who are themselves close cross-gender friends:
"Authors John Scudder and Anne Bishop fit that description . . . They describe such closeness between men and women:
'Relationships between men and women that do not involve romance and sex are usually referred to as "just" friend relationships . . . Those of us who have experienced the abundant being that can come from a deep personal relationship with a person of the opposite sex would never speak of our relationship as "just"[.] Calling these relationships "just" friends is not only misleading; it trivializes the relationship in a way that seems sacrilege.'" (23-24)
This quote that Brennan includes summarizes just how damaging it is to dismiss people as "just friends" when friendship is an incredibly powerful thing. A friendship is not lacking in passion and intimacy just because it doesn't involve romance or sex. I can definitely relate to the sentiment that calling my best friends, who are women, "just" friends grossly understates the intimate relationship and deep connection I share with them. It does need to be clarified that the qualifying word "just" does not mean that a friendship is not inarticulably rich and close, just that it does not have anything to do with romantic or sexual activities or feelings.
The other problem with the phrase "just friends" is the fact that cross-gender friendships--even between separately married friends--are not ruined just by the presence of sexual attraction, which might come or go in some cases, 1) because sexual attraction is not a desire to sleep with someone (it's just the experience of being drawn to someone's sexuality), 2) because sexual attraction is not an overpowering impulse that overrides free will and rationality, and 3) because sexual attraction is not itself adulterous or sinful. This means that people who do share sexual attraction, whether single or married, can still harbor no sinful desires and can still be intimate friends. As this series progresses, I will probably refer back to this on several occasions.
Dan soon poses a question:
"Is it possible that Christian friendship between a man and woman is an authentic, embodied witness pointing to a greater reality than the image offered by romantic comedies?" (24)
The truth is that men and women can be friends, and not only on a casual level, but on a deep level that contradicts the myths about cross-gender friendship. "Just friends" is nothing to dismiss as a thing of minimal power; friendship can unite men and women together very intimately without romantic feelings ever appearing. Logic proves that there is no necessary connection between male-female friendships and romance, sex, dating, or marriage. The "connection" is a construct that is contrary to reason and to Scripture. Friendship between men and women is possible, apart from the utterly unbiblical qualifications that Christians might try to impose on it ("no meeting alone", "no hanging out regularly", "no talking about personal issues", and so on). And this kind of friendship is liberating, empowering, and needed.
In part two I will continue going through chapter one. And by the way, Happy New Year! May the year be full of spiritual and intellectual growth for us all!
Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions. Brennan, Dan. Elgin: Faith Dance Publishing, 2010. Print.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/opposite-gender-friendships-part-2.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/an-observation-about-cross-gender.html
D. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/persis-pauls-dear-friend.html
No comments:
Post a Comment