Entries in this series:
Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions (Part 1): Just Friends --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/01/sacred-unions-sacred-passions-part-1.html
Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions (Part 2): Fear Of Intimacy --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/01/sacred-unions-sacred-passions-part-2.html
Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions (Part 3): The Romantic Myth --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/01/sacred-unions-sacred-passions-part-3.html
In this part of the series I've reached the point in his book where Dan Brennan begins to address the destructiveness of Freud's ideas of sexuality. Yet, despite the lies of Freud, nonromantic oneness remains possible and powerful:
"For centuries Christians have yearned for oneness, but they craved the union through friendship, community, and sometimes, but not always, marriage. Before Sigmund Freud's impact on friendship, the language of desire was central in nonromantic relationships as well as in marriage." (37)
Nonromantic oneness appears in life-giving non-dating and non-marriage/non-sexual relationships. Unfortunately, the sexualization of nonsexual human behaviors and impulses as a result of Freud's mistaken worldview has seeped deeply into American culture. Fusing this flawed metaphysical position on sexuality with the romantic myth only leads to greater errors; in part three I explained that the romantic myth is the idea that men and women naturally relate to each other (outside of familial relationships) on a romantic level and that intimacy with the opposite gender outside of this context disrupts romantic intimacy with one's significant other or spouse. The romantic myth is not only rejected by reality, but it also can ironically fracture intimacy in a romantic relationship:
"Rarely does the intensity of the myth last--for many reasons. People change. Relationships do not remain the same. The joy of romantic idealism wears off." (38)
Putting all of one's relations effort into intimacy with one person could, beyond stoking exhaustion and loneliness and frustration, lead to utter relationship failure when that person changes. After all, the entire project changed course and a frustrated person might not know how to react. A spouse or significant other can always let one down, and this can be even more devastating when that person is the sole or near-exclusive social outlet for someone. As Brennan says, "This myth is unhealthy, if not unsustainable over the course of time" (39). At least some people will eventually find the lies of the myth to be socially suffocating, experientially empty, and impossible to constantly live according to. Passion is not found only in dating or marriage, and passion in a relationship outside of a romantic relationship, whether in a same gender friendship or cross gender friendship, is not a threatening force by nature of being passion.
Of course, Freud's claims altered public perception of sexuality:
"In the Western world, sex has not been the same since Freud . . . He genitalized affection, physical tenderness, gestures, and desires even between biological brothers and sisters." (39)
Interestingly, I find that although people in my life will often openly dismiss Freud on an intellectual level, they may tend to ironically act in their everyday lives as if they believe in very Freudian ideas. A Christian who mocks Freudian psychology but actively avoids opposite gender friendships or being alone with someone of the opposite gender besides a parent, sibling, or spouse lives in such cognitive dissonance. This kind of fear has no place in the life of a Christian.
One of the ways that Christians might sometimes express a discomfort with sexuality is in pressuring people to get married so that they can thus avoid sexual immorality. As if marriage alone will remove struggles with sexual sin--struggles that, by the way, are neither inevitable nor universal! The idiocy of some people is stupefying. Not only does marriage in itself not logically lead to an absence of sexual sin, but it is asinine to think that single people have no rationality, free will, and self-control. The church has, in some areas, become just as sex-obsessed as the secular culture:
"In their book, Singled Out, Christine Colon and Bonnie Field identify several key messages in popular Christian teaching . . . They believe that 'Christians complain about the world's obsession with sex, but it seems like some churches have given in to the obsession.'" (40)
Many Christians I have known have an inaccurate understanding of sexual metaphysics; they usually view sexuality as something dangerous, and thus conjure up claims about nonexistent moral obligations in order to protect themselves from its alleged danger (it is not dangerous in itself, though). It is not just the secular culture that fixates itself on sex in a reductionistic way. The church does too sometimes. Whenever a Christian resorts to sexual legalism--the devising or enforcing or extra-Biblical rules in order to "prevent" sexual immorality (imposing these on other people is condemned by the Bible in Deuteronomy 4:2)--he or she has a fear of sexuality [1]. There is no peace with the fact that human sexuality is good (Genesis 1:31) or recognition of how most activities and impulses are not sexual. Perhaps there is also not a correct understanding of what free will means for human nature, or of how self-control is not beyond the reach of a person.
"Some naive Christians may be tempted to see good sex as full, complete intimacy given the church's emphasis, while singles feel left out of God's unique blessings for them as sexual beings. Yet, as many pastoral caregivers can attest, there are couples who get divorced even though they believe they have a good sex life. There are couples who have sex even though they are experiencing major relational difficulties with each other." (41)
As I said in part one, sex can occur apart from relational intimacy and relational intimacy can exist totally apart from sex. Sex can be intimate, but it is not by itself a reliable indicator of whether or not there is emotional/relational intimacy in a relationship. Nonconsensual sex, casual sex for pay, promiscuity, and sex with objectifying motives are all examples of sex, but there is no deep intimacy in them. Nonromantic oneness is possible, and it is the way to avoid the errors of the romantic myth. A rational mind, a Biblically-informed ethic, and an experienced heart are all teachers that reveal the idiocy and wasted potential of shunning cross-gender friendships. In fact, a person cannot truly live as if members of the opposite are metaphysical equals while excluding them from friendship on fallacious grounds. Egalitarian or complementarian (although egalitarianism far more easily allows for such friendships to flourish), a person who does not see people of the opposite gender as people who are or can be friends is a person who does not truly see the opposite gender as functionally equal on a social level. Behaviors often reveal what people truly believe despite what they might say.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/sex-is-sacred-but.html
No comments:
Post a Comment