Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions (Part 6): Brothers And Sisters

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

Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions (Part 4): Nonromantic Oneness --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/01/sacred-unions-sacred-passions-part-4.html

Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions (Part 5): Against "Nature" --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/01/sacred-unions-sacred-passions-part-5.html


I will continue where I left off.  For the background of the book analyzed here or for more information about the concepts, see earlier parts in this series.


"For centuries male-female friendship was a 'natural' disorder according to philosophers.  Men believed women were incapable of friendship.  Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero all wrote treatises on the nature of friendship, and all three thought it was unnatural for women to participate in enduring, virtuous friendships." (53)


This objection to opposite gender friendships is not identical to the one based upon fallacious sexual fears.  Instead of being based primarily on some expectation that all such relationships are or will become sexual, it is based on a claimed metaphysical difference between the social and intellectual natures of men and women, holding that their natures prevent them from understanding or connecting with each other.  This is all bullshit, of course.  Logic dissolves any argument in favor of this nonsense, and no Christian can ever legitimately claim that this stance has any basis in the Bible whatsoever.  A more sexually oriented objection to cross-gender friendships could easily result from the metaphysical one, though.  Brennan references some figures who opposed these friendships on such grounds:


"Caesarius of Arles[,] for example, ordained as a Catholic bishop in 502[,] feared women and disorder in close friendships, including cross-sex relationships.  He warned the people under his spiritual care that a man and a woman should not, 'be allowed to speak together alone for more than a moment.' . . . According to Gregory the Great, 'men should love women as if they were sisters, but they must also flee from them as if they were one's enemies.'" (54)


Such is the conclusion of a delusional, irrational legalist: men and women must be separated, for they are nothing but dangers to each other.  This is neither a position aligned with reason nor the prescription for male-female relationships in the Bible.  The antidote to Gregory the Great's stupidity, ironically, is living consistently with the first part of what he said--loving members of the opposite gender as sisters/brothers.  Brennan emphasizes the similarities between how brothers and sisters interact and how opposite gender friends interact:


"Contemporary Christians rarely balk at or are suspicious of close, biological adult brother-sister relationships.  Indeed, many don't think twice about a brother and sister spending time alone with each other, living alone with each other, or sharing physical affection . . . From a Christian perspective, the complex brother-sister bond as a nonromantic model for male-female friendships holds great power and promise." (55)


Christian men and women, even if not biologically related, are bound together in a way that transcends all terrestrial familial relationships.  We are to treat each other as such, in a way governed by love.  Just as biological brothers and sisters can have relationships of great emotional intimacy, relational closeness, and physical affection, so too can men and women who are not literal siblings enjoy the same kind of relationships.  Physical touch and emotional vulnerability are not gateways to evil; they are communicators of affection, and not all affection is sexual or romantic.  When Christians realize this, they can shed awkwardness, fears, or discomforts with the opposite gender that they have been taught by ignorant and fallacious church leaders or authors.

They can look to the example of Jesus as they do so:


"In fact, while some enforced strict boundaries between men and women, other Christian men and women were empowered by Jesus' friendships with women to intentionally pursue close, paired male-female friendships . . . Unsurprisingly, these opposite approaches to cross-sex friendships also parallel how communities addressed brother-sister relationships." (59)


Treating members of the opposite gender as brothers or sisters is not only a way to establish or cultivate intimacy in relationships with them, but it is also an entirely Biblical course of action (Romans 14:10).  Even when one is attracted to a particular man or woman in a sexual way, the friendship itself is not impure simply because of the existence of such a kind of attraction.  Even people who are sexually attracted to a member of the opposite gender can still relate to that person as a brother or a sister.  Ignorance of these matters can be amplified by ignorance of cross-gender friendships in church history, as Brennan soon covers:


"Many in the evangelical sub-culture are virtually unaware of the deep friendships that have existed between men and women in the church." (59)


Not far after this, Brennan gives examples of these historical cross-gender friendships, which I will explore in the next entry in this series.  I hadn't heard of any of these friendships before I read this book, and it will be enjoyable for me to address some of them soon!