"Unless spouses come into a marriage with close cross-sex friendships already into place, it is possible and probable that the choice of either spouse to engage in such friendships after marriage will necessitate discussion and may even cause upheaval in the relationship. When a spouse choose a friend of the other sex, especially if the friends are at all physically attractive to each other, it can be threatening for the spouse. This is a marital moment that can be difficult to negotiate, but it can also be the opportunity to face some of our fears and to be freed from them. It is almost certain that cross-sex friendships will raise issues that are beneath the surface and have not yet been discussed. Spouses must go slowly with each other at this point, because the issues raised are so tender."
Ruth Haley Barton, Equal to the Task
I have written and rewritten this post several times. Let's cut right to the chase: Is it wrong for a married individual to "fall in love" with someone they're not married to? We've already established in this series that deception, intentional concealment of a cross-gender friendship is violating the marital bonds of fidelity. This is not up for grabs. The question of "falling in love" though, is a more nuanced question.
I used to have a black and white answer to this question. Discovering deep friendship stories throughout the centuries has prompted me rethink this answer and steer away from cut-and-dried formulas. I would like to submit to you that this is far more complex than pat answers from romantic myth narrative.
One of the most shocking things I discovered as I began to research friendship-love for Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions was the depth of physical, emotional, and spiritual intimacy in friendships prior to Freud and the romantic myth creation of the couple. I had been been an evangelical for about 26 years when I first started to read stories of deep friendship-love. At first, I didn't know where to turn or research so it was just a handful of stories I came across. But these stories were stunning for someone who was a committed evangelical, who loved to read theology and about church life.
I remember coming across friendship stories in the mid to late 1800s. These friendships between men and women had both physical and emotional intimacy that looked like what we could call romantic intimacy. I remember how shocked I was to read of a married woman's longings noted in her diary for her other married female friend, "I hope for you so much, and feel so eager for you... that the expectation once more to see your face again, makes me feel hot and feverish." Gulp. Whoa!! On top of that, this intimacy between friends was entirely appropriate and acceptable even among evangelical Christians in this period of time! Some of these friendships in contemporary language are known as "boston marriages." The characteristics of these friendships had what one might say a "romantic" quality and depth to them but they were "asexual" relationships. Physically intimate, yes, but not sexually intimate. Now I do get the fact that we live in a much different culture.
Then I discovered more friendship stories from earlier centuries. Friendships in the post-Apostolic era, in the fourth century and through medieval ages on through the period up until Freud. The more stories I came across, the more I didn't know what do with. As an evangelical with no knowledge of these stories, I had no place for processing these stories of great and deep friendship-love in Christian spirituality and sexuality. These stories also involved married men and women. Some stories involved unmarried priests with married women, some with priests and single women, some with priests and married men. But I continued to discover (much to my shock and limited imagination and knowledge) deep bonds of friendships spanning century after century prior to Freud and the romantic myth.
On this side of Freud and our hyperromantic culture, it is a challenge for us to see such emotional depth in friendships and not describe the passion in many of these friendship stories as friends "in love." In fact, Anglican Gary Thorne in a very positive essay on friendship, observes that "Two men or two women can be struck by Cupid's arrow in much the same way as a man and a woman, and have similar experiences of 'falling in love' with one another."
The great number of these stories throughout history prior to Freud compelled me to take another look at contemporary marriage and what I now call as the creation of the romantic myth couple. Evangelical singles know all about the starry-eyed evangelical version of this couple. Many singles are led to believe that yearnings, desire, deep physical, emotional, and spiritual intimacy are only appropriate for the mythical romantic couple. These aspects of deep love are only appropriate and good within a romantic path according to typical evangelical protocol. It is impossible for singles to experience deep friendship bonds with a married individual (cross-gender and in some circles even same gender) without any sex for that would be labeled as "emotional adultery." I have no doubt that some of what contributes to many singles' loneliness is the creation of the romantic myth. This would have obvious implications for married individuals who are not married to each other.
Is there such a thing as "falling in love" with a "friend" (cross-gender or same gender) without lust?
The immediate and only answer in the romantic myth is no. Most evangelicals follow suit.
However, friendship stories throughout the ages would indicate a positive answer. I know, I know I am going stir some heat with this but I believe it is because evangelicals have such a shallow view of attraction in friendship and what views of attraction we do have are centered on romantic/erotic atttraction. Eastern Orthodox Father Paul O'Callaghan suggests, "Although the notion of 'falling love' carries erotic connotations in our culture, a sudden but pure occurrence of philia may share other of its characteristics."
Vinita Hampton Wright believes "we have been conditioned to think of it in terms of sex, but that oversimplifies both attentiveness and sex." I would add to her comment about oversimplification it also ignores the depth of friendship-love and greatly oversimplifies marital love and friendship love. Our contemporary view of attraction is too shallow and narrow in the evangelical community. Most contemporary evangelicals have such little knowledge of the deep roots of friendship-love in history. It's more complex than attraction based on the romantic myth.
Wright goes on to make this interesting comment (her target audience: those who are interested in getting in touch with their creativity--not a book about sexuality and friendship): "We will likely fall in love many times, because it is in our nature to appreciate the wonder of other people. We will come awake again and again, which is a good thing. And we can survive those infatuations--whether or not there's any sexual feeling involved."
What do you think? Does this shock you?
More to come.
Comments