One of the questions posed to me frequently focuses on discerning the difference between a close cross-gender friend and a potential marital partner.
With deliberate focus, I've appealed to singles in Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions while I was critical of the romantic myth. This myth includes the belief that there is a perfect partner for us, a perfect match in which sexualized intimacy is realized in marital bliss with unrivaled happiness forever and ever. All other relationships are peripheral to the ideal romantic couple's idealized absorption in each other. Okay, lest someone think I am exaggerating, popular songs express so much of this idealization: "Ain't no mountain high enough," "You will always be my endless love," and so on.
The "right person" is central to romantic ideology. According to the romantic myth, perfect union is finding the perfect match, the "right person." You find the right person through chemistry, then add intimacy, and abracadabra, you both will be sexually, spiritually and emotionally fulfilled forever and ever. In the myth, "Love and sexuality are fused together in the ideology of romance" (Kathy Werking).
The romantic myth glamorizes and idealizes sex, romance, and friendship to such an extent, men and women are left with the stark contrast of romantic intensity or a non-romantic, shallow, highly inferior form of friendship. Friendship-love in the myth has no place for dyadic intensity, profound intimacy, union, companionship, yearning, or deep attraction toward the other. Although this contrast between hypersexualized friendship and shallow friendship is played out over and over again in movies and sadly in many contemporary churches, a healthy robust view of chastity will liberate us from such shallow and limited vew of love, romance, friendship, marriage, intimacy, and community.
For single men and women (including those who are divorced) not absorbed in the idealism of the romantic myth, friendship-love offers a path for profound intimacy, love, and happiness, yes even for those not participating in non-romantic relationships. Deep friendship is not merely emotional support or vulnerability but also about koinonia.
Al Hsu, in his book Singles at the Crossroads, understands this when he writes, "According to the New Testament, the highest love is not the love between sexual partners but the love between friends...Friendship is the highest virtue, not romance...In God's view of love, 'happily ever after' is not limited to those who marry." All one has to do is to ponder and reflect on the scores and scores of deep, intimate friendship stories throughout the ages to substantiate Hsu's observation.
I am not though, denying the profound goodness and beauty of romantic love and marriage. Real intimacy (including sexual intimacy) in marriage nurtures union, companionship, and fulfilling intensity as the marriage matures and grows. I'm not denying life-giving, robust intimacy in marriage when I critique the highly idealized sexualized friendship in the romantic myth. The myth only allows one script for men and women when it comes to cross-gender intimacy. It has no script for deep non-romantic intensity and intimacy between men and women as friends. Intimacy, though, profound, life-giving, mutual intimacy for men and women is not exclusively bound to a romantic script.
But this raises the question on discerning the difference between a close cgf and potential marital partner. If real and deep intimacy is possible with your cross-gender friend, then how does one discern the difference between a desire for intimacy with a friend and the desire for a future spouse? Should you just marry your best friend even if you're not "in love" with them?
1. Single men and women may enjoy satisfying, deep, life-giving intimacy in cross-gender friendship.
Emotional, embodied intimate love is pouring your heart, mind, and body into the other and receiving the other--this is not exclusively for men and women in romantic relationships. Unfortunately, so many evangelical singles are "waiting" or "saving" intimacy for "Mr. Right" or "Mrs. Right." The romantic myth plot line to this is that intimacy (vulnerability, surrender, transparency, delight, desire, focus, intention, language, physical affection, etc.) is synonymous with romance and sexual intimacy. Therefore, to intentionally wait for sex and sexual intimacy in marriage for the "right one" also means withholding emotional intimacy/depth until romance and marriage comes along. This has more to do with pop-Freud, fundamentalism, and the romantic fantasy than Christian love. Contra this, I believe robust chastity seeks communion in friendship and in marriage.
Intimate friend and lover (as in sexual love) are not synonyms.
2. Forget looking for the "perfect" one.
He or she doesn't exist. There are abundant number of good men and women out there. Dropping the search for the perfect one will also help toward a mature love when married. People naively assume there is a perfect one according to the romantic myth.
But then, ironically, this naive assumption sets one up for the temptation to see abundant alternatives after they marry when they discover the one they married is not perfect.
Another deep weakness of waiting for the perfect one who will bring this magical romantic intensity is the possibility of deep loneliness within marriage when the intensity wears off.
And, yet another deep weakness for waiting for the perfect one is facing the loneliness if he or she doesn't come.
3. Embrace romantic realism, not romantic idealism.
Many adult singles would make great lovers, great spouses.
4. There are different views on this but I believe dating to be a path of discernment in selecting one's spouse.
I don't see dating as a sole purpose for getting married. Dating may be a path of discovering deeper intimacy between two individuals who may or may not get married.
5. It's a risk to explore the possibility of dating with a close cross-gender friend.
Marriage and friendship are two different intimacies. Yes, there is spousal friendship, but marital intimacy is different than friendship intimacy. But if your friend is available and you are "attracted" to them (attraction may or may not be fully physical attraction), you may risk dating them. I think there is at least a little bit of physical attraction in all friendships. To admire your friend's physical beauty/features is not on the same level as a desire to physically consumate the relationship.
But in our pop culture, including many Christians, the absence of physical attraction means dating is not the table. I think attraction--physical attraction may grow as two friends get to know each other. Attraction may arise in the path of dating.
Dating presents some intriguing possibilities for falling in love even if one friend did not experience "sparks" in previous friendship intimacy. However, dating may also reveal no romantic sparks. I don't think attraction is a trustworthy guide at the beginning of dating.
6. Falling-in-love should not be interpreted as a guaranteed sign that you should marry.
In secular romance, this is the sign. There are other factors to consider, however.
7. Not falling-in-love is not necessarily a sign one should not marry.
I am thinking age here. Of course, there are elderly friends who are widowed or divorced and "fall in love" with each other and marry. But there are also aged friends who, even if they don't fall-in-love with each other, desire companionship and intimacy within marriage. Of course, prior to romantic myth gaining supremacy in our culture, falling-in-love was not a considered necessary for marriage.
8. Evaluating a potential marriage partner in dating is different than embracing and nurturing a deep friendship intimacy.
Going back to the beginning here and summarizing. I believe intimate friendship between men and women reflects the heart of Triune Love. Men and women who open their hearts to friendship love may experience profound depths of chaste sweet intimacy and union (singles or married). They may enjoy limited but healthy, meaningful, non-erotic physical intimacy. They may choose to express their love through sharing goods, supporting each other economically, etc.
But marriage is not merely friendship. It's not just friendship plus sex. There is a bodily belonging to one another in marriage that is not found in friendship. Marriage and friendship are not synonyms. The couple vows (yes, there are friendship vow ceremonies but they are not as pervasive and full as marital vows) to give their entire embodied sexual selves to the other.
In this sense, discerning the difference between a close cgf and a potential marriage partner, is discerning if the two friends are willing to enter into a lifelong commitment to total communion and flourishing as a couple and not merely as deep, intimate, paired friends.
I'm sure, I cleared everything up with this post. :-)
Comments