Sunday, August 10, 2014

intertwined building blocks of friendship and marriage.

If you couldn't tell from previous blog posts, I really like friendships. The concept to me is mind boggling and glorious and beautiful, but it's even better when it's lived out and felt, really really felt. I think part of the reason I find it so stunning is that there is no power struggle in true, authentic friendships. Both are equals, walking through life side-by-side, able to look at each other eye-to-eye because it's not about who's better or who's leader, but about how each person can better serve and love the other. I wrote in one of my previous blog posts,

"It's a beautiful parallel system that God created here - friendship isn't only about one person learning all about another. It's about two people coming to terms with their identities, together as friends, but also as individuals. We often learn the most about ourselves by learning about other people."

I see this all throughout the Bible, especially in one of my favorite passages, Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, where two people are better off than one, for they can help each other succeed. If one person falls, the other can reach out and help... A person standing alone can be attacked and defeated, but two can stand back-to-back and conquer. Back-to-back, side-by-side, helping the other stand up when they fall down, bare their soul, and their heart still feels a little shaky.

For I've lost track of the number of times I've heard people say that true romance and true marriages are built on friendship. I've heard that if friendship isn't the rock solid foundation of romance, the relationship is pretty much doomed to fail. If the concept of mutual, life-giving friendship isn't at the center of a romantic relationship, it seems rather forced and dull. Romance has to flow naturally from a place of authentic love (1 Corinthians 13), of the desire to honor the other as above yourself (Romans 12:10) and bear their burdens alongside of them (Galatians 6:2). That's something required of us as Christians in general, not just as romantic partners.

So I get confused when I hear people bring up terms like "male headship" and "authority," "leadership" and "roles," when discussing the elements of a biblical marriage. Like when Candace Cameron Bure states, "It is very difficult to have two heads of authority… When you’re competing with two heads, that can pose a lot of problems or issues" (Bure, Huffington Post). And Bure isn't the only one who holds this opinion. I've heard similar statements from various people in my life, convinced that a solid marriage needs a leader in order to avoid power struggles and chaos.

Yet no one preaching on friendship would ever claim that one friend has to be the servant leader, and the other has to submit. No one would claim that friendships digress into nothing more than chaotic power struggles if one person isn't put in charge. I'm guessing authors such as Candace Cameron Bure wouldn't post interviews on why she submits to her best friend.

Why? Because friendships aren't contractual. Christ-like friendships are about doing life together. They're about side-by-side community, about friends leading in their strengths and submitting out of love, not because the submission is demanded or forced upon them by Scripture, but because it is a natural outpouring of loving someone as you love yourself. That kind of love isn't just used to describe marriages - it's the same kind of love used to paint the picture of David and Jonathan's covenantal friendship, where Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself (1 Samuel 20:17).

Here's what I'm saying: I don't think there's one right way to DO marriage. Something as holy and mysterious as the marital covenant can't be reduced to a set of rules or roles or several bible verses taken out of context. Just as I have seen many glorious marriages based on mutual submission, so have I seen marriages with the man as the head that are still radiantly beautiful.

At the same time, I think the 'headship' and the 'leadership' language starts to sound more and more like an employer-employee relationship, a business leader and an administrative assistant, rather than a husband and wife one-flesh bond of love and unity. Since when did Christ become not enough as the head of a relationship?

Authentic friendships don't leave room for hierarchies, for static leaders and helpers, for legalistic rankings of authority. And from what I've come to learn so far, neither do marriages. With Christ as the head, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, become one in Him, taking turns leading and helping, showing weakness and showing strength, because in Christ there is no fear. There is no shame. One is not pigeon-holed into a specific role, but allowed the space and fluidity to grow into who he or she is in Christ. 

God is constantly creating us into beautiful things; beautiful things that are organic, not forced or hurried, beaten down with never enoughs and just not theres.

And for most of my life, I've heard sermons preached on marriage that only left me feeling restricted, like it was nothing more than a cardboard check list of dos and don'ts, impossible standards with no room to be afraid and vulnerable and simply HUMAN. But I've also heard those same pastors talk about friendship, about David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi, about carrying each other's burdens, and it was like breathing in fresh air that felt FREE.

Now before you go off saying I'm scared of commitment, let me tell you that I only felt this way because I continued to box off marriage and friendship as two completely different concepts. Because that's how they're often talked about, right?

"Oh, they're just friends."

I still catch myself saying this now. Just friends, like the friendship is either ten times less than a romantic relationship, or a simple stepping stone leading to eventual marriage.* It's easy to paint marriage as the mountain top experience of all relationships, often times diminishing friendship in the process.

But that's the thing - marriage and friendship aren't in competition. They aren't two separate concepts on opposite sides of space, racing against each other to cross the finish line.

They're often interconnected and intertwined, constantly intersecting to reveal a breathtaking paradigm of mutuality. It's a paradigm where both are equal and Christ is the head - one that most are quick to allow into friendships.

And if friendship makes up the building blocks of healthy romantic relationships, wouldn't that same paradigm carry over into marriage?

*For more of my thoughts on platonic, male-female friendships, read my post here.

8 comments:

  1. Hey Anthony!
    I love this post! Although I've thought a lot recently about how friendship and marriage are intertwined, I hadn't ever thought to connect that to how we talk about the roles of married pairs! This is a brilliant way to address how the church views the structure of the marriage relationship and how maybe (I totally agree with you on this, for the record) it shouldn't be viewed as structured at all.
    As for how exactly they are intertwined, though, I'd love to talk further and therefore shall proceed. I agree that the basis of any good romantic relationship is friendship. Both are founded in agape love, as you say. I believe that as Christians we should see agape love as the foundation for ALL the different kinds of relationships (teacher/student; parent/child; president/citizen; etc.). It is the base line, part of the greatest commandment: “'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.'” (Matt. 22:37-40)
    So friendship is pretty basic, then. Just agape love. Indeed, it seems the only loving act that is restricted in the context of the friendship relationship is sex.
    Now, in marriage, however, that restriction is gone. It seems that, with this agape base line, marriage is the final freedom of relationship. One might submit that there are other restrictions on marriage because of the vows made and the nature of a covenant relationship, but how can those be viewed as limiting when the goal of all human interaction is agape love, reflecting the perfect love of God and building his Kingdom with every word, thought, and deed?
    These are my thoughts on the way relationships were always meant work in the church, indeed, in God's world. In this view, marriage *is* the pinnacle relationship because it is the only one to be freed of all restrictions on the expression of love.
    In light of this post, I'm ever curious to know what do you think of this view and its conclusions. Thanks for reading!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Jason! Thank you so much for commenting, I love it when people engage in dialogue, versus just reading something and moving on.

      I definitely agree with you that agape love should be the base of all of our relationships. I would probably hesitate to refer to marriage as the 'final freedom of relationship,' as I tend not to see it as more free or less free than friendship - just as different. While marriage does eliminate the restriction on sex, it is restrictive in the sense that it changes one's relationships with the opposite sex, as one is committing themselves fully to one person for the rest of their lives. This also restricts the decisions they make, as they now have to factor in their spouse for the rest of the decisions they make.

      I think both marriage and singleness offer different freedoms and restrictions - that doesn't make one the pinnacle of all relationships, in my opinion. They're just very different kinds of relationships (and yet, at the same time, very very interconnected and intertwined, like I talked about in this post). And they're both beautiful ways to reflect the love of God and build his Kingdom here.

      From what I've come to learn so far, I don't think sex is the penultimate aspect of marriage. It is an intimate part of the relationship that can't be experienced in friendship (at least from a Christian perspective). But is sex made intimate because of the act of sex itself, or because of the emotional intimacy that often precedes it? There are lots of people that have sex on a regular basis with people they don't know very well, and I wouldn't consider them to be more intimate with each other than some of the friendships I have. I think it can often be scarier to be emotionally vulnerable and naked than physically... and that emotional vulnerability is not restricted to only marriage.

      Again, thanks for responding, Jason! I appreciate your encouragement.

      Delete
    2. You've clearly thought about this a lot and I like the way you talk about this subject!

      To be clear, when I am talking about these relationships (friendship, marriage, etc.) and how intimate they can be, I am considering them in their ideal states. I do believe that there are a multitude of instances where two friends are more intimate than a married couple in this world, but this is unfortunate. Of course, it is certainly fortunate for the friends, but very unfortunate for the married pair.

      What I am trying to do here, however, is compare the ideal level of intimacy between a friend & a friend and the ideal level of intimacy between a husband & a wife. When I say that marriage could be considered the "final freedom of relationship", I am not talking about freedom in *all* relationships, but freedom within *one* relationship. Friends can be totally committed to one another, even without a contract or vows. That is *wonderful*. They can practice almost unlimited agape love toward each other. The husband & wife, however, ideally have one more way to love one another. They have one more freedom to love that no friendship should have.

      I completely agree with you that marriage limits people in their relationships with others, for the reasons you gave, but that is talking about different relationships. I am attempting to focus in on comparing the intimacy of friendship and the intimacy of marriage.

      I agree that when we distinguish between physical and emotional intimacy, sex does not necessarily bind people together as well. Your example of the promiscuity of the contemporary world proves that. But I might also point to the words of many married people who have said that sex added a new level of intimacy to the relationship that can be achieved in no other way. When sex is considered in the correct context, the *ideal* context, I can't see how even the greatest friendship could be more intimate than an ideal marriage. In fact, as you might be able to tell from my first comment, I honestly think of marriage as merely intense friendship plus sex. Besides sex, what can a married couple do that friends cannot? This is why I view sex as the final freedom in a two-person, mixed-gender relationship.

      Any more thoughts or responses? I welcome them!

      Delete
    3. Thanks again for responding! I've also heard from married couples that the sexual union does add a new element and level to their marriage that can't be present in a friendship from a Christian perspective. However, I've also heard from married couples that their most intimate moments are experienced through being with each other during difficult times, and crying together, and praying together, and simply doing life together - day in, day out, for the rest of their lives. I would hesitate to view sex as the final freedom in a relationship, seeing that so much of life is experienced outside of the bedroom.

      As I see it, in the ideal stage there will no longer by any giving in marriage (Matt. 22:30). There will be neither slave or free, Jew or Greek, or male or female, but we will be one in Christ (Gal. 3:28). That is what the 'final freedom' looks like to me. I think there's a reason why Paul's biggest discourse on love in 1 Corinthians 13 isn't found during his discourse on marriage during 1 Corinthians 7, but in the middle of his section on spiritual gifts and the entire body of Christ. I think there's a reason why he told the Corinthians that it was better to stay single, while at the same time acknowledging the benefits and drawbacks to both marriage and singleness. I used the quote below in my previous post on singleness, but I've pasted it again because I think it so accurately paints a picture of how I don't see either friendship or marriage as the 'penultimate' relationship or the final freedom in relationships, just as two different ways to love God and love others and spread his life into the world.

      "But my understanding is that celibacy is a sacred calling, not a hiding place or a consequence. Celibacy is like... it's like we all have the same capacity to love inside of us, the same amount of light to shine... and most of us use that light, that love, like a laser... it's all concentrated and focused on one partner. But the celibate hears a call to use his light, his love, more like a flood light. He knows that if he's not required to shine a laser on one person, that his light can be dispersed to many more... maybe not burning a hole into another heart, but lighting up entire rooms. He can reach more people with his love through celibacy because it's not all focused on one person." --Glennon Melton

      Delete
    4. Anthony, that is an excellent quote! I agree with it wholeheartedly!

      I think what I've meant when I've said that marriage is the "final freedom of relationship" is that it is the laser. There is no better way that one person could love one other. A flood light certainly does not have the focused intensity of a laser. So when we consider one-on-one relationships, the love of a marriage, practiced through the highest level of emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy, over a lifetime of day-by-day living together, is the most focused and intense form of love for another person.

      I think you are right and I should stay away from anything that makes marriage sound like it's the best relationship. I think "focused" and "intense", as I have started using here, are more accurate terms for its description. I never meant to insinuate that marriage is the best way to love, but I see now how my comments could easily be taken that way. Clearly the unmarried can love just as well, simply in different ways. For the flood light is like the sun, providing daylight so brightly and so widely to so many.

      Delete
    5. Yes - 'focused' and 'intense' are great words to describe the marriage relationship. Thanks again for responding Jason, and for taking the time to engage in dialogue over this subject!

      Delete
  2. "Yet no one preaching on friendship would ever claim that one friend has to be the servant leader, and the other has to submit."

    Yes, this.

    ReplyDelete