2 minute read
Christian culture‘s vision for marriage endlessly drives home the messages of dependability and responsibility. The cultural paradigm for this lifelong relationship is expressed as being all about the “Big S”s: Sacrifice, Safety, Security, Stability, Support, Surrender, and Sustainability. One gives up the autonomy of single life to gain lifelong partnership “to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” Through this union also comes a healthy family structure if they’re blessed with progeny.
While I don’t disagree with any of that, I do see that vision as profoundly incomplete. If I may be forgiven comparing Christian culture’s view of marriage to the second Death Star, it might be “fully armed and operational” for a lot of couples, but it’s so unfinished that there’s room enough a squadron comprised of two X-Wings, a Y-Wing, an A-Wing, and the Millennium Falcon to get right at the power generator at its core. This one-sided emphasis upon the purpose of marriage leaves couples profoundly vulnerable, which I would suggest helps explain why so many fail.
These days the term “erotic” is usually understood as simply referring to sexuality, but the term’s origins are far more robust than that. Eroticism refers to carnal pleasures of the body, yes, but it also speaks to a sense of having desire, expressing excitement, relishing mystery, entertaining passion, feeling unconstrained, and being wild. Put simply, eroticism isn’t merely about sex. A more fleshed out schema for erotic energy recognizes that it’s about experiencing the vigor and vitality of existentially being fully alive. When was the last time you heard a sermon about that?
Esther Perel is a psychotherapist and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. What she noticed is that these survivors often fell into two groups. One had survivor guilt and continually asked, “Why me?” The other had gratitude and consciously chose to live life to its fullest. Flowing directly from this juxtaposition came her therapeutic insight: many marriages aren’t dying but they’re not fully alive, either. Thus, a truly healthy marriage is one where opposites meet with safety and spontaneity, stability and change, logic and play, the known and the mysterious.
The original beatniks leaned into a lifestyle of raw eroticism that wasn’t exactly characterized by dependability or responsibility. This is why Christian culture has always had such a profound aversion to the Beat Generation. Yet intellectual honesty requires gleaning truth, beauty, and goodness wherever it is to be found regardless of the source. I don’t agree with the beats or Esther Perel on all things related to marriage and sexuality, but I see no good reason why Christian marriage can’t be dependable and responsible while leaving room for erotic energy.
