Is Christianity Anti-Romance?

July 21, 2009 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009). Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (569)

“There are three main types of marriage: arranged, companionship, and romantic. Arranged marriage is heavily influenced by tradition, parental preferences, religious considerations, economic interest, and social relations. Companionship marriage relies more on a quiet friendship founded on shared temperament, common values, and mutual interest. Romantic love refers to a freely chosen, intense, and passionate union of two individuals bonded by “chemistry,” a union that is hypothesized to “complete” the other. … Christians should encourage a paradigm shift away from romantic love-based marriage toward a more outward-focused companionship marriage. This can provide a secure and permanent base from which couples can engage constructively with themselves, the church, the world, and most importantly with God, in whom all ultimately find their rest.”

Throughout the article Whitley makes important criticisms of the romantic love our culture holds so dear. He points out that people often look to their partner to fill the “God-shaped void” inside them, as described by Augustine. Even Christians, he says “are bordering on the idolatrous,” since some seem to be looking for some form of salvation through their relationships.

With the problem laid out, Whitley provides a solution: “a hybrid model of marriage that combines the most moral and healthy aspects of arranged, companionship, and romantic marriage. We must reject notions that there is a hierarchy of marriage with romantic love at its zenith and arranged marriage at its nadir.”

I think Whitley is about ninety percent correct- there is a dangerous dependency and worship of romantic love in our culture today, and it is shared by many Christians. Too many people get into relationships based solely on emotional or physical attraction with little thought to companionship or the wisdom of their community. And I agree that our response should be a model that synthesizes the best of these three views of marriage.

However, in his appropriate fervor for denouncing the false views of romance, I believe Whitley downplays a healthy sense of romantic love. At one point he claims that “romantic love is mainly a secular concept, though it is also expressed in Scripture. The Song of Solomon could be considered an extended poem on the topic of romantic love and an example of romantic marriage from the Old Testament could be that of Jacob and Rachel (Gen. 29).”

The Song of Solomon “could be considered” having something to do with romantic love? This is like claiming the Gospel According to Luke could be considered an account of historical events. Regardless of what view one takes of Song of Solomon, it should be easy to agree that describes romantic love in a positive light. In light of this, I’m also not sure how a Christian could claim that “romantic love is mainly a secular concept.” If romantic love was not created by God for our good and ultimately His glory, we should flee from it as we might a burning building. If it is mainly a “secular concept,” we should have nothing to do with it. But even Whitley sees some place for romance in marriage.

Toward the end of the article Whitley explains his vision of marriage in greater detail: “This outward-focused companionship marriage, with its healthy doses of Song of Solomon-type romance…” Relegating romance to “healthy doses” reveals that it holds a lower place in Whitley’s estimation compared to the other aspects of a good marriage. Surely he wouldn’t say that companionship should be found in “healthy doses.”

At one point Whitley reflects that “Companionship love (and marriage) is often considered a poor relation of romantic love among the young: a second-best option reserve for those who cannot obtain romantic love.” This attitude, in my opinion, is just as dangerous as seeing romantic love as a luxury or something only good in limited doses. It would be easy, after many failed attempts at romantic love, to swing to the other extreme and merely seek a companionship marriage. But it seems to me that both extremes, and either of them at the expense of community, are unhealthy and to be avoided.

My reaction is in part fueled by reflections on Brian Borgman’s Feelings and Faith, which I reviewed last week. He makes the case that God has emotions, and since we are made in His image, our experience of emotions is a reflection of who God is. Given that romantic love is viewed positively in the Bible, it seems to follow that there is an ideal form of romantic love that honors and glorifies God and includes many of the passions we associate with romance. If this is true, then Christianity is most certainly a fan of romance, and even in our appropriate criticisms of going too far with it, we ought not minimize its value.

Related posts:

1. It's Not Looking Good for Liberal Christianity
2. Gay Marriage And The Bible
3. Discernment and Fiction
4. Christless Christianity
5. Scott Clark On Natural Law And Gay Marriage
6. Album Review: So Much Joy

Posted in Culture, Gender Issues, Roger's Posts