Faith Dance

Mothers Say No to Freud: Reclaiming Closeness with Sons 2

2012-05-21T06:46:59-05:00

Kate Stone Lombardi and I have something in common.

We have both explored this question in our books: Is there a healthy love between the opposite sexes which is passionate, deep, tender, close, vulnerable, and physically affectionate which is not sexual?

In a Freudian world, there is no such love.

To answer the question with a yes is to go against our sexualized world and the sexualized evangelical sub-culture. Those of you who are regular readers of my blog know this territory. Page by page, as I read Lombardi courageously exploring the deep connection between gender, sexuality, and closeness, my respect and admiration toward her grew. She argues that mother-son closeness is healthy in her book, The Mama's Boy Myth. The book is getting some good press.

Just like the conventional wisdom via thru Freudian prohibition, says it is wise to avoid close cross-gender friendships, cw also says raising a mama’s boy is never a good thing. Lombardi and I both challenge the conventional wisdom of Freud.

Mothers as Sexual Temptations

Showing how brave she is, Lombardi goes straight after popular author Anthony E. Wolf in his book Get Out of My Life, but Firs Could You Drive Me and Cheryl to the Mall? where he writes:

“Most adolescent boys are attracted to women. For most boys there has already been one particular woman in their life whom they have loved deeply. Unfortunately, that woman is their mother (Lombardi adds italics to original quote). ..The possibility always exists that strong feelings in connection with a boy’s mother might be tinged with sexuality and might therefore become really unacceptable. In fact, because everything with adolescent boys is so sexualized, strong feelings toward anybody are a problem until that sexuality is better focused.”

Now before I continue on with Lombardi, does anyone else here see the connection with Wolf’s observation about adolescent boys and evangelical fears about adult males?

As Lombardi notes, the take-home she got from Wolf was that as a mother of a teenage boy, she became a problem. Strong feelings between mother and son are so problematic mothers must avoid deep connection.

She quotes one mother struggling with this issue: “Is it that society told us that there’s something sick or pathological about loving your son so much because he’s the opposite sex, and that there’s some sexualization that we just can’t admit to ourselves?”

Lombardi shares her experience talking with another mother who began to openly share about her close relationship with her nineteen year old son. They were both cherishing their respective close relationships when another woman joined them. After this woman had listened quietly she said, “You two each sound like you are discussing an illicit love affair.” Both Lombardi and the other woman were put on the defensive to explain it wasn’t anything sexual.

But there it is.

Here is the tragic thing: well-meaning evangelical mothers raising their children up in Freudian-inspired communities are caught between yearning for close love and not wanting to be viewed as a sexual temptation to their sons. Pam Hogeweide nails it when she observes this in Christian circles pertaining to all women in relationships: “Christian women are instead conditioned that our sexuality hovers at the edge of lasciviousness” (Unladylike).

It would have been great if Lombardi could have looked to the evangelical community to receive guidance and wisdom on the difference between healthy closeness and sexual temptation.

But where would she find it?

In the recent book, Five Conversations You Must Have with Your Son, Christian author Vicki Courtney tells mothers, “Much like a fawn’s mother, a boy’s mother knows when it’s time to pull away for the well-being of her son…Deep in a mother’s heart, she knows that it when it comes time for a son to leave, he will leave her physically and emotionally.”

She adds with much of the stereotypical gender scripts among evangelicals, that a son’s feelings won’t be manifested in the same way as a daughter’s feelings for her mother.

Lombardi: “Mother’s instincts might tell them one thing, but they are constantly bombarded with messages that tell them to back off from their sons. There is no end to this critique, some of it subtle, some overt.”

Mothers Reclaiming Closeness and a Robust Sexuality

In order to reclaim healthy closeness between mothers and sons, we have to reclaim closeness and deep tenderness from the Freudian world of romantic closeness. Lombardi knows this. My respect and admiration grew leaps and bounds as I saw her reclaiming closeness between mothers and sons as virtuous.

She boldly reclaims closeness from the only place in the world where deep closeness is allowed to flourish: romantic relationships. She quotes Stacy, a psychologist, “I think that mothers and sons with good relationships often have that magical feeling of when they first fall in love.”

Yes, Lombardi audaciously goes there.

She has to.

It’s the only place in the Freudian world where closeness is prized and honored.

Stacy continues, “It’s kind of being a little bit under a spell.”

Diane, a mother, described her time alone with her son, a high school junior, as “heaven on earth.” Another mother, Lisa, states it matter-of-factly: “It’s like romance without the sex.”

Lombardi knows the territory and follows up with: “While the talk and feel of romance might be innocent, it inevitably produces anxiety and distaste because of implied eroticism.” She finds healthy difference in psychologists like William Pollack: “Do mothers and sometimes tread on something that feels sexual? Yes, but it is also almost always true that it’s not sexual at all. We’re still in a very puritanical society and we worry about any kind of sexuality.”

She does not go into the history of mother-son love before Freud inspired such anxiety and fear over closeness. Because sexualization has so monopolized closeness, we cannot avoid looking back to any kind of closeness thru the lens of sexualized love and calling it romantic even when it wasn’t romantic.

Mothers and sons enjoyed affectionate closeness before Freud. Rebecca Jo Plant in her recent book, Mom documents how mothers and son “expressed their desire for one another in romantic terms that would later come to be seen as decidedly pathological.” An adult son, prior to Freud, could unself-consciously refer to his mother as his “best girl.”

Plant reveals mother-son closeness was not pathological but embraced as good. Plant for example, notes how then Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy in the 1910s began every letter to his mother, “Darling Mama.” In one letter, prior to WW I, he wrote to her, “I will be home with you in a few days and we will walk and talk just like the lovers we are.” In another letter, this man of great respect and participating in the highest court of the land wrote, “Tonight if I could sit near you or brush your hair or stroke your forehead or just feel your presence I would be in paradise.”

Kate Stone Lombardi understands some of the post-Freud reaction if one is going to reclaim closeness between mother and son: “Thrilled as they might be by the emotional closeness with their teenage sons, these mothers are quick to tell you that their feelings are not sexual a form of deep parental tenderness.”

This is part of reclaiming deep tenderness and emotional connection from Freud. As Lombardi points out, no matter how benign their love is, mothers who desire to stay close with their sons will receive criticism.

Mothers Say No to Freud: Reclaiming Closeness with Sons

2012-05-18T06:57:17-05:00

"The only cultural image we ever see of mother-son closeness is a negative one" observed Kate Stone Lombardi. She has written a throught-provoking book, The Mama's Boy Myth: Why Keeping Our Sons Close makes Them Stronger. It is getting a lot of press. CBS here. NPR reviewed it. New York Times also provided some space toward it.

This book drew my attention because I have developed a passion for researching emotional closeness between men and women. The winds are blowing. Even though Freud is in the air, men and women in the twenty-first century are gaining some distance from a man who has inspired so much anxiety about closeness.

Since Freud sexualized closeness in imaginations of the Western world (including evangelicals who ironically stresss we are not to be conformed to this world) the romantic relationship is the only relationship where you could not freak out or be uncomfortable about expressing mutual deep tenderness. Of course, for many contemporary evangelicals, Freud holds sway.

The transformation from Freud for evangelicals is not going to happen overnight but it's happening in mother-son closeness and cross-gender friendships. Freud has so much power in the evangelical community and inspired much discomfort and anxiety over closeness.

But God is raising up men and women from a variety of places to debunk Freud.

Kate Stone Lombardi is a courageous woman. She understands the deeply embedded Freudian anxiety of a mother who chooses to relish and nurture deep emtional connection with her son.

Identifying the Freudian inspired taboo.

Lombardi so accurately identifies the notion the fears that mothers have that any closeness with their sons is in danger of an inappropriate sexualized connection. Ever since Freud, the conventional wisdom for mothers was that if they got "too close" to their sons, the closeness would be interpreted as something sexual. She nails it when she observes that love between mothers and sons after Freud became some kind of psychopathology.

She shines the light on social pressure on mothers to conform to outdated Freudian sexism and fear. In our culture, even more so in the evangelical sub-culture, closeness in the mother-son relationship is very suspect. People are going to think something strange or inappropriate is happening between mother and son if they detect physical affection, attention, or "unusual" emotional bonding.

She notes a how single mothers get the eye or are criticized. If they get too close, they are called to the carpet for creating a "mama's boy." It starts early on. Almost as soon as mothers discover their sons yearn and long for emotional closeness and deep tenderness with their mothers, mothers are told by husbands, brothers, fathers, even female friends that they are "too close" to them.

Lombardi does a courageous job of nailing how our culture has equated physical tenderness with a Freudian sexualized tenderness. Since I began developing cross-gender friendships, I understand the territory Lombardi sketches for us. In a Freudian world, there is no such thing as innocent, precious, intimate physical tenderness--it is all sexualized.

She notes the anxiety of mother after mother who longs for physical tenderness with their sons only to be told they are getting "too close." A mother who is criticized by her husband because she lies in bed with her seven year old after he comes home from school and opens his heartup to her. A mother who is warned by her sister that she was too affectionate with her young son because she enjoyed cuddling with him. One father told his wife, their son had "to learn to man up." Mothers who get strong messages to pull away and show distance to their teenage boys.

Lombardi's highlighting this made me think about evangelicals. In the evangelical world where for many Christianity is inherently "masculine," mothers run up against a Freudian-inspired "leave and cleave." For many evangelicals, the "leave and cleave" in Genesis 2:24 has come to mean deep emotional exclusivity in marriage. This is the outcome in a Freudian world for all closeness is a sexualized closeness. It makes sense.

In a world which interprets warm affectionate touch and emotional closeness as sexual (or something harboring unconscious sexual desires) the "leave and cleave" of Genesis 2 must mean emotional distance and divorce between mothers and sons. In the evangelical world post-Freud, there is a great pressure for adolescent boys to become detached from their mothers and learn to "man up" as they age into young adulthood.

Well, what about enmeshment? In the world of psychology, to become "enmeshed" with someone is to become emotionally entangled or ensnared with with a lack of boundaries. Lombardi courageously walks through this as she notes the mother-son relationship which experiences deep empathetic closeness is liable to be criticized as a relationship which is "enmeshed."

But Lombardi bravely sets forth a healthy emotional closeness is very different from an overcontrolling mother or one who has overidentified with her son: "It's not a slippery slope but rather two different dynamics. The two are often mistakenly conflated."

Of course, this is exactly what many in the evangelical world do when they see emotional closeness between a man and woman in cross-gender friendship. They interpret any kind of closeness or deep tenderness as sexualized (romanticized) because of the Freudian-inspied "leave and cleave" interpretations of Genesis 2:24.

More to come.

Inappropriate Relationships and Evangelical Therapists Pt. 6

2012-05-13T20:26:52-05:00

So, resistance from the evangelical community toward me has been part of my experience ever since I intentionally chose intimacy in a dyadic cross-gender friendship as something good and beautiful from God.

The resistance has only confirmed my unique calling God has for me in this season.

It’s the majority that holds power. I didn’t expect the majority of evangelicals to suddenly surrender in light of the sex and power embedded in the romantic myth. But evangelicals are committed to wrestling with the scriptures and there is wide ranging diversity among evangelicals over complex issues.

I wanted to explore in this series the deep confusion, posturing, nuancing, and diversity between evangelicals on the issues of marital intimacy. What Scot McKnight calls “face-to-face exclusivism,” or emotional intimacy between men women who are married but not to each other, as well as dyadic interpersonal intimacy between men and women.

Let me again remind you that I strongly affirm and bless evangelical therapists who welcome and nurture professional therapeutic relationships with cross-gender clients. And, this series is not specifically directed at evangelicals who reject therapy as something not biblical.

This series is aimed at many evangelicals (both therapists and those who are not therapists) who have no quarrel with therapists intentionally meeting alone with their cross-gender clients weekly with the purpose of nurturing an interpersonal intimacy with emotional depth, authenticity, empathy and in a number of relationships, pray with them. All this happening weekly with one or both of them in the dyadic relationship married and without their spouses present.

This again flies in the face of what is the “unholy trinity” which has been brought up to me as a common objection to cross-gender friendship. Many evangelicals feel it is inappropriate to 1) Set a regular time to meet alone with a member of the opposite sex if one or both of you are married, 2) to nurture an ongoing dyadic relationship with the opposite sex where the dyad meets alone, and 3) to nurture any kind of emotional intimacy with someone in this dyadic relationship.

Any combination of these three or all of them combined are the chief grounds to what many evangelicals call “inappropriate” for those who are married. Yet, as we have seen, many practicing evangelical relational therapists regularly practice all three. These therapists have reframed the unholy trinity—all three of these can be reframed as something good, beautiful, healing, healing, and redemptive.

Obviously, every therapist is going to say, “But wait!” Well, yes, I’m not asserting that therapists throw all caution into the wind. There are psychological, time, and place boundaries. But they are boundaries conceptually, relationally, and practically beyond the “unholy trinity.” Way beyond.

Let me introduce you (if you haven’t already heard of them) to Mark McMinn and Lisa Graham McMinn. They’re married. They are both on staff at George Fox. Before that, they were both on staff at Wheaton. I have never met either one f2f, but I have exchanged two emails with Lisa. She has written one book in particular in which I am interested in for this post: Sexuality and Holy Longing: Embracing Intimacy in a Broken World.

There are so many good things to say about Lisa’s book. She sees sexuality as much deeper than just sex. We are embodied sexual beings. She gets the idea we are drawn to others and we yearn for communion.

She affirms the possibility of transmarital friendships. She recognizes it as an expression of the abundance of God’s goodness and favor to us in this life. However, she and Mark have chosen to not invest in any intimate friendships of the opposite sex. Their first tier of intimate friends are same sex friends. Cross-sex friends for both of them enter at the second level.

Mark is a practicing therapist. He’s written several books but there are two books I am interested in. Psychology, Theology, and Spirituality in Christian Counseling is the first one. His second, is Sin and Grace in Christian Counseling. As I understand it, from these two books, Mark does not practice a relational therapy (like for example, from ones I quoted earlier: Robert Watson, James Olthuis and many others). Mark practices a form of cognitive therapy.

It’s apparent from both of these books that Mark intentionally surpasses the “unholy trinity” and welcomes a dyadic therapeutic relationship in which he meets alone with women even though he is married.

Before I go further, I want to bring in another voice, Deborah Van Deusen Hunsinger. She contributed a chapter “An Interdisciplinary Map for Christian Counselors” in a book Mark himself edited, Care for the Soul. She says one of the gifts of therapy is that the therapist gives the gift of attentive presence. She says it’s an important question of pastoral care: “How do you tune into your own feelings as a way to help you understand the feelings of a person you are counseling?”

Mark gets this. Even if he is a cognitive therapist he understands the importance of empathy in counseling. He writes, “Our common state of sinfulness calls for empathy in Christian counseling. We do not sit above our clients, we sit with them with the pain of broken relationships.” To make sure the reader understands, he adds, “This is an existential sort of empathy, not merely a technique-oriented empathy” (Sin and Grace).

Mark also sees certain clients who feel “worthless and unimportant.” For them, he is “unusually attentive and affirming.” He also understands that there is an “appropriate level of interpersonal intimacy” in the therapeutic relationship. He cautions though, about a counseling relationship that becomes “excessively close.”

For some evangelicals, to acknowledge any form of “intimacy” between a married man and “another woman” is flat out emotional adultery. “People commit emotional adultery before they commit physical adultery. It starts where two people of the opposite sex talk with each other about intimate struggles, doubts, or feelings” (Dennis Rainey). Mark and Grace Driscoll state that one seeking help cannot go to a member of the opposite sex “because of risk of at least emotional adultery and spiritual adultery is incredibly high” (Real Marriage).

Don’t miss this important point. Mark devotes an hour of his day with a woman her each week (could be more than once a week for some clients) to connect with her on emotional issues and he nurtures an ongoing empathy and attentiveness to her with no one else present. I am sure there are some close friends of Mark’s who don’t get an hour one day a week of Mark’s undivided attention and empathy.

I don’t believe I am too far off by saying there are thousands of evangelical wives who would die for their husbands to give them one hour a week, undivided attention with deep empathy.

Even if it for a short period (remember there are psychotherapies which continue for years) most therapeutic relationships enter into what many therapists would call an intense interpersonal relationship with attachment, warmth, and empathy.

Although Mark is extremely careful to attempt to nuance this, he still nurtures an intensive intimacy with a woman he’s not married to—and he does this in a dyadic relationship with no one else around. Even though Mark is not committed to a relational, mutual framework, he is still engaging deep emotional empathy to be with the client—authentically.

Again, I am all for this. But this flies in the face of conventional evangelical wisdom on the “unholy trinity.” It resists any simple, black-and-white definition of emotional infidelity being on par with physical infidelity among evangelicals. Emotional depth, emotional intensity does not equal emotional infidelity in a dyadic relationship in which there is self-awareness, love, authenticity, high regard, and trust born out of a community (therapeutic culture).

Inappropriate Relationships and Evangelical Therapists Pt. 5

2012-05-10T05:56:58-05:00

So, I could be mistaken, but I have never seen Scot McKnight ever express concerns or warnings about how the expression of deep emotional intimacy between a therapist and her married client threatens “face-to-face” "exclusivism."

One of the main objections, cautions, fears, and so on that I hear among the evangelicals who express the danger of intimate cross-gender friendships is the “face-to-face” exclusivism that Scot raised up.

Even my friend David Fitch, believes such a friendship should not be “normative” in the church. I respect him, but in the missional church he’s planted it still is shaped by sex segregation and the romantic myth values. Dave encourages small groups (triads) to meet but they are all sex segregated like groups born out of the Promise Keepers in the 90s. It's not that same sex groups are wrong, but if that is all that is presented and encouraged, it keeps the wedge driven by Freud in there.

In my book, Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions, I note the powerful influence of the romantic myth among evangelicals.

This series is fleshing out though there is so much more to the conversation than evangelicals claiming "face to face exclusivism."

My targeted critique in this series is for those who are 1) evangelical therapists who regularly practice a dyadic, cross-gender client practice, and 2) those evangelicals who support such a thing as something distinctively different from cross-gender friendship.

Here’s the deal though: I know it’s hard for some evangelicals to admit it, but these dyadic relationships of deep emotional connections are already flourishing in the evangelical community: between therapists and their clients.

I have something in common with many evangelical therapists who practice relational therapy: If you’re married, it is not inappropriate for you to be alone with a member of the opposite sex (married or not married) with whom you share an intentional dyadic relationship when no one else is present. It’s not inappropriate to nurture shared vulnerability, mutuality, authenticity, deep empathetic connection, and tender, meaningful touch when no one else is around.

This is happening in hundreds of hundreds of counseling offices across America.

There are those in both categories who would seek to elevate the therapeutic practice as in some kind of elite practice while simultaneously sounding warning signals and red flags for deep emotional connection in a dyadic cross-gender friendship.

But in counseling offices all over the country, Christian therapists intentionally practice a dyadic intimacy with their cross-gender client which also involves either one or both of them as someone else’s spouse.

Intimacy Within the Dyadic Relationship

Theologian David Ford articulates this so well in his section on the discipline of intimacy in his book, The Shape of Living:

“What happens in intimacy, whether in twos or threes, or more, cannot be communicated adequately to those not part of it. It therefore has the character of a secret, something known to be there but also known to have a great deal that remains unknown. The only adequate revelation of it would be to take part in a repeat performance—but of course any repetition would not be the original thing and would be changed by the new participant… We thirst for deeper penetration into the depths of others and to have someone with whom we can share our own secrets and who can understand us more deeply… At root the desire to be able to share secrets of intimacy is good.”

Hundreds and hundreds of Christian therapists practice this ongoing intimacy with their married cross-gender clients. In the midst of this dyadic intimacy are therapists who see love as their main goal—not some detached love: “Love is a state of vulnerability. In loving we are affected strongly by the other person and we share that effect” (Judith Jordan, italics added).

Ford continues, "At the heart of a relationship like this is something… is the secret between two people, and it can go on getting deeper for decades… We constantly come up against the sheer otherness and difference of each other. "

James Olthuis writes, “The personal bonding between therapist and therapeut, involving levels deeper than cognitive understanding…is a two-way interaction in which both parties are changed for the better. Good therapy helps both the therapeut and the therapist to be alive in new and deeper ways”(italics added).

This intimacy definitely doesn’t fit into anyone who promotes exclusive emotional intimacy within marriage. Both Olthuis’ and Jordan’s descriptions sound like they could be talking about an intimate, life-giving, affectionate cross-gender friendship outside of the office. Paul Wadell speaks of friendship intimacy: “We will draw each other more fully to life and through the love we share, shall become one—not despite our differences but in them…intimacy is the work and achievement of a special kind of love.”

It stands in stark contrast to the dark side of a romantic-obsessed culture in which exclusive emotional intimacy is suppose occupy us every minute of the day.

The Dark Side of Exclusive Emotional Intimacy

Dennis Rainey and Barbara Rainey sound the exclusive clarion call to this kind of marital love when they write, “When you find yourself connecting with another person who starts becoming in even the smallest way a substitute for your marital partner, you’ve started traveling down a dangerous road.”

Exclusive emotional intimacy is born not out of the Bible but out of the romantic myth which says the height of adult intimacy is this perfect union with the right person and this person is your all and all--forever!

The Raineys (and other evangelicals who promote emotional exclusivity) tragically miss they underscore this extrabiblical exaggeration in a romantic obsessed culture in which some take it to a devastating conclusion: violence and even murder.

Aaron Ben-Ze 'ev and Ruhama Goussinsky in their book, In the Name of Love: Romantic Ideology and Its Victims detail romantic ideology in our culture and the victims.

They analyze those who have murdered “out of love.” Think of all the romantic obsessed songs: “Only you and you alone” crooned The Platters. In a romantic-obsessed culture where love songs like, “I can’t live, if living is without you,” permeate, one of the dark sides to emotional exclusivity and intense focus on one’s spouse is violence and murder. Olivia Newton John sings, "I'm hopelessly devoted to you."

“Yes. I loved her very strongly. I loved her a lot, really a lot… I was even willing to sacrifice myself for her” said one a wife-murderer. Another wife-murderer, “I couldn’t stand being away from her. I couldn’t stand that.” Still one more wife-murderer said, “I couldn’t function without her.” One more: “She was everything to me.”

This makes the perspective of evangelicals like Jack and Judith Balswick who support intimate cross-gender friendships beyond marriage (Jack was one of the first theologians to encourage me to write in the subject) sound like it’s not only life-giving and healthy, but lifesaving. Jack writes, “The idea that a spouse must meet all our needs gives us an unrealistic picture of marriage.”

Aaron Ben-Ze 'ev and Ruhama Goussinsky point out that “over 30 percent of all female murder victims in the United States die at the hands of a former or present spouse.” They argue that romantic ideology implies extreme behavior. “Typical romantic love seems to entail not only jealousy, but possessiveness as well.” This is what is typically encouraged in the evangelical community in marital classes.

Of course there are other factors involved but Ze 'ev and Goussinsky connect dots with wife-murderers and romantic intensity. "She was everything to me. She was my soul" ( a wife-murderer).

Evangelicals who want to “protect” marriage and its emotional exclusivity are singing the same notes of a culture in which 30 percent of all female murder victims die at the hands of a former or present spouse. "Protecting" marriage in a romantic saturated culture by discouraging friendship intimacy is not a Jesus-centered approach to friendship and community, it's Freudian driven sexuality mixed in with the romantic myth.

What if evangelicals began to see healthy, life-giving, intimate cross-gender friendship as something that could contribute health, shalom, and flourishing of men and women in a romantic-obsessed culture?

Jesus said, “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:35-38).

Well meaning evangelicals like Scot, Dave, and Raineys continue to follow a romantic model that sexualizes intimacy and its dangers outside of marriage with little encouragement to see life-giving intimacy between men and women beyond marriage. In doing so, they unwittingly continue to support the romantic myth in our culture—a culture which connects 30 percent of all female murder victims who have died at the hands of a former or present husband.

Bella DePaulo rightly says about the glorification of the couple in our culture: “the reigning American worldview may well represent one of the narrowest construals of intimacy ever imagined.”

Friendship is another relationship where sexuality can flourish into deep oneness—not a rival to marriage but a beautiful expression of embodied love alongside it, supporting it.

Friendship is a model for what community looks like when heaven is on earth. It is a passionate, robust expression of community in the new creation, a deep taste of what is possible in the present and what is to come.

Inappropriate Relationships and Evangelical Therapists Pt. 4

2012-05-09T18:32:53-05:00

Robert Watson, an evangelical, relational psychotherapist who was actually on staff at Wheaton graduate school. For those evangelicals unacquainted with relational psychotherapy, this small excerpt clearly reveals the deep stuff between the therapist (Watson) and his client ("Rebecca").

For those who think "face to "face" intimacy, (or any kind of signficant emotional depth/intimacy) should be reserved for marriage only, this clip shows the emotional engagement in a session: "The focus of our conversations moved gradually in the direction of sexuality, love, desirability....particularly valuable in recent months have been our conversations about sexuality and intimacy."

The link: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5210J.pdf

Inappropriate Relationships and Evangelical Therapists Pt. 3

2012-05-09T06:28:49-05:00

So what would have happened had Scot McKnight asked how his blog readers would have felt had their married adult daughter come to her parents to say, “I’ve been going to a therapist. He’s been helping me work through some issues.”

Would any of them raised issues about emotional boundaries? Would anybody have expressed deep concerns about the daughter meeting alone weekly with another man who is not her husband? Would Scot have warned about the emotional boundaries and safeguards of “exclusivism” in marriage?

Let’s hit the rewind button for a second. Scot McKnight, a friend, a theologian, one of evangelicalism’s most prolific and respected bloggers graciously introduced my book to his readers when it first came out. I am grateful for Scot’s generosity even though we have differences on male-female friendship, oneness, and marriage.

“Inappropriate Relationships and Evangelical Therapists” provides an opportunity to revisit those differences. You can read parts one and two here to catch up.

Within this series, I am highlighting some significant aspects of an expanding conversation among evangelicals. There are several things to explore with this series: ambiguities, contradictions among evangelicals about emotional depth and fidelity, two-tiered elite/lay system, the “unholy trinity,” and redemptive oneness in marriage and friendship.

Let’s start where Scot and I agree.

1. We both agree that the overarching theme of God’s great story is oneness. We were designed for oneness. Oneness was distorted. Through Jesus and the Spirit oneness is restored, and we are going to enjoy oneness forever.

2. We both agree that Pentecost inaugurated the power to create an eschatological oneness between all.

3. In that vein, we both agree that a whole new world has opened up with the Spirit’s power to make it happen.

4. We both agree that men and women were created in the image of God and are co-laborers and co-equal.

5. We both agree on the sacredness of one flesh in marriage.

The fun and dance begins between us with the differences in what we consider to be a robust oneness between men and women. Can married men and women experience a mature, healthy redemptive oneness in marriage and also integrate a mature, healthy redemptive oneness in cross-gender friendship?

At some level, Scot’s life and blog expresses a resounding yes to this question. His friendship/partnership with RJS on his blog is a great witness to this. When one recalls how for so many centuries women were considered intellectually inferior to men (and inherently prone to deception) it’s quite astonishing that week in and week out for several years now Scot has shared an intellectual oneness with RJS on his blog.

That intellectual oneness doesn’t mean he agrees with her on everything. But there is no question he has welcomed her on his blog all these years, and he desires her to influence Christians, particularly on the creation-evolution debate. This is phenomenal if you know anything about Christian tradition. I applaud Scot’s friendship with RJS.

But is intellectual oneness between men and women not married to each other all there is in God’s story? And why stop here? Does the relational oneness between God's people end at a sense of intellectual oneness?

So, it seems we have to go back to revisit the contradictions of "unholy trinity" among evangelicals.

The “unholy trinity” is postulated by many evangelicals when it comes to married men and women. For many evangelicals it is inappropriate to: 1) share immediate proximity with someone to whom you are not married, 2) intentionally set up a regular meeting time for just the two of you and, 3) nurture deep emotional intimacy or intensity within the relationship.

I have not personally discussed this with Scot, but my hunch is that he has no universal principle opposing therapists entering into counseling relationships with married clients of the opposite sex. If my guess is correct, he’s reframed the “unholy trinity” for the context of therapy. If I am wrong, I am still going to press Scot for an understanding of how he embraces the “unholy trinity” when many evangelical therapists simply do not.

As far as I can tell, Scot has expressed serious cautions appealing to all 3 criteria in regard to friendship. I will totally agree with Scot that we must exercise caution and learn discretion. But Scot seems to never go past a certain point.

He seems to express grave concern for the "unholy trinity" may happen. He postulates a scenario: "your daughter or your son is now married, and delights in his or her spouse. Your son or your daughter come to you and says, ‘I have a close friend, of the opposite sex, who is not married. That person would like me to have coffee alone just to chat. Mom, Dad, what is your advice? What is your wisdom?’”

In another blog post, Scot responded to a commenter, “Kris always talks about the importance of ‘emotional’ boundaries, and once they are crossed a relationship can be affair-like. And that there is not that much difference between an emotional affair and a physical affair. “

In his chapter on the "Sex.Life" Scot uses the metaphor "with" to beautifully describe his spousal friendship with Kris. On the other hand, James Olthuis a therapist uses the same metaphor to describe love and presence in between a therapist and a client: "With-ing is a process of co-joining which encourages people to own, express, their deepest feelings....when the attunement is appropriate, a bond of trust and intimacy develops."

Olthuis and many other evangelical therapists believe this attuning, this coming alongside another in deep empathetic connection helps individuals "achieve a deeper integration of the self." Watson talks about "union" in the therapuetic relationship and a substantive part of that "union" emotional intimacy between therapist and client.

Scot’s chapter, the “Sex.Life” in One.Life is a relevant chapter discussing a robust oneness between men and women. If you read that chapter you see that Scot keeps a great distance from exploring deep sacred friendships between men and women who may be married, but not to each other. The content of his chapter centers on sexualized friendships, marriage, and a rejection of certain romantic theories.

This chapter could have presented a robust third option, something akin to what married, Catholic author Mary DeTurris Poust describes, “Our society would lead us to believe that sexuality can only lead us to one thing, but history shows us that when we live out our sexuality in healthy and chaste ways, it can actually lead to intimate but platonic friendships.”

She adds, “We cannot discard passion and check it at the door simply because we have developed a close friendship with the opposite sex.”

Scot's reluctance to explore deep friendships between men and women in this chapter parallels his reluctance to explore deep friendships when he introduced my book. He brought up C. S. Lewis' metaphors: "Lewis says man and woman in marriage are “face to face” while friends are “side to side,” creating an exclusive no-third-party-allowed dimension to marriage. And a cross-gendered friendship, if it is indeed serious, threatens the face to face exclusivism of a married couple. "

Without a rich development of emotional intimacy between men and women outside marriage, Scot leaves himself positioned inside the "unholy trinity." Like Debbie the commenter on Sharon Hodde Miller's blog: "I still say emotional intimacy (like physical intimacy) is intended for, and should be reserved for, the married couple.”

I’ve never seen anything in Scot’s writings which says yes to oneness of intimate platonic friendships, which affirms them as good and beautiful when involving the opposite sex in contrast to other evangelical and Catholic authors who do. In others words, I have yet to see him integrate a robust oneness between love in friendship and the sacred oneness in marriage.

Among evangelical therapists who embrace relational therapy it is arguable that there is oneness beyond a sexualized oneness or the one flesh in marriage. Relational therapists such as Judith Jordan embrace deep, emotional meaningful connections between therapist and married clients. She calls for an acknowledging the power of love in therapy.

Can only trained evangelical therapists engage in shared vulnerability, love, union, authenticity, mutuality, with their opposite sex clients in ongoing dyadic relationships?

Why can’t other men and women learn those healthy ways to relate to love each other deeply beyond the therapist’s office and yet still honor marriage? What if there is a richness of emotional depth and authentic engagement between men and women who are not married to each other that bears witness to the deeper union in the church? As Olthuis notes, love "is open to the other, delights in the other, cares for the other."

Authentic delight is not just for men and women who are married to each other. As Catholic philosopher Diane Cates comments on friendship, "Intimate-character friends...are physically and emotionally stirred and delighted by each other's embodied presence."

Can evangelicals move past reductionistic views of oneness between men and women and reframe the "unholy trinity" in our friendships?

Inappropriate Relationships and Evangelical Therapists Pt. 2

2012-05-06T16:54:18-05:00

As it turns out, if you read part one in this series on “Inappropriate Relationships and Evangelical Therapists” I have something in common with thousands of evangelical therapists which would shock some of them:

If you’re married, it is not inappropriate for you to be alone with a member of the opposite sex (married or not married) with whom you share an intentional dyadic relationship when no one else is present. It’s not inappropriate to nurture shared vulnerability, mutuality, authenticity, deep empathetic connection, and tender, meaningful touch when no one else is around.

That’s it.

That is what I have in common with thousands of Christian (evangelical, mainline, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox) psychotherapists. That, in a nutshell, is at the heart of my intimate cross-gender friendships as a married man.

Likewise, it is what you will find at the heart of a professional therapeutic relationship between a man and a woman. Sometimes for a season they meet alone once a week for a 4 to 6 week period. In some dyadic relationships they meet alone 2 or 3 times week for several months. In some relationships they meet once a week without their spouse (s) present for years.

5. Therapists reframe the “unholy trinity” as good, healing, life-giving, and beautiful.

If you are an evangelical and are married and also nurturing an intimate friendship with the other sex, you are going to encounter the "unholy trinity": it is unsafe, unwise, recklessly risky, inappropriate to 1) share immediate proximity, 2) intentionally set up a regular time for just the two of you and, 3) nurture deep emotional intimacy or intensity in the relationship.

All three of these, either taken one by one, or all together are red flags for some evangelicals. These were all typical responses of fear which I highlighted in my last blog post. This is the "unholy trinity" for unsafe, risky, unwise, and inappropriate relationships.

Why didn’t Sharon Hodde Miller pay any attention to this "unholy trinity" among evangelical therapists? In many evangelical circles, if the "unholy trinity" is present within cross-gender friendship, this is tantamount to emotional adultery.

What makes it good, beautiful, and healing for evangelical therapists to regularly thumb their noses at the "unholy trinity?"

Let’s take the 3^rd one. Emotional adultery is a hot button for many evangelicals who are still clinging to a romance-obsessed narrative between men and women. Conflating emotional intimacy with sexual intimacy (which is what many commenters did on Sharon Hodde Miller’s blog) means every evangelical therapist who builds authentic deep connections with their married cross-gender clients is guilty of emotional adultery.

Physical adultery is physical adultery no matter where it happens: beach, bed, or behind the closed door of a therapist's office. Orgasms happen in professional relationships. Of course it is dead wrong that it happens but it does. I will have a future post addressing attraction and sex within therapy. But why isn't Miller calling out our fallenness on evangelical therapists who get emotionally intense in a dyadic relationship with their cross-gender clients? Perhaps she is consistent and doesn't support cross-gender clients in therapy.

If we conflate emotional intimacy with physical adultery, then thousands of evangelical therapists are nurturing emotional adultery behind closed doors. Every evangelical therapist I know would consider sex with a married client as adultery with no disagreement. But clearly there are many evangelical therapists who nurture deep emotional connections and intensity with their married cross-gender clients behind closed doors without spouses present.

Are these evangelical therapists and their clients beyond reproach? Have the therapists reached some kind of holier-than-thou, elite status? Yes, I know many of them go through training etc. That’s the common response.

But does that elevate them to some kind of pedestal, to be elite among all the men and women in the world? Are they the elite ones to regularly practice the "unholy trinity" and thumb their noses at all the wise counsel outside their walls? Is there some kind of magic wand they wave over their office to stand in defiance of the unholy trinity?

Where in the Bible do they have chapter and verse to do that? Sharon Hodde Miller said she didn’t see any examples of cross-gender friendships in the Bible. I don’t see evangelical therapists meeting alone with their married clients without spouses present on a regular basis in the Bible, either. Can we, once and for all, move past Miller’s biblical literalism and selectivism?

I wonder, isn't this reckless of evangelical therapists to do this in light of all the marital breakdowns and divorce in our culture? Haven’t they heard about all the pastors who have committed affairs because they got sucked up into the "unholy trinity?" Yup. Let me tell you something you probably already know: Sharon Hodde Miler’s post about an individual man and an individual woman going too far in a fallen world did not cause one evangelical therapist to stop practicing the "unholy trinity" with their married clients.

Why is that?

Well, what the therapeutic industry has done (and many evangelical therapists have followed it) is to reframe the fears and the dangers of the "unholy trinity." Yup. Even with all sexual failures in the church.

They have reframed the boundaries when it involves married clients of the opposite sex and therefore they don't heed the boundary police on the "unholy trinity."

So, instead of retreating to all group therapy sessions (outside the therapist’s office this is known in the church as small groups, and hanging out as couples) they have reframed the entire "unholy trinity" to be something good, something beautiful, something life-giving, something healing.

I’ve done the same thing. Why can’t I? Does God require me to be a part of the elite force in order to reframe?

I’ve reframed the "unholy trinity."

When you reframe the "unholy trinity" there are different boundaries, different risks, and life-giving, beautiful, healing intimacy between a man and woman who are not married to each other.

Every intentional cross-gender friendship that has: 1) welcomed the opportunity to be alone with a member of the opposite sex (married or not married) and 2) sought to share an intentional dyadic relationship with when no one else is present and 3) nurtured shared vulnerability, mutuality, authenticity, deep empathetic connection, and tender, meaningful touch when no one else is around has reframed the fear and the boundaries of the "unholy trinity."

Okay, now I feel like Toto (the dog in the classic movie, The Wizard of Oz) as I pull back the curtain to reveal the simple man behind it.

6. Shared vulnerability, mutuality, attuning, deep emotional connection, and tender, meaningful touch in a dyadic relationship with no one else present is healing, life-giving, transforming, and beautiful for the greater good of community.

This is at the heart of all current relational/emotional therapies.

Listen to psychotherapist, Robert Watson speak of the love and longings for union that arise in a dyadic, therapeutic relationship: “In fact, the other person—especially one moving toward Christ—and I have taken steps together toward Christ, falling more deeply in love with the same person, stirred with the same longings for union.”

Think about that. That language was intentional. It was not for a romantic relationship.

This is where I think Scot McKnight (whom I consider to be a friend) fails to press through when he talks about oneness between men and women in his book, One.Life. My next post will be on Scot McKnight's view of oneness between men and women.

But wait.

It gets better.

Watson writes in another essay, “Ready or Not, Here I Come":

“Fears of genuine closeness, wishes to be special, sexual feelings, fears about being ‘too much’ or ‘not enough’ for each other, a sense of being family to each other, wishes to save or rescue, fears of feeling hatred or aggression or accompanying fears of rejection or abandonment—all examples of the very human stuff that inhabits the unspoken space between therapist and patient—come out in the open when both people engage in healthy surrender.”

Can I say the obvious? When you have that expectation of surrender with your married client (and it doesn’t matter at this point whether they are the same sex or opposite sex—you can’t blithely assume a heteronormative orientation for everyone) you are breaking all the taboos about the "unholy trinity" and deep emotional connection in a dyadic relationship.

James Olthuis writes, “For to practice psychotherapy as a dance in the wild spaces asks for a giving up of our will to control. That move is a daunting prospect. It asks that we leave our comfort zones and flow with the process…In this process, love—the love of God—not reason, nor method creates a healing connection.”

Yes. I have that in common with all the therapists who are committed to some expression of relational and emotional therapy. Friendship with the opposite sex is an invitation to dance in the wild space of love asking us to give up our control, our fears, our wishes to rescue or fix, for something much greater—relational mutuality between men and women in the kingdom.

Cross-gender friendship is not an inappropriate relationship. It is an ongoing invitation to dance, to a healthy mutual surrender, to healthy intimacy, to healthy flourishing between men and women that bears witness of God’s great love to a wider community and world.

Inappropriate Relationships and Evangelical Therapists Pt. 1.

2012-05-05T14:19:02-05:00

First, let me begin by stating that I have great respect and admiration for evangelical therapists. This is not intended to be a critique against those therapists who welcome clients of the opposite sex. I definitely support that practice.

What I wish to explore are several themes currently embraced by a number of evangelicals and their fear of intimate cross-gender friendships. In particular, where do evangelical therapists stand on issues such as inappropriate relationships, emotional adultery, emotional intimacy, sexual attraction, emotional fidelity, and talking about intimate matters of the heart with no one else present?

There are evangelicals who are critical of professional therapy as a matter of general principle, and they would not be the focus of my exploration. That’s another post, another time.

My target audience would be:

1) evangelical therapists who regularly welcome clients of the opposite sex but who would also accept popular notions of emotional adultery as discouragement for intimate cross-gender friendships outside the walls of their practice, and

2)evangelicals at large who are not therapists yet would enthusiastically endorse number 1 as balanced, safe, and wise.

I invite you to explore this issue with me.

1. The Common Meaning of Emotional Adultery

Dennis and Barbara Rainey, in their book, Staying Close: Stopping the Natural Drift to Isolation in Marriage, state “People commit emotional adultery before they commit physical adultery. Emotional adultery is unfaithfulness of the heart. It starts when two people of the opposite sex begin talking with each other about intimate struggles, doubts, and feelings.”

In his book Brave New Marriage, Mike Berner opines, “We can commit emotional adultery against our husband or our wife by becoming emotionally involved with someone other than our spouse.”

Stephanie Herzog in her book, God is Your Matchmaker, "Counterfeit emotional bonding happens when you share deep things with one another—problems, concerns, hurts, even their dreams, personal prophecies, and intimate secrets... The deeper the conversation, the greater the attraction.”

I could very easily include many other evangelicals espousing the same thing.

2. A Popular View of Emotional Exclusivity within Marriage

The Rainey’s in the same paragraph from which I quoted above went on to add, “They start sharing their souls in a way that God intended exclusively for the marriage relationship.”

Debbie, a commenter in response to Sharon Hodde Miller’s post on Christianity Today’s Her.meneutic blog nailed a popular view of emotional exclusivity when she wrote:

“To me, saying that married people need to have emotionally intimate friendships with the opposite sex says that there's a basic need that's not being met within the marriage… We both agreed that once in marriage, WE needed to be each other's best friends and we wouldn't look to persons outside the marriage for emotional intimacy… I still say emotional intimacy (like physical intimacy) is intended for, and should be reserved for, the married couple.”

On that same blog-post, “Anonymous” stated, “I would be just as devasted (sic) if he shared his emotional intimacy with another woman as I would if he shared his physical intimacy with her.”

3. The View that Spending Time Alone with the Opposite Sex is Inappropriate and Dangerous.

Suzy, another commenter wrote: “My concern is that proximity is the number one way that adultery begins. Some proximity, such as in the workplace, we can't avoid, but creating one-on-one opportunities with those of the opposite sex seems foolhardy to me.”

Deborah added, “BUT I would never do anything with them without their wives (my girlfriends) present, nor would I want to, and there are levels of conversation I would not usually have with them….I am not going to spend time alone with an individual man or have very personal conversations as I would with a girlfriend.”

Responding to Sharon’s essay Laura wrote, “Something that you didn't address is how having a cross gender confidant, especially one in whom you confide things about your relationship with your spouse, can be dangerous. This is an issue of having healthy boundaries in friendships, emotional boundaries in particular.”

Anne Wilson depicted this fear when she posted an article, “No One is Above an Affair.” She adamantly refuses to ride alone in a car with the opposite sex.

4. The Relational and Emotional Turn in Professional Therapy

For the uninitiated and uninformed, James Currie spoke for many evangelicals when he responded on my Facebook wall: “However, there's a huge difference in personal investment and professional investment in relationships, here. Therapists arguably are emotionally UNinvested.”

That’s what therapy used to look like.

Perhaps that is still true in a few circles. But there is a wide range of relational therapies/theories now present in which therapists see detachment, uninvestment, emotionally distant dynamics as inauthentic, impersonal, or an imbalanced form of power.

Leslie Greenberg author of Emotion-Focused Therapy, states, “Mounting evidence that emotional arousal and depth of experience relate to therapy outcome supports the importance of access to emotion in therapy…It is possible to enter into people’s inner realms of emotion.”

In his book Beautiful Risk, evangelical therapist-theologian James Olthuis (who is a proponent for cross-gender friendships) writes that “In attuning, a therapist says, ‘I desire to be with-you in such a way that we experience connection. I want to share a place with you where I can be touched by your struggle, your pain, your fears, and your angers. Then, connected at-home with each other, I offer to dance with you, as a trusted companion.’”

Olthuis, in embracing deep emotional connection between the therapist and the client observes, “Resonating with another’s deepest feelings sensitively—without distancing and without fusing—creates a with experience that eases and disperses feelings of isolation and shame.”

Robert Watson, talks about the primacy of love in Christian psychotherapy in his essay, “Toward Union in Love”: “To choose to love is to make oneself vulnerable to the other…The relational space within which we move toward Christ and toward each other is infused with the love of God. It kindles our longings for union, connection, intimacy…Love is truly unpredictable, unsafe, and filled with risk…Real therapy is costly… The image of the detached, unattached therapist is just that—an image which reflects a defensive illusion.”

Therapist Judith Jordan, in her paper “Valuing Vulnerability,” discusses how therapists talk of love to other therapists outside of the office. She writes “A frequent comment I hear about their clients is, ‘I just love her.’” She asks as a professional therapist, “Who doesn’t want to know if they are loved, in therapy or elsewhere?”

Speaking again of love in therapy Jordan observes, “Love is ultimately about vulnerability, courage, and growth. Growth-fostering relationships are to my mind essentially loving relationships that connect us to one another and to ourselves.”

I will add italics for this next thought from Jordan: “I think we should begin to reclaim the language of love, away from the sexualized, romanticized distortions of the dominant culture, and bring it back into the heart of healing and caring. Perhaps the language of love is the real antidote to the language of power-over others.”

What do we do with this relational and emotional turn in Christian psychotherapy, inappropriate relationships, emotional exclusivity in marriages, and deep emotional connection between therapist and client?

This sounds like so much confusion or diversity among evangelicals on what is appropriate emotional connection, depth, or intensity between a man and woman who are not married to each other.

Stay tuned for my second post, "Inappropriate Relationships and Evangelical Therapists Pt. 2"

Creative and Integrative Fidelity

2012-05-05T13:26:19-05:00

Priest, spiritual director, and author Francis Wade on cross-gender friendships beyond marriage:

"Remember that the covenant of marriage includes a healthy engagement with the wider world. The possibility of physical adultery need not keep one from having close relationships with the opposite sex. Nor should the possibility of emotional adultery keep one from developing compelling interests, demanding responsibilities, or important friendships. The solution is to integrate those relationships into the life of the marriage."

The Art of Being Together

Provoketive Magazine's Article

2012-05-01T19:47:38-05:00

Alise Wright, editor at Provoketive Magazine covered the Sacred Friendship Gathering this past weekend. It was great to meet Alise.

Friendship Between the Genders

Deep Trust, Privacy (or Intimacy) and Cross-Gender Friendship

2012-04-30T06:50:17-05:00

One of many highlights of the week for me was finding out Katie Driver and I have something in common: we are unafraid of spending quality alone time in a house with our cross-gender friend when no one else is around.

I loved Katie sharing this practice of going over to her married cross-gender friend's to visit and meaningfully connect with him. His wife (fully trusting her husband and Katie) would put on a pot of coffee and gladly tell them, "I'll be back in a few hours."

"Safety First and Jesus Second: Will the Church Take the Lead?

2012-04-29T21:17:37-05:00

So many thoughts and feelings. What an incredible weekend! So exhausted. Perhaps I will blog on this historic event this week. But for tonight, I'll post something Jim Henderson kindly put on his FB wall. It would be great if the church could take the lead.

"When Jesus Met Mary: Exploring Friendship Between Men and Women event was very very well done. Dan Brennan Jennifer Ould Alise McCoy Wright produced and explored a topic that not only the church is reticent to approach but one that our brothers and sisters in "the world" are profoundly confused about as well. It would be powerful for the church to actually "lead" this conversation but I don't expect that to happen since its Safety First and Jesus Second. Dan is ready to lead the conversation. Call him."

Her.meneutics Blog: "Quietly Gaining Momentum"

2012-04-19T06:51:55-05:00

The subject of cross-gender friendship, my book, Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions, this blog, and the upcoming conference were the focus of Sharon Hodde Miller's blog post, "Cross-Gender Friendships: What's Appropriate for Married People."

In it, she recognized, that a new model among evangelicals is "quietly gaining momentum."

Yes!

Be sure if you want a deeper conversation about this beyond 800 word blogs, to come to the conference beginning next Friday. I am so pumped about the conference! This historic, first ever gathering of men and women to talk about friendship between men and women! Evangelicals such as John Armstrong, Jim Henderson, Kathy Escobar, Deb Hirsch, will be there. I've heard from others who would love to come but have scheduling conflicts.

In the 21st century, more and more evangelicals are opened to close cross-gender friendships. This should not be surprising even with the challenges. In the last 15 years, evangelical theologians, scholars, and authors like James Olthuis, James and Judith Balswick, Ruth Haley Barton, Stanley Grenz, Edith Humphrey, Dennis Hiebert, Caroline Simon, Marva Dawn, Sue Edwards, and others have, to varying degrees, advocated intimate transmaritial friendships.

And that's only within evangelicalism. It's happening on a far broader scale in the world. Platonic friendship has been written about in Christian Century, Slate, and the New York Times

So, yes, I can see why a new model for cross-gender friendships is gaining momentum. After publishing my book, I have come across a not so surprising number of younger evangelicals who are far more open to cross-gender friendships existing among married people.

Next Monday, I will have the opportunity to respond to Sharon's post and write a guest post for Her.menuetics. So looking forward to deepening the conversation.

It's not going to go away for evangelicals.

Forrest and Vanessa Horn: Why We Are Coming to When Jesus Met Mary

2012-04-15T16:19:03-05:00

At this gathering we seek to explore this third way between men and women, within the context of the beauty, goodness and redemptive love of friendship. We want to intentionally create a safe place to talk about friendships between the sexes.

Forrest and Vanessa Horn are coming to When Jesus Met Mary: Exploring Friendship Between Men and Women. I've had the opportunity to meet Vanessa on a quirky coincidence in which my U2 trip with Jennifer led us to the same city in Michigan where Vanessa was on a business trip (Forrest and Vanessa live in North Carolina). I've talked with Forrest over the phone and I am so excited they are coming to the Gathering!

They give their reasons why they are coming:

Forrest:

This whole journey for me has been both maddening at times and liberating at others, and ultimately my hope is to be at peace within my own heart towards the relationships that are very meaningful to my wife. I've attempted to be as honest about my own struggles and feel a sense of healing when I'm able to relate those struggles to others who have either been down the same path or at least a similar one. But I also experience a validation of sorts when I hear others speak regarding similar relationships and stories. Ultimately I want the Kingdom to come in my own heart and this path has exposed places in me that are filled with deep pain and fear... so it seems that Jesus would have me go to those hard places and trust.

Vanessa:

Prior to reading Dan Brennan's book on Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions, I had never been exposed to such an open encouragement of community through the gift of cross-gender friendship. Sure, I have been exposed to encouragement of friendships, and community, and diving deep into people's lives, but truly embracing meaningful connection between a man and woman outside of my spouse, never. That was taboo. That was "dangerous territory". That was an "emotional affair".

Before my exposure to Dan (and now others I've found) who encourage that the gift of cross-gender friendships can actually exist in a non-threatening manner to my marriage, I might otherwise have run or not known what to do when I experienced meaningful connection with a male friend. My husband and I are still navigating our experience and views on the subject. I am attending the conference to surround myself with others who are deeply interested in the topic. From my experience, it is much easier to find believers who will caution me on all the dangers. I'd love to have a dialogue with others who are willing to challenge the traditional views of the church. To have found a group of people that are coming together to talk exclusively about that subject for an entire day, wow, that is a gift. Let's go deep.

A Beautiful Picture of Cross-Gender Friendship

2012-03-27T14:07:04-05:00

Here is photographer Gary Howe's (http://mywheelsareturning.com/) beautiful picture of a cross-gender friendship. Justin is a Lutheran pastor (whose wife is a marriage-and-family therapist, at that), and Karin is his friend.

Quote from Dan Allender in Eroticism, Fly Fishing and Bad Metaphors

2012-03-23T19:40:08-05:00

I thoroughly enjoyed this article when it came out. Allender makes a distinction about sexuality here. There is the sexuality that present in sex. Everyone knows that. But there is a sexuality, an expression of one's femininity and masculinity that happens beyond the bedroom. I pick up the quote with the interviewer asking Allender about a book called, "Sheet Music."

TOJ: I want to talk a little bit about pornography and masturbation, those issues as they are affecting the Church, but first I want to ask you about theological approaches to sexuality in the Evangelical church, by reading you a quote from the popular sex book, “Sheet Music.”

Here’s what its author Kevin Leman says: “In many ways, Scripture’s teaching is this: Don’t let anyone besides your spouse enjoy your sexual charms in any way, but then unleash those charms in their full fury upon your husband or wife. Channel all your sexual appeal in one direction. Keep the dam up when others are around; don’t let a trickle escape through the walls. But when you’re behind closed doors, alone with your spouse, open up the floodgates and let the water flow at full force.”

DA: Like any metaphor, with any metaphor, well I don’t think my wife would particularly like my dam to break or my full fury to be unleashed, so I do think it’s interesting that the prime metaphor is one of pent-up rage. The fact that for many people, and I’m sure the author had no intention for that to be misread in the way that it has the potential to be misread, BUT, I also think you are responsible for your metaphors. And so, in that sense, I do think that there is a great deal of our sexuality that feels like a sense of force and rage and pent up momentum, and as a consequence, the idea that sex and violence are so intertwined that it is virtually inevitable that a pouring out of unrestrained momentum is an inevitability in the marriage context.

When you look at the data of marital rape, some estimates site 1 out of 4 marriages has experienced marriage rape. One has to say, on some level, I quake in the presence of that metaphor.

A second issue is “sexuality” depending on what he means by that. If one is talking about sexuality as “genital contact,” then I couldn’t agree with him more. If what he is talking about is a sense of eroticism, and that is little more than sexual energy, I mean, is it possible to talk about God’s love in terms of Eros? Absolutely. And so, the presence of sexuality as an intense presence of one’s masculinity or femininity, an engagement in a dance of sexuality, then no.

An example would be that my oldest daughter and her boyfriend are taking Samba lessons. And she was showing us some of the moves, some of the basic dance steps, and at one point Annie said, “Dad, you’re just not sensual. Relax! Let your hips come into it, move!” And in a short period of time, no one would be mistaking me for an instructor, but after a minute it felt more sensual than at the beginning of attempting to dance.

So what you’re left with is the sensual is part of the joy of something that goes beyond just an art; it’s an engagement in some sort of eroticism. In moving a fly rod, why does that feel better than a stiff rod? Well it’s because you’re participating in elegance, and is it erotic as defined as mere arousal of genitalia? No! I’ve never had an erection while fly-fishing but the participation is a larger part of eroticism.

Ten Women I Want To Honor

2012-03-20T19:50:51-05:00

I wish I could honor more. But in one post, I want to highlight these particular women. These women all have one thing in common: in the last five years, they have rocked my world.

Really.

This post is a part of the March Synchroblog.

Whatever label you call me, evangelical, post-evangelical, or just Christian, these women have been my mentors, friends, guides, and prophets. In their own unique voice, these women have opened up a new world for me in the last five years. They’ve helped me change from a soft complementarian to an egalitarian. They’ve helped me to envision communities of beauty, justice, love, shalom, and friendship between men and women. All these women have opened my eyes to sexism.

Wendy M. Wright

Wendy Wright, a Catholic theologian, shocked me. Not just shocked me in the sense of some surprise that happens in a day and you forget it the next. No, she shook me to the depths of my being. I came across her small article on spiritual friendship between men and women before I had any dream of writing a book. It was one of the first sources I came across that supported male-female friendship.

It was this excerpt which knocked me off my chair: “A male and female friendship is thus a place of creative tension in which the encounter with the other—a disquieting experience itself—is heightened by the experience of being drawn so compellingly out of the self by desire. But, by maintaining its own specific life as a friendship and by not becoming either a union of lovers or a marriage or be retreating into the cool and safely negotiated corridors of an acquaintance, men and women’s spiritual friendships come to embody some of the dynamics of and gifts of both marriages and celibacy.”

I processed that for many months. Eventually, that excerpt of seeing the beauty and goodness of the creative tension between men and women in friendship was my vision for Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions.

Kathy Werking

Kathy came when I was just beginning to weigh the challenge of cross-gender friendship in a romance-saturated culture. Kathy penned what I consider to be a ground-breaking book on the subject: We’re Just Good Friends: Men and Women in Nonromantic Relationships.

It was Kathy who helped me see the social construction of romantic ideology in our culture—including the evangelical sub-culture. The institutionalization of romantic love has created something in which “love and sexuality are fused together in the ideology of romance.” She helped me to see what I call the romantic myth.

Lisa Gee

Gee’s secular book on friendships between men and women, Friends: Why Men and Women are from the Same Planet was one of the greatest gifts from God to me in the last decade. There was no turning back for me when I read this book for the first time. Gee was not interested in maintaining a conservative position on sex. She wasn’t interested in promoting a secular version of celibacy as a virtue. She was quite aware that friendships could turn into sex and she had no qualms about that.

But she argued that affectionate friendships with expressive intimacy and commitment could happen between men and women with no sex. She did a powerful critique of Freud and she argued that biological brother-sister dyads were such models of friendships between men and women. Lisa also was critical of the pop gender Mars/Venus model accepted by many Christians.

She argued powerful love, affectionate love, even love that would appreciate other’s looks where both friends made the other feel more attractive could happen without sex. She made the case that close brother-sister pairs can deeply appreciate the beauty of the sibling without wanting sex—and so can cross-gender friends.

Joan Chittister

Joan is a powerful Catholic voice for women. I discovered her writings on friendship and the “f” word while the world of cross-gender friendship was opening up to me. Joan’s book on the Friendship of Women is relatively short but so rich and deep. It stirred me to encounter women in friendship who were open to passion, love, and beauty in friendship.

Christine Gudorf

Christine is another powerful Catholic, feminist voice. Her book, Body, Sex and Pleasure had such powerful arguments in it for Christians embracing the goodness of sexual pleasure. But in so doing, I could also see these same arguments could be applied to pleasure and beauty in platonic friendship.

Many Christians are so fearful of platonic pleasure and beauty because they have been told 1) it’s only for romance, and or, 2) it opens the door to the slippery slope. These two challenges to experience pleasure and beauty in cross-gender friendships have strongly discouraged men and women from just being themselves in the context of nonromantic friendship. Gudorf turns this on its head.

Liz Carmichael

A theologian from Oxford, Carmichael’s in-depth academic study on the history of friendship in Christianity was an absolute treasure to come across: Friendship: Interpreting Christian Love. She didn’t stay within one tradition. She delved into so many. From Augustine to contemporary Christian feminists like Sallie McFague, Mary Hunt, and Elizabeth Moltmann-Wendel.

When I think of cross-gender friendship and the challenges from so many Christians against it, I think of Carmichael’s observation at the end of the book: “Friendship is the overcoming of all its varied opposites: fear, strangeness and alienation, enmity and hostility, and indifference.”

Sarah Miles

For some of my friends, this is a provocative choice. But I want to honor Sarah Miles even with the expected flak I may get from some. Sarah’s book, Take This Bread: A Radical Conversion opened my eyes to a whole new way of looking at things. The book didn’t have anything to do with cross-gender friendship. But I want to highlight Sarah’s book and story here as we honor women this month.

Kathy Escobar

I haven’t met Kathy f2f yet. That will change next month, Lord willing. Much of what Kathy writes on her blog, resonates with my heart. Kathy has made the courageous choice to stand with me in my call for men and women to become friends in the church. There are many Christian leaders who won’t stand with me publicly on this issue.

Kathy is passionately for what many of us fear and yet so want: healthy, deep intimacy. Kathy has also encouraged me by seeing the vision for close friendships between men and women in the faith community. So many leaders in church systems today are afraid of that. Kathy is making a tough stand in the eyes of others who are afraid to go where she is going. I also love Kathy’s leadership on her blog of not wincing by naming these friendships as beautiful.

Jennifer Ould

Jennifer, if you don’t know, is my closest and dearest friend after Sheila. This year we are celebrating 10 years of friendship together. We are planning a special 10 day road trip to honor that in the summer. Our friendship has suffered from some bumps along the way but I think our friendship is stronger than it is ever been.

Her very presence in my life, day in, and day out, with our deep intimacy, has powerfully transformed me. I was a complementarian when I met Jennifer. But as I grew to know her, her potential but raw gifts, her distinctive gifts with potential to teach, preach, and lead, her unique presence in my life compelled me to look at women in ministry. My intentional vulnerability to allow Jennifer's voice into my daily life has changed me forever. I’m a different man because of Jennifer Ould.

Sheila Brennan

Sheila, my wife. Where do I begin? She has stood by my side every step along the way in this journey of cross-gender friendship. I would not be where I am today without her. She totally turns the whole gender thing on its head. Sheila is a passionate with a heart that is so deep and so expressive. But she also excels at math and loves calculus and abstract mathematical reasoning. She has her masters in math and taught at the college level for several years.

As we have both changed, Sheila has been an incredible voice in my life.

Other blogs:

Christine Sine: It All Beings with Love

Liz Dyer: The Problem is Not that I see Sexism Everywhere...

Wendy McCaig: Letting Junia Fly: Releasing the Called

Tammy Carter: Pat Summit: Changing the Game & Changing the World

Michelle Morr Krabill: Why I Love Being a Woman

Ellen Haroutunian: March Sybchroblog: All About Eve

Marta Layton: The War on Terror and the War on Women

Jeremy Myers: Women Must Lead the Church

Carol Kuniholm: Rethinking Hupotasso

Jeanette Altes: On Being Female