More and more, I find myself becoming frustrated and angered with my culture and surroundings. I think I'm becoming more sensitive to those areas, those places, those messages in our society and world that get us to believe lies. Things like, "you deserve a break", "too much is never enough", "you only go around once in this life, so live it up!", and especially "Hey, you're lonely! You have hormones and sex organs! You deserve to be in relationship! Pay no mind to your issues, go after anyone with whom there's a spark, even if it's a different person every week." And probably more incidious, "Find someone to be your everything and you'll never be disappointed. It will be happily ever after. It's yours. Just find the right person that makes you happy."
If it isn't already obvious, this blog's about those last two items. I wrote them as I did because there are so many messages out there when it comes to romance and relationships that are so messed up, and just solidify the fatal pride and self-entitlement we carry in us into relationships.
I used to be someone who was emotionally drawn in to things like romantic comedies and love stories. But not anymore. I'm actually very sick of them. It's not because I don't value gentility and tenderness. It's because oftentimes, they're so full of those lies.
Enrique Iglesias sings a song that comes over our PA system at my store that says, in a voice that falls somewhere between nervous breakdown and constipation:
"Would you dance,/If I asked you to dance?/Would you run,/And never look back?/Would you cry,/If you saw me crying?/And would you save my soul, tonight?"
-He wants this girl to dance with him. That's okay, I guess. He wants her to cry when he cries. Well, it takes lots of time and depth and trust and emotional availability to get to that point. And then he wants her to save his soul tonight? WHAT? What does that mean? But whatever it means, he wants it done tonight. On his terms. And we're just through the first stanza.
"Now would you die,/For the one you love?/Hold me in your arms, tonight/I can be your hero, baby/I can kiss away the pain/I will stand by you forever/You can take my breath away."
-Wow. Who's the hero here? He wants her to save his soul, but HE'S the hero. He'll take her pain away. He'll stand by her forever. And she'll take his breath away. That's expecting an awful lot. I'm a little confused about who the hero here actually is.
"Would you swear,/That you’ll always be mine?/Or would you lie?/Would you run and hide?/Am I in too deep?/Have I lost my mind?/I don’t care.../You’re here, tonight."
-And here, it doesn't matter if she's faithful forever. All that matters is that she's there RIGHT THEN. Why doesn't he just slip her some GBH and forego all the formalities if that's the attitude?
The song goes on from here with the same basic wording. And, granted, it might be a sappier example of what is playing out there over the radio waves and resonating with our hearts and feelings.
But I've got to wonder...is this LOVE that he's portraying? Is it not selfish and needy and instant? Do you see any acknowledgement of reality? It's just such enmeshed emotionally dependent piffle. Is THIS ROMANCE? I see and hear lyrics like these all the time, though, on the radio, in TV shows, and in movies.
I honestly don't know. I've been through enough counseling, and a few relationships in my own life, to understand that the expectations I've had on relationships in the past have been unrealistic and selfish...that I have asked people in my life to fill emotional holes and needs that they are not equipped to...that no one is equipped to.
I am no stranger to the media deluge that Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston's relationship has become. And from what I've heard, the terms of their relationship was that they would be together as long as they made each other happy. As long as they felt in love.
Is that really a commitment? Is that really love? Or is that using someone else as a drug? And it's obvious that operating that way is getting them really far in life. Future bodes well. My question is, why is it such a media event? Why does so much of the public care? Is it not because of vicarious living? Is it not because we buy into love and romance as it's portrayed in our society and even through this motley couple? Is it not because we view love as an emotion that can be fallen into and out of almost as randomly as the path a leaf takes on the wind? Is it not because our feelings so easily become our gods?
No wonder we don't trust our Lord when He says He loves us. Our frame of reference is screwed up.
Michelle Branch, as young as she is, sings a song with the lyrics, "If you want to, I can save you. I can take you away from here." Again, what does that mean? What responsibility is being taken. Overembellished? Certainly.
How about Vanessa Carlton? Because you know she'd walk a thousand miles if she could just see you tonight.
I know a man and woman who love each other, but they live 45 minutes away from each other. And even though both have reliable transportation, they don't see each other every day. And, from what I can see, their relationship is growing, and they're learning to love each other more purely.
I have seen so many "life changing" movies that are seen as honest and edgy and so forth that keep wearing out that same old hackneyed idea...when you're crying, when you're feeling bad, when you're lonely, he'll be storming across the foggy field, shirt flapping in the cold wind to come and tell you all the things you'd hoped, or de-planing and pulling you out of your lonely phone booth and apologizing, or she'll be risking life and limb in traffic to get to the airport before you do so she'll catch you before you finally leave for good.
Love on our terms. It isn't really love. Sure, it's romantic. But it's selfish. It's also worship. But it's not a worship of the other person (which isn't realistic, fair, or justifiable, either). It's worship of the self.
I believe wholeheartedly in relationship-type love, though. It just seems to be something expressed so impurely and selfishly . And I'm tired of being told that I should aspire to that model. And I see, though very dimly, the model our God puts forth...one of self denial and sacrifice. One that isn't earned. A love that commits and doesn't fail. A love that's willing to endure the hard and unpleasant things...the friction, the disappointment, the disagreement, and the fallenness and brokenness of the people involved.
However, romance is another matter entirely. I don't know what to think about it. Is it just that we've tainted that, too? Or is it redeemable? Can it be healthy and balanced when a focus and centrality on our Lord is the goal? Can a singular type of love really be had toward one person that doesn't detract from a focus on and deeper love for our Lord? If so, how? I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, but the truth is, we're people who have our ugly sides. No one doesn't. We have our pride, our agendas, and our baggage. I've got lots. None of it's easy to overcome. But it's all worth fighting. I'm just a little closed, a little confused, very guarded and sensitive to the concept in general. And I don't want that hope to die in me if it doesn't have to.
My heart can't help but be warmed at that scene in Fiddler on the Roof where Tevye and Golde are talking about letting their second daughter marry a poor revolutionary because she loves him. And then they break into glorious song, with Tevye asking Golde, after twenty-five years of being in an arranged marriage where they didn't know each other beforehand - a marriage full of harsh conditions, if she loves him. The song is wonderfully silly as she calls him a fool, blames the whole exercise on indigestion, talks about cooking his meals and fighting with him. Yet Tevye asks again, "do you love me?", and she says, "but I'm your wife" and Tevye persists again. And she can't help but conclude the following:
Golde: Do I love him?/For twenty-five years I've lived with him
Fought him, starved with him/Twenty-five years my bed is his/If that's not love, what is?
Tevye: Then you love me?
Golde: I suppose I do
Tevye: And I suppose I love you too
Both: It doesn't change a thing/But even so/After twenty-five years/It's nice to know
If I'm to live as unto the Lord, a romantic relationship isn't exempt. And since, in Orthodoxy, both marriage and monasticism are to be entered into unto the salvation of those involved, since children will result, the stakes are so high. The responsibilities are incredible, but wonderful. It really is sacred and serious. It's not about getting your companion in the midst of loneliness. It's not about getting addicted to your own brain chemicals through some physical act. It's not about getting what we want, unless it's Christ we really want. It's about reflecting Christ in learning how to love like He loves. And if that's not at least the motive, it seems to me that we enter into relationships in futility.
And while Tevye and Golde's model, though maybe not fully ideal, has lots of healthiness to it, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there is a giant chasm between romantic love in our culture and healthy reality. I don't want to settle. It's just that there aren't a lot of good examples out there. My former Christian experiences didn't give me much more than a list of "don'ts" and "it's bad, don't do its", while my family certainly lived out the what-not-to-do aspect to a pretty full extent. And I feel that within my Orthodox community, I'm finally getting a healthy direction to go with where my own focus should be, not just a path to avoid. Of course, I've got to be obedient and submissive and choose Him every day, in every moment. That's a toughie.
I just want to be prepared to bridge that chasm for someone when that someone's ready to do the same. And I don't want to settle for something else masking as love. And I don't want to settle with a self that's resistant to growth, change, submission, and humility. Lord have mercy. I need it.
Any ideas? Theories? Suggestions? Thoughts?