Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
The sanction of Eros
Chelsea Clinton, raised Methodist, and Marc Mezvinsky, Jewish, will wed this weekend.
Statistics show that 37 percent of Americans have a spouse of a different faith.
Statistics also show that couples in interfaith marriages are "three times more likely to be divorced or separated than those who were in same-religion marriages."
Is interfaith marriage good for American society? Is it good for religion? What is lost -and gained -when religious people intermarry?
Chelsea is getting married and the tabloids are awash in commentary. President and Secretary of State Clinton's daughter is headed down the aisle and it has become fashionable to use her marriage as a "hook" to discuss interfaith marriage.
Let's get the obvious facts out the way first. If you love somebody, you want to marry that person. Religions don't make people vow eternal love; their whole being demands it. Nobody has a right to marry any individual, the beloved has to share your affection for starters, but anybody with an ounce of romance in his body hopes love works out for everybody.
Breathes there a man with a soul so dead that his default position is not to root for love?
There is a commonplace argument, however, in favor of interfaith marriage that is a very bad one. It says, "When two people love each other, they should get married."
Reason must temper romance and respond, "Maybe."
Romantic love is good, but it is not the only good. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for marriage, because marriage is something more enduring than romantic love.
Plato has a character in one of his dialogues claim that Eros is a great god. Eros was the personification of romance for the Greeks and his name is at the root of our English word "erotic." The sanction of Eros, the burning desire to be one, makes a man long for his beloved.
The vast majority of American culture tells us that when Eros commands we must obey.
This is wrong. The impulses of Eros are powerful, but they can be denied. No man or woman needs to be a slave of romance. As I have learned at personal cost, the commands of Eros do not always lead to happiness.
Romance is good, but in the real world, as opposed to a Hollywood happy ending, you cannot always have it all. For example, the desire to build a business or write books may be not leave the time necessary for a real and lasting relationship. Whatever young adults may believe, human life and energy are finite, and so choices must be made. Eros oft promises endless time and the energy to defeat any foe, but he lies when he says it.
Love is not necessary for a good marriage, because Eros comes and goes. He is, as every poet points out, a fickle god. Many an arranged marriage began as a duty and ended with his blessing, just recall Victoria and Albert.
Romantic love is not sufficient for a good marriage, because Eros is not the main purpose of marriage. How do I know? First, it is a lesson taught us by Plato, Shakespeare, the Bible, and our grandmothers. The wise unite in cautioning us against Eros, there is a reason he is pictured as blind. Second, Eros does not last. If a marriage is built on Eros, the fickle god will vanish and nothing will be left of the marriage.
Marriage is hard school for souls. A man and a woman, different from body to soul, come together in an explosive union so powerful that it always has the potential to create new human life. A true romantic remembers both the bliss and the pain that will come from such a risky maneuver. To enter into this state with deep disagreements on the most fundamental questions complicates it.
It is a lie that there is only one person, a soul mate, for each one of us. Some love of other good things, such as love for a country or a church, will conflict with the sanction of Eros. Such a man will turn from one beloved to another.
Even at our happiest moments, my wife and I are not only for each other. We have lives apart from service to Eros, because there is a greater god than Eros. At his best, the winged god of romance is a mere forerunner to the Love that moves the heavens and not just the human heart.
There are happy times when Eros has come to my marriage, but also times when he has vanished altogether. Adults learn the hard truth that these "hard times" can be amongst the very best times, even some of the happiest times, in a real marriage.
Friendship can blossom during the times when Eros has gone to visit other couples. He always returns, just as Valentine's Day always returns on the calendar. One can no more bid him stay than one can make July into February, but no wise man really wants to try.
I have no idea whether Chelsea and her beloved are well suited for each other. I am not in a position to have an informed opinion, but this much is certain: the sanction of Eros is not enough. It is not enough to justify any person's marital choices and it will not be enough to sustain the couple in the hard, but glorious school for the souls that will begin the day after the wedding.
Chelsea and her beloved have picked their life. It appears they have the sanction of Eros.
I hope they have something more.
(The title of this essay comes from a much superior piece done by the late Sheldon Vanauken and found in his Under the Mercy.)
By
John Mark Reynolds
|
July 30, 2010; 2:59 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky: Our national joy |
Next: Christ without Christianity; religion without spirit
Posted by: lepidopteryx | August 2, 2010 8:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lepidopteryx
Two words to answer you question:
"God's Plan."
This answer doesn't really answer the question; but it stops the questions, which I guess satifies a lot of people.
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | August 2, 2010 8:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JM Reynolds: "Romantic love is good, but it is not the only good. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for marriage, because marriage is something more enduring than romantic love."
So you would marry someone for whom you had no romantic feelings? Legally bind yourself to her, presumably until one of you died? Have sex and make babies with a woman you don't love? Why would you do such a thing?
Posted by: lepidopteryx | August 1, 2010 11:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
For a tolerant person, able to accept another person's beliefs, this should not be an issue in marriage. If one of the partners in marriage is intolerant, then it becomes a point of contention. If both are intolerant, the marriage is doomed.
I think that tolerance comes somewhat from a personal predisposition, and somewhat from a person's religious tradition. I think that the religious traditions of Methodists and Jews makes it fairly easy for such an interfaith couple to accept the differences in religious background.
The same cannot be said for many religion. I personally see the quality of tolerance, and tolerance as a core religious and political doctrine to be one of the highest goods, a product of the Anglo-French Enlightenment, on which our society is based.
I know that you do not like the concept of tolerance, because you mistakenly think that it means all relgions are true, that all religions lead to the summit of the mountain.
Tolerance is actually very, very simple; it just means "tolerance." and is the sign of a peaceful heart,not of a watered-down belief.
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | July 30, 2010 6:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Daniel, I've heard that non-answer in response to a lot of questions that start with "Why," and always found it a singularly unsatisfactory response. Any god that has it in his/her/its plan for me to spend my life sharing my home, my credit rating, and my body with someone I don't love is in for a rude awakening, cuz it ain't happening.