DESIRE 101- Part 10

Once Upon a Time
Copyright © 2006


Everything requires a story. Did you know that? We confuse ourselves by talking about “facts” as if they were independent things floating out there for us to grab and use. It’s just not so. Every fact is an interpreted fact. Everything requires a context. Everything needs a story.

Wouldn’t you agree!!! Hello?.... Anybody there? I guess that was a bit confusing. I’m sorry about that. Let me try again.

If I asked, “do you believe in God," what would you say? Seems straight forward enough. You either believe in God or you don’t, right? But what am I really asking you? Think about it; what do I mean by “God?”

In order to answer that, I have to start telling very short stories. Do I mean a distant “power” that exists far away from creation- never being involved, never intervening or helping his creatures? Do I mean a Superman-type character that mirrors man in every way, including his vanity, selfishness and pride? Do I mean a great formless blob of Being that has existed alone throughout eternity- just doing, I don’t know, whatever it is that blobs do? Do I mean an all powerful sadist who gets his thrills by fattening sinners up for the kill, like the kid who enjoys burning ants with his magnifying glass? Or do I mean one who compared himself to the Father who took leave of all dignity before his neighbors as he raced – tears flowing, beard flapping and drawers showing- down the dirt robe so that he could embrace the son who had returned home? Which god do I believe or not believe in? The story makes a difference doesn’t it?

Like the rest of what I’ve shared about you, you don’t have to take my word for it. See if it isn’t what you’ve experienced. When you get into an argument with someone, what inevitably happens? You begin telling different stories: “that’s not how it happened at all. You were the one…” A story.

It’s the middle of the night and a thump downstairs wakes you up. Fear suggests you get out of bed while the weight of sleep pulls you deeper into the blankets. Stories form in your mind to explain the noise and you weigh the likelihood of each until your feet hit the floor or you turnover and fall back asleep. Stories.

Your throat gets sore or your car makes a funny noise. More stories.

We understand facts, things, values and…our own identities through the stories our communities tell us. Being human means being a spinner of tales.

This explains why God gave us a book of stories. If modern men or women had written Scripture, it would have been a book of clear cut rules and precisely arranged doctrine. But God didn’t give us that. He knew what we have only recently forgotten: it is the story we embrace- or that embraces us- that actually form us into who we are.

Try it again. What is an American? What story did you tell? I bet it involved liberty and maybe private enterprise, freedom of religion or a calling to spread democracy throughout the world. Different American communities may tell the story with a slightly different twist, but that’s the point.

I’ve written this book to try to make clear the Christian stories entitled “What is a man?” and “What is a woman?” The church’s tale isn’t the only one out there. In fact, as we’ve seen, it bumps heads with many other tales. Before we’re done I wanted to tell you one more story. It answers the question, “What is marriage?”

There are two very powerful stories that give shape to most men and women’s expectations regarding marriage. We’ll call the first one the You’re the “One” Myth and the second the “One’s as Good as Another” Myth. (I’m using myth to indicate a story that forms the lives of people. It isn’t meant to indicate that a story is or isn’t true.)

The first one goes something like this: “Once upon a time God decided to glorify himself by creating a world in which every person had a completing other- a particular soul mate created for them alone. True happiness depended on being with this other. And a life with this person was sufficient to guarantee this happiness. If “true happiness” is alluding you, then you needed to keep your eyes open. If you could only find them, then happiness and contentment would follow.

Happiness was just one of the benefits, true love tended to keep you young, too. It was all so beautiful, simple and straightforward. It also felt very…well, loving; because life was to be found in another. But as in all good stories, there was a catch. The creator had designed things so that this special “one” must be searched for. And there was the adventure and the peril. They might be on the other side of the world. They might be next door. They had to be found. Life was about- or ought to be about- that quest.

Many people never found their one true love. Those people remained alone and incomplete or they settled for a second rate and often tragic life with someone else. Sometimes, and this happened a lot, true love was found after a commitment had been made to another…to the wrong one. Fortunately, everyone (except maybe the “wrong one” and his or her friends and family) understood that true love was more important than anything else. Anything at all. The sacrifice of family, reputation, livelihood…of even life itself somehow made being with the “one” even more rich and significant.”

Have you ever heard that one? It’s wildly popular- almost sacred. It’s also grossly wrong and terribly cruel.

Here’s the second: A long time ago, in a galaxy…right here, the creator wished to glorify himself by making a world in which each individual was created to show forth the glory and power of personal exaltation. Each individual was to consider himself the ultimate priority- the ultimate reality. This means that while relationships might have been helpful, they were mere constructions- artificial means to the end of “me”.

The earth itself was given to individuals to mold and shape to their own ends. Since there were many, many, many individuals, competition underlay all of life, and each had to be constantly on guard against those who would intrude upon their resources. Ownership meant the right to use the resource in any way the owner saw fit. It’s was there for him or her, because he or she was all there was to be there for.

This often led to glorious conflict were the one who was the most tenacious went out in a blaze of glory, clutching their possessions and achievements and secure in the knowledge that they had done it their own way.

Both of these stories can’t be true, nor will they mesh with the story I’ve been telling you in this book. While the first comes closest to the Christian story, it falls short and inevitably leads to the second. Here’s why:

We do find ourselves in one another. The first story gets that right. And that’s no small thing, either. But it is wrong in just about every other way, especially in making another creature the foundation of our existence. They aren’t; and they can’t be. If we place that kind of weight on another person, they will begin to crumble. The problem with the first view isn’t that it makes to little of the beloved and of marriage. The problem is that it makes way too much of them.

Eros’s visit is not enough to make us happy. Nor is it enough to make a marriage work. Romantic love can never give meaning to our lives and it doesn’t make being faithful automatic or easy[i].

People always find this out because that is just the way things are. There is no escaping reality. Expectations are crushed and disappointment- maybe even despair- set in. Like the little boy trying to bounce his toy truck, they have “misnamed” Romance and are confused when it isn’t able to do what it was never designed for. Because they have believed the story, they think something is wrong with their relationship- that it’s not real or true or not…something else it ought to be. And so they are always on the lookout for the “real thing”.

The truth is that strong sexual attraction and Eros’s pull aren’t magical, fate-driven, and once-in-a-lifetime events. They are rooted in the inner life of God, our most deep-down humanity and creation’s call to glorify God. They, or their potential manifestations, are pulsing throughout every inch of our being.

The modern myth of Romance denies this because it sees the visits of Aphrodite and Eros as indicating “The One”- the only one. Of course if it’s potentially omnipresent, the god and goddess’s visits fail as a marker for “true relationships.” If you are trying to find a yellow house in a community of yellow houses, you’re liable to never arrive.

Christians become disillusioned in a very similar way by misunderstanding the meaning and source of arousal’s visits. Christians who see their sexuality as a dirty secret or holy duty may view their marriage bed as the necessary- and effective- cure for this awkward need. Like a toilet, God gives us the marriage bed so that we can get that business out of the way and get on to more important things. When you’ve got to “go”, it’s hard to think of anything else. Once you’ve “gone” you walk past restrooms without any interest at all. If there is still interest, then you need to get in there and go!

That’s not right. It is perfectly possible to have a wonderfully good sexual relationship with your spouse and still notice others. That interest shouldn’t call into question the reality of your relationship with your husband or wife. But if you misunderstand arousals meaning and source, it might.

You also need to know that while neglecting your spouse can cause greater temptation, a fiery marriage bed isn’t an effective charm for warding off Aphrodite’s approaches. This should never be the primary motivation. Remember, we are really for- not against. The yearning and almost otherworldly interest in the body of another should find godly expression because they are fundamental to being as a human- not because it keeps you from....whatever. This means that temptation isn’t quenched by attempting to satiate the appetite- even in the marriage bed. Again, it is a matter of misnaming and becoming discouraged when the truck fails to bounce.[ii]

Sexuality has been spoken of in terms of a garden. By definition a garden is distinct from the wilderness around it. But both are places of life. To leave it unattended is to loose it back to the wild. This is acted out in the sexual lives of most people today. To the sexually "liberated" a garden is simply unimaginable.

But there are others- especially in the church- who are so afraid of that fate that they spray Weed-Be-Gone on every dandelion sprout that appears within and without of the garden. Weeding isn't poisoning and there is a world of difference between the way an organic gardener and a weed-phobic admirer of real gardens view the appearance of the weed. The phobic forgets that the garden depends on the very processes that are the wilderness. You can guarantee a weed free garden, but only by turning the whole area into a wasteland.

I'm convinced that we are surrounded by many Christians who equate wasteland with godly. They get away with this silliness because their sand pit is a "private garden". No one else gets to walk through it. I hope you see that we are called to tell a different story.

In my experience, a godly and fiery sexuality is by definition always in danger. There is always the threat of the wilderness encroaching; but only because the garden soil is so healthy. In this sense those who have truly tasted are in more danger than those who have had their taste buds removed- though perhaps in less danger than those who have never tasted; but have been promised salvation if they ever do; but God has called us to be gardeners not polluters. There can be no question about whose handiwork is the more beautiful.

It’s true that if we step out of the boat, we are liable to sink; but if we don’t, we will never walk on water.[iii]

When the heartache and disappointment that a misread reality inevitably creates sets in, the cynical ex-Romantic turns to the other great Myth of our time: the “One’s as Good as Another” myth.

In the old days society was viewed as something connected and alive. Think of St. Paul’s picture of God’s people existing as a single living body or Christ’s image of the vine and branches. Today we think of ourselves much like separate marbles. You can place marbles in the same box (maybe church, nation, job or school), but they still remain entirely distinct and disconnected. Shake the shoebox around and they will bump against each other, but you’ll never get them to truly unite. Take chips out of each other, yes. Meld into one, no.

And every interaction is a seemingly violent one- Marble running into marble. It’s every marble for himself.

Contrast that with the relationship between a leaf and the tree’s root or a bird’s wing and its heart. Totally different interaction, wouldn’t you agree. Which type of relationship more accurately images the life of the Trinity?

The modern view sees my possessions as being there for my exploitation. What else is there to do with my belongings than use them for my pleasure? The more ancient view sees my possessions as an inheritance that I am to protect and improve.

The newer version sees only Consumers. The older view sees Shepherds. Do you understand the difference?

See if this helps. Pioneer families worked unimaginably hard to clear land that they would never be able to use. Why? For the benefit of those who would come after them. In contrast we dump poisons onto our land, because it’s ours to do with as we see fit and it makes things easier in the short term.

The first owner appreciates every example he sees of his sort of land. But he loves this particular piece. He knows it as well as his own body. He knows that that part floods each spring while that patch over there is too sandy for corn but perfect for melons. It’s the land his father and grandfather plowed, sowed and harvested, the land they were buried in, the land he played over in his youth. Though farmland in general can thrill him, this place is his home.

The other more modern owner, however, doesn’t understand the concept of place. He knows only of space and location. He sees his property as just one example among many other pieces of Real Estate. It has no memory. It is simply a location. Land is land is land is land.

“Ownership” in the old view affirmed private property along with the responsibility to hold it in trust for others. The value of the possession laid in what it was and in its history- its memory.

To modern men and women “ownership” means the right to exploit without any consideration of others. The value of the possession lies entirely in its ability to be used by me.

Others might want to use it, as well. So we must protect it. But do you see that when we say “protect it,” we aren’t referring to the property? Rather, it is our right to be the only one to use it that we are determined to ensure. You can’t be fundamentally committed to exploit and protect at the same time.

So what?

In a very real sense husband and wife belong to each other in a very exclusive way. What does this mean? We have two options don’t we? If we choose the community understanding, then this means that a man who knows the attraction of women in general nevertheless takes one particular woman (whom he cherishes for her almost endless number of particularities) to give himself to.

If we take the second, and this is what the "One’s as Good as Another" myth requires of us, then we make use and competition the bedrock of the marriage relationship. Community at its source is denied. The great image is soiled and the unbelievable self-gift of husband or wife is reduced to a commodity. Every instance of our spouse being noticed by or admiring another becomes proof of unfaithfulness, which must be answered with fear, jealousy and retaliation. Marriage becomes a prison to be endured or escaped from and the lion and flood are released on the world.[iv]

Both of these corrupted stories share a common foundation. Both assume that our own individual self fulfillment is the goal of life. Everyone else becomes a means to that end. Lives, relationships and desires are products that we scheme, measure, barter and purchase for our own consumption. The common element is that with every other aspect of life, we have turned marriage and love into a marketplace.[v]

The result is that we have succeeded in taking the worst from the contradictory positions of Nothingbutteryism and Angelism. These form the two opposing extremes from which we can view ourselves and the world around us. While the first teaches us to live for the body and its physical pleasure alone, the second encourages us to disregard our bodies as insignificant.

Behold our modern accomplishment: We have combined them into a particularly distasteful and unhealthy recipe. This unlikely concoction has been called “marketplace sexuality”[vi]. It clearly emphasizes one’s own physical pleasure as the greatest good, while at the same time treating our “most vulnerable depths as the object of barter”.[vii]

Thankfully there is a third story to embrace. I’ve done my best to trace out its key twists and turns: Sexuality and marriage are the glorious creatures of a holy God. Their final end is to glorify him by reflecting the beauty of a life lived as gift given, received and returned. A woman is attracted to her husband because she first was an admirer of many men. Covenantal commitment is what guarantees the purity of the image and makes possible the rare but transcendent moments of blissful and total self-donation that the other stories promise, but make suicidal by their plotlines.


[i] True love is being for the other. It mirrors the life and work of God. This means it always- in a fallen world, at least, includes a cross. True love requires that we die to ourselves. This is never easy.
[ii] Though I can see where this might play a part in a relationship that’s characterized by famine. To a thirsting man on a raft at sea, a glass of water might get more than the usual attention. I believe this is the point of St. Paul’s advice in
I Corinthians 7:8-9. See Lewis. The Four Loves, p
[iii] Both the metaphor of sexuality as garden and it’s further development were taken from Wendell Berry’s The Body and the Earth found in Recollected Essays (New York: North Point Press, 1998)
[iv] Wendell Berry’s influence on this chapter up to this point will be evident to all who are familiar with his writing. In addition to The Body and the Earth, which I’ve already cited, I would also recommend the essay Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community found in Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992) In fact, I’d recommend just about anything Mr. Berry has written.
[v] I don’t mean to give the impression that there is anything wrong with markets. The evil comes in viewing everything as a market. Jesus, not Mammon, is Lord.
[vi] “Implicitly or explicitly, we imagine something like a social market within which each person seeks to satisfy sexual drives and to remedy the loneliness attendant upon modern American individualism. Appropriate sexual relationships, according to popular American culture imply the presence of a good clean contract. That is, both partners agree openly and fully to the terms and duration of their relationship….It’s management hedonism: I exploit you, but not to much; you exploit me, but not to much. The bottom line, the spreadsheet, has to stay balanced, and it’s that vision of quid-pro-quo balance that makes market sexuality inherently exploitative. Catherine Wallace, For Fidelity (New York: Knopf, 1998) pg. 52
[vii] Catherine Wallace, For Fidelity (New York: Knopf, 1998) pp 52-5


PART 1/ PART 2/ PART 3/ PART 4/ PART 5/ PART 6/ PART 7/ PART 8/ PART 9/ PART 10