Commitment stifles freedom.
The predominant contemporary view of relationships, namely that of marriage, exalts individual freedom over commitment. Being devoted to another when feelings of love do not exist is perceived as coercive. It would be cruel to stay with a person whom you don’t find satisfaction and contentment. Most would agree that leaving a person you no longer love is better than staying with one you don’t.
But reconciling freedom and love with obligation and covenant is biblical. Timothy Keller in his book, The Meaning of marriage discusses how loving a person in unconditional commitment helps romantic love fulfill itself. He references the works of Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard on the topic.
Kierkegaard writes of the possible outlooks on life he calls the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious. The aesthete doesn’t really ask whether something is good or bad but only what is interesting.
In romance, most people live as aesthetes. They believe they are free from any outside bonds. He or she avoids commitment, covenant and promise. Believing to be masters of themselves, they are in actuality slaves to temperament, tastes, feelings and impulses that drive them.
We all make decisions for better or worse based on the above external influences. Moreover, we know full well how fleeting and unreliable they are. Today we feel one way, the next day another. Says Keller,
The only way to be truly free is to link your feelings to an obligation. Only if you commit yourself to loving in action, day in and day out, even when feelings and circumstances are in flux, can you truly be a free individual and not a pawn of outside forces. Also, only if you maintain your love for someone when it is not thrilling can you be said to be actually loving a person. The aesthete does not really love the person; he or she loves the feelings, thrills, ego, rush and experiences that the other person brings. The proof is that when those things are gone, the aesthete has no abiding care or concern for the other.[1]
When we resolve to commit to the other we are truly free to love that person. The influences that would likely hinder and inhibit are put in check.
When you feel great delight in someone, meeting their needs and getting their gratitude and affection in return is extremely rewarding to your ego. At those times you may be acting more out of the desire to get that love and satisfaction yourself, rather than out of a desire to seek the good of the other person. As Kierkegaard observed, you may not be loving that person so much as loving yourself. And when we only do the actions of love when we are having strong feelings of love, we often act unwisely. [2]
Feelings are a legitimate aspect of romance, but they cannot be placed at the pinnacle of prominence. Affections come and go. Understandably, nearly all married couples will admit not “feeling” loving towards their spouse and entertain thoughts of leaving. But as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Marriage keeps the love alive. Love does not keep the marriage alive.” Keller goes on,
If your definition of “love” stresses affectionate feelings more than unselfish actions, you will cripple your ability to maintain and grow strong love relationships. On the other hand, if you stress the action of love over the feeling, you enhance and establish the feeling. This is one of the secrets of living life, as well as of marriage.[3]
Resolve in your heart and mind to love when not feeling “loving”. Don’t make emotions the measure of all things. Biblical love is much bigger than that. Commit, and find true freedom.
January 4, 2012
0 Comments