The Romance of the Gospel

By

[Loosely adapted from my portion of the Hutchmoot 2014 session “The Romance of the Gospel”*]

Five years or so ago, I took swing dancing lessons in the name of trying scary things. Ballroom dances evoke images of poise and elegance and precision, but swing appealed to me as a reckless street dance that anybody can join, regardless of skill or athletic ability. (So no, I never did experience being tossed in the air and flung over someone’s head, thank goodness.) But of course, if you’re going to dance, there are always a few rules to get out of the way.

The teachers stressed two major elements at the start of every class: frame and connection.

Frame involves how you hold your body and keep a good posture as you move with the music. Connection is where the two frames meet, and the silent, subtle communication between leader and follower. If your frame is too loose, the follower flails around, unsure where to go. But hold your frame too rigid, and her moves become snappy and robotic, losing the flow and rhythm.

The trick is keeping these things in balance, just taut enough to signal each move. Two great dancers can make it look like mind reading, even if they’ve just met. Without tension, there is no dance.

It reminds me of the balance between head and heart as we contemplate the mystery of the Gospel.

G. K. Chesterton suggested our religion “be less of a theory and more of a love affair,” that maybe the Gospel is big enough to contain both the highest reaches of our intellect and our most rapturous flights of romance. Sure, the idea of being “so in love” with Jesus can and does offend many a thinking Christian. For some, “It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship!” is a rallying cry against stuffy religious stereotypes, but once taken too far it slides into the mushy sentimentalism of a bad chick flick.

The hard truth is that nobody stays in love forever. Eventually, the idol of romance has to die, one way or another, with some measure of heartbreak.

Recognizing romance’s inevitable failure, the Gospel of the Intellect overcorrects, and we shield our hearts. We rationalize, theologize, and roll our eyes at emotional worship services. We seek evidence and proofs, and may even forget the early days of belief when we felt a stirring deep down that “just knew” the stories were true.

But we were made to love, feel, and desire. As Sheldon Vanauken writes in A Severe Mercy, “being a great brain in a tower, nothing but a brain, wouldn’t be much fun. No excitement, no dog to love, no joy in the blue sky—no feelings at all.”

These ideas are expanded well in C. S. Lewis’s The Four Loves:

The event of falling in love is of such a nature that we are right to reject as intolerable the idea that it should be transitory. In one high bound it has overleaped the massive wall of our selfhood; it has made appetite itself altruistic, tossed personal happiness aside as a triviality and planted the interests of another in the centre of our being.

And in that, maybe the Gospel really is like a love story.

There’s another section I love in A Severe Mercy where the author, afraid his theoretical exploration of Christianity is leading him to actually believe, exchanges letters with C. S. Lewis. He weighs out his questions and confides his simultaneous hope and fear that the Gospel is true. Lewis’s replies dismantle Van’s facade and concerns about making that leap into belief. Then, with a flourish of wit we all love him for, Lewis’s second letter ends, “But I think you are already in the meshes of the net! The Holy Spirit is after you. I doubt if you’ll get away!”

This is the romance of the Gospel. Some say love is a commitment, not a feeling, but that doesn’t make the feeling less real. The fall, the feeling that you “just know” it to be true, even when pieces don’t make sense, and especially when you doubt it, still hoping it’s true. It takes a measure of intellect to sustain love. Hard work keeps any fire burning: nurturing the relationship, self-denial, always striving to love better through action.

So there is a framework and connection. But there is also rhythm and music. There is laughter and mis-step, falling down and getting up and reconciliation. Take any element away, and there is no dance.

Or in better words: “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal . . .”

* Note: I didn’t think of the dance metaphor until hours after we finished our session.

Profile photo of Jen Rose Yokel

Jen was born and raised in central Florida, but now lives in the strange land of southern New England. Her words have appeared in TS Poetry’s Every Day Poems, CCM Magazine, and other publications, and she recently released her first poetry collection Ruins & Kingdoms. Some of her favorite things include used bookstores, good coffee, messing about in the kitchen, and local adventures with her husband Chris.


4 Comments

  1. Laure Hittle

    This is a great metaphor. Not only does this work well when navigating the false dichotomy between theology and romance, but the dance lessons my husband and i took last year taught me that working out frame and connection are also a sort of sanctification. Sure, experienced dancers can dance elegantly with anyone. We’re not those people. We tripped on each other and clotheslined each other and smacked each other in the face on multiple occasions, and at the end of all that we had learned to communicate in a whole new language. We had to learn to give each other grace, to keep trying, and to laugh rather than blaming each other for our beautiful displays of awkwardness.

    And now we can do the Charleston drunken sailor, which i am sure is the teleological glory of all forms of dance. And once a month we get to dress up and show off for all the 80-year-old couples in our dance club, who could dance circles around us but still smile and tell us we’re doing great. i love the thought that we’ll still be dancing together in our 80s. By then we’ll have had a lot more sanctification and a lot more practice at the hard work of love.

  2. Profile photo of Pete Peterson

    Pete Peterson

    @pete

    Doug, cool! Thank you for coming by!

    Laure, I love that idea! It totally works as a picture of sanctification, especially remembering that as you’re dancing you find people at different stags of the process. I was always so grateful for the better partners who helped me along.

    Bailey, thanks! I’m glad you came. The discussion was so good! I hope we get to do it again next year… and I’ll make better notes. Public speaking. Talk about learning and growing! 🙂

If you have a Rabbit Room account, log in here to comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *