
The 1960′s were, as we all know, a time of great socio-cultural upheaval. Of course, part of this upheaval was a changing sexual ethic often referred to as “free love”. And yet, it must be said by any honest observer (even if they don’t hold to the Christian sexual ethic) that the rejection of monogamy delivered far less satisfaction than it purported to.
In fact, I believe that from my Christian standpoint, the “free love” impulse delivered a lot of ugliness. And rather than affirming love and beauty, it led to the denigration of it. More love doesn’t make better love, even if we were to understand love as mere physical passion (which I don’t).
In the counterculture there was simultaneously an impulse toward wild, swinging free-love and a strong (although perhaps sometimes suppressed) impulse against it. A perfect example of this tension can be found in the songs of CSNY (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young).
One song, David Crosby’s “Triad”, is very dreamy. It was written in 1967 but did not appear on a CSNY album until 1971 (apparently the Byrds thought it was too freaky and wouldn’t put it on their album). It’s tone is pained and prolonged, a sort of agony, although soft and mellow too. It bespeaks a dreary enjoyment. Love is plural (“Both love you “, “I love you too”) and an abstract, non-definable notion. Things are non-concrete and flighty, no setting or concrete location. No grounding. The love is floating, questioning, selfish, and unsatisfied (it begs for something it doesn’t have–each verse is an entreaty). While the wording is catchy and the music is fascinating, there is something scary about the tone of the song. The only external things mentioned are negative (a repressive school, a cold ghost). There is a lot of epistemic uncertainty, even in the main thrust of the song (“I don’t really see, why can’t we go on..”) and shame (“You are afraid, embarrased too”, “Your mother’s ghost stands at you shoulder”, “colder”). And all of the blame seems to be heaped on that person that is afraid. It conveys images and thoughts, but the reality is too flighty to visualize.
Another song is certainly dreamy, but in a different sense. Graham Nash’s “Our House” carries a sober but happy tone, speaking glowingly of a house with two people, where everything is orderly. And the love is giving and exclusive (“only for you”, “only for me”), but yet acknowledges and embraces external things (like the sun, the yard, and the cats). Love can be concretely defined and has concrete manifestations or evidence (like flowers and love songs). Each verse bespeaks a certain confidence and satisfaction. There is structure and a home, a life, and a pattern. Above all, the situation is very concrete and grounded in reality, it has a tether to the earth and a context by which we can visualize it.
Clearly, both Crosby and Nash both subscribed to the ethic of “free love” when they wrote these songs, but these songs show greatly divergent assessments of it and perhaps in Nash there was a strong desire to have the stability and love that couldn’t be found in “free love”.
As much as one may seek “liberation” from Biblical norms, rejecting faithful, loving monogamy leaves one essentially bankrupt. “Free love” sooner or later, leaves one empty and without satisfaction. The intense struggle of those who’ve rejected the ethic of monogamy is even evident in the music of the 1960′s and 1970′s. It didn’t take a few decades for the fruits to come. They came right away, and I believe you can find a representation of the emptiness of “free love” in Graham Nash’s “Our House” (and it is an especially vivid portrait when one compares it to David Crosby’s “Triad”).
In the Biblical scheme, marital love is concrete and grounded, and definable. And it is exclusive. When the gospel pattern of love is inculcated in us and the Biblical pattern of marriage is embodied, we should expect to see the sort of home that Nash sang rather than the “something or other” that Crosby sang about. The husband and wife are comfortable in their home, comfortable with each other, comfortable with their cats (hehe), everything is in place, they are clearly enjoying each other, there isn’t fear, and the overwhelming tone of their relationship is not longing (though there certainly is longing!) but rather satisfaction.
I don’t think Graham Nash had the resources to establish the sort of home that he sang about. But, quite frankly, we don’t either. Only by the grace of God is it possible.