Every Friday, around 42,000 people receive our weekly email, linking to all of this week’s posts and podcasts, with a summary, so people can make sure they don’t miss anything they’re interested in.
The email is written by Rebecca–not me. And these are often just excellent. In fact, when she started writing the Friday emails, my open rate doubled, and we now have a crazy number of people actually opening and reading what comes into their inbox.
I sometimes feel like our best material is actually saved for our email list, and bunch of you never get to see it.
I want to share last week’s article with you today–and encourage you to sign up for our email list too!
What my atheist humanist professor knew–that the church forgot
When I (Rebecca) was in university, one of my favourite classes was taught by a humanist/ phenomenologist psychologist.
We disagreed on many things, but no one challenged me to see the world through the lens of possibility and beauty quite like he did.
Something he taught that has stuck with me is the Freudian concept of “eros” or “libido” versus “thanatos.”
Libido, in this case, isn’t about sex drive—it is conceptualized as “the life instinct,” what drives us towards that which brings life, harmony, community, and flourishing.
Conversely, “thanatos” is the “death instinct,” that which drives us towards things that bring destruction and death. Freud believed that the death instinct leads us to seek activities that eventually lead to us self-destructing. This explained aggressive, harmful, or other problematic behaviours.
His perspective was that humans flourish when pursuing libido—but our morbid curiosity and fear and anxieties propel us towards thanatos.
One of the examples he gave was crime shows where the drama and focus was on justice being done, versus crime shows where the drama and focus was on the gruesomeness of the crime. They are both the same genre, but they have vastly different psychological effects.
(And my mom wants you all to know she LOVES Special Victims Unit).
I found it interesting how much it mirrored the idea of the “spirit” versus the “flesh” in Scripture, but that’s a whole other conversation.
Giving life versus destruction
One thing that this professor said was that it explains how the same action can be life-giving or destructive based on whether or not it engages in reverence or objectification of the person.
The biggest example he talked about was the difference between “making love” and (excuse my language, but it is necessary for the point) “f*ing”.
He said it brought him immense sorrow to see how a whole generation doesn’t seem to know how to have “life instinct” towards sex, but it’s so common to glorify, desire, and revel in the “death instinct” when it comes to how we have sex.
Again, atheist humanist professor was saying this.
One of his points was that often we put so many rules around things and try to control it so that we can “get away” with thanatos in our relationships. As long as it looks good on paper, it doesn’t matter which “energy” it comes from.
Maybe it’s “as long as we’re married it doesn’t matter.” Maybe it’s “as long as everyone consents it doesn’t matter.”
But it does matter. Because it affects our soul. It affects our soul to be used as an object instead of cherished as a person.
I found it so interesting that my aggressively atheist, humanist professor understood this part of the gospel so well.
Because that’s what he’s describing—the process of dying to one’s destructive hedonistic desires and instead seeking what is good, focusing our minds on what is holy, and engaging with each other out of love and reverence for the inherent worth of person in front of us.
Now, he and I would likely disagree on where people get their worth from (I’d argue it’s because we are all imago dei), and we’d disagree on a lot of specifics on how to best do this. But in the end, the concept that there are two forces at work, and that rules alone aren’t enough, really resonated with me.
Even now, I’ve found myself stopping shows or podcasts halfway through because I’m like, “Prof would call this death instinct, and you know what? He’s right.”
I find it interesting how many evangelical resources were so obviously engaged in the death instinct–and no one noticed.
- Women were expected to hate sex.
- Men were expected to cheat (or at least to want to)
- Marriage was expected to be a long, arduous chore until you finally died and God rewarded you for putting up with that awful person for so long.
That doesn’t sound like LIFE to me.
That sounds like death.
What would it look like to see sex through the lens of “life” or “death,” rather than “sin” or “allowed”?
Would it make it clearer when something is going wrong? Would it be easier to notice red flags? Would it be harder to get away with treating someone as an object, inside OR outside of marriage?
Download Our Marriage Survey
Join 40,00 others and let's change the evangelical conversation about sex
Because here’s my opinion: I think what Freud was noticing was the heart of the definition of sin. I think that we’ve gotten so fussy over the specifics that we’ve forgotten the foundation of Christ’s teachings about sin versus holiness, and how much it was focused on loving and cherishing others rather than using them as tools for our own gain.
I think having a theology of sin mostly focused on if something is “allowed” or not has done us a big disservice, because we’ve forgotten to ask the heart questions. We’ve used labels and posturing instead of wisdom and discernment.
So what do you think? Does the idea of “life instinct” and “death instinct” resonate for you, too? Do you also see the correlates with Scripture that I was so excited by in third year university? Let’s talk in the comments!
Because someone would inevitably point it out.
Yes the character of Thanos was directly inspired by the concept of Thanatos. The connection is even clearer in the comics as Thanos in the comics commits acts of mass murder in the hopes of convincing the literal embodiment of death to love him. It’s also worth noting that in the comics Thanos has an enemy in the form of his brother Eros.
Thanatos as a concept influencing villains is all over the place.
Darkseid from DC and his quest for the anti life equation.
Thanatos is the main villain of Secret of Mana
The concept is rather engaging
This is one of those concepts that turns inchoate thoughts into a coherent world view. I always had the sense of “but that isn’t healthy,” or “why would you do that to yourself/other people?”.
Libido vs Thanatos explains it. It’s life-giving or death giving.
Are you enjoying a cocktail, or are you too drunk to function? Are you having fun and it’s a great story later, or is this going to haunt you down the road? Are you spending your money to enhance your life or are you putting yourself into a precarious position? Are you negotiating peace between two people who clash, or are you forcing one of them to give up their dignity?
Yes, exactly!
This is very good. It fits perfectly with the Mosaic Law vs the ‘Law of the spirit of life in Christ’ concept. The apostle Paul in Romans 7 speaks of the connection between law and death, even though the Mosaic commandment was ordained to life. When there are commandments, instead of willing love from the heart, it all becomes about whether or not we’ve broken the commandment (death focus), not about whether our heart was in the right place (life focus). This principle taught ancient Israel about sin and human nature, but did not bring them to life. Christ’s law is all about where the heart is at. If we behave in right ways because our heart is right, it’s acceptable under the law of Christ. If we behave in right ways but our heart is not right, it’s not acceptable under the law of Christ. And now, when we mistakenly behave in wrong ways, but have the right heart, there is forgiveness for that in Christ.
Here is what I see – I have heard some thing like this saying: Die to Him. Capitol H for God. You could use the word slave as Paul did in Romans 7 – the point is – We die to Life when we are of the Spirit. We die to death when we are to sin. So when I think about this from a Jesus perspective his ministry looked like this. Here is The Word. If you do not want it I will come get you again later when you are ready. If you take up a battle with me I will defend myself and in fact CALL YOU OUT. If you come to me I will open my arms and LOVE YOU. So essentially we see the theme of Jesus lovingly giving His Word and he only defends himself and never attacks in the name of LOVE.
I’m not sure it *does* correlate for me – it all seems a little “follow your heart” and also a way to rationalize just about anything. For example, if someone is in an unhappy marriage, couldn’t an extramarital affair be easy rationalized as “life-giving”? And what about the literal meaning – does it mean that contraception of any kind is “death-giving,” and that sex is only for procreation (literal life-giving)? It’s a fascinating concept, but I’m not sure I totally get it.
On the procreation aspect, here’s a word picture that might help. Say I have a really beautiful outdoor plant. I love this plant. I water, fertilize, and carefully trim it. But I remove the stamins because I don’t want more plants. Pinching off the stamins isn’t death giving. The plant is still alive and growing and thriving and tended. And it’s very happy.
In the same way, most contraception isn’t death-giving. It’s just limiting the process of conceiving. The giving life aspect is about how each spouse is blessing and being blessed while making love, among many other relational dynamics of a healthy marriage.
Regarding an affair, sure someone can justify it as life-giving to themselves. My ex-husband did. But the fruit of an affair is destruction for the spouse, so it’s clearly death-giving.
Some Scriptures about life and death:
Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call the heavens and earth to witness about you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore choose life so that you and your descendants may live.”
Proverbs 18:21 “Death and life are in the power of the tongue. Those who indulge in it will eat its fruit.”
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.”
John 10:10, “The thief comes only to steal, kill, and destroy. But I have come that they might have life, and have it abundantly.”
I’ll stop here, but there are more!
God clearly cares about life. He’s where life comes from. Jesus IS the life. Ok, one more: “In Him was life, and that light was the life of humanity. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” Life and death are constant themes in Scripture. Go on a hunt! His Word is soooo good!
This concept goes well with how Bob Hamp describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil vs. living from being connected to God and His Spirit. One brings death, the other beings life. We can read the Bible through a lens of death, sin, and rules of knowledge, or we can find connection with God through His word and abiding in Him. The Way we do this makes all the difference in whether it gives life or death.
It really does! I find this so freeing and so much more in line with what healthy is.
This definitely resonates with me.
I read a great article in the Washington Post a while back by Christine Emba who argued secularism and Christianity has sex wrong. We need to will the best, the pleasure of the other person to have good sex. So I’d think that is a life instinct, focusing on the good we give to others. Is that not the heart of Christianity?
Church leaders focused on rules, hyper religiosity, and ignored abuse. I fail to see how that could possibly be life giving.
Paul wrote about our freedom in Christ that everything is permissible but not always beneficial. He had strong words for leaders creating rules!
“One of his points was that often we put so many rules around things and try to control it so that we can “get away” with thanatos in our relationships. As long as it looks good on paper, it doesn’t matter which “energy” it comes from.
Maybe it’s “as long as we’re married it doesn’t matter.” Maybe it’s “as long as everyone consents it doesn’t matter.”
But it does matter. Because it affects our soul. It affects our soul to be used as an object instead of cherished as a person.”
O M G I LOVE THIS.
I’m a former Methodist church kid – church every Sunday, youth group every Wednesday, intense youth music retreats every summer, you know the drill! – and a Southern Baptist church kid before that. I deconverted in college and spent much of my twenties in secular, progressive social groups, where everyone was passionate about changing the world for the better, and we all had the same really specific opinions about what that looked like.
There was so much good in those spaces! But I think that in some ways, the more extreme or insular versions of progressive secular life and church life look similar to each other and have the same problems. Both draw idealistic girls and women with good hearts, who are passionate about making positive change in the world. They also draw girls and women who are lonely, hurt in some way, have a void to fill, or who are seeking an authority system and a story that makes the world make sense. The women in both these groups tend toward people-pleasing and rule-following, which I also see in myself.
It means that the women who are the most intensely committed to both of these communities are sometimes the most vulnerable to being manipulated into sex they don’t want, or any non-mutual or unhealthy sex.
I think you nailed it with how the rules go in both spaces: “This wasn’t abuse because we’re married” versus “this wasn’t abuse because you said yes”. My experience is that in the progressive spaces, since there is such a focus on the positive value of free expression, this gets manipulated by some men into a rule that if you criticize forms of sex that are truly bad for people, you’re being judgmental.
While I most often see this used to defend extreme BDSM and commercial sexual exploitation, I’ve even seen it used to defend obligation sex. After all, the argument goes, if she chose to have sex she didn’t want so her boyfriend would stop bothering her, why should you question that choice? Are you sure you’re not just being judgy? The rationalization behind it is more complicated than that, but that is a core part of it.
I think women in BOTH these communities crave positive messaging about sexual mutuality. I wonder if there are any places where women from both camps are coming together to talk about it. I feel like the “Female Dating Strategy” podcast did this a little bit.