What is Intimacy?
Intimacy is about the risk you take to share info about yourself. Intimacy is not about how the other person responds.
We’re in the middle of a two-week series that explores David Schnarch’s Sexual Crucible model for relationship therapy, a model that significantly informs the work that Julia and I do as writers, therapist trainers, and relationship coaches.
Today, we’re writing about intimacy, which Schnarch defines in a 1999 interview in The Family Journal:
Self-confrontation and self-disclosure in the presence of a partner.
We’ll get back to this definition of intimacy in a minute.
But first, on Sunday mornings, our articles are exclusively about the impact of Evangelical, Mormon, and Pentecostal rhetoric, theology, and policy on modern-day relationships and sexual health.
And regardless of what we say about the ethics of the Evangelical Church, the marketing of their product and values is impeccable.
We’ve talked before about the impact of the Christian publishing industry on Relationship 101, which has been responsible for publishing gems like the Passion and Purity, Five Love Languages, and Every (insert two-choice gender here) Battle.
But the appeal of Evangelical Christianity is the skillfulness with which its leaders simplify really complicated existential, psychological, and social struggles.
Anxious about an upcoming transition in your life? Publicize your story with the community. Share your testimony with the larger community.
Disappointed with how much pornography you’re watching? Give your life to Jesus.
Struggling with an ongoing illness? Pray about it. (And give some money to the church; after all, God blesses those who bless him.) #prosperitygospel.
Those of you reading this may be oscillating between chuckle and eye roll.
But I have definitely communicated some variation of these messages during my decade or so as a worship minister.
And more importantly, for many folks, there’s something alluring about receiving an actionable step in response to a complex, painful season. In moments when life seems chaotic and unmanageable, human psychology seeks experiences that we can control. (Or at least perceive that we’re in control.)
There are times when these practices can be helpful to acknowledge the chaos and recenter ourselves, to remind ourselves that we’re not alone, that there are others who may be experiencing something adjacent to our current lot in life.
However, in Evangelical culture, there’s a hope/expectation that participating in these practices invokes the protection of God.
If I pray, God will hear my prayer and answer.
If I give money, God will honor my contribution and bless my life.
If I share to the whole community, God will introduce me to folks who are navigating a similar thing.
If I vote Republican, God will protect America from the national and international threats.
Our friend
describes this as spiritual bypassing in her 2/2/25 Substack article:“The idea of the savior figure–the one who is coming to save you–is spiritual bypassing. And to be clear, I’m not just talking about a savior figure like Jesus Christ. I’m talking about any person (or group of people) that is slotted as the person(s) to whip things into shape, to make things better, and to take away the fear that so many people are feeling right now. There is no one. There is no one coming to save you. There is no person that can take away your fear, stress, and pain. There is no movement, political party, or policy that will fix everything. There is no institution–religious, political, or otherwise–that will be able to save the day.”
I highly encourage you to check out her article.
From a communication and relationship standpoint, these spiritual practices represent a transactional interaction that emphasizes what the other person/deity will or won’t do, rather than centralizing attention on the actions of the person initiating the request.
And that gets us back to the David Schnach and the Sexual Crucible model.
Schnarch accurately notes that certain subsets of the psychological practice play a similar game as Evangelicals. You disclose something about yourself to your partner. Your partner accepts and validates what you share. And there’s an intimate connection that happens; an intimacy that’s fueled by the response of the other person. I love Schnarch’s reflection on what he refers to as “other-validated intimacy”:
“Dependence on other validation leads to a shift from self-disclosure to self-presentation, because getting validated becomes a higher priority than truly being known. Dependence on other validation leads to emotional gridlock and gives control of the relationship to the lowest common denominator of the relationship (i.e. fear, resentment, depression).”
I’m really drawn to the distinction between self-disclosure and self-presentation.
A presentation is a carefully curated image and depiction, an Instagram photo that has been moderately filtered, a TikTok video that has been effectively spliced and filmed with strategically stacked books in the background. These decisions are made with the assumption that an orderly, color-theory informed aesthetic design equals trustworthiness and knowledge.
Schnarch adds:
“The common desire for intimacy is often actually rooted in people’s quest for a reflected sense of self and attempts to reduce their anxiety by receiving validation, consensus, and reciprocal disclosure from others.”
Schnarch reminds us that intimacy says nothing about the response of the partner. Intimacy is exclusively about the risks that we take in sharing information about and confronting ourselves, and how well we hold onto our values of who we want to be.And that can be really scary.
The more practiced you become at not expecting that someone will save you in response to your disclosure, to borrow Laura’s language, the more practiced you become at finding intimate relationships. Relationships not based on other-validated intimacy, but one based on two people sharing and disclosing the most intimate parts of your lives and not worrying about how someone will respond.
Laura closes her article with the following feedback:
“It means that we focus our attention on the things that matter most to us and fight for those, even if it’s not what someone else says is important according to them. It means that we honor the ways that we can engage and honor the times we must disengage–and even the times we need to put our heads in the sand and numb out.”
I would add three pieces of feedback:
When you communicate something, make sure that your feet are firmly planted on the ground before opening your mouth. This represents a physical groundedness, an act of taking a deep breath and organizing your brain and body so that you’re focusing more on what you say and less on the response of the other.
Avoid the word “you”. Make sure that what you’re sharing is from the first-person singular. I.
In an interaction, from time to time, draw attention to how you’re breathing. While there’s a lot that could be said about proper diaphragmatic breathing, I’m thinking more about the simple act of drawing attention away from what another person may or may not be doing, and more toward the actions of your own body.
Paid membership for Relationship 101 is $50 per year until Monday, February 3!
Julia and I offer free 30 minute consultations with new couples to talk about our coaching process, and to get to know how we might be able to best help and support your relationship. You can schedule one by clicking on the link below.
Let’s heal together!
Jeremiah and Julia
Thanks for this post. I appreciate Schnarch's thoughts on being wary of seeking validation as an underlying motivation of intimate sharing. I'll add that Intimacy is something that's earned, invited, welcomed, consented to. The partner who is sharing needs a sense of security and safety that their share will be free of any response that may leave them feeling judged in any way, or that the sharing will not, under any circumstances, be used against them in the future. Confidentiality is important as well, in order to create a safe place for deep sharing. In other words, intimate sharing happens when there is trust that vulnerable sharing will be honored and respected. I've seen many partners say they want deep sharing from their partners, but then fail to meet that honesty with a response that does not reward that gesture. Laying the groundwork with agreements is important.
Jeremiah and Julia, you say, "Sunday mornings, our articles are exclusively about the impact of Evangelical, Mormon, and Pentecostal rhetoric, theology, and policy on modern-day relationships and sexual health." And you state that these attempt to "simplify complicated . . . struggles," giving examples. And you indicated that you were, or maybe still are, a "worship minister."
And then you label certain Christian practices as "bypassing" by quoting Dr. Anderson, who says, "There is no one [including Jesus] coming to save you. There is no person that can take away your fear, stress, and pain." I agree that no person or institution, EXCEPT Jesus can "save" us. We cannot depend on anyone else for our "self-justification." As Adrian Rogers said, "If your religion hasn't changed your life, you need to change your religion!" In the Old Testament, "Salvation" included deliverance from your enemies and circumstances -- sometimes out of and sometimes through them.
I do not know when you began integrating your Psychological Training and experience with your religious experience. Was it because your "religion" fell short of meeting your expectations? Does the Bible not answer your questions and meet your needs? Did you need to replace it with something else?