Diana Ross Lionel Richie

Rock and Religion: The Pursuit of Everlasting Love

Is it possible that humankind’s deepest yearnings for connection, unity, shared meaning, and love are the shared sacred quest of both religion and the best rock?

For two decades, we have interviewed religious wives and husbands in long-term happy marriages and we asked them how they kept their love alive. We heard relational and religious answers that reflected a variety of wisdom.

Like most Americans of our generations (X and the Boomers), we also grew up hearing the voices of classic rock and roll. Rock also has its own kind of wisdom about keeping love alive—though often profane and crass—and it too enshrines a kind of sacred quest for Everlasting Love. On Valentine’s Day these two visions of love collide, converge, and clash in unique and surprising ways.

Yes, far too much of rock and roll promotes superficial sex and a host of other ideas that militate against enduring love and committed relationships; yes, there has been a decades-long holy war between religious believers and rock music—with rock most often portrayed as a tool of the Devil. This antagonism and tension between those who rock and roll and those who sing “Rock of Ages” has been embraced (and explicitly exploited) by many, including the Rolling Stones on their audaciously titled 1967 album Their Satanic Majesties Request and their later hit “Sympathy for the Devil” featuring Jagger’s famous line, “Pleased to meet you/Hope you guess my name.” From the early metal of Black Sabbath to today, there is much in rock that diametrically opposes religion and enduring love. 

But this is not the whole story.

In his book A Mess of Help: From the Crucified Soul of Rock N’ Roll, Episcopalian minister David Zahl, the high priest of the fun-holy alliance between rock and religion, demonstrates that many of the gods of rock and roll have sprinkled messages of grace, redemption, and transcendent love throughout the lyrics of their romantic hymns. Certainly, a trainload of Woodstock-inspired rock has glorified gratuitous “free love,” but some of rock’s most soulful artists have pined instead for a very special, spiritual, and, yes, even eternal kind of love. 

Is it possible that humankind’s deepest yearnings for connection, unity, shared meaning, and love (not the ephemeral but the eternal kind) are the shared sacred quest of both religion and the best of rock? In the Bret Michaels-penned rock ballad, “Love’s a Hard Game to Play,” Stevie Nicks (fittingly without Mick and the rest of Fleetwood Mac) painfully warns in her gravely, solo voice, “Remember, starting the fire is easy; the hardest part is learning how to keep the flame.” Indeed, the flames of love and faith are not always eternal—but most of us long for them to be.

Indeed, the flames of love and faith are not always eternal—but most of us long for them to be.

No fewer than a dozen wide-ranging artists have tackled diverse songs titled “Everlasting Love.” The pantheon ranges from Latin (Gloria Estefan), Disco (Carl Carlton, Andy Gibb), R & B (Mary J Blige, Chaka Khan), and a cover of Love Affair’s 1967 version by Irish rock deities, U2. And yes, there is a Gospel version about God’s “Everlasting Love” by CeCe Winans. In his classic alternative version, Howard Jones intones, “He wasn’t looking for a cuddle in the back seat, she wasn’t looking for a five minute thrill . . . this vacancy he meant to permanently fill. . . . Something special, something pure, this is love worth waiting for.” The hook follows, “I need an everlasting love; I need a friend and a lover Divine; an everlasting and precious love; Wait for it, wait for it, give it some time.” The oblique nod to God and the pure, reverent view of love are hardly the fare of Woodstock and unfettered sex.

Although the Beatles were only willing to push things as far as to ask, “Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m 64?” others, like Howard Jones, would idyllically set the bar higher. In 1981, the Lionel Richie and Diana Ross duet, “Endless Love,” would become the best-selling duet in R & B history and has been hailed by Billboard as “the greatest song duet of all-time. However, with apologies to Oscar Wilde, it is often difficult for life to imitate art. Both Lionel and Diana would personally experience divorce twice. 

However frequently it has been smashed, the ideal of “Endless Love” or “Everlasting Love” continues to serve as the holy grail of sacred romance, not only in rock but in various world faiths. In the Eastern Orthodox faith, “Love between wife and husband, as an icon of relationship between Christ and Church, is eternal.” Couples in temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints receive “the covenant of eternal marriage” and believe marriages can endure forever. Evangelical theologian Geoffrey Bromiley wrote, “As God made man in his own image, so he made marriage in the image of his own eternal marriage with his people” (p. 43). In Islam, “According to the statements of the Quran and hadiths, the family life that is established in the world will continue forever if both spouses deserve to go to Paradise.” Seven in ten Americans believe in heaven and nine in ten want to marry their soulmate. Whether or not it is part of religious teachings, the longing for soulmate love to last forever seems rooted in the souls of most people.

The question remains, How do we grasp the grail of eternal love? For many happily married couples we have interviewed, their shared faith is central. However, lasting faith in God and religion, like romantic love, is often difficult to sustain. Pew surveys indicate that many righteous brothers (and sisters) have “lost that loving feeling” for God or a long-term faith. Indeed, there are heartbreaks and faith crises that cause some to swear off love of God and their once-beloved faith forever. 

Whether or not it is part of religious teachings, the longing for soulmate love to last forever seems rooted in the souls of most people.

This is unfortunate because considerable recent research connects shared faith among married couples with a number of encouraging romantic benefits. Family scholars Dew and Willoughby recently summarized, “Our findings suggest that a new adjective best describes marital sex between religious couples: ‘satisfying.’” Apparently, contra-Mick Jagger, some can get satisfaction. The Rolling Stones nailed it elsewhere, however: “You can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.” 

A study by relationship scholar Dean Busby and colleagues similarly found that “the longer a couple waited to become sexually involved, the better their sexual quality, relationship communication, relationship satisfaction, and perceived relationship stability was in marriage.” 

Continuing on the note of sex, most faiths teach the spiritual value of sexual restraint, the relational value of sexual fidelity, and the social value of sexual responsibility. However, the Rolling Stones do not provide much lyrical support here.

Where can we turn for a fusion of sonic rock, soulful religion, and spiritual romance? Emanating from the boom box of Lloyd Dobbler (John Cusak) in the romantic cult-classic film Say Anything, Peter Gabriel’s yearning voice sings, “In your eyes (the light, the heat); In your eyes (I am complete); In your eyes (I see the doorways of a thousand churches); In your eyes (the resolution of all the fruitless searches); Oh, I see the light and the heat (in your eyes). Oh, I want to be that complete (in your eyes).” 

So, is the elusive but sacred quest for eternal love in rock and religion realized in the eyes of a lover or in the eyes of the Creator? The answer from many of the happily married wives and husbands we have interviewed was that “to be that complete,” we need to gaze in rapture at both. So, grab the hands of the one you love, give thanks to the One you love above, and then… Dance.    

About the authors

Loren Marks

Loren D. Marks, Ph.D. is professor of Family Life at BYU, co-director of the American Families of Faith project, and co-author of Psychology of Religion and Families. He is a Fellow at the Wheatley Institute.

David Dollahite

David C. Dollahite, Ph.D., is professor of Family Life at BYU, co-director of the American Families of Faith project, and co-author of Strengths in Diverse Families of Faith.
On Key

You Might Also Like

The Ordinary Saint’s Guide to Under the Banner of Heaven: Episode 4, “Church and State”

Summary — The episode begins with the detectives checking in on Bishop Low’s home, which they find ransacked and deserted. Pyre finds a letter written by Ron’s wife to the Prophet expressing concern about her husband’s refusal to pay taxes. The detective contacts the Church about the letter and is told the letter was handed down to one of the bishop’s counselors, LeConte Bascom, who works at the bank. Brother Bascom says he had to turn Ron down for a loan because his brother’s refusal to pay taxes made him a liability, though it’s heavily implied that the real reason is that his wife’s letter was seen as an embarrassment to the Church. In flashbacks, we see Dan marching in a Pioneer Day parade, shouting about the government’s illegal taxes, as well as smoking and kissing a woman who isn’t his wife. Dan’s father says he’s ashamed of his immoral behavior and anti-tax nonsense and advises him to study the scriptures to set himself back on the right path. This unfortunately drives Dan into researching more obscure history of the Church, including information on polygamy.  He makes a business trip down to Colorado City to visit the breakaway polygamist sect there and manages to get the name of a pro-polygamy pamphlet called “The Peace Maker.” He reads this pamphlet and brings up the idea to his wife Matilda, telling her she’s limiting his spiritual power if she doesn’t let him marry a second wife.  During this conversation, Dan is pulled over for speeding and refuses to cooperate with the officer, leading them on a police chase that ends with his arrest. At the jail, Dan’s brothers try to convince him to stop his resistance to the government. Ron feels it’s his responsibility to show Dan the error of his ways, but instead, Dan runs circles around him, leaving him speechless and admitting that he’s going to lose his business and home. Dan somehow turns this fact into evidence that his views are correct and ends up winning over Ron to his side. In the present, Detective Pyre is being leaned on by the Laffertys’ stake president to release them into his custody but refuses. The detectives have identified the car the killers were probably using and plan to hold a press conference to ask for tips when the police chief returns from vacation and demands that all mentions of fundamentalism Mormonism be scrubbed from the press briefing. (It’s implied he’s being leaned on by the Church.) Pyre tries to toe the line at the conference but eventually caves to a persistent reporter and admits that he thinks that the murders may have something to do with fundamentalist beliefs. The next day at church, the ward is shunning the Pyres, and a specific couple is assigned to keep an eye on their faith. Meanwhile, a police officer has located Bishop Low fly fishing in the mountains and safe. Church History — During Dan’s explanation of polygamy, we get flashbacks to the infamous scene where Emma finds out about the doctrine of polygamy for the first time and throws the revelation in the fire. Though church members will be familiar with this story, the tone is portrayed very differently than we are used to. Emma is shown as being absolutely skeptical of Joseph’s translation of the Book of Mormon and other prophetic acts, even though she firmly testified of the truth of these things even after her break with the Church after Joseph was murdered. Joseph is portrayed as proclaiming the doctrine of polygamy only for his own physical gratification, which is a common anti-Mormon trope with little evidence behind it. While it is true that one of Joseph’s wives was only 14, the facts behind the situation are more complex than portrayed in the show. The pamphlet “The Peace Maker” is portrayed by Dan Lafferty as an “essential LDS tract” written by Joseph Smith, and no one in the show ever corrects this perception. In fact, the tract was not written by Joseph Smith, and he repudiated it during his lifetime. This episode presents a slanted view of church history, giving only one side of the conversation and showing the modern church as trying to hush it up rather than having its own interpretation of events. Shibboleths — Pyre claims that writing a letter to the prophet is like writing to “Heavenly Father himself,” which is absolutely wrong. While members of the Church do revere the prophet and listen to his teachings, he is not God, and this equivalency is not one Saints would make (though outsiders think we do). The idea that doing business with fundamentalists is like “doing business with the mafia” is totally alien to me. They are regarded as somewhat of an oddity in Utah, but not dangerous like organized crime. One unusual phrase occurs when the stake president claims that the Laffertys need to be released into his custody for “healing prayer.” I honestly have no idea what this phrase refers to and have never heard it in an LDS context. And the formal type of shunning portrayed happening to the Pyres is not something we do. Though obviously, wards vary in their culture, there is no formal instruction not to talk to those who have questions. Rather, we are encouraged to keep being friends with those who are struggling with faith and support them however we can. Changing History — It is interesting to note that in the actual chain of events, it was Sister Low, not Bishop Low, who was on the Lafferty hit list. Sister Low was a Relief Society President who supported Dan’s wife as she sought a divorce. Why does the show change this? Perhaps the idea that the Church has female leaders doesn’t fit well with the show’s depiction of the oppression of women in the LDS church. Brenda Lafferty’s sister has also expressed her disappointment with the way the show is misconstruing her sister’s murder in pursuit of an

Truth, Justice, and the BYU Way

A retrospective on Elder Jeffrey Holland’s BYU staff talk and what the fierce response by some suggests about this distinctive school’s place in the ailing American university system.

Your Most Important Identity + Today’s Digest

Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around. Public Square Bulletin recommends: President Nelson tells young adults to focus on three fundamental truths, including ‘who you are’ Tad Walch—Deseret News President Russell M. Nelson told a worldwide audience of young adults that they have three primary identities 1) Child of God 2) Child of the Covenant 3) Disciple of Christ. You can read more of our coverage. USCIRF Calls on Iran to Remove Restrictions on Golrokh Iraee Following Release from Prison United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Iran has released religious prisoner Golrokh Iraee from prison. She had advocated for the end of stoning. She continues to have travel and speech restrictions, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has called for those restrictions to be removed. Being a Political Journalist Made Me a Better Christian Jon Ward—Christianity Today Yahoo’s Chief National Political Correspondent writes about how his career in journalism has helped him increase his faith. His journey is useful to all people of faith seeking to find a way to balance their interaction in the public square with their convictions and relationship with Christ. 5 Ways Pastors Can Care for Those Struggling with Sexual Identity Carl R. Trueman—Crossway Carl Trueman, author of the new book Strange New World, has written about ministering to those dealing with issues of sexual identity. His article is directed to pastors but is applicable to all folks looking for a way to navigate these issues in a caring and Christian context. Making Sense of the Racist Mass Shooting in Buffalo Isaac Chotiner—The New Yorker The New Yorker has a useful explainer of what influenced the senseless racist shooting in Buffalo. By Common Consent has a take on how Latter-day Saints might appropriately approach the kinds of media that influenced the shooting.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This