Celebrating Singleness with a Biblical Perspective

police auctions...

Hello! This is kind of off topic but I need some advice from an established blog. Is it very difficult to set up your own blog? I'm not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty fast. I'm thinking about setting up my own but I'm not sure whe...

I'm sorry if that offends you, but I stand by my comments.

One, I myself am African-American, so the charge of racism is ludicrous. Two, I'm not the only one making those kind of remarks; some years ago the Washington Post published an essay, "I Still Love God, But I've Lost Faith in the Black Church," that was written by one of its former reporters who is a licensed minister but who now sleeps in on Sunday mornings -- and his complaint was about indifference, not hostility, to the needs of black men. Three, one of the black Methodist denominations convened in my city some years ago, and a story noted that its membership was 84 percent female! Four, a woman (I believe she was black) came to my interracial church and noted the large number of men who were involved -- and wept for joy.

Thanks for this post... I'm quite gratified to see some serious questioning of the patriarchy around here. The patriarchal structure of most organized churches (and concomitant reinscription/reinforcement of the larger society's patriarchy) is, in my opinion, the elephant in the room that's preventing churches from engaging in real, serious social and political change... and the privileging of marriage over singleness (for men and women, but particularly for women) and the repressed views of sexuality exhibited in most churches is a major part of that.

I'd go a bit further than you, though, in suggesting that the church not only needs to reconfigure its attitudes about singleness, but about gender as a whole. Put quite simply, we need to push back against the John Eldridge school of gender essentialism and start opening people's eyes up to the ways in which gender is socially constructed in the society as a whole and especially in the church. Our attitudes toward singleness, marriage, sexuality, and gender identity are all part of that equation.

As a single man who does at some point want to get married, but doesn't see not being married as a sign of anything "wrong" with me - and as someone who's lived in the church and gone to seminary with single men and women (and especially women) who struggled with the church's rather antiquated views on gender, sexuality, and relationships - I'm wholeheartedly on board with you in reconfiguring our attitudes about singleness.

With all due respect, gender does represent who we are -- men and women are indeed quite different and those differences need to be addressed and accepted, not simply submerged, especially in relationships. I know from experience that even hard-core feminists love flowers!

As I see it, the feminist movement sees everything as a function of power, which for the Christian is a huge mistake. Paul, properly understood, is calling men to treat women as far more than a piece of meat or a tool, which was part and parcel of the culture of that day precisely>I> because men had all the power. If men see their purpose for the power that they have been given as using it for the good of everyone -- as Eldredge has actually written -- there would be no feminist movement.

government auctions...

I'm really enjoying the design and layout of your site. It's a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Outstanding work!...

First of all, let me commend you of being aware of some of these issues at your young age. I completely agree with you about the pressure of Christian communities to get married right out of college. However, you really are far too young to be able to understand the implications singleness. As someone once told me, "after 30 you can call yourself single. Before thirty you are just not yet married." There are so many problems with Christian dating/marriage/singleness etc. these days that I hardly know where to begin.
Let me first say that I find it horribly ironic that you quote Paul as a proponent of singleness in the same breath that you consider the drawbacks of our patriarchal society. Most of the underlying misogyny and patriarchy in the Church and in society as a whole comes directly from Paul's teachings.
Secondly, let's be frank, being single is not a calling for most people. I fully agree that we should use our singleness to best bring about the Kingdom (just as married folk should). However, this is more about an attitude of "making the best you can out of life" than viewing your status as married/non-married as a "calling". As a 29 year old (again, not single...not yet married), I am not yet giving up on finding love, but the idea of being single far past the time I would have desired it for myself is becoming more and more of a reality. Why should I fake it and pretend that this is my calling? It's not. It's just my marital status for now. My calling is my calling. My vocational call, my calling to be a Godly person, my calling to be a loving person/friend/daughter/sister/girlfriend/wife/etc. Not my singleness.
So what is the problem with being single? Well, from my perpective I see two main ones. Number 1: Sex. Now, I grew up in a Christian tradition where pre-marital sex was a HUGE no-no. I know that this is not true for all Christian traditions, and frankly i have moved away from this kind of thinking. I accepted this standard (when I was younger) and have maintained my virginity. However, the older I get, the less realistic it is that I am actually going to wait until marriage for sex. Less than 2% of women over the age of 27 are virigins. At this point, I am comfortable waiting for love.
Problem #2: Christian guys. I am not attracted to Christian men. As a progressive Christian, I find that most men that I encounter who call themselves Christians are ridiculously conservative. Again, I was indoctrinated to believe that I should not be "unequally yoked", but the reality is there are virtually no Christian men who are on my page (and if they are, they are already married at this point).
Anyway, just a few observations. I do appreciate your article and your thoughtfulness. I guess I'm okay accepting singleness, but I'm not quite ready to celebrate it yet.

I like a lot of what you said, especially about the difficulty of finding non-conservative committed Christian mates. But I take issue with your description of Paul. I agree that much of what he has said has been used by the Church to oppress women, but that is because of radical misinterpretation of his words, to say the opposite of their clear meaning (in the Greek).

Quite good as always, thanks for the post!

As a single man in his late 40s, I take issue with much of this post. We men also face pressure to marry, if for no other reason that there are fewer men in the church in general and fellowship among us can be hard to find; ironically, those of us who aren't considered "pastoral material" tend to get overlooked anyway. For that reason (at least in my circles), it's perfectly OK for a woman to remain single because she's waiting for the "right man" -- which often means that, in practice, he has to meet such impossible standards that you really wonder if those women are really running away from commitment. I believe that women don't have a handle on the demands that men face.

In addition, Paul's take on singleness has to be placed in context. He and many in the early church believed that Jesus was returning perhaps in the next few years; therefore, everything needed to be placed on hold to prepare for His return. Furthermore, many scholars hold that he actually was a widower because he apparently had first-hand experience with marriage.

whoops... didn't mean for that to be a reply to BlueDeacon.

While it is true that being single can be liberating in its own way, I must take issue with the blame being placed on "Patriarchy" as the cause of why singleness is viewed as less than desirable. Often, if not most of the time, the people piling on the pressure for someone to get married are women. There is a time and place for everything, and yes some are called to singleness. But probably not most, and certainly not all :-). On a practical note, there are the issues of desiring lifelong companionship, and of children, both of which typically are unavailable for singles. I don't see how those desires spring from Patriarchy, as opposed to being in some sense part of God's creation.

I think you and I are on the same page in many ways (no, this is not an attempted pick-up) when it comes to singleness, and I understand your repulsion toward Christian men, many of which often have been brainwashed. But many of those men, when it comes to such situations, simply haven't learned how to serve others; those that do will be attractive to the right kind of woman.

However, I disagree with:

Most of the underlying misogyny and patriarchy in the Church and in society as a whole comes directly from Paul's teachings.

As I said before, what Paul said must be placed in the context of women quite literally being owned by men -- legally and in fact literally -- in Roman society. Paul's teachings thus represents an improvement.

I agree with you Jessi, and appreciate you're bringing out the patriarchy inherent in expectations of women and marriage. But that's not nearly the whole story. As a single man in his thirties, I have suffered from the expectations that I should be married, or at least dating a lot of women- and I speak of the expectations from Christians, and even the occasional pastor I have known. I have found that not being married means your ideas are taken less seriously. And if you're a guy, and not married, and not talking about your conquests- *in American Christianity* - then there is the question of if you might actually be gay instead. And then, with the assumption that you are gay comes all the accompanying homophobia in conservative Evangelicalism. It's sad to me that Christians buy into the sexual mores of the surrounding culture (homosexual sex is worse than premarital sex), but they do, and those who are single males who aren't Players suffer for it.

Are men and women different in our contemporary society? Sure. But the extent to which that's a result of "nature" as opposed to the way we've constructed gender in our culture is certainly up for question - and I'm inclined to think that the latter has a great deal more effect than the former. Mary Wollstonecraft wrote about how the patriarchy presents its own domination and oppression of women as "natural" and uses the machinery of social production to reinforce this view; as someone who agrees with her, I'm inclined to view with intense skepticism any claim that there's something "natural" about the differences we see between men and women in our culture.

In regards to your second point: I don't think that a feminist (I'd say more Foucauldian, but that's just my perspective) view of power relations as a key if not sole force in the creation of our social languages and our social norms is necessarily incompatible with Christianity; on the contrary, in fact, I think we as Christians need to be more aware of the role of power dynamics in the way we interact with one another and in the way we construct our religious language and our churches. The beauty of Foucault's understanding of power is that he sees the ubiquity of power; unlike others, who see power only as a destructive force, Foucault is able to see that power constructs as well. It's a critique of freedom as well as one of domination.

Finally, I would suggest, contra Eldridge and his sexism, that the job for men isn't to use the power they have for the good of everyone - in a paternalistic or protective manner - because that only reinforces the system in play and continues to give men, both good ones and evil ones, the ability to inscribe women's identities as they see fit, which, in my opinion, will necessarily perpetuate the oppression of women. Rather, the job for men is to cede power, to look for opportunities to empower women, to seek to equalize power relations and deny the dehumanizing and agency-sapping forces of sexism, patriarchy, and oppression in our culture and particularly in the church. That's one of the reasons I think we need to re-examine our notions of gender, sexuality, and relationships as a whole, rather than simply "fix" singleness - because the entire system of putting people into two categories, "single" or "married," is one which (a) doesn't accurately describe the life-situations of many people in the church, particularly those of the younger generations, and (b) serves to marginalize or oppress those who don't see one of those two categories as the path for their lives.

In my view, you continue to make the same mistake in insisting that it's primarily an issue of "power." In fact, the "patriarchal" system you refer to has at its genesis men's fear of women because of their power -- a subject that Eldredge (of whom I'm sort of a fan) refers to extensively for the reasons you cite. This erroneous notion is also the reason why the Promise Keepers originally were denounced by some of the same groups (when in fact it was about men taking responsibility for not just their lives but also those of their wives, children and community).

And I understand from experience why this is an issue, because I've been involved in both egalitarian and "male-dominated" evangelical fellowships. In the former, because I wasn't "hot stuff" or close friends with leadership, I was virtually ignored and my spiritual gifts weren't utilized; indeed, in those situations in fact the women dominated, often at the expense of men. On the other hand, when I was in a fellowship where men were in leadership I flourished more. (By contrast, the women did well regardless.) And this highlights one of the differences between men and women: In my observation, as a general rule men need something specific to do in a church, where women tend to "hang out." This is especially an issue in the black church, which (especially of late) has become a "girls' club" where men in essence are unwelcome.

Thing is, even most of them end up getting married themselves -- that applies only to those who want to serve in the church in an official category.

Police Car Auctions...

Hello, I think your blog might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog in Opera, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, fantast...

It may very well be that some men, even Christian men, view women as
"inferior"; however, even a cursory read of the Scriptures should dispel that
notion. The problem is that too many believers have adopted the world's way
of thinking -- that is, that if you don't achieve such-and-such you don't have
much worth, and I think that's the true argument. The deeper issue is not so
much gender roles but individualism, especially in Western culture and
particularly in the United States; we tend not to depend on each other and not
treat each other with respect and deference, which the Scriptures exhort
Christians to do.

Anyway, when it comes to marriage vis-a-vis singleness, another issue is
fellowship. The reality is that the majority of evangelicals are married and
have children, which limits the quality of relationships that singles,
especially men, can have, and that's the real reason many evangelical women,
in the majority, feel pressure to marry (and end up making some bad choices in
the process). But "patriarchy" is not to blame for that.

Are men and women different in our contemporary society? Sure. But the extent to which that's a result of "nature" as opposed to the way we've constructed gender in our culture is certainly up for question - and I'm inclined to think that the latter has a great deal more effect than the former. Mary Wollstonecraft wrote about how the patriarchy presents its own domination and oppression of women as "natural" and uses the machinery of social production to reinforce this view; as someone who agrees with her, I'm inclined to view with intense skepticism any claim that there's something "natural" about the differences we see between men and women in our culture.

In regards to your second point: I don't think that a feminist (I'd say more Foucauldian, but that's just my perspective) view of power relations as a key if not sole force in the creation of our social languages and our social norms is necessarily incompatible with Christianity; on the contrary, in fact, I think we as Christians need to be more aware of the role of power dynamics in the way we interact with one another and in the way we construct our religious language and our churches. The beauty of Foucault's understanding of power is that he sees the ubiquity of power; unlike others, who see power only as a destructive force, Foucault is able to see that power constructs as well. It's a critique of freedom as well as one of domination.

Finally, I would suggest, contra Eldridge and his sexism, that the job for men isn't to use the power they have for the good of everyone - in a paternalistic or protective manner - because that only reinforces the system in play and continues to give men, both good ones and evil ones, the ability to inscribe women's identities as they see fit, which, in my opinion, will necessarily perpetuate the oppression of women. Rather, the job for men is to cede power, to look for opportunities to empower women, to seek to equalize power relations and deny the dehumanizing and agency-sapping forces of sexism, patriarchy, and oppression in our culture and particularly in the church. That's one of the reasons I think we need to re-examine our notions of gender, sexuality, and relationships as a whole, rather than simply "fix" singleness - because the entire system of putting people into two categories, "single" or "married," is one which (a) doesn't accurately describe the life-situations of many people in the church, particularly those of the younger generations, and (b) serves to marginalize or oppress those who don't see one of those two categories as the path for their lives.

In my view, you continue to make the same mistake in insisting that it's primarily an issue of "power." In fact, the "patriarchal" system you refer to has at its genesis men's fear of women because of their power -- a subject that Eldredge (of whom I'm sort of a fan) refers to extensively for the reasons you cite. This erroneous notion is also the reason why the Promise Keepers originally were denounced by some of the same groups (when in fact it was about men taking responsibility for not just their lives but also those of their wives, children and community).

And I understand from experience why this is an issue, because I've been involved in both egalitarian and "male-dominated" evangelical fellowships. In the former, because I wasn't "hot stuff" or close friends with leadership, I was virtually ignored and my spiritual gifts weren't utilized; indeed, in those situations in fact the women dominated, often at the expense of men. On the other hand, when I was in a fellowship where men were in leadership I flourished more. (By contrast, the women did well regardless.) And this highlights one of the differences between men and women: In my observation, as a general rule men need something specific to do in a church, where women tend to "hang out." This is especially an issue in the black church, which (especially of late) has become a "girls' club" where men in essence are unwelcome.

Thing is, even most of them end up getting married themselves -- that applies only to those who want to serve in the church in an official category.

I'm sorry if that offends you, but I stand by my comments.

One, I myself am African-American, so the charge of racism is ludicrous. Two, I'm not the only one making those kind of remarks; some years ago the Washington Post published an essay, "I Still Love God, But I've Lost Faith in the Black Church," that was written by one of its former reporters who is a licensed minister but who now sleeps in on Sunday mornings -- and his complaint was about indifference, not hostility, to the needs of black men. Three, one of the black Methodist denominations convened in my city some years ago, and a story noted that its membership was 84 percent female! Four, a woman (I believe she was black) came to my interracial church and noted the large number of men who were involved -- and wept for joy.

"In my observation,as a general rule men need something specific to do in a church, where women tend to "hang out." This is especially an issue in the black church, which (especially of late) has become a "girls' club" where men in essence are unwelcome."

Speaking as a single African-American woman, we aren't exactly "hanging out" at a so-called "girls' club". WE ARE THE CHURCH. Please don't assume that the lack of adult male activity in some black churches is largely due to a male-hostile environment. There are a multitude of other factors that contribute to the gender disparity in certain congregations. Your statement is incorrect, sexist, and racist.

Quinn Car Insurance...

Sweet blog! I found it while surfing around on Yahoo News. Do you have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I've been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Appreciate it...