Expectations.

This one is entirely personal.  If you’ve been around me in the past month or two.  I’ve been on a soap box.  That is, I’ve had the chance to share with a steady voice about my journey through the study of singleness and the church.  You’ve probably also heard me say, that is, if you’ve been around me—that I finally feel like I’m settling into what it is to be a single person.  Hold on—let me say it again more clearly—I’m comfortable and I’m happy as a single person. 

It may seem like “I’m just saying that” but no—I really am very… content.  I had some of my favorite people in the world around this past weekend.  These two women are like sisters to me.  They are both married (one for two and a half years, one for five months). We had a lovely time drinking wine, watching girly movies, and going out for dinner.  I loved having them here.

There were two conversations that seemed to pertain in particular to my study.  In a way I was anticipating them—because we have had them before—but I listened with different ears this time around.  The first: “There are certain things I would have no idea how to deal with if my husband wasn’t around.  Jennie you are so independent—and that is truly amazing.”  And the second (over the course of a couple conversations): “A co-worker told me that she doesn’t get why you’re single—you’re so confident with who you are”—and similarly—“once you’re settled—maybe you can think about meeting someone on-line.”

The first statement, I think, was intended as a compliment and I took it as one.  I do a lot of thinking through things on my own.  And not only do I think through things on my own—I act on things on my own.  The thought though, that I’m completely independent, is false.  I lean into my community.  And so if heavy things need to be lifted I find someone.  If my computer is broken I call my brother.  If I have a car problem I’d call dad or find the nearest shop.  I’m independent—but I don’t think I’m more independent than anyone else who has a group of trusted loved ones near by.  And I’m also dependant in many, many ways. 

Do I think life would be more convenient if I had an immediate partner?  Yes.  Probably it would be nice to have someone to go to at every turn.  Someone to help with personal finances or do the dishes at the end of the day or a sounding board for big decisions, etc… but I have those things already. People in my community fill in the functions of a spouse in terms of partnership.  And I have companionship.  What I don’t have is a partner to be intimate with—and all of the things that come with that. But on that note—I don’t know what I’m missing—really.  (A side note:  I find it interesting that people in general assume that single hetero-sexual women don’t have a sex life.  Most adult human beings have sex lives.  Mine of course has boundaries around it—as it should—because of the trajectory of my vocation.)

So back to the second assertion from my friends.  Precisely, this business about finding someone on line (or really, any one at all one day).  Again, I so appreciate their intentions. But seriously, if marriage is a vocation—is it everyone’s path in life?  So maybe I’ll be single.  What is with the expectation that I should desire to change my state?  I remember telling my dad years and years ago that I’d be okay if I was single.  I have two aunts that are single.  They are just fine.  I know some single pastors.  I have single friends, men and women, young and old—and nothing is “wrong” with them.  They simply are—either by choice or because of things beyond their control.  Does society really expect that a single twenty something professional woman ought to want to get married and have kids? 

In truthfulness I think about what being married would be like.  I romanticize it sometimes—and then at other times, I look to my married friends to realize that it is so much more than just a romantic friendship that makes life easier.  I have no doubt that life could perhaps be even more complicated by marriage.  I also have no doubt that there can be a lot of happiness in married life.  (I can look at my parents and tell you that.)  I also believe that single people can be happy. 

Again, I think about the children that aren’t there—or may never be—I think about having children of my own sometimes—but I also don’t lament not having them yet.  I have heard from married friends without children that they also have expectations thrust upon them to be parents—because naturally, after you get married—children are “the next thing.” 

How do we help to encourage one another without putting our own hopes and expectations for a person on to them.  I may be single.  I might get married.  But either way, I hope I’m living into the work of the day.  I hope that I’m as comfortable with myself then as I feel now.  I would hope that I would be happy and surrounded by a community that could support me or keep me from being lonely, whether married or single.  

Commandment.

In 1519, Luther wrote “A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage” in which he says there are three kinds of loves: false love, natural love, and married love.[1]  False love is idolatry; natural love is that between parents and children, friends and relatives.  And then Luther goes on to say this of married love:

     “Over and above all these is married love, that is, a bride’s love which glows like a fire and desires nothing but the husband” and “All other kinds of love seek something other than the loved one: this kind wants only to have the beloveds’s own self completely.”[2] 

Luther clarifies that married love, too— can be corrupted and he follows up that statement by suggesting that it takes “special grace from God” to remain a celibate.   The remainder of his sermon points to the three theological functions of marriage. 

1) Marriage is sacrament: “It is an outward and spiritual sign of the greatest, holiest, worthiest, and noblest thing that has ever existed or will exist: the union of the divine and human natures in Christ.”[3]

2) Marriage is a “covenant of fidelity” that two people promise to one another.

3) The third is what Luther calls the “chief function of marriage”: “producing offspring” (who should be brought up well). 

So of course I then wondered how long marriage existed as a sacrament for Luther and the Lutheran church.  If Luther views marriage a sacrament of course, married love would have an elevated status, as the presence of Christ is made known through sacrament.  If we go back to what the marriage rite in the ELW suggests, we would see a completely different picture— marriage is solely an institute of the state that reminds us of Christ’s bond to the church and one that does not elevate marriage to sacrament, but rather sees it as a vocation among many vocations. 

My pondering led me to consider what the Book of Concord had to say on the matter, and I was totally overwhelmed by the fact that there are several entries listed under the heading of marriage.  I took a chance and placed my finger blindly on the page (as one does when they’re overwhelmed) and wound up in a rather unexpected place: the explanation of the sixth commandment in Luther’s Large Catechism. 

We all know the sixth commandment (You shall not commit adultery).  We are to honor our marriage partners by being faithful to them.  Luther then elaborates on this basic statement to say something about the institution of marriage and its elevated status as a walk of life.  He argues that there would not be two commandments that deal with the estate of marriage if it was not, in fact, a better way of life.  Commandment four (Honor your mother and father) and this commandment assume the state of marriage.  Simply because this commandment exists, Luther suggests that we “should carefully note, first, how highly God honors and praises this walk of life, endorsing and protecting it by [God’s] commandment.”[4] Paragraph after paragraph Luther speaks to this elevated state of marriage.  He even confronts priests, monks, and nuns—advising them to let go of their false vows before the succumb to “unchaste thoughts and evil desires.”[5] 

In a way a feel like I’m pulling on a string and unraveling a sweater.  One thing is leading me to another.  And yet, at the same time, I’m trying to be aware of my own reaction to Luther.  I think I might be (dare I say it?) a bit mad at him.  While he comes back to Matthew 19 (See conversation in my previous entries) allowing for the fact that not all can adhere to the commandments based on their state, I still get the feeling that if you’re single by “default” that you in some way are just waiting to commit a sin.  Jesus speaks to those “Who are eunuchs for the kingdom of God”—committing their celibacy to the Lord—and while we virgins “may have more time for reading the Bible” (ummm… yes… that is what he said) I can’t help but wonder if this is the place where marriage in the church really became elevated.  And I struggle with that.  I struggle mostly because of this notion of vocational dignity.  If marriage is a vocation that I am or am not called to—why would it be that one state is better over the other?

Luther’s views are rooted in scripture—I get that—but so much more was going on historically regarding marriage at that time.  Still Stephanie Coontz in Marriage A History still credits Luther for a major shift in how the world thought about marriage.  (A side note, here book and work on the subject matter is fascinating.  Here’s a summary on You-tube that breaks it down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwtb7jz8G4k)  

This is our heritage.  This is my heritage.  But then why is it getting me so riled up?

I’m hoping before the end of this week to read the following (all by Luther):

The Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows, 1521.

The Persons Related by consanguinity and Affinity who are Forbidden to Marry According to the Scriptures, Leviticus 18, 1522.

The Estate of Marriage, 1522.

An Answer to Several Questions on Monastic Vows, 1526.

On Marriage Matters, 1530.  

---

[1] Luther, Martin. A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage in Luther’s Works, 1519: The Christian in Society I. Vol. 44. Ed. James Atkinson. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). p. 9

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., p. 10

[4] Luther, Martin.  The Large Catechism in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Ed. Kolb and Wengert.  (Minnapolis: Fortress Press, 2000).  (414.206). 

[5] Ibid., (414.216). 

Ism.

It has all been quite surprising.  When people who are single (or who have had long periods of singleness in their lives) hear about the work I’m doing—there’s a subtle little cheer to keep at it and to share what I find.  I just got an e-mail today from a friend and colleague.  This is what she writes:

     The last two days I have been thinking about your project a lot. How is it coming? I find myself being exceptionally lonely here. Especially when everyone is married or engaged...they talk about their families constantly but have no respect to listen if I need to speak about mine...since it isn't the same...right? (sigh) I have been reflecting on the challenges of being a single person in ministry and how much more people expect from you. Not that I don't want to give my whole self. Just that I feel used and I believe others feel used also. 

I suppose it could be argued that single people make up this stuff in their heads—but when I hear from friends like this one, who have the same response to this intangible, not named indifference—I question if there isn’t something more to the story of singleness and singlism.

Bella DePaulo is a writer and a professor who has dedicated her professional life to getting to the bottom of the singlism that often goes unnamed. (Here is a link to her blog: http://belladepaulo.com/blog/) In her book, Singlism: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Stop It,[1] DePaulo gathers many voices to take a look at the statistics, the stereotypes, and the stigmatization that follow single people.  She defines singlism in several places but when it comes down to it, this is the definition that resonated with me most:

     One of the most important implications for the Ideology of Marriage and Family is that adults who are single in contemporary American society are a stigmatized group.  As such, they are targets of negative stereotyping, interpersonal rejection, economic disadvantage, and discrimination(Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998).  We refer to this antisingles sentiment as singlism. 

While she recognizes that singlism is unlike many other isms (most of them having potential significant and/or even life threatening consequences), she admits that singlism is different.  Yet, DePaulo still commits it to its “ism” form.  It’s an “ism,” she suggests, because of the legal ramifications.  It is an “ism” because there is injustice attached to the status of singleness.  She has demonstrated this through looking at legalities that discriminate against single persons in this country. Some of these legal consequences include unjust compensation—in some cases, single people even subsidizing insurance costs for married people who are given discounted rates for their spouses and children.  The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows that a spouse may miss work to take care of their significant other or children—this is not always the case for single persons.  The social security system allows that married persons can name their spouses as beneficiaries of their part of the pot should they die—single persons are not given the right to name a beneficiary.  And the list continues…

So… singlism is an ism.  On a personal, day-to-day level I don’t experience many of these injustices.  What I have come to experience is a more subtle, even elusive type of injustice.  On an interpersonal level I empathize with my friend who sent me that e-mail today. 

You can’t relate because you’re not married.  You’re perceived as not whole or broken.  You’re fighting the expectation that your life’s trajectory must include finding a spouse (or for that matter, being found).  You’re not quite sure if people are offended by your study—or perceive it to be a light and fluffy study.  You wonder if you maintain your singleness—if your time will be taken advantage of. 

It has been interesting to ponder the actual injustices.  I’m hoping to get more reading done on the subject throughout the month. 

A question for you if you are single:  How do you bring a name to the intangible, unnamable experience you have in your vocation?  Where are the places that you are impacted in a negative way because of your vocation as a single person?  And, how do you help speaking the issue present?

A question for you if you are coupled:  What sort of language do you use about singleness and family?  Where do your experiences of your own singleness impact the single persons in your life?  How can you help single persons to name some of the unjust expectations and stereotypes?

---

[1] DePaulo, Bella. Singlism: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Stop It. Doubleday Books, 2011.  You can find the book here on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Singlism-What-Why-Matters-Stop/dp/0615486789/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326314001&sr=8-1

Unity.

The sixth day:  The partnership between man and woman:

     So God created humankind in [God’s] image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Genesis 1:27-28

God creates them “in our image” and blesses them (a ritual?), and then God commands them to reproduce, to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over all other living things…  God commands man and woman to work in a team in order to bring forth a population and create order and care for everything else that lives.  Man and woman are co-created by God’s word like everything else.  They are blessed and then commanded and then given purpose. 

There’s a little bit more motive for God in the second story.  Man is created toward the beginning.  (See chapter 2, verse 5—you have to have someone around who can work the land!) In Genesis 2, God forms a man “from the dust of the ground” and breathed into him the breath of life (v. 7).  Eleven verses later, after being plopped in the garden, God says, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”  First come the animals, then the man names the cattle and the birds and everything else, but the animals just didn’t do.  So the man goes to sleep and God the surgeon takes a rib and makes a woman and brings her to him (v.22).  The man makes a vow,

     This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman, for out of Man this one was taken.  Therefore a man leaves his father and a mother clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.  And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

In Matthew 19, when asked about divorce, Jesus points back to “the beginning” (v. 4), even quoting the text from Genesis 2 as God’s intention for marriages.  And yet, even Jesus recognizes that this didn’t happen to work out that way it was created—therefore, Jesus points us Moses (Deut. 24) wherein a provision is made for divorce. 

I wonder how the creation accounts impact our understanding regarding the relationship between men and women yet today?  Especially since the two stories are significantly different—the first pointing to an “equal” creation and the second, wherein the woman was not created from the dust, but rather from the man himself. 

My good friend and colleague Matt pointed me to a book:  It’s over 500 pages so it’s safe to say that I won’t finish reading it in the near future.  Pope John Paul II writes The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan.[1]  (First of all, how cool is it that a celibate man explores this theme?!)  John Paul II opens his exploration with a similar analysis on the Biblical accounts of creation.  Looking at both the metaphysical, “objective” first account (you know, the created in the image of God stuff) and considering the more anthropological “subjective” second account (created from the dust), John Paul II suggests that both equally play into this theology of the body.  After all, Jesus in Matthew 19 leans into both accounts of the “beginning.” The account Christ quotes from, however, is the second one: “It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:24). 

Referring to the second account, John Paul II writes, “the man falls ‘asleep’ in order to wake up both ‘male’ and ‘female’.”[2] Having come from “the same humanity” John Paul II explains that this is the “original unity.”

So were we created for unity with another person? Do you think Genesis 2 still aids in forming our cultural understanding of the purpose and function of marriage? Ultimately, partnership.  “Oneness” with another person. In my last blog post, I posed the question about the “ideal” of marriage, wondering if it is something that is internally desired by human beings. 

So again, I ask, how do we come to understand God’s intention for partnership between created man and woman?  If we were theologically (and physically) created for unity (man/woman unity, that is)—what about homosexuality?  What about the person who never marries?  What about the person who marries and then divorces or marries and then loses a spouse to death? Jesus even attempts to answer, “What about the eunuchs?” at the end of the pericope from Matthew 19:

     His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." Matthew 19:10-12

About unity with other human beings: “Not everyone can accept this teaching.”  In other words, through a variety of passive and active situations, not everyone experiences this kind of unity.  There are people who by choice or circumstance remain outside of a union with another human being.  Therefore, Jesus says, "Let anyone accept this who can."  

If you dig into the Greek a bit you get a little bit of a different look though.  Jesus says, o` duna,menoj cwrein corei,tw. A more rough translation might be, “The one being able to contain (literally, “to be spacing”), let him contain.” Perhaps then, Jesus sees marriage as an… ability.  Is that right?  An ability that is given. (dunamij in its form here is middle passive.) Hmm. On the one hand: created “in the beginning” for unity.  On the other hand: not everyone is granted the ability. 

So again, I ask, how do we come to understand God’s intention for partnership—one human to another? I think I may be even more confused now.  Looking forward to digging into The Theology of the Body over the course of the rest of this month. 

I’m so new to thinking about these things and I'm curious about what you think.  Drop a line below if you have a chance. 

---

[1] John Paul II.  The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan. Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1997. 

[2] Ibid., 45. 

Surviving.

Surviving church as a single. | Stuff Christians Like – Jon Acuff

Take a look at Jon Acuff's blog. (Jon refers to himself as "a preacher's kid/author/speaker who works for Dave Ramsey.)  His blog, entitled "Stuff Christian's Like" is a somewhat realistic (mostly satirical) look at, well... the "stuff" Christians like. In other words, the "stuff" that has come to be embedded in the culture of Christianity. In the article above, Jon expounds on his 550th point: "Surviving Church as a Single." He even gives the single reader a score card, ascribing points to circumstances. For instance, consider point number three:

3. Your church has a singles ministry, but it's a triad that combines college, single adults, and divorce recovery = +3 points.

Of course #680, "Being single during Christmas at Church" has a score card, too. (I personally scored higher on #550!)  To see Jon's entire archive of "Stuff Christian's Like," go here:http://www.jonacuff.com/stuffchristianslike/archives/

Jon does a great job of pointing out the stereotypes and challenges that singles face. I found myself nodding and laughing, but then found my how-do-we-address-this-urge kicking in. We can joke about the experience of being single in church, because perhaps there is no way to address what's at the heart of the real concern.  It seems to me that perhaps the people who are stereotyping are probably doing so out of authentic care and concern for the single person.  And yet, all of this comes because there is an underlying expectation that singleness is not the ideal and can some how be remedied.  It's like having a medical condition that people attempt to empathize with or suggest treatment.  

Take a look at the title for #550.  It's not, "Navigating church as a single," or "Understanding church from a single perspective,"  rather, "Surviving church as a single."  The whole thing is satire, of course, but survival?  As though you aren't being hunted down if you are a married person.  As though existence in the church as a single person is a constant state of trying to find your place so that you can stay alive.  And notice the end of the title, "...as a single."  Not "single person."  A "single."  So not only are you surviving, but as you fight for your life, you're title is now not even attached to your person.  (Think about it - would there ever be a counter-situation, "Surviving church as a married..."- you have to put the word, "person" after the word, "married."  Not so with the word single!!  Hmm!?)  

While he jokes, there is a sense of empathy present in Jon's list. So again, the urge kicks in: When we know these things happen, and when we know they happen to the detriment of single persons, how can our language and behavior change to help people acknowledge the vocational dignity of singleness? 

And maybe that's just it.  The rite for marriage in Evangelical Lutheran Worship[2] it is clear that marriage is a vocation rooted in our baptismal identity.  It just so happens to be the case that many within the church are called to the vocation of marriage.  The liturgical rite for marriage within the tradition that I am a part of, centers the couple in their own baptisms, as they take on the new vocation of being a married person.  

So if we're looking at marriage as the "standard, or "ideal," or the "cure" or the "expectation,"  then of course we're missing the point.  Our baptisms, experienced within a community, verify our “dignity” and our “vocations in Christ,”[1] whether that vocation is single (by choice or circumstance) or married. The job of the marriage rite is to speak the truth of the occasion, and ask God to enter in on behalf of the individual or individuals immediately experiencing the life passage, as well as the communities that encompass the individual.

To that end, I like Jon Acuff's look.  At least he is naming the experience.  How do we, as a faith community move from that naming of stereotypes and challenges, to an equally meaningful place where we can speak the truth of singleness and ask God to enter that vocation in the midst of the community that surrounds a single person?  (Could you imagine a single person registering for gifts at target in order to celebrate that kind of blessing?!)  

I may sound cynical, but the truth of the matter is, in my own experience of the church, while I have felt the need for "survival," I have also experienced support of my various vocations, the blessing of God is likewise for me, and the support of the community these last few years has been so present it's tangible.  

 

---

[1] LWF, The Chicago Statement, http://www.worship.ca/docs/lwf_cs.html

[2] Augsburg Fortress. Evangelical Lutheran Worship. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2007.

Beginning.

It seems fitting to start a new blog on the first day of a new year. First things, a little about me. I'm in my final year of seminary, studying to be a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I am single.

I must admit that a conversation on singleness in the church might seem a little self indulgent. But I come to this conversation as a voice for many with whom I've held conversations on the topic. I think of two older women who were mentors for me on internship-both women were divorced and still single. I think about the voices of single men and women who are on the seminary journey with me. I think of single men and women in society, some of who are Christian and some who are not. I think of married colleagues who have helped me to process my own singleness and who have shared their journeys. All of these voices have met my own with both ambiguity and agreement around what it is to be single in the church.

I have not taken the time to study how the church has come to be so family focused. But I know there a consequences to the language we use when we talk about family in the church. Now to be clear, it is good that the church is a place where families can be nurtured. But when our strong emphasis on family encounters the many who come to the congregation by themselves, how then do we help single persons engage in community where life-giving, life-sustaining relationships can form?

In the course of this study I hope:

• ...to play with working definitions of the terms “married” and “single” in both the church and society, and consider the implications those definitions have for theological articulation and ministry. 
• ... to consider the scriptural, confessional, and social commitments of the Church as they dialogue with the issue of marital status. 
• ... to read and report traditional and contemporary voices who dialogue with the issue of marital status. 
• ... to gather and reflect on the personal stories of persons who are single, including my own story.