It's not about sex.

I really didn't think I'd be back to writing about singleness, but blogging is funny.

I went to a private school up through 8th grade. We had all the talks about no sex before marriage and STDs and teenage pregnancy. Twenty years later in life and the discussion around sex for single adults doesn't seem much more sophisticated. I've seen rejections of the idea that the Bible prohibits sex before marriage, and thankfully, have read more personal discussions of the reality of chastity. Still though, when I think of actual, applicable advice in navigating potentially sexual relationships, I'm not coming up with much advice...sad, because married and committed folk could likely benefit from a more honest discussion too.

I train in a martial art. Brazilian jiu jitsu to be exact. If you talk to anyone that's stuck with it a while, they'll mention the difficulty, the physical closeness, MMA, but universally, you'll hear about the bonds. Father to son, woman to woman, stranger to stranger, everyone mentions how training has helped them connect with a spouse, reconnect with a child or find a new or second family. None of that is accidental. BJJ, in all its closeness and difficulty, provides an environment of physical and emotional openness that fosters fast bonding. Safety+Vulnerability=Connection. It's just how humans work. It's why people in this photographer's experiment felt closer after just ten minutes of posing together. It happens even with people you don't like.

The sport is 90% male, so as a single, heterosexual female of reproductive age, all of that has created some interesting circumstances--particularly with three guys on my team. Like I mentioned before, BJJ puts you in a position where you develop a physical, non-sexual as well as an emotional intimacy with your training partners. You learn to listen to their breath and heartbeat to read their physical state and intent. I still remember the first time I sat with my ear on a teammate's bare chest, listening to his breath, trying to decipher when he might attack. I've come to accept that they squeeze, grab and touch all the parts of my body that I hide and accentuate with clothing. The bodily functions of gas, odor, sweat, bleeding, drool, menstruation, shedding hairs...they're all out there and everyone has to accept them, and the vast majority of the time, it's done in acceptance. It's all honestly one big study in breaking down cultural norms. There is no personal space. Respectfulness comes from behavior, not so much from restraining bodily processes. You watch each other get angry, frustrated, cry, lose, win, fall down, get back up, and again, and almost always do so with an attitude toward personal growth. You're left, stripped down of all sophistication and pretense, to be beaten down and humbled, again and again; and in that humility, accepted, again and again. It is almost impossible to do that...to be vulnerable and hurt and then met with safety and acceptance, and not connect with someone. Which brings us back to the three guys.

Four years into training and I haven't been involved with anyone at the gym. (It's advice I give to any woman training, regardless of her attitudes toward sex because, if you want to continue training in an already difficult and delicate environment, sex makes things tricky.) That said, sexual intimacy is just the icing on the cake. Things can go WAY awry before then...

• Hot Guy: No need to beat around the bush...this is the guy that EVERYONE notices. Not one straight woman in the gym, single, married or otherwise, hasn't commented on his physique. I remember when I first signed up and saw him walking across the parking lot...he has an intensity about him that's almost audible. He is very alpha and I noticed him noticing me. I decided immediately that this would not be an issue--not "I won't sleep with this guy" but instead, "I will not interact with him on a level that conveys interest". So no flirting, kidding, playful touching. The third class, I was working technique on the mat and heard a loud "snap". I looked up and saw him, just having whipped a towel, standing in his underwear, staring at me intensely. Considering the environment, that's not quite as out of place as it sounds, but his message was clear. Didn't matter though. Didn't matter that he was single. My lines were drawn well before he decided to flaunt his abs. Friendship happens though, and today, we talk, both at the gym and outside, but that's it. I've learned to not be so extreme as to not connect with men who I may be wary of, but I know the lines.  
• Married Guy: He's basically Hot Guy, but taller, more muscular and with a more engaging personality. Everybody loves him. I was instantly attracted to him, but kept my distance...not because of some extreme holiness, I just know that you never know the circumstances of anyone in a gym. A couple of months after he started training, he awkwardly introduced me to his wife. I'm very glad he did, because while he may be married, his door is quite open. Men who aren't directly open to cheat on their partners...you can feel that a door is closed, even if there's an attraction. I haven't known Married Guy as long, but I limit my interactions. While I'm open to having and have had long phone conversations with Hot Guy, Married Guy isn't something I can toy with on that level, precisely because there is attraction from my end too. 
• Buddy: A constant conundrum. He's not my type physically and vice versa, but he is a fellow INTJ and we clicked instantly and easily, which, for our personality type, is rare, so it results in a honeymoon of friendship. It's a relief to meet someone who thinks, feels and processes the world like you do, so you begin to share in and celebrate that relief with each other. We've spent hours on the phone discussing frustrations, food and music (he's a foodie and musician too), school, business, life and BJJ. We text literally every day. When I met him, he had a girlfriend...one I didn't like much. That aside though, I know myself and my natural penchant to playing semi-girlfriend and the personal pain that comes with that. I've managed my connection with him very carefully. When he first broke up with his girlfriend, I was reluctant to accept invitations to dinners that would have been innocuous with anyone else. They've separated again, likely permanently, but for my own sake, I didn't allow myself to be a support system. When he came to me asking advice as to whether he should stay with her, I remained neutral on the subject. I believe it's part of the reason that now, we have a viable and growing friendship. While there are still awkward moments, I very much appreciate our relationship for what it is. 

I wrote this post mostly for myself, but also because I've met many Christian women struggling with relationship statuses with the men around them. These struggles are the pre-cursors to many of the affairs, pre-marital sex, bad relationships  and out of wedlock children that the church bemoans so, but seems to be missing the mark when it comes to getting at the root of the problem. It ties in a bit to my previous post about churches not offering much emotional safety or support to single women. Without that, many women find themselves looking elsewhere for this support, and it's a difficult field to navigate. 

Churches as a safe place

I was thinking this weekend how important my gym is to me. Being single means that you definitely have to fulfill your need for safe, supportive interactions in places other than romantic relationships. For me, one of those places is my gym. One of those places is not my workplace. When there is an upset at the gym, or the guys are off because of a loss, it disturbs me. I expect safety and a measure of  support. I've come to realize I've learned not to expect that at church.

We're reading the book Boundaries in the college group, and the chapter we did last week talked of how important it is for the church to be a safe place to singles and widows/widowers. Tonight, only one girl was able to make it. She's an obvious introvert. She told me about how she was teased to the point of tears about being quiet. This just shouldn't happen. I have a lot to say on the matter, but I think it's all summed up by saying that churches don't spend enough time teaching/encouraging people to be decent and not be bullies. It shows in our behavior both inside, and outside of the church walls. 

Anti-institutionalism and the Church

I was talking to my father the other day, who mentioned that one of the main reasons young people leave the church is because of evolution being taught in schools. This idea--the thought that the great forces of the American educational system are pulling people in droves from the pews--is one that's come to ring a bit misguided on my ears. I honestly don't believe most people think that deeply about their existence for evolution vs. creation to be the make or break decision that keeps people in bed on Sunday mornings.

I was talking to a friend at the gym yesterday--one who used to attend church but no longer does--about the concept. He said he didn't go because he never left with anything useful. I really had to think about that, since so many people I know who no longer attend church...well...they're not doing a lot of deep thinking about the origins of life. Most people are working their way through every day life the best they can and a result of that in the US has left a large number of people turned against institutions, all institutions. 

It started back in the 60s and 70s. People stopped trusting business, government, the police, the church, marriage...the list goes on. I've been reading Chris Hayes' Twilight of the Elites, and well, I think he's hit on something. The the moral leaders, the sports heroes, politicians, doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers,  priests, police officers, ambassadors...they've all let us down. The bond has been broken and I doubt will be easily rebuilt, if it can be at all.

That lack of trust in the institution and the very concept of hierarchy is what I believe the church is seeing manifested in its dropping attendance numbers. These days I don't believe most people will even get close enough to the church to reject its teachings. They mistrust the structure itself--a structure I don't believe is even necessary to the faith (especially considering the structure of the early church). 

The big problem there though, is what the alternative is. I've had this discussion with my best friend before--both of us being single, childless and unmarried. Society, religious or secular, has no connection points for us. No home base. We are not married, we are not mothers and therefore we are not. The church also reflects that. I don't know if any society has been able to promote connection based on anything deeper than demographic check boxes. I believe most societies actually discourage it for the sake of their own preservation.

So yeah...no one knows how to answer our question and our question is spreading into the world of the non-singles. How do people bond if marriage, procreation, family, home and career are no longer a trustworthy? Until that question is answered and the answer applied within church walls, those outside the church, those coming up as children in the church and those considering leaving will find little reason for connection beyond commandment. 

Helpmeets, helpmates and introvert burnout

It's been a rough week as an introvert.

We've had visitors at work, which means non-stop interraction...I'm talking from breakfast to lunch to dinner eaten with 27 other people...14 hour days with no alone time on top of presenting, presentations and discussions. I came home Friday feeling traumatized. Too beaten to even sleep. I seriously felt like I'd been assaulted at some internal level. I skipped the gym, fearing additional injury to a back that had been brutalized with 10 hrs of sitting and looked forward to a weekend of isolation...then it hit me Saturday night. Church. I felt panicked. The idea of bringing myself to talk and say hello again just felt like too much to handle. I prayed and mustered up the courage to go, which I'm glad I did, because it gave me perspective on the whole situation. The world of the corporate is really a modern day Charybdis from which I'm generally and thankfully sheltered. I forget sometimes how it can be. One week down, one week to go.

So yeah...the term "helpmeet"...never heard it until reading the comments of some of Mark Gungor's enthusiasts. It sounded a lot like "help mate", which I haven't really heard since the days in the church I was raised in., and honestly, it makes zero sense as a term unto itself. I've been meaning to get into researching the issue of gender equality in Christian marriage, so I had to do some digging.

From what I can see, it looks like it starts with a misunderstanding of the definition of the word "meet". In the phrase "a help meet for Adam", "meet" most likely takes on its second definition (English) which is equal to "fitting" or "proper", so you instead have "a help fitting for Adam". Makes much more sense.

That said, there's a lot of debate around what that word "help" was translated from and whether it even connotes a subservient position. You have the word "help", taken from the Hebrew "ezer"  which can translate to "aid", "protector" or even "defender", followed by "neged" which can mean "in front of" or "parallel to" or a few other things. Having studied four languages in my life, I'm well aware of where debates over translation can go and this one has some decent legs online (Google "ezer kenegdo). I'm not going to make an argument either way on a language I don't come close to understanding.

...I'm not 100% opposed to the idea of the man being head of household, and that's mostly because I'm a strong believer in the concept of servant leadership...a direct result of my business studies, work experience and most importantly because  of the example set by Jesus (you know...the guy who washed his disciples feet?). I've never been one to equate "leadership" with "dictatorship". Servant leadership is a concept developed by Robert Greenleaf and is summed up well here...

"The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature."
"The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?"

Greenleaf's book was required reading in a management symposium I took and I think everyone...yes, everyone, not just potential leaders, should read this. As a friend of mine says quite frequently "everyone's leading someone". On top of that though, you learn how to recognize those who are leading or want to lead to assuage and acquire. It's a good way to decide who's worth following.

The VP I work under now has been one of the best leadership experiences I've run across in my work life. I respect him and genuinely know he's on my side and will defend and protect my best interests (which he has consulted me on) when necessary. He's given guidance when he had insight and asked my opinion when he knew I had more experience in an area. I've been frank and open with him about my personality, concerns and fears and have been met with acceptance. He seldom tells me what to do...I say seldom, because I'm sure he has, but I don't remember ever actually being given an order...and I think that's because once a level of respect and trust has been established, his final say no longer feels like force.

Everyone in a household should be submitting to someone..children to parents, wife to husband and God, and husband to God and family. I'm always wary of any church, book, or, person that emphasizes the "help mate"/"head of household" teachings to the exclusion of a husband loving his wife as Christ loved the church. That emphasis, I believe reflects a bias that I have yet to see supported by actual Biblical teachings, and not just cultural extrapolations from ancient civilizations. While I don't think the Bible is totally clear on whether so called 50/50 marriages are the way to go, it is, I believe, quite clear, that all out domination is not the intended model. 

Low expectations for men, low standards for women.

I'm going to do something I seldom do on this blog and write from an immediate reaction. Considering the serious and personal nature of my faith (and that of others to be honest), I normally let the topics marinate and stew. This one though...

So today someone close to me sent me a link to the blog at Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage...a marriage ministry headed up by Mark Gungor, something I'd never heard of until today. I'm not going to critique his advice to those that are married--his specialty. This though, was sent to me by a single friend and I WILL critique his treatment of women and men...and before anyone cries "You have to read his stuff and attend his lectures and watch his DVDs 20 times in slo-mo before you really get what he's saying!", I charge that if, after reading 10 blog posts, I don't understand the root of what he's trying to say, the fault is his, not mine.

OK.

The two posts that stuck out to me were

• one explaining that wives should learn to understand that men aren't clean creatures, and constant expectations of them to pick up and keep things neat and tidy are equivalent to efforts to turn them into women. 
• a second citing passages in Ezekiel 16 stating that women who sleep with men for free are "lower" than prostitutes...basically, at least get paid for it (a joke I've made a couple of times myself). 

I'm not going to debate the role of a woman in marriage or how women should conduct themselves sexually outside of the marital relationship (or even within), because in this discussion, neither is relevant. What I want to discuss is the low expectations of men and efforts to lower the standards of women. Why is that bad? Because nowhere in the Bible does it say we're to settle for low standards. 

The first one. To echo a great point brought up by one commenter, how come when men go to the military to become neat, it makes them more manly but when it's at the impetus of someone they're supposed to love like Christ love the church, someone's trying to change their gender? Do we really think Jesus would take the stance that "I just wasn't raised to appreciate these things, so I'm going to ignore your obvious, emotional suffering that you've expressed to me multiple times."? Admittedly, he does, in a few other posts, say that men should pay attention to their wives' feelings and complaints, but what are these frustrated women supposed to do? Just stop feeling? Are they just supposed to ignore the issue because they "imagined" it or because they're "crazy" or just stop because they're wrong for trying to give their husbands the mental equivalent of gender reassignment surgery? I read that he gives techniques for handling these situations in his lectures and seminars, but if that was a commercial, it was in poor taste. 

The second...I...straight up, he doesn't even mention men...men...the gender that is known to be the bigger proponent of sex. The gender that funds the prostitution industry. Are they not prostitutes too when they engage in sex outside of marriage? Perhaps a bigger deal than that though, the nature of the post makes me question his intentions. It's harsh. There's a disclaimer a bit of the way through, but even prior to that, the words and accusations are heavy ESPECIALLY considering that most of his audience will look very harshly on prostitution.

Me personally, I'm not easily offended and am far from one to shrink at satire. I freaked a former boyfriend out at my admiration of Swift's "A Modest Proposal"...which I kinda get...joking about roasting young children for dinner is pretty harsh...but through it all, I never doubted that Swift's extreme sarcasm was a direct and proportionate response to the horrible treatment of children in his time. Mr. Gungor though, I have to doubt his intentions. Why? Because he's admitted in other posts that women are sensitive and emotional. If you want to help someone out of a situation you see as damning, you don't do it with language like that. Swift was talking to his enemies. Gungor is speaking to his flock and I see no hint of concern for the heart of the women who may be reading.

After spending some good time on his site, I thought of a video I'd run across in the currently hot but fading "Sh*t X Says" meme. The one in question is "Sh*t Guys Don't Say". (Warnings on a bit of profanity and simulated sex.) Basically, men don't pick up after themselves, talk about their feelings and only eat unhealthy food...tired old stereotypes that I hope more men will be offended by. I also though, found a response from a man who supports breaking the presentation of male stereotypes in the media (both the video and response can be found here). I find the correlation disturbing...the secular and the sacred defending and supporting the same bad behavior.

I find his writing dangerous. Why? Because there are bits of truth mixed in with I think is an ulterior motive. I know there's a movement within the Church now against wives holding jobs (completely ignoring Proverbs 31) and I do believe that the subtext that set me on edge stems out of that same vein. 

White Hug, Black Handshake

So it's time to shift this blog. I kinda knew it was coming since my Brazilian jiu jitsu blog has shifted recently too to more of a business focus.

I'd still like it to stay relatively focused, so I'm taking a step back from one topic that I think doesn't have much left for me to explore personally...singleness. Not that there isn't more to discuss, but I've come to a few "conclusions" that don't think merit too much more writing...

• God doesn't intend for everyone to be married, regardless of what family, national or church culture says
• The social and church focus on marriage flies directly in the face of the many Biblical examples of singles serving God
• Christians are just as susceptible to marrying for social, superficial and downright stupid reasons as non-believers, and we're subject to the same repercussions (though God can help you through)
• Neither status is inherently morally superior to the other and both offer special opportunities for growth
• We segregate too much
• Neither understands the other well and everybody needs to talk more 

In its place, I want to address race. Why? Because churches are insanely segregated (something I think is culturally based, but I think we as Christians should be able to grow past) and I have some unique experience in the area. For the past 25 years, I've been "the Black one". I now attend a predominately White church and went to predominately White, Christian elementary and middle schools. I hung out with some Christian groups in college and again..."the Black one". At the same time, I attended predominately Black churches for the first 25 years of my life, and got to see "the White one"...the converse of my experience...played out a couple of times.

Second "Why"? Because I've heard the whispers and comments and assumptions that easily could drive people away. Both groups believe their cultural take on Christianity is outlined in some unknown book in the Bible, and both go to extra effort to maintain those "scriptures", speaking their prejudices openly and alienating (sometimes I think intentionally) those that are different.

I've thought about it since I started this blog and while I didn't intend to write on race when I first started, I've always wondered how I would kick something like that off if I did. I figured...why not start with the first thing an outsider would experience entering a church? The greeting.

I think it's pretty common knowledge, but greetings (and the inherent personal space) are highly cultural. From contact-less Japanese bows (best greeting ever IMO...but I'm not a big toucher and am a bit of a germaphobe) to Latin kisses, they run the gamut. The tricky part? Perception and adjustment. If you're not used to contact, you will see higher contact cultures as invasive. If you're used to more contact, you'll see a group as cold and removed.

So yeah...the hug. If I'm wrong, correct me, but I don't think White Americans were always universally huggers. I'm sure there's some corner of the country out there that makes a habit of hugging people they've known for all of five seconds, but I'm going to say it's a relatively new development. I noticed it popping up in churches the same time I saw it in business (the day my CEO hugged me totally caught me off guard). I've accepted them as one of those things minorities learn to adapt to. Part of the whole "minority rights, majority rule" or "when in Rome" deal.

Just as I learned the cheek kiss during my days dancing salsa, I've learned to bow when visting my brother in Japan. Neither though, like the hug, will ever be comfortable or natural. I was raised in a Black family and a Black church, and hugs for me will always be reserved as a signal of familiarity...not necessarily deep, long-term or profound, but I still find it weird to hug someone I've never said more than "hi, how are you doing" to. When I started attending a Black church in Orlando during college, there were very few hugs because hugs are "special" for Black people (I'd dare to say even outside of the US). We're more handshakers until we've talked a bit.

So what's that mean? Nothing and everything. Religion and faith are highly personal and comfort is a big deal...but...

I read a piece a while back written by an organizational consultant who was called in to a women's organization who wanted to attract more racial and economic diversity. The consultant made suggestions about making meeting times that were accessible to women that worked. She recommended opening health and beauty discussions up to racially diverse products and health conditions that affected Black, Latina and Asian women. After acknowledgement of their validity and brief discussion, all suggestions were politely and softly rejected. Why? Because the board was concerned that their current members would inconvenienced and uncomfortable.

And that's what I think almost any discussion of race in the church comes down to. Comfort.

New people are uncomfortable walking into a strange church. Current parishioners are uncomfortable with demographic shifts. I've heard it all. "You know she's just here to get a Black man." "Every time I come there's more of them here." Statements of discomfort and fear of change. Since there is such a strong social component to church attendance, I don't think it's possible for an organization, or individual visitors to get past those issues unless the possibility of discomfort is accepted or even embraced as a component of Christian growth.

The married people in my single life.

Slightly off topic, but still on, I just read a quote from a great blog that sums up so much of my wonderment at the church's focus on marriage and procreation...


"but I’m also wary of the church’s intense focus on coupling up, as if getting married is the pinnacle of Christian life. That seems odd for a faith that follows the example of a homeless bachelor." 


My theory on that is the church has WAY more of a Victorian influence that we'd care to admit, but I digress... 

I gotta say, I am genuinely thankful for a few of the married Christians in my life. Why? Because talking to them, you can tell they haven't chosen "a team". They're focused on their marriages, they talk to you as an equal, they're dedicated to their spouses, and you can tell that they don't worship their marital status...that their individual relationships with God take ultimate precedence. And while I'd rather get a cavity filled than sit through a romantic comedy or romance flick (I'm dead serious), when I see couples in movies working as teams to accomplish something bigger (The Mummy, Harry Potter) it does make me feel all warm and snuggly.

I've come to believe that people choose a team (married or single) well before marrying age and it's completely independent of their actual marital status. Some singles worship their freedom just as marrieds worship their wedding bands. People that worship neither, but appreciate the status for the role it plays in their lives? ...them I really enjoy. 

The arranged marriage of my faith.

First let me say the tradition of arranged marriage is unfairly demonized. And yet I feel it's a pretty bad idea overall...it's just that it seems no less effective in accomplishing whatever the ubiquitous "institution of marriage" is trying to accomplish, than its free-wheeling, Western-styled sister is out to do.*

Today, I had another, subtle change in attitude toward something I'd once perceived as mundane, necessary or even somber. My first was probably at age 16 when I looked at my Bible sitting on its marble windowsill and I no longer saw a textbook. Instead I saw a guidebook that had been given to me for my personal benefit. This time, it was communion. I looked up from my chair, saw the wooden trays and thought "yay communion!" and then "did you really just think 'yay, communion'?" As I child I...had mixed experiences. When I was very young, it meant my mother would be singing in the choir, so my brother and I got to sit with her over in the corner. To this day, I tear up when I hear "Come ye Disconsolate" or "Turn Your Eyes upon Jesus"...songs I've come to associate with my mothers's gentle, second soprano voice and its framing of my childhood. As a teen, it became the part of service that took church from long to REALLY long and left all us kids itchy in our seats, passing notes back on forth on TI-82s. Today though, I came to genuinely see it for what it was. Time to commune with someone I love and am learning to love more...and I was excited.

I make the comparison to arranged marriage because Christians that are raised in the faith have similar orientations to those who entered into marriages that were decided for them by someone else. They don't get the big, "impressive" stories of how they met completely by accident on a plane to Nevada or stories of constant, new and exciting revelations about seemingly superficial details about the lives of their partner.  They end up forming a relationship not of their choosing and working through it for years, sometimes for better, sometimes for a lot worse.

Still though, there persist stories of couples, who, despite not having left their romantic lives up to fate, found loving and fulfilling relationships. Like a woman betrothed, I didn't choose to go to church on Sundays as a child. I didn't choose to attend a school that included a course on Biblical study. I didn't choose to pray with my parents. All of that was chosen for me. I really didn't start executing choices until I was in high school. And yes, it's something for which I am grateful. Not because of the direction it was pointing me in...though that I am thankful for, because I had parents that pointed me toward the faith of Christianity moreso than the religion...but mostly instead because it makes the transition easier.

There are spiritual disciplines and concepts that are hard. They just are. Financial discipline, serving, Biblical study, prayer, personal sacrifice, controlling of the tongue, controlling of the body, regular service attendance, patience, forgiveness and understanding with other members of the body of Christ. Those take time, effort and sacrifice to learn, put into practice and make habits of and I'm willing to bet none of them come instantly with salvation. Kind of like love seldom comes instantly in arranged marriages. Sometimes it grows. Sometimes it never comes. Sometimes the relationship turns into resentment and hatred of something familiar and confining.

In any case, I'm an thankful for the arrangements that have been made...and honestly for how they were made...in my life.

*I make a very stark personal distinction between marriages God has "endorsed", and those that are done simply for the sake of being married or not being single. The latter is what I'm referring to in this post.

Why aren't churches hooking up more singles?

On an online Christian forum last night, I read a particularly heart-felt post from a lady, who'd noticed how many unpaired people, both male and female, there were at a New Year's service at a very prominent church in the American South. She asked why churches weren't doing more to get their singles together. Responders to the post echoed the same sentiment, complaining that singles Bible studies didn't do enough to encourage couple-hood and that they were instead, run by "marrieds", dolling out the usual "be patient" and "this is all part of God's plan", to which one poster replied "walk a mile in my shoes". (I've personally heard more of the opposite...singles studies and activities turning into perpetual, drama-filled, Bible-based dating games)

At first thought, I felt as if I were more than qualified, because I have walked a mile or two in the shoes of singleness, but I've come to know that it comes in different forms, with people single for different reasons. I fall more toward the end of the "Single by choice" spectrum...not shunning partnership, but not endlessly pining for it either. It's hard for me to genuinely understand, but I know that there are Christians that deeply want to be married or don't want to be single anymore. I don't know if I'll ever understand, but I can sympathize.

That said, I do not believe it is the responsibility of churches to actively get their singles together. To do so is to imply that everyone should be coupled, or that everyone that WANTS to be married, should be. I do, though, believe that the church has certain responsibilities to singles:

1) To provide an environment that is "safe" for them. Basically, an environment where they can be single, without being accused of whatever short-comings people tend to believe "cause" singleness or left out of church activities.

2) To provide an environment that does not pity singlehood. The more it's pitied, the easier it is to view this lifestyle as something negative. It's not. It's a period where you have more room in your life for other people than if you were married.

3) To provide an environment that does not trivialize single life as a pass-through period of life. Whether you marry at 18, 30, 65 or never, being single isn't marriage's waiting room.

4) To encourage singles to take care of themselves as individuals, not just in preparation for marriage. Staying fit is about honoring the body you've been given, not just attracting, or pleasing a potential mate.

5) To create an environment where singles CAN get to know each other.

6) To maintain lines of communication between marrieds and singles. Yes, the two lifestyles do have aspects of them that should not be actively shared, but both have ideas and opportunities to offer each other, and shouldn't be completely segregated.

I also believe there is a duty to acknowledge that the title "single" also includes divorced people, separated people, those who have lost a spouse and possibly, even those who are attending church without their spouse.