"It's better to be single than to wish you were" (or the variation: "It's better to be single than to be married to the wrong person")
So is it better to be unemployed than employed, because some people really hate their jobs?
posted by Captain Sensible at 3:37 AM
15 Comments:
The quotes above irritate me, because they only give one side of the story. I would suggest that reality is not as simplistic as the GoS advocates would have you believe. Before I married, I talked to many people who had miserable marriages, and they would admit to it. These were older people who lived in a time before divorce was accepted, and so virtually the only "relief" some of them got was when they became widows or widowers. All of them said things like, "In spite of everything, I'm so glad I had my family. My children are the best thing that ever happened to me."
My understanding of the GoS viewpoint is that you either marry "God's Best" for you or you marry someone who will absolutely make you miserable. I hate the way GoS advocates go around trashing good choices. A wrong person should be obvious, someone who is an abuser, someone who does not fulfill family responsibilities, someone who is not a Christian. A "wrong" person is not someone who fails to live up to every standard and qualification that GoS advocates put out--and they seem to put out a million qualifications.
For clarification purposes, the first line of your comment, Lisa, should read: "The quotes above irritate me, because they only give one side of the story."
To address what you have said, I think we need to be a little bit wary about saying "many people" had "miserable marriages". Yes, divorce may not have been socially acceptable in previous generations, but if it really was that miserable (ie. abusive, adulterous), then why didn't they leave? Social exclusion or poverty? Well, if the marriage was that bad, wouldn't those things have been preferable, even with children? I don't know, I just would like to raise a note of caution. And I should add I speak to a lot of elderly people at the moment due to my work, and many of them proudly tell me that they have been married 50 years, 60 years etc (or would have if their spouse hadn't died). They have children and grandchildren, and when I ask them what the secret is to a long and happy married life, they tend to say things like, well, they had their ups and downs but they weathered the storms together, they practised forgiveness (and these are not specifically Christians I am speaking to) and they were each other's best friends.
I would also raise a question regarding "someone who is not a Christian". I just think we need to be careful about how we judge whether a person is a Christian or not. I think we pile a lot of unnecessary conditions onto that too, and single Christian women may miss out on a lot of real gems.
I agree with everything else you say though.
It should also be pointed out that a bad job is frequently easier to leave than a bad spouse, and rarely carries the lengthy legal and emotional ramifications that divorce does.
Yes Lucie, of course. But it's the same principle. Basically a principle of fear, and of subjugation.
Hmmm... I've usually heard those comments made specifically to people seeking a relationship at any price - and I mean ANY price. Abuse, cheating, rage issues, etc? "Oh well, it's better than being alone."
It doesn't always seem to be obvious which people would make bad marriage prospects. <== That said, I think it makes far more sense for the church to teach how to go about a relationship and what makes one good, rather than vague warnings or endless sermons about 'purity'. And I suspect that there'd be a bit less of a problem with people being 'blessed' with singleness if our churches taught about how to find and conduct a healthy relationship. Many of the singles I've known were worried and scared about stuffing things up and/or being badly hurt... if their parents didn't show them what to do and expect, who will?
Anyhow, I think I've wandered off onto a tangent, apologies if it's not useful!
Hi Naomi - Always good to have your input!
Just to respond to a couple of things, I think that the "it's better to be single than to be married to the wrong person" is said to singles pretty much across the board, really. When you strip it away, it has its roots in a spirit of fear (most of the platitudes about singleness are demonic in origin, I believe), and is designed to try and stop single people from wanting marriage too much.
I also have to say I don't know of any single people who want a relationship at any price (ie. abuse, cheating, rage). I think a more common problem is wanting someone too perfect who fits their "list" of qualities that they desire in a mate and which is about five pages long!
And as to the church's teaching on singleness, well, I could go on for hours! Needless to say, acknowleding that singleness is no "blessing" would be a very good start!
:-)
Dear Captain,
I wrote two posts yesterday, and the first got eaten up during transmission. I was in a hurry typing the second, and it is not as clear or as detailed as I would have liked it to be. I agree with you totally, and stand corrected.
The people I was referring to in the first part of my post were NOT in abusive or adulterous marriages. Rather, to me it seemed more a matter of incompatibility that was allowed to get worse over time, and in some cases, marriages that had problems that were allowed to fester and grow worse to the point where both people gave up.
In my first post, I also said that, even if you married "God's best," not long into your marriage you will find that this person is a human being just as you are, one with all kinds of foibles.
Not long ago, I was reading book reviews of Mrs. Maken's book on amazon.com, and I came across a post by a man who had become born again, and had made a vow to God that he would remain celibate until his marriage. He asked a girl from his church out, and got rejected because he didn't meet this girl's idea of what was "God's best" for her, and she told him so to his face. My heart just broke when I read his post, as he is the kind of Christian man that I really have respect for. This is why I hate the GoS philosophy so much, it has caused so much pain to so many single Christian men and women.
Naomi, I agree with you totally that the church should teach about how to find and maintain healthy relationships. My personal opinion, teaching GoS philosophy is not the way to do it.
"I also have to say I don't know of any single people who want a relationship at any price (ie. abuse, cheating, rage)."
Mmmm... often they skip quite fast from relationship to relationship, because sadly, there are a lot of compatible people (ie, abusive tendencies) out there :-/
I find this confusing Naomi, and I don't mind admitting that I don't know all the answers!
I'm afraid that is not the picture that I see in the church today.
Sure, some men may fit this pattern of leaping from one relationship (or "friendship") to another, and I think the root cause may be passive/aggressive tendencies. The moment a woman challenges them on their unacceptable behaviour, they are off and it's a case of "Next". And because passive/aggressive men come across on the surface as good, decent guys, most people probably assume that it was the woman who was to blame for the relationship breakdown, and the man again slips underneath the radar of discipleship or accountability. He doesn't receive the help he needs, and he is also free to go and hurt woman number 2, 3, 4 etc.
The root cause of that behaviour pattern may be, I believe, the way we have misinterpreted Jesus as some mild mannered hippy that never gets angry, and so emasculated men and feminised Christianity in the process.
The "it's better to be single than to wish you were" is usually said to women who are desperate for marriage (and quite rightly so - it's an aching for God's plan and there is a God-given timeline in which to procreate) and who maybe haven't had a date in one year, two years, five years, a decade or more.
It is a way of subtly threatening a woman that if she is not content to "wait on the Lord", she is likely to end up marrying someone who is not "God's best" and then she will regret it for the rest of her life.
It is spiritual blackmail.
You either have to meekly accept "waiting" or face the unholy consequences of marrying "the wrong person"!
Of course, no mention is made of the fact that in reality she is "waiting" on church leaders to take seriously the imbalanced male/female ratio, and quit teaching newly invented doctrines about singleness and marriage. Like "waiting on the Lord" to bring you your spouse in the first place.
I don't agree that passive aggression among Christian men is all down to wrong teaching. I think passive aggression is a general problem among men these days in a way that it probably wasn't 40 years ago, and that the root underlying reason is the sexualisation of society due to the normalisation of sex outside marriage. A lot of men now realise they are competing even more heavily than before against each other for women, and have gained unrealistic expectations from the media, so are competing for a smaller pool of women than they would have previously, and as a result have become angry with women. Passive aggression is often an immature attempt to deal with anger.
"Passive aggression is often an immature attempt to deal with anger."
Yes, definitely.
But I am not quite sure I follow the rest of your argument. If it is down to frustration at having to compete for a small pool of women - well, that's not a problem for Christian men is it!
Sorry, just not following.
I think Anon was pointing out that men are typically competing for a particular type of woman.
As far as seeing different situations in the church today - makes sense. You're in the UK, I'm in Australia... and for that matter, in a relatively high-male-membership denomination. I also tend to deal a lot with the types of people who fall through the cracks at many churches. Abused, drug addicts, rebelling, etc. That would tend to skew my perspective quite a bit from yours, I guess.
NOW that makes sense, Naomi! I don't think the situation is all that different in Australia compared to the UK and the US.
However, if you are in a relatively high male-membership denomination (very rare anywhere in the more developed world!), and dealing mainly with those that have special needs (good on you for doing that, btw), then yes, I think you would have a different perspective.
I guess this blog is primarily addressing the problems that the vast majority of single Christian women face. The women who know that even if every single man in the church were literally given a wife, there would still be about five or six of them that are left single and barren to every one woman that became a wife. The women that have been told to "wait on the Lord" for a husband for maybe a decade or more, and are then scolded for being discontent with the "gift of singleness" or are made to feel like they are in rebellion against "God's will", because they can't quite beat the desire for marriage and children out of themselves.
And meanwhile, "dear singleness-gifted ladies" (to borrow a phrase from my dear sister Frieda), wake up to what is happening! Sure, keep your eyes open for a nice, single Christian man. But please, look outside in the world for a good man that you can encourage too!
btw my church promotes marriage and childbearing and is trying to reach men. They frequently publish photos of couples getting married, newborn babies, couples who have become Christians through the Marriage Course devised by HTB. They also provide free meals for families with newborn children for up to a month after the child is born. I've since been told that a few other churches in the UK do this. It needs to be promoted.
Ok, that's all good, Anonymous.
But is the church you are referring to pro-marriage and pro-family, even for those not already married?
In other words, if a single woman says she desires marriage and a family, what will the likely response of the church be?
Post a Comment
<< Home