Because It Did Not Find A Mate

Dag Hammarskjöld (1905 - 1961) 

Because it did not find a mate
they called
the unicorn perverted.

Dag Hammarskjöld 
Former Secretary-General of UN
Awarded Nobel Peace Prize posthumously in 1961

(Hammarskjöld was himself single and never married.)

It’s uncanny sometimes when a particular ‘theme’ or ‘subject matter’ seems to recur in one’s life within a period of a short time. On Monday, I received a letter from a male friend in Scotland. On Tuesday, I received an email from a female friend in Melbourne. On Thursday, I caught up with a male friend whom I hadn’t seen for a while. All three are single. All three wrote, said or raised the subject of relationships or about being single.

Statistics have showed that men who are married generally have longer life expectancies than single men. Tax concessions generally benefit family units and couples rather than single individuals. Accommodation rates and travel packages are usually based on twin share. Everything in our society seems to be geared towards the couple and families. Some churches (particularly those of the Prostestant denominations) also either erroneously endorse the non-biblical suburban ‘nuclear’ family unit as a traditional, normative and only legitimate expression of Christian living or else elevate married people and familes to a status above that of singleness. So much so that sometimes one might feel that unless you are heading towards marriage and eventually setting up your own family, you are somewhat deemed as “not quite there yet” in life, or are somewhat less of a person.

But of course, it’s not just the Church. More often than not, it’s a conglomerate of familial, cultural and societal expectations that also put that pressure on singles to find the right one and couple up. Popular mass culture pervades our sensibilities and tells us what we ought to be, who and what’s desirable, who and what’s not desirable, and how and where we should derive our sense of happiness, self-worth and pleasure from. And though recognising it for what it is, I nevertheless often fall for the untruthfulness of what will supposedly bring me happiness – a sexual, romantic relationship.

But is that really the case? As a Christian, is the family in the form of a ‘nuclear unit’ really that biblical? Is couple-hood really what God wants for each and every single one of us? What about those cannot hold down a relationship or who are unable to marry, for one reason or another, be it a severe physical, mental or intellectual disability? Are they less of a person because they aren’t in a relationship? An increasing number of people in our society these days are single and probably will remain single for the majority of their lives, whether volitionally or non-volitionally. And there are numerous complex reasons for the current demographic shift in the large number of single people in our society.

But I think it would be fair to say that the majority of singles are what we could call ‘temporary’ or ‘transitional’ singles. That is, never married (or partnered), but fully expecting to marry (or be in a long-term relationship) one day and on the lookout, either consciously or unconsciously, for a partner but not having found the right person yet. Then there are those, according to author Al Hsu, who are the ‘disillusioned’ singles, those who have unwillingly resigned themselves to the single life with a sense of defeat or hopelessness and bitterness. Hopefully, God forbid I ever fall into a permanent state of being a ‘disillusioned’ single myself! Admittedly, disillusionment in the short term, however, can act as a helpful catalyst to sort out one’s expectations (realistic or otherwise) of what one is looking for in a partner or in relationships.

So, is there an alternate perspective to all this? As a single Christian man, I reckon there is.

For me, I look to Jesus and saw that he gave dignity, self-worth and liberation to those who were single (for whatever reasons) during his time. He was born into a Jewish culture that emphasised the importance of marriage and of providing heirs to carry the family name. Yet, he shattered their worldview. He taught that marriage is not an eternal state (Matthew 22:30), that marriage is an institution of this world but is unnecessary in God’s kingdom. Jesus’ teaching was so radical that he even said that following him could even come between husband and wife (Luke 18:29). While he wasn’t advocating a lesser status of marriage or abandoning the concept of marriage as such, he made it clear that following him was more important that even the dearest of human relationships. He also said that some people will never be married for whatever reason it may be, whether volitionally or non-volitionally (Matthew 19:12) and while the biological family, though still just as  important, is temporary in nature (in light of eternity). Jesus himself challenged the status quo and created a new ‘family’ – the church – in his disciples and all those who would follow him, a family that would endure for eternity. It was this new priority Jesus put to people that gave new value to the single person.

Al Hsu suggests that according to the New Testament, Jesus himself quoted that the highest love is not the love between sexual partners (however intoxicating and wonderful that may be) but the love between friends. “Greater love has no one than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15: 13) Incidentally, this verse is also inscribed on the plaque at the Shrine of Remembrance (a war memorial) in Melbourne. And so, friendship it seems, is the highest virtue, not romance the way our culture has idolised it. This is not to say (I am open to correction, though) that  ‘friendship’ can’t be applicable to marriage partners, but what I think it does say is that romanticism and romantic sexual love (eros) definitely has been overrated and is not the highest virtue as one might be led to believe.

God may have very well said that it is not good for the man to be alone when he first created mankind according to the biblical account (Genesis 2:18). But he never said it is not good for the man to be unmarried (or unpartnered). Rather, as author Al Hsu points out, it is aloneness which is what isn't good here, not the lack of a partner or spouse. God created us as social beings built for relationships, yes, but that does not mean that deep and meaningful life-giving relationships are restricted to only those that occur within marriage or within the context of a romantic relationship.

I believe that the Christian scriptures actually sees both states of being (singleness or marriage) as being equal and being neither superior nor inferior to each other. They are both ‘gifts’ of equal value. Al Hsu writes (with the Christian in mind), “If the opportunity should come for you to exchange the gift of singleness for the gift of marriage, then feel free to do so. But your ultimate priority is not whether or not you will marry; in either state, your ultimate concern is serving God.” Because marriage and singleness are equal gifts, both states have their joys and their own problems.

So what then? Well, I think singleness in itself does not determine a particular life that one would end up leading. It need not mean a life of loneliness. But neither does singleness in itself make one into a self-less, virtuous, better person either. More significantly, it’s our attitude towards being single, where we derive our sense of identity and self-worth and how we choose to live as singles, ‘transitory’ or otherwise, that matters.

And so, in the words of Al Hsu, author of The Single Issue, “It is entirely possible to live a complete life as a single person as long as one lives in the context of a community of good friendships and relationships.” The challenge therefore, then, according to psychologist Paul Tournier is this, “To make a success of one’s marriage if one does marry, and to make a success of the single life if one does not. Each is as difficult as the other.” (From The Single Issue, p65)

She Won't Be Jealous

I woke up the other morning earlier this week and as I laid in bed on my side with my eyes open, I felt an intense love gradually invade my body, as if it were hovering above my body only moments earlier waiting for me to arouse from my sleep. I closed my eyes again, welcoming his love, and sharing some of my thoughts with him with each of my heartbeat. It’s not often that I experience God so tenderly (or seductively, I must say) whilst in bed but when it does happen, I am deeply grateful. It was a very private moment and I had reservations about whether to include it in this post. But bear with me while I tease it out a bit. Now, just think of the last time you were around someone you loved deeply, be it a partner, spouse, family member or even a close mate - someone whom you feel deeply connected with - and let me just qualify that I don’t necessarily mean love in the erotic sense! Hopefully that will help you relate to the experience I just shared earlier.

This morning, I woke up again (obviously) and I read about this person’s story in a Christian devotional material. It was about his wife passing away and then him later remarrying his best friend’s widow. He was a lecturer at a Bible college and one of his students came up to him and asked him if he thought his first wife would know about his second marriage to another woman and what his wife’s reactions would be when they eventually met up again in heaven. The professor smiled and said, “Of course she will, and because she will be perfect, she will not be jealous. Even though we will not live as marriage partners, I believe we will know each other. We will all be the best of friends forever.”

In Mark 12, we read about the account of Jesus who had to deal with some of the religious leaders who wanted to trap him and so made up a story about a woman whose husband had died and left no son. According to Jewish law, they said, the deceased’s brother would have to marry the widow and have children for his brother (Mark 12:19). But the problem was each of the seven brothers of this woman’s first husband also died successively after marrying her. The question they then posed to Jesus was: Whose wife would she be when they’re all together before God one day since she was married to all of them?

Jesus then answered them, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry or be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Mark 12:24-25) Now, I particularly like the way The Message paraphrases the last bit of the same verse – “As it is with angels now, all our ecstasies and intimacies then will be with God.” In other words, Jesus was saying that these religious leaders neither understood the Scriptures nor God’s power to raise the dead to a glorious new existence without marriage.

I get excited when I think of the new way we will be one day when we are before God. We will be perfect and will have feelings of being intimately connected with one another without the crap that sometimes affects the way we relate to other people now. We will love perfectly and enjoy complete healing from all the insecurities, hurts and fears of our earthly relationships. And it’s no wonder marriage will be rendered ‘unnecessary’ when one day when we’re in the presence of God because all things will be made whole through him.

Don’t get me wrong, though, I’m not advocating an easy form of escapism through Christianity. But I think it’s just a case of God saying to me, “If you think your relationships now on earth are good and wonderful (or bad for some of us), think again. It will blow your mind when you realise what you’re in for one day when your life here on earth finally ceases. All your tears will be wiped away and then, what an eternity of orgasmic (I was going to write ‘orgiastic’ but then I looked up my Macquarie Dictionary and found out that it had a very different meaning to what I intended, so it’s ‘orgasmic’ not ‘orgiastic’), deep and intimate communion with all your loved ones and with me, your Creator, will that be?!”

Now, that was one hell of a morning I woke up to today.

Shane Crawford: Exposed

Photo Source: Hawthorn Football Club 

In an interview recently with Roland Rocchiccioli in Melbourne Weekly Magazine, AFL Hawthorn Football Club Captain Shane Crawford set tongues wagging again about his sexuality. Now, most of you will know that I am hardly the stereotypical Aussie footy fan who worships his footy religiously. Never mind the fact that I also don’t barrack for the Hawks (Carn the Cats!) and probably wouldn’t be able to tell you who’s who in footy. So what’s this, you ask, Andrew posting something about some footy player? Well, it’s neither the football nor the footy player that I’m interested in. It’s his sexuality that has piqued my interest. More specifically, it’s the way he’s gone on about his sexuality that’s piqued my interest. To be quite honest, it wouldn’t interest me the least bit which side of the team Shane Crawford batted for, or whether he batted for both!

When Roland asked about his sexuality, he said, “You never know - you just never know.” “I can't say one way or the other because it mightn't be the case. A couple of years down the track I might just say, 'Right, I'm going to have a go at this'.” And in the Shane Crawford: Exposed documentary that nearly didn’t go on air on Channel Nine on Wednesday night, Shane candidly shared that when he and his girlfriend Olivia broke up and Olivia asked him if it was because he was gay, he had to reassure her that he wasn’t but also said that it wasn’t out of the question.

Now, you seriously didn’t believe I’d write an entire post about Shane Crawford’s sexuality, did you? Well, the ambiguity about his sexuality actually made me think of another woman’s story that I came across some time ago on Sed Contra. It was aptly entitled ‘Self-Defined Lesbian Shaken by Sudden Heterosexuality’. I mean, these days, we are increasingly confronted by stories or rumours of ‘straight’ celebrities, friends and relatives being gay. And we often applaud their courage in coming out of the closet and offer our sympathetic ears to listen to the struggles that they’ve had to go through. But yet what happens when gay people ‘discover’ that they are perhaps more straight than gay? Hmm. But back to this self-proclaimed ‘devout lesbian’ who was shaken by her sudden heterosexuality.

She wrote to the Washington Blade, a self-defined gay newspaper, asking for advice: “I was a devout lesbian for two decades and, basically, still consider myself to be a dyke. I never thought I’d consider dating a man again, and am shocked to find myself in love with one. I won’t bore you with the details, but earlier this year, my now-deceased collie had numerous health problems, and I fell for her very kind male veterinarian. My life now feels like a made-for-TV movie. All of my friends and family are angry and disappointed with me - even my mother, who begged me to “try to change” when I came out to her (as a lesbian) 20 years ago. I still feel like the same person. In fact, I’m mostly attracted to women, not men. I just happened to meet the one man in the world who’s an exception for me. My friends tell me that I can’t call myself a lesbian anymore. They’ve even suggested that I might prefer to watch “The B-Word,” but I don’t feel particularly bisexual. What do you think?”

Then there was this other story which appeared in Gay City News in early 2003 (Read article here). David Bianco, a gay man and founder of Q Syndicate – the company that provides more content to the gay press than anyone (or so the article claims) – caused a sensation when he ‘came out’ and announced that for Jewish religious reasons he would change the way he was going to express his sexuality – to the point where he hopes, “God willing”, to one day start a family with a woman. When asked if that meant he was now bisexual, he replied, “I no longer identify as gay because it doesn’t feel like the label that best describes me. I’ll take ‘bisexual’ if I have to have a label. I’d just as soon do without one.”

These people's stories remind me that sexuality isn’t always necessarily a neat ‘either/or’ category. And that people’s sexuality and sexual identities don’t always fit nicely and neatly into the categories that the general society and, indeed, also those within the Church, would like to box people into.


 

Kinsey’s Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, for example, proposes that human sexuality is more of a continuum rather than a dichotomy, with a person who has exclusively heterosexual desires and attractions scoring a 0 and someone with exclusively homosexual desires and attractions scoring a 6. The majority of the population would therefore, as one would infer from this continuum model, fall towards the ‘exclusively heterosexual’ end of the scale, and with smaller percentages of the population falling either around the ‘exclusively homosexual’ end and/or around the middle bands.

In the book ‘Dual Attraction: Understanding Bisexuality’, the authors Martin Weinberg, Colin Williams and Douglas Pryor argue that “sexual identity is not set in stone; that because patterns of sexual behaviour evolve according to personal circumstances, our sexual identity may not remain fixed throughout our lives. The focus of our desire may change, and these variations can be considered simply part of the complex continuum of human sexual response.” They also argue that “all people initially learn the desirable aspects of both genders and can produce gendered pleasure in both directions.” In other words, what they’re suggesting is that humans are born not hardwired with a specific sexuality but with the potential to go either way.

Now, don’t get me wrong, though. Let me explain that this doesn’t mean that I don’t believe God was involved in the engineering and choreographing of human sexuality in the beginning. On the contrary, as a Christian, I believe he was intimately involved in our creation. I also believe that he knew exactly what he was doing when he created the two genders, male and female, and decreed in his original blueprint that these two shall become as one flesh. At the same time, I also believe that even though God hasn’t thrown out his original blueprint, he nevertheless knows fully well that we are also a product of our genes, environment, and experiences and that he is nonetheless able and willing to meet us all in whichever state we end up finding ourselves in - and that he has a special place in his heart for all those who do not belong or fit into the ‘norms’ of society.

And as for Shane Crawford, I think he finally bowed to pressure to end the speculation and confirmed in the tabloids the other day that he wasn’t gay (Read article here).