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)