Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Matt Marlowe's avatar

I really liked your description of the new trap of singleness. It’s easy for me to fall into that, primarily because, as a gay Christian, I do expect I’ll be single (and “celibate”, however we want to use that term) for the rest of my life - the sort of sexual/romantic relationships i would be interested in, I would otherwise be embarking upon, are never going to be available to me under my sexual ethic. So in a sense I’ve had to think about it in those terms, as a permanent long-term choice for me, because that is how it’s gonna have to be for me. But it’d be unfair for me to think in those terms about other people’s singleness as well - you don’t have to be single your entire life (or have specifically chosen to be so) for that to be valuable and God-given, if a person after a fairly long period of singleness ends up marrying, neither was their former state of singleness or their newfound marriage illegitimate. It’s hard for me to tell how much the gay celibate experience and conversation about singleness and celibacy (thinking about it more in terms of a lifelong decision because it tends to be more that way for us) has influenced the broader singleness conversation cus most (or at least a disproportionate amount) of my experience with the singleness conversation has been through the side-b prism (or at least influenced through my side-b circumstances). But I expect it has probs at least somewhat had a disproportionate influence on the broader conversation, just as a result of a numbers game (with gay Christians disproportionately more likely to be celibate/single due to our circumstances)

I also expect the new trap that has come about is partly in response to the idolatry of marriage that does exist in the church (and wider society). Cus if the dominant cultural script around marriage (and romantic/sexual relationships more broadly) is “we must get this at all costs and we must escape the state of singleness” then deciding to embrace your singleness as a lifelong calling may seem a good way to push back against any implication that one should get married as soon as possible (ironically I wonder if the idolisation of marriage has been part of this, for if marriage is valuable as a life-long commitment, then so must singleness be under this paradigm). But this is an over-correction, and the approach of seeing singleness as valuable and God-given whether or not it’s lifelong (or chosen to be lifelong) or a more temporary (tho not necessarily short) circumstance before a marriage begins is the better approach.

Expand full comment
J. Flint's avatar

I value how clearly you’ve described the “trap” here—both the old and the new. The “gifting” paradigm holds dangers even for those who, like me, happen to fit pretty neatly into the Protestant conception of someone “equipped for lifelong singleness.” My personal experiences with sexual/relational desire and temptation have been minimal, and I feel great contentment so long as I have friends. Nonetheless, I still was anxious in my early 20s because I inferred that if I began to have any “temptation issues,” I would be basically *required* to pursue marriage, even if there were no suitable suitors or if I still had other senses of vocation that contradicted a call to marriage.

Something always seemed off about basing my understanding of my calling mainly on how I was or wasn’t tempted, or basing it generally on my *feelings*, but I couldn’t articulate it at that point. Your work has been tremendously helpful in untangling this problem.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts