Sunday, October 30, 2011

One Is a Whole Number

My friends and I have been picking on Mark Driscoll a lot lately; he's been a favorite straw man for group attacks on muscular Christianity. It probably isn't fair. But I can't not pick up some of the things he drops on the internet.

I'll leave the "Baptism shirts for those who want to get dunked today" tweet that was being discussed among my classmates today and skip to this gem:

"@PastorMark: Single people need to stop making a list of what they want in a spouse & start making a list of what they want to be for a spouse."

Part of why I picked this one to blog about is that it's not inherently evil. You should be asking, not what your spouse can do for you, but what you can do for your spouse (end Kennedy accent). Of course, a part of me is already worried at this stage because of what I've seen of Driscoll's gender theology, which would most likely require that my list include things like "bring the boys snacks while they watch the World Series."

But the subtler issue is one that I'm seeing more and more of in the church. Note that Driscoll's comment is not aimed at people who already have spouses and could stand to think of their partner more; this is geared toward single people, the assumption being that everyone who does not yet have a spouse ought to be working toward finding one.

Singleness is a valid relationship status, and not just temporarily. What so many people in the church forget is that Jesus was single. You could probably argue that singleness has a better case for being instituted by Christ than marriage. And, as one of my middle school youth leaders used to tell me, "One is a whole number!"

The church needs to work on its theology of singleness. Really, we need to work on our theology of sexuality in general, because I think a big part of what makes the church uncomfortable with singleness is that we aren't sure how to talk about sexuality around that. The church is threatened by young single people's sexuality and tries to rush them into the box of marriage where anything goes (I have a lot more to say about that, particularly the "anything goes" bit).

Here's the thing: I shouldn't be asking about what I want in a spouse or what I want to be for a spouse. I should be asking how I can love God better.

Trump card.

3 comments:

rsctt603 said...

very good

www.wayfarersquest-rsctt.blogspot.com

misskatiedeconto said...

Thanks, Sarah. I've been thinking a lot lately about the complete void in the Christian sexuality conversation when it comes to single adults. It's alienating and frustrating. It helps to b reminded that I'm not alone. :)

John Bryant said...

I'm not sure if I see the same assumption in Driscoll's tweet. A lot of today's culture encourages this kind of list-making for "good qualities." So if this behavior already exists, offering an alternative view could very well be a moment of Christianity changing the question.

I'm suggesting a level of nuance to Driscoll's tweet that may not be there; I get that. But that's the dangerous part of Twitter isn't it? 140 characters doesn't always leave room for nuance that we intend.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

One Is a Whole Number

My friends and I have been picking on Mark Driscoll a lot lately; he's been a favorite straw man for group attacks on muscular Christianity. It probably isn't fair. But I can't not pick up some of the things he drops on the internet.

I'll leave the "Baptism shirts for those who want to get dunked today" tweet that was being discussed among my classmates today and skip to this gem:

"@PastorMark: Single people need to stop making a list of what they want in a spouse & start making a list of what they want to be for a spouse."

Part of why I picked this one to blog about is that it's not inherently evil. You should be asking, not what your spouse can do for you, but what you can do for your spouse (end Kennedy accent). Of course, a part of me is already worried at this stage because of what I've seen of Driscoll's gender theology, which would most likely require that my list include things like "bring the boys snacks while they watch the World Series."

But the subtler issue is one that I'm seeing more and more of in the church. Note that Driscoll's comment is not aimed at people who already have spouses and could stand to think of their partner more; this is geared toward single people, the assumption being that everyone who does not yet have a spouse ought to be working toward finding one.

Singleness is a valid relationship status, and not just temporarily. What so many people in the church forget is that Jesus was single. You could probably argue that singleness has a better case for being instituted by Christ than marriage. And, as one of my middle school youth leaders used to tell me, "One is a whole number!"

The church needs to work on its theology of singleness. Really, we need to work on our theology of sexuality in general, because I think a big part of what makes the church uncomfortable with singleness is that we aren't sure how to talk about sexuality around that. The church is threatened by young single people's sexuality and tries to rush them into the box of marriage where anything goes (I have a lot more to say about that, particularly the "anything goes" bit).

Here's the thing: I shouldn't be asking about what I want in a spouse or what I want to be for a spouse. I should be asking how I can love God better.

Trump card.

3 comments:

rsctt603 said...

very good

www.wayfarersquest-rsctt.blogspot.com

misskatiedeconto said...

Thanks, Sarah. I've been thinking a lot lately about the complete void in the Christian sexuality conversation when it comes to single adults. It's alienating and frustrating. It helps to b reminded that I'm not alone. :)

John Bryant said...

I'm not sure if I see the same assumption in Driscoll's tweet. A lot of today's culture encourages this kind of list-making for "good qualities." So if this behavior already exists, offering an alternative view could very well be a moment of Christianity changing the question.

I'm suggesting a level of nuance to Driscoll's tweet that may not be there; I get that. But that's the dangerous part of Twitter isn't it? 140 characters doesn't always leave room for nuance that we intend.

 

Designed by Simply Fabulous Blogger Templates, Modified by Sarah Howell