Tag Archives: Christian subculture

Double-Minded: Christian Culture’s Diametrically-Opposed Views of Marriage and Singleness

Buckle up, True Believers. It’s about to get real!

I am a Christian. In fact, as a child I did everything in a church except be born there. While I love the Bible and its theology and doctrine, Christian culture annoys me. Trust me when I say there are huge differences. It’s one of many reasons why I love The Babylon Bee: Christian culture is a frequent target of their satire. As it should be.

Image taken from www.trumpet-call.org.

While there are many problems with the Christian subculture (which I will refer to as “the church” from here on), one of the most egregious, in my opinion, is that it is double-minded when it comes to marriage and singleness. To put it succinctly, if you’re already married, it sings the praises of marriage and family, but if you’re single, it does little or nothing to help you get married and tells you singleness is superior to marriage.

I’m sorry, church, but you can’t have it both ways.

Go to any church and you’ll see how it’s family-centric. There are programs for parents, spouses, kids, and teens. Some offer programs for college students and recent graduates, but they seem to assume that everyone gets married by their mid-20s—if not sooner—so little is offered for those who aren’t. There are frequent sermon series on how to have a good marriage or be better parents. It’s hard to not go a week without hearing the theology of marriage; how it’s an earthly echo of Jesus Christ and his “bride,” the Church. (This is something that isn’t meant to be taken literally, by the way). In other words, most of the Christian subculture is centered on marriage and family.

Just don’t expect it to help you get married, like I said.

When it comes to taking steps toward marriage, in my experience, the church is mostly famine and little feast. Generally it seems to think relationships happen by osmosis. It rarely facilitates opportunities for young people—who frequently express their desire to be married—to meet each other and fall in love. Yet in the rare instances when they speak on the issue, they say the church is the best place to meet someone special. All that “unequally yoked” stuff, right? But there are hardly any programs for singles beyond college. And don’t even think about being single after age 30! You’ll be a misfit among misfits. The church won’t have any idea what to do with you. The rare times anyone in the church does try to help singles get to marriage, they’re obnoxiously overzealous or have nothing to offer but empty platitudes.

But then there’s the insult added to singles’ injuries.

The church’s praise of marriage ceases with singles. No longer is it this wonderful, covenantal portrait of Christ’s love. No, it’s a distraction. Instead of Ephesians 5, singles get 1 Corinthians 7. They’re told that marriage will narrow their scope, distract them from serving God, and even make them preoccupied with “earthly” things (there is no marriage in Heaven, after all). The only benefit they might mention is it can help curtail sexual sin, and even that seems like a concession they wish they didn’t have to make. In other words, marriage is a detriment to the single’s faith. This implicitly condemns the institution of marriage, ignoring the fact that it was created by God before Adam and Eve sinned. It wasn’t a byproduct of the Fall that God had roll with. This mindset also ignores the personal and societal benefits of marriage, many of which are being missed because of the culture of protracted singleness (to which the church has contributed some, but that’s a blog for another day).

What this does to Christian singles is it leaves them silently shamed. They desire marriage, but they’re told it’s a detriment to their faith and potential. If it’s a hindrance, why would they desire it? Should they? Why would Christ allow them to desire something that would distract them from serving Him? Yet the church tells the married majority that matrimony is sacred and powerful and must be protected. Why do you think Christian churches are always the ones fighting for the definition of marriage being “one man and one woman”? The irony is they’re just as likely to tell singles it isn’t worth it. Maybe for the sake of consistency they should tell married couples to all get divorced so they can have “undistracted service” for Christ. Oh wait, God says He hates divorce, so they hate divorce.

This is a catch-22 full of knots that the church keeps chewing in the mouth from which is talks out of both sides.

Singles aren’t second-class citizens nor are they inherently superior because they’re unmarried. Their desire for marriage is a good thing. It should be respected, nurtured, and encouraged. The pain they feel from this unfulfilled desire should be met with compassion and understanding and not lectures on contentment and 1 Corinthians 7. Doing that is no different than telling someone whose grandmother has died that he shouldn’t mourn because she’s “in a better place.” This is a pain most singles don’t just “get over.” To be alone (and rejected) when you desire a spouse is a form of widowhood. The Bible frequently commands Christians to care for widows.

What the church needs is consistency. Celebrate marriage with everyone. Help singles maximize their lives where they are and don’t shame them for desiring a spouse. For those rare few who’ve been called to singleness, give them opportunities not afforded to married people. Modes of service don’t decrease with marriage—they just change.

Marriage is hard, but so is singleness. Depending on the person, one or the other will be more difficult. Someone should never be forced into either one if God didn’t create them to be that way. It’s a simple concept. But the church has trouble grasping such things.

Are you a single who’s been hurt by these conflicting mindsets? How so? What do you think can be done to remedy these problems?

“Christian” is a Worldview, not a Genre

U2. Believe it or not, they’re a Christian band.

The beauty of WordPress is I can schedule a blog to be automatically posted, which is what I did with this one. I actually wrote it a few days ago. Why did I do this? Because I’m in the middle of the “fortnight from Hell” at my day job. (Long story).

Anyway, I grew up in a Christian home, so I’m well-versed in the Christian subculture. Honestly, the older I’ve gotten, the more annoyed I am with it. Not so much that I’ve rejected my faith (I think Christian faith and Christian culture are two completely different things and may as well be mutually exclusive), but enough to see how they usually don’t match up.

I’m going to focus only on one particular facet today: the idea that “Christian” is a genre.

This idea was initially sparked a year or so ago when I was talking with a friend on the phone who said she didn’t want to read my books because they weren’t “Christian enough.” As in, they wouldn’t fit into the Christian “genre” as defined by booksellers.

Christians, despite being commanded to go into the world and make disciples (Matt. 28:16-20), have for many years seemed intent on isolating themselves from the rest of the world and creating their own little culture complete with its own brand of entertainment. It goes all the way back to 1970s with the advent of “contemporary Christian music” thanks to the Jesus Movement. This has since expanded in other forms of media. Most recently, “faith-based films” such as God’s Not Dead have been popular the last few years.

While I have issues with the often poor artistic merits of many of these media (that’s a blog for another day), my biggest gripes with the so-called “Christian genre” are the mindsets it creates. First, it makes Christian culture very insular. I’ve known many fellow believers who refused to consume any media that wasn’t obviously Christian. In other words, listening to Carman was fine, but not Run-D.M.C. If it wasn’t didactic about faith, it was “too secular.” Some of it was even erroneously seen as satanic. These were things to be shielded against, especially when it came to kids (it’s always about the children, isn’t it?). So, new media was created by Christians for Christians. Considering the aforementioned often poor quality of their substitutes, it’s no wonder many Christians in the last 30-40 years grew up with bad senses of what makes good art. (Not to mention Christian creators were making obvious rip-offs of “secular” entertainment long before the Asylum. Anyone else remember the Spine Chillers Mysteries books?). It created an “us vs. them” mentality. It was about being “safe” and avoiding risky ideas that might challenge one’s faith.

Second, as I’ve already hinted at, it made “Christian” into a genre. Demon Hunter wasn’t just a metal band; they were a “Christian” metal band. (For the record, Demon Hunter is a genuinely great band). Like any genre, this automatically establishes the intended audience and the content (which, as I’ve noted, was often didactic and subpar). The problem is that “Christian” shouldn’t be a genre. It should be a philosophy, a worldview. Do atheists and other religions turn their beliefs into genres for the sake of marketing? For the most part, no. (Although some may do so in response to “Christian” stuff or as satire). In the history of literature, Christian authors didn’t concern themselves with whether their stories fit nicely into a “Christian genre”; they just told their stories. Think about how classics like Moby-Dick by Herman Melville or Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky or The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien (did you really think I’d get through this without mentioning my all-time favorite book?) if they were published in today’s environment in Christian publishing. I have a feeling they’d either be rejected by Christian publishers or watered down in the editing process.

“Christian,” as I’ve said, is a worldview, not a genre. It’s something that, when done correctly, flows naturally into a creator’s work because it’s a part of him. Art is an expression of its creator, so it’s impossible for him to not imbue it with how he sees the world. But, as I’ve said for years, story must be king. The moment someone starts sermonizing in his story, whether it’s about religion or environmentalism or whatever, it brings the story down. The storyteller will lose his audience. Heck, even kids will see through that.

Readers and critics will discuss themes and ideas when dissecting a story, but they usually don’t do something like label Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game “Mormon fiction.” Those elements are part of that book because they’re part of Card. To tell his story honestly, he had to write it that way. He wasn’t trying to proselytize anyone. I know that to my fellow Christian creators that might sound crazy, even sacrilegious, but I believe your witness can be helped by not being didactic with your stories.

I’ve been listening to U2’s Greatest Hits albums while writing this blog. U2 is a Christian band (specifically, they’re Irish Catholic). Even a casual listen to their music makes that obvious. They don’t hide or flaunt that. They make their music and let it impact people. Jesus said you can know someone by their fruit (Matt. 7:15-20). That fruit doesn’t need to have “Apple” written on it for people to know what it is.

If you’d like to hear more about this, I highly recommend listening to these episodes of the Derailed Trains of Thought podcast hosted by my friends Nick Hayden and Timothy Deal: Episode 57: And the Moral of the Story is… and Episode 64: Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink.

What are your thoughts on this? Should “Christian” be a genre unto itself? Why or why not?