** This post is based on my experiences and, while I believe that I am a typical single person and my views expressed here are common to other singles in general, my point of view may not represent everyone. I'm not really attempting to be the voice of a whole demographic here, but I do feel that I'm not the only one that feels this way. This post is an attempt to bring to light something that I've been ruminating on for quite some time and is maybe more for informational purposes only. Just like Charles Barkley, "I am not a role model." **
One of the touchiest subjects to broach with single folks is that of the relationship. You never know if someone that is not in a relationship is going stag by choice or whether they desperately want someone to canoodle with on a regular basis. One thing that has a high likelihood of being true is that discussions of relationships with single folks will engender hurt - either they're single now because they've been hurt by someone before or they're hurt that nobody seems to want to be in a relationship with them (or at least not the right people, that is). There are, of course, exceptions to this rule - some have decided to be single by choice and not as a reaction to some hurt or social ineptitude - and they are, therefore, beyond the scope of my discourse here today.
Whatever the case for singleness may be, there is one aspect of romantic relationships that affects every single person regardless of their choice of coupling - the loss associated with relational changes when one of their friends gets into a romance. Sometimes there are feelings of bitterness, of a "why them and not me?" reaction, but that's a discussion for another time because I don't think that feeling affects everyone upon hearing of their friend's new love. The feeling that does affect everyone, however, is the feeling of being replaced. This feeling is doubled when there are two friends involved in the relationship; rather than just losing one friend, now two friends have been lost.
I've heard the analogy of divorce being a "walking death" because the tearing asunder of a marriage relationship is akin to death, yet the other person hasn't died - they're still there and, if the two parties choose to live in the same city or share children and such, there's a good possibility that interaction will still happen, but it's just not the same. The parties have been cut out of each others' lives and yet since they still actually exist, that almost makes the separation worse than death. And, I'm not going to equate the pain and trauma of divorce with the loss of a friendship to a new relationship. That being said, I will say that I believe them to be similar and, depending on the strength of the relationship being changed, perhaps a similar degree of hurt will be the result. Never having been divorced, I can't say for sure, so please take my assessment with a pillar of salt.
One thing that people who remain single long-term have to deal with on a fairly regular basis is the radical changes in friendships that occur as romantic relationships blossom among their friends. I'm guessing that this happens with married folks as well, but to a lesser degree since the married couple has far fewer close friendships with single people (and thus a lower instance of catastrophic change to relationships on a regular basis). The one constant that a single person doesn't have is that spouse to rely on when these changes occur; a single is, by very definition, alone. The single is constantly in the process of forming new friendships and then having them drastically changed by relationship or radical life changes (e.g. the itinerancy of particularly younger singles who have yet to be established in any one place), and does not have the constancy of a life partner to rely on to help deal with the hurt. The single person is on their own.
To paraphrase from King Solomon a little bit, "I have seem something strange under the sun" insofar that this type of friend death seems to only happen in the Christian community - and perhaps to take it even more granularly, the evangelical (perhaps fundamental) sub-group. This is due in large part, I believe, to the practice of sequestering oneself with the new significant other away from the rest of the group for long periods of time, as if now being in a relationship requires that every free moment of time is spent in the relationship and only obligations with other individuals are met. The Christian relationship never seems to come out of the infatuation phase before moving directly into the engagement phase. This is really what I want to focus on with the rest of this post.
I don't notice this behavior with what I'll call "secular relationships" - those outside of the church framework. There is, just as in any relationship, a period of infatuation where the newly formed couple is spending a lot of alone time, but usually that tends to die out in a month or two and the couple then starts integrating back into social activities. The "new addition" is present a lot more, maybe in activities where they weren't present before, but I find that secular couples tend to be more willing to do a lot more things apart and don't feel the need to always be together as a unit for everything. There definitely seems to be a "I can't wait until you meet my friends" vibe that is present in secular relationships that isn't present in Christian relationships.
Christians, on the other hand, start dating and everything gets all serious. The couple has usually gone on one or two dates quitely and under the radar before they "come out" and announce their dating publicly, and once they make that announcement they are inseparable from that point on. Family engagements take on a lot more prominence; the couple stops coming to group activities unless they're required to do so; they only do things together, rarely are they seen separately. Long gone are spur-of-the-moment activities because their free time has now been planned for the foreseeable future - one partner can only hang out with their friends if the other partner is unavailable for some reason. For all intents and purposes, the couple might as well be married. Furthermore, as I referred to before, if the two people involved happen to be friends of the single person in (perhaps) separate contexts, now that single has lost two friends because neither one of the people will be available to hang out. For example, if I am friends with Joe and Mary in a church context and then Joe and Mary start dating, if I call Joe and he's unavailable that usually means he's with Mary. That also means that I now can't call Mary to do anything, because she's out for the same reason Joe is, and I'm suddenly quite the third wheel. I've now got to find someone else with which to do something.
I'm not quite sure why this happens in church circles and not secular relationships. Perhaps it is the seriousness of "dating with a purpose" in Christian circles that isn't present in the secular realm; perhaps living together in the secular realm or no limitations on physical interaction in secular relationships breeds a familiarity that moves through the infatuation stage more quickly than in church relationships. It could also be the church culture which sets being married as the ideal and therefore sets up a lifestyle barrier such that married folks don't interact with single folks, and thus a couple is treated as de facto married from the church's point of view because God has probably brought them together. For whatever reason, though, the Christian relationship becomes much more serious more abruptly, and that leads to this "walking death" feeling on the part of those who get left behind.
And the relationship will change, my friends. You can be sure of that. I've had several friends that have tried to make an effort to maintain their close relationships with friends they had before the relationship (specifically, me), but the number of successes has been very small - I can count them on one hand with a couple of fingers left over for other things. As this begins to happen more and more in the life of a single person, they start to get into the habit of steeling themselves for the loss of one friend and the gearing up to find a replacement. Depending on how long someone has been single, it may actually be the single person that begins to cut off the relationship as a knee-jerk response (and perhaps a protective measure). What then often happens is that once one of the couple gets a free night, they call their old single friends expecting to have things be spontaneous and just like the old days - and then get their own feelings hurt then the single has other things to do. The friendship has atrophied and so when the one in the relationship wants to have some fun, there's no relationship to rely on with the single anymore such that it's a crapshoot as to whether or not they'll be available.
So, the next time that your single friend doesn't react quite as favorably as you thought they would to your announcement that you've finally found the love of your life, or reacts with a bit of melancholy, maybe this post will come to mind and give you some insight into what they're most likely feeling. They're coping with loss because to them, that announcement sounds more like a death knell than a reason for celebration. They've already started missing you, and the body isn't even cold. I didn't say it's right, but it's more than likely true. They are happy for you, 99% of the time, but singles are a self-centered lot because they have to be and they just will need a little time to get used to the new arrangements. Remember, you just gained a new friend in the person of your significant other but to them, they just lost a friend to the "walking death". You've been waiting for this new significant person but they are, most likely, just trying to keep some good friends around for as long as they possibly can. For people that have been single a long time, they may be getting tired of losing good friends every one or two years.
Dead man walkin'....
Solitude allows us to move freely in and out of relationship with people without the reactionary feelings of rejection. It's completeness with or without.
I do believe that the church falls very short in dealing with how a relationship develops within the idea of being 'Christian.' I'm not sure families really know how to teach proper relational behavior to kids. It seems to be a harmful outcome of the 'no sex before marriage' clause in our salvific contract, so to speak. Much like how many view the consumption of alcohol, the 'no sex before marriage clause' becomes "I cannot let any man touch me, talk to me, or see me, or I'll. be shooting out kids like a PEZ dispenser." (apologies to Carla Tortelli of 'Cheers' fame). It's a somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction that needs to be handled in a more mature way. Sure there are things that are best left alone, but by the same token, there are things that are natural, innate, and raw in us that need to be cultured and brought up with care. The much maligned verse that Paul 'beats his body into submission' is usually misused here. He lived in an environment where sex was not only an open part of culture, but people were using it as a form of worship to their various fertility deities! In any case, this is where the idea of alcohol and sex separate; alcohol is a choice outside of us, sex and relationships are very much a part of human nature pre and post fall.
Now tying that in with friendships and such and you can see how those things can potentially play out. Someone with an underdeveloped sense of relationships tends to show those vibes regardless of if they are with a sig. other or not. It comes out in how they treat their friends too. What ends up happening is transference to the nth degree once they find that special someone and forget that they have a supporting cast that has grown accustomed to that persons relational personality. Going back to what I said about solitude, it is best that we hold to one another
with the opportunity that each person will grow and change at different rates because of the way they were taught, or lack thereof, to handle relationships as a whole. It is up to us singles to catch those things in others and be ready for them so that when those things arise, our reaction is one of fluidity and love, and ultimately encouragement and support. I think a healthy dose of
Henri Nouwen here would fit just perfectly. = )
I've stood up in eight weddings in the last 8 years. I think I know a few things about this subject. = )
OH.MY.GOSH. You are so wrong. Just kidding ;-). For some reason this post makes me want to sing Bad Moon Risin'. Interesting stuff, and I think, a common opinion.
Yeah, Nouwen's philosophies on solitude do indeed fit in well here, and that's a good reminder to reexamine them. I think the thing that I've found most difficult with his ideas is that notion of maintaining relational fluidity. I find that the times when I'm most depressed are those times when I'm farthest away from solid, consistent relationships with other people. When new people are constantly coming and going and deep, long-term friendships are hard to come by, there's quite a feeling of detachment and drifting.
I would think that one of the greatest misuses or misinterpretations of Nouwen's solitude would be the idea of not forming deep relationships so that the loss of those relationships doesn't result in the "walking death" syndrome. Basically, the idea would be to not let anyone in close enough to be greatly missed when the relationships changes in a significant manner, which is a terribly broken way to live one's life. Therein lies the conundrum: form deep friendships knowing that they will probably not last long and will hurt greatly when they change or dissolve (setting ourselves up for sure pain in the future), or keep people at arm's length in order to protect oneself from the pain of the surely-coming dissolution of that friendship (which, then, has the effect of perpetuating the single status because we don't let a potential significant other in close enough to become that significant other)?
To borrow a literary phrase from elsewhere, "aye, that's the rub".
"I find that the times when I'm most depressed are those times when I'm farthest away from solid, consistent relationships with other people."
Is this a feeling or a physical distance that you are observing? Certainly the relationships you have with others is going to ebb and flow, which I would attribute to fluidity. Fluid isn't always consistent, especially when feelings and emotions are used as a measuring stick.
"form deep friendships knowing that they will probably not last long and will hurt greatly when they change or dissolve (setting ourselves up for sure pain in the future), or keep people at arm's length in order to protect oneself from the pain of the surely-coming dissolution of that friendship (which, then, has the effect of perpetuating the single status because we don't let a potential significant other in close enough to become that significant other)"
So the conundrum isn't with Nouwen's postulations, but rather with how you approach those ideas with perhaps the feeling of wariness in the back of your mind? If I am reading that correctly , I can understand completely. I think Nouwen would say that the idea of forming deep relationship would include room for movement by either party (i.e. moving to a different state or country, following a different career path, engaging in relationship, even arguments that cause a shift in the intellectual stability of a relationship). Holding people "at arm's length" as you would say would be not only a defensive mechanism that, when rendered on a consistent basis, can effect all relationships you may enter into, but also is counter-intuitive (cp. Matt 22:37-40, emphasis on v. 39) to ministry of fellowship with our brothers and sisters. For me it boils down to "do I want to run from or hide the pain, which may influence the other party through some levels of emotional manipulation?" or "do I have it in me to allow others to move and flow regardless of what feelings may surface as long as the movement of others is not in violation of God's righteousness?"
I struggled for a few years after Mike married Candy. I was borderline jealous of the situation (the first time I have admitted this clearly). Then, I realized that there was nothing in conflict with what they were doing in relation to God. And that by merely pining for the attention I once got, my outward actions, influenced by my desire, had a negative influence on my suddenly different definition of relationship with the two of them. Part of the feelings of rejection came from my own selfishness toward the situation. The rest I attribute to bad taste in friends. = )
Good entry. Being a single person, in the church and in relationships at different times, this entry rings true. I have often said as a groomsman to the guy getting married, "Well, have a good life. I know that I will rarely see you if at all in future." Too bad it wasn't a joke and turned out to be true. Keep up the good entries.
Over the years (dang, yes, I just said years) of seeing my fair share of mourning the relational changes in my life and helping friends navigate theirs, I've greatly enjoyed the rekindling! :) You know, it's like "after a time, come back together again" and yes, totally out of context...sort of. Seeing the changes...the dead brought back to life...the new dynamics that change brings. Takes some effort. Nothing good happens without effort. This said after being a maid of honor and bride's maid more times than I care to count.
So my quote to quote is from Alfred Lord Tennyson, "Tis better to have loved than to have never loved at all".
Speaking of change...I think I'm ready for change. And yes, I too said that out loud.
"For me it boils down to "do I want to run from or hide the pain, which may influence the other party through some levels of emotional manipulation?" or "do I have it in me to allow others to move and flow regardless of what feelings may surface as long as the movement of others is not in violation of God's righteousness?"
Well, therein lies my quandry and the rub of the whole deal: I don't usually have it in me to allow that movement, and the question is how to realistically deal with those feelings and get to that place where the relational fluidity of others can break upon the rocks of my stoic solitude like so much surf. You've said elsewhere that truly deep relationships allow that fluidity to occur, but I have yet to see that demonstrated which leaves me sort of floundering between the two extremes of solitude which I outlined above.
While I agree with reneesk's Tennyson quote (because a life having never experienced love would be a horrible one indeed), I find that formerly deep relationships which are rekindled (or attempted to be) involve a large amount of catching up and then reminiscing about "the good old days" and new memories and deeper growth of the friendship doesn't usually happen. Instead of being able to make new memories in the short time we have together, we spend all the time filling each other in on what was missed, leaving the relationship always seeming to be one step behind the present. The life stages have diverged in enough distance that anything more than fleeting intersections seem to be quite the pipe dream. I'm sure it can happen in some rare occasions, but I would think that it's certainly not the norm.
I'm not strong enough of a person to allow for that ebb and flow and have just gotten used to shutting down when a church couple begins to flourish because empirical evidence has told me that it's time to find a new friend. If you're strong enough to do that, how did you get there?
"I'm not strong enough of a person to allow for that ebb and flow and have just gotten used to shutting down when a church couple begins to flourish because empirical evidence has told me that it's time to find a new friend. If you're strong enough to do that, how did you get there?"
I'm not sure if simply being a woman is a sufficient answer. Maybe I'm atypical? Women don't seem to revel in "the good ole days" like men. We remember, catch up, move forward....then we shop! Just kidding about the shopping. :) On the other hand, maybe I keep very few people close to my heart so that when the ebb and flow does occur, it hurts less. How many of us can saw we truly have more than 3 or 4 people who know us to the core? I miss my friend, but I don't have a sucking chest wound. I also know some will eventually reconnect, but not all. I am hopeful for all my single friends (and myself) and expect that some day, we'll all move to the next phase.
Here are a few questions for the guys... Are you too comfortable being single? What's holding you back from moving toward that coupledom that you seem to want? I am not blind to the fact that on average the ladies out number the men (in church) 3:1. Good odds for you guys! Why do you continue mourning the loss of friends and looking for new ones instead of pursuing your own deeper, never letting go relationship? No claiming the earlier statement, "either they're single now because they've been hurt by someone before or they're hurt that nobody seems to want to be in a relationship with them (or at least not the right people, that is)." Where you are...right now...what's stopping you?
My comments were originally directed in "Mr. Solitude's" direction, but you bring up some interesting questions that I wanted to take some time to reflect upon.
When I was originally composing this post, it wasn't really about me wanting a romantic relationship or lamenting the lack thereof. It was mainly about the interpersonal dynamics that occur between two friends that are not in romantic relationships and what happens (on the single side) when one gets into a romance. It stems from some observations that I've had recently on how I and some of my other single friends react to one of their friends getting into a relationship, and I thought I'd post my thoughts here to explain why I react the way that I do (and I'd say, as most singles would). Whether the reaction is right or wrong, I figured that I'd let any of my relationship-y friends who read the blog see perhaps what's going on if they get a different reaction to their relationship than they expected, in the interests of communication and sharing, you see. It's more about the dissolution of an existing relationship rather than pining for a different one to take up the slack.
Furthermore, this was also intended to be a little bit of an indictment over how the church handles dating, which was referenced by my comments about not seeing this crazy "sequestered courtship" attitude in the secular community. My core point is that I don't see why getting into a relationship means that you disappear from the friendships that you already have, and this behavior is particularly apparent in church circles. I was saying that I understand the infatuation phase of a relationship and how that does involve some pulling away in the short run, but in church circles that phase seems to go right from infatuation into seriously dating, which of course means heavy counseling and preparing for marriage (almost like a betrothal), which then moves into engagement, culminating in marriage. And we all know that married people aren't allowed to hang out with single people and vice versa. I'm just lamenting that entire attitude in general and hoping to shed some light on why it might cause some tension with single folks in the early stages of their friends' relationships - they see it potentially going this way, and just shut down early.
The comments about why people aren't in relationships really were more of setup and color than the central point of the post.
Thanks for your expanded thoughts and discussion. Your "And we all know that married people aren't allowed to hang out with single people and vice versa." statement made me laugh out loud at how true that seems to be. Sometimes I get a web going and spin off on another direction...suffice it to say, I bring up other unrelated topics that come to mind. I agree with the indictment and hope to not separate the relationships when that time comes for me. The question of why more people aren't moving toward relationships still stands, though. That's just my random question...for another post! :) Thanks for putting this out there, Drew.
I recently experience this same thing in the secular world with my best friend who had been single for 7 years but is now in a relationship. So I would be hesitant to say that this is limited to the Christian world. Suddenly we no longer send time together and now we don't even talk. Is it because I might interfere with her relationship? Is it because she is just so wrapped up in having a relationship? I am not sure. I joked with her when they first started to get serious that she better not forget about me and that is exactly what has happened. It is sad for certain but I think it speaks more for the quality of the friendship than anything else. I believe you are right that the Christian notion of "courting" or "dating with a purpose" does feed this more than in the secular world. However I think the overall reason behind much of this is how strongly the person was desiring to be in a relationship before entering into one. It is easy to get wrapped up and immersed in something you have been wanting for so long. I fear that I will be the same way if I start dating someone after being single for 2 years and I have been struggling with how to approach this when/if it happens.
As for the feelings of "walking death" after a divorce, you hit the nail on the head with that one. While a divorce is not a physical death, it is an emotional death. The person you were sharing your life with is no longer there. You are sure if you should talk about them or how to handle not having them to turn to when needed. When my ex and I first split up, I treated it like another deployment until I could get used to the fact he wasn't coming back. Even after we had been divorced for a while it was nice to talk to him because I felt like I was talking to someone who actually knew me. It took a while for me to realize that he never really knew me but knew things about me (and trust me there is a difference).