V-day (In Defense of Romance)

I am sick to my gut of reading fluffy Christian articles written by singles around this time of year. These are close-to-real lines taken from some of them (to be read in high falsetto voice):

I used to be sad on Valentine's day every time I see couples holding hands, white teddy bears, and those cutesey pink cards. But then I realized that Jesus is the only husband I need."

"Maybe someday God will give me a husband, but until then I'm perfectly content to be single."

"Valentine's day is overrated and stupid and so are boyfriends. God's love is all that matters."

"Boy, I sure am glad I'm not dating anyone this year. What a hassle! Good to be stress-free for once."

And that's just a sample. Here's a confession: I've even written some stuff containing a steady stream of lines like these, the kind of essay Josh Harris and the local convent would applaud. Well, I take it back. Here comes a renaissance. I'm sick of it all. To call that kind of writing cliched would be a watery compliment.

There's quite a spectrum of ignorance, bitterness, bliss, and even rationale, explicit and implicit, in those quotes. But while they all contain some kind of truth, but there is at least one thing dreadfully wrong with each of them.

In addition to being laughably predictable, sickeningly touchy-feely, and uselessly optimistic, these perspectives often overlook an important aspect of Christian living. This Boundless article says what I mean better than I could: Except for a gifted few, we are all called to marry. Supposed to marry...as a picture of Christ's relationship to believers. Marriage isn't just this nice bonus God hands out to those who are extra-holy.

In a nearly opposite stance from most years before, I kind of wish I had a guy to care about this V-day. If any of you have known me for very long, you'll remember my refusal to read nice Christian romance novels, watch chick-flicks (OK, so I still don't watch many of those), and become even slightly ponderous at a wedding. I'm still vaguely embarrassed that I own a compilation CD called "Love Songs" (hey, someone just gave it to me, OK?) Each of the past couple of years, though, I've imagined myself in a year's time, that perhaps someone special might manifest himself in my life's path between now and next February. This about-face isn't because I read a good article and it changed my mind. In fact, it has very little to do with my mind, except for maybe a sluggish mental acquiescence to the inevitability of being female, and all the gifts and curses it brings. Something happened to me in the last two years or so, and somehow it's made me more -- how else can I say it -- girly. Which isn't all bad -- sensitivity, caring, and maternal instincts weren't exactly the downfall of Rome -- but a dangerous side effect is wanting someone to take me out to dinner this Tuesday, to talk to me at least four times a week, and give the occasional gift...not expensive, but thoughtful. Do these desires make me a sellout, an emotional wreck, or perhaps a sadly sheltered fundamentalist with chains around my mind?

I don't mean to echo the age-old cry of ardent feminists, chaste nuns and everyone in between, but we girls have a pretty darn good excuse -- not for being flighty or fickle, but for wanting romance: it is natural, instinctive and God-given. This brings me back to my first point: we are created for marriage (excepting the few who are given the gift of celibacy). God told Eve in Genesis that "her desire would be for her husband." You don't have to look farther than the shiny magazine covers to see this. Of the few glamour/womens' magazines that I have read, they all contain lengthy, detailed journalism with titles like "Is He Thinking About You? 3 Easy Steps to Know For Sure" and "Get Him, Keep Him" and "How to Tell His Personality From His Shoes" (not kidding) and so on. (The saturation of magazines with these titles also illustrates the demise of classic feminism.) But who cares. Contrary to popular opinion, magazines generally don't dictate or impose, because that would not generate profits; rather, they simply cater to and affirm what they already know people want to hear. Women want to be loved and cherished -- the Lord himself cursed us with that desire (but at least some of us get some diamonds out of the deal!). And it is a curse! It plagues us our entire lives. It will never go away, not even owing to the efforts of the first feminists.

(I guess I could make this into a rant against classical feminism. After all, some Christian-single articles I've read could very well have been written by a solid-line feminist posing as a Christian. If you're interested in this angle, a good book to read is "What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us" by Danielle Crittenden. (There's another Crittenden wacko out there, do not get them mixed up or you will be very confused.) Even if you're not that interested, it's a great book that I recommend wholeheartedly.)

I'm not going to end this with some line about celebrating V-day with the love between me and my family, or me and my God (not to trivialize either). V-day is about romance, but our God is terribly romantic. Who else could come up with the inexplicable attraction between male and female, and all the spiritual implications tangled up with it? But...I still know that I won't be at dinner at a dusky restaurant with a handsome boy. And this year, I understand why I, sort of, wish I was, and I simply accept that it's not wrong. But even granting that I had completely pure and unselfish motives (which I don't) it's still not necessary to pine and drool over the brilliant bouquets on the other desks at work. that's where i'ma leave that.

Next time I promise to write something which is not corny, cheesy or embarrassing. :)

Edit, as of March 9th: It has come to my attention that the verse I quoted from Genesis may not actually mean the thing I took it to mean. Had I known this earlier, this post would have been different in several regards. I don't intend to correct everything at this point but wanted to make this clear, whatever implications it may hold for the premise/conclusion of this post.