“In a relationship”

Facebook has six “relationship status” options. They are: “single”, “in a relationship”, “married”, “it’s complicated”, or “in an open relationship”. MySpace (who I will not link to because I am philosophically opposed to it) offers five options: “Single”, “In a relationship”, “Married”, “Divorced”, or “Engaged.” Does anybody see any problems in these options?

I do.

I see one glaring problem. Neither of them, anywhere, offers “dating someone” as a relationship option.

I know, I know, that’s what “in a relationship” means. Right?

Wrong.

According to my dictionary, “relationship” has four potential meanings. Definition 1: “The condition or fact of being related; connection or association.” It just so happens that I am related, connected, or associated to many people. I am in many relationships. “In a relationship” doesn’t really do it for me. Definition 2: “The connection of people by blood or marriage; kinship” Strangely enough, I am also connected by blood or marriage to a great deal of people–at least a hundred that I know of off the top of my head. “In a relationship” just doesn’t cut it. Definition 3: “A particular kind of connection between people related to or having dealings with each other.” As Pride and Prejudice might describe it: “a particular friend.” Well, I also have at least a handful of particular friends. “In a relationship” doesn’t really fit.

In fact, the only definition of “relationship” that relationship status option refers to is the fourth and last definition: “A romantic or sexual involvement.” This is (or should be) a singular type of relationship–one that is exclusive. But that’s not what the word “relationship” in its essence implies.

The problem is, despite the fact that the word “relationship” has three definitions that allow plurality and only one that implies exclusive romantic involvement, Facebook and MySpace have affected popular culture to such a degree that one cannot say “I’m glad our relationship is restored” after an argument without people making assumptions about the kind of involvement you have with one another.

This same sort of thing happened in our church when some people decided they didn’t like “dating” and prefered “courting.” Unsure of what to call the person that if they were dating would be referred to as “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”, they resort to the term “friend” in quotation marks. Problem is, when “friend” becomes redefined as “romantic object”, where does that leave those of us who actually are involved in platonic friendships?

I see more and more broad categories used to define connections between people (since I can’t use the word “relationship” anymore) narrowed to define only romantic relationships. Apparently, in the world in which we exist, where single person households compose the largest “family” group, platonic relationships no longer exist. And perhaps that is so. With the advent of “hooking up” and “shacking up” and “friends with benefits” are there any relationships (sorry, it’s the best word for it–as long as you can figure out what it really means) that aren’t sexualized?

But it shouldn’t be so. Sure, I was made a sexual being. But I was made something much deeper than that. I was made a relational being. I was made with the capacity to give and receive love, to understand and to be understood. I was made to be in relationship–and not just in “a” relationship, but in many. I was made to be interdependent–to be helped in my weakness, and to help others in theirs. I was made to reflect God’s image–to reflect a God who is so relational that He is three persons so perfectly related that they are completely one. While sin inhibits such perfect relationship among humans, that doesn’t mean that we are not called to walk in relationship with one another.

So I rebel against the redefinition of relationship in our current world. If you want to say that you’re dating, say dating. Don’t steal perfectly good words that have a whole range of wonderful other meanings and twist them to make them mean “dating.” We need those other words to keep meaning what they do–because without them, we may lose some of our most precious, well, relationships.

As an addendum, I also have difficulties with the current use of the word “Single.” It seems to me that if “single” is used as a “relationship status” it should mean “unmarried”. A person does not cease to be “single” simply because they are dating someone. It seems to me that until a man and a woman leave father and mother and cleave to each other and become “one flesh”, they are still each “single”.