And the Pirate in My Head Says

So many thoughts.

Someone once told me a story about their experience in a co-ed friendship.  She wanted to be more than friends.  He wanted to be just friends.  In the course of their discussing divergent desires (nice alliteration, right?) she said to him, "I have enough friends," and walked away from the relationship.  End of story.

I never understood that.  If the other person means so much to you, wouldn't you be willing to accept whatever it is they have to offer, even if it's not everything you want?

Now, I get it.

When I took Field Education while finishing my Master's, we spend a week on sexual ethics in regards to the pastor-congregant relationship.  The question was raised:  What do you do when you find yourself developing romantic feelings for a congregant who has come to you for pastoral care?

Without hesitation, I said, "Refer out.  Refer out.  Refer out."

In a class of twenty, only one person agreed with me.  The speaker in the seminar disagreed, saying, "It's inappropriate to punish the congregant because of your own feelings."

I understand her point.  It's unfair to deny another person, one entrusted to you by your position, pastoral care.  You keep your own feelings in check, and continue to minister to them.

Pastors are not, despite what church culture dictates, super-human or super-holy.  There is potential, because the pastor is in a position of spiritual authority and therefore has the power in the relationship, for such a situation to become abusive, whether it's ever consciously intended or not.

As such, I stand by my original response:  Refer out.

But neither of these cases is particularly helpful to me right now.

The first is unhelpful because the person who told me the story was a guy who had a consistent and well documented habit of pursuing women's hearts for sport.  He was a master at getting women to fall in love with him and then playing the "friend" card.  And so, at the end of the day, not much of a friend.  A "something is better than nothing" philosophy only applies when there is something substantive to be had or lost.

The second is unhelpful because I haven't begun to develop romantic feelings for a parishioner/congregant.  I have fallen in love with a peer, a fellow minister, a colleague, for all intents and purposes.  Incidentally, back in February, I had to take the MMPI-2, as required of all ministry candidates in my Association.  A list of some 500+ true/false questions, one of them reads:  T/F  I have never been in love.  In February, this was true.  As of July 19th, it's false.

Everyone I know has a list of qualities they are seeking in a potential mate.  In my experience, women more than men tend to have an actual, physical, written list, as opposed to a purely mental checklist.

I started just such a list when I was in college.

It's a list that includes everything from hair and eye color (dark hair, light eyes) to IQ (140 or above), to personality (kindness, integrity, forthrightness, graciousness, quirky), to theology/faith (Christian in both word and deed, commitment to scriptural authority, desire to grow in theological understanding, openness), etc.  Most of these are preferences.  A few have become non-negotiables.

I've always been attracted to the idea of marriage and motherhood.  I would like, someday, to get married, and have a couple of kids.  A little girl with green-gold eyes and flaxen ringlets.  A little boy waiting to greet the world.

I've never pictured myself as a single mother.  And I've only once considered another person marriageable material, though it would have necessitated giving up the hope of children.  And boy did that go down in flames.

Having recovered some from the grief that left me vulnerable to this person, from a standpoint of significant mental and emotional health, I did 2 things:

1.  I thanked (and continue to thank) God that this person is no longer a part of my life and,

2.  I prayed, and I prayed, and I prayed.  And after much prayer and thoughtful deliberation, I set my list of preferences aside, and I made a list of non-negotiables.

It looks like this:

1.  Christian in word and deed.

2.  On the same intellectual playing field.

3.  An absolute commitment to healthy conflict resolution as outlined in Matthew 18.

Now, in all fairness, I feel it necessary to point out that being a Christian in word and deed means any potential mate will also have to exhibit traits of kindness, honorableness, integrity, etc.

An intellectual playing field differs vastly from IQ.  IQ scores are like classifications in sports:  pee-wee, little league, junior varsity, varsity, college, and professional.  Intellectual playing fields, on the other hand take into account both the level and the sport being played--a professional baseball player is at the top of the game, but his/her skills differ greatly from a professional football or basket ball player.  I want someone in the same sport and league.  Intellectually, I want a professional badminton player.  Incidentally, this also guarantees that quirky personality trait.

But that last one?  I actually had a Christian leader whom I greatly respect tell me to scratch it off the list because no man anywhere in the world would ever be willing to commit to Matthew 18-ing it from the get-go, because, in her words, "all men are afraid of conflict."

I threw her advice out the window.  I would rather remain single for the rest of my life than compromise on those core values.

So, here I am, 3 year later.  List intact.  Single.  And in love.  And I know that I am in love primarily because not once have I even thought about changing who I am to win his heart.  In part because I'm confident that he would never ask me to, and in part because I know that if he did, I'm healthy enough to simply walk away.

And so, having fallen in love, I pulled out my list, mentally.  Sure enough, he meets criterion #1.  And holy cheese and crackers, he meets criterion #2!  This is a miracle on the order of loaves and fishes, as these criteria, by and large, tend toward mutual exclusivity in my experience.

But #3 was not yet apparent.  We have not experienced conflict in our friendship.  In fact, we have never really discussed our friendship.  It's just kind of there--active, dynamic, lively, and a boatload of fun.  As yet, no conflict to speak of.

So, I pulled out my secondary list.  The preferences.  Hair color--really dark brown.  Eye color--pale brown, almost gold, like Tiger's Eye.  Height--Tall!  Kindness.  Compassion.  Graciousness.  Sense of humor.  Quirky.  Enjoys dancing.  Total nerd.  Every single item on my list is a match.  Every.  Single.  One.  (This is excepting those items which would require a ruler, caliper, and infant medical records--or lack thereof--or a totally inappropriate Q&A session).  Ladies and Gentlemen, he's shaping up to be the world's most perfect man.

And then, tonight.  Oh, boy!  He calls.  And he tells me that he is still hung up on his ex.  And though he doesn't state it explicitly, it's clear that he knows I've fallen in love with him.  He tells me that he does not want to lead me on, and he deeply values my friendship, so if he does or says anything , like flirtatious banter or calling me in the middle of the night (which, for the record, equates to 10:30 pm for me) that makes me feel used or taken advantage of, he wants to know.  And so, criterion #3 get a check mark.

I've got this checklist.  And before me is this man who fits all of my criteria.  This man is standing before me, knowing I'm in love with him, and his concern is that he's doing everything he can to safeguard both my heart and our friendship.

He's just not interested in me romantically.  Which, naturally, begs the questions:  What the hell is wrong with this guy?  I'm amazing!  And anyone would be hard pressed to find a woman as extraordinary as I am.

But, like I said, everyone has a list of preferences.  Apparently someone else's name is at the top of his.  I'm not what he wants, and it seems he will never want what I am.

And the pirate that lives in my head says, "Argh, lassie.  The lad be an idiot not be wanting the treasures you possess."