Posted on 03/20/2011 7:03:47 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
Is being a Protestant single pastor like being a married Catholic priest? Is it an oxymoron?
I never would have thought so until the economic crisis hit, and I had to find a new pastoral position. For the first time in my career my future was in the hands of a search committee, rather than a personal connection.
I’m ordained, 37, single (never married), with experience pastoring in large churches. Given my credentials, I had zero anxiety initially. Then I started reading “job requirement” phrases like these in pastoral job applications:
-“We are looking for a married man” -“Preferably married” -“Is married (preferably with children)”
These churches explicitly were not looking to hire someone single--like Jesus or Paul. I then was surprised to discover that even though the majority of adult Americans are single (52 percent), that only 2 percent of senior pastors in my denomination are single! Something was clearly amiss.
Why were so many churches “requiring” a pastor to be married? Jesus wasn’t. Paul wasn’t. Almost all pastors were single until the time of the Reformation. Is it wise to “require” that our Evangelical pastors be married? Is it biblical?
Some Perspective from Church History
For the first 1,500 years of church history singleness, not marriage, was lauded as next to godliness. Let me say that again—for the first fifteen hundred years.
St. Jerome’s 4th century holiness codes (which were widely embraced), taught that celibate singleness was 100 percent holy, widowhood 60 percent, and marriage a paltry 30 percent. One reason for this pervasive way of thinking was an overly physiological interpretation of Psalm 51:5. “In sin my mother conceived me” was taken to mean that the act of having sex was sinful because it passed on the sin nature.
Thus married couples who kept having sex were considered only 30 percent holy. Widows were no longer having sex so they moved up the perceived holiness ladder to 60 percent. Celibate singles never had sex. Ergo, in the Christian culture of the Middle Ages, singles were the moral high class of society.
Sound ridiculous? It was. It still is. It made an idol out of singleness.
One of the biggest scandals of the Reformation was Martin Luther preaching that it was okay to renounce your vow of celibacy. Against Jerome and the church fathers, whom he criticized as “never having written anything good about marriage,” he had the audacity to preach that marriage was a good thing. Then the former monk did the most “unholy” thing imaginable: he got married. It’s quite possible that no one in the history of the church has done more to elevate the status of marriage than Luther.
The Middle Ages undervalued marriage and over emphasized singleness. Today Evangelicals do just the opposite: we undervalue singleness and over emphasize marriage. History reveals that it’s hard for us Christians to think of marriage and singleness as equally good. But scripture beckons us to do just that.
Singleness is “Good”
Paul opens his chapter on singleness and marriage by saying, “It is good for a man not to marry” (1 Corinthians 7:1). It’s good? Have you ever heard singleness taught as “good” from the pulpit? Paul would be happy if “all men” (vs. 7) were single, celibate, and serving Christ undivided by the concerns of a spouse and children. “Now to the unmarried and widows I say: it is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do” (vs. 8). Are you crazy Paul? Do you really think someone can stay unmarried and be an effective senior pastor? You seem just a bit out of touch with our Evangelical culture.
Paul wasn’t crazy. There is nothing more holy, righteous, or godly about marriage than there is about singleness. Nothing. They are both equally good before God. That’s Paul’s message in 1 Corinthians 7. If you’re married, that’s wonderful. If you’re single, that’s wonderful too. You can effectively pastor the church single or married.
We need to move from a church culture that says “Many of my best friends are single” to one that can say “Many of our best pastors are single.” I don’t want to lose heart; I want to believe that it’s possible for 650 million Evangelicals to finally embrace the equal dignity the Scriptures bestow upon both singleness and marriage.
The bottom line is that it is not about being single or married. It’s about being called and gifted by the Spirit to minister to people both like and unlike us (race, gender, marital status, etc). I plead with search committees everywhere to reflect on the implications of 1 Corinthians 7 before overlooking your next single pastoral candidate. They deserve to be evaluated on their excellence, not their marital status.
—Mark Almlie is an ordained pastor in the Evangelical Covenant Church.
So.... lets say a man marries and he and his wife cannot have children. Is it your opinion then that he’s not biblically qualified to lead a church?
Yes, I am in Alabama. I live in Mobile now. I attended regularly in Birmingham before I moved here. I’ve been here for years and I haven’t attended. For some reason I never found a church home here. I believe much of it is because I would feel uncomfortable going into an unknown church alone. I’d feel sort of out of place.
I started attending the one I went to in Birmingham because someone invited me. So thanks for the invite. :>)
It seems like we’re presupposing a church model where one man is the boss and all eyes are on him, rather than a ministry team of people from different walks of life.
Great point. “Husband of one wife” can be translated as “husband of first wife”.
I can fully empathize with you.. I'm a single woman; been divorced for 30 years and never remarried (by choice I might add) but the members of my church, including the pastor, treat me as some kind of pariah or that something is very wrong with me. It is infuriating actually. I've seen infidelity in the church; the wives airing all their dirty laundry about their 'cheating' husbands in front of the whole church (talk about dysfunction) and yet, I'm eyed with suspicion or disdain. It's extremely uncomfortable and like you, I no longer attend. I don't know what the answer is and really not sure there is one given the fact that we are human. I wish you luck. For now though, in my own life, I will stay at home and read His Word and stay in prayer.
Great point, Titus. “The Son of Man came to serve, not to be served, and to give his life a ransom for the many.”
1 Timothy Chapter 3 makes it clear that the leaders in the Church (Bishops, deacons) need to have been married and demonstrated their ability to be good leaders of their own household before they took a leadership position in one of God's households.
The comparisons in the article to Jesus and Paul, as not having wives is pretty misleading.
Jesus is the LORD Jesus Christ. The only Begotten Son of God. True, HE was the ultimate 'Pastor' (Head Shepard of the Flock of God) - but HE became man (God manifest in the flesh) for one expressed purpose: to redeem a people who were in bondage to Satan. And our LORD Jesus accomplished that in HIS Life and at Calvary. HE led the perfect life (HE alone was without sin and HE alone perfectly kept the Law of God), and HE went to the Cross to take the penalty for our sins. He crushed Satan's head, and defeated our last enemy - death.
Trying to equate our LORD Jesus Christ to a pastor in today's setting is nonsense. The pastors aren't here to bare our sins.
A: They can't (they aren't sinless).
B: This isn't needed. Our sins have been once and forever paid for on the Cross by our LORD Jesus Christ.
And Paul was an evangelist, more than a Pastor. Yes, he displayed great Pastoral advice in his letters (written through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost) - but look at his life. He was always on the move:
2 Corinthians 11:23b-27 ... in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
Writing from prisons, visiting the various churches he had planted throughout the Roman world.
So, clearly he had great 'pastoral' love for the Flock of Christ, but he was never able to settle down to pastor one church. And given his life, marriage was out of the question. But note - it was Paul who wrote the aforementioned letter to Timothy stating that leaders in a Church needed to be married.
So I can understand Evangelists not being married (since they are always traveling) - but not so Pastors of a church.
Personally, I believe both of us should find a church. It's all about trying to be closer to our Lord. I believe a good church can help us with that.
It's a shame we both feel uncomfortable going church because we don't feel that we fit "the profile." Fortunately for me, Christ is accepting of some "dysfunctional" folks (not married with the 2.2 children).
I may feel a little uncomfortable going to church alone but I also realize that our savior paid a great price for us. I guess I need to get over the pettiness of my "slight discomfort" and find a place that's right for me. Hopefully we can both find a place that is good for us.
You are right. And this is just an observation from where I am. It is less uncomfortable for a man. No...I’m not a feminist or one who yells about discrimination however, it is different for women. Older single women (not those that are widowed) are looked at unfavorably or with pity which is disgusting. Can’t explain it but I don’t feel too encouraged it will be any different in any other church.
------------
We men are pretty prideful creatures so I am not so sure that I'll agree.
When I was younger and I saw an older woman in church, I never thought anything of it. I did feel that a lot of the single men were there trying to hook up with women.
It would be great if a church could just treat everyone of us the same. Unfortunately, we're just human.
I encourage you to keep seeking. I know I need to do the same.
In reading your comments, I agree with pretty much everything you've posted. Chuckling at your nickname...Seinfeld reference?
Yes, though it ultimately comes from “A Cry in the Dark,” one of my favorite movies.
I think you HAVE to be married to be an Orthodox Rabbi. I don’t know about any requirement that he has kids, though I think that is expected.
Well, that's assuming you would pastor "a very large church," and have other capable people for that purpose.
What if you have a smaller congregation?
Paul warned us about legalistic interpretations, getting hung up on the letter of the law, instead of the spirit.
About a year ago, our last ordained Deacon passed away and we decided on three new Deacons, one of whom was 42 years old and never married. Another was only once married but a widower, the third was once married but the father of only one child. Not one of them met the strict legalistic definition of a Deacon.
The first two were not the husband of one wife and the third did not meet the requirement of having obedient children (plural). No one in our church had an objection to any of them and they were duly ordained.
Thanks for the ping to this interesting article.
Sure, and if he is looking to be an associate pastor of a larger church, with multiple clergy members, that position is likely existing.
But if you are looking to the only pastor of a small church, or the lead pastor of a larger church, most of the active members are either married or planning to be married. Those people, particularly the leadership of the church, most likely want to see a married pastor.
I'm not doubting your word but I've never heard of that happening. That said, individual Baptist churches are autonomous and can do pretty much what they want concerning their own church. I'm thinking that members of the church you mentioned might have been looking to get rid of the Pastor and saw that as a convenient but cowardly way to do it.
Thank you for stating that, which is obvious to me but will rankle some.
“These churches explicitly were not looking to hire someone single—like Jesus or Paul.”
This is his real problem. He thinks he’s Jesus.
He should start his own cult, where the openings for people who think they are Jesus are virtually limitless.
The rest of this post is just whining.
Paul warned us about legalistic interpretations, getting hung up on the letter of the law, instead of the spirit.
That is an interesting deconstruction of 1 Ti 3. What makes it particularly odd is that in the very same letter Paul describes who "the law" is for (1:8-11) and for what purpose, and no where in his description did I see anything close to resembling him saying, "and about the other things I'm telling you to do - these are just mere suggestions, I really don't expect you to actually abide by them."
The passages that your congregation willfully chose to ignore, in this case deacons, explains the purpose in the requirements. To advise another to blow off Paul's instructions is to also belittle the reasons behind them.
So I'm not quite sure how to take your advice here. Your reasoning is flawed, Paul's rules for the Church are not the same as the Law handed down to Moses. Paul explicitly states that those who reject his words are not rejecting the words of man, but of God (1 Thess 4:8) and that those who do not obey these words should be abandoned. (2 Thes 3:14). Furthermore, in passages like Philemon 21 Paul expects the recipients of his letters to do more than just obey the letter. If we were to follow the same course that your congregation has chosen, there comes a problem when those who are under bishops and deacons are going to struggle with Hebrews 13:17 "They keep watch over you as men who must give an account." especially when those who "must give account" never even met the qualifications.
I don't know how your operation runs, maybe the Bible is a joke, in which case, the unqualified deacons seems to fit in well with that culture. What seems more disturbing is that out of your congregation, you couldn't find anyone who could fulfill these qualifications - so now you have Affirmative Action deacons, and expect God to wink at the transgression. (sigh)
They might be real stand-up respectable guys, but that is only part of the qualification. The instructions want demonstration that has taken years to accomplish. You can't fake having good kids and a joyful household.
Do I need to slip in a "Birther" comment here too? ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.