Are We Afraid of Single Pastors?

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?

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.

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.

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.

1 Cor. 7:1, 8, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 40.

It was good in that Acts dispensation for either a man or a woman to remain entirely single and pure, and to give himself or herself wholly into the Lord’s work, waiting for the Second Coming of Christ and the Kingdom Age.

This is exactly what the believers before AD 63, or so, fully had the right to expect to take place within their lifetime. The revelation God had given to that point indicated that had Israel as a nation repented, then God would have sent Jesus Christ back to the earth (Acts 3:19ff.). At the giving of First Corinthians no “Church Age” longer than the life span of the Apostles themselves was ever anticipated by man.

The connection of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 to the Kingdom and to the early Acts period believers waiting for the Kingdom is shown by a comparison of Matthew 19:1-12 with 1 Corinthians ch. 7 and one verse in 1 Corinthians ch. 9. Matthew ch. 19 is a part of the third period of the Lord’s earthly ministry (Matthew 16:21 through 20:34), involving the rejection of the King.

Israel as a whole did exactly that again in the Acts period: they rejected their King under the preaching of the Apostles. Israel rejected their final opportunity before the judgment prophesied in Matthew 22:7 (the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70). The Acts period believers, however, did not know this final rejection would happen until it did happen (Acts ch. 28), and did not know that the result would be a prolonged westward movement of Christianity around the globe, which we now call the (Gentile) Church Age.

“…If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry (Matthew 7:10) “…It is good for a man not to touch a woman (1 Cor. 7:1)

“For I would that all men were even as I myself [unattached to a wife].” (1 Cor. 7:7a)

“I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.” (v.8)

“Now concerning virgins…this is good for the present distress [that being that the time is short—v.29]…that it is good for a man so to be [unattached by marriage] .” (vv.25,26)

“…if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. (v.28)

“…and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. (v.37)

“…he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.” (v.38)

“…she is happier if she so abide [unmarried], after my judgement:… (v.40)

“…and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Matthew 19:12)

“Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.” (1 Cor. 7:20)

“Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” (v.24)

“…Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. (v.27b.)

“the time is short [the Kingdom is imminent]: it remaineth that both they that have wives be as though they had none. (v. 29)

“…He that is unmarried [as a eunuch] careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord [without distraction]:… (v.32)

“…that ye may attend upon the Lord [as a eunuch] without distraction” (v.35)

“…All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” (Matthew 19:11)

“But every man hath his proper gift of God.” (1 Cor. 7:7)

“…He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12c)

“But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn [in lust].” (1 Cor 7:9)

“but as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk…” (1 Cor. 7:17)

“Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. …” (v.27)

“…if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;…” (1 Cor. 7:28)

1 Corinthians chapter 9

“Have we not power to lead about a sister a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (v. 5)

In thrust, 1 Corinthians chapter 7 is a discouragement from marriage. This must be contrasted to Paul’s instruction given after the events of Acts 28 have passed. This is why the bulk of instruction for home life is indeed given in the Epistles written after the close of the Acts record.

Even in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 (Acts-Period), there is little or no teaching on the character of the family members. This would be found rather in Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (all Post-Acts Period). Nevertheless, there are God-ordained principles in 1 Corinthians 7 for our learning which are in no way negated by the progression in revelation past Acts ch. 28.

The practical application of 1 Corinthians 7:1 will keep our young people pure. This is but one of the texts on which we base the practice of hands-off courtship. We do not allow our children to date.

Dating leads to holding hands (touching a woman). Holding hands leads to putting an arm around one’s date (touching a woman). An arm around one’s date leads to the embrace (touching a woman). The embrace leads to caressing and kissing (touching a woman)—and guilt, and unnecessary bonding and wrenching of emotions. Caressing and kissing leads to fondling and petting (touching a woman)—and more guilt and more unnecessary emotional and spiritual upheaval. Fondling and petting is already an illicit use of what should only be the marriage bed (touching a woman!!!). The result is even more heaped up guilt, and more fear of discovery by parents, or by a yet future spouse, and fear of pregnancy, and embarrassment and shame!

The Scriptures are crystal clear—”It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” It is the standard of the God of the universe!

Now all the religious pluralists and worldlings and carnal professors of some form or another of modern Christianity so-called gang up on us with this foolish use of the English language: “Don’t you know, Preacher, that teenage dating is normal?” You see, modern man has been so dumbed down that he does not even know the difference between the words ‘normal’ and ‘common.’ Modern users of the English language have also merged the definitions of ‘normal’ and ‘popular.’ Smoking marijuana is popular, but it is not “normal”—it is abnormal! Colon cancer is common, but it is not “normal”—it is abnormal! Teenage dating is common, popular, and rampant, but it is not “normal”—it is abnormal, unnecessary, and dangerous to both moral purity and Christian spirituality!

This is proper Biblical teaching for our young people from early childhood. It will be very difficult to persuade teenagers of these principles if you fail to teach them until you wake up one morning and discover that your children are teenagers. It will be difficult if your Christian lives to that point are inconsistent. You will have war on your hands if you wait until you have already had your children in the heathen environment of the government-run public schools or Catholic parochial schools, where the students entice each other to begin the practice of dating: the girlfriend & boyfriend thing.

Several years ago, one of this author’s daughters was asked by another missionary’s adopted daughter if she would marry a national in the country where we were laboring (which, by the way, would be of a different race). Two other of the same missionary’s daughters (ages 12 and 13, at that time) spoke freely of crushes (aroused emotion or desire) on boys, and of liking boys, and so forth. Why must such behavior ever become part of the habits of young people? No, it is not normal!

There is no necessity for professing Christian teenagers to be embroiled with these kinds of emotions and the pursuant temptations and offenses, when they should instead be in obedience to 1 Corinthians 7:34 and Titus 2:4-8. This author allows no such discussion in our home—either by our own children or by visiting children.

This author’s eldest son, [name withheld], was married at age twenty to a beautiful young woman named [name withheld] (see Appendix Nos. 1 and 2). The author had the honor of officiating over the part of the wedding ceremony wherein the bride’s father relinquished his coverture responsibilities and placed her under the coverture of her groom. At that transfer of coverture, [bride’s] father placed her hand into the hand of [groom]. That was the very first time [author’s son] had ever touched a woman in any way except for his own mother and sisters in their proper relationships.

Neither [son] nor [bride] had had any previous boyfriend-girlfriend relationships. The couple didn’t date! After proper and adequate introduction of families, and after both sets of parents agreed in conference, Matthew and Carrie began a hands-off courtship. That is, they saw each other only under parental supervision, or that of other godly adult chaperones. They were never alone. They never held hands. They entered marriage pure, untouched, guilt-free, without being traumatized by unharnassed teenage emotion, and with no fear of what might be discovered. More importantly, Matthew and Carrie entered marriage with a clean and bright testimony of devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. They are an example to be emulated by other young people. Parents and friends on both sides are extremely pleased and thankful to the Lord.

1 Cor. 7:2, 7, 9, 39. Marriage in the Lord, and only in the Lord, is God’s answer to avoid the practice of illicit sexual behavior and lust. A man is to have his own wife, and the wife is to have her own husband. God’s standard has always been one wife for life or one husband for life (unless there is a parting by death), the failure of man in this regard not withstanding (Genesis 2:20-24; Matthew 19:3-9).

“In the Lord” and “in Christ” are not synonymous concepts. Marriage to someone who is saved—that is, “in Christ” is the very minimum standard, but it is not the only standard. One may marry a Christian and yet be entirely outside of God’s will in doing so. Marriage in the Lord involves marrying another child of God with the added stipulation that the marriage be under the absolute Lordship of Jesus Christ. Too many sets of Christian parents are content only that their child is to marry another professing believer. What a low estimation of Christ’s purposes in marriage do we have in our churches today!!

Seven Minimum Prerequisites for Marriage in the Lord

We have the purpose that our children will marry only in the Lord: therefore, we have the following (among other) rules for first consideration before courtship:

Any young man being interested in knowing something about one of this author’s daughters must approach this author first, to inquire as to the potential availability of his daughter, and inquire as to the terms. This may be in person or by letter. Any young man who approaches the daughter before he approaches her father is subject to disqualification. A young man who will approach a young woman about her availability before seeking out her father’s approval proves he comes from a background of little or no real Biblical training.

Any young man approaching this father with regard to his daughter must be able to testify clearly and Biblically (without coaching) as to the faith of Christ. He must be able to give a Biblical explanation for sins being forgiven. He must know assuredly that he is a child of God.

The young man must also bear evidence of soundness in Bible doctrine.

The young man must be obviously separated from the world, and devoted to Christ and to His work. Further, there must be evidence that such separation and devotion existed in the young man long prior to him having any knowledge of this author’s daughter.

The young man must have a non-dating background and have no intention of dating. If courtship is finally agreed upon (and “courtship” is a subject in itself), the young man must be content to see the young lady only in the presence of family, the church, and/or spiritual adult chaperones until marriage.

The young man must have some expression of how his own future home will be used for the furtherance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and how it will be given to the Lord entirely to exemplify on earth Christ and His Church.
He must reject the concept of his wife working outside the home (excepting partnership with him in a family-based enterprise). He must reject the modern philosophy that “it requires two separate incomes to survive these days.”
He must reject the United Nations Organization and Club of Rome doctrine of limited family sizes (e.g. average of two children per family).

He must reject state or non-fundamental Christian education for his children.

He must reject state licensure of marriage.

There must be public knowledge and testimony that the interested young man has the discipline and willingness to work with his own hands to support and care for a wife and children. A lazy or undisciplined man is wasting his time approaching this author in regard to one of his daughters.

This author’s sons are being trained to meet these minimum prerequisites—and more!

Headship as an Ordinance

1 Cor. 11:3-16. This is not a typical or picture ordinance for the local Church, but is a practical and protective (coverture) ordinance for the home. If observed, it enhances the testimony of the Church.

The Head of every man is Christ, not the bishop or pastor of the local church. By the way, the pastor is never called the “head” of anything in his office. If husbands and fathers took their headship seriously, the bishops would have no room, and feel no need, to usurp the father’s/husband’s role in our homes.

The head of the woman is the man: her husband, or her father (if unmarried). The bishop or the pastor of the local church is not the head of any woman except his own wife.

The Head of Christ is God the Father.

Longhaired prophets (preachers) and longhaired men praying in public dishonor Christ (v. 4). Shorthaired women who pray or prophesy (permitted in the Acts period in the presence of Jews as a sign—see Joel chapter 2—but forbidden now) dishonor their husbands. A woman with short hair (that approaching the appearance of a man) is indicating rebellion against her husband, and that she might even slip out and practice prostitution (v.5). If the appearance of a harlot (shorn or short-haired) be shameful, then the Christian woman is not to be confused with such a wicked testimony. That is, a Christian woman should let her grow her hair long! A Christian woman cannot have it both ways. Don’t have a confusing testimony by your appearance.

If I needed a Bible verse to indicate the length of Jesus’ hair during His earthly ministry, I would go to verse 7. Since Jesus was the image of the invisible God (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15), I know that Jesus’ head was not covered. He did not have long hair. Jesus’ “locks [were] bushy, and black as a raven.” (Song of Solomon 5:11). “Bushy” does not mean long.

A look at the animal kingdom will illustrate how that “nature itself [does] teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.” (v.14) The male lion has the long hair, not the female. The male peacock has the colorful plumage, not the female. Man is not a part of the animal kingdom, the views of such idiots as Charles Darwin notwithstanding.

The woman, being the glory of the man, is to have her head “covered,” that is, longhaired. Her long hair indicates that she understands the creation and God’s purposes. She testifies by her covering that she accepts her husband’s or her father’s coverture protection and authority, and expects God’s blessings on her for her submission. The woman’s hair is given her for a covering (v.15), and not a hat, bonnet, scarf, doily, napkin, or any other man-made object.

There are some Baptists and some Brethren who believe in a “double covering” on a woman. They say, “Oh, the woman’s hair is her glory, and she shouldn’t want to emphasize her own glory in the assembly, so she should wear something to cover her own glory.” People who think this way have their women folk to place a doily or a scarf on top of their head during public worship (and some, even in private worship). But 1 Corinthians chapter 7 never mentions anything or any material as a covering except the hair itself. No mention is made of any man-made material or object to go on the head. If woman practice the “double covering” concept in a church where all women practice this, that’s fine. But when a woman wears a doily on her head in any other assembly, she actually defeats her purpose in wear a man-made covering, because she draws the attention of everyone else directly to her own hair.

The Russian Baptist women, along with virtually all other religious women in Russia, believe that they cannot be right with God without wearing a scarf or shawl on her head, not only in church, but at all times.

A woman out from under her head (her husband or her father) is especially susceptible and vulnerable to the influence of angels which kept not their first estate (v. 10 with 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 2 Corinthians 11:3). Eve was deceived by an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) when she was away from the protection of Adam’s authority. Adam should have been the one to deal with the Serpent (Genesis chapter 3). Satan and his angels are roaming about ready to destroy families in which the women (wives and daughters) are leaving the home and placing themselves under the headship of those who are not their own husbands (or fathers). Satan is destroying (or marginalizing the testimony of) churches where women teach or usurp authority over the man. Satan is bringing in confusion and destruction in many churches where the pastor’s wife is the de facto co-pastor; where she is mouthy and bossy, and not shamefaced. A mouthy and bossy pastor’s wife cannot be described as a godly or virtuous woman.

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.