Apparently Mrs. Maken is not alone in finding the current lack of/postponement of marriage to stem from a lack of seriousness; I’ve read similar things elsewhere.

I’ve also read defenses from many singles stating they are quite serious about marriage and it is the acknowledgement of the importance of marriage that has many singles almost paralyzed with fear of an unsuccessful marraige, or of putting it all off until they have thoroughly researched what it takes to have the best marriage possible.

There is also the prevailing mist of confusion between the sexes that seems to hamper communication for both the secular and Christian worlds of late.

No small part of the uneasiness in social life is due to modern technology that encourages long hours alone; people today often do not get the kind of practice socializing as they once did.

In any case, thanks again for airing these arguments. It’s such a thrill to have found your blog.

[I was refered by a link in a Carolyn McCulley blog entry.]

Over time, Evangelical women have wrapped up dating so tightly with salvation and trying to live God’s will, that they completely miss the human element in dating. So, what choices do men have? With secular women, they have trashy girls; with religious women, they have nuns. Where do you think men will go? Add to this the scandalously high divorce rates among Evangelicals and it is no mystery why so many Christian women are alone every night.

Probably the worst aspect of all this is . . . women . . . teaching women to be content with singleness, to embrace the HOLY gift of singleness and to resist dating anyone who doesn’t match the exact specifications of the local Southern Baptist preacher.

Anyone preaching a “gift of singleness” is doing Christians a profound disservice.

You said: “Basic Youth Conflicts did not encourage singleness (and it wasn’t a youth movement), in fact just the opposite. Just because it’s originator never got married, doesn’t mean they justified the attitude.”

The problem with BYC is that on one hand, they upheld this glorious picture of Christian marriage to millions of young people, yet on the other hand they gave singles an impossible formula to get there. For example, their 1976 training manual said, among other things, that “believing that it is my responsibility to search out and find a life partner” are “natural inclinations that produce wrong friendships”, because “it is God’s responsibility to prepare the right life partner”. Another one: “Loneliness is primarily the result of not knowing how to enjoy my own company”, so of course, you should just ignore not only loneliness but sexuality and all drives that God has designed to bring men and women together, because those things have nothing to do with anything, because God will work things out regardless of our efforts (or lack thereof), right??

So then, what happens when people are taught to disconnect from their natural feelings and drives so that God (and their parents) can do all the work? G. Richard Fischer at Personal Freedom Outreach (pfo.org) wrote about the leader of BYC:

“Gothard’s views on singleness might have led to the scandal that almost wrecked his organization by way of his brother’s repeated and prolonged immorality with secretarial employees, which Gothard admitted in his letter to pastors, July 18, 1980:

‘For many years I have put the ministry ahead of my family and staff, especially my brother. My pride and wrong priorities resulted in encouraging him to postpone marriage because of the demands of the ministry, thus disregarding his personal needs. I have also failed others, including present and former staff members who sought to warn me of my incomplete handling of past staff problems, rejecting reproofs, and personal inconsistencies.’

However, he never recalled any of his materials.”

On the “brandedforchrist.org” website, Dr. Bob Cosby also wrote about his involvement with Gothard’s ministry:

“Bill has never married, basing his doing so on 1 Corinthians 7:8 ‘I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.’ There have been reports of major problems developing from this position but the real problem has developed in the fact that his ministry has become a family ministry and he has never had a family. He is the coach who never played the game. Sometimes the result of this curiosity is funny. When we were at the Northwoods for our training seminar, Bill decided to get off on birth control and by the time he was through, he had prescribed that all married couples be, for all intents and purposes, celibate. When Cathy and I got back to the room she almost incredulously asked, ‘What did you think of that?’ To which I replied, ‘You can tell that boy has never been married.’”

Gothards’ ideas have been met with some criticism and his ministry is pretty much considered irrelevant these days, but many of his ideas live on in the writings of current pundits on Christian singleness. The late Don Raunikar’s writings are filled with Gothardisms, right from the title of his 1998 book “Choosing GOD’S BEST”, a term that refers to the notion that you shouldn’t marry someone who is a “good choice” for you, but “GOD’s choice”. No where in the Bible is mate-finding discussed in such idealized terms– back then, you simply went out and got your pushcart, a wife and a hovel to live in…good enough. Nevertheless, Carolyn McCulley’s website continues to endorse this book.

We need to get back to the idea that marriage is a practical matter. Not that God’s sovereignty isn’t at work here! But the holy written word addresses the route to marriage very much along the lines of making a “good choice”: excercising discernment, wise judgement, moral intentionality and plain old common sense (ie. Proverbs 5, 18:22, and 31, Cor 7:2 and 9:5, 1 Thess 4:4). There are no admonishments to beware of the “good choice”, lest you miss out on “the GOD choice”, at least not where marriage is concerned.

God created man and woman – joined together -in his own image. By keeping the sexes separate ie. single we cannot each individually fully reflect the glory of God.

Of course marriage reflects the glory of God, but are you saying, in all seriousness, that an individual, or a single person, does not reflect God’s glory as much???? Is a single man less masculine than a married one? Is a single woman less feminine because she is … well, single? I can’t believe that’s what you’re really intending to imply. As St. Iraneus famously said: “The glory of God is a human being fully alive.”

Now, I can’t speak for RA, but I would wager that he/she isn’t talking about every individual here, but rather, what TENDS to happen when marriage becomes a reduced priority in any society. When you look out over groups of Christian singles over a certain age, you see how unrealized sexual potential exacts a toll on both masculinity and femininity. I don’t think it’s very edifying for large numbers of men or women to wait until their 30’s and 40’s to experience sex, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, etc. OR PERHAPS not at all. Yes, there are some shining examples of resilience that are a testimony to the grace of God, but must we suspend any discussion of the costs of unfulfilled sexuality to us as a church body so as to not offend those exceptions? And as for those who are not exceptions but are obviously suffering in their singleness, I do not understand the resistance to looking at these issues! We’re trying to find solutions here, people!!!

Same thing with missions work. Do you really think it makes no difference to the missions field as a whole whether or not most of the workers out there ever marry? I would guess that you would say it’s preferable that most be married. Of course there are some great single missionaries, but many of those individuals would like to be married. I had a former roommate who was a “recovering missionary”. It never occurred to anyone that she might want to get married and that to do so might take time and intentionality. It all work, work, work for the Lord and if he wants to have a husband he will darn well give you one.

Adam,

It is true that singles today want to be married, but I don’t see why we have to say “whatever” instead of looking at the reasons. Gift of singleness teachings may not be the strongest reason, but it is indeed a factor, and one that the faithful aren’t comfortable looking at because to them, it seems like criticizing the church. I agree with you about scriptural integrity, but I think it works both ways: if you say that there is no scriptural support for singleness as being a sin, then you must also admit that 1 Cor 7:7 does not call singleness a gift.

Permit me to make a few comments in an effort to bring at least a certain amount of closure as far as discussion on this blog is concerned.

First, we should remember that Christ, not marriage, is the center of God’s creative and redemptive purposes. Paul writes in Ephesians that it is God’s end-time purpose “to bring all things [including marriage!] together under one head, even Christ” (Eph. 1:10).

Second, in a related point, marriage exists, not primarily to fulfill human needs, but for the greater glory of God – or, as Paul says three times in the opening verses of Ephesians, “for the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). So, let’s be married to the glory of God, and for those so called, let’s be unmarried for the glory of God.

Third, if you want to read a fuller account of God’s purposes for marriage and singleness and many other related issues, such as parenting, adoption, abortion, artificial reproductive technologies, divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and so on, read God, Marriage & Family (Crossway). It is much more thorough and wide-ranging than Debbie Maken’s book, which is focused on a fairly narrow topic (and then often argues from experience rather than Scripture).

Fourth, let me issue to all concerned in the debate (including myself) a call to humility. None of us has all the answers, and we can learn from each other. In Scripture, we have a sure foundation, and Scripture, as our sole authority, must always remain our final point of reference and our common ground. But we must not confuse what Scripture teaches with our interpretation of Scripture or assume too quickly that our interpretation of Scripture is equal to Scripture itself.

Let’s also remember that we live in a fallen, sinful, imperfect world where ideals are often not realized. And let’s retain a fear of God and a trust in him and in his wise and inscrutable counsel, especially as it pertains to the future, which is ultimately known only to him.

I realize this is an intensely personal issue for many of us, which is why it is even more important to approach this subject with humility, a commitment to the authority of Scripture, and a passion for the greater glory of God in all things.

“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.” (Eph. 3:20-21)

The contradiction is in saying marriage is a command but it can be excepted. Commands are didactic and uncompromising. There isn’t any loophole for worshiping another God or committing adultery. Debbie Maken makes this clear when she compares the debate of singleness and marriage to that of plurality and exclusivity of Christ. Calling marriage a command distorts the meaning of what a command is.

This, and a variety of others reasons, I do not maintain marriage to be a command or a law that must be followed. First is there is no biblical warrant to do so. The Bible teaches marriage is the norm for humanity, that it is good, and that it is the proper context of sex and procreation. Like the creation, it is to be honored by all and cared for, but it is not a rigorous demand of the law that could bring us in right relationship to God if obeyed.

Second, if marriage were not a matter of liberty, then the burden of proof lies upon the marriage legalist to decipher when singleness is protracted and when condemnation is in order. To do this you must set up a sort of age of accountability. Since you don’t believe people should get married at age 13 (when puberty is in full-fledge) you give a grace-period for a person to be single, which seems to end around one’s late twenties.

Third, the qualifications for the gift of celibacy/singleness (categories not mentioned in 1 Cor. 7) are subjective. The two tests put forward are “the wholly devoted to Christ” test, and the “resistant to sexual temptation” test. Who determines whether these criteria are met? Married people like yourself? Is there some magistrate or priesthood we can appeal to determine whether someone is devoted to God enough? Should we structure church discipline in such a way to measure these things?

When you start talking law to answer a problem you get 10 more questions than you started with. Paul had no time for this kind of thinking and neither should we. The most offensive thing about it is that it gives one class of people (the married) the right to judge and condemn another (the singles) based on nothing other than marital status! How convenient for those who are married.

Many singles today want to be married but aren’t for whatever reason. Attributing protracted singleness to a single cause like “the gift of singleness teaching” is a naive approach to an issue that is much more complicated, and blaming men for the problem certainly isn’t a step towards solving it.

You said: Someone: It seems to me that you are trying to find excuses as to why perfectly appropriate Bible verses somehow don’t apply to us today, or in our situation. I think instead of trying to find excuses to invalidate the references to marriage that abound in God’s word, maybe, just maybe, you need to consider that perhaps God is trying to tell us something that is worth hearing.

I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this one. I happen to think that actually trying to interpret scripture properly and not just using it in whatever ways suit our purposes at the time is important. As I mentioned before, it’s easy to find support for almost anything we want in scripture and then claim that we’re being scriptural and that other are “fidning excuses to ignore what scripture says” when they call us on our lousy, sloppy interpretation. I’ve been facing this kind of thing ever since I was a teenager and have seen it over and over again, and this time around fits the pattern. I’m certain that the things I’ve pointed out to you about your questionable interpretations of scripture would be backed up by many, if not most, theologians and Bible scholars.

In any case, I’ve grown weary of debating this subject, and after attending my men’s group at church last night (made up of both married and single men) and spending the evening with other Christian men, I feel completely at peace about where I am in life and feel no need to justify myself to you or Debbie Maken or anyone else, and so I’m bowing out of this debate.

To Jennifer M,

Thanks for your responses to me and for your civil tone. I’d love to respond to your post as well, but I just don’t feel I have the time, energy or will left to gather my thoughts together on it and work ot write something coherent. Sorry.

Phillipa,

Thanks for the well wishes.

Peace