A secret master of ceremonies has been at work. Christ, who said to the disciples, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” can truly say to every group of Christian friends, “Ye have not chosen one another but I have chosen you for one another.” The friendship is not a reward for our discriminating and good taste in finding one another out. It is the instrument by which God reveals to each of us the beauties of others. CS Lewis
Writing about singles and the church seemed, at first, like an easy set of posts to write. However, the issues are complex and diverse. Today has seen me banging my head against the table, finding it difficult to bring all of my thoughts together in a cohesive post. So, I have given up. Instead, I will write about a number of thoughts that I put under headers to give these thoughts some semblance of order.
Are Christians Singles The New Second Class Citizen?
Today's Christian Post link featured a post from a blog, Small Town Preacher, Big Time God. Duke Taber, the author and pastor, said he was meeting with some friends in the pastoral ministry who said,
“we would not consider someone who was not married”.
He said that there is a misunderstanding in Christian circles that only married people are "complete."
God created man in His image. He created them male and female. It does not teach that He created two half beings that when they come together they are complete, but instead it teaches that both male and female are complete creations formed in His image.
So to view a single person as somehow not able to pastor or be a leader is one that is truly non-biblical. You also cannot find any passage in scripture that would support such a position and in fact you find passages in scripture that support the opposite.
1 Corinthians 7: 32-35 But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord – how he may please the Lord. 33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world – how he may please his wife. 34 There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world – how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.
Taber makes a strong statement about those who would discriminate against singles in ministry.
So to have a prejudicial attitude towards singles is not only non-biblical but in all honesty it is wrong!
He ends his post with the following challenge
Don’t you think it is about time that the church addresses the issue of single leaders? Isn’t it about time we stopped running our churches based on things that are not biblical? I do!
How does the church treat single people as second class citizens? Here are 10 of 40 statements that he features on the post. I found a humorous, yet convicting, post at Jon Acuff's blog titled Surviving Church as a Single link. He sets up this post as a scorecard with points if the following was ever said to you. Please read the entire post for all of his points.
- Your church has a singles ministry, but it’s the dreaded quad, combining college, single adults, divorce recovery and retired widowers who refuse to move to Florida. = +4 points
- Someone pays you the world’s most backhanded compliment: “I just don’t understand how someone as great as you isn’t married yet.” = +1 point
- When people introduce you, they feel compelled to list out your accomplishments, “This is Sally, my single friend who owns her own home, drives a luxury sedan, and has a very, very stable job.” = +3 points
- People are constantly volunteering you for things because “you’re single, you’ve got so much free time.” = +1 point
- You’ve ever given an impassioned, enraged monolog on the injustice that men who are single get to age gracefully and be considered “bachelors,” while women are instantly judged as “crazy cat ladies.” = – 3 points
- That friend was named Jon Acuff and he said, “No one in Atlanta should ever involuntarily remain single with so many awesome single people at North Point Community Church.” (I’ve said this a lot. My bad.) = + 3 points
- The person who leads the singles ministry at your church got married in 1964. = +10 points for each decade they’ve been married.
- Your best friend of 15 years gets married and then suddenly acts like a magical gap has opened up between you and decides that, until you get married too, you can’t be close again. Because you just don’t understand each other anymore. = +3 points
- To justify giving a four-week marriage sermon series to a congregation that is 60% single, the pastor throws out one blanket statement like this at the beginning of the series, “And you single people listen up to this too, this well serve you well when you get married.” = +2 points
- The only time your married friends invite you over is when they need a babysitter. = +3 points
So, why are singles groups usually led by married couples?
A number of our readers pointed out that the leaders of singles groups tend to be married couples. One reader said that it was obvious to her that the church felt there was something more mature about married couples.
The church sends a signal that being married is the only outcome for the mature Christian. Otherwise, why wouldn't they allow a single person to lead a singles group?
It is evident to me that singles should be in charge of the singles ministry and that the church should assign a pastor/elder who regularly meets with, and supports, the leaders of that group. This pastor should advocate for the singles ministry within the church programming.
Why do some churches insist that the role of singles is to babysit the children of the married couples?
I remember reading a story at a survivors blog in which a single woman reported that she was expected to babysit, without compensation, the children of the pastors. In fact, it was reported that the church set up "date nights" for the leaders in the church and had single members standing by to babysit. This woman said that there was expectation of compliance because single members had "a lot of free time" and should "serve" the leaders in that way. Not a please; not a thank you; just a do it.
Hug and Daisy said :I’m a Christian who grew up in a church and Christian culture that assumes everyone gets (or will get) married by 25 and have a kid. If you do not fit that life story (married with kid by age 25 – 35), it does not register. Tons of sermons are aimed at parents and married people. There are social functions by churches and ministries that do nothing but meet the needs of married people with kids. There are no equivalents for never-married past the age of 35.
Don’t forget that Marrieds do NOT associate with Singles. We’ll give them cooties or something. Every single time I was told that the nursery or children’s ministry was desperately in need of volunteers and that it was crucial for singles to fill those positions so that the parents could attend services. The singles ministry had its events and Bible studies during the week. So apparently all singles are good for is changing diapers and keeping kids from burning down the building. Singles are a free labor pool to do all the church scutwork so the marrieds can Focus on Their Families, nothing more. And the only way out of it is to Get Married and be allowed to sit at the grownups’ table with the other grownups. He was asked to resign his non-paying youth pastor’s job when when a new minister was hired by the church because ” He wasn’t married, how could he give advice on the courtship phase of life.” Anyone considered he might be able to give an outsider’s perspective on the situation?
Churches need to see each single as an individual. Some may enjoy babysitting but others may not. Just like married couples need to be perceived as individuals with different giftings, each single person has a gift to use in the service of the church. Do not presume to make it "babysitting" in order to make things easier on the church. If you want a single person to babysit, offer to pay them or to trade services. For example, if a couple needed a babysitter, they could offer to change the oil in the car of the single person in exchange for a free babysit.
Pastors need to be married in order to "understand" the needs of the congregation.
Obviously Paul did fine without a wife and was able to intervene in weird family situations like the guy sleeping with his mother in law. One reader, KD offered this story.
I have a friend who was dating a young lady when they were both graduate students at Texas Tech a number of years ago. They even had planned to elope and get married in their pastor’s office. Unfortunately, she lost her life in an auto accident. He never really dated anyone else and has never married. He moved back to East Texas after he got his master’s at Tech and got a job in the Houston area, even serving for a time as a youth pastor at his church. He was asked to resign his non-paying youth pastor’s job when when a new minister was hired by the church because ” He wasn’t married, how could he give advice on the courtship phase of life.” Later, he moved to another church and after turning down attempts by members of the congregation to ” set him up” with a widow at the church, he had a person accuse him of being a homosexual. He has not been to a church since…. Any preacher or speaker who considers the state of singleness to be sinful comes dangerously close, IMHO, to calling Jesus Christ a sinner.
Churches should make a point of hiring a single staff member and I am not talking about secretarial help. In ignoring this population, the church may be missing out on some modern day Pauls.
Do not encourage people to marry solely to have sex.
Of course Paul said that it was better to marry than to burn with lust. But it seems evident to me that Paul was talking about the long haul, not the short term. Paul had been discussing lifelong celibacy. He understood that many were not cut out for his commitment. However, he did provide an example of celibacy that should encourage those who are not single by choice. I think this is a very difficult area for many and my heart goes out to them.
Once again we turn to the most perceptive HUG.
Some get married for the sole purpose of having sex. I think Mark Driscoll plays off this desire with his sex obsession. And I think this is why the divorce rate for Christians is high. People realize there is more to a marriage then just sex. Basically you can say that marriages in this case are for masturbation purposes. The formal name for this is “Marriage of Continence”, a marriage entered into only to legalize the sex. Married is Christianese for getting laid. And you see the same craziness.
There seems to be some indication that the Catholic church may have a better track record in dealing with singles.
This was a real eye opener to me and I want to thank our readers for bringing this to light. In fact, I think that this may be an area for the evangelical church to explore. I wonder if this might be due to the requirement for celibate priests and nuns? The Catholic church has always been run by single people! I am planning to contact a large Catholic church in my area to see if I might be able to interview a priest on this matter. If it pans out, I shall devote a post to the matter. Here is what singleman/Ann had to say.
And as a Catholic, I have found that single people are much more accepted in the life of the church. As a single childless woman over 30, I was not welcome to work with children’s ministries anymore in Evangelical church. This summer, I was welcomed as a VBS teacher with open arms and no questions about my motives.
Mass is not a time for marital PDA as I often noticed in the evangelical churches I attended (I remember a single friend of mine talking once about how she longed for the day when she had a husband to hold hands with in church…and her fantasy is not outside reality at any evangelical church I’ve been to). Natalie and Anne I had to laugh, but only because what you are saying is SO true! I had forgotten the marital PDA in many Protestant churches. I have never seen that take place during Mass. Granted, I haven’t been a Catholic for long, and maybe you see more of that in other parishes.
My husband converted to Catholicism several years ago. I still have not joined the Catholic Church (I’m still on the fence over a variety of issues – we attend a mainline protestant church with our kids right now – my children and I may occasionally go to mass with him). I admire the Catholic Church’s attitude/respect toward people despite their marital status, gender or sexual orientation.
I am not thoroughly knowledgeable regarding the Catholic Church, but several things stand out to me. A number of single women seem to hold a great amount of respect. Mother Angelica founded the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) and is greatly admired, especially among the more conservative Catholics. There are a large number of women saints. Of the approximately 35 Doctors of the Church since its beginning – four or five are women. Also, women like Flannery O’Connor (author), Dorothy Day (social activist) and Edith Stein (philosopher, nun and martyr) are well known and respected. There are probably many others, but those are some of the ones I’ve heard mentioned.
Numo (and HUG ,I think) have this to say:
One thing I want to add (partly gained from my time living with the nuns, back in the 70s) is that celibacy and the religious life (being a priest, monk or nun) was *heavily* idealized prior to Vatican II; also that it was presented as the highest form of service to God. Just like Missionary to Darkest Africa or Kickin’ Praise & Worship Singer is among Evangelicals.
What is the deal with homosexuality and singleness?
I find this particular topic extremely distasteful but not for the reasons one might assume. Evangelicals, in particular, have developed a reputation for making homosexuality the "worst sin of the decade." In fact, they seem far more concerned about this "sin" than they do about churches and pastors hiding child sexual abuse (Day 110 of shameful silence).
For our readers outside of the United States, it is important to understand that for many, in today's churches, the word "homosexual" is an epithet which often makes me ashamed to say that I am a Christian. I admire and care for those who struggle valiantly in this area. I find it despicable that anyone would think to even bring this up as an issue to a single person. If someone asks a single person if they are homosexual, I think it would be quite apropos for the single person to turn the question back to the inquirer and say, "Are you asking because of your orientation?" I promise I won't tell." I would also talk to your pastor and ask him if he would be willing to do a sermon on how to be kind to those who have same sex orientation as well as how to speak intelligently to singles in the church.
Martos and Josh said
“Because, not talking whether you act on it or not, what’s the problem on being homosexual and being in church? I guess that, for some, simply having those tendencies is a horrible sin.” There are a number of people in the United States who believe that the mere orientation is a sin. We did a series on homosexuality and Christianity in which we discussed some of these issues. This attitude is deeply disturbing to us. The series was great! To start at the very beginning (a very good place to start)… http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/08/13/homosexuality-towards-compassion-we-need-your-questions/
@Martos, sadly, we still have people in the good ol’ U S and A who think that LGBT folks should be rounded up and imprisoned, or even worse!
These are just a few thoughts. I will continue to look at this subject on Wednesday. Let me leave you with this humorous comeback in a comment on Jon Acuff's post.
I used to get mad every time some grandmother type came up to me at a wedding and pinched my arm and said 'you're next!' They stopped doing that when I returned the favor to them at funerals.
Lydias Corner: Joshua 5:1-7:15 Luke 15:1-32 Psalm 81:1-16 Proverbs 13:1
I’m thankful that in the church I attend, the pastors generally pick a huge tract of scripture (sometimes a whole book) and preach through it. Thus, we’re spared the “Six weeks on how to have better sex” sermon series sort of thing.
Church functions almost always feel welcoming to everyone (except for the Valentine’s dinner, though they haven’t had one for the past few years). But when it comes to people around my age getting together to hang out during the week to talk, play games, or whatever, single people are rarely included. This can make a lonely existence feel even lonelier. It would be better if there were more single people to hang out with, but in this rural area, there aren’t, because most of them move away to find work.
The challenge I feel in this is that I don’t think the church needs to cater to everyone’s social needs, and I really don’t want a church that starts lots of programs – and then expects everyone to attend all of them. So I don’t necessarily expect the church to “fix” this for me. But on the other hand, I feel like it would be very self serving of me to raise this issue myself, and it would just make me look even more pitiful. In the near term, I’ve no idea what I can do in my own situation. Nonetheless, thank you, our kind hosts, for writing about the issues singles face in contemporary evangelicalism; the discussions that have ensued have been cathartic, if not immediately practically applicable in my own isolated situation.
I don’t see why they don’t come right out and say we won’t allow single men to serve in pastoral ministry because of their interpretation of 1 Tim 3: 2, 12 which they apply universally as thought it’s meant as a standard for every church, in every situation, for all eternity.
Since many apply those verses to the LETTER and use it to exclude anyone who is not a married man with children, then they must also be held accountable to exclude any married men who don’t have children or only one child. Likewise, if a man has children who are known to be disobedient and wayward, then they should also be automatically excluded. Which begs the question, is this the way God wants things to be – so exclusive and rule bound??
Josh’s comment hits the nail on the head. At my old church, in a conservative part of Texas, I was one of three single women over the age of about 23. The pastor preached through books of the Bible, so we didn’t get the topical marriage sermons, but almost everyone in the church had at least three kids, and homeschooled them. The childless couples would socialize with each other, and the ‘graduate students and young professionals’ bible study was me and six married couples. No one was intentionally exclusive–I don’t think–it’s just that the culture supported married couples, children and teens, and college students. I’m not against any of these things, and like Josh, I don’t really think that the church exists to meet my needs. That conviction, though, doesn’t change how isolating being different in that culture can be. I honestly think that, at least at my former church, people just didn’t realize that the culture felt exclusive. I’m not sure what to do about that, because raising it does feel very self-serving.
I moved a couple of months ago, and I haven’t found a new church because I have issues with churches right now, at least some of which are related to the ‘oh, have you met our other [male] graduate student?’ questions at the churches I did visit.
Although I am married now, when I was single, I really felt that the reason I was single was because I wasn’t “spiritual enough” for a boyfriend. In my old church, dating was highly emphasized, dating couples admired, and your goal was marriage. I can remember thinking several times, “Am I just not spiritual enough to get a date?”
Almost thou persuadest me to be a Catholic… đ
The idea of having a married couple as singles’ leader may have something to do with “having someone the single women can confide in and turn to for advice”. Since a “single’s minister” would (by their “Biblical” standards) have to be male, his wife would be the one to deal with any “female issues” brought up.
Not that this is right, y’unnerstan’, but it might be the thinking behind such an arrangement.
Megan
Welcome to TWW. Thank you for your helpful comment.I wish you well as you admjust to your new area. I pray you will find some supportive friends.
If you have a single man or woman leading a singles group, there are some things a guy is not going to discuss with a woman, and vice versa. And I don’t buy that someone has to be single to understand the needs of singles, either. But while a married leader can understand the needs and even the feelings of singles, what a married leader can’t do is to FEEL what the singles feel.
I think the church would probably be rare, that could solve all of that.
That last quote had me in stitches. I put it on my FB. Hilarious!
@ Tina:
Yes, you just need to work on your relationship with Jesus, forgetting about finding a spouse until you learned to be content with just Jesus. Then, and only then, God might consider dropping the right person out of the sky into your lap. Been there, done that. Because God only blesses mature people. In fact, you can tell who is the most spiritual by looking at who has the best life! Oh wait, that’s karma, not Christianity.
@ Miguel:
I texted it to some friends. One young (single) friend was at a dinner, and busted out laughing. It really is good!
I’m wondering how healthy all these different groups are for the unity of the church. On top of some 3,000 different denominations, we have about 10-12 different groups divided by age, marital/single status, gender, etc. The church I attended (no longer though) was predominatly Hispanic and Black so they tended to gravitate to groups that had ethnicity in common.
Could the church be any more fragmented than it is? Is the only time the congregation not separated into a variety of groups the “corporate” service during which there is no interaction with one another? The primary focus at that time is on the pastor.
I guess what I’m wondering is….wouldn’t the Body of Christ be healthier if it stopped fragmenting the members? Couldn’t marrieds benefit from interacting with never-married, divorced, teens, etc. and vice versa?
What would that look like? Would anyone feel slighted or marginalized that way? Is such an arrangement even possible?
@ Josh:
Rural areas are just tough places for young adults, generally. Finding peers simply cannot be limited to the religious communities there, sometimes you have to go wherever you can find them at all. My regret when living in rural Colorado is that I would drive to a nearby town to attend a Bible study with kids my age, and never got to know those my age in my town who were not involved with church. In hindsight, being more active in the local community outside of church functions would have simultaneously increased my circle of friends and made me more effective in the community as a witness to Christ.
Tina wrote:
Ah, yes. This idea sure made the rounds and perhaps it still is pretty popular: “A woman’s heart should be so lost in God that a man must seek Him in order to find her.” Not sure if this quote has been attributed to someone…
If you and God aren’t good then that MUST be why you are single.
Dee – You mentioned the difficulty of tying so many complex issues together cohesively, but I think your post turned out great. Heck, I have enough trouble pulling my thoughts together just to comment sometimes.
In many ways I think the strong emphasis on marriage and families is a reaction to the changes in western culture. Less people having children, smaller families, more children born out of wedlock, more people marrying later in life or not at all, lots of sex outside of marriage, etc.
Both the catholic and evangelical churches strongly support families and marriage, which I think is good. But why do Catholics not look down on people who are single as less holy or not really living until marriage? I do think because of priests, nuns and others in consecrated religious life and the way the church has historically supported and respected such people. I would add though, that in the past the Catholic Church, I think, seemed to overlook or not spiritually respect enough those who were married. That seems to have changed in more recent times (I’m not a historian but just my general impression). Maybe the Catholic Church’s reaction to the culture’s moral decline made them realize they must be more vocal/supportive of marriage and family as an honorable vocation that is critical for the church and larger community.
Fundamentalism developed (I think) as more of a reaction against modernity. Evangelicalism is closely related so when more evangelical churches are reacting currently against the decline of the family, and they do not have the history of uniquely honoring or having a place for singles in ministry (as Catholics do), you can see how an imbalance could occur.
So while both the Catholic/Evangelical church are trying to defend marriage and family against a culture whose morals are in decline, it possibly caused more balance in the Catholic Church and imbalance in the evangelical with regard to singles.
Not sure if this idea is completely accurate, but I think there might be something to it.
Tina wrote:
Funny thing, Tina, when I was batting zero at Christianese dating services I encountered just the opposite. The single women at the dating service were Too Spiritual, to the point they had ceased to be human. NO interest in anything other than prayer, witnessing, and Bible study. Why would a woman so Spiritual have any interest in us mere mortals?
Miguel wrote:
You’ve listened to those “How I Met My Wife/Husband” Christian Testimonies, haven’t you? Those Testimonies all sound so alike they must be downloading crib notes from the Web or something.
And have you ever noticed the guys who tell you “don’t even think about finding a spouse until you learn to be content with Jesus and Jesus alone” all got married at 18?
Miguel wrote:
Oh yes. And joined to that is the ‘it’ll happen when you’re not looking’. Of course, the two friends I heard that from on multiple occassions weren’t at all in the same position – one had a long-term boyfriend of multiple years, the other was a serial dater, who didn’t spend more than a month single from the age of 15 onwards. The advice kinda rings hollow when it’s given by people without that experience.
Miguel wrote:
I think that Miguel and Tina’s observations – “forget about finding a spouse until you learn to be content with Jesus” – is so true. Nevermind the fact that our sanctification takes a lifetime.
This sentiment – that only mature Super Christians who are Super Spiritual have the right stuff to get married – permeates evangelicalism.
For many singles this attitude leads to fear, paralysis, and hopelessness – who is ever going to be spiritually mature enough, “content enough with Jesus” to get married? Throw in the church’s idolization of marriage and it’s just overwhelming.
What a terrible, terrible, works-based burden we place on ourselves!
BTW, the links are simply wonderful Dee. A real source of humour and encouragement.
I had to stop tallying up my points on the Acuff scorecard. Quite literally, all but 2 of his 40 scenarios have happened to me. Not kidding.
As an older single, this one has reared its ugly head more often of late:
âthis guy has a pulse and so do you so maybe thatâs enough in common to fall in loveâ
On my last long-term period of time in the U.S. I attended a pretty large church (1500+) and I counted 3 other singles over the age of 40, 1 woman and 2 men. And as I was the newbie, those poor men became the target of several well-intentioned but knuckleheaded and clumsy attempts to set me up with them. It was completely cringe-inducing and I felt so bad for both of them.
What was hilarious is that the marrieds who were attempting the set up scenarios really truly thought they were being all subtle in inviting these guys to small social functions where I’d be present, bless their pointy little heads. đ
Up to the point in time that I showed up, these would-be matchmakers (who I hadn’t even asked to interfere with my social life) hadn’t even bothered to socialize with either of these guys, get to know them, or invite them to any functions!
Both of these men are fine folk but in getting to know them both even a bit, it became totally clear that our respective personalities, lives, and interests were utterly divergent. Nothing, zero in common.
But we all had pulses, so once again, I’m at fault for ruining the possibility of LOVE! đ Thank the Lord I’m never, ever setting foot in that church again. Ever.
Miguel (et al) – I wholeheartedly agree about the whole “just be content with Jesus” nonsense; it is thoughtless and ignorant at best, arrogant and cruel at worst. Does anybody really think that I, when I got married at 24, was fundamentally better and more Christ-like than all single Christians aged 25 or over? There are several contexts when Christians, who have some particular blessing, talk down to others who don’t have it, along the lines of “when you’re good enough, God will give it to you”, ignoring the fact that they themselves didn’t have to pass any such test. But single people (and I do remember what it was like) seem to get this more than most.
“Matchmaker Matchmaker make me a match, find me a find, catch me a catch”
Sorry, too tempting to insert that humor! Now I’ll be cursed with that song in my head all day! đ
Bob
I have a perfect solution. Why not have a single woman and man be leaders? There were a group of us at a church in Boston who got tired of the segregated gender groups. But the church insisted on this. So, I signed up to be a Bible study leader and a male friend did likewise. Then we all met together at each others homes. In fact, it got so popular, that we had to break into several groups and we kept up the male and female leaders joint lead..
Secondly, why do the discussions about heavy topics always need to be discussed with the “leader?” In my experience, most groups have a fair number of smart, sensitive people who can address issues. Â I think sometimes we get to bogged down in “leadership” as opposed to the priesthood of the believer.
Tikatu
See my response to Bob. This, too, can be overcome and was overcome by your humble blogger many moons ago.
Evie
Loved your comment.
Since many apply those verses to the LETTER and use it to exclude anyone who is not a married man with children, then they must also be held accountable to exclude any married men who donât have children or only one child. Likewise, if a man has children who are known to be disobedient and wayward, then they should also be automatically excluded. Which begs the question, is this the way God wants things to be â so exclusive and rule bound??
On the obedience point, several people would have ben excluded from ministry including Mahaney, Dever, Piper,  a couple of RTP pastors who read this blog, and so on. They skip over this on their way to establishing male patriarchy.Â
Josh
Is there a way to minister to singles in an isolated area? I know there are Christian dating services but many people find that offputting. What about discussion forums in which people discuss things that are important to them: faith, culture politics? I don’t know but would love to help in some way. Of is that just not needed?
@ Miguel:
Yeah, I put that quote in my wish-I-had-thought-of-that book.
@ Dee:
You’re right, if they’re going to take the qualifications of elders list that literally, it says “having his children in submission with all reverence,” so that would mean only married men with more than one child qualify for the pastorate…
Of course that phrase also leaves room for all sorts of other legalistic stuff too – i.e., Pastoral Candidate Fred’s 6-year-old is too mouthy, therefore he’s disqualified because his children aren’t “submitting with reverence,” yadda yadda yadda.
Rafiki wrote:
Yes! Not to mention the GUILT for wanting a dating partner. It’s a double-edged sword. You’re supposed to want to get married, but wanting a boyfriend/girlfriend is considered idolatrous. D: You’re supposed to want the end result but be ambivalent about the road that leads you there. This is not possible for most people, nor is it possible to remove feelings of attraction and longings for the opposite sex. This is connected, of course, to the purity culture (which has been thoroughly critiqued for going too far in many areas). It makes people feel guilty and wrong for normal human emotions, and encourages you to lie to yourself about your true feelings.
I remember reading a book that encouraged women (why is it always women?) to not want a boyfriend too much, but to wait until God brought the right man. According to this book, you shouldn’t even feel excitement if someone asked you out on a date. (? ! WTF) Besides being a feat of superhuman proportions, I think this could encourage women to shy away from men they’re really attracted to, and instead “settle” for guys they don’t have romantic attractions/reactions to (because complete emotional control is the sign of a healthy relationship, right? RIGHT???)
@ dee:
I sooooo agree with your statement of priesthood of all believers. There is no reason why a singles group needs to be led by a man or a couple, nor any reason why the people in this group cannot minister to one another. If someone shares something of great concern with you, work with that person, whom you love and care about, to get the care they need if you are not able to help. You can walk through the challenges with them since they trusted you enough to come seek you out in the first place. The body of Christ was never meant to be a place where one or two leaders were to minister to hundreds of people. The Holy Spirit would only need to be given to leaders then and not to all believers. Of course, a local body that functioned as a priesthood would have to be led by men and women who are servants and not power, money, or fame hungry leaders.
Singleness and patriarchal complementarianism are at odds. The Calvinistas preach that true “manhood” is only achieved by ruling and providing for your family, and true womanhood is found in being the help for a man and stay home with the kids. And obviously you can only achieve this by being married.
Under that theology, viewing singleness as anything other than a problem does not compute. That is why churches don’t know how to handle singles.
Rafiki wrote:
1) Marrieds do NOT have anything to do with Singles. Again, the cooties thing.
2) Now that they have a matchmake to do, suddenly they’re friends with the singles again. Know what that reminds me of? Campus Crusade, Cal Poly Pomona, late Seventies, when the Billy Graham Crusade came to town. CCC announcements to “invite all your Unsaved friends to the Crusade to get them Saved!” And the total panic this caused — “Oh, No! I need to make some Heathen friends so I can get them to the Crusade and Get Them Saved! What do I do? What do I do?” Again, they had become so isolated from anything outside their clique that they only stepped outside their clique when they had an ulterior motive.
dee wrote:
Because it denies Salvation by Marriage Alone.
Kristin,
Excellent observation! In the patriarch’s mind, “Manhood” and “Womanhood” can only be exercised in marriage.
Singles just don’t fit their narrow paradigm.
dee wrote:
Christian Dating Services are a complete waste of time and money. You’d have better return on investment buying a mail-order bride from some Third World country. You’d have a better chance with any of the characters (not the cast, the toons themselves) from My Little Pony.
One is the problem intrinsic to all dating services: a “date” is nothing more than a one-shot, all-or-nothing job interview for the position of Husband and/or Wife. A Job Interview.
Another is the Super-Spiritual Gnostic Pneumatic trip. You could have pre-printed the “What I’m Like” and “What I’m Looking For” on the catalog forms, they were all alike. The “What I’m Like” were a Gnostic Pneumatic, so Spiritual they were floating off the ground 24/7 surrounded by Shekinah, nothing to their life other than Scripture, Witnessing, Scripture, Prayer, Scripture… You get the drift. The
“What I’m Looking For” were Spiritual Giants, Christian Edward Cullens so Christian and Spiritual even Christ Himself couldn’t have measured up.
And then the group events they held. Dances. Always dances. Just like High School. What if you don’t like dances? What if your memories of High School Dances are unbroken disaster? And how can you talk to someone at a dance when the music is always at Rave levels? And what is it about “just like High School”? I’ve been trying to forget those four years of my life ever happened in the following 40 years, but the scars are still there.
And (though this may be personal), the most in-your-face over-the-phone rejection I ever got was from a Christian Dating Service. Before the first date/job interview. Still don’t know why. Maybe it was because she was an animator for Disney or something.
The odd thing about “be content with Jesus and then he’ll bring you a spouse thing” is, my “testimony” is the exact opposite. I told Jesus he had better bring me a spouse by a specific age or I was just gonna throw in the abstinence towel and go fornicate. Oddly enough, he complied. True story!
@ Deb:
Kristen and Deb –
This is so true in the comp/patriarch world. What I find interesting is that you don’t see Jesus trying to marry off any of his disciples (male or female) because marriage was going to “somehow” display the gospel more fully. Marriage had nothing to do with the gospel message that Jesus came to proclaim — according to Jesus that is (if he has a say in the matter at all anymore?)
Pingback: Singles in the Church: Treated with Respect and Dignity? | Spiritual Sounding Board
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
đ đ đ
Miguel,
You are too funny! Thanks for that testimony.
Miguel wrote:
Miguel – that is extremely odd, given the following clear teachings of scripture:
Ps 37: Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you loads of things you don’t desire any more because you’re so spiritual.
John 16: Ask and you shall receive nothing, that your education may be complete.
Luke 11: Which of you fathers, if his son asks him for a fish, will give him a snake? No, if your son asks you for a fish, you’ll give him a carved wooden platypus, to teach him that your ways are higher than his.
Amen.
Kristin wrote:
That’s because it’s a gospel thing. They think that the husb/wife relationship correlates with Christ/church relationship and so obviously if you’re single, you can’t be exemplifying that gospel relationship by yourself —–>>>>> = singleness is contrary to the gospel = voila!
JA says blech to that!
Bridget wrote:
LOL, even though I understand the point that is supposed to be made, how I loathe the old “marriage gives us a picture here on Earth of the Gospel/Salvation/Godhead/Foreshadowing of Union in Heaven” canard. đ
Because every heterosexual man in the church really really enjoys thinking of Jesus as his wife (same probably goes for most gay Christian men, too)!
Also those who came from broken homes due to divorce, had abusive parents, or are even divorced themselves – we all had a front row seat on the 50 yard line of a dysfunctional marriage. Big hint: it wasn’t pretty. Neither was it “a display of the Gospel”, thankyouverymuch.
The whole babysitting issue is a raw nerve. We had a young friend who used to do a lot of babysitting for us. We also took her out to dinner or to the zoo with us. We bought things for her, and she picked up things for our kids. She was and still is a part of our family. We don’t see each other as often as we’d like now that she’s working and going to college. However, it was from her that I heard many babysitting horror stories. It seems that many of the leaders (and wannabe leaders) in our church expected their babysitters to not only look after their several kids, but also clean the house. This young lady (and others) washed dishes, cleaned bathrooms, cooked meals, and even shampooed carpets (!) while taking care of the kids. They often never received so much as a “thank you,” because it was their “service to the Body of Christ.” She sent me a text message a few weeks back that said, “We really didn’t learn anything there except how to cook and clean with a baby on our hip.” That’s just pathetic. I guess it goes right along with the whole gender roles thinking. Now my friend is working toward her degree in accounting. I can’t wait to cheer at her graduation!
Here are some random thoughts: stupid comments happen to us all. How many times has a single person ask me to take on a job in the church since, being a sahm, I “don’t work” and have plenty of time?
I went through infertility and still wanted there to be Mother’s Day celebrations at church, even if I found them too painful to attend. What is wrong with married couples enjoying a Valentine’s Day banquet even if some are not married and won’t be attending?
If the marrieds at a church don’t provide the right programs for singles, why can’t singles provide them?
And my main thought is this I guess: would we be better served to stop seeing ourselves through “group” eyes (married/single, male/female, laity/clergy) and just see ourselves as people, all one group struggling together?
I find for myself that if I look specifically for a church ministering to older, female, married, traditional music loving, conservative, etc etc etc folks I find few.
But I find scads preaching Christ, and Him crucified.
dee wrote:
What a good point! This seems to be yet another way the church can overemphasize proper roles at the expense of individual needs, presumably to be more “biblical” – but is it? Seeking wise counsel does not necessarily mean talking to the person “in charge.” Church seems to work so much better when you can leave this HUMAN (not biblical) tendency toward authoritarianism behind.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I’m thinking it also has to do with the typical evangelical attitude that outlandishly unthinking, inconvenient and downright rude displays of being a tightwad and a cheapskate means that one is super spiritual, super holy, and a Godly Biblical Steward.
The subject of Christian Cheapskates could really fill up its own blog.
Bridget
I am concerned that Christianity in America is becoming a professional occupation run by leaders. I blame today’s authoritarian crowd for this development. And then I blame ourselves for not questioning why it is set up this way. Sometimes, it is easier to drop it onto the lap of the paid professional, throw some money at them and sya “deal with it.”
HUG
Now, now, you forgot about women being saved by childbirth as well. Â đ
HUG
Did you ask which “Little Pony” she liked? Thank you for the laugh of the day. Dinged before the interview!
Miguel
Love the story. Sometimes I think God gets a kick out of us. Years ago, when my daughter was sick and other pressures in my life, i stood in the litchen and yelled “Can’t you give me just one cruise year?” About 6 months later I was on an unexpected trip that included a cruise. Once again, I yelled “This is not what I meant.”!
Been There
See, I knew this was an issue. I read about this frequently on the SGM Survivors site! Â Those pastors could dream up more nonsense in one year than I can in a life time.
linda
“If the marrieds at a church donât provide the right programs for singles, why canât singles provide them?” Because they are not married and do not have couple to oversee them. Many pastors in churches do not trust singles.
Rafiki
I believe that you are correct! They are cheap and they are looking for ways to get it for free. Then they play games with words like “serve,” Serve who, exactly? Them.
dee wrote:
Actually, that happened over 15 years ago, long long before I ever Bronied. Still one of the most spectacular rejections I’ve ever experienced. And she WAS an animator for Disney Studios; still think that had something to do with it. Only other run-in I’ve had with a Disney animator was being on the receiving end of an email harassment campaign falsely accusing me of bestiality around 10 years ago. I am NOT making that up. Must be something in Burbank’s city water.
HUG
Oh my goodness! Someday, HUG, IÂ want to spend a day with you. We can include Eagle!
True awkward singles story- many years ago a friend and I visited a nondenominational church on Mother’s Day. We enjoyed the music at this particular church, so liked to visit from time to time. After the sermon, the pastor announced they were going to pray for all the mothers, so he asked them to stand up, then also mentioned those struggling with infertility, and single mothers. I know that most singles aren’t mothers, and may or may not want children (I never have wanted any), but the way he presented this, he included almost every category of women, but never made mention of any singles. My friend and I just slinked out of the service and into the car, looking at each other like “what just happened?”
to this day I still don’t attend church on Mother’s day!
dee wrote:
Well at least I got that part right. I should be “in” with 7 kiddos, right?
Former CLC’er wrote:
Personally I think the church should replace Mother’s day with Eshet Chayil Day in honor of all women. And similar on Father’s day for men.
@ dee:
“Secondly, why do the discussions about heavy topics always need to be discussed with the âleader?â In my experience, most groups have a fair number of smart, sensitive people who can address issues. I think sometimes we get to bogged down in âleadershipâ as opposed to the priesthood of the believer.”
********************
Yes, why are we stuck on “leaders”, anyway? Could it be the means to control the group? Paycheck justification? Job creation? The means to keep an industry alive (“Professional Christianity”)?
I’ve had groups of friends, church friends and non-church friends, and we’ve gotten together regularly all on our own initiative — a great source of fun, encouragement, wisdom shared in conversation, we supported each other in a variety of circumstances….. no officially appointed “leader” required.
Perhaps professional christians are weaning initiative out of the non-professional ones. Taking their pastor/shepherd role way too far, & therefore imposing the role of dumb sheep on people.
But, an honest question: (see link below) How often does this happen (in link)? When it does, what is the response from the other sheep? From the shepherd/pastors? (it’s from The Far Side — “Wait! We don’t have to be just sheep!”)
http://theboldsoul.lisataylorhuff.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/farside_sheep1_1.jpg
@ elastigirl:
LOL haven’t seen a “Far Side” in a while – classic!
BeenThereDoneThat said:
“However, it was from her that I heard many babysitting horror stories. It seems that many of the leaders (and wannabe leaders) in our church expected their babysitters to not only look after their several kids, but also clean the house. This young lady (and others) washed dishes, cleaned bathrooms, cooked meals, and even shampooed carpets (!) while taking care of the kids. They often never received so much as a âthank you,â because it was their ‘service to the Body of Christ.’ ”
BTDT,
And the babysitter’s parents were O.K. with this? I expected my daughters to get paid when they babysat, and if the parents who hired them had failed to pay up (which never happened) I would have had a little chat with them. They would have either paid up or my daughter(s) would NEVER have babysat for them again. How corrupt!
Deb wrote:
We were friends with the whole family, and I know the mother was NOT happy with it. But, had she raised any objections, she would have caught heat for where her own heart was at. She would have been considered unsubmissive to the “will of God.” In that church (cult) the will of the ministers equated the will of God. We tried to help by giving her a different experience and just caring about her. (You’d think that would be the whole point of being a Christian.) I’d have to email you this young lady’s remarkable story. I’m not prepared to go public with the whole thing, yet. But, yes, it is corrupt. The leadership in that church cares only for its own agenda, not for the hearts and souls of its members.
Victorious wrote:
They’re separating there too! My former long-time church has an announcement that in addition to the “Traditional Worship” service and the “Family Worship” (contemporary) service, they will be starting a third service at 1 p.m. geared to those “20-40ish” but “certainly not exclusive to any age group”. Sheesh.
Off topic for this thread but SGM defendants have filed motions for dismissal based on issues such as jurisdiction (Maryland or Virginia,) statutes of limitation, corporate status (Covenant Life School vs. Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Ministries,) lack of a clergy malpractice statute in Maryland, and, yes, the first amendment. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50959138/ns/local_news-washington_dc/
And let me say, Frank Ecelbarger, Dave Hinders, Lou Gallo, I know you and your families and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. The best outcome for you is that you will have a reputation as incompetent, disgraced, unloving, hypocritical men who got off on legal technicalities. And that’s if this legal chicanery works. Your wives were all women I respected, as well. No more. God loves you all but he is not fooled or mocked.
You, too, Mark Mullery, even though you escaped being listed as a defendant. You are culpable and I sat in your office and told you so eleven years ago.
How do you live with yourselves, guys?
Phoenix wrote:
How can God’s Predestined Elect do anything to be ashamed of?
God Hath Willed It!
elastigirl wrote:
After this, I don’t want to hear ANY Fundagelical or Calvinista static about Romish Popery and its Rule by Priestcraft.
@ Phoenix:
The “allegations are so vague?” Did they read the same lawsuit we did? There’s no question now that SGM simply doesn’t care.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
I thought the same thing. Vague allegations? That’s absurd!
@ dee:
When you’re all together can you guys at least Skype me? This is a gathering I must see!
@ Natalie:
Natalie, I believe that quote comes from the book “Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman’s Soul” by John and Stasi Eldredge. The corresponding book for men is “Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul”. I remember being at a church event or Sunday School class where Captivating was being discussed and that quote was mentioned multiple times, so much so that I finally wrote it down so that I could find a creative way to use it as an insult. That’s just me though – I found it annoying. I personally haven’t read the book but it is sitting on my bookshelf, covered in a thick layer of dust. Perhaps coincidentally all of the girls promoting that book have since fallen deep into complementarianism and all of the other junk being promoted by Mohler, Mahaney, Driscoll, Piper, etc…
If y’all think about it, please pray for the H family. Mrs. H passed away this afternoon from a short but incredibly painful battle with cancer.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” — William J Clinton
OK, now this is totally off topic, but Pat Robertson says that clothing and other items bought at thrift stores should be prayed over to remove unclean spirits. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/pat-robertson-goodwill-sweaters-demons-praying-video_n_2766810.html?1361910082
Oh, my gosh, what about my vintage hat collection!
Phoenix
When you levitate, you will be blocked from posting.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Because these are the same people who were on the dance committee back in high school. They were enthralled by the experience and cannot imagine why any “normal” person would not be also.
Mandy
I am so sorry. We will be praying.
Me thinks Pat Robertson went off the deep end many years ago, unfortunately.
FormerCLCer
Do you think it applies to preowned items from Ebay? If so, TWW is going down!Â
@ Phoenix:
I buy fabric and sewing patterns from thrift stores and vintage markets on a regular basis! I guess two thirds of my wardrobe must be cursed.
OH NO!
Great grandma’s china! I am so hosed!
@ dee:
LOL!! Thanks for the laugh!
As to the whole singles thing, the church I was in used to do an annual Marriage Seminar and the singles were ‘encouraged’ to come because they might get married and besides, they will be able to help their married friends. Ugh. I sat in the back…..
As to the whole ‘serving the leaders’ thing, my former pastor took it to a whole new level. The volunteer leaders (most were volunteer) would be used to clean the pastor’s house, walk their dogs, cook their meals, do their laundry, take their cars to be detailed, and it was an honor to get to do this. Unless, like me, for some reason, they didn’t trust you, so they didn’t want you alone in their house…..
Goodwill stores must be demon warehouses!
@ Mandy: Mandy, I’m so sorry to hear about Mrs. H. and the H. family. Praying.
Stasi Eldredge is something else; ditto for her husband. I’ve read little bits and pieces of the book in question and just about got sick when she started into her “Sacajawea, Indian princess” fantasy early on – I mean, not only was Sacajawea in her early teens, she had been a slave. Yes, she was very intelligent and resourceful, but she was NOT a princess.
White mans’s (or woman’s) folly (among other things).
@ dee: As are some of your readers!!!
dee wrote:
I’ve no idea. Forums are a mixed bag. I guess blogs can be as well, but there are a number of good ones with healthy, active comment sections. As much as I’m encouraged (or brought to hopefully righteous and productive anger) by your articles and the comments from all the commenters here, there’s just something intangible about hanging out with people in real life. The blog and forum experience is good, but subsisting on it alone is like trying to eat a diet consisting only of asparagus (context: I actually do like asparagus).
From my previous comments, I don’t want to give the impression that there’s nothing to do in a rural area. There may be plenty of social clubs and activities centered around various hobbies and sports. I have become involved in a few of these, and they are enjoyable, to a point.
However, beyond this, there is a sort of gathering that provides a deeper sense of fulfillment, a gathering of close friends, often for the purpose of doing nothing at all. In such a gathering, sitting around and being transparent with each other (in an organic way, not in a forced Protestant Confessional / Enlightened Self Criticism way) can be most satisfying.
The problem is that when you’re single and living in a town that you didn’t grow up in, far from your college friends, you’re a bit more isolated than usual. @Linda made a point about singles forming their own group; sometimes, the rest of the singles are already in their own little clique outside of the church, since they grew up together and have known each other since forever. I, as an outsider, could try to start up my own thing, but who would come?
For some problems, there is no easy solution. After all, if there were, I would have already found it and would therefore not be posting this miserable ramble. But hopefully, someday, “It Gets Better.”
numo wrote:
Something about the spelling of the name:
“Stasi” was also the name of the East German Secret Police (heirs to the Gestapo and subsidiary of the KGB) before Gorbachev’s Warsaw Pact Fire Sale of 1989.
Lynn wrote:
i.e. the Alpha Males and Alpha Females of high school.
The Stephanie Meyers whose idea of Paradise is to be eternally 17 in a never-ending High School. With themselves as the Queen Bees (sparkle sparkle).
The Al Bundys constantly reminding you how “I Was A Football Star In High School. Once I Scored THREE TOUCHDOWNS In One Game!”
All I can say is I was one of the Omega Males. High School drove me closer to suicide than I have ever been before or since. (Including watching my mother die of lung cancer in ’75.)
dee wrote:
Because that has to be renewed every nine months.
“The Man Penetrates, Conquers, Plants…”
Natalie wrote:
Then why would she deign to acknowledge a mere mortal? She already has The Perfect Husband, Jesus.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: The irony was not lost on me, long ago… I’ve always found it kind of giggle-worthy.
@ Josh: It *is* hard in a rural area, especially when you’re not a local.
I’m in the middle of a very similar situation myself, although I actually am a local, but one who lived out of the area for many years. Which, for most local people, means that I’m not a local.
In this locale, I think it’s a bit easier for men to get to meet other with common interests… hunting, fishing and the like. (Not that there aren’t women who do those things – there are – but I’m not one of them.) For women – especially those of us past a certain age – it’s much, much harder. (Though I know of people who moved here from very far away, because they idealized life here, thinking that a beautiful setting = an easier social setting as well. *not* true.)
I think I would go nuts without the internet, though as you’ve said, it’s not really enough. (otoh, convos can be more to the point than might be the case “in real life,” since people often gather around a common interest.)
@ Lynn:
LOL this is spot on! I am picturing Reese Witherspoon as Tracy Fleck in “The Election” – some stereotypical h.s. personas really do last into adulthood, no?
Once a social chair, always a social chair!
FormerCLC’er wrote:
Yeah. Just last night there was a news item about Pat on 700 Club talking about praying over the clothes you get from Goodwill because they might be DEMON-infested. With an urban legend about some Christian who bought a ring at Goodwill that “had been prayed over by a Witch” and it cursed her until she got Delivered from the Ring Demon. (Has Pat been reading the Malleus Malefacarium?)
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
As a candidate for the Republican party presidential nomination in 1988, Pat Robertson WON the Michigan primary.
Let the horror of that sink in for a moment, knowing what we know of his lunacy.
Something is deeply deeply wrong with him beyond just being one taco short of a combination platter. Even though he’s likely surrounded by fawning syncophants, I can’t believe that someone – ANYONE – hasn’t had the gumption to tell him to get his crazy self retired to private life and off the air.
Rafiki
Can you imagine how many exorcists he would have needed in order to live in the White House?
Rafiki wrote:
Can ANYONE get Cee Jay Mahaney or Bee Jay Driscoll to retire to private life and off the pulpit? Same thing as a Megachurch — all-powerful CELEBRITY CEO surrounded by a “board” of yes-men.
@ dee:
LOLOLOLOLOL! đ
Dee,
If you ever do get together with HUG and Eagle, be sure to invite the rest of us, okay?
Hoppy
If we do, it will go down in history. We will all be in one room. Imagine what our detractors would do!
Not only are some factions of Christians (and not even the fringe groups, but more respectable groups) now teaching that being single past a certain age (or indefinitely) is a sin, but it gets worse.
Just when I thought views about unmarried Christians by other purported Christians could not sink any lower, they did.
I came across some online material by Christian women who study biblical gender complementarian beliefs and Quiverfull type groups, and one of these ladies paraphrased their teachings about singles.
(I think this is the video. The comments I’m referring to appear about 3/4 or more into the video, and it’s a pretty long video).
According to this lady hosting the video lecture (C. Kunsman), these groups are now teaching that unmarried men and unmarried women do not completely share God’s image, or this view is very much implied in their views.
She said they constantly refer to marriage as “normative.”
That is, you have to be married to someone to be thought of as “normative” (“normative” seeming to mean to them = God’s intent for all people).
They seem to reason (if I understand them right) that an unmarried man is only one-half in God’s image, an unmarried woman is only one-half in God’s image, and it takes both the male and female together, in marriage, to equal god’s complete image.
I’ve also seen the same attitude show up in a few other areas on TV (on Christian television shows) and other Christian sites and blogs, so it’s not just the Quiverfull-type people who are teaching this.
So, not only are some Christians teaching that prolonged singleness (and/ or life long celibacy) are sins, but, if I understand them right, some of them are also teaching that an unmarried man or unmarried woman is not a full child of God, or not fully human as married people, or are not “normative”. Singles are some how “less than” married Christian couples, according to other Christians.
Daisy wrote:
Do they at all deal with Paul, Jesus, and all those other unmarrieds in the NT?
@ HUG:
“With an urban legend about some Christian who bought a ring at Goodwill that ‘had been prayed over by a Witch’ and it cursed her until she got Delivered from the Ring Demon.”
Well, if some video games are to be trusted, all she should have had to do was find a monk/priest and then unequip the ring…pretty straightforward. But then maybe the video games are “demon-infested” too… ; )
@ Dee:
“Can you imagine how many exorcists he would have needed in order to live in the White House?”
Don’t tell Pat that…then he’ll write a book explaining why Mary Todd Lincoln lost her mind because of the DEMONS!!!
One other thing I wanted to mention…
Some of these view points are not confined to just one group.
The more I read about these various things, the more I am realizing that teachings about (unmarried) women in church also impact people’s views about unmarried men, too, or marriage overall.
Views about Christian celibate singles also negatively impact how the church treats homosexuals, married Christians, divorced people, etc.
I don’t know how to succinctly explain it, but…
If you are currently a happily married Christian man, for example, don’t think that these controversies about gender roles (e.g., not allowing a woman to teach in church, or how the church treats single Christians, etc), don’t impact you personally, or your marriage, your church, American culture, etc, because they do.
Or, they eventually will impact some aspect of your life, if not now, later.
How the church stigmatizes, ignores, or judges Christians with emotional health issues (bipolar, depression, etc), or Christians who are mourning the death of a loved one, also impacts how they will treat you, even if you don’t have those particular issues, but some other area of struggle.
I see a lot of overlapping among these topics (such as, but not limited to: singles, sexual/ spiritual abuse in the church, the roles of men/women, marriage, celibacy, attitudes by Christians towards psychological difficulties, etc).
About the post at the top of the page:
It is awful but not unusual how unmarried Christian people are excluded from serving from meaningful roles in churches.
This is in part, I believe, due to the stereotypes that preachers continue to hold and to voice in their blogs and sermons, that unmarried Christians are not as mature as ‘married with kids’ people, or that their lives have no obstacles at all (they are regarded as perpetual, care-free adolescents with no responsibilities or hurdles in life).
I think the verse about ‘a man should have more than one kid and but one wife’ have been misinterpreted, resulting in the barring of singles from serving as fully as the married.
Lastly, I don’t enjoy married people of any age leading singles groups, or giving sermons or tips, about romantic relationships to unmarried people.
It’s galling to sit through advice on dating, especially in a singles church group or in a sermon, from either a 27 year old man who just got married (I’m early 40s, female, never- married – he has no clue what it’s like for me), or from the 60 year old man or woman who got married at age 19 to their sweetheart and have been married ever since.
Some of these people leading singles classes or writing books about relationships think they totally understand singleness because they did not get married for the first time until the “ripe old age” or 25 or early 30-ish. Oh please! I’m 40ish and still never married. They have no idea.
@ Daisy:
“According to this lady hosting the video lecture (C. Kunsman), these groups are now teaching that unmarried men and unmarried women do not completely share Godâs image, or this view is very much implied in their views. … They seem to reason (if I understand them right) that an unmarried man is only one-half in Godâs image, an unmarried woman is only one-half in Godâs image, and it takes both the male and female together, in marriage, to equal godâs complete image.”
Cindy Kunsman’s stuff is great – Under Much Grace is what got me started really looking into the crap behind Vision Forum. That’s new if they’re saying that some men aren’t totally in the image of God. Haven’t they already claimed that women are just the “derivative” image? If so, shouldn’t that make unmarried women one-quarter of God’s image, or half of the “reflected” image (since they already aren’t the “real” image anyway)?
So how long before these guys figure out that Jesus wasn’t married…and then, to keep the above theology intact, either give Him a wife (they can hire Dan Brown for the writing on this one), or fully embrace Mormonism and say that since God is male/masculine, we need a feminine “Heavenly Mother”? (Yes, Mormons do have a Heavenly Mother…she’s mentioned in their hymnal.)
@ Daisy:
“If you are currently a happily married Christian man, for example, donât think that these controversies about gender roles (e.g., not allowing a woman to teach in church, or how the church treats single Christians, etc), donât impact you personally, or your marriage, your church, American culture, etc, because they do. Or, they eventually will impact some aspect of your life, if not now, later.”
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Regarding the “Be content with Jesus and Jesus alone” advice, this is good advice for LIFE, but not necessarily a great formula for finding a spouse. That is, the more content with our relationship in Jesus the better we’ll be as marriage partners. But being content doesn’t mean we don’t desire things- and I think that’s the issue. You can *want* a romantic relationship without *needing* it to make you happy.
This is the problem with a lot of modern evangelical thought- that it’s wrong to want things. That somehow having a desire for one of the blessings that God bestows on his children but we don’t have makes us malcontents. I think it is *right* to want good things, as long as we don’t think we *need* them or are *entitled* to them.
I have *no* idea why I decided to use a bunch of asterisks in this post.
*******
HUG said,
I’ve seen some Christian men who are like this, and it weirds me out, and it’s a turn off.
I tend to have had the reverse situation on dating sites, though, with men who say they are Christians, but who act crass, shallow, and vulgar (even on their profile pages), which made me doubt that they were Christian.
But I have run across the type of super spiritual person you are talking about on other sites or in real life, the single male version of it.
I’m still in the stages of trying to decide if I want to stay with the Christian faith or not, but up until about a year ago, I was a very devout Christian – but not a “weird” one.
My convictions were deep, I was squeaky clean in my lifestyle, but I didn’t go around quoting Bible verses at people every three seconds, or talking about Jesus around the clock.
I would watch secular entertainment (and still do). I don’t condone all aspects of secular music and movies, but I’m able to enjoy them.
While I had convictions about morality and lived a clean lifestyle, I didn’t pound other people over the head with judgment. I was able to converse on a range of non-religious topics with anyone.
As a result, even atheists and others who normally could not stand Christian company, enjoyed my friendship.
I have seen super- spiritual- sounding unmarried Christian men on forums for singles, and I would not want to date them, not ever.
I don’t mean to demean anyone who wants to serve Jesus by being a missionary and so on, but a lot of the super spiritual single men I saw on forums always said their dream Christian wife would be a clone of Mother Theresa, women who would move to India and live in poverty and give food to the out casts, etc.
Every thing in their posts, where they described their dream Christian wife, was about religion, serving, missions trips, etc.
I don’t think there are many single Christian women who can live up to their very narrow wish list of a super religious wife who eats, breathes, lives and sleeps nothing but Christianity and theological talk (unless you can fix them up with the super spiritual ladies you met on that dating site).
FWIW, with the dating site stuff, I personally have had pretty good luck with eHarmony and specifying that faith is important to me (down to being able to choose certain denominations if you like). I mostly get matches who at least claim some form of Christianity and I work from there, asking questions about faith as I go. By the time I get to the Open Communication stage, they’ve at least seen that regular church attendance is an expectation of mine, and I’ve asked them to describe their spirituality.
However, living in Atlanta gives me a fairly large pool to choose from, so that probably skews my results.
Headless Unicorn Guy said,
Oh yes.
Or they didn’t get married until about 23 years of age. And oh boy, that one year of singlehood, when they were out of college at age 21 and didn’t walk the aisle until age 23, leaving them with that one whole year of “prolonged” singleness was so, so, hard, so hard! LOL.
And they totally, totally (they say) understand your never- married- at- age- 40 or- 50- status because of that one to five years of singleness in their 20s. LOL.
Or, another variation I see every so often: they divorced “wife 1” at age 35 and got re-married at age 39, and oh, how hard those four years of singleness were. LOL.
@ Pam said,
Yes, that’s another cliche we singles get often. I also agreed with the rest of your post.
Also agreed with Rafiki 03:59 AM post, and sad observer on this:
Marriage is supposed to be really great and the pillar of America (so some Christians say), but when you admit to wanting marriage for yourself, you are told to be content in your singleness, church is not a “meat market,” and/or that you have made marriage into an idol.
Then you’re shunned, blamed, or ignored for being single. You can’t win no matter what you do.
Regarding the rest of your post, sad observer:
I made a choice, I don’t know how many months ago, to tune out about any and all relationship / dating advice by most Christians, because their advice is usually counter productive, does not work, is contradictory, strange, and is shame and fear-based / shame invoking.
Also agreed with Kristin’s Feb 26 10:06 AM post.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Salvation by Marriage Alone – LOL!
I couldn’t stop laughing when I saw that, but it does sum the attitude of most denominations and churches up accurately.
I might also add “with kids.”
I have heard that married- with- no- kids couples feel excluded at many churches, but I still believe that “single (specifically never-married) with no children” people have it ten times worse in Christianity in this country.
Miguel wrote:
Miguel, I have refrained from sex, and I’m in my 40s now. I believed since childhood that God intends sex for marriage only, so I was waiting for marriage.
It’s implied in a lot of Christian preaching, blogs, or books on dating (this is usually directed at the females) that if you remain sexually pure, God will certainly grant you a spouse. This did not happen for me.
Conversely, I have seen a lot of testimonies over the years by Christians who admitted to being very sexually active outside of marriage, they confessed they knew it was sin, but they went on to be married to wonderful Christian spouses in spite of it.
Nobody ever talks about this.
Christian celibates are not mentioned in most sermons or sites, and on rare occasions we are, we are used in Christian blogs and books (by Al Mohler and others) as objects of fear to scare younger single Christians.
Christian celibates past the age of 30 are sometimes depicted as failures or losers, and the married Christians tell the younger, still-single teens and 20 somethings, “See,you don’t want to arrive at 40 years of age, or older, and be like these pathetic loser singles, now do you?”
Then they make all sorts of incorrect assumptions about why people like me (or the males) are still single: we were feminists; we loved career more than marriage; etc.
(I have remain unmarried for reasons having nothing to do with career, I was never a bra-burning feminist, etc.)
But the married Christian people (such as Al Mohler) use those rationales, I assume, to support their gender role dogma, and their beliefs that all feminism is evil, or that it hurts women.
The reality is you can be a very good Christian girl, sexually pure, have very conservative theological beliefs, and even believe in “male headship” teachings and so on*, and still remain unmarried past the age of 35. For some reason, Al Mohler and gang don’t want to address that fact, or mention it.
———————-
*I used to believe in traditional gender roles from the time I was a child, but I did have questions or doubts in the back of my mind about it the whole time, until I reached my mid or late 30s and the doubts became stronger.
My point being that you can be a female “gender complementarian” and still remain single past the age of 35.
Being a feminist or an egalitarian is not always what causes prolonged singleness for Christian females, as Mohler and company often assume / argue.
@ Jeff S:
Hi, Jeff S.
“I think it is *right* to want good things, as long as we donât think we *need* them or are *entitled* to them.”
************
Well, I think a case can be made for wanting things because we do, in fact, need them and are entitled to them.
We need comfort. There’s only so much discomfort and pain we take before our health (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual) deteriorates faster than it can it can be regained.
We need people in our life, healthy relationships. We need healthy food. We need self-respect and self-confidence (they are what get us up in the morning and motivate us to pursue health and financial independence). We need happiness (it is SORELY underrated).
Rosa Parks was entitled to sit in any seat of the bus she wanted. She was not wrong for feeling entitled to this, nor for wanting to be able to sit in any seat of her choosing to be her reality.
I am entitled to personhood, to equal rights. I am not wrong for feeling entitled to them, nor for wanting them to be my reality.
@ linda:
Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day sermons and church celebrations are also difficult for unmarried women who desire marriage to have to endure, because they are reminders she is not married. But I have sat through them on occasion, and grew tired of them.
The obsessive attention paid to ‘married with children couples’ is one reason (but not the only reason) I stopped attending churches.
Every one has a right to get their needs met by a church, but most churches continue to only care about “married with children” couples. Which is a violation of Christ’s comments in Luke 14:26.
Asking churches to let you, the single, put on a ministry or class or outing for singles, often falls on deaf ears.
Churches prefer to spend their money on under- age- 30 singles. I don’t know why, they are just that way. There is just a really, really bad bias against singles over the age of 30.
Church is not just about hearing or preaching the Gospel.
God also intended for church to serve the practical needs of other people, such as offering financial assistance to widows, encouragement for Christians going through a hard time, fellowship for the lonely, etc.
God recognizes that we have earthly needs while we are here, not just spiritual ones.
You said, “I find for myself that if I look specifically for a church ministering to older, female, married, traditional music loving, conservative, etc etc etc folks I find few.”
It’s not that I am looking for a church that is specifically for never- married- and- childless- by- age- 40 women, but that all churches I’ve been to only sermonize about marriage and parenting. They do not even acknowledge there are different sorts of people sitting in their pews.
You said, But I find scads preaching Christ, and Him crucified.
There is more to me than needing Jesus as Savior. I have other problems as I go through life that have nothing to do with salvation.
Even the rest of apostle Paul’s letters talk about people’s every day needs, such as widows who need food, clothing, and financial aid.
Paul does not spend every moment of his New Testament letters only talking about Christ and Christ’s atonement.
Phoenix wrote:
Your hat collection needs an exorcism, obviously! đ
dee wrote:
Speaking of e-bay, take a listen to this silly song about E-bay by Weird Al:
E bay Song by Weird Al
Daisy wrote:
I’ve got a standard comeback: “You didn’t get any for four years? I havent’ gotten any for 57 years — GROW. UP.”
Lynn wrote:
According to that lady in that one lecture on the one video, I take it that the answer is no.
The lady giving the lecture, after she said they keep referring to married couples as “normative,” said something to the audience like, “I guess Jesus and the Apostle Paul don’t count with them?”
She seemed to indicate that the singleness of Jesus and Paul are not discussed or mentioned in the extreme- pro- marriage blogs and books they publish, or their singleness doesn’t seem to matter.
@ Daisy:
Hi, Daisy. I agree with everything you’ve said.
“Valentineâs Day and Motherâs Day sermons…”
–I choose not to attend church anywhere on Mother’s Day — it is always a contrived, forced message, wringing all manner of irrelevancy out of the bible and making it about motherhood. There might as well be a “Ladybug’s Day” — I could come up with a very meaningful “bibical” sermon myself about ladybugs. Could be a fun exercise!
———————–
“Asking churches to let you, the single, put on a ministry or class or outing for singles, often falls on deaf ears.”
–I’ve seen this, too. My thinking is go about it extra-ekklesia — plan all manner of things on one’s own. Muster up the initiative and catalyst power. Easier said than done, though. Also, I know that a controlling church can snuff initiative out of people — it’s like it atrophies. But to create one’s own community is absolutely feasible, possible, do-able.
————————
“There is more to me than needing Jesus as Savior. I have other problems as I go through life that have nothing to do with salvation.”
–I think the tendency for people of most if not all religions is to exalt spiritual principle far higher than is necessary. We are more than a spirit. We are a physical body, an emotional self, a social creature, an intelligent mind.
One can live a spiritually principled life without sacrificing all the many other things about life that make it healthy and good. The way I see it, we can live a life with such air-tight commitment to spiritual principle that things like happiness, enjoyment, fun and comfort are sacrificed…. and then we die.
What’s the point of that?? We have one shot at life. We can make a difference and leave the world a better place because we were here without sacrificing things that make it an enjoyable time for us, as well.
Hester wrote:
I heard it speculated a couple years ago (after a series of similar Pat Robertson antics) that Pat might be losing it from Alzheimer’s. The commenter that speculated this claimed he’d seen similar behavior in a former boss of his who was later diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.
That said, Pat does seem to be trying out for poster boy for that Carl Sagan book The Demon-Haunted World.
Hester
It’s possible I misunderstood what she was saying in her video about those specific groups, but I have seen the same view in recent television spots of Christians who were interviewed about gender roles.
I’ve been to sites that discuss views by Quiverfull sort of groups that they do have similar thinking that a single man = .5 in image of God,
single woman = .5 image of God,
so the .5’s have to get married to = 1.
I’ve seen such a view alluded to on Christian dating sites or in online articles about marriage or gender, by more respectable groups.
Some Christians carry the marriage analogy (that a married couple reflects the trinity, or God’s relationship with the church, etc) too far.
In one book I read about Christian singles, the Christian authors quoted from a Christian source or two who said that the sexual act between a married Christian couple is the expression of God Himself, or God in their midst, or something wacky.
The authors’ point is that some Christians have elevated married sex to being God Himself, or the only way of really “knowing” God, or something of that nature, and so single celibate Christian people can never truly know God as well as married people can and do.
I forget the details, but it was something like that.
Basically, it comes down to excluding singles again: if you are a celibate Christian single, some Christian authors are saying you’re not “as” Christian as married Christians, and/or you can’t know or enjoy God as deeply as married Christian couples who are having sex.
Re Jeff S
If that is one of your preferences, that is all fine and dandy, but don’t assume that a non regular church attender is not “Christian” enough or is a back slider.
I see pastors on television give that advice
to singles every so often:
“Remember, ladies, judge how often he goes to church! If he does no go regularly, question his commitment to the Lord! Suspect his dedication, spiritual maturity and character!”
The problem is, church attendance is not always an accurate barometer of someone’s spiritual walk or maturity in Christ.
I stay away from churches for various reasons, but I was a devout Christian my whole life.
Just a few reasons I stay away:
I am an introvert and get panic attacks walking into new environments; churches are not friendly or comfortable places for over- age- 35 singles; most Christians are judgmental when I get to know them; etc.
Reluctance to attend a church each week does not make me less a Christian or an unsuitable mate.
E-harmony does not work for Christian ladies. Once you are over 35 years old, they stop sending you many matches.
Some of the matches on eHarmony claim to be Christian, but their profiles mention sex and vulgar humor.
The horror stories I see on blogs and in the local paper of child abuse, spiritual abuse, and stories of pastors who brow beat members to tithe, is also enough to keep me scared away from churches.
@ elastigirl:
I agree. đ Jesus met people’s practical needs when He walked Earth 2,000 years ago.
He healed their blindness, diseases, gave them food, etc. He did not spend all His time sermonizing about salvation.
I also think it’s a fallacy that God does not care about our happiness here on earth, but this is a view I see brought up by Christians every so often on blogs, in books, or by well known preachers.
Another common view I see that I don’t agree with is that Christians do not have needs, should not have them, or it is wrong to get them met, or to expect other believers to help you meet them is selfish.
One reason I reject that view is that Christ met people’s needs, and Paul instructs Christians to meet each other’s every day needs whenever and where possible.
Many Christians have made the concept of “serving or be served” into a mutually exclusive proposition, when the Bible does not teach that. You can do both: you can expect a church to meet your needs on occasion, and you can help other people too.
This applies to singleness. A lot of “heavenly minded” believers will try to guilt you into thinking it’s sinful, selfish, or shameful to expect a church to meet the needs of the unmarried, or for you to try to get a spouse at a church.
“E-harmony does not work for Christian ladies. Once you are over 35 years old, they stop sending you many matches.
Some of the matches on eHarmony claim to be Christian, but their profiles mention sex and vulgar humor.”
Interesting. I personally know 3 eharmony married couples who are miserable with each other. That is simply anecdotal but it is weird.
I know 2 of them were matched and were over 45. One of the husbans of the above couples I mentioned … his behavior suggests severe narcissism and sociopathy. He attends church regularly and speaks of his great Christianity often especially his tithing. (rolls eyes) She is miserable. I gave her the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Promise-Despise-Abuse-Until-Death/dp/0615406564
“This applies to singleness. A lot of âheavenly mindedâ believers will try to guilt you into thinking itâs sinful, selfish, or shameful to expect a church to meet the needs of the unmarried, or for you to try to get a spouse at a church”
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, âI donât need you!â And the head cannot say to the feet, âI donât need you!â 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
@ elastigirl:
I agree there are things we want because we need them. I don’t think marriage is one of them. However, there are a lot of people who do not marry or remain single after a divorce. When we put the desire for a spouse into the “need” category, we are setting ourselves up for an unhealthy, do-dependent marriage.
This is something very close to my heart right now, because while I do want to get remarried, I don’t want to base my fulfillment as a person on that happening- that’s too much of a burden to place on a other person. I can honestly say that I am OK if I do not get married again, but it is still something I desire.
@ Anon 1:
That gets into something else I’ve thought of lately: the biblical teaching about not being unequally yoked.
I don’t think I adhere to that belief any more (that a Christian should only marry another Christian), because some Christians can be bad folks too, like the guy you described in your post, the narcissistic guy.
I think it’s probably safer for a Christian woman (or any woman) who wants marriage to judge a man by his character and how he treats her and other people, and not whether he attends church every week, reads a Bible daily, or claims to be a Christian.
According to news reports I have read in years past, just as many (or about as many) Christian men are addicted to X-rated materials as Non Christian men are, Christians divorce at roughly the same rate as unbelievers, and the rate of domestic abuse is also significant among Christian married couples.
I am not clear, therefore, on what benefit it is for a Christian female to marry another so-called Christian (other than knowing he will make it to Heaven too).
I used to think the Bible teaches the yoked thing in part because a Christian male would treat a woman better (with more respect), but I was wrong about that.
As for my experiences on E-Harmony, yes it’s true.
E-Harmony is not a bonanza of single Christian men over the age of 35, for starters.
I’ve read that females out-number males on that site, and that e-Harmony plays games, they will intentionally hold back the number of male matches they send to females, but send the males tons of female matches.
And yes, there were some seedy, vulgar types I ran into on eHarmony.
There were so-called Christian men who had vulgar, sex based jokes in their profiles, stated sexual preferences on their profiles, or early on in the matching (which is a total turn off to me).
Almost all of them had off putting, tacky “wants” in their lists.
Almost without fail, 99% of the Christian males listed, “have to have a woman who LOVES sex!” on their “must have” list.
IMO, there is just something mal-adjusted about single males who are that preoccupied with sex, especially ones over the age of 40, especially ones who are divorced, as some were.
They are old enough to know better and act more mature. But they are like pastor Mark Driscoll.
I’d rather stay single forever than marry a Mark Driscoll kind of guy.
@ Daisy:
I did not say that a person who does not attend church is not a Christian. However, attending church together is very important to me if I remarry, so I want to find someone I can do that with.
My point was that I have had good success with getting matches that fit what I am looking for at eHarmony. I understand your experience is different that that, which is a shame.
@ Jeff S:
Just keep in mind that lots of lovely Christian ladies have good reasons for why they don’t attend weekly (or at all). You may be unnecessarily limiting your matches.
At one blog I’ve seen for Christian domestic abuse victims, many of their husbands attend church weekly.
@ Daisy:
I would say those narccissists and people abusing porn are likely not really people of genuine faith. I think it is important to try and be with someone who is a Christian. I don’t think it’s so that you re treated better, but so you are able to have a connected spiritual deminsion in your relationship. I sat alone in church for the last four years if my marriage- I don’t want to do that again.
Now having said that, easier said that done, how do you judge accurately whether a person has genuine faith? Church attendance? Ability to enunciate a particular soteriology? Kindness?
I struggle with this- I’ll admit that on eHarmony there are two things that will cause me to close a match before anything else: if they don’t mention Jesus somewhere in their profile as important, or if they mention that their favorite book is “50 Shades of Gray” (which is surprisingly a high number). Beyond that, I ask “Describe Your Spirituality” during the open ended questions, but at the end of the day real faith is lived out, and that’s only seen by interacting in person.
@ Daisy:
Oh, I’m aware of this- remember that I write for a blog that deals with domestics abuse. I’d say about 90% of the women who comment there are no longer in church but are Christians, especially the ones that are still hurting. Most also are in no rush to find marriage partners either and are not on eHarmony.
I think by putting that, though, I set realistic expectations for what is important to me. In the end, I do not want another marriage where I go to church alone. If that means I’m limiting myself, well I’m OK with that. It’s just important to me.
“donât think I adhere to that belief any more (that a Christian should only marry another Christian), because some Christians can be bad folks too, like the guy you described in your post, the narcissistic guy.”‘
Daisy, I am not so sure it means what we think it means through our western eyes. If you think about it, most of the 1st Century church was going to be unequally yoked. A lot of it consisted of poor women. Was Joanna unequally yoked while she was traveling around with Jesus while Chuza was back at the Palace? We do not know if he was a believer or not. He worked for Herod! I know there were some there who believed but we do not know exactly who.
In 1st Peter he talks about how to live as believers around unbelievers and speaks to wives and husbands on it. So we know it was something going on. We know folks were “unequally yoked” but to what extent? I would love to hear folks views on this.
Also compare that passage in 2 Corinthians to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5. Interesting.
I am wondering if perhaps the context is not more about the worship of many gods (Idols) and the problems that could bring?
@ Daisy:
One question I’d ask about your experience with eHarmony- are you in a highly populated area? If so, what you say just makes me sad. I, of course, have never seen the male profiles so I don’t know what it looks like on your end. I’ve not gotten very many scantily clad women (I did on other sites) so I just assumed eHarmony was better for finding respectable matches.
@ Jeff S:
I was living in one of America’s largest cities at the time I was an eHarmony member – both population-wise and geography wise.
At one time, that city, was, I believe, the 4th or 5th largest city in America (population wise).
Didn’t matter, even when I told e-Harmony to send me matches anywhere from Earth, Mars, Saturn and Pluto, and not just the city I was in, they did not send any more matches.
I’m in another city now in another state, and it’s a major city of sorts, not as big as the last one.
You said, “Now having said that, easier said that done, how do you judge accurately whether a person has genuine faith? Church attendance? Ability to enunciate a particular soteriology? Kindness?”
I don’t care any longer if the guy is a Christian or not.
I go by kindness.
If a guy says he reads the bible every day, or goes to church all the time, that kind of thing no longer interests me / impresses me, and because so many Christian men (I believe they are actual christian, not false converts or pretenders) are into porn, affairs, and abuse, so you can’t trust a Christian man any better than a Non-Christian one.
I’ve come to the conclusion that you have to look at how a man lives and treats people, not what they claim to believe theologically, or on outward religious “performance” (things like church attendance).
Some very active church members and bible readers hit their wives, look at X-rated sites, etc., some molest kids, as this site has publicized.
One of my dating site profiles is still active, but I am not ready to start dating yet, so I don’t use that site (it is not eHarmony).
I was so disgusted with eHarmony and the quality of “Christian” men on it, that I deleted my whole profile from eHarmony.
@ Anon 1:
My understanding of the passage is that it was saying Christians should not marry Non Christians. Then there are passages about if you are a Christian who is married to a Non Christian don’t divorce him/ her.
As there are not any eligible, Christian single men in my age range (40 – 45), and the ones who exist all insist on marrying 25 year olds, I’m throwing the “must be a Christian” out the window of my list of requirements. That used to be my #1 quality in a guy I would not compromise on.
That, and as I told Jeff S, Christian men are not necessarily better, more respectable, or more moral than Non- Christian men, which I have noticed as I have gotten older.
@ Daisy:
Why are you convinced that men who use porn, have affairs, or abuse their wives are truly Christians?
I’m not saying that every man who has done these things is neceessairly not a Christian, but to consistently and unrepentantly do any of these suggests an unregenerate heart. At the very least it seems we ought to treat these folks as unbelievers.
@ Daisy:
To be clear, the passage about Christians divorcing non-Christians is saying that Christians ought not to divorce non-Christians who are willing to live with them (and it can be argued that this means in a state of peace, as abuse or neglect does not seem to fit the kind of behavior Paul would endorse). Paul was telling new converts that they should not go out and divorce their non-believing spouses.
@ Daisy:
Your experience with eHarmony might not be universal, because the only couple I know who met via that site are both committed Christians over age 45.
Jeff S
I am so glad that you said this.
“Iâm not saying that every man who has done these things is neceessairly not a Christian, but to consistently and unrepentantly do any of these suggests an unregenerate heart. At the very least it seems we ought to treat these folks as unbelievers.”
We have had many people come onto this blog claiming that someone can be a Christian and molest, abuse, etc. One guy said something to the effect that he is proud to serve a Jesus who can keep forgiving a pedophile who molests hundreds of kids, time after time. Dee’s jaw hit the table.
I believe that there is a false teaching going on around churches that every sin is exactly the same  in God’s eyes.In other words, Hitler’s sins are no different than the man who took a pen from work. I believe that this sort of teaching arose out of the shepherding movement to control people. So, if you catch your pastor living high on the church tithes and confront him, he turns to you and starts listing all your esoteric sins: pride, conceit, etc. Therefore, your concern is moot and you are left licking your wounds.
I know there are many caveats that must be given but I believe your point needs to be stressed in more churches.
I registered in a couple of Christian dating sites in the past (not eHarmony) but never really got to use them besides checking profiles and exchanging emails with a couple of girls. However, for some reason it never got past the second email.
I know some people who used dating sites more often than me but, as far as I know, they never were successful. I certainly don’t know anybody who got married that way. I also agree with HUG in that the ‘dates’ derived from those sites may feel more like job interviews than a proper date… I wonder if the problem lies in the way those websites work.
You have a long list of potential ‘candidates’ at your reach. You explore all the profiles, going through the characteristics and, of course, the pictures, and then you contact one and start a short exchange of emails to see if you would be willing to meet in person. You may even go to the ‘date’ already thinking that it’s going to be a disaster. If that fails, start again.
One down, next to go. You’ll never have to see that person again. And all the time you have those ‘testimonials’ showing how awesome it was for Billy and Sandy and how happy they’re now… The promises! They look so great. But if that’s so, then why it’s so difficult? The usual response: just try harder. Make a better CV… I mean, profile. Become more visible. Spend more money.
The main issue I see is that, from the beginning, there are fewer chances of forming a real friendship which may or may not later derive into a relationship. In a sense there’s not much incentive to stick with a particular person because there’s the possibility that you could find a ‘better’ one in the next page. Meanwhile, in the ‘non virtual’ world, you may try harder with somebody because, let’s say the hard truth, there aren’t that many options.
What do you think?
Martos, The folks I know who met on eharmony told me they went there because they wanted to be married. Period. Being married was really the goal. And I mentioned a few above who are not happy at all. Well, happy is not the right word. They are miserable.
I do wonder if going in wanting desparately to be married was not a blind spot but then isn’t that the ulitmate goal for everyone there? Perhaps not.
Here is something interesting. I know two people who are marrying people from their childhood or high school days in older age. One of them was never married female who at 50 married her divorced high school boyfriend. They ran into each other at a function and had not had contact for 30 years. Another one had an old boyfriend look her up to see what had happened to her and she was divorced so they started seeing each other in a friend sort of way and are now a year later getting married.
It is really cool.
@ Martos:
It definitely is a lot like a job interview, though I like the process on eHarmony better than the other sites I experienced. It’s not for everyone though.
One real key I have found is that you want to get to the initial meeting as fast as possible (using the guided communication, which is unique to eHarmony, to weed out people who aren’t going to work on paper) and make it a VERY short meeting, like coffee. This initial meeting isn’t even a real “date”- it’s just a quick meeting to see if there’s anything there. Until a first real “date” (after the initial meeting) you really shouldn’t be invested in the person. The more time I’ve spent talking via email or the phone, the worse my experience has been when we’ve finally met. I think a lot of this is that you develop an idea of who a person is through limited communication, and then he or she never turns out to be that- remember most communication in person is non-verbal.
I also think the idea of going in desperately wanting to be married, as anon 1 mentions above is something to watch out for. I don’t want find someone who wants me to “complete” them- this is what I was getting at above when I was talking about “wants” vs “needs”. I don’t want to fulfill a “need”, but being a “want” could be a good thing.
“Are Christians Singles The New Second Class Citizen?” I’m afraid the answer is yes. Marriage and family have been placed on a pedal of idolatry in the majority of American churches today, especially Protestant. And never married men have been banned from preaching in many SBC churches in the south. John (51 yo), St. Paul’s Call International