30 and Single? It’s Your Own Fault

by Camerin Courtney  (posted 06/21/2006)

A response to

Getting Serious About Getting Married:

Rethinking the Gift of Singleness

By Debbie Maken (Crossway Books)

Camerin Courtney’s response to Debbie Maken’s book demands an exploration of the biblical understanding of the gifts for marriage and celibacy. But first we should consider the current social problem that led to Maken’s book and then to Courtney’s rejoinder.

By one account we live in a society that has destroyed the foundation blocks that allowed for community development; but it is also possible that we are in the process of creating a new understanding of community and just not recognizing it.  To the extent that marriage is one of the foundational building blocks of society, it is part of a larger neighborhood-bound community, which in turn may affect mate selection.  But to the extent that families are increasingly isolated units where neighbors do not know each other, finding marriage partners becomes a function of participation in a variety of other types of communities that may be quite disconnected from family life.  We might best think of our society as a network of overlapping and sometimes disconnected communities rather than simply a composite set of neighborhood communities.  Each individual is a member of multiple communities and therefore has multiple roles and shares in multiple perspectives.

Camerin Courtney, managing editor of TODAY’S CHRISTIAN WOMAN, points out that “According to Barna research, there are between 11 and 13 million more born-again women than born-again men, and according to 2000 U.S. Census findings, there are 86 unmarried men for every 100 unmarried women. Meaning? As a single Christian woman, there are less marital options out there for me to get serious about.”  She believes this demographic reality is the fundamental reason that so many Christian women are left in the single status. 

Debbie Maken evaluated her single plight as she was growing older and decided that a Christian online dating service was the way to get serious about looking for a mate, and it worked out well for her.  She thinks that a lot of Christian women are opting out of marriage for the wrong reasons and has written her book to make her case.  Courtney says that “Maken seems to think a vast majority of singles view their solo status as a special gift from God,” but Courtney says, based on her interactions with many singles, that for many if not most, “singleness is a default reality.”

What we might be witnessing here, in part, is a difference in the methods one is willing to use in seeking a mate, a choice usually made within the more comfortable context of one’s local community. In one sense, looking for a life partner on the Internet, with all the uncertainties and the potential relocation this approach could entail, might not be a whole lot different than volunteering for foreign mission service.  Not everyone is up for that kind of faith challenging adventure.

Each of these women has a valid perspective, but the problem comes when one tries to reach some universal “rule” that applies to people in every situation, regardless of the uniqueness of their life experience. Yet because we serve one God who has shown us what is right and good in the Bible, it is imperative that we should seek to understand and follow God’s will.  There is a sense in which each of us repeats the Genesis experience individually, by both being deceived into self-will and then deliberately choosing it at some point, thereby repeating the first recorded sins.   Living as a Christian is essentially allowing God to have his proper role in our life.

UNDERSTANDING THE TWO GIFTS

From a biblical perspective, as both Debbie Maken and Cameron Courtney seem to acknowledge, the basic issue regarding their disagreement has to do with understanding the distinction between the gift for marriage and the gift for celibacy.  Although understanding these gifts will not yield absolute rules, I believe it will yield principles by which believers can evaluate their lives in a way that enables them to move forward spiritually rather than feel stuck in a default mode of existence.

I think the best way to conceive of these gifts is to go back to the Genesis creation account and see how it unfolds, which I will abbreviate here so that we only emphasize the parts relevant to our discussion:  First God creates chaos, which might be best viewed as an uncontrolled mass of energy.  Then God differentiates it into various forms such as night and day, land and sea, etc.  But then he comes to human beings.  Here the story makes a big point.  Not only does God further differentiate this energy into male and female, but he also prolongs the act by dramatizing the need for partnership and companionship between the sexes in the ruling function over the creation, and by highlighting the distinction between the humans and the rest of the creation.  Jesus explains how these chapters teach God’s plan for sexuality and marriage.

From the very beginning, energy has been directed and differentiated to form and create the world we live in, including our own bodies.  Our entire environment is an energy consuming and recycling system that we are accountable to govern.  When you think of sexual energy as an ongoing process within you that needs to be directed, not something that can be contained as if you can put a lid on it and keep it inside, then you have the idea of what you are dealing with.  Everybody is using sexual energy, and that’s why the observant Freud so easily gets accused of seeing sex in everything and why so often sex and religion are intertwined since spirituality may also be seen as infusing all of life.  Non-biblical influences have also distorted the biblical perspective, although how and to what extent is debatable.

We can’t here explore all the interesting ways that understanding sexuality developed in the Old Testament, but we should review the important aspects of what Jesus taught because he is our authoritative guide to understanding what the Old Testament teaches.  My comments on Matthew 19 in the April 18 post below explain the derivation of these principles, which are here reworded in a more functionally useful way:

1. Under normal conditions, sexual activity is presumed to usually continue once it is initiated
2. Marriage and celibacy are the only God-intended sexual “orientations” that should be pursued
3. Only those gifted for celibacy should choose the option of singleness

When you view these principles against the broad perspective presented above, you can see how they fit into the larger pattern, and also sense where some of the problematic issues might arise.  I believe keeping this broad perspective in view will also help discern creative yet realistic solutions to those problem areas. 

The general picture is that everyone has sexual energies, but that those who are married will direct them toward their spouses.  And as Jesus said, those with the gift of celibacy will be able to direct them “for the sake of the kingdom,” or as the Apostle Paul would later clarify, those with the gift of celibacy can live with “undivided devotion to the Lord.”  Their energies can be directed into the service of God.

The overall principle is that the sexual energy involved is essentially the same for both sexes and for both celibates and married people, and is simply directed in different ways.  These gifts are not simply descriptions of a state of being.  Just being married or being single is not in itself identical with the gift for those states.  The gift is the energy (which all normal physical beings have) plus the assistance and guidance from God to enable one to use those energies constructively.  To be effective the gift must be accepted, so cooperation of the person with God’s will is essential.  The fact that one can be single and not celibate just goes to show that the gift and the state of singleness are distinct concepts. Although it is not as readily transparent, one should also recognize that just being married does not automatically mean one is exercising the gift for marriage.  Christian spirituality is about having our “minds set on what the Spirit desires.”

What this means for those “stuck” in the state of singleness is that they should be pursuing opportunities to be ever more devoted to the service of God if they determine that is their fate.  At some point they need to decide which way God is leading them and take some decisive action.  They do not need to take vows to never marry, but should consider ways that their lives can be invested in the Lord and the Lord’s work beyond what is possible for the average married person, who as Paul says must be preoccupied with the “worldly affairs” of operating a home and therefore will have less energy for the “Lord’s affairs.” 

The other, more difficult side of this predicament is how to assess the problem of sexual activity when one in effect feels gifted for marriage but stuck in a state of singleness.  There are no easy answers here, and this is probably one of the reasons why ministry to singles is typically a weak area in church ministry.  Ideally, early physical sexual development should integrate with an individual’s cognitive development which has already been educated to understand God’s plan for sexuality and marriage; but our families, churches, and society have often failed in this task for a variety of reasons.  Figuring out what it is all about tends to be largely a youth project conducted in a pluralistic pop culture, and the answers that emerge are varied. And even when properly prepared, a Christian young person may rebel and complicate the maturing process.

The church needs to take a more active role in the area of accepting sexuality at all levels, and especially in addressing the issue of cohabitation, since these couples are neither married nor single (strictly speaking), yet often times are open to spiritual direction if they are accepted as they are and allowed to develop the insights needed to align themselves with God’s purposes as the teachable moments arise.  Nurturing alignment with God’s purposes by acceptance into some level of fellowship seems to be the approach that Jesus used and that earned him the label of “friend of sinners,” a derogatory category which was understood to include sexually immoral people.

DISCERNING ONE’S GIFT

From a biblical perspective, a distinguishing feature between the two gifts is that those with the gift for celibacy are able to control their bodies in a way that those with the gift for marriage are not.  That is how we make sense of what Paul says to the Corinthians - “Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.”  Or when he says, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

The capacity for self-control should not be viewed so much as the ability to deny pursuit of sexual pleasure as it is the ability to focus sexual energy into a particular direction.  Those with the gift for celibacy, as we have seen, have the ability to divert their energy into service for the Lord and find satisfaction in that.  Those with the gift for marriage, however, are focused on using a good deal of their energy through genital expression for emotional connectiveness with the opposite sex.  In this regard, the challenge of self-control is also not negative, but positive, for as Paul says to the Thessalonians - ” It is God’s will … that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.”  In other words, the purpose of self-control is to do good to the other person in the sexual relationship, and to share in the pleasure of that relationship with them.  God’s word teaches us that this relationship can and should only be pursued in marriage, but how the state of the lifelong commitment of marriage is eventually reached is a rough and problematic road for many.  It is too easy for us to go to one extreme or the other in either excusing or criticizing various behaviors as people engage in the process of evaluating their behavior as they mature in their thinking.

The most important need is for Christians to evaluate their own behavior, and the support of others in this ongoing process plays an important role:

But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. (1 Cor 11:31-32, NIV)

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense–Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.  (1 John 1:8-2:1, NIV)

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.  (Gal 6:1-2, NIV)

Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.  (James 5:16, NIV)

Let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another.  (Heb 10:24-25, NIV)

The presumption in these verses is that there is some kind of ongoing social group in which fairly intimate nurturing relationships are fostered.  Although each person is accountable to God individually, God’s plan includes Christian fellowship to assist the individual in that process.  When we require repentance before we will accept people, we are reversing the biblical order.  In the case of the typical failure of the church to reach out to Christian singles (though not everywhere to be sure), one wonders if there is a refusal to accept the difficult realities that make it easier to neglect this group.

In responding to some very specific yet unknown questions that sometimes mystify us today, the Apostle Paul instructs his Corinthian readers that generally speaking, it is better (although not absolutely required) that they remain in the state they were in when they were converted, because of the stresses they were living under at that time. Paul then illustrates how the decision making process of the single person can operate in deciding which way to go in the choice of celibacy or marriage:  in the context of this passage he is responding to a question that does not apply to our current culture, and may well be referring to a situation where a man feels social pressure to fulfill a prior engagement commitment to get married and produce children. A variety of considerations will affect the decision, including one’s sense of self-control.  The universal point Paul makes is that the individual must make up his own mind - the decision should take into account Paul’s teaching and the individual’s own perspective on his abilities and circumstances - but Paul consistently teaches that one’s accountability is to the Lord and not anyone else.

If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin–this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. (1 Cor 7:36-38 NIV)

So even though Paul believed at the time that it would be better if those who were single would remain single, he here and elsewhere in the same chapter recognized that each person must evaluate their own situation and could and sometimes should rightly decide to marry anyway.  People must decide for themselves the direction that they believe God is leading them, and no one else can make that decision for them.

When Paul says “to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God–this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will,” he is indicating that life should become satisfying for Christians who adapt to whichever state God has led them to adopt. 

The gift for celibacy is a gift for a higher level of service for God.  If one determines that singleness seems to be one’s state for the foreseeable future, then aligning oneself with that purpose rather than the hope of marriage is the interior choice that must ultimately be made at some point if one is to make decisive spiritual progress.  Judging by Camerin Courtney’s response, Debbie Maken might have overstated her case by challenging Christian singles to pursue marriage in such a categorical fashion, but we should not let that overshadow the need for decisive spiritual choices on the part of those who remain single.  To remain single indefinitely should not be a life sentence; it should become a deliberate choice of celibacy for the greater service of God.  If a person cannot feel free to make that choice, then perhaps they should respond to Debbie Maken’s challenge and get more creative in the search for a mate.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart,

and do not rely on your own insight.

In all your ways acknowledge him,

and he will make straight your paths.

The human mind plans the way,

but the Lord directs the steps.

Proverbs 3:5-6 & 16:9 NRSV

The Christian belief that God intended marriage to be a lifelong commitment is primarily based on Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, here shown in the fuller version recorded by Matthew:

Matthew 19      (emphasis added)

 1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

 3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

 4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh‘^[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

 7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

 8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

 11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage^[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Footnotes:

a.   Matthew 19:4 Gen. 1:27

b.   Matthew 19:5 Gen. 2:24

c.    Matthew 19:12 Or have made themselves eunuchs

New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society 

In this passage Jesus brings together verses from Genesis 1 and 2 to create a unified interpretation of God’s intentions for the marriage relationship.  When people act in accordance with God’s will, then it is understood that God is involved in their actions, even in the act of uniting in marriage–”what God has joined together, let no man separate.”  God initiated the plan for human sexual relationships, and that plan, says Jesus, was not to be aborted for human convenience — marriage had always been intended to be permanent.  Accepting Jesus’ interpretation of Scripture is an essential part of what it means to be a Christian.  The Gospels were compiled and written so that later generations could know what Jesus taught and accomplished. 

Jesus is saying that a person sins against God’s intentions and purposes, one “commits adultery,” if one breaks the marriage bond for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness on the part of the other person.  It is possible that the other person’s unfaithfulness already broke the marriage bond in God’s sight, so the person initiating a divorce under these circumstances would not be breaking what is already broken (although presumably it would also be possible to seek healing and restoration).  This view is consistent with Paul’s instruction that only when an unbelieving partner leaves a marriage may a believer consider themself free.  But Jesus does say that initiating an improper divorce - where the other partner has not broken the marriage bond through unfaithfulness - does break the marriage bond and therefore constitutes “committing adultery.”   There are many interpretations of this passage; but whatever one’s viewpoint, it is clear that Jesus is distinguishing between the marriage bond in God’s sight and the legal right to enact a divorce in his society, where divorce was permitted on a more generous basis.  The law does not define morality, even in a society that is based on the Ten Commandments.

This passage suggests that Jesus expects the God-given sex drive to normally be satisfied, because when the disciples react that being restricted to one woman without any means of escaping the relationship (as long as she is faithful) would make it better to remain single, Jesus says that only those who are gifted for celibacy can accept the unmarried state, an approach that the Apostle Paul also taught.  This expectation of sexual activity by most people is consistent with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5, where Jesus says that those who divorce their wives for a reason other than unfaithfulness cause them to commit adultery - the assumption seems to be that they will remarry.  Only people with the capacity for celibacy have a legitimate option to choose singleness - the others are intended for marriage.  So in the very broadest sense, there are only two courses of action one can pursue to fulfill God’s intentions for human sexuality according to Jesus: celibacy and marriage.

Sometimes this passage in Matthew 19 is debunked as inauthentic because the “exception clause” allowing divorce for unfaithfulness does not appear in Mark, which was “published” earlier than Matthew.  But this claim fails to acknowledge that each Gospel selected its contents for its own purposes from a much larger assortment of sayings–Jesus said and did much more than what is recorded in the Gospels.  The Gospels were written quite close to the time of Jesus and were based on eyewitness testimony and firsthand reports preserved by groups of people who carefully perpetuated his memory by meeting together and rehearsing the details.  It is rather presumptuous for scholars to dismiss one line in a later Gospel simply because it does not appear in the earliest Gospel, especially when it is in harmony with earlier Scriptures and can be seen as consistent with the rest of Jesus’ teaching.  In this case, as we have seen, there is no contradiction between Mark and Matthew.  And it is noteworthy that Paul’s much earlier writings on this topic are consistent with the later Gospel records.

One often hears that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, as if that means he had no opinion on the subject; but in this passage he specifically taught that God designed marriage between the sexes as a social institution because God made humans sexual beings.  Jesus thereby indicates that marriage is the context in which interpersonal sexual activity should be expressed according to God’s will, and that marriage was between males and females.  Based on this foundational teaching, we can make a number of reasonable deductions, including the disapproval of homosexuality as a God-intended form of sexual expression.  We can be equally sure, however, that if there had been opportunity to encounter homosexuals in his immediate society (which was unlikely at that time) Jesus would have reached out to them, as he did to the despised tax collectors and prostitutes. 

The spirituality of Jesus dominates this passage.  His primary concern is that we align ourselves with God’s purposes. To do that we must hear from God to know what those purposes are, and Jesus viewed his role as presenting that message from God.  His objective was not to criticize or to condemn, but to construct, to build up God’s kingdom, or as he put it in a more general way, to give life.  God’s intentions for all of human life are for human prosperity, and the essence of Christian spirituality is to align oneself with God’s purposes.  It is in this broad context that we can best understand what Jesus was teaching about God’s purposes for human sexuality and how Christians should relate to others in our world, even when they are opposed to God’s ways.

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

“Marriage,” by Ralph H. Alexander

This article presents the traditional Christian view of marriage including this definition of marriage (emphasis added)–

“An intimate and complementing union between a man and a woman in which the two become one physically, in the whole of life. The purpose of marriage is to reflect the relationship of the Godhead and to serve him. Although the fall has marred the divine purpose and function of marriage, this definition reflects the God-ordained ideal for marriage from the beginning.”

This article also includes the biblical background for the expectation of a lifelong marriage relationship–

“A new permanent union (Gen 2:24). “Cleaving” in Genesis 2:24 pictures a strong bond between the members of this union. The marriage bond was to be permanent. Separation or termination of the marriage union was not an option before sin entered the world and death with it (Gen 3). All later revelation shows that separation/divorce was because of sin (Deut 24:1-4; Ezra 9-10; Mal 2:14; Matt 5:31-32; 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor 7:1-16, 39). God’s ideal was for marriage to be permanent and exclusive.”

Comparison Chart: Christian Denominations’ Ethical Views

“This chart compares the similarities and differences between the views of major Christian denominations….  The summaries provided [on the chart] are believed to represent the majority view [in each denomination] and are taken from official statements where available.”

This chart and its documentation demonstrates that the major church traditions most often continue to view marriage as a lifelong commitment.   Some traditions do not offer a “definition,” which would include this element, and are more concerned with how to handle failure to reach this ideal; but this lifelong standard is the basis for their considerations.

Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage

By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott

Oversimplifies the conflict to rally political support for the then upcoming Federal marriage amendment vote in Congress. This was one of several articles in the September 2004 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY focusing on this theme. The overwhelming thrust of the coverage was in support of the amendment, but like the currently proposed Pennsylvania amendment, the proposed Federal amendment did not include the concept of a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman.  The overwhelming support for the Federal amendment in this evangelical periodical is quite remarkable since the casual reader might be led to think it represented the ”Christian” position, when it is actually the lifelong aspect of marriage that is the unique claim of Christian ethics, not the idea of men and women entering into an ongoing relationship, which predates Christianity and is not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I wrote the following letter to the editor, which was not published as far as I know–

Although the Sept 2004 issue [CHRISTIANITY TODAY] presents a sound biblical view of marriage, it does not follow that that view should be enshrined in the US Constitution at this time, even if the residual effects of the biblical view are evident in our society.  If “by their fruits you will know them” means anything, and if the quote by Margaret Mead prominently displayed on page 44 is significant (that “there is no society in the world where people have stayed married without enormous community pressure to do so”) then Americans do NOT truly accept the biblical teaching on marriage as “the lifelong commitment of a man and woman to each other.”

If we remove the lifelong commitment aspect from the definition, we are not faithful to the biblical concept; and I believe it is not accurate to claim that the vast majority of Americans would accept this complete definition.  Removing the lifelong commitment from the definition makes this political effort an obvious attack against homosexuals who are trying to establish equivalent rights for themselves in a society where sexual behavior has been effectively separated from reproduction (which raises the question about marriage rights), and where many privileges not connected to reproduction have been granted only to those who are married, whether or not they reproduce.

Following the pattern ever since Constantine, Christian leaders seem to be attempting to make laws to Christianize everyone else rather than following the example of the earliest church and attempting to reach out to those in need–substituting political power for the power of love.  It seems to me a more constructive expression of God’s love would be to identify the social needs of the gay community and seriously seek to address how they can be met.  The risk we take with the current politicized approach is that if it is successful we can then ignore the gay community.  This is NOT a biblical approach to conflict resolution.  Yes, some Christian group somewhere will do something; but nothing like the energies of the Christian public being mobilized to pass a Constitutional amendment will be involved.  You can count on it.  So where is the love in all this?

There was a CT article by Chad W. Thompson around that time that emphasized sharing love with homosexuals on the personal level, but it did not recognize the need for love to work for structural change to meet their unique needs. It is one thing to maintain a friendship with someone you compete with, for example, on an opposing softball team; but quite another to build a meaningful relationship with someone you are trying to deprive of normal human comforts such as the right to visit their partner in the hospital or to confidently share in the financial planning and benefits commensurate with their commitment to each other–but that’s what a befriender is doing when they are also actively supporting these so-called “marriage protection” amendments. 

One of the main issues at stake in the current debate over the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment is about allowing gay people in long-term intimate relationships, who come to depend on each other, to be able to count on each other’s support when they really need it.   Proposals such as this amendment, if implemented, would maliciously undermine that social need by not supporting these couples with appropriate social rights, and would thereby weaken society and not function for the general social good.  Supporting this law is malicious because, even as seen by its militant wording (“protection”), it is intended to fight against those who are trying to obtain the very rights it is specifically denying them from obtaining.  How can anyone conceive of this amendment as an expression of Christian love?