Given that the Burn Your Plastic Jesus thread has started to focus on Pastor Mark’s view on ministry and singleness, and recognising that Pastor Mark has made comments at other events regarding this issue, I thought a new thread was appropriate.

So the question ... Is he right in his focus on pastors being married men?

My understanding on his position is as follows:

1. The created order implies that men should be married.

“Gen 2.18 says ‘It is not good for man to be alone’, Period. If you need evidence of this, then go to single guy’s house. What do you see in the living room? Inflatable furniture!”

2. The exhortation to singleness in 1 Corinthians 7 was made in the context of a particular crisis in the Corinth where Christians were being persecuted, so the advice Paul is giving is “don’t start a family when you’re about to be killed..”

3. There is a cultural argument in that the aggressive sexual nature of our society calls for men to be married to enable them to resist temptation.

So it seems to be that any discussion should be based around these three lines of argument.

RE the cultural argument ... There is some wisdom here, in that having a proactive sex life to avoid sin is a wise move (1 Cor 7.5), but there are some other elements to add to the picture. Another verse used (by MD and others) to promote the idea of marrying in order to not sin sexually is 1 Cor 7.9 (’better to marry than to burn with passion’), yet there is some interesting discussion as to whether ‘burn’ means ‘be sexually aroused’ in a physical sense or simply ‘to be madly in love’ in an emotional sense. In fact, the clearest word from the NT on how to deal with temptation is not to marry but to practice self-control (1 Thess 4:4-5). Further, I fear that Pastor Mark’s advice to “stop looking at porn, get married and ask to look at her instead” might lead some to underestimate the seriousness of porn addiction. I know of men who’ve gotten married without adequately dealing with the issue, and the resulting feelings of inadequacy placed upon the wife has led to divorce not long after. 

RE the argument from 1 Corinthians ... I for one haven’t done the exegetical work on the passage so I don’t think I can say much, only that I have heard the line from others before, but from what I remember it isn’t the main view among commentators.

RE the argument from creation ... This has currency with us here in Sydney given our strong creation ethic (thanks to O’Donovan’s influence), but any ethic based in creation needs to also be rooted in a strong biblical theology. The New Testament teaching on family suggests there is a significant evolution from the Old to the New Testaments where the physical family unit is superseded by the household of God, so singleness becomes a viable option given that our primary ‘family’ is our spiritual family and not our physical one. Pastor Mark’s argument seems a little simplistic given that he doesn’t read Gen 2.18 in light of later Biblical developments.

Some of the best stuff I have come across regarding this issue has been Andrew Cameron’s lectures on singleness which formed part of the 3rd year Ethics course at Moore College. Has there been a Social Issues Briefing covering this? If not, I call upon Andrew to write something for public consumption addressing this issue!!!

Martin, in a previous thread entitled “Notes on Singleness” I made some comments regarding the proper translation of 1 Corinthians 7:9. My first post was non-technical. The one that follows immediately after was more technical.

You can read them here.

I note that John Richardson, the author of the book you recommended in that link, Sandy [God, Sex and Marriage], though single when he wrote the book has recently married.

Be interested to know if he would want to revise anything he wrote there, in the light of his experience of marriage [but let’s give him a few years first].

One of the things I’ve been thinking about over the years is the view that getting married “fixes” sexual problems.

The view is quite prevalent - the idea that Celibate priests will “obviously” be sexually repressed and find an illicit outlet.  Or in our own churches where we encourage people to get married to stop temptation.  Mark Driscoll’s porn example is fairly common (the view that married people don’t struggle with porn - or at lest not as much as single people).  And I’ve heard of people who encourage people struggling with homosexual tendencies to get married.  There is a common view in our society that for 99.9% of us, being celibate (or any restrictions on sex) fundamentally represses our humanity, and will end in disaster.

Experientially, I’ve not known marriage to fix porn or homosexual issues (at least permanently).  I’m wary that a lack of control whilst single, can also lead to a lack of control when married (by cheating - no matter how good their married sex life is).

Biblically, Sandy has already pointed out it is likely the “burn” in 1 Cor 7 is not referring to lust, but burn in judgment (or shame).

However, there is 1 Cor 7:1-5 that suggests an active sex life in marriage can be helpful to deter sexual temptation.  It finishes:

...but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

So sex in marriage is important - but I’m not convinced that Paul says here is the “be all and end all” of the issue.  Perhaps it’s just one important tool in the battle against sexual temptation.

Mike

Martin Kemp - 29 August 2008 01:02 PM

2. The exhortation to singleness in 1 Corinthians 7 was made in the context of a particular crisis in the Corinth where Christians were being persecuted, so the advice Paul is giving is “don’t start a family when you’re about to be killed..”

As I said in another thread I’m not aware of any evidence to suggest significant persecution of the Corinthian church. On the contrary, Paul’s letter seems to indicate the opposite - that the Corinthians were behaving in shameful excess, as if they were already kings (1 Cor 4:8)!

I think it’s important to remember who Driscoll is generally trying to target and what he’s trying to achieve (I wasn’t at BYPJ btw). As far as I can tell he is largely aiming at young men and through them he believes he’ll get ‘the lot’ when they have families, get jobs, buy properties etc - it’ll all come back to the church and fuel further growth.

To that extent telling young men who they should be (manly men!), what they should do (get married, get a job!) and why they should do it (it’s in the bible!) is a very attractive message for people facing the great unknown with so much choice and so many messages directed at them, plus a general unease at where they fit into society and where their life is headed.

In a sense he’s telling them what they want to hear (most people will go on to get married and have kids after all), and it’s comforting to have someone from your generation and your culture delivering the message, someone who’s old enough to have the experience and young enough to still relate, I guess.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong (though it does seem to irk some women, which I can understand), but his message is generally not (as far as I’ve seen) ‘Here is the abstract principle, lets apply it’, it’s more ‘Here’s what you - a specific audience - should do, and here’s why’, if that makes sense.

All that said, while I think Driscoll is an important voice out there, he’s still just some guy, and all the fawning over him (Oh, he mentioned our city with <insert local reference here>! I’m so smitten! *swoon*) is a little cringe-worthy.

And one extra thought - perhaps one of the biggest differences is our emphasis on the extreme examples, you know, forsake everything and go and be a missionary in the jungle or Africa (for example), live the single life for the sake of the gospel etc etc, none of which is bad, but is only going to be <1% of people who will actually go and do that.

The other 99% will go on to live fairly ordinary (in a non-pejorative sense) lives which includes marriage, kids, a job and a mortgage. Focusing on doing that well, and setting up your life for that by firstly, well, thinking about it, and making choices about who you will be while you’re still young and working everything out is what Driscoll taps into in a lot of ways, and gives people (young men) guidance along the lines of what they actually will end up doing that makes his message attractive.

It’s maybe not that obvious in practice, but focusing on the ordinary 99% instead of the extraordinary 1% makes your message far more persuasive!

Martin paraphrased Mark D.:
2. The exhortation to singleness in 1 Corinthians 7 was made in the context of a particular crisis in the Corinth where Christians were being persecuted, so the advice Paul is giving is “don’t start a family when you’re about to be killed..”

Hi,
Hmmm....

This argument seems to me to be a dubious case of special pleading.

It seems to me this approach to the passage is somewhat parallel to the arguments that some people would want to apply to water down passages such as Rom 1:26-27 relating to homosexual behaviour.

While it is true that 17 verses after 1 Cor 7:9 Paul writes:
Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. [1 Cor 7:26, NIV],
Paul also says in the middle of this passage:
This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. [1 Cor 7:17b, NIV]

Furthermore Paul’s thinking seems more broadly end-times oriented rather than related to a local issue at Corinth when he says:
For this world in its present form is passing away. [1 Cor 7:31b, NIV]

As far as I can see, that world-wide situation referred to in verse 31 is the clear and straightforward way to understand the word translated crisis or distress in verse 26;
rather than hypothesising some other local “crisis” to dissolve away what you would prefer the passage not to have said.

Grace & peace,
Terry

[Edited slightly for clarity]

While Driscoll didn’t speak specifically about singleness at BYPJ, he did touch on it more that once.  His emphasis there was that (apart from the temptation issue) young blokes put off marriage because they are immature (he called Australian males “late bloomers” - this certainly resonated with some of the young women there!).  The challenge to young men was not only to “find your pants”, but also to grow up and commit yourself to a young woman (and move out of your mum’s house!).

Luke Stevens - 29 August 2008 06:23 PM

And one extra thought - perhaps one of the biggest differences is our emphasis on the extreme examples, you know, forsake everything and go and be a missionary in the jungle or Africa (for example), live the single life for the sake of the gospel etc etc, none of which is bad, but is only going to be <1% of people who will actually go and do that.

It’s pretty truth!  How often we see “single missionary” peaching the gospel?

I asked him pretty much this exact question when he spoke at Moore earlier this week.

During the seminar I was glad that he made some brief references to marriage, in very glowing terms (except perhaps one point where I could almost hear the breaking hearts of those who aren’t parents, either because of infertility or singleness). However, until question time, he made only one specific reference to singleness which IMHO was a pretty big generalisation, and as such should have included married people as well.

It was in this context that I asked him what he thought the place of singleness was in the life of the christian (and particularly the christian in ministry). The talk is now available for download for Moore College students so I have listened to his answer to my question again and have summarised it below. (I’m presuming it is OK for me to summarise his argument here. If anyone thinks it is inappropriate since it was a closed session please let me know and I will remove it).

NB. This is paraphrase and not direct quotes!

- People use Paul as an example from 1 Cor 7. However, if we read on we see v 26 ‘because of the present distress’. Paul is therefore saying that in light of persecution and martyrdom that the Corinthian Christians were facing now is not the time for single (or engaged people) to be getting married. So there are season when being single is an absolute advantage. There are also particular ministry jobs (like missionary to closed islamic country) where being single is far better.

- It is a myth that single people are best positioned to do all ministry. They are not. We live in a very sexually aggressive culture and it is increasingly difficult for single people (particularly men) to stay chaste. It is potentially very difficult and dangerous for a single man to pastor a church since there is likely to be numerous women at that church who are interested in him as a Christian bachelor (he made reference to two examples where the single male pastor began an affair with a congregation member).

- In terms of examples and models. We can’t know for sure that Paul was single. Historically, members of the Sanhedrin were married so it is possible he was a widower or divorcee. The prophet Jeremiah was single but wasn’t excited about his situation (according to some of the things he said). Jesus was single but his is an exceptional case.

- There has been some historical influences such as Augustine, some of the early church fathers/mothers, neo-platonism which have introduced theological errors on the issue of singleness.

- Passages like 1 Tim 3, Titus 1 seem to establish a general rule that elders in churches should be men who are husbands and fathers.

- Women were made for men, not men for women. Single women should not sit around and make marriage their life ambition. Rather they should serve Jesus, pursue ministry if they are called to it and be faithful. If a christian guy comes along and marriage is on the agenda they should then realise their life will probably change. But they should not hang around waiting for the guy to come along.

- It is not good for man to be alone. He who finds a wife finds what is good. But Marriage is for men, not boys. So be a man before you get married.

- As a general rule he is not convinced being single is a real advantage.  He spoke with great conviction about how much he loves his wife and how he couldn’t do his job without her. He said that his marriage is the only covenant relationship he has which he can guarantee will never go away.

So I think the upshot was that he wants to encourage young men to get married before heading into ministry (except in cases of extreme persecution) and he wants to encourage single women to serve God and his people faithfully and realise that if they get married then they need to re-evaluate their life situation.

A few comments/questions of my own in response:

Single Women

I’m glad he said what he did about single women, and am very glad I listened to it again because I feel somewhat more affirmed and comfortable with his answer in this respect now than I did when he gave it.  I think it can be different for single women than it is for single men (at least pastorally) and it is great he is aware of that and encouraging women to get out there are serve Christ, rather than making it their goal in life to get married.

Single Men

I’m also glad that he wants to encourage men to stand up and be counted as men and not boys - particularly when they are considering marriage. I think it’s something which a lot of young christian men need to hear. At one point he touched on Complementarianism and made a comment along the lines of ‘To be the leader is to be like Christ’. I think that is a hugely important, and timely, challenge to put to christian men.

1 Cor 7

I’m not convinced about his exegesis of 1 Cor 7:26. There seems little evidence from the letter that the Corinthians are undergoing great persecution for their faith. In any case, from the rest of his writings I don’t see that Paul considers persecution to be of a passing or temporal nature, but rather something that will (or at least should) characterise all the Christian life. 

Even if Paul was referring to a temporal and passing event (eg. some have suggested a famine), Paul’s theology and eschatology seems to indicate that these distresses will always characterise the ‘end times’ (in 1 Thess 3:3-4 he writes that we are destined for afflictions and sufferings). So it can’t be that he is expecting this present distress to be a one-off, passing crisis after which all will return to normal.  This is further supported by the eschatological/apocalyptic language surrounding v26 (the time is short, v29. present form of the world is passing away v31).

Furthermore, in vv32ff the distinction Paul makes is that married men and women (rightly) have divided interests. In v35 he says he wants the Corinthians to be in a position where they are free to be devoted entirely to God. Here his concern does not seem to be focused on a passing, temporal event or season. Rather his argument is eschatological - what it means to live in this world as men and women, married or single.

The pressures of our culture

I agree entirely with him that we live in a very sexually aggressive culture. No doubt about it. But I don’t think that our culture is so much worse in this respect than the 1st C AD Corinthian culture. Regardless of the age, people throughout time have been universally sinful - with sexual sin and temptation proving to be a constant. And any cursory read through Graeco-Roman history will only reaffirm what a sexually promiscuous culture it was!

It is clear that sexual immorality and temptation was a massive concern for the Corinthians. For example, Paul is writing to a church where there is sexual immorality ‘of a kind that does not occur even among the pagans’ (5:1).  He urges the Corinthians to flee from sexual immorality in 5:11, 6:13, 6:18, 7:1, 10:8. He acknowledges the temptations that passion poses in 7:9.

Certainly, our culture is sexually aggressive in ways that perhaps the 1st C culture wasn’t, but Corinth was no Victorian England (and even IN Victorian England sexual immorality was rife- just not as sanctioned as it is today perhaps).  So I don’t really buy into the assumption that single men/women are in a more difficult or dangerous situation than their 1st C counterparts. 

Furthermore, when Paul writes to the Thessalonians he says it is God’s will for their sanctification that they abstain from sexual immorality by learning to control their own bodies (1 Thess 4:3-4).  I’m not seeking to underestimate the seriousness of sexual temptation for the single christian. But I do think we need to speak more about self-control in the context of these discussions, rather than leaping straight to ‘Oh! You better get married then!’.

Paul/Jeremiah

I’m really not sure what difference it makes if Paul was a widower or a divorcee to be honest. In 1 Cor 7:8 he addresses the unmarried and the widows and says ‘It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am’. He does not have a wife. In this sense he is single. Regardless of whether he previously had a wife or not, at the time of writing he says he doesn’t and that it’s good that he doesn’t (as per his argument in 7:32-35).

In terms of Jeremiah - it seems to be that when Jeremiah is bemoaning his situation (eg. 20:18) he is saying how sucky (if you will excuse the expression) it was to be called to be a prophet to these rotten people of God and to suffer abuse and mocking that comes with it! ‘The Word of the Lord has brought me insult and reproach all day long - Jer 20:8). As far as I can see it has nothing to do with whether he was single or not!!

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks for the summarized answer & your thoughts Dani, your comments on 1 Cor 7 are pretty much the standard teaching I’ve heard locally over the years.

The problem I guess for Driscoll is that if the comments on singleness in 1 Cor 7 aren’t local, it severely undercuts a lot of his message. I can’t imagine him holding the same line that he does vis a vis marriage while also saying “Oh, and singleness is an equally good, if not better option.”

As Bob says above, Driscoll likes to say that ‘young blokes put off marriage because they are immature’ and they should ‘grow up’ and get married, but as someone mentioned earlier (maybe in the other thread), Christians here in Sydney at least do marry young, much younger than the national average age of around 30-31 years in my experience.

Can I also just say, is there a point where Driscoll is engaging in a bit of what really is just man-bashing? The stereotype of the immature, feminized dope is pretty lame, and doesn’t really ring true in my experience. I don’t think Christian women would be as forgiving if he started having a go at young women as all being immature, gossip-obsessed princesses (to pick a stereotype). It’s weird how the working class, blue collar, manly-man has become this mythical (American) cultural ideal that we somehow wish we could get back to - even in fashion with the fad of the gas station shirt & trucker cap for eg.

Its always fun to watch someone taking potshots at some pathetic stereotype, but when comedians do it, they’re doing it for the laughs, not telling young people how to live their lives!

The hype around Driscoll from men borders on sycophantic - lining up to praise the guy that’s telling you how pathetic you are!

Anyway, I agree with your comments about a sexually aggressive culture not being a particularly relevant reason for advocating marriage, and comments earlier about marriage not being an antidote to sexual temptation.

That said I do have sympathy for preaching with an eye on reality, rather than ideals, and most people want to get married, and most people (though certainly not all) will get married. I also have sympathy for being wary of transplanting culturally influenced commands two thousand years into the future. But that’s not where Driscoll is coming from, and it makes you wonder how biblically and culturally relevant his comments are. It’s hard to discount the influence of the ‘American dream’ too and the social conservatism that exists in Christian circles over there that gets passed off as biblically mandated.

People seem to lap it up though!

Good thoughts, Dani.

I do get the impression that churches favour married men and feel for those who are called to minister who are not married. I don’t think they should be disadvantaged when Paul clearly says in 1 Corinthians 7 that they are in a favourable position for ministry.

I know I’ve said it before, but churches who are sure they prefer a married bloke would have ruled out Jesus himself, Paul, John Stott and John Chapman.

There are also particular ministry jobs (like missionary to closed islamic country) where being single is far better.

I’d be surprised if Driscoll really thinks this.  Surely in Islamic countries they marry relatively early and very few remain unmarried, and it would look odd if a 30-something single from the West came and attempted a degree of inculturation!

Not sure if he *really* thinks it… but he did say it.

He said there are some jobs/places where if you are going to go you just need to plan on dying a marytrs death and therefore it is best to be single.