Dani Treweek - 30 August 2008 05:01 PM

Thoughts anyone

Hi Dani. I found much of what you said very helpful. Thanks.

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.

I think that’s good advice, especially for Aussie women living in our cities (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7589382.stm)

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’m not sure I buy this “manly” thing if Driscoll means something more than blokes taking age appropriate responsibility and developing into mature adults (and in a Christian context - having vibrant faiths that display all the fruits of the Spirit). This “manly” language tends to imply that men should behave in nebulous “manly” ways. This thinking is typified by Eldridge in his book “Wild at Heart”. Surely “manliness” is much more about developing personal integrity than wanting to escape domestication (as I somewhat polemically caricature Eldridge’s portrayal of manliness)? Isn’t it much more helpful to tell blokes to pursue Christian maturity as evidenced by lives filled with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control? Eg: is there something “sissy” in turning the other cheek? I would argue it takes a great deal of love, patience and self-control. (However, I will concede that men should also learn how women generally see and express relationships differently to men and be sensitive to that too.) Sorry, off on a tangent there.

I’m not convinced about his exegesis of 1 Cor 7:26.

Ditto. I don’t see any evidence for persecution being the source of the Corinthian distress. Famine (as NT Wright seems to suggest) might also seem unlikely given their financial support of the the Jerusalem church (1 Cor 16:1-3)*.
Anyhow, whatever the cause of the “present” distress was v26, Paul though it sensible to at least delay marriage to avoid “troubles” v28 unless it would likely result in fornication v36.

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).

Thanks Dani, I find that a particularly helpful explanation as to why Paul might have segued into ‘end times’ here. Until now I’d presumed that the ‘end times’ was probably part of the cause of their distress (since Paul addresses ‘end times’ in detail in Chap 15).

*Edit: On further reflection I guess it’s possible that the Corinthian church could still have been quite worried about (though less affected by) famine that was fairly widespread in the Roman world at that time (and particularly acute in Palestine and Jerusalem). This wouldn’t preclude some/most being able to contribute to the collection mentioned in Chap 16.

Single missionaries on the overseas fields preaching the gospel?

Who says they don’t exist??!?

Ray Lau - 30 August 2008 02:11 PM

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?

Ray..task, tsk!!

Perhaps in a spare moment, you might hunt up these places and the people working there through the Church Missionary Society (CMS) - look up the CMS missionaries on the world map (click on link)

- and see if you can find

..in our Northern Territory
Ruth, Alison and Kerry

+
..in Asia:
Andrew and Stephen ( Indonesia)

Karen and Kellie (Japan)

Sylvia (Malaysia)

Faye (Thailand)

+
..in Europe:
Alison and Libby (France)

+
in Africa
Sue (DR Congo)

Maggie (Ethiopia)

Joan (Nigeria)

Ans (South Africa)

Helen, Jane, Judith, Liz and Mary (Tanzania)

+
in South America
Frances & Lesley (Chile)

If I have calculated correctly, that makes 20 CMS missionaries out on the field, all single. As far as I am aware. Their status may have changed in the last 3 months.. .. ..

Also, CMS is just one organisation. I could go on and on about SIM, OMF, FEBC, WEC, Wycliffe.. .. ..I’m sure they could tell you of many single missionaries who go out into all the world to preach the gospel.

Please would you refrain from this ”only 1%” rubbish, and from endorsing it unless you’ve got the actual stats to back it up.

{Rant over.}

Dani Treweek - 30 August 2008 04:30 PM

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.**

How would one really know if it’s “better’ or not? Unless you’re there - or have a best friend or well-known link missionary friend who is?

Anyhow, we know that people are there. Someone I didn’t mention in my list of CMS missionaries-who-happen-to-be-single was “Fiona”, a CMS missionary who’s gone to a South Asian city, location undisclosed, but majority Muslim population.

Gee it’s fun being back in the loopy loop!

TZ.

P.S. I should add, if i seem defensive about this, it’s because at present - if God makes a missionary out of me at all (decision pending) - I’m likely to be a single one. Thus, I naturally have a soft spot for single missionaries!

Of course, I extend hearty congratulations to missionaries who started off single and
a) just got married, like Tabatha Aylen (Asia-based)
b) recently got engaged to be married, like Kathleen Budden (Africa-based).

Hi Tia,

I think his point was that if you are going to be a misso in a country where it is very possible you might end up dying a martyr’s death, then it is better that you be single and not endanger the lives of your family as well.

Does anybody who went to Engage have anything to add to the thread? Did the issue come up there as well?

Dani Treweek - 01 September 2008 12:54 AM

Does anybody who went to Engage have anything to add to the thread? Did the issue come up there as well?

Yes, it did come up, but only briefly, and the substance of it has already been well covered by previous posts.  it seems to me to be a pretty extreme view.

Dani Treweek - 01 September 2008 12:54 AM

I think his point was that if you are going to be a misso in a country where it is very possible you might end up dying a martyr’s death, then it is better that you be single and not endanger the lives of your family as well.

See I’m not sure if I agree with Mark on this. Certainly it’s something to factor in, but to say it’s ‘better’ is unhelpful. When I was in the Middle East on a short term trip 3 American missio’s were shot in the head because someone wanted to ‘cleanse’ his religion. There were many there with families, but they had a motto; “When you’re saved, anywhere is safe”. I gather it’s point was that God is powerful enough to keep you safe no matter what country you are in, so if the gospel calls you there, go! Mark’s comments may seem logical but might be a slap in the face to many of the faithful families who have taken their families to dangerous countries because of their trust in the sovereignty of God. Many in history have buried their children, but I don’t know if I’d say to them it would have been ‘better’ to be single.

Having said that, there was a huge number of single women when I was there, much more than there were single men. Praise God for such faithful women...and the few men

not all men should be married.

David Ball - 01 September 2008 07:25 AM

Dani Treweek - 01 September 2008 12:54 AM

Does anybody who went to Engage have anything to add to the thread? Did the issue come up there as well?

Yes, it did come up, but only briefly, and the substance of it has already been well covered by previous posts.  it seems to me to be a pretty extreme view.

I don’t know about that. Having been in ministry in both single and married capacities, I think there is a lot to be said for the commitment of men and women who forsake marriage for the sake of the gospel (and they deserve our respect, prayers and support as much as possible!). As a single person your ministry can be far more focused beyond your family. As a married person with children, your first duty is to your family, and then ministry beyond family. Both have their benefits. I don’t think it’s extreme for someone to take safety issues into account before going to certain mission fields, and making a decision about whether to marry based partly on that consideration.

And to support Tia’s statements, I know quite a few more men and women who have gone into overseas mission fields as single people with other mission organisations. It’s a much higher percentage than >1%!

Kirsten

What I meant by “extreme” was his view that being single is only for people who are going into dangerous / difficult mission situations, and not for anyone else (ie including people who are doing ministry / mission in “safe” / “easy” situations).

Hi Dani,
I went to Engage and had never heard from Mark Driscoll before, so obviously I am coming in with very limited experience of him and his preaching.

He didn’t really mention much about being single or being married. As a long-term single, I think I would’ve picked up on the single stuff.

What I heard from the pulpit (admittedly not perfectly obviously!) was that young men should grow up, move out of home and get married. Not be like the average Australian non-Christian these days (not that he said that, but I thought it) and delay marriage and commitment and adult life and instead have an adultescence of living at home for years. E.g. popular culture’s new program “Packed to the Rafters”.

All I heard was that.

His argument from the Bible was what I was more interested in. He claimed that Gen says “leave father and mother” then “move out” then “get married”. I don’t think it’s explicit like that in Genesis from my understanding. I think what he was saying was “how can you get married if you haven’t first tried to run your own household” which is a much more “world-logic” perspective than explicitly in the Bible (I think). And therefore his argument about why young men should first move out.

One of my married girlfriends commented that it was hard to expect men to move out in Sydney’s high real estate market.
My somewhat simplistic answer is: if they’re working, and the have a reasonable income, then moving out and affording your own place needs to be a priority over the next gadget, holiday, seemingly obligatory overseas trip? Am I being too naive or presumptuous?

Hi Georgina,

One of my married girlfriends commented that it was hard to expect men to move out in Sydney’s high real estate market.
My somewhat simplistic answer is: if they’re working, and the have a reasonable income, then moving out and affording your own place needs to be a priority over the next gadget, holiday, seemingly obligatory overseas trip? Am I being too naive or presumptuous?

I agree…

And similar to what you have said, I think a lot of Mark’s logic can be attributed to wisdom and not necessarily Biblical exhortation (although a lot of it can be inferred… though dangerous).

Personally as a single male in the target age range that Mark often preaches to, his message appealed to me a lot (I am 26, and have been downloading his sermons for 2 years). I often do look at myself and think that I need to grow up more and take on more responsibilities etc prior to getting married. I rented a place for 4 years and the independence with responsibility has taught me a lot about being a guy.

I have since moved back home to save up some extra money to possibly purchase a property in the near future (I don’t feel shame about it).

I may be wrong, but I don’t think Mark was merely condemning males living at home, but rather the mentality of the selfish lifestyles of males in their 20’s. He goes on to say that they are sleeping around, experimenting with whatever drugs, and having it good because everything is just given to them on a silver platter as if the world was made for them. This is a disgusting picture of manliness and certainly was not what God has intended.

The vibe I get from Mark’s sermons is that he is sick and tired of men not setting a good example of what it actually is to be a man, and thus our world has taken a picture of the doofus, soft male to become the norm… even to the point of affecting our perspective of Jesus (the perfect man). This I find, is reflected in Hollywood (you can come up with some examples) and is an infection brainwashing even the younger generations to come.

So (I think), the main gist of it, is to teach men responsibility. Part of that process is learning to pay the bills, making the bed, going to work on time, struggling through life and learning how to make ends meet… and after that… once they have handled something that difficult… then learning how to look after someone else, a wife… and eventually… their children.

I know Mark tends to push people to move out of home a lot, and while I admire that and think it is right, I also think that he ultimately wants men to start being real men, responsible men, men answerable to God. Unfortunately sometimes it is difficult to experience responsibility until you have been thrown in the deep end… therefore… go and move out of home, get a job, get married etc.

As a single guy, with an alright job, having moved out of home and now back at home, unmarried… I do not feel singled out [that much] from Mark’s sermons as I think his aim overall was to encourage men to be responsible Godly men. I personally think that you can be a responsible Godly man, while living at home, not having a job, and unmarried… but the questions will certainly start coming. So… go get a job, move out of home… and God willing a wife.

Any thoughts?

Hi Alwin,
Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, I think I probably agree with you about what you’ve said about Mark’s emphasis.  We want our Christian men to be capable of leading a household and the best way to know that is to know how lead and look after themselves first.

Regarding living at home as an adult, I struggle a lot with the idea that 20-somethings can live at home while saving money for something (e.g. home, holiday). I personally felt very rejected by both sets of parents when I hit uni. I both literally and figuratively (whatever that means) no longer had a “home” to go to. That means I have lived out of home since I was 18 and have never had a chance to live anywhere rent-free. Not to mention a home where I was welcomed.  So I think my own experiences colour that too much for me to comment on that otherwise.

I do think, though, that it is much more about being an adult, and not an adultescent, that Mark is referring to, rather than simply moving out of home and I do agree with you. I think I want everyone else to struggle like I did! Stupid, eh!

Sorry, but I really find this topic hard.

By the way, just wanted to say that I’m not upset at anyone else. I am sad that I couldn’t live at home. And I’m not really able to comment about others living at home because of my own personal history.

To him who shows the amazing grace,
- Georgina

Hi everyone,

Thanks for such honest sharing on this thread.

It seems to me that in the area of singleness and marriage/family, Mark Driscoll’s emphasis reflects the surrounding American culture’s glorification of earthly family more than it reflects the New Testament’s teaching, including the 1 Corinthians 7 passage already discussed
and other passages such as:

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven”. The one who can accept this should accept it.
[Matt 19:11-12, NIV]

Grace & peace,
Terry

Georgina Barratt-See - 01 September 2008 07:51 PM

One of my married girlfriends commented that it was hard to expect men to move out in Sydney’s high real estate market.
My somewhat simplistic answer is: if they’re working, and the have a reasonable income, then moving out and affording your own place needs to be a priority over the next gadget, holiday, seemingly obligatory overseas trip? Am I being too naive or presumptuous?

Has anyone thought that some of those rent-free working single guys could be (in the sense that they are actually) funding an awful lot of ministry now, and with much more capacity to do so than someone on a mortgage or paying an inner-city rental bill?

Oh, and to confirm what Tia has said, OMF does have many Single missionaries from Australia currently in the field, most of them are women.

But perhaps from personal observation and reflection, the most destructive thing a single person can be told when thinking about going into ministry is that life will be easier if you get married now.  What a way to stress or ruin a whole heap of decent friendships with the opposite sex, and also to deter (and defer) people from getting trained.

Can’t remember whether Mark Driscoll said this at the “Burn Your Plastic Jesus” or at the Engage Conference (it’s all a blur now)...Driscoll named “the family” as an idol worshipped by many.