Stimulated by David Marr’s comment in his Good Weekend article that single men in the Sydney Diocese “cannot expect to be given a parish”, I’d thought we should open this up…

So…

To what extent should a person’s marital status impose upon their appointment to a parish?

First, Martin, let’s make it clear the diocesan policy is NOT to make single men ineligible for being presbyters or Senior Ministers, nor is it to discourage single men in any way from taking up such a ministry.  David’s article is misleading on this point.  Any suggestion that the diocese does not affirm single persons in ministry because of their singleness is false. 

That said, the issue you raise is helpful if it causes us to go to the Scriptures and determine what principles ought to apply. 

In the list of qualifications for elders I see no prohibiton for single men.  Some might want to argue that 1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:4-7 teach that an overseer must be married with children, but I think the passage is dealing with: not allowing men to have more than one wife, and men who happen to have children and whose children are unruly. 

Is there a distinction between an elder and an overseer?  I remain unconvinced that there is such a distinction.  One view is that overseers operate as Senior Ministers and elders as the leadership team, but I think the interchangeability of the two terms in Titus 1 makes this view weaker. 

What about the pragmatic argument that single men won’t understand the pressures of marriage?  Well, will married men understand the pressures on single men?  Will they understand the pressures of being old when they are young?  Will they understand the pressures on women suffering from menopause or post partum depression?  Such an argument has very little merit, it seems to me.  More to the point, I cannot see that Scripture rules out single men leading congregations.

I’m inclined to agree with everything Philip has said (only on this occasion Philip!).  It would be interesting, however, to hear from any others who have found that their singleness has been posited as a barrier to effective parish ministry.  As Martin and others have said, it’s not Diocesan policy that is in question (not in my mind, anyway) but rather, is there an undercurrent or sub-cultural value that some of our brethren are running up against from time to time.  This may well be what David Marr has reflected on in his article, even if he wrongly attributes it.

In response to a post on the ‘Marr Article’ thread:

Secondly, imagine any of the single girls in the church getting the hots for the pastor...this has ugly written all over it…

I didn’t pay much attention to this comment earlier - until a friend urged me to take another look at it… and she’s right. I think it is a little offensive really. I know this is off topic and it might be better in the new thread Marty has created- but I wanted to reply to it here so hopefully the author would see it (I’ll post it in the new thread as well).

I understand the concern you are trying to express in that such a relationship might have the potential to get pastorally messy BUT

1) It does not necessarily follow that such a situation has ugly written all over it. Depending on how it is handled, depending on whether feelings are reciprocated and depending on the people involved it might indeed be tricky but not necessarily ugly. It may in fact wind up being something quite beautiful.

2) (and this is the offensive bit) Why did you single out the woman as the one who could/would have the problem with lusting after the pastor? I’m not someone who normally jumps on the defensive when a comment is made that I think is a little (dare I say it) patriarchal. But this one did get my back up a little. You may not have intended this, but the glibness of your comment makes it sound as if it is going to be the woman who is creating the problem when in fact it is just as likely that the single male pastor might be the one to ‘get the hots’ for one of the single girls in his congregation (and frankly, if we are talking about sexual purity here then it is MORE likely to be the male pastor than the single woman).

In any case I think the argument is flawed and that the possibility of a relationship forming between a single male pastor and a single woman at his church is not, on the face of it, a good reason to rule out single men pastoring a parish.

Quite, Dani.

It is interesting to reflect that, in contrast to the men, many, but not all, of our female ministers are single. Why is this a cultural ‘norm’?

I think we have slightly missed the point so far. The inference of the ‘no single ministers’ accusation is that in Sydney we are adamant that no ministers with homosexual orientation will be ordained - even if they are celibate. And a married minister has at least proved to us all that he is heterosexual - hasn’t he?
So: is this fair?

Dani Treweek said:

the glibness of your comment makes it sound as if it is going to be the woman who is creating the problem when in fact it is just as likely that the single male pastor might be the one to ‘get the hots’ for one of the single girls in his congregation (and frankly, if we are talking about sexual purity here then it is MORE likely to be the male pastor than the single woman).

But, that might be a good thing, really.

If that heated up minister then reads scripture, and then sees that he should then marry that particular single girl, in the congregation.

Might dissolve everyone’s worries.

One can only hope that our ministers read the scriptures before they get “heated up”!  -:)
Bob

The history of the Diocese is full of single young curates getting married to single young women in their parishes, which may be one reason that there were not too many single ministers in charge of parishes. However, as the Diocese wanted older men for ordination, many came into college already married, & I knowin my year that the attraction of what was then called Deaconess House was a delight for the romantics among us in seeing young love flourish. Not a few weddings occured between those who lived in what would become known as John Chapman House and those who lived in what would become known as Mary Andrews College.

Bob, is the “read” in your sentence past or present tense?

Ken Austin - 11 June 2008 04:33 PM

Dani Treweek said:

the glibness of your comment makes it sound as if it is going to be the woman who is creating the problem when in fact it is just as likely that the single male pastor might be the one to ‘get the hots’ for one of the single girls in his congregation (and frankly, if we are talking about sexual purity here then it is MORE likely to be the male pastor than the single woman).

But, that might be a good thing, really.

If that heated up minister then reads scripture, and then sees that he should then marry that particular single girl, in the congregation.

Might dissolve everyone’s worries.

Would it?  Somehow, my gut reckons it could be seen as a potential conflict of interest for a minister to marry one of his cures, along the same line as doctors marrying their patients or a judge marrying a particular litigant while said litigant is pursuing procedings before him/her.

If the male and female are above consenting age, there is no conflict of interest. Why, at least one Moore College Lecturer married a woman he met in the parish he was assigned to on Sundays.
I must say that it is better than picking her up in a bar (or as a go-go girl… as one non-clerical acquaintance of mine did), or (for the female minister) better than picking him up at the pokies on Wednesday night after the happy hour.

Would it?  Somehow, my gut reckons it could be seen as a potential conflict of interest for a minister to marry one of his cures, along the same line as doctors marrying their patients or a judge marrying a particular litigant while said litigant is pursuing procedings before him/her.

Michael, You are trying on an analogy for proof, but the gap between the judge and the litigant is a mighty stretch for a desparate pastor with a sweetie in the congregation.

I’ll be back soon on Answering the Atheists.

Dani Treweek - 11 June 2008 04:16 PM

I didn’t pay much attention to this comment earlier - until a friend urged me to take another look at it… and she’s right. I think it is a little offensive really.

Sorry Dani (& friend, and offended others)…

I certainly meant no offence.

I didn’t mean to imply it would be the females initiation/issue/fault...poorly worded in hindsight (quick posting danger). I was trying to describe the general situation where a Pastor becomes romantically involved with someone in their congregation, however initiated.

The danger here is if the relationship doesn’t go anywhere then managing that, in my opinion (as opposed to an authoritative opinion), is going to be more awkward and problematic than the same break up of two regular people in the church.

It was more a suggestion of wisdom/prudence rather than an outright declaration that if the situation arose it was necessarily going to be ugly.

I hope that is clearer.

Robert Denham - 11 June 2008 04:57 PM

Bob, is the “read” in your sentence past or present tense?

Present tense (otherwise there would be disagreement with the second verbe in the sentence).

Would it?  Somehow, my gut reckons it could be seen as a potential conflict of interest for a minister to marry one of his cures, along the same line as doctors marrying their patients or a judge marrying a particular litigant while said litigant is pursuing procedings before him/her.

Why?

Dear All

On the entire ‘single ministers are more prone to sexual temptation with regard to members of their congregations’ idea, I would humbly suggest that:
a) 1 Corinthians 7 notwithstanding, the Bible doesn’t really emphasise this, and b) History/experience doesn’t support it either.

Of course there are some particular pressures that single men and women face if they are endeavouring to remain chaste, but any implication that it is only the singles who might fall into sin with a parishioner is plainly wrong.

As to the singles minister being attracted to a parishioner, there is no intrinsic conflict of interest.  There are potential dangers, and the wise pastor will take steps to protect himself from them, but unless he is involved in a counselling relationship or something akin to that, the analogy with a doctor or judge doesn’t hold.

Bob

Jeff Atack - 11 June 2008 05:11 PM

Sorry Dani (& friend, and offended others)…

I certainly meant no offence.

I didn’t mean to imply it would be the females initiation/issue/fault...poorly worded in hindsight (quick posting danger). I was trying to describe the general situation where a Pastor becomes romantically involved with someone in their congregation, however initiated.

The danger here is if the relationship doesn’t go anywhere then managing that, in my opinion (as opposed to an authoritative opinion), is going to be more awkward and problematic than the same break up of two regular people in the church.

It was more a suggestion of wisdom/prudence rather than an outright declaration that if the situation arose it was necessarily going to be ugly.

I hope that is clearer.

Hi Jeff,

I’m really not one of these easily offended women who always jump on everything a male has to say- honestly :) It just struck me as a bit one sided. I suspected you didn’t intend it to sound that way, and I know the danger of quick posting as well :) So thanks for the clarification.

I agree that the situation of a pastor becoming romantically involved with a member of his church could wind up messy if things don’t work out and/or aren’t handled well. And sometimes it really may not be worth the risk. But on other occasions it works, and works well. I think it is a matter of the people involved being thoughtful, careful, mature and as godly as possible throughout the whole process.

But your objection that a breakup between a minister and a church member would be more awkward than between two church members must surely extend to single men (and perhaps single women?) as part of a ministry staff team in any capacity. Perhaps to a slightly different extent than the situation of a senior minister - but still…

Does that mean that, by your line of reasoning, we should be hesitant about advocating the employment of ANY single person in a position of parish ministry?

Robert Denham - 11 June 2008 05:03 PM

If the male and female are above consenting age, there is no conflict of interest.

What if a patron-client style relationship exists between said parties?  Should I marry a rector’s daughter, I’d see it as incumbent on me to go to a different parish.

Robert Denham - 11 June 2008 05:03 PM

Why, at least one Moore College Lecturer married a woman he met in the parish he was assigned to on Sundays.

Were those short or long term assignments?

A couple of thoughts. Firstly, in relation to Mike’s comment:

And a married minister has at least proved to us all that he is heterosexual - hasn’t he?

The simple fact is, not necessarily. There’s plenty of examples of men who get married despite struggling with homosexual tendancies, even today. Given the overall number of Sydney clergy, statistics would say that are probably a few clergy in this situation. Unless they give in to temptation, this shouldn’t be a problem. But they’re just as likely as straight men to sin.

I’ve heard that in the past, a single member of clergy had to get their bishop’s approval to marry. Does anybody know whether this is still the case?

As a single guy who seriously considered full-time ministry, I did pick up a vibe that parishes tended to want married clergy. There could be a few reasons for this. One of my mates remembers a time when, to get advancement, men had to be married - a married man was seen as more stable. Perhaps they, as Mike suggested, think that married men will be less likely to stray. I suspect that the “lack of life experience” line may play a part. Just as I’ve heard people comment negatively against the Biblically sound pronouncements of a young minister, simply because of their age, it seems that congregants may feel that a single man preaching and giving advice on topics like marriage & relationships is only preaching from head knowledge, not experience.

If an unmarried clergyman and an unmarried parishioner are attracted to one another, they have the option of marrying; if either or both of them are married, this will never be possible.  And any physical attraction will (or at least should) remain just an attraction.
That said, when a single friend of mine started going out with a single clergyman, they kept it very quiet until they announced their engagement, partly because if it didn’t work out, she would be considered by some to be “the girl the minister dumped” (no matter how inaccurate that descrioption might have been). Fortunately things worked out very well, but if it hadn’t, most people in the parish would have been none the wiser.
I don’t think that there is or should be any objection to a single clergyman per se, but I think that there is probably a recognition that in most cases the clergyman’s wife is a great support in his ministry and sometimes (although not always) contributes to the parish through her own ministry. It may be a belief that you get two for the price of one. Certainly in the parishes where I work and worship, the ministers (and assistant ministers) are married to women who have valuable ministries in the parish, even though both the ministers’ wives have paid employment and both the assistant ministers have very small children.
Jean

Michael Jensen - 11 June 2008 04:29 PM

It is interesting to reflect that, in contrast to the men, many, but not all, of our female ministers are single. Why is this a cultural ‘norm’?

Very good question, Michael - my initial reaction is that there might be a male insecurity thing going on here (ie guys thinking that there is no way they could ever ask such a woman out)....