Hi Craig,

For many years my singleness hasn’t been an issue for me, except for groaning as my parents started nagging me about my failure to produce more grandchildren for them. I wasn’t even all that concerned when I heard Driscoll’s initial comments at the “Burn your plastic Jesus” night, because I felt I didn’t meet Driscoll’s target.

However, when I read about Driscoll’s Points 4 & 14, your comments in your initial post on this forum, and Nicole Starling’s post over on the Sola Panel, for some reason I got angry. First and foremost, I felt that a Biblical teaching was under attack, and yet the websites I go to to find good Bible teaching seemed to either just excusing it with a “oh well, he’s just using

rhetorical use of hyperbole, generalisations, stark contrasts, lack of nuanced discussion

Secondly, it just seemed to be turning into a “bash the single guy” exercise; and I’ve never been one who’s enjoyed being picked on (comes from spending 6 years as a nerd in boarding school). Thirdly, you and Driscoll seemed to want to exclude single men out of ministry areas. Both of these appeared to be based on what seemed to me to be, at best, half-truths. Lastly, Driscoll’s solution to the problem of singleness seemed naive and simplistic - hey, just get married by 21!

I wish I didn’t feel so passionately about this issue - I’d have saved several hours of time and the knowledge that I was going OTT. But I’d rather feel like a goose than see a Biblical truth watered down or lost, or gifted and godly men feel that they can’t go into full-time ministry because of their lack of a spouse.

Finally, I’ve never felt called by God to anything, especially singleness, except faith in Jesus. I just have a sneaking suspicion that I’ll remain single. Thanks for your prayers.

Roger, this is obviously painful for you. But I think it’s clear that the discussions (attacks, if you like) are aimed at those single guys who are choosing not to marry, rather than those guys who wish to marry but can’t.

As far as biblical truth goes, I lean more towards Driscoll’s position than the opposite. It’s true that some people have the gift of life-long singleness (celibacy), but this is different from someone who just happens to be single for a season of their life.

As far as if you will be single for the rest of your life, God alone knows. These days people get married at all sorts of different ages. I’ve known people who marry in their 30s, 40s, 50s and even 60s. As a guy, the older you get the more the odds are in your favour. The main requisite really is a job and some confidence.

My overall impression of 1 Corinthians 7 is that it is very even handed - 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

In terms of ministry, it seems to me that marriage is an “intensive” ministry (ie spouse and kids come first) whilst being single allows for a more “extensive” ministry.  I don’t see how one is any “better” than the other.

I say this as someone who works a full time, and at times quite demanding, secular job. The more “extensive” ministry that I refer to does not have to be full time - there have been plenty of things that I have been able to do over the years that I know that I wouldn’t have been able to do if I was married. (Like having the time to contribute to this forum, for example....).

Firstly I would say that there is a third role that was not mentioned
1. Those who chose not to marry
2. Those who wish to marry but are not yet
3. Those who are called to singleness

But I agree with what is written about specific roles i.e. what is said in Titus about elders and overseaers and in 1Timothy about decons and pastors and other roles in the church. From my understanding there are roles specific for men and roles specific for men who are married because it is God’s good design.

My 3rd person “called to singleness” is not often mentioned probably more so spoken about with my female friends but not really addressed. I find pretty much people just quote Paul from Corinthians when he sugests it is ‘better to be single’ but don’t talk about the implications of this. In Isaiah 56:4,5 it talks about the Eunuchs who were those set aside for singleness and the inheritence they will recieve

There are roles for single men and women in the church, God has not appointeed for them to be pastors, elders or decons but there are roles, lets just think of Paul!?

I am not sure how to balance this with what is said before and how I do believe and agree with what Mark Driscoll says about the men in Aussie society being less mature and putting off maturaty. But there are a LOT of amazing godly men who are seeking the Lord. Maybe those who are in that position need to call and raise up ‘disciples’ and train and encourage young men to step up. I am not sure?!

It’s true that some people have the gift of life-long singleness (celibacy),

There’s no gift of singleness. But there is a gift of faith, self-control and contentment.

I read Driscoll’s points and my first thought was, “Ho hum”. I’m not that familiar with Driscoll, but I think he’s missed a great opportunity in his 18 points. Take, for example, point 2 - Australians lack entrepreneurialism: this is patently absurd and shows an ignorance of Australia’s influence (take the cochlear inplants!). It has all the hallmarks of George W. Bush’s, “The problem with the French is they lack a word for entrepreneur”.

What we lack is a culture of *permission* and *support* for entrepreneurs - we squash enthusiasm and restrict big ideas (part of our “tall poppy syndrome”?). We’re naturally sceptical of entrepreneurs.

The other one which I think was a clanger: No. 16 - no 2 guys in no 1 spots. What does this mean anyway? And in what sense does it deny God’s sovereign giving of gifts to his people, and (as per Eph 4) giving certain *people* as gifts to his church? Ie., what Driscoll calls ‘no 2 people in no 1 spots’ are actually God’s gift to his church.

What would be better, I believe, is a discussion of what we expect our full-time parish ministers to be. At times I wonder whether we want someone who can “grow a franchise (of the Anglican “business")" rather than be an overseer of a congregation of God’s people.

Then we have points 1, 5-12, 17-18: nothing new here. All been said many, many times before - perhaps they’re a good reminder?

Points 14,15 just leave me scratching my head.

That’s my two cents worth.

Helpful post Jason. Sorry that its taken me so long to even see it.
I think Driscoll’s visit has stirred up so much because he has been so strident and assertive with his comments. This in itself is rare in Australian Evangelicalism. We could get exactly the same kinds of criticisms that Mark gave (in fact we do- if we care to listen) from leading Pentecostal leaders in Australia that share more with Mark than I do (Verbal voices from God, graphic visions etc). I liked listening to Mark- although I am very concerned at some of his assumptions, he had some great reminders, and I have little doubt that he is being used by God. He is a rarity for Australia; a self-consciously reformed person who nevertheless is about as charismatic in theology as our old late friend John Wimber. It is not cessationist to question his pre-suppositions about how the Spirit works. We can have a Biblical focus on the Trinity without agreeing with charismatic exegisis on the way The Holy Spirit works.

Mark is a very savvy poulariser. He is a great orator. He seems to Love Jesus, and he certainly has reminded many of the need to think in terms of Mission.

So- lets listen to Mark, and not cut him down.. but by no means let him set the theological agenda!

Craig,

The sort of guy who wants a wife and can’t find one probably isn’t the ideal candidate for pastor.

This is an astonishing opinion.
Why does the failure to find a wife exclude a man from the pastorate?

Also, your playing of the man instead of the text is a disappointing contribution to this discussion. No better way to undermine a single man’s opinions that to say, “well you’re obviously hurting, so that’s why you’re saying what you’re saying”.

Gosh, that was a while ago Martin! I probably expressed it too bluntly at the time, but I still stand by the sentiment. I know there are exceptions, those called to singleness, but I think they are the minority.

I mainly had in the mind the extremely shy, socially awkward sort of fellow. Nothing wrong with that, but I just don’t know that that is the sort of person we want to call into the pastorate.

“well you’re obviously hurting, so that’s why you’re saying what you’re saying”

Sometimes that is true though, and it has to be said. You have to say it in a more gracious way than can be done on a website, perhaps.

I’ve just offended all the shy socially awkward pastors out there. Ok, I think I’ll quit while I’m way behind… ;-)

Martin,

Thanks for the encouragement and information.

Martin Morgan - 11 November 2008 09:54 PM

So- lets listen to Mark, and not cut him down.. but by no means let him set the theological agenda!

Fair point. Do you know if he said anything positive about Sydney evangelicalism? There’s lots to love! ;)

For example: people want to see God honoured and are careful in passing on his truth.

One (hopefully) humble criticism might be: Sydney Anglicans have tended to be tribal in the past - i.e., tribal groups exist within the Sydney Anglicans. And certain tribal groups tend to be more kosher (so to speak) than others and there is a suspicion of others not from the “approved” channels. This may have changed in recent years. Though I suspect, like a big ship, it might take a long time to swing this culture around.

Craig.

Pretty sure it’s God who does the calling, and He chooses those who it pleases Him to choose.

God chose the foolish to shame the wise and the weak to shame the strong. Perhaps Paul would have continued to say that God chose the socially inept to shame the socially adroit!

For they say, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account.” (2 Cor 10:10).