Married or Single or Doesn't Matter

[servantofmosthigh]

OK, another thought/opinion solicitation.

If your church was searching for a new pastor, or you are searching for a new church family, which marital status do you prefer out of your next pastor/planter - married or single or doesn't matter?

For those who say "married," explain why? But, please, don't give any response related to "sexual sin" because that is a sin committed regardless of marital status. I've heard many church members who say they prefer a married pastor because they've experienced in past sexual immorality of their previous pastors. And when I ask them if their previous pastor was married, every one of them responded in the positive. So I tell them that marital status has some bearing but not much when it comes to committing sexual sin.

For those who say "single," explain why?

For those who say "doesn't matter," also explain why?

 

[raekwon]

My immediate preference would be married, because that's probably the best context in which we can see whether or not a man is a good and faithful manager of his home. This is not to say that single men can't be assessed as to whether or not they manage their homes well -- they certainly can. If a guy is single and straight out of seminary, though, he's probably still pretty green as far as that requirement for office goes.

So . . . married would be my preference, in that if our session had two equally qualified, equally gifted, equally winsome, equally everything else men before us, one single and one married, I'd probably be more likely to go with the married one. At the same time, single men certainly can qualify and have qualified for the office of elder.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Spurgeon was single when he became Pastor. I would prefer a Holy man of prayer and the word, who was ordained by God to minister God's grace.

 

[servantofmosthigh]

My immediate preference would be married, because that's probably the best context in which we can see whether or not a man is a good and faithful manager of his home. This is not to say that single men can't be assessed as to whether or not they manage their homes well -- they certainly can. If a guy is single and straight out of seminary, though, he's probably still pretty green as far as that requirement for office goes.

So . . . married would be my preference, in that if our session had two equally qualified, equally gifted, equally winsome, equally everything else men before us, one single and one married, I'd probably be more likely to go with the married one. At the same time, single men certainly can qualify and have qualified for the office of elder.

Mark Lowry jokes that we must always remember that the Man whom we ask for assistance with our marriages was Single also. And the man who wrote about selecting elders who can manage their own homes was a Single man himself. And, of course, isn't living the life of celibacy also under the principle of managing one's own home?

It is curious (maybe even sad?) to see how historically Protestant clergies rejected the Roman Catholics' clerical standards of celibacy as requisites for ecclesiological leadership, to where today, among Protestant churches, many will use the marital status as the one-upsmanship to choose a candidate over another when Paul himself says it is better to be Single than Married.

 

[raekwon]

My rationale is just that so many young single men -- even college and seminary grads -- aren't even men yet. So often, they're old adolescents in a man's body, but they often feel entitled to a call from a church and to ordination because they managed to earn an M.Div. Education is fantastic, but as we well know, a seminary degree can be earned prayerlessly and completely divorced from the work of the Spirit.

No doubt, God calls men in all stations and seasons of life to serve his church as elders, though. Churches need not be blind to this fact.

 

[Timothy William]

While it is no doubt true that many you men are boys in men's bodies, I'm not sure that the issue is one of marriage versus singleness. Many immature young men are able to persuade a woman to marry them, and some single men are being wise in their decision not to marry one of the immature young women. Too often, if a man has a wife, and if the couple are able to present a reasonably convincing public face, it is sort of assumed that this is a demonstration of maturity, or that he must be leading his wife well. After all, who wants to impute that a happy young couple are But in young men, I'm not convinced this is always the case. Being married for a year or two without major cracks in the relationship occurring - while by means guaranteed - is to be expected to the extent that, by itself, it is not a strong indicator of maturity.

As regards sexual sin, I'm fortunate never to have had a ministry that I have been under destroyed by this sin. But of the ones I have heard of which have been, most or all of the men involved have been married or homosexual (or, all to often, both). I do think that a young man who is single must have some maturity in this area - a man who is constantly on the lookout for a wife, such that that is his overriding preoccupation, as is the case of many young Christian men - would not be suitable. But, in my experience, many single men grow out of this phase around the same time - often mid twenties - that their contemporaries are marrying.

 

[Herald]

I prefer a pastor to be married. It's difficult to counsel people who are having marriage or family problems when the only person you have to worry about is yourself.

 

[Poimen]

Bill:

Yes that may be true but on the other hand (speaking personally) a single pastor does not have a wife to 'norm' his experiences for everyone else and must speak from the scriptures instead of imposing his ideal upon his congregants.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Bill:

Yes that may be true but on the other hand (speaking personally) a single pastor does not have a wife to 'norm' his experiences for everyone else and must speak from the scriptures instead of imposing his ideal upon his congregants.

To what extent do you think experience is essential? Surely the word of God is sufficient for a pastor to instruct his listeners as to what their duties are.

 

[Poimen]

Daniel:

Here is how I would respond - If a single man cannot be an effective minister because he can't 'speak' to the married couples in the congregation, then a married man cannot speak to the widows and widowers because he has never lost his spouse. And a married man who doesn't have children... well you get the picture.

 

[Poimen]

The other side of things is that a single pastor has more time for his congregation. The only person I have to care for is myself and since 'myself' comes last and I have no wife or children to put first (1 Timothy 3:4-5) then the congregation comes first.

 

[Herald]

Bill:

Yes that may be true but on the other hand (speaking personally) a single pastor does not have a wife to 'norm' his experiences for everyone else and must speak from the scriptures instead of imposing his ideal upon his congregants.

There's validity to that argument. That's why I injected the word "prefer." I don't believe it is a scriptural command that a pastor be married. That said, experience is good teacher. It allows individuals to have empathy for one another.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel:

Here is how I would respond - If a single man cannot be an effective minister because he can't 'speak' to the married couples in the congregation, then a married man cannot speak to the widows and widowers because he has never lost his spouse. And a married man who doesn't have children... well you get the picture.

Well said, thanks.

 

[servantofmosthigh]

Daniel:

Here is how I would respond - If a single man cannot be an effective minister because he can't 'speak' to the married couples in the congregation, then a married man cannot speak to the widows and widowers because he has never lost his spouse. And a married man who doesn't have children... well you get the picture.

And that's the biggest argument often heard by those who prefer married pastors: that they want someone able to provide counseling for married couples. One never hears the argument that a Single pastor is preferred to be able to counsel Singles. Or one prefers a Youth pastor to be an adolescent to counsel adolescents. Or the children's pastor to be a child to relate with other children. Etc.

 

[jawyman]

I would much prefer a married man, but I also look to Paul and Timothy. Niether were married and yet both ministered. I believe that any man who is called to ministry must meet all scriptural requirements and if that man is married, then he need have only one wife, but if he is single then he needn't worry about it until he finds a wife. And then she must meet the requirements of a godly wife.

 

[Sonoftheday]

I do not object to single pastors, however I prefer a pastor who is married with children (like Al Bundy) so that I can see how he is the head of his family and know if I want him to be over me. (If he treats his family like Al Bundy did he wont be my pastor.)

 

[staythecourse]

Because of the present immorality of the culture I recommend that men ought to marry to resist temptation and be able to set their affections on one wife. And because a pastor should be the husband of a wife and have children who are in control.

Sound familiar?

 

[jawyman]

because a pastor should be

I read should be as should be, but does not mean has to be.

It is only an opinion.

 

[staythecourse]

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion

.

To the law and to the testimony!