(I’ve learned so much from www.urbandictionary.com)

Don’t be embarrassed because you want to marry, and don’t hesitate to publicly say that you want to marry

At the same time, don’t put your life on hold waiting for a spouse. This is the same problem as waiting to get involved in ministry or waiting to give until you’re rich. The fact that you want something else long term doesn’t excuse anyone from wasting your life in the present. This doesn’t mean “create a career”, instead it means “do something worthwhile with your time”.

Don’t aim so high—not every one marries their “soul mate.”

It is fully reasonable for any person to expect the person they marry to be 100% devoted to them. Compromises like “he doesn’t care about my feelings” won’t get better over time. When I married, I specifically stated in my vows that I was willing to give up all my plans for the future for my wife’s interests if necessary, and I don’t think that’s something unreasonable to expect. Marriage becomes our highest calling and commitment when we get married, and no amount of excuses justify setting something else as a higher priority. It is NOT unreasonable to expect this level of commitment.

# There may come a point in a relationship when you have to force the issue—don’t let a guy hang around too long without stating his intentions.
# Don’t stay in a going-nowhere relationship, even if it means being alone for a while.

Honestly, questions about “when do you think you’d be willing to marry” are discussions that I think should come up in the first month of dating. If one person wants to wait a few years while the other is actively ready, they shouldn’t date. I didn’t date anyone “seriously” until I was ready to marry, and once I married the next person I dated. Ask where someone is, and only date them if you have compatible goals.

Everything else looks good. The main problem I think most people have in dating is lack of communication. Don’t try to “trick” the guy into getting married, but ask him what his plans are. If he tells you he’s planning not to marry until after graduate school, and you want to get married now, maybe you should date someone else. Look for compatible goals, someone willing to make a strong commitment to his future spouse, and someone with whom you get along. Don’t marry anyone who doesn’t view marriage as the strongest commitment they will ever make, and one which is irrevocable and unconditional (barring abuse or infidelity).

I think this is very good advice, but this is probably one of the hardest things for a young woman to do. For instance, if she loves the guy she’s dating and he says “I’m not ready,” then her thinking goes something like this: “I love him, God says love is patient, so I just be patient and wait until he’s ready.” I’ve known women who’ve done this very thing, and then a year later he dumps her anyway. So in retrospect, she knows she should have ended the relationship herself, but since she loved him and was willing to hope for the best in him, she didn’t.

That’s why Watters urges women to make men get to the point, and be willing to be alone if they won’t commit. Not easy for them to do, but solid advice.

Another book that challenges the dismissiveness toward marriage in the church is “Getting Serious About Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness”, by Debbie Maken. She shows that the “gift of singleness” is a catch-phrase invented by modern pundits that has no basis in scripture (it’s actually a misinterpretation of 1 Cor 7:7 embellished by the Living Bible in the 70’s). Previous generations of Christians never considered singleness to be a gift, but rather a choice for those who had the gift of celibacy (better, the gift of being able to contain oneself sexually) for the sake of doing kingdom work.

Unfortunately, the GoS has taken on a life of its own and become a kind of “rogue theology” that has led many to doubt whether or not God wants them to pursue marriage. As if marriage and singleness were gifts that you have to “wait on the Lord” to receive. This has had a paralysing effect on many believers, male and female alike. And that’s why Watters wrote her book.

That said, there is nothing wrong with openly pursuing marriage, and within one year of my decision that I was “ready to marry” (due to spiritual, emotional, and fiscal readiness), I was dating the woman I married. We married two years later, six months longer than I would have preferred because I didn’t feel my wife was ready when I was (she is younger than me, and also had some issues she needed to address in her life).

There is nothing wrong with desiring to be married, preparing yourself to be a good spouse, and determining what is needed to make a good marriage. There is everything wrong with deciding to be miserable until you are married, wasting your life until marriage, using trickery to dupe someone into marrying you, or rushing into something when waiting a year or two will make it a far better experience. Divorce rates show that marriages over age 25 are more than twice as successful as marriages BELOW age 25 (median marriage age for women). Marriages below age 25 have something like a 75% fail rate, while those after have a 25% fail rate. This would likely drop further if we looked only at first time marriages. Waiting until 25 to marry is not a bad thing to do.

Take your time and do it right, or join the statistically identical number of failed Christian marriages (compared to overall averages). Marriage is a precious thing, Christians need to start taking it seriously again instead of viewing it as some kind of game (like our culture does).

The gift that you are referring to has traditionally been called “the gift of celibacy”, NOT “the gift of singleness”, which is an entirely modern invention.

Even calling it “the gift of celibacy” is dubious, because Paul never called it that. Besides, what is that supposed to mean? Some assume that God removes sexual desire in those who undertake celibacy (history has proven otherwise). It could mean a passion for a mission that exceeds one’s desire for marriage. We simply don’t know what Paul was referring to specifically in 1 Cor 7:7: he does not name it. Verse 7 in the original Greek reads closest to:

“I wish that all men were as I am. However, God give to each their own particular grace gift, one like so, one like so…”

Verse 7 is actually a rather inconsequential verse, a preambulary disclaimer, if you will, to verses 8 & 9 that contain the meat of Paul’s message (which is clearly about giving wisdom to the individual in letting him/her make their own decision about whether or not to get married): “therefore to the unmarried I say it is good to remain as you are, but if they cannot contain, let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn”.

Those not “ignorant of history” should know that these passages have been used and abused for centuries to justify all kinds of erroneous teachings. But indeed, the phrase “gift of singleness” did not make its appearance until the mid 20th century, with the arrival of the Living Bible.

***

About early marriage, the reason why so many fail today is that there isn’t enough of a critical mass of young people getting married, necessary to support young marriages. In places where everybody marries young, youth is not a risk factor for divorce. And btw, the issue of people “deciding to be miserable until you are married” is blown way out of proportion. Candice Watters settles that one, once and for all.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AZBD3ZC3TKIBF/ref=cm_aya_bb_pdp

The gift that you are referring to has traditionally been called “the gift of celibacy”, NOT “the gift of singleness”, which is an entirely modern invention.

Only in very modern times would the terms “celibacy” and “singleness” be considered as separate terms. The lack of historic clarity to what Paul meant does NOT mean that the modern interpretation is in any way new. This still feels like a blatant attempt to turn a historic discussion into a modern fad. We can argue all day about what Paul meant, but then such arguments have been occurring for 2000 years. This is not a “new” doctrine. Again, claiming otherwise is ignorant or dishonest.

Note that in cultures where girls married in their early teens to men in their 30s (such as in Biblical times), marriages had high success rates as well. Do you really think comparing vastly different cultures makes a strong point? In the US, marriages before 25 have twice as high a divorce rate. WHATEVER the cause, that statistic alone should not be idly ignored because it fails to match your self constructed view of how the world should work. It makes much more sense to look at how the world DOES work, and what the Bible states. Your opinions really aren’t worth much when they contrast with these two sources.

Celibacy (or better, chastity) is a biblical command for those who are single whether it be by circumstance or by choice. Historically, celibacy on its own was never regarded as a gift, except for those who chose it for the sake of doing kingdom work (priesthood, religious orders). As for those who were simply “single by circumstance” no one ever referred to that as “the gift of singleness” until the late 20th century.

“Note that in cultures where girls married in their early teens to men in their 30s (such as in Biblical times), marriages had high success rates as well. Do you really think comparing vastly different cultures makes a strong point? In the US, marriages before 25 have twice as high a divorce rate. WHATEVER the cause, that statistic alone should not be idly ignored because it fails to match your self constructed view of how the world should work.”

Actually, yes, I do think it’s valid to compare other cultures to get an idea of how world does work. Not all comparisons are equally valid (nor am I saying that everyone should marry, let alone marry young), but it would be just as historically ignorant to assume that later marriage (a luxury afforded to many by recent technology) is some kind of ideal stumbled upon by modern westerners. That would be a “self-constructed view of how the world should work” if there ever was one!

And so your objection to the phrase “gift of singleness” is that it is generally applied to people who are temporarily single, but who do need to eventually get married. Those people get confused by the errant theology and proceed to question whether they should ever get married. You prefer the term “gift of celibacy” because it has less potential for confusion.

Is that a fair summary of what you believe?

> I would say the phrasing does matter, otherwise you’re comparing something (”temporary singleness”) with something that does not exist (the “GoS”). Even the “gift of celibacy” is dubious, as one scholar (Kiwoong Son of London Bible College) puts it, “celibacy is not a gift. Celibacy is recommended to only those who have the gift of self-control.”

I’m not even suggesting that these individuals “have no need for marriage”, but rather, they have gifts that, for whatever reason, render them greater sexual “containment” (see verse 8, 9), thus, as those verses suggest, they have the choice to remain unmarried.

> I would say that it’s inappropriate to apply that phrase to anyone who wants to get married, whether their singleness turns out to be temporary or not.

> BINGO! The GoS phrase keeps an unnecessary and erroneous theology of singleness alive. All you need to do is google a blog search of the phrase “gift of singleness” to see the damage it’s done.

> Actually, I object to both, again quoting Kiwoong Son of London Bible College, “celibacy is not a gift. Celibacy is recommended to only those who have the gift of self-control.” The GoC has also created confusion, leaving many to assume that just because someone is “called” to the priesthood, they automatically have “the gift of celibacy”, when they may be no more gifted at sexual containment as the next person.

In all, it’s an exercise in why we need to be careful when we impute “terminology” onto the Bible.

> Pretty close!

Oh no, you’re going back to very thing that I’m arguing against!

My point was that Paul was not referring to “life stages” or circumstances or marital status as being gifts in 1 Cor 7:7. All he was doing in verse 7 was offering a personal disclaimer to the choices he was presenting in verse 8 and 9. He basically saying that since we’re all different, (ie. with different gifts –he doesn’t get specific), you decide if you want to get married or not.

He repeats the same “you decide” message later in the chapter, in verse 36 “if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin” and verse 37 “But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well”. And the same to widows in verse 39, “But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes”.

Again, with the voluntary “you decide” proviso, Paul offers a contextual rationale in verse 26 for why singleness might be preferable at that point in history: FOR THE SAKE OF THE PRESENT DISTRESS. “I think that in view of the present[g] distress(AI) it is good for a person to remain as he is.” But emphasizing in verse 28. “But if you do marry, you have not sinned”

Here’s another thing: marriage is not referred to anywhere in the scriptures as “a gift”, or “a stage of life God has given to you”. There’s absolutely no biblical support for divine matchmaking. Proverbs 19:14, which poetically states, “a prudent wife is from the LORD”, and Hosea and Gomer are the often offered up as Old Testament examples, but there’s nothing in the New Testament that suggests that marriage comes about by anything other than human effort and volition.

Paul does not refer to any specific gift. He said that we all have gifts, much the same way that you might say “to each, his own”, another phrase that points to personal differences that result in personal preferences.

I would agree that Paul may have had his own facility for self-control or “containment” in mind when he wrote verse 7. But he also might have had in mind his passion for his mission (that exceeded his desire for marriage). But I think he’s suggesting that his gift is sexual self-containment or control because…

…from verses 2 to 5, he says “because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

So although he’s talking about marriage, he’s talking about self-control in marriage. A theme he repeats in verses 8 & 9 when suggesting to singles that “it is good to remain as you are, but if they cannot contain, let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn”.

Again, it’s his personal opinion, based on his own experience: 6 “Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” (his “no commandment from the Lord” is repeated in verse 25 to the never married, suggesting that for the present distress they remain as they are). Whereas, when he goes on to verse 10 to advise the married on the prohibitions on divorce, he says “To the married I give this charge not I, but the Lord. So there is no choice on that one.

Nowhere in chapter 7 does he speak of marriage and singleness as something that God gifts to anyone, or “calls” anyone to. It’s left as a matter of personal choice and effort, as it is elsewhere in the Bible:

1 Cor 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord?

Proverbs 18:22 He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD.

Matthew 19:12 Some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom…

This is not to doubt the sovereignty of God or His work in our lives, but rather to show how modern Christians have over-spiritualized marriage and singleness.

OK, I think I understand. (I went and read some of your reviews on Amazon too.)

For the most part, I agree with you. The Living Bible does mistranslate the passage. I don’t think that the phrase “gift of singleness” necessarily implies that erroneous view of Scripture, but perhaps it makes that misinterpretation more likely. But I never assumed that the “gift of singleness” was anything special, like the spiritual gifts which come from the Holy Spirit. I guess I don’t see a problem with using the phrase, because I do understand that God gives us the ability to make our own choices in life. It’s the same for other things in life. E.g., I consider my education to be a God-given gift, even though I chose to pursue a college degree and I put forth the effort to achieve that goal. I didn’t get any special message from God telling me to do that. I made my own decision. Calling something a gift is not inconsistent with recognizing that the “gift” came out of personal initiative and personal choice.

But I agree with your main point, that we need to stop using the phrase “gift of singleness.” It’s not particularly helpful.

Yet it seems like Christians over-apply the use of the word “gift”, pretty much to the point where it has no meaning. Recently on Boundless, there was a discussion about whether suffering is a gift. Again, you could get philosophical and say that if it weren’t for this bad thing happening (or that good thing not happening) then this or that good thing wouldn’t have happened. Or that God is using it all to His glory, which is true.

But for many people, their singleness is associated with suffering — and, though not always, caused by sin (perhaps their own or someone else’s, whether that’s overly high standards or other issues that get in the way). Even though God might allow suffering to happen (especially as a natural consequence of the choices of a person or people), calling it a gift both minimizes the gravity of the sin and the pain of the sufferer.

When you take a concordance and see what the Bible does and does not call a gift, then you get real sense of how the word should and should not be used. And nowhere is it used to describe suffering a gift (with the exception of persecution for the sake of the church). Likewise, the circumstance or “season” of singleness is never referred to as a gift.

Surely, we are to make the best of whatever our circumstances, rejoicing and glorifying God in them. But when people who are in situations that ordinarily cause suffering make a point of claiming that their circumstances (be it unintended singleness or disability) are a gift, their attempts to be a “good example” too often place burdens on others who don’t feel like they can be real about their suffering. I think it’s good to be able to talk about the advantages of an adverse situation and be grateful for those things, and of course to seek God’s strength and trust that it will be given.

But let’s not mischaracterize the word “gift”, because then it becomes meaningless. If everything is a gift, then nothing is a gift.

Celibacy (or better, chastity) is a biblical command for those who are single whether it be by circumstance or by choice. Historically, celibacy on its own was never regarded as a gift, except for those who chose it for the sake of doing kingdom work (priesthood, religious orders). As for those who were simply “single by circumstance” no one ever referred to that as “the gift of singleness” until the late 20th century.

Chastity is completely different from chastity, in that one is permanent while the other is expecting eventual marriage. Celibacy almost HAS to be deliberate for it to be considered a “gift”. I have never heard the term “gift of singleness” applied to long term unwilling singleness. Normally it is referenced as only a stage or only for those who don’t WANT to marry. It is incorrect to claim someone who wants to marry has a permanent “gift of singleness”, just as it is wrong to say someone who DOESN’T want to marry ought to do so.

I applaud Christian men who can step up to the plate and marry a woman with children and take responsibility of immediate fatherhood.

Absolutely. My point was that a mother looking for a relationship has a completely different perspective on things than someone without kids. Most single mothers looking for boyfriends don’t make fatherhood a top priority in finding a spouse. One’s children have to come first (after one’s spouse). A single mother must put her children over her boyfriend. If the man won’t make a good father to her children, a single mother has no business dating him.

Stages vs Permanence
Paul is referencing a permanent singleness, which allows him to minister in ways that would be impossible were he married. He indicates that others with this “strength” to not need a spouse should also pursue his path, but that those who desire a wife should take one. This isn’t that complicated unless one refuses to acknowledge that some people are happy to remain single. Remember, not everyone is just like you. I see no reason to pressure people who are HAPPY to be single into a marriage that might limit their ability to serve God in the way they are called.

There is a “stage” of singleness that everyone goes through, and I think it is ridiculous to wallow in misery while doing so. I understand that the vast majority don’t WANT to remain single, but then they probably WON’T remain single. Given this, why be miserable? A single person should dedicate themselves to becoming the person God has called them to be, serving those around them and preparing themselves for their future. Devising tricks to get others to “like” them and “reeling in a catch” are pathetic things to be doing. At the same time, I agree that someone wishing to marry should be aware of potential matches, and seek assistance from trusted friends and family members in making connections. In no case should one expect a relationship based on lies and trickery (most modern dating relationships) to last for a lifetime.

I would agree with you, that celibacy pretty much has to be deliberate in order for it to be considered a gift. I would also say that there has always been a distinction between chaste (temporary) singleness and deliberate celibacy. Indeed, singleness and celibacy are not the same things.

For this reason it is especially incorrect to tell someone who wants to marry that they have a “gift of singleness”. Although you’ve never heard of this, it is actually a widespread erroneous church teaching. Elisabeth Elliot and Josh Harris use it this way in their chart topping bestsellers.

The classic example is Al Hsu’s 1998 Singles at the Crossroads which reads, “‘The gift of singleness’ is simply a description of an objective status. It is an exhortation to look at your marital status as a gift. If you are single, then you have the gift of singleness. If you are married, you don’t…If you have one gift, you don’t have the other. They’re mutually exclusive…Eugene Peterson’s paraphrase The Message reads: “Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me—a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.”

And The Message got this totally incorrect translation of 1 Cor 7:7 from The Living Bible (now the NLT)– and it’s STILL in both of them!

And so this is what you have: some single Christians worried that God has given them the GoS when they really don’t want it, others worried that God might “call” them to singleness, and that you have to wait to be “called to marriage” (suggesting that God’s going to communicate his will to you about who you should marriage — when in fact the scriptures make no such promises), and so you must “wait on the Lord” for “word from the Lord”, and those wanting to marry but are irritatingly admonished that they have the gift of singleness and they should be downright content with that. And that since God finds your spouse, not you, any personal effort you might make might be inferring with “God’s perfect plan for your life” — another phrase that appears nowhere in the Bible. It’s a critical confusion.

“There is a “stage” of singleness that everyone goes through, and I think it is ridiculous to wallow in misery while doing so. I understand that the vast majority don’t WANT to remain single, but then they probably WON’T remain single.”

Actually there are more Christians than ever who are struggling to find spouses, especially women. There’s a severe shortage of men in the church. Young unmarried men are the most unchurched group in America. So after “waiting on the Lord” for “God to write your love story”, these individuals inevitably get anxious when they realize that the odds are getting worse, not better. I believe that the GoS has proliferated in the Christian lexicon partly as a way to shut these women up.

But it seems that anytime anyone speaks up to rethink the bad theology associated with the gift of singleness or the shortage of men in the church, there seems to be impulse to lecture them on contentment, as if to question things is to “make an idol out of marriage”.

And that’s why I’m speaking out on these issues. There has been too much bad teaching based on bad biblical interpretation. Yes, it’s important to find satifaction in God, but there is an epidemic of protracted singleness happening right now and we’ve got to find ways of talking about it and finding solutions, rather than shutting the discussion down with admonishments to be content.

As for finding solutions, what do you think of Christian matchmaking services?

“Actually there are more Christians than ever who are struggling to find spouses, especially women. There’s a severe shortage of men in the church. Young unmarried men are the most unchurched group in America.”

My gut feeling is that you are right; do you have facts to back up this claim? And if it is indeed true, I wonder why?

If I just look at my own local church, I think it might be true. I may be forgetting some I should count, but I think there are approximately twice as many single women as there are single men.

As facts to back up the Christian man shortage, here are some points from Churchformen.com:

• The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories.

• On any given Sunday there are between 11 and 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches (also noted on Barna.org)

• This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands.

• Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants.

• The majority of church employees are women (except for ordained clergy, who are overwhelmingly male).

• As many as 90 percent of the boys who are being raised in church will abandon it by their 20th birthday. Many of these boys will never return.

Camerin Courtney, singles columnist at Christianity Today wrote an article about it called, “O Brothers, Where Art Thou?” http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2006/002/1.28.html

Other information is available at CT, including Christian college enrollment breakdowns by gender at their subsite ChristianCollegeGuide.net.

Also, in our ZFT forum we’ve had a couple reviews of books on this topic:

The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity
http://forums.zealfortruth.org/viewtopic.php?p=61108#61108

Why Men Hate Going to Church
http://forums.zealfortruth.org/viewtopic.php?p=59525#59525

Elisabeth Elliot and Josh Harris use it this way in their chart topping bestsellers.

Josh Harris is a quack, and I’m honestly surprised ANYONE takes him seriously. When Josh wrote “I kissed dating goodbye”, he was little more than a pathetic guy who realized he’d gotten out of a bad relationship caused by stupid decisions. His book was the equivalent of a jilted girl claiming she’ll never trust guys again. “Boy meets girl” spends most of its length saying the opposite of his statements in the first book, while at the same time claiming that he didn’t really mean to say everything that he DID say. He met his wife by doing the very “Dating” he claimed to have kissed goodbye. I knew a lot of people in the “courtship” movement, and what he and his wife did doesn’t fit. They dated.

“Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me—a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.”

This isn’t as bad a translation as you suggest (though I do agree it is a poor choice of words, yet another reason for me to dislike the Message). Celibacy and marriage are clearly mutually exclusive things for someone to have. Calling both “gifts” presumably is just intended to say that they are both good to have. Someone who isn’t planning a life of celibacy though isn’t experiencing a “gift” of celibacy, they just haven’t married yet. Of course, the stronger the possibility that they will be unable to find an appropriate spouse, the more they need to be ready to live their life without marriage. This is entirely different than the satisfied celibacy that Paul describes though.

I believe that the GoS has proliferated in the Christian lexicon partly as a way to shut these women up.

If this is in fact the case, I fully agree that this is a heretical and wrong headed usage. The refusal of the US church to reach out to and make demands on men is a major problem.

I think both of those books you’ve recommended offer excellent insights into why there’s a shortage of men in the church (btw- the author who wrote “Why Men Hate Going to Church” owns the website churchformen.com where I got most those stats in my last post). Churches aren’t the only victims of the man shortage. Most organizations have a hard time attracting and keeping men. Men just don’t seem to be “joiners” in the same way that women are, especially when it comes to things that produce only indirect or long term results. Men seem be more “instrumental” in how they spend their time.

Also, I think that young Christian men are drawn away from the church by the world more than their female peers. For those young women who remain chaste, it’s hard to compete with secular girls who are more sexually available. Kind of like “why buy the cow when you can buy the milk for free”. So this is why I’m saying that we’re got to stop calling all this singleness as gift: because it’s got more to do with modern human trends — with largely sinful causes — that have eventual consequences that cause suffering. It’s not like the Lord suddenly said, “Okay, I need more single women out their to fulfill my mission, so I’ll choose singleness as my life plan for her and her and her….

Antanamis:

You may think that Josh Harris is a quack, but his books sell millions. In his first book, he said that one of the problems with dating is that it “can cause discontentment with the God’s gift of singleness”, basically suggesting that all singles have the GoS and that you have to achieve some kind of contentment nirvana before God grants you the gift of marriage (which is not true — with the exception of the pathetically desperate the ones who get married are the ones who are the most motivated to do so).

“This isn’t as bad a translation as you suggest (though I do agree it is a poor choice of words, yet another reason for me to dislike the Message). Celibacy and marriage are clearly mutually exclusive things for someone to have. Calling both “gifts” presumably is just intended to say that they are both good to have.”

But don’t you see that it creates confusion to put these things together in contrast as gifts? Perhaps even more so as the not-yet-married reader is left scratching their head about where they fit in to this picture, since they don’t yet have the “gift of marriage” (and don’t know if they’ll ever get it) and they don’t want (and perhaps fear) celibacy (which is NOT a good thing for want marriage, but are having a hard time getting there!). Stick to the original text (which contrasts nothing), I say.

People nowadays respond to the concerns of singles in a patronizing way, like “tut-tut, dear, one day it’ll be your turn — in God’s time”, without realizing that today’s Christian singles (females especially) are facing an unprecedented obstacles to marriage.

“Of course, the stronger the possibility that they will be unable to find an appropriate spouse, the more they need to be ready to live their life without marriage.” I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THIS. Marriage desiring singles should never admonished to give up hope. Who’s to say that an aging spinster or “confirmed bachelor” might not marry? I agree with Candice Watter’s encouraging message to live as if you’re expecting to marry. This doesn’t mean that you’re “putting your life on hold”, on the contrary! I think marriage desiring singles live far more active and productive lives, as they develop themselves, hoping to attract a mate than those who have given up and let themselves go, physically, socially, spiritually.

I thought that website sounded familiar. I like Murrow’s book. It actually offered an explanation of how the church is driving men away. I don’t think there’s anything inherent in men that makes us less likely to follow God. The fact that men aren’t showing up in church as much as women are means that something is wrong with church, not with men.

I agree that there are things in church that men don’t like. (And there’s things women don’t like too, for that matter.) But if these single men really are believers, then they should be in church, shouldn’t they? In fact, they should be there trying to make church better instead of whining about it (or more likely sitting passively and grumbling silently).

I’m perhaps not as inclined as you might be to let these missing Christian men off the hook. Like Atanamis said: “The refusal of the US church to reach out to and make demands on men is a major problem.”

Also, I think that young Christian men are drawn away from the church by the world more than their female peers. For those young women who remain chaste, it’s hard to compete with secular girls who are more sexually available.

Let’s think this through. For every heterosexual guy sleeping around there is a woman he is sleeping around with. If there’s more men then women who don’t go to church (which is likely the case although it’s greatly exaggerated by people like Marrow) then the only way that could work is if women are having sex more than men on average, which seems unlikely. It’s much more reasonable to assume that these single church women are in fact having sex.

And wanting to sleep around may not be that much of a factor in people not attending church. People are perfectly capable of having pre-marital sex and faithfully going to church. Let’s not act like all single church people aren’t having sex or that single men have to leave church before they can have sex.