As we continue considering this topic, it is important to remember that those who prefer “celibacy” to “singleness” do not see the terms as synonymous. Their argument isn’t, “Look, these two words mean basically the same thing, but ‘celibacy’ is more effective at communicating that meaning than ‘singleness’ is. So let’s just run with that instead, OK?”.

No. Part of the appeal of “celibacy” is that it is thought to mean something different to plain old “singleness”. Which also means it has a different significance to plain old “singleness”.

In Part One, I interacted with a case-study (“Against Singleness: On One of My Least Favorite Concepts”, by Grant Hartley) to explain what I consider to be the first of (at least) four problems with the pervasive use of “celibacy” in the contemporary Christian discourse about singleness and marriage. I’ll leave you to read that post in full. But in summary, I argued that swapping out “singleness” for “celibacy”:

1. Exacerbates rather than solves the real problem—our tragically inadequate theological understanding and relational knowledge of the meaning, dignity and significance of being and living as an unmarried Christian in the church.

2. Falsely impoverishes the faithful obedience and the fruitful eschatological witness of the everyday, ordinary “single” Christian because of its intent to see the “celibate” Christian uniquely elevated to heroic status.

In this second (and final) part, I want to posit two further “problems” with prioritising the language of “celibacy” over “singleness”. We’ll continue engaging with Grant’s article while also taking the conversation a little wider as we turn our attention to a particularly important aspect of the “celibate” narrative—sex and sexuality.

Subscribe now

3. The Problem Is It Distorts the Relationship Between Marriage and Sex

Let’s begin by considering several quotes from Grant’s article. As you read them, keep your eye out for a running refrain:

“When I made a decision to trust Jesus with my sexuality and pursue celibacy…”

“Celibacy,” contrary to “singleness,” helpfully highlights sexual abstinence (which I am called to pursue)…”

“But my choice to forego sex and marriage (and to benefit from the gifts that celibacy affords) is not a problem, but the acceptance of a beautiful gift.”

“Using the word [celibacy] might encourage people to ask clarifying questions: […] What values and priorities do you have that would lead you to give up sex for life?”

Did you pick up the common thread?

The primary meaning of “celibacy” today is sexual abstinence. (Of course, if you read the definitional section towards the beginning of Part One, this should be no surprise to you.) One of the key reasons Grant and other like-minded advocates prefer “celibacy” over “singleness” is because the former primarily highlights not their marital status but their sexual abstinence.

Because I had intended to do just one post on this topic (and then I realised how long it would run!) I had drafted Part Two's content before I published Part One. And so I was particularly interested to read the comments of a few thoughtful readers of Part One. I think they helpfully tap into some of the significance underlying the language of “celibacy” today, and so I want to interact with two of them on the way through—one here under Problem #3 and one under Problem #4.

In his comment on Part One, commentator P.H. wrote (emphasis mine):

“For Grant and many others, the reality that "celibacy" highlights is precisely the abstinent dimension – because as same-sex-attracted, the perception especially in church subculture is that SSA people are presumed promiscuous. A problem for those committed to the traditional sexual stance of the church!”

P.H. (unknowingly) anticipated what I would go on to discuss here in Past Two. You see, the significant majority of those who use “celibacy” (rather than “single”) to describe their unmarried state also identify as being same-sex attracted (or more commonly now, gay or queer). As P.H. suggests, they see the sexually abstinent emphasis and connotations of the term “celibacy” as being particularly relevant and significant to them.

Given that, let’s consider the theological significance of using the term “celibacy” to prioritise communication about an individual’s state of sexual abstinence, rather than their unmarried situation.

God did not create sex for us as individual people but for the purposes of the marital union between a man and a woman. To put it another way, sexual intercourse (and all that goes with it) is not a good in and of itself. As Christians, we believe it is only truly a good when it is “used” per the user manual! All other instances of sexual intimacy/activity/intercourse (what the Bible calls porneia) are sinful and so are not expressions or instances of “a good”.

While the world around us wants to link sex with individual personhood, identity and fulfilment, God’s word links it with marriage and its purposes. For Christians, sex belongs to, in and for marriage.

And so, put simply, any Christian who is not married ought to have no need to routinely or consistently communicate to others that they are “celibate”. This is true regardless of the pattern of someone’s sexual attractions. A single Christian who feels the need to habitually emphasise their sexual abstinence over and above their singleness is reflecting and, in some ways, strengthening the world’s narrative that sees sex as linked to personhood rather than marriage.

Of course, this also means that no Christian (whether single or married) should ever think that a same-sex attracted single Christian person is more likely to be having sex than an opposite-sex attracted single Christian person. Such a presumption is prejudiced and foolish. We should expect all of our unmarried brothers or sisters to not only be sexually abstinent but also dedicated to sexual purity in singleness in every respect. This is a fundamental aspect of their obedience to Christ. (Of course, when we know or suspect they are not being faithful in this, it’s time for an appropriate person to initiate a pastoral conversation).

So, to draw the threads together, I think P.H.’s comment accurately identifies part of the reason why some prefer to use “celibacy” rather than “singleness”. However, I don’t believe that reason is theologically legitimate or pastorally helpful. Indeed, just like back in Problem #1, the habitual use of “celibacy” as a shorthand announcement that “FYI, I’m an unmarried Christian who is sexually abstinent” exacerbates the issue rather than addresses it. It helps solidify a theoretical separation between sex and marriage that the world promotes but which the Bible rejects out of hand.

In today’s vernacular, the term “single” sufficiently, helpfully and accurately communicates the godly reality and expectations of being unmarried as a Christian. When we routinely prefer the term “celibacy” so that we may amplify and magnify sexual abstinence in singleness, we distort the theological relationship between marriage and sex. This distortion is not a benign one.

4. The Problem Is “Celibacy” Means More Than You Likely Realise

Having said that I think P.H.’s comment accurately identifies part of the reason why some prefer to use “celibacy”, I don’t think it accounts for the full or even primary reason why many (most?) contemporary, especially younger Christians prefer “celibate” to “single”.

Matt’s reply to P.H.’s comment under Part One puts us on track to explore this. Matt (who describes himself in the comment as a gay Christian) writes:

“It's a mistake to think that celibacy (the more life long intentional expression as described there) is better than "singleness" (a more unexpected or less specifically intended, but still willingly accepted expression), and therefore we should be more comfortable saying single rather than just saying celibate to try and provide some legitimacy to our situation.”

In other words, Matt agrees with my Part One conclusion that “celibacy” isn’t qualitatively or substantially better than “singleness”. (As an aside: like many others, Matt thinks the differing terms do communicate important distinctions about choice vs circumstance. I’ve written elsewhere about how the situation of a single Christian is almost always characterised by some level of complexity that ought to move us beyond the simple either/or of choice and circumstance. In my opinion, this problematises Matt and others’ argument that the two terms importantly communicate a choice/circumstance binary. But let’s not get distracted by that here!)

In the same comment, Matt also writes:

“As a gay christian committed to the bible's sexual ethic, if I say ‘I'm a single gay christian’ that could be read as ‘I am currently single but could be in a relationship in the future’, whereas if I say I'm a ‘celibate gay christian’ then that allows me to communication [sic] ‘I have specifically chosen to abstain from the sort of sexual relationships I would be interested in because I think God is calling me to forego it, and therefore I expect to be celibate for the rest of my life’.”

OK. This is where I take a deep breath because of the slings and arrows that have previously come my way when I’ve waded into this territory.

Matt is representing the commonly held view that being a gay Christian means he (and others in his situation) need to communicate both more and more specifically about their singleness than an opposite-sex attracted unmarried Christian like myself does. While I disagree that this is strictly needed, I do agree with his observation that this is why many same-sex attracted/gay/queer Christians use the language of “celibacy” rather than “single”.

It has been my considered and careful observation over some years that the majority of those who now use the word “celibacy” do not do so to simply describe their state of sexual abstinence (as per P.H.’s comment). Rather, they see the term as loading that state with a particular significance and meaning. This is considered to be unique to their situation and is not represented by the word “singleness” (as per Matt’s comment).

To be more specific, “celibacy” is predominantly used today to communicate a same-sex attracted Christian’s personal, sacrificial and costly choice to live without having the kind of sex they desire to have. This is consistent with the emphasis on individual agency and even heroic sacrifice embedded into “celibacy” that we explored in Part One.

Now, if for some reason your hackles have been somewhat raised, please bear with me as I explain and evidence why I say that. In his comment, Matt wrote this:

“…whereas if I say I'm a ‘celibate gay christian’ then that allows me to communication ‘I have specifically chosen to abstain from the sort of sexual relationships I would be interested in because I think God is calling me to forego it, and therefore I expect to be celibate for the rest of my life’.”

In his article, Grant (who also describes himself as gay) develops this notion further:

“So when “singleness” is discussed, it is typically seen as an unfortunate and temporary state that will eventually give way to marriage—[“singleness” is] a state no one would choose for themselves […]

But my choice to forego sex and marriage (and to benefit from the gifts that celibacy affords) is not a problem, but the acceptance of a beautiful gift. It is the vocation of choice for heroes of the faith (including the apostle Paul, and Jesus himself)…”

Being “single” means your sexual abstinence is an unfortunate but necessary expectation imposed upon you for as long as you are trapped in the state that nobody would choose for themselves.

But being “celibate” is not a problem like that. Instead, it represents “your choice to forego sex and marriage” (which for Grant means forgoing same-sex sex and same-sex marriage). This kind of “(gay) celibacy” embraces the sacrificial and heroic cost of making that choice, and so becomes a beautiful thing.

Now, let be very clear, I have many dear friends who experience sexual attraction to members of their sex and who hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching about God’s design for them, others, sex and marriage. I love them. I value them. I respect them. I learn from them. I delight in them. I care for them. And so what follows is not a comment about individuals (or a collection of individuals) who use the language of “celibacy” to communicate a particular thing. My concern does not lie with the people who are using the language for a specific reason but with the implication of the language as it is used for that specific reason.

What is the reason for the language? “Celibacy” is not only increasingly being used as a shorthand reference to a distinctly exceptional and celebrated form of the unmarried life but to a distinctly exceptional and celebrated form of (gay) spirituality.

In the first decade and a half of the 21st Century, a first/earlier generation of courageous, theologically orthodox, same-sex-attracted Christian leaders compelled the evangelical church to grapple with a whole range of long-standing, terrible failures. Just one of those was our tragically impoverished attitude towards singleness (and our corresponding idealisation of marriage). They rightly challenged the church to recognise that if it was going to disciple and love those who experience exclusive and persistent same-sex sexual attraction, then the church needed to be able to offer them a faithful and nourishing way of being single as a Christian.

In this vein, some began to use the language of “gay celibacy” to, as P.H. noted, communicate that while they experienced exclusive sexual attraction to their own sex, they were committed to living faithfully as an unmarried person under the Bible’s teaching. The term “gay celibacy” had specific contextual resonance.

However, in more recent years (roughly the last five or so), a newer/younger generation of same-sex attracted Christians have further developed the language of “gay celibacy” and embedded it with a deeper and heightened meaning.

For many/most of them, “gay celibacy” does not simply communicate their (wonderful) faithfulness in singleness. Rather, it predominantly refers to a particularly unique kind of spirituality that is only able to be embraced and lived out by sexually abstinent same-sex attracted/gay/queer Christians.

We get a hint of this in Grant’s article:

“There is little that is disruptive or out of the ordinary in calling oneself “single”; “celibacy,” however, is unfamiliar and sounds strange. Using the word might encourage people to ask clarifying questions […] What values and priorities do you have that would lead you to give up sex for life?”

To put it in the language of the day, “(gay) celibacy” is seen to be “queer”. Indeed, in the third part of a more recent series titled ‘Constructing a Celibate Gay Christian Spirituality’, Grant writes (emphasis original):

“Celibacy can be “queer.” Every society offers its members a script for the ways of living it considers to be normal or respectable, an expectation for how responsible members of society are supposed to act… Celibacy can reveal that script to us, can force us to see how contingent it is, and can allow us to think outside of it, imagining new possibilities for living. In that sense, celibacy can be queer—it can challenge a prevailing societal norm.”

While there is a limited sense in which this means all “celibacy” (including that of an opposite-sex attracted Christian like myself) may be thought of as queer, “gay celibacy” is considered uniquely and more fully so. Why? Well, because someone like myself not only still has the possibility of one day conforming to the script, but chances are I really want to conform to it. As such, I’m not really challenging the “prevailing societal norm”.

“Gay celibacy” on the other hand decisively throws off the shackles of expectations and normality, and this queerness is seen as being uniquely virtuous. Particularly on view is the virtue of self-sacrifice thought to be inherent to gay celibacy (but not to singleness). We see this notion of self-sacrifice in words such as “forego”, “give up”, “abstain” and so on. Matt comments that the word “celibacy”:

“… allows me to communication [sic] ‘I have specifically chosen to abstain from the sort of sexual relationships I would be interested in because I think God is calling me to forego it…”

Grant puts it like this:

“But my choice to forego sex and marriage (and to benefit from the gifts that celibacy affords) is not a problem, but the acceptance of a beautiful gift. It is the vocation of choice for heroes of the faith”

At a 2024 Wheaton College lecture titled Gay Celibate Asceticism, theological scholar and author David Bennett summarised it in these words:

“Gay celibacy then opens same-sex desire to the horizon of a redeemed or sanctified eros . The witness of gay celibates do not see themselves as merely the poor victims of heterosexism but they know that they are those who draw their queerness into a holy escatic self-sacrifice or asceticism.”

These are just a few examples from the “gay celibacy” discourse which show how its queerness, virtue and exceptionality is thought to be located in the “giving up” or the “self-sacrifice” for God of the kind of sexual relationship (and, for some but not all, romantic partnership) that one desires..

Now, please note that I have not here analysed or critiqued this “gay celibacy” discourse. (For those interested, I’ve previously interacted with some of the ideas within it here and here). Instead, I’ve just sought to establish and explain its existence. I’ve wanted to show you that the chief advocates for the language of “celibacy” in the contemporary Christian discourse typically mean more by it than you likely realise.

“Celibacy”, and specifically “gay celibacy” (the primary context in which the term is used) does not simply describe the situation of a faithful, sexually abstinent, unmarried, same-sex attracted Christian. Instead, it increasingly refers to an exceptionally sacrificial and unique kind of Christian spirituality. In this context, “celibacy” is not simply a bit different or more specific than ordinary “singleness” (or marriage, for that matter). As Grant puts it in the title of his recent series, it is about Constructing a Celibate Gay Christian Spirituality.

“Celibacy” is not just “singleness” by a slightly different name. In our context, it is a term heavily and dynamically weighted with particular meaning and significance.

1. It (intentionally) shapes and moulds the discourse in service of its own particular concern and commitments, rather than contributing to a more faithful understanding of the unmarried Christian life as a whole.

2. It (unintentionally) diminishes the faithfulness and fruitfulness of those who have not purposefully set out to remain unmarried but who are getting on with living a godly life of eschatological witness for Christ in the midst of it.

3. It (unintentionally) distorts and even separates the ordered and purposeful relationship between sex and marriage in a way that the Bible does not allow.

4. It (intentionally and increasingly) refers to a unique, exceptional, heightened and sacrificial form of Christian spirituality of a certain subset of disciples of Christ.

Does this mean we should never use the term “celibacy”? No, I don’t think it means that. Nor am I advocating that we should go around policing every instance of its use.

But we do need to be vigilant. We should not use the term casually, cavalierly or carelessly. For the sake of ensuring we mature and maintain theologically faithful understandings and pastorally flourishing expressions of singleness, marriage, sex and indeed the whole of Christian life, I think we need to keep a close eye on “celibacy”.

I started my doctoral research on Christian singleness back in 2016. Most of that first research year was spent alone in my study, reading every book and article on Christian singleness that I could get my hands on. I also listened to innumerable conference talks, church sermons and podcasts on the topic.

At the time, the terminology almost everyone used to refer to being unmarried was “single”. Now, not even ten years later, the conversation is being increasingly shaped and informed by a different term—“celibacy”.

In this post (and the next), I want to explain why I am not convinced this trending change is a positive or constructive one. In fact, I think it important we keep a close eye on “celibacy” within the Christian discourse on singleness, marriage, sexuality and so on.

Subscribe now

Words can be slippery little suckers. The same word can mean different things to different people, in different contexts, in different places, across different times. Words are beautiful, but they can also be tricky and frustrating. Words can communicate truth wonderfully, but they can also lead to prolonged debates about precisely what truth is being communicated.

This means there are times when we need to be able to hold loosely to certain words and not get too hung up on them. Because of this, you might be wondering if it really matters whether Christians today speak of “singleness” or “celibacy”. Is it really that big a deal?

On the other hand, if we are to have any hope of effectively communicating with each other and effectively communicating truth to each other, then we can’t afford to use words too loosely too often. Words matter, not least because the words we choose to use don’t simply convey truth and meaning… they also shape truth and meaning.

This is precisely what is happening with the preferencing of “celibacy” over “singleness” today. And so, yes, I think it is a big deal.

Before I say more, let’s define our terms. (If you find yourself skimming this next section, make sure you pay attention to the sentences in bold, OK?).

A Brief History of (Certain) Words

SINGLENESS

You won’t find the word “singleness” in scripture. That’s because it didn’t enter the vernacular until around the 14th Century through the Old French word “sengle”—meaning one in numerical value. Over time, the word came into English with the same meaning. However, in the 16th Century, its usage evolved into the realm of personal relationships, eventually denoting the situation of someone who was not married (i.e. there was just “one” of them in their relational context).

The Bible, particularly the New Testament, uses various words to speak about people in different unmarried situations. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul references widows, betrothed people, divorcees and virgins. He does use the word agamos (e.g. 1 Cor 7:8), which quite literally means “not married.” However, in Greek literature, that word was frequently used to refer to a “widower” (a widow had her very own unique term - chēra). And so, even when Paul uses the term translated in our English bibles as “unmarried”, he may be specifically referring to widowers rather than a catch-all term comparable to our modern term “single”.

Ok. So where does that leave us? Can we use the term “single” meaningfully when the Bible doesn’t? Yes, we can.

The New Testament’s specific terms referred to various unmarried situations of 1st Century ancient Mediterranean people. Those terms arose from and conveyed meaning about that society's broader social and relational fabric. For example, a 1st Century Corinthian widow occupied a very different social and relational context than her 1st Century virgin counterpart. A betrothed man had particular obligations to the woman he was betrothed to and to both his and her families. Some of those terms remain relevant today (e.g. widow/divorcee) even as the social situation of those individuals now is quite different to their ancient counterparts. Other terms... well, not so much. For example, being betrothed back then is not the same as being engaged today. Furthermore, we don’t usually go around identifying people’s marital status in relation to their state of virginity like our 1st Century counterparts did.

In our day and age, when we have our own unique social and relational fabric, the word “single” is used as an umbrella term for someone who is not married (whether never married or no longer married). We then use context and personal knowledge to parse that situation into finer-grained detail, meaning, and significance.

CELIBACY

But what about “celibacy”? Where did it come from?

Again, it isn’t a biblical word. The Latin word “caelebs” (referring to an unmarried man, a bachelor) was used by classical authors as early as the 3rd Century BC. The term did not initially have anything to do with being sexually abstinent. Indeed, most Roman bachelors were far from that! However, later, especially during the 4th and 5th Centuries, Christian writers in the West (i.e., the Latin speakers) began to use the term with reference to the clerical Christian life. And so, because unmarried Christians were not to have sex, the term also started to include implicit notions of sexual abstinence alongside not being married.

As the monastic tradition developed and then flourished in the Middle Ages, “celibacy” began to narrowly refer to one’s choice to enter into a lifelong, unmarried, sexually abstinent religious vocation. In doing so, its abstinent component became emphasised and value-laden rather than merely describing one aspect of the unmarried Christian life. After the Reformation, the language and concept of celibacy became somewhat alien to Protestantism and was chiefly considered the domain of Roman Catholic clerics and monastics.

When it was used outside of that particular religious context, it usually referred to self-disciplined sexual abstinence for either a defined or indefinite period. It is still used in the same way today. For example, this contemporary Australian secular documentary on celibacy features individuals who have not only chosen to remain sexually abstinent for life but also those who have been sexually active and are even married but who have embarked on a limited period of celibacy for a bunch of different reasons. In today’s world, celibacy typically means “not (currently) having sex”.

In Advocacy of Celibacy - A Case Study

As I said at the top, in recent years, the word “celibacy” has increasingly been vying for poll position with “singleness” in Christian conversations about the unmarried life. When I started my doctoral research, “celibacy” was very infrequently used in Protestant discussions of singleness and marriage. Less than a decade later, it seems to be everywhere.

Though, perhaps that’s not entirely true. You see, not everyone prefers to use the term “celibacy”. Indeed—and I’m speaking in broad brushstrokes here— the two terms tend to denote two different perspectives on the unmarried Christian life.

The term “singleness” still tends to be popular amongst those in the evangelical world who regard the unmarried life as a less than ideal, perhaps even problematic, state for the Christian. To put it simply (and again, in generalised terms), '“singleness” is often used by those who see it as a pitiable, unfortunate, tragic or even recalcitrant life situation. Present company excluded, of course!

On the other hand, a new and typically younger subset of Christians who advocate for the unmarried life are enthusiastic supporters of the term “celibacy”. They see it as a positive (rather than negative) way of referring to the life situation they claim and embrace as their own.

In this piece, I want to engage with one such advocate's particular “pro-celibacy” argument as a case study. His name is Grant Hartley and while his voice is just among many, I think his argument is a beneficial one for us to interact with.

In his article titled “Against Singleness: On One of My Least Favorite Concepts”, Grant writes:

“I have come to believe the word "singleness" is a poor description of the life I feel called to pursue, and now prefer to use the word “celibacy”.”

I’d encourage you to head over and read Grant’s article in full. In it, he offers several reasons why “singleness” is one of his least favourite concepts and why he prefers the word “celibacy”. In summary, he argues:

1. “Singleness" communicates a lack of relational connection; “celibacy” more specifically communicates foregoing sex and marriage

2. “Singleness” can tend to erase the unique relational opportunity being unmarried and sexually abstinent affords.

3. “Singleness” is usually understood as unintentional and temporary; “celibacy” communicates intentionality and has a ring of permanence.

4. “Celibacy” and “singleness” are not good synonyms, because celibacy does not strictly require going without life partnership.

5. “Celibacy” sounds peculiar, and could provoke questions or provide opportunities for deeper conversations.

Rather than taking Grant’s reasons one by one, I will interact with the broad features of his argument while skipping over #4 altogether (because that is opening up a whole other can of worms that I don’t want us to get distracted by here!). As you’ll see from my interaction with his argument, I think there are (at least) four significant problems with the pervasive use of “celibacy” in the contemporary Christian discourse about singleness and marriage. Here’s the first…

1. The Problem is it Exacerbates Rather than Solves the Issue

Grant writes:

“Celibacy does not prevent one from having deep relationships or intimacy with others […] In many cases, celibacy allows for more relationships, not less. “Singleness” is less a description than a negation, and can unintentionally make it sound like unmarried people are singular, isolated from others.”

”Being unmarried is assumed to be a void to be filled, or a wound to be tended to, rather than a state of life that affords many gifts, including much opportunity for relational fulfillment. I think that the word “celibacy” lends itself better to this vision than “singleness.””

Now, I actually have a lot of (initial) sympathy for this argument. Indeed, here is how I put it in my book, The Meaning of Singleness:

“Perhaps the most foundational thing to observe about the contemporary Christian discourse’s perception of singleness’s character is its assessed deficiency […] Because the term “single” is usually used synonymously with the terms “unmarried" or “not married” […] the fundamental determining factor in describing who a single person is, is grounded in a description of who they are not.” - The Meaning of Singleness, p.43

That is, there is a very real sense in which Christians today typically perceive singleness to be a deficit life situation. To be single is seen by many to be lacking, incomplete, and unfulfilled. To have not attained the thing which ought to be attained. The single Christian is often seen as the “abject other”.

So perhaps we should ditch “singleness” and employ a different term in its place—a term such as “celibacy”? Well, no, I don’t think so. As I continue:

“Even if an obvious terminological solution was to become apparent, it would not ultimately prove to be an effective solution to this quandary, for the critical issue is not linguistic but ideological. That is, the notion of the single person’s deficiency is not grounded in the actual term [… but] in the social, psychological, political, theological and pastoral assumptions that are embedded within the contemporary evangelical social imaginary about what it means to be the opposite of married.” - The Meaning of Singleness, p.45

Simply put, the problem is not the word “single” but what we think that word means.

The irony is that Grant and other “celibacy” advocates who make this same argument exacerbate rather than solve that problem! Remember how I said earlier that words don’t just communicate truth and meaning, but they also shape those things? Those arguing that we should swap in “celibacy” for “singleness” are actively shaping the discourse they seek to correct. Because they cede that relational isolation is inherent to singleness (or at least perceived as inherent to singleness), their proposed solution becomes conveniently self-fulfilling.

See, look again at what Grant says:

“Singleness” is less a description than a negation, and can unintentionally make it sound like unmarried people are singular, isolated from others.”

“Being unmarried is assumed to be a void to be filled, or a wound to be tended to, rather than a state of life that affords many gifts, including much opportunity for relational fulfillment. I think that the word “celibacy” lends itself better to this vision than “singleness.””

If “singleness” unintentionally makes it sound like unmarried people are relationally isolated, then the issue is not the word but the flawed assumption that to be unmarried is to be alone.

If “singleness” does not lend itself to communicating a relationally fulfilled vision for the unmarried Christian, then the solution is not to employ a different word but to demonstrate how you can be single (i.e., unmarried) and deeply embedded in relationship with others.

(An aside: Ironically, the word “celibacy” has historical connotations of relational isolation and seclusion! Monastic communities were typically cloistered. Most of their adherents withdrew from the society around them rather than living in the thick of it.)

Swapping out terminology is not the solution to an inadequate theological understanding and relational knowledge of being unmarried as a Christian. We need to align our thinking and attitude toward the unmarried life (which in today’s everyday English is called “being single”) with God’s thinking and attitude toward it.

We can’t and shouldn’t expect the exchange of “celibacy” for “singleness” to do that heavy lifting for us—especially because, as I will now begin to argue, such an exchange brings with it some false assumptions and problematic baggage.

2. The Problem is it Impoverishes the Faithfulness of Many “Single” Christians

Grant writes that:

So when “singleness” is discussed, it is typically seen as an unfortunate and temporary state that will eventually give way to marriage—[“singleness” is] a state no one would choose for themselves […] But my choice to forego sex and marriage (and to benefit from the gifts that celibacy affords) is not a problem, but the acceptance of a beautiful gift. It is the vocation of choice for heroes of the faith (including the apostle Paul, and Jesus himself)…”

First, notice again Grant’s argument that “singleness” is seen by many as a tragic situation that nobody in their right mind would choose. Instead of objecting to this false narrative, Grant cedes to it and poses an alternative that is somehow meant to leapfrog this palliative view of the unmarried Christian life.

That aside, the thing I really want to draw your attention to at this point is the way “celibacy” advocates put their chosen unmarried situation on a personal and theological pedestal high above the every day “single” Christian.

The situation of a “single” person is an unfortunate problem, while the situation of a “celibate” person is a beautiful gift.

The “single” person lives in an endlessly temporary state of limbo. The “celibate” person gets to be a hero of the faith, like Jesus and Paul.

In summary, “celibacy” is superior to “singleness” because it is chosen and because it is chosen for life.

Now, I’ve critiqued this false dichotomy elsewhere, so rather than repeating myself, let me quote my conclusion there in the hope that it perks your interest in reading the whole article:

“The increasing contemporary fixation on chosen [celibacy] vs unchosen singleness is evidence of the way we embed far greater moral value and dignity into the exercise of individual agency than we do a willingness to accept what has been given to us by a good God and to live faithfully in that assignment. It’s evidence of the way we idealise our capacity to make unconstrained choice rather than to accept the reality that, often, things are simply given to us. That we are indeed, creatures of constraint.” - And The Gold Medal of Singleness Goes To…

There have existed countless Christian men and women who would have chosen to get married if they had been given the opportunity to marry a mature Christian spouse. But they didn’t. Instead, they exercised their faithfulness to Jesus by choosing not to marry a non-Christian, not to partner up in a de-facto relationship, not to have sex outside of the covenant of marriage, not to remarry if they were not free to do so, etc.

Why is their faithfulness any less “heroic” simply because it is wonderfully expressed in the moment rather than committed to for life? Is not godliness here and now what we are called to? Are we not warned to be humble when planning for the future and committing ourselves to lifelong vows? (James 4:13-15; Matthew 5:33-37)

The faithfulness and fruitfulness of ordinary “single” Christians do not deserve to be diminished so that those who choose not to marry can feel like they get to be heroes of the faith.

Grant continues:

“[Celibacy] is the vocation of choice for heroes of the faith (including the apostle Paul, and Jesus himself), and the ultimate destiny of all in the resurrection (in which marriage as we know it will pass away, see Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, Luke 20:35-36). The celibate life is the celestial life, the life of the angels in heaven which our lives will resemble in the resurrection.”

Now remember, Grant is explaining why he considers the term “celibate” much better than “single”. And so here, when he says that “the celibate life is the celestial life” of the resurrection, he is claiming that the “single” life is somehow not this.

This is a false conclusion.

Grant and others valorise “celibacy” because it involves an individual’s active choice to forgo sex and marriage (for life). But in the resurrection age none of us will choose to forgo getting (or being) married to another person. It simply will not be a feature of the new creation. We will exercise no personal agency in that outcome.

As I spent 300-odd pages arguing, it is the unmarried life that is the (personal) celestial life. Those who describe themselves as “celibates” rather than “singles” don’t have any superior vantage point on that count. The person who has set out to remain single is not positioned on an eschatological pedestal above the single person who is open to the possibility of marriage. Both the Christian who has chosen to stay single and the Christian whose singleness has been assigned to them here and now by God are living witnesses to the new age to come.

Preferencing the language of “celibacy” over the language of “singleness” falsely impoverishes both the faithful obedience and the fruitful eschatological witness of the everyday, ordinary “single” Christian.

Sure, there are some differences in the lived experience of those who have chosen to pursue singleness and those who have chosen to pursue obedience and contentment in their given singleness. I’ve written about that here. But such differences are not ones of quality. The one who has “chosen” their singleness is not superior in any sense to the one who is getting on with serving Jesus in a singleness that they would not have chosen for themselves.

(Let me make one final and slightly provocative observation on this matter: this kind of pro-celibacy argument can very quickly become unintentionally sexist. The reality is that the vast majority of Christian “singles” who would choose to get married if they could are women, while the vast majority of self-proclaimed “celibates” are men. Any argument that esteems “celibacy” over and above “singleness” is inherently (even if unintentionally) in danger of valuing the male unmarried life over and above the female unmarried Christian life.)

Ok. To absolutely nobody’s surprise, this post is running long. So, I’ll end it here and return soon with a second part in which I will give my third and fourth reasons why I think we need to keep a close eye on “celibacy”. Make sure you are subscribed so it lands directly in your inbox!

• Part 1: An Enigmatic Passage

• Part 2: The Usual Reading

• Part 3: The Proposed Reading

If you prefer to listen to this article, you can do that by heading to it in the Substack app and using the app’s text-to-voice feature

The Argument in a Nutshell

Ok. So, where did we leave things? To summarise:

1. Matthew 19:10-12 is NOT a proof text that justifies, highlights, idealises or celebrates the “lifelong/chosen/vocational singleness” of a special few individuals over and above or as notably separate to the singleness of those who haven’t set out to choose it or who have become single-again through death or divorce

2. And yet, Matthew 19:10-12 IS still about singleness itself. The three different types of eunuchs illustrate various situations of singleness or single-againness that many of Jesus’s followers may find themselves.

3. While there are distinctions between these three “groups” of eunuchs (and those distinctions have meaning for their illustrative role), Jesus’s aim isn’t to provide a full schema by which we might classify or rank every different kind of singleness or single Christian.

4. His point is to explain that his kingdom-ethic of marriage, divorce and (notably) remarriage is “doable” and necessary for those to whom it has been given—his disciples. Us. Just as there are Christians who have never married (which would include those who never marry because they obediently choose not to marry a non-Christian), so there ought to be disciples who do not marry again following divorce…because of their commitment to living out Jesus’ kingdom-ethic, namely that:

   • In marriage, God has joined two people together.

   • This means divorce is a tragedy

   • Divorce is only permissible in the case of sexual immorality

   • Because God has joined two people together while they are both still alive, remarriage after divorce (while one’s ex-spouse lives) is adultery. Human divorce does not alter that truth. At the very minimum, the passage is clear that remarriage after divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality is adultery.

So, where does that leave us?

Well, I want to finish by making a couple of pastorally focused observations and then one last comment about why I think we are so drawn to the “usual reading” and find the “proposed reading” so challenging.

Subscribe now

The Messiness of Sin

Jesus’ kingdom-ethic of marriage, divorce and remarriage (and singleness) is meant to sit us back in our seats. It’s meant to be demanding. It’s meant to stand apart from the world’s ethic, and it’s meant to cause those of us who follow it to stand apart from the world. But for some Christians, it hits hard in a very personal way. In seeking to understand Jesus’ teaching here, I do not mean to minimise the pain, hurt and grief that some readers may be feeling.

So let me address two specific circumstances or situations that might be your own or that of brothers and sisters you love— starting with those who are divorced and have remarried or are thinking about remarrying.

I care deeply about you in your situation. This is why, at a number of points on the way through, I’ve encouraged anyone who is feeling perturbed by the content of this series to speak with a trusted friend or Christian leader. For almost all of you, I am not that person. I’m just an author on the internet whose words you are reading. It’s my responsibility to ensure my words are, to the very best of my ability and knowledge, truthful, faithful and edifying. It’s your responsibility to discern whether my words are, in your view, truthful, faithful and edifying.

If, in the process, you are left with questions about any of those three things, then please ask someone whose Christian maturity you trust to help you find answers to those questions. We’ve been saved into a family. We’re called to instruct, admonish, comfort and build up one another in God’s word and ways. Do not try and go it alone.

In doing so, it could be that you ultimately conclude I’ve read this passage incorrectly. And that’s OK. Perhaps I have! But let me encourage you to arrive at that conclusion through rigorous encounter and interaction with God’s word—especially when that word leaves you squirming in your seat a little. In other words, make sure you think I’m wrong for the right reasons, not just because you want me to be wrong.

Or it could be that you conclude I have correctly understood Jesus’ meaning here, but this has left you with even more questions than answers. There may be one question in particular that you are grappling with. Here it is:

“I got divorced. And I’ve since remarried. If Jesus is teaching his disciples that remarriage after divorce is adultery, what do I do?! Do I need to divorce my new spouse? Am I living in a constant state of adultery?!”

Gosh, we sinners lead complicated lives, don’t we? I mean that very genuinely, and I include myself firmly in the ranks. Sin is so messy. It makes relationships so messy. It makes life so messy. It makes knowing what is “right” to do in messy situations so messy.

Let me preface what I am about to say by repeating what I have said above. Remember, I’m just an author on the internet. If you are grappling with this question, please talk to a trusted, mature Christian person in your life about it. Preferably, your pastor.

Having said that…no.

No. I don’t believe you should divorce your new spouse. In fact, it seems to me that would only compound the messiness, the complexity and the sin. Just as I would say to a Christian who has chosen to marry a non-Christian (something I believe would also have been a sinful decision), you’ve made a (new) covenantal promise to another before God. It is right and proper and loving and faithful that you should honour that promise. Don’t compound sin by sinning further.

This what we call a “retrieval ethic”. When, as fallen people in a fallen world, we need to decide between two (or more) less than perfect options, then our goal should be to retrieve as much good as possible, love as much as possible, limit harm as much as possible… all while firmly renouncing evil.

But yeah. It’s really messy, isn’t it?

If we are to take Jesus seriously, then we are obligated to recognise that the choice to remarry after divorce (or, for those who have a less conservative exegesis of this passage than I do, remarry after divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality) was a sinful decision that God will call to account. Which, of course, means it is very important for us to grapple with Jesus’ words here before we make the choice to divorce and before we make the choice to remarry.

Yet, repentance of that sin cannot and should not take the form of an undoing of this new marriage—that is, the breaking of another set of marital promises. We must seek to act in a way that retrieves as much good and limits as much harm as we can.

It’s so messy. And so, once again, if you are grappling with this, please speak to your pastor or a trusted leader. Ask them to help you walk faithfully in the messiness. And please, never ever forget this: Jesus has come to redeem and rescue us from the penalty of our sin. Oh, what a saviour!

Intentional Avoidance

Of course, there is another very real and raw aspect of this discussion that I have not touched on during this series—and intentionally so. It’s the question of separation, divorce and remarriage in the context of spousal abuse.

Friends, I am going to keep intentionally avoiding it—or more, specifically, I’m not going to address is here at any length—precisely because it is too real and too raw for an author on the internet even to attempt to do it careful and proper justice in the context of a series of Substack posts.

You see, we are at another one of those very awkward, horribly messy intersections. In Matthew 19, Jesus clearly says that sexual immorality is the only permissible reason for divorce. He also says that remarriage after divorce is not permissible or, at the most, that it is only permissible in the case of divorce because of sexual immorality. We have to take Jesus at his word, and we have to take that word seriously.

And yet, I’ve sat with and sobbed with women who have been abused (in all kinds of God-awful ways) by their spouses. I’ve held them in my arms. I’ve arranged emergency accommodation for them. I’ve looked back in utter horror, shame and self-recrimination when I found out it had been happening to women I was in bible study group with every week, and I’d been completely oblivious.

Once, I stayed for three days in the home of a married couple. The whole time, the wife incessantly verbally abused and belittled her husband (whom I didn’t know as well) right in front of me. Once I returned home, I called the domestic abuse hotline because I was utterly sick to the stomach and shaking, and I didn’t know what to do.

Spousal. Abuse. Is. Horrific.

And then there are the kids. Oh, dear Lord, the kids.

So, no friends. I’m not going to try and simplify a discussion about divorce, remarriage and the horror of spousal abuse into a Substack post.

If you are being abused by your spouse (indeed, by anyone), please, PLEASE reach out for help. There are people wanting and waiting to help and love you.

In this very moment, don’t think about theological questions about divorce and remarriage. Seek help from a trusted, mature, loving Christian friend. Your pastor. A family member. A hotline. Get to a place of safety. Get through this moment. This day. This week.

Leave those (important) questions about “What would God have me do or not do next?” to be had in the right moment in loving discussion with the right people. This Substack series is not that right moment, and I am not that right person… at least not for you.

Making Too Much of a Good Thing

I want to conclude with a general observation (and challenge) about why I think we so naturally gravitate towards the “usual reading” of the eunuchs passage in Matthew 19:10-12.

A reminder - the usual reading takes Jesus’ comments about the indissolubility of marriage as a kind of proof that “it is better not to marry” (v.10) so as to spare yourself the complexities and hardships of that indissoluble union. (NB. The matter of remarriage doesn’t really feature heavily in the “usual reading”). It then uses the disciples’ comment that it is “better not to marry” (v.10) to affirm that choosing never to get married is:

1. Better than getting married… in theory.

2. But, in reality, something only a small number of disciples are “given” to do.

Why does this reading seem so natural to us? Well, I’d suggest that is in no small part because we’ve made too much of a good thing… that thing being marriage.

Actually, no.

It’s not so much that we’ve made too much of the good thing that is marriage, but that today, we’ve made too much of the good we think marriage is meant to bring us—namely, personal fulfilment, existential completion, the necessary satisfaction of our sexual desires, the ultimate of all relationships, the best of friendship and the pinnacle of human flourishing.

• Why else would we think that, despite everything the apostle Paul says about the goodness of singleness in 1 Corinthians 7, it is only as good as marriage in theory?

• Why else would we think that only a small number of specially called or gifted Christians are able to truly “do” singleness faithfully? Why else would we divide disciples into the “haves” and the “have nots” of celibacy?

• Why else would we think that never getting married is only really to be celebrated and honoured, perhaps even legitimated, if it is undertaken for some sort of set-apart heroic vocational gospel service?

• Why else would we existentially struggle with the idea that divorce may not be an obvious or justifiable option for a marriage that is no longer making one or both of its members happy… indeed, which may be making them unhappy?

• Why else would we recoil at the idea that Jesus closes the door on divorced disciples having the option of a take-two, even if they are, tragically, the innocent party in a divorce? Not being able ever to remarry?! Needing to remain single?! How is that fair?! How is that doable?!

Of course, I’ve slightly overstated things there. For example, a divorced single mother may be grappling with gut-wrenching grief and anxiety about her children no longer having a father’s constant love, care and discipline in their home. This may be a significant reason why she entertains the possibility of remarriage. (On that count, church… here’s another reason why spiritual fatherhood and motherhood is so vitally important!!)

But I hope you see my point. The twenty-first-century individualistic Western lens we bring to Matthew 19:3-12 really does impact the way we read it. The very idea that a divorced Christian might not be permitted to enjoy the blessings and joys of a second marriage (while their ex-spouse is alive) seems harsh, unfair, even “undoable” to many of us us. That a divorced Christian might rightly remain single?! For the rest of their life?! It leaves us aghast! (Even as our churches have many never-married “eunuchs” who model that singleness is not a life to be aghast by).

Why do we think that way?

Because we have vested marriage with so very much that we consider essential for human flourishing, and we have de-vested singleness as a life situation that can genuinely contribute to human flourishing. This is a distinctively Western way of thinking about marriage that developed from the 18th Century onwards.

That’s not to say that we are the only ones who find it difficult to take Jesus at his word here. Christian readers from an honour-shame collectivist culture (both in history and today), would have their own reading and questions for the text… they would have just looked quite different to ours. For example, rather than primarily grappling with matters of personal fulfilment and flourishing, they would likely have serious reservations about the fact that no possibility for remarriage might leave a divorced woman societally, economically, even physically vulnerable. Perhaps, an outcast. How is that fair?! How is that “doable”?! (Once again, church… here’s your call to step up. Big time.)

And so, the Challenge…

All of which is to say, as we read Scripture, we need to identify and interrogate the way our cultural context, our ideological assumptions, our philosophical presumptions and, just as importantly, our (sinful) hearts’ desires and our (corrupted) minds’ rationalisations influence our understanding and application of the text. As much as possible, we need to read the text based on it’s context and concerns in order to understand and apply them in and to our own.

In my opinion, Matthew 19:3-12 is a key example of where we so often fail to do that… and perhaps where we may even be quietly committed to not doing that.

Like the disciples, we find ourselves a bit poleaxed by the demands of the kingdom:

“My goodness Jesus! If what you are saying is true, then… wow, that’s a bit too demanding of us, don’t you think!? Not being able to divorce? Never being able to remarry? Staying single for the rest of our life?! Surely that is only something a very special few people can do?!”

But friends, “the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you… blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.” (Matt 13:11,16).

The kingdom of God is demanding. But those whom Christ has given to inherit the kingdom, he’s also given to receive its secrets and to live by its demands.

And so here’s the challenge for us all: “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it” (Matt 19:12).

Previously…

So, to recap Matthew 19:1-12:

Jesus tells the Pharisees that, in marriage, God joins a man and a woman together and human beings should not separate what God has joined (i.e. “Don’t divorce your wives, guys”). They don’t like this answer (divorce and remarriage were common 1st-century ancient Mediterranean practices, including amongst the Jews), and so they retort that since Moses allowed divorce, who was Jesus to object?

Jesus says divorce was God’s concession to a heart-hardened, post-Fall humanity and is totally out-of-sync with his created order. He then asserts his kingdom-ethic on the topic:

Not only does Jesus tell the disciples that sexual immorality is the only permissible reason for a divorce, but he says that to remarry after divorce is to commit adultery (See footnote.1 See also Mt 5:31-32.). This would have been startling to his 1st Century audience—Pharisees and disciples alike. Not only was divorce common and relatively easy to enact, but the ancient Mediterranean practice of divorce (particularly the issuing of a divorce certificate) implicitly allowed for remarriage for either spouse.

In a subsequent (seemingly private) discussion with Jesus, his disciples express their shock at how (comparatively) restrictive Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage is. Basically, they say, “That’s such an impossibly high bar to meet that it would be better for us not even to try and meet it in the first place! We should just never marry at all!”. Jesus replies:

Subscribe now

Proposing Some Answers

In this series, we’ve been asking several questions that arise from this passage. In our last post, we even found the answers to some of them!

1. What is “this saying” (v.11) referring to?

   We discovered that (grammatically speaking) it cannot be referring forward to the eunuchs (v.12). But for exegetical and theological reasons, it is also very unlikely to be referring back to what the disciples just said in v.10. The most natural and consistent reading, by far, is that “This saying” refers back to what Jesus said to the Pharisees in vv.3-9.

2. Who are those to whom it has been given?
   We discovered that, in Matthew, Jesus repeatedly gives a difficult or challenging teaching (what I’ve called here a kingdom-ethic teaching) that those on the “outside” cannot understand or embrace. But that same kingdom-ethic teaching has been “given” to the disciples to understand, know and accept. Those who can receive “this saying” (v.10) are the disciples. All of them. More on this in a moment.

So in summary: Jesus is essentially saying:

“Look, guys. I know what I just said about divorce and remarriage seems like a lot. But remember, you are not like the Pharisees who can’t accept it and won’t follow it. To you has been given the secrets of the kingdom (Mt 13:11). And so, as my disciples, not only can you follow, but you must follow this kingdom-ethic about marriage, divorce and remarriage.”

This is (part of) the “proposed reading”.

However, we still have an outstanding question:

3. What on earth do the eunuchs have to do with all of this?

In the “usual reading”, vv.10-12 are a discrete little section about celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. They stand on their own as a kind of alternative to vv.3-9. That is, according to the “usual reading”:

• vv.3-9: Marriage is really good and really important. Don’t stuff it up

• vv.10-12: But hey, also, refraining from ever marrying is super good for the select few who can make it work. So, if that’s you, go live your best self-made eunuch life.

However, because the “usual reading” doesn’t stack up, then neither does the idea of vv.10-12 as a kind of corresponding alternative package of verses to vv.3-9. So, how do vv.10-12 relate to vv.3-9? Specifically, how does the “proposed reading” account for Jesus’ use of the eunuchs? What is their function if they are not poster boys for lifelong chosen celibacy for a select few?

Well, the “proposed reading” understands vv.10-12 to be a direct extension and outworking of vv.3-9. That is to say, the eunuchs (v.12) operate as a kind of “proof” of the “this saying” (v.11) that Jesus says has been given to the disciples. And what is that saying? His teaching about marriage, divorce and remarriage. In short, the eunuchs are employed as metaphoric exemplars of those who follow Jesus’ kingdom-ethic of honouring marriage by not remarrying after divorce.

Let me explain.

The Demands of the Kingdom

In vv.3-9 Jesus makes his kingdom-ethic on marriage, divorce and remarriage clear. It is grounded in God’s creative intent but, consistent with the entire Gospel of Matthew, the kingdom transcends. In doing so, it makes seemingly impossible demands on life in this age.

Think, for example, of the beatitudes (Mt 5:3-12). Blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, the ones who mourn, those who are persecuted and reviled. The things of the kingdom turn the ways of this world upside down. Jesus’ subsequent teachings in the same chapter also demonstrate a kingdom-ethic that transcends what is the obvious and expected. To lust in your mind is to commit adultery in one’s heart (v.28); to be angry is akin to murder (v.22); we are to love those who hate us (v.43).

The demands of the Kingdom are demanding indeed.

We see another example of this right before Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees in Mt 19. In Mt 18:21, Peter asks Jesus if he needs to forgive his brother up to a whole seven times. Peter seems to think he is being extravagant in his (theoretical) willingness to forgive so many times. But Jesus answers, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times” (Mt 18:22) . He then tells a parable to explain the demands of this over-the-top kingdom-ethic of mercy.

Jesus clearly expects Peter and the other disciples to be able to understand and abide by the ethical demands of the kingdom when it comes to the matter of mercy and forgiveness. Why? A few chapters earlier, he told them that it had been given to them to do so.

The disciples are the ones to whom the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom have been given. They get it. Not because of anything worthy in them that allows them to perceive this transcendent knowledge. No. Because God has “given” it to them to see, hear and accept.

Immediately after Jesus shares the parable of the unmerciful servant, the Pharisees come up to test Jesus (interestingly, the subject of their testing is basically about what they should or should not forgive their spouse for). Jesus gives them his kingdom-ethic response (“Do not separate what God joined. Do not commit adultery by divorcing and then remarrying”), knowing that they will not accept or abide by it. His disciples, on the other hand? It’s been given to them to accept it, and “the one who can accept this should accept it” (v.12).

And so…

Eunuchs for the Sake of the Kingdom

Jesus uses the figure of the eunuch as a metaphorical yet aspirational example for his disciples of the kind of acceptance they are to enact.

Here is how A. Andrew Das puts it:

Had Jesus allowed remarriage after divorce for sexual sin, Jesus’ teaching would not have been overly difficult—certainly not to the point that the disciples would have objected in v.10 that it is better not to marry. When the disciples object to Jesus’ teaching (v.10), he responds by dividing the world into those empowered to accept the teaching and those who are not (v.11). The eunuch saying in v.12 conforms well to Jesus’ teaching about divorce and remarriage. […] To express the parallel, some will forgo sexual relations by not ever marrying for the sake of the kingdom […] For those divorced by others, they have been made eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. As difficult as a life of such discipleship may be, as the disciples’ objection recognises, Jesus insists that the celibate lifestyle remains possible thanks to the help of God. The disciples do what Pharisees and unbelievers cannot readily do because “for God all things are possible” (Matt 19:26, shortly after Jesus’ divorce and remarriage teaching”.
- Das, Remarriage in Early Christianity, p. 187.

So yes, the eunuchs do operate as a kind of aspirational metaphor for a godly life of singleness… but not for a specially empowered few. The eunuchs are the aspiration model for all of Jesus’ followers who either do not marry (i.e., those who are eunuchs from birth) or do not remarry after divorce (i.e., those who have been made eunuchs because they do not remarry after their spouse has divorced them, or who make themselves eunuchs by not remarrying after they have divorced their spouse).

The eunuch is not representative of a specially enabled sub-group but of all Jesus’ followers who are not married. In light of the kingdom, singleness is both doable and honourable… for all who are single.

Moreover, the eunuchs are not employed as commendable examples of those who have rejected marriage. The disciples think that the stakes are so high that it would be better to avoid marriage altogether (v.10). They wish to avoid the “hard work” entailed in postlapsarian marriage, by forgoing that good altogether.

But Jesus does not allow for their rejection of marriage for the sake of personal convenience. Instead, he employs the figure of the eunuch to urge his disciples to honour marriage for the sake of the kingdom.

You see, somewhat ironically, the ones who are made or make themselves like eunuchs are ones who deeply honour marriage—by refraining from turning it into adultery through remarriage. They understand that to separate what God has joined together is a grievous act (even if, in the case of sexual immorality, it is permitted—note, not commanded). Such grievousness would only be compounded further by remarriage. Through their kingdom-compelled, post-divorce, single-againness, these eunuchs actively honour and dignify marriage.

To sum up: the “proposed reading” understands the eunuchs to be those who witness to both:

1. The (God-given) ability of Jesus’ followers to live out the kingdom's demands when it comes to singleness after divorce (and indeed singleness, period)
   …and also…

2. The (God-given) significance of the marriage relationship as a good of this creation as that which points to what is ultimate in the creation to come.

Right. I imagine you have some outstanding questions and thoughts. So do I. Which I guess means that we’ll need to come back for a surprise (and less brain-taxing) final Part Four :)

Click here to read Part Four

(Oh, BTW, if you prefer to listen to this article, you can do that by heading to it in the substack app and using its text-to-voice feature).

Parsing the Usual Reading

In part one, I argued that our understanding of what is going on with the eunuchs in Mt 19:12 hinges on what we think “this saying” (v.11) refers to.

In this post we will explore the “usual reading” of Mt 19:10-12 which understands “this saying” (v.11) to either be referring:

1. Forward to what Jesus is about to say about the eunuchs in v.12,
   OR

2. Backward to what the disciples just said in v.10.

Now, these two options are exegetically different. But theologically speaking, they lead to essentially the same interpretation, and so, I’m going to treat them together (though I will make a few specific exegetical remarks about each further down).

Here is a basic overview of the “usual reading”:

1. The Pharisees ask a (trick) question about Jesus’ thinking on reasons for divorce.

2. Jesus’ response is considered highly restrictive to his audience. Even his disciples are a bit polaxed. And so they respond with what is usually interpreted as a kind of uneasy joke. “Given all that, Jesus, surely it is easier to remain single instead! <insert awkward chuckle here>”.

3. Jesus essentially agrees with them, saying: “Yes. You are right that it is better to be unmarried. But not everyone can receive this. Only those to whom God has given it can take it on board and live it out”. He confirms this by turning to the example of the self-made eunuch.

4. Jesus then repeats his reminder that the one who is able to “receive this” should receive it (i.e., basically a repeat of v.11).

By and large, this logic seems reasonable, doesn’t it? In fact, it may seem nothing short of obvious. If “this saying” (v.11) does indeed refer back to either the disciples’ suggestion that it is better to remain unmarried or to the self-made eunuch (v.12) as a commendable exemplar or someone who has made that exact decision, then Jesus is promoting kingdom-oriented, lifelong, intentionally chosen singleness as the honourable, perhaps even better, alternative to marriage.

But note, this specific singleness is not attainable or achievable by all. It has been “given” to a select few. Only some are able to “receive it” (i.e., to faithfully live it out). One commentator puts it this way:

“In Matthew 19, Jesus encourages his disciples to consider a particular kind of singleness for the sake of the kingdom, compares it to the permanent state of being a eunuch, and indicates that only those called to vocational singleness will accept His teachings on it.” -Pieter Valk

So, is this indeed what is going on in Mt 19? Is Jesus legitimating, honouring and encouraging a certain kind of singleness amongst a select number of his followers as the alternative to their getting married? To put it simply, is the “usual reading” the correct reading?

Subscribe now

The Poster Boy for Singleness?

Well, before we consider an exegetical response to that question, let me point out something I—an unmarried Christian woman whose singleness would generally be described as circumstantial rather than chosen1—have always found deeply dissatisfying about this “usual reading”.

Nearly every article, post, podcast, book, talk and social media comment that appeals to the “usual reading” tends to zoom straight to the self-made eunuch at the end of v.12. Yet, Jesus doesn’t only speak about the self-made eunuch. In fact, he only mentions those guys after he has already spoken of two other groups of eunuchs—the “circumstantial” eunuchs.

In other words, if we’re going to run with the (metaphorical) logic, well, I’m smack-bang in the middle of that verse! Sure, I’m a non-self-made eunuch (i.e., one, or perhaps both of the first two types Jesus mentions). But I’m still a (metaphorical) eunuch nonetheless.

And here’s the thing about eunuchs—they were renowned as trusted caretakers, watchmen, attendants and even bodyguards within the palace. In other words, eunuchs served the king. It didn’t matter if they had chosen to become a eunuch or not. It didn’t matter if they had always been one if they were made one at some point. Their job was to serve the king simply because they were one.

So, why do we think that it’s only the “self-made” eunuch who is the real-deal? To put it another way, why do we make the third type of eunuch into the poster boy for kingdom-oriented singleness? Why are the other two eunuchs—the ones who didn’t choose it for themselves but are getting on with serving the king anyway—rendered immediately invisible?

Why? Well, because the “usual reading” demands it. It gives us no option but to zoom straight past the first two types of eunuchs so as to shine the spotlight on the third.

You see, it requires that we see “this saying” in v. 11 (i.e., the legitimacy and goodness of kingdom-oriented singleness as an alternative to marriage) as only being true for a select sub-group to whom it has been “given”. And so, this reading leaves us with two ways to live (for those who have ears to hear, pun intended 😉):

1. Either work out you are one of those who have been “given” to “receive” intentional and irrevocable lifelong singleness as a follower of Jesus, or…

2. Get married.

And so, the “usual reading” demands we leave the other two types of eunuchs—me, and others like me—in no-man’s land. God hasn’t “given” us the ability/willingness/capacity/empowerment of lifelong singleness. But, despite our earnest prayers and longings, neither has he given us the necessary alternative—a spouse.

This means God is either unloving. Or God is not sovereign.

Which diminished God do we prefer? A God who chooses to deny his children something he says they require? Or a God who is unable to provide his children with something he says they require?

For the record, I vote for neither of those options.

Folks, the “usual reading” does not make theological or pastoral sense. But it also does not make exegetical sense.

Getting Technical

It was William Alexander Heth’s 1986 Doctor of Theology dissertation that first alerted me to some of the exegetical difficulties of the “usual reading” some years ago. More recently, A. Andrew Das’ superb book, Remarriage in Early Christianity, returned my attention to the matter. If you are interested in a deeper exegetical dive into Mt 19:3-12, I can highly recommend their work. I especially encourage you to read Das for his clarity, engagement with more recent scholarship and comprehensive analysis of the biblical texts about marriage, divorce and remarriage.

So, let’s look (succinctly!) at some specific exegetical issues that arise in the “usual reading’s” handling of “this saying” in v.11. We’ll take each option at a time.

1. “This [the] saying” (v. 11 - τὸν λόγον τοῦτον) refers forward to what Jesus is about to say in v.12 about the metaphorical eunuch life not being for everyone.

   
   While this might seem a straightforward option in the English translation, some definitive grammatical issues in the Greek make it highly unlikely. Das (p.179-18) and Heth (p. 165-6) discuss these at some length, but I’ll share just one.
   
   When Matthew uses the Greek word for “this” in connection with the Greek word for “saying/word” it always refers to what has gone before it and not what will come after it. Furthermore, with the exception of one narratival example (Mt 28:15) it always refers to something Jesus himself has previously said or taught (eg. Mt 7:24, 26, 28, 19:1, 26:1). “In other words, [this particular word combination] in Matthew’s Gospel always refers back to Jesus prior teaching. Jesus’ comment in v.11 would thus be referring back to his comment in v.9”. (Das, p. 180. Emphasis mine).
   
   From an exegetical standpoint, it is highly unlikely that “this saying” in v.11 refers forward to v.12. We can effectively rule it out as a possibility. Goodbye option 1.
   

2. “This [the] saying” (v. 11 - τὸν λόγον τοῦτον) refers back to what the disciples just said about it being better not to marry in v.10.
   
   There is some historical and a lot of contemporary support for this option (for a summary, and also a rebuttal, see Das p.181). It does also overcome the problem of “this saying” needing to refer backward rather than forward. However, as we saw above, in Matthew, the phrase consistently refers back to something Jesus has previously taught rather than something the disciples (or others) have said. In my view, this is a serious problem for Option 2.
   
   There are two broader exegetical objections to this option, which I find particularly compelling. Firstly, Heth (p. 167-170) observes how, in Mt 19:23-28, Jesus’ interactions with an interlocutor (there, the rich young ruler) followed by his discussion with his disciples parallels Mt 19:3-12. Heth cites F.J. Moloney, who writes that in both passages, “there is a harsh word from Jesus (vv. 9 and 23-34) followed by a stunned, human reaction from the disciples (vv.10 and 25) resolved by a word from Jesus referring back to his harsh statement, on the possibility of even humanly impossible things in a God-given situation (v. 11 and 26)” (Heth, p. 168-169, quoting Moloney). In other words, the literary context of the chapter suggests “this saying” (v.11) more naturally refers back to what Jesus said, not what the disciples said.

   
   Secondly, Das makes a compelling case (p.181-183) for why it is unlikely that Jesus would be unequivocally affirming the disciples’ comment that it is better not to marry. In Matthew, the disciples “never express an ideal that Jesus would wholeheartedly or without qualification affirm” (Das, p. 181). Furthermore, and very importantly, Matthew’s Jesus is consistently “very supportive of the marital relationship” (Das, p. 187), especially in comparison to Luke’s Jesus (see Das, p.186-7). And so, it is very unlikely that, right after Matthew’s Jesus adamantly affirmed marriage as a very good and indissoluble creation ordinance orchestrated and overseen by God, he would immediately turn around and say, “But yes, you are right—it’s better not to marry”.
   
   All said, Option 2 is also a very unlikely one.

The Nail in the (Usual) Coffin

Right. So, we saw that the “usual reading” is theological and pastorally problematic (i.e., the poster-boy objection). And we’ve just seen that it has a range of significant—I’d suggest terminal—exegetical issues to overcome. But there is one final objection to the “usual reading” that, frankly, I think is the nail in its coffin.

What is this killer blow? It’s the identity of “those to whom it has been given” (v. 11), “the one who is able to receive it” (v.12).

On the “usual reading” Jesus is dividing his disciples into two camps. Some have been specially given to receive/accept “this saying”. They are the haves. Others have not been given and so cannot receive or accept it. They are the have-nots.

But look at what Jesus said to his disciples just a few chapters earlier in Mt 13. Pay attention to the things being “given” and who is able to accept or receive them.

Drawing upon the mid-century work of Jacques Dupont, Heth shows that Matthew 13 is not the only relevant passage here. In fact, all the Matthean passages that touch upon the issue of the disciples’ understanding:

“…emphasize that understanding is a characteristic of Jesus’ disciples as opposed to the unbelievers; […] Matthew over and over again stresses the disciples’ comprehension of the truths revealed by Jesus (cf. Matt 13:51).”
- Heth p. 172-3 (emphasis added)

Das concurs:

Whenever Matthew contrasts in his gospel those who receive Jesus’ teaching with those who do not, the contrast is with those outside the Jesus movement.
- Das p.184 (emphasis added)

Remember, in vv.10-12, Jesus is now talking privately with his disciples about what he had previously said to the Pharisees (v.3-9). Here, Matthew has recorded yet another instance where Jesus says something startling, which the outsiders (in this case, the Pharisees) cannot and will not receive, but which the disciples can and must accept, because it has been given to them to do so.

Jesus is not dividing his disciples into have/have-not camps based on an empowerment to never marry. He is saying “Here is another secret of the kingdom that has been given to you guys, but not to others”.

So What On Earth is Going On?!

So, what is the secret of the kingdom in Mt 19? Or, as we have been asking all along, what does “this saying” (v.11) refer to?

The “usual reading” doesn’t stack up. It cannot be a call to reject marriage because:

1. It would be nonsensical for Jesus to tell all his disciples (remember, it has been “given” to them as a group) it had “given” to them become life-long (metaphorical) eunuchs—especially since he had just finished talking about how important the creation good of marriage is!

2. Every other occurrence of “this saying” refers back to something Jesus had been teaching. This means that contrary to the “usual reading”, Jesus is referring to what he had been saying earlier in v.3-9.

Simply put, the eunuchs in v.12 function as a living metaphor to explain “this saying” in v.11… and “this saying” (which the disciples have been given to accept while the Pharisees have not) refers to what Jesus taught in vv.3-9. What was the focus of that teaching in those earlier verses? Marriage, divorce and remarriage.

The “usual reading” is an incorrect reading. The eunuch is not about never-married celibacy. He’s (somehow) about marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Still confused? Not convinced? Unsure how it all hangs together? Never fear—that is what Part 3 is for.

Click here to read Part Three

I hope to explore some of those thoughts in a little more detail over the next week or two. But in the meantime, I think it would be fruitful to explore the broader trajectory of evangelical discourse about marriage and singleness today. This trajectory is on view in McCracken’s article, thought it does not originate from it, nor is it exclusive to it.

Standard disclaimer: As I engage with ideas that people put out into the ether, I am engaging with their ideas, not their person. I don’t know Brett McCracken, but I have no doubt he is a faithful brother in Christ. My engagement with what he has written is intended to reflect that I take him seriously. It is not to be interpreted as a personal “attack” on him or TGC. I wish I didn’t feel the need to reiterate this every time I write a post like this one. And perhaps, if I were a man, I wouldn’t need to. But here we are. And now I’ve said it.

Subscribe now

Peering Into Parallel Universes

Here’s the thing, Brett’s article left me—a never-married evangelical Christian woman—with a strange sense of cognitive dissonance. He writes:

…in our cultural moment, and perhaps in certain cultural contexts (like mine in Southern California), arguments for the good of marriage need to be sounded more urgently.

I get why parents, pastors, and church communities are reluctant to say anything about marriage to singles that feels like “pressure.”

Because from my vantage point in a highly secular region (coastal California), as well as from what I see in the broader trends in contemporary Western culture, singleness doesn’t need more defenders. Marriage does.

I was born, bred and live in Sydney, Australia, not coastal Southern California. But I sincerely doubt that the only similarity between SoCal and Sydney is our enviable winter climates, amazing beaches and secularised populations. And so, I was perplexed by Brett’s claim that it is marriage, and not singleness, which needs to be more urgently talked about, argued for, and even defended in our churches today.

I mean, this conclusion seems so opposite to my experience—past and present— within the evangelical church. It seems so not in sync with everything I’ve read and listened to on these twin topics over the last decade or two.

But maybe it is just me? Maybe my experience is an outlier?

It turns out, not so much. Here are just a few social media comments I came across from others who responded to the article:

I find this perspective interesting because it is such a different one than I have witnessed as a 40-something single woman… In my experience marriage and family is put forward with such high esteem that no one would need to be nudged because they would already feel the push.

Your context in California must be very different from my rural church context in the Canadian province of Ontario, because here, marriage definitely doesn’t need, and has never needed, more defenders… Marriage is all too frequently exalted to the point that, as a single guy in my late 20s, I was made to feel somehow incomplete, lacking in some way, before I met and married my wife.

In my early 20s I was a part of a church that ignored singles altogether to serve its large young family ministry. In my late 20s and into my 30s, I was a part of a church that was almost totally devoid of singles…

My response title… would be, “As a Single Woman in her 30s, I Feel Lots of Pressure to Get Married. I Wish I Didn’t.”

It’s almost like Brett and I (and all these other people) inhabit two parallel universes.

In one, Christians have put singleness on some kind of untouchable pedestal, everyone is too nervous to suggest that maybe marriage is a good thing for a single Christian to pursue and, for goodness sake, the last thing anyone in the church needs to do is talk more about singleness.

In the other, single Christians feel isolated, ignored and invisible in their church communities. If they are male, they are regarded with shameful suspicion. If they are female, they are treated with shameful pity. And both are viewed as abnormal, perhaps even aberrant, disciples of Jesus. (I’ve written more about this here).

What exactly is going on?! Who is right? Who is wrong? Which universe are we truly living in?

Well, I think the answers to those questions all come down to what telescopic lens we are looking at that universe through.

An Old Lens Made New Again

Let me explain. Here are some comments from Brett’s article:

Young adults are increasingly delaying marriage and having fewer children, yielding a litany of negative short-term effects and foreshadowing ominous long-term societal consequences.

Another factor in marriage’s decline is a fall in cultural pressure. As marrying young becomes less common and never-married, childless adulthood becomes more normal, fewer singles feel the urgency to seek a spouse and “settle down.”

Here are some comments from two male pastors who I noted discussing Brett’s article online:

The need of the day is not more encouragement toward singleness. It is encouragement toward marriage. This isn't an opinion, so much as statistical fact.

The rate of singleness in modern society is abnormal and unsustainable. Marriage ought to be held in honor by all, including by pursuing it under normal circumstances.

These comments help us identify the telescopic lens through which these men (and so many of their US male colleagues in ministry) are approaching the discussion. It’s a sociological and statistical lens that notes with both alarm and anxiety the declining marriage and fertility rates in US (and broader Western) society.

And so, those looking at the discussion through this lens deduce that the absolute last thing the church needs to be doing right now is defending singleness. After all, there is far, far too much singleness and far, far too little marriage going around these days. And so, the last thing the church should be doing is talking more—and talking more positively—about the societal scourge that is singleness.

But friends, there is nothing new under the sun. Here are a few brief excerpts from my book, The Meaning of Singleness. They come from Chapter One, in which I recount the societal history of singleness in:.

17th and 18th Century England:

Colonial and Post-Colonial America

In other words, the contemporary Western anxiety about the decline in marriage, a lowering of fertility rates and a surplus of recalcitrant singles is not new or novel to our time alone. The nationalistic undercurrent at work beneath this anxiety is not new or novel to our time alone. And the caricaturing and even societal punishment of those who aren’t married—especially women—is not new or novel to our time alone..

Old though this anxiety may be, it is fast becoming the dominant lens through which Christian discussions about marriage and singleness are being refracted today. It is what fuels the assertion that marriage needs urgent defence in and by the church, against the pervasive problem that is singleness.

Here is a case in point:

(It’s my standard practice to redact identifying details when posting screenshots like this. Not because I’m unwilling to cite my sources, but to avoid the whole silly “she’s going after [Insert Name Here]” thing I spoke about earlier)

Do you see how the lens we adopt dictates our perspective? The suggestion that the church needs to rehabilitate a more biblically cohesive approach to singleness is automatically interpreted as an active threat to the fostering and future of marriage and family.

Never mind the centuries-old asymmetrical experience of single Christians in the church. Because now there is an asymmetrical balance between singleness and marriage in society. And so, we are told, the very last thing the church should be doing is painting singleness in any kind of genuinely positive or beneficial light.

A Distorted Lens

Yet, think about the logic of that dialogue above for a moment.

1. I asserted that we Christians need a more faithful theology of singleness and a more life-giving pastoral application of that theology. Surely, it is an utterly unremarkable thing to suggest that Christians should be primarily concerned with making sure our perspective on singleness is consistently and comprehensively aligned with the Bible’s perspective on it? This is Christian life 101.

2. My interlocutor claimed that to do this—i.e., to focus on retrieving a theology and pastoral practice of singleness that is faithful to God’s word—would be a slippery slope towards legitimating fewer marriages and fostering higher rates of fertility decline.

Say what now?!

Reading and applying the Bible faithfully “easily becomes” a baptism of abnormality as normality, and failure as success?! Making our teaching about and pastoring of unmarried Christians more consistent with Scripture would “easily” allow such people to take that biblical inch and then run a mile… in the complete opposite direction?!

Do you see how the lens through which we engage with this discussion can warp what we see and how we respond?

Here’s the thing: If we Christians are fundamentally concerned with a sense that society is not promoting and participating in marriage and family enough, then of course any suggestion that singleness needs to be theologically and pastorally rehabilitated in the church:

• Not only seems absurd, counter-productive and dangerous,

• But it also appears to be a sneaky part of the worldly campaign to undermine, even overthrow marriage and family.

However, if we Christians are fundamentally concerned with ensuring the way we think and love, is faithful to Scripture, glorifying to Christ and shaped by the gospel, then:

• Not only do we not need to be fearful of retrieving a faithful theology and practice of singleness,

• But it will actually assist us in honouring and promoting the good gifts of marriage and family.

Attack is Not the Best Form of Defence

Brothers and sisters, our bread and butter as Christians is not in found in reestablishing some perceived societal “status quo”. Rather, it is living out the Bible’s teaching as those transformed by the gospel of Christ. As we do this, we bear fruit, love the society around us and witness to the transformative power of that good news

And so, the best way to “defend” against singleness being misappropriated by a world that sees it as a license for self-indulgence, self-fulfilment and self-focus is not for us Christians to talk about singleness less, or to talk about singleness less positively.

No, our best response to the world’s corruption of the goodness of singleness is found in upholding the dignity, meaning, significance and purpose of that life situation according to God’s word.

If we do that, we’ll not only delight in a more loving, fruitful and hopeful vision of the unmarried life, but we’ll also witness to a far more loving, fruitful and hopeful vision of married life than the world has on offer.

But.. there’s a catch.

You see, this proactive and productive “defence” of marriage, family and singleness will require us to swap out the tired, old, recycled lens of societal anxiety for a confidently biblical lens that refracts singleness, marriage and family through the light of the gospel.

Allowing the lens of the gospel to refract our perspective in this way:

• Will not lead to us diminishing the biblical dignity, meaning, significance and purpose of marriage.

• Will not lead to us undermining the unique theological and societal significance of having children,

• Will not lead to us discouraging people from marrying and having babies.

But allowing the lens of the gospel to refract our perspective in this way:

• Will require us to take seriously the biblical passages that speak about the dignity, significance and unique advantages of being unmarried as a Christian in the now-but-not-yet.

• Will require us to take seriously the biblical passages that speak about the complexities, challenges and yes, the “fleshly troubles”, of marriage (1 Cor 7:28) for the Christian in the now-but-not-yet.

• Will require our engagement with this issue to be foundationally theological and pastoral in compulsion, rather than sociological in flavour (more on that in a later post).

• Will require us to stop casting marriage and singleness—and therefore, married and single Christians—as competitors in a zero-sum game of Christian life.

Friends, God’s word will not steer us wrong. We do not need to be fearful of calls to recover a robust, biblically compelling theology of singleness.

Doing so will not diminish marriage and family as the world is hell-bent on doing. No. It will promote and dignify them as Scripture is heaven-bent on doing.

So let’s have confidence in the efficacy of the word of God & the power of the Holy Spirit as we put our biblical lens into the telescope and peer at both singleness and marriage through the gospel.

Back in 2018, I formed a small, ad hoc committee to run (what we thought would be!) a one-off conference on singleness in Sydney. Sam Allberry was our keynote speaker and we decided to call it Single Minded.

After our conference tickets sold out in the early-bird period, it began to dawn on us that we might have more than a one-off conference on our hands. And so, Single Minded Ministry was born!

Last night I did some calculations. Over the last seven years, Single Minded has:

• Run 29 events

• With over 41 different speakers

• Been watched by people in 22 different countries

• Sold 5149 tickets (probably more by the time you are reading this!)

• Released its own podcast, Single Minded Stories

We’ve covered topics such as:

• Singleness in the Storyline of Scripture

• Loneliness

• Friendship

• Singleness & Sanctification

• Purity Culture

• Hospitality as a Single Christian

• Singleness & Sex

• … and so many more.

Single Minded’s vision is:

To see God’s purposes for singleness so wonderfully expressed in the body of Christ, that married and single Christians glorify Jesus with one voice. 

Flowing out of that vision, our mission is:

To develop biblical, theological and pastoral resources exploring God’s purposes for singleness that equip Christians, encourage Christian communities, and shape Christian culture.

Next Saturday, May 11th we’re holding our Family Matters conference… and you are invited!

What does it actually mean that church is family?

How does this impact both single and married Christians?

At Single-Minded Family Matters, we’ll open the Bible to understand why family really does matter for married and single Christians alike.

Not in Sydney? No problem!
We’re livestreaming the entire conference and you can watch it from the comfort of your own home.

Not able to watch the conference live?
No problem! Livestream tickets include unlimited catch-up access to the conference.

(Plus, there’s an additional perk for many of our international friends! Ticket prices are in $AUD, which means it will likely be a really inexpensive conference for you!)

GRAB YOUR FAMILY MATTERS TICKET

Check out our conference trailer below, and join us as we think through what the Bible actually means when it describes the church as family.

(And no, I can’t remember what it was I said—captured in that video preview below—which had all of us laughing like that 🤷🏼‍♀️)

GRAB YOUR FAMILY MATTERS TICKET

This was the excerpt he posted:

… when there is an overabundance of Christian singles who want to be married, this is a problem. And it’s a problem I put squarely at the feet of young men whose immaturity, passivity, and indecision are pushing their hormones to the limits of self-control, delaying the growing-up process, and forcing countless numbers of young women to spend lots of time and money pursuing a career (which is not necessarily wrong) when they would rather be getting married and having children. Men, if you want to be married, find a godly gal, treat her right, talk to her parents, pop the question, tie the knot, and start making babies.

Kevin DeYoung, Just Do Something, p.108.

Before I go any further, let me offer some initial comments.

I have not read the whole book. I do not believe that this excerpt represents the entirety of DeYoung’s thinking on singleness, let alone marriage. Some of what I have to say below may be mitigated by things he says elsewhere in either that particular book or his broader body of work. I’m simply here responding to the content of this particular quote as something a Christian leader publicly promoted as being “spot on!”

I take it that DeYoung’s comments were motivated by a genuine concern and love for the many single Christian women in today’s church who desire to be married. I don’t read any ill intent whatsoever in their content or in his probable motivation. I don’t think he is setting out to objectify, diminish or harm women

And finally, I am very well aware that DeYoung is most definitely not sitting alone on a limb here. Much of what he says in the excerpt above finds confirmation in the thoughts of others. Indeed, what he says is a well-established part of the contemporary Christian discourse on marriage and singleness. I explore this at more length in my book.1

With all that being said, not only do I consider this excerpt from DeYoung to be theologically troubling, but also deeply pastorally problematic for the very single Christian women whom DeYoung expresses concern for.

Let me explain why I say that.

Subscribe now

#1: The Problem of Overabundance

Look at the first sentence of the quote:

… when there is an overabundance of Christian singles who want to be married, this is a problem.

Now, to be fair to DeYoung, he introduces this sentence with some other words that were not included in the original quote I saw posted:

There is nothing wrong with being single. It can be a gift from the Lord and a gift to the church. But when there is an overabundance of Christian singles who want to be married, this is a problem.

DeYoung is keen to make sure people know he doesn’t think singleness itself is a problem. It can (potentially) be a gift from the Lord and may (potentially) be a gift to the church. But he thinks an “overabundance” of Christian singles who would prefer to be married is a “problem”.

I'm not exactly sure when an abundance becomes an overabundance. Who can tell when many single Christians become too many single Christians?! But, note that DeYoung’s concern requires us to focus our attention on the issue of singles who want/desire/long for marriage. We’ll come back to that in a moment.

As we read on, we discover that for DeYoung, this is essentially an issue of supply and demand. When demand (single Christian women who want to marry) outstrips supply (single Christian men who are ready and willing to marry them), simple capitalist economics tells us that supply must increase to meet demand. DeYoung’s solution is simple—more young Christian men must be ready to marry all the young Christian women and to do so more quickly.

The problem is that this framing of the issue is not a biblical or theological approach to singleness itself, NOR to the matter of how we faithfully respond to unmet wants, longings and desires. For instance:

• Why is an “overabundance” of Christian singles in the church a “problem”? The apostle Paul didn’t seem to be overly concerned about there being too many singles in the church, right? (Check out 1 Cor 7:7, 17-24). Could it not be that having many single Christian women in our spiritual family might, in fact, be a blessing to the church? Could not their (and their male counterparts) presence amongst us be a vital eschatological reminder that a too often worldly church needs? Might not they be witnesses who testify to God’s grace and the Spirit’s sufficiency in, for and through them, despite how they feel about their singleness? What DeYoung identifies as a problem is only a problem if you start with that working assumption that it is indeed a problem.

• Since when is our desire for something a surefire indication that it is something we ought to set our hearts and minds on? Perhaps something we are obliged to be provided with or even owed? Why is this “problem” rightly framed through a capitalist “me get what me want” approach to our desires? Why do we not respond to the unmet desire for marriage in the same way we do other unmet desires in the Christian life—by first interrogating our desires and discerning what they reveal about the state of our hearts?2 Why do we not consider that some, even many, of these young women’s desire for marriage may not be as biblically informed as it could or should be? Why do we not primarily focus our efforts on exhorting her always to cast her anxieties on God? Why is our priority on something other than encouraging her to pray he might answer her prayers for a spouse while exhorting her to seek contentment in Christ regardless? As a friend of mine has succinctly put it, “imagined ‘preference’ [is not] a stable ground for moral exhortation”.

DeYoung’s (and many others) capitalist supply/demand formulation does not reflect genuine theological or biblical thinking about singleness (or marriage). Nor does it provide single Christians (especially women) with the careful pastoral care, comfort and challenge they need from us as they seek to faithfully and maturely navigate unfulfilled longings and desires in this life.

#2: The Problem of Female Passivity

Let me reiterate something, I know DeYoung’s comments were made with the interests of unmarried Christian women in mind. But here’s the thing: Those same comments render those women little more than passive characters in their own stories.

DeYoung tells us that “Countless numbers of young women” are in the situation they are in because they have been “forced” into it by men. This, of course, means it is up to the men to resolve her situation. In fact, if young men just got their act together, then they could come up with a double whammy! They could solve “the gal’s” “problem” while simultaneously also solving the “problem” that “the gal” is in and for the church. Voila!

But where is the single Christian woman herself in all of this? Where is her personal responsibility and agency (whether exercised wisely or poorly)? Why is her situation simply depicted as the “square” result of male ineptitude? Why have her own decisions not been seen to play any role in our her situation (again, whether those decisions were wise or poor)? Why is a potential lack of spiritual maturity on her part not on view in this narrative?

How is it that DeYoung (and all these young men) know what she’d “rather” be doing than putting her experience, education and expertise into action as a worker? Come to that, why is she not rightly permitted to yearn to serve in more than one good way, at the same time? To desire to be a wife and mother and a woman who works in some active capacity?

And why is she “the gal” a guy needs to “find” rather than a woman called to take responsibility and seek out good for herself and those around her? Why is she simply the victim of the (male) other?

Where is she in her own narrative? She’s nowhere. She’s a ghost.

#3: The Problem of the “Just Do It” Approach

Let me speak frankly, earnestly and urgently.

Christians (and especially pastors), PLEASE stop telling young, immature men with a lack of self-control just to go out there, “find a godly gal” (anyone will do), and get married.

Wives are not the ready-made solution to those men’s immaturity. They are not an off-the-shelf remedy for those men’s lust.

It seems that everywhere I look right now, Christian leaders are espousing sociological data that (apparently) proves that marriage = happiness. So, since we’re apparently all sold on the authority of sociology for determining Christian moral action, here’s a sociological observation for you. Like it or not, the material conditions of the 21st-century West mean that, in a range of very important respects, today’s young people are significantly less mature than their 15th, 9th, and 1st-century counterparts.

Pastors encouraging, nay, commanding young Christian men who exhibit significant social and spiritual immaturity to just find someone, “pop the question, tie the knot and start making babies” is… well, it’s just 🤯. It puts the bulk of the burden of that guy’s selfishness, unreliability, fear of commitment, and lack of maturity on their young wife. She’s meant to be the solution, the thing that will set him on the right path.

Such a woman finds herself in a very tenuous position. The young “gal” who has been found, married & impregnated before she has had the chance to grow up herself, form and build robust non-marital relationships, and even develop incoming-earning potential in our capitalist market finds herself in a very vulnerable position today. You don’t have to like it to recognise the truth of it.

A guy doesn’t need to be an abuser out to exploit that vulnerability intentionally. He just needs to be someone who has been consistently told that marrying and having babies with her is what will set him on the right path. When that doesn’t magically happen, who do you think bears the brunt? Who do you think is left isolated, confused, alone and perhaps even scared in that situation?

We keep hearing (and rightly so) that marriage is hard. It is difficult. It takes sacrifice and effort. It involves a persistent commitment to being other-person-centered for so long as you both shall live. And then, in the next breath, we read exhortations that urge young, immature, selfish, commitment-phobic, uncontrolled, unreliable, anxious young men to just “find a godly gal, treat her right, talk to her parents, pop the question, tie the knot, and start making babies.”

I am not saying that getting married young is always (or even often) inadvisable. But, in light of the realities of our day and age, I am saying it is incredibly shortsighted and can be pastorally disastrous—especially for women—to just keep on blithely insisting that getting married young is ‘the Christian way’.3

#3: The Problem That Isn’t Recognised

Finally, DeYoung’s words don’t account for the fact that there are significantly more unmarried women in our churches than unmarried men. Even if 99% of unmarried Christian men followed his exhortation to the letter, there would still be loads of unmarried Christian women who long to be wives but who still aren’t.

What is his (and our) word to those sisters in Christ?

After all, they’ve just been told they are a “problem” of “overabundance” in and for the church. They’ve just been told that their situation is one they have been “forced” into “squarely at the feet of young men”. They have just been told that their situation needs to be solved by the actions of these young men.

So when all the Christian men step up to the plate and decide to marry someone else… tell me, what then?

I beg you to consider how this leaves the still unmarried Christian women thinking about themselves, their value, their worth, and their dignity in the eyes of others.

I beg you to consider how this might play upon all their insecurities (because trust me, it will) and how it may even give Satan a foothold that he’s eagerly ready to exploit.

I beg you to realise how poorly this approach equips them to deal with unresolved longings, unanswered prayers and unprocessed grief in a Christian community that sees their ongoing situation as, if not a problem, then certainly a pity.

I beg you to consider how this very logically may lead them to decide that, since a man who knows and loves Jesus hasn’t solved their “problem” (and the “problem” they are), then it's up to them to solve it themselves by marrying a man who does not know and love Jesus.

I don’t believe that DeYoung’s comments here offer nothing of any value. I do consider it very important that older, wiser, faithful Christian men (and indeed, women!) encourage, equip, and exhort young Christian men to grow to maturity in Christ and their love of others. To borrow DeYoung’s book title, we must Just Do Something about that.

However, the ‘Just Do It’ approach to marriage is not that something. Our love for God and our love for others demands much more of us than that approach allows.

Scripture’s actual teaching about singleness, marriage, and the church provides us with a far more robust, compelling, and faithful way to love and encourage our single sisters and brothers, and indeed our married brothers and sisters, as we all await the return of our Lord and Christ together.

But I’m also never quite sure what to expect from a TGC (US) article on singleness. I’ve found some of their publications on this topic to be compelling, faithful, encouraging and challenging. And I’ve found others… less so. But I expect that to be the case for any article on any topic from any publishing house. After all, I just linked to what I and many others thought was a truly hideous article on singleness (*ahem*) published by Christianity Today. And yet, I myself write the occasional article on singleness (and other things) for Christianity Today.

I’d be doomed for perpetual disappointment and frustration if I expected a Christian publisher to only ever publish stuff I agreed with. Indeed, they’d be doing me a disservice if they did! I need to engage with the views, perceptions and Scriptural interpretations of others. I need my own views, perceptions and Scriptural interpretations to be quizzed and challenged. I’ve matured enormously—in my theological thinking, my pastoral care and my personal godliness—by interacting with faithful Christians who think differently from me on a whole range of matters.

And so, as I clicked on the link to read ‘Promote Marriage and Dignify Singleness by Prioritizing God’s Mission’ by Jared Kennedy, I wasn’t sure what to think. And by the time I got to the end of the article I still wasn’t sure what I thought. I felt a bit disoriented, unsure quite what to make of it. And so, I decided to ask some others what they thought of it and then ruminated on it for a few days.

This morning, I clicked on the link again in order to carefully reread it and process my thoughts. And since I am long overdue for a new Substack post, well, here those thoughts are. Hey, don’t blame me! You’re the ones who have subscribed! And if you haven’t, well you know what to do👇

Subscribe now

The first thing to say is that there were aspects of this article which I deeply appreciated. Most predictably, I was delighted by Kennedy’s reflections on the eschatological significance of the single Christian life:

“Jesus lived out God’s disciple-making mission while single. So did Paul. The arc of redemptive history bends toward this trajectory. Consider that in the new heavens and earth, we will not marry (Matt. 22:30). Corporately, the church will be Christ’s Bride. Individually, we’ll be like the angels in a “single” eternity. We live in a liminal time—the new covenant era of biblical history when the creation mandate for this earth and the new-earth-oriented Great Commission overlap.”

AMEN. The arc of redemptive history does indeed bend towards an eternity in which we will all live and relate as unmarried brothers and sisters, rather than as husbands and wives. Since I’ve already written a 90,000-word book about just that, I won’t bore you more about it here. Suffice it to say, “Preach, brother!”

Alongside my predictable appreciation for Kennedy’s eschatological lens, was my deep thankfulness for the loving intention and faithful motives behind his article. It seemed clear to me that this article truly seeks to honour single Christians and encourage them to live wholeheartedly for Christ. More than that, its author clearly wants to challenge married Christians, church leaders and entire Christian communities to honour singles, too. He wants to equip those readers to also encourage their single brothers and sisters to live wholeheartedly for Jesus. I have absolutely no doubt that the article was very well intended and motivated (and I mean that in the least patronising and most genuine way possible!).

For a reader to be able to perceive the genuine and loving motivation that lies at the heart of an article like this—especially on this topic—is no small thing. Singles are used to reading articles written about them by married people (usually married pastors) which frequently chastise them for being single, pity them for being single, rebuke them for being single, or shame them for being single. That Kennedy does not set out to do any of these things means a lot.

But, (you knew it was coming, didn’t you?), even as he didn’t set out to do those things, unfortunately, I feel he didn’t altogether manage to avoid them. That is, I still finished the article with a slight taste of chastisement and shame in my mouth. I couldn’t entirely ignore the light aroma of pity and rebuke that wafted through the air. I don’t for a moment think Kennedy set out to make me (or other single readers) feel that way. In fact, I suspect he (and many married readers) may think I’m overreacting, perhaps looking for things in the article to be offended by.

But the truth is that the undercurrents of entrenched evangelical thought about singleness are just so strong, so pervasive, so deeply embedded in our minds, our practices and our communal consciousness that it is almost impossible not to get swept up in them. What is more, we are so used to their gravitational pull on us that we don’t even recognise when, in fact, we are being pulled by them.

Every unmarried Christian who shared with me their thoughts about this article spotted the undercurrents that ran beneath it. And I did, too. Even as we felt genuinely encouraged by Kennedy’s desire to bring singleness into shore, to give it a welcoming landing on the beach of contemporary evangelicalism, when we lifted our eyes at the end of the article we realised that we had still been carried a long way out by those almost invisible undercurrents.

The Moral Superiority of Marriage

The first of these undercurrents is the subtle but pervasive messaging in the article that singleness doesn’t measure up to marriage.

This is evident in something as fundamental as the article’s title and accompanying image. As someone who regularly writes for online platforms like TGC, I’m aware that authors almost never select the image attached to their article, and sometimes not even the title given to it. That may very well be the case here. But regardless of who chose either or both of these things, consider their messaging.

Promote marriage. That is, prioritise it, encourage it, advocate for it, advance it, boost it up. Dignify singleness. That is, make it OK, make it legitimate, give it a reason to be, sanction it.

One has the sense of moving forward proactively. The other has the sense of passive justification.

Perhaps I’m overreacting? Well, look at the image selected to illustrate an article on marriage and singleness and, indeed, whose word count is primarily about singleness. It’s a stock image of a young, attractive couple on their wedding day, silhouetted against a setting sun, staring lovingly at each other, and whose posed bodies evoke the image of a heart.

Or consider the way the article is bookended with the single person whose diligence God rewards with marriage. Certainly, the article doesn’t go so far as to say those exact words—”God will reward the truly faithful single person with a spouse”—but the implication is there, both in the opening story of Isabella and the closing sentence that suggests other single Christians can become their own Isabella. After all, a story like Isabella’s:

“… may feel like a meet-cute from an evangelical rom-com, but it’s true (though I’ve changed the names and minor details). It also illustrates an important truth. When single Christians experience anxiety over finding a spouse, church leaders shouldn’t pressure them to pursue marriage at all costs. Instead, we must remind singles that God’s path to blessing is found by putting Christ and his mission first.”

What is the important truth that Isabella’s story illustrates? You don’t solve the single Christian's unmarriage problem by pushing them to get married. Isabella’s story illustrates that if you encourage them to put Jesus (rather than their own desires) first then God will solve their unmarriage problem in the end anyway. They’ll get the blessing after all. It’s the illustrative story of the rare exception— the unmarried Christian woman committed to costly vocational ministry who, in her mid-late 20s, finds herself the perfect spouse, conveniently right there at her own church’s singles Bible Study and who miraculously shares her exact passions and is able to make all her dreams come true within a year.

The story that is omitted is the story that is the usual reality—the unmarried Christian woman trying to trust Jesus in her singleness even as she longs for marriage, and who, regardless of what church, bible study group, mission trip or ministry she gets involved with, spends her 20s and 30s and 40s essentially never meeting any mature unmarried Christian men who are interested in a relationship with her and so gets on with seeking to live faithfully for God despite the fact that he does not answer one of her most consistent and heartfelt prayers.

The article tells us that singles should resist “wasting their time on self-centred scrolling, entertainment and gossip” (more on that later) and instead, focus on devoting themselves to kingdom work. This is the godly thing to do, but also:

“As an added benefit, serving others can help a young person build the kind of character and charisma that godly members of the opposite sex find attractive.”

In other words, if you get focused on Jesus, you might find yourself becoming the kind of person someone wants to marry after all.

We are explicitly warned against:

“…viewing marriage as morally superior to singleness in every situation.”

Because marriage isn’t morally superior to marriage in every situation.
Just most of them. After all:

“In Genesis 2:18, God states, “It is not good that the man should be alone.””

(Sidebar here, guys: I’m getting close to the point where I can’t predict what I’ll do when the next person tells me that Gen 2:18 says marriage was the solution to Adam’s aloneness. Please read this article. It’s one of those ones whose title and image I had no control over.)

Do I think Jared Kennedy sets out to intentionally propose a prosperity (in-marriage) gospel in this article? No, I don’t. But that is the subtle end result nonetheless. Why? Because one of the fast-flowing, seemingly irresistible undercurrents that pulses beneath evangelical thinking about marriage and singleness is that singleness is something you escape from into marriage, because we all know marriage is obviously better. Even an article like this one—an article that genuinely seeks to dignify single Christians—can’t resist getting caught in this undercurrent.

The Usefulness of Singleness

The same article gets caught up in the second key undercurrent that exerts its unilateral gravitational pull over our evangelical thinking about singleness-namely, its instrumentality.

In The Meaning of Singleness, I describe the instrumental view of singleness in this way:

“Any instance of Christian singleness is typically only conceived to be legitimate when it is determined to have genuine value, and that value is typically only conceived to be genuine when it fulfils a certain function. To put it another way, it is the instrumentality of singleness which determines its value and therefore its legitimacy within the eyes of the believing community…

… the unmarried life is evaluated as legitimate and valuable only because of its particular utility. Where that utility is not directed towards its proper instrumental ends, that individual’s expression of singleness becomes illegitimate, perhaps even sinful, and emptied of its theological import…

…perhaps the most problematic outcome of this myopically instrumental focus on singleness has been the diminishment of any innate dignity within the single Christian life. Contemporary Christian literature, digital media, and sermons consistently teach unmarried Christians that their unique situation has no intrinsic meaning or purpose outside of what they do with it”

(The Meaning of Singleness, p.79-82)

The problem with the instrumental view is not that it celebrates the usefulness of singleness. The problem is that is all it celebrates about singleness. And that is what we see in this article.

Consider the way that single Christians are subtly depicted at points in the article.

• They are chronically anxious about their marital destiny

• They are sucked into the worldly patterns of self-centred individualism, loneliness and cynicism of the opposite sex

• They waste their time on self-centred scrolling, entertainment, gossip and video games

• They are inherently in danger of being like the socially and spiritually destructive widows of 1 Timothy.

(Sidebar again: Notice how rarely anyone talks about the obsessive anxiety about their situation that many married Christians wrestle with? Notice how rarely anyone talks about how married Christians are able to get sucked into self-centered individualism? Notice how nobody seems overly concerned with how much time married people spend on social media or enjoying time with their friends or chilling out doing something that relaxes them? Oh sure, perhaps some married people might need some gentle reminders about these things. But singles, well they are inherently prone towards all of them).

Now consider the proposed solution to this inherently problematic situation which we call singleness:

“…God’s good work through unmarried believers in history and today will help the singles among us to see their dignity and usefulness in God’s kingdom.”

“But if we keep the mission first, we’ll see mature, Jesus-loving believers who learn to live out their Christian callings. This will give dignity to those who remain single”

The dignity in singleness comes in its usefulness. The legitimation of singleness is evidenced in its utility. The meaning of singleness is demonstrated by its instrumentality.

Yes, there is one or two head nods in the article to marriage also being a place for mission, and a spouse being someone you need to get along with well enough to be effective partners in mission. But nobody is getting to the end of this article (or indeed any evangelical article on marriage) thinking that the only good thing about marriage is whether the people in it are really proving themselves to be useful or not.

But that is all we see singleness as being good for.

And even then, not every single person’s usefulness is legitimate. Like nearly every other contemporary resource on this topic, this article drops in passing comments which clarify that only certain types of singleness are the usefully dignified kind.

• It’s singleness which is a “lifelong call” (with the usual reference to 1 Cor 7:7-8 as if that verse is obviously only referencing lifelong singleness).

• It’s the singleness that is intentionally chosen “for the sake of Christian ministry” (with the usual reference to the self-made eunuch of Mt 19:12, but no mention whatsoever of the two other eunuchs Jesus mentions who didn’t choose their kingdom-serving job, but get on with the task nonetheless).

Not all Christian singleness is legitimate. Only the really kingdom-focused kinds. And by that, he (and others) mean only singleness which is entirely devoted to (so-called) undistracted ministry. And if you haven’t chosen it, then you can’t be undistracted by it.

(Another sidebar: Notice once again that nobody is saying that only marriage, which is devoted to undistracted ministry, is the legitimate type of marriage. Married people are allowed to enjoy their situation for the other blessings and benefits it brings alongside its instrumental usefulness. Not so single Christians. Get off those video games guys!).

Kennedy turns to 1 Corinthians 7 to argue his point about the dignity of singleness being exclusively found in the fact that it allows for “undistracted ministry”. He views 1 Cor 7 through a missional lens, writing about the “good of a mission-oriented gift of singleness” and that this passage “frames human relationships in light of the bigger story of God’s mission”.

The problem is that 1 Corinthians 7 is not primarily about mission in the now-but-not-yet. It’s about holiness in the now-but-not-yet.

Sure, mission is a natural follow on effect from holy living. But the key focus of that whole chapter is about how married and unmarried Christians in Corinth might live rightly before the holy God who had “bought them with a price” (1 Cor 6:20).

• This is why he exhorts married Christians not to abstain from sex with each other—because their holiness is at stake (vv. 1-6).

• It is why he exhorts those singles who were not exercising self-control to marry (v.9)—because their holiness is at stake.

• It is why he exhorts the married Christian not to divorce their non-Christian spouse—because their own, their spouse’s and even their children’s holiness is at stake (vv.12-16).

• It is why he exhorts the Christian who has a wife to live as if he has none (v.29) by emulating the example of the unmarried Christian who is not divided but devoted to God—because their holiness is at stake (vv.32-35).

1 Corinthians 7 is not a chapter about the usefulness of single Christians. It’s a chapter about the holiness of single Christians. And married Christians. And betrothed Christians. And widowed Christians. It’s about all of us living in “a right way in undivided devotion to God” (v.35).

Just as marriage’s meaning is more than mission, so too is singleness’ meaning more than mission. Just as marriage is dignified by more than its usefulness, so too is singleness dignified by more than its usefulness. Both of them are situations that God gives us for a small or a long number of years. Both of them are situations he may choose to give us again. And both of them are situations in which we are called to holistically honour him, love others and glorify Christ—regardless of how we feel about it, whether we have chosen it or how long we live in it.

Do I think Jared Kennedy sets out to intentionally restrict singleness’ dignity purely to how useful the single person is evaluated to be? No, I don’t. But that is the subtle end result nonetheless. Why? Because one of the fast-flowing, seemingly irresistible undercurrents that pulses beneath evangelical thinking about marriage and singleness is that its usefulness is the only thing that can sanction (certain kinds of) singleness as OK. Its instrumentality is the only thing which gives (certain kinds of) single people a hall-pass on the great goal, ideal and duty of marriage. Even an article like this one—an article that genuinely seeks to dignify single Christians—can’t resist getting caught in this undercurrent.

Fighting Against the Undercurrent

So as I said guys, I had a mixed reaction. Though, I must admit that the time I have spent writing this analysis of the article has shifted the marker more towards the “disappointing” end of the scale for me.

This article is genuinely one of the better ones I’ve read (and trust me, I’ve read a lot) with respect to its good-faith intention to provide single Christians with visibility, honour and dignity in the church. And yet, the undercurrent it is swimming in is just so strong. The gravitational pull is just so potent. The inherently problematic view of singleness is just so deeply embedded in the evangelical consciousness that even a good article easily gets swept away from the shore.

This is one of those times when we have to forget everything we ever learnt on “Bondi Rescue” (excuse the Aussie in-joke). We need to start fighting the undercurrent by swimming against it. The more of us doing it together, the easier it will become.

On Boxing Day, I’m too distracted by recovering from all the good food, presents and cheer to think about it.

But then comes December 27th and I notice a sense of sinking dread quietly nestling itself in the pit of my stomach. I halt what I’m doing, tilt my head and wonder “Wait. What is that? Where has this slightly sick feeling come from? What accounts for this creeping realisation of foreboding? For these pangs of disquiet”.

And then I realise.

Ah. New Year’s Eve.

The loneliest day (and night) of my year.

Last year, I spilled my guts about why a night of fireworks and frivolity fills me with such angst and anxiety.

As a never-married Christian woman who lives alone, NYE is typically the one night of the year that I fear being alone. It’s the one night of the year when sitting by myself on my couch becomes unbearably loaded with the emotional weight of what was, what could have been, what is and what isn’t.

I don’t want to have to sit with that emotional weight all alone. I want to share it a little with others. I want them to share theirs a little with me. And then I want us to distract each other so that we don’t just keep sitting with that emotional weight. So that we can, indeed, welcome in the new year.

Click here to read the whole article

But today, on this December 27th, I suddenly realised that for the first time in many years, I feel no sense of sinking dread at NYE’s approach.

Huh. That’s new.

Just as I normally need to pause in order to identify the source of the disheartening disquiet, this year I needed to pause in order to appreciate its completed absence.

Wow. This year I am not dreading NYE.

Why? Because back in November a friend called me to say that he, his wife and his family wanted to spend some time with me. There and then we decided that I’d come down to spend NYE with them, stay the night, and low-key hang out with them the next day. Apparently I’m to be inducted into their long-standing New Year’s Day tradition of watching hours of dash-cam videos and yelling at the TV. I’m not entirely sure what that means, but… COUNT. ME. IN.

It’s not simply that I have NYE plans. It’s that I have NYE plans with people who I know want to spend time with me (and I with them. Very much so). And it’s that I have NYE plans which were locked in two months ago.

I haven’t had to endure the sudden realisation that NYE is only days away and that I have no-one to spend it with. I haven’t had to convince myself that I’m totally absolutely 100% fine with spending it alone on my couch watching reruns of Taskmaster… or that I need to tentatively put my hand up to ask if anyone is willing to be my friend for the night, all while bracing myself to receive no response because it’s just not on most of my friend’s radar.

The dawning realisation of the complete lack of stress, anxiety, foreboding and dread I feel this NYE has been a revelation. Wow.

So, to repeat what I wrote in that spilling of my guts article this time last year, as this NYE approaches…

For those of us who are single and sad about NYE, can I encourage us to be proactive? Be vulnerable and help trusted loved ones to understand why it is a hard night for us, why we don’t want to be alone for it, why we love to spend it with them instead of by ourselves…

For those of you who are married, please be aware of how much emotional energy it can take for us singles to initiate the ‘Hey. So. I’m just wondering… what are you doing for NYE?’ conversation. The question might seem completely mundane to you. For us it can take a lot of courage to ask to be seen, to ask to be invited, to ask not to be left alone….

And for those for whom NYE brings home the passing of the years, the inexorable temporality of time, the fragility of our bodies, the sadness of suffering, let’s remember that we do, in fact, have confident reason to hope for new beginnings. In fact, in Christ, our new beginning has already begun! We are even now his new creations, destined together for eternal life with him in the incredible age to come. Let’s remind each other that in that place, at that time, we won’t lament the passing of the years. Rather we will rejoice together in their endless accumulation.

Come on. Click here. Read it.

Amongst the endless spam (seriously, does ‘unsubscribe’ mean nothing these days?) there was an email from a friend. Attached to that email was a quote from CS Lewis.

Subscribe now

My friend wrote that an acquaintance of his had recently posted this quote on Facebook. It had been posted with the following comment:

“Lewis on the difficulties of singleness and marriage”.

In my (single) friend’s email, he expressed his disappointment and bewilderment about his (married) friend’s decision to post this quote:

“I really wonder what they're thinking when they post stuff like this - whether for even an instant they consider how it might be received by a single person.”

I knew the feeling. I’ve often wondered the same thing.

But my friend also expressed his confusion about Lewis’ quote:

“Lewis's apparent equating of singleness with miserable solitude seems off the mark (though I haven't read the source for context).”

I agreed with my friend. This didn’t sound like Lewis. At least, it didn’t sound like something Lewis would say about marriage and singleness in particular. My interest was piqued. And so, I did what any good researcher would do. I went back to the sources.

Here’s what I discovered.

Straight to the Source

Lewis did write these words. He wrote them in a letter to Mary Willis Shelburne, an American woman with whom he exchanged letters for over a decade, right up until his death. Several contemporary books include records of Lewis’ correspondence with Mary Willis. The description of one, Letters to an American Lady, reads:

On October 26, 1950, C. S. Lewis wrote the first of more than a hundred letters he would send to a woman he had never met, but with whom he was to maintain a correspondence for the rest of his life. Ranging broadly in subject matter, the letters discuss topics as profound as the love of God and as frivolous as preferences in cats. Lewis himself clearly had no idea that these letters would ever see publication, but they reveal facets of his character little known even to devoted readers of his fantasy and scholarly writings -- a man patiently offering encouragement and guidance to another Christian through the day-to-day joys and sorrows of ordinary life.

The words in the quote posted on Facebook were extracted from a letter Lewis wrote to Mary Willis, dated 8 November 1962. You’ll find the full text of the letter in question below.1 However, before you read it, let me remind you of the excerpted text in the posted image which was described as being Lewis’ words “on the difficulties of singleness and marriage”.

Subscribe now

8 November 1962

Dear Mary Willis,

Yes, I can well understand how you long for ‘a place of your own’. I norminally have one and am nominally master of the house, but things seldom go as I would have chosen. The truth is that the only alternatives are either solitude (with all its miseries and dangers, both moral and physical) or else all the rubs and frustrations of a joint life. The second, even at its worst seems to me far better.

I hope one is rewarded for all the stunning replies one thinks of and does not utter! But alas, even when we don’t say them, more than we suspect comes out in our look, our manner, and our voice. An elaborately patient silence can be very provoking! We are all fallen creatures and all v. hard to live with. It is not only Episcopalians who behave as if they had never read St James.

I hope the operation will turn out to be unnecessary.

Yours,
Jack

Perhaps you’ve already worked it out.

Lewis’ letter had nothing to do with his views on marriage and singleness. But if you aren’t quite convinced yet, well, let me give you some more context to his correspondence with Mary Willis Shelburne.

From his other letters to her, we can tell that Mary Willis seems to have been quite a troubled and, at times, rather unhappy woman. She had a very difficult relationship with her daughter and son-in-law. She was in poor physical health. Sometime around 1960 her doctors and family had deemed her unfit to continue living independently in her own home. At the time of this Nov 8 1962 letter, she was either (reluctantly) living with her daughter and son-in-law, or she had been moved into an aged-care ‘Home’. (Both were true at different points during their correspondence. I couldn’t quite tell which was the case at the time of this particular letter.) She also seems to have been quite financially impoverished, and heavily reliant upon the support of her family and friends (including Lewis).

On Nov 8th, Lewis replied to a letter Mary Willis Shelburne had just sent him in which she had expressed her longing for ‘a place of her own’. It seems she missed her independence and resented that (in her view) it had been stripped away from her, never to be attained again.

And here’s one final piece of important information you need to know. At the time this letter was written and sent both CS Lewis and Mary Willis Shelburne had been widowed. They were both single again.

What does all this mean? It means that Lewis’ words were not an exhortation about singleness and marriage. Rather than were an exhortation (and a gentle rebuke) to his pen pal, that she might remember that none of us was created for the kind of enduring solitude and independence that she was craving. Lewis was reminding her that we all need others, even as all of us are fallen people who are hard to live with.

The same sentiments are echoed in a letter he sent her just a month later. In a December 10th 1962 letter, Lewis insisted that:

One must get over any false shame about accepting necessary help. One never has been ‘independent’. Always, in some mode or other, one has lived on others, economically, intellectually, spiritually… We are members of one another whether we choose to recognise the fact or not.2

As Lewis wrote to this elderly, troubled, unhealthy, unhappy, poor, perhaps even somewhat embittered widowed Christian woman—a woman who longed not only for enduring solitude but independence from others— he was seeking to remind her that our creator has made humans for “joint life” with others humans. This kind of “joint life”, he writes, is better by far than isolation.

Lewis’ words to Mary Willis had nothing to do with marriage and singleness, per se. They were about the necessity of our being human beings in reliant relationship with others, rather than longing for relational solitude and independence apart from others.

To live in reliant relationship is to live the “joint life”.

Not in the Least Surprised

Am I surprised that Lewis’ words have now been removed from their context, excerpted and abbreviated in self-selective ways and reframed to bolster the contemporary evangelical obsession (yes, obsession) with idealising and idolising marriage as the ‘joint life’, and so depicting singleness as the miserable and dangerous life of solitude?

Not in the least.

I do not doubt that my friend’s friend who posted the meme thought that Lewis’ words were about marriage and singleness. I mean, why wouldn’t they? Those kinds of sentiments are precisely what evangelicals have been saying about singleness for decades and decades. Why wouldn’t this person assume that Lewis was saying the same thing? Why wouldn’t they assume that he was warning against the miserable dangers and tragic solitude of singleness? Why wouldn’t they assume that Lewis was affirming that “joint life” (i.e., relational life) belongs to those who are either a husband or wife?

But friends, that wasn’t at all what Lewis was saying. And given his rich, abundant and varied relational life — as a bachelor, then as a married man and then as a widower—I suspect he would be bitterly disappointed that anyone thought it was. I mean, this is the same man who reportedly wrote:

It's all love or sex these days. Friendship is almost as quaint and outdated a notion as chastity. Soon friends will be like the elves and the pixies - fabulous mythical creatures from a distant past.3

Learning from Lewis

Guys, this evangelical obsession with making marriage the sum-total, the golden-goal, the ultimate form of the human relational life—the very definition of the “joint life”—is just so exhausting and demoralising and frustrating.

But more than that, it contradicts the teaching of Scripture.

The Bible celebrates, honours, encourages, commands and delights in all manner of relationships between human beings—in all the ways we are called to “joint life” with, amongst and to one another. It most importantly venerates the “joint life” of the household of God. The “joint life” of being disciples of Jesus. The “joint life” of being brothers and sisters in Christ. The “joint life” of being sons and daughters of God. The “joint life” that will be the eternal life of God’s people, in God’s place, under God’s rule.

Yes! The Bible honours marriage. It speaks so highly, so wonderfully, of the one-flesh relationship between a husband and wife. But it never—NEVER—makes that relationship the relationship. It never depicts it as the way to live the “joint life”. It never caricatures the unmarried life as a life of miserable, dangerous, isolated solitude. I mean, goodness gracious, the apostle Paul says that he wishes everyone was unmarried!!! (Even as he recognises that it is not “best” for every Christian person to be so).

Why then do we evangelicals—the ones who claim to really take Scripture seriously—persist in our obsessive idealisation and idolisation of marriage as the “joint life”? Why do we take words that speak about the richness and abundance and necessity of human relationship in all their forms and varieties, and self-selectively interpret them so they become about just one relationship? Not only that, but why are we so fixated on the one human relationship that ends with death? On the one (wonderful) expression of “joint life” that will not carry over into eternity?

Why, oh why, do we do this?

Well, I’ve written many a post, indeed multiple book chapters, seeking to understand and explain the answer to that question. And so, I won’t rehearse all that again here.

But friends, I do want to ask you if you’ll be part of the unwinding of this. I do want to ask you if you’ll be part of the changing of the script. I do want to ask if you’ll commit to understanding and applying the full and wonderful counsel of God on marriage, singleness, relationship and community more fully and faithfully, I do want to ask you if you’ll allow the gospel—and all its wonderful earthly and eternal blessings— to shape your thinking about what it means for those of us who delight in the fullness of “joint life” with our Lord and Saviour to so also delight in the fullness of “joint life” with one another.

For here too Professor Lewis has a lesson for us:

“But, for a Christian, there are, strictly speaking, no chances. A secret Master of the Ceremonies has been at work. Christ, who said to the disciples "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you," can truly say to every group of Christian friends "You have not chosen one another but I have chosen you for one another." The Friendship is not a reward for our discrimination and good taste in finding one another out. It is the instrument by which God reveals to each the beauties of all the others.4

Share

I suspect very few of us can help but know who Taylor Swift is. I hear she’s now playing for the NFL. Geesh, is there anything that woman can’t do?

However, Andy Stanley may be a little more of an unknown quantity, especially to some of my fellow non-US readers. But don't tune out if you don’t know who Andy Stanley is! As the title suggests, this piece is far more about us than it is him. However, in order to bring the focus rightly onto us, I first need to draw your attention to something Stanley recently said.

To cut a long story short, Stanley gave a talk at his church, explaining his (and so also his church’s) approach to Christian sexual ethics and especially same-sex marriage. This sermon came on the heels of some concern about a conference Stanley had been involved in that seemed to promote—at least passively so—an ‘affirming’ position on human sexuality (i.e., accepting same-sex relationships/marriages as morally permissible for Christians).

Much has been said about Stanley’s talk and the conference that motivated him to give it. However, I want to zoom in on just one part of it. At 41:40 in his talk Stanley said:

“Many [same-sex attracted Christians] are convinced that traditonal marriage [i.e., marriage between one man and one woman] is not an option for them. So they commit to living a chaste life […] and for many men and women who put their faith in Christ they just decide ‘Ok, I’m just going to buckle down, I’m just going to bear down, I’m just going to be by myself, I’m not going to have family, I’m going to be sexually pure.’ And many, many, many, many do that for long seasons of time. And for some it’s their whole life

But for many that is not sustainable. [NB. bolded emphasis original].

And so they choose same-sex marriage—not because they’re convinced it’s biblical. They read the same Bible we do. They chose to marry for the same reason many of us do: love, companionship, and family.”

Now, there is a lot that we could delve into in those comments. And by the end of this article, we’ll come full circle back to some of them. But for now, I want to draw your attention to Stanley’s comment that living a life of chaste singleness is not sustainable for many same-sex attracted Christians. It’s not doable. It’s not workable. It’s not realistic. It’s not possible. It’s not something they can keep “buckling and bearing down on”.

Subscribe now

The single, celibate, same-sex attracted, and all-around awesome Sam Allberry has responded to Stanley in this Christianity Today article. While I’d encourage you to read the whole thing, one particular comment in it really grabbed my attention. Sam writes:

…when any leader suggests to me that chaste obedience to Christ in singleness is not sustainable, he is saying the very same thing to me that the Devil says.

Those familiar with my work will not be surprised to hear that I greeted this with a hearty “Amen!”. I was so thankful for Sam’s unapologetic testimony that chaste obedience in singleness is sustainable. After all, that’s not something you often hear in contemporary evangelicalism, is it?

Which is why I was surprised to see numerous other commentators highlighting, reposting and applauding that exact same quote from Sam’s article. I counted nearly 20 posts featuring that one comment alone in my Twitter (I mean, “X” 🙄) newsfeed. Those 20 posts were then retweeted or quote-tweeted well over 200 times. That quote was the quote commentators were sharing from Sam’s excellent article.

When I realised that, I started hearing Taylor Swift warming up in the background.

Well, Ain’t That Something?

Let me be clear. I absolutely, fundamentally, and foundationally disagree with Andy Stanley’s comment that faithful, chaste singleness is not sustainable for many Christians. On the supremely remote chance that he ever stumbles across this article, I’d encourage him to consider the countless opposite-sex attracted single and single-again Christians who have always existed in our midst as living, breathing, walking, talking, sustainable examples of faithful, chaste, long-term singleness. Most (not all) are women, and they’ve been there all along.

So, yes, I disagree with Stanley. But, gee whiz it was something to see a rash of evangelical commentators act as if any conjecture about singleness’ sustainability for the contemporary Christian was an obvious lie of Satan.

It was something to see them behave as if all of us were (or should be) totally on board with the idea that Christian singleness is absolutely doable.

It was something to see them comment as if singleness and chaste obedience to Christ naturally go hand in hand in today’s evangelical church.

Spoiler alert: They don’t. And I can prove it.

At the very same time my newsfeed boasted some big-name commentators celebrating that exact excerpt from Sam’s article, my newsfeed was also home to some other big-name commentators posting other stuff. Stuff like this.

And this.

And that’s just a couple of tweets from this week alone. Those two examples don’t even begin to blow a gently rippling breeze across the surface of decades upon decades upon centuries of evangelical teaching about the deficient, deviant, destructive, tragic, meaningless, spiritually ill-formed, relationally unfulfilled, sexually oppressed, value-compromised and belonging-impaired situation that (supposedly) is Christian singleness. Those two examples don’t begin to touch on all the ways we evangelicals have made singleness into something we very clearly do not consider sustainable, liveable or doable.

They don’t touch on the way we define singleness not primarily as something with its own dignity and meaning, but as the lack of something else—as being Not-Yet-Married. The way we so frequently but incorrectly take God’s pronouncement that it was not good for Adam to be alone (Gen 2:18) and use it to justify our assertion that being single is ‘fundamentally tragic’.

The way we typically portray single Christians as deviants set on attacking marriage. The way we are told, and tell ourselves, that ‘Satan dishonours marriage by fooling us into believing that singleness is okay’ (p. 43). The way our prominent preachers insist that ‘Scripture is clear that God will sanctify us largely through our marriages’ . The way our prominent authors write that ‘marriage is the preferred route to becoming more like Jesus’ (p. 17).

The way single Christians are characterised as obsessed with ‘escalating self-preoccupation, personal ambition, personal development, personal promotion’. The way we believe that singleness ‘by nature caters to and cultivates [selfishness]’. The way we depict single Christians as only ever being concerned about themselves, as opposed to married people for whom it is ‘totally different; you’re asking this question: ‘Sweetheart, how can I love and serve you?’.

The way some of the biggest names in contemporary evangelicalism insist that the primary marks of becoming an adult have to do with getting married and having kids. The way our articles claim that while ‘Scripture at no point condemns singleness, it does pity singleness, particularly for women.’

The way key Christian leaders endorse and recommend books that talk about God having made each of us with a “spouse-shaped hole” and that ‘this is why spinsters often come in pairs. They are clogging up each other’s spouse-shaped hole’ (p.36). The way we run conferences where speakers teach that singles are walking lust bombs, captive ‘to sexual sin, at a rampant level [. . . because] you’ve got all these people with these pent-up desires that can’t be normally met and they are about to explode’. The way authors insist that marriage ‘is such an important part of honoring God as sexual beings [. . .] I don’t know how people can make it morally without getting married’ (p.32).

The way we’ve subsumed the ideal of friendship into marriage, such that now ‘the most vital of human friendship of all [is] with our very best friend, our spouse’. The way that women who are friends with men they aren’t married to are consistently depicted as seductresses out to lure married men into emotional affairs. The way we so easily pronounce that ‘emotional adultery is having as your close friend someone of the opposite sex who is not your spouse’.

Oh, and the way that in recent months it has become de rigueur to post tweet, after tweet, after tweet, after tweet, after tweet, after tweet, after tweet, after tweet, after tweet, after tweet, after tweet about how unmarried and childless individuals are doomed to a far more miserable, unhappy and more suicide-prone existence than their married and procreatively fruitful counterparts… all without any recognition of what a self-fulfilling kind of prophecy such a move actually is. Nor that correlation does not imply causation.

Can you hear Taylor’s vocals getting louder?

(Pssst. For anyone concerned that I’ve just curated a handful of exceptionally unfortunate quotes from within a much more positive and biblically-faithful evangelical discourse on singleness, I’d encourage you to grab a copy of my book and read through chapters 3 and 4.)

Subscribe now

Oh… So Now You Tell Us

Look, don’t get me wrong. I was glad that all of these individuals were retweeting Sam’s brilliant comment. But I was also stupefied at what seemed to me to be the rather large dose of self-delusion involved in the process.

I could imagine single Christian after single Christian, reading those retweets with a raised eyebrow and thinking to themselves, “Oh, so now you tell us? Now, this is the story you’re running with? Now the single Christian life is totally doable, totally sustainable? Huh. I guess you learn something new every day.”

Come on guys. Is it any wonder that someone like Andy Stanley, and plenty of others, have come to the conclusion that a chaste, unmarried life requires the single person to ‘buckle down’, ‘bear down’, ‘be by myself’ and ‘not have any family’?

Is it any wonder that he, and plenty of others, have come to the conclusion that this kind of miserable, lonely, isolated, grinding existence is ‘not sustainable’ for many?

Is it any wonder that he, and plenty of others, have come to the conclusion that it is understandable why many will choose to forgo their biblical convictions in order to chase the thing they’ve been told over and over again is the only real way they will ever be able to experience ‘love, companionship, and family’?

No. No, it is not any wonder.

And the reason it is not any wonder is that singleness as a life of isolated buckling down and bearing up under; singleness as a life lacking in genuine intimacy, companionship and family; singleness as a life of existential unfulfillment and loveless loneliness is precisely what we have taught, insisted upon and promoted in our evangelical churches for decades upon decades.

It’s Us. Hi. We’re the Problem. It’s Us.

And with that, Taylor Swift bursts onto the stage in full musical flight. To unapologetically appropriate the lyrics of her hit, Anti-Hero:

It’s us. Hi. We’re the problem. It’s us.

Yes, I have significant disagreements with Stanley’s argument (again, read Sam’s article for more on this). And yes, I deeply lament that he seems to endorse same-sex attracted Christians turning their back on biblical conviction to chase the world’s version of personal fulfilment and existential realisation.

But before we point our fingers at the problem over there, we first need to own up to the fact that, actually, the real problem lies much closer to home.

It’s us. Hi. We’re the problem. It’s us.

We need to own up to the fact that we have constructed a narrative that prizes (idolises) one thing above all other things. We have written a story that idealises (idolises) that one thing as necessary for true human flourishing. We have crafted a context that necessitates (idolises) that thing as the way to truly become a spiritually mature Christian who is genuinely committed to the kingdom of Jesus and living their best life at the same time.

We need to own up to the fact that, just like Taylor’s Anti-Hero, we evangelicals are really good at staring ‘directly at the sun, but never in the mirror’, even as ‘all of the people [we've] ghosted stand there in the room’.

Because, yes, we have indeed ghosted innumerable single Christians.

We have made it seem unsustainable for someone to “buckle and bear down” on living the tragically-pitiable, second-rate, sin-prone, spiritually-stifled, intimacy-starved, love-less, family-absent, unmarried Christian life.

We have turned unmarried Christians into invisible spectres in our churches, such that the very possibility of long-term faithful singleness has become nothing more than a fable.

We have been holding the exit doors open for them, all while subtly curling our lips up at them for not having the staying power to refrain from walking out across the threshold.

It’s us. Hi. We’re the problem, it’s us.

Friends, it is time for us to stop staring into the sun and start staring into the mirror.

It is time for us to stand up and take responsibility for idealising and idolising marriage in ways incompatible with Scripture.

It is time for us to acknowledge our culpability in turning singleness into a life situation consistently depicted as cruel, oppressive and unsustainable.

It is time for us to recognise our own liability in urging single people to buy into the lies that Satan wants them to believe.

It is time for us to take God at his Word when he says that we have life, and have it to the full, not in marriage or sex or romance… but in Jesus Christ the good shepherd (John 10:10).

It’s us. Hi, we’re the problem. It’s us.

And so, what an amazing, wonderful, awesome thing it is for us to know that Jesus Christ is always and ever the solution we all so desperately need.