A while back I attended an event where ministry-minded individuals were discussing the importance of mission and evangelism within the local church. There was a palpable sense of energy and enthusiasm as people spoke about their passion for and commitment to sharing the good news of Jesus with those in their wider community. It was fantastic to be there.
One particular individual (who I know to be a godly, thoughtful and faithful servant of Christ and shepherd of his congregation) spoke of how a longing for meaning and hope in an increasingly chaotic and confused world meant that he and other members of his church were awash with more opportunities to share the gospel of Christ than every before. It was thrilling to hear.
But then, in the midst of all this excitement for evangelism, he said:
“They, and we, want the normal stuff — marriage and family”
My (perhaps, too) finely tuned radar immediately perked up. In that moment, a few thoughts raced through my mind:
Evangelism, marriage and family are not entirely unrelated things. Still, I found the sudden interjection of marriage and family into the discussion of evangelism a little jarring, even if not altogether surprising.
If getting married and having kids is what we consider to be morally “normal” (which was the sense he was using that word), then plenty of singles and infertile married couples must be morally “abnormal”. That was hard to hear.
What is a theology of “normal”? What Scriptural passages and theological concepts lead us towards that language, and in what sense? How does biblical theology give context and content to what we think is “normal”? How does the gospel—which turned the world topsy-turvy—transform the way we think about what is “normal”?
All these thoughts were flying around in my mind. But in the midst of them, there was also one more, very clear, thought.
I knew that if, in that moment, I had said any of the above out loud, most people in that room would have perceived me as being somehow down on marriage and family. I would have almost certainly been interpreted by the majority as being in some way anti-marriage.
How could I be so certain of that? Because it happens to me all the time.
I heard numerous reports of church pastors and ministry leaders who were not even willing to read the blurb of my first book, The Meaning of Singleness, because they had already decided it was written by a (probably embittered) single woman who wanted to diminish or downplay the meaning of marriage.
Every time I give a talk on singleness, I go out of my way to qualify that I think marriage is a wonderful and very important gift from God, but that I also think that we can be tempted to idealise, even idolise, it in ways that undermine its God-given goodness. And then, a few days later, I nearly always hear quiet reports that one or two people were uncomfortable with my “anti-marriage message”.
If I make a social media post in which I question the prevailing evangelical tendency to respond to declining marriage and fertility rates by focusing on sociological data about individual flourishing (rather than approaching the matter from a biblical and theological perspective), it’s almost guaranteed that I will be asked why I am glorifying singleness at the cost of ignoring the real problem our society has with marriage.
But here’s the thing. This very predictable pattern only confirms WHY we evangelicals need a more biblically robust conversation about marriage, singleness, and the relationship between them.
Which means, we need to keep reiterating over and over again that:
Wanting to retrieve a genuinely biblical theology of singleness is not the same thing as being down on marriage.
That this discussion is not a zero-sum game in which honouring one must mean we want to dishonour the other,
That marriage and singleness are not in competition with each other, but rather complement each other.
That on this side of the cross and resurrection, we can—and should—hold out faithful marriage, family formation and godly singleness as all being morally “normal” within God’s plans and purposes.
Here is how I put it in The Meaning of Singleness:
“That marriage and singleness have so consistently been situated as opposing, and even competing, modes of Christian life may suggest little reason for optimism that a more faithfully balanced perspective might characterize the Christian community’s future.
… And yet, extensive exploration [in this book] has suggested that while a tension does indeed exist in the upholding of both marriage and singleness as equally valuable and valid situations for the Christian person, that tension is actually a fundamentally necessary one … Plainly speaking, marriage and singleness have actual need of the other. And this not simply so they may be understood, appreciated, and inhabited in this present creation but because of what they allow us to know understand, appreciate, and anticipate about the next.
Both marriage and singleness uniquely and specifically testify to the comprehensive truth that in Christ “every one of God’s promises is a ‘Yes’” (2 Cor 1:20 NRSV). So it is that where singleness’ unique and eschatological vocational significance is diminished, a corresponding diminishment of marriage’s unique and eschatological vocational significance inevitably results. Such an outcome leaves marriage as little more than a moral requirement or duty and so also “a terrible burden.”1
… But, where singleness is faithfully and vocationally prized within the community of faith, so also will marriage correspondingly be cherished for its own unique and crucial vocational dignity. It is only in faithfully apprehending the eschatologically charged vocational nature of one that we are truly able to appreciate the authentic eschatological dignity of the other. This is precisely why Hauerwas argues that “in the strongest possible language the basis and intelligibility of the Christian understanding of marriage only makes sense in relation to the . . . legitimation for some of ‘singleness.’’2
The Meaning of Singleness - Chapter 10: Continuing the Conversation
Stanley Hauerwas, “Abortion, Theologically Understood,” in The Hauerwas Reader (London: Duke University Press, 2001), 613.
Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character, 189.
I’ve been very encouraged by the spiritual openness that seems to be a redemptive silver lining in the terrible tragedy of Charlie Kirk’s death, especially at his memorial. But I cringe whenever I hear Turning Point people quote Charlie as saying, “Get married,” as if it notches up people to a higher moral standard. (It’s a good thing if God brings that person to you, but only if!) It’s a downside of Christian nationalism—an overpronounced focus on earthly life that distorts Jesus’s message.
I don’t downplay Charlie’s contributions at all, but I know Jesus knows singles’ value. Just as Charlie’s worked hard for a cause, Danielle is working in her own way to restore truth about singleness, and I’m grateful for her voice.
I know this, because I actually read your book.