The Church and its "Useful" Singles

As I clicked on the link to this recent TGC article on singleness, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I mean, these days I’m never quite sure what to expect from any article on singleness! Even the ones that come with what looks like a promising headline have the potential to be a total bait-and-switch dumpster fire (*ahem*).

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👇

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.