Does the church ignore single Christians? Where are we supposed to go?!?

[Lanolin]

Dolly also came from a large family. Not appachalian but I think they were mountain people. Or in common parlance, 'hillbillies'

 

[seoulsearch]

Did your church publish an annual report of expenses etc? All churches are required to do this in NZ. Well the ones I've been to always had them, they had AGMs too and members could go to them.

I always kept receipts of anything I spent on the church library and got reimbursed.

Yes.

It's discouraging to me to see a church that's always in the red. I understand why it happens, but I'm the type who would rather seem them utilize more of what they already have rather than asking for more money for The Next Big Thing That's Going to Get The Masses Saved (and bring in more money.)

At one time in my life, I went to a church that was not only had no debt -- it has a SURPLUS!!!

I called my parents that Sunday and told my parents I'd found a church that was not only debt-free, but it also had EXTRA money -- and that somehow felt like a sin!!!

All I'd ever known before that was churches who were getting into ever-growing masses of debt.

Now I try to stay away from them.

 

[Churchgoer]

I think these guidelines are very helpful -- emergencies only, with the goal of helping the person become independent -- thank you for sharing them.

I grew up in a church with a few successful business owners, so a pattern emerged where the church leaders would want to fund this or that project -- then always hit up the same people for donations (and of course, expected them to give a lot.)

When their ideas didn't pan out, they'd just come back to the same people and ask for more money to burn.

The problem I saw as I grew older was that the leaders never asked for, nor did they take any advice from these people who were obviously gifted by God in business. They thought that because God had made them the head of the church, they must be gifted and the most knowledgeable in finances and business as well. They could not accept that their gift might be pastoring a church, but not at all being able to create or stick to a budget.

As an adult, one of the things I pay attention to in a church is if they are able to manage finances well, and if they are willing to accept financial leadership from those who have actively achieved it -- even if they're not pastors or elders.

Every believer is responsible to give according to holy spirit guidance. If church misuse funds, members are responsible to correct the course.

 

[Lanolin]

Yes.

It's discouraging to me to see a church that's always in the red. I understand why it happens, but I'm the type who would rather seem them utilize more of what they already have rather than asking for more money for The Next Big Thing That's Going to Get The Masses Saved (and bring in more money.)

At one time in my life, I went to a church that was not only had no debt -- it has a SURPLUS!!!

I called my parents that Sunday and told my parents I'd found a church that was not only debt-free, but it also had EXTRA money -- and that somehow felt like a sin!!!

All I'd ever known before that was churches who were getting into ever-growing masses of debt.

Now I try to stay away from them.

Well churches are meant to be not-for-proft, but I do know the ones I went to leased their land, one had a childcare centre on it, and the other rented out their church manse. They also let people hire their hall.

I think the original members, (some of these churches are now 60-70 years old) invested in the church but I do recall one church said they'd finally paid off their mortgage.

The mega churches I believe run on credit or some kind of ponzi scheme it seems. Actually its more like an MLM

 

[Lanolin]

Also, the big ones like Hillsong, got their money from CCM sales. That was founded by a kiwi guy, who got done in for sexual offending. --some kind of scandal anyway, so he moved to Australia, and ...actually wrote a book called 'God wants your money'

 

[Lanolin]

I think it was this one


not this one

 

[Churchgoer]

Every believer is responsible to give according to holy spirit guidance. If church misuse funds, members are responsible to correct the course.

That's another reason I prefer small church, things more clear, visible.

 

[Karlon]

Were they catholic? Catholics used to be known to have big families because the Pope disagreed with birth control

I recall Celine Dion came from a big family, she was the youngest and her singing got them out of poverty in Quebec. They were French Catholics, and I think the govt at the time, or at least the Catholics, wanted to outnumber the Protestants and they way to do that was to encourage catholics to have large families.

I think that was the reasoning. Governments can and do dictate the numbers of children a couple is supposed to have, esp when it comes to allocating housing.

don't know if they were catholic. btw, i do assent to birth control. i never used it. i don't listen to governments.

 

[seoulsearch]

Well churches are meant to be not-for-proft, but I do know the ones I went to leased their land, one had a childcare centre on it, and the other rented out their church manse. They also let people hire their hall.

I think the original members, (some of these churches are now 60-70 years old) invested in the church but I do recall one church said they'd finally paid off their mortgage.

The mega churches I believe run on credit or some kind of ponzi scheme it seems. Actually its more like an MLM

There's a difference in being not-for-profit -- and headed towards being a million dollars in debt (not my church, but another school I was involved with in the same church synod) -- with no plan for repayment and only falling further in to debt.

A million dollars today is nothing, but this was in the 90's.

I shudder to think of what their debt is today.

And I realize most things can't be done without debt.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree, or keep supporting something, if I don't agree with how it's being run.

 

[seoulsearch]

That's another reason I prefer small church, things more clear, visible.

Unfortunately, these are all things I've experienced in small churches.

I've never been part of a mega church, or even a medium-sized church by most standards. I've been to them, but never stayed.

For now at least, I just feel too impersonal to me.

But of course, I'd be open of God led me to one.

 

[Lanolin]

There's a difference in being not-for-profit -- and headed towards being a million dollars in debt (not my church, but another school I was involved with in the same church synod) -- with no plan for repayment and only falling further in to debt.

A million dollars today is nothing, but this was in the 90's.

I shudder to think of what their debt is today.

And I realize most things can't be done without debt.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree, or keep supporting something, if I don't agree with how it's being run.

I think they just run on credit till they have to shut down or something. IDK I don't understand that.

Some churches that lose all their members have to shut down, and they get sold or deconsecrated.

I think churches have to be able to pay their bills and not be in debt, because that places a huge burden on their members. Maybe they are banking on the 'forgive our debts' part of the Lords prayer.

 

[I_am_Canadian]

Does the church "ignore" singles? I mean, I don't like making big, sweeping blanket statements about "The Church," and I can only speak for my own. But I'm sure it's often true. And I'm sure lots of singles brace themselves whenever a married pastor starts teaching about singleness.

Have you ever been to a church with an unmarried pastor, or unmarried church elders? I never have. Name one pastor you know that got married after 25.

Personally, my own home church doesn't teach topically, we go through whole books verse-by-verse and chapter-by-chapter as we go through different books. Of course, there's only, like, two parts of the Bible that deal with that topic, so it only gets covered, like two times every seven years or so. And then only relatively briefly. When it does get covered, I think he mentioned something about "trusting God" or "God's timing" or something like that. We've also had "marriage conferences," but nothing about singleness or dating. When we have weddings at church, the pastor will often comment that God "brings people together," etc., etc.

I also currently work in my church bookstore. For the longest time, the only "relationship books" we had were about marriage, and we didn't even have too many of those. But I did ask them to add some books that I know about singleness/dating, they thought it was a great idea, and some of these books actually sell pretty well, pretty consistently. So it does seem like there was a need for it. Some of the younger folks even started their own unofficial discussion group about one of these books.

I actually think it's be easier for me, a single person, to counsel married friends, than for my married pastor to counsel single people. I mean, I'm generalizing here, but I'd say every single person has read books about marriage. There's thousands, I'm sure. You can even get a marriage book to match your theology. Everybody has one. Now name the book your married friends have read about singleness. Whoops. There's also very clear scriptures about marriage – what it is, what it is for, what the roles are etc. There's very little about singleness, and a lot of it gets interpreted wrong. And the Bible simply has more to say about marriage than singleness. Sometimes the singleness stuff is just tacked on to the married stuff, as an afterthought.

There might be single people who know more about marriage than most pastors know about singleness.

We also don't have a "singles ministry" at church. I did suggest starting one one time, but the leadership was a bit cool on the idea because they didn't want people attending such a group for the "wrong motives." They said that, if we did have such a group, there would need to be separate ones for men and women. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it was kind of a relief to see that they'd actually given that topic some thought. I just assumed that no one had ever seen the need. I'm also not really sure about how to keep a ministry like that going month after month and year after year because, like I said, the Bible, in totality, doesn't say all that much about singleness.

Also, I’ve never heard singleness mentioned in a sermon in which sex wasn’t mentioned. Almost every example of a single person in a sermon has something to do with sex.

That being said, cut your pastor some slack and realize that they love you even if they don’t get your situation. Seriously – especially if they try. Pastor’s hearts break for their people. Trust me. I know that to be true. Your pastor is not a mind reader. If you have ideas and they're open to them, by all means, tell them.

And, yeah, for sure, church is a good place to meet a potential spouse. Lots and lots of my married friends have met their partners that way.

No I have never been to a church with a single pastor, bible says in Timothy if a man desires the work of a BIshop he must be blameless and the husband of one wife, I don't know what denomination your with but Independant Fundamental Baptist Churches will not put a single man on staff as a pastor. They can still minister, do ministry work, but they cannot be pastors.

I think it would be easier for me to counsel, because my parents were not christians and did everything wrong, it's how I learned that secularism is screwing up children, families and churches and the world in general.

 

[Lynx]

Divorcees they are called

Unmarrieds for anyone else.

Virgins for those who've never been kissed.

Widows

Don't Catholics teach celibacy? Are they not Christians as well? So what are nuns and monks then?

By JohnDB's logic monks and nuns are flakey, undependable, etc.

By Final Fantasy logic single people sure can pack a punch. The Monk class can knock you out with one punch.

 

[RodColeman]

No I have never been to a church with a single pastor, bible says in Timothy if a man desires the work of a Bishop he must be blameless and the husband of one wife, I don't know what denomination your with but Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches will not put a single man on staff as a pastor. They can still minister, do ministry work, but they cannot be pastors.

Depends on how you interpret this. Some take this to mean that a pastor has to be married, but, as far as I know, most interpret this to mean that, if a man is married or has kids, then he has to be a good husband and father. Also, at the time that Paul wrote this, it would have been pretty unusual for an adult man to be unmarried or childless. In other epistles, of course, Paul promotes the value of being single in serving God, and he himself was single, of course, so it seems doubtful that being married with kids is necessary to be a church leader.

But Paul doesn't say here (or anywhere else) that pastors/church elders have to be married. I mean, he could have said that very clearly. It would have been easy in Greek to say that. (And in English, of course) For instance, in Titus 1:7, Paul uses the word "must" when he says overseer "must" be above reproach. What Paul seems to be saying here is that, first, the church elder “must manage his household well.” And second, if he’s a husband of one wife, he can be considered.

So, it seems like marriage was assumed, but there's no explicit command here to be married.

Another interesting part of this is the assumption that the church elder would not only normally be married, but that he'd normally have kids. Both passages (Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3) assume that the elders have wives and children. So, if we’re going to infer that marriage is required for someone to be a pastor, well, we'd need to infer that a pastor is also required to have children, not just a wife.

So we see a strong assumption here that a man will be married with a family if he’s a pastor. But we don't see an explicit command that he be married or have kids.

And Paul certainly had a fruitful ministry, even though he was single.

But sure, there's advantages in being a married pastor. There's firsthand knowledge of sex and issues related to that, and firsthand knowledge about marriage and parenting and the challenges and joys of ordinary family life. I don't know how common it is for churches to turn down unmarried people as candidates for being a pastor. I've just heard, anecdotally, that it's common. But I get why they would do so.

A married pastor can, theoretically, relate better to families. And, perhaps, some churches, assume that, if the pastor is married, they get a second staff member for free. A couple years ago, I read an article about this where it talked about a single man who wanted to become a pastor. But as soon as churches found out he was single, they never called him back. I wonder how often that happens.

Besides, this passage also talks about pastors having to manage their children well. So, if you want to be consistent, well, you have to rule out not only pastoral candidates who are unmarried, but also pastoral candidates who are married without kids. And pastors who only have one child. And pastors who are widowed. Whoops!

Maybe some Christians wonder if a single pastor can really teach on subjects like marriage with any credibility. Ironically, it might not occur to some of these people that the standard biblical passages about marriage were written by someone who was single (Paul)

 

[Lanolin]

No I have never been to a church with a single pastor, bible says in Timothy if a man desires the work of a BIshop he must be blameless and the husband of one wife, I don't know what denomination your with but Independant Fundamental Baptist Churches will not put a single man on staff as a pastor. They can still minister, do ministry work, but they cannot be pastors.

I think it would be easier for me to counsel, because my parents were not christians and did everything wrong, it's how I learned that secularism is screwing up children, families and churches and the world in general.

my baptist church now has a young single female pastor, there used to be a grandad pastor who was widowed and then retired, and a youth pastor who was married but he and his wife split, (with four children) and then they had a female youth pastor (or 'youth worker') who wasn't married.

There don't seem to be any bishops in baptist churches they have elders. They don't seem to have deacons. All the elders on that one save one were male, and she felt so out of place plus they always overruled her.

One church I went to, a presybeterian church, had elders and one was my age! And I wasn't elderly. She was studying or worked at the Bible college.

So yea. Oh and that church, the pastor (or reverend as they are called) split from his wife eg he lives in Australia, she stays in NZ, but they are still married. He went on to study law. And I'm not sure who looks after that church now. Maybe they just have visiting ministers, from their own Bible college.

All the denoms have their own Bible colleges that teach their own doctrines, unlike the general Bible college which dropped its title and now teaches counselling, teacher training and ... academic Bible studies. They don't train or ordain church leaders. They have this thing called 'applied theology'. But the people I know, all dropped out of Bible College. For some reason or another. Maybe it was too expensive. Or they lost faith.

I have no idea what the megachurch pastors credentials are. I just know...well.. he has affairs with women in the congregation. And they turn a blind eye to it.

 

[Lanolin]

The mega church youth pastor, died when the roller door at the church crashed on top of her...I think it was even on the Sunday they had services. People just said she went to heaven.

 

[Lanolin]

By JohnDB's logic monks and nuns are flakey, undependable, etc.

By Final Fantasy logic single people sure can pack a punch. The Monk class can knock you out with one punch.

What about the nun class?

Nunchuckas?

 

[I_am_Canadian]

Depends on how you interpret this. Some take this to mean that a pastor has to be married, but, as far as I know, most interpret this to mean that, if a man is married or has kids, then he has to be a good husband and father. Also, at the time that Paul wrote this, it would have been pretty unusual for an adult man to be unmarried or childless. In other epistles, of course, Paul promotes the value of being single in serving God, and he himself was single, of course, so it seems doubtful that being married with kids is necessary to be a church leader.

But Paul doesn't say here (or anywhere else) that pastors/church elders have to be married. I mean, he could have said that very clearly. It would have been easy in Greek to say that. (And in English, of course) For instance, in Titus 1:7, Paul uses the word "must" when he says overseer "must" be above reproach. What Paul seems to be saying here is that, first, the church elder “must manage his household well.” And second, if he’s a husband of one wife, he can be considered.

So, it seems like marriage was assumed, but there's no explicit command here to be married.

Another interesting part of this is the assumption that the church elder would not only normally be married, but that he'd normally have kids. Both passages (Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3) assume that the elders have wives and children. So, if we’re going to infer that marriage is required for someone to be a pastor, well, we'd need to infer that a pastor is also required to have children, not just a wife.

So we see a strong assumption here that a man will be married with a family if he’s a pastor. But we don't see an explicit command that he be married or have kids.

And Paul certainly had a fruitful ministry, even though he was single.

But sure, there's advantages in being a married pastor. There's firsthand knowledge of sex and issues related to that, and firsthand knowledge about marriage and parenting and the challenges and joys of ordinary family life. I don't know how common it is for churches to turn down unmarried people as candidates for being a pastor. I've just heard, anecdotally, that it's common. But I get why they would do so.

A married pastor can, theoretically, relate better to families. And, perhaps, some churches, assume that, if the pastor is married, they get a second staff member for free. A couple years ago, I read an article about this where it talked about a single man who wanted to become a pastor. But as soon as churches found out he was single, they never called him back. I wonder how often that happens.

Besides, this passage also talks about pastors having to manage their children well. So, if you want to be consistent, well, you have to rule out not only pastoral candidates who are unmarried, but also pastoral candidates who are married without kids. And pastors who only have one child. And pastors who are widowed. Whoops!

Maybe some Christians wonder if a single pastor can really teach on subjects like marriage with any credibility. Ironically, it might not occur to some of these people that the standard biblical passages about marriage were written by someone who was single (Paul)

Well i am not an expert, but I am pretty sure when God says must..... it is not an option.

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

I know we have had this debate on marriage on here before, I think the consensus is that if someone is happy being single or has no heart for marriage they should stay single and me, I am pro marriage, I think everyone should have someone special in their life.

I think your missing the point on the topic, the fact is these are the manditory requirements for a church leader,

It applies to deacons as well

1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

[I_am_Canadian]

my baptist church now has a young single female pastor, there used to be a grandad pastor who was widowed and then retired, and a youth pastor who was married but he and his wife split, (with four children) and then they had a female youth pastor (or 'youth worker') who wasn't married.

There don't seem to be any bishops in baptist churches they have elders. They don't seem to have deacons. All the elders on that one save one were male, and she felt so out of place plus they always overruled her.

One church I went to, a presybeterian church, had elders and one was my age! And I wasn't elderly. She was studying or worked at the Bible college.

So yea. Oh and that church, the pastor (or reverend as they are called) split from his wife eg he lives in Australia, she stays in NZ, but they are still married. He went on to study law. And I'm not sure who looks after that church now. Maybe they just have visiting ministers, from their own Bible college.

All the denoms have their own Bible colleges that teach their own doctrines, unlike the general Bible college which dropped its title and now teaches counselling, teacher training and ... academic Bible studies. They don't train or ordain church leaders. They have this thing called 'applied theology'. But the people I know, all dropped out of Bible College. For some reason or another. Maybe it was too expensive. Or they lost faith.

I have no idea what the megachurch pastors credentials are. I just know...well.. he has affairs with women in the congregation. And they turn a blind eye to it.

see we would condemn that church for apostacy, or being back sliden or turning worldly. I am not sure about a widowed pastor, I think they would step down and become deacons, but divorce would be grounds for removal from ministry, adultry and fornication would be grounds.

If that church is hiring, I am looking for work.

 

[RodColeman]

Well i am not an expert, but I am pretty sure when God says must..... it is not an option.

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

I know we have had this debate on marriage on here before, I think the consensus is that if someone is happy being single or has no heart for marriage they should stay single and me, I am pro marriage, I think everyone should have someone special in their life.

I think your missing the point on the topic, the fact is these are the manditory requirements for a church leader,

It applies to deacons as well

1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

But why does Paul say "the husband of one wife"? In Greek, this literally means a "one-woman man." Why didn't Paul just say "a married man"? Or "husband of a wife"?

Isn't this section of Timothy talking about character qualities? The emphasis is on a person's character, right? So shouldn't the phrase "husband of one wife" should be interpreted with that context in mind? I mean, me being a husband says nothing about my character. What kind of husband I am says something about my character. Is Paul just asking, “Has he ever been divorced?” Or is his real question something like “What kind of marriage does this man have?”

It seems like marriage was just assumed, but it's not not explicitly commanded here. Probably because lifelong singleness was so rare back then that it barely needed addressing.

And, again, there's also the assumption here that the church elder in not only normally married, but that he also normally has children. These passages assume that the elders have wives and have children. So if one argues that a pastor or church elder is required to be married, well, then you also need to argue that he's also required to have children.

It's assumed that a church elder here will be married. But, if Paul meant to include a command here that they're required to marry, it seems like he could have stated that more explicitly.

And what if a pastor's wife suddenly dies? Is the church now required to remove him from his post? And wouldn't this exclude from eldership all widowers who remarry?

Paul himself was single, and he encouraged others to follow his example, like in 1 Corinthians 7. So why would Paul require marriage for church leaders when he praises singleness elsewhere?

Also, in 1 Timothy 5, Paul uses a similar phrase (actually an identical phrase) when telling Timothy to care for widows, and when he tells Timothy to make sure care goes to needy and deserving widows. Paul refers to "the wife of one husband" in verses 9-10. So a widow who receives financial support from her church should be one who lives a visibly moral life.