RBMW Single for the Body of Christ
This post is part of a larger series of posts by Dwayne Forehand and Mark Tubbs on the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW). The entire book is available online for free here or buy it on Amazon. For a complete list of posts in this series Click here for the series index.
John Piper begins For Single Men and Women with this:
We know you are there-almost sixty million of you in America. And we are listening. One of the most important things we have learned is that we do not know what it is like to be single in America today-at least not the way you know it.
The paper continues with 8 theses on the realities and purposes of singleness. It is easily the most compelling vision I have seen presented on the role of single men and women in the body of Church. At least half of it is made up of quotations from singles both within Scripture and outside of it.
I’ll resist the desire to go over and personally exalt each of these great 8 points and instead point you to Mark Tubbs’ review and urge you, married like me or single – does not matter – to read the article yourself. If you are married, then I offer for your consideration the idea that a lack of interest in this topic probably indicates a lack of interest in the family of God.
The Gift
Piper presents the gift of singleness as just that: a gift. It is a gift that frees a man or a woman to pursue the mission of Christ more devotedly than that of a married person. I know there will be push back along the lines of, “but think of the legacy that a godly man can leave by raising up his children as followers and them raising up their children and so on and so on until the impact is huge!” The word of God is simply too clear on this though:
I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs-how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world-how he can please his wife-and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world-how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
(1 Corinthians 7:32-35).
The Resistance
I know that singleness is often not considered a gift, but instead a curse. We may intellectually nod to texts like the one above, but in our hearts many, if not most, of us see it as an unfortunate instance of Gods doing, something to be escaped by way of marriage or drudged through till heaven.
What Scripture is saying above is that singleness frees one to be about “the Lord’s affairs.” Now, what could he be referring to? I believe we could answer with many things, but I would like to sum them up in Jesus’ charge to us: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations. That is what I believe “the Lord’s affairs” are. God is telling us that sacrificing marriage in order to fulfill that mission is a gift. The only way that this can possibly make sense is if we see the eternal mission of God as more important, more valuable, and more precious than earthly marriage. I say this because if we believe that obtaining a spouse is more important then Gods mission, then sacrificing having a spouse for Gods mission is no gain but instead loss, not gift but instead curse.
If our greatest desire is not for a temporary marriage, but is instead for the Bride and her eternal marriage to the great Groom of Christ, then singleness can be seen as a gift. Piper ended is paper with a great quote from Margaret Clarkson and I’ll do the same here:
When Christian was crossing the River at the close of Pilgrim’s Progress, his heart failed him for fear. He began to sink in the cold, dark waters. But Hopeful, his companion, helped him to stand, calling out loudly, “Be of good cheer, my brother; I feel the bottom, and it is good.” Then Christian recovered his faith, and passed safely through the waters to the Celestial City. If there are singles who find the waters of singleness dark and deep, who feel, “I sink in deep waters; the billows go over my head; all his waves go over me,” this is my message to you concerning singleness: “Be of good cheer, my brother, my sister; I feel the bottom, and it is good.”
March 12th, 2009 at 10:33 am
singlehood. i do the intellectual nod as gift, but there is a struggle to use it to its full potential that is not related to wanting to be married. i still have to work and then focus on building the body up, but that is hard to do when i am being selfish with all the spare time i have. it would be great to be single and make the most of every opportunity to serve the body of Christ. it also has been hard to desire to be single for the Lord and to still have a desire for a spouse. marriage seems like a temptation to leave God, or love Him less because i will be more concerned about a spouse. i haven’t heard a strong encouragement to do so from the preachers and teachers, granted i only listen to a few. i find rest in that single or married, God is still the focus and He has given His Spirit to overcome the sin that distracts and to mature us into His image.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:51 am
*encouragement to use my singleness to its full potential
March 12th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Alrighty then. Whenever articles like this come up, I get a little frustrated because the conversation is so mixed up with issues that are not clearly delineated. There a really several issues here, two of which I’ll address:
1) Free Time as a Single (and I mean an adult single, not a single still living with their parents)
2) Devotion to the Lord mission
(While desire to be married is an issue, I don’t think it’s the MAIN issue at all, as most of these article, including this one, seem to indicate.)
On the first issue, I would say that maybe, when this passage was written, the single person actually WAS more “free” to fill his/her days however they pleased. They probably lived in an extended-family household, where most of the work of living was done by or shared with other people.
Not so today. In our current (American) culture, we singles usually live alone and don’t necessarily have more any free time at our disposal than a married person:
Who is responsible to….
…provide financially for us? We alone.
…pay our rent or mortgage? We alone.
…save for our retirement? We alone.
…cook for us? We alone.
…clean our house? We alone.
…shop and do our laundry? We alone.
…fix our car or house when it’s needed? We alone.
…take care of us when we are sick and/or get us to the doctor? We alone.
(Please note: not complaing, just ’splaining.)
I would contend that singles today don’t necessarily have MORE free time than a married person. That has to be taken into consideration when thinking about this issue and often the “challenge” I have with these types of articles; they assume that FREE TIME issue is a given. Done. Settled. And that the REAL issue is HOW you spend your free time (i.e. either selfishly or for the Lord).
So then addressing the second issue above, while we may not have more free time, we usually do have LESS HEIRARCHY to go thru when deciding to do or not do something. A single person usually only has themselves and their own schedule and responsibilities to consider, while a married person has to consider as spouse’s, and often childrens’ time, opinions, schedules, etc. A single can often be more flexible with their time because of this less heirarchy situation.
But does that really make us or should it make us more devoted? More focused on the Lord?
Maybe…maybe not. I don’t totally agree with the statement that singlesness is “…a gift that frees a man or a woman to pursue the mission of Christ more devotedly than that of a married person.” Being single makes us less encumbered by process, but I don’t equate this with being more devoted. It’s just a different process of time management than a married would use. I think devotion is a heart-attitude, not at time management issue. For everyone.
To sum it up then, I absolutely do see singlesness as a gift, just as I see marriage or children as gifts (and there is scripture to back this up). The bottom-line issue to me, is: how will you (single, married, parent) handle the specific gift you are given, for whatever time period it is given for? Will you, in all you do, wherever you do it, as much as is possible, be on mission for the Lord? Or will you wish you were somewhere else, doing something else, wishing for something else? That’s the crux of it all, in my book, single or married.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
ONIE!! So glad you are taking the time to post on here! Now I have to ask: Did you read the article? Pipers point on the 1 Corinthians 7 passage didn’t seem to be about “more free time” and I think the quotation from the single person on page 16 made that clear.
You said that you don’t agree that singleness “frees a man or a woman to pursue the mission of Christ more devotedly than that of a married person.” I have trouble understanding how you can not see that statement in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 when to me that seems to be the main point of the passage. Or do you see it in this passage, but believe it is not true today because of how much singles have to work like you were saying?
Help me understand what you think God is saying in that passage.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
To say that someone who is single has the ability to be more devoted to the cause of Christ would be to make unfair divisions in the body. Yes, someone who is single as the ability to respond to the call. The ability to change careers, locations, ministries, etc. more easily than a married individual because there are fewer people impacted by the decisions.
That is not in my opinion a matter of devotion though.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
My quick comments.
1. There is no marriage in heaven—marriage therefore is a temporary institution and not eternal. This is huge in making sure the emphasis on the importance of marriage is put in the right place. If somehow those called to be single, or those not-yet-married are made to feel inferior for their present state, those who are married need a poke in the eye.
2. Marriage is general creation call to all mankind, singleness is a grace gift given to some. It cannot be a decision made by the individual to “free up more time to be productive in mission”, but a call by God to a deeper level of service than most are called to. Because the call is His, you cannot “prove” to God that you are somehow a more devoited Christian by being single—it doesn’t work that way. That is dead religion.
Quick and dirty, but I think you catch my point! :)
March 12th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Thanks Dwayne! :-)
No, his article may not be about more free time per se, but it is the theses addressed in point 3 and by the quote on page 16…and I think it’s an important issue that gets missed when reading the Corinthian passage.
I guess what I’m saying is that the freedom talked about in Corinthians, INCLUDES free time, as well as flexibility in scheduling, divided interests, etc., does it not? And it assumes that a person actually HAS more free time and flexibility than a married person who “will have worldly troubles.”
But the actuality is, in this day, age and culture, single people unfortunately (for the reasons I listed above) are fairly encumbered by worldly troubles almost to the same extent as married people, not thru fault of their own, but because of our cultural evolution.
And on further reflection, I also wonder if the gift of singleness isn’t a gift in a similar way as the gifts of the Spirit are.
I think gifts may come in the form of “instances” and “callings.” I think there may be a distinction between a “Gift of Singleness” (calling) and “being single,” (instance). A 20 year old college student is single (instance), but may eventually 1) marry or 2) be called to a life of singleness (calling). I went to the Philippines on a mission trip (instance), but I don’t feel that I’ve been called to be a missionary to the Philippines (calling). Does that make sense?
But in either case (and I’m not even sure the distinction matters in the long run), the real question is…am I serving the Lord right here, right now, in each and every instance or state I’m in?
March 12th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Challenging thoughts guys!
David I used the word “devoted” because that is the word that the passages uses to contrast a single person to a married. I could have used the phrase “interests are divided” from the passage as well. The ESV rendering is a bit different:
The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.
Paul is contrasting (see the word “but”) the single man who is anxious about how to please the Lord and the married man who has his interests divided because he has a wife whom he must also please. I don’t understand exactly what this means, but I do think that the text is clear.
Onie, I can’t really argue against what you are saying about the 1st century single folks having more free time then present day singles. I just haven’t read anything one way or the other on that. Have you read something on this or are you just guessing?
I appreciate the differentiation between a single person who believes that they are called to a life of singleness and a single person who believes that they are called (eventually!) to a life of marriage. I wonder how these differing beliefs would effect the day to day to living of a single person? Shooting from the hip, I think there would be differences, but much more similarities. You?
Ian, point 1 is great. I personally keep doing this and need a poke in the eye. On 2 I also agree. We are loved by God first and then out of that we serve! We never serve to be loved. Well we do, but it doesn’t work! :D
March 12th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Dwayne, I’m hypothesizing based on what I’ve read of life in the 1st century. I just know that if I currently lived with extended family, didn’t have to drive 60 minutes to/from work, someone else cooked for me several nights a week, etc., etc. and all my “wordly worries” were shared with or taken care of by someone else, I think I may have more discretionary time.
I do know, however, that when I was married (without children), I actually think I had more discretionary time than I do now as a single!
I wonder if it’s more a matter of responsibility, and not so much that of time. As a single, I am only responsible for me. As a married, I am responsible for me, my spouse, my kids, and so on. Maybe the freedom talked about there is freedom from responsibility and not so much free time. And maybe the devotion mentioned isn’t our current definition of the word (which we tend to read as passion, or spirituality), but more “commitment to” our responsibilities.
But again, in today’s society, I think singles and marrieds are both carrying alot more responsibility (“wordly troubles”) than 1st Century people, so I think that’s worth thinking about when reading that passage.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
On the question of how a single called to singleness is alike/unlike a single person who may or may not get married goes, they probably are very similar in the day-to-day. However a single called to singleness, wouldn’t be spending time, energy, finances, focus seeking a mate…if they were sure of their calling. A single who wants to be married, however, might spend time, energy, finances, focus in that direction, so there might be some difference in day-to-day activities.
I don’t think their commitment to serve the Lord should be different; but what that might look like day-to-day might look different.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Stimulating convo, everyone!
I’m dropping in to let you know that I’m not avoiding this discussion – just haven’t had a spare moment to contribute. Am having some couch time with my wife right now, so I’ll weigh in after dinner when my brain has been re-wired by some excellent home cookin’.
Mark@DR
March 12th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
I am really enjoying reading through the book with you guys and reading your posts! Thank you. I’m still not caught up in reading through the comments, but hope to do so soon. appreciate this thought from you, Dwayne: “If you are married, then I offer for your consideration the idea that a lack of interest in this topic probably indicates a lack of interest in the family of God.” I agree that Scripture teaches us to love and treat members of the Body as we would treat our own body. It also teaches us to rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn. I know I have felt this kind of love when my brothers and sisters in Christ who are parents have reached out to my husband and me who are childless. I think there are parallels between singleness and infertility in this dicussion of the trials and freedoms of singleness. Both experiences can cause us to question whether we are missing out on key parts of being a man or woman.
Here are a few books that have been extremely helpful to me in studying what it means to be a Biblical woman or man:
“Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Roles, Relationships, and Relevance” by Bruce Ware
“This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence” by John Piper
“Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye” by Carolyn McCulley
I am currently reading “Radical Womanhood” by Carolyn McCulley. I will be posting a review of it on my blog soon. So far, it is a fascinating and helpful read about the history, premises, and pervasiveness of feminism, and in contrast, what the Bible teaches us about femininity.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
P.S. Looking forward to hearing more about Mark’s “big question mark about Piper’s stance on the way single women should relate to other men, which Piper foresees might be controversial”
March 12th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Onie, if we reconnect Paul’s advice on marriage to his advice on slavery I think we get to the heart of Paul’s reasoning. Too many Christians attempt to look at Paul’s advice on one without observing the social and financial realities of the other.
Paul consistently argues that we avoid sinfully abandoning existing committments while urging us to be content where we are and only changing our condition if by so doing we can be LESS distracted than we already are in serving Christ. Ergo, the horny people should marry but those with self control should not rush to marry while those who already are married should not divorce.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Onie I think I get what you’re saying now. You may be right that the main differences (as far as devotion) goes is not time per se, but responsibilities.
Bina said I think there are parallels between singleness and infertility in this discussion of the trials and freedoms of singleness. Both experiences can cause us to question whether we are missing out on key parts of being a man or woman.
And that is something that I didn’t touch on in my post. Pipers 8th point, as Mark noted in his review, was that masculinity and femininity are not tied to marriage (or even children) and he promises to explain that more in chapter 1.
It certainly can’t be denied that in one sense single folks and childless couples are “missing out”. The former is “missing out” on having a spouse and the latter is “missing out” on having children. What I do not want though, is anyone to see either as being defined, or having their identity be, as “ones who are missing out” because that simply is not the case.
In the sermon Single in Christ: A Name Better Than Sons and Daughters Piper talks about Isaiah 56:1-7 which is a radical passage given the immense value that physical descendants carried at that point in history.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:34 am
The pastors and others often quote the verse say that singles have a advantage over marrieds, but yet today single are really the outcast in the church when it comes to serving. For instants, almost every church now will not allow singles to do children of youth ministry. The majority will not allow singles to even lead singles groups (that really gets me, they are the only ones qualified to). Church networks like Acts 29 for example will not allow singles to plant or pastor churches, and say it’s biblical, really, explain Timothy. So there is really not many churches or places in churches for singles to serve. Even most missionary organizations now will not take singles for long term missions.
So from the pulpit they say singles have an advantage in serving the Lord, but when you go to sign up later, they say “Oh” sorry your single, your disqualified.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:50 am
That is lame Dennis. Don’t make your “they” too big though. :)Unbiblical practices like that should be confronted lovingly with Scripture. At the same time though no men are going to be able to prevent God from using a single person whom He has decided to use, right?
March 13th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Dennis said: “So there is really not many churches or places in churches for singles to serve. Even most missionary organizations now will not take singles for long term missions.”
That hasn’t been my experience, but I’m a woman, not a man, so maybe there are differences when it comes to gender.
However, I’ve served in churches as a single as a sunday school teacher, youth leader, nursery volunteer, church cleaner, committee member, worship team, church secretary, person who prepared communion, retreat planning staff and others.
As well, I’ve been involved for several years in Youth With A Mission (YWAM) as a single, both as a participant and on staff.
I don’t see any reason why a single (male or female) couldn’t serve in an existing church in any of these areas.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I finally read through the comments. Interesting discussion. I really agree with Ian’s post. This same point is made in Piper’s book “This Momentary Marriage” (which also contains a chapter from his awesome sermon “Single in Christ: A Name Better Than Sons and Daughters”.)
Jeremiah, I am not clear about your comment. Are you saying that marriage is merely a concession for the weakness of the flesh–a means of being less distracted by carnality? (I may have misunderstood you.) If so, I think Ian’s point 2 challenges this thought. The issue for married, singles, parents, childless folks is the same–how do I die to myself and live to Christ? How do I make Christ my all with the gifts and circumstances He has sovereignly given me? How do I know and live out the fact that Christ is worth more than spouses, children, and (fill in the blank)?
We also have to look beyond ourselves and our households to see ourselves as part of the larger Body of Christ. To be a lover of Christ necessarily means loving one another. How are my husband and I as a married couple loving and serving singles around us? How are my husband and I loving and serving brothers and sisters in Christ who have children? How are we serving children in the Body of Christ? How are the ways that we do church affecting the ways we love people in different circumstances than our own? Are we exalting one station (ie married, single, parenthood, childlessness) over another and thereby making it an idol or are we looking at these stations Biblically–recognizing they ultimately all ought to serve the same purpose of glorifying God? Are we making it difficult for people in certain stations to participate with us in gospel community? Are we showing compassion out of sincere Spirit-produced Biblical love for our brothers and sisters in recognizing that there are trials and burdens associated with being single, married, parents, or childless?
I like how Onie differentiated between “instance” or “circumstance” and “calling”. I think on some level, we ought to recognize that, as painful as they may be sometimes, our unwanted circumstances are a gift. Romans 8:28 tells us, “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” God is working for our good and the good of His Body in ALL of our circumstances. There is something He wants to do in me and in the Body of Christ through my infertility—even though it is very unwanted by me. I certainly don’t feel “called” to childlessness. I suppose time will tell whether we are “called”—either we will have children or we won’t. It will be painful for us if we cannot have children. However, we want to make the best use of the circumstances God has given us. There are things that we can do to bless the Body of Christ that parents may not be able to do in the same way (like having community group over at our house until midnight last night, or being able to spontaneously meet up with a friend who needs cheering, etc.).
Ok, so many thoughts. I’ll stop now.
FYI, if you’d like more info on the books, “Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye?: Trusting God with a Hope Deferred” by Carolyn McCulley and “This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permenance” by John Piper, I wrote about them here:
http://abranchinthevine.blogspot.com/2008/07/unwasted-life-book-review-of-carolyn.html.
and here
http://abranchinthevine.blogspot.com/search/label/This%20Momentary%20Marriage%3A%20A%20Parable%20of%20Permanence
March 14th, 2009 at 9:27 am
just to clarify:
“There is something He wants to do in me and in the Body of Christ through my infertility—even though it is very unwanted by me.”
by “unwanted by me” I was referring to infertility, not the work He wants to do through it:) The work He wants to do through it is by far worth my every tear.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Bina, consider Paul’s teaching about slavery first, and then look at Paul’s teaching about singleness/marriage. What ethical principle unites his teaching on these two topics? I think that this is more obvious than many people realize and that it helps to explain what Paul is really arguing for.
Paul sets a guideline that those who are slaves should not worry about being free unless they can avail themselves of it. In that society Paul would not be arguing that slaves should escape. He sends Philemon’s runaway slave back, after all, with a great little letter. No, Paul argues that if you can LEGALLY avail yourself of freedom you should and that if you can’t then you don’t worry about it.
Conversely, if you legally bind yourself in marriage you stick with it unless your unbelieving spouse chooses to leave. In other words Paul reasons that you avail yourself of freedom in both cases so long as doing so does not break your obligations before God and others. The larger ethical principle Paul articulates tends to get lost in people debating the application.
As Paul put it so eloquently, he does not wish to restrict anyone but to encourage undivided devotion to Christ. Thing is, this will look very different for different people at different stages in life and that’s exactly what Christians and Christian teachers don’t really want. :) They SAY they want that but if you listen to how they often teach on the subject you find out otherwise. Where Paul takes pains to not restrict anyone but to articulate his preference we often find people transforming his statement of preference into the very restriction he didn’t intend it to be. Or they attempt to counteract his statement of preference by saying most people should be married unless they are called to smuggle Bibles into China or something like that.
Let me put it this way, these days we might say that an unmarried man (usually) who still lives in his parents’ home is a slacker and immature. In Paul’s time a man who insisted on living without any connection or dependence on his father and mother’s household would probably be considered a useless layabout or a degenerate. I think much of the discussion and application of Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 7 is distorted by our cultural assumptions about the nuclear family, especially in evangelical thought.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I have a lot of thought about this post and this thread, so I’ll try to summarize them in point form:
*Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a very outdated work. I doubt very much if Piper himself still holds much of what he wrote in his “For Single Men and Women” article.
*Many of seem a bit confused about the whole “gift of singleness” thing, and I don’t blame you! Onie pointed out there’s a difference between singleness as a “calling” or as an “instance”. Piper’s article muddles the two, at times talking as if anyone who is single as having the “gift of singleness” and at other times talking about lifelong singles in special ministry positions as having the GoS. It’s a critical confusion.
**The fact is that nowhere in the scriptures is their any such thing as the gift of singleness. Nor is their any mention of being “called” to singleness. These are modern terms that became popularized when the Living Bible (now the NLT)and The Message mistranslated 1 Cor 7:7 to mean that God gives some the gift of marriage and others the GoS.
*The NLT (and soon The Message) has dropped the GoS and restored the passage to translations closer to the original Greek, which reads to the effect of “I wish all were as I am, but since each has their own particular God, some in one way some in another (note that that it’s not marriage or singleness, but infinite kinds of gifts particular to the person- for Paul it was probably sexual containment). Verse 7 is merely preamble to verse 8, which goes on to say “And therefore to the unmarried I say it’s good to them to remain as they are, but if they cannot contain (sexually), let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn (with passion).
*So you can see from 1 Cor 7:7-8 that marriage and singleness are offered up as matters of personal choice, not “gifts” or “callings”. And of course, you can consider your gifts as you make that decision (as in Matthew 19:12, only those who are so gifted can “receive this teaching” that it’s a option to say single for the sake of the kingdom). The problem with the notion of a “single calling” or GoS is that it has given many marriage desiring singles the impression that God might tell them not to marry! To think of the needless anxiety this misunderstood passage has created!
*What’s more, 1 Cor 7 was written at a particular time for a particular group of people. In verse 26, where Paul speaks to the unmarried, he says that DUE TO THE PRESENT DISTRESS it is good to remain as you are. This is not necessarily a recommendation for all people at all times!! The first thing he says in 1 cor 7 is that each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband so that they are not tempted to sin. Yes there are advantages to staying single to serve God, but few people are gifted with that degree of sexual containment (or a passion for a mission that exceeds the desire for marriage).
*Contentment is indeed a spiritual ideal worth pursuing, but we have got to realize that the frustration experienced by most singles has more to do with our world not fitting the specifications of our God-given design for marriage, rather that some spiritual failing on their part. Christians of the past NEVER considered singleness to be a gift, nor does the Bible EVER refer to unwanted circumstances as a gift (look up the word “gift” in a concordance and you’ll see it is used in the way that one would ordinarily expected it to be used, things we would consider at face value to indeed be “good”). As much as God can work all things to his good, calling things like involuntary singleness and infertility only further burdens the afflicted.
There have been many well-intentioned but erroneous messages to singles that have been less than helpful, and it’s amazing to think that they have largely eminated from the misunderstanding of a few passages of scripture. Fortunately, teachings to singles are currently under reform, with Boundless.com being a good source of articles.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Gortexgrrl,
Thanks for commenting! You’re in my neck of the woods, as it happens (Vancouver, BC). It’s late so I won’t go on at length, but I did want to address a few of your thoughts.
Firstly, were you aware that RBMW was re-released in 2006, with very little change from the earlier version? Piper is still a CBMW Council Member and spoke at last year’s True Woman conference. I follow him pretty closely and doubt he has revised his position much. In chapter 2 of RBMW, he and Wayne Grudem explain how they have tested (and continue to test) their theological positions over the years, and on this topic they have not wavered.
Your “own particular God” translation is confusing because in I Cor. 7:7 Paul uses the word “gift” (karisma) in exactly the same way as he does in the spiritual gift inventories of 1 Cor. 12:4,7 and Romans 12:6. “Gift of God” (karisma ek Theou) is how my Greek New Testament renders the syntax of that passage. There really isn’t any ambivalence there, except that we could probably just as accurately say that God provides “grace in singleness” rather than calling it “the gift of singleness.” Even the spiritual gift inventories aren’t meant to be prescriptive and conclusive, after all.
Regarding 1 Cor 7:26: Yes, Paul does say “due to the present distress,” but the full context of the passage is “the appointed time” and “from now on” (verses 29). We are in the midst of that “from now on.” Yes, Paul has his eyes on the early Christians’ current circumstances, but he also has the future in view – a future in a world that is passing away.
I enjoy the Boundless articles too, although I’m a married guy with ten grace-filled years under my belt. I must leave it at that for now. Thanks for the interaction!
Mark@DR
March 24th, 2009 at 12:15 am
The theme of 1 Cor 7 as I understand it is not that we ought to gain our “freedom” if we can easily avail ourselves of it, but rather that we ought to seek to glorify God in the life God has given us (whether that is as a married person, a single person, a slave, a free person, parents, a childless couple, etc.) Yes, it seems that Paul is also offering some words of wisdom that are specific to the “present distress” suffered by the Corinthian church, which include advice to remain as they are given the present distress. The “present distress” is the season of life to which God had called the Corinthians in His sovereign will. Whether we are in times of particular distress or not, .I believe the point that we take away is the same—let us make use of every opportunity in the circumstances God sovereignly brings us in order to serve and honor our God and thereby demonstrate His worthiness to the world. There are unique gifts (blessings and advantages that enable us to serve, honor, and glorify God) that come with marriage and singlehood. Paul expresses this in verse 6: “But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” A gift of marriage is being able to image Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5). A gift of singleness is not having the burden of pleasing a spouse (1 Cor 7:32-35). A gift of parenthood is modeling Biblical headship and sacrificial love (Ephesians 6). A gift of slavery is modeling godly submission and faith in what is unseen, the hope of the glory of God (Ephesians 6). I am sure we can come up with countless examples of the benefits (and disadvantages) of every station of life. I believe the point is that we are to make the most of our circumstances doing the good works that God has prepared for us in advance in these circumstances. I think this gets at the heart of what is so important about Biblical manhood and womanhood. As men and women, we are uniquely equipped to glorify God in our differing genders. This is why I am so excited to learn as we journey through the book to learn what Scripture tells us about how we uniquely glorify God through masculinity and femininity. I really want to grow in my understanding (and living out) of this!
(Jeremiah, I appreciate your point about unmarried men living at home. There are circumstances where an unmarried man living at home can be shirking his Biblical calling as a man, and there are circumstances where an unmarried man living at home is obediently living in Biblical community. I think we too often are driven to legalisms about these circumstances that are more informed by our independent western culture than the Bible.)
March 25th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Mark,
“Firstly, were you aware that RBMW was re-released in 2006, with very little change from the earlier version?”
It has been since this re-issue that the reform of teachings to Christian singles has gotten underway, with Boundless writers, such as Steve and Candice Watters being major influences in the FotF camp from 2006 onward (pretty much since the publishing of Debbie Maken’s book Getting Serious about Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness). Articles touting the GoS have since been removed from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website.
“Your “own particular God” translation is confusing…” OOPS!! Of course it is, because I made a typo. I meant to say “particular gift from God”, as per the NRSV. The word “karisma” has indeed been used to describe spiritual gifts in the Bible, but it’s a word that also describes “free gifts” that, although given by God, aren’t necessarily spiritual gifts. As a matter of fact, it’s the “GoS” supporters like Carolyn McCulley, a protege of Piper’s who wrote “Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye”, who take this position. Karisma is a word that is still used in Greek today to describe any innate or God given talent. Historically, it was thought that Paul had an innate gift of sexual self-control, that which had been known as “the gift of celibacy” that enabled him to proceed on such a perilous mission alone. The gift of singleness (ie. any singleness) is a modern twist, one that deviates not only from this historical understanding but from the original Greek text as well.
The widespread teaching to Christian youth that God will give you grace in singleness is contrary to how they have been designed. It’s like saying that God will give the gift of celibacy to those who are celibate or single, and we know from experience that this is not true for the vast majority of people. We have an epidemic of protracted singleness today, even in the church, and of those who do marry, most have sex before they do. We should be working to restore timely marriage, rather than holding up as a prerequisite the largely unattainable “contentedness in singlehood” bar so high that most don’t even make it.
Marriage and singleness are not merely matters of “advantages and disadvantages”. With the exception of a gifted few (and an unfortunate many), marriage is most definitely the biblical and creational norm. Rather than flattering or patronizing those who aren’t marrying by assuming that they have the GoS, we are overlooking the worldly and satanic obstacles that are limiting the proliferation of believers in our world today. We are so quick to point to culture wars, but when it comes to rethinking what’s going on within the church, we are too quick to shrug things off as “God’s sovereign will”. Perhaps God, in his sovereignty, is allowing us to experience the consequences of having altered his holy word.
Bina,
As I mentioned in my previous post, I encourage you to get a concordance and look up the word “gift” in all its usuages in the scriptures. Not only is singleness not mentioned as a gift, but neither is marriage. I am baffled that you would call slavery a gift, I doubt very much that the Rev. MLK would have concurred with that.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am
gortexgrrl –
If you read Bina’s post carefully you will find that she did not call slavery a gift…at all.
“A gift of slavery is…” She said that within slavery it’s a gift to display godly submission and faith.
For example, if I have cancer it would be a gift from God for me to have joy and hope in the midst of it so the cancer itself is not the gift but the opportunity to display faith and hope with cancer is. Likewise, to display submission and faith while under the yoke of slavery is a gift from God and thus slavery can display the goodness of God in a person’s life. Suffering is itself not the gift…it’s what God gives us in the suffering that can sometimes be a gift.
“I am sure we can come up with countless examples of the benefits (and disadvantages) of every station of life. I believe the point is that we are to make the most of our circumstances doing the good works that God has prepared for us in advance in these circumstances.”
This sentence should have tipped you off to the fact that she was not calling slavery a gift from God…but an opportunity to display a gift of God in it.
Likewise, she didn’t call singleness a gift…she said “a gift of singleness is…” Meaning that when one is single God may have given us a gift of more time in that particular season of life.
March 26th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“If you read Bina’s post carefully you will find that she did not call slavery a gift…at all.
“A gift of slavery is…” She said that within slavery it’s a gift to display godly submission and faith.”
No, she did say “gift of slavery”. There is no such thing as “a gift of slavery”, even if there have been slaves that have modeled “godly submission and faith in what is unseen”.
Interesting that you should mention cancer, Kristian. As much as I would agree with you that it is not a gift (but that the ability to display faith and hope would be), John Piper, the writer of that singleness article claims it is. In his article “Don’t Waste Your Cancer” he says that if you have cancer and don’t see it as a gift, designed by God for you, then you are “wasting your cancer”.
The problem with calling things that create suffering “a gift” (other than the fact that the bible does not) is creates an added burden for the suffering, that they must “buck up” and call their suffering a gift, even when they don’t really mean it. I think it also has the added effect of diminishing compassion for the suffering, as if, oh well, God will give them grace to see it through. As we pass the buck and expect them to be these great witnesses for God, we may be giving them burdens too great to bear, when we should just be with them in their suffering, which is the true biblical example.
Piper’s big, sweeping way of interpreting the scriptures amounts to quite a lot of exaggeration with unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the blogs of his supporters (I’m not saying this one) often imitate his grand style and creative proof-texting, brashly declaring this and that “a gift”. Some may be convinced, just as often it may well have the opposite effect.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Apparently me taking a break from posting does not equate to you guys taking a break from commenting. :)
If I could be so bold I think that there are some semantics issues and that people may be talking past each other to a degree.
I believe the issue of “suffering like a Christian” can often lead to two equally damaging extremes. One end effectually says that “if you are faithful enough, spiritual enough, christian enough then you will not feel the pain of suffering and if you do hurt when suffering comes then something is wrong with your walk.” As one who has suffered gut wrenching levels of pain, just typing that out grieves me. For proof that this is not the case one simply needs to look at the agony of Christ at Gethsemane. Here we see the perfect man hurting immensely! His faith in God is apparently “not good enough” according to this first extreme. This view ascribes a power (of making pain disappear) to “being faithful” that simply isn’t there.
On the other end we have a view that says “Sometimes the pain of suffering is so strong that the person in it can’t be expected to do anything other then hurt! Telling them to ‘Rejoice in the Lord’ and ‘Look for what God is doing’ is only adding to their burden!” This view likewise ascribes a power to pain that simply is not their. Pain does not immobilize us from finding joy in God and believing that he is using this pain for a very good purpose. Likewise pain does not provide us an excuse to take a break from seeking joy in God and believing that he is good. Jesus also provides the most excellent example of this in the very same place, that is the cross. He endured the suffering of the cross for “for the joy that was set before him.”
The problem, as I see it, is when we make little of suffering OR when we make little of the joy of knowing God. As I reread my post before writing this I see that I may have “made little” of suffering.
I do believe that the joy of knowing God is much greater then the pain of any suffering, but that is not the same thing as saying that the joy of the Lord makes pain disappear, because it doesn’t.
What I was wanting to do, hoping to do (but apparently failed at horribly!) was to ask my single friends to see the possibility of joy in serving the Lord as greater then the suffering of singleness. In fact I wasn’t only inviting them to do that, but all of us to do that with our sufferings.
I didn’t mean to come across as saying “your singleness won’t hurt if you see or do such and such” and if it came across that way, which clearly it did, then here’s my correction!
I know it’s late and I am typing a steam of consciousness, but does this make sense to you gortexgrrl?
March 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am
“On the other end we have a view that says “Sometimes the pain of suffering is so strong that the person in it can’t be expected to do anything other then hurt! Telling them to ‘Rejoice in the Lord’ and ‘Look for what God is doing’ is only adding to their burden!””
Oh no, I’m definitely not saying that all they can do is hurt and that there’s no place for the exhortation to rejoice in the Lord! It’s a good exhortation because it’s scriptural. (Rom 5:3-5). Whereas, “gift of singleness”, “cancer is a gift”, “a gift of slavery” are not scriptural.
The scriptures never refer to any illness or adversity as “gifts”, even if they do happen under God’s sovereignty, even if we are to look to God to find faith, hope and rejoice in whatever circumstances we are in. But I would use caution in quantifying rejoicing in suffering, as if the joy of serving the Lord should be greater than our sufferings. Again, it seems to go beyond scripture to quantify this in more or less terms. Look at the psalms. There are many times when suffering exceeds the joy of serving. Our human weakness is why we have the cross, and perhaps why the scriptures ask much of us (Luke 12:48), but not too much.
March 27th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
And this (should we call it a gift or not) may just be an issue of semantics, but it may also be one of substance. Would you be more comfortable if instead of saying that singlessness (or cancer or infertility) is “a gift” if we said that it was “from the hand of God and meant for your good”?
That is what I meant. That while the suffering of Gods children is against the will of God in one sense, it is also the will of God in another – This is though not a “cold will of God”, but a loving one. One which is actively working all things for the good of his children.
Examples of this “in one sense, but not in another” are spread throughout the Scriptures, but they find their climax in the cross. The murder of Christ was the most vile of sins and clearly those men were going against the will of God, and yet no Christian can deny that the murder of Christ was in a different sense clearly the perfect will of God. We don’t need to choose between “It was the will of God” and “It wasn’t the will of God”. It was both, but in different senses. Recognizing that in one sense his death was the will of his father does not mean that the other one (the fact that great injustice was being done to him) disappears or that the effects of it (pain and sorrow) disappear either.
What it does mean though is that there is additional cause for rejoicing. You can always rejoice that eventually this will be over, but you can also rejoice that he means for the present sufferings are in accordance with his will to bring about good. It is in this tension that we can both hope for the day when the suffering will cease and we can hope in the suffering that God is at work.
We’re talking about holding fast to two doctrines: 1) The providence of God in all that takes place in this world and 2) The goodness of God in all that takes place in this world while also not denying the reality that suffering just plain hurts. There is tension here and people don’t like tension and so they go to one of those extremes.
That being said, while the phrase “a gift” may be a stumbling block to some, don’t you think that even if you change it to “from the hand of our good father” many people would still bristle at it? Now that I’ve clarified where I am coming from some, does this seem to be an issue of semantics or substance?
March 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“Would you be more comfortable if instead of saying that singlessness (or cancer or infertility) is “a gift” if we said that it was “from the hand of God and meant for your good”?”
Again, no, because the scriptures never refer to disease or adversity as “from the hand of God and meant for your good”. Although there are some verses in the epistles that come close to saying that to those who are experiencing persecution for the sake of the church.
Even if, eventually, God works all things together for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose (especially in the context of those individuals and groups fulfilling his purpose in the way of some special mission), within both of those two doctrines is a third — that God cannot be the author of sin. Throughout the bible, God shows displeasure at sin.
I understand that God allows sin to happen, and it makes sense at face value. For example, he allows us the freedom to subdue the earth in all kinds of ways, some of which create harm (ie. children who get cancer due to toxic by-products from industry located near their homes). Unfair to the innocent children, yes, but God doesn’t necessarily suspend the workings of his creation, just because we mess with it. It may often be God’s design of natural consequences that cause people to change and conform to his revealed or moral will.
And then there are the mysterious workings of God’s hidden will (ie. that the child died so that his widowed mother would marry the widowed doctor at the hospital where he was being treated and they would become medical missionaries in Africa, etc.), and I just think there are all kinds of problems when we get side tracked by speculative notions, rather than what’s at hand.
The GoS seems to be a modern product of thinking in terms of speculation about “God’s perfect plan for MY life”, rather than looking to the will that God has revealed to us in scripture (which puts the onus on individuals and communities to seek and encourage marriage). Thinking that everything happens for our good too often leads to this kind of rose-colored glasses thinking that we’ve actually done good, when we haven’t. Perhaps much of the involuntary singleness we see in the world today, isn’t God in his benevolence bestowing a wonderful gift on us, but rather allowing us to experience consequences of our choices and actions, as individuals and as a collective generation (where some individuals will suffer more than others and where those who do certain sins more are often spared many of the consequences of their sin, which then befall on more or less innocent others). It such a case, it just seems a bit cheeky to call something that’s meant as a consequence (or even a punishment) a “gift”. And it may not be for our own good, but for the good of future generations that things go down that way. There’s a lot of talk along the lines of “God’s perfect plan for MY life” among believers that presumes a lot. Not that I have any doubts that God knows and cares for each of us, individually, and works in our lives. I just think that in our modernity we might be personalizing things that other generations (and traditional cultures) would understand in more corporate terms.
Anyways, these are big questions and it’s not for any of us to read the mind of God, or to speak for him. That is why we should appreciate the mystery of the scriptures, and obey what they say , rather embellish beyond what has actually been written. And that’s the problem I have with John Piper. It’s one thing to say that “for those who love God all things work together for good” and quite another to say “God designed your cancer for you”.
March 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
yeah it’s a difference of substance not just semantics. ;)
Some view God as only coming in for the rescue and others believe he planned the need for it in the first place. As our good friend Piper has put it “What God allows, He allows for a purpose.” Some people agree with that, some think he allows things for no purpose.
No one is getting the Gospel wrong though, so… blessings!
March 27th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
`The GoS seems to be a modern product of thinking in terms of speculation about “God’s perfect plan for MY life”,’
Matthew 19:12 suggests that in Jesus’ lifetime involuntary singleness was probably the result of an earlier generation’s sins rather than the sins of the person who was made a eunuch. It also suggests that involuntary singleness is not a particularly modern thing.
March 27th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“Some view God as only coming in for the rescue and others believe he planned the need for it in the first place. As our good friend Piper has put it “What God allows, He allows for a purpose.” Some people agree with that, some think he allows things for no purpose.”
Well, I’m sure that God is more omnipresent than someone who just comes in for the rescue. And I would think that God allowing natural forces to do their thing in response to what we do to his creation to indeed be a purpose. And I guess, in the grand scheme of things, it’s for our good (and thus my own, if I care about future generations). And what more purpose do we need to know than that? It just concerns me that as we look for the bigger purpose (not that I’m denying that there could be one), we often miss the wood for the trees.
“Matthew 19:12 suggests that in Jesus’ lifetime involuntary singleness was probably the result of an earlier generation’s sins rather than the sins of the person who was made a eunuch. It also suggests that involuntary singleness is not a particularly modern thing.”
Only difference between then and now is that believers then did not consider the first two “involuntary eunuchs” to have “the gift of singleness”. Only the third kind of eunuch was considered to be gifted, those who “make themselves” (note the voluntary language) eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. And it is for this third kind that this teaching is for when Christ says “not all can receive this teaching, except those whom it is given” and again at the end where he says “let those who can receive it, receive it”. In other words, it is not a passage for “encouraging” the involuntarily single, as it’s often assumed. I also think it’s noteworthy that Christ didn’t share it until someone asked him about the option of staying single.
Unfortunately, many modern leaders think that all singles should hear this teaching, as if they should all be thinking hard about whether or not God is “calling” them to stay single. I believe this is a kind of spiritual abuse.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I am going to attempt to put this post on hiatus for the next few weeks by making a mini-announcement that DiscerningReader.com will be posting an interview with Carolyn McCulley (author of “Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye?”) regarding her latest book, “Radical Womanhood.” We will ask her about the controversial concept of the so-called “Gift of Singleness” and I will inform you all when the interview is posted. Until then, Dwayne and I must turn our attention back to the book! Thanks all for commenting.
March 28th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Hi Gortexgrl,
I think some of our disagreement has to do with semantics and some has to do with a different view of the role that suffering has in our ultimate good and God’s ultimate glory. I have written more about my theology of suffering on my blog here:
http://abranchinthevine.blogspot.com/search/label/Suffering
I NEVER want to make light of other people’s suffering. To the contrary, my heart breaks for the suffering of my brothers and sisters and I desire to be compassionate. When suffering comes to others or to myself, I sincerely grieve. It would be sick for me to have some false façade of saccharine cheer. However, this is not to say that I don’t have a joy that is also present and that is greater than any suffering I experience. This joy is from knowing God gradually in this life and the hope of knowing Him fully one day when I am with Him in the end. The reason this joy overshadows my suffering is because the pleasure of knowing God is worth it. This is the sentiment expressed by Paul in 2 Cor 4:17-18: “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, 18 as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” As unbelievable as it sounds, Paul calls his suffering (loneliness, betrayal, false accusations, physical abuse, etc) a “light momentary affliction”. This only makes sense when compared to the “eternal weight of glory”. This is because there is something (relationship with God) that we attain as Christians that is infinitely greater than anything else and is worth losing everything else. Our perfect example of this is the life of Jesus who suffered more than any of us ever could. Jesus sincerely and intensely experienced the emotions of grief and anguish, yet we know there was a joy or treasure that made it worth it to Him to endure. Jesus’ desired to glorify the Father in His circumstances:
Hebrews 12:1 says, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.”
John 17:1-2 says, “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.”
In delightful and horrific circumstances of our life, we have opportunities to glorify God and we have access to joy in considering the treasure that awaits us (which is relationship with the Living God).
I think part of the problem in our discussion is the way that we have been using the term “gift”, which can mean a variety of things (talents, calling, benefit/asset, etc). When I was referring to “gifts” in circumstances (like marriage, singlehood, and even slavery) I was referring to “opportunities unique to our circumstances” in the Christian end goal to know God and image God/the gospel (whether that is in marriage, singlehood, or even in slavery). There are unique opportunities to glorify God and image God/the gospel even in suffering. For instance, infertility is a source of pain and suffering for me and it is not something I want or seek out. My infertility in itself is not a gift. However, in my infertility, as painful as it is, I am blessed with unique opportunities to know/image/glorify God. I can serve others in ways I might not otherwise be able to do if I had the time restraints and responsibilities of raising up children (for example, I can babysit other people’s children, it may be easier for me to re-arrange my schedule to help a friend in need because I do not have to figure out child care, etc.). I can invest time and energy in blessing children who are not my biological children, just like God blesses us as His adopted children (who were purchased by the sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son!). I can also demonstrate that God is my treasure with joy in Him even if I am not blessed with children, etc. We see this example in Job’s response to suffering:
Job 1:21 “And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”
I hope this clarifies what I meant in my earlier post. Slavery is a sin, and it produces a righteous indignation in me. As a Christian (and as a human rights advocate by profession), I vigorously fight against injustices and sins like slavery and other forms of abuse/torture. However, I have seen survivors of abuse/torture image and glorify God in unique and amazing ways that have profoundly humbled and inspired me. I fiercely fight for their protection, healing, and freedom and genuinely desire these things for them with every fiber of my being, but that does not change the fact that I am awed by the ways they have glorified and imaged God in their circumstances.
There are such limitations of a conversation like this over the internet, where we can easily misunderstand each other and where we do not have the benefit of context. I would much rather have this conversation in person, but I do hope that the articulation of what is on my heart here is coming through in some meaningful degree.
Blessings to you in the love of Christ, Gortexgrl! Bina
March 28th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Sorry, Mark, I didn’t catch your last post before posting my last post! I’m excited to read the interview with Carolyn McCulley. I’m reading “Radical Womanhood” right now and I find it enjoyable and challenging!
March 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Bina,
I have been a Christian for almost all of my life. It’s not as if I am not aware of or grateful for the opportunities to glorify God in suffering. And that if we look the Lord, there can be possibilities for joy to exceed suffering, even if not all of the time. In many ways the cross keeps our sufferings in perspective, and as such, gives us comfort.
My only objection is when leaders go beyond the scriptures, which is what I believe Piper does when he casts a negative light on those who don’t see their cancer, singleness, or any other kind of suffering, as a “gift”, “designed by God for you”, that they are “wasting” this “gift”.
That I would question such a thing seems to have raised some concerns here about my faith, as if I don’t get it that God can work with adversity to our good and to his glory. And that’s the problem many singles in the church have been facing over the past few decades since the “GoS” trend — they cannot be real about their struggles, because any chink in the armour of joy and contentment will raise questions about their faith and spiritual maturity. Say anything and you’ll get the “contentment sermon” (and no, I’m saying that’s what you’re doing). This process of routing the discussion to issues about sovereignty keeps us from dealing with the real reasons about why so many Christians today are having difficulty finding their way to marriage. Anyways, things are changing, there is a burgeoning dialogue at Boundless.com (a Focus on the Family website) about these issues, spearheaded by Candice Watters, who has written the book “Get Married: What Women Can Do to Help It Happen”
Mark,
It will be interesting to see how Carolyn responds to your questions about the GoS. Her 2004 book “Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye” devoted an entire chapter to it, but she makes no mention of it in her current book. The GoS has definitely gone through a great deal of critical review since the 2006 publishing Debbie Maken’s book “Getting Serious about Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness”, heralded as the antithesis of DIKMG. Candice Watters’ recent book featured endorsements by both Carolyn and Debbie, who have both written articles for Boundless.