I’m ordained, 37, single (never married), with experience pastoring in large churches. Given my credentials, I had zero anxiety initially. Then I started reading “job requirement” phrases like these in pastoral job applications:
-“We are looking for a married man”
-“Preferably married”
-“Is married (preferably with children)”
These churches explicitly were not looking to hire someone single–like Jesus or Paul. I then was surprised to discover that even though the majority of adult Americans are single (52 percent), that only 2 percent of senior pastors in my denomination are single! Something was clearly amiss.
Read it all and note part two is there.
Follow up: the New York Times ran a piece on this there.
Well certainly in England married clergy have been preferred for the reason that the parish gets two for the price of one – a vicar and a vicar’s wife. It has always been seen as a two person job.
Vicar’s wives don’t always agree.
And vicar’s children? Well they give us our rebels.
I think I would turn it around on a resume and present it as a selling point. If the parish wasn’t interested it likely would not be a good fit anway…
One of the commenters in the article says:
[blockquote] Not to assume that a married person would be more likely to molest children, but I think that people who have those temptations probably try to fit into whatever is deemed acceptable by their society [/blockquote]
…which is exactly right. The pedophile Catholic says (consciously or unconsciously) “well…I’ll become a priest. It will explain why I’m not married and give me access to kids.” The pedophile Protestant says “I’ll become a married pastor. It will give me perfect cover and allow me access to kids.”
The parish leadership with whom I’ve discussed searches seem to believe that married priests with children are people who will help them seek out and appeal to their own children and others’. There’s a sense that unmarried clergy simply won’t be able to draw in and appeal to the young families that churches often crave. I honestly don’t know whether that is true or not — I’m single myself — but my gut does say that when a young family visits, they are comforted to see a familiar “family unit” in the clergy.
As a vestry member and chairman of our personnel committee, I must say that I don’t think it matters whether a priest is married or not. In fact, a single priest costs less than a married one and should have fewer distractions and demands on his time and energy than a family man. When my children were young, the marital status of our rector (married with two children and no divorces)wasn’t something I gave the slightest attention to. I can think of only a very few times I ever saw his wife or children (they went to the “contemporary” service, I guess). Nonetheless, my children and I still thought he was the greatest and my son, when in his teens, was comfortable making an appointment to seek counsel from him on a matter he wasn’t comfortable about bringing to us.
It’s the man, not whether he is married or not, that matters to me.
The comments attached to the actual article are actually very good and very interesting. One points out that Jesus and Paul did not seem to have significant problems in attracting “family units” without a display of wife and kids.
The local parish church I belong to has 6,000 members (with 4 other RC churches within a 1/2 hour drive) and will be administering First Communion to over 100 2nd graders in a few weeks. The lack of wife and kids on the part of the pastor does not seem to be repelling young families. Admittedly this is cultural conditioning, but my point is that there’s nothing inherent in the idea that families draw families. In any event, were this true, the pastor would have to ditch his wife when his kids flew the nest and start over again to keep drawing in those young families. 🙂
#1 Pageantmaster says:
I’ve started to see it happening more commonly that the rector’s spouse is NOT a member of the rector’s congregation… instead, s/he attends some other nearby church. (Assuming, of course, there is another nearby church; this may not be the case in small towns.)
The reasons I’ve heard expressed for this are two-fold: one, the rector’s spouse may not like the automatic assumption many congregations make that s/he will naturally join the altar guild, head up the bake sale, teach a Sunday School class, organize the library, et endless cetera.
The other, more significant reason, is: who will the rector’s spouse go to when s/he needs a priest? Not their own husband or wife, if they have any sense and any other option. In that sense, it’s better if the spouse has an ongoing pastoral relationship with someone else. Hence, being a member of another congregation.
Well, it’s certainly true that a single man — or single woman — can attract folks of all types.
But I think our culture is particularly desperate and parents are seeking — perhaps irrationally — for family models. I would add that I also think [setting aside the theological issues] that women are often *not sought specifically* by parishes simply because they want someone to attract the men.
Again — I’m not speaking theologically [for if so, I’m opposed to WO anyway], but perfectly normal [that is, not theologically reflective] parishioners on search committees will often express to me that they want a man and they want him married and preferably with children. Questioning usually reveals general ideas that such people will attract young families and male leaders. I’m not saying it’s morally right to think so, or even theologically right. I’m just reporting back what I hear in spades from folks on search committees.
“…but my gut does say that when a young family visits, they are comforted to see a familiar “family unit†in the clergy”.
And, evan miller, thank you for that nice post in #5.
I would agree that the above statement is true, but in some churches it backfires, as evan gently outlines. Sometimes it’s like “we want a priest with a young family” is the biggest lie in the Church; as, later, congregations don’t like it when the priest actually spends time his family, even when/if he’s doing a wonderful job in the church.
A small sample, to be sure, but the last two churches I have been in grew well, but when the rector with a young family left, the next rectors(2) both had GROWN kids–thus, no need for churches to pay for “family” insurance plans and/or occasional babysitting for the priests’ kids, when he/she and spouse were both obligated for church events.
I think it is best when churches call the person who suits them, regardless of marital status. So on that score, I would agree with evan.
My cousin is a pastor who married in his 30’s. He reported that his life as a single pastor involved a constant stream of women making themselves available. Maybe they were looking for a husband. Maybe they were just looking to bed an authority figure. Whatever the truth, it all stopped as soon as he got married. One might say (sorta half tongue in cheek) that he ‘escaped’ into marriage. There is certain degree of “settledness” in marriage that provides stability to the arrangement of pastor. Less opportunity for scandal.
carl
Carl, it is also amazing(and sad) how some will still “make themselves available”(or attempt to) despite the wedding band and even a happy marriage. “Hell hath no deterrent”, I guess…
🙂
We live in a marriage-crazy culture. Everyone MUST marry or be looked at askance and seen as a second-class citizen. I don’t understand how it got to be that way, especially in Christianity, with what the author rightly notes about the long history of singlehood being the preferred state. I have some real Bible-thumping, intensely religious friends who rail against divorce, even though they’ve been divorced a couple of times.
And, that’s the point, it seems. It’s better to be divorced than single to these folks. Now, there’s no way they’ll actually admit thinking that way because it is, of course, unBiblical. But they’ve also been raised with the command that you must marry and start a family — it’s what God wants. As the author notes, they will marry young at the first prospect and take it from there. There will be divorces and there will be scandals (look at how many of the televangelists have gotten caught in all sorts of sin) but all of that can be forgiven. Singlehood says something else to them.
Subconsciously to these folks, singleness says there might be something wrong with the person because no one has chosen/he has chosen no one as a spouse. Unfair? Yes, but the idea still lurks. They wonder if the person has a problem with commitment, odd sexual proclivities, something in the past, whatever. Marriage indicates that someone tested you and found you acceptable, theoretically speaking, and, in this philosophy, it’s better to be in any marriage (good or not) than to be an uncommitted single.
I think this is changing but slowly.
I’m a married priest and the best advice anyone ever gave me was from another retired married priest. He told me that when you are interviewing, ask what sort of compensation the vestry is planning on giving your wife. When they say, “For your wife? We’re not employing her.” The priest’s reply should be, “And don’t you forget it!”
#12 has some great points, and I’ve always wondered what all that’s about.
I was sad to see that, at my first high school reunion(10 year point, with most of us ~ 28) that about 1/3 were happily married, 1/3 were already on at least their first divorce, and 1/3 were still single. A lot of the singles were acting a little crazy, as if they had a complex about being single, and a lot of others were treating them as if they were crazy. I didn’t think that was fair. It’s true I was lucky to meet my spouse and marry at a young age(22) and the marriage has endured.
Some of my classmates and I actually fell to discussing this in the ladies’ room. I said I didn’t understand why some singles were acting as they did, and why some others were treating the singles badly. And I also said I was grateful for my spouse; but, if I couldn’t have him, I’d much rather be single than be with an idiot. All the other ladies present whooped in agreement and slapped me on the back.
I have great respect for the Scriptures, but I believe that “single” is much better than a miserable marriage or eventual divorce court.
It’s much more anecdotal than sociological, but Bair’s book “Calling it Quits”, which describes late-life divorce or the ending of long-term marriages, makes for interesting if occasionally bizarre reading on a similar topic.
Marriage is wonderful, but it is “work” at times, so it pays to choose as wisely as possible. And if the wise choice is to stay single, I don’t know why anyone would act as if there’s anything wrong with that, because there’s not.
Carl’s comment at #10 doesn’t surprise me in the least. He is being realistic about some of the pressures and issues involved.
Interestingly, I have heard similar comments from Roman Catholic friends – their situation is probably even more complex than ours, if that were possible.
The author of the articles has an uphill battle. One factor is the scriptures – by which I don’t mean that they outright forbid unmarried priests (although a few see it that way). Its just that with the injunctions that priests should be “the husband of only one wife” and Paul hinting that he was the only apostle that was unmarried, people tend to see married clergy as the “default” position (which is not necessarily fair, but then, neither is life).
I suspect that the recent push by liberals to force practicing homosexual clergy onto the church hasn’t helped either. Rightly or wrongly, congregations will tend to see married clergy as being some sort of a safeguard (and I am not saying that that is right, but I suspect it is a factor in attitudes).
It is no accident that politicians stress their marriages and children. Rightly or wrongly, it emphasizes stability and responsibility.
Really, Br. Michael? I think quite the opposite. Politicians emphasize the “wink and nod” culture in which marriage is a facade and the extracurricular activities are expected. Whenever I see those politicians trotting their wives up to the platform with them when they announce how “sorry” they are for their affairs, I just want to shake them. Are the prestige and perqs really worth it?
I was half-watching that Extra celebrity show on TV last evening and caught an interview with an African-American R & B singer who apparently had lost a lot of weight. (It wasn’t Jennifer Hudson; I was unfamiliar with this singer.) Anyhoo, she looked fabulous and has a new album out.
So, as she’s beaming and talking about how good she feels and how well everything is going, Mario Lopez asks her who the guy is who’s obviously making her happy. The woman looked at him quizzically and said, “no one! And why do you think my happiness requires a man?” Hahaha, way to go, gal! Lopez was taken aback and ended the interview.
More and more women are seeing that the option of being single can bring happiness and stability. When my mother was a widow, she often remarked to me how odd it was that women adjusted to being on their own quite well but men so often remarried within a couple of years after their wives’ deaths. Studies bear that out — women responding say they’re unlikely to marry again after their spouse dies.
I don’t think that men have some intrinsic flaw that makes them unable to be solitary and happy; I think society has made them emotionally weak by dictating that they need someone to take care of them. Women have gained empowerment and options in the past 50 years; men haven’t so much.
Teatime2,
I think one reason men remarry after the death of a spouse is that men find the single celibate state more difficult to maintain than women, a generalization to be sure, but a valid one I think.
Evan,
Perhaps that’s because society hasn’t really expected men to have self-control and unfairly put the burden on the women as “gatekeepers.” I don’t know what it’s like to be a man, of course, but, as a woman, I do know that I’ve had to master self-control because I do have healthy sexual desire. Even if it’s not “ladylike” to admit it. 😉
I think that issue has much more to do with sociology than biology, and it plays right into the prejudice that the single pastor is experiencing, which is a shame.
I suspect the men re-marrying is for another reason – my observation is that most men don’t cope well with the loss of a life-partner. Women often seem to cope much better.
Its not that the women don’t feel grief, they do just as much, but they seem better able to cope with being alone again.
I see so many times where an elderly wife’s passing is followed within a couple of years or even months by the husband’s death, whereas most widows seem to live many years after their husband’s passing. One of the reasons there are more grandmas on this world than grandpas.
So maybe the men who re-marry are just indulging a survival instinct…