Last week during a meeting, one of the leaders of a national church planting network remarked, “We don’t allow single men to plant churches.”

A few years ago, the committee introduced me to a minister in another state. During one of our phone calls he shared how hard it had been to find a church willing to hire a never-married, not-currently-engaged man to serve as their senior leader.

As Paul Williams has written, the pressure to “find a good mate at college” still exists, and if a man knows he won’t be able to land a preaching job before first landing a wife, it’s that much more likely he’ll marry before he’s ready. Do we prefer a growing number of unhappily married leaders to some happily single ones?


Then there’s the other Paul—you know, the one who was single but also planted a number of churches and wrote half the New Testament?

Oh, and Jesus.


I’m not saying a singleton is better for ministry (although Paul did), but I’m not sure why churches are opposed to it. You’d think they would be clamoring for a single guy—theoretically the congregation would pay less money in health care and other benefits and receive more of the leader’s focus.

Instead, there seems to be a fear that an unmarried senior pastor will be unstable (because all the married leaders are so together) or promiscuous (because the married guys are never tempted by sexual sin).

Of the many biblical teachings we like to ignore, this one really does baffle me.

What do you think? Why this stigma against singles?

Filed under: men and women, opinions, the church Tagged: church planting, Jesus, Paul, Paul Williams, senior pastor, single

Yesterday I alluded to this one, so let’s just go there.

I understand many of the arguments against women preaching or otherwise leading a church (serving as an elder, for example). There are the scriptures like 1 Timothy 2 (which beg questions not only of biblical interpretation but also definition of terms like “authority”). There’s the argument from the created order (equal but different roles assigned to the male and female in relationship to each other and within the home). There’s even the argument from Jesus’s own ministry (only male apostles, for instance).


I get it. But I still have problems with these explanations.

For one thing, this position automatically disqualifies 50% of the population from contributing their full giftedness in the life of the church. Are we okay with that?

For another, this disqualification means many smart, talented women are left out of the discussions and decisions of local church life (but still expected to staff the nursery and provide cookies afterward). Granted, many men are similarly uninvolved in church leadership, but at least it’s not because they have the wrong body part.

Finally, let’s just be honest. Some male pastors are strong leaders and communicators. Some aren’t. Some of the female preachers I know are even better. (Priscilla Shirer, I’m talking to you.)


Now, on the other hand, I will be the first to admit that many of our programs, buildings and even worship songs already skew toward the feminine. And studies have shown that if you get the man to church, the family will follow.

And no, we don’t get to choose our theology based on our feelings about it. Scripture is full of hard teachings.


So I don’t know.  I don’t want to preach.  I certainly don’t want to be involved in anything that’s not scriptural. But I also have to acknowledge that some of the traditional answers just don’t fit with the reality of how God seems to have gifted his people—of both genders.


What do we do with this?

Filed under: men and women, opinions, the church Tagged: 1 Timothy, Priscilla Shirer, women's role

Years ago, one of my then-coworkers said I should consider selling my eggs—the inference being I might as well put them to good use and make some money since I wasn’t getting married anytime soon.

Didn’t.

Appreciate.

However, I did very much appreciate the question a different friend asked recently.

“So I was thinking,” he emailed, after reading an article about a former tennis pro who had children in her mid-40s after freezing her eggs as a younger woman, “let’s say that seven or eight years from now you finally find the right guy. It’s very, very possible, you know.”

(My friend is an optimist.)

“And you decide having kids is a good idea—very, very possible as well. It seems it would be pretty reassuring to know those frozen eggs were nestled somewhere.”

I appreciated his boldness in raising the issue (unlike the former co-worker, this friend has earned the right) and his compassionate approach. (“I cannot begin to understand the emotional strain of making that decision,” he concluded. “If the above scenario did take place, it seems it would have been worth it. On the other hand, if that guy never came along, I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to let those eggs go.”)


“Setting your own biological clock” is an interesting idea and one I’ve never really considered, mostly because it’s only in the last couple of years that the proverbial clock has ticked loud enough for me to hear. But the chance of having a healthy baby drops off rapidly after age 35 unless younger eggs have been kept in reserve.

Since the eggs are not fertilized before freezing, no new life has occurred, so I don’t see a moral issue with either the process or the eventual disposal of unused ones. (I welcome feedback/links that say otherwise.)


I also don’t believe the truism that if God wanted me to have children I would have married and had them by now. Life happens. Break-ups happen. Wasting years of my 20s with the wrong men happens. I made choices then and I get to make choices now.

But while God may not have determined the details of my current life, He did create our biology with certain parameters. Women aren’t designed to bear children in their mid 40s. And do I really want to chase a 2-year old when I’m 47?


Roy Mays used to say, “Just because it fits doesn’t mean it’s fitting.” I could do this, and I’m probably not completely done considering it. (That will come when I discover the cost.) But I’m not sure it’s right for me.

What do you think? Is this putting current science to its best use or “playing God”? What are the pros and cons?

Filed under: life, men and women, opinions Tagged: baby, biological clock, freezing eggs, marriage

I’m seeing this video making the rounds on Facebook again, so it seemed timely to revive my post about the huge manipulation of images in today’s advertising. As a new blogger I wasn’t savvy enough to embed the video; now I am but the Dove people won’t allow it, so click here to watch the one minute transformation of actual pretty girl to manufactured supermodel.




As my friend (and hair stylist) Glory likes to say, “Inner beauty is for amateurs.”

————————————————————————————————————————

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the expectations of beauty we have for Christian women in the public eye. As a follow-up, check out this short video showing the work involved in transforming a regular girl into a billboard stunner. As one blogger put it, “Seems those magazine beauties don’t really exist after all…which means that many of us guys have a subconscious measuring stick no female can measure up to without moving in and out of Photoshop at will.” You’re just now figuring this out?


But we shouldn’t come down too hard on the men. Many of the women who complain about our culture’s unreasonable standards of beauty are the same ones spending huge sums of money on Botox and miracle wrinkle creams. We claim to resent it, but our dollars and attention fuel the machine.

(And I can’t prove this, but I think we do it more to impress and compete with other women than we do to attract men.)


This video is part of Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty” which promises to, among other things, donate grant dollars toward “the Program for Aesthetics and Well-Being” at Harvard and develop a “self-esteem fund” for young girls. I doubt Dove will single-handedly change the nature of advertising in this country, but it’s a brilliant advertising ploy in its own right. And I have a pimple today so I’m going to watch the video again.

Filed under: life, men and women, opinions Tagged: aging, airbrush, beauty, Campaign for Real Beauty, Dove, evolution video, Photoshop, self esteem

A few weeks ago, one of the guys on my kickball team said two things that made me smile.

The first—“I thought about dating you, but decided it wouldn’t work because I’ve been reading your blog and you’re too Christian”—because that deserves a trophy for Back-handed Compliment Of The Year.

And the second—“You need a strong guy, and there aren’t many strong Christian guys”—because it made me think of this post.




Let’s make up a statistic and see if we can get it to go viral. How about, “If you are a single Christian woman over 30, you are 64% more likely to get hit by a bus than to get married.”

Look both ways, ladies.

—————————————————————————————-

At dinner with some friends this weekend, one of them described the guy she’d just started dating. He was raised in a Christian home but no longer attends church or “practices” any faith. My friend likes him and plans to see him again but she’s also approaching it casually; she realizes his lack of faith is a major issue.

Whether or not she should date a non-Christian at all is a whole other discussion. In his book How to Get a Date Worth Keeping, Henry Cloud asserts that dating unbelievers is fine if you approach it as a way to make new friends, have fun, and grow as a person. As someone who dated and subsequently did the love and loss routine with an atheist, I would argue the opposite point of view.

But wherever you land on that, the point is she’s dating this guy (let’s call him Jack) because even though she knows dozens of Christian men her age at our church, not one has ever asked her out. And before you ask—yes, she is smart, attractive, outgoing, and generally “together.” So are my other single friends, many of whom struggle with the same situation. Why the dating drought when it comes to Christian men?


I obviously can’t speak for the men, but based on the statistics I’ve read it doesn’t seem they lack interest in marriage and family. The majority of single men—believers and otherwise—say they hope to marry and raise children.

Yet many Christian guys don’t date—they lead Bible studies and singles events, they pray for a wife, they attend group activities for years on end, but they rarely exert a little energy or spend a little money to know any woman individually.

Nothing’s wrong with groups, but Jack didn’t wait for verification from five buddies as to whether my friend might be interested in him. He initiated conversation with her, expressed his interest, and took a risk.


God created men to be initiators, so this kind of assertiveness gets our attention. My friends and I are strong women, but we refuse to usurp that role and act as the pursuer. If our Christian brothers won’t, either, what’s the new strategy? My friend summed it up well as we finished our coffee. “I don’t know what will happen with Jack, but it’s frustrating to have few alternatives. I guess we’re just supposed to be ‘waiting on the Lord.’ Okay. We’re waiting……”

I’m really not trying to be down on men here. I know it’s hard to take those kinds of risks, and I know women can be confusing and contradictory. But I do believe that, despite the difficulties, God created men to step up and take action in every area of their lives—which includes “finding a wife” (Proverbs 18:22).


Guys, we don’t expect you to quote poetry or be able to benchpress your car. We just wish you’d spend a little less time reading Wild at Heart and a little more time living it.

Filed under: life, men and women, opinions Tagged: Christian, dating, henry cloud, How to get a date worth keeping, marriage, men and woman, Proverbs, Wild at Heart