325
Here we go…bend with me a little here…
No one gives much thought to the term “being single”. We hear it all the time. And now, there are ministries for “The Singles”, programs for singles, expectations for singles.
A young woman interviewed on Return of the Daughters made a profound statement. She said, “I’m not single. I’m part of a family.”
The singleness mindset seems harmless, until we scratch a little deeper and find that it is thinking rooted deeply in selfishness. We are a “me-culture”, and the single-phenomenon is another piece of evidence.
See, when I am classified as a single, and attend “single’s group”, and think in terms of singleness, it segregates me from working within the realm of a body (the body of Christ, which is first my family). “We are all members of one body…” It causes me to be turned toward my self, my world, my goals, my ambitions, my interests…you get the picture.
I’ve discussed here before that at the root of every societal problem is basically selfishness, which on a larger scale, is the result of humanity without a God (or disobedient Christians), and therefore failing to live out the greatest command: “love the Lord with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.”
This is why I cringe to hear the well-meaning comments made to a young woman in her late teens…”so what are you going to do”? And honestly, most of society do not know any other way. We’ve been operating autonomously for so long, we don’t even know what a family is supposed to look like anymore, or how it looks within a community when families fulfill the call to love and serve those around them.
A young woman should never be single. As long as she is unmarried, she has an incredible sphere of influence within her own family and community. She becomes like a “sculpted pillar” of the family, which strengthens and enables them to reach out in a tangible way, and meet the real needs around them.
She will probably marry eventually, at which point she simply transfers to another family. But what do we do to a daughter when we hand her over to singleness–to a limbo period wherein she will likely become so consumed with her own needs and desires, it will be difficult to come back to a unit again as a servant?
“My life for yours” should be the motto of every member of our family. For this was our Lord’s example, and it is the only true answer to peace and joy.
Your thoughts? More could be said, but I’ll allow the comments to peel back the layers.
40 comments
I’ve thought a little about this in the past. When I got married at the age of 19, I went straight from living with my family to living with my husband (and my hubby was in the same position). I think I found the transition to married life – where you are a unit, who decides things together, goes places together, shares responsibility for things and decisions – easier than some of my friends, who had a period of independence before marriage.
For example, I am accustomed to talking about going out somewhere for the evening with my husband, and if he really wants me to stay home for some (reasonable) reason, I probably will. He does the same for me. My friends don’t seem to have this same concern. If they want to go out they do. Their partner “can’t control them”.
I also think that this independence leads to the huge occurance of wives and husbands sneaking bought things into the house without their partner knowing. I wouldn’t dream of doing this, nor would my husband (except for presents, of course!). We consider it very undermining to the relationship and disrespectful. But others don’t seem to think twice about it! Why??? Are they trying to hide guilt at our own greed and selfishness in buying something we want and can’t justify? I wonder if it is linked into this ‘singleness’ issue that you are talking about.
For the record, I love talking over things with my husband. It is good to be in agreement – and it isn’t controlling, far from it. It is freeing. Me: “I’d like to buy some new clothes, what are you happy for me to spend?” Hubby: “$100 is fine with me, but make sure you buy something pretty!” Me: “$100!!! Woohoo! I was thinking $60 but what you say is even better!” And I get to go shopping with the full knowledge of my husband, who has released me to spend some money (which he earns!) on something I would like for me. For the record, my husband doesn’t treat the money as “his” – it is OURS. If he wants to buy something (like a computer game) he will run it by me. It isn’t a unhealthy dependency, it is a respectful, mutual relationship.
Sorry for such a long comment!
I’m having a hard time figuring out what the “singles” in our church are supposed to be doing. Their parents kicked them out after high school, so they live on their own. They are very much a part of our church family and there is no separate group for them, but they live on their own. Self-centeredness happens automatically.
Also having a hard time w/ the assumption that our daughters will marry. Paul said it is better that they remain unmarried. While the chances are definitely great that they will marry and I definitely do want to prepare them for that likelihood, I feel that I am setting them up for failure if I am always saying things that make them assume they will marry. What if that’s not God’s plan for them? Will they feel like a failure if God’s will does not include marriage?
Admittedly, I have always struggled with Paul saying that about marriage. It really annoys me! I think what it comes down to is this: it is good not to get married, as then you can serve the Lord with no restrictions (notice how this doesn’t allow room for selfcentredness?), but marriage is also good, and if you can’t handle the thought of staying single, marriage is fine – more that fine!
After all, God (not man) created marriage, He designed it to reflect Himself, the unity of the trinity, and the unity we can have with Him. It also allows us to be deeply refined. Nothing like living with another person to get your rough edges knocked off and sanded down! 😉 Also, God knows the desires of our hearts – He put them there. If you have the desire to get married, I would say it is a safe bet that God has that in mind for you, we just don’t know when 🙂
Yes, God made marriage and yes marriage is good. But that doesn’t mean it’s God’s will for everyone. The scripture is clear on that point. It doesn’t matter so much what I *think*, it’s what God’s word says that matters. Biblically, marriage isn’t His plan for every single female.
I agree with you Ginger.
If i am correct, the passage that you are alluding to is talking about “the present distress”- or the wide spread persecution of the church. In the course of normal everyday life, “it is not good for man to be alone”. The most dynamic unit for His dominion and spreading of the gospel, was and is, the family unit. You can’t have that without marriage.
These are excellent, excellent comments Kelly! VERY encouraging.
As a disclaimer, I think VERY few people are single out of selfishness, or even choice; the groups for singles seem to be developed out of either condescension and pity, or sympathetic people who are tired of SEEING single people get condescension and pity from married folks. Also, there’s nothing wrong with autonomy. But being connected with others is vital and ALWAYS part of being a Christian, married or not.
Katherine, I agree on all points. After everything’s considered, I have no problem at all with Paul’s words; just imagine how it would be if he said it’s BAD to be single!
“Also, God knows the desires of our hearts – He put them there. If you have the desire to get married, I would say it is a safe bet that God has that in mind for you, we just don’t know when”
My favorite part 🙂
as a ‘single young woman’ i lived with my parents. i actually was living with them up until i got married, not that that was the plan… it just kind of happened that way. i was SUPPOSED to finish college the first time and have a job and be able to support myself. but my life didn’t exactly turn out that way, and so i was a ‘boomarang kid’ and i moved back home to live with my parents. that’s the way we put it today, “i STILL live with my parents.” there’s this stigma attatched to it. you have to justify it somehow… like, i’m saving money for school, or my roommate flaked on me and i couldn’t afford the rent, or any number of other reasons why it is socially acceptable (albeit temporary) for a post-high school person (of either gender) to be living at home. it’s like it has to be excused. apologized for. i remember feeling embarrassed about it because it meant that i hadn’t ARRIVED yet. life hadn’t started for me because i was either 1) not married, or 2) not in possession of a good enough job to allow me to afford my own place. actually, both were true, but somehow in today’s culture, those are points of embarrassment! with this sort of stigma attached to young women living at home, i also have to propose the idea that it has to be almost worse for a young man… if you live with your parents, you’re a loser! i don’t know exactly what to make of that, but i think it’s sad.
i know this post was mainly aimed at young women… but what do you consider a young man who is not yet married? perhaps he is out ‘preparing his fields’, but has not yet met his future bride… can he be considered single? just genuinely curious about the flip side of this scenario.
I’m not saying that I think scripture is wrong and I’m right, just that I struggle with Paul saying that, and how it comes across almost as “single=good” and “marriage=copout for people who can’t be like me”. When I was first married, I felt very condemned by this scripture because I felt like I wasn’t good enough. That isn’t a problem anymore – I will not let Satan condemn me and I know that I have been called to be married to the man I’m with.
I suppose being single can be good or bad, just as getting married can be good or bad. Perhaps the intention is the most important thing. If we stay single so we can serve God with a single-mindedness then being single is the bast thing, but if we stay single so we can do what we want without having to think of anyone else, then that is selfishness.
Reading through 1 Cor 7, where Paul talks about this, it seems to set up singleness as the ideal “I wish that all men were as I am” (vs 7), but takes pains to emphasis several times that if they want to get married or can’t control themselves, then marriage is a better option. I think the rest of vs 7 is important “but each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that”, and vs 17 “nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord has assigned to him and to which God has called him”. For Paul, singleness was a gift from God, for me, marriage and being a wife to a great husband is God’s gift to me.
(I’m in a very chatty mood! It must be because I’m meant to be writing an essay now 🙂 I find this whole topic incredibly interesting.)
Paul’s admonition to singleness has caused some confusion. However, taking the whole of Scripture seems to soften what seems like a hard word:
“Whoever finds a wife finds a GOOD thing and obtains favor from the Lord.”
As Katerine said, Paul goes on to point out that singleness is a gift and all commentators seem to agree on this important point. Generally speaking, we can expect that most people will get married and therefore prepare our children for that.
But this post offers an interesting perspective in the case they are called to singleness: that is, regardless of married or not, we are always a part of a body, operating in a family, and preparing for marriage equally prepares us to serve as a single as well. Considering that we are called to serve as Christ served,our preparations for life are really the same whether we marry or not.
Great post! I don’t know when the “singles” groups began as we see them in most churches now. they really seem more of an dating service like most youth groups. i do think that by and large when we separate and label this person as single it does send a message that they are no longer a part of their family. it is like we are training them to be self-centered. lots of presuppositions to peel back. blessings, jen in al
I like the point of the post that people are not necessarily single because they are still members of their family and church family. But, I also don’t think that singles groups are necessarily a bad thing. The college/singles group helped me stay connected at my church at a very transitional time for me when it would have been my temptation to fall back into a just attending Sunday morning services habit. Since I grew up in that church, many of the ladies who attended the womens’ Bible study were my mom’s age and were good friends with my mom and had eve babysat for me and my sisters while I was growing up. They were mostly in similar places in their lives, married for many years with grown children, empty nest syndrome, beginning to be grandparents, etc and as such, the discussions tended to focus on those things. I didn’t feel like I had very much to contribute because I really had no experience with any of those things. It doesn’t mean I didn’t like them and they shouldn’t have talked about those things just because I was there, just that I found it easier to find Biblical application for my life while studying the Bible with a group of people who were closer to my own age and who understood the transition of going from child (or teenager) to adult and the confusing time of what to study at college, the uncertainty of trying to find a job, the desire to be married but not having met the right person yet.
Our college/singles group was very active in our church, helping take care of the building, inside and out, and many people from the singles group were involved in ministries such as sunday school, the nursery, the high school youth group, the sound equipment, and the music/worship team. I don’t think wanting to study the Bible and discuss how it applies to your life with people who are in similar situations is necessarily a selfish thing. We do tend to have closer relationships with people who share common experiences. It doesn’t mean we have to ignore everyone else. I can see how focusing on the term “single” and living on your own can lead to a selfish mindset, but I don’t think that’s always the case. Our group was always determined that being single meant we had more time to be involved in church activities because we weren’t taking care of spouses and children.
Well, I think I’m probably rambling at this point. I just wanted to say that I think it’s ok for a group of people in similar life postitions to study the Bible together and have fellowship together. Yes we need to be careful that it doesn’t become selfish and isolating from the rest of the church family, but I don’t think a singles group automatically becomes that.
I got married at 34. It wasn’t from any choice of mine, God just hadn’t brought me my husband yet. I hated being single. The church really ostracizes singles, either shuffles them off to a singles group or plans things that are so family oriented that singles don’t really feel comfortable. Married women ignored me. It was a very difficult time in my life. I was active in our church’s singles group, but even when I got “out into the mainstream” and joined the choir and tried to mingle, I didn’t have many friends. Women were kind to me in choir, but I never was invited to socialize since I didn’t have a husband. I’m sorry I’m sounding a little prickly about this subject, but it was a hard time. In the church, singles tend to be outsiders.
“The church really ostracizes singles, either shuffles them off to a singles group or plans things that are so family oriented that singles don’t really feel comfortable. Married women ignored me”
Ugh, that’s exactly the kind of arrogance I mean. I don’t know any churches like that personally, thank God.
Ginger said:
Also having a hard time w/ the assumption that our daughters will marry. Paul said it is better that they remain unmarried.
Durning that time period Christians were being lit up as torches , literally. In that time it would probably would have been better to be single then watch your spouse burn up.Paul wasn’t advocating singleness over marriage.
The idea that Paul is saying it is “better “to be single seems to miss the point and all the other scriptures that advocate being married.Being married is WONDERFUL !!!Every good gift is from God and being married is a good gift.
My observation is that “singleness” within the church is being seen as a ministry and “better” than getting married.Similar to how families adopting their ninth child recieve praise, yet home-grown families are asked why they don’t adopt some of those orphaned children instead of having their own if they want that many children.
Having been raised in the feminist movement, it sounds like the lie that Gloria Steiman and its leaders promoted.
Many women regret pursuing a career{ and singleness} and saying no to a husband and children.Women bought the lie{Eve?} that it was better to be single and independent than married and enslaved to a husband and children. They were suppose to find fulfillment in their singleness and lifestyle of choice. Funny thing is they didn’t.
Interestingly, good old Gloria got married herself.
The biblical pattern is marriage. If someone thinks it is God’s will for them to be single… it would be the exception not the rule.
Perhaps young men are having their needs met outside of marriage and see no need for marriage.Though crass, the old saying of” why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free”, is true. The statistics for fornication are the same in the church as in the world. The world isn’t getting married either.
The period of child bearing is short; don’t let your older years be in regret and wishing you had made other choices.
“Paul said it is better that they remain unmarried”
I don’t think you fully understand that Scripture, Ginger.
I was quoting the verse.
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.” 1 Cor. 7:8
Exactly what am I misunderstanding?
As far as being lit up as torches, Christians are still still being martyred today.
Paul said it was good, not better.
“For I would that all men were even as I myself.”
(Emphasis added.)
That sounds to me like he’s advocating for singleness, especially when taken in context alongside lines such as “But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment” and “For I would that all men were even as I myself.”
Marriage is for those who “cannot contain,” but I think the passage makes it pretty clear that Paul thinks it’s better for people to remain single.
If we’re going to argue over how it’s literally worded (“good” vs. “better”), we’ll need to get into the Greek. (If anyone has information on the translation of this passage, I’d love to read it.)
LOL I think it’s clear Paul was being a bit cheeky there, much like his comment about how men obsessed with circumcision should just castrate themselves. He clearly said he spoke by permission, not commandment, which means God allowed him to offer his opinion but was NOT translating it into a command from Himself. And it’s a common opinion; who doesn’t wish people would be more like them in their own beliefs? I certainly wish “that all men were even as I myself” in matters like egalitarianism! As my father says, “Why can’t everyone just be perfect like me?”
Considering all God’s words about marriage, the idea that God Himelf considered marriage a lesser choice is pretty ridiculous.
If I may enter into this debate, can I ask why this principle can be bent “with the times,” but other Biblical mandates cannot? I think this passage makes it pretty clear that Paul is saying it would be preferable for people not to marry.
You’ve excused this by saying that the times were different – and they were – but would you be willing to make the same argument for, e.g., gay marriage? The Bible was written under certain cultural conditions, which have since changed, but why can we bend this rule and not others?
My husband and I met at a singles event for our church and we never felt like we fit in at our church until we got married. However, our church is not “family integrated” and I think that is why we felt isolated.
I do wish that when I graduated college someone would have encouraged me to live with my family (or other roommates) until I got married and that way I could have continued to serve them instead of just myself AND I could have saved a ton of money so that I could be home now with our children instead of having to work full time. (Although we are making definite plans for me to get there). Now I just try to encourage unmarried women to be frugal so that when God does bring them a mate they can be better prepared no matter their financial situation…so that if their husband makes 20k or 120k they can find a way to stay home!
I know so many young ladies, including myself, who were/ are shoved out of their parents’ homes – especially in a case like mine where divorce caused a loss of welcoming to the children left in the dust of it all for a number of reasons. Young ladies are made to feel like “losers” if they don’t get their act together with a job, car, college plans (which often include pressure to take on debt) and their own apartment. My dad actually yelled at me and told me I needed to join the armed services to become less weak. Personally my time of singleness was about 10 years of mostly horrendous experiences that have done everything to un-prepare me for marriage and mothering. I see my friends who aren’t married and aren’t allowed to live with their parents not really knowing what to do with themselves. It’s sad.
I think we too often forget the examples of Scripture as we seek wisdom for our lives.
In Genesis, when Tamar’s two husbands died, her father in law said:
“Live as a widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up.” …So Tamar went to live in her father’s house.”
It was unthinkable for a single woman to live by herself without protection.
The feminist movement did a fantastic job of making this concept downright disgusting in the mind of modern thinking, when it is nothing more than a natural, wonderful safeguard that honors the value of women.
Even in the story of Ruth, one daughter in law went back to her family after her husband’s death and the other remained in tact as a family with Naomi…they quickly established themselves as part of the community and found protection and shelter.
How much more unthinkable to “kick out” our young women before marriage? In Bible times this would have been utter disgrace, probably worthy of a father’s death.
Hate to jump on a rabbit trail, but even the hideous law of stoning a daughter who was found on her wedding day to not be a virgin was a punishment ultimately for the father since it was his job to ensure she was kept protected. This is not the picture of prudish, Islamic-like dominion we may think, but a grave responsibility the father had that today has been completely cast off. Fathers more commonly set their daughters up for a life of immorality.
I’m guessing that the phenomenon of women being single into their thirties and beyond did not exist in Bible times. As a single woman ages, her father ages too. Eventually he will get to the point that he can’t financially support his daughter, and possibly not be able to live with her either if he needs round-the-clock medical supervision.
All of this has got me thinking about something. Yes, it is the parents’ job to provide for their children and their security and in this little corner of the cyber world, we seem to be (more or less) in agreement that is contrary to God’s idea to ‘kick out’ young women who are college-age/single/what have you… So if the parents of a young woman in your church or community are causing her to feel pressured to leave home/get a life/education/career and she is not certain this is what she wants to do, would this be an opportunity for us to reach out to this young woman, and possibly even invite her into our home? or would that be overstepping our bounds. It stikes me as a perfect opportunity to live out some some of the guidelines put forth in Titus 2… Just curious what people might think about this. I don’t think that a different family should usurp the authority of a girl’s parents… but if she is wandering aimlessly in the world, and can’t really go back to her family, why not?
“I don’t think that a different family should usurp the authority of a girl’s parents… but if she is wandering aimlessly in the world, and can’t really go back to her family, why not?”
Rachel, if the young woman is an ADULT, then no you would not be overstepping your bounds. As an adult she’s no longer bound by parental authority. And if it’s a matter of either leaving her to wander on her own or help her out, it’s pretty much a no-brainer.
I want so much for my daughters and sons to marry and be fruitful and multiply! But I also have to remember that maybe God’s plan is different! All I EVER wanted was to be a mom and a wife so I want that so much for my girls! I have to submit to His will to not only myself but to my children also! I never really thought of ‘singleness’ the way you have stated it here although it all is so clear! May we all look to God for the future of our children and pray that they are always part of our family and never have the world’s definition of being ‘single’! 🙂
Hate to jump on a rabbit trail, but even the hideous law of stoning a daughter who was found on her wedding day to not be a virgin was a punishment ultimately for the father since it was his job to ensure she was kept protected.
Well, then why wasn’t HE stoned to death? 😉
Ultimately Krissa, it just showed the acidic hatred of women back then. That stoning law wasn’t really a response to not keeping a woman protected, but a punishment to both her and her father for not keeping her untainted merchandise for her husband.
Jennifer,
I think you are incorrect. Given a study of the OT, the death penalties that seem so outrageous for us today were applicable to men, women and children, contrary to what feminists teach. Adultery, sometimes theft, murder and rebellion were a few other crimes that warranted the death penalty. Was there just “an acidic hatred” for all of mankind?
No, actually, it was a protection for everyone to walk the path that God had set before them. And though the punishment was grim, the crimes were few and far between.
“Given a study of the OT, the death penalties that seem so outrageous for us today were applicable to men, women and children, contrary to what feminists teach”
Clearly not all of them. Times were harsher for women than any other. If people of the time really cared about women, would they have had them stoned to death when they weren’t protected? Of course not; it was a misogynistic punishment of them for not being pure for their husbands. No logic, not even that of the dumb bull men back then, says, “You didn’t protect your poor daughter! Horrible man. We shall deliver justice by killing her!” The law forcing unmarried rape victims to marry their rapists is even more horrendous, and I’ve heard the silly argument that “this was for those women’s protection because no other man would marry them after being raped”. In other words, after being “sullied”, ruined property. Wow, how very noble. How they cared about women back then. (I’m not mocking you with those words, but those hypocritical societies).
I know men had it very rough too, and that some equality was shown by stoning unfaithful men as well, but there’s no argument in the case of many laws showing hatred for women. Men knew women had it bad, hence the old prayer, “Thank God I’m not a Gentile or a woman”. Since the Fall, love and protection of women fell DRASTICALLY. Caring fathers did indeed protect their daughters, not only from immorality but from the hideous hatred practiced against them if they slipped.
“It was a protection for everyone to walk the path that God had set before them”
In their eyes yes, and this shows how foolish and lost people were before Christ. Now, we show strayed sheep grace, not slaughter them on an alter of righteousness. Keeping people terrified doesn’t make them moral, and if protecting them from either hell or harm was really the motive, they wouldn’t kill them so readily.
Ok, I see what you’re saying about the law regarding fornication Kelly, and I’ll correct myself on one point. It was silly of me to say that a fornicating woman was stoned out of sexist hatred back then, since there was such a law against men as well (I think). I was so caught up in the “protecting women” topic that I almost forgot that a woman who fornicated wasn’t a victim; she may not have been taught proper morals, but obviously the sin was her own, so she was stoned as one who broke a law, not who came by harm because of a father’s negligence.
My other thoughts remain the same. Certain laws did show a hatred and slant against women. One book I read analyzed the difference between Jewish, Greek and Roman marriage laws and how they affected women; it was fascinating, and not by any means positive.
Jennifer said:
“Since the Fall, love and protection of women fell DRASTICALLY.”
This just about leaped out and hit me between the eyes. This goes off on a bit of a tangent, but oh well. Women need to feel loved and men need to feel respected (Eph 5:33). When I respect my husband, he responds to me by showing me the love that I need, and vice versa. I would venture to say that just as the love shown towards women has diminished since the Fall, the respect and honour shown towards men has likewise plummeted. Why should a man protect a woman who treats him like dirt? Why should a woman respect a man who leaves her exposed to those who would hurt her? Thankfully, God has started to stir the hearts of men and women across the globe to have the right attitude and love towards one another.
Just a thought.
Jennifer – Before Christ, the law was the only way to salvation. He came to replace the law, and bring us grace to cover our iniquities (sin). Before Him, those that knew the law, knew the consequences, and made their choice, even unmarried women who probably should have been watched after better. Obviously, being raped is not a sin, and I don’t know of all the accounts in the Bible, but the ones I know of show love toward the woman (at least in men’s hearts even if their actions were cowardly), and anger and even retaliation toward the rapists. Mistreatment of women came at the hands of men, not the heart or desires of God.
And being terrified did keep them moral – or they died. God warned them, they disobeyed, period. As when an unclean priest entered the Holy of Holies, or man dared touch the Ark, thinking in his own great wisdom he was balancing it. When we trust ourselves and not what our Creator has plainly told us, even if to us it SEEMS kinder, or fairer, we are always mistaken. I just thank Him that now we do have grace, and not only law. Then, as now, we need not be terrified if we study His word, and strive to follow Him – in place of terror we have security, hope, and joy in His laws that keep us free and safe from sin and separation from the One that loves us. His commandments have always been out of love, to keep us from spiritual pain, as rules for children in our homes keep them from physically hurting themselves. Oh how He loves us!
I’m saying that PEOPLE keeping other people terrified doesn’t make them holy; this isn’t the same as holy fear of God.
I believe that Genesis says that a man will leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife. I assume this means that he is still living at home until he gets married. Just a thought. I remember wanting to stay at home with my parents and just help out instead of getting a job and being made to socialise seperately to my parents. I think they thought it was creepy that I was spending all my Summer after high school hanging around with them:-(
Ladies, I think that you’re missing the point of 1 Corinthians 7. Paul is talking about the relationship between men & women. He says that a husband cannot put all his focus on the Lord’s work because he needs to care for his wife & family. A woman the same thing – she needs to care for her husband and family so there is divided interests (vs 33-35) Paul is not condeming marriage or singleness but rather saying that if you are married then you need to serve the Lord and if you are single you need to serve the Lord in a different way.
I am 35 and unmarried. I struggled for a long time with this as my friends and family all were getting married, but I am thankfully single now. I realized that I can do things differently than if I were married and had the responsiblities of a husband and marrige (of course I would be doing different things if I had my own family). I am freer to serve my local church.
I find that at times the hardest place to be single is with my church (someone had mentioned earlier that Bible study topics were about what the older women were going through – empty nest etc.). It comes to realizing that yes I’m not going through those things, but I can still encourage my sisters in the faith. I’ve missed out on many opportunities for fellowship because I thought “They’re just going to talk about babies or homeschooling again”. I have spoken to some ladies about how difficult it is and how excluded I feel at times, but in my heart I need to remember that we are sisters and we can learn in all circumstances.
As for not wanting daughters to be married, I think that there can be a balance here as well. I grew up with 5 younger sisters. We always played house, took care of childre did all the training for marriage. But there was never talk about how it would be okay to not be married. If we train our sons and daughters that yes, marriage is a blessing from the Lord and train to do the tasks required (home making etc) that is a good thing. But at the same time we need to also train them that being single is a good thing to – they are both ordained by God – and that there are blessings in being single too.
Though I appreciate the intent of the post, I disagree with the assumption that singleness equals self centeredness and separation from a family. I am 30 years old and have lived on my own for 5 years. I am still very much a part of my family. I talk with my mother every day. We have dinner together often, and attend functions together. There is nothing wrong with striking out on your own to start your own life until you marry. Learning to be self sufficient and manage MY OWN HOME has been invaluable. I don’t need to wait until I am married to put into practice what my mother prepared me for all my life. I manage my home with organization, hospitality and routine just as any good married woman strives to. I am actively involved in my church, and open my home to ministry and the needy. Some people do become very self centered when they move out, and start accumulating worldly possessions that end up becoming financial black holes. Others, like myself, see their ‘unmarried’ years as a time to develop skills that will serve them well as a married person or a very content single.