Posted on 03/22/2011 3:12:00 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Like all too many Americans, Mark Almlie was laid off in the spring of 2009 when his workplace downsized. He has been searching for an appropriate position ever since, replying to more than 500 job postings without success.
But Mr. Almlie, despite a sterling education and years of experience, has faced an obstacle that does not exist in most professions: He is a single pastor, in a field where those doing the hiring overwhelmingly prefer married people and, especially, married men with children.
Mr. Almlie, 37, has been shocked, he says, at what he calls unfair discrimination, based mainly on irrational fears: that a single pastor cannot counsel a mostly married flock, that he might sow turmoil by flirting with a church member, or that he might be gay. If the job search is hard for single men, it is doubly so for single women who train for the ministry, in part because many evangelical denominations explicitly require a man to lead the congregation.
Mr. Almlie, an ordained evangelical minister who lives in Petaluma, Calif., has also had to contend with the argument, which he disputes with scriptural citations of his own, that the Bible calls for married leaders. “Prejudice against single pastors abounds,” Mr. Almlie wrote in articles he posted on a popular Christian blog site in January and February, setting off a wide-ranging debate online on a topic that many said has been largely ignored.
Some evangelical churches, in particular, openly exclude single candidates; a recent posting for a pastor by a church on Long Island said it was seeking “a family man whose family will be involved in the ministry life of the church.” Other churches convey the message through code words, like “seeking a Biblical man” (translation: a husband and a provider).
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I responded that I know a woman pastor in a Lutheran church in Ohio. That's my point. I answered your original posting. Then I showed you proof that there are women pastors in Bible believing churches; unless you think that Lutherans are not Bible believing.
A Catholic says this? Tsk, tsk, tsk!
I'm so glad you have resolved that question. As a student of Paul/Saul, I have never been convinced that he WAS NOT married. Indeed, most scholars would disagree with your statement, int hat, to be a member of the Sanhedrin, it was a requirement.
On what Scriptures do you post this definitive statement? Since you are a seminary student, you may want to do more research on your own, and deepend less on those "teachers" After all, those "teachers of the law" are the ones that had Jesus crucified!
...When Paul talks about being buffeted by a thorn in the flesh, he is in fact almost quoting passages from the LXX of Num. 33:55 and Josh. 23:13, where " thorns" which would buffet the eyes of Israel were the Canaanite tribes (cp. Ez. 28:24); and especially, in the context, their women. If they intermarried, those women and what they brought with them would be made by God as thorns in Israel's flesh. The implication could be that Paul had not driven out his Canaanites earlier, and therefore God gave them to Him as a thorn in the flesh, just as He had done to Israel earlier. There is fair reason to think that Paul had been married; he could not have been a member of the Sannhedrin and thus had the power to vote for the murder of the early martyrs unless he had been married and had children (Acts 26:10). His comment that he wished all men to be in his marital position (1 Cor. 7:8) has another slant in this case: he wished them to have had the marriage experience, but be in the single state. As a leading Pharisee, his wife would have been from an appropriate background. " ...for whom I have suffered the loss of all things" would then have been written with a sideways glance back at his wife, children he never saw... all that might have been. In gripping autobiography, Paul relates the innocent days when (as a child) he lived without the knowledge of law and therefore sin. But then, the concept of commandments registered with him; and this " wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (Rom. 7:8). " Concupiscence" is a conveniently archaic word for lust; and in the thinking and writing of Paul, the Greek epithumia is invariably used in a sexual context. - http://www.aletheiacollege.net/bl/14-11Pauls_Thorn_In_The_Flesh.htm
One can always, if creative enough, find a 'reason' to tell the EEOC for not hiring the single guy. My own mind is ambivalent on the issue, in general:
The single guy has to eat; but the married guy has to support a family. OTOH, the single guy is more likely to PAY taxes, rather than be 'subsidized' by mine.
The Lutheran Church Missiouri Synod is in opposition to Holy Scripture. Therefore, they are not a Bible-believing church and are apostate.
So single men are all heterosexual or homosexual predators. Really??? What a bigoted remark.
For every single pastor-predator, I could find you a dozen married pastor-predators...
You're ignorant of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) which has NO women pastors at all, as they are firmly not allowed.
ReverandJames must of been referring to another Lutheran denomination.
Ahh, yes! The ministry, about the only profession, other than the military, where the employer still gets a twoffer: an employee, and an accompanying slave, for one low wage...and includes the wife's performance, covertly or even overtly, in the husband's performance evalutions.
Yes, you’re right. I am ignorant of that denomination and blindly accepted what RJ posted. Given that the LCMS doesn’t have women pastors, I retract what I said. I apologize.
Paul was never a Pastor and never tried to be one, he was a missionary and Apostle. Jesus is God, He can do whatever He wants.
To be the Bishop of a church requires a wife and children. period.
On the other hand:
One of the signature teachings of the Lutheran Reformation is the teaching named Sola scriptura—"Scripture alone." The Missouri Synod believes that the Bible is the only standard by which church teachings can be judged.
The Missouri Synod believes that justification comes from God "by divine grace alone, through faith alone, for Christ's sake alone." It teaches that Jesus is the focus of the entire Bible and that faith in him alone is the way to eternal salvation. The synod rejects any attempt to attribute salvation to anything other than Christ's death and resurrection.
The Synod teaches that the Word of God, both written and preached, and the Sacraments are means of grace through which the Holy Spirit gives the gift of God's grace, creates faith in hearts of individuals, forgives sins for the sake of Christ's death on the cross, and grants eternal life and salvation.
Wow, they sure are an apostate church believing in all that nonsense, right?
Yes, he must. An unmarried, childless man has no more ability or conception of running a family than a rabbit with a pancake on its head. And he sure as heck shouldn’t be taking confession from teen girls or boys.
You were replying when I was writing so we crossed in the mail, so to speak. No worries. No apology needed. God Bless.
The end of the article mentions he is looking for a “life partner”, not a “wife”. Me thinks it’s a little more clear why he remains single.
OK, so he's a homosexual. Too bad he didn't say that at the start of the article.
Let’s hope that Christian scholars, especially evangelical ones, are not like the Pharisees who required things additional to the Torah, like that members of the Sanhedrin would be married.
The vast majority of New Testament scholars, currently, and historically, do acknowledge the Apostle Paul was single—according to the New Testament record. I fully concur, and see no evidence contrary...
Almost no scholar of good repute I know of is definitive about Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” and historically also, it’s been as big a guessing game as the authorship of Hebrews.
Scripture never names Paul as a “member of the Sanhedrin” either, rather as a Pharisee...a much larger group, than the 71 leaders in the Sanhedrin. As a brilliant student of Gamaliel, surely he would’ve personally known members of the Sanhedrin, which is why some assume he was a member—or he could have been a candidate for membership (before his conversion), however scripture is actually silent on his membership.
I Cor. 7 clearly indicates Paul is single, and, Paul teaches that for those who can, singleness is to be preferred. For most singleness is not to be preferred and they should get married.
Again, my own reading of scripture, and the vast consensus of all Christian students of the Bible historically, reflected in scholarship, and denominational requirements, is that both single and married can be called of God to be worthy ministers of the Gospel. God has called people to be both single and married—each state has its own advantages and disadvantages—one is not morally superior to another.
What organized Church group/denomination REQUIRES pastors to be married?
Well there you go, ELCA is not a bible beleiving denomination. You can be female and gay and still be a Pastor in the ELCA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.