The simple fact is that the bible does not require nor mandate celibacy for bishops. It is clear throughout history of the early church the leaders were married, if they desired to be. And the church did not stop them from being married or require them not to marry in order to serve as leaders.
To say that becuase Christ was celibate so our leaders should, is reidiculous. God did not come in the flfesh to have sex with His creation. Can we agree it’s a terrible apples/oranges comparison in this particular instance?
IF Christ thought this was important He would have taught it and He would not have had Peter in the position he did as Peter was married.
There is no question that not being married saves a person a lot of time and energy off many of the things of everyday life. But Paul says it should be done voluntarily. Not mandatorily. Because it takes a special kind of person to control their sex drive. He never said that leaders only were to be made up of those such people. He wrote it’s good IF the person can hadnle it. If not it’s better to be married and not burn in lust. This was advice to ALL Christians, good, sound and true for both lay people and church leaders alike.
ANd since the criteria for leadership does not forbid marriage, but explicitly makes mention of the number of wives (ie how mant times) a person can be married, it is crystal clear that it never forbade leaders to marry, nor discouraged them from doing so. The best that it did was Paul recommending not to marry, but only if you could handle not having sex or lusting after people. Most people cannot. ANd as nowhere does the Bible say only the celibate can be leaders, you cannot twist Paul’s personal recommendation into some kind of requirement - not listed in CLEAR THE LIST of requirements speaking on the subject of leader qualifications - as some kind of mandate that the church spiritual leaders HAVE TO BE celibate.
Until very recently, the model of life for a man was to marry and have children. That follows the Biblical model for a head of household.
IMHO, this serves as the default that the Bible text assumes for men, the background against we must view 1 Timothy 3, etc.
In considering whether or not a man is chosen to serve as an elder, how well they manage their own household certainly provides valuable insights into the man’s character to consider. After all, he will be ruling over, teaching, etc., a congregation of other men who are heads of households themselves.
That's why married priests are the norm in most of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches, and why a few married ex-Protestant ministers have been to trained to the priesthood in the Western church.
It's a matter of prudential judgement, not dogma. The point of the article is that that prudential judgement is not contrary to Scripture.