How Shall He Take Care of the Church of God? Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.

Parakaleo

Puritan Board Sophomore
After reflection, prayer, writing an exegetical paper, further conversation with others (including with those in my presbytery), I would like to revisit the matter of family qualifications for ordained office in the church and issue a retraction of sorts. To be honest, I am hoping brethren here will meet me "half way". What do I mean by this?

In the first post, I was pretty adamant in my stance that the word of God absolutely forbids a man who lacks first-hand experience as competent husband and father/guardian from being considered for ordained office in the church. There was sharp criticism against this stance. Maybe I have been overly wooden. I am open to that possibility.

Brethren, what if I dialed back the intensity and said my stance is that no man should be considered for ordained office in the church without having first-hand experience as a competent husband and father/guardian unless there are notable and compelling reasons for an exception? This is more than stating it is "statistically normative" for officers in the church to be competent husbands and fathers, but saying there is onus upon men to show why an exception should be made for a man coming under consideration, despite not being able to prove himself by these family qualifications.

I trust the difference will be appreciated between a presbytery that says (essentially), "No wife? No children? That's fine. We'll need to examine other indicators that would give us a good idea of whether or not he has the makings of a competent husband and father," and a presbytery that says, "No wife? No children? That's out of the ordinary. We may need to delay proceeding unless there are compelling reasons to make an exception in this case."
 
No qualms in theory but it still needs determining practical measures to determine he has the potential in this area.

btw I do very much agree on the importance of ruling in the family
 
What do presbyteries normally do in these instances? The church didn't begin today and we have hundreds of years of Presbyterian history and multiple confessional denominations over that time.
 
What do presbyteries normally do in these instances? The church didn't begin today and we have hundreds of years of Presbyterian history and multiple confessional denominations over that time.
I think the other post demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of presbyteries see the ordaining of these unmarried and/or childless men to office in the church as needing no cause for exception, but only alternative forms of examination.

My main question here is something like, if I am willing to take a step back from my previous, extremely wooden stance and grant that exceptions could conceivably be granted, will any who criticized me before at least agree with me that some compelling reason would be required in order to make an exception? Especially some of those who granted that examining a man's conduct in ruling his own home is very much the norm.
 
Last edited:
@Parakaleo

No, Blake, because Paul is not at odds with himself and the rest of Scripture.

The Paul of I Corinthians 7 cannot be fairly interpreted to mean that any particular Christian must be married, whether holding the general office of believer or special office (as Paul held supremely as an apostle). I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 may not be read as if they exist in a vacuum, separate from what Paul says in I Corinthians 7 and what the Bible says elsewhere (e.g., "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven").

And it runs counter to the whole history of the Christian Church, which has never taught that pastors, elders, and deacons must be married and have children. The church has historically chosen men whom it believed gifted and called to service regardless of their marital and family status.

The notion that I Timothy 3 requires something that the rest of the Bible does not indicates not only a wooden reading on your part but flatly erroneous exegesis at this point. I think the burden is on you in this matter, not the vast majority who've held what I've articulated in this discussion: An unmarried state for a special office-holder candidate does not constitute some sort of exception that must be justified.

All grant that a married state is customary. Required? Hardly, and thus I cannot "meet you halfway" on this, as you propose, because you are quite simply wrong on the matter. There is no requirement for marriage and family on the part of one duly gifted and called to the ministerial office. Paul tells us what must be the case if he is married and has children. He must be a good governor thereof. If he's not, he must still possess the sorts of gifts for such, because the kinds of gifts required for success domestically are required for edification ecclesiastically; that does not mean, however, that the man must be married with children, made clear by other parts of Scripture and by the structure of the Greek itself, in my estimation.

I don't wish to reargue this, dear brother, but only to make clear that your "halfway" proposal, while undoubtedly well-intentioned, is simply untenable.

Peace,
Alan
 
@Alan D. Strange

Brother, thank you for your candid reply. I am glad I posed this question. I think we are getting into some deep issues in the church regarding Augustinian vs. Chrysostomian understandings of marriage and family. Since it is the Lord's day, I'll save a fuller response for another day.
 
No, Blake, because Paul is not at odds with himself and the rest of Scripture.

The Paul of I Corinthians 7 cannot be fairly interpreted to mean that any particular Christian must be married, whether holding the general office of believer or special office (as Paul held supremely as an apostle). I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 may not be read as if they exist in a vacuum, separate from what Paul says in I Corinthians 7 and what the Bible says elsewhere (e.g., "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven").

The charge of reading 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in a vacuum doesn't stick to me here since I am coming with the proposal that men lacking first-hand experience as competent family governors may be admitted to office in the church as exceptional cases. I wouldn't be saying this if I were reading these passages in a vacuum.

  • No one reading 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 in a vacuum would imagine a never-married man could be admitted to the offices Paul is describing, by his requirements.

Are you affirming the above (in a round-about way)? It sounds like you are. If yes, then I'm struggling to understand what you find so objectionable about the moderate position I'm outlining in this post? If the man lacks first-hand experience as a competent family governor, he may be admitted to the offices, but this would meet the definition of an exceptional case.

All the "data points" from Scripture regarding this matter must be considered and placed in proper proportion between (1) doctrine from didactic sections directly addressing the question itself, (2) implications brought forward from related doctrines, and (3) deductions based upon biblical narrative. Giving greater weight to (1) and lesser to (2) and (3) would be placing things in their proper proportion. Arguing that considerations from (2) and (3) are of such weight or force that they should be seen as automatically nullifying or reframing doctrine from (1) is quite radical. A far more reasonable stance would be to argue that considerations from (2) or (3) are of great enough weight to carve out exceptions that are not immediately apparent in (1).

More on the deeper issues on marriage and family which may be at work here when I have more time, Lord willing.
 
Without rehashing the same points from both sides, have you done much reading in the historic Christian tradition on pastoral theology? I ask that because everyone in church history, even for most of the Reformed period, didn't take your position. The greatest church administrators of all time were single. You mentioned Augustine and Chrysostom. Augustine got a girl pregnant and deliberately and in no uncertain terms rejected marriage precisely because he was entering the ministry. While Chrysostom had a healthier view of marriage, he, too, was celibate. That doesn't mean it is right or wrong, but it should make you pause. The following texts are foundational for pastoral theology:

1) Gregory of Nazianzus, "A Defense of His Flight to Pontus."
2) Gregory the Great, Rule
3) Basil the Great, Letters and Ascetikon (though the latter is hard to find).
4) Martin Bucer. He would probably be closest to your position, though I don't think he made the same argument you did.
5) John Chrysostom, Six Sermons on the Priesthood
 
@RamistThomist

I have given pause. I have been willing to moderate my view. I brought up Augustine because I am wondering if it is possible that a swing in the church back toward his views on marriage and family are at the root of the disproportionate view that chafes at the suggestion that family governors have a more usual pathway to qualification for office than unmarried men.

Paul tells us what must be the case if he is married and has children. He must be a good governor thereof. If he's not, he must still possess the sorts of gifts for such, because the kinds of gifts required for success domestically are required for edification ecclesiastically; that does not mean, however, that the man must be married with children, made clear by other parts of Scripture and by the structure of the Greek itself, in my estimation.

I would be very interested to hear your insights into the Greek. I have been over both passages dozens of times and have yet to find anything that would suggest the requirements of marriage and competent family governance are any different from the requirements of sobriety, blamelessness, patience, etc.
 
@Parakaleo Blake, just curious, are there real-life issues you witness that relate to your question? i.e seeing single men ordained and then pondering the issue?
 
I would be very interested to hear your insights into the Greek.
Blake, I addressed this in the previous thread, along with my other reasoning on the subject. I don't intend to repeat all of that here. I see no reason to do so.

You asked if we could meet halfway on this matter and I've explained why I am unable to do so. I don't have anything further to add at this time. Perhaps others wish to take up this discussion.

Peace,
Alan
 
@Alan D. Strange

I went looking in the other post and found this from you:

The Greek μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα means "one woman man," not requiring marriage but faithfulness and honorability in dealing with the opposite sex. And everyone--married or not, family or not--has a household that they govern, i.e., they have private affairs that they handle.

The apostle wants the domestic, private situation to be in order and well-managed, whatever the estate of the person. That is what these qualifications mean.

When you said in this post that the structure of the Greek "does not mean... that the man must be married with children", I thought you were suggesting you had found some exemptive language in the Greek showing why the requirements for wife and children are not as rigid as other requirements. I confess I had not recalled that you are on record saying no requirement for marriage and family governance exists in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Please forgive me for not recalling that, since earlier in this post you cautioned me not to read these passages in a vacuum.

On the one hand, I'm cautioned that I must not read these passages in a vacuum. On the other hand, I'm told that the passages themselves don't actually require what I think they do require. Does anyone besides me see the dissonance here?
 
@Alan D. Strange

I went looking in the other post and found this from you:



When you said in this post that the structure of the Greek "does not mean... that the man must be married with children", I thought you were suggesting you had found some exemptive language in the Greek showing why the requirements for wife and children are not as rigid as other requirements. I confess I had not recalled that you are on record saying no requirement for marriage and family governance exists in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Please forgive me for not recalling that, since earlier in this post you cautioned me not to read these passages in a vacuum.

On the one hand, I'm cautioned that I must not read these passages in a vacuum. On the other hand, I'm told that the passages themselves don't actually require what I think they do require. Does anyone besides me see the dissonance here?
You've been through this twice and received overwhelming responses against your view. So by and large, it would seem the dissonance is just yours, pastor. I would caution anyone, pastor or not, to be careful when you find you've come to convictions whereby you're the first one to get it just right in 2000 years of church history. Not that that means you are wrong in and of itself, but God has given us pastors and teachers, that includes the faithful dead who have gone before us.
 
When you said in this post that the structure of the Greek "does not mean... that the man must be married with children", I thought you were suggesting you had found some exemptive language in the Greek showing why the requirements for wife and children are not as rigid as other requirements. I confess I had not recalled that you are on record saying no requirement for marriage and family governance exists in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Please forgive me for not recalling that, since earlier in this post you cautioned me not to read these passages in a vacuum.

On the one hand, I'm cautioned that I must not read these passages in a vacuum. On the other hand, I'm told that the passages themselves don't actually require what I think they do require. Does anyone besides me see the dissonance here?
Blake,

Let me clarify. I think that the Greek words cited above that I, and many others, translate as "one-woman man," do not require a man to be married. I agree that this may be translated as "husband of one wife" and it's proper to consider it that way if the man is married. But what if he's not married? Can "one-woman man" be fairly applied to a single man? Yes, as it highlights the qualities of honorability in dealing with the opposite sex: if unmarried, one is not randy or a skirt-chaser; if married, one is faithful to one's wife.

My take, then, on the Greek, is that all the qualities listed here in I Timothy must be present in the candidate. As you well know, a Greek δεῖ, as heads v. 2, tends to qualify all that follows it with necessity. A suitable bishop must be, in other words, all the things listed in vv. 2-3. Can an unmarried man possess this virtue of a "one-woman man"? I believe that he can, in terms of a righteous and pure carriage toward and demeanor with women.

I realize that there are other ways of reading this in Greek, but even those who do read it other ways see other places in Scripture where Paul and others make statements that would militate against reading this as an absolute requirement that all men must be married (and that they must have children and that those children must be well-behaved; that is how I understand your position).

So my position is that the δεῖ in v. 2 requires the presence of all that follows in vv. 2-3 and that even an unmarried man can possess and evince such grace (as marks a man as a "one-woman man") by the way he interacts with and engages the opposite sex. That perhaps lets you know a bit more about where I come from in this.

Peace,
Alan
 
Lots here to which I hope to respond, DV. First, Denver.

You've been through this twice and received overwhelming responses against your view. So by and large, it would seem the dissonance is just yours, pastor. I would caution anyone, pastor or not, to be careful when you find you've come to convictions whereby you're the first one to get it just right in 2000 years of church history. Not that that means you are wrong in and of itself, but God has given us pastors and teachers, that includes the faithful dead who have gone before us.

The dissonance is just mine? This is reminding me of a quote.

“If the Council should even tell you,” said a doctor, whose name has not been preserved, “that you have but one eye, you would be obliged to agree with the Council.” “But,” said Huss, “as long as God keeps me in my senses, I would not say such a thing, even though the whole world should require it, because I could not say it without wounding my conscience.” What an obstinate, self-opinionated, arrogant man! said the Fathers.
J. A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism

As long as God keeps me in my senses, I do not see how I will be able to agree that the words of the Holy Spirit "must be... a one woman man... having his children in subjection..." convey an unspoken, conditional escape-hatch in themselves. And by the way, I am far from the first one to notice this, since nearly all commentaries I have consulted feel the need to provide reasons why other texts inform us these offices are not strictly limited to family governors. None of the several sermons I have looked up contain arguments that the words themselves provide conditionality. I haven't finished reading the masters thesis that was posted here, but it appears the author is not attempting to argue that the words themselves provide conditionality. This is from his abstract:

I will conclude the most accurate translation should read, “Therefore the overseer must be above reproach, a husband who is faithful to [his] one wife…(1 Tim 3:2).

I ask you, brother, and anyone else who cares to answer. Do the words of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 regarding the requirement of marriage and family government convey, in themselves, any amount of conditionality?
 
Last edited:
@Phil D.

I finished reading the thesis. Thank you for sharing. I found the arguments compelling, overall. I would say his work has the effect of better informing why Paul lists faithfulness in marriage in a place of such prominence, as the second qualification. As should be obvious, it is not just the having of one wife that certifies a man as qualified for office in the church, but the faithful leading of a wife.

I noted that his refutation of the "must be married" position majored on conclusions brought over from other passages and situations found in Scripture. This is what I myself have been advocating. Truly, these other passages and situations found in Scripture must be allowed to enter into our practice as a church. However, if we aligned our practice as a church with the requirements set down in 1 Timothy 3/Titus 1 and the witness of these other passages and situations, we would admit unmarried men to the offices of the church with compelling reasons, as exceptions.

The entire paper left me wondering if the author would agree with the following proposition:
  • While the strict "must be married" position is to be rejected, it should be acknowledged that certification through faithful care of a wife and children represents the usual pathway to admittance to the ordained offices of the church.
I suspect he would.
 
we would admit unmarried men to the offices of the church with compelling reasons, as exceptions.
A few questions for you:

  1. What would acceptable exceptions be?
  2. From where would they be drawn?
  3. Who would determine that they are acceptable?
  4. Does the arguing for exceptions chiefly lie with the candidate or with the judicatory?
  5. Does the onus probandi for any unmarried candidate lie on him?
  6. What if he's married without children? How is all this to be established with regard to him?
  7. As an example, is the married without children candidate bound to tell the presbytery why he cannot biologically have children and why he has not adopted any? Does he have to justify not having children beyond saying "my wife and I are incapable of having children?"

I could say more but will leave it at this.

A good Thanksgiving to you and yours.

Peace,
Alan
 
represents the usual pathway to admittance to the ordained offices of the church.

This is a very different claim. This is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. I have no problem with it. It's descriptive in the sense that most Reformed pastors today are probably married. Applied to the Greek-speaking early church, it would have been true for individual priests, but not for bishops (or overseers, though they were called bishops).
 
The entire paper left me wondering if the author would agree with the following proposition:
  • While the strict "must be married" position is to be rejected, it should be acknowledged that certification through faithful care of a wife and children represents the usual pathway to admittance to the ordained offices of the church.

He does say as much, while giving the most practical of rationales. "Since marriage and children were the norm, Paul is simply explaining what his behavior must be like, should he be married with children." (p. 4f.)

I noted that his refutation of the "must be married" position majored on conclusions brought over from other passages and situations found in Scripture.

Rather than this being suspect or seen as a detraction, though, aren't such qualifications a good and very necessary part of proper biblical hermeneutics? (of course with the so-called universalist passages like John 3:17, Titus 2:11, 1 Tim. 2:3-4, being the classic example of this in terms of Reformed soteriology). It seems if we can acknowledge that hermeneutic in this context we should be able to in the other as well. If not, why not?
 
Last edited:
After reflection, prayer, writing an exegetical paper, further conversation with others (including with those in my presbytery), I would like to revisit the matter of family qualifications for ordained office in the church and issue a retraction of sorts. To be honest, I am hoping brethren here will meet me "half way". What do I mean by this?

In the first post, I was pretty adamant in my stance that the word of God absolutely forbids a man who lacks first-hand experience as competent husband and father/guardian from being considered for ordained office in the church. There was sharp criticism against this stance. Maybe I have been overly wooden. I am open to that possibility.

Brethren, what if I dialed back the intensity and said my stance is that no man should be considered for ordained office in the church without having first-hand experience as a competent husband and father/guardian unless there are notable and compelling reasons for an exception? This is more than stating it is "statistically normative" for officers in the church to be competent husbands and fathers, but saying there is onus upon men to show why an exception should be made for a man coming under consideration, despite not being able to prove himself by these family qualifications.

I trust the difference will be appreciated between a presbytery that says (essentially), "No wife? No children? That's fine. We'll need to examine other indicators that would give us a good idea of whether or not he has the makings of a competent husband and father," and a presbytery that says, "No wife? No children? That's out of the ordinary. We may need to delay proceeding unless there are compelling reasons to make an exception in this case."
My question would be, were all the Apostles married, we know Peter was and Paul wasn't. What about the rest of the men that instituted the New Testament Church what was their status? Apolos, Timothy, Silas what was their status. Could the requirements be, if in fact, the man is married he needs to show he has control of his own family before he takes on the family of God?
 
A few questions for you:

  1. What would acceptable exceptions be?
  2. From where would they be drawn?
  3. Who would determine that they are acceptable?
  4. Does the arguing for exceptions chiefly lie with the candidate or with the judicatory?
  5. Does the onus probandi for any unmarried candidate lie on him?
  6. What if he's married without children? How is all this to be established with regard to him?
  7. As an example, is the married without children candidate bound to tell the presbytery why he cannot biologically have children and why he has not adopted any? Does he have to justify not having children beyond saying "my wife and I are incapable of having children?"

I have left this for a while, but have been thinking about it more over the last few days. I thought I would try to answer these.

1. I think an acceptable exception would need to carry the mark of God's evident working above and beyond his appointed means. I am imagining a situation in which a single man or a man without children has been teaching or preaching in an irregular situation, at the urging of others, God has been blessing these efforts, and the man is seeking to regularize his situation through a presbytery. The presbytery would need to take into account marks of God's working above an beyond appointed means and proceed accordingly.

2. Acceptable exceptions would be drawn from wise consideration of marks showing God is working above and beyond his appointed means.

3. This would be the work of a presbytery.

4. The judicatory would be bringing the arguments based upon evidence and testimony they had gathered.

5. I don't think a man should ever present arguments for why he should be ordained (especially if he does not fit into the usual qualifications), but should simply present himself as willing.

6. If he is married without children the same evidence of God's working above and beyond his appointed means would need to be observed. Again, I think this would most likely take the form of others urging him to conduct ministry to them and him seeking to regularize the situation through ordination with a presbytery.

7. I thought asking a married man without children the reason why he and his wife have not had any children was a fairly standard question as part of the examination process?

This reminds me of a question I was once asked by a student for the ministry. He wanted to know if preaching in the open air was something he could do on his own. I told him that students are able to preach by permission, not by privilege. As a student, he did not have the privilege to put himself forward in any sense as a public herald or teacher of the Gospel. I told him he is welcome to engage in sidewalk evangelism, hand out tracts, converse with people on the street about the Gospel, etc. I said things would be different if he was conversing with some people about the Gospel on a sidewalk (as any believer is welcome to do) and others overheard, came under conviction, and before he knew it, a crowd of people was pressing around him and urging him to preach the way of salvation to them. This would be a mark of God's working above and beyond his appointed means and I would expect him to preach in this circumstance.

If this student (or any man) took the privilege to preach unto himself apart from any exceptional situation like this, he would be guilty of presumption. The same could be said of a man being elevated to ordained office in the church who does not meet the usual qualifications and without any compelling reasons cited as justification for this action.
 
Last edited:
7. I thought asking a married man without children the reason why he and his wife have not had any children was a fairly standard question as part of the examination process?

Most of the time this is for reasons of infertility. Speaking hypothetically (since I reject your position in principle), The presbytery would need to handle question with care as it will almost certainly come off as ham-handed and insensitive.
 
Most of the time this is for reasons of infertility. Speaking hypothetically (since I reject your position in principle), The presbytery would need to handle question with care as it will almost certainly come off as ham-handed and insensitive.
Am I to understand from this that, if you were on a presbytery examination committee interviewing a man for office in the church, knowing he has been married for some years and the couple has no children, that you wouldn't even inquire into the reasons for this?
 
7. I thought asking a married man without children the reason why he and his wife have not had any children was a fairly standard question as part of the examination process?

Much of your response to me is quite telling, especially this one. Why would you say this, in light of what I actually said? Here's what I actually said:

7. As an example, is the married without children candidate bound to tell the presbytery why he cannot biologically have children and why he has not adopted any? Does he have to justify not having children beyond saying "my wife and I are incapable of having children?"

I did not, of course, suggest that a presbytery could not inquire into why a married man had no children.

Rather, I expressed a concern that an approach might be taken that would put this man under a bizarre sort of scrutiny, in which a presbytery is oddly judging whether he's done enough to have children. Perhaps my concern is justified at this point by the approach you appear to take in assessing a candidate that you regard as an exception.

If the man whom you regard as an exception says, "my wife and I are incapable of having children," is that sufficient in your world of examining candidates or does he in some way have to justify himself ("we've tried to adopt," "we've tried extraordinary methods," etc.) beyond such a simple declaration? So, I asked the question, and I ask it again now, if the man says, "My wife and I are incapable of having children," does that satisfy things in your scenario, or do many more questions follow this one?

If the answer is "yes, more questions properly follow the 'we can't have children' declaration," I don't believe that this is the proper way to approach candidates and judge men called to the ministry.

Peace,
Alan
 
Am I to understand from this that, if you were on a presbytery examination committee interviewing a man for office in the church, knowing he has been married for some years and the couple has no children, that you wouldn't even inquire into the reasons for this?

Maybe, maybe not. I have seen some patriarchalist churches (from firsthand experience) ridicule people for not having kids, not realizing the couple was infertile.
 
Rather, I expressed a concern that an approach might be taken that would put this man under a bizarre sort of scrutiny, in which a presbytery is oddly judging whether he's done enough to have children. Perhaps my concern is justified at this point by the approach you appear to take in assessing a candidate that you regard as an exception.
Your concern is entirely justified. I make no apologies for saying the unmarried and/or childless candidate for ordained office in the church fall outside of the requirements as presented in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and are therefore to be considered as exceptional cases. I make no apologies for saying sessions and/or presbyteries should make inquiry into reasons for continued childlessness (with discretion, of course) and form opinions based upon their findings.

I am surprised you would find that last part concerning, alarming, bizarre, odd, etc. given your stated position that you would inquire into a single man's personal life and attitudes about women to gauge how he would relate to a wife and children, if he had these.

So inquiry into specifics on why a couple continues childless is "a bizarre sort of scrutiny", but asking a single man specifics concerning how he possess his vessel and his attitudes on women and marriage is totally fine? What if a married couple had some sort of operation to try to ensure childlessness out of a desire to more fully dedicate themselves to the ministry as a couple? Wouldn't that be vital information for a session or presbytery in thinking through an application? How would men know without asking?
 
I am surprised you would find that last part concerning, alarming, bizarre, odd, etc. given your stated position that you would inquire into a single man's personal life and attitudes about women to gauge how he would relate to a wife and children, if he had these.

It's weird because it is coming very close to asking specific questions about a candidate's sex life. And then there is the fact that no one in church history took your view.
 
I make no apologies for saying sessions and/or presbyteries should make inquiry into reasons for continued childlessness (with discretion, of course) and form opinions based upon their findings.

I meant by "we are incapable of having children" that the couple giving this answer would be assumed to be biologically incapable of such (the husband, wife, or both). I would not object if that were clarified. I can't imagine anything else that one might legitimately ask if they did decide to ask this.

I am surprised you would find that last part concerning, alarming, bizarre, odd, etc. given your stated position that you would inquire into a single man's personal life and attitudes about women to gauge how he would relate to a wife and children, if he had these.

The inquiry into the views of the single man respecting women was for the purpose of seeing how he related to the opposite sex, to ascertain that his carriage toward them was honorable. This is what I've always maintained in seeing that the candidate must in all cases be "a one-woman man," chaste and discrete in his relations with women: faithful if married; decent in relating to women if unmarried.

I would ask all candidates in general about marriage and family in general, of course (as part of the candidate's examination), but not so as to make the unmarried candidate suppose that he were married, in some odd subjunctive mood. Remember it's you who insists that all this is an exception. I do not grant that singleness is an exception, though I readily admit that it is generally not the state of most candidates.

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top