Do we rule out unmarried pastors? (You know, like Paul, or John the Baptist or, um, Jesus)

Here is one of everyone's favorite (not really) passages:

²⁹ If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ³⁰ And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matt. 5:29-30)

Fortunately (and hopefully correctly) we view these statements as a form of hyperbole, lest the entire population of Christendom should easily be identified by their disfigured right sides. ¹ Another passage found in Matthew (and only there) is in a similar vein, when Jesus tells us:

¹² For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it. (Matt 19:12)

The first two clauses are clear enough--through birth defect or through a thankfully out-of-favor practice there are, in fact, eunuchs. It is the last part, the part that describes self-emasculation, that causes a sharp intake of breath between clenched teeth, at least among roughly half the population.

According to the early church historian Eusebius (ad 260/265 – 339/340) the renowned church father Origen (c. 184 – c. 253) as a young man (probably in the overly zealous caged-Calvinist stage) took this passage literally and performed the procedure on himself. You can read the claim here, see chapter VI, without any gruesome details.

With that notable exception, the near unanimous interpretation of this passage (and Paul later makes a similar argument) is this: A celibate, unmarried pastor is okay, perhaps even the ideal, but few will be up to the task. And Paul is clear that if it's not for you, don't try it, it will lead to disaster. ²

My question for today is: do we totally ignore this preaching? Some churches (and some celebrity pastors) make marriage and motherhood the litmus test for ideal Christian womanhood. But even the churches that recognize (or at least pay lip service to) the notion that not all women need to become wives and mothers to have value in the kingdom--what about the pastorate? Do we not instinctively bestow more trust on a pastor candidate with with a large family? How would most search committees view a 35 year old candidate who was not married and flat out stated that marriage was not in his plans?

Not well, I suspect. I think false red flags would appear in out thoughts, even if we never expressed them. I think that in many cases such a man would have no chance. He'd be effectively blacklisted for following what Jesus and Paul suggested is the preferred position.

I hope I'm, as is often the case, mistaken.

---

¹ I think our more intelligent critics understand this as well. But the less intelligent variety, the kind you find in the cesspool of atheist blog commentariat and forums, will often bring this passage up as a "gotcha" which, in their minds, conclusively demonstrates our hypocrisy. There may be quite a number of things that demonstrate our hypocrisy, but this isn't one of them.

² History has shown Paul to be prescient. Enforced celibacy has not proved a successful practice.