Unmarried, Unmanly? Rethinking Maleness Apart from Marriage

Christian manhood is not the same thing as being a Christian husband or father. Collapsing the two reduces Christian manhood to a role a significant portion of men will never occupy (cf. 1 Cor 7:6–9) and leaves single men without a coherent account of what they are called to be.

Key Takeaways

Two distinct confusions plague “biblical manhood” discussions. (a) confusing Christian manhood with Christian discipleship (which applies to men and women equally), and (b) confusing instruction aimed at males in specific roles (husband, father, master, bondservant) with instruction for being male in general.

Ephesians 5 is about husbands, not all men. Ephesians 5:32 roots the husband’s self-sacrificial love in the “Christ and the church” reference — instruction for a specific role, not a general theology of masculinity. Reading it as such fails to address what it means to be a single Christian man.

Mark Driscoll’s treatment of singleness in Act Like a Man is biblically thin. Driscoll claims Paul remained single because “single men of God in the Bible died rather young” — a reading without warrant. Paul’s own account in 1 Cor 7 ties singleness to undivided focus on “the things of the Lord” (7:32–34) and freedom from “worldly trouble” (7:27) in light of “the time is short” (7:29).

Gordon Fee’s reading of 1 Corinthians 7 locates the argument eschatologically. Life in Christ is determined by one’s new form of existence, so believers live “as if not” — buying, marrying, and so on without being determined by these things. Paul’s counsel is anxiety-freedom for the married and unmarried alike — not the inevitability of marriage.

1 Cor 7:6–9, 17–21, 27, 29, 31, 32–34

Eph 5:22–33 (esp. 5:32); 6:1, 5–9

Col 3:22–25; 4:1; 1 Tim 6:1–2; Tit 2:9–10

Mark Driscoll, Act Like a Man

Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT)

Is Christian Manhood the Same as Being a Christian Husband or Father?

Why Do “Biblical Manhood” Discussions Collapse Male Discipleship into Male Roles?

In a 2021 interview on Dial In Ministries, Paul Washer, Executive Director of HeartCry Missionary Society, discussed the idea of Christian manhood. He argues that manhood is rooted in a love of Christ and the imitation of Christ’s self-sacrificial love. While I tend to agree with this perspective, Washer’s brief comments in the interview also reflect the lack of nuance that, in my estimation, confuses (1) biblical manhood and discipleship and (2) instruction regarding roles like husband and father with being male more generally.

Regarding the confusion of biblical manhood and discipleship, Washer notes that being a Christian man requires men to look at Christ. While I am convinced that living faithfully under the authority of Christ requires men to conform to the image of Christ, I would also say the same thing for women. How we learn to live under Christ’s authority is not detached from our sex. Males are, at times, exhorted in different ways than women in the scriptures. We see this with other sorts of relationships as well (e.g., master and slave, parents and children, rich and poor, etc.). Are there temptations that present themselves to men in a given society that are less available to women? It would seem so. As such, while it is possible that the different exhortations given to men in the scriptures could be related to a biblical perception of masculinity or femininity, it is also possible—and I would argue more likely—that the challenges presented to the different sexes in a given culture require a different sort of discipleship.

The point is not that men and women face entirely different challenges. Rather, it is that the specific vulnerabilities of males and females often differ. Discipleship has to reckon with that. Sex-specific instruction reflects the real differences in temptation and social position, not a set theology of masculinity and femininity. Discipleship trains individuals of different sexes to account for the pressures they face within a given culture and set of circumstances.

In the view I’m advancing, men and women both need to be discipled—an uncontroversial claim. However, I am also suggesting that masculinity and femininity are cultural stereotypes—even Christian cultural stereotypes—that often work against discipleship. What it means to be a man in general emerges from discipleship. What it means to be a specific man—an individual who is male—also emerges from discipleship but may look different than a more generalized notion of discipleship.

Regarding the confusion of instructions for males in specific relationships with being male more generally, Washer’s conversation of biblical masculinity quickly turns from what it means to be a Christian male to what it means to be a Christian husband and father. To be clear, what Washer says about being a husband and father is aligned with the Bible’s teachings. However, not all men are husbands and fathers. Not all boys will become husbands and fathers.

Does someone who is going to be married need to learn to love his wife? Absolutely. That love is to be uniquely self-sacrificial as the marital relationship refers to “Christ and the church” (5:32). Marriage is a unique opportunity for husband and wife together to showcase the relationship between Christ and the church. It is, based on Ephesians 5, an opportunity that men and women who never get married will not have. As such, Ephesians 5 doesn’t speak to masculinity more generally, but to being a husband specifically. Confusing the two is a problem in so much as what it means to be a single man is not addressed.

We could say the same about the instructions given to masters (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1) and slaves (Eph 6:5-8; Col 3:22-25; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10). Male bondservants are in a different situation than male masters. As such, living under the authority of Christ requires a different set of instructions. It is their social position that determines the instructions given. That isn’t related to their sex—though one could envision different instructions being given to female and male bondservants and masters—but to their social position.

I am not suggesting that these passages are not applicable to modern-day Christians who do not occupy positions as masters or bondservants. Instead, I am suggesting that developing an understanding of Christian manhood from such passages is problematic because the instructions are related to men in particular relationships (e.g., husband, master, servant). Collapsing the conception of manhood with the role of husband and fatherhood suggests that these are somehow intrinsic to what it means to be a male; however, such an understanding ignores biblical teaching to the contrary.

Still, discussions of Christian manhood tend to assume that men will be husbands and fathers, thus rooting concepts of manhood in the male roles of husbands and fathers. For instance, Driscoll’s *Act **Like a Man* does not present singleness as a particularly viable option. In addition to making the rather spurious assertion that Paul remained single and without children because he like other “single men of God in the Bible died rather young,” He also encourages “single guys…to think through the second most important decision you’re ever going to make—i.e., who will be your wife…You need Jesus, but then you need a wife.” While choosing one’s spouse is an important decision, the assumption that every man should get married is problematic. There is no sense in which Paul’s singleness is linked to his age. Instead, Paul’s teaching on marriage and singleness encourages an undivided focus on the “things of the Lord, how to please the Lord” and discourages a life of anxiety (1 Cor 7:32).

Similarly, when Driscoll cites “an article summarizing the book The Case for Marriage,” he does so to combat cultural notions “calling marriage a ‘death sentence’ for men.” Critiquing cultural distortions of marriage is, in my mind, fair game; however, by suggesting that “marriage is good for men” and that “93%” of single, presumably Christian men, will opt to get married, Driscoll neglects the necessity of discipleship in developing Christian men. To put it differently, while the stats may show that marriage is “good” for men, marriage does not seem like a necessary step in a man’s discipleship journey.

Based on Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians, there is a case to be made for a particular sort of singleness—a singleness characterized by a deep concern for pointing to and glorifying the Lord (7:32). In contrast, Paul says that those who marry will experience “tribulation in the flesh” or “worldly trouble” (1 Cor 7:27), which Paul would prefer they avoid. Because “the time is short,” Paul counsels an intensity of focus on the things that are to come that require the Corinthians to rethink marriage. Combined with the idea that a married man is “divided” because he must please the Lord and his wife (7:33-34) makes it more difficult for those who marry to be free from anxieties while living in “the present form of this world” which is “passing away” (7:31).

“Because life is determined by one’s new form of existence in Christ…the believer should be free from the anxiety-ridden existence of those who are determined by the world in its present form. The Christian still buys and marries, but he or she does so ‘as if not.’ These things do not determine one’s existence; the clear vision of the future does. Thus, one is free from anxiety. In this sense the passage does indeed speak to the unmarried who are anxious about marriage. But Paul wants both married and unmarried to be this way. Their existences in the present scheme of things differ, as the next sentences point out, but both are to be without anxiety.”

Paul, then, is not necessarily advocating for singleness—though he seems to prefer it—but for a way of being in the world that reflects the eschatological reality Christians have entered in Christ.

Single men in today’s world don’t necessarily need to get married. They may choose to do so for a variety of reasons, but the focus of manhood isn’t marriage, but living an alternative lifestyle that displays the difference Christ makes for those devoted to Him. Being a male Christian may involve marriage but making marriage and/or fatherhood intrinsic to Christian manhood seems unnuanced at best and unbiblical at worst.

I have little doubt that Washer and Driscoll would affirm male singleness as a viable, if not profitable endeavor. Driscoll’s work in particular seems to be combatting a series of cultural trends that distort a biblical understanding of marriage, fatherhood, work, and responsibility. In his zeal to critique such trends, however, Driscoll tends to drift toward advice for men as they look toward becoming husbands and fathers rather than for men more generally or single men in particular.

In doing so, he misses the dynamics that recast the Old Testament emphasis on biological multiplication to the New Testament emphasis on discipleship. To be clear, this recasting is one of emphasis—the Old Testament made provision for non-biological conversion into the covenant community and the New Testament continues to encourage parents to raise godly children. However, there is a shift in emphasis in the Great Commission because the Christian community is not to expand merely through biological reproduction but through the making of disciples. Discipleship becomes not only the means by which God’s people build God’s kingdom numerically, but the means by which God’s people embody the world under Christ’s authority as male or female.

Christian manhood, then, is not defined by whether a man marries or has children. It is defined by whether he is becoming a faithful disciple—someone who lives under the authority of Christ regardless of the social roles he occupies. Marriage and fatherhood are significant, but they are not the measure of the man. The measure is conformity to Christ. Conformity is not uniformity. It is a way of embodying Christ in different seasons and circumstances while always pointing to and glorifying the Triune God.

James Spencer, PhD, is a theologian, author, and host of the Thinking Christian podcast, where he writes and speaks on Christian formation, political theology, and technology. He holds a PhD in Theological Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and completed the Institute for Educational Management at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He serves as President of the D.L. Moody Center in Northfield, Massachusetts, as adjunct faculty in Wheaton College's MA in Leadership program, and as an Associate Research Fellow at the Kirby Laing Centre for Public Theology. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Christianity.com, and Sojourners; he has been quoted in The Telegraph; and he is a regular guest on Stand in the Gap Today with the American Pastors Network. His forthcoming book is Digital Discernment (InterVarsity Press, Fall 2026). Learn more at jamesgspencer.com.