Not a Waiting Room: Rethinking Singleness in the Church

By Katie Cichoski

In many churches, singleness is treated less like a permanent way of life and more like a temporary condition — a short-lived space between adolescence and real life. This attitude often shows up subtly and without ill-intent, in sermon illustrations that assume marriage as the default, small groups organized around nuclear families, and in casual prayers asking God to bring someone their spouse as though that were the next step toward wholeness.

Over time, these patterns have shaped an unspoken narrative. Marriage is an arrival, and single people are waiting. Unintentionally, many single people have begun to feel like they are living on the margins of what the church considers a complete life. This narrative not only affects the young or unmarried by choice, but the lifelong singles, divorced people, widows, those practicing celibacy for theological reasons, and many who aren’t sure if marriage will be a part of their story. The result of this narrative is not necessarily exclusion, but rather a sense of being unseen or unfinished.

Yet we see something entirely different in the early church. In Acts 2, the church is described, not as a collection of households organized by marital status, but as a shared life shaped by devotion, prayer, breaking bread, and mutual care. People gathered in homes, but they didn’t belong to only those homes, they belonged to each other. This raises a question worth sitting with: What if the church was never meant to feel like a network of separate family units, but more like a single, expansive household where belonging comes from shared life in Christ instead of marriage and the nuclear family?

The Problem: Singleness as “In-Between”

These assumptions about singleness don’t often show up theologically, but in the rhythms of church life. Many congregations aren’t intentionally excluding single people, but their structures and functions tend to organize around married couples and families. Over time, that shapes what participation feels like for singles. Friendship is assumed to orbit around existing family units, rather than forming its own stable center of connection, small groups drift toward demographic sorting, hospitality is generally expressed through family-to-family hosting, with fewer built-in patterns that include people who don’t have a household of their own.

_

 “What if the church was never meant to feel like a network of separate family units, but more like a single, expansive household where belonging comes from shared life in Christ instead of marriage and the nuclear family?”

The effects are not only structural but also reflect a broader cultural ideal that the church has seemingly absorbed without question: family units are the primary place of belonging. This is reflected in grocery stores, on vacations, around holiday gatherings, and so many other everyday patterns where togetherness is assumed to be organized around couples and families rather than a shared community.

Theological Reframe: Singleness as Full Participation in God’s People

The question, then, is not whether the church should value marriage and families, but whether it has allowed those categories to define the limits of belonging. Scripture repeatedly resists that impulse by locating identity in God’s people, not in household status.

Paul’s reflection in 1 Corinthians 7 is a striking example of this. Instead of treating singleness as a deficiency to be corrected, he describes it as a valid or even advantageous way of life for undivided devotion to the Lord. The point isn’t that marriage is secondary, but that neither state determines one’s fullness of participation in the kingdom of God.

However, this affirmation of singleness never moves toward isolation. The New Testament vision of life in Christ is consistently based in community. Even Paul’s comments on singleness are rooted in a deeply interconnected picture of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12–31), where every member of the body depends on the others. Singleness may free a person in certain ways, but it doesn’t release them from the call of shared life with God’s people.

This same widening of belonging occurs in Jesus’ own teaching. When He redefines family in Mark 3:33–35, he doesn’t diminish biological families, but shows that they aren’t the deepest measure of belonging in light of a deeper reality: “Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Family relationships are not abolished, but expanded beyond the boundaries of the household structure.

Taken together, these texts resist the idea that life with God is primarily mediated though marriage and the nuclear family. Rather, they point toward a people formed by shared allegiance to Christ, fully interdependent, where belonging is grounded in participation in God’s household instead of in the nuclear household.

The Vision: The Church as Shared Life and Where We Can Start

If Scripture resists narrowing belonging to household status, Acts 2 offers us a picture of what that expanded belonging can actually look like in practice. The early church is described as people devoted to teaching, fellowship, breaking bread, prayer, and as a shared life formed around worship and mutual care.

What emerges from this is not a rejection of family, but a different center of gravity for belonging. Instead of the nuclear family, participation in the life of the church itself becomes the primary mark of a shared life. Meals are shared, needs are met, and resources are held with an openness that resists the boundaries between “inside” and “outside.”

This vision also gives us a picture of what can begin to change in the present. Hospitality can move beyond being primarily family to family and become a more intentional practice of opening spaces for those who would otherwise have nowhere else to go. Friendship can be recognized, not as secondary to family life, but as a vital part of our relational and spiritual lives. Church rhythms can reflect this as well by refusing to let family units become the only organizing principle of community. When Acts 2 becomes more than an ideal and begins to shape our practices, the church becomes a shared life where belonging is not contingent on marital status, but grounded in participation in the people of God.

The Challenge: Recovering Shared Life

The objective then of the church is not to elevate singleness above marriage or to diminish married life, but to recover a vision of the church where neither marriage nor singleness determines the depth of someone’s belonging. When our identity is found in Christ and our family is the people of God, every member of the church has a place at the table because we all belong to Him.

_

 “When our identity is found in Christ and our family is the people of God, every member of the church has a place at the table because we all belong to Him.”

If the church is to embody a witness of Acts 2, it must become a community where shared life is more than just an ideal. It must be reflected in our friendships, our hospitality, and in the ways we care for each other across all stages of life. In a community like that, singleness is no longer viewed as a waiting room before “real life” begins, but as one of the many ways a faithful Christian can participate fully in God’s kingdom. For the church is at its fullest, not when every member finds a spouse, but when every member finds a home among God’s people.
+