The above question may sound strange and can be open to a few interpretations.
One Interpretation (Minor Question): Historically, it might sound like the question, “Should missionaries be married… or single?” Paul made it clear that many of the apostles not only had wives, but they traveled with their husband’s in their missionary ventures. Paul states in I Corinthians 9:5,
“Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?” (NIV)
We know from Matthew 8:14-15 that Cephas (Peter) had a wife, and from Paul it sounds pretty clear that his wife traveled with Peter in doing ministry. In contrast Paul doesn’t. Now, it is not clear from that passage alone whether Paul was single or married. If married, it seems that Paul did not bring his wife with him. Looking in the broader context, Paul did appear to idealize singleness somewhat, so that leaves open a few possibilities. Perhaps he never had been married. Perhaps he was a widower who never remarried. Or maybe he was separated or divorced— perhaps his wife could not be the “believing wife” described in I Corinthians 9:5.
As the Imperial Church grew in the 4th century, corruption seeped into the institution, leading to the growth of monasticism and associated asceticism. (Asceticism had roots much farther back in the church, however.) As the monastic movement began to influence the broader church, ministers being single was seen as ideal and then later as “the law.” With the Protestant movement, marriage was once again seen as NOT a hindrance to ministry— in fact, it could even be an aid to ministry. However, it took awhile for marriage to become part of the mission experience.
I consider this the less important issue of the question because for most, I believe, it is already answered. A missionary does not have to be single. In fact, it may be good to be married. Even in faith traditions, such as among the Roman Catholics, where the ordained are supposed to be single (with very rare exceptions) there is a growing acceptance of people ministering who are married (even if “only” as laity).
Another Interpretation (more relevant question): Is it okay for a spouse of a missionary not to be considered a missionary. Let me give an example here. I am part of a denomination that has complementarian leanings (although many of us don’t necessarily lean that way). This means, among other things, that there are roles in ministry that women are not allowed to do because… well, because they are women. Our denomination does not recognize women as pastors. They are willing to endorse women as chaplains UNLESS they are ordained. (Humorously, they try to support this policy by referencing several verses that have nothing to do with either ordination or chaplaincy… a common problem with complementarian beliefs.)
An exception to this complementarian attitude appears to be in missions. Our denomination recognizes women as missionaries— either single or married. HOWEVER, one odd thing has been noted. Periodically our denomination speaks of “missionary wives,” but never speaks of “missionary husbands.”
What does this suggest. If a couple goes into missions, the husband is definitely a missionary. However, his spouse may or may not be seen as a missionary. You see, if “missionary wife” always meant missionary, then presumably “missionary husband” would also be used— or perhaps NEITHER “missionary wife” or “missionary husband” would be used.
Is it okay for there to be a “missionary wife,” where the term may suggest a secondary status that is not a missionary. I suppose that there are cases like David Livingstone who served as a missionary in Africa, where in a great majority of his service, his wife was “back home” taking care of the children. Even in some situations a missionary couple may serve overseas together, but the wife embraces a ministerially passive role— primarily taking care of the children and the household. Is that a relevant ministry? Of course. However, I can see where one might be tempted to say that the woman in that case might be labelled a “missionary wife” versus a “missionary.”
Another Interpretation (the major issue): It isn’t so important about what is. It is more important regarding what should be. Should married couples go into missions where one of them embraces a missional identity and ministry while the other does not?
I don’t really think so. I teach at seminary and help administrate our counseling center. My wife is a pastoral counselor and a CPE supervisor. Some of our ministries are done separately, but most we do together. I think as a couple we are stronger together than we are apart. But I also think we are a lot stronger ministerially serving together. Women in the mission field have the ability to impact the ministry work so much, that for them to not be integrated in the missional ministry is a tragic loss— a waste.
I recall when a friend of mine wanted to be a missionary to Haiti. He actually was already a Periodic, Short-term Missionary… going there once or twice a year to assist mission work in Haiti. His wife had joined him once or twice. When my friend applied to be a full-time missionary… both he and his wife were interviewed. In the end they were turned down. The reason was that he was committed to going and serving while his wife as… willing to go. In the eyes of that mission agency, that was not good enough. They wanted both to be committed and passionate to serve in a cross-cultural setting. I do actually think that the mission board was correct in this.
Summing things up a bit. If the term “missionary wife” means having a role that is somehow LESS than being a missionary, the term should be eradicated. Of course, part of the eradication should also include getting rid of the idea that a missionary couple is still a missionary couple when only one of them is serving in a missional capacity.
On the other hand, if “missionary wife” means a missionary who is a spouse of a missionary, then it is okay. But that would also mean that “missionary husband” would be okay. In that case, Celia would be a “missionary wife” because she is married to me, a missionary, and she is one herself. And I would be a “missionary husband” because I am married to a missionary and am one myself. However, the connotation associated with the terms I believe are more akin to the previous paragraph. As such, I do think it is something we need to fix.
