There is enough interest to start small and by hand.

32 of 47 singles would probably or definitely create a profile (13 definitely), and 1 would not. 29 left a name or email to hear when it opens. 31 of 33 pastors would confirm their members, and by their rough count about 125 singles in their churches would realistically use it.

Why this confidence: The signal is consistent across both surveys, but these are the people who chose to answer, and saying “probably” is not signing up.

Where it came from: The working group’s 30 July meeting asked whether singles would actually sign up: “I don’t know.”

24 men and 23 women answered. 18 of 24 men would create a profile, against 14 of 23 women. An early signal in the other direction: 9 of 23 women said “definitely”, against 4 of 24 men. Most hesitant singles would rather meet in person (11 of 15).

Why this confidence: The gap is large, but 23 women is a small group, and the plausible ranges for men and women overlap (women 41–78%, men 55–88%).

Where it came from: The working group’s 16 July notes on Don’t Waste Your Date, a Christian introductions service: the balance of men and women is its lasting problem.

35 of 47 singles welcome their elders confirming membership before a profile goes live, and 41 of 47 are more likely to join knowing everyone is confirmed. But 30 of 47 would be put off by pastors routing first contact, being told of interest or seeing who they like. 22 of 33 pastors would themselves keep to confirming membership or a written commendation.

Why this confidence: Singles clearly welcome confirmation, and most (30 of 47) would be put off by at least one way of putting pastors in the contact path, though each way alone put off only about half. Pastors are more divided: 22 of 33 would keep to confirming or commending, and the rest want a larger role or a smaller one.

Where it came from: The working group’s 30 July meeting. One pastor wanted pastors involved before a profile is approved. Another warned that most singles would not want their pastor “spouse hunting” for them. A third asked where privacy begins.

13 of 33 pastors chose “own members only”, 5 chose full access, and 15 were unsure. The unsure were the largest group, but not a majority. Only 8 of 47 singles would be put off by their pastor reading their profile.

Why this confidence: The largest group of pastors was unsure, and most singles did not name it as a reason to stay away. This rests on the larger decided group of pastors and on the meeting’s caution about pastors browsing.

Where it came from: The working group’s 30 July meeting: a pastor warned that putting every single’s profile in front of every pastor “may not be wise”, for the pastors’ own sake.

Asked for their top two, 28 of 47 singles chose a private message on the site and 24 chose mutual interest. Only 13 want contact details on the profile, and 7 want pastor-to-pastor introductions.

Why this confidence: A private message and mutual interest are the clear first and second choices, and contact details and pastor-to-pastor are far behind. Meeting in person is closer than it looks, and its range overlaps mutual interest’s.

Where it came from: The original proposal routed interest through pastors. Don’t Waste Your Date puts contact details on profiles. The survey’s design notes called this “the highest-stakes design question”.

41 of 47 singles think a one-time fee of up to $10 is reasonable. At $25 that falls to 32. 6 say it should be free.

Why this confidence: What people say they would pay usually runs above what they do pay, so err low.

Where it came from: The working group’s 30 July meeting: “our singles are poor”, against the view that a small fee keeps out the merely curious and covers costs.

38 of 47 singles would come to at least one kind of gathering: 34 to a regional one and 27 to one at the General Assembly. Of the singles who were unsure about the site, 11 of 15 said they prefer to meet in person.

Why this confidence: Most singles chose at least one kind of gathering, and pastors’ written counsel says the same unprompted. Saying you would come is not coming, so plan the first gathering small.

Where it came from: The whole idea began as a request for a singles gathering at the General Assembly. The working group’s 30 July meeting pointed to the singles gathering Founders Ministries (a Reformed Baptist ministry that holds conferences) runs before its conference.

32 of 47 singles who answered belong to an RBNet church. The rest attend or belong to like-minded churches. Far more are drawn by shared convictions (32 of 47) than by a small network of churches that know each other (7). A few answered from outside the US, and one pastor asked that it be international.

Why this confidence: The survey reached mostly RBNet churches, so outside interest is more likely undercounted than overcounted.

Where it came from: The working group’s 30 July meeting: keep it within RBNet, where elders know their people. But “what are the boundaries?”

The surveys did not ask this. 5 pastors raised legal, liability or safety questions unprompted (age checks, harassment, a disclaimer), 3 said a pastor can confirm membership but not maturity or suitability, and one single wrote that their information must not be open to strangers or bots. The working group noted that a question like “have you been married before?” is hard to add once profiles exist. 26 of 47 singles would show it on a profile.

Why this confidence: Drawn from written comments and the working group’s notes, not from survey questions.

Where it came from: The working group’s notes on Don’t Waste Your Date, an existing Christian introductions service, and the pastors’ written counsel.

The survey did not ask this, but 8 of the 21 pastors who wrote comments said it should not be an official RBNet ministry. Several added that RBNet could still point its churches to it. None wrote that RBNet should own it, though one suggested a directory with an annual meet-and-greet at RBNet’s General Assembly. 4 warned that efforts like this have faded before, and 5 raised legal or safety questions.

Why this confidence: This rests on written comments, which only some pastors gave. It should be settled by asking the churches, not by this page.

Where it came from: The proposal put it on the RBNet website. The working group’s 30 July meeting weighed a home of its own instead, and asked that it not become ongoing work for anyone.