Isaac’s Well is a proposed online meeting place for Reformed Baptist singles who hope to marry, each confirmed by their own church. Before building anything, a working group from Reformed Baptist Network (RBNet) churches asked singles and pastors.
The name comes from Genesis 24, where Abraham’s servant prayed at a well and Rebekah came to draw water.
Counted live. Last read November 7, 2026. Arrow keys or swipe to move. “Look closer” shows the data behind a slide.
2 of 23.
In short
Start small. Elders confirm each member, then step back.
“A tailored network of like-minded christians who have been recommended by their church would make Christian dating so much easier. I've almost given up hope.”
“I believe this is a great idea and long overdue.”
“A way to separate this from other platforms would be to also facilitate conferences/family conferences for singles to meet.”
Word for word, identifying details removed. Each line is a different person. Themes sorted by AI, to be
checked by the working group.
Look closer · The need
Why it matters: the themes
Themes sorted by AI, to be checked by the working group. One person may be quoted under several themes.
Warm support
6 comments from 6 pastors
“I believe this is a great idea and long overdue.”
From small numbers alone, the true share could plausibly be anywhere from 54 to 80%. This is not a margin of error, and it cannot allow for who chose to answer.
No names, churches or emails appear here. Only the working group sees a response in full, never a single’s own
pastor. The full method is in the findings report.
Look closer · Who answered
Method, limits and privacy
Who asked, and why
The Isaac’s Well working group, pastors and members of RBNet churches, agreed on 30 July 2026 to ask singles and pastors before building anything, and approved the questions. The surveys and this analysis were prepared for the group by its volunteer web developer, David Peyton, with an AI assistant. No one was paid or offered anything to answer.
Who was asked, and how
Two short online questionnaires: singles and pastors. Pastors passed the singles’ survey on. Anyone with a link could answer, and nobody checked that a respondent was single or a pastor, so this is an opt-in (non-probability) sample. Before the questions, singles read “We want to build it, and we’re asking you first”, and pastors passed on a note saying “our network wants to build Isaac’s Well”. Both may have nudged answers towards yes.
How sure
Each recommendation says how firmly the answers carry it: moderate, an early signal (a gap between small groups whose ranges overlap), or not asked (drawn from written comments, not a survey question).
When
Singles answered from August 15, 2026 to November 3, 2026, and pastors from August 14, 2026 to October 9, 2026. The surveys are still open and every number here is counted live. The recommendations were written on October 4, 2026.
How many
48 singles’ and 36 pastors’ responses came in, and 47 and 33 count. 2 were set aside at the respondent’s request or as not genuine. 2 pastors’ responses were earlier answers by someone who answered again. Every response counts once, and nothing is weighted. 26 pastors said roughly how many singles they would send the survey to, about 178 in all, so very roughly 26% of those answered. That is only a guide, as some singles heard of it in other ways. RBNet was described to the working group as about 80 churches. We cannot tell how many different churches the pastors represent.
The ranges
A range like 54–80% is a 95% Wilson interval: how far a share could move from small numbers alone, if these answers were a random draw. They are not, so it cannot account for who chose to answer, which is the larger unknown. A gap between groups is called a pattern only when their ranges do not overlap.
Privacy
A group is broken out only if it holds at least five people. Written answers are quoted word for word with identifying details removed, and always apart from the rest of a person’s answers.
7 of 23.
The answerIs there enough interest to build it at all?
There is enough interest to start small and by hand.
An early signal. Saying yes is not signing up, so start small and count real sign-ups.
Each range shows how far that share could move with numbers this small.
Look closer · The answer
Is there enough interest to build it at all?
Confidence: Moderate
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.
RecommendationGo ahead, but start small and run it by hand, as Don’t Waste Your Date (a Christian introductions service the working group studied) began. Treat the email list as the first members, and count real sign-ups before building more.
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.”
Recommendation written on October 4, 2026. The numbers are counted live.
“If “Not sure” or below — what holds you back? (check all)”
15 singles answered. Asked only of singles who answered “Not sure” or below to Q7. They could choose several, so the bars add up to more than everyone.
Q8: What holds the hesitant back. 15 answered. People could choose more than one, so shares add up to more than 100%.
About 125 is the sum of the low end of each pastor’s range, counting “10+” as 10. It could be higher, because many churches did not answer, or lower, if two pastors from one church counted the same singles.
18 of 24 men would create a profile · range 55–88%
14 of 23 women would create a profile · range 41–78%
24 men and 23 women answered. With groups this small, the gap is an early signal.
Look closer · How it should work
How many people, and who, before it opens?
Confidence: Early signal
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).
RecommendationSet an opening number for women as well as men, chosen by the committee (for example, 20 of each confirmed). Reach women through pastors and gatherings, and make the privacy promises plain. One single warned that too many hurdles would mean “too few women”.
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.
Recommendation written on October 4, 2026. The numbers are counted live.
35 would welcome their elders confirming them. But 30 would be put off by a pastor standing between them and first contact, in any of three ways we asked about.
Pastor told when someone is interested in me22 of 47
None of these would bother me16 of 47
Out of 47 singles, who could tick as many as applied. The top three on each side, plus “none”, on
one scale. Every answer is in Look closer.
Look closer · How it should work
What should pastors do?
Confidence: Moderate
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.
RecommendationElders confirm membership in good standing before a profile goes live. A short commendation is optional, at the single’s choice. After that, pastors are not told of interest and stay out of the contact path, unless a single asks his pastor for an introduction.
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.
Recommendation written on October 4, 2026. The numbers are counted live.
Out of 33 pastors. The largest group was unsure, so this rests on those who chose.
Look closer · How it should work
Should pastors be able to browse the directory?
Confidence: Early signal
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.
RecommendationGive pastors a confirmation queue for their own members and nothing else. It is the safer default for singles and pastors. It can be widened later if churches ask, but would be hard to narrow.
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.
Recommendation written on October 4, 2026. The numbers are counted live.
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.
RecommendationInterest stays private until it is mutual. When both say yes, the site connects them without showing phone numbers or email. At first that can be an email introduction, with a message box later if people want it.
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”.
Recommendation written on October 4, 2026. The numbers are counted live.
Out of 47 singles. Each bar counts everyone who would pay at least that much. The 8 who said a fee “wouldn’t stop me either way” count
at every amount.
Look closer · How it should work
Should it cost anything?
Confidence: Moderate
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.
RecommendationCharge $10 once, to show seriousness and cover basic costs, and let a pastor’s word waive it. A donor could cover those waivers so no one is kept out by money.
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.
Recommendation written on October 4, 2026. The numbers are counted live.
Out of 47 singles, who could pick several. The 38 who would come to
at least one include an online meetup.
Look closer · How it should work
Should there be gatherings too?
Confidence: Moderate
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.
RecommendationPlan a General Assembly singles gathering alongside the launch, and help regions host their own. Use the site to point people to them. That reaches the hesitant, most of whom want to meet face to face.
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.
Recommendation written on October 4, 2026. The numbers are counted live.
Out of 47 singles. The survey went out through RBNet churches, so interest from other churches is likely
undercounted.
Look closer · How it should work
Who is it for?
Confidence: Moderate
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.
RecommendationBase membership on confession and elder confirmation rather than a network roll, so any church of like faith can take part. That keeps what singles value and welcomes the singles from outside RBNet who already answered.
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?”
Recommendation written on October 4, 2026. The numbers are counted live.
“I would be concerned about the pastor's access, and legality of it.”
Get right: Terms, a legal review, adults only, and a way to report
“How might we protect singles from an elevated view of a profile that does not manifest in reality?”
Get right: Profiles that are honest and serious
“There have been a lot of these initiatives that usually fade pretty quickly once the organizers get married or their children do.”
Get right: A named owner and a plan for when the founders step away
“…as long as folks know that membership doesn't mean that a brother or sister is necessarily mature or a wise partner for marriage.”
Get right: Say plainly that confirmation only means membership
Word for word, identifying details removed. Each line is a different person. Themes sorted by AI, to be
checked by the working group. “Get right” is our reading, not theirs.
Look closer · Before it opens
What to watch: every caution
Themes sorted by AI, to be checked by the working group. One person may be quoted under several themes. “Get right” is our reading of each caution, not the writer’s.
Legal, liability and safety
5 comments from 5 pastors
“I would be concerned about the pastor's access, and legality of it.”
Get right: Terms, a legal review, adults only, and a way to report
5 of 21pastors who wrote comments raised legal or safety questions, unprompted
Terms of use and a disclaimer, reviewed by a lawyerwhat those pastors raised
Adults only, and a way to report and remove anyonefrom the same pastors, and the working group’s notes
Confirmation only means a member in good standing3 of 21 pastors drew this line
A named owner, and a plan to keep it going4 of 21 said efforts like this have faded before
Not survey questions. These come from the 21 pastors’ comments and the working group’s notes.
Themes sorted by AI, to be checked by the working group.
Look closer · Before it opens
What must be in place before it opens?
“Confidence: Not asked: from written counsel
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.
RecommendationBefore it opens, have a lawyer review the terms of use and a disclaimer. Keep it to adults. Give people a simple way to report someone, and keep the right to remove anyone. Ask every applicant about previous marriage and let them choose whether to show it. Say on every profile that confirmation only means a member in good standing.
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.
Recommendation written on October 4, 2026. The numbers are counted live.
8 of 21pastors who wrote comments said it should not be an RBNet ministry
“It should be welcomed as a ministry of one of the local churches in the Network.”
Counted from pastors’ comments. Themes sorted by AI, to be checked by the working group.
Look closer · Before it opens
Whose is it, and who runs it?
“Confidence: Not asked: from 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.
RecommendationBefore building, name who owns and runs it: a sponsoring church or a small board. Then ask RBNet to commend it to its churches rather than adopt it. That answers the pastors who said the churches have not yet been asked.
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.
Recommendation written on October 4, 2026. The numbers are counted live.
29 asked to hear first 18 other singlesEach dot is one person.
The working group
Name an owner, agree the safeguards, and set an opening number of women and men (for example, 20 of each) with a date to decide whether to go on.
Pastors
Confirm each applicant with a short form. Commend or introduce them only if they ask. Pass the survey on to the single women in your church.
Singles
Not answered yet? The survey is still open, and only the working group sees it. The 29 who asked to hear will hear first.
Supporters
Pray, share these findings, and ask your pastor to put you in touch with the working group.
The working group decides. Nothing here is settled until it does.
Look closer · Deciding
What happens next
For the working group
Name who would own and run Isaac’s Well, and ask RBNet to commend it to its churches.
Agree the safeguards: written terms, a legal review, adults only, and what confirmation means.
Set an opening number of women as well as men, and a date to decide whether to go on, judged by real sign-ups.
Start small: invite the 29 singles who asked to hear, and plan a gathering at RBNet’s next General Assembly.
For churches and supporters
If Isaac’s Well goes ahead, support would pay for fee waivers, the first gatherings and the running costs of a small site. Pray for the singles in your church, share these findings, and if you would like to help, ask your pastor to put you in touch with the working group.
For pastors
If it goes ahead, you would get a short form for each member who applies, to confirm they are in good standing. That is all it means. A commendation, or an introduction to another pastor, is only ever at your member’s request. We recommend you see only your own members’ applications, not the whole directory. The pastors’ survey is still open.
For singles
If you have not answered, the singles’ survey is still open. Your answers go to the working group only, never to your own pastor.