Celibacy UnBibilical?
Dan Trabue, in our conversations on monastic life, offered that celibacy is un-Biblical. Huh?
Explain then (1 Corinthians 7 ESV):
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
It seems to me the plain meaning of this is that St. Paul offers that unmarried devotion to Christ is preferred to marriage hence the “I wish all were as I myself am”, to whit unmarried and celibate (this chapter offers more support for that view as well).
Secondly, for 1500+ years the Christian church always held that unmarried celibacy, such as the monastic life was a higher calling than marriage. Today, many Protestants reject this. Why? On what basis? I honestly have no idea what is the basis of that rejection.
Filed under: Catholicism • Christianity • Mark O. • Orthodox • Protestantism • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Why?
Because God created us as sexual beings?
Because sex is a wonderful gift from God?
Because for most people, living a celibate life is unpleasant and a distraction?
Because Paul is clearly offering his opinion, not a command from God (not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.)?
That the Catholic and Orthodox churches have embraced the tradition of celibacy as a “better” thing, does not mean that it is a biblical thing.
Biblically, it is a good thing for those who are so called. Seems to me that’s the clear message of Paul’s verses here.
Besides, outside of this passage, I’m not sure that there is any other language similar to this in the Bible (although it’s possible Paul wrote some more along this line, expressing his opinion again).
I agree with Dan’s point here: it is a good thing for those who are so called. This is a calling and will NEVER work if it is simply imposed. God clearly has created us as sexual beings and it is a glorious and wonderful gift from God, and for most people, it is not possible to set that gift aside.
There certainly is a view that it is a ‘better’ estate, but the reason it is considered a better estate is so you can whole heartily serve God. If you are married God requires you to care for your wife and children. I think that view is pretty clear in the Scripture mentioned above.
As a widower, I am able to serve God in ways that I could not do if I had a wife to be responsible for, and when my children leave home (one still in high school) I will be further along in my formation process, and the focus can be in ways a parent can never do.
Dan,
I’m confused as to why you refer to Tradition. We’re talking about Scripture. Are you saying Paul does not see celibacy as higher calling.
Dan, there is another reason that it is felt that Paul (and the Church) found celibacy a higher calling. Jesus himself was single and celibate. We are to “be like him” and this is another way.
By implying that Church for 1500+ years felt this way and saying “embraced this tradition” you seem to be implying it is not Biblical. You realize of course you aren’t making sense. The early church was of course very biblical.
On the verse, you note Paul “wished” everyone would do this as a preference not a command. Doesn’t that mean that Paul felt it a “better” (or higher) way? Why do you disagree?
Monk,
I agree it is a good thing for those called, there is no notion from Paul (or for that matter Orthodoxy or Catholicism) that it is “imposed”. And “for most people” this is a gift which is hard to set aside, which is precisely what Paul is getting at in these verses regarding marriage.
Exactly. So … the question for Dan (and others) is why have the Protestants rejected this notion?
One more thing, on imposition of celibacy. I take it we are all in agreement that the Church and the Bible both teach that one is to be celibate if not married?
Mark O
That is my position and that of my Order.
And were you disagreeing with me that it should only be a gift and personal choice? I am not certain.
Paul says:
It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman
Do we think that Paul is also saying the inverse: That it is BAD for people to have sex?
I think clearly no. It is ALSO good to enjoy sex within responsible boundaries (ie, marriage). Now, Paul (the bachelor and one who is apparently called to be celibate) writes some rather negative defense of why sex is legitimate (“sigh! If you can’t help yerself! If you MUST, I guess it’s okay…”), but it’s not an especially glowing or ringing endorsement of the gift of sexuality.
I think that is an instance of the writing reflecting Paul’s own opinion some, he says as much. I think in the context of the rest of the Bible, sexuality is a good and wonderful part of creation in the proper context and in loving, committed relationships.
Further, even within Paul’s reluctant writing here, clearly “each one has his/her own gift from God,” and all gifts from God are good things. Sex isn’t a dirty necessity that God ALLOWS (with a roll of God’s eyes) because some just aren’t strong enough to go without it. No! It is a GIFT. A blessing.
Can I get a witness?!
So, in context of the whole Bible and within Paul’s own writing here, I don’t think that celibacy is, biblically-speaking, a greater gift. It is a gift. It has its benefits.
But marriage is also a gift with its benefits. The single individual with no family is free to serve God in ways that a married partner with children is not. BUT, the married individual is free to serve God in ways that a single person may not be able to. You have a partnership – “a cord of three strands, who can break?” Married individuals and families can bring something to the service of God and humanity that can be impossible for a single individual.
As Paul says, they are each gifts.
I don’t see any particular biblical reason to say one gift is better than the others. I agree that Paul thought it was preferable, in his own opinion. But I don’t think Paul was speaking for God when he said that. Paul didn’t think he was speaking for God when he said it. (“I [that is, PAUL] wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God…”
Where do you get “celibacy is a higher calling” out of that? Because Paul’s personal opinion/wish was that everyone could be single? What is the chief duty of humanity? To praise God – and to do so in the way that they are gifted, seems to me.
I don’t think it is a better estate, some however do.
So why DO Protestants reject it? I don’t know…
Dan,
That is a pastoral letter. Why don’t you think this opinion of Paul’s is normative in that context? Why else would he write it?
If each person’s chief duty is to praise God, why don’t you think that being free of entanglements of relationships and family make that easier?
Are you (and others) wary of admitting it’s a “higher” calling because you are confused about hierarchy? That “higher” in a hierarchical sense isn’t an equality issue?
How would it be an equality issue?
Because the celibate individual has a higher status than the non-celibate individual – in your way of thinking?
I’m unsure of your point, but regardless, no, I don’t believe it’s a higher calling for the simple reason that the Bible doesn’t state it in those terms. No other reason.
If each person’s chief duty is to praise God, why don’t you think that being free of entanglements of relationships and family make that easier?
Not at all. The “entanglements” of relationships offer some pretty big bonuses. Support, teamwork, family, the chance to learn how to love up close and personal.
Similarly, the “entanglements” of not having a relationship might include a lack of support, lack of accountability, lost chances to love and live in a family setting. For instance.
Again, it is my thinking (and I guess protestant, although I certainly don’t speak for all protestants) that each lifestyle is a gift from God and offers benefits and entanglements. I see no biblical reason to suppose one is “higher” than the other. Just different.
Dan,
Part of the problem, I think is that you are attaching too much significance to “higher”. Consider a young person was choosing a career, and had the talents to be any of the following: Medical Doctor or academic, a car salesman, or run the counter at McDonald’s. Society would hold that the more difficult, intellectual career is “higher.” More esteem is given to those who pursue those “harder”, “higher” careers. That is all that is meant by “higher”.
Likewise, Christians throughout the ages, have regarded celibacy and monasticism as a “higher” calling.
My question is why have you rejected this idea?
You’ve noted that you say celibacy is un-Biblical. Jesus was celibate, we are to follow him. I’ve noted a few (I think there are more) verses supporting celibacy as being regarded in exactly the light I suggest. So there is support for it being Biblical. You’ve countered that the family life is Biblical and the monastic is not. I’ve asked you for (New Testament) support of that contention. Do you have any?
My answer remains that I reject it as “higher” because the Bible does not talk about it in those terms.
My question remains, Why do you consider it a higher calling?
To clarify:
1. I have not said that celibacy is un-Biblical. I have said that celibacy as a “higher” calling is unbiblical. Do you have any biblical reason for thinking otherwise? Yes, Jesus was celibate, as was Paul. So?
Did Jesus say, though, that we are to follow in his path in that regards? Israel sometimes killed children in their warring ways, does that mean that we are to do so? Just because you can find a situation in the Bible does not mean that this is the only legitimate model.
David had hundreds of wives. Does that mean that it is a higher calling for us to have hundreds of wives??
2. Where you say you have offered “verses supporting celibacy as being regarded in exactly the light I suggest.” I’m saying you have not done so. You have offered verses where Paul says he wishes everyone had the gift of being single like he is, but then he goes on to acknowledge that everyone does not have that gift. There are no verses of which I am aware that call celibacy a “higher” calling.
That is your human tradition, but not a biblical one. Which is not to say that I’m knocking it, just that I’m saying it’s not biblical.
3. You said: “You’ve countered that the family life is Biblical and the monastic is not.”
I have said that family life is GOOD and there certainly are examples of it in the Bible. I have not said that family life is biblical.
Similarly, IF you define (contrary to the dictionary definition) the monastic life as one where community goods and concerns are shared, where simplicity is embraced and concern for the poor is embraced, THEN I agree that it is biblical and a very good thing.
IF we are using the dictionary definition of a place where one withdraws from the world, I think that is less biblical, although I am fine with the notion of people withdrawing for prayer and contemplation for a while.
It feels like we’re talking past each other a bit. Does this help any?
Becoming a eunuch is an even higher calling.
Stan,
That is not the Christian tradition at all. Origen castrated himself and that didn’t go over well. He is not referred to as “St. Origen”, and that is a big part of the reason why.
Yes, you’re right, Mark. The Bible does not say that becoming a eunuch is a higher calling. Nor does it say that being celibate is a higher calling.
Dan,
Except Jesus example, and Paul’s preference if that is taken as normative.
Matt: 19:12
Yowch. Don’t think that’s what the Bible’s saying, but I can see how it might be read that way.
Mark, Jesus also (we could assume) wore a tunic and sandals: Ought we take that as normative?
Jesus did not own anything. Ought we take that as normative?
Every instance of something happening in the Bible, as I’ve already noted, is not a call to imitate that action.
So, Jesus was speaking what…metaphorically?
I think the consistent theme of these types of verses is that sexuality is a gift to be rightly cherished. And for some, celibacy is also a gift to be honored.
Not that one is better than the other or a higher calling.
You think Jesus was advocating castration?
Dan,
The Carmelites (discalced –> unshod) take similar vows of poverty and wear sandals or less … and are celibate.
Where to do find “sexuality is a gift in the New Testament”. That’s not the first time, I’ve asked you that. You have yet to respond.
hmm, given the Jewish prohibitions against self mutilation and tatooing … perhaps he meant … (wait for it) … celibacy? 🙂
Where to do find “sexuality is a gift in the New Testament”. That’s not the first time, I’ve asked you that. You have yet to respond.
As you have yet to respond to MY question: Why do you consider celibacy a higher calling when the Bible does not say that?
As to your question to me: I’ve noted that Paul says “But each man has his own gift from God…”
We EACH have our own gift. Some have the gift of celibacy, some have the gift of taking part in committed sexuality.
Do you disagree that sexuality is a gift from God? A joyful, wondrous part of how we were created? Are you one of those that thinks sexuality is “dirty”?
If so, what biblical reason would you have for that?
Dan, what do YOU think that Jesus meant?
We must remember that both Jesus’ and Paul’s discussions are about which lifestyle leaves us the most unencumbered “for the sake of the Kingdom”. Obviously, someone who castrates himself has taken the ultimate step to conquer that strong desire for sex. Paul also said it had to do with the difficulty of the times. Are our times less difficult?
I’ve already said what I thought Jesus meant. I think he means that sexuality is a gift and marriage is a gift and the ability to accept non-marriage is a gift.
[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
I think it is a gift if you are able to renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom and, as Paul makes clear later, it is a gift if you are to embrace marriage. (not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.)
And so, having answered what I think, I’m still wondering what you think, Stan. Is castration a “gift”? Or are you merely suggesting (as Mark is and I’m fine with) that celibacy is a gift for some?
Or are you just yanking our chains as we debate endlessly about minor goofs?
Dan,
I think that in all three cases, the Lord was speaking literally. He commends those who become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. He also says that most of us wouldn’t “get it”. He seems to be quite clear that it is given to certain ones but not to others. The purpose seems to be for the expansion of the Kingdom.
Paul is clearly preferring celibacy and says that it gives one advantages in the furtherance of the Gospel owing to many less distractions. In fact, he implies that it is giving in to sexual desires that causes folks to marry. Yet, he also says that celibate singleness is a gift and links it world conditions during his time. There is an unresolved tension in the passage, which is ultimately a bit ambiguous.
Jesus seems to commend eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. He is not just talking about staying single and he certainly isn’t criticizing them. He says that it’s a gift that few of us will get or understand.
Paul shows a distinct preference for celibate singleness and is almost condescending to those who marry. Yet he concedes that it is a gift. The tension is palpable. But his goal is for one to have undistracted devotion to the Lord. A wife and kids are a distraction. Paul clearly says so.
You express some good thoughts about 19:12 but they are not an interpretation. The tone of both passages leads one to believe that there are depths of discipleship that most of us haven’t plumbed yet.
I can agree with that last sentence, but it has nothing to do with self-castration.
God does not dig mutilation of his creation, seems to me.