Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Marriage and the Single Life in Theology and Practice

In the past, I have attempted a tongue-in-cheek explanation for why so many women who want to marry end up single and frustrated. Today I'm going to attempt to critique a much smaller subset of the problem, though one that I think is important for several reasons.

By basically ignoring passages in Scripture such as I Corinthians 7:1-9 and never developing a robust theology and practice of the consecrated single life, Protestantism condemns numerous women to either 1) a lifetime of seemingly purposeless singlehood/second class life compared to married people or 2) marrying men who are entirely unserious about their faith.

Throughout history the percentage of men who are serious about their faith has always been smaller than the percentage of women, especially after leaving the home. In the Catholic and Orthodox worlds, offering the option of becoming a nun to young women helps to balance the marriage market and increases the odds of young women finding a partner with whom they can be "equally yoked."

It is incredibly ironic to me that a subset of Christianity which has accepted contraception, in practice even the kind that sometimes stops implantation, has no visible representation of the consecrated single life which Scripture and the early church recommend so highly. I suppose though, it makes sense that a society which finds it unrealistic for married people to practice periodic abstinence would also have difficulty creating a vibrant culture where the unmarried could enjoy a meaningful, joyful sexless existence while feeling just as valued in their churches as their married comrades.

Anyway, that's my reaction to having been on both sides of the Protestant/Historic Christianity divide and hearing far more Protestant women complain bitterly about the lack of Godly men than Catholic/Orthodox. While the pain of not finding one's spouse/vocation can be visceral and real on both sides of the 16th century theological divide (especially in today's culture where many men are still living the life of an adolescent into their thirties), in my limited experience, it seems to run deeper and to be more common on the Protestant side of things... and the only (mainstream) answer seems to be "Don't Give Up on Marriage," which strikes me as entirely inadequate.

30 comments:

Douglas said...

Just as a note, I have purposefully ignored the subset of Protestantism which believes that women should a) be subject to their father until marriage and b) only married men can be pastors because that is God's primary (only meaningful) plan for human existence because...
1) even though the group is larger than those who have developed a robust theology and practice of the consecrated single life
2) it is still a pretty small percentage of the overall Protestant community

As explanation, I come to my conclusion that nearly all of Protestantism is bereft of a robust theology of the consecrated single life because I've never met a single Protestant whose consistent goal in their 20's, 30's and 40's was to live that way. The church of the apostles and early church fathers would be flabbergasted to meet such a group of Christians. In contrast to the thousands of Protestants I've known, I've hardly had any orthodox friends or acquaintances (probably <30) and still have had a friend whose sister was an Orthodox nun (or sister to be more precise, but the distinction would be lost on most people).

Purple_Kangaroo said...

Doug, many protestants believe that, whether married or single, one's life should be dedicated to serving God.

However, I think that most protestants do not believe that you must choose at a young age whether you are going to be married or single and stick with that for the rest of your life, no changes allowed. That, I think, is why you don't see as many Protestant institutions that are the equivalent of convents--although there are things such as the Deaconess movement in Protestant circles too.

I think, too, a difference may be that most Protestants see serving God as not necessarily being mutually exclusive with having a family and career, and many feel that they can serve God within other life works, such as medical or humanitarian work or even other types of work combined with sharing the Gospel, rather than dedicating their life solely to prayer.

I would like to point out that a protestant woman's failure to join a convent hardly condemns her to an exclusive choice of "seemingly purposeless singlehood/second class life" or "marrying men who are entirely unserious about their faith." :)

I know quite a lot of single protestant women, and I can assure you they aren't sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for a man to arrive in their lives. They are actively serving God in ministries and careers. Just from my own personal acquaintance, the following activities pursued by single women come to mind: Anti-human-trafficking, mission work (both overseas and locally), disability advocacy, working in the medical field, interpreting, many different types of church and charity work, being in church leadership roles, writing, public speaking, and so much more.

I think the idea that women can't have meaningful lives or serve God in a significant, meaningful way unless they are married or in a convent is becoming less and less prevalent in our society, and it is becoming easier and more accepted for single women to pursue a wider variety of options in both ministry and careers. Although even in previous generations we had women like Corrie Ten Boom, Gladys Aylward, Amy Carmichael, Florence Nightingale, and other such examples of women who served God in very meaningful, significant ways outside of marriage or the convent.

Purple_Kangaroo said...

Amy Carmichael is a good example of a Protestant who felt pretty strongly about purposeful singleness, though, and promoted celibacy as a lifestyle. There were also a number of mission organizations that sent single women to the field and expected them to remain single for life, or at least as long as they were serving with the organization.

Douglas said...

PK,

Amy Carmichael was a woman of a different age. As an example, for three quarters of her life contraception was condemned by the entire Protestant world: every single denomination without exception.

"I think, too, a difference may be that most Protestants see serving God as not necessarily being mutually exclusive with having a family and career, and many feel that they can serve God within other life works, such as medical or humanitarian work or even other types of work combined with sharing the Gospel, rather than dedicating their life solely to prayer."

I don't think there is anything you've stated above that a Catholic or Orthodox would disagree with. I'm unsure as to what you are getting at.

"I would like to point out that a protestant woman's failure to join a convent hardly condemns her to an exclusive choice of "seemingly purposeless singlehood/second class life" or "marrying men who are entirely unserious about their faith.""

Of course there will be people who are able to serve God and feel fulfilled and valued by their Church community without marrying. Do you, however, deny that there are many, many single women in Protestant churches today (perhaps most) who feel that the single life is less valued by their church community? Also, do you know any single men or women who actually aspired from a young age to live out their lives in consecrated singlehood to God, or do you know any pastors that have promoted such a state of life from the pulpit?

My beef with the Protestant world I grew up with isn't just that women and men aren't committing to a consecrated single life at an early age, as you suggest, it is that nobody is promoting such a life as a way to serve God more wholly and with fewer distractions than a married person can. It is a clear teaching of Scripture that married people have "divided interests" and cannot devote as much of their lives to serving God. But who in the Protestant world teaches that such a state of life is something to aspire to? Have you ever heard a pastor preach about the ways in which the single life is superior to the married life when it comes to serving God and how it is recommended over marriage in Scripture: as the apostle says, "So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better."

A single state that is seen as merely a stopping point in one's life before marriage and not something to be aspired to for an entire life is not the single state that is so highly recommended in Scripture and by the early Church.

As an aside, I'm not quite sure what you mean by the deaconess movement. Would you mind explaining further? Do you know anybody in this movement?

MarkC said...

Doug,

"A single state that is seen as merely a stopping point in one's life before marriage and not something to be aspired to for an entire life is not the single state that is so highly recommended in Scripture and by the early Church."

I think you are obviously correct that Protestantism does not have a concept of the consecrated single life that the Catholic and Orthodox churches do.

However, you went further in your original post. You also asserted that single Protestant women are seen as "second class" in their church communities.

If Protestant churches have truly changed their perspective on single women, so that they are not viewed as second-class... then those women can serve God fully with their lives whether they end up marrying or not. Their singleness can have a purpose because God gives it a purpose... and it doesn't have to be a lifelong commitment for it to be purposeful.

So, it comes down to this question you asked in your response to PK: "Do you, however, deny that there are many, many single women in Protestant churches today (perhaps most) who feel that the single life is less valued by their church community?"

I'd switch it the other way, stating it as a positive. I know of many single women in Protestant churches today who feel that single life is valued by their church community, and who do NOT feel a need to get married to live the Christian life fully. Therefore, they don't feel like second-class citizens, don't feel that they must settle for an unsuitable husband, and can live their lives taking whatever God brings their way. Even marriage, possibly.

Maybe I've just had different experience with different Protestant churches than you have. Who knows. These types of questions are very subjective and experiential. I'm sure there are many women (and men!) who struggle with issues of identity, purpose, and fulfillment in life, whatever their church affiliation may be.

All the best,
Mark

Purple_Kangaroo said...

The deaconness movement has historically been basically what you describe--a group of women who feel called to serve God as single women in order to be able to focus more completely and effectively on their life work without the distractions of marriage and family. There have also been a number of mission organizations focused on that sort of thing. However, what I was trying to say is that I think the difference with Protestant organizations that take this approach is that few require a person make a vow to remain celibate for life a requirement of the organization.

For instance, this quote (though focusing on the history of the movement and past deaconness organizations) puts it well:

"If a deaconess did wish to marry, she was free to leave the sisterhood at any time to do so and many did. The General Conference of Deaconess Motherhouses, meeting in Kaiserswerth in 1891, reaffirmed this position:


'As a deaconess is free to remain single, so she retains the freedom at all times to enter wedlock in a lawful manner. Neither before nor after consecration need she promise to remain single, but she honestly declares that after mature examination before God and her conscience it is her deliberate and firm determination to be a deaconess and to remain single so long as it may please God. [20]' "

http://www.ucc.org/about-us/hidden-histories/the-deaconess-movement-in.html

And, yes, I have heard sermons on the benefits of a celibate lifestyle or even lifetime singleness to allow a person to focus more fully on serving God without distractions, the gift of celibacy, etc.--but not focused only on women. I think it makes more sense to include men in that, too. :)

However, I think many Protestant preachers are hesitant to get into the realm of forbidding people to marry, as in 1 Timothy 4:3, so that may affect the way they preach on lifelong celibacy somewhat--as a good thing, but not as a requirement.

Incidentally, you say, "A single state that is seen as merely a stopping point in one's life before marriage and not something to be aspired to for an entire life is not the single state that is so highly recommended in Scripture and by the early Church."

I've always understood Scripture to say repeatedly to be content in whatever state one finds themselves, and while the Bible clearly talks about a gift of celibacy, I don't see any place where it says that gift must be lifelong.

In fact, it seems pretty clear that it can change in different seasons--for example, in 1 Cor. 7 Paul is talking about "the unmarried and widows" and says that it is good to stay unmarried, but better to marry than to burn if they can't handle being single. In 1 Timothy 5 he advises some widows to remain single while others, he says, should remarry.

Obviously the widows didn't have the gift of celibacy when they were married, but for some it is best to remain single once they become widowed, because they can serve God better that way. Others (particularly the younger ones) can serve God more effectively, he says, by marrying and bringing up children for the Lord.

So it's not a one-size-fits-all or even one-size-fits-one-person-for-life proposition that has no room for change once a person has lived either single or married for a season.

I am not sure of the Catholic view on this . . . I think joining a convent after being married and widowed is allowed, isn't it? But is leaving a convent to get married hugely frowned upon, or is it ok to do? Do people have to take a lifetime vow when they join?

Douglas said...

"Maybe I've just had different experience with different Protestant churches than you have. Who knows. These types of questions are very subjective and experiential. I'm sure there are many women (and men!) who struggle with issues of identity, purpose, and fulfillment in life, whatever their church affiliation may be."

Mark, You are absolutely right that these questions are very experiential and that men struggle with them, too. I think if you had more personal experience with Catholicism you would more easily understand my point, but perhaps my experience with Protestantism is lacking someone due to my conversion in my mid 20's. I would be interested to know what your sister thinks on this point, since she has more personal experience in both cultures than the two of us.

"Their singleness can have a purpose because God gives it a purpose... and it doesn't have to be a lifelong commitment for it to be purposeful."

Of course, you are right that commitments don't have to be life-long to have purpose. God can use anyone, even in their secular jobs to bring glory to Himself. That said, in my experience (there's that word again), Catholic men and women who want to live a single life consecrated to God have greater freedom to do so and spend far less time supporting themselves and working compared to Protestant men and women. This lack of career focus frees them up tremendously to serve the Lord, which is kind of the point of Paul's passages recommending the single life over family life.

In my experience, single Protestant women are much more like single Catholic women before they find their vocation. It is a time often a time of waiting and uncertainty for them, filled by a career focus as they bide their time mostly doing ministry on the side, though a few can incorporate it into their work life.

Douglas said...

PK,

I guess the deaconess movement basically dying out is why I hadn't heard of it. In our post-contraceptive age, most men and women don't even consider a celibate life devoted to serving God. I can't imagine a Protestant community like that existing in today's America. Can you?

You are right that the modern Protestant interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:3 prevents many pastors and lay people from even considering a lifelong celibate state. There were many heretics in the early Church age who believed that the body was bad and in their flesh dwelt no good thing. Many of the gnostic sects were ascetic and some rejected the institution of marriage and forbade it as the creation of the demiurge. On that basis, the early Church rejected the excesses of asceticism regarding fasting and forbidding marriage.
http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/gnosticism.htm
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Creation.htm

John Chrysostom interpreted this passage thus, "It is then the last time. For in the latter times, he says, some shall depart from the faith. Forbidding to marry. And do not we forbid to marry? God forbid. We do not forbid those who wish to marry, but those who do not wish to marry, we exhort to virginity. It is one thing to forbid, and another to leave one to his own free choice. He that forbids, ***does it once for all,*** but he who recommends virginity as a higher state, does not forbid marriage, because he prefers virginity." Thus, the early church intepreted the reference to forbidding marriage to be a general rule, not something freely chosen by particular individuals.

Quite the opposite, Jesus taught that people could choose lifelong celibacy. Jesus taught that one could permanenently renounce marriage for the kingdom of God when he said that there are those who choose to be eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matthew 19:12). Nobody is a temporary eunuch. When someone is castrated, they are castrated for life. The old testament specifically forbade Eunuchs from serving in the temple, but Jesus (while upholding the goodness of bodily integrity) praised those who had voluntarily made themselves eunuchs in order to serve God more fully in the manner of the prophets Jeremiah, Elijah and Elisha.

Indeed it was common among early Christians who had joined the ministry to give up all for the kingdom of heaven's sake, including conjugal relations. Paul says that people should come together lest Satan tempt them through a lack of self control, but that was both spoken to the unordained and was a concession, not a command. Elsewhere in Scripture, Paul commends the married to live as though they were not married and Jesus says that those who have left behind married life for the sake of the kingdom of God will not lose their reward.

This Scriptural emphasis on virginity, living as a eunuch and marital continence in Scripture sounds foreign to our modern ears.
In our contraceptive culture many women can hardly imagine their husbands avoiding pornography, let alone living lives of marital continence. When Oprah interviewed my sister-in-laws order, she asked in amazement how they could give up sex and children forever. This was not the world Jesus and the apostles lived in. They readily gave up marital relations and Jesus told them they would obtain no small reward for such sacrifice (Luke 18).

Anyway, most of this is just a really long way of saying your interpretation of I Timothy is a modern one, unknown in Christian circles before the rise of Protestantism. It is quite Biblical to choose to commit to a lifetime of celibacy.

Douglas said...

PK,

To answer your questions...
"[A]I think joining a convent after being married and widowed is allowed, isn't it? [B] But is leaving a convent to get married hugely frowned upon, or is it ok to do? [C] Do people have to take a lifetime vow when they join?"
A) Yes, it is allowed, but it is rather uncommon. I know of only a couple priests in my diocese who are widowers with children and grandkids.
B) It depends. When one first joins a convent or monastery or goes to seminary, it is not frowned upon at all. It is expected that a certain percentage will leave. It is only after about 7 years, when one takes "final" vows or ordained that it is frowned upon. After that, one must obtain permission to be laicized before marrying. It is rather uncommon. I've only known a couple laicized monks/nuns.
C) As covered above, not for a while, and it is theoretically possible, though very unusual, to be released from that vow.

While clerical celibacy is a requirement for Latin Rite Catholic priests, it is not required for Eastern Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, except in the case of a bishop. Bishops have never in the history of Christianity been allowed to marry while occupying their office.

This is simplified to make it easier to explain.

MarkC said...

Doug,

I doubt that the difference in our perspectives comes from my unfamiliarity with Catholicism or your conversion in your mid-20's. I expect it is really just that we've spent our lives in different circles.

For my part, I spent my college and post-college years steeped in the foreign missions environment, planning to be a missionary myself. My family is also heavily missions-oriented. As a result, I know of many single women who, far from being in some sort of waiting game, spent their early adult years working full-time for God overseas. They weren't hampered in any way by not having a husband. Nobody looked down on them, belittled them, or minimized their efforts because they were single.

I know of some who are still single, and still serving God. I know of others who are now married, and are still serving God. None of them, as far as I know, found their singleness to be a consecrated vocation. They just were single, and lived their lives fully for God in the situation they were in.

It sounds like you may have had different experiences with Protestants, women who were waiting around, maybe churches that were less than supportive of single women serving God on their own. I don't know. I guess I just wanted to share what I have seen, from my perspective, in my experiences, and why I have a hard time relating to what you suggested.

Mark

Purple_Kangaroo said...

Well, like I said I know a *lot* of single women who are in full-time active service to God. Many of whom I met in college. Bible college is a great place to meet young women who have a goal to enter full-time ministry :).

I did not meet as many in the circles you and I grew up in, because single women were primarily encouraged to stay home and see their ministry to their families and their father as their calling (and that can certainly be a valid calling and way to serve God, too). But those single young women were seldom spending their time working at a job to support themselves, either, so were able, as you mentioned, to focus the bulk of their time and energy on pursuing the ministry they felt called to, which might be serving their family and furthering their father's goals and ministries, but often also serving in the local church and community also.

The Patriarchy Movement, where (where this speech that your sisters/mother and I heard given at a HS seminar is fairly representative of the teachings and attitudes toward single young women)--is really not representative of mainstream Protestant culture (and that speech would be highly unlikely to receive the standing ovation I participated in as a teen [which I would not give today] in a more mainstream Christian audience).

Incidentally, I find it interesting that you would draw a parallel between attitudes toward contraception and the likelihood of women to serve God as a single woman, because in my own experience, the Quiverfull community is a place where women are far less likely to be encouraged to remain single and serve God outside the family as a single woman than in mainstream Protestant culture.

Purple_Kangaroo said...

And thank you for answering my questions on the laity in the Catholic church.

I find it very interesting that you would say, "Bishops have never in the history of Christianity been allowed to marry while occupying their office" in light of 1 Timothy 1:3: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" (KJV)

The Apostle Peter himself was married, it's pretty clear, since the Bible mentions his wife's mother being healed.

I did a quick search engine query for "history of celibacy bishops" and this page with a timeline popped up: http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm

purple_kangaroo said...

Ah, thanks for the background on the link. I found another history of clerical celibacy on a site that calls itself "Catholic Encyclopedia" but I don't know if you would consider that a reputable source or not, either. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

My interpretation of 1 Tim. 1:3 is that married men were not forbidden from becoming bishops.

You said, " Do you really think the contraceptive mentality had nothing to do with the dying out of the deaconess movement?"

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. If you can explain to me at what date you think "the contraceptive mentality" took over, I might be able to comment on that. Since the office of deaconness originally died out in the middle Byzantine period, I think that is far too early to blame contraceptives. :) According to Wikipedia (again, maybe not the most reliable source) it had more to do with the church deciding women shouldn't hold roles of such influence than with birth control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess

The Deaconess movement/office was resurrected in the 18th century, and there are various versions of deaconess ministries still active today. There are a number of ministries that use the term deaconess to apply to women in full-time church ministry, many of which do also require or assume the deaconesses will be single, but not all.

Here are a few examples:

http://www.recdss.org/

Concordia Theological Seminary offers a deaconess program of study: http://www.ctsfw.edu/Page.aspx?pid=305

The Lutheran Church and a number of other Protestant churches have deaconnesses that are "full-time professional church workers".

Argh, I am having great trouble with my internet tonight, so it is very difficult to get pages to load, and I will have to give up for now (if I can get this comment to post). But you can find more by searching phrases like deaconess ministry on any search engine.

This page explains one view of the history of the movement: http://www.recdss.org/dsshistory.htm

I suspect the waning popularity of institutions where women lived in community was connected more toward the growing societal acceptability of the existence of single women outside of the home and the ability of women to be allowed to hold office in churches and/or serve in full time ministry in various capacities. As it became more acceptable for a single woman to, for instance, join a mission organization and go on her own to serve on the mission field, elements such as the deaconess communities were less necessary for women to be able to do such work without impropriety. The deaconess communities, my impression was, largely served the purpose of allowing a woman to be chaperoned and financially supported. In the more modern day and age chaperoning is seen as less important and women missionaries are able to raise support and so do not need to join a commune-type housing arrangement in order to be in full-time ministry.

purple_kangaroo said...

Oops, I see that you did say early to mid 20th century was when you identify as the beginning of the contraceptive era.

purple_kangaroo said...

Doug, did you delete your comment, or did I somehow accidentally delete it with all my attempts at getting the page to load? I hope not. I think we can retrieve it if it was inadvertently lost and you want it reposted.

purple_kangaroo said...

The first article I linked about the history of the deaconess movement, by the way, says that it ended in the United Church of Christ, specifically (the denomination that wrote the article) because of the ordination of women and other opportunities available for women to serve in the church making it basically obsolete.

"Recruitment for deaconesses was discontinued in the 1950s. Once again times had changed. As many new opportunities for full-time Christian service in the church became available to women, all the seminaries of the United Church of Christ began accepting women in preparation for ordination. The deaconess calling became that of the pastor."

http://www.ucc.org/about-us/hidden-histories/the-deaconess-movement-in.html

I think this would support the general theory that there are fewer women serving in a group-housing type of situation as single women nowadays, simply because there are more opportunities for single women to serve in full-time ministry without having to join a group like that to do it.

I do enjoy hearing and learning more about how the Catholics handle it, though. Do you know how many women become nuns in relation to the number of men becoming monks and priests or how the numbers as a percentage of people in the Catholic faith have fluctuated over time? I wasn't able to find info. on that, and I think it would be interesting.

Douglas said...

PK, I deleted my own comment. You didn't do it accidentally. I didn't know you had begun replying already, and didn't really like how my comment had turned out. Also, I didn't see enough commonality of interest and experience to warrant the time cleaning up my comment and furthering the discussion. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

Kevin said...

I have no idea how to bridge the gap of common interest and experience, but I started forming a comment while enjoying the discussion a while ago, and since it includes some contextual interpretation of the pertinent Scripture that some might find interesting, I thought I'd share it.

I agree with Doug's underlying point about the problem of our culture drifting away from marriage (including the pre and post fidelity it entails) and toward fornication or a dissatisfied celibacy. It's politically and culturally messed up. It's also particularly troubling for me, since I am an unmarried data point in that dilemma -- I'm at once satisfied with my life and yet not satisfied with remaining single permanently.

Life-long celibacy may be the right choice for some, and I agree with Doug that if that is your choice, then embrace it -- don't live a life of dissatisfaction. But I disagree with its idealization and institutionalization and the general notion that it is a path of better service to God.

Regarding Scripture, I believe the OT (and Judaism) shares my view and that the NT is consistent. e.g. A special case such as Jeremiah is associated with a crisis, which Paul's explicit context seems to parallel: 1 Cor 7: v6, v25 "I have no commandment of the Lord", v26 "present distress", v29 "time is short".

The context of Matthew 19 has the Pharisees trying to trip up Jesus regarding divorce. In v9, Jesus frames their manner of "putting away" wives as legalized adultery. In v10, his disciples conclude: then it is better not to marry! Huh? How does that logically follow from Jesus's admonition to be faithful? Is the option of having sex with one person worse than none? No. One is a superset of the other.

So, how to reconcile it? Given the topic of having sex, I think they were reasoning that sex before marriage is better than adultery, so it is better not to marry. Jesus responds in v11-12 by literally agreeing with them while explicitly eliminating their presumption of sex. i.e. If you want to be a eunuch, go for it. But the disciples didn't say anything about becoming a "eunuch", they said "not marry". Are those two the same? No. Jesus's response was actually reproof, not a general recommendation.

Anyhow, that's how I interpret it so far. IMHO, it has the benefit of being more consistent internally and with the rest of Scripture, at the cost of being unorthodox, perhaps even to Protestants. C'est la vie. :-)

Douglas said...

"The context of Matthew 19 has the Pharisees trying to trip up Jesus regarding divorce. In v9, Jesus frames their manner of "putting away" wives as legalized adultery. In v10, his disciples conclude: then it is better not to marry! Huh? How does that logically follow from Jesus's admonition to be faithful? Is the option of having sex with one person worse than none? No. One is a superset of the other.

So, how to reconcile it? Given the topic of having sex, I think they were reasoning that sex before marriage is better than adultery, so it is better not to marry."

Kevin,

The primary topic of Matthew 19 wasn't sex, but marriage. Jesus was overturning the old order, forbidding polygamy as an absolute rule for his followers and telling them that as long as their spouse was alive they were forbidden from remarrying, even if they had obtained a divorce. He said to *remarry* after obtaining a divorce was to commit adultery. Nowhere in the passage did Jesus talk about sex before marriage/remarriage, so I'm really puzzled where you get that idea.

After having the back door of divorce and remarriage removed and recognizing the radical nature of Jesus' claim on the permanence of monogamy until death do they part, it is understandable that the disciples would wonder aloud whether marriage was worth the risk.

Thus it is in the context of Jesus teaching on the extreme permanence of marriage that he also presented an alternative: becoming a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake.

Kevin said...

I agree with some of that and you're right that the topic started with divorce then marriage then adultery then eunuchs, but sex is the persistent subtext at the focus of the entire exchange.

Jesus was being specifically asked about Hillel's view of divorce (i.e. "for any reason") which Jesus summarizes as legalized adultery. Jesus was roughly agreeing with Shammai, but he goes further...

"""
Matthew 19:

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
"""


What is so remarkable about what Jesus said in v9 that would lead his disciples to conclude v10? Jesus said that the husband commits adultery when he unjustifiably puts away his wife and marries another. Up until that point, a married man having sex with an unmarried woman was not considered adultery. Adultery specifically involved a married woman. Jesus made them equal.

That is why the disciples replied that "it is not good to marry" -- they were implying that men could avoid adultery by having unmarried sex. That is the context of Jesus' statements about eunuchs. It's all about sex.

I may be wrong, but if so, then what exactly are the disciples focusing on in v9 that would make them conclude in v10 that it is better for a man not to marry?

Kevin said...

On reflection, I think I was wrong to say that sex was throughout. The beginning part with the Pharisees wasn't specifically about sex but a matter of law. It's when Jesus mentioned adultery that it turned a bit, followed by my interpretation of the disciples, and finally with "eunuchs" which is more focused on sex than on marriage.

Douglas said...

"That is why the disciples replied that "it is not good to marry" -- they were implying that men could avoid adultery by having unmarried sex."

Kevin, Are you saying that the disciples thought sex between a married man and an unmarried woman was OK/Biblical?

Kevin said...

I don't know if they thought it was "OK", but at the very least, I think they believed that sex with an unmarried woman was a far lesser offense than sex with a married woman -- i.e. adultery.

Adultery was punishable by death, which is why the disciples would be alarmed by Jesus's statements and consider options for escaping it.

Douglas said...

Kevin,

The penalty for fornication was either death or pay a bride's price/dowry and (at the woman's father's discretion) a forced marriage in which no one was never allowed to divorce for any reason (Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Are you saying that the disciples thought a scenario in which nobody married until after they fornicated and were forced to marry for life was better than Jesus proposal of __________? I'm still very confused. Would you mind filling in or referring me to someone who shares your view and has written on this topic?

Kevin said...

Unfortunately, Torah is much more precise than you describe and it was interpreted pretty literally.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17 refer to witnessing the rape or sex from seduction of an unbetrothed virgin still in her father's house. All of those conditions are necessary for judgement. The man is fined, and at the father's option she is married to him.

That man may not put away that wife (her leaving him is not mentioned), presumably under penalty of further fines (as long as the woman's family can prove she was a virgin). Of course, the man may have more than one wife. So, this case basically amounts to life-long financial support.

Note that death is only a punishment for adultery which is defined as sex with a woman who is married or betrothed to another man (e.g. Deuteronomy 22:23).

As an aside, this status of women as property illustrates how the writ of divorce actually protected the woman -- she was entitled to the writ if she was put away because without it, sex or her re-marriage would be adultery punishable by death.

The English word "fornication" is used in different ways that is a bit harder to pin down in translation, so I avoided it here. But note that, for example, a man (married or unmarried) having sex with an unmarried non-virgin woman was not a crime in the OT.

However, these laws addressed very specific cases that were also constrained by the realities of life at the time. Shift to the NT times and Jesus was interpreting the intent of Torah by saying that a married man can commit adultery even if it is not with another man's wife. i.e. not only should men not divorce willy nilly, but they are committing _adultery_ if they do! Jesus was elevating women.

Doug wrote: "Are you saying that the disciples thought a scenario in which nobody married until after they fornicated and were forced to marry for life was better than Jesus proposal of __________?"

I'm sorry, I can't fill in your blank because the rest of it isn't quite right, so I'll rephrase it.

The disciples proposal was that if nobody got married, then, by definition, no one could commit adultery! Weee! Problem solved! ;-) But Jesus saw right through them and said, sure a man can choose not to marry and be a _eunuch_. The disciples weren't considering that the only choice was between eunuch or marriage. i.e. Jesus was saying that sex signified marriage.

1906 Jewish Encyclopedia's Adultery article goes into some detail on the Jewish history of adultery, starting with its definition (i.e. only pertaining to married women). I skimmed the intro to these, too: Adultery and Pre-marital sex.

I don't know if anyone shares my view on Matthew 19 specifically, but I'm happy to explain my reasoning if it doesn't make sense to you. A lot of it has to do with the OT mindset toward women and the relevant conflicts of Jesus's day (e.g. reflected by Hillel and Shammai).

Douglas said...

"I don't know if anyone shares my view on Matthew 19 specifically, but I'm happy to explain my reasoning if it doesn't make sense to you."

Kevin, If you can tie your ideas into a larger faith tradition, I would read your explanations with interest. Honestly, though, I've been rather overwhelmed recently, so if it's just your personalized picking of bits from various faith traditions, it probably isn't worth your time. You may be holier and more informed about specifics on this topic, but still, that's a horribly low bar to reach and quite insufficient to understand Jesus' teaching with confidence. I'm incredulous to the idea that a 21st century American has discovered the secret to interpreting Christian teaching on marriage, divorce, remarriage and the single life which has evaded Christians for 2000 years.

I hope that makes sense, and I haven't offended you. I just want to be clear on the level of effort that it takes these days for me to sit down and wade through a detailed theological explanation of concepts as difficult as this.

Doug

Kevin said...

Thanks for your response, Doug! No worries at all, you haven't offended me. :-) And I likewise hope I'm not offending you. I'm happy to say that our mutual respect makes me suspect that we are a bit hardened to easily taking such offense from each other's blunt honesty, but I do greatly appreciate your care shown by mentioning it.

While I don't know of a Christian tradition to link you to as you'd like, I am relying upon the Jewish tradition at the time of the OT and the NT to interpret scripture, which seems the most pertinent. So, OT and NT Judaism is the larger faith tradition I am tying it to, which you can read about.

So, I think the bar that I set is higher than you hypothesize because I am not picking bits from various faith traditions, instead I am picking the whole of the facts at the time of the OT and NT (including their traditions) which should be common to all subsequent Christian traditions, and I'm deriving from there. Then, discrepancies suggest a failure of my knowledge of the fundamental facts, or of my logic, or a similar failure by those subsequent conflicting traditions.

You rightly make me sound kind of silly and alone, and your skepticism of my breaking with traditions is certainly warranted, but I just don't know how else to go about gaining understanding besides requiring consistency between the original and subsequent interpretations. Such a comparison often seems far more relevant to me than comparisons between divergent stages of subsequent traditions.

Studying Judaism in OT and NT times seems beneficial to any interpretation of the Bible and thus Christianity, but I am totally sympathetic to the level of effort required to investigate this. My best advice is to delegate some of the effort to trusted advisors or priests or (Rabbinical?) scholars if you can. Maybe they can investigate and gather facts for you (and indirectly for me, too! :-)).

They'll likely be inclined to rely upon more modern traditions developed after Christ, but, for example, if it is true that the Jews at the time did not believe that voluntary sex between a man and an unmarried non-virgin woman was a sin, does that affect your interpretation of scripture at all? Does the gender disparity of adultery?

If it interests you, those two questions seem like a good place to start.

Kevin

Kevin said...

Also, while I'm not fluent enough in the subsequent traditions that developed to go into much detail, I have the general sense that my conclusions that sex signifies marriage is not that different from most Christian traditions, nor is the redefinition of adultery to include married men. That eunuchs and celibacy is not above marriage also doesn't seem that divergent from many traditions, especially Judaism. Likewise that there is a point to divorce while God simultaneously does not want it.

Is one of those a more significant divergence? Or is there some other breakage with tradition that I'm missing? If not, perhaps you have overblown how much my interpretation breaks tradition.

So, while I don't readily know of a tradition that specifically interprets these verses as I have, I think it is not only most consistent with the whole of scripture and the facts and tradition at the time, it also actually has been incorporated into subsequent Christian traditions.

Does that help?

Kevin

Douglas said...

"They'll likely be inclined to rely upon more modern traditions developed after Christ, but, for example, if it is true that the Jews at the time did not believe that voluntary sex between a man and an unmarried non-virgin woman was a sin, does that affect your interpretation of scripture at all? Does the gender disparity of adultery?"

Kevin, I've gone back and forth about how to respond to you. I really don't know where to start. Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus wanted a double standard between what was moral for men and women to do regarding premarital sex, divorce and remarriage, etc.? Are you seriously suggesting that polygamy is OK? If not, then what is the basis for the change, in your mind?

Speaking for myself. I'm a Christian. Jesus was a Jew, but if Christianity is to be regarded as a historical religion, I don't see how we can get around Jesus changing certain things either himself or through his apostles. Circumcision and eating unclean food would be a couple things that his disciples changed without any direct input while Jesus walked the earth. Monogamy would be something that Jesus reinstated from pre-Jewish days. Celibacy was something foreign to most Jews, but there were exceptions (The Essenes are most notable. But that's just the thing. If the rule was to get married, then why didn't Jesus and Paul practice it and why did they speak of celibacy the way they did. Kevin, you may not agree with the first 1500 years of Christianity in their interpretation of Jesus and Paul's teachings on celibacy, divorce and remarriage while pointing to certain Jewish teachings, but that's just the point. You are rejecting 1500 years of universal Christian teaching on the matter. Sure, Jewish teaching should inform out interpretion of NT Scripture, but it shouldn't bind us. Otherwise, new Christian converts would all be walking around with bloody wieners and trying to adjust to a new Kosher diet. Polygamy would also have been accepted, especially for the Christian religious leaders. Jesus, though, while being in the Davidic line, was kind of an anti-David when it came to taking wives. His immediate followers caught on, and well before 100 AD His example had become an ideal that many who wanted to serve God more fully sought to emulate.

Kevin said...

Doug wrote: "Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus wanted a double standard between what was moral for men and women to do regarding premarital sex, divorce and remarriage, etc.?"

No, I'm suggesting the opposite. The Jewish culture had that double standard, but Jesus was exposing it and implying that sex should signify marriage, regardless of gender. I'm suggesting that the disciples were assuming the traditional double standard which is why they responded as they did.

I also suggested that a writ of divorce was required from any husband who put away his wife, because otherwise her remarriage would be adultery. Of course, ideally, husbands wouldn't put away their wives in the first place.

Doug wrote: "Are you seriously suggesting that polygamy is OK?"

No, I think that eliminating the double standard would indirectly imply that polygamy is not okay -- or at least not ideal (God did tolerate it).

Doug wrote: "If not, then what is the basis for the change, in your mind?"

Good question. I don't know for sure. In part, I think men were distorting and abusing marriage and divorce within the confines of the law. As in other ways, they lost the intent of the law which Jesus was reviving.

Looking at it from the opposite direction, why did God permit polygamy in the OT? Perhaps He knew that monogamy wouldn't be accepted. Or perhaps they would be at a disadvantage in terms of procreation or survival. If those are reasonable, then perhaps the times and culture changed enough for monogamy to become more viable.

Since I seem to be saying the opposite of what you thought I was saying, I'm not sure how much of the rest to respond to, but I'll share a few stray thoughts:

Regarding circumcision and dietary laws, my view is that God is not arbitrary. Eating scavengers can be unhealthy. Abraham had sexual reproductive issues, perhaps spread or inherited, which circumcision may have affected. So, while these are not necessary for salvation and it is more important to believe in Christ and grow towards God's righteousness, those laws may still be beneficial.

We don't often hear about wives in the NT, and I'm not sure if Paul was a life-long celibate, or just later in life.

I haven't reread this thread, but I think our main point of contention was the status of celibacy above marriage, which I think is why I got into my interpretation of Matthew 19 and the role of women to explain it.

I'm sorry, I must not have been communicating well to have given you the opposite impression of my position. Hopefully I've done better with this comment. :-)