The Positions on Marriage vs. Singleness
Below are the positions on marriage and singleness I have seen among Bible believers. I list them in order to show where I stand on the issues. The statements I placed in quotes for each position are not actual statements made by individuals, but they are meant to illustrate how each position could be expressed:
1. The Gift-of-Singleness Position
"You must remain single until you get some clear signal from God that you can marry. You might have to demonstrate in some self-sacrificing way that you are not too enthralled with matrimony before God allows you to enjoy it. You have no choice in the matter."
2. Conditional Celibacy Position
"You must remain single up until the point you fail to be chaste. Then you can marry. You have no choice in the matter."
[I have been accused of taking this position more than once because I believe 1 Cor. 7:9 was addressed to people already caught up in the sin of fornication. However, I do not believe that one has to show a failure to be chaste before they can marry. I merely believe 1 Cor 7:9 teaches that marriage is better than being caught up in sexual immorality.]
3. Marriage Mandate Position
"If you do not have the gift of a low or absent sex drive, then you must marry. You have no choice in the matter."
4. My position (the one I think is Biblical)
"If you have never been married or are scripturally loosed from a previous spouse you may marry. If you don't want to marry, that's fine as well. God basically gives you a choice in the matter" (1 Cor 7:27-28, 36-37).
1. The Gift-of-Singleness Position
"You must remain single until you get some clear signal from God that you can marry. You might have to demonstrate in some self-sacrificing way that you are not too enthralled with matrimony before God allows you to enjoy it. You have no choice in the matter."
2. Conditional Celibacy Position
"You must remain single up until the point you fail to be chaste. Then you can marry. You have no choice in the matter."
[I have been accused of taking this position more than once because I believe 1 Cor. 7:9 was addressed to people already caught up in the sin of fornication. However, I do not believe that one has to show a failure to be chaste before they can marry. I merely believe 1 Cor 7:9 teaches that marriage is better than being caught up in sexual immorality.]
3. Marriage Mandate Position
"If you do not have the gift of a low or absent sex drive, then you must marry. You have no choice in the matter."
4. My position (the one I think is Biblical)
"If you have never been married or are scripturally loosed from a previous spouse you may marry. If you don't want to marry, that's fine as well. God basically gives you a choice in the matter" (1 Cor 7:27-28, 36-37).
posted by Anakin Niceguy at 8:19 PM
38 Comments:
Include me among those who prefer position #4.
That makes two of us agreeing with #4.
I have to agree with #4 as well. I think the other positions try to pull more out of Scripture than is there.
As I expressed in the comments section of the last post, #4 is basically my position as well.
FWIW, Boundless's position is different from the "Marriage Mandate" position in that we would posit:
"If you do not have the gift of a low or absent sex drive, and you find yourself without sufficient "self-control" over your sexual desires, then you should prepare for and pursue marriage, taking into consideration your age/maturity, current vocation, and the counsel of parents/mentors/pastors. God 'wires' most of us to get married, and so it's likely you're among those who should prepare for and pursue marriage, not languishing in indecisiveness and unintentionality, and not meeting your sexual/intimacy desires in immoral ways."
I've been refining this position over the past few months. It's been helpful to consider the comments on our blog and on others' blogs, to discuss this with our team, and to wrestle with relevant Scripture passages.
The *potential* problem I see with your #4 is that it implies that Scripture has nothing to say about God's general will regarding marriage, that marriage isn't part of God's plan to bless people and reveal Himself to the world. But Ephesians 5:31-32 indicates that marriage is a unique means to portray the relationship between Christ and His People -- the implication being that marriage, as opposed to singleness, models the human-divine relationship unlike any other "state." The love between a man and a woman, the pinnacle of which is their union, is worthy of pursuit. And it's something He desires for most people, as a blessing.
Technically, your #4 is fine. You *may* marry or not. The problem is that this *may* wrongly affirm those who truly don't have "self-control," who may continue in their state of singleness to their spiritual detriment.
Paul, a single man, spoke very highly of the mystery of marriage. May other singles do likewise.
You know, personally I just have problems with the concept of in any way telling ANY one that "if they cannot control their urges ..." Doesn't that imply that we are not able to overcome our temptations through Christ? Are we really going to limit God's power? Aren't we called to overcome ALL our sinful urges? Sexual sin is not some utterly different classification of sin that is inherently and utterly different than EVERY other type of temptation.
Further, what do we tell the person, who marries because they were told that they should marry because they are unable to overcome their sexual urges, when their spouse due to illness, injury, or whatever is unable to quench their sexual 'fires'? Are they then somehow better able to resist sexual temptations as a married person than they were as a single? I doubt it.
Anonymous 5:43 pm has nailed it. Indeed, I find the traditional take on 1 Cor. 7:9 very troubling in that regard.
Anon wrote:
Further, what do we tell the person, who marries because they were told that they should marry because they are unable to overcome their sexual urges, when their spouse due to illness, injury, or whatever is unable to quench their sexual 'fires'? Are they then somehow better able to resist sexual temptations as a married person than they were as a single? I doubt it.
Indeed. I remember reading (I think in Pure Joy: The Positive Side of Single Sexuality) about a guy who lost his wife in a car crash. Amidst all the pain, he had to deal with the abrudt loss of his sexual partner. Understandably, it was tough sledding.
Further, in one of his e-newsletters (not yet archived on his site) Paul Coughlin talks about a guy who ended up marrying a woman who, soon after the wedding, lost interest in sex. Her response to his pleas? (paraphrasing) 'Well, you can masturbate if you want, I don't mind if you do that.' What a compassionate woman.
Now, here are two guys who had gotten married and, due to radically different circumstances, were cut off from sexual expression and pleasure. What comfort and advice do you offer such men, Ted? To lean on God? If that's good advice for them, why not for a bachelor like me?
Wombatty,
How many times a week do you "spank the monkey"
If you do it even once, you need to get married.
MOST men do not have wives who become sexually dead due to accident et. al.
"How many times a week do you "spank the monkey"
If you do it even once, you need to get married."
The crudeness of this post aside, I fail to see how the conclusion follows from the premises here. In fact there really isn't even an argument here, just an assertion.
As such, it's totally question begging, since the very point of Wombatty's post is not simply about "wives who become sexually dead," but about rather or not marriage is somehow a cure for sexual brokeness and dysfunction. Therefore, simply asserting that anyone who struggles with masturbation needs to get married is to assume without argument the answer to the very question under debate.
Frankly, I don't see how anyone who actually knows real married men and they things they struggle with can believe that marriage is somehow a cure for sexual brokeness.
Ted,
I anticipate that you might respond by saying that since such men (as those in my last post), have availed themselves of God’s basic and fundamental resource (i.e. marriage) for dealing with sexual desire only then to be denied that resource through no fault (injury/death of wife) or possibly partial fault (a disinterested wife) of their own, they would then be ‘entitled’ to request of God an ‘extra measure’ of grace, having been faithful with God’s fundamental provision – a measure of grace a bachelor would not be entitled to.
While I think this view is definitely worth considering, it sort of begs the question. It assumes that men (or women, I suppose) will be inevitably drawn into sexual sin apart from marriage. It further assumes that marriage is an antidote to sexual sin. It might be in some cases, but it is surely not the ‘magical maturity formula’ (e.g. marriage = maturity and vice-versa) that some seem to imply that it is.
What would you say to a 30-something bachelor who, though he experiences sexual desire, is successful in keeping it in check? Get married just in case? In case of what? Sexual temptation? This line of thought logically implies that such temptation is prevented by marriage – a clearly erroneous conclusion.
Anon wrote:
How many times a week do you "spank the monkey"? If you do it even once, you need to get married.
And what advice would you give a married man who 'spanks the monkey'? How many times do you do so? If married, what should you do? Would not such advice be equally applicable to me?
A Christian author (I forget who) has wisely pointed out that if you have such a problem, marriage isn't going to fix it. If you can't keep your hands off of yourself before marriage, you'll have the same problem afterwards.
Anon wrote:
MOST men do not have wives who become sexually dead due to accident et. al.
Perhaps not, but a lot of men do end up with sexually disinterested wives (and it's not always their fault). Paul Coughlin has pointed out that, though there are many surveys showing that Christain wives have high rates of sexual satisfaction, no such surveys show the same for men. Since women have less sexual desire than men, it is not hard to imagine her being satisfied and him not.
Good post, Someone.
Thanks Wombatty.
So you rather have no sex (and no spanking) than have some sex with a wife.
Great Plan!
Anonymous,
Are you really as silly and immature as you seem to be? Again, you haven't even made an argument here, just responded with a silly remark.
My question to you is "What if a person never does have sex?" Is that really a tragedy? According to the modern secular view of life it may be, but I fail to see how any Christian can seriously hold to this view. If a person knows Christ, walks with Christ, and spends their life living the mission of Christ in the world (something every Christian should be doing), and then goes to spend eternity with Christ but never has sex, has thast person really suffered a great and irredeemable loss?
While sex is a good thing, it is not a necessity, and, contrary to the modern secular view, one can have a meaningful life without it.
My thought is that you need to expand the scope of your imagination a little.
I support anon 5:43's view, also. The lack of self-control is every man's battle. It's not restricted/ nor discriminating/ nor exclusive to the single lifestyle. John Thomas from your own webzine, Ted, at least gives a balanced assessment of this battle waged in our hearts as he includes the married man, too, as well he should. He never once adds [unless I missed it] that getting married is the all-conquering solution. He says:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
What is this illusive male "urge"? It is not -- I repeat -- not merely the sexual impulse or desire for orgasm. The male urge goes much, much deeper than sexual release. A man needs -- "urges" for -- three primary things: A battle to fight, a beauty to rescue and an adventure to live. Eldredge points out that all three desires are placed in a man's heart by God himself, dating back to Adam. It's a theme that recurs over and over in mythology and romantic stories. The knight in shining armor fights valiantly for the noble cause of the kingdom, defeats the enemy and rescues the damsel in distress. From Cinderella to Braveheart, the theme is the same -- a beauty, a battle, an adventure.
We men desire to be that hero. We desire to live that adventure, to fight that fight and unveil the beauty of a woman. We think, but I'm not on the streets of Baghdad fighting terrorists; there are no more knights or gladiators. I'm just a regular ol' guy in the modern world, earning a degree or working my job. There are no more battles to fight, no adventures to live, no beauties to rescue. So we retreat to the illicit, and are distracted for a few moments from our boredom.
2 Samuel 11-12 is a snapshot of exactly what I'm talking about, the infamous Bathsheba Incident. David, the once great-warrior, has quit fighting, even while a battle raged around him. While the other men fought valiantly, he lounged back home on his couch watching Bathsheba, someone else's wife, take a bath (porn), and then used her. In contrast, her warrior-husband Uriah wouldn't even think of sleeping in his own house with his own wife while a battle raged. His heart called him into battle. The beauty would have to wait.
Satan's Big Lie to you, to every man, is that there is no battle, or at least not one worthy of your participation. Here, he says when he offers the illicit, here's a little something to keep you busy in the meantime, while you wait for something to happen. But Scripture disagrees, "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary [tell me, if there's no battle, why do you have an adversary?] the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour [nope, no battles here ...]. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world." Let me ask you, if a real lion were about to literally eat your heart, would you be thumbing through a Victoria's Secret catalog? No. You'd be fighting for your life. Most of us live like life is a trip to the mall, but, as Eldredge says, in reality it's more like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan (Normandy Beach, D-Day, WWII).
Your adversary, the devil, is not merely trying to get you to be sexually illicit, whether through sex or masturbation. The enemy is trying to destroy your masculine strength, hoping to distract you from battle against him, thus making you ineffective.
He might offer counterfeit battles (a lifetime dedicated to the accumulation of things), counterfeit adventures (Jackass: The Movie activities), and/or a counterfeit beauty (the detached women of porn and advertising). But those aren't really the problems. Your urges are not the problems. Your heart's deepest longings are God-given, but for them to be fulfilled, you must get out on the front lines in the battle for your heart.
Here's my advice: The next time you're tempted to satisfy your urges illicitly (and married men, by the way, have the same temptations and urges), let me give you a new image. Picture yourself in full military gear, strapped head to toe with weapons. It's scorching hot. You're on the wall of the castle, the center of the kingdom, and inside that castle is its most valuable possession -- your heart as God desires it to be. The sweat and blood are dripping from your face. Your hands are gripping a fully automatic 50 caliber machine gun. Your job is to stop any enemy force that dare attack -- no, devour -- your heart. Now, pull the trigger.
I wish I could grab every young man by the shoulders and say, The battle! The battle! The battle! The battle is raging, but it's not a battle merely against porn or any other illicit behavior. The battle raging is for your heart. Even as a Christian, your old nature acts as an insurgency. You must fight that battle, every day. Your weapons are spiritual disciplines (Ephesians 6:10-20), especially prayer and reading God's Word.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
There will always be a battle, a struggle. For the exception of death, there is no utopia from sin and temptation. Human nature brings man down in many ways, and if the Devil cannot tempt us in the arena of man's sexual urges, whether married or single, there will be some other battle to face (such as, The Seven Deadly Sins, for one).
So you rather have no sex (and no spanking) than have some sex with a wife.
Hahaha ... "some sex" is probably all these married men ARE getting, which forces many of them to resort to "spanking" themselves. As Someone stated, though, that's not the argument for debate. Come up with something more constructive other than Troll-like postings.
"We men desire to be that hero. We desire to live that adventure, to fight that fight and unveil the beauty of a woman."
Sounds like good, western, if not Nordic, secular psychology to me. Does not sound like a good basis for Christian theology IMAO.
The assumption seems to be that those are necessarily good, God directed desires. Maybe they are not. Maybe they are part of the deception of this world and age.
Peace,
yb
Anon wrote:
Anonymous said...
So you rather have no sex (and no spanking) than have some sex with a wife.
Great Plan!
Sex with a mate who is only begrudgingly giving in to 'get you to shut up about it' is not what guys want. As the article Knightwatch quoted, it isn't sex per se, but the intimacy and closeness it fosters.
Shaunti Feldhahn puts this really well in her superb book for women (to help them understand men), For Women Only. She points out that the overwhelming majority of men polled (in her research for the book) would 'rather go out and trim the hedges in the cold rain' than have sex with a reluctant, uninterested wife. I've never been married, but I know I agree with this. In fact, I would rather 'spank the monkey' than have sex with a wife like that - I wouldn't even bother asking her after a while.
Feldhahn's book also does the service of laying a long-standing myth to rest - that, while men don't have a clue about women, women understand men (I've heard such things many times). The wild success of her book, and the fact the while researching it and talking to women about it they were consistently surprised about her findings says it all. This is also reflected in many of the books reviews on Amazon.
She also has a complimentary book for guys, For Men Only (to help us understand women). Both are excellent.
Youngbeliever,
You won't necessarily find any strong disagreement from me on this one. While I didn't find everything in the passage Knightwatch quoted to be completely worthless, in general I'm no more enamored with Eldrege and the Wild at Heart phenomenon than I am with Maken and the marriage mandate movement. In some ways I see them as similar, both trading in stereotypes and culturally formed assumptions which they then try to back up using scripture, rather than genuinely biblical and Christian views of what it means to be human.
knightwatch et al. -- I never said that "getting married is the all-conquering solution." I reiterated Scripture, which says that if you lack self-control, you should "get married." Take it up with Paul, not with me.
For the record, guys, my usage of the lengthy quotes were not aimed at some misguided appeal to romanticism. You're getting more out of it than was the intention/ motivation/ desire. Please. I'm sure there's the possibility that a bug can be found in a jar of jelly, but that's not why I bought the jelly.
I reiterated Scripture, which says that if you lack self-control, you should "get married."
Understood.
It is high time that men on this board drop the charade. It is clear that most here are either a) Homosexuals or b)eunuchs.
Anyone with such fear and disdain of women can only fit into those 2 categories.
Peace!
GB
Are you married, GB?
GB,
Please. It is high time that you stop substituting personal insults and infantile drivel for meaningful argumentation. How old are you anyway?
14
"It is high time that men on this board drop the charade. It is clear that most here are either a) Homosexuals or b)eunuchs.
Anyone with such fear and disdain of women can only fit into those 2 categories.
Peace!
GB"
LOL!
When appeals to logic fail, When cogent arguement is impossible, and when one cannot respond intelligently, break out the bigotry, ignorance, and ad hominem attacks.
I am hoping GB stands for Good Bye.
These ad homosexual attacks MUST STOP.
GB, get a life!
GB is probably Captain Sensible. She is really off her rocker and slandering men right and left.
She is the perfect example of why many Christian men are simply sitting out the dating wars.
For anyone interested, Maken has finally responded to Farmer Tom's points on feminism. No surprises - lots of blaming [mainly] men, excusing women, even a dash of self-flattery, the whole bit.
She even stoops to citing congential liar Michael Moore (at one point wondering why Mick Huckabee avoided the 'salient points of Moores new movie Sicko) in her analysis.
I think her comparison the 'marriage crisis' to the 'healthcare crisis' is revealing. Her analysis of the healthcare crisis basically boils down to 'it's the fault of insurance companies and the medical industry'. She makes a point of excusing lawyers (surprise, surprise):
We would hear about Plaintiff/trial lawyers driving the cost of healthcare so high. All of these coffee shop conversations have an air of truth about them, but they are still operating under the paradigm handed to them—that healthcare has to be expensive, that a third party payer system is therefore necessary, and that trial lawyers caused the exorbitant prices.
[...]
And in a chicken-egg sense, did the trial lawyers actually push the price of the ultimate goods up, or did they see an exorbitant amount of profits being made by an industry that by its own greed set itself up for tort abuse.
[...]
The health insurance industry is only a very willing bedfellow, and the trial lawyers make excellent scapegoats/ villains to obscure the real discussion that needs to be had.
She utters not one word about government's interference in the 'medical market' and it's baneful consequences. From legislation that created the hated HMOs (thank you Sentor Kennedy) to proposals for price controls to the current drive for nationalized healthcare ala Canada.
(On healthcare, see mini-documentaries Dead Meat & A Short Course in Brain Surgery. See also Healthcare America & What Michael Moore Left Out of His Movie (page with links to .pdf & .wav files)
While implicity, if obliquely, endorsing Moore's socialist views, she writes this:
I start this off with a question in an area that I am deeply passionate about: How do we solve the healthcare crisis?
If this question were asked of many Americans—we would hear about making health insurance affordable for the middle class or even making it mandatory (Romney in Massachusetts--- are we still America, land of the free???; mandatory, please, please force me).
Not to endorse Romney's program, but does Maken think a government run system would be optional (IRS, anyone?) or efficient (I've seen my grandparents trying deal with the Medicare system)?
Now, it may well be that Maken doesn't believe in Moore's prescription (government control of healthcare), but given her favorable mention of his movie and the complete absence of the 'governmental dimension' of the healthcare crisis, I can be forgiven for concluding so.
Why do I think her analysis/comparison is revealing? Because she is completely blind to one of, in not the main cause of our health-care crisis - government. Likewise, she is nearly blind to any cause of the 'marriage crisis' othan than her favorite villain, the loathsome bachelor.
In both cases, while blaming her favored targets (e.g. single men in one case and private industry/insurance companies in the other) she makes a point of all but excusing others (women & lawyers). Is it me, or is this all a bit self-serving?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I responded to a thread she started on her blog called "Just Wondering..."
Naturally she didn't allow it through.
Among the comments are several that refer to men as "animate objects". My reply was that men are not objects of any kind, and therein might lie the problem with attitudes over there and in the Den of the Makenites.
Way to marginalize a human being by referring to him as a thing, rather than a person, ladies! Gosh, I wonder why men aren't falling all over themselves trying to marry you?
On the Makenite site, Farmer Tom laid it all out as to why men are not committing to the deed anymore. He placed some of the blame on women's attitudes and raised the question of what they bring to the table in a marriage. The only response was something akin to the poor women-folk being abused and unfairly chastised.
I have wonder what the world looks like to people who insistently wear blinders across their eyes.
I have to wonder what a marriage would be like with someone who cannot answer a simple question such as "What do you have that would attract me?"
The more I read at these two sites, the more firmly I am convinced that marriage is a quicksand trap.
With regards to the homosexual label, I guess in GB's eyes every Catholic priest and Paul the apostle is queer. No man here will ever regard themselves as eunuchs either, and when it comes right down to it, our self-opinion takes precedence over your opinions of us any day. I'm done trying to argue against bigotry and ignorance amongst the supposedly enlightened and definitely priviledged class.
curiepoint wrote:
On the Makenite site, Farmer Tom laid it all out as to why men are not committing to the deed anymore. He placed some of the blame on women's attitudes and raised the question of what they bring to the table in a marriage. The only response was something akin to the poor women-folk being abused and unfairly chastised.
Farmer Tom really laid it bare with that recent post of his. At the end he expresses exasperation with Maken and her followers for insisting on near-complete exemption from personal responsibilty for women in this arena and says he won't be posting anymore. He thinks, with good reason, that they should consider his words carefully as he is a successfully/happily married father. Maken's response? She calls him a coward for exiting the conversation. That's right - he's not tired of their whining & blame-shifting, he's afraid to continue posting. And she has the temerity to complain about Tom's 'questioning of her character' (paraphrase).
Wombatty,
That is why, when you deal with these folks, you cannot take their side on that issue. You have to go right to the text of scripture, and show, right off the bat, that delay of marriage is not a sin, and show that bachelorhood is not something that is shameful. When you start the blame game, it just turns into an insult-fest that gets us nowhere in showing that this position is unbiblical.
God Bless,
PuritanCalvinist
PuritanCalvinist wrote:
That is why, when you deal with these folks, you cannot take their side on that issue. You have to go right to the text of scripture, and show, right off the bat, that delay of marriage is not a sin...
I agree with you. However, in Farmer Tom's defense, he has been stating his honest position on the issue. He might well be wrong on some stuff, but I wouldn't expect him to take a position contrary to Maken in order to avoid 'giving her ammo' of some type.
It certainly does demonstrate, though, that if you don't buy into her bilge wholesale, she and her followers consider you part of the problem.
Well, when you can't win by reason, you can claim victory over an opponent by decrying their cowardice, which I am sure Maken is doing.
I could very well spend my days up on a mountaintop shouting my scorn and outrage at the world, but it will accomplish very little except give me a sore throat. Eventually, I would have to stop from the sheer futility.
Arguing against bigots amounts to the same thing.
if you guys want to see that there real women in this world (not being sarcastic), here are some links i read daily:
http://www.biblicalwomanhoodonline.com/blog.htm
Although I don't always agree with their premises on certain subjects, I admire their effort to get women to be women and be a part of the solution to the family crisis
Hey Everyone!
Look at what I found. It is another book entitled "Getting Serious about Getting Married":
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060834072/ref=s9_asin_more-1966_p/102-8628392-3556962?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=right-1&pf_rd_r=0PV6QE94JDPE515N7Y7Z&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=288031701&pf_rd_i=507846
I always thought it was funny. When I read Debbie Maken's book, I always got the feeling that she was saying that, if you just go about getting a relationship in a Biblical way, God was somehow obligated to give you a spouse. It is just funny that Debbie Maken put a secular twist on an idea that already existed in the pagan world.
The man-centeredness of this movement is, at times, sickening.
PuritanCalvinist
I was just at Walmart in the clothing department and saw something that made me think of Maken & company. It was a pair of boxers with a big image of Homer Simpson and featuring a classic line from the show:
This is everybody's fault but mine
I think it fits pretty well ;-)
Thanks for the link Songbird
No problem, wombatty. Here's another blog I look into as well as:
http://ccostello.blogspot.com/.
I like this one a lot as well as for the same reason why I'm enjoying BWH online (the previous link). Once again, I'm not in complete agreement with everything she says on certain but I love how she is encouraging women to appreciate the home and for who they are as women in Christ, not what the world or Maken tells them
Post a Comment
<< Home