Somebody explained the community's reasons for celibacy (see the comment from 01.01.2011).
I agree there are benefits of staying unmarried as Paul writes.
But Paul also writes:
1Cor7: "1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman." 2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. .. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.... 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind... 9 But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion"
Unfortunately there are many sexual tempations also nowadays, so many in the community - especially brothers - were fighting them and many failed to overcome and had to leave the community. Paul wishes and recommends all to remain free from marriage duties, but he also gives permission to marry, if somebody doesn't control his desires. He says, it is better to marry than to be aflame. It is better to marry than to go to hell. Is is better to control one's desires, but if it takes too much energy, it's better to use the sexuality in the way God designed it to be used: in the marriage.
So the responsible ones in community make the way narrower than Paul, when they don't allow brothers-sisters to marry..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I do not fully understand what Apostle Paul meant.
I do not see a marriage as a solution of problems with sexual immorality. It does not save man from sinning.
The question of marriage I see as a choice. One looks into his heart and thinks what his longings are, what plan he has for life, in which way he wants to give life to Jesus and then takes decision.
some brothers who have married have told me that now it is easier to fight the temptations. They have to fight still, but the possibility to use their sexuality in the way it was designed makes the temptations less.
The right reason for a marriage is not the sexuality. You also testify that the temptations still occurs. Consequently with flaming Paul meant not a bodily strong feeling but the flaming in the spirit, the task which is connected with the marriage, the education of the children but also a pure love towards the partner.
For what is best there is no equal option. You can not argue “but Paul says also” as there would be an equal option. If someone is humble, ready to give up everything and ready to do always the best he will get to the same result Paul says. He will recognize that the love to the family hinders him in the tasks God want to give him towards a wide larger group of people.
In 1.Cor 7, 1 Paul makes a general statement as answer to questions of a letter we do not know. In verse 2 he speaks to the married ones. Only in Vers 8 indeed he speaks to the unmarried ones with a clear statement.
Also V. 24 Paul speaks clearly and not only referring to the social state but to this matter as well.
We can also remember what Jesus sad:
“ For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Mat 22:30) Marriage is only for this time! So it is wise to work for what last in eternity.
The encouragement of Peter helps to base in the right attitude:
“Through these he has given us his precious and wonderful promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, seeing that you have escaped the corruption that is in the world caused by evil desires. For this very reason, you must make every effort to supplement your faith with moral character, your moral character with knowledge, your knowledge with self-control, your self-control with endurance, your endurance with godliness, ...”
(2Pe 1:4-6)
I think it is good not to concentrate only to this matter but to open the view and see the demand of our attitude. “so that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2Tim 3:17) For it is written, "You must be holy, because I am holy." (1Pe 1:16)
For we we have good examples: neither Jesus nor Paul married but endeavoured with all life and power for all men.
The letters to the 7 Churches in the Revelation also remember us the standard. They were admonished because they didn't give all, because they were lukewarm.
“Let the person who has an ear listen to what the Spirit says to the churches.”
According to the flesh I my self know the sexual temptations and the wish of a marriage as well. Without the help of the community it is even much more difficult to fight against it. I don't know whether I can (will) persist. But by mind I know what is to do. It wouldn't be right to give in but to fight. With my heart I can take the best decision and accept the advise of Paul.
I am closer to L.'s statement. I can imagine that in marriage it is easier to persist in chastity.
Nevertheless, I agree that this is not the main reason for marriage.
If we meet the situation of frequent sexual sins, it is something like addiction. Addiction can be fully healed if one solves reasons getting into it. So I agree that the marriage is not designed mainly to help people fight against the temptations - but to give one another a gift from oneself. Also in sexual way. Someone can have sexual temptations although he recognizes that God wants for him not to marry and he has to solve the problem without marriage. Now I see that St. Agustine took much from Paul's theology about marriage, but I see it rather differently.
Concerning the comment of Anonymous:
1) I think that Paul meant also sexuality.
2) There are so many paths to holliness as people in the world. I protest against unifying the way for all people in the world as "Community" did. Paul also a bit did, but in more delicate way. In another passage he critisized those that forbid marriage. V. 7 says about more the one way of life.
3) V. 24 should be seen in the context of previous verses from 17 - there is not said about marriage. But these verses are for me not really clear.
4) Concerning Words of Jesus: It is true that the marriage is for this life. But one can use contrary argument: We should use this gift of God, because in Heaven we loose it. :) And more seriously: the people who live in celibacy - I mean in general, those who do not marry - are sign of Kingdom of God - but the marriage is also a sign of Christ's love to the Church.
5) Letter of Peter: I do not see marriage as equal to "evil desires"...
I will repeat: The idea of marriage is not the pleasure, but a way to give life for the loved one. It is a way to follow Christ, as well as living in celibacy. It has some disadvatages like less time for God alone (prayer etc.), but it is a way to SERVE.
I was about to write something similar, K!
In addition, Paul writes in 1Cor7 it is better to remain as somebody is (v.24), but later in v.28: "if you marry, you do NOT sin".
Also, to Timothy (1Tm 5:9,11,*14*) he writes: widows younger than 60 SHOULD MARRY. I think it is also rather clear.
Anonymous, what you write is a nice picture and the opinion of the community, but I think it is a bit idealistic. It looks even a bit gnostic to see sexuality so negatively. Even the Catholics who forbid marriage for the priests, do not say that all Christians should remain unmarried.
Anonymous said:
"According to the flesh I my self know the sexual temptations and the wish of a marriage as well. Without the help of the community it is even much more difficult to fight against it."
R.A. : Being away from community for some years, it is syrrealistic to my eyes see the statement, that we should fight against marriage for this or other reason...
Anonymous said: "Consequently with flaming Paul meant not a bodily strong feeling but the flaming in the spirit, the task which is connected with the marriage, the education of the children but also a pure love towards the partner."
R.A. : Yes, pure love towards the partner. And you would prefer to forbid this pure love, separating idealistically it from sexuality. It seems, that sexuality cannot fit in your eyes to God's plans. Paul is 'too holy' to speak about sexuality in 1 Cor 7. I think it is so clear, what L. has said. Look again NIV for 1Cor7:9-
"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
Here is burning in passion seen negatively in the whole clarity. EVEN this flame or passion or whatever (let's tag it with unknown X) would be good in my eyes, Paul states, that this X worse than marriage.
Let's make your contradiction more clear: if we will put instead of X your statement, we well obtain the sentence: "It is better to marry than to be in the task which is connected with the marriage, the education of the children but also a pure love towards the partner."
Anonymous said: "For we we have good examples: neither Jesus nor Paul married but endeavoured with all life and power for all men."
R.A. We have a good example with Peter, too (who was married).
In 1 Cor 9:5 it is written by Paul:
"Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?"
So, we may assume, that not only Peter, but some other apostles also were married. And these wives could have been taken after conversion, not before that. We may claim it for caertain at least in Peter's case. Because there is written:
"..right to take a BELIEVING wife along with us, AS DO the other APOSTLES and the Lord’s brothers and CEPHAS?"
We know, that Jesus directly called Peter, he was one of the first disciples and Peter wasn't therefore converted through his wife (John 1:37,40). And he still decided to marry. We know very well, how much Peter's heart was burning for Christ. And he still decided to marry.
In the following
According to Mark 1 it seems still, that Peter could be married before conversion. Because gap between conversion and Jesus' meeting with Peter's mother-in-law seems to be quite short.
There is a present tense in English NIV: 1 Cor 9:5 - "...right to take a believing wife along with us,as DO the other apostles". This 'do' can be also in general, too, of course, but it may indicate, that marriage is not something abnormal for Christians, but as common as eating (1 Cor 9:4).
The passage in 1 Cor 9 speaks generally, that Paul has logically right to do these and that things, but he doesn't use this right (1 Cor 9:15) for the sake of others (1 Cor:9:19f). His eagerness is really impressing.
But Peter's example is for me impressing, too. I mean, nothing is lost, when you are married (whether before or after marriage). I liked the Paul's way of mission, which is primely excercised by our community.
But Peter's example is for me not less encouraging. His example shows, that family-life is not neccessarily to be excluded for one, who has wish to follow Jesus.
Without family there are also no children, who are maybe the best examples for Christians, who really want to be great (Mark 9:33-37).
"I mean, nothing is lost, when you are married (whether before or after marriage)."
Sorry, I correct myself, the sentence was illogical- I meant, nothing is lost, whether you're single or married.
-Statistics-
Again: as we may assume on the base of 1 Cor 9:5, that not only one apostle was married (whether married before or after conversion), then we may face the statistics: at least 2 apostles from 12 were married (it means, at least 16%). If there were 3 apostles married, then the percentage is already 25.
What is the percentage of married couples in our community? I suppose, it is smaller, because comparising to apostles' time the the smallest probable percentage 16% would make of our present community 16 couple (per approximate hundred members). Do we have at least 16 couples in the community? If not, then why? If you think, that nowdays the things are different or these comparison isn't appropriate, then explain me - why?
As I said and have said already before: I think it is not normal for humankind to live like bees, where in the church-family is only one 'mother' or something like this. Yes, indeed, we had some 'sample families', but marriage was treated nevertheress as disturbing boundage for our lifestyle and it was rather an useless relict from pastime, than holy union of man and wife.
'
Humans are created differently from bees. GOD has created us differently and He would not force us doctrine, which would contradict to his creature, incl. sexuality. God created sex, and not Satan.
Neither marriage nor sexuality is sin. This assessment wasn't the question.
The question was just to see Gods way and Will connected with a specific case in this matter. So we, there were many of us and everyone could take part on this talks, asked for the Will of God again and again and not only in this matter. By the leading of the Spirit in our countless talks and supported by prayers, God revealed his Will.
We didn't take decisions because of rules one could throw from the experience or even by bible passages. It was always an important aim of the community not to fall into formalism, therefor we were open to ask God for his leading constantly. Paul us well does not setup rules. Although he says what is best generally, in an specific case, he advises just the contrary as best solution. A similar case with specific circumstancies could occur also nowadays we mentioned sometimes.
It is the Spirit which works in the body of Christ, and this is what one has to accept. So the decision one takes should be according to the Spirit (of God) and not according to ones understanding, mind or wish.
The readiness to give up what ones could lay claim on for the benefit of a better choice is the only demand, nothing else. This basic readiness and attitude in ones life (and not only in a specific decision) is what makes a men a follower of Christ or not! Not to keep a certain standard but to grow more and more.
2 Petr 1, 5-11
Anonymous: "Neither marriage nor sexuality is sin. This assessment wasn't the question."
R.A. Nobody told here, that community regards sexuality as a sin. Neither me. Look all my comments carefully in the context. As I said, it was for our community just a relict from pastime. Not sin, but rather useless, unnecessary.
I don't know, maybe you misinterpreted my words "God created sex, and not Satan". I wanted to point up the author of sex, because He does not create us in thus manner that community must repress it into extreme, pratising collective austerity, mortifying every kind of sexuality in our lives, including the cutting off the scarce pictures with faintest sexual content from encyclopaedic books, which were in the bookshelves of our community.
I think I don't exaggerate when I say, that large majority of our brothers in the community have been excluded because of sexual sins. And our confessing of sexual sins were not rare cases, rather frequent.
Holy Spirit doesn't give instructions how to live, without giving ability to follow his instructions. Having been in the community and having heared constant confessions and complains, that this and that brother sinned sexually (me too), then it seems, that Paul's advice in 1 Cor 7:9 would fit perfectly to our specific case (about our community's situation today):
"But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion"
Anonymous: "So the decision one takes should be according to the Spirit (of God) and not according to ones understanding, mind or wish."
R.A. It is easy to shift the responsibility of weird decisions onto shoulders of somebody else. Amongst the Christianity-based movements is the most popular responsible person Holy Spirit, of course. "God's Spirit told us thus."
And really, God bears always even our most stupid decisions, because of His grace, patience and love. But He will not tie the stupid decisions in Heaven, what His disciples would tie in His name on the planet Earth.
I know, in this crisis, difficult situation of community, the only way-out is in putting trust wholly on God, but there is also concerning marriage the temptation to switch off the healthy mind and wait the solutions deus ex machina. But similarly to the question about sexuality: God didn't give us brain without purpose: use it. Look what's happening in the 'Spirit led' community and use beside your divine sight also your rational brain, in order to 'assess', what is actually going on there.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
(Pro 3:5)
Love sometimes you can not explain by mens understanding. Without heart deeplly based in love you want use the mind properly.
..., love does not seek what is its own, ...
(1Co 13:5)
Let no one seek his own advantage , but that of the other.
(1Co 10:24)
just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
(1Co 10:33)
(1Co 9:24-27)
Based in this attitude and with Jesus help (Mt 11, 28-30) many questions are easily solved.
I wish you happy new year, Anonymous.
Paul says:
"I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that." (1 Cor 7:7).
Here we may interpret, that Paul regards his state of singleness as a gift from God. And if the point of this isn't, that all gifts are equal, then he nevertheless admits, that each has his OWN gift from God. And concerning gifts he expresses some chapters later (in 1 Cor 12), that all members aren't given the same gift. God has distributed the gifts, just as he determines (1 Cor 12:11). And 1 Cor 12 shows God's economy, which supports rather the diversity of gifts. Paul says:
"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work." (1 Cor 12:4-6)
In this chapter Paul explains the tight connetion between the members of body. ALL are important. I would go further with my interpretation: ALL members and ALL their gifts are necessary for the work of God. So, also the marriage as a gift from God cannot be treated as useless.
Of course, in next chapter (1 Cor 13) Paul speaks about the greatest gift (love), which shades all other gifts mentioned before, but I believe this love doesn't annihilate these other gifts.
In next chapter (1 Cor 14) Paul again rather shows the disability of church, when all members practice the same gifts and and shows the church as subject to ridicule, when it is onesided and when the distributed gifts aren't organized, connected with each other for one work. So, if marriage as a gift from God is only a disturbing factor in our community, then something is wrong. As God is universal, so is his church. For preaching the Gospel among gentiles, we need not only mouth to speak, but the whole body. We need all the gifts of God. No of his gifts can be seen as hindrance. Neither marriage.
Paul saw the congregation ridiculous, when they all spoke only in tongues. By the way - I think our community was also sceptical, when we visited some pentacostal church and all of the members spoke in tongues. We had deep doubts, whether it is the gift of God at all. It seemed for us strange, useless and maybe also very unlikely that almost all receive the same miraculous gift. But I can imagine, that when Paul would enter now to the wintermeeting of our community, where are all the members together, and he sees only unmarried ones, he would see it strange.
Coming back to the 1 Cor 7, I think Paul knew, that it was nonsenss to wish the same for all other members. The congregation would not have worked properly. Sooner or later the congregation would have faced the twilight of its days, when it ignores and refuses this or that gift, which God has given or wants to give. Therefore he adds in 1 Cor 7:7 after his wish, that all were as he is:
"But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."
Therefore, I am not so sure at all, whether we must regard the gift of singleness higher than the gift of marriage.
Maybe community mystifies both gifts too much. We are born as single, so we have the gift of singleness from the birth on. So have the God's gift of singleness also those, who are unbelievers and lead their life as single also in adult age.
And there is a natural process in our human body, we grow and there awakes sexuality, which has its proper place in marriage. It is the God's gift of marriage, but also unbelievers marry and we cannot say, that this is not marriage bound among unbelievers.
In the Bible we can see the arguments both for laying special honour on marriage and also arguments for not to marry.
In the Bible there are arguments both to live as single and also arguments, where 'singleness' is seen rather negatively (Genesis 2:18).
Community sees the marriage too idealistically. Certain 'egoism' is inscribed into the wish of marriage. It would sound strange, artificial and hypocritical, when one would say: "I would like to marry you because I think it is the best for you, for community and for the whole humankind."
So I think, our community always regarded the wish to marry selfish and therefore not good reason to accept it, when somebody told about that wish. Always there was seen an 'egoism' prevailing in it. And I believe, there is not good time in the community to marry yet, neither will be good time for community to marry in the future, when a certain 'egoism' is not accepted.
This 'egoism' and sexual appeal has been created by God, in order to unite husband and wife. This is not 'egoism', but FALLING IN LOVE (I believe everybody in the community has experienced, what it is). You cannot choose to fall in love and the extent of it: "God make so, that I'll fall in love just a bit, partially." It is generally prevailing, because it MUST BE prevailing. God has organised and prepared it thus, for uniting man and woman into marriage ally.
Of course, the state of 'falling in love' will not last for ever (at least not in the same extent as in the beginning), but falling in love as a feeling has its function in God's plan for this couple.
Strong feelings are not always an argument for marriage, but if our community tries to hinder it (and this is fact, that community also tried to separate those, who had expressed their feelings publically to community), then it is...
'Assess' yourselves, what it is.
Anonymous:
"So the decision one takes should be according to the Spirit (of God) and not according to ones understanding, mind or wish."
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. (Pro 3:5)"
"Without heart deeplly based in love you want use the mind properly."
R.A. "Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'" (Mt 22:37).
I encourage again to involve also your brain to love others. Don't be afraid of using it, because there are many unbelievers in the world, who aren't 'deeply based in love', but nevertheless try to do good things making decisions with their healthy mind. According to my 'assessment' it succeeds them quite well occasionaly. At least it is not bad.
*
My conclusion: there ARE advantages of involving your rational brain into loving others. The life and love would be more colorful then and you'll see also the other way to love and serve God after staying single.
For the end one jolly (but 'worldly') story from YouTube. Don't take it as an offence, rather as an encouragement to use your mind, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RjXY_-PUbo
It is significant, too, that our community has on its website topic about divorce and not about marriage. I think it is because marriage is not actual FOR COMMUNITY or that they try to avoid the topic which they have made strange and questionable conclusions about.
Nevertheless, marriage is very actual topic outside our community (whether it is allowed to marry for homosexual people etc).
It would be logical to start with explanations about marriage, about its meaning, value and importance, but in above mentioned topic (about divorce) there are only two minor paragraphs, which explain the meaning of marriage.
Concerning marriage and egoism...
I see my thinking is slightly different to presented her so...
It is not simple, but I believe that erotical love can be free of egoism. Benedict XVI in "Deus caritas est" described God as a one who loves everyone with love 'eros' - in a sense: love as a choice. And this love is in Him purely 'agape'. We should follow Him.
During the centuries there was a controversy concerning sex. Paul can be understood that it is better to marry if one has problem with sexuality. Agustine expressed it even stronger, clearer.
For me it sounds as "it is better to sin in marriage than without a marriage". John Paul II was against this understanding of sexuality - He stated that through sexuality one can give oneself as a selfless gift to another.
It is a topic for a book, not a comment on blog. Anyway, I see it as correct attitude to marriage: "I want to marry you, because I want best for you" ('agape'). Why just "you"? It is a matter of my choice ('eros').
Oh, but it is really hard topic. :)
Post a Comment