Culture contrary to godliness #2
Although I've only heard two of his sermons, the preaching of Paul Washer has had quite an impact on my thinking, conscience and outlook with regard to godliness and true Christianity.
His message series on
"Recreational dating" available at
http://www.puritanfellowship.com/ was another eye opener to complement his sermon on Matthew 7 that I had heard some time ago.
It has come to my attention that the (post)modern church has very set ideals about marriage and relationships and rarely makes significant alternatives to the world's attitudes, part of congregational culture, apart from preaching against fornication and divorce (warnings that are not heeded as often as they should be).
And so we come to the challenging passage of 1 Corinthians 7.
Verses 1-2
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.The thing is, it's apparent that generally Christian communities treat marriage as something that will come to almost everyone in due time. But is it? Are people who remain unmarried their entire lives being punished for faithlessness? I wouldn't think so as a general rule.
Paul tells us that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. I think we all know what he means by touch: more or less no physical intimacy. But then due to the age-old plague of fornication in society, we are told that every man might have his wife and every woman might have her own husband to prevent sexual sin.
So then, taking this out of context, one man says "I will not marry for the apostolic decree is that it is good for me not to touch a woman" and his opponent replies "I shall marry because I am instructed to to avoid the sin of fornication".
But then Paul says,
"But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment" (v. 6).
In this I see great freedom, in that we are given permission to freely marry, but encouraged in the following verses to remain chaste if being so when we received the call to Christ.
The culture that is contrary to godliness lies in the expectations surrounding marriage and other relationships. In essence the church's approach seems too much like the world's in a few ways. While quite a few Christians do marry earlier than the average (which is somewhat connected to the abstinence of the practicing Christian compared with the unchastity of the heathen couple in a relationship ie; Christians have a reason to marry earlier than non-Christians that
try to take all the benefits without the responsibilities) the general attitude towards the age issue is largely the same. For instance in Australia, a couple younger than twenty (perhaps even mid-twenties) seeking to marry would usually be frowned upon by secular and Christian communities alike.
Nevertheless, the idea of marriage being the norm by which people are measured against is still there. Perhaps one reason for this is because many congregations are eager for faithful men to serve the church in leadership roles and a
"bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2) and
"One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (3:4-5).
This makes perfect sense to me: a man settles down with his wife, has children and takes up a position of responsibility in his home congregation. Such men do indeed serve valuably in the church, as do their wives and so it is reasonable to encourage those with a pastoral call and commitment to marry and form a family.But then I think, what about Jesus? We who take the gospel seriously have become adept at refuting the idea of our Lord marrying a woman while He walked the earth, but do we ever stop to think about why He didn't? Perhaps one reason is because the mission He was committed to did not allow room for a marital commitment. We know the Son of man had nowhere to rest His head, which is a stark difference to the picture of that described above. I suspect the reasons Jesus did not marry are complex and many, but if it would not benefit a man or woman in their Christian vocation to take on a spouse, I think we have our Lord's example as a defence against the "done thing".*
The later verses of 1 Corinthians 7 urge the unmarried to carefully consider remaining so for the benefit of being free from worldly cares that come with being involved with a wife or husband (and although not specifically mentioned, I think also children to an extent).
This is why this is a
eusebeia issue. In choosing whether or not to marry, the young man or woman's attitude towards God and worshipping Him is on display. The first Corinthian epistle tells us that remaining unmarried has benefits in serving God and while their may be a desire to marry in our hearts, we must all give serious consideration to this passage when making a marital decision.
This is not to say that a commitment to godliness prohibits marriage, but rather that one's motives come under greater examination if the commitment is there. Furthermore this can give us more assurance that a potential spouse is from God when we apply some tests to determine how it will affect our lifestyle, ministry & relationship with God.
*I do not want people to gain some misunderstanding that a man who lives in a suburban home with a wife and three children while serving as a pastor or minister is at odds with a single man or woman in a makeshift tent on the mission field. I have deleted the term 'householder' from this post, as I suspect it may have come to me via unsound influence. I will endeavour to review the perspective presented here, particularly in the red section of the post, to ensure that the message is not construed in such a way that could be harmful or easily confusing to my readers. As a result, please exercise particular discernment when reading this post and indeed all posts at Eusebeia, as I am more than able to make an error or misrepresent something important - Hanani Hindsfeet.
