Image credit: Alejandra Quiroz
In my 28 years since birth, and the 9 months before it, there has never been a time where I was out of church, and these days I’m somehow more involved than ever. Like any relationship that’s gone on that long, I have some problems with the church, and I say that having read almost none of the articles about other people’s problems with the church, so I don’t know how my take will stack up against theirs, so please don’t associate me too much with a group of discontents I know nothing about. My problem is not methodology, marketing, management, or something else behavioral or superficial. It’s a heart issue.
I’m single, and between my local pastors and better known ones with youtube channels and podcasts, I’ve heard more than my share of sermons on marriage, and read maybe a dozen books and numerous articles related to it in some way. The problem I have is that the vast majority of this teaching essentially boils down to traditionalism vs modernism, in a type of churchianity that masquerades as, but is entirely tangential to Christianty. A friend recently forwarded me a sermon he found value in from a well-respected preacher who I like on other topics, who made this painfully obvious by centering his sermon on the advent of birth control and the change to society being degrading. Isn’t the Bible a book applicable to all people in all places in all times? Is the response to birth control really “if it’s new it’s wrong, sinful, and degrading to our most sacred institutions?” Well, it does start with both “b” and “c” which both rhyme with “t” which must mean we have trouble, trouble, trouble here in River City.
The appalling thing to me, as someone who believes in the sufficiency and authority of scripture is that these teachings are basically received wisdom with effectively no scriptural support, like in the aforementioned sermon. When you look at 1 Corinthians 7 and Matthew 19, it becomes obvious that marriage isn’t even the course of life Biblically lifted up, being celibate is. Christ and the Apostle Paul, the two most significant figures in the New Testament, were both examples of this lifestyle. If that’s the case, why is marriage what’s celebrated, defended, taught, etc? Well, that wouldn’t fit very nicely with the whole “faith, flag, and family” mindset, even if it is what the bible actually says.
It is no secret that traditionalists more often than not make an idol out of family, and unfortunately that’s deeply inbred into church culture. Matthew 12:46-50 makes it clear what the priority should be, and much like “All I need is Jesus and coffee” it’s repulsive idolatry to put anything else on God’s level. Jesus + X= salvation/what you need/what’s important= false gospel.
In C.S. Lewis’ analysis of 1 Cor 7, he pointed out that the obligations of marriage in “being concerned with the affairs of this word” were almost exclusively tied to the work of child-rearing. He would know, given he spent most of his life single, as the best christian writer of his century, and then adopted children when he got married.
In light of “it is better to marry than burn,” why is it so hard for Christians to embrace birth control as a means to furthering the gospel by allowing them to have Biblical marriages with drastically reduced physical concerns, which allow them to devote themselves more fully to the church and its ministries? I think the general fear is “if we endorsed that sort of thing, people would become irresponsible, selfish, and unprofitable instead of better Christians.” Another part of it is that the most successful church ministry broadly speaking is Sunday School, so where else would the next generation come from?
Nevermind the condescension of thinking you have some special revelation for how much of God’s truth Christians can handle, or that it goes against the host of professionals accomplishing great things at the expense of a traditional family life these days, we walk by faith and not by sight. God said marriage was very good, and he said being celibate for the sake of the kingdom is even better. Marriages being voluntarily childless, and people staying single later in life, or remaining single after a marriage has dissolved, is not a liability, it is an incredible asset. In traditional christian norms of sexual purity, these trends in society are an incredible opportunity for the message of the gospel to spread outside of the social bubbles where we feel comfortable and insulated from publicans and sinners.
And yet, the verses on eunuchs or celibacy are simply a tag at the end, a disclaimer, if even given that much light of day. How much less that they’re dug into for the riches of scripture. It’s an egregious oversight given our cultural moment, and the fact that birth control was old before I was even born. And it’s not like this is a new idea, it’s simply marginalized. Michael A. Grisanti, professor of Old Testament at Master’s University, in “Birth control and the Christian” cites James 1:27 as grounds for voluntary childlessness, as well as health concerns (1 Cor 6, temple maintenance is part of Christian duty), although I believe we would differ on further points.
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/childless-missionaries-by-design
In this 6 minute John Piper clip, he also affirms voluntary childlessness for those seeking to devote their lives to the church, and (though I don’t mean to criticize his handling in any way) it’s treated like a backdoor, special pass of approval that only certain people are allowed to have, when it ought to be more like the Mandalorians, frequently re-iterating “this is the way.”
The problem is not that most will confess to different theology, it’s that they will practice their view of sex, marriage, and family in a way that completely ignores what the Bible says is the best way, and what the 1960s have made mindlessly easy to access for whosoever will. In that framework, does it really make sense to be telling boys and girls that the biblical way to evaluate someone as a husband/wife is to evaluate them as a mother/father? God forbid.
The family environment that has evolved since then only makes traditionalist family views clash with scripture more audibly. It’s not one of engaging with the broader community, but “staying safe” from bad influences, which increasingly grow in number. The world needs Christians ministering it, going into it to make disciples, facing challenges that make you renew your mind, not being conformed to outdated worldly culture because it feels nicer than the modern one. Those who haven’t known good families are all the more ready to receive that love from the family of God, should they ever actually get high enough on our priority list to get through the bubble barrier. Absolutizing what for many is a mythical family structure from a bygone age, in their reality mainly a mark of superiority to differentiate the haves from the have-nots, as the Biblical way is abhorrent in the face of the reality of Christ: “Who shall declare his generation?” (Isaiah 53:8)
To obscure the marital and family status of Christ is to obscure his humanity. To ignore it in the teaching of singles on areas related to marriage is grossly negligent. It’s not hard to find preachers that will talk about Ephesians 5 and Christ’s bride being the church, and I’m all for that. But what if we only talked about Christ’s physical singleness, and ignored all the scriptures about his union with the church? Pretty wack, huh? Pretty imbalanced? Pretty damaging? So why is one half better to ignore than the other?
Because that’s the tradition you know, and it feels easier to just perpetuate it. Doing something new feels risky. Are your feelings what guides you, or scripture?
