Ship of Fools: Saints, Celibacy and The Average Christian

Thread: Saints, Celibacy and The Average Christian Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025946

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

There are two related issues here, so maybe there should be two threads, but here goes anyway.

First, is it right to view the church as comprising a minority of heroically christ-like people who we call saints, with most christians living much less committed lives, but still giving a significant part of there lives to God. The Ordinary Faithful.

It seems to me that those, mainly protestant, rigorist sects which equate "saved" with "saint" have to work on the basis that very few are saved, even of practising christians. And such was the view of typical puritans and there modern successors, like Arthur Pink. If you are saved you are a saint, and if you are not a saint you are not saved. No such thing as a partly committed christian.

I don't take that view, although it can be argued from the NT.

But related to this in my mind is the issue of marriage and celibacy. Because it seems to me that Paul's view on this is quite reasonable, even if it comes across as very patriarchal. Basically his view was that the unmarried man's only thought was to please The Lord (assuming it wasn't how on earth to get laid!), but if he had no gift of celibacy, he should become married and then he had an equal desire to please his wife, and take care of his family.

So that many gospel injunctions (if you wish to be perfect, sell what you have and give to the poor) would be inappropriate when family members and their legitimate needs and wants have to be taken into account. Which is why I have never been critical of the large bias towards celibates in the RCC catalog of saints.

So does saint = saved? And is it simple common sense that saint usually equals celibate?

(Added comma to title - T)

[ 16. July 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

So does saint = saved?

Yes.

Hagioi in the NT is synoymous with "Christians", and never means "super-Christians".

quote:
And is it simple common sense that saint usually equals celibate?

It is common sense that some Christians are celibate and some are not, according to their calling.

The NT argument for celibacy is entirely pragmatic, and has nothing to do with spiritual status.

[ 16. July 2013, 09:58: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
First, is it right to view the church as comprising a minority of heroically christ-like people who we call saints, with most christians living much less committed lives, but still giving a significant part of there lives to God. The Ordinary Faithful.

It seems to me that those, mainly protestant, rigorist sects which equate "saved" with "saint" have to work on the basis that very few are saved, even of practising christians.

In my experience where people equate "saved" with "saint" they don't also think of "saint" as "heroically christ-like people" necessarily. "Saint", in fact just becomes another word for Christian. So I'm not sure it does follow that very few are saved.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

anteater

I'm drawn in by your reference to 'the average Christian'. ...

Church-sect theory sees sects as extreme and exclusive church movements with fairly small numbers and a high degree of tension with the outside world. As they attract more ('average'?) people, develop formal systems and become churches the level of accommodation with the society increases, tensions decline, and they seek to influence society rather than to remain separate from it. The response is then for new sects to appear to reclaim the more costly way of faith, and the cycle continues.

A related view is that Christianity is in almost permanent struggle with ordinary people since 'in principle it demands an extreme and unworldly degree of commitment, feasible only for a select few lifelong devoti, even in the pre-modern religiously monochrone periods, when the Christian religion moulded European societies fairly deeply. [Before secularisation] Christian society - that is, the 'mass' of ordinary Christians' - enabled the devoti to pursue their calling vicariously on their behalf.'

The RCC obviously works on a 'vicarous' basis in terms of its privileging of celibacy, but ISTM that secularisation has increased the salience of 'vicarious religion' for Christianity in the West. Nowadays, it's not simply a celibate priest or a religious fanatic (or 'saint') who does religion on behalf of other people, but anyone with any kind of commitment to recognisable religious practices or to exploring religious questions in any systematic manner takes on these roles on behalf of people who have no interest in doing so themselves but who are vaguely glad that someone somewhere wants to do them. This actually puts quite a burden on the relatively small numbers of us who are still engaged. As the notion of a pervasive Christian culture recedes a small number of practising Christians will increasingly have to be the 'saints', even if they don't identify with that job.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
There are two related issues here, so maybe there should be two threads, but here goes anyway.

First, is it right to view the church as comprising a minority of heroically christ-like people who we call saints, with most christians living much less committed lives, but still giving a significant part of there lives to God. The Ordinary Faithful.

It seems to me that those, mainly protestant, rigorist sects which equate "saved" with "saint" have to work on the basis that very few are saved, even of practising christians. And such was the view of typical puritans and there modern successors, like Arthur Pink. If you are saved you are a saint, and if you are not a saint you are not saved. No such thing as a partly committed christian.

I don't take that view, although it can be argued from the NT.

I think the parable of the vineyard workers argues distinctly against that view.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

Augustine is an interesting case:

quote:
At ego adulescens miser ualde, miser in exordio ipsius adulescentiae, etiam petieram a te castitatem et dixeram, 'Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo.'

As a youth I prayed, "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet."

From WikiQuotes

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
There are two related issues here, so maybe there should be two threads, but here goes anyway.

First, is it right to view the church as comprising a minority of heroically christ-like people who we call saints, with most christians living much less committed lives, but still giving a significant part of there lives to God. The Ordinary Faithful.

It seems to me that those, mainly protestant, rigorist sects which equate "saved" with "saint" have to work on the basis that very few are saved, even of practising christians. And such was the view of typical puritans and there modern successors, like Arthur Pink. If you are saved you are a saint, and if you are not a saint you are not saved. No such thing as a partly committed christian.

I don't take that view, although it can be argued from the NT.

But related to this in my mind is the issue of marriage and celibacy. Because it seems to me that Paul's view on this is quite reasonable, even if it comes across as very patriarchal. Basically his view was that the unmarried man's only thought was to please The Lord (assuming it wasn't how on earth to get laid!), but if he had no gift of celibacy, he should become married and then he had an equal desire to please his wife, and take care of his family.

So that many gospel injunctions (if you wish to be perfect, sell what you have and give to the poor) would be inappropriate when family members and their legitimate needs and wants have to be taken into account. Which is why I have never been critical of the large bias towards celibates in the RCC catalog of saints.

So does saint = saved? And is it simple common sense that saint usually equals celibate?

In my mind "saint " can refer to all believers i.e. "fellowship of the saints" and it can refer to people who tried to live lives that were extraordinary. Most of the time the usage should be the 1st case but there is room for the 2nd as well.
As to Paul and marriage. This is a case of look at the times he was writting this. The early church was expoecting an soon return of Christ, so evangelise for get marriage unless you have to . I'll admit it has confused people for 2,000 years and if we had taken the advice we would have died out years ago. blessings all PaulBC
[Smile]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I thought it was Catholics, not Protestants, who create lists of saints, declare a few selected people - usually but not always celebates, usually but not always professional church workers such as priests and monks and nuns - as saints.

I don't know that any church teaches only those few people are saints in the sense of in heaven with God, but I thought those were supposedly the only people a specific hierarchy is certain are that status. Why else the push to fast track Pope John 23 to sainthood status?

I got awfully bored reading part of a book of saints once, it did seem to imply one had to become a nun or monk or priest to attain highest holy status. Show me a list with more wives and mothers than nuns and I might pay attention.

I was taught from childhood "saint" just means Christian, alive as well as dead, in the Protestant Episcopal Church.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I got awfully bored reading part of a book of saints once, it did seem to imply one had to become a nun or monk or priest to attain highest holy status. Show me a list with more wives and mothers than nuns and I might pay attention.

While I agree 100% with your usage of the word 'saint', I wonder if you might find Richard Foster's book Streams of Living Water helpful. He picks out a Biblical, ancient and modern exemplar for each of what he sees as the six main 'streams' of Christianity - contemplative, holiness, charismatic, social justice, evangelical, and incarnational.

I don't have the book immediately to hand but IIRC some of the people he writes about in the book are relatively 'ordinary', i.e. not monks, nuns etc. One of the people I definitely remember is Susanna Wesley, mother of John and Charles.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

I got awfully bored reading part of a book of saints once, it did seem to imply one had to become a nun or monk or priest to attain highest holy status. Show me a list with more wives and mothers than nuns and I might pay attention.

That's why you're not a Catholic, I suppose!

Actually, considering that most people seem to find celibacy a dreadfully unappealing business, perhaps the only way the RCC could promote it is by elevating it to a very prestigious place in the life of their church.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

I got awfully bored reading part of a book of saints once, it did seem to imply one had to become a nun or monk or priest to attain highest holy status. Show me a list with more wives and mothers than nuns and I might pay attention.
That's why you're not a Catholic, I suppose!

Actually, considering that most people seem to find celibacy a dreadfully unappealing business, perhaps the only way the RCC could promote it is by elevating it to a very prestigious place in the life of their church.

I don't know - were I a pre-Dissolution woman, I'd be in a convent as soon as I was old enough! Being a nun sounds a lot more appealing than the drudgery of marriage in those times, not to mention dying in childbed (most women died of post-natal infection, not childbirth itself).

Also, there were many married saints, particularly royal saints. Personally, even before saints (in the RCC/Anglo-Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the term) were part of my theology, I loved reading my dad's Wordsworth Dictionary of Saints - both because of a love of history but also for name inspiration for fiction writing, and just enjoying the stories.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

FWIW (possibly not a lot), a married couple from Canada are currently in process at the Vatican. He was our Governor General, and a man of outstanding holiness of life and piety. His wife was the same. One of their sons is Jean Vanier, the founder of the l'Arche communities - and Mme spent her years after her husband's death in office working in one of those.

Certainly no celibacy or ordination there, and I shall be surprised if Jean Vanier is not considered after his death -- he's not ordained or a monk either.

John

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think you end up with a lot of monks, nuns, and priests in medieval hagiography because those are the people who were writing books at the time (the hoi polloi couldn't write), and the people they knew the best were the people around them.

Similarly you end up with a lot of kings, queens, princesses, and so forth, because the chroniclers knew about them. Parish priests out in the toolies may have seen a lot of really holy people, but the parish priests in the toolies were out of the loop as far as who was writing stuff down.

Which is why you have All Saints' Day, where you celebrate saints known and unknown (i.e. known only to God or to a bunch of people who live around them (or lived around them but are dead now)).

[ 17. July 2013, 01:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

As a Lutheran I believe any Christian this side of eternity is both a saint and a sinner. The original Christian usage referred to any believer who is "in Christ" and in whom Christ dwells, whether in heaven or in earth. However, we do recognize that some do exemplify exceptional grace. Mother Theresa comes to mind. Nelson Mandela also.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

And if the RCC wants a saintly couple Gov.Gen. & Madame Vanier fit the bill.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

LatePaul:

quote:
In my experience where people equate "saved" with "saint" they don't also think of "saint" as "heroically christ-like people" necessarily.

Well maybe the word heroic is ill chosen, but where I first practised christianity was in puritan influenced Reformed circles, and the puritan taught that the sign of the born again was that they obeyed all the commandments of God consistently. And Wesley taught that the sign of the truly born again was that they committed no sin. Period. Finney also taught that sin could not co-exist with the Spirit in the same person.

SvitlanaV2:

quote:

The RCC obviously works on a 'vicarous' basis in terms of its privileging of celibacy

Far be it from me to act as spokesman for the RCC, with many excellent ones on the Ship, but does not any unbiased reading of the NT show that Christ priveleged celibacy, as well as St Paul?

PaulBC:

quote:
The early church was expoecting an soon return of Christ

I don't think you can relativise the teaching of Jesus on this basis, apart from the fact that even doughty liberals like Borg have doubted this. Paul at times talked in these terms, but as well argues by Cullmann (Christ and Time) it was not a heavy dogmatic position and the church accepted the delay with little problem. Nothing like the JWs for example.

Really I am trying to see how one comes to terms with bourgeois christianity, which is the most prevalent form I see, and to the extent I practise it is this type. You know, we all have our detached house, two cars, holidays abroad, and yes we try to go to church, have times of prayer, and give, possibly up to a tithe.

I just see this as a different sort of lifestyle from that proposed by Jesus of Nazareth, and also that a small group of christians do follow him pretty literally. And I see two groups.

Family, I think is important. And they may not come first always, but often do. And if not first, a very good second.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
LatePaul:
[QUOTE] the puritan taught that the sign of the born again was that they obeyed all the commandments of God consistently. And Wesley taught that the sign of the truly born again was that they committed no sin.

The Puritans distinguished between justification, which is a once and for all judicial right standing before God, and sanctification, a gradual process which is never completed in this life.

Wesley taught different things about Christian (not Sinless) Perfection at different times as to its possibility, process, dynamics and time scale.

All Christian traditions teach that every believer should constantly strive after spiritual growth and obedience.

The NT nowhere teaches that there is a two-tier requirement for holiness, with a minority elite called to greater dedication than other saints.

quote:
but does not any unbiased reading of the NT show that Christ priveleged celibacy, as well as St Paul?

Neither Christ nor Paul "privileged" celibacy.

They recognised that God calls some people to it, but did not imply that they were therefore spiritually superior to the non-celibate.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
And Wesley taught that the sign of the truly born again was that they committed no sin. Period. Finney also taught that sin could not co-exist with the Spirit in the same person.

I'm in complete agreement with Kaplan Corday. Perfect sinlessness does not match the experience of 'Saint' Paul as described in Rom.7:15-25.
Being 'saved' is a process, not a momentary event. Justification of the believer is the declaration of being saved from the penalty of sin by the atoning self-sacrifice of Jesus. Sanctification is the life-long process of being saved from the power of sin, which requires the on-going effort and commitment of the believer, (see Phil.2.12-13)which is not completed until the final judgement after the return of Jesus, at which time the believer is saved from the presence of sin.

There is no such thing as a two-tier spiritual status of ‘Saints’ and ‘others’. There is an undivided spectrum of ‘saintliness’ ranging from the newly-repented person who has barely started, to those who have been working at acting in godliness for decades. The historical practice of the church in pointing to exemplars of saintliness for the encouragement of the faithful does have some rationality to it, but on the whole I think it is unhelpful, and I reject it as merely the teaching of men.

Every single Christian believer has their own path of progress in sanctification that God takes them along, and I think it wisest to check ones own progress on it only by reference to God’s individual requirement rather than by comparison with other people – past or present. I have a vague recollection of a quotation that goes something along the lines of: ‘I am not yet what I shall be, but thank God, by His grace, I am not what I used to be’, which seems to me to be a healthy attitude to the subject.

The view that sin and the Holy Spirit cannot coexist in a believer is incorrect. A large section of Ephesians chapter 4 contradicts it. Verse 30 states that the Ephesian believers were ‘sealed with the Holy Spirit’, yet Paul insists that they stop doing the wrong they have been doing, and ‘put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness’ (v.24, NIV) which is a life-long task, during which the indwelling Holy Spirit is grieved by wrongdoing, but acts as an encouragement to do right.

Angus

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What Kaplan Corday and A.Pilgrim just said.

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
First, is it right to view the church as comprising a minority of heroically christ-like people who we call saints, with most christians living much less committed lives, but still giving a significant part of there lives to God. The Ordinary Faithful.

No. And I've never been part of a church where that idea was taught.

quote:

It seems to me that those, mainly protestant, rigorist sects which equate "saved" with "saint" have to work on the basis that very few are saved, even of practising christians. And such was the view of typical puritans and there modern successors, like Arthur Pink.

I can't say I've ever heard of Arthur Pink. But the quite openly Calvinist churches I was first a Christian in, some of whose members liked to think of themselves as the modern-day successors to the Puritans, mostly never taught that. There was and I suppose is a disagreement on the matter among Christians in the Reformed tradition. Quite a lot of them are universalists. A few think the saved are a tiny minority. Most, I would guess, would say that God knows the number of the elect - but no-body else does, and speculation would be pointless.

quote:

If you are saved you are a saint, and if you are not a saint you are not saved.

That's quite a normal way of putting it. "X is a Christian", "X is a saint", "X is born again", "X is redeemed", "X is saved", are all different ways of saying the same thing. Which is why its quite common (at Church of England churches anyway) for All Saints Day to be about Christians, including members of the congregation, and All Souls Day to be used to pray for the conversion of non-Christians and so has a missionary focus. (I have heard, but I do not know for sure, than in Roman Catholic churches its more likely that All Saints Day will be about the spiritual-superhero-tyope-saints and All Souls day will be about praying for the souls of dead Christians to be released from Purgatory) For example I remember an All Saints Day where the vicar specifically got the Sunday School kids to refer to each other as "Saint so-and-so" for the day - very clearly emphasising the idea that we are the saints.

quote:

So that many gospel injunctions (if you wish to be perfect, sell what you have and give to the poor) would be inappropriate when family members and their legitimate needs and wants have to be taken into account.

Even if true, irrelevant. Well, irrelevant from the point of view of Augustinian/Reformed/Cavlinist/Puritan doctrines of salvation anyway. Because salvation does not depend on attaining any kind or earthly or moral or spiritual perfection. It logically precedes that. Justification is neccessary for sanctification but not (in this world) sufficient for it.

quote:

So does saint = saved? And is it simple common sense that saint usually equals celibate?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

For whatever reason Protestant Christians have traditionally been wary of celibacy. I'd guess its a mixture of Protestantism's northern European cultural background (which has never associated sex with ritual impurity in quite the way that many Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures have) and a sort of learned immunity to Roman Catholicism. (And I also suspect that the Catholic glorification of celibacy has more to do with the general anti-sex nature of late-Roman and early Mediaeval high culture than with anything in the Gospel - the Church became established in a society where posh people thought sex was dirty, and it got infected with a big dose of anti-materialist gnosticism which it hasn't quite recovered from yet)

quote:

And Wesley taught that the sign of the truly born again was that they committed no sin. Period. Finney also taught that sin could not co-exist with the Spirit in the same person.

Well, there's no accounting for the absurdities of Arminians and Holiness-cultists. Perfectionism is an evil heresy which sows doubts and fears among the saints who ought rather to be resting secure in the knowledge of the undeserved love of God. (I'm not sure Wesley ever fell it for very long though. I couldn't talk about Finney) Salvation is only by the grace of God. We all sin and fall short and continually need the forgiveness of God. Which is continually available, our eternal relationship to God depends on him, not us, and is not a matter of being lucky enough to die between acts of confession and the commission of an actual sin. The Saints are written in the Lamb's Book of Life from before the foundation of the world. Justification isn't a sort of indeterminate Schroedinger's Sinner state, constantly flicking in and out of states of mortal sin. Its an eternal one, founded on the will of God.

quote:

Really I am trying to see how one comes to terms with bourgeois christianity, which is the most prevalent form I see, and to the extent I practise it is this type. You know, we all have our detached house, two cars, holidays abroad...

Speak for yourself. I have no house, detached or otherwise, and could not possibly afford one, I live in a grotty little flat. I have no cars and don't drive. I haven't had a holiday abroad for years. And I'm one of the better-off members of our congregation. There's nothing wrong with prosperity and those who say there is are usually those who ave been lucky enough to enjoy it. And the idea that the poor ought to suck it up and learn to love their holy poverty because its going to do them good in the next world is one that suits those who own the property in this world very well indeed thank you very much.

quote:

I just see this as a different sort of lifestyle from that proposed by Jesus of Nazareth, and also that a small group of christians do follow him pretty literally. And I see two groups.

And again, even if true, irrelevant to issues of salvation and justification.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

KaplanCorday:

quote:
The NT nowhere teaches that there is a two-tier requirement for holiness, with a minority elite called to greater dedication than other saints.

Well that is just what I believe Paul is saying.

quote:
The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. (1 Cor 7)

So given that Paul accepts the status of married as valid (even though like Jesus he recommends celibacy) he accepts that some (many) christians adopt a life where there interests are divided. And more obviously so, I would say, for wives.
Is this a two-tier standard? I think so, since Paul accepts as christians those who voluntarily enter a state where there loyalty is divided, and he is unlikely to have privileged celibacy if he did not believe that it enabled greater dedication to God.

A Pilgrim:

quote:
There is no such thing as a two-tier spiritual status of ‘Saints’ and ‘others’.

Well my observation is otherwise, since most of the christians I know, including myself, could not say with a straight faith that we have carried our cross, loved not our lives, and never built "barns" (aka SIPPs) to shore up our future. There is a degree of renunciation in the teaching of Jesus, which practically no christians I know plan to undertake any time soon.

So you could say they are not christians. They are like the rich young ruler, earnest but ultimately failing because they will not take up the challenge of the gospel, in this case to give their possessions to the poor.

Some do embrace that life. And they are what I would call true imitators of Christ, aka Saints.

Maybe you are one. I'm not.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Anteater

I find myself in the logically-difficult position of agreeing with Angus, Ken et al., and you too.

My priorities are heavily divided amongst family issues, and keeping any time aside for my (very) few identifiable 'good works' is hard. My head is currently rather bust, which means my employment is coming to an end and the large-ish proportion of our family income we used to give away (in lieu of getting around to doing very much, perhaps) will have to shrink.

So I have much with which to confront myself and ask myself serious questions, as I think you are - but ISTM that such questions, directed at ourselves, are signs of a 'serious' (for want of a better word) inner spirituality. You seem to have this, because you can feel there's a problem.

But - such questions are surely features of our journey of sanctification, as others have put more clearly than I can. Our answers will affect the route, but not the destination (f*ck, I'm trite).

Well, there's my 1.5p...

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Ken:

quote:
But the quite openly Calvinist churches I was first a Christian in, some of whose members liked to think of themselves as the modern-day successors to the Puritans, mostly never taught that.

Well I was in Reformed Christianity in the heyday of Banner of Truth. What they taught is what the Puritans mostly taught (except those like Crisp who were labelled antinomian) namely that Justification is independent of practically holy living but Assurance definitely is not.

I totally agree that the puritans would not claim to know whether the person was saved, and they would admit that God is able to grant salvation to people who reach very little sanctification. But the general rule is:

quote:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived!

Agreed he highlights some pretty gross sins.

quote:
the Church became established in a society where posh people thought sex was dirty, and it got infected with a big dose of anti-materialist gnosticism which it hasn't quite recovered from yet

Is it just me that thinks the preference for celibacy goes by to Jesus and Paul. Why find any other reason. Both admit it is not open to all, but both seem at least to me, to indicate that it is a more consacrated path. What do you make of their actual words, which I'm sure you know well?

quote:
There's nothing wrong with prosperity and those who say there is are usually those who ave been lucky enough to enjoy it. And the idea that the poor ought to suck it up and learn to love their holy poverty because its going to do them good in the next world is one that suits those who own the property in this world very well indeed thank you very much.

Again you seem to discount as if not having been said, certain ideas of Jesus. One could go on. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus - what does this teach if not that poverty in this life is recompensed and vice versa. Camels and needles eyes. Plus not only "Blessed are the poor" but the converse "Woe to you who are rich now"

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Jesus wasn't telling Lazarus to give up what he had, or to be thankful for his poverty.

I'm not sure I do see a strong recomendation for celibacy in the words of Jesus. Paul, yes, but its a personal one and highly qualified. As he makes clear. And he also recommends marriage to widows.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Ken:

quote:
Jesus wasn't telling Lazarus to give up what he had, or to be thankful for his poverty.

Agreed. Actually he wasn't telling him to do anything as it was a parable. That aside, it and other saying would argue, IMHO, against your idea that there's nothing wrong with prosperity.

If we substituted "dangerous" for wrong, would you agree that according to Jesus prosperity is dangerous and the prosperous are less likely (by a long way I would say) to get into the kingdom. After all, for a Calvinist, we do not know who are the Elect, but we know some things about them, including that God chose the poor preferentially.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

There are many Christian traditions that view having a family and children as part of spiritual fruitfulness, in terms of making new disciples. The Duggars/Quiverfuls are an extreme example of this, of course, but even in my evangelical CofE world, there are some very committed Christian families where the women are almost constantly pregnant. You see the same thing among Mormons and obviously Roman Catholics. So that's an alternate to the Paul-ine idea that having a family is a distraction from God. Rather it can be a means by which to strengthen and transmit one's faith.

I find it interesting that the RCC is at the same time the one most focused on celibacy in terms of leadership and sainthood, but at the same time probably the most focused on pushing families to breed like mad.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There are many Christian traditions that view having a family and children as part of spiritual fruitfulness, in terms of making new disciples. The Duggars/Quiverfuls are an extreme example of this, of course, but even in my evangelical CofE world, there are some very committed Christian families where the women are almost constantly pregnant. You see the same thing among Mormons and obviously Roman Catholics. So that's an alternate to the Paul-ine idea that having a family is a distraction from God. Rather it can be a means by which to strengthen and transmit one's faith.

I find it interesting that the RCC is at the same time the one most focused on celibacy in terms of leadership and sainthood, but at the same time probably the most focused on pushing families to breed like mad.

And then with that, celibacy is seen as less godly and so those who don't marry and have children are seen as lesser, IME. Personally I think both sides are wrong - everyone should be free to choose celibacy or a family. Both bring spiritual blessings and one is not better than the other.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There are many Christian traditions that view having a family and children as part of spiritual fruitfulness, in terms of making new disciples. The Duggars/Quiverfuls are an extreme example of this, of course, but even in my evangelical CofE world, there are some very committed Christian families where the women are almost constantly pregnant. You see the same thing among Mormons and obviously Roman Catholics. So that's an alternate to the Paul-ine idea that having a family is a distraction from God. Rather it can be a means by which to strengthen and transmit one's faith.

I find it interesting that the RCC is at the same time the one most focused on celibacy in terms of leadership and sainthood, but at the same time probably the most focused on pushing families to breed like mad.
And then with that, celibacy is seen as less godly and so those who don't marry and have children are seen as lesser, IME. Personally I think both sides are wrong - everyone should be free to choose celibacy or a family. Both bring spiritual blessings and one is not better than the other.

Absolutely, and both are supported in Scripture as well. So no fair for one side to gang up on the other!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There are many Christian traditions that view having a family and children as part of spiritual fruitfulness, in terms of making new disciples. The Duggars/Quiverfuls are an extreme example of this, of course, but even in my evangelical CofE world, there are some very committed Christian families where the women are almost constantly pregnant. You see the same thing among Mormons and obviously Roman Catholics. So that's an alternate to the Paul-ine idea that having a family is a distraction from God. Rather it can be a means by which to strengthen and transmit one's faith.

I find it interesting that the RCC is at the same time the one most focused on celibacy in terms of leadership and sainthood, but at the same time probably the most focused on pushing families to breed like mad.
And then with that, celibacy is seen as less godly and so those who don't marry and have children are seen as lesser, IME. Personally I think both sides are wrong - everyone should be free to choose celibacy or a family. Both bring spiritual blessings and one is not better than the other.

The simple answer to this is that different denominations can focus on different things. Catholicism would look very different without its requirement for priestly celibacy or its appreciation of fruitful families. If you don't approve of either thing, then the RCC isn't really for you! The Methodists don't seem to be very concerned one way or the other.

On the other hand, one scholar argues that the future of Western Christianity lies in the hands of families that have more children than average, since they're more likely to pass on the faith than families that have only one or two, or none. Considering the secular context that we live in it's hard to disagree with this - and I speak as a woman who's likely to remain childless.

Posted by Rafin (# 17713) on :

I could be wrong here, but what i had always been told as a former catholic was that originally priests were able to get married and have a family. Divorce was the reason for celibacy to a degree because it left the church responsible for taking care of the wife and children.

I did have a priest tell me once too that they couldn't marry because they were married to their congregation in a sense. That if he had a family of his own, he would have to look after them first and his flock second, and his main priority should be the church.

I myself have been a life long celibate, even after i lost my faith in religion. I don't think it qualifies me for any kind of sainthood though, especially with my lack of religion. It stemmed primarily of the guilt, shame, and fear about sex i had growing up gay in a "Christian nation". The idea that my value and worth as an otherwise good person could be undone by the act of loving someone. I have merely stuck with it because I am used to it, and celibacy does have it's perks on focusing on the internal which is why I think most people seeking a form of enlightenment stay celibate. It forces you to live within yourself and removes the need to divide yourself to share with someone else. Also, once you have passed a certain amount of years in a celibate lifestyle, I'd assume it becomes next to impossible to later form a meaningful relationship.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Rafin. Your contentment in your situation is inspiring. And most poignant. We are all sinners in the hands of an angry church. To paraphrase the superb penitent former head of the now defunct Exodus International.

My greatest enlightenment in over 15 years if not ever came (how Freudian!) from reading Bell, McLaren, Nouwen, Rollins whilst in the throes of being an approaching 60 newlywed, where, amongst other things the decades of brokenness, of mind robbing loss are redeemed and ... come together.

About time!

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rafin:
I could be wrong here, but what i had always been told as a former catholic was that originally priests were able to get married and have a family. Divorce was the reason for celibacy to a degree because it left the church responsible for taking care of the wife and children.

Yes, you are wrong. There have always been married priests, as there still are in the East, but priests have never been able to marry. In otherwords, married men where/are able to become priests but once a priest a single man was/is no longer able to marry. As to why the West adopted a celibate only priesthood, I don't think it was divorce which was the problem (divorce was virtually unheard of) but rather leaving Church property to ones children etc.

Posted by Rafin (# 17713) on :

I don't see how a priest could leave church property to a loved one if it is not his property to begin with.

I do know i have read accounts of priests having children with women and the church basically gives the women a rather large amount of hush money to go away and leave the priest alone. From what i had heard this was one of the biggest reasons for the celibacy. The church in turn has to support the child, or in the case of divorce, spousal support. Again, just repeating the explanations I have heard and not saying it is the absolute truth.

On my own celibacy, my point wasn't to vilify churches in general. I do however feel that men having the ability to interpret their own idea of moral authority as a direct link to the mind of God is terrible. It removes in their mind any question of error, and allows them to think that whatever they think is right and good simply because of the way they interpret a specific verse in a very old book. While some of these ideas of morality are still good to this day, they come from a time when man understood very little about the world around him.

"No Man ever believes that the Bible means what it says. He is always convinced that it says what he means." -George Bernard Shaw

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Re another aspect of the OP - celibacy. This was enforced for clergy only in the second millennium, i.e., sometime after about 1000 A.D., and imperfectly even then. Although in western Europe there is the idea of one faith under Rome, the truth is much more complicated. In the east, it's a much different story.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've often wondered if the prevalence of death in or after childbirth and the practice of infanticide, and perhaps also the dangers of widespread prostitution, might have contributed to the formal practice of religious celibacy. (Jade mentions the childbirth issue above.) While the urge for sex is natural, I find it hard to believe that some of the resulting traumas didn't lead to sexual revulsion and rejection in many instances.

It's now customary in many circles to bemoan the church's repressive attitudes towards sex, but when I consider what the outcome of unbridled sexuality would probably have meant throughout most of history, in a world without good medical care, reliable contraception or a vast welfare state, I can certainly understand the elevation of celibacy.

[ 20. July 2013, 23:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rafin:
I don't see how a priest could leave church property to a loved one if it is not his property to begin with.

It was indeed a common practice. Inheritance was not so closely regulated in the middle ages as now, and it was often taken for granted that the son of a priest would inherit the parish (probably taking orders himself). In Ireland, especially, the problem of hereditary abbacies was notable.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Re another aspect of the OP - celibacy. This was enforced for clergy only in the second millennium, i.e., sometime after about 1000 A.D., and imperfectly even then.

For secular clergy, yes. But there were monks and priest-monks going waaaay back in the West as well as the East.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0