Earlier this week saw my involvement in some discussion about the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:15 - But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (NIV)
The comment was made to me that there is no inherent goodness in singleness. Yes, Paul says that singleness is good, but that is only because we are in the last days.
I can see where this position is coming from, but surely if it is thought out, then you will conclude that singleness is a result of the fall.
But then I look to the new creation, to our marriage to Christ, and wonder how this can be said in light of God's great faithful plan in salvation history - creation and new creation.
Is singleness a result of the fall?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Category errors. That's the problem here.
We argue that Paul's high esteem of singleness in 1 Cor 7 is functional rather than ontological, because we rightly want to avoid any idea that singleness is a 'higher' spiritual estate, and marriage a lesser compromise.
But to reverse it is a mistake as well. Marriage is not ontologically 'higher' either. Is there something intrinsically good about marriage? Yes, it's a good gift from God for human beings, and its nature is relational.
Is there something intrinsically good about singleness? Not in the same way - singleness is ontologically the natural state of humans - we are all born single. Whatever the gift of singleness, it too is a good gift and its nature is, strangely enough, relational.
Does this mean there is something intrinsically 'bad' about singleness? By no means! since the absence of a particular gift does not somehow mean the presence of a defect.
Singles enjoy full humanity, a functional 'advantage' re: the gospel, and possibly a distinct gift in such. Marrieds enjoy full humanity, a functional disadvantage, and a distinct gift from God.
- the Jedi Master has spoken
Post a Comment