Dr. K.R. Allen said:
I think most who are honest in the academic and spiritual circles of leadership would agree with you that there is indeed a legitimate debate over ideal versus not ideal. Once you move past the sin not sin debate this is the other debate that is natural. But, let me say up front, since you seem to embrace the fact there are more important and lesser important doctrines in the Word of God, that I would consider this level of debate to be lesser in degree of importance than the "sin or not sin debate." Thus, I think I can discuss this with you friend to friend even if we come to different conlusions. One issue, the sin or not sin issue, can be high enough that a wrong position could be damning. This secondary issue, of ideal versus not ideal, is not per se on the same level of importance by your previous admissions already.
Actually, I'd have to say that this is a very common misunderstanding among Americans generally. We seem to have difficulty in accepting that just because something might not be the highest and best it need not be condemned as base and evil. As I wrote above, much of it is smuggling our (often idolatrous) conceptions of "democracy" and "all men are created equal" into our thinking about God's word. But I think that you would agree that this simply will not do for Christians - Creation is a monarchy with God as beneficent King and a hierarchy of "thrones and dominions" both above and below. That's just reality. It's a hierarchical chain and we all occupy our appointed place on it. We don't get to vote in God's Kingdom. All are not equal.
Sorry about that, my fellow Americans. You'll just have to get used to the notion.
And by the way, somewhere in all of the posts back and forth I think you said something like that maybe some people had a hard time believing some had more grace than others. Well, not with me. God is sovereign and he dispenses his grace as he please to whom he pleases and as much or as little as he pleases (see Romans 9:10-18). Furthermore, this is evident in the realm of spiritual gifts as well (1 Cor. 12:11). Some have more and some have less. And I imagine if you are reading some of the people you are quoting you are indeed picking on some of their Reformed ideology. I have no qualms with you in that regard, at least not in the basic essence or thrust an absolute affirmation of God's omnipotence rooted in omniscient providence.
Bingo.
It sounds like to me that you believe in something called hierarchalism. That some states are better than others states and that some doctrines are higher than other doctrines. If so then I agree with you in much of that and most/many trained theologians would support that ideology as well.
It also seems to me that you affirm this order:
Celibacy the ideal
Monogamy accepted
Polygyny toleratated
Am I correct in the way you see that?
Not exactly. At least inasmuch as you seem to be assuming that this is the hierarchy of values to which all are called.
Here's the point again: Not everybody is called to celibacy - they simply aren't granted that grace by God. And that's up to God, it's not up to man. The list above is NOT a sort of smorgasbord that all get to choose from as they well. These are the three Biblical lifestyles for adults.
Celibacy is clearly the highest and best calling, but few it would seem are called to it.
It seems to me that monogamy - again, an excellent but nevertheless lesser calling than celibacy - is the usual calling for the large majority of people. This is the grace that God (I say) grants to most of us.
Polygyny is not only
not sinful, in our fallen world should be seen as a positive good, rather like opium in the relief of pain (in Eden there was no pain) or crutches (in Eden there were no broken bones or arthritis). In terms of our current American society, polygyny is desperately needed to relieve the horrible suffering of single mothers and their fatherless children. It's good in the very real sense that it's a vast improvement over what we have now, but it was never of Eden. It is a good institution in the context of this fallen world, and those who participate in it have real status and deserve great respect.
If so, here is my first few questions and then I will move along to my other scenarios since you have already answered Scenario A (by the way thank you for your time in answering my first scenario and post). Here is my
Question(s): I suppose you base your celibacy as the ideal off of Paul's statement in his letter to Corinth where he said he wished all were like him. Is that correct? And if that is correct would you kindly share with me what you believe the crisis was or would be in Corinth and why you believe what you do about whatever you hold as to the answer to what that crisis was or would be? This historical information is an important contextual guide that lays a historical context that plays into the golden rule of biblical interpretation called the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Thus, I'm curious as to your position and ideas about the historical context surrounding this letter.
Paul does make it rather clear there. I understand the historical context - there was a persecution going on. But even then Paul is very clear that celibacy is the higher calling. It's just that God doesn't grant that grace to all.
And there are other scriptural bases for the understanding that celibacy is the highest lifestyle calling through a special grace granted by God. Jesus talked about eunuchs, how some are made eunuchs by men (castrated slaves) and that some were made so for the glory of God (he's obviously not talking about God mandating the castration of any man, and so is clearly talking about celibacy).
Matthew 19:12 (King James Version)
12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
He's saying, in effect, "some are born without a libido, some are castrated by men as slaves, and some accept a celibate life for the Glory of God. I know it's tough, but try to accept it."
We see in Revelation who these men are:
Revelation 14
1 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. 3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.
They are the celibate clergy (I suppose others, too) - men who over the centuries dedicated themselves wholly to the Gospel and who committed no serious sin their entire lives (they never lied, they were "blameless" in other respects). There are a limited number of them (although the number 144,000 is symbolic of the 12 Apostles times the 12 tribes of Israel times one thousand - meaning (I take it) in symbolic language "there will be a lot of these in Eternity who were called to the celibate life and who persevered to the end"). And note well that these men were virgins - they never "defiled themselves with a woman" (yes, the word "defiled" is used here) - and because of that they somehow are able to sing a song of God that nobody else can learn. On some intuitive level I "get this" - it makes some sort of sense to me (non-rational) that a man who never had sex with a woman and who managed by the Grace of God to transmute the libido into the world of the Spirit would somehow be operating on a higher plane than the rest of us. I like the imagery of the "song." It's almost as if they're able to take in the Music of the Spheres at a much higher vibrational tone. But I wax poetic.
Back to the text: note that they are above the rest of us in Heaven - that they are "first fruits." I'm not going to be a "first fruit" in Heaven. I will never learn that glorious song. Nor will the large majority of us, for the simple reason that God did not grant us that grace.
These men are HIGHER THAN ME ON THE SPIRITUAL HIERARCHY. They're nobility. I'm not.
Give it up, my fellow peasants.
All men were not created equal, and God grants His grace to whomsoever He will.
That's just the way it is and praise His Holy Name for it.
Oh and one other question Erskine, did you read the teaching article on How and Why the Common Life of Polygyny Became Uncommon? I'm curious as to your historical understanding of this and what your thoughts were on the article.
I did read your very learned and thought-provoking article. Thank you so much for posting it.
I agree generally that gnostic duality infects our Western minds. Augustine - and when we're talking about Western Christian theology from late Antiquity to the Reformation, we're talking mostly about Augustine - was a gnostic in his youth. He then became a follower of Plotinus, finally a Christian. He was certainly orthodox in in theology, but on an "emotional level" if you will he maintained a sort of anti-physical attitude. I think he just couldn't avoid it. It had become part of his thinking on a very deep level. He really took more of the attitude that celibacy is the only truly good thing, monogamy is a sort of dirty little secret that should be tolerated, and polygyny - well - it should be relegated to the barbarous past. He was (I hope the Saint will forgive me) a bit too much of a Roman. He wanted everybody to be a cultural Roman in all respects. He thought (maybe better to say, he felt) that this was higher than the Biblical culture of the Patriarchs. His thinking was shot through with Neo Platonic notions and this was a sort of leven for much that came after.
You leave out of your narrative the rise of the Scholastics and they're profound influence on the development of our common culture. The rediscovery of Aristotle (his writings had been lost to the West after the Fall of Rome) ultimately moved the Church in the High Middle Ages to embrace the physical world and the empirical method. The Dominican Order gave the world St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote the Summa, set the intellectual foundations for the Renaissance.
St. Francis of Assisi was part of that re-embrace of the physical. Can you imagine Augustine writing (or even tolerating) a song like this?:
The Canticle of the Creatures
by St. Francis of Asisi
Most high omnipotent good Lord,
to Thee Praise, glory, honour
and every benediction.
To Thee alone Most High do they belong.
And no man is worthy to pronounce Thy Name.
Praise be to Thee my Lord with all Thy creatures.
Especially for Master Brother Sun
Who illuminates the day for us,
And Thee Most High he manifests.
Praise be to Thee my Lord
for Sister Moon and for the stars.
In Heaven Thou hast formed them,
shining, precious, fair.
Praise be to Thee my Lord for Brother Wind,
For air and clouds,
clear sky and all the weathers
Through which Thou sustainest all thy creatures.
Praise be to Thee my Lord for Sister Water.
She is useful and humble, precious and pure.
Praise be to Thee my Lord for Brother Fire,
Through him our night Thou dost enlighten,
And he is fair and merry, boisterous and strong.
Praise be to Thee my Lord for our Sister Mother Earth,
Who nourishes and sustains us all,
Bringing forth divers fruits,
and many-coloured flowers and herbs.
Praise be to Thee my Lord for those
who pardon grant for love of Thee
And bear infirmity and tribulation,
Blessed be those who live in peace,
For by Thee Most High they shall be crowned.
Praise be to Thee my Lord
for our sister Bodily Death
From whom no living man can flee;
Woe to them who die in mortal sin
But blessed they who shall be found
in Thy most Holy Will;
To them the second death can do no harm.
O bless and praise my Lord all creatures,
And thank and serve Him in deep humility.
The movement of St. Francis led the West's re-embrace of the body and nature, that led very directly to the art of the Renaissance. I mean to say, there is a very direct line to be drawn between the Canticle of the Creatures and Michelangelo's exquisite Pieta.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this and how it might fit into your narrative, the main problem with which (in my humble opinion) is that it skips over one thousand years from late Antiquity to the Reformation as if nothing much happened during that time. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth.
Thanks so much brother for your time to dialog about this.
Dr. Allen
It is I who am in your debt, my learned brother.
