http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2011/02/grace-based-libertarianism.html
Appropos of this link but otherwise appropos of nothing one of the things I've heard plenty of singles say is that they won't take seriously any advice from any single about how to approach marriage or, to use that Christianese term, "relationships". Years ago one of my friends was invited to speak at a church event addressing singles. I didn't attend the event myself because I had an opportunity to have dinner with some friends I hadn't seen in a while, if memory serves.
One of the only things I heard said about the event was that the singles who attended had no idea why this single guy was invited to speak the event. He wasn't married so what could he possibly have to contribute to the discussion? What could a single guy know about relationships anyway? Having known this particular fellow for eleven years I can confidently say that he is a godly man who is smart, thoughtful and exceptionally generous and that there is much in every way to learn from his example whether he was married or not. That he happens to be married now and a father merely means that he would be someone I would commend to fellow Christians for even more reasons. But the thing is, he was a solid and prudent fellow before he got married. He was a solid and prudent believer even when women weren't giving him time of day at the church.
As no shortage of Christian bloggers have noted, it seems as though in reaction to a Catholic notion that the unmarried are more spiritual, more spiritually devoted, and more able to serve the Lord there has been a contemporary evangelical reaction which goes the other way. An evangelical Protestant preacher might go so far as to say that there is nothing an unmarried person can do to further the kingdom of God that in way exceeds or even equals what a married eprson can do. I've heard at least one preacher make this scripturally unsupportable claim. I am sure you have probably heard a preacher say something similar.
What I find curious is that among fellow unmarried people a mentality can pervade which holds that the people who know about "relationships" must be the married. I will grant this readily to those who have remain married to the same person for anywhere between ten to twenty years. I don't grant that so readily to people in second marriages without getting a chance to get to know them. Some second marriages really are beautiful changes compared to the first marriages; other second marriages are just a transitional state to third marriages or single parenthood; and other second marriages are probably okay but do not confer wisdom or bragging rights to the parties involved to dispense advice just yet.
Several things have stuck with me for a while and because I am not sure there is any merit to them I figured I'd just blog them. That is, after all, what blogs are often for. ;) It has puzzled me that at least in some Christian subcultures there is a conviction, perhaps a rhetorical flourish, that marriage shows a person how selfish he or she is. Then parenthood is the next grander revelation of gnosis as to how REALLY selfish a person is. This must be some kind of rhetorical flourish because if marriage and then parenthood really reveal to you how selfish you are why do people pursue those things that most fully reveal their selfishness? If marriage and parenthood are the mirrors through which people can see most clearly just how selfish they really are then what disadvantage does singleness confer upon a person? Merely the opportunity to avoid discovering how selfish they inescapably are?
What I have found most curious about males in the young, restless and Reformed particularly is how they so often display an immense confidence. It would appear that among this crowd there is a great confidence that single guys particularly don't know what they are doing and have not attained true manhood yet but that they, no sooner than they marry and cause youngsters to spring forth from the wombs of their beloveds, are imbued with a charism of boundless wisdom from which to consider all aspects of human experience.
I again consider how often it appears that the curriculum vitae entails: follower of Jesus, husband of X, father of Y and Z, pastor at A. There is a scriptural precedent for establishing one's household as a basis for being considered a bishop/pastor/overseer/priest ... but I have in the last few years wondered if there is quite as much magic in the transition from single to married that qualifies YRR's to go from "completely unqualified to speak about anything in life that matters" to "fully equipped to teach and train everyone from all walks of life and let no one look down on you because you're young and your youth is excuse enough for any mistakes you might make anyway". What if, as Tim Keller once so succinctly put it, the problem is in attempting to show favoritism to one status or the other?
When Paul describes the church as the body of Christ he emphasizes that each part of the body of Christ has a role to play. Not all members of the body are equally glorious or presentable which is why the less presentable parts are treated with greater care and honor; the less presentable parts are treated with modesty, and that these seeming lesser parts are indispensable and require a deference and honor that the more presentable parts of the body do not require.
It may be, however, that a temptation common to every Christian and in every church is to give the most glory and honor to the most presentable members of the body of Christ. Does it not seem, at times, that we Christians give the greatest deference and consideration to members of the body that may, in the light of apostolic teaching, actually need the least of this special consideration? We bestow honor upon the already honored and ignore those who, for whatever reason, are not considered as honorable. If the grace of Christ is unmerited favor then why do we do this?
I have heard more than a couple of unmarried Christians lament that the unmarried seem to be regarded as second or third class members of a Christian community just as I have heard more than a couple of Christians declare that singles are selfish and don't do as effective kingdom work (unless these Christians are attempting to get unmarried Christians to volunteer in ministries so they can spend more time with their wives). Paul does not attempt to explain what or who constitutes the more or less honorable members of any local body so perhaps that is why we can so readily excuse ourselves or accuse others with regard to what body parts are honorable or dishonorable rather than consider that our assessment of them should lead us to take Paul's words to heart.
If I consider a member of the body of Christ to be less honorable or presentable I must take Paul's teaching to heart and give that member more consideration and modest treatment and honor precisely because whoever is more "honorable", however I see that, does not NEED the honor or deference I probably already bestow upon them. Church leaders who lead well are worthy of a double honor but notice, too, that they are also by necessity the most visible and honorable members of the body. In other words, this double honor may not necessarily be one that is the same as the honor Paul discusses with the Corinthians. They were already enamored with conspicuous power and authority and it is easy to show deference to those who are supposed to be running the local show. At another level a spiritual leader who is aware of his dependency on God may be more aware than others that while he may be most presentable amongst the members of a body this means he also needs none of the special treatment Paul alludes to.
Just as Paul rebuked the Corinthians for their favoritism toward splashy gifts that by themselves were not useful so he in a different way admonishes us to remember that mere body parts do not comprise the entire body. This is an understandable human habit but it is, it seems, an archetypally Corinthian error. It is not merely something that appears in distinguishing between the married hand and the unmarried foot who may or may not be considered really an honorable member of the body of Christ, it is a challenge we face in all sorts of ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment