just so you know, i didn't think this way until i researched it. it started off as a joke. i had a gag assignment (or maybe it was just intended to stretch me by listening to opposing views) for class where i would argue for the biblicality (or at least the non-antibiblicality) of polygamy. i ended up actually adopting the view becuz the polygamists were way more faithful to the bible than everyone i had ever heard talking about this from the monogamy-only angle.

what do you think, Shark?

Post Edited (bryan mccarthy) : 5/13/2005 9:29:18 PM (GMT-5)

First, if one person is married and one is single and that's all we know about them, there is no way to judge who is more holy or whatever.  Second, it's not my place to judge anyway.

That being said, it seems that there are only three situations where marriage is preferable to singleness if we limit our sources to the Bible.  Unless one was married before conversion, specifically called to do so, or under extreme temptation to lust it seems to me that the default position is singleness.  Apart from these situations, it is hard to make a case for marriage at all, much more so with monogamy.  I admit there are passages that encourage people to settle down, have a good life, get married.  But I would argue that these instructions are just as culture-bound as instruction on hair-length.  For people who associate marriage with other good things like security, happiness, and peace, it makes sense to speak that way.

"i would say you learn a new level of neighbor love when your put in the situation of marriage, which requires it."

I say it's not necessarily so.  That so many marriages (even "Christian" ones) are disfunctional proves that marriage does not require love.  I suppose this is another situation where marriage is preferable: when it is the best means of learning a new level of love.  Maybe even a majority fits in this category.  But I don't think a very strong Biblical case can be made for this.  And without a source like the Bible, it's hard to measure things like love.

"bryan: you really think he was caucasian and long wavy brown-haired or are you just making fun of the fact that we depict him thus? either way, it was a good joke. :D"

I was dead serious.  He spoke the King's English and had blue eyes too.  And if you looked closely you could see a halo.  It's all there in the Bible.

"If people didn't procreate, God's purpose in creating mankind would be thwarted (Gen. 1). If people didn't commit to stable family relationships, the raising of children (and consequently culture itself) would inevitably degenerate into chaos."

There are Christian ethicists who would argue against the categorical imperative.  Yoder was one.  There is no danger of God's purpose in procreation being twarted.  The gate is narrow, and if being a Christian meant no sex, it would get a lot narrower.  The best course of action is not always one that can be universalized.

My case is simply that given no extenuating circumstances the Christian should be content with singleness.  Marriage is not  necessarily worse, but it certainly can be.  Many Christians marry to find love or security or out of guilt or fear.  For these people marriage is worse.  Another person can never fulfill one's need for love or security nor can another bear the responsibility of calming one's guilt or fear.  I think Paul's instruction is still valid today.  If you're not previously obligated, told to do otherwise by God, or overly distracted by lust, it's best to stay single.  Things are just easier that way.  (Granted, the second exception is not Paul's, but I'm sure he'd concede the point.)  However, in many churches, needy members are not provided for.  You'd better have insurance, because you certainly can't rely on the church for much help.  In some cases I can see marriage as the appropriate choice, because the church has forgotten to be a family, and people need families.  Still this is a situation that shouldn't be taken for granted.  For a church to really be a church resouces and love should be shared to the point that marriage is largely superfluous.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/17/2005 3:21:43 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (PhilTheThrill) : 5/18/2005 3:42:23 PM (GMT-5)