Celibacy and the Trinity

[Kendall K. Down]

The book "The Seventh General Council" to which I have referred in a
previous post contains copious notes. Some of them are those appended by
Charlemagne's scribes to the document sent to Pope Hadrian, others are
by the translator himself. In one of these he gives a summary of the
First General Council of Nicea, in which he makes the following comment:

"It was at this Council that Paphnutius, Bishop of Thebais, prevented
the imposition of the yoke of celibacy on the clergy, saying, 'that the
necks of the clergy and those who had entered into holy orders were not
to be weighed down with so grievous a burden.'" (op cit p.107)

Sensible chap.

However if the decrees of the council regarding the Trinity are so
highly regarded and accepted by all Christian churches, I wonder why
this particular decision has not been equally generally accepted?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Jason]

However holy a church council may be, perhaps they thought twice about
preaching about something plainly spoken about by Paul (1Cor7)

"I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned
about the Lord’s affairs, how he can please the Lord. But a married man
is concerned about the affairs of this world, how he can please his wife
and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned
about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both
body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of
this world, how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own
good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in
undivided devotion to the Lord."

Does this not make the benefits of celibacy abundantly clear? Or do you
think the benefits of having a wife far outweigh having your ability to
serve the Lord compromised as Paul posits and so it's safe to ignore him?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/09/2021 13:14, Jason wrote:

> Does this not make the benefits of celibacy abundantly clear? Or do you
> think the benefits of having a wife far outweigh having your ability to
> serve the Lord compromised as Paul posits and so it's safe to ignore him?

As Jesus said, some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs, and some do
it for love of God, but He added, "Let him that is able to receive it,
receive it" - thereby implying that it isn't for everyone. Indeed, He
specifically prefaced His remarks with "All men cannot receive this
saying, save they to whom it is given."

So if someone feels called to celibacy, good for him/her. Otherwise,
marry and have lots of little Christians to fill our churches with the
next generation.

[Madhu]

* Jason <ptudnX7dtZU2yqr8...@brightview.co.uk> :
Wrote on Tue, 07 Sep 2021 07:14:35 -0500:

> On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 09:26:41 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
>> The book "The Seventh General Council" to which I have referred in a
>> previous post contains copious notes. Some of them are those appended by
>> Charlemagne's scribes to the document sent to Pope Hadrian, others are
>> by the translator himself. In one of these he gives a summary of the
>> First General Council of Nicea, in which he makes the following comment:
>>
>> "It was at this Council that Paphnutius, Bishop of Thebais, prevented
>> the imposition of the yoke of celibacy on the clergy, saying, 'that the
>> necks of the clergy and those who had entered into holy orders were not
>> to be weighed down with so grievous a burden.'" (op cit p.107)
>>
>> Sensible chap.

I'd have seen "weighed down with so grievous a burden" as referring to
the burden of marriage! with all its attendant worries and obligations.

[along the lines of what Jason quotes below]

[Jason]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 20:58:16 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 07/09/2021 13:14, Jason wrote:
>
>> Does this not make the benefits of celibacy abundantly clear? Or do
>> you think the benefits of having a wife far outweigh having your
>> ability to serve the Lord compromised as Paul posits and so it's safe
>> to ignore him?
>
> As Jesus said, some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs, and some do
> it for love of God, but He added, "Let him that is able to receive it,
> receive it" - thereby implying that it isn't for everyone. Indeed, He
> specifically prefaced His remarks with "All men cannot receive this
> saying, save they to whom it is given."

No, perhaps all men cannot receive this saying, but nor can all men be
priests. The one does not prevent the other. Even though Jesus says
that "not everyone" can accept this statement does not contradict Paul
when he says which way is the ideal when it comes to serving God.

> So if someone feels called to celibacy, good for him/her. Otherwise,
> marry and have lots of little Christians to fill our churches with the
> next generation.

Paul's implication is most definitely that by marrying you are
compromising your ability to serve God: how can it be read any other
way? I guess the common response is for people to "make do" and marry,
even if their ability to serve is compromised. That doesn't at all
detract from what is the ideal case.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/09/2021 11:54, Madhu wrote:

> I'd have seen "weighed down with so grievous a burden" as referring to
> the burden of marriage! with all its attendant worries and obligations.

I've had 50 years of that burden; on the whole I've survived very well -
better, indeed, than if I had not been married. It helps to have a
wonderful wife, of course ...

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/09/2021 10:14, Jason wrote:

> Paul's implication is most definitely that by marrying you are
> compromising your ability to serve God: how can it be read any other
> way? I guess the common response is for people to "make do" and marry,
> even if their ability to serve is compromised. That doesn't at all
> detract from what is the ideal case.

You are compromising your ability to serve God in *one* way - being a
full-time missionary like Paul. Not marrying would seriously compromise
your ability to serve God by bring up your children in the fear and
admonition of the Lord.

In any case, Paul's concern in 1 Corinthians 7 appears to be a desire to
avoid "trouble in the flesh" in view of the shortness of time. Whether
he had in mind the soon return of Christ and the tribulation that would
precede that event or the imminence of persecution, I am not sure.
Certainly if you were being tortured for your faith, seeing your
wife/husband/child also being tortured would be a trial many would fail.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/09/2021 09:26, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> The book "The Seventh General Council" to which I have referred in a
> previous post contains copious notes.

Another of these notes refers to the Sixth General Council:

============
The Greeks, under the title of the Sixth Council, include a
Supplementary Council held in the same place as the former and convened
by Justinian II for the purpose of discipline AD 692. It is by some
styled the 'Quinisextine' as being summoned to supply the defect of the
fifth and sixth councis, which had made no canons. Here were made one
hundred and two canons, which were subscribed by the four Patriarchs of
the East and, as the Greeks say, by the Pope's Legates. In the present
copies of the council, the signature of these Legates is wanting, as
well as those of certain other bishops more immediately connected with Rome.

Pope Sergius refused to receive it and to this day it is rejected by the
Romish Church. Several of its canons were highly offensive to that
Church, among which are the thirteenth canon, which decrees that
clergymen - ie. priests and deacons - may live with their wives and that
if any would separate between the clergy and their wives that they be
deposed; and likewise, if any of the clergy put away their wives, that
they be deposed; and this notwithstanding the Church of Rome had made a
canon to the contrary effect.

Also the thirty-sixth canon, which puts the churches of Rome on an
equality in respect of jurisdiction. Also the fifty-fifth canon, which
forbids fasting on Saturdays, except on Easter Eve.
(op cit p. 113)
==============

Rome, which was in the process of changing the weekly observance from
Saturday to Sunday, was attempting to discourage Sabbath observance by
insisting that the day be kept as a fast, the idea being that people
would come to dislike the Sabbath but look forward to Sunday when they
could eat again. Egeria comments on the fact that in Jerusalem people do
not fast on Saturday.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <shb4je$vrr$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 8 Sep 2021 20:57:35 +0100:

This came up a few weeks back. Your premise is that the advice pertains
to a specific situation, but the advice is more general - it deals with
the life of the believer from the time he hears the call to his
death. The lessons which Paul sets out have to be internalized in this
life, to prepare for the life in the kingdom to come with the
understanding that the body (church) is the temple. Matrimonial
pursuits may turn out to be at odds with preparing the believer for life
in the resurrection.

[John]

What about 1 Timothy 3?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/09/2021 03:59, Madhu wrote:

> This came up a few weeks back. Your premise is that the advice pertains
> to a specific situation, but the advice is more general - it deals with
> the life of the believer from the time he hears the call to his
> death. The lessons which Paul sets out have to be internalized in this
> life, to prepare for the life in the kingdom to come with the
> understanding that the body (church) is the temple. Matrimonial
> pursuits may turn out to be at odds with preparing the believer for life
> in the resurrection.

Given that God created woman as an "help meet for man", I am not at all
sure what relation there will be between the sexes in heaven.

One could, of course, go down the Jeff route and suggest that we will
all be men in the resurrection. I simply do not believe that; women
complement men (and v.v.) providing things which men cannot provide (and
v.v.) If we were all male in heaven, we would be all incomplete.

So I firmly believe that there will be men and women in heaven and also
that men and women will form relationships. But will those relationships
be permanent or temporary? Might they change over time as the
individuals grow and develop?

It seems to me that when Jesus rejected marriage in the resurrection He
was addressing two things: the first is that the care and nurture of
children require stable, life-long partnerships. If there are no
children, then that requirement no longer applies.

The second is the partriarchal attitudes of 1st century people (and 1st
century Jews in particular) which regarded women as chattels belonging
to men. Whatever answers we may give to the above two paragraphs, I have
no doubt that there will be equality between the sexes in heaven and the
concept of marriage held by those to whom Jesus was talking will simply
not exist.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/09/2021 18:10, John wrote:

> What about 1 Timothy 3?

Indeed - and as Paul is the author of both Timothy and Corinthians, both
need to be taken into account when seeking to understand God's will.

As I pointed out previous, in a time of persecution a wife and children
might indeed be a serious disadvantage. Likewise if one wants to go off
and be a pioneering misionary in some difficult location. Other than
that, marriage is instituted by God and should be valued accordingly.

[Jason]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2021 20:41:24 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 09/09/2021 18:10, John wrote:
>
>> What about 1 Timothy 3?

I don't think 1 Timothy 3 comes into it: I don't believe it's telling you
that you need to have a wife or not have one. I think its purpose is to
make the point that if you aim for such church leadership roles, you need
to be a good role model to your wife and kids (should you have them) as
it would be hypocritical if you treated your family badly but exhorted
others to "love one another".

> Indeed - and as Paul is the author of both Timothy and Corinthians, both
> need to be taken into account when seeking to understand God's will.
>
> As I pointed out previous, in a time of persecution a wife and children
> might indeed be a serious disadvantage. Likewise if one wants to go off
> and be a pioneering misionary in some difficult location. Other than
> that, marriage is instituted by God and should be valued accordingly.

I'm certainly not disputing that marriage is ordained by God, and is his
framework in which humans should "go forth and multiply". None of that
however contradicts the statement that being so fettered is nevertheless
an encumbrance to those aiming to devote their lives to God: it simply
make the very obvious point that if you are trying to please both God and
a "wife and family", your time and energy is by necessity divided.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/09/2021 17:56, Jason wrote:

> I don't think 1 Timothy 3 comes into it: I don't believe it's telling you
> that you need to have a wife or not have one. I think its purpose is to
> make the point that if you aim for such church leadership roles, you need
> to be a good role model to your wife and kids (should you have them) as
> it would be hypocritical if you treated your family badly but exhorted
> others to "love one another".

The dispute over Paul's exact meaning is almost as old as the letter.
Did Paul mean that a bishop must have a wife or did he mean that a
bishop must have no more than one wife? However, whichever side you come
down on, it seems inevitable that the bishop must be married.

> I'm certainly not disputing that marriage is ordained by God, and is his
> framework in which humans should "go forth and multiply". None of that
> however contradicts the statement that being so fettered is nevertheless
> an encumbrance to those aiming to devote their lives to God: it simply
> make the very obvious point that if you are trying to please both God and
> a "wife and family", your time and energy is by necessity divided.

As I say, there are certain circumstances under which what you say is
doubtless true. More generally, however, I would say that you serve and
please God through your wife and family; pleasing God and pleasing your
wife are not entirely opposed to each other.

And, on a more practical level, if you have to do your own cooking,
ironing and washing, that also detracts from your "undivided service" to
God! Most celibate priests have a house-keeper who does all that and
from my observation, they have to devote time to pleasing her if they
want to keep her!

[Mike Davis]

On 11/09/2021 21:31, Kendall K. Down wrote:

[snip]

>
> And, on a more practical level, if you have to do your own cooking,
> ironing and washing, that also detracts from your "undivided service" to
> God! Most celibate priests have a house-keeper who does all that and
> from my observation, they have to devote time to pleasing her if they
> want to keep her!

You are very out of date!

At present, in our diocese, I cannot think of any* celibate priests who
have a housekeeper. This is both a matter of finances, AND that priests
find less hassle in doing it themselves.

* I know of or about one-third of the priests in the diocese.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/09/2021 18:18, Mike Davis wrote:

> You are very out of date!
> At present, in our diocese, I cannot think of any* celibate priests who
> have a housekeeper. This is both a matter of finances, AND that priests
> find less hassle in doing it themselves.

I am happy to stand corrected - but in that case my second caveat
applies; the priest is so busy "doing it themselves" that they cannot
devote themselves entirely to God's service (which Jason felt was the
reason why Paul celebrated celibacy.)

[steve hague]

On 12/09/2021 18:18, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 11/09/2021 21:31, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> And, on a more practical level, if you have to do your own cooking,
>> ironing and washing, that also detracts from your "undivided service"
>> to God! Most celibate priests have a house-keeper who does all that
>> and from my observation, they have to devote time to pleasing her if
>> they want to keep her!
>
> You are very out of date!
>
> At present, in our diocese, I cannot think of any* celibate priests who
> have a housekeeper. This is both a matter of finances, AND that priests
> find less hassle in doing it themselves.
>
> * I know of or about one-third of the priests in the diocese.
>
> Mike

Mrs Doyle is too expensive?
Steve

[Mike Davis]

There we *are* agreed! ;-)
(But in fairness, doing the shopping is a good way of being seen in
public away from the confines of one's congregation...)

[Mike Davis]

> Mrs Doyle is too expensive?

.. or difficult to find? (Who'd want that job?)

To be honest, my real fear is that of 'control freakery'*. Many have
knowingly gone into a celibate profession because they like to do things
'their way' - and it's why (in many cases) the parishioners often don't
feel adequately involved.

* It takes one to know one!!

[Jason]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 21:31:16 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 11/09/2021 17:56, Jason wrote:
>
>> I don't think 1 Timothy 3 comes into it: I don't believe it's telling
>> you that you need to have a wife or not have one. I think its purpose
>> is to make the point that if you aim for such church leadership roles,
>> you need to be a good role model to your wife and kids (should you have
>> them) as it would be hypocritical if you treated your family badly but
>> exhorted others to "love one another".
>
> The dispute over Paul's exact meaning is almost as old as the letter.
> Did Paul mean that a bishop must have a wife or did he mean that a
> bishop must have no more than one wife? However, whichever side you come
> down on, it seems inevitable that the bishop must be married.

I disagree. I think the meaning is that one that I mention above, that
*should* you wish to have a wife you should be faithful to her. And in
the same way be temperate, hospitable, etc etc. I don't think it
"inevitable that the bishop must be married" at all: just no harems and
treat her well. It would be the exactly the same today, if a preacher
was giving a sermon and said we should "all be temperate and treat our
husbands and wives well" I don't think many would think this an
exhortation to go out grabbing additional wives and husbands...

>> I'm certainly not disputing that marriage is ordained by God, and is
>> his framework in which humans should "go forth and multiply". None of
>> that however contradicts the statement that being so fettered is
>> nevertheless an encumbrance to those aiming to devote their lives to
>> God: it simply make the very obvious point that if you are trying to
>> please both God and a "wife and family", your time and energy is by
>> necessity divided.
>
> As I say, there are certain circumstances under which what you say is
> doubtless true.

I believe this is *always* true. If you are devoted to one thing, or
your attention is split between two things, then you're not always giving
your full attention to one thing. End of story.

> More generally, however, I would say that you serve and
> please God through your wife and family; pleasing God and pleasing your
> wife are not entirely opposed to each other.

I agree, you can please God in many ways, including through your family:
that's not the point. But you cannot (of course, it's obvious) devote
*all* of your time to "caring for your flock" if a good chunk of it is
devoted to just one or two of them. It's not that time spent looking
after your family is "wasted", far from it, but it certainly divides your
time.

> And, on a more practical level, if you have to do your own cooking,
> ironing and washing, that also detracts from your "undivided service" to
> God! Most celibate priests have a house-keeper who does all that and
> from my observation, they have to devote time to pleasing her if they
> want to keep her!

I don't know how many live in the way you describe, but I would suggest
that if you lavished as much attention on your housekeeper as you would
on your wife, people would rightly start asking questions! The
housekeeper is supposed (I would think) be to free up time, not to
consume it. It would be a very understanding wife indeed who would cook
and clean and run about after for simply so you would have more time to
follow other pursuits....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/09/2021 18:56, Jason wrote:

>> The dispute over Paul's exact meaning is almost as old as the letter.
>> Did Paul mean that a bishop must have a wife or did he mean that a
>> bishop must have no more than one wife? However, whichever side you come
>> down on, it seems inevitable that the bishop must be married.

> I disagree. I think the meaning is that one that I mention above, that
> *should* you wish to have a wife you should be faithful to her.

Unfortunately St Paul did not express the conditional. He made a
positive statement - the bishop must be the husband of one wife. After
all, he could hardly have children to bring up properly without a wife!

> I believe this is *always* true. If you are devoted to one thing, or
> your attention is split between two things, then you're not always giving
> your full attention to one thing. End of story.

Undoubtedly - but in reality, not so. Come dinner time your celibate is
going to have to turn his attention away from serving God and start
peeling potatoes.

> I don't know how many live in the way you describe, but I would suggest
> that if you lavished as much attention on your housekeeper as you would
> on your wife, people would rightly start asking questions!

Perhaps not as much, but certainly you would be in trouble if you
treated her as nothing more than an animate machine.

> It would be a very understanding wife indeed who would cook
> and clean and run about after for simply so you would have more time to
> follow other pursuits....

I agree - if those other pursuits were golf and fishing. If, however,
they are serving the Lord your wife might view things differently. A
faithful clergy wife is a vital part of that church's ministry, from
seeing that he has a clean surplice to put on to seeing that his dinner
is ready at irregular times, plus she has her own ministry to the women
in the church. A husband and wife who are devoted to serving the Lord
are much more than the sum of the parts.

[Jason]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 20:33:32 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 19/09/2021 18:56, Jason wrote:
>
>>> The dispute over Paul's exact meaning is almost as old as the letter.
>>> Did Paul mean that a bishop must have a wife or did he mean that a
>>> bishop must have no more than one wife? However, whichever side you
>>> come down on, it seems inevitable that the bishop must be married.
>
>> I disagree. I think the meaning is that one that I mention above, that
>> *should* you wish to have a wife you should be faithful to her.
>
> Unfortunately St Paul did not express the conditional. He made a
> positive statement - the bishop must be the husband of one wife. After
> all, he could hardly have children to bring up properly without a wife!

I'm arguing that that's because, as I gave in my example, that's not how
people speak. If I stand up and say in church "adults: treat your kids
well" I don't think that many (any??) would rush off home and start
making babies just so that they would have kids in order that they would
be in a position to follow my exhortation to treat them well.

>> I believe this is *always* true. If you are devoted to one thing, or
>> your attention is split between two things, then you're not always
>> giving your full attention to one thing. End of story.
>
> Undoubtedly - but in reality, not so. Come dinner time your celibate is
> going to have to turn his attention away from serving God and start
> peeling potatoes.

Nor having a bath, sweeping the floor, ordering hymn books, etc etc.
These are all required of course, that's not the point. The point I
believe that Paul is making is that by having a family you are dividing
your time which otherwise could be devoted to God's work. I'm not saying
that having a family is ungodly, but it's like saying "you can't serve
God and mammon": it's not that "mammon" is inherently ungodly, but you
can't concentrate on serving two "masters". It would be just the same as
people on business: if your business requires you to travel round the
world constantly, it is difficult to get the balance right if you are
also having to raise a family: it can be done, but it is less than ideal
for all concerned. I think Paul is just talking about the ideal.

>> I don't know how many live in the way you describe, but I would suggest
>> that if you lavished as much attention on your housekeeper as you would
>> on your wife, people would rightly start asking questions!
>
> Perhaps not as much, but certainly you would be in trouble if you
> treated her as nothing more than an animate machine.

You can't treat her (or him for that matter) as an inanimate machine (but
nor should you the supermarket checkout operator or anyone else you have
dealings with), but if you are spending anywhere near as much time with
your cook/cleaner/bottle washer as you would with your family you're
doing something wrong.

>> It would be a very understanding wife indeed who would cook and clean
>> and run about after for simply so you would have more time to follow
>> other pursuits....
>
> I agree - if those other pursuits were golf and fishing. If, however,
> they are serving the Lord your wife might view things differently. A
> faithful clergy wife is a vital part of that church's ministry, from
> seeing that he has a clean surplice to put on to seeing that his dinner
> is ready at irregular times, plus she has her own ministry to the women
> in the church. A husband and wife who are devoted to serving the Lord
> are much more than the sum of the parts.

I guess the point we are debating is whether Paul agrees with the
statement above, I reiterate that the "plain reading of scripture" to me
is that someone able to freely up-sticks and "serve the flock" wherever
they are called is more difficult if you have a family.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/09/2021 12:07, Jason wrote:

> I'm arguing that that's because, as I gave in my example, that's not how
> people speak. If I stand up and say in church "adults: treat your kids
> well" I don't think that many (any??) would rush off home and start
> making babies just so that they would have kids in order that they would
> be in a position to follow my exhortation to treat them well.

But if you stood up in church and said "It is a condition of this job
that you demonstrate the ability to control your family", I think it
would be clear that the childless and unmarried need not apply. That, I
think, is closer to what St Paul actually said than your example.

>> Undoubtedly - but in reality, not so. Come dinner time your celibate is
>> going to have to turn his attention away from serving God and start
>> peeling potatoes.

> Nor having a bath, sweeping the floor, ordering hymn books, etc etc.
> These are all required of course, that's not the point.

No? If he had a wife, he would have help with those things. The
traditional wife cooks and cleans, leaving him free to do God's work.

> The point I
> believe that Paul is making is that by having a family you are dividing
> your time which otherwise could be devoted to God's work.

If St Paul was unmarried, as many believe, then he didn't know what he
was talking about - with the exception of highly unusual circumstances
or tasks. As you pointed out below, constant travel would be such a
circumstance; St Paul was constantly travelling and it is possible that
he would have found a wife and family an encumbrance (so he made use of
other people's wives to do the cooking and cleaning). A time of
persecution might be another circumstance. However for the average
Christian, St Paul's words do not apply.

> You can't treat her (or him for that matter) as an inanimate machine (but
> nor should you the supermarket checkout operator or anyone else you have
> dealings with), but if you are spending anywhere near as much time with
> your cook/cleaner/bottle washer as you would with your family you're
> doing something wrong.

I remember a Catholic priest, a man I highly respected, who had a
full-time live-in housekeeper. He carried out his sacerdotal duties
faithfully and well, but he wouldn't have been nearly so effective if
she had not cooked, cleaned, and managed his diary and answered the
phone when he was out. Occasionally I had to call on him in the evening
and would usually find them sitting together watching television or
listening to music - he was a real techie - and apart from the fact that
he sat over here and she sat over there, I often thought how like an old
married couple they were!

I would say that he was definitely doing things right!

> I guess the point we are debating is whether Paul agrees with the
> statement above, I reiterate that the "plain reading of scripture" to me
> is that someone able to freely up-sticks and "serve the flock" wherever
> they are called is more difficult if you have a family.

I agree - under highly specific and unusual circumstances. We are, I
think, agreed that St Paul's very clear statements about women wearing
hats and keeping silent in church are aimed at the particular situation
in 1st century Corinth. I see no reason to doubt that his comments about
marriage are similarly local in time and place.

[Jason]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 06:53:26 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 20/09/2021 12:07, Jason wrote:
>
>> I'm arguing that that's because, as I gave in my example, that's not
>> how people speak. If I stand up and say in church "adults: treat your
>> kids well" I don't think that many (any??) would rush off home and
>> start making babies just so that they would have kids in order that
>> they would be in a position to follow my exhortation to treat them
>> well.
>
> But if you stood up in church and said "It is a condition of this job
> that you demonstrate the ability to control your family", I think it
> would be clear that the childless and unmarried need not apply. That, I
> think, is closer to what St Paul actually said than your example.

I've tried to "hear" your sentence above spoken from a pulpit, and I
simply cannot come to the conclusion that "childless and unmarried need
not apply". At the very best, it requires reading between the lines, and
if you really wanted "having a family" to be a vital job requirement you
would explicitly say it, not indirectly hint at it in a way the
congregation could misunderstand.

>>> Undoubtedly - but in reality, not so. Come dinner time your celibate
>>> is going to have to turn his attention away from serving God and start
>>> peeling potatoes.
>
>> Nor having a bath, sweeping the floor, ordering hymn books, etc etc.
>> These are all required of course, that's not the point.
>
> No? If he had a wife, he would have help with those things. The
> traditional wife cooks and cleans, leaving him free to do God's work.

Getting help from a wife or anyone else is not the point: the point is
when push comes to shove (e.g. your wife is ill just when you are about
to head out on a preaching trip to Ephasus) your attention is divided.

>> The point I believe that Paul is making is that by having a family you
>> are dividing your time which otherwise could be devoted to God's work.
>
> If St Paul was unmarried, as many believe, then he didn't know what he
> was talking about - with the exception of highly unusual circumstances
> or tasks. As you pointed out below, constant travel would be such a
> circumstance; St Paul was constantly travelling and it is possible that
> he would have found a wife and family an encumbrance (so he made use of
> other people's wives to do the cooking and cleaning). A time of
> persecution might be another circumstance.

That's definitely starting to read between the lines, rather than what is
actually written. Neither do I think you need to be married to imagine
what having a wife, in the broad brush, entails. You only need to read
the wedding vows to know the commitment you are making and expectations
your husband/wife should have on you.

> However for the average Christian, St Paul's words do not apply.

If only life were so easy, I can think of a few chunks of Paul's letters
to apply this to as well!!! :-)

>> You can't treat her (or him for that matter) as an inanimate machine
>> (but nor should you the supermarket checkout operator or anyone else
>> you have dealings with), but if you are spending anywhere near as much
>> time with your cook/cleaner/bottle washer as you would with your family
>> you're doing something wrong.
>
> I remember a Catholic priest, a man I highly respected, who had a
> full-time live-in housekeeper. He carried out his sacerdotal duties
> faithfully and well, but he wouldn't have been nearly so effective if
> she had not cooked, cleaned, and managed his diary and answered the
> phone when he was out. Occasionally I had to call on him in the evening
> and would usually find them sitting together watching television or
> listening to music - he was a real techie - and apart from the fact that
> he sat over here and she sat over there, I often thought how like an old
> married couple they were!

I've no idea even whether Catholic priests have Mrs Doyle-type
housekeepers these days or not, but again, she is essentially a "servant"
and there entirely to save you time and not to consume it. Again, unless
you have a *very* understanding wife I suggest it would be unwise to
treat her as you would a paid servant...

>> I guess the point we are debating is whether Paul agrees with the
>> statement above, I reiterate that the "plain reading of scripture" to
>> me is that someone able to freely up-sticks and "serve the flock"
>> wherever they are called is more difficult if you have a family.
>
> I agree - under highly specific and unusual circumstances. We are, I
> think, agreed that St Paul's very clear statements about women wearing
> hats and keeping silent in church are aimed at the particular situation
> in 1st century Corinth. I see no reason to doubt that his comments about
> marriage are similarly local in time and place.

Likewise any other bit of Paul we want to say is just a "feature of his
day and not relevant to the modern day Christian, as clearly he was
thinking of a specific XYZ". A view I whole-heartedly endorse :-)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/09/2021 10:38, Jason wrote:

>> But if you stood up in church and said "It is a condition of this job
>> that you demonstrate the ability to control your family", I think it
>> would be clear that the childless and unmarried need not apply. That, I
>> think, is closer to what St Paul actually said than your example.

> I've tried to "hear" your sentence above spoken from a pulpit, and I
> simply cannot come to the conclusion that "childless and unmarried need
> not apply".

How would a candidate demonstrate the ability to control his family if,
in fact, he had no family?

> Getting help from a wife or anyone else is not the point: the point is
> when push comes to shove (e.g. your wife is ill just when you are about
> to head out on a preaching trip to Ephasus) your attention is divided.

Na, if you really are that on-fire for God, you just lay your hands on
the woman and heal her instantly.

Seriously, I take your point; I just feel that on the whole, having a
wife gives you more time to serve God than not having a wife; the number
of times my wife has fallen ill just as I was on the point of leaving
for Ephesus is precisely zero.

> That's definitely starting to read between the lines, rather than what is
> actually written.

Really? Remember Priscilla? (Or, if you are given to the Apocrypha, Thekla?)

> I've no idea even whether Catholic priests have Mrs Doyle-type
> housekeepers these days or not, but again, she is essentially a "servant"
> and there entirely to save you time and not to consume it. Again, unless
> you have a *very* understanding wife I suggest it would be unwise to
> treat her as you would a paid servant...

Priests are not allowed to relax?

> Likewise any other bit of Paul we want to say is just a "feature of his
> day and not relevant to the modern day Christian, as clearly he was
> thinking of a specific XYZ". A view I whole-heartedly endorse :-)

I recognise the danger.

[Jason]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:38:13 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 21/09/2021 10:38, Jason wrote:
>
>>> But if you stood up in church and said "It is a condition of this job
>>> that you demonstrate the ability to control your family", I think it
>>> would be clear that the childless and unmarried need not apply. That,
>>> I think, is closer to what St Paul actually said than your example.
>
>> I've tried to "hear" your sentence above spoken from a pulpit, and I
>> simply cannot come to the conclusion that "childless and unmarried need
>> not apply".
>
> How would a candidate demonstrate the ability to control his family if,
> in fact, he had no family?

I think that's nonsense, you would indicate your abilities in other ways
(e.g. if you'd taught in a school for 30 years it might indicate you have
some idea how to manage youngsters). It would be the same if you applied
for a job in a food-preparation factory with a health-and-safety rule
saying "you must keep your hair tucked safely in a hair-net" and then
conclude that bald people need not apply.

>> Getting help from a wife or anyone else is not the point: the point is
>> when push comes to shove (e.g. your wife is ill just when you are about
>> to head out on a preaching trip to Ephasus) your attention is divided.
>
> Na, if you really are that on-fire for God, you just lay your hands on
> the woman and heal her instantly.

:-)

> Seriously, I take your point; I just feel that on the whole, having a
> wife gives you more time to serve God than not having a wife; the number
> of times my wife has fallen ill just as I was on the point of leaving
> for Ephesus is precisely zero.

It seems that Paul disagrees, though maybe you simply have different life
experiences to draw on. Maybe your wife is not as dependent on you as
they might have been in Paul's day, I've no idea.

>> I've no idea even whether Catholic priests have Mrs Doyle-type
>> housekeepers these days or not, but again, she is essentially a
>> "servant"
>> and there entirely to save you time and not to consume it. Again,
>> unless you have a *very* understanding wife I suggest it would be
>> unwise to treat her as you would a paid servant...
>
> Priests are not allowed to relax?

Of course they can relax, what's that got to do with it?? All I'm saying
is that a paid servant should take up much less of your time and energy
that your wife and family should.

>> Likewise any other bit of Paul we want to say is just a "feature of his
>> day and not relevant to the modern day Christian, as clearly he was
>> thinking of a specific XYZ". A view I whole-heartedly endorse :-)
>
> I recognise the danger.

:-) It *is* of course a danger, but one that we all as Christians need
to acknowledge. We all need to tread this course, it's just that people
are divided over exactly which bits should be emphasised over others.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/09/2021 13:15, Jason wrote:

> Of course they can relax, what's that got to do with it?? All I'm saying
> is that a paid servant should take up much less of your time and energy
> that your wife and family should.

Hmmmm. Having servants is not at all the same as having employees. At
5.30 you lock the door and don't give your employees another thought
until 9.00 in the morning. A servant, particularly if there is only one,
is part of the family and, whether you like it or not, their health and
the health and fortunes (or misfortunes) of their family does take up
some of your time.

[Jason]

As with the other thread, no need to go to such extremes. I used the
word "servant" as a synonym for housekeeper, hired help, maid, "little
woman who does" etc etc (i.e. she is a paid worker). Unlike your wife,
she receives her "remuneration" for doing those chores in cash terms. I
can't say I have any first hand experience at all (other than watching
Downton Abbey and the like) but I've *never* got the impression that they
are "part of the family". And certainly, if they are taking more time
than they generate, then you'd be better to dismiss them and do the jobs
yourself.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/09/2021 17:38, Jason wrote:

> As with the other thread, no need to go to such extremes. I used the
> word "servant" as a synonym for housekeeper, hired help, maid, "little
> woman who does" etc etc (i.e. she is a paid worker). Unlike your wife,
> she receives her "remuneration" for doing those chores in cash terms. I
> can't say I have any first hand experience at all (other than watching
> Downton Abbey and the like) but I've *never* got the impression that they
> are "part of the family". And certainly, if they are taking more time
> than they generate, then you'd be better to dismiss them and do the jobs
> yourself.

I don't know about "more time", but certainly they take *some* time. We
had servants in India, partly to provide employment for people
discriminated against because they were Christians and partly so that my
mother could concentrate on starting and running a Christian school, so
I know that they are not simply machines like the vacuum cleaner. Their
woes are part of family life, even if nothing more than a sick child
means that they can't come to work that day.