Having examined the issue of singleness, it seemed good to me to write a post, most excellent Theopholus, so that you may know of some of the resources that exist. I may add more as I come across them.

A great place to start is the article A Biblical-Theological Perspective on Singleness by Barry Danylak.

Al Mohler takes the position that single adults who do not have the gift of celibacy ought to marry soon if they can, based on his interpretation of 1 Cor 7:8,9. See for example these articles, which arose from this talk of his on marriage. Less extreme is the view that Paul was describing singleness itself as a gift. A key proponent is Al Hsu in his book The Single Issue (in US: Singles At The Crossroads). That book is also valuable for its interview with John Stott on his views on singleness, and it is perhaps no surprise that other single British pastors take a similar view (Vaughan Roberts and Andrew Page). Another helpful book on singleness, and one also taking the singleness is the gift position is The Rich Single Life by Andrew Farmer, (free download here).

Those who don’t accept Mohler’s narrow restrictions for remaining single still expect a God-glorifying view of the issue. In this article John Piper briefly discusses respective benefits of both singleness and marriage that combined with internal longings constitute a call or compelling to one or other in an individual’s circumstances. That article followed on from this sermon to singles based on God’s promise of a name greater than sons and daughters (Is 56:4,5) from his 2007 sermon series on marriage. Piper more recently recommended that While celebrating the call to life long singleness, the church will not encourage those who don’t have the cal to wait till late in their twenties or thirties to marry, even if it means marrying while in school. Piper’s forward to the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is worth reading.

For single women desiring marriage, Carolyn McCulley encourages them that singleness is a gift, in chapter 2 of her book Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye?: Trusting God With A Hope Deferred and elsewhere. The bulk of the book is taken up with looking at the model of womanhood presented by the woman described in Proverbs 31. Much more by her on singleness and biblical womanhood more generally can be found via her blog. Also from the female single Christian perspective is Lydia Brownback’s Purple Cellar blog.

The following sermons cover singleness from 1 Cor 7: Jeff Purswell (Covenant Life Church), Mark Dever (Capitol Hill Baptist Church; also in book form), Rick Holland (Grace Community Church; see relevant sermons during 3-11/03). Ben Stuart gave a challenging talk on Undivided Devotion at the Passion 07 conference. A download can be purchased for £1.99 here (also hear him here).

Boundless.org (a ministry of Focus on the Family) has articles, blog posts and podcasts targeted at singles.

The following is related to my dissertation, but should be easily understood without any statistical background. I wrote it for a job interview, no success yet…

Many decisions we make involve uncertainty, such as whether to buy flood insurance, whether to hold an event outside, or which candidate to offer the job to. A common way of modelling such decisions is utility theory. According to this theory, for any person facing a decision, each possible outcome has a number called its utility. Together with the probabilities involved in the decision, these utilities determine which choice they make.

So how do we determine these utilities? Well, suppose a person indicates that she is equally happy to receive 4,000 pounds for certain or to take a gamble where there is a 50 percent chance she receives 10,000 pounds and a 50 percent chance she receives nothing. Then utility theory gives us the equation that the utility of 4000 pounds is equal to half the utility of 10,000 pounds. With more information about her preferences, involving different sums of money and probabilities, we will get more equations which we should be able to solve to find her utilities.

Unfortunately there is a problem. Often we can’t solve the equations because the preferences are inconsistent. This is often dealt with by fiddling the figures to arrive at estimates for the utilities. This is a very unsatisfactory approach because there is no proper justification for the results.

However, I have developed a more justifiable method for dealing with this problem. It is based on a model of how a person’s preferences depend randomly on his/her utilities. This model depends on the unknown utilities and another number which represents how well the person discriminates between choices.

My approach involves 4 components:

1. The person’s view of his/her utilities, i.e. how cautious he/she is.
2. The person’s view of how well he/she discriminates, i.e. how strongly he/she responds to changes in the choices,
3. The person’s specific preferences, i.e. the pairs of choices that he/she finds equally desirable and
4. The model itself.

By combining these 4 components the estimates of the unknown utilities can be calculated. This can easily be done on a computer.

We don’t have to calculate estimates for every utility. In my report I have used these 4 components to find an equation for the utilities. I’ve used a mathematical computer program to calculate the exact form of my chosen utility function.

This method provides a simple, but justifiable way of calculating the utilities required for making decisions, based on utility theory, and which takes into account the inconsistent nature of preferences.

Michael Lawrence has come out with 2 articles on attraction here and here. The context is single men not dating godly women who they do not find attractive enough. As I’ve tried to understand what he’s saying I’ve come to represent it mathematically:

B = k E + (1-k) I

B represents our perception of Beauty on others, E represents external beauty, I represents internal beauty or conformity to Christ, and k is a number between 0 and 1 that represents the weight given to E. This equation is a gross oversimplification, but the idea is that the world and sin lead us to believe that k ought to be close 1, but really in line with true biblical beauty it ought to be much smaller.

Michael also speaks about how culture defines external beauty, based on the book The Beauty Myth (extract); however other research indicates that there is a substantial consistency in some of what is considered beautiful by different cultures. Similarly, what Michael has in mind when he speaks of how our view of the image of beauty is corrupted may also be overstated.

Michael is excellent in discussing that we can encourage and help develop in others biblical beauty as well as improve our appreciation of it ourselves. The need to challenge the messages of the culture is well made and illustrated by these articles, we do well to consider that instruction carefully.

Back on St Valentine’s day the folks at The Rebulution posted the results to their modesty survey, which they describe as ‘a resource to help Christian girls (and guys), not a list of legalistic rules… which encourage young women to focus on the heart, not the hemline, to honor their parents, etc.’. I didn’t find the presentation conducive to examining the results, so I have now made up a spreadsheet based on their data. Their website includes a lot of other resources on this topic.

I switched some of the questions around so that agreeing with the statements always represented a more conservative position (so in particular agreement with questions regarding clothing implies the clothing is immodest). If the reversed questions had been asked then the results would likely have been slightly different, but not by much. Then I ordered the percentage agreement (including agree and strongly agree) for each category of questions. The questions are not consistent in form, eg. they vary between asking whether something is a stumbling block, immodest etc., but hopefully this doesn’t make too much difference so that the percentages can still be seen as a consistent measure of the extent to which guys struggle with these various things. That said it clearly illustrates that guys vary in their attitudes/struggles with lust. So for example, 6.9% don’t agree that miniskirts as immodest while 9.1% find sparkly, shiny skirts a stumbling block, regardless of length.

Here are some more examples with the % who agree or agree strongly that these things are immodest/stumble-inducing etc. in parentheses: showing any cleavage (70.3), exposing the stomach when wearing a swimsuit (57.5), the lines of undergarments being visible under clothing (71.6), reaching into the shirt to adjust a bra strap (65.4), spaghetti-strap shirts and dresses (60.8), skirts that fall above the knee (58.4), the way a girl walks can be immodest (74.9).

In The God Delusion Dawkins responds to claims that certain entities are too complex to have formed by chance by arguing that since such a designer must be even more complex, he must also be less likely. He turns this into his argument for why there is almost certainly no God: since a creator God (particularly one like the Christian God) is extremely complex, He is also extremely improbable.

The problem with this argument is that Dawkins gives no reason why the probability of an uncreated spiritual entity is thus dependent on its complexity. It might make sense for biological entities where there is some mechanism for chance formation in mind, but why should the probability of God existing depend thus on His complexity? Dawkins’ main argument for atheism turns out to be fundamentally flawed.

Powered by ScribeFire.

John Piper has recently finished a sermon series called Marriage, Christ, and Covenant: One Flesh for the Glory of God that comprised 8 sermons on marriage and 1 sermon on a biblical theology of singleness, based on this. In the latter he says,

My main point is that God promises those of you who remain single in Christ blessings that are better than the blessings of marriage and children, and he calls you to display, by the Christ-exalting devotion of your singleness, the truths about Christ and his kingdom that shine more clearly through singleness than through marriage and childrearing. The truths, namely,

1. That the family of God grows not by propagation through sexual intercourse, but by regeneration through faith in Christ;
2. That relationships in Christ are more permanent, and more precious, than relationships in families (and, of course, it is wonderful when relationships in families are also relationships in Christ; but we know that is often not the case);
3. That marriage is temporary, and finally gives way to the relationship to which it was pointing all along: Christ and the church—the way a picture is no longer needed when you see face to face;
4. That faithfulness to Christ defines the value of life; all other relationships get their final significance from this. No family relationship is ultimate; relationship to Christ is.

To say the main point more briefly: God promises spectacular blessings to those of you who remain single in Christ, and he gives you an extraordinary calling for your life. To be single in Christ is, therefore, not a falling short of God’s best, but a path of Christ-exalting, covenant-keeping obedience that many are called to walk.

This sermon elicited the question “If what you say about the blessing of singleness is true, then why would one even want to be married?” with his response here. He explains that both marriage and singleness work out God’s design in different ways, and says of both “That is a high calling, but it is only compelling if it meets with internal longings for God that lean strongly into these designs.” He sets out God’s design for marriage as

1. To display his covenant keeping love between Christ and the church,
2. To sanctify the couple with the peculiar pains and pleasures of marriage,
3. To beget and rear a generation of white-hot worshippers, and
4. And to channel good sexual desire into holy paths and transpose it into worshipful foretastes of heaven’s pleasures.

While he similarly sets out God’s design for marriage as,

1. To display the spiritual nature of God’s family that grows from regeneration and faith, not procreation and sex,
2. To sanctify the single with the peculiar pains and pleasures of singleness,
3. To capture more of the single’s life for non-domestic ministry that is so desperately needed in the world,
4. And to magnify the all-satisfying worth of Christ that sustains life-long chastity.

While previously he interpreted 1 Cor7:7 to refer to singleness and marriage as gifts he now says

neither I nor the Bible means to say that either [marriage or singleness] is compelling in and of themselves. That is why Paul says, “One has one gift and one another” (1 Corinthians 7:7). I think he means: The internal reality of one person finds one of these powerfully compelling and the internal reality of another finds another powerfully compelling. And I would add: This can change from one season to another…Objectively, we cannot know ahead of time whether marriage or singleness will sanctify us more or honor God more. Does the internal reality of our heart lean us into the designs of marriage or the designs of singleness? That is a huge question and one that only the heart can answer. But it should be a heart well-formed with much Bible and much prayer and much maturity through life and counsel of friends and family.

I really like Piper’s balanced view of marriage and singleness. He promotes them both, focusing on their God glorifying nature, rather than taking a more man-centred approach of promoting singleness to make single people feel good or promoting marriage to reduce the suffering of unwanted singleness. I have some more thoughts, but they will need to wait for another post.

I’ve had a request for my raisin scone recipe. It comes from the same book as my plain scone recipe. The nutmeg really makes a difference. You can also substitute plain yoghurt or milk and lemonjuice (1 tsp/cup, let sit 5 min) in place of the buttermilk.

2 cups plain flour
2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp salt
1/2 tsp ground nutmeg
1 stick butter
2 tbsp sugar
1 cup raisins
3/4 cup buttermilk
1 large egg yolk

Put baking powder, baking soda, salt, nutmeg and flour in bowl and mix. Cut in butter. Toss in sugar and raisins. Mix egg yolk into buttermilk and add. Mix until dough forms. Take out dough and give a few kneeds to mix. Roll out and cut. Cook on baking tray for about 20 minutes at 375°F. You might want to knock any burnt raisins from the outsides of the scones.

Unfortunately writing that out reminded me of a bad joke. A daughter calls up her mother in tears, “…the recipe told me to turn up the heat and beat it for 5 minutes, but when I came back it was ruined!”

The principle of defrauding often plays a central role in courtship frameworks. While I tend to agree with the conclusions, I do take issue with how they are derived from 1 Thess 4:3-6. To look at this I’ve taken quotes from elders at my church who have written articles for boundless.org at various times that include references to that passage. While the differences may reflect differences between their current opinions, they may also represent progression of thought within the group as a whole.

Matt Schmucker’s teaching about defrauding was a precursor to the core seminars on courtship. In this article Schmucker writes (emphasis and bracketed comment mine):

Second, Christian men are called to protect their sisters in Christ, not take advantage of them. Consider 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 (NIV):

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.

Where the NIV says, “no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him,” the NASB says, “no one should defraud.” [NASB translates the NIV's "wrong" as "defraud".] Defraud means “to deprive of something by deception or fraud.”

What do I mean by defrauding in this context? Simply put, a man defrauds a woman when, by his words or actions, he promises the benefits of marriage to a woman he either has no intention of marrying or if he does, has no way of finally knowing that he will. The four authors of this chapter often speak on this topic because we know that brothers in Christ in our church and yours are defrauding (taking advantage of) sisters in Christ, and as the apostle James says, “My brothers, these things ought not to be so” (James 3:10).

Executives from the corporate giants Enron and WorldCom were recently on trial for fraud. They had painted a picture of business health, growth, and prosperity when in fact it was all false. The single men in our churches must be encouraged to ask themselves, “in your relationships with single women, are you painting a false picture and committing fraud?” What may be considered innocent — holding hands, putting an arm around her in the pew, some “light” kissing, long talks over Starbucks coffee — all send the message to a sister that reads, “You’re mine.” Single men must be careful here. A Christian woman is first and foremost a sister in the Lord. I trust none of us would do anything inappropriate with our own flesh-and-blood sisters. How much more a sister in the Lord! She may or may not become the man’s wife. But she will always be a sister. Her heart, the “wellspring of life” (Prov. 4:23, NIV), must be guarded as if it were the man’s own!

This follows the way Scott Croft has argued regarding defrauding in the core seminars that he has developed and taught. In his articles (1, 2, 3) he defines defrauding as “implying a relationship or commitment by your words or conduct that does not actually exist”, “implying a marriage-level commitment where one does not exist” and “to imply a commitment that does not exist by committing acts with someone that are appropriate only in the context of a particular relationship (i.e., marriage) in order to satisfy my own ‘passionate lust.’”

The passage is primarily about sexual immorality, but there is also a valid application to inappropriate behaviour beyond that. However, the concern with the primary application is surely the sinfulness of the physical act itself, not deception and hence an equivalent interpretation is required for secondary applications. Looking into the Greek, it seems to me that the passage is about going beyond what is appropriate and so gaining an advantage at the other person’s expense. This is basically the meaning of fraud, but without the explicit reference to deception, though obviously deception could still be a factor.

Scott said after writing on defrauding that “Now, one obvious
counterargument to the point I intend to make is that the Scriptures
I’ve cited above just beg the question of whether kissing and other
sexual activity violate those passages.” This illustrates another problem with the concept of defrauding. It says that you shouldn’t do things that imply marriage if you’re not married, but does not explain how to determine that something implies marriage. For example, why does holding hands imply marriage? I don’t even know what the concept of implying marriage means. While I can see how actions said to imply marriage are bad in themselves, not knowing what it means, I don’t understand how implying marriage constitutes wronging the other person. Surely understanding why its wrong makes it easier to obey.

Michael Lawrence’s approach avoids these problems. In the boundless article where he considers 1 Thess 4:6 he doesn’t mention defrauding, but he comes to the same conclusions in a different way by focusing on taking advantage instead.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:6, Paul warns the Thessalonian Christians against “taking advantage” of their brothers or sisters. The larger context in the first eight verses makes clear that what Paul primarily has in view is sexual immorality, in which you take from one another a physical intimacy not rightfully yours.

But the text also suggests that there are other ways you can take advantage of one another in a dating relationship. And one of the primary ways men do this is to elicit and enjoy all the benefits of unending companionship and emotional intimacy with their girlfriends without ever committing to the covenant relationship of marriage.

He goes on to refer to the cost of emotional and spiritual wear and tear caused by inappropriate intimacy. He also contrasts not “taking advantage” with the positive teaching to love one another (Scott in his 3rd article has more on this).

The issue regarding what is appropriate intimacy seems to be this. Intimacy carries with it risk, in terms of temptation, distrust and also emotional pain if the relationship ends. It limits the benefits of other uses of time. On the other hand, certain forms of intimacy play a role in moving a relationship along towards potential marriage and intimacy is also created by things that are good in themselves, such as in serving one another or doing ministry together. There needs to be a balance. This takes wisdom, including counsel from others. It depends on the individuals involved and the circumstances. The concept of defrauding, as best as I can tell, is designed to forbid behaviour that creates unnecessary intimacy, but I believe that it is more effective and biblical to address the issue directly.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Elnwood has a post up on the Courtship Song, which he wrote the lyrics for a couple of years ago with a little help from his friends.

I have just discovered an interesting post that presents a good way of thinking about the choice of whether or not to pursue marriage from 1 Cor 7. The author Dan Miller argues that there are 2 principles to consider: “The principle of avoiding temptation to sexual immorality makes us conclude that we should marry” and “The principle of avoiding worldly anxieties makes us conclude that we should not marry”. Neither is absolute, neither is primary, we each choose for our particular situations which is the more compelling. The strength of the avoiding temptation principle depends on how much a person struggles with sexual temptation, while the strength of the worldly anxiety principle depends on a person’s gifts and opportunities. The latter may be expressed in terms of whether marriage would help or hinder ministry.

This idea of conflicting principles ensures that both principles are considered together. If the principle of avoiding sexual immorality were ignored then one might get the idea that because singleness has advantages that ought to be used for God’s glory by those who are single, singles therefore ought to prefer singleness and avoid marriage, irrespective of the level of sexual desire and suitability for long-term single ministry. Similarly if the principle of sexual purity were taken on its own, one might take the position that those who struggle at all must marry because serious sexual sin is inevitable, ignoring the possibility that the advantages of undivided devotion that singleness brings may be worth the loss of marriage as one major way of reducing the struggle.

While these 2 principles are important in the choice whether or not to pursue marriage, there are other issues to be taken into account in the decision, such as desire for marriage, existence of somebody to pursue, readiness for marriage, the God-glorifying nature of marriage etc. Of course it is not purely an exercise in logic, the other principles of wisdom ought to be employed, prayer, the opinions of others, considering other relevant bible passages.

In the process of seeking to live the Christian life well to the glory of God we may not even be aware of the competing principles. The desire for marriage may be so strong it is urgently sought without much thought, or marriage and sexual desires may be weak enough that ministry enhanced by singleness may unexpectedly, but joyfully, turn into a life-long pattern. I would also say that from our point of view at least, we may have a genuine choice in the matter and if both are God-glorifying ways of living our lives then we may choose either.

Of course this whole discussion is based on the respective advantages of marriage and singleness for living life to the glory of God. It is not easy to use the gifts of marriage or singleness well, and even if we have made our choice, the challenge of glorifying God within our respective marital statuses still remains.

Technorati Tags: Dan Miller, conflicting principles, singleness, marriage, 1 Cor 7, wisdom