In addition to chapter 6

"Ehe und Ehelosigkeit"

Meanwhile there occured on the German website of community a topic with title: "Marriage and singleness". I find it significant enough to add subsequently something to the chapter 6, although it goes a bit too scrupulous.

The topic of community about marriage and singleness reflects the thoughts basically not something substantially new for those, who have been in the community. Therefore I call everybody outside the community for giving feedback to community about their ideas on marriage. It is necessary not only for me, but also for community, because it's first time community manifested publicly their statements about marriage in detail, enabling to be corrected if necessary.

In large, community's logics is expressed in this matter as follows: after the Fall a human has become incapable for taking care of one's sexuality. Human started to look benefit for oneself, and not for others. Especially it is the case nowdays, according to community's point of view, giving a picture, that shows self-indulgence in sexual relationships worse than ever in human history. It tries to establish  convincing base for showing, that the kind of consecrated life, that have been capable the first Christians for, is actually quite appropriate today. Therefore community draws the conclusion:

"The only real solution is the return to the God's good adjustments, which we can learn from the Bible, to selfless brotherly love, which seeks benefit for others, instead of one's own."

Community's general position of speech

Community extends the thoughts of already published topics and of those found in J.A.'s apology. These show the same position of speech. Although community has almost no experience with integration of children to their kind of "spiritual family", yet speak they easily in the distance about certain "family-egoism" which they've noticed outside the community. They don't comprehend, how much abnegation demands bringing up one's own children. How could they, if they haven't been involved in that task themselves? There remains only a few leisure time for any type of egoism while being responsible for bringing up children, lest they grow into animals, instead of humans.

{Remark: If community fails in taking care of brother's spiritual health, then this unfortunate brother will be put out from community. Virtually here the responsibility of community ends. But with children you cannot treat likewise, as with dogs. If you expel your child, you may be put into prison. If you cease of taking care of your children, then just and only parents are those, who suffer directly and inescapably the consequences. Thus the responsible ones are very easily detected, unlike in the community, where responsibility for excluded ones is in spiritual sphere nominally enormous, but actually for reason of collective exclusion procedures it is defused, and going into particular it's either ambiguous or has no visible results. That's why the community's play of "spiritual family" doesn't carry the weight of secular family in its value, although such kind of play causes immense sufferings both for excluded ones and for relatives of them. What is the actual cost of wrong calculation in the community by excluding somebody? - Zero.}

In discourse of addressing outsiders, community observes themselves not as somebody who they are, but as somebody God intended them to be and as they should be, or as in a process of becoming somebody. Though normally these phenomenas of self-identification coexist friendly side by side, then community seems to replace the real situation with biblical concepts of identity. The real person with its actual position ("I want to marry") gives (through autosuggestion) place to self-identification through the Bible: "I am Christian, who by definition does not seek one's own benefit".

Speaking to outsiders, community manages to deny the real state of affairs. They give wrong picture of themselves especially in those topics which deal with marriage, family, children. Because there is the reality most contradicting with their "should be" smoke-screen. Best example for demagoguery on these issues is found in J.A.'s apology.

Consequently, through community's public website topics we can find at best the guidance, who Christians should be in general (according to community's opinion), but nothing particular about these persons themselves behind the treatises. Complete darkness in this sight, filled with impersonal, cold announcements with contents like: how misleading all the religious groups are, how one must actually live their lives. And finally we have got also instructions on marriage. If readers were conscious of real problems in the community, then the criticism in address to other curches and denominations, and also "should be" statements, would appear quite hypocritical.

Is there anybody eligible to marry today in the world?

Community writes:

"Paul would see the marriage for a Christian possible only when the reasons and motives for this are good in front of God."

Consequently, since the beginning years of community (in the last 1970's), there are no couples in the community, who have been measured up to God's standard (which is actually community's own settled), although those who had expressed their wish to marry, are all in all quite a lot. I would like to see personally the first super-couple, whom community gives their acceptance to marry. So, in reality, speaking about family and marriage, community introduces standard, which formally has its base on the Bible, but which actually leans only on set of Bible verses with biased interpretation supporting their overall practised singleness. See further my comments on community's explanations of 1 Thess 4:3-5; 1 Cor 7:9, 36 about this.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5

"It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God." (1. Thess 4:3-5, NIV)

Community remarks to this verse in footnote, that the German word "Gefäß" ('vessel') in Elbefelder translation refers to a wife rather than to one's own body (as we see in NIV translation). Community continues its explanation of this verse:

"Husband's treatment with his wife must be venerable and respectable, different from that which is spead amongst the unbelievers. This clear warning shows, that marriage is no protection against sexual sins. Also there, where sexuality is practiced, one must meet the great challenge to keep one's sexual desires under control, instead of being led by them."

Although community certifies, that Paul's warning is "clear" for them, I have some doubt of it. The explanation, that follows, isn't very convincing. Community nullifies the protective character of marriage against sexual desires altogether, for reason, that also in the marriage one must meet the challenge in controlling ones own desires. We may speculate, whether marriage has generally an effect or not in this matter. But particularly: community's kind of "holy single life" hasn't had enough effect to avoid sexual sins either. Contrary to this, singleness in its extreme form has been in the community rather direct reason for sexual sins (because there is in the community no place for sexuality, which is given by God himself).

Thus one could claim, that also singleness doesn't have any protective effect against sexual desires, because they still have to control their desires. Maybe community would agree with this, I don't know. But both claims seem to be strange for me personally. Even sincere prayer to God and striving for sanctification wouldn't give then protection against sexual sins, because we see in fact, that those who pray and consecrate themselves to God, still need to control their desires. I hope that having given these examples it is more understandable, why I think that community's argument here doesn't hold water.

Does marriage have really no protection against sexual sins?

It is true, that taking away from marriage both consecration to God and selfless love, there remains much less from the original effect of marriage. But just here one could see, that even leading a life without God, a monogamous marriage ally retains a certain effect for secular Western society. Of course, an average secular married couple is far from getting near to community's standard in every point (in seeking for God's will, in its rate of respectability, etc). But the secular family today, which is designed intrinsically by the concept of monogamous marriage ally, is a basic social unit in the West (and not only there). Without marriage ally, between one man and one woman, the whole Western social and moral structure (which is built on it) would collapse. Maybe Western society can be built on another basic element? Can be. But it doesn't change the fact, that taking away abruptly the existing traditional understanding about monogamous marriage, would cause social and moral disaster. That's one of many reasons, why Christians (and not only) in the Western world protest against several legislations pro homosexual marital allies: these would destroy the existing moral base, on which Western world has leaned on during centuries, and there is nothing to give even comparable instead of it. There would remain only obscure plurality of concepts about the notion 'family', which wouldn't be able anymore to give a firm base for building up society. Thus one may admit, that there is a certain morally defensive effect of marriage, not only for Christians, but even for secular people, and not just in their 'egoistic' private sphere, but in service of the whole society.

1 Corinthians 7

I focus myself henceforth on Community's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, because this is the key passage, which deals at most in the New Testament with marriage, as well as community's topic (finally). At reader's convenience the whole chapter (NIV translation) is given here to contextualize the verses discussed thereafter:

[Firstly, I would remind, that community's topic about marriage is written in German. Those, who know German - it is recommended to examine the original text of my quotations. I could translate wrongly and misunderstand the context.]

1 Cor 7:9

Explaining the second half of the verse 9 community complains of German Bible translation (i.e. Einheitsübersetzung), which is misleading according to them:

"...Es ist besser zu heiraten, als sich in Begierde zu verzehren …" (It's better to marry than to burn up in desires" - R.A.)

Community finds, that this kind of solution would indicate a low moral niveau, and Paul would not support this solution. Community proposes its own interpretation based on other German translation (i.e. revised version of Elbefelder Bibel, 1985) of this verse, which puts the explanatory word into brackets:

"Denn es ist besser, zu heiraten, als [vor Verlangen] zu brennen." ("Because it's better to marry than to tingle [with desire]" - R.A.)

...opening thus the door for community's interpretation:

"He [Paul - R.A.] thinks surely upon those, who would already identify themselves deep inside into conjugal form of life, bound with a certain human, being "inflamed" for fatherly care to family, and who would see their responsibility in educating children on the paths of God and giving himself as a present to his spouse as by God intended support and assistance."

The author of the topic gives a certain "waiting" nuance, which makes the interpretation more logical than that of Anonymous in the main part of chapter 6 in my website. Put another way, verse 9 gains the meaning, that it's better to marry than to wait the responsibilities of this selfless task. Incidentally, it seems now for me quite possible interpretation, although a bit naive. And it's a bit weird to hear that from community, who blames others for low moral niveau, while being themselves haunted by sexual desires, maybe even more than outsiders.

The problem appears to be a bit similar to the Fall in Genesis. People with "low moral niveau" would interpret, that eating fruit in the garden by Adam and Eve is a symbol of having illicit sexual intercourse. And it is hard to prove, whether the 'impure' interpretation is true or false. People with "high moral niveau" would interpret it as transgression of God's law, which has immeasurable effects to whole humankind, because it was the first transgression in human history.

Concerning 1 Cor 7:9, it is yet ridiculous to blame for low moral nieveau namely many Bible translators, who are devoted to Bible study, to study pf original texts, and who are conscious of many possible alternatives, and still prefer to translate this verse in "immoral" way. Usually the translation of the Bible isn't solo work, there are many authoritative theologians behind it. The same is with  NIV and other Bible translations, which community accepts, in spite of their "immoral" interpretation of this verse. Bible translations are thus compiled through competent dialogue and by careful using of words, which very probably filters out one's own impure imaginations, which do not have enough base to be accepted.

1 Cor 7 - whether brotherly advices or Tablets of Stone?

Community argues justifiably, that Paul advises to remain in the state as God has called them, whether single or married (especially in verses 17-24, which focus on change of status). But in my sight Paul does not give advice to the "should be" Christians, but to the real existing Christians, taking into consideration the real situation of them. We mustn't categorise the advices of this chapter only by one's status: single, married, widow, etc. It would be formal and looking through the individual persons with their specifical character, weaknesses, abilities. Paul gives advice, which seems the best in his eyes. but several times he makes concessions, through which 1 Cor 7 gains characteristically flexible tone. The words in 1 Cor 7 are not like Tablets of Stone, which are to be applied roughly to each category, without taking into consideration real situation. Treating 1 Cor 7 in this way, community has found itself in pretty difficult situation. This shapes also the general understanding of every single verse in this chapter.

• In case we treat 1 Cor 7 as a law book, we obtain rules ("Stay as you are!") with exlusions (read about it's consequence below, in my comment to 1 Cor 7:36). There are some verses, which could support this approach, e.g. in the the verse 17:

"Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches." (1 Cor 7:17, NIV)

• In case we treat 1 Cor 7 as Paul's advices, we obtain generally also the advices ("It's better, if you stay, as you are"), and not with exceptions, but with particular cases, which he has been mostly confronted with. Because a man cannot foresee all situations which might occur. Paul's advices are in some verses more strict, but in some verses they could be taken as a surprisingly modest opinion. Paul ends 1 Cor 7 with words (in Elbefelder Bible translation):

"Glückseliger ist sie aber, wenn sie so bleibt, nach meiner Meinung; ich denke aber, daß auch ich Gottes Geist habe." ("But she is more blessed, when she stays that way, in my opinion; but I think, that I have God's Spirit, too" - R.A.).

Even one might say, that this one is an exceptional case, then I think, that Paul still doesn't want to claim, that he is like God who knows, what is the best for every single situation (whether general or exceptional). He gives reasons for his advices, but accepts beside that also as right those solutions, which do not coincide with Paul's advices (see for this my comment below about 1 Cor 7:28).

Here we're confronted with quite opposite attitudes of Paul, both of which support the thought, that one should stay as they are. One opposite is very strict, and another one utmost mild. From which one should we be guided by, then, interpreting Paul's statements? From what should we be guided? From love? I have repeated already many times in all chapters of my website, what kind of love community applies in general and also in this case, according to my opinion.

Perspective of community's interpretation about 1 Cor 7

It would be unthinkable, that Paul would give 'loving advice' for all young adult people, who come to Christ, to freeze their singleness. He would not predestine all of them to live as single. And logically, also children of those parents, who come to Christ, would have a predestined future to lead a single life, if they still want to follow Christ in this community (i.e. in community's context: if they want to hold their Christian status at all). It is insanity to believe, that Paul would advise such a perspective for both the community as whole and for every single member of it. Paul would not take away the free will them. The congregation would grow thus exclusively through converts. Community's interpretation of Paul's better plan doesn't reckon at all with giving a physical birth of child by members of this congregation.

Marriage is not a small matter. It would be hypocritical to tell some young single convert: "Oh, forget that minor detail, marriage is nothing considerable to think about, beside God's grace He has shown to you." It isn't self-evident and spread practice, that all single converts will remain single for the rest of their life. Therefore it is bare-faced deceit not to inform this convert of this radical austerity right in the beginning of his/her joining the community. Although the convert might notice quite in the beginning, that there are only single ones in the community, it isn't reason enough, to leave one uninformed of this hard truth, that it's not so by chance. Convert has to get at first the right picture of community's practice, in order to arrive consciously at a decision, that joining this community really weighs up forsaking any realistic hope of starting family (in its traditional sense).

Any biblical arguments from my side?

Can be, that dealing with community's interpretation of 1 Cor 7 rationally, and observing its causes and effects, doesn't make them to rethink these problems about marriage and singleness. Always they can interpret it as spiritual weakness, when one drops off from community because of  bare wish to marry (which is in the community unthinkable). Always they can find some spiritual reasons (wrong motives, wish to have just sexual relationship etc.) not to accept one's volition to marry.

Really, I don't have much hope, that  community considers my arguments seriously, They can always remain in their own trodden interpretation, by circular reasoning: "But Paul says this," despite other cogent interpretations available to the given verse. For community the alternative interpretations have by default lesser authority, when these come from those, who are outside community; furthermore, when these come from the excluded one, who is surely imbued with false teachings of "religious groups".

Still I feel compelled to give some arguments on the base of a couple of Bible verses, which for me personally indicate, that Paul himself sees the protective effect of marriage in its essence, and not merely in the form of status quo, which freezes legalistically the marital status, allowing no exceptions in community. For sure - Paul isn't in his advices so rigorous as community is.

So, having hope against all hope, here below some reflecions of mine on a couple of Bible verses,

1 Cor 7:2

"But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2, NIV)

In Elbefelder Bibel there is 'Unzucht' ('sexual offence, fornication') for an equivalent to the word 'immorality' in NIV translation. In Greek the the word 'πορνεία' ('porneia') is used, sharing the same qualities of those in the contemporary English word 'pornography'. It seems, that Paul's advice, that follows thereafter, is in causal relationship with the word πορνεία, i.e. "Because of πορνεία be it so..."

According to some interpretators there were many kind of πορνεία practiced in Corinth by pagans, and Christians could be tempted. Moreover, this verse could be addressed not only to married couples, but might have been meant for single ones. Notice, that 1 Cor 7:1-6 can be easily addressed to single ones (who are about to marry), as an instruction for conjugal life in future. It sounds quite possible, considering that Paul introduces his advices for married ones (for first/second time?) from the verse 10 on.

Even if Paul addressed in verse 2 only married couples, then it shouldn't be overlooked, that this verse emphasises monogamous ally between man and wife.

Of course, Paul's message in this verse cannot be reformulated sufficiently through negation "Do not withdraw from each other". Paul antagonizes with his advice against diverse πορνεία (possibly against polygamy, etc) rather than speaks against withdrawing from each other.

Paul seems to maintain here the monogamous marriage as an effective solution for surmounting πορνεία. If it weren't so and Paul would have wanted to give only a message: "Remain as you are" or "Don't withdraw from each other", why should he have emphasised so strongly the monogamy? Paul doesn't say only, that each man should have his own wife, but he repeats his message, for avoiding any confusions, in reverse order: every wife should have her own man. Why is it necessary to emphasise monogamy as by God settled order that much, when the addressed ones are already in monogamous ally? Even if Paul's message would be restrained here with the content: "For avoiding fornication hold firm to your monogamous relationship", then with the stress (in its content value) laid on the word 'monogamous', and not on the words 'hold firm'. Consequently, it is highest probable, that Paul still regards monogamous marriage straight in its form and essence (and not just as status quo) as having a certain defensive effect against πορνεία.

1 Cor 7:28

"But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this." (1 Cor 7:28, NIV)

Here one can see Paul's mild and empathetic heart, concerning changing marital status. Although he would spare his fellow Christians from many troubles, which occur in marriage, he still makes here concessions, if one feels in heart, that single life is not for him. Could we imagine any concessions in this matter from community's side? Whether one has good reasons and motives for marriage or not, still I cannot imagine Paul, who denies to give his allowance to every brother, who comes to him: "You are spiritually weak", "You just wan't to have sex", "You think only on yourself, but not for others' benefit" etc.

Paul says in various ways, that the one, who remains single, does better than that one, who will marry (in verses 8, 32-34, 38). But it doesn't follow consequently, that those who marry, act in wrong, bad, sinful way. This verse confirms that. Leaning on Paul's own words: "If you do marry, you have not sinned." Paul doesn't add here any clauses, e.g. one has to have in this case a strong character, having had always others' needs in mind, or something else. One needn't be a superhuman to meet the requirements for marriage.

Paul says that you do better, if you remain single, but you do also right, when you marry (verse 38). You do right, you do not sin, if you marry. It is so different from the attitude of community. Paul has a good word for them, who neverheless decide upon marriage, but community has seen it (by now) in particular cases only as a selfish wish. Paul advises to remain single, but seems to treat also marriage as acceptable solution that is likely to happen, while it would be a revolution in the community, if a marriage took place there.

1 Cor 7:36

"If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married." (1 Cor 7:36, NIV)

Community comments it thus:

"The expression 'his virgin' makes clear, that it's about two people, who had given promise to each other, when they became Christians, and have already been adjusted themselves to common conjugal life."

It is surprising, how much information is community able to read out from only one word, saying not only, that their interpretation is probable, but - it is clear, that these two persons had given promise, and they have been adjusted themselves to conjugal life. Careful reader of community's topics will notice, that the word 'clear' has in community's discourse too frequent occurrence, devaluating it a great deal. We cannot read out from this single word such a copious information as community does it. This is just a blind guess. Also verses 37-38 do not give base for such a detailed exegesis.

There are several alternative interpretations for the Greek pronoun αὐτός ('autos', 'one's own', 'his'), in which the possessive relationship refers rather to this virgin as a servant or refers even (close your eyes, again a very impure interpretation) to daughterly relationship. Many English Bible translations give explanatory word 'daughter' (in brackets).

However. we don't know exactly, how usual, exceptional or 'impure' could be Paul's solution for each type of relationships in the context of that time. But community's explanation about verse 36 is elaborated merely from wish to show the case between these two people as much exceptional as possible, certifying their explanation with valueless word 'clear,' and commenting verses 37-38 thus:

"Normal case does not exclude the exceptions, but by every exception, every individual case must be proved in front of God."

... letting show not only, that Paul gives here advice for a particular case, but showing it as an exceptional case. And even this exceptional case will come true as an actual marriage ally only exceptionally: in case it is proven enough in front of God. Community manages to create thus a double standard, because the words "in front of God" entail actually a great bulk of community's own phobic presuppositions about marriage, while processing this exceptional case.

"Über den Wert der Reinheit oder Gedanken zum Umgang mit der Sexualität"

There occured recently another topic on community's website, which concentrates the thoughts to the question about purity and sexuality. Although it doesn't show any change of behavioural position either, then it is remarkable, that basically first time community introduces 1 Cor 13 with conceptually new character of love (for community). Community cites 1 Cor 13:4-7, commenting, that selfless love is against one's own conceitedness ('die Eitelkeit') and does not turn into bitterness, when it is left unanswered or disregarded.

But right in the same article I see the things, that show exactly the conceited attitude of community towards other churches. Community starts the topic, listing again the shortcomings of "churches" (quotation marks by community) and Christian world (actually "so called Christian world" in community's usage). These "churches" don't recognise this and that as sin, they are far away from God's standard, etc. And in this background community represents themselves again as angles. Community's voice from Heaven above:

"Nevertheless there are only a few of them amongst the young "Christian" men, who haven't consumed such kind of dirty and deeply inhuman pictures, etc."

From that one may deduce, that community claims to have at least more of them, who have overcome such impurities. At the latter part of the topic the author of it says something, that reveals us more the self-image of community in this sight:

"Also some of us have got stuck deeply into above described sins. As Jesus called us to repentance, we experienced a big change. There, where we've felt ourselves enslaved earlier in the desires and sins, now through turning to Jesus we have power and freedom for saying 'no' to it."

Hence my question to community: if you experienced so big change in your lives as you claim here, then why do you have a lot of brothers (probably also sisters, I know personally more about brothers), who repeatedly confess sexual sins to each other, and also a fair number of them, who have been excluded from community for severe sexual sins? What is the base for haughtiness to claim, that you have such a power and freedom from Jesus as you describe, and other churches do not have this?

Conclusion

Readers of my subtopic surely noticed, that instead of community's favourite word "clear", I usually prefer to use words like "seems", "seems to be", "appears to be", "very probably", "very likely" etc. Paul's statements about marriage in 1 Cor 7 aren't so "clear" and "self-evident" as community might use to say. More possible is rather, that Paul woudn't have expected, that his compassionate and brotherly advices will be set in stone in such a rigorous manner. I believe, that every interpretation of Bible, which takes away the actual free will in making choice between marriage and singleness, and gives logically for his church such a confined perspective as I described above, cannot stand for God's economy, and cannot be out of love.

Nevertheless I thank community, that they made a courageous step, publishing topics about marriage and singleness, and about purity, sexuality. Really, it is a giant leap closer to honesty. Readers can be now much more conscious, what is waiting them, in case they would like to join community. And describing first time more closer the features of love 1 Cor 13, is also a positive step. It remains as litmus paper, showing our measure of love. Let it be between us and God to solve the question: how much love have we shown towards others, that rather lends a hand, where help is needed, and hopes everything, even the turn into better of other churhces, instead of shooting them with truth.

Oh... It has been really exhausting to have this vicious fight. God has not called us to do things like that. I call J.A., Gerald Kluge and others to make peace. This is the most reasonable thing we can do, I think. We can not change each other, only God can.

Riho

September, 2011