XPost: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian   
   roman-catholic, england.religion.misc   
   XPost: free.christians, hk.soc.religion.christianity   
   From: œ@att.net   
      
   Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some   
   sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19 on   
   divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case   
   between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10).   
   This remark prompted Jesus' teaching on the value of celibacy "for the   
   sake of the kingdom":   
      
   "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted.   
   Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some,   
   because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced   
   marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this   
   ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11-12).   
      
   Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. "Be fruitful and   
   multiply" is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a   
   general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and   
   woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single,   
   and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as   
   committing it.   
      
   Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage   
   is mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be "the   
   husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping   
   his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does   
   not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's   
   Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). This means, they argue, that only a man   
   who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God's   
   Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or   
   unproven.   
      
   This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the   
   husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married,   
   then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful   
   in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless   
   husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the   
   plural) would not qualify.   
      
   In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final   
   absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements   
   (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting   
   them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or   
   children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such   
   excessive literalism must be rejected.   
      
   An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old   
   Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry,   
   was forbidden to take a wife: "The word of the Lord came to me: 'You   
   shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this   
   place'" (Jer. 16:1-2). Of course, this is different from Catholic   
   priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine   
   precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)