All single persons may take heart in knowing that the totality of their life circumstances are not a mistake on God’s part, but a divinely orchestrated “gift” of sorts, and may thusly be embraced with contentment no matter what those circumstances might be (Phil 4:11–12). This general notion of a “gift” is one that gives hope and moral direction, and is one that may be firmly endorsed. But making this concession is not an endorsement of the categorical idea of a “gift of singleness” broadly possessed in the modern church. 

The tendency among young men and women to delay marriage (or even to abandon it entirely) in contemporary Western society has given birth to a curiously parallel increase of interest in Paul’s passing comment in 1 Corinthians 7:6–9 about his own marital state and implication that there is a “gift of singleness” to be had and even sought in the modern church. Note the full pericope in question:
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Paul offers very little commentary on his own statements, and peppers them with odd concessions that are uncharacteristic of the ordinarily straightforward Apostle. And since this passage has few parallels in the NT, the witness of the analogia scriptura is limited. All this means that these verses are difficult to interpret. Not surprisingly, there are several options about the “gift” Paul mentions in verse 7. Among a litany of options, three stand out:

Paul’s gift is a gift of singleness, a gift that he shares automatically with all single people.
Paul’s gift is a gift of singleness, a gift that he shares with many single people, namely, those who have, by God’s grace, become content with their singleness (and perhaps also those with a same-sex attraction, but that’s an outlying situation for another day).
Paul’s gift is a gift of continence—extraordinary control over his sexual drive—that allows him carry out uncommon tasks for the Christ Church without the burden of unfulfilled passions or the need to provide for a spouse. He shares this gift with very few single people.

The simple lack of data makes the decision a difficult one, but a careful look at Paul’s context and words offer more light than might be seen at first blush. Note the following:
The General Context: Paul is writing to a group of believers experiencing several forms of marital dysfunction who have approached Paul with questions. Some are faithfully married and concerned about sinning by having sex with their own spouses. Others had apparently been abandoned by their spouses when they embraced Christ. Some were apparently widowed. Others may never have married at all.
Paul’s lead statement in v. 1 has been debated for centuries—on two accounts: the meaning of the statement and the speaker. Does the statement mean that (1) Christian men and women should literally not touch each other (KJV/NASB)? Does it mean that (2) it is good for Christian men and women not to marry (NIV84), often with the corresponding idea that singleness is an equal option or even a superior option to marriage? Does it mean that (3) Christian men and women should never engage in any sexual activity and pursue celibacy as a more spiritual path (ESV, NIV2011, CSV)? And secondly, is this statement Paul’s own statement or is he summarizing for his readers the “matter they wrote about”? These decisions are crucial to our discussion, and the lack of unanimity here will lead to lack of unanimity later.
While reading verse 1 as a prohibition of all physical contact between men and women (option 1) has been a popular one within select purity codes, it proves too much (one must beg the question by inserting the qualifier “before marriage”); further, most have recognized the clause as idiomatic. The question thus migrates to the meaning of the idiom. The NIV84 reading that “it is good for a man not to marry” (option 2) has been thoroughly repudiated by Gordon Fee, and has been almost universally abandoned. This leaves option 3, that it is good for men and women—even married men and women—not to have sexual relations. The suggestion here is that celibacy sets the abstaining believer apart as more than usually spiritual (a Platonic idea adopted by many monastics/ascetics or those who pursue the priesthood within the Romanist model).
Read More
Related Posts:

That any endeavor to soften the blunt message of Scripture that homosexuality is utterly perverse and shameful and ought to be forsaken entirely runs a risk of blurring the absolute difference between the Christian position and that of the sinful flesh, and thereby risks making repentance seem less urgent and of making redemption seem less liberating.

[Read Part One]

That affixing any adjective that describes a heinous sin or lifestyle to what we are in Christ is blasphemy. Well might a man tear his clothes and gnash his teeth to hear or read such a phrase used anywhere, but especially in the church of God assembled.
That the judicial powers of the church ought to be used to discipline and discourage such blasphemous speech.
That no new or special overtures ought to be necessary to prosecute those whose manner of life is so obviously contrary to the example Scripture requires of ministers of the gospel, especially when they have committed other sins (as blasphemy), that ought to be disciplined.
That the foregoing thesis is not limited to such adjectives as same-sex attracted, but that it would have equal propriety in condemning the blasphemous terms of movements to normalize swindling, stealing, reviling, drunkenness, or the other sins of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, if ever such movements should arise.
That the absence of such movements, coupled with the existence of a militant movement to normalize homosexuality, is the reason for the church’s present concern with sexual ethics rather than with those others.
That notwithstanding that no special overtures should be necessary to preserve the church’s purity in this matter, yet the practical exigencies of the situation commend the contemporary adoption of such overtures.
That the prevalence of other sins in no way deprives the church of its right and duty to condemn homosexual immorality.
That past failures in this or other matters in no way deprives the church of its right and duty to stand firm in this matter, but only indicate it has need to repent in such other matters.
That any endeavor to soften the blunt message of Scripture that homosexuality is utterly perverse and shameful and ought to be forsaken entirely runs a risk of blurring the absolute difference between the Christian position and that of the sinful flesh, and thereby risks making repentance seem less urgent and of making redemption seem less liberating.
That they who convert from homosexual sin to Christ will often be drawn because of the difference in experience between his service and that of their previous life.
That those who commit homosexual sin are no less human thereby, and are to be prayed for and ministered to no less than any other people, in keeping with the Lord’s admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves.
That all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and are absolute lawbreakers from the standpoint of his law, for every command of which they are responsible (Jas. 2:10).
That the foregoing being true, there is no occasion for believers to be proud or to look down upon or despise those who are ensnared in sexual immorality of any type. As an old adage says, ‘there but for the grace of God there go I.’
That God’s hand is not shortened that he cannot save (Isa. 59:1), and that it is his pleasure to effectually redeem his elect out of all types of sinful living (1 Cor. 6:11).
That the church, as such, should diligently witness to those ensnared in sexual immorality of all types.
That mercy takes different forms, depending upon the nature and needs of its recipients.
That it is no act of mercy to minimize the severity of a person’s sin, and that mercy too contains within itself the other virtues, such as hatred of evil. As Jude says, “save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (Jude 23).
That he is mistaken who imagines that mercy is only passive and meek, and who does not recognize that it is also, as befits the occasion, zealous and aggressive.
That it is an act of mercy for the church to declare, frequently and plainly (yet with tact), that those ensnared in homosexual sin ought to repent hastily for the sake of their present and future lives.
That it is no mercy to be inconsistent in these matters or to waver as regards fidelity to the historic position of God’s people.
That friendship with the world is enmity to God (Jas. 4:4), an inexcusable act of infidelity that profits nothing and brings only woe. The world has ever shown itself a fickle and cruel seductress, always intimating its acceptance and respect if this or that offensive doctrine is surrendered, but never giving such respect and always desiring more compromise and infidelity on the part of the church.
That a desire for the world’s acceptance lies behind much of what factions such as the National Partnership seek. The notion that the church might offend unbelievers seems to loom large in their thought, however much they might say that this is only a desire to be effective in reaching the lost.
That the contemporary language of many of our ministers is liable to corruption and to being used to excuse a lack of zeal in contending “for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We are often told of the need to ‘contextualize’ the difficult teachings of the church. How easily this can come to mean that we compromise to avoid giving offense, that the one who ‘contextualizes’ so tempers his words as to attempt to make an unpopular teaching palatable to infidels. How different this is apt to be, in practice, from the direct and simple style of such examples as John the Baptist or our Lord and his apostles.
That he who avouches his orthodoxy ought not to be taken at his own word, but should have his actual teaching and, more than that, the fruit of his teaching, examined to see whether it is good or bad. For it is the mark of the heretic that he regards himself as right and faithful where everyone else has gone astray, and therefore self-testimony is always to be abetted by careful examination.
That he who holds to the orthodox faith is yet unfaithful if he does not defend it actively against those that would subvert it. For Scripture says that the maintenance of sound doctrine is a duty of elders when it says that an elder “must hold to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9).
That one should not listen to the wicked, nor give heed to the slanders of unbelievers, except it be to refute them. At the 47th General Assembly one pastor stated that hatred of homosexuals is believed to be the foremost characteristic of believers among contemporary youth, his point being that we should labor to modify this perception of us that the world has. Such a statement only proves that the world is ensnared in the lies of Satan and misunderstands us and our beliefs.
That to be thus misunderstood is neither surprising nor an occasion for modifying our presentation of the faith; for doing so would not release unbelievers from deception, and would likely only lead to them believing some other lie about us. And have we forgotten our Lord’s teaching that “blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matt. 5:11), and that we are to meet such a prospect, not with embarrassment and a public relations campaign to rehabilitate our image, but are rather to “rejoice and be glad, for [our] reward is great in heaven” (v. 12)?
That the world lies in the power of the evil one is seen especially in this, that it misunderstands the nature of hatred. For the unbeliever regards any disapproval of the behavior of others as an act of hatred and unjust judgment, no matter its motivation or manner of expression. Yet hatred is not disapproval as such, but rather a feeling of strong antipathy which might be either wicked or righteous, depending upon its object and motivations.
That the respect of the world is neither good nor desirable, and that its presence would indicate infidelity to our Lord, whose words the world hates (Jn. 15:18-25). For he who chases the acceptance of the world chases a phantom, unless he be willing to surrender fully his service to Christ; and what does it profit a man to gain the world and to lose his soul (Matt. 16:26)?
That what is enjoined to increase the church’s effectiveness and size has ever tended to do the opposite.
That doctrinal decline is gradual and accomplished in phases. Seldom, if ever, does orthodoxy yield to obvious heresy in a single act of change. In small increments fidelity gives way to apostasy.

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.

Written by J.V. Fesko |
Monday, August 19, 2024
Search engine companies such as Google have claimed that such SEME is not possible, and they seek to operate with transparency for the processes that inform their search engine algorithms. The chances are high that search engine companies do their best to operate in a fair and transparent manner. Nevertheless, this doesn’t preclude or eliminate the possibility that a company might engage in SEME. As Forrest Gump might theologize, “Sinners are as sinners do.” In other words, in a fallen world we should never put our absolute and unswerving trust in any organization.

Every day millions of people use internet search engines for business, research, entertainment, and other various tasks. Many likely use search engines the way they would use a dictionary or, in days gone by, a phone book. The assumption might be that the search engine is value neutral: you plug in search terms and your desired query pops up with your results. But we should recognize that few things in life are truly value neutral. Software programmers have made decisions on how search engines work, and they have made value judgments about how the search engine should function. There are several different ways their value judgments appear in the seemingly innocuous use of a search engine.
Advertisements
I used to work for a Christian nonprofit organization that strategized how our institution could come up on the first page of a search (i.e., search engine optimization). One of the ways to do this was to ensure certain key words were embedded in our web pages so that, if those words were searched for, our web site would have a greater chance of appearing on the first page of a search. This was the low-cost option. The higher-cost option was to pay for our organization to appear first. We decided to budget a certain amount of money to use ad words to boost our odds of coming up on the first search results page. When you search for “books,” for example, why do Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Books-A-Million appear on the first page of the seventeen billion-plus results that come up? This is largely because they have paid the search engine company. Like placing a large phone book advertisement that catches your eye when flipping through its pages, companies spend money to ensure that their business comes up early in your search. Such a value judgment may make for good business, but does it mean that he who spends the most money is necessarily the best fountain of knowledge? In other words, just because someone pays to get to the top doesn’t mean that it is a click-worthy link.
A Cultural Mirror
When you type in a search query, one of the most common factors that accounts for initial results is the auto-complete function. One of the more popular forms of the auto-complete phenomenon is Wired.com’s series of auto-complete interviews. These videos feature one or more celebrities answering popular search queries that appear such as, “What is [insert celebrity name]’s real name, favorite movie, or favorite food.” Each of the suggested auto-completes represents the most popularly searched queries on the internet. But this raises the question: Is a search engine a genuine database of knowledge, or have software engineers designed search engines to reflect the people using them? Do you access a knowledge database or a cultural mirror? The answer to this question likely hinges on what type of query you enter.
Read More
Related Posts: