Covenant Life Church: A Shameful Example Of All That Is Wrong In Contemporary Singleness Teaching
Captain Sensbile writes (and not without due fear and trembling): In a blog post outlining the sermon given recently at her Covenant Life church on 1 Corinthians 7, Carolyn McCulley has shamefully not mentioned the one useful thing that the dean of their Pastors College, Jeff Purswell, actually said. That was that it is theologically better to speak of a gift of “celibacy” rather than “singleness”.
Instead she quotes all the typically muddled, confused and sloppy thinking that exemplifies the contemporary church's teaching on this issue, so she can just about interpret his sermon any which way she chooses. But who can blame her really? It is woolly, misleading, and in many areas, downright wrong. Despite acknowledging that celibacy shouldn't be confused with singleness, that's exactly what he goes on to do! Genuis!
Here are a few quotes from Jeff’s sermon that I have noted from reading her helpful extract:
1) "This text is extremely vulnerable to misinterpretation. Any sermon preached on this text is guaranteed to be misunderstood by some and may well offend many." Jeff - there might be a reason for this. That reason could be that these sermons are deliberately made to be open to as many interpretations as possible so that the likes of Josh Harris and Carolyn McCulley can save face, instead of honestly admitting that Covenant Life has got this issue badly wrong. No surprise then that they may be "misunderstood" although I doubt whether much actual offence is caused. It's too woolly for that.
2) "What this text does do, and it does so powerfully, is that it affirms the goodness of singleness." Where does it do that, Jeff? Paul talks of a gifting towards celibacy and gives advice in a time of present crisis. Nowhere does this text affirm the "goodness of singleness".
3) "It's not a subpar existence." Oh really? Sure for those gifted with celibacy and who renounce marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, or for those that wish to be relieved of extra worry in a time of present crisis like the church Paul was writing to. But when neither of those conditions are in place -- which they won't be for the vast majority of listeners to the sermon -- a “subpar” existence is exactly what singleness is. Why do Christian leaders continually mislead their flock in this way? Are they just trying to be kind? It’s actually cruel, because it perpetuates the problem instead of tackling it head on and thereby coming up with solutions.
4) Perfect example of typical woolliness here: "It also shows us the benefits that come when God calls a person to live, or so arranges that a person live, their life without a spouse, be that for a SEASON of life, or all of life. " The benefit being, in Paul's personal opinion, a life of "undivided devotion to the Lord" in a time of crisis, right Jeff? Well, why not make that clear then? And note all the emphasis on God's "call" or "arrange(ment)". Nothing about how singleness can come about because of the lack of men in the church, or the church's trendy new teachings, or the lack of male leadership in leading a wife to marriage in a timely fashion, or a lack of male leadership in general - zilch on that. No, it's all God's doing apparently. In effect, if you are single, then God has called or arranged that for you. Okay, it may only be for a "season" (note the placebo of "season" here) but frankly, don't blame anyone but God if you are single. Isn't that basically what Jeff is saying here? No one should believe this!
5) "Here's how I would sum it up:" Great, can't wait for this! It's bound to be clear, right?
6) Er, wrong: "Singleness, when given by God, and pursued for God, brings glory to God." Huh? So is he saying here there is the chance we might be single when it's not given by God? But ... that contradicts what he has just said...
7) "The single life is a reality for many people." You don't say! Wow! God is really giving this man some deep, deep insights here...
8) "This text shows us it's not an inferior reality. It's not an inferior mode of existence." Speaking as a married man with children, I cannot understand how you have the nerve to prooftext what Paul is saying to make out singleness is equal to a rich family life, without the gifting that Paul had, and without there being a present crisis. Of course, no one will actually believe this anyway. But what it does do is make people who are vulnerable in their faith question whether this God is a God that they can truly believe in and trust. If God doesn't understand their deep need for a spouse and the pain of barrenness (which He does of course) then how can they serve such an alien entity? The singleness “experts” (I use that term lightly of course) that Covenant Life church has spawned, love to bang on about making "an idol" out of marriage. Haven't they just made an idol out of the god of singleness?
9) Oooh - I love this bit coming up here. Apart from the obvious doubt sown in people's minds as to whether they are "called" to singleness or not -- like you wouldn't know if you had a gifting for celibacy! -- just look at the weasel words coming up now. Plain English award-winner this man is not: "When God calls someone to life as a single, and when they walk it out in His power, which He promises to provide, and when they walk it out for His glory, then the single life--like married life--can be, it SHOULD be, fulfilling and fruitful and most importantly, God-glorifying." But just to ram home the obvious for you Jeff, circumstantial singleness is NOT the same as being called and equipped to live as a celibate. Is that such a difficult thing to say? Wouldn't it have clarified matters somewhat? Oh, but we can't have clarity on this issue! Silly Captain Sensible! Think of the trouble it would cause the likes of Joshua Harris and Carolyn McCulley!
10) But there is some clarity given here. Just such a shame it is a lie: "(I)f you are single now, that's God's call for you right now." Wrong! There are many reasons why so many Christians are single. Don't blame our collective or individual wrong actions on God, please!
11) "In a world where those who are single are sometimes marginalized, sometimes excluded, these texts are clarifying and affirming and they should be wonderfully encouraging." Huh? Where is the clarification, Jeff? What is “wonderfully encouraging” exactly for the vast majority of Christian singles who are circumstantially single?
12) "For those called to be single, be it for a season, even a long season, or for life, whether you desire it, or whether you don't, I think God would want to encourage you this morning that your singleness, given by God, and pursued for God, brings glory to God. God is sovereign and if He has so ordained for whatever reason, for however long, that you to be single, He will empower you to fulfill this call. " Oh what weasely waffle here! Enough blaming God for our wrong actions! It's wrong, it's bad, it's turning singles away from God, it's causing singles to be ineffective in their Christian walk as they struggle to live without the helper God knows nearly all of us need, and -- it's a lie. Enough making single people feel guilty for desiring marriage, as in "whether you desire (the call to be single), or whether you don't". As if they are being sinfully discontent with "God's call" if they desire marriage – God’s idea in the first place! These are lies from Satan; we must NOT believe them.
13) Ah, now finally, after making such a muddle of things and confusing people, here is something Jeff should have made clear from the start: "Biblical singleness is purposeful. It's not singleness by default, it's singleness with a purpose..." Great! Amen! Oh, but he has to go and spoil it doesn't he....
14) "... and a passion to serve the church, to extend the gospel, which is really the call for every person in the church." Huh and double huh! So, hang on, Biblical singleness has a purpose, and that purpose is the same for everyone, so really the call to singleness can be applied to everyone? Oh he has to just go and scramble everyone's brain again doesn't he! So the single person thinks: "I am single, therefore God must have called me to be single, therefore God must have a purpose for this, therefore I shouldn't sinfully desire marriage as then I might be thwarting God's purpose. Oh, but then Jeff is married, so how do I know if my purpose is to remain single and serve God or pursue marriage and serve God? I guess I must just 'wait on the Lord then'. Whatever that means. Just do nothing I suppose."
15) Final words of encouragement from Jeff to those "for whom singleness is undesirable." Oooh - how exciting, what's this going to be? It's a promise from the Lord apparently! A promise that is "rooted in His love"! A promise that "holds out hope"! Fabulous! What is it? "(L)et not the eunuch say, 'Behold, I am a dry tree.' For thus says the LORD: 'To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.'" (Isaiah 56:3-5) Oh, it's a message to eunuchs. And what does Jesus say about eunuchs? There are three types; those that can't marry because of the way they were born, or because something happened to them later in life that has made marriage impossible, or those that have renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom. So ... this ... doesn't ... apply ... to ... virtually ... everyone ... listening .... then. Oh, and that's the encouraging promise of God to those that are circumstantially single then? That they should just give up any hopes and dreams of a loving husband or wife and godly children in this life? The life that Scripture makes plain God does want just about all of us to enjoy?
Is this really the best that Covenant Life can do? Are they really concerned about Christian singles? Or are they more concerned about upholding their own reputation? Which to me anyway is now in absolute tatters.
Instead she quotes all the typically muddled, confused and sloppy thinking that exemplifies the contemporary church's teaching on this issue, so she can just about interpret his sermon any which way she chooses. But who can blame her really? It is woolly, misleading, and in many areas, downright wrong. Despite acknowledging that celibacy shouldn't be confused with singleness, that's exactly what he goes on to do! Genuis!
Here are a few quotes from Jeff’s sermon that I have noted from reading her helpful extract:
1) "This text is extremely vulnerable to misinterpretation. Any sermon preached on this text is guaranteed to be misunderstood by some and may well offend many." Jeff - there might be a reason for this. That reason could be that these sermons are deliberately made to be open to as many interpretations as possible so that the likes of Josh Harris and Carolyn McCulley can save face, instead of honestly admitting that Covenant Life has got this issue badly wrong. No surprise then that they may be "misunderstood" although I doubt whether much actual offence is caused. It's too woolly for that.
2) "What this text does do, and it does so powerfully, is that it affirms the goodness of singleness." Where does it do that, Jeff? Paul talks of a gifting towards celibacy and gives advice in a time of present crisis. Nowhere does this text affirm the "goodness of singleness".
3) "It's not a subpar existence." Oh really? Sure for those gifted with celibacy and who renounce marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, or for those that wish to be relieved of extra worry in a time of present crisis like the church Paul was writing to. But when neither of those conditions are in place -- which they won't be for the vast majority of listeners to the sermon -- a “subpar” existence is exactly what singleness is. Why do Christian leaders continually mislead their flock in this way? Are they just trying to be kind? It’s actually cruel, because it perpetuates the problem instead of tackling it head on and thereby coming up with solutions.
4) Perfect example of typical woolliness here: "It also shows us the benefits that come when God calls a person to live, or so arranges that a person live, their life without a spouse, be that for a SEASON of life, or all of life. " The benefit being, in Paul's personal opinion, a life of "undivided devotion to the Lord" in a time of crisis, right Jeff? Well, why not make that clear then? And note all the emphasis on God's "call" or "arrange(ment)". Nothing about how singleness can come about because of the lack of men in the church, or the church's trendy new teachings, or the lack of male leadership in leading a wife to marriage in a timely fashion, or a lack of male leadership in general - zilch on that. No, it's all God's doing apparently. In effect, if you are single, then God has called or arranged that for you. Okay, it may only be for a "season" (note the placebo of "season" here) but frankly, don't blame anyone but God if you are single. Isn't that basically what Jeff is saying here? No one should believe this!
5) "Here's how I would sum it up:" Great, can't wait for this! It's bound to be clear, right?
6) Er, wrong: "Singleness, when given by God, and pursued for God, brings glory to God." Huh? So is he saying here there is the chance we might be single when it's not given by God? But ... that contradicts what he has just said...
7) "The single life is a reality for many people." You don't say! Wow! God is really giving this man some deep, deep insights here...
8) "This text shows us it's not an inferior reality. It's not an inferior mode of existence." Speaking as a married man with children, I cannot understand how you have the nerve to prooftext what Paul is saying to make out singleness is equal to a rich family life, without the gifting that Paul had, and without there being a present crisis. Of course, no one will actually believe this anyway. But what it does do is make people who are vulnerable in their faith question whether this God is a God that they can truly believe in and trust. If God doesn't understand their deep need for a spouse and the pain of barrenness (which He does of course) then how can they serve such an alien entity? The singleness “experts” (I use that term lightly of course) that Covenant Life church has spawned, love to bang on about making "an idol" out of marriage. Haven't they just made an idol out of the god of singleness?
9) Oooh - I love this bit coming up here. Apart from the obvious doubt sown in people's minds as to whether they are "called" to singleness or not -- like you wouldn't know if you had a gifting for celibacy! -- just look at the weasel words coming up now. Plain English award-winner this man is not: "When God calls someone to life as a single, and when they walk it out in His power, which He promises to provide, and when they walk it out for His glory, then the single life--like married life--can be, it SHOULD be, fulfilling and fruitful and most importantly, God-glorifying." But just to ram home the obvious for you Jeff, circumstantial singleness is NOT the same as being called and equipped to live as a celibate. Is that such a difficult thing to say? Wouldn't it have clarified matters somewhat? Oh, but we can't have clarity on this issue! Silly Captain Sensible! Think of the trouble it would cause the likes of Joshua Harris and Carolyn McCulley!
10) But there is some clarity given here. Just such a shame it is a lie: "(I)f you are single now, that's God's call for you right now." Wrong! There are many reasons why so many Christians are single. Don't blame our collective or individual wrong actions on God, please!
11) "In a world where those who are single are sometimes marginalized, sometimes excluded, these texts are clarifying and affirming and they should be wonderfully encouraging." Huh? Where is the clarification, Jeff? What is “wonderfully encouraging” exactly for the vast majority of Christian singles who are circumstantially single?
12) "For those called to be single, be it for a season, even a long season, or for life, whether you desire it, or whether you don't, I think God would want to encourage you this morning that your singleness, given by God, and pursued for God, brings glory to God. God is sovereign and if He has so ordained for whatever reason, for however long, that you to be single, He will empower you to fulfill this call. " Oh what weasely waffle here! Enough blaming God for our wrong actions! It's wrong, it's bad, it's turning singles away from God, it's causing singles to be ineffective in their Christian walk as they struggle to live without the helper God knows nearly all of us need, and -- it's a lie. Enough making single people feel guilty for desiring marriage, as in "whether you desire (the call to be single), or whether you don't". As if they are being sinfully discontent with "God's call" if they desire marriage – God’s idea in the first place! These are lies from Satan; we must NOT believe them.
13) Ah, now finally, after making such a muddle of things and confusing people, here is something Jeff should have made clear from the start: "Biblical singleness is purposeful. It's not singleness by default, it's singleness with a purpose..." Great! Amen! Oh, but he has to go and spoil it doesn't he....
14) "... and a passion to serve the church, to extend the gospel, which is really the call for every person in the church." Huh and double huh! So, hang on, Biblical singleness has a purpose, and that purpose is the same for everyone, so really the call to singleness can be applied to everyone? Oh he has to just go and scramble everyone's brain again doesn't he! So the single person thinks: "I am single, therefore God must have called me to be single, therefore God must have a purpose for this, therefore I shouldn't sinfully desire marriage as then I might be thwarting God's purpose. Oh, but then Jeff is married, so how do I know if my purpose is to remain single and serve God or pursue marriage and serve God? I guess I must just 'wait on the Lord then'. Whatever that means. Just do nothing I suppose."
15) Final words of encouragement from Jeff to those "for whom singleness is undesirable." Oooh - how exciting, what's this going to be? It's a promise from the Lord apparently! A promise that is "rooted in His love"! A promise that "holds out hope"! Fabulous! What is it? "(L)et not the eunuch say, 'Behold, I am a dry tree.' For thus says the LORD: 'To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.'" (Isaiah 56:3-5) Oh, it's a message to eunuchs. And what does Jesus say about eunuchs? There are three types; those that can't marry because of the way they were born, or because something happened to them later in life that has made marriage impossible, or those that have renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom. So ... this ... doesn't ... apply ... to ... virtually ... everyone ... listening .... then. Oh, and that's the encouraging promise of God to those that are circumstantially single then? That they should just give up any hopes and dreams of a loving husband or wife and godly children in this life? The life that Scripture makes plain God does want just about all of us to enjoy?
Is this really the best that Covenant Life can do? Are they really concerned about Christian singles? Or are they more concerned about upholding their own reputation? Which to me anyway is now in absolute tatters.
posted by Captain Sensible at 3:00 PM
4 Comments:
About this "undivided devotion" in the absence of any "present crisis", I love what Debbie Maken has to say on her blog in response to a comment:
"(T)he "devotion" factor runs better for the marrieds for they are sexually fulfilled and grounded as God intended, unlike the floundering single meandering through life, love, relationships, jobs, recreational pursuits, and so on."
This is just so true! Most circumstantially single people -- for which read most single people -- honestly admit that that their singleness causes a distraction from the Lord rather than any "undivided devotion".
And no wonder! They are not settled. They go from one "relationship" or "possibility" or "friendship" to another, which all takes its toll on the human heart. They battle loneliness, so they attend social event after social event in an effort to stave off the return to an emply place. They struggle with sexual temptation. They become very inward-looking and self-obsessed. The women grieve their barrenness. The men devote too much time to their computers or develop strange obsessive hobbies...and I could go on.
They are neither "called" to singleness, nor "gifted" for singleness, but rather it is "not good" for them to be alone.
Too many church leaders are giving the Devil a foothold by misusing 1 Corinthians 7 in this way, and the result is huge numbers of ineffective Christians, as well as a lack of godly children.
When will people wake up to the fact that the Devil is behind this protracted singleness amongst Christians and most church leaders are unwittingly being used as his foot soldiers?
Great point about the "eunuchs passage," Captain. It's hard to believe how someone with a modicum of sense could choose that verse to quote to the masses of Christian singles. I'm sure that most of them would appreciate being referred to as a "eunuch" just as much as I did!
On a different note, I frequently find myself wishing, at least when I read comments such as Purswell's, that he and other long-time marrieds could have had as long a season of singleness and celibacy and childlessness as some of the rest of us...just to see if they would be as content as they like to advise us eunuchs to be.
Thanks for your comment, Anonymous.
Confusing the huge numbers of circumstantially single people, with those few who are genuinely gifted and purposefully called to lead a celibate life, seems to be the crux of many of the problems we have in the contemporary church.
I understand what you are saying about most of those who spout this nonsense being married, and probably married since they were young.
I hope it doesn't take until their own children suffer from the effects of their teaching that they really see the damage it is doing.
However, even experiencing protracted singleness first hand is no guarantee of understanding. Look at Carolyn McCulley. I do wonder if she is deluded into thinking that her "gift" of protracted singleness has been given to her, so that she can encourage other single women in their "gift" protracted singleness?
To me, it is almost like causing others pain and then nurturing and comforting them in that very pain. It reminds me of that very rare disease -- Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy -- where nurses or mothers actually cause sickness so that they can then nurture it.
Note, I am NOT saying that Carolyn or anyone else has this disease! Merely that it reminds me of it.
Excellent post captain showing how all of the things that this minister said that he thought was going to be so helpful to singles is in effect riddled with inconsistencies, and has little help for the masses who are circumstantially single, not eunuchs in any of the three possible senses. You can't just make yourself, will yourself, wish yourself into a kingdom seeking eunuch just because you happen to wake up that morning, that week, that season, that lifetime as a single person.
It is amazing that this minister realizes how easy it is to misinterpret this passage, and yet goes on to provide an interpretation (the same one for the last thirty years) that most of Christian history judges to be incorrect. Sure, there were the pockets of Catholic glorification of virginity, but most Christian thinkers would never have reached the conclusions that Purswell offers here.
Here is a thought. One of the reasons that we so vigorously try to prevent stem cell research and any kind of fetal research of aborted fetuses is not only because we believe in the sanctity of human life, but because we do not want to give a mom out there considering abortion one extra excuse for thinking that there could be any benefit to doing something so ignoble. Yes, some would actually justify the death of their own baby under the umbrella that the cells could have helped some other parts of humanity. In other words, they would try to redeem an act otherwise deplorable by pointing to some obscure good that could be gained from it.
Now, what does it say about ministers who constantly tell singles that there is nothing wrong with singleness (when every conscience-left single Christian knows that something terrible has gone wrong), that Biblically it is thought of as grand, and that instead of doing something to move on toward marriage, the single should try to redeem the estate by doing something for humanity. We should not be looking for more justifications for single people to ratify a state of life that simply doesn't work for them or for God, and a state which in general has no biblical validation from God (no matter how hard we try to twist I Corinthians 7 to lend support).
Debbie Maken
Post a Comment
<< Home