"Deceiving Spirits" that "Forbid People To Marry"
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. " (1 Timothy 4: 1-3)
Captain Sensible writes: Not generally a big fan of The Message translation (as least where marriage and singleness is concerned), I do think their translation of forbidding marriage is interesting: "They will tell you not to get married." Or how about The Living Translation -- again a terrible translation with regard to the passages dealing with singleness: "They will say it is wrong to be married."
It's weaker than fobidding it, isn't it?
But isn't it uncomfortably close to where we are at?
What are we to make of the recent sermon by John Piper, with his: "God promises those of you who remain single in Christ blessings that are better than the blessings of marriage and children... the truths about Christ and his kingdom (that) shine more clearly through singleness than through marriage and childrearing"?
If one thing is "better" than another, then isn't that the same as saying as you shouldn't be doing the thing which is not as good?
What also bothers me is John Piper doesn't compare like with like when he devalues marriage.
Piper says being single "in Christ" is better than the earthly marital relationship. Well even I would agree with that! But it's simply not comparing like with like. What if he were to compare being single "in Christ" (and not with any special leaning towards a gifting of celibacy or conviction to renounce marriage for the sake of the Kingdom), with being married "in Christ"? That would have been the fairer, more relevant comparison, surely: Being "circumstantially single in Christ" or "married in Christ".
Was this just a schoolboy error? From someone as esteemed as John Piper? I can't think of any other rational explanation.
I am also interested in this searing of the conscience business. The modern interpretation seems to be that the conscience becomes insensitive and allows teachers to get away with things that their conscience would otherwise have told them were wrong.
But according to this article, Luther took a different view, believing that: "the conscience is over-sensitive, as burned 'seared' skin would be to the touch, creating a sense of guilt over matters that are perfectly acceptable in God’s sight."
So is the conscience desensitised or over-sensitised? It is quite a critical distinction.
In any case, all this really begs the question, why would demons bother to forbid marriage?
What does that say about marriage that demons would take the trouble to want to forbid it? Especially when someone so highly respected as John Piper says that it is actually not as good as being single anyway?
Is it just me, or does NONE of this make any sense anymore???
Captain Sensible writes: Not generally a big fan of The Message translation (as least where marriage and singleness is concerned), I do think their translation of forbidding marriage is interesting: "They will tell you not to get married." Or how about The Living Translation -- again a terrible translation with regard to the passages dealing with singleness: "They will say it is wrong to be married."
It's weaker than fobidding it, isn't it?
But isn't it uncomfortably close to where we are at?
What are we to make of the recent sermon by John Piper, with his: "God promises those of you who remain single in Christ blessings that are better than the blessings of marriage and children... the truths about Christ and his kingdom (that) shine more clearly through singleness than through marriage and childrearing"?
If one thing is "better" than another, then isn't that the same as saying as you shouldn't be doing the thing which is not as good?
What also bothers me is John Piper doesn't compare like with like when he devalues marriage.
Piper says being single "in Christ" is better than the earthly marital relationship. Well even I would agree with that! But it's simply not comparing like with like. What if he were to compare being single "in Christ" (and not with any special leaning towards a gifting of celibacy or conviction to renounce marriage for the sake of the Kingdom), with being married "in Christ"? That would have been the fairer, more relevant comparison, surely: Being "circumstantially single in Christ" or "married in Christ".
Was this just a schoolboy error? From someone as esteemed as John Piper? I can't think of any other rational explanation.
I am also interested in this searing of the conscience business. The modern interpretation seems to be that the conscience becomes insensitive and allows teachers to get away with things that their conscience would otherwise have told them were wrong.
But according to this article, Luther took a different view, believing that: "the conscience is over-sensitive, as burned 'seared' skin would be to the touch, creating a sense of guilt over matters that are perfectly acceptable in God’s sight."
So is the conscience desensitised or over-sensitised? It is quite a critical distinction.
In any case, all this really begs the question, why would demons bother to forbid marriage?
What does that say about marriage that demons would take the trouble to want to forbid it? Especially when someone so highly respected as John Piper says that it is actually not as good as being single anyway?
Is it just me, or does NONE of this make any sense anymore???
posted by Captain Sensible at 9:04 AM
4 Comments:
what is happening in the christian community is disturbingly similar to what is being presented in 1 Timothy 4:1-3; even if it is not identical.
seriously: how do we convince people that christianity is the Way (look, i just recently became christian myself so this is not an anti-christian diatribe) to non-christians, when the culture/society in which christianity is supposed to prevail is severely dysfunctional? the traditional family constructs are broken to pieces, there seems to be tons of different denominations that can't come to an agreement, and the love of many christians among one another seems to have gone cold. as opposed to jews, muslims, hindus, etc: people within each of those groups strive to have tight bonds with those of the same kind, and us christians are split apart by all the 3 dysfunctional things i mentioned above. you might as well tell anyone who is going to become christian that they will have a hell of a time finding other christian singles. are we supposed to tell these christians that they have found the Truth but that they should expect to lead possibly a very lonely life as a result?
one of the first things that a new believer will probably want is a sense of fellowship. what if they cannot get this in the churches that they search for? if christianity is the true religion (and i believe that it IS) then why is it so depressing to be a christian sometimes? why is the societies in which christianity is supposed to prevail, so dysfunctional? why can't young christians get a sense of fellowship with other young christians? why is it much harder for christians to meet other eligible, good natured christians of the opposite sex?? is it a problem in other societies as well or primarily christian societies? please i am not trying to offend. i am just so frustrated with all this.
"are we supposed to tell these christians that they have found the Truth but that they should expect to lead possibly a very lonely life as a result?"
In my bleaker moments, I have wondered if we ought to change the baptismal service for female believers over the age of 25, so that along with renouncing Satan, they also renounce any hopes or dreams they had of getting married and having a family...
Okay, maybe I shouldn't say that. But with the situation as it is in the UK -- where unless something changes dramatically, the statistical projection is that by 2030, there will be zero men left in the church -- Christian women that "wait" and "trust" for long enough, will all eventually become nuns...
Been thinking some more about Luther's understanding of a seared conscience:
"the conscience is over-sensitive, as burned 'seared' skin would be to the touch, creating a sense of guilt over matters that are perfectly acceptable in God’s sight."
It fits in much better with the idea of abstaining from certain foods too.
But bascially, isn't it just another way of saying become "super-spiritual"?
So if we take that as the interpretation of these verses, what do we get?
Decieving spirits and demons will encourage Christian teachers to get all super-spiritual and this will have the effect of preventing marriages from taking place.
Wait! Now, just hang on there a minute...
Oh, and now I have got a niggle about "hypocritical liars" that won't go away...
I hesitate, because I want it to be clear that I am not intending to call any particular person a "hypocritical liar".
But..."hypocritical" because so often you read the biog of the person extolling the virtues of singleness and they are nearly always married with three children.
"Liars" because, well, these are super-spiritual lies. But of course, the fact that these originate from "deceiving" spirits, show that the person isn't intentionally lying.
Hmm, but then there is that troublesome "abandon the faith" to deal with.
Well, could it be abandon the faith not entirely, but in terms of the freedom we have in Christ? The freedom to marry and enjoy all foods???
Gosh, I think Captain Sensible had better get to bed!
Post a Comment
<< Home