Up With Celibacy

To be celibate is, in apparent etymology, to live alone; in more specific definition, a celibate is one who abstains from marriage and sexual relations. (Obviously, despite etymology, such a person need not live as a solitary.) The problem here with both etymology and definition is that the truth is thereby obscured. 

If we think of celibacy as the absence of something — marriage, sexual congress — our thought has not pushed through to a positive picture of what this state of celibacy is. It’s as if I asked you who the New York Giants were, and you told me they weren’t the Buffalo Bills, and they weren’t the Arizona Cardinals, and so on, but you never came around to telling me who the Giants are. 

Christian moral teaching is clear that sexual relations are essential to the marriage of a man and a woman who also, other things being equal, are open to the conception and rearing of children. (For more on this, see my “Why Have Children?” earlier in this series.) Furthermore, that same teaching holds that sexual relations are wrong when they are not in a marriage; the wrongness is either infidelity or a failure to achieve fidelity.

Therefore I say: Celibacy is for everybody. None of us is married for our entire life. Prior to marriage, we are called to celibacy. Following marriage, should we outlive it, we are called to celibacy. And furthermore, some of us are never called to marriage.

The teaching that celibacy is for everybody is handicapped in its presentation if we have nothing more to say than that celibacy is the lack of marriage and sexual relations. Must something that is a universal call be described in negative terms? To do so seems extremely problematic, and all the more so if we hold to the canonical picture of Jesus. He is held to be both celibate and completely human. But to say that Jesus lacked marriage and never enjoyed sexual union does strike our imaginations as saying that he failed to experience something that is central to being human. However, it is our imaginations that are at fault here. Jesus cannot be said to lack anything that is human.

We need a positive understanding of celibacy in terms of what it is, not in terms of what it isn’t.

---

We return to the biblical understanding of marriage. But where in the Bible do we have the deepest probing of the mystery of marriage? To my mind it is neither in Genesis nor in the New Testament, but in the Song of Songs. Here we see the love of God for us and us for God depicted as the love between a groom and a bride. It is sensual, bodily, erotic, and located in a garden that reminds us of both Eden and the temple. 

In addition, as Ellen Davis and others have noted, the text of the Song of Songs shows cognizance of the rest of the Hebrew canon — from all of which Robert Jenson concludes that the plain, literal sense of the book is allegorical. That is to say, it is no imposition upon this remarkable love poetry to say that it is at once a story of marriage and a story of God’s love.

For more on this, I recommend Jenson’s commentary on the Song (Westminster John Knox, 2005) and his essay “Male and Female He Created Them” (in I Am the Lord Your God, ed. Braaten and Seitz, Eerdmans, 2005). Here I will (only and all-too-briefly) draw out two implications from that latter essay.

(1) God’s love for us is properly described as erotic: that is to say, God has made the decision to desire us even though there is no reason for God to have any desires and much less any reason for him to desire us in particular. This desire is what we see in marriage — and, if married, is part of the reality of sensuousness, longing, preparing, living, enduring, and so forth.

(2) Celibate people are not removed from this eroticism, nor are they deprived of an essentially human experience. To the contrary: they are pushed to its very heart. Jenson says that celibacy can be “a pressurized form of [sexuality], a reduction [concentration] of eroticism to that eros between God and his people that is the enabling archetype of all eroticism.” This works in reverse also. The tradition of celibates writing about the Song of Songs — and there is a great tradition of this! — has insight for married love; “spousal eroticism is a discipline at least as rigorous as that of the monastery.” 

---

Our age is hyper-sexualized; more so, it seems to me, than at any previous time in my life. It is simply assumed that human beings engage in sex, and it is often further assumed that lack of sex in one’s life is a failure. This is a situation that should grieve our pastoral hearts. But what beyond sympathy can we offer? It is hard to offer the old Christian teaching of celibacy outside of marriage in a way that has even a slight chance of making sense. 

What we need is to develop our imaginations so that we do not see celibacy as a lack of something. Before and after marriage, and possibly for long stretches of life, and in some cases possibly for all of life, all of us are celibates, and our periods of celibacy are opportunities to draw close to God’s immediate erotic love for ourselves. How can we imagine and share that truth? 

It will obviously take some courage to stand athwart strong cultural assumptions. But the need is even greater for Christian artists, playwrights, novelists, story-tellers, and the like to help us all imagine what celibacy positively is. What, for instance, is the felt experience of sexuality pressurized and boiled down to that intense love God has for us, unmediated by sexual union with another body? Only then will we start to grasp the fullness of Jesus’ humanity. And only then will we start to grasp the fullness of our own humanity.

We need, also, to have our imaginations enlarged so that we do not assume a close friendship is either a repressed sexual union or a realized one. Close friendships — with people and with God — are of the essence of human flourishing. To become clear about celibacy is to open the door to more intimate friendships.

---

On the Web. This week’s blog is reprinted from The Living Church, a magazine to which, if you don’t already subscribe, why not start now? Here’s the article (temporarily, I think, out from the paywall): https://livingchurch.org/2022/11/02/celibacy-and-full-humanity/. Unlike yours truly, the Living Church folks know how to fit pictures and articles together well.


Sin Thoughts

“The first thing to get straight is whether you believe there is such a thing as sin.”

It was my initial meeting for spiritual direction with the late J. Robert Wright, professor at the General Theological Seminary; it was a couple of years after seminary. He seemed willing to proceed regardless of my take on the subject. He noted widespread views in our church. There are many who don’t believe that sin names anything. They believe there is misunderstanding and ignorance, of course, but once you subtract the effects of upbringing, genetic constitution, misfortune, malformed social structures, and so forth, there is no personal action left over for us to call “sin.”

A classical mind could reflect that such was also Socrates’ view. If people were educated to see the good, they would want it and act to promote it. Sin is a failure of education. No one with clear sight desires something that’s bad. Aristotle was on a similar track when he began his ethics with the observation that all of us, when we act, are seeking something we reckon to be good. Every action aims at a good.

Although Father Wright framed the question with his customary irony that gestured towards the confusions of liberal Episcopalians, it was in fact a serious question. And so it remains.

---

Over the years I came to make less of sin in my prayers. I had the view, common to students shaped by the liturgical renewal, that our tradition had over-emphasized sin. I skipped the confession at the beginning of Morning Prayer, for instance: since 1979 it has been optional, and I was sensitized to see it as an interference. Better to begin straight off with “O Lord, open thou our lips.” Every day, the first thing is to ask God to open our lips so that we may praise him. How messy, it seemed to me, and how confused, to start instead with confession and only afterwards ask God to open my lips.

The prayers of confession are optional in our principal liturgies: Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, even on occasion the Eucharist. Indeed to have all those prayers of confession does lengthen those services, and by sheer frequent repetition the temptation is to move over them quickly without self-reflection. If there was once a worry that Communion would start to seem trite if it were received, as is now common, weekly, surely there could be a similar worry about trivializing confession by frequently saying those prayers.

What I have come to see is that just as the worry over frequent Communion was misplaced (and the concerns of trivialization can be guarded against), so with the worry over frequent confession of sin.

---

The change crystalized while I was walking the Camino earlier this year. In long solo stretches, accompanied only by my thoughts and the Lord, the question Father Wright posed three decades in the past leapt into my present.

I grasp and have tried to teach the theological lodestones on this matter. Evil is a sort of hole in reality; it’s not a substance in itself. But there are evil choices, actions that aim for a lesser good at the expense of a higher good. To steal from my neighbor is to desire something good from my neighbor (in that sense it aims at a certain good), but it is evil or a sin because it is a failure to love my neighbor more than I love my neighbor’s goods.

You cannot explain the failure that is sin. This is a literal truth. The thief could say that he desired something his neighbor had, but why did he love that thing more than he loved his neighbor? There is no accounting for that failure. Socrates was right to say that to act to achieve something bad does not make sense. He was wrong, however, to think that such actions occur only in ignorance.

All this was mere background, however, and not the present reality of the Camino. As I tried to say old memorized prayers, or almost-memorized prayers, as I was walking, I discovered to my surprise depths in the old prayers of confession of sin.

---

“Almighty and most merciful Father,” begins the confession in Morning and Evening Prayer (Rite One). God is both all-powerful and overflowing with mercy, which is good news; moreover, he is related to us in a familial way. Thus the prayer establishes a safe space to be honest with ourselves.

What follows is not a definition of sin but rather a layering of images:

“We have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep.”

“We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts.”

“We have offended against thy holy laws.”

“We left undone those things which we ought to have done, and we have done those things which we ought not to have done.”

Four layerings are here, beginning with the straying sheep who are errant, not on God’s ways. On the Camino, a Spanish-predominant context, one is aware that the word for “way” is “camino.” I’m walking the Camino, and I’m saying I have erred and strayed from God’s caminos. The camino of my life has not been God’s camino.

Then it moves to the interior: our hearts are not right; they have “devices and desires” that are our own, and not God’s.

Then an objective move: there are laws, holy laws, God’s own laws, and we have offended against them.

At last comes a focus on our own actions, that they are not what we ought to have done, and our inactions, that they are precisely what we should have done. 

All together, these four layers provide a cartography of sin. Sin looks like errant walking. It has the interiority of a conniving and evil-desiring heart. It is the breaking of real spiritual laws. And it culminates in the personal anguish of impotence, the inability to carry out the good we want to do, and the accomplishment of evil things that we do not, really, want to do. 

This, frankly, is brilliant. Sin neither starts nor ends with law-breaking. It starts with an almost innocent wandering off, and it ends with the dissolution of personality. The end of sin, we could say, is impotence. Its true end is self-destruction, not as God’s laying a punishment upon us but rather as the inner meaning of all we have done. A simple and perhaps even cute lost sheep turns into an ugly, self-obliterated human.

---

The older version of this prayer concluded this cartography of sin with the wrap-up line: “And there is no health in us.” Of course, that is not literally true. As long as we are able to confess our sins, we still have some measure of health. If our bodies had no health at all, they would be dead. Similarly, if the moral truth of our being were that we had no health, we would be spiritually dead. 

But the inevitable direction that sin imposes upon us is in fact towards the complete loss of health. We have boarded the train whose destination is annihilation. It is good to see where we are going, and often, in the crisis of anguish, it is not hard to see.

---

Hence we beseech divine intervention. We need mercy. Only an intervention by an all-powerful Being will be able to help. And we have the hope that that Being will tie us to himself personally.

The prayer that follows confession has a pedagogically significant structure. Let me write it as any of us might say it on our own. “The Almighty and merciful Lord grant us absolution and remission of all our sins, true repentance, amendment of life, and the grace and consolation of his Holy Spirit.” Notice the order. The first item is God’s taking away our sins. The second item is his giving us true repentance. God’s forgiving us is the necessary antecedent of our having true repentance, and indeed, to repent of our sins is God’s work in us also. The third item is amendment of life: that too is something God must work in us, and we don’t—can’t—change our lives prior to his forgiveness. Every step of the way is God’s, not ours. Even the final item, which looks forward to our living in the future, underscores God’s initiative. It is God’s Holy Spirit, alive in us, who consoles us that we can go on living, and might even now live well, by the power of his grace in us.

---

Yes, Father Wright, I believe that sin is a reality in my life. With increasing and daily fervency, I pray a confession. And along this camino of life I sometimes pause thankfully for the ever-amazing, thoughtful depths in our Prayer Book tradition.

---

On the Web. These “Sin Thoughts” first appeared on the Covenant blog: https://covenant.livingchurch.org/2022/10/28/sin-thoughts/ . Readers might like to bookmark the Covenant page for frequent reference: it is an encouraging, near-daily ministry of the Living Church.



12...32333435363738394041 ... 169170

The Rev. Canon Victor Lee Austin. Ph.D., is the Theologian-in-Residence for the diocese and is the author of several books including, "Friendship: The Heart of Being Human" and "A Post-Covid Catechesis.: