From: ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: celibacy
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:17:18 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Excerpts from christia: 14-Oct-92 celibacy MARK DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU (910)

> The question is, is celibacy a higher state?  That's different than
> saying that it is sometimes a better state, or that God calls some to it.

OK, while I would not necessarily assert myself that celibacy is a
"higher" state, it does seem clear that Jesus urged anyone who could
accept celibacy to do so, and Paul definitely preferred that people
remain unmarried ("A married man is concerned about his wife and worldly
things, but an unmarried man is concerned about the Lord").  And, of
those who wish to be married, "If they are unable to control themselves,
then it is better that they marry than fall into sin."

Obviously I would agree that not everyone is called to celibacy.
Catholicism believes so strongly in marriage that we consider it a
sacrament.

I guess the question is the meaning of "higher" state.  Those are CRI's
words, not ours.  I think it is arguable that celibacy is a great boon
to spirituality and really helps someone focus on sanctification and
growing in holiness.  And it is a great sacrifice that the Lord will
reward ("Anyone who leaves father or mother or wives . . .  for the
kingdom of God . . .").  But I do not think the celibates have reason to
boast over the married people.

Excerpts from christia: 14-Oct-92 asceticism MARK DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU (136)

> I was wondering if you could say what the biblical evidence for
> acsceticism is?  I can't remember ever coming across any.

Well, John the Baptist was an ascetic.  Remember the whole Nazarite
order was an ascetic order; in fact it is very similar to today's
Eastern monastic tradition: they took no fruit of the grape and never
cut their hair.  It seems fairly clear, too, that Jesus was ascetic, for
he had "no place to lay his head" and lived a life of poverty.

Asceticism is based on a literal (fundamentalist? ;-)) acceptance of
Jesus's call to give up everything for the Kingdom of God.  Indeed I
believe it requires some compromise to accept that all Christians are
_not_ called to asceticism -- after all, if you read in Acts, all the
believers gave all they had to the church and had none of their own
possessions, and Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.  St.
Paul said, "I beat my body and make it my slave, so that when the race
is done, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."  Jesus told
his disciples, "When you fast . . ." implying that they were expected to
fast.  Jesus called us all to take up His cross and follow him, to share
in his sufferings, to give up everything for the Kingdom of God.  Sounds
pretty ascetic to me.

I think all Christians are actually called to asceticism in some way,
though at varying levels.  We are called to separate ourselves from the
behavior of the world and set ourselves apart -- this is the meaning of
"holy", and this implies a certain degree of asceticism.  Those
Christian groups which refuse to drink alcohol, or go dancing, or watch
movies, or play cards, or smoke are all practicing a limited form of
asceticism.  Well, maybe; refraining from sin is not asceticism, and if
they believe those things are sinful, it's not really asceticism, but
those who do not believe those things are sinful, but refrain from them
for the sake of the Kingdom, are practicing asceticism.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU