tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post1163972693978027517..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: The gift of singlenessWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-36402506169411431132008-01-14T17:03:00.000-08:002008-01-14T17:03:00.000-08:00Hi Suzanne,Many thanks! It's really a thrill when...Hi Suzanne,<BR/><BR/>Many thanks! It's really a thrill when someone else "gets it", as did you and Kevin in reading my review of Carolyn's well-meaning, but sorely misguided book lauding the "GoS". <BR/><BR/>There have been a few other things I've discovered since posting that review on Amazon a couple of years ago. For one, it turns out that "idios" probably is more commonly used to mean simply "own" in regards to things that aren't necessarily unique. However, I stand by my original argument that 1 Cor 7:7 was never meant to be a declaration of any "gift of singleness", least of all circumstantial singleness. As a matter of fact, it's an inconsequential, insignificant verse doesn't declare much of anything, because it was most likely meant only to be an "preambulary disclaimer" to the message to the unmarried in verses 8 & 9.<BR/><BR/>So, first Paul puts forth his message to the married, starting at verse 3, ending at verse 5. And then he segues into his message to the unmarried by setting out a preambulary disclaimer in verses 6 & 7: "I speak this by permission, not by commandment (echoed in his message to "virgins" in verses 25 & 26: "I have no commandment from the Lord"), with verse 7 essentially saying that you don't all have to "be like me", even if that's what I prefer), since God gifted us each in different ways (but not saying specifically how, hence years of theologians arguing in vain about whether the gift is celibacy or singleness, when it's clearly neither of them, since Paul's use of the word "gift" is obviously hypothetical). With this preamble understood in verse 7, we can be assured that we are not under compulsion with regard to the choices presented to us in verses 8 & 9 (whereas, he goes on to verse 10 to 16, again to the married, where the commandment is "not I but the Lord", of course, because it's about divorce). <BR/><BR/>So the entire passage from verse 1 to 16 is about what's advisable to do or not do, in regards to sex and sexual abstinence, in marriage and singleness, with a word on divorce. It's not about getting "word from the Lord" on whether or not He wants you to marry and whom, as some modern Christian singles writers have erroneously claimed to be a biblical requirement. It's not about deeming all circumstantial singleness "a gift", as they have also done. It's about human beings making wise choices for themselves, based on what's allowable and advisable.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, Carolyn won't reverse her position on the GoS.<BR/><BR/>A few of us "sensible" ;) people have written to both the NLT and The Message about these discoveries, and found them open to our ideas and concerns, but have yet to hear about any definitive plans for removing the GoS from their versions of verse 7. It may take a bit more pressure (perhaps in the way of a petition) for them to come up with something that more closely conforms to the original Greek. Anyone who might be interested can contact me at gortexgrrl@yahoo.ca.<BR/><BR/>PS to Suzanne: I think we might be living in the same city and have some mutual friends! Do email me at the above address...It would be great to chat with you!gortexgrrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17585568591891313502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-34374363438531997822008-01-10T15:44:00.000-08:002008-01-10T15:44:00.000-08:00Kevin - Just a clarification. The quote that you m...Kevin - Just a clarification. The quote that you mention: <I>It has become a thorn in the side of a generation of surplus Christian women that dismisses their collective grief and allows leaders to hide behind sermons about sovereignty and contentment instead of addressing the sinful causes of this epidemic, such as the flight of men from our churches</I> does NOT come from Carolyn McCulley.<BR/>It comes from Gortexgrrl's review of McCulley's book.<BR/>McCulley's perspective is that there is a "gift of singleness" and singles should learn to "be content".Captain Sensiblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952959154221769181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-83661112542076146652008-01-02T15:25:00.000-08:002008-01-02T15:25:00.000-08:00McCulley's quote: It has become a thorn in the sid...McCulley's quote: <I>It has become a thorn in the side of a generation of surplus Christian women that dismisses their collective grief and allows leaders to hide behind sermons about sovereignty and contentment instead of addressing the sinful causes of this epidemic, such as the flight of men from our churches</I><BR/><BR/>This quote really resonates with a lot of singles I know (whom I hung out with in church before I got married. I know that many singles, deep inside, long for marriage but cannot find the right one to marry or even to find the one with whom they are compatible. These is a deep longing for marriage but their pain and fear of remaining single for life is real and stares them in the face each day they get older. This fear seems greater amongst women and my heart goes out to them because they are holding out for God to send them someone. This causes me to question if it is even appropriate for anyone to attach themselves with this so-called "gift of singleness". Those who haven't found someone or who may have totally given up hope in finding someone often hide behind this "gift of singleness". I was once in this situation and the day I found someone, I denied I ever had the "gift of singleness." It's about time someone like yourself said we should: "give singles exactly what they have been lacking: a wholehearted blessing to pursue marriage." Amen sister.Kevin A. Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05052005947620751144noreply@blogger.com