In my last post, I suggested that we need to keep a close eye on the “celibate” takeover of “singleness”. In this second part, I want to show you that the chief advocates for the language of “celibacy” in the contemporary Christian discourse typically mean more by it than you likely realise.
This is a good follow up to the previous post! I hope when I was saying "chosen to forego sex and marriage" I wasn't indicating that it was more meaningful or more chosen or anything. What I meant to contrast it with was those with a more liberal sexual ethic who believe they could choose to enter into a sexual relationship, which I can't in good conscience do because of my reading of scripture. This is important for me, because people could read my sexual ethic in a different way, especially in the contexts that I find myself in, where there is a variance in sexual ethics (some may lean more liberal, some may just be unsure what they think, others might just be unsure of what I would think and others are non-Christians who just can’t imagine holding the sexual ethic I do). In an ideal world people might be able to presume that I hold to the sexual ethic that I do because of my faith, but they don’t and they can’t and I need to be able to communicate that (in a way that I think us gay Christians do have to do more in our real everyday lives, even if we shouldn’t have to because it’s the same sexual ethic).
Also, I don’t think we should eliminate the language of choice altogether. It’s a mistake to see my abstinence as being more “chosen” than yours is, but it’s still useful to contrast that with ways in which it may be more unchosen in a way which isn’t good. I want people to choose to follow the sexual ethic we do because they want to submit themselves to God’s law in faith, and not because they scared they’ll be thrown out of their home or shunned by their family (which does happen) or because they’ll be thrown in prison or executed. As a gay Christian who holds to a more traditional sexual ethic, more liberal people sometimes see me as having “internalised homophobia”, or as being forced into it by unaccepting unloving family members or something. I need to be able to say that I am doing it because I believe in it, that it is in that respect my choice to accept and submit to God’s law. As I said I don’t want to use this language of “chosen” to denigrate the situation of other single Christians – it is the same sexual ethic we are accepting, and we are doing so for the same reason (our love of God and our desire to submit our lives to him). You’re right in saying that the language of “choice” and “celibacy” is often used to do so, to imply that our “costly sacrifice” is better, and that is wrong. But we can’t eliminate the language of choice altogether, we should merely be clear what we mean by choice, what we’re contrasting it with.
I definitely think there is something to your argument here re the use of the term celibacy in a Christian context. However many single non-straight Christians also have queer non-Christian friends they want to talk about their lives and experiences with. I wonder if the language of celibacy does offer something when talking to non-Christians, helping communicate abstinence as meaningful and purposeful, not just something other people are making non-straight Christians do.
I think you're missing the Catholic element. Grant is a faithful Catholic and, as such, is keyed into the long tradition of celibacy in the Catholic Church.
It makes sense for a Catholic to allude to that tradition. "You know how people have chosen to follow lives of celibacy to live closer to God for the past two thousand years? That's how I'm trying to live!" This also offers some added legitimacy, especially given the broadly negative connotation of innovation in a Catholic context.
I don't want to imply too much here, but it has been a hallmark of Protestant polemics since the Reformation to criticize Catholic practices of celibacy, whether in vowed religious life or in the clerical state. Do you think that maybe your reaction against the term has more to do with coming from a Protestant background rather than the term being objectionable in itself?
Very simply, I see two problems with with "gay celibacy" movement. I believe God created marriage, sex, kids, family, and all the other heterosexual stuff to teach character qualities unfallen people (ie, Adam and Eve.) didn't need to learn. But I believe, if we ask, He'll teach those same qualities to unmarried people who ask for it.
But my second reason is that I suspect gay people don't even think it's important that God made us that way. Sex could lead to important character change for me, in the right context, and it can't for them.
There's no context in which sex would be right for them. I believe this is an important truth that it's impossible for them to even accept, much less to teach. I don't believe gay people can't go to heaven: sin is sin, theirs' is no different than mine: however, if they insist on believing being gay is OK, I fear they'll miss out on the character change God intended.
Not getting all you wanted in life isn't bad, and this is one of those cases where you don't get what you wanted.
There's a difference between being gay (having a particular orientation, a particular pattern of attractions) and gay sexual activity (which is what scripture talks about). If it was impossible for us to accept that the sort of sex we'd be interested in wouldn't be right for us in any context, then why would we choose to be celibate? It's the acceptance of that very fact which is the reason why we are celibate/abstinent/single
This is a good follow up to the previous post! I hope when I was saying "chosen to forego sex and marriage" I wasn't indicating that it was more meaningful or more chosen or anything. What I meant to contrast it with was those with a more liberal sexual ethic who believe they could choose to enter into a sexual relationship, which I can't in good conscience do because of my reading of scripture. This is important for me, because people could read my sexual ethic in a different way, especially in the contexts that I find myself in, where there is a variance in sexual ethics (some may lean more liberal, some may just be unsure what they think, others might just be unsure of what I would think and others are non-Christians who just can’t imagine holding the sexual ethic I do). In an ideal world people might be able to presume that I hold to the sexual ethic that I do because of my faith, but they don’t and they can’t and I need to be able to communicate that (in a way that I think us gay Christians do have to do more in our real everyday lives, even if we shouldn’t have to because it’s the same sexual ethic).
Also, I don’t think we should eliminate the language of choice altogether. It’s a mistake to see my abstinence as being more “chosen” than yours is, but it’s still useful to contrast that with ways in which it may be more unchosen in a way which isn’t good. I want people to choose to follow the sexual ethic we do because they want to submit themselves to God’s law in faith, and not because they scared they’ll be thrown out of their home or shunned by their family (which does happen) or because they’ll be thrown in prison or executed. As a gay Christian who holds to a more traditional sexual ethic, more liberal people sometimes see me as having “internalised homophobia”, or as being forced into it by unaccepting unloving family members or something. I need to be able to say that I am doing it because I believe in it, that it is in that respect my choice to accept and submit to God’s law. As I said I don’t want to use this language of “chosen” to denigrate the situation of other single Christians – it is the same sexual ethic we are accepting, and we are doing so for the same reason (our love of God and our desire to submit our lives to him). You’re right in saying that the language of “choice” and “celibacy” is often used to do so, to imply that our “costly sacrifice” is better, and that is wrong. But we can’t eliminate the language of choice altogether, we should merely be clear what we mean by choice, what we’re contrasting it with.
I definitely think there is something to your argument here re the use of the term celibacy in a Christian context. However many single non-straight Christians also have queer non-Christian friends they want to talk about their lives and experiences with. I wonder if the language of celibacy does offer something when talking to non-Christians, helping communicate abstinence as meaningful and purposeful, not just something other people are making non-straight Christians do.
I think you're missing the Catholic element. Grant is a faithful Catholic and, as such, is keyed into the long tradition of celibacy in the Catholic Church.
It makes sense for a Catholic to allude to that tradition. "You know how people have chosen to follow lives of celibacy to live closer to God for the past two thousand years? That's how I'm trying to live!" This also offers some added legitimacy, especially given the broadly negative connotation of innovation in a Catholic context.
I don't want to imply too much here, but it has been a hallmark of Protestant polemics since the Reformation to criticize Catholic practices of celibacy, whether in vowed religious life or in the clerical state. Do you think that maybe your reaction against the term has more to do with coming from a Protestant background rather than the term being objectionable in itself?
Very simply, I see two problems with with "gay celibacy" movement. I believe God created marriage, sex, kids, family, and all the other heterosexual stuff to teach character qualities unfallen people (ie, Adam and Eve.) didn't need to learn. But I believe, if we ask, He'll teach those same qualities to unmarried people who ask for it.
But my second reason is that I suspect gay people don't even think it's important that God made us that way. Sex could lead to important character change for me, in the right context, and it can't for them.
There's no context in which sex would be right for them. I believe this is an important truth that it's impossible for them to even accept, much less to teach. I don't believe gay people can't go to heaven: sin is sin, theirs' is no different than mine: however, if they insist on believing being gay is OK, I fear they'll miss out on the character change God intended.
Not getting all you wanted in life isn't bad, and this is one of those cases where you don't get what you wanted.
There's a difference between being gay (having a particular orientation, a particular pattern of attractions) and gay sexual activity (which is what scripture talks about). If it was impossible for us to accept that the sort of sex we'd be interested in wouldn't be right for us in any context, then why would we choose to be celibate? It's the acceptance of that very fact which is the reason why we are celibate/abstinent/single