Racism and the 2022 OPC General Assembly

I did not attend the 2022 General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church which met at Eastern University on June 8-14. I was honored and grateful to be chosen by our presbytery as a commissioner, but the sudden onset of severe illness landed me in the Emergency Room less than 24 hours before my scheduled departure, and I remained sick and weak beyond the conclusion of the Assembly. It was a hard providence, moreso because this year’s GA was accompanied by controversy which will continue to be the subject of conversation for months, and perhaps years, to come.

Many reports have been made about the allegations of racism and the Assembly’s subsequent statements which were published online. You can read summaries of the incident in the OPC Daily Report, by a commissioner HERE, by a non-commissioned minister HERE, and in an article from Christianity Today HERE. Ministers in the OPC were also informed of the events in a letter from the denomination’s Stated Clerk on June 17th. Students and staff at Eastern University alleged four incidents of racial disparagement by commissioners of the OPC. These were reported to the Assembly on Thursday, June 9th. The GA was also informed such behavior could be grounds for canceling their contract and disbanding the Assembly. The next day, Friday, June 10th, the Assembly was presented with a “statement of regret and sorrow.” According to multiple reports, which have not been disputed to my knowledge, the Assembly was asked not to debate the motion which was then adopted without dissent.

“The 88th (2022) General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church hereby expresses to the faculty, staff, and students of Eastern University its grief, sorrow, and disgust regarding four recent incidents of racial disparagement reported being made by some present at our Assembly. There is no place in the church for such conduct. 

“The church seeks to magnify and honor Christ as the Creator of every human being, each one reflecting dignity and value as the image of God. Therefore, in accordance with God’s Word and the two great laws of love, we repudiate and condemn all sins of racism, hatred, and prejudice, as transgressions against our Holy God, who calls us to love and honor all people. In keeping with the law of God and the right order of the church for Christ’s honor, we resolve to deal directly and biblically with any such sins of hatred committed by members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In keeping with the gospel, we resolve to offer our assistance to Eastern University to confront offender(s) and seek reconciliation.”

The statement was delivered to the University which accepted it and considered the matter closed. It was also published immediately online via the OPC’s social media accounts, a decision which had not been discussed or disclosed to the Assembly when the statement was presented on the floor.

There has been a firestorm of criticism and controversy online since the allegations were made and the Assembly’s statement of regret was published. Critics of the OPC have seen this as further evidence that the denomination is racist and compromised. Others take the way in which the controversy played out as evidence of a different sort of compromise in the OPC, the sort of compromise that operates from the fear of man and hopes to placate angry mobs with winsome words and assurance that they really do hate the same things.

On the last day of the Assembly, Tuesday, June 14th, the moderator updated commissioners on the earlier allegations. As reported by the OPC on her website and social media outlets:

1. Regarding the four incidents of reported racism on campus, I am thankful to report that the individual responsible for the first two incidents surrounding remarks about the 13th Amendment has been identified. He was ashamed to come forward on his own, as his statements were a misunderstood attempt at humor. They were not intended as a racist remark. He desires and is seeking to apologize to those offended. Please pray for those hurt by his careless words and for this brother’s heart in all of this. 

2. The one responsible for the third and most egregious statement has not been seen on campus since the incident. That means we know it’s not a commissioner. We frankly have no idea who it is. 

3. Regarding the fourth incident, we were able to better understand what transpired in the cafeteria. It was not words spoken, but was an action that we now understand as confusion over how the cafeteria is organized, whether it was self-service or whether we would be served by the staff. We are seeking to work this out with those who were offended.

Four allegations of racially disparaging remarks were made. The alleged offenders were not identified. No corroborating evidence was presented. The allegations were unsubstantiated and uninvestigated. But the GA approved and published a statement of regret and sorrow. Some have said such a statement is always appropriate, that no specific apology was offered and no admission of guilt was made. The sincerity of those defending the statement is not in question. Some of them are personal friends, and I hold them in love and esteem. But one does become concerned that if they spin any faster they are bound to get dizzy and fall down.

The Assembly was in a difficult position. What is a man supposed to say when he is asked, “Are you still beating your wife?” The OPC chose to answer: “We express our grief, sorrow, and disgust regarding recent incidents of wife beating reported being done by some members of our Assembly.” No specific admission of guilt, only a general expression of hatred for what we all agree is a grievous sin. Surely that will convince everyone that we really are good people, right? Christianity Today moved quickly to report: “The General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) apologized Friday for four racist incidents at its annual gathering” (source). “But we didn’t really apologize. After all, an apology is kind of an admission that we did something wrong.” As it turns out, the Assembly did do something wrong, it tried to placate angry people before it understood the game that was being played.

The GA’s statement of regret and sorrow satisfied Eastern University which allowed them to continue their work and remain to the end of their contract. But it only inflamed those committed to denouncing the OPC as racist and compromised. The careful wording of the statement was denounced by critics as not really an apology for anything at all, while others like Christianity Today characterized it as tantamount to an admission of guilt. The OPC was trapped, but the power brokers within the denomination did not seem to know it. “Are you still beating your wife?” It doesn’t matter what you say next. The allegation itself is the evidence which is accepted as sufficient for a conviction.

No one that I am aware of has said publicly what the “third and most egregious statement” alleged was, and that is because it involved naughty words that are not to be publicly uttered, even if the poor DA is only reading a persecuted actor’s own text messages aloud. The GA is not to be faulted for being in a difficult position. No one can control the kinds of allegations that are made, especially in our current climate. Anyone can allege anything. But the Assembly was at fault for failing to recognize the game being played, and that one allegation should have clearly indicated it, even if they didn’t recognize it from the others.

If a commissioner at GA violated God’s law—if he spoke or acted unjustly, demeaned or slandered someone, or was malicious and hateful—then he should be confronted, charged, and publicly disciplined. But to issue a public statement of regret in response to unsubstantiated, uninvestigated, and ultimately unfounded allegations of wrongdoing is unwise to the point of absurdity. It may have been well-meant, but it was an error, one that is now too late to correct. In today’s climate a person can claim to be offended by almost anything. Some of the same people most opposed to making public statements as an Assembly on the priority of public worship and the evil of statist tyranny in the aftermath of COVID lockdowns were the most willing to issue a public statement of regret because someone claimed to be offended. Now we discover their wounded feelings might not have been truly wounded after all.

The GA did not err in expressing abhorrence of racism. They erred in giving credibility to allegations of offense without exercising due diligence in understanding what was going on. This was contrary to the duties of the ninth commandment which requires “the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor… unwillingness to admit of an evil report… discouraging talebearers… and slanderers; [and] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth” (WLC 144). The GA failed to be “wise as serpents,” and by admitting an evil report, encouraging slander, and failing to love and care for the OPC’s good name, they likewise failed to be “harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). Issuing a public statement of regret before knowing the facts or investigating the allegations inadvertently but shamefully prejudiced “the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own” (WLC 145). The GA’s actions were also contrary to the OPC’s Book of Discipline which requires a specific charge to be stated, specifications supporting the charge, credible corroboration of the charge, and a preliminary investigation to determine the substance of the allegation (BD III). Both Scripture and the Book of Discipline require that no charge “be admitted against an elder, unless it is brought by two or more persons” (BD III.1; 1Tim. 5:19).

The game should be familiar by now, but evidently it isn’t. So let’s review the rules. There are no rules. This is how the game is played. An allegation is made. It does not have to be credible; the alleged offense simply has to be egregious. Social virtue requires the allegation be accepted at face value. Not taken seriously and investigated, but accepted as self-attesting. Believe all women, except the women who say such a standard is unjust and absurd. In this case, believe all victims of racism, even if there is no evidence they are victims of racism. If they say they are, if they feel they are, if they identify as such, you are obligated to believe them. If you don’t believe them, if you withhold judgment until you can investigate the claim, then you are a racist. If you accept their claim without evidence and express your regret and sorrow, you are admitting that you are a racist. Whether you respond with regret or reserve comment, you are a racist, because they said you are. That’s not fair, you may say. But that is the game.

The Devil once challenged Jesus to turn stones into bread. What could be wrong with doing so? He multiplied bread on other occasions so that his disciples might eat. Skilled theologians will point out that such a miracle is inconsistent with Jesus’s mission and the Father’s authority. It is not the proper way to exercise the Spirit’s power and thus is a temptation to depart from the work the Father gave the Son to do. All of this is true, but there is also a more basic answer. It is always wrong to do something the Devil asks you to do.

The OPC does not need greater sensitivity to the grievances of professional victims, she needs a greater measure of the wisdom and discernment of Nehemiah.

Then Sanballat sent his servant to me as before, the fifth time, with an open letter in his hand. In it was written:

It is reported among the nations, and Geshem says, that you and the Jews plan to rebel; therefore, according to these rumors, you are rebuilding the wall, that you may be their king. And you have also appointed prophets to proclaim concerning you at Jerusalem, saying, “There is a king in Judah!” Now these matters will be reported to the king. So come, therefore, and let us consult together. 

Then I sent to him, saying, “No such things as you say are being done, but you invent them in your own heart.” 

For they all were trying to make us afraid, saying, “Their hands will be weakened in the work, and it will not be done.” 

Now therefore, O God, strengthen my hands. (Neh. 6:5-9)

--JME

A Reminder on the Distinction between Common and Corporate Worship

Tomorrow is the Lord’s Day. I expected to be in Philadelphia last Sunday. Instead, I found myself sitting in my recliner with my Bible and hymnal and following along with the live stream as Dane led worship at ROPC. I’ve never liked missing corporate worship on the Lord’s Day. It puts me in a bad mood and dims considerably the experiential joy of the holy day. The deficiencies of my unsanctified attitude notwithstanding, even when absence is necessary, it is distressing, and that is as it should be. If COVID had not thrown us all for a bit of a loop initially, our Session probably never would have started live streaming our services. It was something we had done a long time ago, at an earlier stage of our congregation’s story, and none of us seemed particularly keen to return to the practice. But COVID did happen, and for better or worse, we turned on the live stream. It’s not the same as being in the assembly of saints, and it must not be treated as a substitute or adequate replacement for it. But when providentially hindered, the opportunity to participate in the songs, readings, and prayers, albeit from afar, is unquestionably a blessing.

Live streaming corporate worship is not ideal—and not just because I have a face for radio and a voice for silent film. It is problematic because while those in the assembly are engaged in corporate worship, those who are following along online are engaged in common worship. These two are not the same thing. They are both precious. They are both biblical. They should both be a regular part of every Christian’s life. But they are not the same. We engage in common worship when we sing the same songs, read the same scriptures, and pray the same prayers asynchronously with our brothers and sisters throughout the world. Those of us who are accustomed to using the Book of Common Prayer for daily worship will readily understand the distinction. Those of you who make a practice of reading-singing-chanting the psalms every month on the traditional schedule understand that millions of Christians are doing so around the world in the same twenty four hour period with you. When you pray the weekly collect, when you read the Bible according to the lectionary published in the bulletin, you are doing so in common with your brothers and sisters at ROPC (and elsewhere), but you are not doing it corporately, even if you have those texts and disciplines in common.

We need to understand both common worship and corporate worship and actively engage in both. Your “quiet time” or “daily devotions” are not supposed to be yours. We need less individualism in our daily prayers and a greater sense of the commonality, catholicity, and concurrence of the Body of Christ as she prays each day. We also need to understand why common worship can never be enough. We are not made, ultimately, to worship separately. We are designed and destined to be united to Christ and in him to one another, to all believers, to join our voices together around the throne of God as we sing Holy, Holy, Holy. The Lord’s Day gathering is penultimate and incomplete. We do not see the entire Body of Christ visibly in our assembly each week. But we see many saints gather, and our gathering together anticipates the greater gathering toward which we are aimed and to which we already belong. –JME

One Last Time

This short essay is an expansion and significant revision of a shorter post I made in April 2020.

I am a preacher. It is my vocation and has been my full-time occupation for more than twenty-three years. Every week I write sermons, new sermons, sometimes one, sometimes three, and I have done so continuously for almost a quarter of a century. That is a lot of sermons, literally thousands. Not all of them have been good. Some have been very bad. Quite a few I would gladly disown and dissent from what I taught in them. But I wrote every one, for better or worse, and preached them to thousands of people who came to hear a word from God.

When I finish writing my sermons for the week, it puts me in a somber but peaceful mood. This is not because the work is done. In one sense, it never is. As E. B. White said somewhere, writing is never done but is only due. I have a deadline to meet whether I am happy with the product or not. But I am somber when the last line is written and a final Amen is tacked onto the end because I am mindful that this may be the last sermon I ever write.

Some people never discover their mortality until relatively late in life, perhaps when a parent dies or they have a mid-life health scare. I became acquainted with mine when I was ten years old, and I have lived with it ever since. It has been my closest companion. Not a day goes by that I do not think about my own death. Memento mori is not merely a slogan; it has been, necessarily, my way of life.

For several years I preached without notes of any kind, simply studying the text intensely during the week, planning the general outline of what I wanted to say, and then delivering the message extemporaneously. Several years ago I decided to manuscript almost all of my sermons, and I have maintained that discipline ever since. It requires a much greater level of precision and attention. I do not adhere rigidly to the manuscript in the pulpit; I do not merely read it. But I am disciplined in what I want to say and how I want to say it. My earlier unscripted lessons had a fresh, powerful feel that some of my later messages may lack, but what the later sermons lack in extemporaneity, I hope they make up for in substance, structure, and longevity. One of the reasons I began manuscripting my sermons is that I did not want their content to depend on my delivery. So every week once the manuscript is complete, I think about the fact that if I die before the Lord’s Day, my wife and children will be able to read what I planned to say.

In “A Last Lecture: On Essays and Letters,” James Schall reflects on being invited to present his “last lecture.” He observes: “We would want our ‘last’ lecture to be ‘serious,’ but only in the sense that it pointed to the highest things and to our place within them.” And again: “We naturally suppose that anyone would want, on such an occasion, to leave something lasting, something profound, something altogether serious, though not neglecting the delight of being and the amusement of our lot.” It is not only academic lectures and sermons that ought to be reflected on in this way, but our entire lives. I enjoy running, but I have laid in a hospital bed three times expecting not to be breathing when I left it, so every time I finish I run, I thank God for the opportunity to run one more time. Are conversations with my wife and children any less precious? A sense of our own mortality is essential to gaining “a heart of wisdom” (Ps. 90:12).

Death is a certainty, unless the Lord returns first. Being born is terminal. We need to live as people that know it. Someday I will preach my last sermon. It may be when I am old. It may be many years from now. Or it may have already happened, and I do not know it yet. We cannot live every day as if it were our last. That would be unworkable. But we can resolve as Jonathan Edwards did many years ago “never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if it were the last hour of my life,” “that I will live so as I shall wish I had done when I come to die,” and “to think much on all occasions of my own dying, and of the common circumstances which attend death.” The writer of Ecclesiastes teaches us it is “better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for that is the end of all men; and the living will take it to heart” (Ecc. 7:2).

One day each of us will make our final contribution or enjoy one last act of participation in the areas that have occupied and largely defined our lives. The last lecture, the last sermon, the last run, the last family dinner, the last kiss with your wife, the last conversation with your child. Few of us will know when the last one has arrived. So resolve to make each one count. Thinking of the certainty of our death should not make us sad but joyfully somber. It can make us more contemplative, more productive, more humble, and more grateful people. –JME

[1] James Schall, On the Unseriousness of Human Affairs (Wilmington, DE: ISI, 2012), 139.

[2] “The Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards,” Desiring God (Dec. 30, 2006) <https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-resolutions-of-jonathan-edwards> (accessed June 9, 2022).

God’s Book and Great Books

The Great Books are central to humane learning and study of the liberal arts. While there will remain some dispute over exactly which books ought to be in the canon of Great Books, the list contains those volumes which have most profoundly influenced western civilization over time. They include works by Plato, Aristotle, and Aeschylus; Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas; Nietzche, Marx, and Freud. The Great Books include philosophy and poetry, theological treatises and plays, scientific works and novels. All have contributed to human understanding; each one has captured some aspect of human learning in the pursuit of wisdom.

Ultimately, however, the Great Books can only be a mirror, summary, and exposition of the truth found in the greatest book of all, God’s Word, the Bible. Jesus affirmed in his High Priestly prayer: “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). The Scriptures are “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2Tim. 3:16-17). Moreover, “every word of God proves true” (Prov. 30:5), “the words of Yahweh are pure words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psa. 12:6), “the entirety of [his] word is truth” (Psa. 119:160). The Bible’s claim is not merely to be true but to reveal and be the truth, objectively. Therefore, to whatever extent truth is found in the Great Books, it is a reflection and elaboration of truths made known in the Bible.

This is not to say that the Scriptures reveal all the truth that can be known. The Bible affirms that God’s glory is known both in God’s Law (Psa. 19:7-11) and in the natural world which he created (Psa. 19:1-6). Therefore, truth may be discovered outside of the Scriptures, but not which is contrary to the Scriptures. “God is responsible for all good things: of some, like the blessings of the Old and New Covenants, directly; of others, like the riches of philosophy, indirectly” (Clement of Alexandria, 169). Students of the humanities may plunder the wealth of the Greeks and Romans, Stoics and Epicureans, sufi and samurai, even skeptics, in a manner reminiscent of Israel’s plundering of the Egyptians (cf. Origen, 177-179).

Wisdom may be acquired in various ways: from personal experience, from shared human experience, and from hearing God's Word with godly fear. But perfect wisdom, true wisdom, comes from divine revelation received in the fear of God (Prov. 1:7; 9:10). The “wisdom of this world” is actually foolishness insofar as it contradicts godly fear and divine revelation (1Cor. 1:18-2:16). As Clement of Alexandria rightly observed: “The Savior’s teaching is sufficient without additional help, for it is ‘the power and wisdom of God.’ The addition of Greek philosophy does not add more power to the truth” (175). Worldly “truth” that defies biblical truth is not true. Worldly “wisdom” that shuns the fear of God is not wise. But to say that extra-biblical literature is unnecessary is not to say it is unhelpful. Unbelievers may be very wise, in a worldly way, and there is much that can be learned from them in the Great Books and the story of their lives. But their wisdom and insight can never match or correct the perfect wisdom and truth revealed by God in the greatest book of all, the Bible.

How then are we to read and learn from Great Books? We must do so by reading them through the lens of God’s book. As Basil the Great counseled young men in the 4th century: “You should not surrender to these men [authors of great literature] once for all the rudders of your mind, as if of a ship, and follow them whithersoever they lead; rather, accepting from them only that which is useful, you should know that which ought to be overlooked” (182-183). The insights of the best ancient authors are like “the reflection of the sun in water” (Ibid.), the sun itself being God’s own revelation. Basil goes on to describe how one ought to imitate what he finds to be virtuous in pagan literature and shun what is evil (183-187). He admits that “we Christians shall doubtless learn all these things more thoroughly in our own literature” (187), referring to the Christian Scriptures, but the great theologian and Church Father recognized the opportunity and advantage of learning virtue from the pagan writers whose works amply illustrate it (188).

Many will demur and insist that the Bible is, at most, only one more contribution to the great conversation and not the greatest of all. But this is not the general consensus of the last two thousand years during which even skeptical and agnostic authors have acknowledged the foundational nature of Scripture’s influence upon western civilization and the crucial role it has played in informing western thought. Whether the Bible’s own testimony of itself is accepted or not, the impact it has had is undeniable. A student of the humanities would do well to read with the Bible in one hand and the Great Books in the other. The one who does so may soon discover that in God’s own revelation “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).

–JME

All quotations are from The Great Tradition: Classic Readings on What It Means to Be an Educated Human Being, edited by Richard M. Gamble (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2017).

Meditation on the Church and Spiritual Conflict

I write a brief meditation for our church to us on Saturday evenings as we prepare for worship. This is the one for June 11, 2022.

The Lord’s Church can be thought of in different aspects. There is the invisible Church which consists of “the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ” (WCF 25.1) and also the visible Church which consists of “all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children” (WCF 25.2). We can also think of these two as being the Church considered eternally and eschatologically, on one hand, and the Church considered temporally and historically, one the other. This is because the invisible and visible are not two different churches but only two aspects of the same one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We can also consider the Church from the standpoint of two locations, even if location isn’t the best word to use in this case. There is the Church in heaven and the Church on earth, the saints who have been glorified and are now with Christ awaiting the Judgment of the last day, and the saints who remain on the battlefield here below, waging war against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. These have been called the Church in Glory and the Church on Earth or the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant. Again we should emphasize, these are not two separate churches but two aspects of the one Body of our Lord.

I have never been to war, not as a soldier enlisted or commissioned in a national army. But every one of us who are blood-bought, baptized, Spirit-filled believers in Jesus have been elected, mustered, and deployed in the greatest battle in the history of the world. Every Christian is engaged in spiritual warfare. That Christ has won the ultimate victory does not change the reality that there is a Dragon hunting us every day (Rev. 12:10-17). The whole universe is embroiled in war, and the followers of Christ are active participants in the conflict. You may have thought when you gave your life to Jesus that you were settling the affairs of the afterlife. In fact, you were being awakened and summoned to the contest that will occupy you for the rest of your life, only ending when your body returns to the dust of the ground.

“The brave things in the old tales and songs, Mr. Frodo: adventures, as I used to call them. I used to think that they were things the wonderful folk of the stories went out and looked for, because they wanted them, because they were exciting and life was a bit dull, a kind of a sport, as you might say. But that’s not the way of it with the tales that really mattered, or the ones that stay in the mind. Folk seem to have been just landed in them, usually – their paths were laid that way, as you put it. But I expect they had lots of chances, like us, of turning back, only they didn’t. And if they had, we shouldn’t know, because they’d have been forgotten.” –Sam Gamgee in The Two Towers

I will resist the urge to elaborate on Tolkien’s doctrine of divine sovereignty governing human moral agency. Suffice it to say this quote, and others, demonstrate that Brother Tolkien understood that God is not only in charge, he is in control. But the point here is that real adventures aren’t experiences people seek out. They don’t sign-up online or buy a Groupon for them. They simply find themselves there. And here you are, in the middle of one, even if you don’t know it, and if you don’t, you better figure it out.

We need to know who we are, whose we are, where we are, and what we are supposed to do during the time that we are here. We may be the Church visible and militant, but we belong to the Church invisible and triumphant. We are Christ’s Body on earth, but we are truly, spiritually, and eternally joined to Christ’s Body in glory. We are called to battle, to fight manfully and joyfully, until the sword cleaves to our hand and we fall, exhausted but victorious, even in death.

The Oracle at Delphi enjoined visitors: “Know Thyself,” and Calvin began his Institutes of the Christian Religion by affirming that “true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves” (I.1.1). As we gather for worship on the Lord’s Day, we must come as those who know ourselves. We are sinners saved by grace alone, adopted sons and heirs of the Father, servants of a risen and glorious King, soldiers called to valor in the army of our Lord. –JME

1 Corinthians 7:1-9: An Introduction to Marriage, Singleness, and the Present Distress

Introduction

Since we are starting a new chapter today and its content is challenging and controversial, I want to offer some general introduction before looking in close detail at any of the verses. Because of the circumstances that led to Paul’s writing and the interwoven nature of the material in this chapter, it will be difficult to study the text in a perfectly straight line. We will need to refer to what Paul says midway through the chapter in order to properly understand what he says here at the beginning, and we will need to refer back to these opening verses in order to understand some of what is said later.

First Corinthians 7 is a complex chapter. It speaks of marriage, singleness, and divorce. It offers counsel in view of a “present distress,” about which we will have much to say as we study through it. But the chapter is not merely challenging because of its objective content. It is difficult because of the modern context in which we hear it. To say it plainly, I think this chapter has been widely and frequently misunderstood and misapplied in the modern American church, and some of what has led to and resulted from that misunderstanding may seem very offensive to our sensitive ears. I have been and continue to struggle with how to express these ideas with pastoral gentleness and prophetic plainness. The last thing I want is to preach it with pastoral harshness and prophetic obscurity. But how to be clear and inoffensive is hard for me to figure out, so I will ask you to be charitable in your hearing while I seek to be gentle in my speaking.

Everything in this chapter has to be read in light of the gospel and what is said in 6:18-20. You are not your own. We are called to glorify God in marriage just as much as in ministry. We are to face issues of marriage, singleness, divorce, and temptation with a gospel-centered ethic, one that acknowledges the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the implications of the cross for our choices.

Eavesdropping on a Phone Call (1a)

First Corinthians was originally a response to questions the saints in Corinth had sent Paul. The first six chapters addressed additional problems the apostle had learned about, perhaps from those who delivered the Corinthians’ letter to him (cf. 1:11). Now in chapter seven Paul finally gets around to answering their inquiries, and the first questions he takes up are about sexual temptation, marriage, and singleness.

The problem is that we don’t have the original questions posed by the Corinthians. We only have Paul’s responses. This has been compared to listening to one end of a phone conversation. It leaves us uncertain of exactly what the Corinthians may have asked. Evidently we did not need the other half of the correspondence, otherwise the Spirit would have given it to us. But we have to remember as we interpret this letter that it is correspondence and not a comprehensive and systematic treatment of everything involved in the issue. If we are not careful, we might easily infer a normative doctrine from comments about their specific, historical circumstances that are neither applicable to nor appropriate for Christians as a general rule.

Let me illustrate what I mean. I might say something like, “The Lord’s Day is a holy day of feasting; therefore, we ought to eat the fat and drink the sweet. Dieting is inappropriate on your daughter’s wedding day, and it is inappropriate on the Lord’s Day. You can diet before and after the day of celebration. So each person ought to have his own donut and cup of coffee with which to sweeten the fellowship of the saints.” Now if a member of our congregation was trying to lose weight and having trouble controlling his blood sugar and cholesterol, I might say something like, “I suppose that it is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man not to eat donuts on the Lord’s Day.” I might also say, “But even if you do eat a donut, you have not sinned. Nevertheless, such will have trouble at this time, and I would spare you.” Now as a matter of fact I do not eat donuts on the Lord’s Day, and I might say, “I wish that all men were even as myself.” My body weight and cholesterol are better because I do not eat donuts on the Lord’s Day, but I have specific medical reasons it is inconvenient for me to do so. Now what would you think if someone heard me saying this and decided that abstinence from donuts is a special gift that more of us ought to aspire to, that someone it is holy and helpful never to eat a donut on Sunday?

This is where the illustration breaks down because there are several of you who probably think it would be great if fewer people ate a donut after worship. But don’t miss the point. There is a general rule for men and women in this passage and a specific exception, an exception to the rule; the rule ought ordinarily and in the vast majority of cases to be followed. But many interpreters take what is exceptional and make it normative or, at least, far more common than it ought to be.

The Counsel and What It Actually Implies (1b)

What does Paul first acknowledge in answering the question that had been sent to him? It is good for a man not to touch a woman. What does that suggest about the question? We will see in the next chapter that some of the “strong, super-Christians” in Corinth had written to Paul. They were hoping he could straighten out the weak and inferior brethren whose scruples were getting in the way. But in this case, it seems that the ones who had written about marriage might have been against it. They wanted Paul to affirm the goodness of celibacy, and he does… kind of, but not in the way they might have expected.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. What does that mean? You’ve probably read that for years and assumed Paul means something like this: “It would be ideal if we could simply get away from marriage and sexual relations altogether. It’s a little icky, after all, and reducing the frequency of that kind of marital activity would leave us all more time for reading and prayer. If we could get a handle on these disgusting bodily desires we’d all be more spiritual and androgenous.”

You might not be surprised to learn that this misunderstands Paul’s point, rather badly. Why do I say so? Connect this statement with the next verse. Let me help you with the translation: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Now ( δὲ) because of fornication, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. Translating v.2 as “nevertheless” makes it sounds like a strong adversative,  doesn’t it? As if Paul were saying, “It would be good if you all could stop being interested in sex at all, but I guess, since you are so weak, marriage is the lesser of two evils.” But that doesn’t make sense of the strong imperatives in vv.2-5. Let me help you see the imperatives in the original language.

… because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Now you might say, “But Paul says in v.6 that this is a concession and not a command.” That’s true. Paul doesn’t command any specific person to get married. But he urges the members of the Church, as a general rule, to have a spouse and to love their spouse and not to deprive their spouse in that relationship. The rule for marriage is not like the rule for baptism, i.e. everyone must do it without exception. The rule for marriage is like the rule for arms on a human body. Ordinarily there ought to be two. Sometimes there will be only one. No one is shaming or rebuking the person who only has one arm. He gets to go to heaven too. But most people are going to have two. And the ordinary pattern for Christians is marriage, not singleness.

So what does Paul’s initial counsel imply? Get married. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. And that is why he needs a wife. The typical man, including the typical believer, is going to want to touch a woman. The rule for marriage is, in part, to prevent fornication.

The Goodness and Normalcy of Marriage (2, 3-5)

Marriage is good. Sex within marriage is great. Devotion to the priority of prayer shared by married partners even to the point of brief sexual abstinence is pure blessedness and grace. Let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband, and be sure they know what a wife and a husband are for. The wife is not there just to cook the meals and do the laundry. The husband is not there just to make enough money to pay the bills and take out the trash. They are there for communion, sexual and spiritual, but I repeat myself in this case. Sex is part of the spiritual communion of marriage, a covenantal exercise of mutual submission to the will of God and the pleasure of another.

We will return to these verses next week, so you might want to bring extra coloring pages to distract the youngest kids. But I hope you see that when Paul says he is making a concession, it is not the “Oh well, if it really can’t be avoided, I suppose let’s have marriage but as little fun as possible in it” sort of concession. No, Paul says each man and woman ought to have a spouse, except, of course, for those that don’t. Get married, and enjoy being married. All that enjoyment will probably lead to kids, so be prepared to baptize and catechize them as well.

Marriage is not just for the satisfaction of sexual desire, nor it is only for procreation. Both of these are biblical and legitimate reasons for marriage to be the norm, but there is another: so that Christians have an intimate companion for prayer. We can, should, and do pray together as brothers and sisters. We can, should, and do even fast together periodically in conjunction with times of prayer. But we cannot duplicate the intimate, covenantal experience of abstinence within marriage for the sake of prayer. There is simply nothing else like it. Marriage is the most intimate human relationship in this present world, and so too the spiritual communion experienced in it is likewise intense and unique, spiritual companionship like no other. This is why Paul assumes that married couples will periodically take a break from bodily pleasures to devote themselves to prayer, and it’s why the Book of Common Prayer so memorably says of marriage: It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

The Exception, Not to Be Made a Rule (6-7)

Paul was not married during the period we know him as an apostle in the NT, and he knew the advantages his unmarried status conveyed. While other apostles traveled with their wives when they carried the gospel to other cities (9:5), Paul had greater flexibility. He could sneak out of a city alone when his life was in jeopardy. He could remain in a community and support himself as a tent maker until financial support arrived. He was frequently arrested, beaten, and imprisoned. He was stoned once and dragged out of the city and left for dead. He was shipwrecked at least four times. Any one of these experiences would be almost impossible if he had been accompanied by a wife. The totality of them would have been unendurable, not only for Paul, but for a spouse.

Paul understood that his ability to live as he did and remain celibate was a matter of grace (χάρισμα), a gift from God not enjoyed by everyone in the Church. He knew the advantage of his situation. He could desire that others would have a similar degree of freedom and flexibility for gospel ministry. But nowhere does he suggest other apostles and ministers ought to be unmarried, much less the average Christian. On the contrary: let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

But we should not make this expressed desire out to be more than it is. Singleness is the exception, not the rule. It is not an inferior way of life, but neither is it the primary or most desirable plan for one’s life. Paul sees the advantages it offers, and he explains them in this chapter:

But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction. (vv.32-35)

There is a level of undistracted devotion that an unmarried person can have in his or her spiritual life, but there are other advantages that marriage brings that the unmarried person cannot enjoy, e.g. spiritual intimacy in the marital covenant, relief from sexual temptations, and child-bearing as an exercise in kingdom growth.

Who Are These? And Who Does Not Belong in This Category? (8-9)

The major contextual factor in understanding what Paul says about this issue is found in v.26 but is often overlooked or under-emphasized: I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife (vv.26-27). Did you see the key context? Paul’s counsel here is because of the present distress. What does he counsel? Do not seek a wife. There you have it. Let’s absolutize this counsel, make it normative for all Christians, and stop having all of these babies born. No more weddings! No more births! No more catechizing young children. God forbid. Reprobates believe in fruitless sacraments: abortion and sodomy. Their tree is dead and will never bear any offspring. But the kingdom of Christ is built through conversion of the nations and covenant families. God believes in fruitful marriage, fruitful parenting, and faithful people to a thousand generations.

I cannot stress this enough: What Paul says in vv.6-8 is what he says in v.27, i.e. do not seek a wife… right now. This is not a normative principle. This is not saying that singleness and celibacy is to be preferred to marriage. It is not suggesting that there is some widespread gifting which allows vast swaths of young people in the Church to live as spiritual eunuchs. It is simply apostolic wisdom, counsel given to saints who are being persecuted, not a divine command. If you are likely to be arrested, if you may have to flee from your business and home, if you are more likely to die at the stake than in the old folks’ home, then this may not be the best time to begin courting. But Paul immediately says: But even if you do marry, you have not sinned (v.28). That settles it. We are talking about advice for specific circumstances at a specific point in time. We are not establishing a new normal of monastic celibacy.

In the last 20+ years there has been a lot of Christian writing and teaching on the “gift” of singleness. I do believe that God calls some people to be single. There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Matt. 19:12). Fair enough. God also gives some people grace to serve him with a disability, or a chronic disease, or in poverty, or in the midst of great suffering and loss. There is grace in all of these conditions of life too, but we don’t treat them the way many evangelicals have come to treat singleness. In many Reformed denominations there is a huge number of unmarried young people. Why? No doubt there are many reasons. The impact of feminism, the softening and coddling of young males, the prioritizing of education and careers over building homes and families, etc. But might one of the major factors be the changing attitude toward singleness? Our promotion of the virtue of singleness has led many young men and women who want to be married to wonder whether they are called to be single. But young people are also asking whether they might be gay or transgender because many of their friends suddenly decided they are. The fact that something is trendy and popular does not make it true. If you want to be married, you aren’t called to singleness. If you think you are called to singleness but are struggling with porn, you are a fool. The gift is celibacy, not singleness.

“Virginity, I acknowledge, is an excellent gift; but keep it in view, that it is a gift. Learn, besides, from the mouth of Christ and of Paul, that it is not common to all, but is given only to a few. Guard, accordingly, against rashly devoting what is not in your own power, and what you will not obtain as a gift, if forgetful of your calling you aspire beyond your limits.” –John Calvin, Commentary

There is a difference between chastity and celibacy. God calls everyone of his children to chastity, i.e. sexual purity appropriate to our current station. I am married, so it is lawful for me to look at, think about, and enjoy my wife. It is not lawful for me to look at, think about, and enjoy other women in the same way. I may notice that God made a certain woman beautiful, but I must discipline my heart, my mind, and my eyes immediately and continually. Chastity for the married looks like sexual monogamy—and joyful monogamy, as we will see when we return to vv.3-5. Chastity for someone who is not yet married requires abstinence, discipline of the eyes and mind while actively seeking, praying, and watching for the one to whom he or she may be given. All of us are commanded to practice chastity, but very few are called by God to lifelong celibacy.

There is one more point that I will only briefly mention. I do not have time to develop it, and I am not prepared to be dogmatic about it. You may think that it is obvious whom Paul is referring to in v.8 when he says the unmarried and widows, but I think what he may be referring to something other than what you’re assuming. The word unmarried is only used in the NT in this chapter (vv.8, 11, 32, 34). In v.34 it refers to a virgin, a “never before married” person. But in v.11 it refers to a person who has been abandoned or divorced. I think a good case can be made that when Paul refers to unmarried and widows in v.8, he is referring to those who were married but who are no longer married due to the abandonment or death of their spouse. I also think a case can be made that Paul was in this category. I would not be dogmatic about it, but if this is so, it further reinforces that this advice is specific to a particular set of historical circumstances, since Paul elsewhere counsels young widows to remarry (1Tim. 5:14). This is not a large group of spiritually gifted celibates but a group who have been providentially released from their former obligation to a spouse and are now being called to use that freedom more fully for Christ.

Conclusion

I warned in the introduction to this sermon—which is itself an introduction to the chapter—that some things would be said in these lessons that might seem personally convicting or offensive, and even now I tremble to think of that being the case. But as a preacher, I am called to simply preach the Word as we come to it without fear or favor. Moreover as your pastor, I hope you find this chapter to not only be convicting but liberating and empowering. God is not calling you to agony and morbid introspection, staring constantly at your belly button hoping it will whisper to you whether you are called to be married or not. We need much less pseudo-spiritual self-absorption in the Reformed community and more joyful and energetic obedience in pursuing the will and pleasure of God.

If you want to be married, then you probably ought to be. People who are gifted and called to a life of celibacy are not generally filled with God-given passions and desires to be otherwise. Don’t look at your desire to be married as an inferior path or something to be ashamed of and suppressed. View it instead as a sense of divine calling. Be patient, but persistent. Pray, prepare for, and pursue a godly spouse. Did I mention pray? I can’t emphasize the importance of that enough. Did I mention prepare? You are not building a home while sleeping in your parents’ basement. You are not cultivating the resources to provide for a wife by spending 14 hours a day practicing to go pro playing Halo. Get a job, pursue a career, save money, be responsible, stop watching porn, act like a man (or woman), and be the kind of person someone else would want to marry.

Because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. That’s good advice. Until you have a spouse, be pure and faithful. Once you have a spouse, be pure and faithful. And if you never have a spouse, or never have another, be pure and faithful. God calls us to holiness: inside, outside, and through the covenant of marriage. –JME