Whatever you do, don't mention ...
Another reason for the state of neglect of my own blog is that I have been off thinking through things on the blogs of other people of late, and this week got into a discussion about that one thing I would probably have never mentioned on my own blog, that being singleness. Nicole, over here, blogged a post based on an article in the latest Briefing by Gordon Cheng, reviewing Christopher Ash's book Marriage: Sex in the Service of God. While I agree entirely with the ideas Nicole presented in her post, that she took away from that article, I had a few other questions about the article itself, which Nicole became the sounding board for. That discussion happened in the comments on Nicole's post.
In summary, the article, or rather Ash's book, reaches the conclusion that the purpose of marriage is "resting instead with our rule and dominion over creation", which he basis on the argument that is set up from Genesis 1:28 onwards, rather than as a cure for the aloneness we encounter in Gen 2:18.
The article then goes on to say "So the answer to loneliness may not be marriage, then, but friendship!". My question was, and still essentially is, that if we say that the suitable helper that was given to Adam was not to deal with the aloneness, then do we have theological grounds for saying that any other human being is? ie, where do we get a biblical basis for concluding that friendship is to be a cure for loneliness, if not from Genesis 2? (Though the argument made in the article is that the problem was that Adam needed someone to help him work the garden, which was the essence of the aloneness, and not a companion - but that being the case, why is anything needed as an answer for loneliness?). I got to thinking about this recently as a result of a sermon on divorce, which referred back to Gen 2:18-25, and made the point that Adam was not here given "fishing buddies" but a woman (when fishing buddies could have been just the thing to help him work - though here again, many argue that he needed a woman in order to fulfill the other command to be "fruitful"). Similarly when sermons are preached on marriage, or on homosexuality, at least in evangelical churches, the point is very often made that it is to be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. In all of these cases it is made very clear that there is only one option contained within Gen 2:18, that being relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Yet often when it comes to sermons on singleness, if they go anywhere outside of 1 Corinthians 7 at all, they seem to smudge or expand Genesis 2, such that Steve and the fishing buddies are given a lot more value to combat the aloneness. This would actually stand, if you hold the argument that we only need someone to help us "work", but there again, why would anyone long for what is described in the very next Briefing article by Keith Condie - "We long for a deep emotional connection that makes us feel safe and loved, valued and understood" - if that were not a created part of us? And can we realistically find that in friendship? Perhaps you could argue that the making of another of the same "kind" as Adam is what counteracts the aloneness and that marriage is just a subset of that (which one would hope would include friendship), though I have run into difficulties actually building that argument from Genesis 2.
The article/book also states that if marriage is the answer to aloneness, then single people would be incomplete. Yet there are other things contained in the creation mandate of Gen 1:28 discussed in the article, namely to be "fruitful and multiply", which a single person can not fulfill, in any creation sense, either, so is that argument entirely consistent? (Though I acknowledge one or two loopholes in my reasoning here.)
Anyway, Nicole was very gracious and accommodating in being the victim of these thoughts. While I never actually expected an article, or book, on the purpose of marriage to address many aspects of singleness, as I realise they are separate issues, it has come to be an interesting discussion of that. Yesterday Nicole blogged a post on the Song of Songs and Singleness, in which she quoted from Barry Webb's book Five Festal Garments - Christian Reflections on Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther. I have to say that I think this is one of the best things I have read on singleness in a long time, in that, firstly, it refers back to Genesis as the basis of any sort of theology on singleness, which, in my humble opinion, is as it should be (though, perhaps, as Nicole suggests, certain aspects of Genesis 2 may have more to say on this than others), and secondly, simply because it does acknowledge the "limits" (for want of a better word) of singleness, which, as Barry Webb also implies, goes a lot further towards real encouragement for single people than does denial of them. For those two reasons I found it very refreshing.
I've pasted the excerpt from the book in here from Nicole's blog, so thanks to Nicole for typing it up:
Clearly, singleness is not to be seen as inferior to marriage in all respects, and single persons should not be viewed as 'incomplete' in any way that calls into question their integrity and dignity as human beings. Nevertheless, the Song of Songs has something important to say in this area, and it must be allowed to make its contribution to a fully biblical approach to these matters. I have argued in this chapter that the Song must be read against the background of Gen. 1-3. There, the statement "It is not good for the man to be alone (2:18) stands in stark contrast to the long string of pronouncements in Gen. 1, "It was good...good...very good". Here at last is something (aloneness) that is not good. The good condition that answers to this is the 'one flesh' union between the man and the woman that is reached in Gen 2:23-25.
The whole Song of Songs is in effect a celebration of that good condition, and as the Song comes to a close the word used to encapsulate this goodness is 'shalom' (8:10), which I take in this context to mean the full enjoyment of what our created natures naturally desire and long for (the NIV's 'contentment' is not an adequate translation).
The NT teaching about singleness as a state which is preferable in certain circumstances (1 Cor. 7), or which may be embraced voluntarily for the sake of the kingdom of God (Jesus is the supreme example of this), is to be seen against this background. It does not conflict with it or overturn it. In other words, singleness remains a state that is 'not good' in the sense that it is a state of loneliness in which certain natural created desires are not met. There are compensations, of course, and important benefits, but particular needs remain unmet, and the single person has to live with that fact and work through it. It is important to acknowledge this; otherwise there is a danger of moving into a kind of unreality and denial that are not helpful, either to single people themselves, or to those who minister to them.