The cult of domesticity is not the same as the cult of Christ

Hot Take: Jesus doesn't care if you're married

Lyman Stone’s recent article, “Singleness Is Not a Sin” harshly argued that singleness is rarely if ever a desirable state for the Christian. I’m going to level the fundamentalist’s favorite attack at him and say, his argument is unbiblical. 

Stone sets himself an impossible challenge when he claims, “At no point in Scripture is not-yet-married-ness ever treated as anything other than a less-than-desired state.” 

The Bible is not a defense of, a dissertation on, or an instruction manual for marriage (despite interpretive methods). Many, many, many biblical heroes are unmarried– most notably Jesus, the incarnate God whom Christians are meant most closely to emulate. Marriage cannot be the holiest state for man if our God, incarnate and fully man, was not married. It’s possible that marriage and singleness could have equivalent if different opportunities for holy living but I find it nearly impossible to believe that it is holier for people to do something Christ did not demonstrate than to follow him. 

Many ancient Christians preferred celibacy as a state holier than marriage, suggesting marriage was for those with weaker flesh than the celibate.

Donald Cozzens recounts, “Once the bloody persecution of Christians ended around the beginning of the fourth century, many Christians looked for another way to radically and ideally live the gospel. Soon the 'white martyrdom' of celibacy became the badge of radical commitment to Christ and his teaching. The celibacy of the early Church fathers and the celibacy of monks and nuns came to be acknowledged as the ideal and radical path of gospel discipleship.”

What Stone frames as a debate between Jerome and Jovinian is better described as an overwhelming consensus among Christians as early as the fourth century that a celibate life was a uniquely holy one. 

Failing to undermine the monastic tradition, Stone attempts to make a distinction between monasticism and modern singleness: “Unless singleness is clearly defined as a state that has some purpose oriented toward the good of the neighbor (not just incidentally beneficial but purposively so), it is difficult to understand what possible endorsement the status can be given.”

Here Stone reveals a level of isntrumentalism that would make early Christians cringe. Holiness doesn’t factor into Stone’s understanding of the purpose of human life. He ignores that Christian monasticism began not with Mother Theresa’s Missionaries of Charity but with Desert Fathers who were known for their asceticism not their usefulness to their neighbors. 

Although I am hardly an advocate for asceticism (look up stylite saints if you want to be truly amazed), Stone shows a reckless disregard for a strain of Christian thought if not explicitly biblical, almost as old as the church itself.  

The most obnoxious part of Stone’s argument was his insistence that Scripture pities singleness, “particularly for women. Widows and virgins (i.e., unmarried women, presumptively virgins in ancient times) are singled out as dependent groups who deserve help and aid on the basis of their vulnerability.”

Besides the obvious sexism (someone please explain to me why these men must delight in the misery of women), Stone’s reading of history is impossibly flawed. He took advantage of the social state of women in the Roman Empire during the 1st century to argue that single women are a burden on their society. Insisting on portraying women as weak, Stone disregards the extremely limited options to make money in the Roman world for them. 

Flashforward to today, in many US cities, young women are outearning (or at least keeping pace with young men) demonstrating that women are not necessarily a drain on the resources of the state, as Stone later suggests.  

Finally, the fact that single people desire marriage does not mean, that singleness is a curse. Singleness even unintended singleness can lead to holiness. The church needs single and married people alike. One is not a superior order who should condescend, offer advice, and pity. Both can be miserable or blessed. Both are useful and precious to God. 

Sure marriage is important, but the evangelical church at least in my opinion has hardly failed to emphasize the significance of marriage. I grew up hearing about marriage a disproportionate amount considering that I was twelve. The other girls and I prayed faithfully for our future husbands. 

Frankly, this article was tone-deaf and completely ignored the real trends going on in the church. Sure, some are starting to discuss singleness and decentralize the traditional family as an object of worship, but broadly speaking, the church is obsessed with marriage and children. Nothing is wrong with marriage and children but everything is wrong with guilting our fellow believers for not having them. 

If you need me, I’ll be forwarding this to all my non-Christian friends, mainly to earn sympathy.