On distinguishing celibacy and chastity – a response to Professor Morwenna Ludlow.

Jul 24, 2023 by Jill

by Martin Davie:

In her recent article ‘Giving up Sex? What Macrina tells us about choosing celibacy,’ [1] Professor Morwenna of the University of Exeter provides an overview of how celibacy was understood in the Early Church and then comments on what she sees as the implication of this understanding of celibacy for the contemporary debate in the Church of England about same sex relationships.

At the end of her article Ludlow sums up her argument as follows:

‘Early forms of Christian celibacy were varied. They were adapted to suit individual settings and cultural contexts. But they were united by a strong sense of a voluntary, permanent setting aside of one’s Iife for God, a commitment which was symbolised for women and men as a wife’s devotion to her heavenly husband. Just as marriage was based in both Jewish and Roman law on consent, celibacy was grounded on a voluntary commitment.

Those modern Christians who demand celibacy for same-sex couples may think they are defending the Christian doctrine of marriage. In fact, they are ignoring the doctrine of celibacy. Their position is unchristian, it is unbiblical, and it is unkind.’

Everything that Ludlow says in the first paragraph is completely correct. She is also correct when she suggests in the second paragraph that it is wrong for Christians today to demand celibacy from people who are in same-sex relationships. However, this does not mean that it would be wrong for Christians today to say that that those who are in same-sex relationships should be sexually abstinent in that context.

In order to understand why I introduce this caveat to Ludlow’s argument, it is necessary to note, as Ludlow does not, that in the Christian tradition there are two reasons rather than just one for people to be sexually abstinent.

Read here