Check out chapter Five of Families at the Crossroads. The chapter is titled, “The Superiority of Singleness.” It goes on to explain why Paul stated that being single is better than being married, and, at the same time, why it is not a sin for people to marry. Good stuff!

http://books.google.com/books?id=l4vwFgDW0tQC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=the+superiority+of+singleness&source=bl&ots=E970GroRCX&sig=IpmJSV4nrF6I00sk_vmTKnkrabk&hl=en&ei=DDCXSuDwM9mfmAet_rmqBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=the%20superiority%20of%20singleness&f=false

I loved this post! There are so many amazing examples of people living celibate lifestyles for the sake of the Kingdom of God. St. Augustine, as you mentioned, along with John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church. Anglican monks and nuns, continue the tradition of a celibate lifestyle, along with Shane Claiborne and the wave of new monasticism.

So much can be done for proclaiming the person of Christ and the glorious Gospel by being called to a celibate lifestyle! How curious that being celibate for Jesus Christ was valued so highly in the days of the early church.

It’s a profound and brilliant calling! Blessings.

On behalf on “secular society,” please know that we don’t care whether or not you are sexually active. In fact, some of us rather like the idea of the most religiously devoted people removing themselves from the gene pool. Feel free to obey Jesus’ hint about making yourselves eunuchs for the kingdom.
——————————————————
You pervert His words.

ex-preacher says:
June 17, 2009 at 11:50 am
In the meantime, how about we all agree to respect the right of consenting, sane adults to make their own choices regarding sex?
———————————————
Who’s stopping them from choosing as an operation of the mind?

Surely you don’t really want to maintain that biological descendants are necessary to have lasting impact on the world.

I think that Ex-Preacher instead wanted to maintain that religious belief is a genetic characteristic that is inferior to the genetic characteristic of non-belief in religion… that somehow we are less evolved than atheists.

That’s the best you can do? A worn-out ad hominem attack?

Surely you don’t really want to maintain that biological descendants are necessary to have lasting impact on the world. Aquinas, Queen Elizabeth, and Joan of Arc would put paid to that assertion pretty quickly: none of them had children, yet each had an impact on the world that lasts to this day. Or do you really want to maintain that the Octomom has a greater impact on the world than a parish priest?

On behalf on “secular society,” please know that we don’t care whether or not you are sexually active. In fact, some of us rather like the idea of the most religiously devoted people removing themselves from the gene pool. Feel free to obey Jesus’ hint about making yourselves eunuchs for the kingdom. In the meantime, how about we all agree to respect the right of consenting, sane adults to make their own choices regarding sex?

The post is right that in Christianity there is a long tradition of celibacy. However, protestantism divorced itself from that tradition in the Reformation. In fact, celibacy was one of the issues being protested. It began with dissent from a celibate priesthood that spread to all facets of protestant life. Put simply, there is no protestant or evangelical tradition of lifelong celibacy.

In evangelical circles celibacy is generally considered disordered to the extent that some more radical fundamentalist elements believe it to be unbiblical (in spite of explicit scriptural advocacy) and even satanic.

You did raise an important consideration for those who reject the idea of lifelong celibacy. If lifelong celibacy was wrong, then there should be an opportunity for all Christians to be “equally yoked.” This statistical impossibility is food for thought.