Celibacy Doesn’t Mean Chastity

Webster’s dictionary defines ‘Celibacy’ as “the state of being unmarried.” 

‘Chastity’ is defined as

“abstention from unlawful sexual activity: moral purity."

 Celibacy and Chastity are not necessarily synonymous.

When William Irvine decided to require celibacy of the workers, he set in motion a destructive set of circumstances for the workers and friends. 

Victims, workers, family and friends of victims have given verbal and written testimony to many heartbreaking situations: Molestation and rape of married women, sister workers, young girls, young boys, adultery, homosexuality, seduction in the name of God, “for the Kingdom’s sake.”  There has been blackmail, a worker who admitted to bestiality, workers who exposed themselves to children and to people in public places, workers who hired prostitutes, and extreme depression because of loneliness and the desire to be married! 

These are not new problems.  The group has had these problems starting with Irvine himself.

For years the workers maintained a code of silence to protect their companions and guilty friends.  There are reports of elders and workers who knew of adultery being committed and they willingly kept the information from the innocent spouses who were in agony of heart, not knowing what was wrong, only knowing something was wrong.

There have been workers and head workers who knew of child molestation and incest yet did and said nothing to protect the victims or future victims. Moreover, some head workers threatened people with expulsion from the work if they talked about these problems or tried to help the victims and their families. Fern Strouse is an example of a sister worker who was trying to help victims and she was put out of the work in her old age for her concern.  There have been others as well who were threatened with expulsion.

The workers have used scripture to excuse their code of silence.

They refer to David and Bathsheba, Samson and Delilah. They refer to the text in which Jesus did not tell the other disciples about Judas!  Jesus did not hide the sins of people.  Look what he did in the Temple when he drove out the moneychangers.  He privately identified the adultery of the woman at the well in Samaria.  He used words such as vipers, fox and devils for dishonesty and heartless behavior.  But most often, He gently exposed the sin of each person’s heart that came to Him.  Sinners were not afraid to come to Him. In fact they sought Him out because of his compassion and help.  He was able to set them free from their bondage to sin.  He was able to forgive them; something that no one but God could do.  The reason He didn’t say anything about Judas was because that whole scene had been planned from before the foundation of the earth.  God had prophesied about that moment in some detail.  Jesus would never have jeopardized the perfect balance of those moments by exposing Judas.  Moreover, Jesus couldn’t accuse Judas before the sin.  And after Judas sinned, his sin was exposed.  Everyone knew what he had done.  Peter and Paul never hid the sins of people.  Look at what happened with Ananias and Saphira.  Look at the man who was sleeping with his father’s wife in the Corinthian church.

Another scripture the workers have used to silence protest is John 8:4-11.  A woman caught in adultery is brought to Jesus in the Temple, with the request that she be stoned to death.  Friends and workers feel that this is “an example” that they are not supposed to draw attention to the guilty because no one is without sin.  However, this portion of scripture wasn’t a request for permission to discuss whether she was guilty. It was a request to put her to death. And the man with whom she committed adultery was strangely missing from the scene.  The real reason this problem is hidden is because they know it is a glaring example that their “Perfect Way” is not so perfect.

Strangely enough, the workers have often blamed the victims rather than admitting or repenting of their behavior.  The workers seemed to have had the opinion that “giving up all” did not include giving up lust and immorality.

Some people like to claim that a married ministry wouldn't fix the pedophiles, the homosexuals and the sexual addictions....and that is true.....but one of the biggest problems with the workers is that they have to LIVE with the friends. 

That gives them access to victims which they otherwise wouldn't have. An unmarried ministry who lives with the congregation is the perfect cover for these kinds of predators.

Forcing the workers to have their own living space would be very healthy for everyone.

Those who protest against sexual immorality in the clergy or church leadership or church members are not objecting because of a sense of self righteousness or a desire for revenge. 

They are simply saying, “This destructive situation must be stopped. This is an offense against God and people’s lives and souls are in jeopardy.”

These unscriptural excuses grow out of the workers’ misuse of certain scriptures as “examples”.  Instead of looking at God’s commands for direction, they consistently use certain obscure texts as so called examples.  God gave us Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, showing that the intentions of the heart and thoughts of the mind are just as sinful as the activities themselves. 

When Jesus exposed the sin of a sinner, He didn’t condemn the sinner or hide the sin. He helped the sinner.  He forgave the sin and told the sinner to “sin no more.”  

This is another situation in which the workers fail.  If a person’s sin does finally become too big to hide, the workers condemn the guilty and shun him or her.  Unless, of course, it is someone with status, someone wealthy or someone related to workers or important elders.  Then the victim is often made to be the scapegoat or the person is quietly asked to refrain from giving his or her testimony for a year as punishment or a worker is put out of the work for a year, or simply moved to another state or country. 

If the law were brought into some of these situations, he would be put in prison for several years.

If it had been done during Old Testament days, he or she would have been stoned.

A high ranking Catholic once said, “Celibacy is the highest form of sexual perversion there is.”  While that statement may be a bit of a stretch, it is true that enforcing celibacy as a requirement for those who preach God’s Word is a direct violation of 1 Timothy 4:2, “The Spirit clearly says that in latter times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.  Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.  They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods.”

While Irvine and other head workers did not order people to abstain from certain foods, they did force other abstinences: religion, politics, education, nice clothing, church buildings, Christian books, Christian fellowship, denim, cowboy hats, jewelry, short hair on women and girls, radios, televisions, dancing, cosmetics, athletic events, etc. Professing people and workers are unable to confess and repent of their real guilt. 

They concentrate on minor issues and ignore huge problems.  They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

William Irvine created false guilt.  Jesus Christ did not die to redeem us from false guilt.  He died for sins against God’s Laws, not the workers’ laws.  Paul continually condemned the Jewish legalists for trifling rules about observing certain days, washing rituals, circumcision, etc.  And Irvine and his crew introduced even stranger things than those Jewish traditions.

Sexual misconduct sometimes grows out of a warped sense of sexuality.  Those who haven’t been taught what God’s Word says about Godly sexuality commonly fall into perversion.  Sexuality was created by God before the fall of Adam and Eve.  It is His plan of blessing mankind and what He commanded Adam and Eve and Noah and his family to do in populating the earth.

When men and women view sexuality as sinful, they are more easily led into error.  Human conception inside the covenant of marriage is not a sin. The workers have frequently admitted that they do not believe in the Doctrine of original sin. The phrase “original sin” or “conceived in sin” doesn’t mean that marital sexuality is sinful; it is in reference to the sin problem which is passed from generation to generation through the blood of Adam. 

God created sexuality and intended for the marriage relationship to be consummated within it.  He said, “It is not good for man to be alone.  I will make a helper suitable for him.”  Genesis 2:18.  Those who view sexuality as evil sometimes become guilty of evil sex.

The reason Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost rather than of a human father was because He is God incarnate. 

If he had had a human father, then he would have been born with a sinful nature just like the rest of us.  He wouldn’t have been the perfect spotless Lamb of God.  Yet the workers have often referred to Jesus as just being a simple human being. 

They think the reason he was special was because he was so “willing.”

An unmarried ministry is unable to wisely counsel married couples. 

An unmarried ministry is often unsympathetic and ignorant of family dynamics and responsibilities. 

The common expression, “You just need to be more willing” is the workers almost universal band-aid for every situation.

Sometimes the workers will claim that they could be married but that they just “prefer not to marry so that they can completely devote themselves to the gospel.”  But that isn’t true.  Many workers have asked to marry and the headworkers refused the request.  This whole church is built on the proposition that two workers of the same sex must live together within the homes of professing people. 

This set up is a hotbed for sexual problems for everyone.

It is time to encourage the workers to be married. 

It is time for the friends to think about the workers’ emotional and spiritual health and stop being self centered and selfish. 

It is time to rethink William Irvine’s bad legacy.