Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Beware of "Captain Sensible"

I will have to begin with an apology. I have been ill recently, and have not even been able to concentrate in my classes. Hence, I don't know how good this post is going to be, but I simply must post this before Captain Sensible gets away with more of this kind of post.

Many people have wondered why it is that I have bothered to respond to Captain Sensible, and I responded in my last post by saying that Captain Sensible is an influential figure in the Church over in England. I said that I could not reveal any more, but, as a matter of fact, I misunderstood the person who fowarded me these things, and I was written again, and told that I do have the ability to release this information.

Hence, just click on this link, and go and read the biography at the bottom of the page. It will tell you all you need to know about this anonymous "Captain Sensible," and why it is that I keep responding to her. A whole lot makes sense now. We all know that Debbie Maken made a trip to London last year. The interesting thing is that this is right in "Captain Sensible's" backyard, and yet, somehow "Captain Sensible" never made a comment about it on Debbie Maken's blog when she announced that she was going to London. That seems really odd [especially since every time Debbie Maken breathes, Captain Sensible writes about it] until you find out that Deanna Holmes actually did make a comment on Debbie Maken's blog when she announced she was going to London. Not only that, but one always wondered why it is that there is a link from Captain Sensible's blog to the website of London Christians.

Not only that, but, if you do a Google search for "Deanna Holmes," you will find that, in all of her writings, she has used very similar phrases as "Captain Sensible," such as "Well meaning Platitudes" [Captain Sensible, Deanna Holmes] , "For such a time as this" [Captain Sensible, Deanna Holmes], both have attacked Carolyn McCully [Captian Sensible, Deanna Holmes], and have even used the "job" analogy [Captain Sensible, Deanna Holmes]. Indeed, there seems to be no doubt in my mind that "Captain Sensible" is Deanna Holmes, the head of London Christians.

In other words, how much do you think that these ideas are presented at the social events of London Christians? Probably quite a bit. That is why I have continued to respond to this woman, so that our brothers and sisters in Christ who get involved with these social events will be able to respond in a Biblical fashion to the unbiblical position of Debbie Maken. I want people who go to these events and hear these things to find a website like this, and be able to respond to what is presented to them.

With all of that said, I want you to look at the selfishness of Captain Sensible's recent post. First of all, she says:

We are seriously misrepresenting God when we attribute to Him situations causing suffering that we have actually caused ourselves, because we have strayed so far from the Bible. Talk about blaming God for our wrongdoings!

First of all, Captain Sensible's position is not Biblical. That is the whole point of the debate. If anyone wants to see just how these people respond when challanged with exegetical objections to their position, click here, and read my interaction with Debbie Maken. Debbie Maken was reduced to nothing more than empty accusations when she was put up against someone who actually knew how to do exegesis. I will let Debbie's behavior and her refusal to answer direct objections to her position be the refutation of the idea that their position is Biblical.

Secondly, is it true that we are "blaming God for our wrongdoings?" Apparently, Captain Sensible does not believe that God can ordain the pain that we inflict on ourselves because of our sin to conform us to the image of his son. The whole point of this pain is that it is discipline so that we repent of our sins, and turn to Christ. Hence, even the suffering we inflict on ourselves has redemptive value, because it teaches us to turn from our sin, and turn to Christ. Thus, Christ's purpose in his ordination of our sin, and our purpose in committing that sin are two totally and completely different things. Of course, that is why the exegetical issues in this discussion are so important.

Single Christian women, beware!

Instead of addressing the root cause of the problem, this is another attempt to keep you subdued, by making you feel that you should stoically bear your singleness -- and basically not make too much fuss it.

This will allow the enemy to continue to destroy masculinity in the church, and dishonour marriage by making you feel sinful for not being joyful about the suffering or "discipline" singleness causes.

We, as the contemporary church, have brought this problem about.

Here is where the real selfishness of Deanna Holmes' post shows through. What she is basically saying is "I have the right to feel comfortable with regards to marriage and singleness, and, if I do not, it must be someone's fault, either the man's fault, or the church's fault. In fact, this is the very thing I am going to bring to the scriptures, and interpret the scriptures in this light." As I said in my last post, God does not care one iota about your comfort. He wants to conform you to the image of his son. As I have said before, I am not against being proactive in finding a spouse. The way I found my fiancé and [soon to be] wife is by people in my church praying for me, and by actively pursuing a relationship with her. I think the question has to be asked as to whether or not, when we are proactive, God has the obligation to say "yes." I do not believe the scriptures give us any warrant to such a position.

This is why I always bring up the issue of idolatry. If you say that you must have marriage, and God cannot withhold it from you because your comfort is the most important thing in the world, then, yes, you are committing idolatry. And before they go using the starvation analogy, yes, there are many brothers and sisters in third world countries who are starving to death. And you know what? There faith is far stronger than any of ours ever could be. God certainly can grant food, marriage, and conforming to the image of Christ to any person if he so desires, but he is under no obligation to do so. Captain Sensible appears to want to lower God down to her level, so as to make him take her comfort as the highest priority, when it simply is not. And then, to misuse the text of scripture, and selectively cite the reformers in order to make yourself feel better about your idolatry is just simply to get yourself into even deeper water.

Yet, this is what we have to deal with when we deal with these folks. This also, incedentally, shows us why it is that Open Theists are so popular with these folks. They don't want the almighty God of the scriptures who ordains whatsoever comes to pass. They want a God they can control with their own comfort. The God of Open Theism fits that bill very well. It is a sad thing to see, but, hopefully, what I have written with regards to this topic will enable our brothers and sisters in England to see the dangerous road down which this position leads.

In fact, Debbie Maken has been reduced to the level of saleswoman on her blog. The whole post is nothing more than, "Look at the personal comfort that will come to you if you adopt the ideas presented in my book." That is why we need to be careful. Once we value our own personal comfort to the point were single men are shamed, and the church is blamed for everything under the sun, we might feel comfortable, but we will feel comfortable in our sin. That has to be the major question for the church. Do we value marriage more then conforming to the image of Christ, or do we value conforming to the image of Christ more than marriage? By all means, we should help those who want to get married, but to assume that God must give you marriage simply because of your own personal comfort, and assume that someone is sinning by not giving you what you want is simple idolatry.

This whole fiasco also shows the necessity of having sound teaching on the little things in the Christian life. This is why it is important to pay attention to your pastor when he speaks, and to read good sound books on Christian living. I would very highly recommend the preaching of Pastor William Shishko, anything by Edward T. Welch, and, though I don't agree with him on everything, Pastor John Piper has written some excellent things on practical theology. This is why it is so important to, not just be able to interpret the scriptures, but to see how it applies to our everyday life.

All in all, I am glad my post has had the reaction that it has. It really displays the selfish character of this movement, and shows us why it is that proper training Biblical Hermeneutics and practical theology are things which are so desparately needed in the church today. I am also glad that Ted Slater has posted something very similar on the Boundless Blog, and has gotten quite a positive response from single Christian women. I hope that more and more single Christian women start running from Debbie Maken and Deanna Holmes' ideas as fast as they can. However, until then, I guess this website can be a place to which people can point others who are struggling with these issues, both in England, and around the globe.


April said...


RedKnight said...

I hope you feel better soon, Adam. Though I'm sure that you consider your miserable illness to be God's gift to you. ;)Well enjoy yourself the best you can.

LadyElaine said...


I hope you feel better soon too, and I appreciate your post. when I found it, I was relieved to know that I was not the only one who had concerns(deep ones) about debbie maken's teachings. I just don't get how people think that because I disagree with them that I'm against marriage(when that couldn't be farther from the truth). I just don't believe that nagging, shaming, or stereotyping people in order to get them to change or agree with you is effective, and I also don't believe it's Christlike.

gortexgrrl said...

This is sick, sick, sick.

Get some help, Adam.

PuritanCalvinist said...


Thank you, and, actually, yes, I am learning more and more about myself through this sickness. It has really come at a very hard time at the end of this semester, and with my new job, and all of the wedding plans, it has forced me to trust in God's strength and not in my own.


There are quite a lot of people who have major concerns about Debbie Maken. Dr. Andreas Kostenburger [www.biblicalfoundations.org] had a dialogue with her last year, and he concluded by saying that he wonders just how Christian her thinking is. My professors at Trinity have my complete backing on this as well. However, anymore, I am not responding for Captain Sensible or Debbie Maken. They seem to have the mindset, "My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts." Rather, I am still in this discussion to provide responses to those who run into this teaching, and want to know how to respond to it.


What is so sick about it? Are you saying that all Calvinists need to "get help?" This is what we have believed since the time of the reformation. Apparently, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Urlich Zwingli, The Crafters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Puritans, B.B. Warfield, J.I. Packer, and R.C. Sproul all need to "get some help."

I feel like I am in pretty good company if all of these people "need help."

God Bless,

Emily said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RedKnight said...

"Apparently, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Urlich Zwingli, The Crafters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Puritans, B.B. Warfield, J.I. Packer, and R.C. Sproul all need to "get some help." Most if not all of these men are dead, so they're beyond help. LOL :))

PuritanCalvinist said...


R.C. Sproul isn't dead, is he?

God Bless,

gortexgrrl said...

"What is so sick about it? Are you saying that all Calvinists need to "get help?"

Adam, you know what I'm talking about -- posting her photo, personal information, etc.

You've both engaged in some pretty intense mud-slinging, but nothing she has said about you even begins to compare with this kind of exposure and character assassination.

This is your eighth post in a row about her. You have gone way too far with this. It's so spiteful and mean-spirited. The sheer wickedness of what you have done eclipses any theological truth that may have been intended.

You are nowhere near being in the company of these Calvinist greats. Surely, if they could see what you have done they would certainly shake their heads and walk away from you.

Shame on you.

PuritanCalvinist said...


It is my eighth post in a row simply responding to attacks she has made against things that I am saying. Are you saying that I do not have the ability to point out gross inaccuracies, charicatures, personal attacks, etc. that she has made against me by someone who is influential over in the church in England?

Secondly, what personal information did I post? I simply let folks know who this woman is, and the fact that she runs an influential organization over in England. As for her photo, that was on the internet long before I ever saw it. Do you think that SpiralUniverse posted the photo without her permission? If she had some problem with it being there, then what was it doing there along with her association with London Christians?

Not only that, but all of this stuff is available on the internet. She posted this stuff for all to see. I think it is important for people to know that London Christians is not neutral in this debate. They have an agenda as much as Debbie Maken ever did.

Not only that, but why would she care about this? I mean, if she is right, and she has the truth, then who cares if people know who she is? When someone wrote to my professors over the break asking about me, they knew right away who I was. I was more than happy to tell them exactly what was going on.

Also, you say that I have been "slinging mud," and "assasinating character." I will grant that there was difficulty to refrain from responding to Captain Sensible in the same manner as she responded to me, but let me ask you, can you document that in these last two posts? And I don't want anything having to do with, "I don't like the way this makes me feel." Point out specifically where I have said something that, we can all agree, is mudslinging, and assasinating her character, without defining these things on the basis of your feelings.

I also have to ask what you don't like about people knowing who Captain Sensible is? Is it that Captain Sensible can no longer go along spuing out her hatred towards single men, the church, myself, and Ted Slater without people knowing who she is? Is it not the case that London Christians is now no longer seen as a neutral social club? Is it not the fact that any more personal attacks on Ted Slater or myself will now reflect badly upon London Christians as well as Deanna Holmes?

Also, what is "wicked" about what I just did? Can you quote me a chapter and verse? Not allowing personal attacks to go on by an anonymous poster is not, in any way shape or form, "wicked." Calling people and organizations to responsibility for their actions is not "wicked."

Finally, Gortexgrrl, why is it that others on this blog have not had the same reaction that you have had? Why is it that you are the only one so far who has posted, and said that you thought these things were "wicked?" No, the reality is that London Christians and Deanna Holmes are now going to be held responsible whenever "Captain Sensible" spews out her hatred towards single men, the church, Ted Slater, or me. That is my only purpose in posting what I have. If you think that is sinister, then I guess what you are telling us is that you want to have your side free from all responsibility for all of the shaming of single men and the church, all of the nastiness against myself and Ted Slater, and all of the misuses of scripture in order to support such an idea. That is not a level playing field. I even had to apologize because Dr. Averbeck and Ted Slater were concerned about the language we are using with these issues. If Captain Sensible refuses to be held accountable for the very same thing, then I think we can just let that speak for itself.


gortexgrrl said...

Excuses, excuses.

Basically, you're giving us the "bu-bu-but, she started it" little brother business.

It's very plain to see where your heart is at, Adam. It's all about retaliation for you, isn't it?

gortexgrrl said...


If you have to be shown, chapter and verse, post for post, why what you did was wicked and vengeful, then there really is not much hope for you.

You have carried on now, for eight posts about CS. And in the same amount of time, she's mentioned your blog perhaps twice and on one occasion she contritely retracted -- something I doubt you would ever do.

Not only to yourself, but to your school, you bring shame. It's just absolutely disgraceful.

PuritanCalvinist said...


Where did I say, "but she started it?" What I said was that the reason why I posted what I posted is to prevent her from doing what she did. I asked you to provide me any reason why that is wrong, and you refused to do so.

Also, if I were trying to say "she started it" that would be rather easy to proove because folks like you and Captain Sensible were talking in the way you are long before I ever started posting!!!!!! I have apologized for my part in it, but it seems like if someone dare hold your side accountable, we are committing the unforgivable sin. It is not sin to hold you guys accountable for your ungodly behavior.

Secondly, you skirted every challange I gave to you, just in favor of your "shame single men" attitude. No, it is not about me, it is about God's truth. It is about accurately handling his word because we want to conform our desires to his word rather than read our own desires into his word. It is also about not shaming the other side just simply because they don't agree with you. That is what the goal is here, and I don't think that there is anything wrong with pointing out that one side can do that, and the other side cannot.

Gortexgrrl, this is not a game. There are real people who sit behind these keyboards. Ted Slater is a real person. I am a real person. All of this shaming of the Church and single men all in the name of what you call "truth" has given me some of the nastiest e-mails I have ever received, and I am including in that list, things from Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and yes, even King James Only advocates. Do you think the right thing to do is to sit around while anonymous posters spew their hatred on single men and the church, or to let people know who they are so that they can be held accountable for what they have done?

Again, the issue is clear. If what I did was so wrong, it should be easy to show that it was wrong. You did no such thing. All you did is just say "its all about me." It is real easy to say something like that, but it is a whole lot harder to prove it. However, given that you skirted all of my challanges, I really have to wonder what good it will do to challange you to prove it. Either way, Gortexgrrl, God knows the truth. I hope you will do what is right and retract what you have said.

God Bless,

PuritanCalvinist said...


Mentioned me twice by name? Are you not aware of the fact that you can mention someone without mentioning them by name, by mentioning something they wrote, or be mentioning something that is on your blog?

Did you not also mention that most of those posts have been documenting the shots that she has taken with regards to Ted Slater, and documenting the nastiness of her and Debbie Maken? The point was to show that this woman has no level of fairness even when it comes to the people who agree with her. Apparently, pointing that out is something that is absolutely terrible.

Also, in Captain Sensible's "retraction" she was not even sure if she had gone to far. Let me ask you, why didn't you get all over her? Why is it that you did not tell her that she had definitely gone to far in calling Ted and I "Dumb and Dumber?" The double standard here is amazing.

So, no Gortexgrrl, you guys are the ones really making your movement look very bad. You want to hold us accountable for things *even when we apologize* but you refuse to be held accountable for your behavior in the nastiness about Ted Slater and myself that you have posted all over the internet. I simply refuse to stoop down to your level. You are going to have to argue exegetically and show that the scriptures teach this rather than your shaming me for something you cannot ever prove was wrong.

Again, I have heard no answers to anything I have said. I have heard no argument with anything I have written. The more you give us accusation without proof, the more you are simply showing that you do not care about whether or not you justly accuse someone, but rather, you only care about shaming anyone who disagrees with you. Again, I simply let this whole fiasco speak for itself.


gortexgrrl said...

"If what I did was so wrong, it should be easy to show that it was wrong. You did no such thing. All you did is just say "its all about me." It is real easy to say something like that, but it is a whole lot harder to prove it. However, given that you skirted all of my challanges, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah....."

Adam, you plead this Bart-Simpson-can't-prove-it defense every time, no matter how much proof is presented. It's getting pretty old. It's like you're incapable of self-reflection and genuine repentance. No doubt about m'man, it IS about you!

Please, just get some help.

PuritanCalvinist said...


I will keep saying it until you actually do it.

You know an example of people who have? Boundless and Ted Slater. They actually care about what I write, and care to actually consider the possibility that they may be wrong. The fact that you and Captain Sensible refuse to answer any of the challanges put before you only goes to show that your version of this movement is, indeed, cultic. It appears you just want to stay away from any challange we may go your way, because you refuse to give up this commitment to an idea which is just simply unbiblical.

As I said, Gortexgrrl, I could lower myself to your level, and tell you to "get some help" as many people who have written from the other side have told you and Captain Sensible to do. But I refuse to behave in such a manner. I throughally document everything I say. Anytime I accuse someone of something, it is right there in black and white. However, it seems like that is to much to ask you to do.

So, again, Gortexgrrl, God knows the truth. If you continue to make these baseless charges, then that only reflects what I have been saying all along. You guys are not interested in the truth. I can only hope that God will use me so that other single women do not fall prey to the radical version of this movement, and thus, be caught in the exact same mindset.

God Bless,

gortexgrrl said...

"The fact that you and Captain Sensible refuse to answer any of the challanges put before you only goes to show that your version of this movement is, indeed, cultic. It appears you just want to stay away from any challange we may go your way, because you refuse to give up this commitment to an idea which is just simply unbiblical."

Adam, I see through your attempt to switch the focus off of what you have done to Deanna and onto theology.

But this time, I'm not biting. Countless times, we've been over the same theological details on the GoS issue (many of which we actually agree upon, not that you'd ever want to recognize that -- it seems that you prefer discord to accord).

But this thread isn't about whether singleness = suffering = gift. It's about what you've done to Deanna by posting her photo, personal information and making a personal attack on her character. Someone in this thread used the word "Christlike". Is this your idea of Christlike behavior?

You are hardly in any position to hold anyone accountable. You are out of control.

PuritanCalvinist said...


No, I haven't. I have challanged you time and time again to prove that I have done something wrong, and the best you can do is engage in namecalling. If you cannot prove that something wrong has been done, then your accusations are totally empty.

Gortexgrrl, you, Captain Sensible, and Debbie Maken are the ones who are out of control. You think that you can say whatever you want, as long as it is in service to "marriage." You think you can accuse anyone you want without giving proof, as long as it is in service to "marriage," and just accuse away if anyone dare challanges you. I am sorry, but I am not intimidated in the least bit by your antics. Again, I could not look at myself in the mirror in the morning if I did this.

Again, I could say that the deversion you are trying to make off the issues. However, I refuse to use this kind of language. However, I do believe that you know that you cannot defend Captain Sensible and London Christians, and so you go off attacking me in an effort to defend her, and only offer name calling when anyone challanges you. Let me ask you, is this the way we are to behave as Christians? Is this the way we are to go about rebuking people?

When I posted what I did reproving Deanna Holmes for her personal attacks against me and Ted Slater, all your side could muster is the nastiness you have shown here. That pretty much gives you the idea of where you guys are coming from. You simply refuse to acknowledge the hypocracy of your attack, and you refuse to, in any way shape or form, prove your assertions. I simply let that speak for itself.


wombatty said...

gortexgrrl wrote:

Adam, you plead this Bart-Simpson-can't-prove-it defense every time, no matter how much proof is presented. It's getting pretty old.

LOL gortexgrrl - where did you (or Captain Clueless or Maken) present all this 'proof'? Even granting your point (a stretch), you have no room to talk. Earlier, you played the 'I don't have to prove it' defense when you wrote:


If you have to be shown, chapter and verse, post for post, why what you did was wicked and vengeful, then there really is not much hope for you.

Indeed, this seems to be the M.O. of your side of this debate:

That we Mandators are telling the truth is so obvious, we shouldn't have to respond to substantive criticism. Further, insisting that we do so is a wicked diversion,

...and yet you want to be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...


You are a jackass.

We don't care what that means in greek or ancient aramaic.

The Hobbits

Paul said...

This also, incedentally, shows us why it is that Open Theists are so popular with these folks.

If only...

Emily said...


I do not allow you to comment on my blog because of the toxicity of your rhetoric. Based on what I have read, I think you need some professional counsel - if what you are typing is truly the truth about your state of mind.

gortexgrrl said...


What I wrote on your site was purely in jest -- "you silly little Christian girls...always with your heads in a tizzy about boys, boys, BOYS!!!!" ... "come now, you mustn't wallow in your self-pity or you'll scare off prospects" --- things I would never, ever say and mean.

I must have over-estimated your nose for irony. Sorry if I offended you.

Benny Benny said...

Coming out of lurking...

Actually, I think posting Captain Sensible/Deanna Holmes's OPENLY PUBLIC information is fair game. It's not sick at all. After all, she was posting relatively abusive rants against people like Ted Slater and Carolyn McCulley in relative anonymity. She could do lots of hit & run kinds of attacks with little or no consequences. At least now she has to think twice about posting.

Regarding the meanspiritedness of Adam, um, have you read Captain Sensible's rants towards those with whom she disagrees? Doesn't even come close...

Amir said...

Adam: Now THAT's a great use of higher criticism to determine source. Excellent work.

If anything, it reveals who the enemy is, and what their vested interests may be.

Anonymous said...

buy viagra
viagra online
generic viagra

Paul said...

James White and Bob Enyart recently debated the topic of Open Theism (7/8/14):

James White vs. Bob Enyart Open Theism Debate