Marketing and Politics in the Promotion of the Mandatory Marriage Movement

Anakin broke some interesting news this morning. Everyone in the Christian community has been raving about the movie Fireproof. My fiance even told me she heard it was excellent. I have yet to see this movie, but would like to as it seems any movie that is an encouragement to struggling married couples, and helps them to avoid divorce is incredibly helpful in the cultural struggle for marriage. Now, I know Focus on the Family probably has a whole lot to do with this, but, apparently, the makers of Fireproof are promoting Debbie Maken's book. At first, I thought "shame on them," but you have to remember the situation in which they are. They are trying to promote a defense of marriage, and Maken makes her book appear to be pro-marriage [even though, as I have argued elsewhere, it is actually anti-marriage, because of the unbiblical misrepresentation of marriage found in the book], and thus, it is easy to see why they would go for it. Also, remember that these people are film makers, not scholars. Hence, it is more than possible that they do not know any better.

However, the marketing and political backing that this movement is getting is just amazing. You have the Albert Mohler program, you have Focus on the Family, you have Mark Driscoll, you have both Moody Publishing, and Crossway Books; you have so many popular names and organizations promoting this, that one wonders how much money is really going behind it. It must be at least a small fortune.

What is annoying about all of this is, with the exception of Ted Slater, the editor of Boundless, these folks are more than willing to say this stuff in public, and yet not interact in cross-examiniation with their critics. In what little interaction time we have had, the results have simply been amazing. Every time Debbie Maken dialogued with me, she had to result to avoiding my direct questions, and engaging in name calling. Albert Mohler, when challenged on his views of marriage relating to sexual purity, ran fast out of the text of Genesis 2-3, and went to a completely different text in 1 Corinthians 7, with a completely different context. Candice Watters will not even interact with me, and the reality is that these folks just seem to not like exegetical criticism of their position. Yet, what is amazing is the marketing power these folks have to keep putting these views out there. They know that Anakin, myself, Andreas Kostenberger, and others have criticized them, and yet, no effort is made to respond to us. It is just more promotion, and more spotlight, and more airtime for them to engage in a monologue.

What is amazing is the marketing job that has gotten Debbie Maken's book associated with Fireproof. Keep in mind, this is the same book that I have compared with Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions. Maken's book is, by far, the worst book I have ever read in English. No one managed to get as many errors onto one page as Maken did, and no one managed to engage in as much ad hominem on one page as Maken did. This is the same woman who attributed an idea to the reformers, when they very source she cited said it was the radical reformers who believed this, and this same source then went on to say that the reformers did not believe this position! This is the same woman who conviniently ignored quotations from Luther, in the very same sermon from which she was quoting, and completely misused the works of John Calvin as well, even paraphrasing a quotation she got second hand, from a quotation that I to this day have not been able to find. This is the same woman who said that, because Malachi 2:15 has the phrase "wife of your youth" that therefore you are to marry in your youth. Keep in mind, this is the kind of material that is being marketed, and held up as honoring to marriage. I have always wondered how honoring you are being to something when you have to engage in dishonesty in order to talk about it.

Not only that, but as I pointed out last summer, Candice Watters does not know how to do exegesis. Her main area of study is public policy, and thus, she makes several simple errors with regards to the exegesis of the text. Now, do you want to see the marketing power of this movement? Even though these errors were readily available to anyone, Candice is coming out with a new book, coauthored with her husband Steve, called Start your Family: Inspiration for Having Babies. I hope that I am wrong, but my best guess is that we will see another eisegetical misuse of Genesis 1:28 and Jeremiah 29:6. We will hear about how children are a blessing, and are therefore required. We will likewise hear the fatalistic notion that we need to just simply trust in God, and thus, not use the resources God has given us. We will also no doubt not hear of the influence of gnosticism on this view of marriage and children. Again, I hope I am wrong, and I hope that Candice does take into account some of the things her strongest critics are telling her, but, again, I am not optimistic. This is what happens when marketing takes the place of seeking truth. When you put someone up to writing about what the Bible says, when they are not trained to be in that position of leadership, disaster is bound to follow.

Be that as it may, I still would like to see a round-table discussion with Anakin, Andreas Kostenburger, and myself engaging in an extended interaction with Debbie Maken, Candice Watters, and Albert Mohler. We could market it, and really get critical thinking going from an exegetical perspective on this issue. Until then, we will just have to keep responding to these folks, and let all of the marketing and political fluff speak for itself.

Finally, I would like to let everyone know that Kuya Kevin, a regular commenter on my blog, has started a new blog for discussing singles issues. He has some good stuff over there, and I will look forward to seeing what he will write.

Short Radio Encounter with Albert Mohler

I had heard earlier in the week that Albert Mohler was going to be discussing is view that delay of marriage is a sin on his program today, so figured I would try to get a call in on the program. I couldn't get through the first time, but I did the second time.

Here is the link to the program. My call comes at about 17:45. I have to say, I am impressed with the way I was treated. I was treated very fairly. I had originally figured that calling in would give people a chance to hear the other side, but time was so limited, that it seemed like all we could do is make assertions. I figured on using the same argument I used against Candice Watters here, with regards to Genesis 2-3. The call screener told me to be quick, so I had to get a lot of information out in a very short period of time. Hence the misunderstanding at the beginning. However, I think that when I answered Dr. Mohler's question about why I believed marriage was a bad thing if I wanted to get married, he got my argument. All he could say about my interpretation is that it was "warped." I just wanted to say, "Prove it!" He threw out 1 Corinthians 7, and the reason why I found out that this is not the best arena for dialoguing about these things is because I had no time to respond to his presentation on that passage.

Now, some of the things Dr. Mohler said were really interesting. For instance, he tried to say he wasn't connecting marriage and salvation from sexual sin. Yet, as I have documented time and time again, Dr. Mohler has connected marriage and sanctification. One has to wonder if Dr. Mohler believes that sanctification is part of salvation. The only logical conclusion I can come to from hearing him speak is that salvation and sanctification are able to be separated, which has outragious implications for understanding the importance of sanctification within salvation itself.

Also, he said that I was going of topic by bringing up Genesis 2-3, because the topic was delay of marriage. Of course, what I found odd is, at the New Attitude Conference, where his sermon first popularized this idea that delay of marriage is a sin, he spent nearly the whole first half of the sermon on the topic! The reason why I chose this is obvious. If it can be shown that marriage and singleness are parallel in the text of Genesis 2-3, and, because of sin, it is not good for the man to be married just as it is not good for the man to be alone, then there is no reason to say that delay of marriage is bad because there is nothing inherently necessary about getting married. I really have no idea if Dr. Mohler really got that. Again, if I had more time, I could have pressed this.

Finally, this pushing of the idea that manhood=marriage was also bothersome. I figured that one was easy to challange, even though I felt I had very little time. However, I don't know how well it was heard. We were coming up on a station break, and the music was playing in the background. Dr. Mohler said that the Bible said that manhood=marriage, and I just said loudly and firmly, "where?". If it was heard, he never bothered to answer that question.

Also, he was very broad in his statements. He said things like "All of scripture teaches x." If there would have been more time I would have told him that, if all scripture teaches it, then it should not be hard to find a particular text that teaches it! These broad strokes were just all over Dr. Mohler's statements. The only specific he gave was 1 Corinthians 7, which I have dealt with before. The problem is it would have taken me more time to develop these things than the few brief minutes we talked.

Also, one of the things I have been increasingly very concerned about is the attempt to paint anyone who holds this position as a liberal. As I went through and listened to the first half of the program before my call, that came out very clearly. The interesting thing is that, before 1995, if you had stated this position to someone, they would have thought you were strange. Also with me is that I just let my track record speak for itself. I have defended inerrancy, argued against feminism, atheism, and written against abortion and homosexuality. I have the track record of being a committed, conservative, evangelical Christian. We need to keep doing this, and it will prove them wrong by our very actions.

I figured that this was the only way to get through to him to at least talk with him on this topic, and let his listeners know that there are other positions that conservative, evangelical Christians can hold besides his. That is why I made it clear at the beginning that I do agree with him on 95% of everything he says. I do respect the man. However, I pray that God would change his heart so that he repents of these ideas, and does not bind to the contience of God's people things that are not found in God's word. I would also be open to dialoguing with him more on this topic. However, his interest in dialoguing with a master's student in Hebrew and Semitic Studies is not probably going to be that high.

Addendum:

I have written the following suggestion to the editors of Boundless:

Hey Ted and Co!

I have a suggestion. Since you guys have the Boundless show webcast, why don't you invite some of the teachers you guys promote who believe that delay of marriage is a sin, and have Anakin Niceguy, myself, Andreas Kostenberger, or others who disagree with them on the Boundless Show to discuss our disagreements with them? Shows like this usually do really well in terms of downloads. It is a hot button issue anyway, and putting both sides next to each other will allow people understand the issues much more clearly. The only other times I see this issue discussed is in a thread like on the Line or on a call in talk program, and you either have a mammoth amount of material through which to sort [on the thread], or an extremely short time, at most minute and a half, to make your point [on a call in talk program]. A program with even a section like this would allow both sides to lay out their position, and discuss areas of disagreement, and thus, I think would be more edifying in terms of helping people understand the issues involved.

God Bless,
Adam
[http://puritancalvinist.blogspot.com]

I figure that this would be a much better idea for allowing both sides to lay out the issues. We will see what they say!

An Open Letter to Albert Mohler

Dear Dr. Mohler,

I know that you probably do not know who I am, but my name is Adam, and I am a M.A. Candidate in Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I want to first of all say that I do really respect the work that you do. It is refreshing to hear a carefully reasoned voice on the radio with so much bad material in the media today.

However, I must say that I have been very distressed by the bad argumentation that you put forward in both your article, and in the beginning of your program on Friday. You said that "every single response, thus far, is from a woman." May I be the first [or one of the first] to break that string. I have been dealing with this issue for a long time. In fact, I have had a conversation [or tried to] with Debbie Maken, and have even reviewed Candice Watters' book [I know you have endorsed both of these]. Hence, I am well familiar with this topic.

Dr. Mohler, first of all, we are both protestants. As protestants, we both believe in Sola Scriptura, namely, that the Bible is sufficient to function as the regula fide, that is, the rule of faith for the church. We also recognize that, whatever is not found in scripture, is not binding upon the christian. Yet, I heard you say a whole lot of things that I believe are simply exegetically indefensible.

For instance, you said that, "You have this delayed adulthood among young men," and "This extended adolesence which is beginning to characterize so much of the young male experience."

So, we equate marriage with adulthood. Can you prove that from scripture Dr. Mohler? Even Dr. Grant Osborne, my Hermeneutics professor, said that this was totally wrong. The reality is I have never heard an exegetical argument for this position. The best argument I have heard goes back to Genesis 2:24. However, that text is not defining manhood, it is telling us why it is that you have men today who leave there father and mother, etc. It is because of what God instituted back in the garden of Eden.

Not only that, you have said that, "When you start looking at the fact that we have just actualized and made norminative the expectation in the secular culture that premarital sex is going to be the norm, and in the secular culture it certainly is, then young men are no longer modivated to take on the responsibilities of marriage. If you offer young men the opportunity to have sex without responsibility, here's a news flash, they will take it, and that's what's happening in this culture."

I am really amazed by this statement, Dr. Mohler. Are you denying the grace of God can instruct us to deny ungodly desires [Titus 2:11-12]? Are you likewise denying what the book of Proverbs says when it tells young men that wisdom will keep us from the adulteress [Proverbs 2:16]? So, if a man has the grace of God, and is growing in wisdom, how can you say that "they will take it." It seems to me that the grace of God, and the wisdom and instruction found in the book of Proverbs is foundational to fighting against these things! Yes, Dr. Mohler, men who do not have the grace of God or wisdom will "take it." However, that is a reflection upon the church merely teaching what is right and wrong, and not teaching discernment and wisdom as is found in the book of Proverbs.

Yes, I know, you will bring up 1 Corinthians 7:9. However, Dr. Mohler, did you ever notice that "burning with passion" there is not having sexual desire? The whole phrase runs "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." If you say that "burning with passion" is having sexual desire, then the text has nothing to do with the previous clause which is about having self control! I think it is more likely to equate "burning with passion" with "not having self control" given that Paul uses this chiastic structure in this very context [v.2-4].

Not only that, but many competent commentators such as Dr. Gordon Fee, Dr. Craig Blomberg, Dr. Richard Hays, and others have pointed out that this text probably is not referring to singles in general at all, but a specific group of singles, namely, widows and widowers! Hence, the text is totally irrelevant to the discussion of single people in general.

Also you say, "And what happens when you begin to take marriage, and you say, 'It's now an option. It's no longer norminative. It's now an option...'

Again, Dr. Mohler, where do you find these things in scripture? There is no command for every individual to marry anywhere in God's word. I believe that marriage should be norminative, but not in the sense that you are talking about. I believe that it is norminative because God has naturally put it into the hearts and desires of most people to get married, and not because of some command that I am going to add to scripture as if scripture is not sufficient.

Yes, I have dialogued with Debbie Maken, and I have read all of the arguments of the so called "Mandatory Marriage Movement," and I find them to be, not only unconvincing, but extremely weak. When you have to take Genesis 1:28b out of the context of 1:27c [which gives you the subject of "Be Fruitful and Multiply], and the phrase "fill the earth" so that you are left with the absurd idea that every single couple must not only marry, but that an individual couple must have seven billion children so that they "fill the earth," then you have missed something exegetically.

If you try to run off to Jeremiah 29, and use the phrase "Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters," then you will, not only be caught trying to explain how it is that we likewise are all obligated to plant gardens and build houses [v.5], but you will likewise be taking this text out of the context of the false prophets who were trying to encourage the people to revolt rather than live their life as usual [vs.8-10].

Again, your statement that marriage is norminative, in the sense that it is not an option is simply indefensible exegetically. For instance, even Andreas Kostenburger, who has conversed with Debbie Maken, has said the same thing I have. Not only that, but do you not have elders in your church? Are you saying that you command all people in your church to be elders, or else there will be no elders in your church? That is terrible logic.

Next you say, "There is no recovery if you are going to accept the premise that we are autonomious individuals, and each one of us has a right to do whatever is right in our own sight. We can define life as we want it. We can define relationships simply as whatever we want them to be. for however long we want them to last."

I reply. Dr. Mohler, why do you assume that it is either add to God's word, or be autonomious individuals? Might I point out that we are neither if we follow the principle of Sola Scriptura. What if scripture were our ultimate authority, and it defined for us what is sin and what is not sin. What if it defined for us what proper behavior was in our relationships, and decided to bind us to certain things, and not to other things?

What if it bound us to the idea that we had to dress modestly, but that we could wear either a yellow shirt or a green shirt? What if it told me that I had to only have sexual relations within marriage, but that I could remain unmarried? How in the world would this be talking about wanting our own autonomy? Shall I become the governor of Kentucky, and force the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to change its name to the Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and teach Presbyterian doctrine? Would you not be crying out about your freedom to worship God in the way you think is right? What if I then accused you simply holding to your own autonomy? Again, God has bound our contience on some things, and not on others.

Next you say, "We can divide the goods of marriage. We can say we want reproduction without responsibility, or we want the marriage without the children. That's what happens when everything begins to unravel."

Again, how in the world is anyone going to be able to defend the idea that you cannot be married and not have children exegetically? Where is that in the Bible? And, yes, I have read all of the major books you might recommend, and the exegesis is very, very bad. For example, if you decide to go off to Genesis 1:28, see above.

If you try to argue that children are a blessing, and therefore required, then the logical conclusion of that position is that all blessings are required. A swimming pool on a hot day is a blessing. Now, if someone would prefer to put the money in the bank rather than by a swimming pool you could simply say, "See, you really don't believe a swimming pool is a blessing, you just view it as an inconvinience to your own personal autonomy." Or, if the person says that they can't afford it, one could likewise say, "See, you just view a swimming pool on a hot day as a financial inconvienience, not a blessing." In fact, given that logic, you should overdraw your checking account into the millions of dollars to have every blessing known to man, and if you don't, you simply do not believe they are blessings, and just believe that they are inconvienences to your own personal autonomy, and as well as financial inconveniences.

How did we get in this logical mess? We got in it by trying to force upon the text of scripture an idea that does not come from the Bible, but rather from "the way things always were." This is a theme in your writings when you talk about marriage and children, Dr. Mohler. I see a distinct difference in the quality of your exegesis from when you talk about things like Homosexuality, the Diety of Christ, and other issues, to this issue. Many others have said the same thing. Dr. Averbeck, my professor of Pentatuch, thought your view that delay of marriage as a sin was a "classic overreaction," yet he seemed suprised to hear that you were one of the people promoting it. Why is it that consistently, when I talk to people whose main area is exegesis, they consistently reject the arguments you put foward from the scriptures, as well as the arguments of these books you have endorsed? Shouldn't that tell you something about the quality of your exegesis on these issues?

Finally, Dr. Mohler, you kept on harping on the fact that these women have natural desires given to them by their creator. I agree, these are natural desires given to them by their creator. It is not wrong to want to be married and have children. In fact, it is a good and Godly desire. However, what you completely missed is that God can intentionally put desires in people that he will never fulfill. For instance, there are a whole lot of people around the world who have a God given desire for food. Does that mean God is obligated to give them food? No, of course not. However, what is amazing is to go to these countries and to see the faith of these people who, although they don't even know if they will get their next meal tonight, are still trusting in God whether he gives them food or not. These people have faith I can only hope to ever have.

And yet, look at the selfishness of these women. They have a desire for something, and if God doesn't give them what they want, they run off and sin. While I agree that the desire is good, and that simply having the desire is not selfish, to say that God must give them that desire right now is to make yourself God, and to engage in the most terrible form of idolatry. God can keep a husband from them for the rest of his life if he wants to do so. In fact, I might even say that God will willing keep a husband from these women to teach them to trust in him alone, rather then trusting in their own desires. It is amazing that these people in other nations who do not have something as essential to life as food do not rebel against God, but have very strong faith, and the women here in America and England who have a desire for something that, although good and Godly, is not essential to life, disobey God if he does not give them what they want. Why did you not address this, Dr. Mohler?

You see, the fact that people are under no obligation to marry means that we cannot trust in marriage, we must ultimately trust in God! We must ultimately trust that he is the God who will give us what we need. If someone, instead, runs off, and does what is right in their own eyes because their faith is in marriage and not in God, then the result will be this wickedness of fertilization to a man to whom they are not even married.

Finally, you speak about shifts in culture quite a lot in your program. Yes, many times culture shifts are for the worst. Many times they bring in ideas that are foreign and hostile to Christianity. However, we also have traditions that are not Biblical, and culture shifts force us to go back to the Bible and test our traditions against the unchanging norm of scripture. I believe that, if we cannot find these ideas in scripture, we need to reject them wholesale. The reason is that, if we are going to be protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura, we are going to have to be people who constantly go back to God's word to find out what God has bound to our contience. His revelation needs to be the foundation of even our morals and our ethics. If we cannot find the idea that not having any children in marriage is a sin, the idea that virtually everyone is commanded to marry, or the idea that marriage and manhood are synonomious in scripture, then we need to reject them as unbiblical traditions.

Again, I don't want this to sound like I don't respect you. I do, and that is the whole reason why I am writing to you. I know many people who have held strongly to these positions who have ended up leaving protestantism altogether because they could not defend these things from scripture. I think that the dialogue needs to focus on what the Bible says, and not upon rhetoric that simply doesn't get us anywhere. I hope you will give what I have said careful consideration.

In Christ,
Adam

Responses to Candice Watters Part II

In this section of my responses to Candice Watters I will be addressing the issue of marriage as an idol, and the issue of marriage and the sovereignty of God.

Marriage, an Idol???? YES!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the major things that I have brought up is that, while it is fine, and, indeed, good and right to want marriage, we must be careful of making marriage an idol. I remember bringing this up when, in my first dialogue with Debbie Maken, she said that there were many women who were “rightly loathing singleness.” I replied that we should not be loathing anything as the scriptures tell us not to worry about our life, even when it comes to essential things such as food and clothing [Matthew 6:25-34]! This is a powerful argument, because we can challenge these folks to consider the fact that God’s truth is more important than marriage. We can challenge them to read the text of the scriptures, and to think about marriage in a Biblical way, rather than a way that is based solely upon their emotions and desires. Hence, the Bible then can control and regulate these desires so that they remain desires that are honoring and glorifying to God. Of course, this is why, a priori, we must deal with the scriptures that have to do with marriage with consistent Biblical exegesis. That is why I have dealt with the exegesis of the Biblical text before I have addressed this issue.

Here is the heart of Candice’s argument against this line of argumentation:

Can the desire for marriage really become an idol? It’s technically possible. But that notion has been blown out of proportion. And repeatedly suggesting the possibility of idolatry has done more harm than good. It’s caused a lot of women to tepid in their approach to marriage and made them afraid that any amount of thinking or acting on their desire might be a sin. Both have the unfortunate consequence of making marriage even less likely to happen [p.47].

Candice’s argument is that there have been bad results of presenting this argument, and therefore, it should not be presented. However, this is simply bad logic. Simply because there are bad consequences to making a true argument that does not mean that the argument should not be made. Martin Luther, for example, had his writings misused to try to institute a violent revolution. I am speaking of the pheasant revolt. Luther’s argumentation was misused, but does that mean that Luther should not have revolted against the Roman Catholic Church? Of course not. People can misuse and misunderstand another person’s argumentation, and simply because people misuse an argument does not mean that the argumentation is not valid, and should not be used.

Candice explains more about her line of thinking:

Such caution is rarely urged with other desires. No one would discourage a woman from praying fervently, even daily, for an unsaved family member. And we’d applaud intense and passionate faith for the healing of a friend who was dying of cancer. Even desires that more easily border on idolatry-education, career pursuits, and hobbies-get a near-universal pass. But giving a fraction of such attention to the desire for marriage solicits dire warnings of overdoing it. Fervency when petitioning God for a mate comes under singular scrutiny [p.47].

Of course, this is all a logical fallacy. Just because there is erroneous thinking in the other side’s application of their argumentation against you does not mean that your argumentation is valid. Hence, we have two fallacies, assuming that simply because good argumentation leads to misunderstanding, and because other people have a fallacy in the application of their argument, that therefore means that what I believe is consistent with the scriptures.

However, I think Candice’s point is a good observation about our culture…not in our view of marriage, but in our view of idolatry. Idolatry, yes even of prayer, can, indeed, be a problem. If you trust in your praying to save an unsaved family member, or in your praying to heal an unsaved family member rather than the God to whom you are praying to save an unsaved family member, then you are engaging in idolatry. If you do not believe that God has the right to punish an unsaved family member in hell for their sins, or to take the life of your friend with cancer, just simply because you prayed, then you are, indeed, engaging in idolatry. It is the same thing with carrier pursuits and hobbies. When, in the pursuit of your carrier, or in pursuit of a particular hobby, you neglect the things of God, you are, indeed, making these things an idol. While this caution is something that is not urged in these areas, it is something that must be urged in these areas, and the fact that is not shows that our culture really does not care about idolatry today.

We live in a day in age where the breaking of the first four commandments occurs on a regular basis. Just walk around a typical shopping mall this Sunday, and you will see what I mean. Is the commandment about the Sabbath the only thing that is being broken? Look at all of the people who complain because they have to have what they want right now. Look at how many people get nasty when things don’t go their way, and use the name of God and Jesus in vain. Look at how many people openly walk around with symbols of paganism around their neck, and pierced into their body. Go into the bookstore, and look at the books on Hinduism and Buddhism that talk about the use of statues. The first four commandments are things which are broken all around us. Are we really meaning to suggest that this has had no effect on the church? The purity of worship is a grave concern of mine. Worship is so man-centered today rather than God-centered in most churches, that you wonder if it is man or God that is being worshipped!!!!!! The fact that churches have become more of a self-help program than true Biblical teaching should be evidence of the fact that these ideas have, indeed, infiltrated our church. How many people switch churches like most of us change dirty socks? No, we are living in a culture of idolatry, and we must caution people to be careful in all these areas, just as they are careful in their pursuit of marriage.

Furthermore, I think that, in many instances, we can say that it is not true that we do not give attention to these things as idols. For instance, consider carriers. I have seen a good many movies about a father who is never home because he is the owner of a major business. His children basically grow up without a father, and the whole movie is about the damage that this does to his children, and the father coming to regret the fact that he didn’t spend more time with his children. How is this not making your carrier pursuit an idol? Of course, most of these movies were on family stations that were, in fact, run by Christians. Not only that, but why is it that we so oppose the word-faith movement? We so oppose it because it makes an idol out of faith. I heard one critic of word-faith movement say that it is faith in faith, rather than faith in God. The more Christian the society the more likely it is going to be to take precautions against making these things an idol.

So, in all of this, Candice has not escaped the fact that many women today do make marriage an idol. I can’t tell you how many letters I have gotten from women who, upon reading Albert Mohler, Debbie Maken, and Candice Watters have tried to convince their churches, and when they cannot do it, they end up leaving that church for the Roman Catholic Church. How is this not making marriage an idol? Is this text not saying that my marital state is more important than the gospel of Jesus Christ? What you are in essence saying is that it is more important to me to be married than to be obedient in marrying a man who believes in the true gospel of Jesus Christ rather than a man who believes in a false gospel. Also, it is saying that the truth of the gospel doesn’t really matter. It is not, really, a dividing line between one who is truly a believer, and one who is not truly a believer. It is just fine to join a church who tries to add your merit, the merit of Mary and the saints, and the suffering of purification in purgatory to the sufficient, once for all sacrifice of Christ for salvation, even though the scriptures say that the only way in which a man is justified is through the merit of Jesus Christ alone, and say that anyone who denies that is eternally condemned [Galatians 1:6-9]? Let us also not forget about the idolatrous adoration of the host in the mass, the veneration of saints, angels, and images, and the denial of sola scriptura that we can throw in there. You might say that the Roman church actually honors marriage. Consider the perpetual virginity of Mary, the celibate sacramental priesthood, and the pornocracy and see if the Roman Catholic Church really does honor marriage. The only way to honor marriage is to teach what the Bible says about it. These things are grossly unbiblical.

I remember reading a review of Debbie Maken’s book on Amazon.com of a woman who, upon not being able to convince her church of these ideas, ended up leaving that church for a liberal, mainstream protestant church. Apparently, since liberals can be intimidated easily, as they often are with Islam, she was able to convince these people. However, today she does not believe in inerrancy, and neither does her husband. Now, all of the sudden, marriage is even more important than the truth of the scriptures. It is just fine to believe that the scriptures contain falsehoods, so long as I get my spouse.

What about even Debbie Maken herself, whose book is filled with some of the most sexist comments towards single men I have ever seen. In other words, it is simply fine to use that kind of language, so that women can get their spouse, even though the Bible is completely against it [2 Timothy 2:24-26]. Yet, I have run into women who use even more nasty language than what I have encountered from the King James Only folks in order to try to shame men into marrying them. This type of behavior is so contrary to the Bible, and yet, women are willing to do it in service to marriage.

Not only that, but the same blog that tried to argue that “the gift of singleness is dead” has also been urging Christian women to go outside the church to find “Christian men outside of the church,” which, of course, is an oxymoron. God tells us in his word that we are not to forsake the assembly of ourselves together [Hebrews 10:24-25]. A person who willfully rebels against that commandment of God on a consistent basis is not a Christian. The scripture also says that we are to obey our elders and submit to them [1 Peter 5:5]. How can a person do that if they are not a part of a local church? Hence, what we have here is encouragement to marry unbelievers, since there are no believers outside of the Christian church. Hence, we have encouragement to disobey God, again, all in service to getting married.

Again, I have to ask. How are these things not “making marriage an idol?” The commandments of God against believing false gospels, the sufficiency of the scriptures, commandments against physical idolatry [in Roman Catholicism], the truth of the scriptures [denied by liberalism], wholesome talk, and obedience to the commandment of God about the church, and not marrying unbelievers are all lowered in importance far below marriage. Marriage is so important that you can disobey God in any of these areas so long as you get your spouse. These things go far beyond simple loathing the fact that you do not have a spouse. Even that would be idolatry, as I mentioned above. However, these things are much more blatant and gross examples of idolatry than simply loathing a spouse.

If Candice does not believe this stuff is going on, she is just simply sticking her head in the sand. These people need to be rebuked for these horrid examples of idolatry, and called back to pursue marriage in a way that is God honoring, and God glorifying. The fact that Candice Watters quotes Debbie Maken in her book, and even recommends her book in the “recommended reading” section is not helping the afore mentioned attitudes. Yes, I believe what I said earlier that this idolatry is simply reflecting the idolatry of our culture. We need to be wary of this sin in all areas, including this area.

Candice writes:

But can we really make marriage an idol in our postmarriage culture? Not in the way that’s often implied. Where we most often sin in our desire for marriage is not worshiping marriage itself, but in doubting God’s ability to bring it about [p.48].

Candice further explains what she means later on in her book:

It’s not that I disbelieved God could bring me a mate-I just didn’t think He would. Still my heart longed to be married. And on it went. Till Mary Morken helped me to see my prayers for what they were: faithless requests for something I wasn’t even sure it was OK to want [pgs. 146-147].

The reason why I have addressed the topics of marriage as an idol and God’s sovereignty together is because they go together. As a Calvinist, I don’t doubt God’s ability to bring marriage about. I doubt his willingness to do so just because we desire it. God is under no obligation whatsoever to give us a spouse just because we desire to have one. He is the king of our lives, and he can say no to our request for a spouse anytime he wants to do so. I have always asked the question, “Can God say no to your request for a spouse such that you are single for the rest of your life?” The most often answer I get is “no.” That is where I believe the problem lies. If God wants you to be single for the rest of your life, you will be single for the rest of your life no matter how much you “Get Serious about Getting Married” or “Help it Happen.” Not only that, but, if he does decide to give you a spouse, God will cause it to happen exactly when he wants it to happen. You might say that, earlier in your life you didn’t do things that are conducive to marriage. I would say that God ordained that as well. As the Westminster Confession says, God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. I will get into this more in the section on God’s sovereignty, but for right now, we need to understand that God decrees whether or not we will search for a spouse, and whether or not that search will be successful.

For some reason, Candice seems to think that if you say that God is free to give a spouse to whomever he wants, you are simply making “faithless requests for something you aren’t even sure is OK to want.” However, unfortunately, she never describes the logic that Mary Morken used to convince her of this. How is it somehow self-contradictory to say that a desire for something is good, but we need to trust that God knows what his best for our lives, and he will cause our search to be successful if he so desires? It sounds to me that this is much more true faith in God, because we can trust him that, if he says “no” to our request for a spouse, he has done so for a good reason. However, I can’t avoid the conclusion that Candice’s position must ultimately end in saying that God could never have a good reason for saying “no” to a person’s request for a spouse so long as they do the things suggested by herself, Debbie Maken, Albert Mohler and others. As long as we believe that marriage is necessary us as individuals, one wonders if we have faith in marriage, or faith in God.

Candice continues:

That some would make women doubt the rightness of desiring marriage shouldn’t surprise us. Paul told us it would happen. He wrote:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

(1 Timothy 4:1-5 NASB)

Again, this is a canard. No one has said that desiring marriage is not right. What we have said is that the desire for marriage is not more important than the commandments of God, and, if it becomes so important to you that you neglect other aspects of the Christian life, disobey God’s commandments, and engage in worry [all things forbidden by the scriptures] you are engaging in idolatry. I think anyone can see that. I hope that no one would ever say that when you do those things in an effort to find a spouse, it is just fine.

Candice then goes on to say that “the ‘marriage as idol’ warning prevents many young women from gratefully sharing in what God has created as good” [p.49]. How does it do that? How does wanting your pursuit of something good to be pure necessarily stop a person from actually pursuing it? Again, there is no logical connection whatsoever here.

Now, the reason why I have addressed Candice’s usage of scripture before this is because it is so important to show that this position has no scriptural foundation. We have just seen Candice engage in two logical fallacies, make a statement that is a total canard, and the give us a non sequitor. All in all, Candice has not addressed the argument at all. I almost wonder if she knows that, because tries to go back to scripture to give her some foundation. She writes:

Paul said, “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Not only is it unlikely that a godly woman’s desire for a biblical marriage would become an idol, biblical marriage is the antidote to much of the idolatry-“sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed”-that plagues our culture. And it is a plague, and epidemic [p.50].

This is why it is so important to understand what is happening in Genesis 3:15-17, and also why it is important to understand why it is highly unlikely that this is what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7:2. Marriage cannot be the antidote to much idolatry, because it was corrupted by our idolatry in the fall. Where do you think that the competition between the man and the woman where a woman will deny her husband sexual relations, and run off and commit adultery and divorce him comes from? It comes from the very heart of the fall itself in Genesis 3:16, and the sin with which mankind has tainted the marriage relationship. How can such a situation be an “antidote to much of the idolatry…that plagues our culture?” In fact, if the sin problem is not dealt with by the blood of Christ, the woman or the man will take those same sins right into marriage. Now, I am not saying that the problem must be totally dealt with before marriage, but there must always be that battle to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ. It is this that is the only antidote to the idolatries that Candice mentioned. The only antidote to the idolatries of sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed that plagues our culture is the shed blood of Jesus Christ which is the only thing upon which my sanctification is based. It is the only reason why any believer struggles day in and day out to deny himself.

However, someone might say, “Yes, but doesn’t God also use means to sanctify us?” Yes, he does. However, if you think about it, the Bible never anywhere says that God works through marriage to sanctify us. The only marriage which sanctifies us is our union with Christ. The idea that marriage is a means of grace is something that is held by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches alone, and if people who believe this must become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox in order to believe it, then so be it.

You might say, “But I have grown so much going through the things I have gone through in marriage!” I reply. Yes, and others have gone through those same struggles and have left the faith altogether. The key is that the person must be regenerated, and thus be willing to apply the word of God to those situations. Then, they will be sanctified. Thus, it is not marriage that is sanctifying, but it is the word of God which is sanctifying them! Our marriages here on earth have absolutely positively nothing whatsoever to do with our sanctification or our salvation. The only thing upon which my sanctification is founded is the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It is only because Christ shed his blood for me two thousand years ago on the cross of Calvary that I will be with him for all eternity. I bring nothing in my hands for my own salvation, including my future marriage.

Marriage and the Sovereignty of God

I really wonder why it is that Tim Challies has been giving Albert Mohler, Candice Watters, and Debbie Maken his support in his reviews of their books and writings on this topic. Tim is reformed, as far as I know, and thus, he, like me, is a monergist. He likewise believes that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. It is difficult then, in light of chapter 4 of Candice’s book which explains the whole anatomy of how one gets to marriage, to understand why he would put his endorsement upon this book. This chapter is synergistic throughout. It very clearly makes what happens in this world partially dependent on man, and partially dependent on God.

Such is simply not hard to prove. It starts from the very beginning of the chapter. She tells a story about a friend of hers named Amy. Here is what it says:

Amy was still recovering, but she was making progress. Only recently unattached against, she was at our house with some of her single friends talking about how she viewed her failed romance; the one she had thought would end, not with a breakup, but a proposal. “It was a roller-coaster ride,” she said. “But now I can look back and see God’s hand in each twist and turn. I believe He wanted me to go through all that to learn some things.” Amy is a devout believer. But here she was, rationalizing a relationship that left her feeling jerked around and hurth, with no marriage to show for it. It’s like she was casting God in her efforts to get married as some kind of cosmic puzzle maker-constructing a picture too mysterious and grand for her to really understand. Because she couldn’t see the lid to the box with the picture of the completed puzzle, the best she could do was guess, after the fact, what He was to. I believe God plays a much more benevolent role in our journey toward marriage [p. 67]

Now, to any Calvinist, that last statement is a complete denial of the providence of God. According to us, the role that Amy described is a benevolent role, because God is changing us, in his perfect time, into the people he wants us to be. That is the most benevolent thing that God can do for us!!!!! Whether we get married or not, our ultimate goal is to become “holy and blameless” in his sight, and that is the very thing God has predestined us to be [Ephesians 1:4]! Hence, God gives us marriage when he wants to give us marriage.

Candice uses language that sounds like it is compatible with Calvinism, but then she goes on to explain exactly what she means. Take this passage for instance:

God is sovereign. He is all-powerful. He delights in giving good gifts to His children. All that and more is true. But none of it lets me off the hook for the things God has placed under my authority. I’m responsible for a big part of the getting married equation, much more than I realized. This was one of the most important things Mary Morken helped me to see [p.70].

Now, a Calvinist could say “amen” to all of that. However, he believes that God has ordained whether or not you will pursue marriage, as well as whether or not that pursuit will be successful. Hence, even if I have to deal with the fact that I want marriage, but my life has not been consistent with that desire, God has ordained both that my life was inconsistent, and that I would not find a spouse, and he has done so in order to teach me a lesson about the fact that the Bible does, indeed, teach that God uses means. God ordains everything for his good and sovereign purposes.

However, that is not how Candice understands what she has said. Here is how she interprets her own words:

I had a role to play. God was working on my behalf; but for marriage to happen, I needed to cooperate with what He was doing. I had to take responsibility for the things that were under my control by God’s design [p.70].

Now, that statement is a complete denial of everything that a Calvinist believes about the sovereignty of God. Once you start talking about a cooperative effort between man and God that brings about things that happen in this world, you have just flat out denied what reformed theology teaches. This is why it is hard to understand why folks like Tim Challies and Albert Mohler support these ideas. It is absolutely amazing to think that Albert Mohler wrote the forward to a book that denies the very reformed doctrine of God’s providence.

I must keep hammering this home. Candice writes the following:

We have the ability to undermine the good things God is trying to do on our behalf [p.71].

Again, how is this statement true in a reformed belief system? Calvinists believe that what ever God wants to do, he does [Daniel 4:35]. Psalm 135:6 repeats this. Psalm 115:3 says that the Lord does as he pleases. In Job 42:2, Job says that no purpose of the Lord can be thwarted. Now, let me ask all of the Calvinists out there, in the light of all of these passages, is it true that we have the ability to undermine the good things God is trying to do on our behalf? It sounds to me like these passages teach us that if God is trying to do it, he will do it because he does whatever he pleases, and no purpose of his can be thwarted!!!!!

Women who are appropriately waiting for guys to initiate still have plenty of things to do-as well as things to stop doing-to help marriage happen; all the while trusting God to play His part [pgs. 71-72].

Again, we have the synergistic cooperation between man and God to bring things about in this world.

Women must do all they can to prepare. Then we can trust God for the rest, knowing we’ve been faithful to do our part [p.77].

Again, I can’t figure out how it is that one Calvinist can write the forward to this book, and another can endorse it when you have a flat out denial of the very reformed belief in divine providence in describing the very anatomy of how one gets married!!!!!!!

Yes, I know Candice uses reformed language such as “means,” but, apparently, according to these texts, she suggests God is obligated to use those means. He just simply is not. Many times God will ordain that a woman will desire a spouse, and they say “no” to their prayers and pursuit of a spouse is so he can teach them to stop trusting in marriage and start trusting only in him. Not only that, but saying that God works through means is not the same thing as saying that God has also ordained those means. The Westminster Confession of Faith states both. As I said, we must remember that Albert Mohler wrote the forward to this book, and Tim Challies has endorsed it. Again, this is simply unbelievable.

Candice keeps on hammering home the point that there are consequences to our actions. To that I agree. However, let me ask a simple question. Are those consequences to those actions meaningless? Are you willing to tell a girl who has an STD or a crisis pregnancy that all of those things are totally pointless? Indeed, it may have been those things which brought the girl back to repentance in the first place! Yes, even the consequences of our sin work together for good. Paul says that “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” Does God only cause our righteous actions to work together for our good, or does he not also ordain our sin for our own good? We must think about this. We do have consequences which we must certainly face for the things that we do. No question about it. However, it is often times these very consequences that bring us back to living a life that is honoring and pleasing to God. We can very often be used of God, as many women have in these situations, to warn other men and women about the dangers of premarital sexual relations. Yet, are not these ends good? Indeed they are.

Candice also talks about how, in trusting God, we are to be active. She really tries to hammer home the fact that God’s sovereignty does not negate our responsibility. True enough. However, that does not mean that, because we have responsibility, that it is therefore a cooperative effort, and that we can undermine the good things God is trying to do on our behalf. Such is totally irrational. God ordains both whether or not we will “play our part,” and, if we “play our part” whether or not it will be successful. He is ultimately in control.

This concludes part II of my responses to Candice Watters.

Albert Mohler Does It Again

I was just listening to Albert Mohler's most recent radio program, and, to be honest, I think that the tactics that Dr. Mohler uses in this program are simply reprehensible.

The program is the discussion of an article about wealth, and how conservative evangelical protestants who believe the Bible to be inerrant have less than half the net worth of all other religions. This is, indeed, a great testimony to how we are living out our faith. We do not care about money, but are, over all, more concerned for the glory of God.

Although Albert Mohler does mention a few things about moderation in Christian living being commanded in the Bible, he brings in his odd "delay of marriage is a sin" ideas, and picks up on this point about how conservative evangelical protestants who believe the Bible to be inerrant marry earlier, and have more children than all other religions. He then goes on to try to make a connection between his idea that delay of marriage is a sin, and evangelicalism. He says that "Evangelical Christians are making less money because they are making the decision to have the baby." He goes on to practically equate is "delay of marriage" ideas and his idea that all married people must have children with conservativism.

Something that I find interesting as a side note is that Dr. Mohler did not deal with the arguments of those who oppose him. The only time I ever heard him deal with the arguments of a decenter was a woman by the name of Camerin Courtney, who had badly misrepresented Dr. Mohler. However, why does he not deal with anyone who as actually addressed his arguments? Now, I am obviously not expecting him to know who I am, but does he not know that Andreas Kostenberger has had this huge dialogue with Debbie Maken? What about my professors who descent from his position that delay of marriage is a sin? What about the hundreds of other exegetes who are well trained in this subject? He never touches the other side at all. Sadly, this is a common theme amongst those who hold to these beliefs [which is why I always commend Boundless for having the opposite attitude].

What I find most fascinating is that 95% of conservatives would disagree with him that delay of marriage is a sin, and that children are mandatory to a marriage [a fact he conveniently never mentions]. Yet, they still marry early, and have children. Why is that? Could it be that it is not necessary that it be mandatory in order for people to do it? Could it be that the sheer goodness of the responsibility of marriage and children will naturally cause people to want to do it, even though it is not mandated by the Bible? Indeed, far from upholding Dr. Mohler's beliefs, it is actually the strongest refutation of his beliefs. People do not need to hold his views to be conservative, and they don't need to hold his views to have early marriage and children.

I also find it ironic that many people have left conservativism for liberalism simply because many conservative churches refuse to embrace his teaching. I can't tell you how many notes I have gotten from women who left evangelical churches that believe in inerrancy for liberal churches just simply because the evangelical church would not buy into this thinking, and also hold that against evangelical churches. In fact, you have many people in this movement arguing that women should be pursuing Christian men outside the church [which, if you are going to believe in inerrancy, is an oxymoron]. I wonder how Dr. Mohler would explain this?

In fact, I would argue that his view actually does damage to our view of marriage and children. By adding certain commands to God's word, such as the idea that delay of marriage is a sin, and children are mandated within marriage, he has actually stated that the definition of marriage as found in God's word is not sufficient. We have to add things to these definitions, and thus, they are not the very good things they are said to be in God's word. Thus, people view them as a burden, and I know of many men who say that they refuse to marry any woman who holds to these ideas. The reason is very clear. The women who hold these views put an unbiblical burden upon others, and thus, we do not have the easy and light burden of Christ, but the heavy and hard burden of unbiblical tradition.

Captain Sensible More Sensible than Debbie Maken!!!!!!!!

I have been [trying to] have a dialogue with Debbie Maken [which begins here] on the Boundless Blog. She keeps on running out the exact same arguments that I then refute. However, she has been charging me with "bearing false witness" against her. So, I challanged her to show where I had done that. Here is her response:

To that great theologian produced by Trinity Divinity School (with the deafeningly silent backing of his professors):

I am surprised. I thought you would inform the audience that in the Hebrew "neighbor" means someone who lives next door, so one can deconstruct, tell half truths, and interject strawmen (i.e. bear false witness) against those who do not live next door.

It's hard to take you seriously because you want to characterize perfectly substantive answers, as no answers, simply because you do not care for the answers. You want to raise specious questions like, "Where does Luther say rare?" (See your own blog). When you yourself quote Luther as saying "rare, not one in a thousand." (See comment #147). Please do not take Boundless' highly liberal posting policy of your intellectual garbage as an indicator of merit, but more of a "let a fool speak and remove all doubt."

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. First of all, here is what I *actually* said with regards to Martin Luther and rareness of the gift:

Ok, and where does Luther every say that it always would be rare?

See, it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Luther believed the gift was rare, but whether he believed that it would continue to be rare. Of course, Maken simply skirted this, so she could get back to her mocking tone.

It seems like Maken thinks that skirting the issue, and using acid-filled language is giving an answer. It simply is not. As others have pointed out in the comments to my last post, the best these folks can do is attack my credentials, and my spelling.

However, what I wanted to point out is the language that is used in this "response." She uses phrases like "that great theologian produced by Trinity Divinity School," "I thought you would inform the audience that in the Hebrew "neighbor" means someone who lives next door," "one can deconstruct, tell half truths, and interject strawmen (i.e. bear false witness)," "intellectual garbage," and "let a fool speak." I must ask you. How is this any different from Captain Sensible's "Dumb and Dumber" post that Captain Sensible herself has since decided to remove? What level of nasty language did this woman use that Captain Sensible did not use in her last post that she eventually took down? At this point, I have to say that Captain Sensible is far more sensible than Debbie Maken.

This is the same woman who has written articles for Boundless, [in the "best of" section, no less] whose book Boundless endorses [also in the same "best of" section], who has the approval of Albert Mohler and Tim Challes, and who has endorsed Candice Watters' book. Let me ask why it is that a woman who cannot answer straight questions like this, who must resort to all kinds of acid, to cover up for the fact that she is only skirting everything I have said, would ever end up with this kind of support from Christians.

I am hoping to, in the next few days, write to Albert Mohler and Boundless and point them to this discussion. I am hoping that they will see that an endorsement of this woman's work is simply not possible from such influential Christian institutions. I mean, if Albert Mohler still wants to support Candice Watters, and Boundless still wants to support Albert Mohler, then I see nothing wrong with that. However, giving approval to this kind of irrational nastiness from a position such as Debbie Maken's that is based in nothing more than emotion, is not something that Christians should be doing. We should care enough about truth that we are willing to answer each other's questions in an honest, open manner. It is obvious from this discussion that Debbie Maken cannot do that.

I hope this has been instructive. The dialogue is a good example of how to deal with someone that comes from the cultic version of the Mandatory Marriage Movement. However, unfortunately, there will be many people out there who do not know that there are responses to this stuff. I only hope and pray that there will not be more people who take the cultic approach to this issue like Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible have.

That is, again, why I have to say that, while I criticized Boundless a minute ago for supporting this woman's work, I have to say that, from all of the people in this movement with whom I have dialogued, they are by far the most Godly of any. They are, at least, willing to consider what you say, and come up with an honest answer. For that, they are to be commended. Again, I pray that, whichever side of this discussion you take, we honestly deal with these issues in a fair, God honoring manner. This is something for which, given her consistent campaign to silence me, Debbie Maken simply cannot do.

Gerard Baker and Albert Mohler Show the Hypocracy of "Pro-Choice"

Two excellent articles were written yesterday. The first is by London Newspaper author Gerard Baker, and the second is by Albert Mohler.

I could not have put it any better. As Greg Bahnsen always said "You can say that God doesn't exist, but you can't live that way." In the same way, men can deny that they have an obligation to obey the law of God, but they cannot live that way.