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.

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.

Suffering Gets the Goat of the Marriage Mandators

I know some of you have complained that Captain Sensible is not someone people take seriously, and that she is nothing but a bully, and, to both, I would agree. However, I have recently been fowarded some information about this woman showing that, while many people may not take her seriously, and she may be a bully, she has a position of influence in the Christian church over in England. I cannot tell what it is because I have been sworn to secrecy. Hence, for the sake of our single brothers over in England, we need to continue to give them a response to this woman so that they will be able to combat the arguments written on her blog.

Anyway, my recent post on suffering got a real stir out of these folks. I was very thankful to Ted Slater for his appriciative comments. I am finding Ted and Boundless to be the most fair of anyone who discusses this issue. It has been hard, in this discussion, to keep your cool. I learned the first time that I dialogued with Debbie Maken last year that, when someone responds to you in an arrogant and nasty way, it is hard not to respond back in an arrogant and nasty way. I have gotten a whole lot of hate mail from these folks too [although, thankfully, I have not gotten any recently]! Anyway, I have found that, if you are not careful, you can let it become a sore spot, and you think that anytime someone makes an argument, they are attacking you in an arrogant and condecending way. I have tried to avoid doing this, but I had Dr. Averbeck tell me that he thinks that I haven't succeeded, and also, Ted Slater has told me that he thinks I have not succeeded. Hence, I just wanted to clear this up before I go on to something else. I think that we need to be careful that we do not lower ourselves down to these people's level when we speak about this issue.

Anyway, even though Ted may find this hard to believe, I do support Boundless on many issues. I have defended them on feminism, abortion, atheism, homosexuality, and a whole host of other topics. Hence, I am not "anti-Boundless" by any stretch of the imagination. I just happen to have a disagreement with them on this topic. However, what is interesting is that, from reading Ted's comments and my comments both on my blog and on the Boundless blog, it appears that we are getting closer in terms of our perspective, and, as I said, I look foward to continuing the conversation. I think we need to make a clear cut distinction between the nasty and arrogant radicals like Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible, and Focus on the Family and Boundless. They are by no means the same.

Now that I have commented on the people who have given my post a positive review, let me comment on the folks that that have not done so, namely, Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible. First of all, Captain Sensible seems to think, for some reason, that I said singleness was a gift because it causes suffering. I never ever said singleness is a gift because it causes suffering. What I said was that, even if one wants to argue that singleness can cause suffering, that still does not mean it cannot be a gift. Of course, Captain Sensible, because she believes that all singleness causes suffering, read it in this way. It is an important clarification mostly because it illustrates a major difference between us. There are many men on the internet with whom I have dialogued who are single and like it, and have no intention of dating or getting married. In this case, I would argue that singleness causes no suffering, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

Now, Debbie Maken has commented on this on Captain Sensible's blog. Maken argues that I am "imposing "intentions" onto God that simply are not there." Ummm, did Debbie even bother to listen to Pastor Shishko's discussion about the nature of suffering in the Christian life? Did she bother to listen to his argument that all suffering in our lives is to conform is to the image of Christ? Secondly, she said it is God's "explicitly revealed prescription" to be fruitful and multiply. Anyone who knows anything about the issues I went through with Captain Sensible knows that this is absolutely amazing. Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken were caught utterly flat footed when I pointed out that the next phrase is "fill the earth." Now, are we to say that only have fifteen kids somehow causes unnecessary suffering because it is against God's revealed will to have seven billion children so that we fill the earth? You see, Debbie cannot respond to this, even though she claims that she has, she has not. Here is what a response would look like. You would have to say something like, "Here is where there is a clear cut distinction between the first two imperatives, and the third imperative in this text, and here is why your interpretation of the covenantal usage of this phrase is a misinterpretation." When she actually starts dealing with what I say, rather than engaging in name-calling, then I will say that she has actually answered what I have said, and I will give a sound reply.

However, I want you to examine the man-centeredness behind Debbie Maken's post. She said, "Examining the 800 lb gorilla that the Pinto had a major design flaw, and eradicating same might mean less deaths and less unnecessary suffering. Would that then mean that God was not bestowing the gift of accidental death as much?" Notice, from Maken's perspective, what happens in this world is a result of what man does. Man determines his own destiny. In simple response to Debbie Maken we need to point out that it was impossible for there to not be unnecessary suffering. It was impossible for this company to have examined the Pinto more carefully. Why? Because God had ordained both that that these tragedies would happen, and he also ordained the means whereby they would happen [i.e. the carelessness of the workers]. You see, from Maken's perspective, everything that happens in this world is the result of man. She has a very man-centered view of suffering.

Also, notice Debbie Maken's closing statement of her post:

There is nothing glorious about interminable singleness that many Western Christians endure, and this endless search for that glorious rationalization would produce better fruit if we actually searched for ways to reform dating.

In other words, she tells us that she accepts, presuppositionally, that there can be nothing glorious about wanting a spouse and not being able to find one. This is where I think Pastor Shishko's discussion in the first hour becomes extremely important. He told us that, one of the major ways our culture does not have a Godward focus in our suffering is that we think that we have a right to comfort. Interestingly enough, this seems to be largely a female problem. I remember talking to one girl who had just accused a man of sexual harrassment, and she simply said that, the reason she accused him was because he was making her feel uncomfortable. She never mentioned anything that he did that was wrong. It was just the fact that it made her feel uncomfortable. Let me say this very calmly and plainly. God doesn't care one iota about your comfort. If you have this view of God that your comfort is the most important thing, especially in the realm of singleness and marriage, then you need to repent, and put God back on the throne. God doesn't care about your comfort. He cares about conforming you to the image of his son. And is this not what should be most important to the Christian?

I would encourage any of you to read the letters of Samuel Rutherford, and listen to that lecture series by Pastor Shishko. The fact that so many of these folks refuse to deal with it means that we have hit on something very important. I would also recommend, a very good article recently published by Boundless makes this one final excellent point. I will close with this, as it is excellent food for thought:

If I lose a job I reflexively ask, "What is God teaching me?" If my elderly parents need care I ask, "How is God using this in my life?" If a child is in an automobile accident I want to know, "What is God teaching our family?"

And the Bible encourages us to ask those questions. Hebrews 12:7-8, James 1:2-4, and other texts tell us that God uses our suffering to discipline us. God's discipline then brings about our full salvation which includes holiness. That is, suffering is redemptive in our lives.

Indeed, if we have more people following this advice, it may be that Debbie Maken's movement would not seem attractive to anyone.

Could our Suffering be a Gift?

Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible constantly speak about how singleness cannot be a gift because of the fact that it produces suffering. In fact, if you read the promo for Debbie Maken's book on Amazon it says:


Singleness is a gift; at least that's what we've been taught. But if singleness is a gift, then why does it make us feel so miserable so often? Does God really want his children to embrace a gift they resent so much?

Debbie Maken proposes that marriage is the fundamental design and structure for life that God chose for his people. She argues that the church needs to reemphasize the importance of the gift of marriage. This book issues a challenge to churches in their teaching and attitudes toward singleness and to believers in their understanding of God' s intentions regarding marriage.



What if the answer were, even though you resent it, and it makes you feel miserable, it is still a gift, because even the things that you resent, and that make you feel miserable, are gifts? Of course, Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible would probably mock such an idea. However, as I pointed out, mockery is not an argument.


This brings me to one of my favorite sermons by one of my favorite speakers. Pastor William Shishko is pastor of Franklin Square Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and professor of pastoral theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Back in 2003, he preached a series on suffering called Where's God When it Hurts? One of my favorite sermons is part 3 of this five part sermon series, where Pastor Shishko talks about how Christ relates to our suffering. It is one of the best expositions of the phrase "fill up what is lacking in Christ afflictions" in Colossians 1:20 that I have ever seen. Not only that, but Pastor Shishko shows the necessity, even the goodness of suffering in our lives. How is it that the suffering of Christ is related to our suffering? How does it relate to our salvation as a whole? How does it help us to even define salvation? I was listening to it again this morning and was just struck by how relevant the sermon is to, not only our views of marriage and singleness, but also the modern church in general.


Sometimes discernment is required in these little areas so that we can have discernment in these greater areas. One of the many reasons why Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible's ideas have absolutely no appeal to me is because of the fact that I want to know Christ above all things, including being married. That is, if my singleness makes me know Christ more, it is to be perferred. Even if I suffer in "protracted singleness," and it helps me know Christ more, I would rather know Christ than marry. Now, could I have both? Yes, God grants both to many people. However, ultimately, it is more important to me to know Christ than anything else. Therefore, as I learn the sufferings of Christ, I am learning more and more to trust in him in whether I get what I want, or whether I do not. I know that, whether I go through times of pleasure or times of suffering, Christ is right there going through it together with me.

Throughout in this series, Pastor Shishko quotes a man by the name of Samuel Rutherford, a man who suffered greatly for his faith. Rutherford said that he feared that he might make his suffering an idol, because, through his suffering, he knew Christ more. Sadly, this is not a problem in the modern church. This is one case where comparing the problems of the church in Rutherford's time and the problems of the church in our time says a whole lot about the state of the church today.

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.

Captain Sensible is at it Again!

(Warning!!!!!!! Make sure you put on your asbestos gloves before reading this post!!!!!!!)

Wow, I mean, I have never seen such venom as what is in this post from Captain Sensible. She calls Ted Slater and myself "Dumb and Dumber." Now, I know that it is difficult sometimes to control your language when you are addressing such a hot topic. In fact, one of the greatest challanges in addressing this issue is to control my language when I am hurled the insults that Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken send my way. That is one thing about which my professors told me to be careful. I am even somewhat concerned about my last post. It is not easy. However, this post by Captain Sensible absolutely takes the cake. I will leave it to the reader to decide if this is truly Christian behavior.

Captain Sensible really only makes one substantive argument:

We currently have "Adam" arguing that because the creation mandate starts with "Go forth and multiply" and continues "fill the earth and subdue it", then it cannot apply as a mandate to marry because no one person can possibly "fill the earth".
Huh?
Maybe this will help him.
Imagine the scenario of a sales team. Their manager says to them "Go out and make sales. The target for this month is £100k!"Does the manager mean that each individual has to make £100k in sales, otherwise s/he is exempt from the work?

Or is the normal, sensible, logical understanding that collectively, the team should make £100k in sales, and that each member of the sales team should do their best to contribute their share, unless there is a very good reason for them to be excused from the work?

The problem with Captain Sensible's interpretation is that she is being arbitrary. She wants to say that the imperatives "Be fruitful and multiply" mean "everyone must be fruitful and multiply" and the phrase fill the earth means "everyone in a group of people must contribute to a quota of filling the earth." However, such is totally arbitrary. Notice, the analogy to the sales manager doesn't work because he changed his language from the imperative mood to to "the target for this month is." The Hebrew text simply does not do that. It is three imperatives in a row:

#r,a'Þh'-ta, Waïl.miW Wb±r>W WrïP.

All of the words in purple are imperatives with a prefixed conjunction [except for the first word that has no prefixed conjunction]. "Be fruitful," [WrïP.] "Multiply" [Wb±r>W] and "Fill" [Waïl.miW]. However, notice, they are right next to each other. There is nothing between the but a conjunction. Captain Sensible would have us believe that [WrïP.] and [Wb±r>W] are commands given to individuals while [Waïl.miW] is a given to a group of people. Such is totally arbitrary. What warrant do we have for saying that the first two imperatives are addressed to individuals, and the second is addressed to a group when [Waïl.miW] is the very next word!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that how we do exegesis? We can just arbitrarily change the referent for the commands right in the middle of the sentence, even though it is exactly the same form, and the very next word?

Also, would Captain Sensible say that it is a correct interpretation for a group of people to "be fruitful and multiply?" In other words, "Be fruitful and Multiply" is not a command to individuals, but to a group of people, just like she says "fill the earth" is a command to a group of people? And if not, why the arbitrary switching of the person to whom the third command is addressed when it is the next word????????

Secondly, the only way I can see Captain Sensible trying to get around it is from her statement to the effect of "contribute to the sales?" I assume she is implying that we must only contribute to "filling the earth." So, would it be alright, then, if I just contributed to "being fruitful and multiplying" by being a matchmaker, and getting people together, even though I have no children of my own? Well, Captain Sensible will never go for that one!!!!!!!!!

Indeed, no Hebrew grammar lists "contributive" [is there really such a thing????] as a valid sytactical function for the imperative. There is simply no usage of the imperative that means "contribute to x." Captain Sensible is just making it up as she goes along, not realizing that she is unnaturally breaking up the text in an effort to preserve her exegetically weak interpretation of Genesis 1:28.

Now, I just simply have to quote the rest of the stuff that was said about Ted and I, because it is just full of acid. It amazes me that she can call Ted and I "Dumb and Dumber," then present a very weak exegetical presentation on Genesis 1:28, and state the following. It is truly amazing:

Ted Slater seems impressed by the great wisdom on display in Adam's posts - even offering a recent "well done"! Shame he didn't use his comment intervention on that thread to "encourage" and give "hope" to a poor woman (see below) who wrote about how it was just too painful to desire marriage any more. No, Ted Slater ignores that, and instead offer a pat on the back to an amateur theologian whose arguments are too stupid to even take seriously. (Maybe Ted thinks she "intentionally" delayed marriage, and now good Christian men will understandably pass her by in favour of women with more "vigour" and "youthfulness"?)

I am also sick and tired of reading about Christian women who "haven't had a date in 10 years", yet are "constantly being approached by men in the world.

"This is simply unacceptable.

Single Christian women must not put up with this any longer. I would suggest marrying a Godly, believing man in the world, one unsullied by all this falsely "Christian" poison, and then once settled with a husband and family of your own, focus on changing this situation for your still suffering sisters.

Shame on Ted Slater. Shame on Boundless. Shame on Focus on the Family. Shame on the lot of them. They have the power and position to do good. But they are instead choosing to continue the madness.

Focus on "the Family"? I think not...

Incidentally: Here is that heart-breaking comment that was posted and which Ted ignored, preferring to post a comment saying "well done" to Adam, and another which effectively encourages men that have delayed marriage for decades to chase after younger women>

Tell me, shouldn't this poor young woman have been addressed? My heart truly breaks for her. How is it possible for Ted Slater to leave her comment ignored, and make such car crash interventions instead? And still keep his job???

Wow, I mean, first of all, these folks refuse to admit that we do not believe that there is anything wrong with wanting marriage, so, her criticism of Ted with regards to this post is just downright absurd.

Second of all, she suggest "marrying a Godly, believing man in the world." The phrase "Godly, believing man in the world" is an oxymoron. If someone is a Godly, believing man, he will not willfully refrain from the covenant community. I know I will probably alienate some people by saying this, but, if you are willfully not a member of the local church, not subject to the elders of that church [1 Peter 5:5], and are forsaking the assembly together [Hebrews 10:25], then you are living in sin. People who intentionally live in unrepentant sin, who wilfully refuse to be obedient to God in his commands as to how we are to live our Christian life in the covenant community are not believers. Now, I am not talking about those who are unable to regularly attend a church because of an illness or because they live too far away from the nearest church, etc. I am talking about a person, like Captain Sensible is talking about, who, by willfully refusing to be a part of a covenant community, is living a life of sin. Such a person is not a Christian in the Biblical sense, and I believe that, therefore, Captain Sensible is telling Christian women to marry unbelievers.

However, beyond these two serious flaws, look at the acid in this post. You have words and phrases like "amateur theologian," "too stupid to be taken seriously," "falsely Christian poison," "shame on Boundless, Focus on the Family, a lot of them," Focus on the Family...I think not," "heartbreaking comment which Ted ignored," "which effectively encourages men that have delayed marriage for decades to chase after younger women," and "How is it possible for Ted Slater to leave her comment ignored, and make car crash interventions instead? And still keep his job???" And, of course, we have Debbie Maken jumping in to rebuke Captain Sensible for her personal attacks on Ted and I......well, of course not. Debbie Maken called me an "amateur theologian" as well in her post that I linked to in my last blog entry. I really have to wonder if these women recognize that their language is giving away the fact that they are unable to answer the criticisms we are using against them.

Again, I absolutely cannot believe that people take Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible seriously. They are on crusades, and are unable to stop and hear what the other side is saying. It is merely a game to smear the other side, and make them look so stupid that no one would ever dare believe what they have to say. Of course, if our arguments were so stupid, you would think that they would be jumping at the opportunity to show it. I will be interested to see if she will post this argument about Genesis 1:28 on Boundless, because I would love to have the opportunity of showing why it is that these people have to keep on saying that we are "stupid" and "dumb and dumber" on their own blogs where they have comment moderation, and yet, will refuse to subject themselves to an *open* dialogue about the issues with the very people they are willing to call "stupid" and "dumb and dumber" on their own, comment moderated, blog.

At least it is good that Ted Slater is out there being shot at too. It feels good to not be the only moving target.

Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible...Cut From the Same Cloth

Well, I absolutely can't believe it. Debbie Maken has responded to my post on the Boundless Blog about Martin Luther...sort of. All you will find is the same kind of condescending rhetoric, and repitition of the same arguments that have been refuted over and over again.

However, what I find interesting is the last paragraph of Maken's post:

There is no common ground with these rogues because all we will see is lip service to the general rule drowning in an endless sea of exceptions that swallows/undermines the very rule. Boundless should not be an instrument or platform for this kind of sophisticated undermining of marriage in the name of fostering discourse.

So, now, Debbie Maken has joined in the campaign to silence any opposition to her beliefs. What I find so interesting is that this is the same kind of things that cults do. Again, don't the Jehovah's Witnesses have this idea of "apostate literature?" Do they not forbid their readers from reading anything critical of their society? There you go. I think I can now safely include Debbie Maken in the cultic version of this movement.

I posted this on the Boundless Blog, but I figured I would post it here, just to give you the idea that I have answered all of this stuff before, and now, Maken, rather than responding to me, just keeps repeating the same old arguments that I have dealt with a hundred times over.

-------------------------------------------
Debbie Maken,

Ultimately, his words speak for themselves, and they are quite clear. . . . "Apart from these three categories of eunuchs, let no man presume to be without a wife. . . ." To then say, as some have suggested, that Luther says nothing of people being "called to singleness," is intellectually dishonest. The exemptions are clearly outlined. If you don't fall into them, then get married. If Luther says that "not one in a thousand" falls into these exceptions, the emphasis is NOT on the "not" to suggest that Luther perhaps meant "more than one in a thousand." How opinions and tortured conclusions like these continue to receive Ted Slater's warm applause ("well said" of comment #28) baffles me.

What is intellectually dishonest is that you refuse to quote me in context. I said that Luther defined the third category as someone who "willfully refrained from marriage." Please deal with Luther's own discussion of that third category.

This open-ended idea that people are somehow individually "called to singleness," just right up until the time they decide that they are called to marriage, is to give the creature a guilt-free, shame-free, spiritually-unquestionable license of pursuing marriage whenever and without any regard to the cost, either individually, or to the spouse one could have had, to the collective impact on the church and society.

Then why is it that Luther talked about those who "willfully refrain?" Not only that, Debbie, but could you please explain the following quotation from Luther, given your interpretation of him?:

Here I will let the matter rest and leave to others the task of searching out further benefits and advantages of the estate of marriage. My purpose was only to enumerate those which a Christian can have for conducting his married life in a Christian way, so that, as Solomon says, he may find his wife in the sight of God and obtain favour from the Lord [Prov. 18:22]. In saying this I do not wish to disparage virginity, or entice anyone away from virginity into marriageLet each one act as he is able, and as he feels it has been given to him by God.

As I said on my blog, Debbie, your position is a modern invention. It never saw the light of day before the twenty-first century.

There is nothing unusual or new about the marriage mandate position—generally understood, it is one that believes that marriage was instituted by God, is to be honored by all, is expected to be lived in as the norm for adult life, is a sacred duty for those to enter into during the season of youth,

Which, of course, the scriptures never teach.

and the "rare" (to borrow Luther's word) exception is just that, "rare," and not be dwelt upon incessantly since it "rarely" applies, and such musings are only fancy sidetracking attempts to further add confusion to an area already scarred from misinformation.

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

Consequently, those who choose to be and/or find themselves single without the biblical warrant for exemptions from marriage

Again, where do you get this idea that there must be "Biblical exemptions?" Even Martin Luther allowed for a person to willfully refrain from marriage.

The question is does Scripture mandate marriage for the vast numbers of men and women. And do the creation ordinances of Genesis (and replenishment commands post deluge) mandate marriage in a way that children grow up and assume the mantle of adulthood by marrying a spouse of their youth and siring another generation so that they are counted among those who were told to "be fruitful and multiply"?

Well, again, if you are saying that this command applies to individuals, then would you not say that every person is under obligation to have a thousand children each year, so at the end of their lives they have "filled the earth?" As I have said before, these imperatives are right next to each other. Whoever is being commanded to be fruitful and multiply is also being commanded to fill the earth. Your exegesis forces you to the absurd conclusion that everyone is obligated to have seven billion children in their lifetime so that they fill the earth

are in a spiritual no man's land and they are going to go without certain blessings because God is not required to bless outside of the boundaries He himself has instituted. If this viewpoint then raises some eyebrows as to why perfectly normal eligible bachelors go year after year being perennially single, it is a logical outflow, a necessary conclusion, and a good in and of itself, for it serves as an additional impetus to push those dragging their feet toward marriage.

And, of course, none of them require marriage.

And if Luther had agreed with the status quo of open-ended reading of I Corinthians 7 and private conscience driven singleness, we would have heard about these Luther sermons long before Getting Serious about Getting Married was published.

We did. In the very sermon you quoted, Luther said "Let each one act as he is able, and as he feels it has been given to him by God." Again, I have to wonder if you even read the resources that you quote, or if you just went through them looking for anything that seemed to support your position.

We certainly did not need a theological giant from Trinity Divinity School (with the deafeningly silent backing of his professors) showing us how to reconstruct very simple words.

Lol, silent backing?????? So, Dr. James Hoffmeier saying that he agreed with me, and Dr. Richard Averbeck telling me that your perspective is a "classic overreaction?" That is hardly silence. It sounds more to me like they think the same thing I do of your position.

We want single people to have accountability of their singleness and the extension of their single years on their own terms without feeling any pinch whatsoever since we cannot know every one's peculiar individual situation. That is not accountability; that is man saying that he rules his life the way he sees fit under some spiritual carte blanche, and how dare others judge him for it.

Well, again, that would require that you show us that there is some obligation from the scriptures in order for you to "hold someone accountable."

Ultimately, there is no reason to castigate "the marriage mandate for the masses" crowd because the contrary position is a giant ball of self-contradiction.

My position has been held by reformed churches for four hundred years? And if my position is so self-contradictory as you say, why is it you have consistently refused to respond to any of your detractors? I mean, if we are so "self-contradictory" as you say, it should be very easy to take on our arguments rather than just repeating the same things over and over again.

The author of the original article regarding Luther did an excellent job appreciating Luther's depth on this subject, and extrapolated exactly what Luther's own writings would indicate.

Then, again, it should be very easy to respond to the things that I have said. However, you seem to have the ability to keep repeating things, and also use condescending language to cover up for the fact that you guys seem to have no answer to the things we are saying.

However, many of your bloggers comments have sought to do the exact opposite in misdirecting the reader from what was actually written by Luther, and have sewn seeds of doubt on writings where there are no doubts.

How can someone be misdirecting the reader from Luther's writings when I am actually quoting him! When I am examining him in the context in which he made these statements. You say that there is no doubts. Again, Debbie, then it should not be too difficult to prove by showing that I have somehow misused Luther in his context.

There is no common ground with these rogues because all we will see is lip service to the general rule drowning in an endless sea of exceptions that swallows/undermines the very rule. Boundless should not be an instrument or platform for this kind of sophisticated undermining of marriage in the name of fostering discourse.

No, actually, I respect Ted Slater and Boundless for being willing to dialogue about this issue. BTW, Debbie, I allow homosexuals, gay marriage proponents, and virtually anyone with any false view of marriage and any false teaching to post on my blog. You know what? I have never had anyone that I am aware of who agrees with my position, and reads my blog ever convert to false teaching. Why? Because I believe that the contrast between the Biblical position and the worldly position is most clearly seen when we place them side by side. That is what makes my wander about Captain Sensible's [and now your] crusade against academic discussion of these matters. If you guys don't have the courage of your convictions, and you have to keep repeating the same arguments that have been refuted a hundered times, keep giving us nothing but dogmatism, and want to silence the opposition, then I really don't know how you can honestly say that you believe your position is rationally defensible.

BTW, for those of you who want to see just how bad Debbie Maken's scholarship is with regards to Calvin and the reformers, here is an article I published wherein I documented several academically dishonest uses of the reformers and works about the reformed views of marriage:

http://puritancalvinist.blogspot.com/2007/06/was-calvin-marriage-mandator-this.html

Again, I would ask anyone to go read Luther's sermon, as well as his other works on marriage [His commentary on Genesis, his Commentary on 1 Corinthians, and his other sermon entitled "The Estate of Marriage" and come to your own conclusions. I can confidently say that I believe, when the two are put side by side, that it is very clear who is accurately representing the reformers.

God Bless,
Adam
-------------------------------------------

Well, I just leave it to the reader to decide about the integrity and credibility of Debbie Maken.

What I also find interesting is that this is the only topic I have ever seen Debbie Maken address at an academic level. I just got done doing a presentation on Proverbs 2:1-10, and doing work in Paleo-Hebrew on the West Semitic inscriptions that mention the "house of the Lord." Not only that, but I have been taking a class in Hermeneutics, which is a class on the entire theory of Biblical interpretation. One of the values that I am finding in studying all of these topics is that it helps keep me focused on proper interpretational methods in texts that have nothing to do with this issue so that, when I address it, I am able to be more Biblically faithful in doing so. To my knowledge, Maken has not done exegetical work in an academic setting outside of this area, and thus, I think that this might be contributing to the problem.

However, again, I wonder how anyone could support a position in which there is a conscious effort to silence any opposition to what they are saying. In fact, Ted Slater said that he thought that my post was well said. I hope that means that we are getting closer in our respective beliefs about this topic, and I look forward to continuing the conversation. Of course, if Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible get their way, then that will be impossible. Then, I guess, I will have to rely on their inability to handle cross examination of their position as the final nail in the coffin of their position.

Again, I respect the Boundless Blog for their commitment to allowing both sides to speak, and I have attempted to model my blog after the same manner. In fact, I read several articles on the Boundless Blog that have nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. Hence, with all of this stuff going on with Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken, I would just like to applaud Boundless for their commitment to integrity, and open, honest discussion of in house debates such as this, and even things like atheism, abortion, pornography, etc. that we all agree is wrong. I can only pray that one day Debbie Maken and Captain Sensible will learn the same.

Endorsements

As many of you know, I have had major concerns about Candace Watters coming out with a new book, given that she wrote an article with horrible exegetical mistakes concerning the book of Ruth, which I have documented here.

I have been waiting to see if the book would get endorsements from any Old Testament professors. You can usually tell a whole lot about the nature of a book from who endorses it. Well, today Candace Watters revealed who has endorsed her book:

"Candice Watters offers genuine help to Christians thinking about marriage, adulthood, and God's purpose for humanity."

- R. Albert Mohler Jr., from the Foreword

"Get Married is forceful, persuasive, and a must-read for today's Christian single."

- Gary Thomas, Author, Sacred Marriage

"Get Married not only brings healing and renewal to the Christian single confused by scriptural misinterpretation, it offers them practical advice to get to the altar."

- Debbie Maken, Author, Getting Serious about Getting Married

I mean, what can you say. You have Albert Mohler, who is really one of the leaders of the mandatory marriage movement, and Debbie Maken who is as bad as Gail Riplinger when it comes to historical and exegetical issues. Hence, you have no one whose area of expertise is Old Testament studies, nor even someone whose area of expertise is New Testament studies! That makes this situation very dangerious.

I want to avoid saying anything until I have had a chance to read the book. However, as I said before, if her article Ruth Revisited is any indication of the level of exegetical argumentation we are going to find in this book, I am not overly optimistic. I will be reviewing the book if I see anything that needs a refutation.

Also, I was looking at the subtitle What Women Can do to Help it Happen, and trying to figure out why this movement appeals to women so much. Candace could have directed this book at both women and men, but she choose not to do so. Also, most of the people whom I have dealt with online with this issue have been women. Also, Candace Watters is herself a woman. I mean, we have women who are being trained her at Trinity, and they absolutely laughed at Debbie Maken's ideas. However, why is it that a woman is more likely to be dragged into this movement? Honestly, I have not been able to come up with any reason.

Anyway, this also encourages me to get my book started again. I greatly grown in my exegetical skills since I have been at Trinity, and I think I would be able to give stronger responses now than when I first started writing the book. Hopefully, in a few months, after more research, we will be able to put a book out to counter this stuff. I will also be thinking about how I can gear it towards the female population, so that we can give strong exegetical refutations of the arguments that Maken, Watters, and Mohler are using.

Sound Scholarship Again Contradicts Debbie Maken

I have been doing a lot of research for my exegetical paper which is due on Tuesday, and, as part of my research, I was examining the methodological section of C. John Collins' Commentary on Genesis 1-4. It is a 300+ page commentary on the first four chapters of Genesis by a professor of Old Testament at Covenant Seminary [incedentially, the same seminary that Debbie Maken's church, the PCA, supports].

All of you who have read Debbie Maken's book at this point are aware of this quotation:

Adam was in the garden with Eve, had been given headship over her, watched the entire conversation (with a talking snake!), and yet did nothing. No intervention, no "Stop talking with that animal!" It's like he sat back, popped open a beer, and then when everything went to pot complained, "The woman you gave me..." [Getting Serious about Getting Married p. 67]

Contra Debbie Maken, C. John Collins, an Old Testament scholar, says that this is what is called a "gap." He writes:

A gap is something left unresolved; when it is intentional, it makes us wonder about it. Since the question here is an obvious one, it may well be the author's intent to say to us, "I know you are curious about this, but since the purpose of the account is elsewhere, I will not satisfy your curiosity." Other gaps in this account include: what is the origin of the evil that possesses the serpent; whence came the woman's willingness to entertain the temptation; and what was the man doing when he was "with her" (3:6)? [Collins, C. John. Genesis 1-4 A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing. Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 2006 p. 172 n. 60].

With regards to Genesis 3:6 he writes:

And what of the man's part? He enters in Gensis 3:6, where we read "she also gave some to her husband [who was] with her, and he ate." If he was "with her," what was he doing when Eve was being led astray? Why did he eat-did he put up no struggle? Again, I do not think our author has given us the wherewithal to answer these questions. Instead, the focus is on the other factors: namely, that the couple sinned freely, that is, without any compulsion or pressure from God or their created nature. [ibid, p.173 Emphasis mine].

Notice that, unlike Debbie Maken, C. John Collins is not so quick to rule out the idea that Adam might have put up a struggle. In fact, one of the interesting things about this is that John Calvin, who Maken quotes [and misuses over and over again] contradicts her here:

And gave also unto her husband with her From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible. Yet it might be that he soon joined her, and that, even before the woman tasted the fruit of the tree, she related the conversation held with the serpent, and entangled him with the same fallacies by which she herself had been deceived [from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.ix.i.html].

In other words, here is a possible reconstruction of these events:

1. The woman is tempted.
2. Adam sees that his wife is being tempted, tries to stop her, but she doesn't listen, and persists in speaking with the snake in spite of her husband's strong protests.
3. After she eats of the fruit, she is mad at her husband, and they quarrel. In the midst of that quarrel, she ensnares him in the very same errors of which the serpent had convinced her.
4. After she has deceived her husband, she gets some fruit, gives it to him, and he eats of it.

This senario definitely fits with everything that is said in the text. The point that Dr. Collins is making is that the Bible does not tell us what Adam was doing when he was with her. We can take it as a sinster, anti-male senario. Or, we can look at Adam as being deceived by the very same lies by which the woman was deceived. Of course, we know that the shaming that Debbie Maken does of single men is definitely indicative of which position she is going to take. However, if we are going to be honest exegetes, we are going to have to admit that we have no idea what Adam was doing when he was with her. The point is that the couple sinned freely, and we in turn have inhereted a sin nature because of it.

Could Debbie Maken be Courting Open Theism?

For all of those who are concerned about the mandatory marriage issue, I would like to ask everyone for prayers for Debbie Maken. I will sometimes visit her blog to get information for my book, but mostly don't read the comments because it is mostly just Debbie Maken's ascerbic language disguised as an answer to her critics. I have kept on responding to her, firstly because there are people who do not know that Debbie Maken is saying is easily challangable, and secondly most people do not know how to answer her, and also because I believe that God can turn her heart so that she will repent of her sin, and turn to Christ. I have been praying for this woman, and hoping that such will happen. She is around reformed teachers, so, I was hoping that some of their teaching could be used of God to turn her heart.

However, her days in reformed churches might be limited. Today, I happened to go over to her blog, and I decided to take a look at the comments section to see if Farmer Tom tried to respond to her. I was startled to find the following message by an anonymous poster. For those of you who follow Gene Cook's ministry and remember this debate, you will find this comment very interesting:

Hi Debbie.

I stumbled upon your book on Amazon about a year ago and enjoyed it very much. Afterwards, I began following the whole singleness discussion/debate on your blog and others. I had no idea this discussion was even going on in some Christian circles, and I could definitely relate to the frustration I saw expressed about the current marriage crisis. I was pleased to find that many others were rethinking the modern Church's teachings about singleness and marriage.

I'd like to offer my thoughts on what I believe is the source of the Church's faulty teaching on this subject. You have been right to point out the harmful effects of the well-meaning platitudes Church leaders tell singles about their situation - i.e. "If you're single, it's God's will for you right now"; "Wait on the Lord and He'll bring you the person He has for you"; and, of course "Singleness is a gift." I certainly agree with you that these ideas have been quite painful and paralyzing to many Christian singles.

But the question must be asked: What do all these pious platitudes have in common? Answer: The implicit notion that God has chosen a particular person for each of us to marry and that He will bring that person into our lives at some "appointed time," if it is His will for us to marry at all. A typical Christian hears the expression "the person God has for you" literally hundreds of times in his life - at Church, from family and friends, on Christian TV and radio, in books and magazines. The idea is so ubiquitous in Christian circles that it goes largely unquestioned. Not to mention the belief, so common in pop culture, that we each possess a "soul mate."

By the way, one very overlooked passage of scripture that implies God does not have a particular person picked out for each of us is 1 Cor. 7:39-40 (NKJV):

" 39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment-and I think I also have the Spirit of God."

"To whom she wishes."

I don't think the common mistranslation of 1 Cor. 7:7 in some modern Bibles to say, "God gives to some the gift of marriage , and to others the gift of singleness" is the primary source of the "Gift of Singleness" teaching, although it certainly didn't help. Rather, I strongly believe that all these erroneous ideas flow quite logically from the fatalistic worldview that has permeated Christianity for many centuries.

Ever since the Neo-Platonist movement at the time of Augustine, Christianity - and all of Western culture (think Doris Day… "Que Sera, Sera, Whatever will be, will be" ) - has been greatly influenced by Greek philosophy, especially the writings of Plato. Augustine is "credited" with harmonizing Platonic thought with Christian theology. In his 'Confessions' he admitted that his commitment to the Greeks was so great that he refused to become a Christian until Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, showed him how he could interpret Scripture through the prism of Greek philosophy. Augustine had seen a clear distinction between the way the Bible presents God and the Greek's conception of divinity, and he preferred the latter (!)

In contrast, for the first 300 years of the Body of Christ - before the influence of Augustine - notable Christians like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, etc. taught that because God possesses genuine freedom of will, and because man is created in His image and likeness, we do too. In the book "God's Strategy in Human History" (Marston & Forster, 2000 Ed.), Alister McGrath, professor of historical theology at Oxford, is quoted as saying (p.296), "The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting the freedom of the human will." McGrath considers the Church's later denial of true libertarian human will to be a good thing, so his admission here is quite notable.

The commitment to humanistic philosophy continued into the Reformation with Luther - an Augustinian monk - and Calvin, who revered Augustine's writings. Calvin's theology is considered to be in many ways a revival of Augustinianism. Many Reformation seminaries placed an equal emphasis on the study of "The Classics" (Greek philosophy) as on the study of Holy Scripture. In short, the Reformation broke the Body of Christ free from Rome, but not from Greece.

This isn't to say Greek philosophy is totally without value. One of the factors that led to the advancement of science in Western Civilization - besides the presence of Christianity, with its belief that God created an orderly universe - was the development of the laws of logic by the philosophers of ancient Greece. However (and I know you agree with this) whatever truth may exist in any man-made philosophy, especially any attempt to describe the nature of God, man and reality, must be discerned by reading it through the prism of God's Word, and not vice versa.

The concept that the future is eternally settled (preordained) and therefore that it cannot be altered in any way is a superstitious, pagan idea, not a Biblical one. The Greeks called it "Fate" while many Christians call it "God's Will" or "Providence", but it's the same superstitious worldview that has been common in pagan cultures throughout history - most significantly in ancient Greece. By the way, the term "providence" was actually coined by the Greeks, and later adopted by Christian theologians.

The Body of Christ is steeped in this worldview and it has a direct impact on practical life matters such as how Christians pursue marriage - or don't. Countless singles have had Church leaders tell them they should not proactively pursue marriage because it would all just happen in "God's perfect time," or that they don't want to "get ahead of God" or other such nonsense. Even the dreaded "Contentment Lecture" that singles are clobbered over the head with whenever they express their desire to be married, flows logically from this fatalistic worldview. After all, if every facet of life - including one's marital status - is following a sort of Divine Script, how can anyone be discontent with where God "has him"?

A while back you posted an article by Blaine Smith on your blog, titled "Is God A Matchmaker?" It's a good illustration of the paralysis these ideas can create in the lives of Christian singles. He wrote:

A member of the church I attended as a single Christian wrote a song that became a favorite at weddings there. Many couples included it in their wedding ceremonies, and Evie and I began our own service with it. The first verse sets forth the theme that continues throughout the song: "Before God gave us life . . . He planned us for each other."

The song proclaims a belief which Christians have long held sacred--that God predetermines whom you marry. If he wants you to be married, he has one ideal choice in mind. And he works in many mysterious ways to bring you to the one for whom you are destined....

...I find that...[frequently] this viewpoint has an adverse effect on Christians....

...Most unfortunate...is the paralyzing effect this notion sometimes has on single Christians who want to be married. Some conclude that any personal effort to find a spouse is outside the bounds of faith. Changing jobs or churches to improve the prospects of meeting someone compatible, for instance, is out of the question. Faith demands that you sit still and wait for God to bring the right person to your doorstep.

In one extreme case a Christian woman told me she felt she must avoid any situation that would make it too easy to find a husband. She had four opportunities for missionary service. In three of these situations there were single men whom she would consider marrying. Thus she felt compelled to choose the fourth. Though this woman, who was past forty, deeply wanted to be married, she greatly feared getting her own will mixed up with God's in the matter. Making it as difficult as possible for God to bring a man into her life would help ensure that marriage would come about only if God willed....

...My experience...is that most Christians do not find this notion [the premise of the song] helpful when it comes to decisions related to marriage....

No, not helpful at all.

You might ask, "So, if this fatalism has infected the Church for centuries, why is it only recently - in the last few decades - that we've experienced such passivity regarding the pursuit of marriage?" Fair question. Here's my take on it:

I think if you had asked most Christians even fifty years ago, "Do you think God has chosen a particular person for each of us to marry?" they likely would have said, "Gee, now that you mention it, I guess He probably has" even though most of them wouldn't have given it much prior thought. It wasn't a particularly helpful idea for them to keep in mind as they were thinking about marriage. Since the cultural stigma about pre-marital sex was still intact, most people - especially men - were very eager to get married (just as God intended). Their more intentional attitude toward the pursuit of marriage was not a logical result of their theology, but existed in spite of it.

When the trend of marital delay began in the Western world in the 1960's - due mainly to the Sexual Revolution - the Body of Christ was faced with the challenge of ministering to millions more single people in our society and began to develop a sort of Theology of Singleness -- the foundation of which, unfortunately, was the superstitious worldview the Church has applied to every dilemma and tragedy in life.

There's an excellent audio presentation that is highly relevant to this issue, titled "Predestination & Free Will" by a man I greatly admire named Bob Enyart. He's a radio talk show host (KGOV.com) and pastor of Denver Bible Church in Colorado. His ministry has had a tremendous impact on my life for about 15 years. The presentation is a six-hour seminar he held on this topic. Here's the description from his website:

So much is at stake when people consider predestination and free will. Strong emotions often surface with a discussion of this topic. That passion points to our critical need to understand the truth regarding whether or not God has predetermined who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.

Also, the question of whether or not God has planned out each person's life affects us. Does God have a plan for your life? Does a blueprint exist for your future? Did God predetermine whether or not you would get married, and to whom? Did God plan whether you would be wealthy or poor, happy or sad? If God does plan your life, does He do so in minute detail or in general themes? If God has a plan for your life, are you able to alter that plan? This topic directly influences people concerning how they live their lives [AMEN! - me]. As Christians, we must seek God to accurately portray the LORD to others. For any misrepresentation of God will dishonor Him and perhaps bring harm to those misled.

I believe many people have misrepresented God - even if unintentionally - and have brought great harm to Christian singles through bad theology.

I think you would enjoy reading a fascinating debate on this topic that took place at TheologyOnline.com between Enyart and Dr. Samuel Lamerson, a professor at Knox Theological Seminary: link. And here's an excellent article about Predestination and Free Will that talks about Greek philosophy's influence on Christianity: link.

In following this discussion online for some time, it's been clear to me that most of those involved – and both sides in every tangential debate - are from a Reformed background. Perhaps the folks in these churches are more concerned with this particular topic than other believers are -- I don't know. I'm aware that my analysis strikes at the heart of Reformed/Calvinist theology. For this reason, I deliberated whether or not I really wanted to interject my thoughts. I know how contentious the subject of Predestination and Free Will is, and how defensive we all can get - myself included - when our long-held doctrinal beliefs are challenged.

Because I feel strongly that the current analysis of this issue – though accurate in many ways - wasn't quite getting at the heart of the issue, nor identifying what I believe is the root cause of all the confusion and false teaching about singleness, I decided it was worth offering my two cents. I guess I'm asking you and your readers to rethink a few more things. ;-) I hope you will at least give my ideas some consideration.

I want to thank you for your effort to kick-start this conversation and for challenging some of the modern Church's teachings on the subject of singleness - and taking the heat for it. It was long overdue! Thank you also for encouraging Christian singles to be more intentional about pursuing marriage and family. Of all the obstacles Christian singles must dodge in their efforts to get married, hopefully we can soon eliminate bad theology as a wholly unnecessary one.

Thank you for your time.

In Christ,
Paul

Now, I was waiting to see if Debbie Maken would attack this man for his heretical theology. Remember, in Gene Cook's dialogue with Enyart [Part 1 here, and Part 2 here], he got Enyart to say that it was possible that, from all eternity, the father could have hated the son. Not only does Enyart not believe in providence in the classic Christian sense, he also denies that God has exaustive foreknowledge of future events. Indeed, if Debbie Maken were a good Reformed Presbyterian, one would expect her to repudate such a heretical position. However, I was greatly disappointed in Maken's reply:

Paul,

Thank you so much for adding "more than two cents worth" to the discussion. Your observations are quite astute about the confusion most singles suffer. My husband often says this of Christians in this culture-- "these people are thinking this thing to death; it is so simple." And I can hear that sentiment in your examination of a bachelor who would have married sooner in spite of theology. Very good. Please contribute again.

Debbie Maken

Now, this is very dangerious. I have said before that Debbie Maken's views on God's sovereignty are Arminian to the core, and one of the most man-centered views I have ever encountered. Isn't it amazing that Anakin, Andreas Kostenburger, and myself have tried to tell Maken this, but she refuses to listen because we are supposedly "speaking out of both sides of our mouths." Now, pure Open theism is presented, and she bites.

We all need to be in deep prayer for this woman. She is walking down a very dangerious road, and her soul is in grave danger. It is amazing that all of this started from a movement which decided it would add a command to scripture by calling protracted singleness a sin when the Bible does not say that it is a sin. I do believe her idolatry is finally taking root. Man always wants to make a God in his own image, and that is exactly what finite-godism is. It fits with Maken's theology, as she really believes that the only reason that any man is not married is because he hasn't done something right. There is no room for providence in her view of marriage. Thus, Open Theism is perfectly suited to her theology. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, Maken ends up saying that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of future events, and there is no providence. I don't know if any of you remember our dialogue, but in it, Maken complained that the classic reformed view made God the "author" of sin. So I asked her the following question: If God foreknew that someone was going to sin, then why did he create them? This is a classic argument that Calvinists have used in theological dialogue with our Arminian brothren for years. It is interesting that Open Theists have started using this exact same argument against Arminians. What is interesting is that Maken had no answer for this, and only said that greater minds than ours have discussed this issue, and therefore, we should not seek to improve upon them. In other words, she never answered the question.

Now, as far as the man's arguments, they are bogus. First of all, with regards to 1 Corinthians 7:39-40, there is no doubt that people choose who they wish. However, it is God who has control over the desires of man. Thus, "who a person wishes" has nothing to do with the debate, as both people believe man does what he desires. That has nothing to do with whether or not God has also ordained what man now desires.

Secondly, while there are many erronious teachings in modern Christianity that are fatalistic, Reformed theology is not one of those teachings. Why is that? Because fatalism is the belief that God has ordained the ends but not the means. In other words, you can try to avoid sinning in the future, but you will not be able to do so. Why? Because no matter how much you try, you will not be able to resist it, because it is your fate. That is not Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that God ordains the ends as well as the means. Thus, when someone sins, it is not because it was their fate. God ordained the ends [their act of sin] as well as the means [their evil desire to sin].

Secondly, Enyart says that we makes God limited because we say that he cannot do some things. Several things can be said in response to this. First of all, it is unbiblical and incoherent to say that "God can do anything." God cannot sin [1 John 1:5], God cannot lie [Titus 1:2], and God cannot deny himself [2 Timothy 2:13]. Thus, to say that, for instance, the father cannot hate the son is only to say that he cannot deny himself. It is part of his nature and character. Also, here is a classic, but thorny problem for the open view. Can God make a stone so big that he cannot lift it? Well, if you answer "yes," then you have to admit that God is not "free" to lift that stone. If you answer "no," then you are forced to the conclusion that God is not "free" to make this stone. In other words, because you depart from the scriptures, you run into logical problems, as is always the case.

Finally, it is the Open Theist's view that has roots in Greek Philosophy. The open view states that God is a finite creature who is ignorant of many things. In the same manner, the gods of Greek mythology are finite, limited, and, in many cases, immoral.

Also, where does Augustine say that Ambrose taught him to interpret the scriptures through the lens of Greek Philosophy? I am translating Augustine's confessions right now, and the reason why Augustine was converted is because God changed his heart so that he stopped loving the perverse sexual behavior to which he was enslaved. Nowhere does he ever mention Ambrose ever teaching him to interpret the scriptures through Greek philosophy.

Open Theists such as Enyart are engaging in wishful thinking when they promote these arguments. Maken is going down a dangerious road by thinking that these arguments have merit, not to mention the fact that this whole position is totally against the Westminster standards held by the Presbyterian Church in America and most people in the PCA believe that Open Theism is heresy, as do I. We need to be praying that God will stop Debbie Maken from thinking that it is so "simple" when her supposedly "simple" viewpoint is putting her heart in incredible peril. This is what happens when you always think you are right, and you do not listen to other people when they try to tell you that you are wrong. This is what happens when you have a man-centered, idolatrous view of marriage. Andreas Kostenburger wrote the following in his dialogue with Debbie Maken:

It seems that Maken’s emphasis is almost unilaterally on man’s (or woman’s) initiative, while God’s providence and the Holy Spirit’s leading are disparaged. Are we not to trust God as to his timing and his way of leading in this intensely personal area of our lives? In the end, one wonders just how Christian Maken’s thinking is and to what extent shallow theology masks a focus on people going out and trying to force the hand of a recalcitrant and ambivalent God who has largely left humans to their own devices.

Now, Maken's soul is in grave peril because of the fact that she would not listen to anyone. Again, we need to be praying that God would show mercy to Debbie Maken, and turn her heart before she ends up believing, not just the unbiblical idea that protracted singleness is a sin, but out and out heresy. The sad thing is that Maken has this idea that the church's current teaching on singleness with relation to God's sovereignty is a modern invention so, not only does this play into the hands of the Bob Enyarts of the world, but it also means that there is no stopping her from going all the way. That is why I recommend that we be in prayer for her, and ask God to turn her heart before it is too late.