See, I am Fallible!!!!!!

(and a discussion of the Radical Marriage Mandators too!!!!!!!!)

I was just reading up on Jim West's, and Lawrence Mykytiuk's comments on the Seal of Gedaliah, which I wrote about a while back. I have to admit, I think Jim brings up a good point that there is nothing on the seal to identify this with the Biblical Gedaliah. I had originally went down this road, but I thought that Finkelstein would have said something if this were possible. I must, therefore, agree with Jim West that, given that we don't know the frequency of these names in Jerusalem, we cannot identify it with the Biblical Gedaliah.

However, I must disagree with his comments that we cannot allow the Bible to interpret our Archaeology. He says, "Or, it’s equally possible, isn’t it, that the biblical account is based on historical factlets without itself being ‘historical’." For the Christian, the answer is simply "No, it is not possible." We are called to "Take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ" [2 Corinthians 10:5]. Hence, we view history as being under the sovereign direction of God. Hence, if this does refer to the man spoken of by the Book of Jeremiah, we must understand him in the light of what the scripture says. Then, I would go on to argue that any philosophy of history other than the Christian philosophy of history makes nonsense out of the study of history.

The mistake that myself and Mazor made is that there is nothing in the Bible that says that this is, indeed, the seal of the Gedaliah that tried Jeremiah. I am willing to grant, therefore, that it is indeed possible that there was another Gedaliah that lived at this time, and that he is the owner of that seal, since the scriptures do not rule out that possibility.

However, I will not allow the liberal media off that easy. To this I simply would like to comment on Lawrence Mykytiuk's comments. He noted many of the same things I did, namely, that the script is consistent with this time period, and it was found on a controlled archaeological dig by a respected archaeologist. Hence, this makes it, at very least, difficult to question whether or not it is genuine. He also says that it is, at least, a reasonable hypothesis that this is the seal of the Gedaliah son of Pishhur mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. Therefore, you need to understand that the discovery of this seal does tell us that the book of Jeremiah, at least in this respect, is consistent with the time period in which the book of Jeremiah claims to have been written. Hence, if authentic [and I have little reason to doubt that it is authentic], it would at least confirm the historical accuracy of Jeremiah, namely, that it would further show that Jeremiah's writing shows a knowledge of the time period in which the events spoken of in the book took place.

Let me ask a simple question to drive this home. Why is it that a seal bearing a Biblical name in the script from that time period, recovered by a respected archaeologist, and having a reasonable hypothesis that this is the seal of the Biblical character gets absolutely no media attention, and the Talpiot Tomb theory, which was mocked and laughed at by secular and Jewish archaeologists alike, gets an entire program on the Discovery channel? I cannot figure it out, other than to point out that Christians are not the only ones who are ideologically driven. Hence, while I must agree with Jim West about this seal, it still shows the incredible bias of the leftest media.

As a Van Tillian, am not going to rest my faith on this discovery, but I think it is telling that this seal has gotten no media attention.

Now, from the academic, to people who are simply out of control. I happened to go over to the Boundless Blog today, and, much to my shagrin, found the following comments:

A few of us because concerned about the roots of this problem coming from the proliferation of the "gift of singleness" teachings of the past few decades. This phrase was actually an embellishment of the Living Bible of the 70's (now the NLT), that caught on among singleness writers, becoming somewhat of a rogue doctrine. A few of us became fed up the fact that not only was in not in the original Greek text, but with how it caused so many people to doubt whether or not God was on their side about the goodness of pursuing marriage. So we got together and successfully campaigned to the NLT to have it removed! HALLELUJIAH, IT'S GONE!!

Now, I am assuming that this is the same Jennifer that posts under the screenname Gortexgrrl. Of course, what is maddening about this is that I already addressed this issue a long time ago. As I mentioned in that post, I know one of the translators for the NLT, and if you go to that post, you will see that everything Jennifer is saying here is wrong. She says that she "successfully campaigned to the NLT to have it removed." Of course, the NLT translators told me that they did nothing because they agreed with these women. They did, indeed, decide to reconsider their translation of the passage, but the change was made because they didn't feel translating the passage in this way, and bringing out the fact that Paul was calling singleness a gift here would show the connection between this passage and the following discussion about spiritual gifts. The only thing on which the NLT translators were willing to agree with these women was that this text should not be used to forbid those who would like to marry from marrying or pursuing marriage, which no one was teaching in the first place! In fact, even worse for these girls, is that the NLT translators say that they still believe this passage teaches that singleness is a gift! Now, how did Gortexgrrl respond to this? Did she take back what she said? Did she, at very least, nuance what she said? No, she just said:

Whatever, Adam.

We're just glad the GoS is G.O.N.E.

Notice, no nuancing of what she said. No admittance that the NLT translators do not agree with her, and no acknowledgement that they did not remove this phrase because of their campaigning. Just a response of "whatever." Keep in mind, she knew all of these things before she repeated the same thing in this post on the Boundless Blog!

Not only that, but, [and I have said this before], but I have pointed out that this girl does not know Greek. I pointed out that in her article on 1 Corinthians 7, she simply put the dictionary form down for every word, and acted as if that was the Greek of the text. Here is what she said was the Greek of 1 Corinthians 7:6-9:

De lego touto kata suggnome ou kata epitage 7) Gar thelo pas anthropos einai kai hos emautou alla hekastos echo IDIOS CHARISMA ek theos HOS MEN HOUTO DE HOS HOUTO. 8) Lego de agamos kai chera esti KALOS autos ean meno kago hos kago 9) De ei egkrateuomai ou egkrateuomai GAMEO gar esti kreitton gameo e puroo."

Those of you who know Greek know what I mean. This is incapable of translation. Again, these are all things I have pointed out before this. Now, what is interesting is that, even after pointing this stuff out, what do we have on her post on the Boundless Blog? Well, she says the following with regards to Jesus' words in Matthew 19:12:

Christ then concludes this verse by stating A SECOND TIME the conditions he set in verse 11, reiterating clearly that it is for those capable of receiving it (rather than obeying under compulsion or command from God): Dunamai choreo choreo (He that is able to receive (it), let him receive (it).

Now, is that really the Greek of Matthew 19:12? Well, you guessed it. She did the exact same thing that she did in her article on 1 Corinthians 7, that is, she posted all of the dictionary forms of the words, somehow assuming that this was the way the Greek text read! However, what is even worse this time, is that she left out the article! The Greek text actually reads "ho dunamenos chorein choreito."

Now, I am not saying this because I think that it will somehow change Jennifer's mind. She believes she is right, and, even on something as easily demonstratable as these things, she still is going ahead. However, I was concerned because of the following comment that was left in response to her:

I am glad you brought your study of the original language into your post, God's word has final authority.

The ability to "receive" a teaching may well be what Jesus was referring to in that instance, but does that negate a view of giftedness including all you have been given? What have you NOT been given, in truth?

The label "gift" applies to far more than temporary pleasure, and all things work together for ultimate good (Romans 8). It does not seem a stretch to put all our circumstances and limitations and, dare I say, even sins into His hands & trust Him to use all for His glory & our good since that is His promise.

However, changing the label of "gift" doesn't change our responsibility. I've heard various teaching on "gifts" and have come to the conclusion that it's an area that causes sidetracking because the edges are fuzzy. I should've thought of that before I used the term!

Now, I have to say I am encouraged because it is obvious that this woman is using discernment. The problem is that she has no idea about the fact that Jennifer didn't even post the Greek text, but just simply went through and posted the dictionary form of each word! She also has no idea that the NLT did not remove anything because of these girl's campaigning. You see, this is what I am afraid of with this kind of thing. Many girls who have not heard of Debbie Maken, Captain Sensible, Gortexgrrl, etc. will be sucked into this simply out of ignorance. She has no way to check on these things. For all she knows, Jennifer has studied many years of Greek, and campaigned at the Society for Biblical Literature to have these things removed.

Hence, so that this rumor does not go any further, I am inviting everyone who is interested in this topic to post my response to this stuff found here on their blog, so we can get it out to as many people as possible. I figure that, if we can get this article out, it will at least make it harder for Gortexgrrl and Captain Sensible to go around saying these things all because of the ignorance of the people to whom they are talking. I also have written a response to this stuff at the Boundless Blog, but it would be a total waste of time to go around looking for everytime this issue has come up on the internet, expecially since I am preoccupied with my classes here at Trinity. Hence, anyone who is interested in posting the relevant section of that article on their blog, you have my permission.

A Few Odds and Ends

I just wanted to take a post to write a few odds and ends. As I have been looking for some new things in Candice's book, I actually have found something that is not new. When I wrote my paper Real Authors Write Responsibly in response to Ted Slater citing an article by Candice Watters called Ruth Revisited when someone brought up the fact that Boaz did not inititate his relationship with Ruth, I got a strong response from the folks who disagree with me, and expecially those who were supporters of Candice Watters. I could not figure out why. However, the reason why there was such a response is because, though the book had not come out yet, unknown to me or anyone else, the entire set of three articles on the book of Ruth were republished word for word in the book. Hence, my article dealing with Candice's arguments on the book of Ruth will have to be included as part of the response.

Now, apparently there have been some developments in Old Testament scholarship since Edward Campbell's Commentary on Ruth in the Anchor Bible Commentary Series was published. Usually Anchor Bible commentaries are pretty up to date, but my Northwest Semitic Inscriptions professor, Dr. Lawson Younger, told me that we now know exactly how big a ephah is, and it is exegetically significant. I will have to get back to the reader of the blog on that topic, but everything else is up to date.

Also, I keep on receiving these comments from people who, apparently, just sign up to take shots at me. For instance, a poster by with the simple screenname of "kt" posted this in the comments section of my second response to Candice Watters:

Alrighty then -- God decreed that all these believing women would be left single so that the conditions in our churches that enable men to be passive, ignorant, absent and disobedient may be revealed!

Better add "sparing us from our own stupidity" to the pile of things that, as you say, "God is under no obligation whatsoever to give us"

PS... Adam, what is YOUR idol? Fruitless debate, perhaps?

Ah yes, those loving radical marriage mandators. However, the other interesting thing that I have found is that, if you click on his screenname to see his profile, he has been a member since June 2008!!!!!!! Yes, apparently, one of the reasons this user even signed up to post on blogger is so that he could write this nasty stuff to me.

Again, when it comes to the radical version of this movement, I have seen some language that I have not seen from King James Onlyism. That is how radical this stuff is. I just have to keep pointing that out along the way.

More Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

Well, I could probably pick any of Gortexgrrl's posts from last time, but, as many of you know, Darren Allen absolutely takes the cake when it comes to nastiness, irrationality, and just downright refusal to even listen to what the other side is saying. No comment is really needed here. I just let his own words speak for themselves. He is such a kind soul :-).

---------------------------------------------------------------
Hey when can we see your picture?

I am sure there are a lot peoplr here who want to see your mug.

How come we have no pithy commnents from Ted Slater?

Ted, where are you?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam,

You are a jackass.

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

Thanks,
The Hobbits
---------------------------------------------------------------

Keep in mind, this is a man who goes to Wheaton. Yes, that's right. Yet this is the best he knows how to respond???????? Now, I have no idea if it is the same Darren that is found in Debbie Maken's recent post, but I do know one thing interesting. Debbie Maken will talk about the fruits of her movement in terms of marriages, but she will never tell you about the fruits of her movement in terms of the behavior of the adherents. Her version of this movement has become just as nasty and cultic as Peter Ruckman ever dreamed of being. Apparently, marriage is so important that your behavior is secondary.

However, Darren's behavior is certainly a fruit of this movement. As I said, it speaks for itself.

Don't You Dare Hold Us Accountable Or...

We will shame you, call you all kinds of colorful names, and tell you to "get some help." Yes, apparently, that is exactly what Gortexgrrl, one of the most radical of the Mandatory Marriage advocates, done in an attempt to defend "Captain Sensible" [aka, Deanna Holmes] from having to be held responsible for the hatred she has spewed at myself and Ted Slater.

Here are her posts, in order:

--------------------------------------------------
Adam, you know what I'm talking about -- posting her photo, personal information, etc. You've both engaged in some pretty intense mud-slinging, but nothing she has said about you even begins to compare with this kind of exposure and character assassination. This is your eighth post in a row about her. You have gone way too far with this. It's so spiteful and mean-spirited. The sheer wickedness of what you have done eclipses any theological truth that may have been intended. You are nowhere near being in the company of these Calvinist greats. Surely, if they could see what you have done they would certainly shake their heads and walk away from you.Shame on you.
-------------------------------------------------
Excuses, excuses.Basically, you're giving us the "bu-bu-but, she started it" little brother business.It's very plain to see where your heart is at, Adam. It's all about retaliation for you, isn't it?
-------------------------------------------------
Adam,If you have to be shown, chapter and verse, post for post, why what you did was wicked and vengeful, then there really is not much hope for you.
You have carried on now, for eight posts about CS. And in the same amount of time, she's mentioned your blog perhaps twice and on one occasion she contritely retracted -- something I doubt you would ever do.Not only to yourself, but to your school, you bring shame. It's just absolutely disgraceful.
-------------------------------------------------

First off, again, notice the pure acid from the folks in this movement. I have received a whole lot of mail from these folks, and it is by far the nastiest stuff I have ever read. I have talked with Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, and King James Only advocates, and the notes that I have received from these folks are, by far, the most nasty of any group.

However, let us take a look at her claims one by one, and we will say that any person thinking rationally about this situation will be forced to the conclusion that, for some reason, these folks do not want to be held accountable for their behavior.

First of all, yes, the last eight posts mention Captain Sensible, but, first of all, who else do they mention? Debbie Maken, Ted Slater, William Shishko, etc. Not only that, but did she notice how many of Captain Sensible's posts mention Ted Slater? I went to her blog and found that six out of the eight posts now up there mention or allude to Ted Slater in some way shape or form. Yet, why is it that Gortexgrrl is not over there accusing Deanna Holmes of the same things she is accusing me? The double standards here are amazing.

Not only that, but let us not forget the number of times that Captain Sensible has used terms such as "false teacher" of Carolyn McCulley. Yet, Gortexgrrl refuses to say anything about that. Now, I am not saying that this exhonorates me of wrongdoing if, indeed, I have done something wrong. It is just amazing how Gortexgrrl uses one standard on those who oppose her movement, but another standard on those who support her movement.

The reality is, if you look at my posts, my posts are not personal attacks on Captain Sensible. They are discussions of what she is teaching, and how it is dangerious to the church, imparticular, the church in England. They are also discussions of her and Debbie Maken's behavior showing the fruits of this movement in terms of how selfish these people bahave. Not only that, but it is also a discussion about the way her and Debbie Maken treat those that disagree with them, yes, even those who agree with their movement such as Ted Slater! Gortexgrrl would have you believe that I have some personal vendetta against this woman. I simply do not. I am concerned about what she is teaching, and I am concerned about the fruits of the radical version of this movement. Does that mean that, if someone takes the shots that she has taken against me and Ted Slater that I am not going to call her to the carpet for it? Absolutely not. However, that seems to be the expectation. We can hit you, but don't you dare hold us accountable for it. There is nothing wrong with using eight posts to continuiously point out the ungodly behavior and nastiness of this movement so that others will avoid it.

Not only that, but notice how she uses words like "personal information" as if I had put her credit card number up on the internet or something. Everything that I put up had already been posted on the internet long before I ever saw it! The only difference is that now I am letting people know that Captain Sensible is this woman who was interviewed over on Spiral Universe. Why is there some problem with that? Why is there something wrong with finding out that the person who has written personal attacks against you and Ted Slater happens to have a name, and posting it so that people know exactly who is responsible for this acid? Secondly, she says I engaged in character assasination. On the blog, I asked her to prove it. She never did.

Also, she says that what I did is "spiteful." I am beginning to notice that you can make anything wrong so long as you use the right vocabulary [and, yes, Debbie Maken does this too]. No, I am simply pointing out that this attack across my bow is coming from a very influential figure in the church in England, and that this figure is directly responsible for the personal attacks she has written against Ted Slater and myself. BTW, just to show that I am consistent at this point, I have criticized people from my own side when they have behaved in the same way. Apparently, I was also being "spiteful" to the manyluxuryvacations blog when I wrote that post.

Secondly, as far as posting retractions, I even mentioned that I had to apologize for the harshness of my language. However, again, that does not matter to Gortexgrrl. I would never post a retraction, and don't confuse me with the facts. Also, isn't it interesting that I have changed my perspective on a whole host of views with regards to this issue. I now no longer hold the same interpretation of Genesis 1:28, Malachi 2:15, 1 Corinthians 7, and many other texts that I held when I first started writing on this issue. However, you know something very interesting? I have *never* heard Debbie Maken admit that she is wrong. Even when her position results in utter nonsense, she refuses to admit she is wrong. Yet, according to Gortexgrrl, I am the one who would never retract a post.

Again, the hypocracy of Gortexgrrl's attack on me is simply unbelievable. She tells me I need to "get some help." Let me ask, how does Gortexgrrl understand this verse?:

2 Timothy 2:24 - 26 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

Does it sound like this girl is showing much "gentleness" using phrases like "get some help?" Does that show much "patience?" Interestingly enough, this is in the context of refuting false teachers! How do you understand this verse if you follow Debbie Maken, and language such as this is acceptable?

I think we all need to restart, and attempt to deal with this issue in the very manner spoken of in this verse. I am willing to do so, but, apparently, Captain Sensible and Gortexgrrl are not. I simply let that contrast speak for itself with regards to the integrity of the folks that are part of the radical version of this movement.

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.

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.

Captain Sensible Does It Again

I really cannot believe that people still take Captain Sensible seriously, after she has posted so much nastiness, and desires to silent any opposition to her movement. I mean, her version of the Mandatory Marriage Movement is downright cultic, and it is obvious that Captain Sensible knows she is loosing this debate, since she has to silence everyone who disagrees with her.

I have been going around to various looking at posts about a recent Boundless article about Martin Luther. I was posting about it over on the Boundless Blog, and I was wondering what others were saying about it. Of course, Captain Sensible could not resist posting about it. In the course of the discussion, she even spoke of yours truly. Here, amazingly, is what she said:

And a regular comment poster, who seems to have far too much time on his hands for the devil to make work for, decides that marriage is like "medicine for a cold".

Ok, I would love to see Captain Sensible take Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Sumerian. I would also love to see her be able to even get half way through Dr. VanGemeren's class on the poetic and prophetic books. Trust me, I have more than enough material on my plate. It is amazing that these people seem to know every little detail of my life even though they have never met me.

And, not only that, Captain Sensible is misrepresenting me. I was not talking about the nature of marriage, but the relationship marriage has to sanctification. Does sanctifying grace come through marriage? If it does, then you are either going to have to believe that every married person ends up sanctified, or you are going to have to deny the fourth point of Calvinism, Irresistible Grace. Hence, my comments have to do with the role marriage plays in relation to our sanctification, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of marriage itself.

Of course, she also couldn't resist taking a cheap shot at Ted Slater for not trying to silence all opposition. I mean, I don't agree with Boundless on several issues, but they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and they do not deserve the treatment that Captain Sensible is giving them, for no other reason than they don't run an entire blog on this issue. Want proof? Apparently, Captain Sensible said the following about Ted Slater on her blog:

Captain Sensible writes: When is Boundless going to get an editor that actually cares about the problem single Christian women face with regard to singleness?
Wouldn't Ted Slater be much happier, and better suited, to editing a blog on global warming?
Does he think it doesn't matter, or that no one will notice, that he really couldn't care less about singleness?
Does anyone have faith in the integrity of what is laughingly called their "comment moderation policy"?
Such a pity.

Notice, unless Ted Slater always addresses this issue, and turns the Boundless blog into a blog like hers, he doesn't care about the issue of singleness. Wow, I mean, how irrational can you get. Boundless has an entire section on their homepage of articles about singleness, and blog posts galore about them. Apparently, that is not enough for Captain Sensible. Unless you address it in almost every post, and censor yourself from criticism, you somehow don't care.

Of course, no one can hold this woman accountable, because she refuses to accept correction. She only displays comments favorable to her position on her blog so she doesn't have to answer for this stuff, and also, she is trying to get everyone she has to have the same mindset that she does, namely, that Debbie Maken must be right, and anyone who disagrees with her must be of the devil.

This is not the way Christians should behave. We should be willing to have a rational dialogue on the issues where we go back and forth and discuss these things. Expecially if we are so stupid, and Captain Semsible is so brilliant, you would think that she would be leaping for joy to show how silly we are in a dialogue. Of course, that is not going to happen any time soon.

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.

More on Captain Sensible's Invincible Ignorance

Well, I knew it wouldn't happen. When Captain Sensible is answered, she very rarely replies to anyone. If you were expecting a response to what I wrote last night [i.e. what I have been saying ever since I have started addressing this issue] you were completely disappointed. Now, is it possible that she has not read my response to her? Yes, I suppose that is possible. However, that doesn't change the laughable nature of what she has done this morning.

Captain Sensible tries to talk about the "natural extension" of what I believe. Here is her post in its entirety:

"I've often thought that for a single person a monastery provides a community that would eliminate much of what singles struggle with regarding isolation, loneliness, sense of belonging, etc."(Fern Horst, "Purposeful Singleness")

Captain Sensible writes: Well, I guess it had to happen. It's the natural extension of the "be content", "singleness is a gift", "making an idol out of marriage", "Jesus is all you need" teaching that has infected the church. It was only a matter of time until someone thought a solution to the problem of singleness was joining a monastery or nunnery. It is appropriate that that person is Fern Horst, the most militantly aggressive pro-singleness person I have come across. (Carolyn McCulley seems to have not taken it quite that far. Although she does support single Christians living together in a kind of pseudo-family unit as some sort of substitute for a real husband or wife and a real family.)
I wonder if the next logical step is promoting a form of non-practising homosexuality? I know of one person in the UK that appears to be advocating just that. And she regularly speaks on the subject of singleness to thousands of Christians at a major annual festival.
God sent Debbie Maken at just the right time to stop this cancer in its tracks. Thank God that the final burden for putting all this right rests with the Lord. It would be unbearable for any one person to take it on.

Interestingly enough, I tried to track down that quotation using google all morning. I was having no luck, and then thought that, perhaps, Captain Sensible was quoting from a book, so, I checked Amazon. Nothing there either. Then, as I happened to be on Fern Horst's website, at the side bar, I caught site of a recent post on their forums. On their main page, they list the recent posts on their forums, and in this case, the title of one of the posts was "RE: Monk." I clicked on it, and eventually found the quotation. Here is the quotation in its entirety:

Re: Monk?
Posted by Fern on October 29, 2007 at 21:30:22:
In Reply to: Monk? posted by MarsBike on October 25, 2007 at 20:36:20:
You mentioned having monastic uges lately. Can you describe that a bit? What appeals to you about being a monk, or what makes you think God may be calling you to be one?
I've often thought that for a single person a monastery provides a community that would eliminate much of what singles struggle with regarding isolation, loneliness, sense of belonging, etc.
Not that that alone would be a good reason to become a monk. :)

Utterly amazing. This was a quick reply to a man who had monastic urges, and Captain Sensible thinks that she can get the idea that Fern Horst is advocating Monasticism as a possible solution to many of the feelings that singles face. Didn't Captain Sensible notice the final sentence, "Not that that alone would be a good reason to become a monk."? Fern Horst is in no way saying that having these desires is the deciding factor in whether or not you should become a monk.

Now, I am as far away from this ecumenism as I can get. I believe monasticism and monastic vows are wrong because the gift of continence can be given and taken away by God whenever he pleases, and that it is mere presumption to assume that God will always give the gift of continence in the future like he has in the past. However, this use of Fern Horst by Captain Sensible is just laughable. Captain Sensible has again shown that her invincible ignorance only allows her to see on a page what she wants to see on a page.

Not only that, where does Captain Sensible ever prove that this is the logical outcome of what I, and Christians for 2000 years have been teaching? She doesn't offer any proof of this at all. There is no logical connection between these two, and Captain Sensible knows it. That is why she doesn't bother to prove it.

Also, I find it funny that she has to go to a quick response to an inquiry about monasticism on a forum in order to prove her point. Fern Horst has written many articles, and to cite a quotation that appears to be a quick response to an inquiry about monasticism is simply reprehensible. I wonder if the person "advocating" non-practicing homosexuality is being as badly taken out of context, and I wonder if we will find another four or five sentence forum post from which Captain Sensible gets this information.

What is fascinating is that these folks have been so busy promoting Debbie Maken's work that they seem to have not been able to find the time to put out their marriage announcements. If this "getting serious about getting married" is supposed to produce results, then why is it that Captain Sensible, Gortexgirl, and everyone who so vehemintly opposes what I am saying are still unmarried? Interestingly enough, I mentioned one guy who thought Maken's views were silly who got married recently, I have finally found the girl I am going to marry, and I know of many other folks who oppose this stuff who are getting married. The reality is that this stuff does not help you get married at all. All it fosters is an attitude of selfishness, bitterness, and a hard hearted desire to remain ignorant so that it is perfectly acceptable to engage in the simple dishonesty that Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken have. This is exactly what I mean by "invincible ignorance," and that is exactly what I mean when I talk about these people making an idol out of marriage.

Captain Sensible's Invincible Ignorance

I have finally found a phrase to describe the marriage mandators with whom I have interacted, who, rather than address my arguments, just take Debbie Maken's word for it. Dr. Robert Morey mentioned it. It is called "invincible ignorance." He used this to describe people who have the arguments right in front of them, and yet they refuse to address the arguments, and just keep repeating what they have said before.

Recently, an open theist who reads my blog [i.e. Paul] has decided to try to get one of these people with invincible ignorance to address some of my arguments from my 20 theses. Of course, Captain Sensible does not ever address any of my arguments; she just keeps parroting Debbie Maken. For instance, she said:

Take God working everything for good. That doesn't mean that everything is good. For example, suppose a Christian man fell into temptation and looked up some pornography on the internet. Would that be "good"? Clearly not. Does it mean that being a glamour model serves God's purposes? Well, I think we can safely say God would prefer her to choose another job! Can God still use these things somehow, someway, for good? Well, the Bible seems to me to show that, yes, He can and He does. But that does not mean that either of these things are okay!

Of course, the point is not whether or not something is good, but whether or not something is purposeful. If your situation is purposeful, then it has a purpose in molding you into the person God wants you to be. That's the point. Thus, Captain Sensible does not believe that God can say "no" to her request for a spouse because he is working on her for his own purposes. It is either all the man's fault, or it is because there are not enough men in the church, etc. However, if everything, including her singleness has a purpose, then God will give her a spouse when he wants to give her a spouse, and not when she "gets serious about getting married."

The point of my theses 13-14 is to recognize that singleness is purposeful, and not an accident which just could not be avioded because we were not "getting serious about getting married." God ordains both whether or not you search, and if and whether or not that search will be successful. Captain Sensible dispises that because she believes that God has no purpose for her singleness.

Thankfully, Paul knows exactly what I was talking about, and corrected Captain Sensible. That, of course, didn't stop Captain Sensible:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" (Romans 6:1)That was what I was thinking of earlier. Is it a bit like saying, "Well, God can use your circumstantial singleness to work all things for the good, so even though it may have come about through sins (eg. lack of outreach to men by our church leaders? Wrong teaching on singleness that encourages men to passivity?) then don't worry about trying to fix those things. God's working them for good anyway, so there's really no point. Maybe God is glorified even more when working things that are not good, for good."?

I wouldn't say that God can use "circumstantial singleness" for good, but that God decrees "circumstantial singleness." Also, Captain Sensible did not deal with any of my refutations Debbie Maken's abuse of Genesis 1:28 and 2:18, and just assumed that she was correct. Thus, it is not "going on sinning that grace may abound" because protracted singleness isn't a sin! Certainly I think that, if a person wants to marry, they should pursue marriage. However, the reason why you search is because God has decreed it, and he has also decreed whether or not that church will be successful. He will make that search successful at the time he wants, not at the time Captain Sensible thinks he should make it successful.

Captain Sensible continues with her invincible ignorance:

Is it possible to "make an idol" out of feeding the hungry?Is it possible to "make an idol" out of loving your neighbour?Is it possible to "make an idol" out of reading Scripture?Is it possible to "make an idol" out of worshipping God through songs of praise?I only ask these questions because I am not sure it is even possible to "make an idol" out of doing something that God wants us to do anyway. If someone becomes so committed to feeding the hungry, that they are in danger of burning out, then there are other cautions I think that are more appropriate, like reminding them that God knows it is good to rest, or that Jesus at times withdrew to be by Himself.And if someone becomes so keen on singing worship songs that they begin to annoy the people they live with, it may be advisable to remind them that they should prefer others' needs to their own, and maybe they should give them a bit of peace and quiet already!Do you see what I am getting at? In terms of doing something that is pleasing to God, I don't think we can "make an idol" of it.

The answer to all of this is "yes." Yes, you can make all of these things an idol. Perhaps Captain Sensible has never heard what Jesus said:

Matthew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 6:5-6 "And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

Yes, even feeding the hungry, loving your neighbor, reading scripture, and worshipping God can be an idol if it is done in arrogance to point to yourself as better than everyone else. Once these things are done for self-glory, and not for God's glory, then, yes, they become an idol. Hence, we should not only watch our behavior, but the modivations for our behavior. Often, the modivations for our behavior will give away whether or not we are making something an idol. Desiring marriage is not making marriage an idol. However, pursuing marriage because you are loathing your singleness is making an idol out of marriage.

This is why the bladder example is irrelevant. I would ask what would happen if you went to the restroom, and you could not urinate? Would you say it is because you are not "getting serious about urinating?" What happens if you do everything you can, and you end up having to have go on kidney dialysis because you cannot urinate? Does your failure to urinate mean that you were not "getting serious about urinating?" No, obviously not. God can, by his sovereign decree, cause you to not be able to urinate, and to have to go on kidney dialysis. In the same way, God can, by his sovereign decree, cause your pursuit of marriage fail, and tell you that you need to trust in him since he did not decree that your pursuit of marriage would be successful. Apparently, Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken think that God does not have that right.

Also, what happens if a person is trusting in these actions to save them? Isn't that also making the good works Captain Sensible mentioned an idol? If we are going to be good protestants, then we would say, if we do not trust in God alone for our salvation and trust in our works, then, yes, those works have become an idol because we are trusting in them rather than trusting in God for our salvation.

However, Captain Sensible doesn't stop there. She gives an interesting look into the mind of these cultic marriage mandators. By what standard do they think morality should be defined? Well, I will let Captain Sensible tell you herself:

In the same way (although over a slightly more extended period!), I think the times in a woman's life when she is most likely to be accused of "making an idol" out of marriage, are just the times when her body is telling her that now would be a good time to reproduce and the body simply can't hold out for that much longer.To go back to your post, the examples you gave are again indicative, in my opinion, of another issue rather than "making an idol" out of marriage. If we are uncomfortable in our own skin, as I think the French describe it, then the root cause may be a self-esteem problem. Also I am not sure about how common it is for a woman to feel that a husband would be "the end to all their woes". I think most women have more sense than to think they will never again have any problems in their life, so long as they marry! However, having said that, being single is a major problem, and solving that one problem can make a tremendous difference to the quality of that person's life, and especially with regard to marriage and a family, it's the core of their human nature...

But one final plea is, please, let's give single Christian women a break! I despair at the way they are being treated by the church at the moment, it's absolutely shocking. I think I am going to start a new society: the RSPCSCW - The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Single Christian Women. ;-) (To those readers outside the UK this may not mean anything, but I should say we have the RSPCA to prevent cruelty to animals, the RSPCC to prevent cruelty to children etc. and I think we now need a new one for single Christian women. They are the King's daughters, and I really think a new Royal Society would be entirely appropriate!)We are being terribly cruel at the moment, and inflicting huge amounts of spiritual abuse. Ridding single women of the accusation of "making an idol out of marriage" is just one of many issues that need to be addressed.

Wow, I mean what can you say! What is necessary, and what is right needs to be defined on the basis of "a woman's biological clock," and "her desire to reproduce????????" In other words, if a woman has a desire to reproduce, it is the man's duty to fulfill that desire, and God cannot say "no" if both parties just "get serious about getting married." Then, she goes on to say that if you dare say that God has any sovereign power over whether or not you satisfy your "biological clock," then you are being abusive to women. I know I have avoided saying this for a long time, but this is the same kind of thinking that the feminists use. They say, "My feelings are going to be the ultimate standard of what is 'abuse,' and thus, what is right and wrong." I am going to say this very calmly and carefully. While I respect a woman's desire to wed and have children, God does not care about a woman's desire to marry and have children in his sovereign decree, or in his commandments. God is the one who gets to decree what happens in this world, and God is the one who gets to define what is abuse and what is not abuse. As I said in thesis #11, feelings are irrelevant in determining what is right and what is wrong in relationships. God is free to do whatever he wants, and a woman's "biological clock" has nothing to do with it.

Thus, we see the selfish, and self-centered nature of the cultic version of this movement come full swing. This is the reason that they get to abuse the scriptures, alter quotations from the reformers, and avoid having to defend it is simply because of their desires to reproduce. This is one of the things that drives "invincible ignorance." You want to believe something because of your own desires, and these desires prevent you from seeing the truth. This is what I mean when I talk about marriage, and the desire for marriage becoming an idol. When God's sovereign decree, his right to define right and wrong, and all honest argumentation are thrown out the window because of your desire to marry and have children, you have just made marriage an idol. Yes, Captain Sensible can keep beating down her strawman of fatalism all day and ignoring this argument, but this fact still remains.

I believe that Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken are under the judgment of God, and their invincible ignorance is evidence of that very thing. Captain Sensible does not realize how insignificant Debbie Maken's argumentation is in the academic world. In fact, I presented Debbie Maken's views to a group made up of one of the Hebrew professors and several students here at Trinity, and all I got was laughter, and people poking fun at it. Of course, that doesn't matter to Captain Sensible. The validity of these arguments is not of any relevance to her. All that matters is whether or not she gets to have a husband and reproduce, and God's sovereign plan, and his ability to define right and wrong have absolutely no meaning to her.

It would be bad enough if the damage were limited to Captain Sensible alone, but it is not. She has before stated that women should go outside the church to find men, and bring them into the church to marry them. I wonder if these men would come into the church if they knew that they only reason this person was witnessing to them is, not because they cared about their souls, but because they wanted a husband. Something tells me that either the person would convert simply because they wanted a wife [in which case, we would have to ask if this is a true conversion], or they would be repulsed that someone only cares about their marital status, and not their eternal soul. I don't know what is going to happen, but I know it would be bad on both counts: the former instance because marriage to an unbeliever is, not only forbidden in the scriptures, but also very difficult, and the latter because of the fact that these men will *never* be saved in those circumstances.

How did we get into this mess? We got into it by "invincible ignorance." Captain Sensible needs to rethink what her standard of ethics is, whether or not she values truth, and whether or not she believes God is the sovereign king over all. God is not a Santa Claus who gives you whatever you desire. He is a God who knows what is best for you, even better than you yourself know. Should we pursue something if we want it? Absolutely, and most definitely! However, that does not mean that God is obligated to give it to you right then and there. In that case, we have to wait on him to cause our pursuits to be successful in his time.

I would like to close with the lyrics to a song by Steven Curtis Chapman. This was one of my favorite songs when I was a kid, and it is funny that you have to get into discussions such as these before you can see the wisdom in the lyrics to some of these songs. I only hope that single people will hear the message in this song, namely, that God does care about you, and he knows better than you what you need and what is best for you.

You wonder when the Lord will renew the strength within you;

You wonder how, how can He use you as you are.

Seems like you’re wasting precious time,

But then a voice comes to remind you (to wait).

CHORUS

Wait, wait, wait on the Lord;

You will understand in time.

Why you must wait,

Wait, wait, wait on the Lord;

Yes He hears you,

But for now you must wait on the Lord.

Answers come slowly to your cries of desperation,

But time is His tool, teaching the greatest lessons learned;

So let Him do His work in you,

And watch the miracles come true as you (wait).

(chorus)

And He wants you to know that

They that wait on the Lord

Shall renew their strength;

They will rise up with wings as eagles,

They will run, not get weary.

They will walk and not faint;

That’s a promise to us when we (wait).

(chorus)