The Soverignty of God in Light of the Marriage Mandators

Most people know that one of Debbie Maken's weaknesses is her view of God and his sovereignty. Debbie Maken has one of the most man-centered views of God's sovereignty I have ever seen. In our dialogue, she just melted down when I started refuting her view of God's sovereignty, and all she could do is just say that greater minds than ours have discussed this issue, and we should not try to add what they have already done.

Now, the Marriage Mandators' worst nightmare is here. Dr. R.C. Sproul has put a dialogue online wherein he plays the "devil's advocate," and his friend and mentor, Dr. John Gerstner, responds to the issues raised by Dr. Sproul. All of the common objections raised by Arminians and Marriage Mandators are raised by R.C. Sproul, and John Gerstner devistates them with one broad, sweeping stroke. I don't expect Captain Sensible, Gortexgirl, or Debbie Maken to listen to this. It does not have anything to do with marriage, but it provides a solid theological foundation to point out that, while man certainly can and does pursue marriage, it is ultimately God who will decide when their search will be successful. Of course, this is fatal to their position, because it means that men and women cannot ultimately decide when they are going to marry. That is up to God. Thus, anyone who loathes singleness, and thus goes against what God has said just because he has not given them what they want is engaging in idolatry.

Captain Sensible and Church History

Captain Sensible has just recently posted something on her blog with regards to Martin Luther. I have addressed Debbie Maken's horrible misuse of the reformers before, and it appears that Captain Sensible has seen fit to not read the other side. She is, in fact, quoting Debbie Maken who grossly took Luther and Calvin out of context, and, in fact, even altered quotations in order to prove her position [see my documentation here]. Here is how Luther is quoted by Captain Sensible/Debbie Maken:

"After God had made them male and female, he blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply' (Genesis 1:28). From this passage we may be assured that man and woman should and must come together in order to multiply... Hence, as it is not within my power not to be a man, so it is not my prerogative to be without a woman. Again, as it is not in your power not to be a woman, so it is not your prerogative to be without a man. For it is not a matter of free choice or decision but a natural and necessary thing, that whatever is a man must have a woman and whatever is a woman must have a man..."

'Be fruitful and multiply'... is more than a command, namely a divine ordinance which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore. Rather, it is just as necessary as the fact that I am a man, and more necessary than sleeping and walking, eating and drinking and emptying the bowels and bladder. It is a nature and disposition just as innate as the organs involved in it. Therefore, just as God does not command anyone to be a man or woman but creates them the way they have to be, so he does not command them to multiply but creates that so that they have to multiply. And wherever men try to resist this, it remains irresistible nonetheless and goes its way through fornication, adultery, and secret sins, for this is a matter of nature and not of choice

At first glance, this looks to be exactly what Debbie Maken and others have said. However, as I said, these people rarely want you to go and read the entire context. Here is what Luther went on to say:

In the third place, from this ordinance of creation God has himself exempted three categories of men, saying in Matthew 19 [:12], "There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, "Be fruitful and multiply," abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end.

Luther is therefore willing to say that there are, indeed, three people who are exempted from this commandment. Now, how does Luther understand this third category? Luther goes on later to say:

The third category consists of those spiritually rich and exalted persons, bridled by the grace of God, who are equipped for marriage by nature and physical capacity and nevertheless voluntarily remain celibate. These put it this way, "I could marry if I wish, I am capable of it But it does not attract me. I would rather work on the kingdom of heaven, i.e., the gospel, and beget spiritual children." Such persons are rare, not one in a thousand, for they are a special miracle of God. No one should venture on such a life unless he be especially called by God, like Jeremiah [16:2], or unless he finds God's grace to be so powerful within him that the divine injunction, "Be fruitful and multiply," has no place in him.

Luther clearly states that people in the third category voluntarily remain celebate. It is not something where they have no control over whether they remain celebate or not. Luther clearly states that a person who wishes to only begat spiritual children is not sinning. Yet, the Marriage Mandate position is that a person cannot do that. If he has a sex drive at all, it is to drive him towards marriage. Now, why does Luther use such strong language of commanding in the quotation given by Captain Sensible? After the quotation by Captain Sensible, and his explaination of the exemptions given above, Luther then says:

Don't let yourself be fooled on this score, even if you should make ten oaths, vows, covenants, and adamantine or ironclad pledges. For as you cannot solemnly promise that you will not be a man or a woman (and if you should make such a promise it would be foolishness and of no avail since you cannot make yourself something other than what you are), so you cannot promise that you will not produce seed or multiply, unless you belong to one of the three categories mentioned above. And should you make such a promise, it too would be foolishness and of no avail, for to produce seed and to multiply is a matter of God's ordinance [geschöpffe], not your power.

From this you can now see the extent of the validity of all cloister vows. No vow of any youth or maiden is valid before God, except that of a person in one of the three categories which God alone has himself excepted. Therefore, priests, monks, and nuns are duty-bound to forsake their vows whenever they find that God's ordinance to produce seed and to multiply is powerful and strong within them. They have no power by any authority, law, command, or vow to hinder this which God has created within them. If they do hinder it, however, you may be sure that they will not remain pure but inevitably besmirch themselves with secret sins or fornication. For they are simply incapable of resisting the word and ordinance of God within them. Matters will take their course as God has ordained.

Notice, that Luther is objecting against the use of vows to remain single. The reason why he uses such strong language is because the Bible never gives "because a I made a vow" as a proper reason for refraining from marriage. He does allow a voluntary refraining from marriage as an acceptable reason for remaining single [however, I would say he would probably want to agree with Calvin about "the gift of continence]. Of course, Captain Sensible cannot have that, because that means that Luther is not the granddaddy of the Marriage Mandate movement, but a reformer who was reacting against the abuses of a forced celebacy due to a priestly vow. This is a horrible misuse of Martin Luther, yet, sadly, it is the kind of thing that permiates Marriage Mandate literature. The reformers are quoted, without any thought as to their context, and it is taken for granted that what they are saying is consistent with what the Mandatory Marriage Movement is saying.

Also, before I close, I would just like to post this one quotation from Martin Luther which should remove all doubt as to whether or not Luther was teaching the Mandatory Marriage position:

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 marriage. Let each one act as he is able, and as he feels it has been given to him by God. I simply wanted to check those scandalmongers who place marriage so far beneath virginity that they dare to say: Even if the children should become holy (I Cor. 7:14], celibacy would still be better. One should not regard any estate as better in the sight of God than the estate of marriage. In a worldly sense celibacy is probably better, since it has fewer cares and anxieties. This is true, however, not for its own sake but in order that the celibate may better be able to preach and care for God's word, as St Paul says in I Corinthians 7 [:32-34]. It is God's word and the preaching which make celibacy, such as that of Christ and of Paul, better than the estate of marriage. In itself, however, the celibate life is far inferior.

Notice, that here Luther says something totally self-contradictory to Captain Sensible, namely, that in saying these things, he does not which to entice anyone away from virginity into marriage. Yet, that is exactly what Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken are trying to do! Luther also says that is that a person is to act as he feels it has been given to him by God, not by whether or not he has sexual desires. Luther's view is that whether or not you get married is something that is a personal issue, not a church issue. It is not something where another person can command you to get married. Luther clearly states that each man must decide for himself. Combine that with the fact that Luther clearly states that one of the exemptions from marriage comes from voluntarily refraining from marriage, and you have a really bad misuse of a historical source.

Again, I would invite you to read the entire sermon yourself. It is not that long, but it will give you a feel for just how far off Maken's [and, by extension, Captain Sensible's] misrepresentation of Martin Luther is. It is sad to see Captain Sensible not read the other side, and just blindly assume that Debbie Maken is correct in her interpretation of the reformers, when her interpretations of their writings have absolutely no credibility. The reality is that this is a movement that has come about in the twentieth century, and has no historical foundation before Albert Mohler and Debbie Maken.

Dr. D. James Kennedy Dies

In case any of you haven't heard, Dr. D. James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian church has recently passed away. Dr. Kennedy was a man who knew how to stand up for the gospel, and he will be greatly missed. I can only hope that other Christian leaders will take the baton and run with it. In a day when the gospel is attacked from all sides, Dr. Kennedy was a man who stood strong against the opposition of the enemy. I pray that God will raise up more men like Dr. Kennedy to fight the good fight. I also pray that he will be an example to us so that we do not cave in under pressure when we are called to stand up and be counted for the gospel. Instead, let us stand up and show that God has made foolishness out of the wisdom of this world [1 Corinthians 1:20] just as Dr. Kennedy did.

Reconsidering Something

(and a few miscellaneous items)

Now that I have had the time to focus on the study of the Hebrew Bible, I have had time to refine my views on certain texts. When you are taking classes in Hebrew Exegesis, and reading several books on the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, you are going to have the opportunity to refine your position on several things. I figured it would be good to get a post started, and get some feedback.

Upon further study, I am considering another interpretation of Genesis 1:28. As a theonomist and a postmillenialist, I found that it was somewhat of a departure from classic reconstructionist beliefs. To start out, here is my translation of Genesis 1:26-28:

26a. And God said,
26b. "Let us make man in our image,
26c. after our likeness
26d. and let them reign over the fish of the sea,
26e. the birds of the sky,
26f. the beasts,
26g. all the land,
26h. and the insects that crawl on the land.

27a. Then, God created man in his image.
27b. In the image of God he created him.
27c. He created them male and female.

28a. And God blessed them
28b. and said to them,
28c. "Be fruitful,
28d. multiply,
28e. fill the earth
28f. and dominate it,
28g. and reign over the fish of the sea,
28h. the birds of the sky,
28i. and every living thing that creeps upon the earth."

My position is that of Wilhelm Gesenius, the famous Hebrew grammarian, which is articulated in his grammar:

(c) To express a distinct assurance (like our expression, thou shalt have it)² or promise, e.g. Is 65:18 but be ye glad, &c. (i.e. ye will have continually occasion to be glad); and Is 37:30, y Ps 110:2; in a threat, Jer 2:19. So especially in commands, the fulfilment of which is altogether out of the power of the person addressed, e.g. Is 54:14 be far from anxiety (meaning, thou needst not fear any more); Gn 1:28, &c. (for other examples, such as 1 K 22:12, 2 K 5:13, see below, f). Most clearly in the case of the imperative NiphÇal with a passive meaning, e.g. Gn 42:16 Wrs.a†'he ~T,a;w> and ye shall be bound; Dt 32:50, Is 49:9 (Is 45:22, see below, f).

There are many strengths to this perspective. First of all, it fits nicely with the context of God blessing them in 28a, there are other examples where where this combination clearly means a blessing [Genesis 17:20, 28:3, 48:4, Leviticus 26:9, Jeremiah 23:3, Ezekiel 36:11]. Also, it avoids the problems of having to deal with women who are infertile sinning.

However, Reconstructionism has historically taught that this text is one of the reasons why the Church will one day conquer the world through the preaching of the gospel, because God has commanded man to take dominion here in this text. Thus, if we do not take dominion, we are, in fact, going against the commandments of God. Thus, the question is whether or not my interpretation of this passage is consistent with the reconstructionist perspective.

My first thought is to think that I don't really need Genesis 1:28, as we also have the Great Commission. However, what if we took a different interpretation of this passage, one that enabled one to hold that this was a command, that the command is about dominion, and that women who are infertile are not sinning? I think the solution is to consider that this is a command that was originally given to Adam and Eve, but is, by extension, given to humanity in general, and not to every individual within humanity. Thus, humanity in general would be under the obligation to exercise dominion, however, only humanity in general would be under the obligation to "be fruitful and multiply."

The weakness of this position is that it is difficult to reconcile with the afore mentioned information, and is also difficult to reconcile with verse 22. For instance, if humanity does not increase and multiply, then they are engaging in sin. However, we would have to make sense of how it is that animals can sin. However, that is utter nonsense. It is an attractive view, but it is difficult to work out those issues, and make them consistent with the rest of the text.

Now, I also have had time to look carefully at this text, and consider the interpretation of our Mandatory Marriage friends. They would say that this text gives us a command for [almost] everyone to marry and produce offspring. This is also a text used by those who say that it is a sin for people to get married and never have children. However, that view is difficult to reconcile with 28e, as, if the commands to "be fruitful and multiply" are commands which imply that [almost] every human being is to have offspring, then, reading the text consistently, we would also have to say that [almost] every human being is to fill the earth. The reality is that I know of no one involved in this movement who is the father [or mother] of 7 billion children! However, to be consistent, the folks that use this text to say that [almost] everyone must get married and have children or that all married people must have children must be consistent with their interpretation and say that [almost everyone] should have 7 billion children, and everyone who is married must have 7 billion children. That is simply absurd. Yet, it seems like the people involved in this movement want to take one interpretation of the first two imperatives [making them applicable to individuals], and yet make the third imperative applicable to humanity in general. However, that is totally arbitrary. If you read the first two imperatives in a certain way, you have to read the rest of the imperatives in the text in that way as well.

However, it is interesting that the afore mentioned view that I am considering can make sense of this problem. If God commands humanity in general to increase and multiply, he also is commanding humanity in general to fill the earth. Thus, as I said, it is an attractive view, but one I am not ready to jump on just yet.

Also, I happened to go over to Anakin Niceguy's blog, and found that he posted this article today. I clicked on the post he originally wrote, and that can be found here. It is about an article by Thabiti Anyabwile which can be found here. Now, I must say, to be fair, I like the idea of Anyabwile's article. Honoring your parents is something that we don't take seriously anymore. We need to love our father and mother, and, in doing so, we will be obedient to the law of God. However, Anakin rightly was disturbed by this comment:

But biblically, it seems that mature adulthood is defined by marriage and parenthood. In other words, the Bible reserves adult status for those who leave mother and father and cleave to a spouse (Gen. 2:24).

Apparently, Anyabwile has taken the time to reply to Anakin in the comments section of his blog here [his nick is "FellowElder"]. In his response he writes:

1. Pretty spiritual girl, marriage is not merely a "civil institution." It's a creation ordinance. It preceeds every civil organization/government in human history. It's established by God's governance at the beginning of creation. This is why marriage in some form is universal. Which is also why marriage and childrearing are normally associated with adulthood. Gen. 2:24 doesn't explicity state marriage is a marker of adulthood, true. However, the entire creation account establishes marriage and childrearing as typically central to adulthood.

Let us take a look at Genesis 2:24. Again, here is my own translation of the Hebrew text:

24a. Therefore, a man forsakes his father and mother,
24b. cleaves to his wife,
24c. and they become one flesh.

We need to understand what is being said here. The key to the interpretation of this text is the construction "imperfect+!Ke-l[;." This is a relatively common construction in the Pentateuch and the historical books, and thus, we should see how that construction is used in that context. Here are the instances by stems. For those who do not know Hebrew, I will use a bold font to indicate where the text is translating the specific Hebrew phrase:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qal:

Genesis 32:32 Therefore, to this day the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket of the thigh, because he touched the socket of Jacob's thigh in the sinew of the hip.

Numbers 21:25-27 Israel took all these cities and Israel lived in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all her villages. 26 For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab and had taken all his land out of his hand, as far as the Arnon. 27 Therefore those who use proverbs say, "Come to Heshbon! Let it be built! So let the city of Sihon be established.

1 Samuel 5:5 Therefore neither the priests of Dagon nor all who enter Dagon's house tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod to this day.

1 Samuel 19:24 He also stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?"

2 Samuel 5:8 David said on that day, "Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him reach the lame and the blind, who are hated by David's soul, through the water tunnel." Therefore they say, "The blind or the lame shall not come into the house."

Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Niphal:

Genesis 10:8-9 Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD."

Numbers 21:13-14 From there they journeyed and camped on the other side of the Arnon, which is in the wilderness that comes out of the border of the Amorites, for the Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites. 14 Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, "Waheb in Suphah, And the wadis of the Arnon,

Piel:

2 Samuel 22:47-50 "The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock; And exalted be God, the rock of my salvation, 48 The God who executes vengeance for me, And brings down peoples under me, 49 Who also brings me out from my enemies; You even lift me above those who rise up against me; You rescue me from the violent man. 50 "Therefore I will give thanks to You, O LORD, among the nations, And I will sing praises to Your name.

Hiphil:

2 Samuel 22:47-50 "The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock; And exalted be God, the rock of my salvation, 48 The God who executes vengeance for me, And brings down peoples under me, 49 Who also brings me out from my enemies; You even lift me above those who rise up against me; You rescue me from the violent man. 50 "Therefore I will give thanks to You, O LORD, among the nations, And I will sing praises to Your name.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first thing we should notice is that the stem does not make much of a difference. The meaning of the phrase is pretty consistent throughout the stems, although the stems of preference for this construction are the Qal and the Niphal. We also need to be careful of not taking into account the context of Genesis 2:24. If we do not, we fall into the fallacy of termus technicus. It seems that, when we examine Genesis 2:24, we find that what is more important is the arrangement by context. Genesis 2:24 comes after a narrative, whereas 2 Samuel 22:50 comes in the context of a Psalm. Thus, while the meaning is similar to the other instances, it is not necessarily parallel to Genesis 2:24.

Now, note the meanings of each of these texts. The construction is telling us that an action happens in the present because of what happened in the narrative. For instance, because of what happened in 1 Samuel 5 with the priests of Dagon, they do not tread on the threshold. Because Nimrod became an excellent hunter, he is called a great warrior for the Lord in the present. Because Saul prophesied, people say "Is Saul among the prophets?" It is because of what happened with Jacob that the Israelites do not eat the sinew of the hip, and it is because of Israel's inhabitance of Heshbon that those who write proverbs say what they do. We can see that, over and over again, when you have this construction at the end of a narrative, it always means that something happens in the present because of what happened in the narrative.

Thus, if we apply the study of this construction to Genesis 2:24, we find that the text means that the reason why people get married today is because of what God did back in the garden of Eden. Therefore, any reading of this text that says that the text is stating that marriage is a "marker of adulthood" is exegetically unwarranted.

However, as I said, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anyabwile has hit the nail on the head when he talks about how children need to be more obedient to their parents. I see way to many children get into their teens, and then they just go wild, and don't care about their parents at all.

Also, it is good to see Anyabwile doing work on Islam as well. James White, Michael Haykin, and Thabiti Anyabwile will be doing a conference on Islam. Also, there is a debate of Anyabwile debating a Muslim here. So, again, we have to be careful that we don't become imbalanced, and make sure that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Interesting Class this Semester

This semester, I have the privilege of taking a class in Middle Egyptian. The reason why my school offers it as a supplement to their M.A. in Old Testament and Semitic studies program is that it is a very important language to the study of the Old Testament, not only because the culture of Egypt is very important, but also because Egyptian is a language that is somewhere between and African language and a Semitic language. Much of the vocabulary is very similar to Hebrew, and thus, it provides us a way to understand the development of Hebrew vocabulary.

However, another interesting aspect is the fact that Egyptian can be used to at least cast doubt on the authenticity of Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis. The reason is that the vocabulary in the Pentateuch is highly Egyptian. Thus, it is likely that the authorship of the Pentateuch came from Egypt [Moses would thus be a strong candidate].

However, it is somewhat frustrating because Egyptian has a hieroglyphic script. The alphabet is:

Egyptian Vulture
Reed Leaf
Double Reed Leaf
Arm
Quail Chick
leg
stool
horned viper
Owl
water
mouth
House plan
wick
Placenta
Animal Body with Tail
Folded Cloth
Pool
Hill
Basket with Handle
Ring stand for a vessel
Loaf of Bread
Rope for tethering
Hand
Cobra

That is a little different from the "aleph bet gimel daleth" I am used to. The problem is not really learning the pictures and the sounds of the letters. The problem is learning the order of the letters in Egyptian.

However, Egyptian also uses logograms and determinatives just like Akkadian, which I was already studying before my acceptance. However, Egyptian simply loves determinatives. So much so that my professor says that you can easily tell word divisions by determinatives. A lot of determinatives also decrease vocabulary. For instance, the Egyptian word for "sun" and the god "ra" are essentially the same word. How do you know which is the word for the god, and which is the word for the sun? Yup, determinatives. The determinitive indicating that the word means "sun" is a circle with a dot in the center, and the determinitive indicating that the word means "the [sun] god" is a picture of a deity sitting down.

If I have sparked your interest, this web page has some excellent information on ancient Egyptian.

Women At Odds with the Mandatory Marriage Movement

Just in case people from the mandatory marriage movement think that all women think like they do, I just thought I would post these reviews that I found the other day of Debbie Maken's book [all written by women]:

Dianna, A reviewer, 02/17/2007

Not Scriptural, Very Unfair to Men

I bought the book at a Barnes & Noble store. Maken spends too much time blaming men for the vast numbers of unmarried Christian women. Does she show understanding or offer solutions? Not at all. Maken goes to extraordinary lengths to question the manhood of men who do not embrace marriage. Marriage isn't for everyone and is financially impractical for many Christian men. Maken's ideas of courtship and matchmaking are more in line with her Hindu background than her recently adopted fundamentalist Christianity. The sad part of this is that many single Christian women are shaming and alienating the few Christian men who are left in the church. Women are breaking off relationships with good men because they won't marry within Maken's 3-month guidelines. Men are being denounced as eunuchs and 'completely lacking in manhood'. Maken should be deeply ashamed of this book. It isn't scriptural - Maken takes great liberties with certain verses in the Gospels in order to make her points. Don't buy this book.

Jennifer, A reviewer, 02/10/2007

Using Shame to Promote Marriage

Maken does deconstruct the overused 'gift of singleness' but her heavy emphasis on shaming men into marriage makes this a deeply flawed book. It's good to encourage marriage, but Maken is only encouraging a 'blame men' approach. She suggests churches should shame unmarried men and make them feel as unwelcome as possible. I cannot agree with her approach.

Linda, a teacher, 11/05/2006

One Size Does NOT Fit All

I married later in life. I'm glad I did and I'd do it again. But I wasn't ready earlier, and I enjoyed being single. Yes, there were frustrating times when I felt lonely, but I figured that there's one thing worse than being single -- and that's being married to the wrong person! For me, the hardest part about being single was being asked a lot of personal questions that were, quite frankly, nobody else's business! I can't say that married life is 'superior' or 'inferior' to being single. It is different. It satisfies some needs, but not all. Finding that 'right person' doesn't cure everything.

Not only do all of these reviews testify against the marriage mandators, but also consider this post on the Boundlessline the other day from Suzanne Hadley, and look at some of the comments:


bekah had the following to say on Aug 27 at 5:40 PM:
Thank you so much for this post!

I am so encouraged.

I wonder about this a lot, although; the Lord always brings me back to..
1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.

I do not rejoice in being single, but this is the portion that the Lord has given me TODAY.

And today is a day that the Lord has made.

So today is the day that whether single, or married, I must live for the Lord and seek his face in all things.

And finally, his timing is perfect and his ways are MUCH better than our ways:

Isaiah 55:8
As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So, with that, we have rest in His timing and His perfect Grace, knowing that He already sees All of it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Katie had the following to say on Aug 27 at 8:56 PM:

Suzanne (and Denise), this is one of the most awesome posts I have ever read on Boundless. Your honesty is so encouraging! Thanks for sharing such a balanced view, and for the reminder that God is for us, no matter how we feel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Susan had the following to say on Aug 27 at 9:50 PM:

It's really hard to wait on God's timing but, He knows our heart and honors it. He says in Psalms 37:4, "Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart." One of them is our desire to be with someone we want to be with for the rest of our life. Just make it known to Him and wait until He gives that person to us. We'll be surprised that what He gave us is more than what we have expected. Remember that God doesn't give the least but only the best...Have joy in waiting...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn had the following to say on Aug 28 at 6:18 AM:

As a single in my late 20's, I know that I have certainly not always (or ever?) praised God for my single-ness.

I am, however, learning more about myself and dealing with issues (like selfishness, family of origin issues, etc.) that I know would come up in marriage.

I can only hope that maybe God is giving me a head start on getting those things straight before He drags someone else into the mix :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, the reality is that these folks would like us to think that women are generally on their side. They just simply are not. One of my friends, while admitting that there are many immature men in the church, still disagrees with these folks, and, you guessed it, he is getting married in a month! Most of the girls with whom I am acquainted, have not heard of these folks. When I tell them what they believe, they are just shocked that anyone would believe this stuff. So, the reality is that there are plenty of women out there who do not agree with this stuff, and are currently making (and will make) wonderful wives for the single men in the church that oppose this stuff. Conspicuously, the proponents of the mandatory marriage movement seem to be so busy promoting their position that they have not been able to find the time to put out their wedding announcements.

Technical Difficulties

I am having some problems getting the HTML to work tonight, and thus, my last post is unreadable. I will try to fix it tomorrow.

UPDATE: The previous post is finally the way I would like it. HTML can be really frustrating sometimes, but I finally got it to work. Also, make sure you download and install the Bibleworks Hebrew fonts that I use on my blog, or some of the words won't make any sense. I give the links and explain how to do it here.

Debbie Maken On Women's Accountability

I don't know if any of you remember, but I had said a long time ago that, if you acknowledge that women have a part to play in the "delay of marriage," but you only mention it in passing, then you really cast doubt on whether there is any substance to your claim.

Debbie Maken has once again proven that there is no substance to her claim that "women have a part to play," and, worse than that, she needs to be told to stop playing Old Testament scholar, because she is not an Old Testament scholar. We have another case in point here:

I am going to conclude with Hosea 4:14. It reflects not only God’s scheme of accountability, but also from which sex the redemption must come

The NIV puts it like this:

"I will not punish your daughters
when they turn to prostitution,
nor your daughters-in-law
when they commit adultery,
because the men themselves consort with harlots
and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes—
a people without understanding will come to ruin!"

And the ESV has this:

"I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore,
nor your brides when they commit adultery;
for the men themselves go aside with prostitutes
and sacrifice with cult prostitutes,
and a people without understanding shall come to ruin."

Undoubtedly, that entire book is not only about Hosea’s personal marital problems, but the general infidelity of Israel. We all know what Hosea’s wife was like. To say she had some issues is to put it mildly. But this letter reminds us that God expects men with “great compassion” to redeem this situation, as the Lord God himself has often redeemed His people when they have strayed. The issue ultimately is not going to be decided by the alleged impact of Feminism on Christian women, or the role that women and men have played in our current mess. Men are going to be held accountable when women go astray. They have failed in their leadership and have led women into sin because of it.

Now, we need to understand right off the bat that Debbie Maken has not looked carefully into this text. First of all, Maken is simply wrong to start off by saying that the book has anything to do with Hosea's marital problems. That is entirely contested, and I actually agree with those who dissent from this position. The key is this text:

Hosea 1:2 When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, "Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the LORD."

The problem is that none of the words for harlot are used here. The that is used here contains none of the common Hebrew words for harlot: ~ynIWnz> tv,aeÛ. There are many common words for prostitute:[ hn"zO, and hv'deq. are the most common words to describe female prostitutes], but none of those words are used here. Hence, the question is what the specific phrase used here means. In fact, Douglass Stuart has an entire section on this in chapter two of his book on Old Testament Exegesis. He rightly states that the noun ~ynIWnz> has a plural ending, and, one of the major syntactical functions of plural Hebrew nouns is to indicate abstract concepts. Thus, because the book has to do with the unfaithfulness of Israel, Stuart suggests [and I agree with him] that the point of Hosea 1:2 is that the people have committed so much "spiritual harlotry" against God that it does not matter who Hosea marries, she will be a spiritual harlot. Now, what about chapter 3?:

Hosea 3:1-3 Then the LORD said to me, "Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes." 2 So I bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a half of barley. 3 Then I said to her, "You shall stay with me for many days. You shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man; so I will also be toward you." [NASB]

The issue with this text is one of accenting. The question is whether this is the same woman mentioned back in chapter 1. Here is the Hebrew text to verse 1:

tp,a'_n"m.W [;rEÞ tb;huîa] hV'êai-bh;a/ %lEå dA[… yl;ªae hw"÷hy> rm,aYO“w:
~yhiäl{a/-la, ‘~ynIPo ~heªw> laeêr"f.yI ynEåB.-ta, ‘hw"hy> tb;Ûh]a;K.
`~ybi(n"[] yveîyvia] ybeÞh]aow> ~yrIêxea]

The issue here has to do with the little dot above the yl;ªae in in the first line. That is a disjunctive accent. However, the question is where that accent is to be placed. Is it to be placed over the yl;ae [to me] or the dA[ [again]? The reason why it is important is because the text will break at whatever point the accent is placed. Thus, if the accenting is the way that it is in the MT, it would read as the NASB. However, if the dot is placed above the dA[, it would translate something like, "The Lord said to me again, 'Go, love a woman... Hence, there is some debate in Hebrew scholarship as to where the accent should go. Thus, Maken has not wrestled with these issues, and just seems to take for granted that this is what the book is about.

Worse than that, she has not presented the other side of this text as well. Debbie Maken is known rather well for her ignorance of historical backgrounds of the OT, and I have caught her many times in that ignorance. In this case it is inexcusable, as the context gives it very clearly:

Hosea 4:6-13 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. 7 The more they multiplied, the more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame. 8 They feed on the sin of My people And direct their desire toward their iniquity. 9 And it will be, like people, like priest; So I will punish them for their ways And repay them for their deeds. 10 They will eat, but not have enough; They will play the harlot, but not increase, Because they have stopped giving heed to the LORD. 11 Harlotry, wine and new wine take away the understanding. 12 My people consult their wooden idol, and their diviner's wand informs them; For a spirit of harlotry has led them astray, And they have played the harlot, departing from their God. 13 They offer sacrifices on the tops of the mountains And burn incense on the hills, Under oak, poplar and terebinth, Because their shade is pleasant. Therefore your daughters play the harlot And your brides commit adultery.

Thus, the context is the religious leaders leading the people astray for their wickedness. In other words, the context is not about men and women, but about religious leaders and women. Hence, even if this is the correct translation of verse 14, Maken is still guilty of taking the verse out of context.

Worse than that, there are some who say that this verse should not be taken as an indicative, but rather as a question. Francis I. Anderson and David Noel Freedman have written a commentary on the book of Hosea for The Anchor Bible commentary series in which they argue that very thing. Here is there reasoning:

The apparent meaning of the MT, which excuses the women from punishment (v 14a) because the men are entirely to blame (v 14b), is hard to fit into context. In fact, the apparent negative at the beginning of v 14 is unaccountable. The verb dq;P' is always used by Hosea to announce divine punishment (1:4b; 2:15; 4:9b). It is inconceivable that the women could be exculpated, even if the men were primarily responsible. The problem could be sloved by taking v 14aA as a rhetorical question-"Shall I not punish...?" The preceding word ends in h-, which could be supplied also before al, either by repairing a haplography, or by scripto continua [p.369].

To understand what he is saying, let us first take a look at the Hebrew text going from verse 13 into verse 14:

`hn"p.a;(n"T. ~k,ÞyteALk;w> ~k,êyteAnæB. ‘hn"yn<’z>Ti !Keª-l[;
~k,øyteAnB.-l[; dAq’p.a,-al{) 14.
~['îw> WxBe_z:y> tAvßdEQ.h;-~[iw> WdrEêp'y> tAnæZOh;-~[i ‘~he-yKi hn"p.a;ên"t. yKiä ‘~k,yteAL)K;-l[;w> hn"yn<©z>ti yKiä
`jbe(L'yI !ybiÞy"-al{)

As you can see, the last letter of verse 13 is a h. What the commentators are suggesting is that the h may have originally been written twice, and when a scribe copied it, he glossed over the second h. The significance of this is that a prefixed h to a sentence is the Hebrew way of constructing a question. Thus, if it is true, the sentence would be translated as "Will I not punish your daughters?"

They also go on to argue that the al may be asseverative, that is, "the particle may be l. here, if the a is a dittograph" [p.369]. I am not sure if I am ready to put my endorsement on that theory, but it would make sense of the text.

However, all of these other arguments are inconsequential. Maken has ripped this text out of its context. Not only that, but she has failed to realize that there are other exegetical issues which, even if she were right, would need to be addressed. Let's face it. What does it say about a Christian when they would abuse a text of scripture like this to say that they should get out of responsibility for their actions? If Debbie Maken continues to make excuses for what she believes to be her sin, she will find herself under the wrath and punishment of God. This is not the Christian way to answer this problem. Christians do not make excuses for their sin, they repent from their sin. Thus, I know I have resisted saying this for a long time, but I am now willing to say that Debbie Maken is not a Christian. I believe she is an unbeliever, and I believe she needs to be converted just like all of the other pagans. The sad thing is that Albert Mohler has endorsed her book, and thus, given a blank check to a wolf in sheep's clothing. I plead with anyone in positions of Christian leadership who endorses this woman's work to reconsider. What Debbie Maken has said here is something no Christian should ever say.

The Complete Meltdown Over at Boundless

I had been having a dialogue with a woman named Jennifer here. Now, you have to understand, you have a woman that has written on the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:8 using the Greek, and yet, she has never set foot in a Greek class. That, of course, doesn't stop her from making, and continuing to make, all kinds of errors on the Greek text, even when I have corrected her on it before this. She even openly and blatantly commited an exegetical fallacy in this very discussion that no scholar of any language would accept.

Anyway, the other day I tried to post my response, and it told me that I am not able to post messages. I figured that something must be wrong with my computer or something, so I just waited until I could get to school. Unfortuately, Anakin Niceguy posted this:

The Boundless Line blog has a post on the supposed relationship between single people and shrinking churches. Among other things, the post noted:
Dr. Wilcox explains that even while family formation is central to the life of a church, many churches are instead trying to fill empty pews by compromising Biblical positions on family.I tried to respond with the following comment:

If churches are shrinking, is it really the problem of unmarried people, or is it the problem of complacent congregants and church-leaders who couldn't look beyond their comfort zones and heed the message of Luke 4:15-24? The last time I checked the wording of the Great Commission, it didn't say anything about having babies.However, the website rejected my comments and informed me that I am not allowed to post.

Now, of course, I am looking at this, and wondering to myself why it is that this has happened. Ted Slater, the editor at Boundless, posted his reason:

Anakin -- we strive for a conversation on our blog that is productive and cordial. We oftentimes publish comments that disagree with the original post. The thing is, your comments have consistently been contentious, often misrepresenting us. While the comment you mention here is innocuous, other comments have been unacceptable. Such distracting and unhelpful communication is not welcome on The Line.

Thank you for understanding.

My first question to Ted is why it is that she posts, and even gives special blog posts, to Debbie Maken? Debbie Maken is a perfect example of someone who is terribly contentious, and is consistently misrepresenting the reformers, and even altering quotes to prove her case which I have documented here. Yet, the do not ban Debbie Maken.

Worse than that, Ted just asserts that Anakin misrepresents the authors of Boundless. Where does he do that? It takes much more than just an assertion to prove your point. You have to show a distinction between what you are saying and what they are saying. Ted simply does not do that.

Also, what about the other comments that are posted on Boundlessline that I have documented before? Well, Ted has a response to this:

TMD -- Yes, we publish a lot of disagreeable and contentious comments. The thing is, these people have shown in other instances that they are interested in furthering a discussion, in having an honest debate.In Anakin's case, I haven't seen that. I've only seen him bent on misrepresenting Boundless and facilitating contention.

Well, my question is where has Jennifer, Darren Allan, Captain Sensible, or any of these other people agreed with anything we have said? Jennifer is still posting away, Captain Sensible is still pursuing her weirdness, and Debbie Maken does not even think that single men deserve a substantive response. Perhaps, it was Albert Mohler and Debbie Maken that facilitated contention by writing and publishing the things they have on this topic, and using the language that Debbie Maken has in her book? Yet, Ted seems to think that their writing is productive.

Now, have I shown that I agree with Boundless on some issues? Yes, I most certainly have! Consider this article that I wrote a while back, and also consider this post on feminism, wherein I defended Candace Watters. Also, consider the materials I recommended to help people who are dealing with atheists here, and also consider that I further commented on Candace Watters' statements concerning Sam Harris here, agreeing with Candace, and adding to the discussion, presenting more arguments against Mr. Harris. I have also posted on abortion on Boundless, discussed John Piper's use of profanity, and pointed out the self-contradictory nature of the arguments abortion rights advocates. I defended the president of Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson against the attacks of the media here, and I also even discussed Anna Nicole Smith! To say that I am just there to be contentious is simply absurd. If Ted wants to use that argument to say that this is the reason you were banned, then he is going to have to deal with these things. Ted wrote the following to me when I was talking with Jennifer:

It's one thing to be fastidious with Scripture in order to determine doctrinal truth. It's another to foster a critical spirit.

Well, where is the critical spirit in all of the above instances? And, even if I am fostering a critical spirit here, he said that he is willing to publish comments of people who are contentious in one place, but not in other instances. Why then not publish my comments? Ted is simply saying something that is untrue. Ted does not know me, and he does not know my background, nor my personal life. No one is fostering a "critical spirit." We are concerned about the sociological ramifications of a movement that is clearly unbiblical. We are concerned about the fact that the people in leadership positions in this movement are refusing to take responsibility for their own teachings. Apparently, Ted must think that Albert Mohler, Debbie Maken, Candace and Steve Watters, et al. could never teach something unbiblical that has horrid sociological ramifications for single men. In fact, I find it very funny that Boundlessline would publish this comment by Steve Watters:

In a recent comment, "Justin" wrote, "If I don't want to get married until I'm 40, then that is between me and God. Not me and the congregation."
I think by this statement it's fair to say Justin's concept of marriage fits into a category researcher Paul Amato describes as "individualistic." In a book that he (and a team of other researchers) wrote called Alone Together, Amato describes the transformation of marriage to the current individualistic focus:
Marriage changed from a formal institution that meets the needs of the larger society to a companionate relationship that meets the needs of the couple and their children and then to a private pact that meets the psychological needs of individual spouses.
We believe at Boundless that God created marriage to be larger than us as individuals, larger than any one couple and larger than any children that couple has. That "institutional" view puts us at odds with the individualistic zeitgeist.

only a short time after Ted Slater said the following:

Is it because you're afraid of change or of rejection? Is it because you're content with the status quo? Is it because you cherish the (selfish) control you have over your time and money? Is it because you'll only settle for a "10"? Is it because you're getting the emotional (and maybe physical) benefits of marriage without the commitments? Is it because you don't want to be inconvenienced? Or are you staying single because doing so enables you to serve the Lord in a peculiarly effective way?I personally don't want to hear your answers to those questions; that's between you and God.

Of course, this illustrated what I have said all along, and has been demonstrated to be true in my blog series entitled Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement, namely, that this movement has sociological implications for the way single men are to be treated, and thus, if it is false, needs to be dealt with. However, if you dare suggest that this movement is unbiblical, and then go on to show that the arguments from the other side have no weight, you are viewed as having a "critical spirit."

Let us turn this logic around. Let us say that Ted was on a forum disagreeing with a Jehovah's Witness about the trinity. Now, I am sure that Ted, as an orthodox trinitarian, would not agree with anything the Jehovah's Witnesses say about topic of the trinity. However, when he has addressed all of their arguments, and shown them to be wanting, would it be rational for the Jehovah's Witness to counter by saying that he is just fostering a critical spirit, and then ban him from the board? We could go all the way down the line, and any time Ted would not agree with anything that was said on a board, he would be guilty of fostering a "critical spirit." Indeed, such is absurd.

Let's face it. There was no reason to ban Anakin or myself from that blog. I have a feeling that when Ted says that he publishes comments that disagree with their position, what he means is that he is willing to post comments from people who voice a simple disagreement with Boundless, but he is not willing to post comments from someone who is seeking to examine the writers of Boundless. In other words, they are immune to cross-examination. However, what does the book of Proverbs say?:

Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Yet, Boundless does not want cross-examination for some reason. They don't want to have to be put into a situation in which someone comes along and examines this mandatory marriage teaching, and shows it to be wanting. That is what is "unwelcome on the Line." As Dr. James White always used to say, "Truth is most clearly seen against the backdrop of error." Yet, interestingly enough, they can't even remain consistent when accusing those who would like to have cross-examination on this issue. To do this, I guess, means that you are "not interested in furthering the discussion." No, it is Boundless who is not interested in furthering the discussion, because they are not interested in cross-examination.

You see, it is dishonoring to God's truth to say that we should not examine each other Biblically, and hold us to sound principles of reason and exegesis. Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms did not shy away from cross-examination. He said that, unless he could be convinced by the Bible or sound reasoning, he would not recant. However, that is just the opposite position of the folks over at Boundless. They seem to say that we will not allow anyone to convince them by the Bible and sound reasoning that they are wrong, because they will not allow anyone to cross-examine them. It is amazing how 500 years of Christian history has changed how much we value truth.

I would encourage anyone who has an interest in this topic to file a formal complaint with Boundlessline. Let them know that you are interested in "furthering the discussion" by, first of all, allowing us to cross-examine their position on their blog, and second, by posting an article with a long, formal disputation between Anakin or myself, and one of the people who have written in defense of this position such as Candace and Steve Watters. Let those who promote this position deal with the criticisms of their position, and do so in a manner in which everyone who supports this stuff can see.

More Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

This little note was left to me today over on Anakin Niceguy's blog by a man named Darren Allan. This is the man who accused me of "comparing being barren and childless to being a nerd." I have documented the irrationality of this charge before, and pointed out that I was talking about barrenness in a particular cultural setting at a particular time. The funny thing is that Mr. Allen accused Anakin's blog of misrepresenting people today. I challanged him on this absolutely hypocritical charge, and here is what he had to say:

If you are idiotic enough to compare childlessness with being a nerd, then your foolishness speaks for itself and I have no reason to misrepresent you. Your ego is just hurt that no one pays you any attention so you keep bring up stuff that happend months ago. Even if you refuse to get a wife, at least make some attempt to grow up.

Darren Allan

Again, no discussion of the issues I have raised, just pure acid from a man who is uncritically hanging on the things that Debbie Maken, Candace Watters, et al. are saying. It was funny that Ted Slater was also on the blog, and he said that it was just a matter that was between us and God. Well, when you have teachings that produce this kind of irrational emotionalism, it is not just a matter between you and God. These types of teachings have sociological implications, and Darren Allen is a perfect example of that. Here is a man that is so cavalier in his misrepresentation of me, that he has to engage in this kind of language, and engage in horrendiously hypocritical thinking in order to attack Anakin. I hope that those who care about the truth on this issue will call Darren Allan out on this.

A Look Into the Mind of a Cultic Marriage Mandator

I know I probably should let "Captain Sensible" just run off into all kinds of wierdness, but I think that this is an interesting look into the minds of one of the most radical proponents of the mandatory marriage movement on the internet:

Fern Horst: Is she really saying praying for marriage may lead to a "weak and sickly" soul?

Captain Sensible writes: I don't normally link to sites that contain false teaching on singleness as I wouldn't want to be responsible for spreading their content.
But I really have to raise this horror to be found on "Purposeful Singleness" as I would like to gather some other opinions on it. Have we now reached the nadir of denigrating marriage? Is Fern implying here that to pray for marriage may well result in a spouse, but it might not really be "God's plan" and will therefore result in a "weak and sickly" soul, instead of a "healthy" (single) one? Please tell me I am wrong!

Notice, the first line. Captain Sensible thinks that Horst is saying that marriage may lead to a "weak and sickly soul." However, here is what Horst actually said:

But we must also remember that our Heavenly Father has a plan for each one of us, a plan to fulfill His purpose through us, to give us a healthy soul instead of a weak and sickly one, and He knows just how to accomplish this. Insisting that life goes our way, instead of His, may result in our getting what we want - but we will pay a high price in the health of our soul.

Notice, that Horst says nothing about marriage giving you a sick and weakly soul, but getting what you want when it is not God's time to give it to you yet. She is talking about the fact that God is the king of our lives, and he is molding us into the image of his son. Thus, he is going to give us marriage in his time, not our time. What she is talking about is not getting marriage, but getting marriage at the wrong time, when you do not have the spiritual maturity to handle it. Thus, he gives marriage to us when it will cause us to grow closer to him, and to better our lives as servants of Jesus Christ, not when it will harm the soul because of our own idolatry for marriage.

Notice, here is what Horst says at the beginning of her article:

Throughout my life I have often made requests to God for various things which I really, really wanted. But usually just as quickly the Lord reminds me of this verse, and I'm quick to also pray, "But Lord, more than this particular thing which I really desire, I want your will to be done."

This verse in Psalms is referring to the Israelites who murmured and complained about their circumstances on the journey from slavery and bondage to the Promised Land. God had delivered them from so much and performed miracle after miracle that proved His great love and faithfulness to them. Yet again and again they focused on the moment and what they didn't have. In their ungratefulness they insisted that God give them what they desired - what they thought would make their journey more pleasant for them.

And so God gave them what they asked for, but along with their request they suffered a greater loss: their souls became "lean". For the believer who wants to grow in the Lord, who wants to make Him their first love, who wants to follow Him with all their heart, soul, and mind, this is a dire warning.

Thus, she is not equating a healthy soul with a single soul, nor is she equating an unhealthy soul with a married one. She is talking about a person who refuses to submit to God's desire for their life, makes marriage an idol, and God turns them over to that idol to the degregation of their soul. God has made many things wonderful and good. Marriage is one of those things. However, if we desire those things more than we desire to live for God, and thus shame single men, not caring about God's commandments on how to treat others, then if we get married, it is an act of judgement from God. Why? Because it hardens you in your idolatry.

Debbie Maken is a perfect example of this. I believe this woman is under the judgement of God. She has gotten her idol, and now she is hardened in her idolatry, so much that she does not even have the courage of her convictions to defend what she believes. You have a woman who aimlessly attacks any single man who disagrees with her, and admits that she will not give a substantive response to any single man who disagrees with her, and openly misuses and alters sources in order to get people to believe what she has said. That is a woman whose reasoning is being made foolish simply because she is worshipping marriage rather than worshipping the one true God. I can only hope God will turn her heart, but as I said, the fact that she got what she wanted, given her idolatry, is evidence of the judgement of God.

For Captain Sensible to rip someone out of context like this just shows the shallow reasoning of a movement that is only interested in making converts, and not in actually dealing with the issues put foward. They appeal to the emotions, and appeal to a person's feelings never questioning whether those feelings might be Biblical. I had something similar happen this week on the Boundless blog where a girl named "Jennifer" not only tried to misuse Greek to prove her position, and made a horrible exegetical blunder, but also tried to get away with saying that we are trying to tell her that if she has the desire to marry, then she is engaging in sin. Of course, that is entirely false. I corrected her, and told her that no one had ever said that that, and then explained that we are talking about people who loathe their singleness, and are depressed because they are not married. That is what we are saying is idolatry. Of course, she then tried to say that she had actually heard someone tell her that, and I challanged her to provide one person who is not in agreement with the mandatory marriage movement who heard the same thing being said. Of course, I got no takers. Could it not be that she misconstrued what that particular church leader said, just like Captain Sensible misconstrued what Fern Horst said? This seems to be the MO of the mandatory marriage movement when answering charges of idolatry. Just misrepresent the opposition, and hope the charge goes away.

There is a good reason why they do this. They know that this kind of analysis is accurate, and, rather than deal with what the person wrote, they would like to stay in their sin, and say that anyone who points this out is "denegrating marriage." Let me be perfectly clear. We are not "denegrating marriage," but are preventing people from denegrating it. We want marriage to remain a very good creation of God that he gives as a gift to his people in his time. We do not want to make it something that is so insignificant that it can be given on demand to anyone who just goes about it in the proper way. If you think that God is under some obligation to give you a spouse just because your singleness is causing depression, then you are, indeed, engaging in idolatry. If God gives you marriage in such a situation, it will not be to your benifit, but to your judgement.

Also, I have to ask, why does Captain Sensible not link to websites containing the so-called "false teaching" of "the gift of singleness?" Might it be that they might actually go to these websites and read the truth, and thus, they would have no followers? Reminds me of the same thing that the Watchtower Society does. They try to do everything they can to prevent people from reading literature critical of the Watchtower Society. Why? Because they know that they would never hear the end of it if people found out about their false prophecies, and downright abuse of the facts. Yet, is this not what Captain Sensible is doing? One of the first signs that you are dealing with a cult is that they try to control the information to which its members have access. Yet, she says that she will only allow her readers to see the information she wants them to see.

You see, that is the beauty of having the truth. You can sleep at night. I can link to Debbie Maken's blog, Captain Sensible's blog, Boundless, Albert Mohler, and anyone else who is a part of this movement, and you can read their comments for yourself, and examine my arguments, against their arguments and decide for yourself. Not only that, if there is something on which you would like me to comment, we have a comments section, and you can leave a comment or question. A young lady with the screenname of "Songbird" did that on my previous post. I am more than willing to have a dialogue on this topic with anyone, and thus, I am not hiding any information from my readers. I have linked to websites with false teaching on it many times, because it gives people a chance to read both sides, and to see why it is that a teaching is false. However, when you start having to control the information to which your readers have access, as far as I am concerned, you have turned cultic.

Debbie Maken Shows her True Colors

(And a challange to Debbie Maken)

I don't know if people involved with the Mandatory Marriage Movement saw the dialogue between Debbie Maken and a man with the screenname of "Farmer Tom," but it reveals some interesting things about Debbie Maken. First, Farmer Tom wrote the following:

Any attempt to get men back to church, ie older(traditional)forms of worship, without also teaching women to assume the traditional role of women, staying home to raise the children, not spending their day in the corporate world, is doomed to failure. You want men to be the traditional man while living out your feminist fantasies as the smart, sexy, career godess who can do it all. Good luck with that. Guys can find bimbos that believe that foolishness on every street corner, and in most churches.

Debbie Maken replied with:

Farmer Tom,

Did you even read the article???

Newsflash: Most women do not want careers, but to be wives and stay at home moms. This is even more true of Christian women.If you care to look at the research from the National Marriage Project, it is the men who are actually seeking "independent" women, so that they don't have to measure up as the family bread winner. The Popenoe/Whitehead surveys reveal that the men do not want that much "pressure," and that they view women who want to stay at home as "gold diggers." If you care to look at the writings of Danielle Crittenden, she advances another theory for females who maintain their careers after marriage-- it is because the liberal divorce laws ultimately inform them that their husbands may or may not be around, and that they need to keep up their competitive market "cred," almost like a divorce insurance policy. Most women have no choice today but to prepare themselves to be market producers because our climate is so anti-marriage and because most men cannot be counted on to bring relationships to a full orbed marriage.

Yet again, I find myself addressing a faulty assumption with a faulty conclusion. So, farmer Tom, spare me the condescension of most women being feminist, men-disrespecting, corporate ladder climbing, career lovers, somehow leaving hapless, well-intentioned men in a dusty haze of confusion. Get off your bottom, be a "man," so that a woman will actually be attracted to you, and quit making excuses.

However, Debbie made a HUGE mistake. Farmer Tom is already married. Here is what he wrote back:

First, an explanation. I have read your book, my wife and I gave it as a gift to several young ladies who graduated from high school or college this year. I agree with your thoughts on an "agent". I believe that the Biblical model shown us by Eliezer in his search to find a wife for Isaac is an excellent principle for Believers to follow. I am currently helping a young couple who are interested in finding a marriage partner in their search. Please understand that I agree with your description of the current problems in "christian" circles, regarding the lack of men who commit to marriage. I agree it is a problem. I said these same things in a two part review of your book I did on my blog.

While, indeed, Debbie Maken embarrassed herself by saying this, her response is even more telling:

But I do want to apologize if my initial reply came off as harsh. I am afraid I thought you were just one of those rude and contentious bachelors that spend more time nitpicking over my book, than investing in securing a wife. I am glad to know that you are married and have brought fruit into this world, and that our disagreement is actually small in the scope of our assessment of the situation. Let me respond to your substantive points soon.

Debbie Maken

Notice that Debbie Maken said that she will respond to his substantive points soon. What does that mean? That in her first response she had nothing of substance to say to Farmer Tom only because he was single! She says that he is only making excuses, and therefore, he is not actually engaging the issue.

Now we have a problem. If Farmer Tom is just out there making excuses, then how can you make a substantive response to his post? What does it mean to make a substantive response to excuses?

Secondly, I have a challange for Debbie Maken. Debbie wrote the following on this post:

Read the book and the blog. My personal focus is on helping ministers get back on track. The original version of my manuscript had a hard time finding a publishing home because it was twice as long as the book and more academic than how the book currently reads. The publishers thought and I concurred that it would be a good idea to make the book "more accessible" to large numbers of women and men, where the idea could take hold among Christian singles, and this in turn would then force the ministers to stop marveling at the emperor's nudity.

Debbie,

If we can get the help to make this work, I have a challange for you. If you think your book is so academic, and that Christian men are just "making excuses," then I challange you to a written debate on each of our blogs. Here is the catch. I would like to have this debate sent to John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Albert Mohler, James Dobson, Joshua Harris, and Carolyn McCulley. If we are just "making excuses," and the "modern" view is so bad that you had to point out that "the emporor has no clothes," then let us see if some of the most respected theologians of our day can agree. Here is the thesis:

The position given in Debbie Maken's book Getting Serious about Getting Married about singleness and marriage is the Biblical position, and the position of the reformers.

Debbie would affirm, and I would deny.

Remember our little dialogue where even people who were in agreement with you were saying that you were unfair? Do you remember that you and "Darren Allan" had to resort to an absolutely reprehensible misreading of me, saying that I said that "Barrenness is like being a nerd in school?" Do you remember that you blatantly engaged in the ad hominem fallacy by trying to determine my motives, which even secular philosophers recognize is always fallacious? Trust me Debbie, you would not get away with that if we were to do this.

Finally, as I have demonstrated in my post on the reformer's view of marriage, the "scholarship" in your book is so dishonest that anyone who has access to the sources you cite from church history can just look up the sources and see that you have, misleadingly, left things out of quotations, and even altered quotes to make the reformers say what you want them to say. You had better believe that I will point that out in this debate. You had also better believe that you are going to have to do better then just citing particular passages and then giving an interpretation. I will challange you to interact with the scholarly literature at every turn. I will challange your interpretation at every turn.

Also, given the above facts, I have to wonder if the reason why your book could not find a publishing home is because of the fact that you think that a thousand foot notes equals a "scholarly" and "academic" book. Given your misuse of scholarly sources and your tendency to just quote a passage and just assume its meaning, I have to wonder if the real reason your book could not find a publishing home is because of the fact that most publishers are not going to be willing to publish such an error-filled book. I cannot prove that, but, given the fact that I am, myself, a part of the acadamy, I know that I would get a failing grade at my school, Concordia University Wisconsin, if I *ever* displayed the "scholarship" that you have. Trust me, I will point this out at ever turn in our dialogue.

Also, if you do to me what you did to Farmer Tom, you will lose easily. If you do not respond with substance, these church leaders will not take you seriously. On the other hand, I will point out that your position comes, not from the Bible, but from the Indian culture in which you were raised. I will point out that, time and time again, you read the Bible and the reformers through the lens of your Indian culture.

So, let's be honest. If we can get the people to make this work, you have absolutely no reason to decline this challange. You are trying to show that the single men who are against you are just making excuses, and are just little children who are not men. You also say you are trying to "help ministers get back on track." Well, you can do both of these if your analysis of the situation is correct. However, I will be interested to see if, indeed, you have the confidence in your convictions about single men, and about the church in general to even take up this challange, or whether you will just spew out more of that intimidation that you use to try to avoid the obvious conclusion that your book was a huge mistake, and that you have gotten in way over your head. I know that there are plenty of people interested in this issue that can make this work. Maybe you know some people as well. Either way you have no reason to turn this down. I can only think that a refusal from you will merely demonstrate what we have been saying all along is exactly correct...that your ad hominem attacks are simply something you use to hide the fact that you cannot answer the arguments put foward by me, Anakin, and others.

Debbie, I know your arguments. I have dealt with them, and I have refuted them. I have beaten you before, and I will beat you again.