Captain Sensible's Silliness

Just recently, Captain Sensible has written this post on her blog. In this post, I am going to respond, both to the comments, as well as to the substance of the post itself. Now, I certainly have heard the old, "You think Barrenness is the same as being a nerd in school" misrepresentation over and over again by people who refuse to see that their argument from Hanna has been exegetically refuted, but that is not the main reason I write this post. The main reason I write this post is because, just as these folks in the radical mandatory marriage movement cannot interpret me properly, they also seem to not give the same kind of care to the scriptures. First of all, Captain Sensible says she is going to post that discussion. I already have, here. I have already dealt with the silliness of Darran Allan and Captain Sensible on this topic. Their problem has to do with this statement I made in my dialogue with Debbie Maken when asked about Hannah in 1 Samuel 1. Here is what I said:

With regards to Hanna, it is more than likely that Hanna was weeping over not having a child mostly because, at that time, being barren was as bad as being a nerd in school. You were often the subject of immense ridicule and that may be what Hanna is upset about.

Notice what I said. I was not referring to what barrenness is, but what barrenness "was" "at that time." Never did I ever say that the way the ancient Jews viewed barrenness was correct, nor would I ever defend such behavior. However, it happens to be a fact that that barren women experienced the same kind of disgrace, and low class place in society that nerds in High Schools do today. Of course, Darran Allan, who sees only what he wants to see on a page, wrote the following response:

Adam,

Are you joking????You are comparing being barren and childless to being a nerd??????????She was upset being ridiculed????I don't know what sort of la la land you live in but you have lost credibility in this debate.

Now, let us ask a simply question. Where in my comment did I ever compare being barren to being a nerd? I compared the social status of a barren woman at the time in which Hannah lived to the ridicule and low status given to a "nerd" in school, yes. However, if Darran Allan thinks that this makes me loose all credibility in this debate, let us see who else has absolutely no credibility.

One of the standard works on Biblical backgrounds is Ralph Gower's The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times. In his book, he said the following:

If a woman could not have children, that was therefore seen as a curse from God because it was as good as extinction. Rachel told Jacob that if she had no children she would die (Genesis 30:1). Hannah believed her childlessness was God's punishment (1 Samuel 1:16), and Elizabeth knew that reproachful looks she received from the people because they believed she had done something to upset God. When John was born she knew that the Lord had "taken away my disgrace" [Gower, Ralph The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times. Moody Press. Chicago Illinois 1987. p.61].

So, Darran Allan is upset with the idea that I said that she was being ridiculed because of her barrenness. It sounds to me like people who were barren were treated as pagan sinners. It sounds to me like the people believed that God was punishing them for something they did. However, here is another scholar:

The Bible records that joy was felt by mothers centuries ago just as it is today, expecially because a woman grew in status in the community when she helped to perpetuate the family line. That is why childless women such as Hannah were not only sorrowful themselves, but were scorned by others [Thompson, J.A. Handbook of Life in Bible Times Inter-Varsity Press. Downers Grove, Illinois 1986 p. 80].

Indeed, Walter Brueggemann in his commentary on 1 Samuel says the following:

The birth of a child to a barren woman is not a routine matter at any time, certainly not in ancient Israel. The birth is first of all an occasion for unmitigated celebration. The deepest yearning of the mother has been in explicable fulfilled. Hannah's worth, her dignity, and her rightful place with her husband have been restored [Brueggemann, Walter First and Second Samuel from the commentary series Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. John Knox Press. Louisville, Kentucky 1990. pgs 15-16].

Interesting that this commentator said that Hannah did not have her worth or her dignity when she was barren, and that they were restored at birth. Again, we have another scholar Darran Allan would have to say has no credibility.

There, I saved Captain Sensible all of the trouble. I reposted it, demonstrated were these folks have misrepresented me, and showed that I have many people in the scholarly realm who agree with what I actually said. Also, in case these guys haven't noticed, I have had that dialogue posted, and have linked to it for a very, very long time. I think that their interpretation of what I have said is the clearest example of a mindset that refuses to acknowledge exegetical error, and admit that Debbie Maken's use of Hannah was based on a gross misunderstanding of the historical backgrounds of 1 Samuel.

Not only that, it is an example of only seeing what one wants to see on a page. Debbie Maken had absolutely no response for anything I said in that dialogue. She was totally refuted, along with all of her followers. Hence, they have to do something to try to destroy my credibility so no one would listen to me. Thus, rather than seeing on the page that which I actually wrote, they saw on the page what they thought they could use against me. Thus, you have this repeated error over and over again by these folks because they simply have no answer for what I said, and have to find some way of destroying my credibility before men who are attacked by these women actually read my blog, and learn how to answer these people's abuses of scripture. I have not seen Captain Sensible, Darran Allan, or Debbie Maken take apart any of my posts on this blog, nor do I expect to see them do so. They are totally exegetically bankrupt when it comes to this issue, and cannot handle any exegetical refutation of their position.

I have been so blessed by the guys that have written me and thanked me for dealing with this issue in a fair, exegetical manner. I am not going to get into the blame game, blaming women for all of the problems. I want to deal with the text of the scriptures, and engage the topic with careful, precise Biblical Exegesis. In fact, one girl on the Boundless Blog said:

Ariana had the following to say on May 3 at 8:55 AM:
I think that Adam's point about Hannah stands and is well supported by the text. I don't think that Hannah's desire to have a child was quite the same as the desire of women today to have children, which has largely to do with wanting to enjoy giving love to and receiving love from one's children. That's an honorable thing, but for Hannah, her barrennes was an unjust sign of reproach socially. It was not simply that she did not have the blessing of children, but people's perceptions, treatment, judgments toward her regarding that fact were unwarranted and undeserved. And her reproach was not limited to a few mean people, but came from society at large. I think that there is a close similarity in Hannah's desperation followed by joy, and that of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, when Elizabeth says, "Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when He looked upon me, to take away my reproach among people." (Luke 1:25) Elizabeth, too, had been barren and suffered unfairly for it.
The issue in both of their instances is not that the Lord enabled them to fulfill a command--it wasn't that their lives were not already glorifying to Him. Nor were they under His reproach. But he took away their societal reproach.
The irony of this contemporary marriage debate is that those who elevate marriage to a divine command risk creating a similar situation to that experienced by Hannah and Elizabeth who would have had children were they able. The reality is that many, many singles would very much like to be married despit their single status. The prevalence of dating sites and sites like this one testify to that fact. To turn to singles and say, "You have to be married in order to fulfill God's will in your life," can unfairly imply that how they are currently striving to follow Christ is not good enough. And sometimes our form of obedience isn't good enough; but in this situation, speaking of getting married as if it were a command that you can just obey or not obey also implies that singles have control over a situation that they really do not have. And it also risks throwing salt on an already hurting wound.

Now, if Ariana can understand what I am saying, and has absolutely not problem with it, then why is it that Captain Sensible and Darren Allen cannot? I think it is simply because they only see on a page what they want to see on a page.

However, Captain Sensible has gone and done the same thing with the text of scripture, namely, only seeing on a page what you want to see on a page. It is one thing to treat what I have to say that way, it is a whole other issue to do that to the Scriptures:

Childlessness - Not just a female curse

'..."Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime..."'(Jeremiah 22: 30)

Again, the utter disrespect that these women have for the Old Testament should make any Christian shutter. Where is the exegesis? Why was only half the verse quoted? Did Captain Sensible not notice that we are talking, in context, about a king? Here is the entirety of the context:

Jeremiah 22:24-30 "As I live," declares the LORD, "even though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull you off; 25 and I will give you over into the hand of those who are seeking your life, yes, into the hand of those whom you dread, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and into the hand of the Chaldeans. 26 "I will hurl you and your mother who bore you into another country where you were not born, and there you will die. 27 "But as for the land to which they desire to return, they will not return to it. 28 "Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered jar? Or is he an undesirable vessel? Why have he and his descendants been hurled out And cast into a land that they had not known? 29 "O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD! 30 "Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.'"

Again, we see that Debbie Maken, Captain Sensible, et al just think they can put phrases in a search engine, and when they see something they like, lo and behold it must mean something akin to what Debbie Maken has been saying all along. They refuse to look at the context, and refuse to do the research necessary to understand the issues involved in a passage, because, again, they see what they want to see on a page. First of all, the context of Jeremiah 22 is judgment against Judah for their rebellion. Second of all, the judgment of God spoken of by Jeremiah is in the context of judgment against a nation, and imparticular, their ruler. The curse, therefore, is the fact that this king [there is some question as to whether "Coniah" here is a gloss from earlier in the passage] will not have a dynasty. That is, even though he has children, they will not prosper upon the throne, so, it will be as if he is childless. However, the curse is not being childless, but it is the destruction of his dynasty. Don't believe me? Here is Dr. William L. Holladay, who is an expert on the Book of Jeremiah, and, indeed, his commentary is one of the textbooks for my exegesis class on the book of Jeremiah this semester:

The implication of "childless" is puzzling, since the king had sons (see note on v.28). The word yrIyrI[] does mean "childless" (only otherwise in Gen 15:2; Lev 20:20, 21; Sir 16:3), but the point of course is that since he will see no son of his upon the throne of Judah, he is childless in the only way meaningful for a king.

The colon "a fellow who shall not succeed in his days" supplies a parallel not only to "dethroned" but more immediately to "childless": Tawil believes "shall not succeed" carries here the nuance of "is unproductive."

If "succeed" in the third colon implies "succeed in having sons who will continue the dynasty," the verb "succeed" in the fourth colon implies "succeed in functioning as king." The subject of the second occurrence is of course also different: it is "no one [vyai with the negative] of his offspring." Since vyai and "fellow" (rb,G<) elsewhere, (23:9), and since the two verbs are identical, the shift of subject is ironic. The participles in the last two cola appear to express actions completing the verb "succeed" [Jouon, Gramm., sec. 157g]. Question: Is the adverb "any longer" (dA[) a subtle balance to "in his days" in the second colon? [Holladay, William L. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25 From the Hermeneia Commentary Series Fortress Press. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1986 pgs. 611-612]

For those of you who don't want an overly technical discussion, here is the classic commentary of Matthew Henry:

Now that which is here to be taken notice of is that Jeconiah is written childless (v. 30), that is, as it follows, No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David. In him the line of David was extinct as a royal line. Some think that he had children born in Babylon because mention is made of his seed being cast out there (v. 28) and that they died before him. We read in the genealogy (1 Chron. iii. 17) of seven sons of Jeconiah Assir (that is, Jeconiah the captive) of whom Salathiel is the first. Some think that they were only his adopted sons, and that when it is said (Matt. i. 12), Jeconiah begat Salathiel, no more is meant than that he bequeathed to him what claims and pretensions he had to the government, the rather because Salathiel is called the son of Neri of the house of Nathan, Luke iii. 27, 31. Whether he had children begotten, or only adopted, thus far he was childless that none of his seed ruled as kings in Judah. He was the Augustulus of that empire, in whom it determined.

Now, consider this. You have an expert on the book of Jeremiah, a classic commentary on the book of Jeremiah, and myself who is currently working on my M.A. in Old Testament and Semitic Studies all saying that this interpretation is bogus. What should that tell most people? However, again, they see on a page what they want to see on a page. What it should tell them is that they need to start having some respect for God's word and actually care about doing sound, careful exegesis of the text. To these folks, the Bible, and imparticular, the Old Testament is a place where you can take a phrase here, and a phrase there, but what these folks refuse to do is interpret passages by following an argument, a narrative, or a poem, and allowing the passage to speak for itself.

This is the danger of Christian Fads like the one Albert Mohler and Debbie Maken started. They cause people to think in a particular way, simply because their leaders think in a particular way, and so, therefore, the people that are part of the movement reason that it must be correct. Instead, we should be training up our children to exercise discernment, to learn and study the Bible so they can see errors like this when they come into the church. All I can say is that Thegiftofsingleness blog is the fruits of a society that has neglected such training.

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.

Anger and Sin

As most of you can tell from my series "Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement," The folks from the Mandatory Marriage Movement are some of the nastiest people I have ever dealt with. The sad thing is, these people try to defend their nastiness. This is expecially true of the more cultic forms of this movement.

A case in point is the fast-becoming-cultic website The Gift of Singleness. I have been going there to gather research, because it seems like every time Debbie Maken breathes, these folks are there to write about it. Hence, there are a whole lot of links where I can write down what these folks say right from the horse's mouth.

Anyway, something that has puzzled me as I have been writing is the fact that these folks seem to have something up every day. It is like a mantra. Today's post was on "Righteous Anger." One of the most amazing statements I have ever heard is found here:

So, next time someone tries to criticise you for being angry, maybe the correct response is to be glad, say thank you, and tell them how pleased you are not to have a lukewarm response to injustice, false teaching and the leading astray of the Body of Christ.

However, how did the apostle Paul say to handle injustice and false teaching? He says it here:

2 Timothy 2:24-26 And 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.

So, apparently, the apostle Paul told Timothy to react in a totally different manner to "false teaching, injustice, and the leading astray of the body of Christ."

There does need to be anger against many of the things that go on today. The problem is with the way the Mandatory Marriage advocates are using their anger. Notice, what "Captain Sensible" says in his post:

But it's also important to acknowledge that it is one of the attributes of God, Who hates injustice. Anger is a Godly motivator to bring about change. Anger itself is neither good nor bad, but can be used as a force for both.

Here is where the Mandatory Marriage advocates get it totally wrong about anger. While it is true that anger needs to exist against the injustices of the world, it is not true that anger needs to be used to bring about change. Change can only come by the Holy Spirit turning the hearts of people so that they believe truth. Righteous anger is a Godly response to something ungodly that is happening in the world. However, nowhere does the Bible present anger as a means of bringing about change.

Also, the Bible regulates anger and tells us what kind of anger is righteous, and what kind of anger is sinful. In the charter verse for righteous anger, we are told some interesting things about this anger:

Ephesians 4:26-32 Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and do not give the devil an opportunity. 28 Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need. 29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

Now, let me ask you if shaming single men, and calling them names like "immature Children" is "kind and tender-hearted." Is it really edifying to engage in such behavior? Not only that, but the Bible says not to "let the sun go down on your anger." We have tried to get these folks to dialogue about this issue in a fair, scholarly manner so that we can deal with their concerns. They refuse. People should be willing to work through the issues if a situation that causes anger comes into the body of Christ, and "not let the sun go down on their anger." However, when we put our arguments out there, all we get is a "you're speaking out of both sides of our mouths" without any proof offered at all.

Indeed, what this passage teaches us is that, even when we are angry, we have no right to act in an unchristian manner. That means, of course, that, while tough love is sometimes needed, it is still tough love not tough hate. Thus, for Captain Sensible to compare what the mandatory marriage movement is doing to Jesus clearing the temple, the condemnation of the false teaching and hypocracy of the Pharasees, as well as the false teaching of the Judiazers is to compare apples and oranges. Why? Because in none of these instances did Jesus or Paul ever try to figure out motives, nor did they every try to set up extrabiblical standards, and then force them upon others. Jesus and Paul were more than willing to listen to objections, and to reason with those who disagreed with them, while the mandatory marriage movement seems to be unwilling to do that.

Not only that, but is it really righteous anger when you cannot answer charges that you yourself are sinning in your anger because you are "loathing" singleness? If these folks are in sin [and I have heard no response to Matthew 6:25-34], then they are not engaging in righteous anger, but rather, anger out of an idolatrious attitude. This is a serious objection these folks must answer, or otherwise they cannot claim to have "righteous anger."

In fact, because one of the fruits of the spirit is self control, for a person to have this kind out of control rage against single men is to totally violate they way the Bible says a Christian should act. We must remain in control in our anger, and not allow our anger to become out of control so that we run off into irrational emotionalism.

Also, any kind of abusive language and behavior could be justified by the arguments from the mandatory marriage movement. Imagine if I started saying that we should make women give up all their possessions, and make all of it the property of men. Then we start shaming those women who do not comply, and call them "little children." We start saying that they are sinning, and call pastors to preach sermons that make them start squirming in their seats for the "shame" that is rightfully theirs because they have not given up their possessions to the men. Then, when someone confronts us on it, and tells us that we are wrong for such anger, we can just say say thank you, and tell them how pleased we are not to have a lukewarm response to injustice, false teaching and the leading astray of the Body of Christ.

The reality is that the Bible has given us standards to recognize what is righteous anger, and what is sinful anger. I can only hope that people will use discernment, and see that the anger that is given by these folks is an anger that does not come from God, but from their own idolatrious views of marriage.

Update on the Mandatory Marriage Situation

I want to point everyone to an excellent sermon by Dr. John Piper. The marriage mandators seem to hate this sermon, because it calls us to set our priorities straight. It calls us to see marriage as a wonderful gift, but, at the same time, as a finite creation. That is, marriage, while it is a wonderful gift of God, is something that is created by God, and will cease one day. Therefore, God's gift of eternal salvation is a far greater gift, and singles should take their joy in it.

I would also like to propose a new attack upon the marriage mandate movement. This is from a text in 1 Corinthians 9:5:

1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

The problem I am suggesting with this text has to do with the age of Paul when writing 1 Corinthians. Remember, Paul was converted shortly after Jesus' death [around 32 A.D.]. The dating of 1 Corinthians is not that difficult. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, gives the following information regarding the dating of 1 Corinthians:

Paul wrote this epistle from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8, 9, 19) while on his third missionary journey. It was probably written in the spring of 54 CE as is evident from the following data: (1) The letter was written some years after Paul’s first visit, since Apollos had ministered there (Acts 18:26-27; 1 Cor. 1:12) and Timothy had also been sent there (Acts 19:22; 1 Cor. 4:17). (2) This letter was written sometime after his first letter (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9) and probably not in the last year of his ministry in Ephesus. He mentions that he intends to spend the next winter with the Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:6), a visit which, nevertheless, is not to be identified with the three-month stay of Acts 20:3. This latter visit (Acts 20:3) reads as though it were at the end of Paul’s Ephesian ministry, while it is doubtful that 1 Corinthians was written at the end because otherwise the chronology does not fit with data in 2 Corinthians. (3) This letter was written in the spring because Pentecost is just around the corner (1 Cor. 16:8).

I believe this information is very damaging to the mandatory marriage movement. Why is that? Because, in order for Paul to be 22 at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians, he would have had to have been born at the time of his conversion! In fact, if he were 29 at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians, he would have been 7 years old at the time of his conversion. The best the marriage mandators can hope for is that Paul was a teenager at the age of 13 when he was converted, in which case he would have been 35 when he wrote 1 Corinthians. However, that would seem totally self-contradictory to their movement, given the text in question:

1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

However, the mandatory marriage advocate could just simply say that Paul is simply asking the question as to whether or not he has that right, and does not give the answer. The problem with that viewpoint is that it doesn't take into account the fact that Greek can use constructions in which the author is clearly expecting a positive answer or a negative answer. The Greek of this expression in this text is very clear. The phrase begins with "mē ouk echomen." The mē here expects a negative answer to the main clause. However, the main clause in Greek is negated. In other words, the Greek text literally expects a negative answer to the question, "Is it the case that we do not have a right to take along a believing wife?"

A.T. Robertson gives the following information about this construction:

1Co 9:4 - Have we no right? (Mē ouk echomen exousian;). Literary plural here though singular in 1-3. The mê in this double negative expects the answer "No" while ouk goes with the verb echomen. "Do we fail to have the right?" Cf. Ro 10:18f. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1173). [A.T. Robertson Word Pictures of the New Testament]

Hence, the Greek text very clearly expects the very opposite answer that a mandatory marriage advocate would give. Thus the contradiction with the mandatory marriage position should be obvious.

BTW, I also wanted to let people know that good ol' Captain Sensible from the Gift of Singleness blog is at it again. He has recycled the old "you said barrenness was like being a nerd" "argument." Not only that, he also complained when someone posted a comment on the Boundless blog that he didn't like. He quotes what he doesn't like and then comments:

"Remembering that in the New Testament Jesus said agreed with his disciples saying that it would be better to not marry."

What?!?Boundless, are you going to address this? By posting this comment, you have now given a wide platform for the idea that Jesus said it would be better not to marry. Are you going to do anything about that? Or just leave it unchallenged?

Notice, he thinks that Boundless should take the time to answer all criticisms that ever get thrown its way. BTW, I know what it is like to be in their position, and if I answered every criticism leveled against me, I would never get anything done at school or otherwise. However, aside from that, again we see this utterly irrational idea that we need to in some way censor comments that we don't like. I also have a question. Why doesn't Captain Sensible defend his position? Why is he waiting on Boundless to do it? If we are so stupid, and the mandatory marriage movement is so brilliant, you would think he would jump at the chance to show us up.

However, again, as I said, the folks on this blog are moving off into a very cultic form of this movement. Even Philippa, who says she agrees with a large portion of what Debbie Maken has to say, says even she thinks Captian Sensible can be annoying. I can only hope that by the grace and mercy of God the folks over on the gift of singleness blog will be brought to their senses, and stop doing so much damage to the body of Christ.

Carolyn McCulley Says...

exactly what I have been saying all along. If any of you are familiar with my dialogue with Debbie Maken, you will know that my main argument was that God ordains the ends as well as the means. Hence, while there is nothing wrong with a man or woman who wants to be married going out and persuing a man or woman in whom they have an interest, they have to trust that, if they fail to find a spouse, God is still guiding them by his soverign hand. As you can see, the argument caused Debbie Maken no end of trouble, because I was able to hold both that people are supposed to go out and pursue marriage if they desire it, and yet still hold that God can reject their request at any time.

Now, Carolyn McCulley, who is associated with Joshua Harris and Soverign Grace Ministries, has come out with practically the same argument. Candace Watters, a well known Mandatory Marriage Advocate, wrote a piece called Misguided Compassion. In a rejoinder, Carolyn McCulley has come out with a piece found here. The interesting thing is [barring some of the courtship undertones], this is exactly the same thing I said to Debbie Maken.

However, while I applaud Carolyn for writing what she has, her views of the Mandatory Marriage Movement are naive to say the least. For instance, notice how she says:

But as this dialogue ensues in various corners of cyberspace, my biggest concern is the pitting of one concept (trusting God) against another (get out there and DO something!). Advocates of either position often paint the perspective of the other in broad strokes. So I'd like to express my appreciation to Candice for raising this topic and then amplify some points in a way I trust will be helpful to both sides.

The problem is that, while Carolyn is certainly right, she is not recognizing that this is not the way the folks from the mandatory marriage movement are thinking. For instance, in another article, Candace Watters writes:

Why is this book necessary? Because a generation of singles are at risk of believing they've all been given the "gift of singleness" quite apart from the biblical conditions for celibacy; because a generation of singles are stuffing their discontent and starting to believe that it's their discontent, and not their protracted singleness, that is their sin; because a generation of Christian singles are at risk of never marrying and having children, thwarting God's desire for a godly seed (Malachi 2:15).

Aside from not working through the multitude of issues of exegetical issues involved in Malachi 2:15, Candace Watters says that being in a protracted single state is, not just undesirable, but sinful! That is a far cry from someone who says, "Get out there and do something." It is more the sign of someone who says, "If you don't do what I say, you are engaging in sin."

The movement has, indeed, started splitting. You are finding some that are not as into it, and some, like the folks over at the gift of singleness blog, that are so irrationally involved in promoting the manditory marriage movement, that they, apparently, have not had any time to announce their engagements or weddings. And yet, notice an interesting admission from these folks today:

Having expressed some exasperation with Boundless before for the mixed messages they send out, and the confusing way in which they may write a valuable blog post and then let it get lost amidst a sea of contrary comments until the reader's brain is so scrambled that they are left more muddled than ever ... I am now delighted to eat humble pie -- and it tastes soooo goood!

They are saying, "We want to be the only ones talking. We don't want to have to answer criticisms from the other side. That just scrambles the brain and confuses people. Basically, just shut up, and believe whatever we tell you." This is the mark of a cult, not of someone who is honestly and faithfully proclaiming the word of God, because if you really believe you have the truth, then you shouldn't have to worry when it gets attacked by error. In fact, you should be willing to say that truth is most clearly seen against the backdrop of error. I am not afraid to have my beliefs challanged because I firmly believe that they are truth.

I can honestly say that, while I disagree with the folks over on the Boundless Blog on several issues, they are at least willing to allow the other side to be heard through articles from people of various perspectives, comments, and e-mail. The folks over on The Gift of Singleness Blog, however, clearly cannot do that. Hence, they just cannot understand why the Boundless Blog would ever allow for opposing comments. That is just one of the multitude of examples I could give you from the Gift of Singleness blog demonstrating how biased, and utterly irrational these folks are.

In fact, to show you just how radical these folks are, Ted Slater, who is the editor at Boundless, actually commended Carolyn McCulley's article. Also, the folks over at The Gift of Singleness blog have actually called Carolyn McCulley a false teacher!

As I said, I can only hope that we don't have the makings of a new cult...but this kind of post is not encouraging.