More Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

Check out this message that was posted to myself, Anakin, and others over on Anakin "Niceguy's Blog:

Most men on this blog are such whiny losers, it is STUNNING. Let's see, you have insulted Maken's race, marriage, husband, and everything else.

Since you have nothing to contribute to society you just bash someone who dares to challenge your crap.

How about getting a job and making a contribution to society. Grow some balls while you are at it. Clowns like you are better single.

Hello, anonymous. You said:

Most men on this blog are such whiny losers, it is STUNNING. Let's see, you have insulted Maken's race, marriage, husband, and everything else.

Ummm, I never insulted Maken's race. What I said was that she was interpreting the Bible through the lens of her Indian culture. That is not "insulting" her race. It is simply recognizing that she has cultural factors that are influencing her exegesis of the text of scripture.

I also have never said anything about Maken's marriage. That is totally irrelevant. And I likewise agree that we should refrain from making such comments.

Since you have nothing to contribute to society you just bash someone who dares to challenge your crap.

Lol, anon, anyone who has read Debbie Maken's book knows that it is *her* that cannot answer the objections levied against her, and it is her that resorts to "bashing," even to the point of thinking that she can know people's motives. Just read her dialogue with me, or her dialogue with Andreas Kostenburger.

As far as "not having jobs" and "not having anything to contribute to society," how do you know that? Do you know our personal lives? Have you ever met any of us? Or do you believe it just because Debbie Maken tells you so? If this is the case, then I would say you are relying on a discredited source.

How about getting a job and making a contribution to society. Grow some balls while you are at it. Clowns like you are better single.

Lol, who is the one who is "insulting" now? Apparently, we show utter hypocracy in not caring that you run off and do the very thing you accuse us of doing to Debbie Maken. Even if you were right that we are the worst people in the world, and have nothing to contribute to society, if we are right, we are right and there is nothing you or Debbie Maken can do about it. I find it so amazing that the mandatory marriage movement can engage in this kind of intimidating rhetoric just to cover up the fact that they have been Biblically refuted.

If you can't answer our objections, don't write anything at all. I am still waiting for someone to deal with the things that we have said. However, I have a feeling I will be waiting a long wait, and will spend most of my waiting time reading rhetoric like this.

BTW, anyone find it odd that the majority of people who write these kinds of messages are "anonymous?"

Planned Parenthood Shows their True Colors

Boundlessline ran an article that is absolutely funny. Apparently, an 18 year old sophmore at UCLA named Rose suspected that Planned Parenthood was engaging in some illegal activity. Hence, she went undercover as a pregnant 15 year old, and told them that the father was 23.

What happened you may ask? Well, to quote the article "In the course of the conversation with a staff member, she was told to lie about her age so that there would be fewer roadblocks on her way to abortion bliss." LOL, I mean, I could not believe that this was coming out of their mouths. Apparently, she posted it on YouTube [which, convieniently, removed them], but you can still listen to the actual audio here and here.

As far as the morality of the situation, I don't think the Bible condemns Rose's actions as wrong, per se. I mean, I think that the Bible would want us to engage in such behavior, if necessary, to expose things like drug dealing, and mass murder. However, I think the question must be whether or not she had any evidence that such things were going on with PP. If you have evidence that these things were going on, then going undercover would be an appropriate, and moral way to handle the situation.

At least one lawmaker, a represenative from Ohio, said she was dismayed at the actions of PP. In fact, that very article says that PP still might not be out of the investigational woods, even if they win their lawsuit against Rose. I must say that this is an interesting looking into the minds of one of the most evil organizations in America.

More Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

(and another comment)

I just wanted everyone to know that Debbie Maken's comments are really sturring up the Mandatory Marriage advocates. They are desperate to defend her comments. Let me give you an example of the rhetoric that is going on some of the blogs.

I made the following comments over on Anakin Niceguy's blog:

Also, sometime in the near future, I am going to send those comments to Albert Mohler. Dr. Mohler is always encouraging couples to get married, even though they may not be financially well off. I wonder what he will have to say in response?

Here is what an anonymous poster responded with:

PC, I don't know if you really are in idiot or you just play one on TV. I have not seen one comment from Maken saying you should only marry when you are rich. Her comments have to do with parity in all ways, education, financial, and spiritual.

Hello, Anon. Did it ever occur to you that it would be suicide to send the comments of Debbie Maken to Albert Mohler when I have misrepresented her? Obviously, such would be absurd, and your very postulating of such a senario shows that you have a ton of bias.

BTW, anon, read my comments that you yourself quoted. Does it look to you like I said Debbie Maken said that someone must be "rich?" No, I said that she said they must be financially "well off." Maken said that they must be able to take care of a family, which means that they have enough income to care for themselves as well as at least two extra people before they marry. If that is not financially well off, I don't know how you define the term.

Also, you refuse to deal with my earlier point that parity is not a biblical concept. That appears to be something Maken and her supporters are using to try to defend comments that are simply indefensible. Clothing indefensible comments under a euphomistic name does not make the comments any more defensible.

Here is another comment from the same blog that Debbie Maken commented on by a man with the nick "SWColorado:"

I once read a story about a judge back in the 1800’s who, when a woman was brought before him on the charge of prostitution, would levy a fine against every man in the courtroom.

So guys, in that same spirit, KNOCK IT OFF! Stop blaming the culture, the church, the singles groups and you for sure had better stop blaming the women. If your God is so small that He can’t provide you with a godly mate for reasons above – you’re pretty close to committing blasphemy in my book.

Hello, SWColorado. Our God is not too small. You see, our God is so big that he can say "no" to our request for a spouse any time he wants. He is under no obligation to give us a spouse no matter what we do.

Of course, it appears that your God, on the other hand, must give you a spouse if you just go about it the right way. It appears that you can twist the hand of God to make him do whatever you want him to do just by simply "Getting Serious about Getting Married." I agree that if a guy wants a girl he should pursue her, but God always reserves the right to say no at any time. That is why he is God, and you are not.

As for both of you, the tone of your comments speak for themselves. If this is the way you answer criticism, then I think it says a whole lot about the substance of the mandatory marriage movement. If the best you can offer is intimidation, then you should really be thinking about how strong the arguments for your position really are. If they were better, you would not have to resort to this kind of language.

More on Maken's Absurdities About the Income of Men

Given Debbie Maken's comments which I addressed in my last post, I wanted to point out that there is a passage Debbie has used before in the past to try to get people to marry. It is from Martin Luther's The Estate of Marriage. Debbie Maken quoted from it trying to show that men who do not have much money are still to marry. I think in light of her comments that I cited in my last post, it would be good to cite Luther here, as he seems to be shouting to Debbie Maken from heaven:

Finally, we have before us one big, strong objection to answer. Yes, they say, it would be a fine thing to be married, but how will I support myself? I have nothing; take a wife and live on that, etc. Undoubtedly, this is the greatest obstacle to marriage; it is this above all which prevents and breaks up marriage and is the chief excuse for fornication. What shall I say to this objection? It shows lack of faith and doubt of God's goodness and truth. It is therefore no wonder that where faith is lacking, nothing but fornication and all manner of misfortune follow. They are lacking in this, that they want to be sure first of their material resources, where they are to get their food, drink, and clothing [Matt. 6:31]. Yes, they want to pull their head out of the noose of Genesis 3 [:19], "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread." They want to be lazy, greedy rascals who do not need to work. Therefore, they will get married only if they can get wives who are rich, beautiful, pious, kind, indeed, wait, we'll have a picture of them drawn for you.

Let such heathen go their way; we will not argue with them. If they should be lucky enough to obtain such wives the marriages would still be un-Christian and without faith. They trust in God as long as they know that they do not need him, and that they are well supplied. He who would enter into wedlock as a Christian must not be ashamed of being poor and despised, and doing insignificant work. He should take satisfaction in this: first, that his status and occupation are pleasing to God; second, that God will most certainly provide for him if only he does his job to the best of his ability, and that, if he cannot be a squire or a prince, he is a manservant or a maidservant.

Indeed, God has shown sufficiently in the first chapter of Genesis how he provides for us. He first created and prepared all things in heaven and on earth, together with the beasts and all growing things, before he created man. Thereby he demonstrated how he has laid up for us at all times a sufficient store of food and clothing, even before we ask him for it. All we need to do is to work and avoid idleness; then we shall certainly be fed and clothed. But a pitiful unbelief refuses to admit this. The unbeliever sees, comprehends, and feels all the same that even if he worries himself to death over it, he can neither produce nor maintain a single grain of wheat in the field. He knows too that even though all his storehouses were full to overflowing, he could not make use of a single morsel or thread unless God sustains him in life and health and preserves to him his possessions. Yet this has no effect upon him.

Also, I want people to notice something else about this comment. Notice how, again, Debbie Maken engages in a false analogy. Debbie Maken is good at coming up with analogies that have nothing to do with the situation hand, and then acting as if they do:

When people interview for certain jobs, guess what-- there have to be certain kinds of qualifications in place-- no hospital would hire a doctor who never attended medical school. Why is it that the qualification of earning potenial is always villified? It is one of the elements of consideration for any woman serious about marriage, and no apologies need be had about it. Again, this is a place where parity plays a great deal, and I think that those who have made choices that afford them more monetary rewards should be able to ask for the same in the other partner, as well as asking for the same amount of intellectual development, or parity in looks, etc.

Notice, the whole analogy she uses is a situation where, indeed, a specific qualification should be looked at. However, Debbie Maken totally begs the question as to whether or not this is relevant to whether men should have a specific income when a woman is considering them for marriage. If it is, indeed, a legitimate requirement for marriage, then it is a proper analogy. However, if it is not a legitimate requirement for marriage, then it is a false analogy. In essence, unless Debbie Maken can show that it is a requirement, she has reasoned in a circle.

Let me construct a parody of this argument:

Here I go on the record. Men wanting or desiring Women who were entered in the Miss America pageant, and got honors at Harvard is not a reflection of their lack of trust in God or the fulfillment of their sexual lusts through marriage. It has to do with simple economics of-- will she be able to satisfy me sexually, and monitarily. This sentiment does not deserve an apology. It is amazing to me that Women in this culture are voluntarily voluntarily careless about their looks, and think in an emotional manner that has consequences, and yet they think that their choices should be consequence free from the men that may find them interesting or mate worthy. Lack of beauty and lack of intellegence in women is routinely covered up in spirituality, and I do not think any man should ever have to plead disinterest in the physical appearance or intellegence of a woman in order to prove they are "nice," or "not mean." When people interview for certain jobs, guess what-- there have to be certain kinds of qualifications in place-- no hospital would hire a doctor who never attended medical school. Why is it that the qualification of physical beauty, and intellegence is always villified? It is one of the elements of consideration for any man serious about marriage, and no apologies need be had about it. Again, this is a place where parity plays a great deal, and I think that those who have made choices that afford them better physical appearance and intellegence should be able to ask for the same in the other partner, as well as asking for the same amount of income, and willingness to do whatever the man says, etc.

As you can see, with a parody like this, there is no way Debbie Maken's arguments are rational, because I can use the same thing to prove that it is alright for me to have a single-minded desire to marry a woman from the Miss America Pageant who also graduated from Harvard. She has simply written a false analogy, and hidden it behind the irrational emotionalism of the mandatory marriage movement. She is under obligation to prove that a man must have a satisfactory income from the Bible, or otherwise, her whole argument is nothing more than emotional gobblygoock.

Hence, I maintain, and continue to maintain, that this movement is pure idolatry. Notice, we trust in the man's income rather than trusting in God. What they are saying is, "We are putting our salvation from debt, sexual sin, and lonliness in the hands of ourselves and our husband, and, we will do nothing more than attack the motives, and engage in namecalling to anyone who dares to disagree." That should tell you that this movement should be written off as purely juvinile, and not serious in their pursuit of truth.

Don't Marry that Man of Faith!

Today, I was thinking about a man I once heard of by the name of George Müller. I heard a very interesting story about him. His wife and him never looked to any needs. They trusted in God to fully provide for their needs as they came. While he had a job, and worked, when all of the fees were taken away, he was only left with about $1,800.00 a year to run an orphanage. Needless to say, they were always very, very poor. But, everytime they would need money, they would always get it, as they trusted in God fully to provide for their needs. One morning, apparently they had run out of food for the orphans. So, they set the table, and prayed that God would bring them some food. There was a knock at the door after the prayer, and there stood the baker, who had, only last night, thought the children might want some fresh bread in the morning. Then, the milkman stopped up, and told them that his milk carriage had broken down outside, and that, by the time it was repaired, all the milk would spoil. He had to have it used up. So, as you can imagine, he told them that the orphanage could use it as they had no milk to go with their bread.

Now, that is a pretty impressive story. I went online to find out if it was true, and found out that George Müller really did, indeed, exist. I found that he was a pagan early in his life, but converted around the age of twenty. Here are some interesting facts [including, a better telling of the story than myself]:

Three weeks after their marriage, they decided to depend upon God alone to provide their needs as already indicated. They carried it to the extent that they would not give definite answers to inquiries as to whether or not they were in need of money at any particular moment. At the time of need, there would always seem to be funds available from some source, both in regards to their private income, and to the funds for his vast projects soon to be discussed. No matter how pressing was the need, George simply renewed his prayers, and either money or food always came in time to save the situation. On February 19, 1832, he records an instance of healing by faith. Suffering from a gastric ulcer, he believed God could heal him and four days later he was as well as ever. In the spring of 1832, he felt he must leave Teignmouth. Craik, his friend, had gone on to Bristol for a visit, and Mueller felt led to go there also. On April 22, he preached his first sermon in Bristol. A friend offered to rent Bethesda Chapel there for a year if the two men would stay and develop a work. Agreeing not to be bound by any stipulation, Craik and Mueller accepted the call. On May 25, 1832, the Muellers settled permanently in Bristol which became his home until he died. A long association with the chapel on Great George Street also began. In July of that year, Bristol was visited with a plague of cholera which took many lives, but none of those among whom he and Craik ministered. On September 17, 1832, his first child, Lydia, was born.
It was on February 25, 1834, that George Mueller founded a new Missionary Institution which he called "The Scriptural Knowledge Institution for Home and Abroad." It had four objectives:
1. To assist Sunday Schools, Day Schools and Adult Schools, and where possible to start new ones. 2. To sell Bibles and Testaments to the poor at low prices, and if necessary, to give them free of cost. 3. To aid missionary effort. (This was to provide financial aid to freelance missionaries.) 4. To circulate tracts in English and in various foreign languages.
The Orphan House became a fifth objective, and the most well known enterprise, yet it is right to point out that Mueller was greatly used in developing the other objectives as well.
On March 19, 1834, a son, Elijah, was born but he died the next year, June 25, 1835, from pneumonia, leaving the Muellers with only one child--Lydia. The summer of 1835 found Mueller himself in very poor health, slowing down his pace and giving him time to write "The Narrative of the Lord's Dealing with George Mueller."
For some time he had been thinking about starting an orphanage in Bristol. On December 9, 1835 he presented his burden at a public meeting. No collection was taken, but someone handed him ten shillings and a Christian woman offered herself for the work. After five days of prayer $300 came in and it seemed they might now have enough money to rent a house, equip and furnish it. The other request was for Christian people to work with the children. His basic aim was to have a work - something to point to as visible proof that God hears and answers prayer. His heart went out to the many ragged children running wild in the streets, but that was a secondary reason for starting the orphanage.
He rented Number 6 Wilson Street, where he himself had been living, and on April 11, 1836, the doors of the orphanage opened with 26 children. These were girls between seven and twelve years old.
The second House was opened on November 28, 1836, to care for children from babyhood to seven years of age. In September, 1837, a third house was opened for boys over seven years of age.
Illness plagued Mueller from time to time, and in late 1837 he was very weak. This time his head provided the discomfort. He went to Germany in the spring of 1838 as well as in February, 1840, when he saw his father for a last time. Presumably he still had not accepted Christ as George noted, "How it would have cheered the separation on both sides were my dear father a believer." He died shortly thereafter. The years 1828 to 1843 were surely years of trials for Craik and Mueller as they prayed in everything. All were properly clad and everyone sat down to regular meals in the Houses. Mueller never incurred a debt, and God supernaturally provided for everyone. A well known story indicates the kind of life that was lived:
One morning the plates and cups and bowls on the table were empty. There was no food in the larder, and no money to buy food. The children were standing waiting for their morning meal, when Mueller said, "Children, you know we must be in time for school." Lifting his hand he said, "Dear Father, we thank Thee for what Thou art going to give us to eat." There was a knock on the door. The baker stood there, and said, "Mr. Mueller, I couldn't sleep last night. Somehow I felt you didn't have bread for breakfast and the Lord wanted me to send you some. So I got up at 2 a.m. and baked some fresh bread, and have brought it." Mueller thanked the man. No sooner had this transpired when there was a second knock at the door. It was the milkman. He announced that his milk cart had broken down right in front of the Orphanage, and he would like to give the children his cans of fresh milk so he could empty his wagon and repair it. No wonder, years later, when Mueller was to travel the world as an evangelist, he would be heralded as "the man who gets things from God!"
By March, 1843, he felt the need for a second home for girls. On July, 1844, the fourth house on Wilson Street was opened--the total of his homeless waifs now being 130. A letter received on October 30, 1845, changed his entire ministry... he was now age 40. Basically, it was a letter from a local resident complaining that the noise of the children was a nuisance. They were vastly over-crowded and there was not enough space for land cultivation, washing clothes, etc. He gave the letter much thought, listing the pros and cons. If he were to leave, he would have to build a structure to hold at least 300 orphans at a cost of $60,000. On his 36th day of prayer over the dilemma, the first $6,000 came in for a building program. By June, 1848, he received all of the $60,000 which he needed. He had begun to build the previous year on July 5, 1847, at a placed called Ashley Downs as the bulk of the money had been sent in. Building Number 1 was opened in June, 1849, and housed 300 children with staff sufficient to teach and care for them. It was a seven-acre site and finally cost about $90,000 as legal expenses, furnishings, and land purchase brought the price up higher than anticipated. The old houses on Wilson Street emptied and everyone was now under one roof.
Mueller was becoming a well known Christian leader. He answered some 3,000 letters a year without a secretary. Besides his orphanages, the four other objectives of his Scriptural Knowledge Institution claimed his attention and he continued his pastoral work at Bethesda Chapel also.
In 1850, he felt the need for a second orphanage. Donations began to come in miraculously again and finally, on November 12, 1857, a second building housing 400 children at a cost of $126,000 was built. Number 3 opened on March 12, 1862, housing 450 children, and costing over $138,000. It was housed on 11 1/2 acres. Number 4 was opened November 5, 1868, and Number 5 on January 6, 1870. These last two cost over $300,000 and housed 450 each.
From 1848 to 1874, money came in to improve and expand the work which went from 130 orphans to 2,050 during this time and up to 13 acres. Mueller describes these days, writing in 1874:
But God, our infinite rich Treasurer, remains with us. It is this which gives me peace. Moreover if it pleases Him, with a work requiring about $264,000 a year...would I gladly pass through all these trials of faith with regard to means, if He only might be glorified, and His Church and the world benefited...I have placed myself in the position of having no means at all left; and 2,100 persons, not only daily at the table, but with everything else to be provided for, and all the funds gone; 189 missionaries to be assisted, and nothing whatever left; about one hundred schools with 9,000 scholars in them, to be entirely supported, and no means for them in hand; about four million tracts and tens of thousands of copies of the Holy Scriptures yearly now to be sent out, and all the money expended...I commit the whole work to Him, and He will provide me with what I need, in future also, though I know not whence the means are to come.
His own personal income varied around $12,000 a year, of which he kept for himself $1,800 giving the rest away.
His fellow worker, Henry Craik, died on January 22, 1866, followed by the death of his wife on February 6, 1870. She was 72 and had suffered from rheumatic fever. James Wright married Mueller's daughter, Lydia in 1871 and also replaced Craik as his associate. Mueller himself remarried on November 30, 1871, to a Susannah Grace Sangar, whom he had known for 25 years as a consistent Christian. He was 66 and she in her late forties, a perfect companion for him in his ministries still ahead.

Mueller decided to fulfill the many requests for his appearance around the world. Turning the work over to Wright, from 1875 to 1892, Mueller made 16 preaching trips to various sectors of the world...

It was on January 13, 1894 that his second wife passed away after 23 years of marriage. He was now 89 years old, and was living out his days in Orphan House #3. He preached his last sermon on Isaiah's Vision, March 6, 1898 at Alma Road Chapel in Clifton. On March 10, 1898 the maid went to his room, and found him dead on the floor by the side of his bed. The funeral in Bristol on March 14th has never been surpassed there as tens of thousands lined the streets. The grief of the orphans was evident. He was buried by the side of his two wives...

Over 3,000 of his orphans were won to Christ through his ministry by the Holy Spirit.

As most of you remember [yes, this does have a connection], I commented on a blog entry yesterday about a woman who wants to have a rally basically because she did not get her own way in the dating scene. She is now giving more details, and what we are finding out is that her post was as vague as her "pseudo-relationship." Anyway, Debbie Maken has taken the time to comment on the post. I want you to contrast Debbie Maken's comments with the life and attitude of George Müller:

Here I go on the record. Women wanting or desiring men who earn well is not a reflection of their lack of trust in God or their pecuniary interest in money through marriage. It has to do with simple economics of-- will he be able to provide for a family. This sentiment does not deserve an apology. It is amazing to me that men in this culture voluntarily choose jobs and professions that are dead-ends, they make educational decisions all along the way that have consequences, and yet they think that their choices should be consequence free from the women that may find them interesting or mate worthy. Lack of ambition and lack of development of talents in men is routinely covered up in spirituality, and I do not think any woman should ever have to plead disinterest in future earnings of a man in order to prove they are "nice," or "not mean." When people interview for certain jobs, guess what-- there have to be certain kinds of qualifications in place-- no hospital would hire a doctor who never attended medical school. Why is it that the qualification of earning potenial is always villified? It is one of the elements of consideration for any woman serious about marriage, and no apologies need be had about it. Again, this is a place where parity plays a great deal, and I think that those who have made choices that afford them more monetary rewards should be able to ask for the same in the other partner, as well as asking for the same amount of intellectual development, or parity in looks, etc.

I do want you to start that revolution, and I have some ideas. Please email me through my blog-- dmaken@gmail.com, and give me your email, so that we can communicate.

Well, first of all, if you are going to start a revolution, you might want to get arguments that are rationally defensable, rather than just this irrational emotionalism.

Worse than that, did you catch what she said here? The man who a woman women marries must be able to take care of a family monetarily beforehand. Well, apparently, Debbie Maken would have to say that her daughter could not marry the Reverend George Müller. While Müller did, indeed, work hard to take care of his family, he did not make enough income to even support his work at the orphanage, much less a family and children.

I just would like to point out that, in the end, history has remembered the Reverend George Müller. In fact, the website from which this was taken, is entitled "Faith Hall of Fame." He is someone who was recognized on a PCA website. There are many Christians today who have not even heard of Debbie Maken. Therefore, for Debbie Maken to make these kinds of comments in light of a great man of faith such as George Müller is simply incredible.

BTW, just so you know, George Müller lived in the ninteenth century, so, he could not be effected by any "modern cultural thinking on marriage."

When Emotions Get out of Control

As many of you know, I read the blog over at boundless.org. While I disagree with their position on many issues, they have several very useful articles, and I would, indeed, recommend that my readers read the blog, as it has some useful information on things on which I can agree with Boundless, and, if you agree with my position on Courtship and the Mandatory Marriage Movement, you can see how the polemics of each system are developing.

Yesterday, Motte Brown, one of the contributors, posted an article wherin he linked to this blog entry. My first reaction to the article was, as usual, one of adrenaline pumping. I mean, there is really nothing but nasty anti-male comments in the article, hasty generalizations, and totally irrational thinking. Here is a sample of the tone of the blog post:

Guys, I’m mad at you. And I don’t like being mad. I’m not a bitter, angry single girl. I’m a fun person. And I realize that women have their share of dysfunction, too. Someone else can blog on that at his or her leisure.

But I’ve had it. I’m fed up with guys who are supposedly looking for a relationship that leads to marriage, but they don’t know how to get the job done. I'm more and more convinced that an untold number of Christian men are in this camp.

Ummm, Ok, so, where is the providence of God in all of this? Well, she has an answer to that question.

Many of the men with whom I’ve spoken – and there’s been a legion – still operate within the “God will provide/I’ll just have a feeling/the Lord will point her out to me” framework. In the meantime, they’re getting older, odder and more removed from reality with each mouse click, movie night or 80s party. But they’re still there…ready for the next serial online relationship or opportunity to “hang out” indefinitely with whomever is available.

So, now we have a mockery of the providence of God. Let us set the record straight. No guy thinks that God is just going to "give them a feeling," or that "the Lord will point her out to me." We recognize that God is the one who is soverign over all creation and ordains whatsoever comes to pass [Ephesians 1:11]. While we believe we should, indeed, pursue a spouse and marriage if we so desire, we recognize that it is God who ultimately determines whether or not that pursuit will be successful, and when it will be successful. As King Nebuchadnezzar said:

Daniel 4:35 "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'

Doesn't sound very much like it is all up to the man as to whether or not marriage will happen. It sounds like God's providence plays a part in everything that happens in the world.

What this woman is really upset with is because marriage was not coming according to her timetable. Note this portion of her article:

When will it become so? When we're neighbors in the nursing home? When we're established in the New Jerusalem? Face it: we’re enabling them. We're living in a perpetual church youth group, and no one is going off to college.

One of my best friends has been talking to a guy on eHarmony for three months. You heard right – three months. And yes…they are still on eHarmony. She offered to give him her phone number, but he ignored her suggestion. Yet she likes him, she’s invested in him, so she’s allowing this to continue. She maintains her subscription to stay in touch with him! I understand completely. I’ve been there. But basically, she is paying to email this guy. Does anyone else have a problem with this? She deserves so much better! She and I have been talking recently about the courage it will take for her to call it quits. To put her foot down. It will be hard. As my sister says, “It shouldn’t have to come to this.” But it has.

In other words, guys and gals can just push God around, and demand marriage from him just by doing the right things, and going about it the right way. In other words, marriage is something that is totally in the hands of man, and it is up to man as to whether or not it will happen, and when it will happen. I mean, you can almost hear Pelagius speaking from the grave in this kind of a statement.

Secondly, I have a question for her friend. Instead of writing to this person on the E-mail at E-Harmony, why doesn't she give him her private E-mail address so that they do not have to keep subscribing? That would be a whole lot easier then having to pay money every month to keep this stuff up.

Also, why doesn't the author have a problem with her not doing what I have suggested? You would think that, if the woman could avoid doing this, she would. However, here is a clear way she could easily avoid having to e-mail like this, and she doesn't do it. Why does she have no problem with that?

While she states that women may have something to do with this, it is only mentioned in passing, and only as a way of saying that her post is not entirely anti-male. However, the author does not mention any of these problems, and therefore, her assertion that women have some blame is just that...mere assertion. When someone says that someone has something to blame, but only mentions it in passing, you have to wonder just how serious they are about the claim.

This, however, is not the worst part of her post. Here is, by far, the nastiest part of her entire post:

Ladies, in case you still don’t get it, these "relationships" are going N-O-W-H-E-R-E, and we need to realize this sooner. Maybe it’s time to organize the Million Single Woman March. Let’s start making the signs now. We need to stop the madness! Women, unite! And guys, if you're not "in it to win it," get off the dating sites. Get out of the mixers. Stop messing around. Those of you who are directional and intentional, keep it up...and help your friends, ok? Let's make this a group project.

As I mentioned before, the mandatory marriage movement is all about intimidation. They cannot defend their views from the Bible, and many of their interpretations are simply laughed off by Biblical scholars. Do you really think that this kind of intimidation is going to be a substitute for an argument? You see, when folks dialogue with me, there are pages of the Bible turning, we have Hebrew and Greek texts open, with Grammar books for each on the table, and we are careful to not engage in the formal fallacies of logic. I am not saying we always succeed in being careful, but we try to do our best to honor God in submitting to His word.

However, notice what we have here. We have people engaging in irrational emotionalism. Dr. Andreas Kostenburger, while making a plug for his book, "God, Marriage, and Family," states the following:

Third, if you want to read a fuller account of God’s purposes for marriage and singleness and many other related issues, such as parenting, adoption, abortion, artificial reproductive technologies, divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and so on, read God, Marriage & Family (Crossway). It is much more thorough and wide-ranging than Debbie Maken’s book, which is focused on a fairly narrow topic (and then often argues from experience rather than Scripture).

Isn't that the truth! This is all about emotion, rather than about scripture. It is all about how ones experience makes you feel rather than what the Bible says. That should be obvious from the fact that I have gotten the responses I have from Darren Allen, and from others who are not intrested in a fair exchange.

Finally, the author ends up with another characture of our position:

He wants a relationship that’s easy, convenient, familiar, and requires no cost or concession on his part. He wants it to just “work out,” and he has past patterns to prove it. I wish him the best. Truly. But more than that, I hope – and pray – that God will grab him and show him what’s what. I hope that an older, wiser Christian man will come into his life and give him the facts. I hope he’ll realize that moving toward marriage is more than just “seeing what happens.” I hope that someday he’ll have the opportunity to put this into practice.

The first sentence is patently false. I think it might be more proper to reword it as, "He wants a relationship where he is not forced to give what I in my selfishness demand him to give." As we have seen throughout this article, things didn't go the way she wanted them to go, and therefore, she is now upset. Again, I have to keep pointing out the childish behavior of the marriage mandators who think that men are childish. The hypocracy of this movement is simply unbelievable.

As far as an "older" and "wiser" Christian man grabbing him, I have dialogued with many of these "older" and "wiser" Christian men, and even with folks such as Debbie Maken herself. The results are there to read for yourself. As you can see, far from "giving the facts," most of these folks were simply left to do nothing more than attack my motives, and misrepresent what I said about Hannah. This is not wisdom, folks. The apostle Paul aptly described this stuff in his letter to the Colossians:

Colossians 2:20-23 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Notice, Paul says that there is a set of rules out there which have the appearance of wisdom, but are, in actuality, of no value against sensual indulgence. It is almost as if the apostle Paul is speaking these words to the marriage mandators from heaven. The only law that has any value is what is found in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. To bind laws not found in the Bible upon the contiences of Christians is to deny the sufficiency of the scriptures.

BTW, I should also note that I am all for dating only those you desire to marry, and using that time to get ready for marriage. However, to expect things to go as you want them to go, and not trust in God and his providence because you are afraid you might get hurt is exactly the same outcome based theology of which we are often accused. Where are these people's faith in Christ? Where is their trust that God does things in his time? Were is the trust in the providence of God that, although we have our desires and we pursue them, it is ultimately God who decides whether these pursuits will be successful? The man-centeredness of this position is absolutely sickening.

In the end, I have to ask how accurate Andreas Kostenburger's observations were at the end of his dialogue with Debbie Maken:

In conclusion, I am struck by the man-centered nature and emphasis in Maken’s work. She calls on the unmarried to “get serious about getting married.” Is reality really as simple as this? Is lack of serious pursuit of marriage really and ultimately the most pressing problem, and getting serious about getting married the solution? It seems that Maken’s emphasis is almost unilaterally on man’s (or woman’s) initiative, while God’s providence and the Holy Spirit’s leading are disparaged. Are we not to trust God as to his timing and his way of leading in this intensely personal area of our lives? In the end, one wonders just how Christian Maken’s thinking is and to what extent shallow theology masks a focus on people going out and trying to force the hand of a recalcitrant and ambivalent God who has largely left humans to their own devices.

Indeed, I have often wondered how Christian much of this thinking is. That is why I am currently writing a book which I hope to title The Mandatory Marriage Controversy, in which I will expose some of the fallacious thinking of these folks. That way, if a man who is not trained in the issues involved ever runs into this movement for the first time, he will know how to respond to this movement. I hope it will also be helpful to women who run into advocates of the Mandatory Marriage Movement, in that it will both be a vaccine against their emotive appeals, and also to get women who are already involved in the movement thinking in a clear manner about the issues.

I should, again, make a word of disclaimer. I am not referring to many in the movement who actually are capible of carrying on a calm, well reasoned conversation. I have ran into these folks and, although they are a precious few, I cannot say many of these things that I have said in this post about them. I can only pray that they will realize that the movement is taking on this irrational intimadating character, and try to intellectually save it before it is written off much like radical KJV onlyism is. However, this is what happens when emotions get out of control, and start becoming the foundation of truth. Once you allow your emotions to become the standard, and stop thinking with God and his word as the standard, you will inevitably have these kinds of things happen. The sad thing is, it is happening with the support of men such as Albert Mohler and James Dobson. This is why we need to use discernment even when listening to Christian leaders.

The Fristianity Problem

The Fristianity problem is a problem that has come up in presuppositional apologetics. People who use this argument tend to ask why it is that we cannot construct a worldview which is like the Christian worldview with one acception...that God is a quadrinity rather than a trinity.

I was thinking of the naivette of such an argument the other day. The idea that you can remove one of the foundations of a web of belief, and not have that web of belief changed is simply irrational. Michael Butler expresses this well when he says:

The only way we know that God is a Trinity is that he revealed it to us – mere speculation or empirical investigation would never lead us to this conclusion. But the Fristian worldview, which is, ex hypothesis, identical to Christianity in every other way, asserts that its god is a quadrinity. But if Fristianity is otherwise identical to Christianity, the only way for us to know this would be for Fristian god to reveal this to us. But there is a problem with this. Supposing Fristianity had inspired scriptures (which it would have to have since it is all other ways identical to Christianity), these scriptures would have to reveal that the Fristian God is one in four. But notice that by positing a quadrinity, the Fristian scriptures would be quite different from the Christian Scriptures. Whereas the Christian Scriptures teach that, with regard to man's salvation, God the Father ordains, God the Son accomplishes and God the Spirit applies, the Fristian scriptures would have to teach a very different order. But exactly how would the four members of its imagined godhead be involved in man's salvation? More fundamentally, whereas in the Christian Trinity we read that the personal attribute of the Father is paternity, the personal attribute of the Son is filiation and the personal attribute of the Spirit is spiration, what would be the personal, distinguishing attributes of the members of the Fristian quadrinity? What would their relationship be to each other? Further questions flow out of this. How would the quadrinity affect the doctrine of man and sin? How would redemptive history look different? What about eschatology? This all needs to be spelled out in detail. This illustration reveals a general problem. One cannot tinker with Christian doctrine at one point and maintain that other doctrines will not be affected. It does no good for the proponent of Fristianity to claim that the only difference between his worldview and the Christian worldview is over the doctrine of the Trinity. Christian doctrine is systemic and a change in one area will necessarily require changes in others. It is necessary, therefore, that the advocate of Fristianity to spell out how this one change in doctrine affects all other doctrines. But once this is done, there is no guarantee that the result will be coherent. [available at http://butler-harris.org/tag/]

Indeed, one of the many problems with this type of position is that the people proposing it have not thought through the implications of what they are saying. Fristianity is a modern idea. The first question we should ask is, "How do we know of this God?" We must recognize that, if this God is the precondition for intellegability, then the world would have been unintelligable until the end of the twentieth century [which, interestingly enough, is about the time atheism started to feel the pressure of the Transendental argument]. The unbeliever might have one of two responses. First he could say that people knew about him, but there is no documentation that they did. However, such totally destroys the study of history. If we can assert that something happened from total silence, then it would mean that one might be able to say that the crusades actually didn't occur, and that the only ones who knew that they did not occur kept silent about it. In other other words, it is an argument from silence which is always fallacious.

However, if one is going to keep in step with Fristianity, one could suggest that the knowledge of the Fristian God is innate. Again, this is problematic. Why? Because of the fact that innate knowledge is not salvific. Hence, if you say that God was known innately, but not known specifically, then you have to believe that is not merciful. In other words, one would have to believe that no one was ever saved until the end of the twentieth century when people started receiving "revelations" of this Fristian god. Also, if every man were held responsible for their sins every second of the day, no man would be able to stand. We would all die an quick, and powerful death because of our sin. As David said, "If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?" [Psalm 130:3]. So, hence, Fristianity would also have to hold that, because the wages of sin is death, and there is no mercy in God, God would exact payment for our sins right when we come out of the womb [because we are sinners out of the womb]. In essence, we would die immediately. However, we know that many ancient figures lived long lives. Hence, the Fristian view of God would be impossible.

One could say that, in the Fristian worldview, innate knowledge is salvific. However, that would be absurd. If that is the case, then what is the point of the specific revelation the Fristian is now receiving? Who cares about that revelation if general revelation is enough?

Not only that, but it would mean that no one could have ever known that they were saved, given that there was no specific revelation to tell us what one must, at least, be desposed to believe in order to be a Fristian.

Also, how would we have known anything about God? Classic Christian theology has taught that specific revelation is needed to understand general revelation. Hence, without the specific revelation, God becomes unintelligable.

As one can see, Fristianity is a total impossibility. By answering each of these objections, the Fristian would move farther and farther from the Christian worldview. By stating that God is a quadrinity, you must reject other Christian beliefs, and thus a person cannot hold that they believe all of Christianity, and that their only point of departure is that they believe God is a quadrinity. Worldviews work together, and you cannot change one belief in the worldview without the rest coming down with it as well.

Also, notice the abiguity in the Fristian worldview. We don't know much more about it that that there is a quatrine God. It almost seems as though the worldview is, itself, inconceivable as it has not worked out many of the problems above. There just seems to be no framework there, and thus, no worldview. Michael Butler is certainly right to conclude:

Thus without providing the details of Fristian theology, this objection loses its punch. It can only be thought to be a challenge to Christianity if it, like Christianity, provides preconditions of experience. But without knowing the details, we cannot submit it to an internal critique. Until this happens, we can justifiably fall back on the conclusion that there is no conceivable worldview, apart from Christianity, that can provide the preconditions of experience.

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.

Eastern Orthodoxy, Icons, and Worship

Robert Letham has just come out with a new book on Eastern Orthodoxy. The section on Icons is extremely helpful. I like this quotation:

For the Reformed, everything is iconic. God has imprinted evidence of his own beauty and glory throughout creation. In the words of the Psalmist, 'the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge' (Ps. 19:1-2). And again, 'O LORD, our Lord how majestic is your name in all the earth!' (Ps. 8:9). In line with this Paul can say that 'his envisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made' (Rom. 1:20). Every blade of grass, every tree and flower displays the glory of God. Every square inch belongs to Christ, the mediator of creation (Col. 1:15-17, Heb. 1:1-3). If icons are windows to draw us to God, opened books lead us to heaven, so too is the entire order of creation-the beauty of the hills, the colours of the grass, sea and sky, the trees and plants, the changing of the seasons. [Through Western Eyes; Eastern Orthodoxy a Reformed Perspective p.160-161]

What an incredible section! Notice that icons and images are a very important part of worship. Hence, the issue is not over whether we should use icons, the issue is over whether or not icons are part of general or specific revelation. The Bible presents images as part of general revelation. Hence, when we talk about the specific revelation of God, we cannot say it refers to images.

However, notice further implications of this observation. We therefore do, indeed worship God with images every day of our life. However, what kind of images? Images that are evil and wicked, or images that are pure and Godly? That is a difficult question for most men who either love the gore found in many video games, or who love the thrill of pornography. We need to be careful, because our entire life is an act of worship. Therefore, we cannot profane the worship of God by using images that are displeasing to him.

BTW, I would recommend this book by Robert Letham very highly. It is certainly not easy reading. In fact, he goes through and discusses the seven ecumenical councils, giving their historical context, and showing how they relate to Orthodoxy theology. Therefore, it is not something you will be able to read in five minutes. However, many of the topics addressed are very important to the emmergance of Eastern Orthodoxy to the theological scene here in the west.

Eastern objections to Sola Scriptura is a topic I will have to take up in a blog entry one of these days. There arguments, while at times paralleling Roman Catholicism, have some slightly different twists.

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.

Absolutely Unbelievable

I just wanted to let people know about this article over at James White's website.

These guys are absolutely out of control. Does someone have that little assurance of their salvation that they must go around with a persecution complex all of the time? What is worse is that these folks are simply harrassing people. I heard Dr. White mention on his program, The Dividing Line, that these folks have been arrested before! What a sad, sad testamony to the gospel! While I certainly have no problems preaching the the law, and telling people that they are going to hell if they do not repent, I am absolutely up in arms over this hateful way of doing it. I can't imagine what it is going to be like to be in the courtroom when the charges are read. You will see an elderly lady in a wheelchair with oxygen roll into the courtroom, followed by a big, physically fit man, and the charges will be read as two counts of assult. Everyone is going to think with horror about how a man of that size would assult an elderly lady on oxygen in a wheelchair. Then, the lady in the wheelchair will take the defendant's position, and the entire courtroom will gasp!

I hope this thing gets thrown out of court. The whole thing appears to have been a wild circus. The sad thing is that this is not the first time these guys have been at it. Here is a clip from James' website that shows these guys in action:

">

As I said, these guys have no concept of preaching the truth in love.

Interesting Article Over At Boundless

While I don't agree with everything over at the boundlessline blog [obviously], but I do enjoy reading their blog, and today, I did have to admire one of their articles discussing what they are calling a "purity ball." Now, I still think calling their position "biblical dating" is extreme circular reasoning, but I do think that they are right that fathers need to be involved in the lives of their daughters. They are also correct in that fathers need to take a role in training their daughters in how to think with purity. This is all over the Bible: Numbers 30, Ephesians 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:7, etc...

I must say that I am touched at the love of these fathers for their daughters. I don't think, as many have said, that a purity pledge was necessary for these fathers to protect their daughters. I think that it is a public profession of these fathers' love for their daughters and their willingness to care about the way in which their daughters think and act. With many of the disagreements we have over issues of courtship and mandatory marriage, I think this is one issue, along with abortion, atheism, homosexuality, pornography, and several others upon which I can strongly support them. There is something just so sweet about a father's love for his daughter.

Fanmail from the Mandatory Marriage Movement

I keep on saying this time and time again. The mandatory marriage movement is the most nasty movement I have ever dealt with. I have dealt with King James Only advocates, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others, and I can honestly say this movement is the worst. For your parousal, here is an example of a message that one of their advocates posted for me on Anakin Niceguy's blog. Such a kind soul:

PC,

You really are amazing. for someone who whines constantly about name calling, you seem to have no problem calling people names yourself. Please wake up and stop acting like a child. Your ego is also not doing you any favors or do I need to write that in GREEK for you to understand it.

GH

As I said. This movement is becoming exactly like the childish men they think they are trying to refute.

Debbie Maken misrepresents John Piper

John Piper is an outstanding scholar. While I don't agree with everything he says, his work is definitely recognized in the scholarly world as sober. His book The Justification of God An Exegetical and Theological study of Romans 9:1-23 is one of the best exegetical studies ever written.

Compare this to the work of Debbie Maken and, well, there is no comparison. John Piper bends over backwards to answer every criticism against him in his work on Romans 9. However, when Debbie Maken was challanged on several issues in my discussion with her, she ignored most of them, and then ended up pretending to be able to figure out my motives. There really is no comparison between Debbie Maken and John Piper, and therefore, when I found Debbie Maken writing this on her blog, I just rolled my eyes:

This tension exists in the thinking of the general Christian culture, but it is reinforced in sermons like the one Piper gave. There, Piper disparagingly gives the example of an elderly family man “rocking in front of his lake house” handing down a “big fat inheritance” to his children to “confirm . . . . worldliness.” In his own words, Piper defines this as a “tragedy,” a life of “wasted middle class mediocrity.” In conveying these sentiments, Piper here comes perilously close to forbidding marriage without actually coming right out and saying to young people not to get married. He appears to mock the design that God has put in place for marriage, implying that is “selling-out” in some way, inferior, contrary to what God would really have wished for them. If any single took this message to heart, then “marriage and family” would be the last thing he would want to pursue, if he really wanted to serve God. One would think that God’s desire was not for godly children (despite Gen. 1:28; Jer. 29:6; Mal. 2:15), and that it is inferior to living a single life made up of service activities in the overall global cause. There is no way to mistake the hierarchy of values being advanced here—evangelism trumps the staid, “dead-end dream” of “middle class security and comfort.”Part of me wanted to call this blog entry, “Mediocre, Middle Class, and Proud of It!” My husband and I wear that badge with honor. I suppose we have been condemned to “meaningless, middle class, American prosperity.” We believe that what we build together will be handed down to our own legacy, as God intended (Gen. 27, 28, 49), and not to unknowns within the State or the Church. (See also Prov. 13:22: A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children). The entire concept of inheritance has always been built on blood/familial relations and the next generation following and honoring the last (see also Deut. 5:16), not with people who are merely joined together by common values. In fact, without having a direct object (i.e. children) for whom to work, the entire notion of creating an inheritance goes out the window, which would explain the "worldliness" and seeking of temporal pleasures of most singles.

Feel free to read the whole sermon, and see how it reading the whole thing together shows that Debbie Maken is not even coming close to representing John Piper accurately. Here is the portion to which Debbie Maken is referring:

The great tragedy is not mainly masturbation or fornication or acting like a peeping Tom (or curious Cathy) on the internet. The tragedy is that Satan uses the guilt of these failures to strip you of every radical dream you ever had, or might have, and in its place give you a happy, safe, secure, American life of superficial pleasures until you die in your lakeside rocking chair, wrinkled and useless, leaving a big fat inheritance to your middle-aged children to confirm them in their worldliness. That’s the main tragedy.
I have not come to Atlanta to waste your time or mine. I have come with a passion that you not waste your life. My aim is not mainly to cure you of sexual misconduct. I would like that to happen. O, God let it happen! But mainly I want to take out of the devil’s hand the weapon that exploits the sin of your life to destroy your valiant dreams, and make your whole life a wasted worldly success.

The misrepresentation of John Piper is obvious. What he is referring to is those people who live a life entrapped in the sin of lust, and do not go out and make a difference for Christ. What he is talking about is someone who may be married, but who refuses to go out and do work for Christ, and lives his entire life endulging in the worldly pleasures of sin and sexual immorality. What John Piper is saying is not that marriage and children are worldly, but that you can still waste your life by sexual immorality even though you are married, and live in middle class medocrity, and have a big fat inheretance to hand down to your children. And is he not right? Is Debbie Maken really suggesting that anyone who gets married cannot waste his life? That would be the only way this would make sense. Notice, also, the misuse of Proverbs 13:22. She appears to be saying that it means "If you leave your inheritance to your children's children, you are a good man," which is simply a logical fallacy. The converse of conditional statements may be true, but you cannot assume that they are true.

Worse than that, she quotes Jeremiah 29:6 as having some relevance to the discussion. It reads:

Jeremiah 29:6 'Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease.

Of course, she forgot to read the text in context:

Jeremiah 29:3-10 The letter was sent by the hand of Elasah the son of Shaphan, and Gemariah the son of Hilkiah, whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent to Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, saying, 4 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 'Build houses and live in them; and plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 'Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease. 7 'Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.' 8 "For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, 'Do not let your prophets who are in your midst and your diviners deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams which they dream. 9 'For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them,' declares the LORD. 10 "For thus says the LORD, 'When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place.

The first and most obvious thing about this text is that it is addressed to the people of Judah as they are heading away into exile. God's concern is that there have been false prophets that have came, and tried to say that they should revolt against those who were taking them into exile [vrs. 8-10]. God is telling them that they are not to listen to these false prophets, and are to go into exile, and wait for the Lord to bring them back. Hence, there is a specific historical context. Why does Debbie Maken not mention that?

Second, this is a common feature of Hebrew literary structure known as a merism. It is "a poetic device that describes the whole by enumerating the parts, usually opposites. The parts listed often form a polarity" [Ross, Allen P. Introducing Biblical Hebrew p. 372]. This passage fits the definition to perfection. We have "building houses and planting gardens" [v.6] which would refer to ones personal life, and one's professional life. We have taking wives for yourself, and giving people in marriage. We have the seeking of the welfare of the city and the welfare of the people. Therefore, what he is telling these people is that they must continue their life as usual. They must not stop what they are doing, and try to revolt, because that is not God's will.

The fact that everyone was not commanded to get married should also be obvious in the fact that God was obviously not commanding all of them to be gardeners. He was also not commanding all of them to build houses [what if you had poor people that had to share a house?]. It gets even worse if you try to apply it to today. Would Debbie Maken really want to start a movement where she attacks the "delay of house-building," by stating that anyone who only purchases houses that have already been built is sinning? Does Debbie Maken want to start a movement in our modern society saying that it is a "duty" of all people to be gardeners today?

I think her misuse of this text shows the incompetence of Debbie Maken as an exegete in a much more radical way than her misuse of any other text. This is because it shows that she is not taking her views from the text, but reading them into the text. She has to read the section that helps her to get the idea that marriage is a "duty" in an entirely different way than how she reads the surrounding verses with the exact same language as verse 6. This kind of arbitary interpretation of a text is a sure fire indication that you are bringing your prejudices to the text, and reading the text through the lens of your prejudices, rather than deriving your beliefs from the word of God from the start.

What is worse is that she does this in the context of responding to a scholar on the academic level of John Piper, and misrepresents him in the process. The sad thing is that some single people will, and already do take what Debbie Maken says as gospel truth. Worse than that, there are a few singles that treat her like a Christian celebrity. Don't believe me? Take a look at this blog. It is sad. This, in turn, produces worse problems. I was looking at the comments section on Anakin Niceguy's blog, and, while Anakin's article straight to the point and deals with the issues, the entire discussion in the comments section has turned into single men and women just taking personal shots at one another.

While there are people from my side of the discussion who have done this, keep in mind that this is the kind of scholarship upon which these folks are wanting to shame single men. This is the kind of scholarship which they use to call us "overgrown children." In reality, the shame should be on anyone who would use this kind of unscholarly nonsense to shame anyone. Shame does need to exist. There are certainly people in the church who need to be shamed. However, we need to have good reason for doing so. Relying on this kind of unscholarly, irrational emotionalism to shame people is simply immoral and childish.

I remember Dr. James White saying one time that when you do the work of polemic theology, you have to be careful that you do not become like those you seek to refute. There are many men out there who are lazy, selfish, and self-centered. No question about it. However, in doing the work of seeking to push these men on to maturity, we need to do so in such a way that we do not become just as childish as they are. The mandatory marriage movement has not guarded themselves against this, and they have fallen in to the trap head first.

However, some people within the movement have not done this. There are some who, rather than just conclude from the start that marriage is a duty [as Debbie Maken does], are willing to open up the Bible and discuss it with you on an exegetical basis. These are the people in this movement who I can commend. Sadly, it is not the character of the movement as a whole. When you answer these criticisms, most of these people just get nasty, and try to intimdate you with their numbers and popularity. Anakin Niceguy has made up a silly, but sadly, true little picture that illustrates my point:

While we can all get a good laugh out of this picture it illustrates something important. The general character of this movement is not to use scripture to support their ideas but intimidation. I can only say that, as long as they are going to continue in this methodology, I am, first of all, not going to be intimidated, and second not going to be convinced that their position is right. Intimidation is no substitute for argument. In fact, it is dishonoring to God when we as Christians have to resort to it.

Open Theism

Another Religion?

One of the Pastors from the church I attend back in Ohio when I visit my parents for breaks pointed me to a discussion Pastor Gene Cook had with a man from a movement called Open Theism by the name of Bob Enyart. I don't know how much longer the Mp3's will be availible, but as of this afternoon, both Part I and Part II were still availible for listening/downloading.

From what I gather, this position comes out of the argument produced by A.N. Prior against arminianism. I always use it because it is such a devistating argument. The argument goes something like this. Knowledge, by definition, is justified belief. Because arminians believe the future is contingent, given the arminian system, no one could ever justify a belief about what will happen in the future. Therefore, not even God could have knowledge of future events.

In other words, if you say the future is still contingent, you are forced into saying that God's omnicience does not entail foreknowledge. I have never had an arminian agree with this argument, but it sure has been interesting to see them try to get around it. It is one of the most devistating arguments against arminianism I have ever seen.

However, Open Theists, rather than give up free will, have, instead, given up God's exhaustive foreknowledge of future events. This is sad. Why would someone love human autonomy so much that they would be willing to fashion God after themselves rather than vise versa? I have not studied this movement much [although I hope to do so in the future], but I will say that, from hearing Gene Cook's debate, and listening to his interview with Dr. Robert Morey found here, I presently believe that this system is not even Christian. I will do more study before I finally decide in fairness to those who believe in this, but, from what I heard from Gene's debate, we don't even worship the same God.

This is Sad

I just want to point everyone to a discussion on Phyllis Schlafly Live. It is with a college graduate in social work by the name of Emily Brooker. It is absolutely amazing what this girl went through. You can listen to the first half here, and the second half here. The absolute insanity of many on the left is brought out in this young girl's story. These silly teachers told her that she must separate her beliefs from her professional work. And yet, did these professors separate their belief that homosexuality is an acceptible lifestyle from their work? No. What they suggested is totally impossible. What you believe has implications for how you live your life, including how you do your work in the professional realm, and every other area of life.

These people always want to come across under the guise of neutrality, but in reality they are some of the most biased people on the planet. Greg Bahnsen once said, rightly:

Therefore, the Christian who strives after neutrality in his thought is found actually to be endeavoring to efface the fact that he is a Christian! By denying his distinctive religious commitment he is reduced to apostate thought patterns and absorbed into the world of unbelief. Attempting to find a compromise between the demands of worldly neutrality (agnosticism) and the doctrines of Christ's word results in the rejection of Christ's distinctive Lordship by obliterating the great gulf between the thinking of the old man and that of the new man [Always Ready Directions for Defending the Faith p.9].

It is one of the most deceptive tricks the political and social left will use, namely, the myth of neutrality. If we fall for it, we end up, as Greg Bahnsen said, being absorbed into the world of unbelief. That is why I am so thankful that this young woman had the courage to deny the neutrality myth, and to come out and win the case. I only wonder how many more students have had these injustices done to them, and the ending was not so happy.

Also, this program is availible in Mp3 format for about two weeks yet. Here is the first half, and here is the second half.

The Deadly Fruit of Abortion

If there is one evil I really, really hate it is abortion. How many children and parents have had their lives ruined by this wicked practice? How many people are deceived into thinking that it is acceptible to execute infants just for the sake of our own convienence? This, like all other things, is connected to the rejection of the idea that God is our king, and he gets to bind his law upon our contience. The natural man hates this truth, but a truth it is.

When we look at God's law, we find that it makes the killing of the unborn so henious, that even the accidental killing of the unborn is worthy of death:

Exodus 21:22-23 And when men struggle, and they injure a pregnant woman so that her child comes out, but no one is fatally harmed, he will surely pay according to that which the husband of the woman places upon him, and he will give [it] in the presence of judges. 23. But if it is a fatal wound, you will give a life for a life. [Translation mine]

Contrast that, for instance, to Deuteronomy 19:5:

And when a man goes into the forest to gather wood, and his hand is put on the axe to cut wood, and the axe head is drawn off from the wood, and it finds his companion, and he dies, let him flee to one of these cities, and live. [Translation mine]

So, God requires the death penalty for even the accidental killing of the unborn, but a person can live if they accidentally kill someone who is alive. Greg Bahnsen once pointed this out in one of his lectures, and as I have grown to think God's thoughts after him more and more, I have grown to hate the practice of abortion more and more. If the accidental death of an unborn child is to get the death penalty, how severly do you think God is going to judge those who purposefully murder their unborn children in cold blood?

However, again, this is a worldview issue. Aside from the fact that there are unbelievers who dispise this practice, we have to ask how anything can be wrong given the fact that they are willing to rebel against God, and murder their unborn children? What authority is their for morality once God is removed as the ultimate authority?

Worse than that, let us consider the pain that these children must go through. It makes me angry to think of a child crying out in pain as his brains get sucked out due to partial birth abortion. What a horrendous, and terribly depraved way to take someone's life. Think about dying by being burned by salts, or being torn to shreds by a machine. We would not do this to our worst enemy, and yet we would do this to our children??????

My good friend Jenna, who was one of my colleagues in Old Testament backgrounds class, has written an excellent poem that, I think, captures this point very well:

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

Month One

Mommy, I am only 8 inches longbut I have all my organs. I love the sound of your voice. Every time I hear it, I wave my arms and legs.The sound of your heart beatis my favorite lullaby.

Month Two

Mommy, today I learned how to suck my thumb. If you could see me, you could definitely tell that I am a baby. I'm not big enough to survive outside my home though. It is so nice and warm in here.

Month Three

You know what MommyI'm a boy!! I hope that makes you happy. I always want you to be happy. I don't like it when you cry. You sound so sad. It makes me sad too, and I cry with you even though you can't hear me.

Month Four

Mommy my hair is starting to grow. It is very short and fine, but I will have a lot of it. I spend a lot of my time exercising. I can turn my head and curl my fingers and toes, and stretch my arms and legs. I am becoming quite good at it too.

Month Five

You went to the doctor today. Mommy, he lied to you. He said that I'm not a baby. I am a baby Mommy, your baby. I think and feel. Mommy, what's abortion?

Month Six

I can hear that doctor again. I don't like him. He seems cold and heartless. Something is intruding my home. The doctor called it a needle. Mommy what is it? It burns! Please make him stop! I can't get away from it! Mommy! HELP me!

Month Seven

Mommy, I am okay.I am in Jesus's arms. He is holding me. He told me about abortion. Why didn't you want me Mommy?

Every Abortion Is Just . . .

One more heart that was stopped. Two more eyes that will never see. Two more hands that will never touch. Two more legs that will never run. One more mouth that will never speak.

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

Folks, this is not a philosophical game. These are issues of life and death. You don't play games with human life. Humans are created in the image of God, and to violate his law by taking someone's life in cold blood [born and expecially unborn] is something that is worthy of death itself according to God's law. I hope that, one day, Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. Until then, this kind of behavior needs to be challanged for the heinous murder that it is.