A Biblical Critique of Debbie Maken's Book "Getting Serious about Getting Married" (part 4)

PART IV: Chapter 3 - "Historical Views on Singleness" (The Traditions of the Elders)

In continuing my review of Debbie Maken's book, Getting Serious about Getting Married, I would like to share with my readers a passage from the New Testament where the Pharisees confront Jesus:

"Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, 'Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?' He answered and said to them, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.'" (Mark 7:1-8, NKJV)

Here we have our Lord and Savior clearly condemning the practice of elevating religious traditionalism to the level of God's divine revelation. Religious traditions are not a safe and reliable guide in spiritual matters. That is why I find chapter three of Debbie Maken's book so disappointing. She spends the entire chapter detailing how notable theologians and religious communities of the past felt about single people. Apparently, the proverbial "cloud of witnesses" of the past stressed the necessity of marriage for most people, and that is supposed to make us think twice about embracing singleness as a lifestyle.

This will probably come as shock to some of my readers, but I will nonetheless ask this simple question: Who cares? The Bible declares, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11, NKJV). Bereft of sound, Biblical exegesis, Debbie Maken's cloud of witnesses becomes a puff of presumptuousness. Revered religious figures and Bible-believers of past ages can be woefully mistaken.

Quoting the Big Names

I do not think Mrs. Maken would like us to scrutinize the sentiments of the past too closely. She invokes C.S. Lewis' concept of "chronological snobbery," a term used to "describe our feelings of superiority when we glance back at the past" (p. 48). Her reference to such a renown writer is hilarious, given the fact that C. S. Lewis was pretty much a confirmed bachelor until his fifties. Surely all of Lewis' writing, lecturing and teaching would have not precluded him from seeking the companionship of a female. I thus suspect that if C.S. Lewis was alive today, Maken's supporters would probably dismiss him as an immature "cad" unable to live up to their idea of "Biblical Manhood."

Then there is the matter of John Calvin and Martin Luther. Mr. Maken quotes from these two figures extensively on singleness and marriage. Are these men infallible guides in all things pertaining to life and godliness? I wonder if Mrs. Maken would agree with Calvin that heretics should be put to death? Is she familiar with Sebastian Castellio's response to Calvin's views? Indeed, shall we consult the Reformers when writing a treatise on the "Historical Views of Religious Toleration"? Is our modern embrace of religious liberty sinful? Or is the early Reformers' insistence on persecuting those who disagreed with their theology sinful? Take your pick.

Shall we quote Luther on how to treat the Jews? Or perhaps we should consider this adage of Luther on living soberly and righteously:

“Whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to.” -Martin Luther, August 1, 1521

Should we thus take our cue from Luther and encourage Christians to sin more that grace may abound, in spite of what the Bible says (Romans 6:1-2)? Needless to say, I am certain one can find plenty of loyalists ready to defend the more uncomfortable pronouncements of the Reformers with complex explanations and apologies. That is another issue for another day. My point is that we cannot base faith our faith on dead, uninspired men, no matter how much our religious communities may esteem them.

This Is Not Your Grandmother's Faith

Let us lay aside the foibles of the revered Reformers and consider the sentiments of Bible-believers of the past. Shall we consult them on slavery? How about racial relations? We could sanctimoniously declare that miscegenation were largely frowned upon by Christians of yesteryear, and it was not until very recently that the idea of interracial marriages was tolerated. We could bolster our prejudice against interracial marriages by misquoting scriptures from the Old Testament, just as Maken and her followers have done in mandating marriage for most people. What an ironic twist this would be, given that Boundless.org (a internet site espousing views akin to Mrs. Maken's) has just recently published a positive piece on interracial relationships.

What about birth control? Mrs. Maken declares on page 57: "For centuries Protestants and Catholics shared the belief that birth control was wrong." Indeed. Also for centuries, the Roman Catholic model of clerical celibacy predominated in Western Christendom. I hold both traditions in low esteem, rejecting them as unscriptural teachings that fail to recognize the intrinsic, God-given worth of sexual relations between husband and wife. Mrs. Maken goes on to conflate singleness and birth control with obvious social evils such as divorce, abortion, and sexual immorality; it's simply guilt by association. If Mrs. Maken has a problem with birth control, as she seems to suggest, she needs to take her case to her compatriot Albert Mohler, who recently stated that "evangelical couples may, at times, choose to use contraceptives in order to plan their families and enjoy the pleasures of the marital bed" (Albert Mohler, "Can Christians Use Birth Control?", May 08, 2006, Accessed from www.albertmohler.com). Perhaps Mrs. Maken should also realize that the very same culture that was for so long critical of birth control also looked down on a woman openly celebrating her own sexuality to the extent that Mrs. Maken does at end of her book. On p. 189 she states, "I love the freedom to have legitimate sex whenever we want." The blue-haired ladies of days gone by would blush at such a frank remark.

A Cloud of Witnesses That Rains on Mrs. Maken's Parade

At any rate, how far back does Maken want to go through the annals of Christendom to find support for her radical message of mandatory marriage for most everyone? Certainly, she would not want to go back to the writings of the Church Fathers. John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Athanasius, and Augustine are a few notables that come to mind that would be an embarrassment to her. These men went so far as to declare that virginity was spiritually superior to marriage (a position that not even I would defend).

In chapter four, Mrs. Maken states, "We must not assume that we understand singleness better than Christian thinkers of the past" (p. 74). What if the Reformers heeded this adage? Of course, if the great thinkers of the past paid obeisance to church hierarchy, historical tradition, and religious consensus the way many modern Evangelicals do, I suppose Protestantism would have never come about in the first place. Perhaps it's high time that some Christians write out ninety-five talking points on some sticky pads and affix them to the foreheads of some prominent religious leaders. All in all, Mrs. Maken commits the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority" in chapter three. She fails to make a Biblical case for her beliefs in first two chapters, so the reference to what religious authorities have thought about singleness and marriage in the past is gratuitous at best.

Whose Faith Anyway?

I believe in what some might call "soul competency." That is, the faith of my family or my church cannot save me, per se. It boils down to my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In light of this, what religious authorities have to say about a question is no more meaningful than the opinions of Joe Normal if their dogma is unscriptural. Their words are not what is going to judge me on the Final Day. Mrs. Maken may adhere to the Westminster Confession. I adhere to the Word of God. Let us never be afraid of reexamining the beliefs of those who have gone before. Let us base our faith on what the Holy Spirit clearly reveals in His written revelation, not on the ignorance and religiously motivated bigotry of our cultural forbearers.