A Biblical Critique of Debbie Maken's Book "Getting Serious about Getting Married" (part 7)
PART VII: Chapter 6 - "The 'Gift' of Singleness and the Sovereignty of God" (Magic 8-Balls and the Present Distress about Presents)
How does God operate in the lives of believers? Does he have a special mate picked out for every one of us? These are tantalizing questions and I suspect that they have been the fodder for a lot of theological speculation (or should I say "whittling on God's end of the stick"). In light of these questions, Mrs. Maken devotes Chapter 6 of her book to a discussion about how people relate the sovereignty of God to their chances of getting married. I must admit that Mrs. Maken raises some legitimate issues about the assumptions many people have about God's providence. However, as I have indicated, Mrs. Maken application of her principles still leaves something to be desired.
On p. 86, Mrs. Maken states:
Mrs. Maken, however, then asks a question at the bottom of p. 87: "If singleness is a gift like marriage, and if the two are both morally equal and good, then why pursue marriage?" I understand that Mrs. Maken probably meant this to be a rhetorical question, but I thought I turn it back on Mrs. Maken and her supporters. Truly, why would anyone want to trade the benefits of singleness for marriage? There must be an answer to this question that doesn't involve the misapplication of scriptures; dubious studies that don't distinguish between correlation and causality; sanctimonious platitudes about how adversity builds character; or language that is downright insulting.
One Woman's Refuse is Another Man's Gift
Mrs. Maken, naturally, does not see singleness as a gift. She assumes that calling singleness a gift is a "non sequitur." We are told that since God only a called a select few to be single and enabled them through the "gift of celibacy," we cannot logically assume that just anyone should be content to be single. Of course, I reject Mrs. Maken's assumptions about the "gift of celibacy" as they are based on flimsy conjecture about what Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 7.
Mrs. Maken asks a lot of rhetorical questions about singleness as a gift. Why do so many people hate being single? Why are they single for so long? Why weren't there more singles in the past? What happened to the Genesis mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"? Why have so many singles lost their virginity? I have dealt with the so-called "mandate" of Genesis in my earlier comments. As for the other questions, they make for some interesting talking points but they establish nothing substantive in a case for marriage.
In fact, I could turn around and ask those who think marriage is a gift why so many people want to divorce. Why are so many marriages unhappy? Why is there an entire cottage industry devoted to churning out books about how to bring excitement into lackluster relationships? Why do I see so many husband and wives who look stressed out, jaded, tired, and unenthusiastic about their situation? Is marriage is gift to these people? I do not need a miraculous gift of asexuality to understand that marriage often does not bring the happiness that many people think it will. Gifts, like beauty, are often in the eye of the beholder.
Biblical Thinking Vs. Outcome-Based Theology
Debbie Maken makes some interesting remarks on pp. 88-89:
Who are we to say that Debbie Maken isn't engaging in a little bit of outcome-based theology herself? Perhaps she is the one who is guilty of "thinking culturally." Mrs. Maken should have been more careful about the kind of charges she levels against others in the matter of theology. The measure she uses has been measured against her, and she is found wanting.
Is it any wonder that Mrs. Maken's exegesis is flawed? On p. 90, she misapplies 1 Cor. 7:1-2 to single people whereas the original language, grammar, and context show that the Apostle Paul was addressing married people. On p. 92, she uses Malachi 2:15 allusion to the "wife" of one's "youth" as a proof-text for demanding that people get married young. Of course, that is not the focus of Malachi of 2:15 and such a reading puts us in the absurd position of barring marriage to anyone over the age of 35. In short, I believe that Mrs. Maken's misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches may very well be the result of her attempt to superimpose her own cultural values on the Scriptures. It may be a case of her failing to follow her own advice.
The Sovereignty of God and the Problem of Evil (or Singleness)
Debbie Maken is correct that singleness is a product of human free will. The fact that there so many unhappily single women is indeed the result of some choices made by individuals and by the culture at large. Mrs. Maken lists her favorite culprits: modern dating, the education system, failed families, immaturity, and of course, men. Noticeably absent from her list is corporatism, feminism, and the shallowness of many contemporary women. Mrs. Maken's narrative gingerly marches right along and summarily ignores the 300-pound gorillas in the room.
Yet Mrs. Maken is also correct that that God is not obligated to save people from the temporal consequences of their decisions. There is indeed such thing as "generational sin" in the sense that people often suffer the fallout of foolish choices made long beforehand by others. In this vein, we need take a cue from Mrs. Maken and ask ourselves if the unhappiness of women today is the result of "generational sin."
As a case in point, women today are becoming dissatisfied with the passivity of men. Yet for one generation, we have shouted men down, told them that their masculinity is oppressive and problematic, claimed that they need to change, etc. Can we blame men that they are in many cases only a former husk of what they used to be? Let us consider another matter: women entering into midlife alone and single. What or who is the culprit? Is it men who are afraid to commit, or is it women who have insisted on frittering away their youth on careerism and frivolity?
What I am suggesting is that while Mrs. Maken is correct on some principles, she misses the mark in her application. Women are not only reaping the bitter consequences of choices made by others, they are reaping the consequences of their own self-centered, rash decisions. Even Mrs. Maken should be asking herself if her late marriage was really the fault of the society around her or a carefree attitude that she may have had in her younger years. I read her description of herself in her early twenties on p. 11 and wonder if "getting serious about getting married" wasn't really a high priority for her at that time.
Let us turn from the matter of singleness for a moment and realize that even the choice of marrying has consequences. I pose this question: Suppose a woman is married to an emotionally indifferent man. He doesn't cheat on her, so she has no scriptural grounds for divorce (Matthew 19:9). Is it the will of God for this woman to be in a loveless marriage? I suggest that is no more appropriate to say it is the will of God that people should marry than it is to say he wants them to be single.
Why is this so? Simple. We have no business presuming to know the mind of our Creator on a matter if he has not revealed such to us (Deut. 29:29). As it is, despite what Mrs. Maken would have us believe, there is no divine revelation that personally directs us to get married, per se. In the matter of matrimony, we can pray for wisdom and guidance, but the decision to marry is essentially a decision that God leaves to us. He no more tells us which specific person we should wed than he does which road we should take to the grocery mart. The "secret things belong to the Lord." It is our job to pray, trust, and obey, not to try peer through the veil of the heavens the way some peer into a Magic 8-ball. In essence, Chapter 6 leaves us with a valuable lesson about not assuming too much about the "will of God." Unfortunately, Mrs. Maken fails to heed her own advice.
How does God operate in the lives of believers? Does he have a special mate picked out for every one of us? These are tantalizing questions and I suspect that they have been the fodder for a lot of theological speculation (or should I say "whittling on God's end of the stick"). In light of these questions, Mrs. Maken devotes Chapter 6 of her book to a discussion about how people relate the sovereignty of God to their chances of getting married. I must admit that Mrs. Maken raises some legitimate issues about the assumptions many people have about God's providence. However, as I have indicated, Mrs. Maken application of her principles still leaves something to be desired.
On p. 86, Mrs. Maken states:
"Don't get me wrong: I believe wholeheartedly in the sovereignty of God. At the same time I also believe we have free will and a responsibility to pursue God's will for our lives. God's sovereignty doesn't mean we are puppets who cannot take action until he pulls our strings. On the contrary, we are expected to live our lives in ways that follow God's will and do what is right in his eyes. When we misunderstand God's sovereignty, it can become merely an excuse to be lazy and justification for our refusal to assume God-given roles. We must cooperate with what we know to be God's will for our lives--whether it's loving our neighbors or honoring our parents. Obedience requires action."To this, I say a hearty "Amen." I have to concede that if a person wants to get married but simply waits for God to send some sort of mysterious sign about what direction to take in finding a spouse, success probably won't follow. Moreover, even in the promises that God has clearly made to his children, faith requires obedience. It was true under the Old Testament; it is true today.
Mrs. Maken, however, then asks a question at the bottom of p. 87: "If singleness is a gift like marriage, and if the two are both morally equal and good, then why pursue marriage?" I understand that Mrs. Maken probably meant this to be a rhetorical question, but I thought I turn it back on Mrs. Maken and her supporters. Truly, why would anyone want to trade the benefits of singleness for marriage? There must be an answer to this question that doesn't involve the misapplication of scriptures; dubious studies that don't distinguish between correlation and causality; sanctimonious platitudes about how adversity builds character; or language that is downright insulting.
One Woman's Refuse is Another Man's Gift
Mrs. Maken, naturally, does not see singleness as a gift. She assumes that calling singleness a gift is a "non sequitur." We are told that since God only a called a select few to be single and enabled them through the "gift of celibacy," we cannot logically assume that just anyone should be content to be single. Of course, I reject Mrs. Maken's assumptions about the "gift of celibacy" as they are based on flimsy conjecture about what Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 7.
Mrs. Maken asks a lot of rhetorical questions about singleness as a gift. Why do so many people hate being single? Why are they single for so long? Why weren't there more singles in the past? What happened to the Genesis mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"? Why have so many singles lost their virginity? I have dealt with the so-called "mandate" of Genesis in my earlier comments. As for the other questions, they make for some interesting talking points but they establish nothing substantive in a case for marriage.
In fact, I could turn around and ask those who think marriage is a gift why so many people want to divorce. Why are so many marriages unhappy? Why is there an entire cottage industry devoted to churning out books about how to bring excitement into lackluster relationships? Why do I see so many husband and wives who look stressed out, jaded, tired, and unenthusiastic about their situation? Is marriage is gift to these people? I do not need a miraculous gift of asexuality to understand that marriage often does not bring the happiness that many people think it will. Gifts, like beauty, are often in the eye of the beholder.
Biblical Thinking Vs. Outcome-Based Theology
Debbie Maken makes some interesting remarks on pp. 88-89:
"We need to think Biblically first, then look at culture, not the other way around. Too often we no longer look to Scripture to dictate and serve as the basis for our understanding. Instead we take reality as it exists and then see if we can somehow apply Scripture to it ..."This is wonderful advice to heed. Just the same, I wonder how Mrs. Maken reconciles her exegetical principles with her statement on p. 15: "... I was never going to get true spiritual peace about singleness because I wasn't called to singleness, and the Spirit does not give peace about something that is outside of God's calling." Somehow we are to believe that Debbie Maken's discontentment with singleness was a sign from God that she was to be married. Somehow we are to believe that failure of people to remain chaste is a sign that marriage is a requisite for them as well. Moreover, we see throughout Mrs. Maken's book sentiments that are often expressed in popular culture: people cannot live without sex; romance is the key to happiness; unmarried men are pathetic; men need to be ambitious and make money in order to be good husbands; men are to blame for the problems women face, etc.
"...Thinking culturally endorses a seductive, outcome-based theology: Whatever your outcome is--whether you are married or single--it must be God's will. But God is not a puppet, and we should not treat him as a such. We must not turn his sovereignty and his will into carte blanche approval for the choices we make. Doing so turns the doctrine of God's sovereignty (his control in exercising his will) into a rubber-stamping machine that validates every situation in life, no matter how unbiblical or personally devastating."
Who are we to say that Debbie Maken isn't engaging in a little bit of outcome-based theology herself? Perhaps she is the one who is guilty of "thinking culturally." Mrs. Maken should have been more careful about the kind of charges she levels against others in the matter of theology. The measure she uses has been measured against her, and she is found wanting.
Is it any wonder that Mrs. Maken's exegesis is flawed? On p. 90, she misapplies 1 Cor. 7:1-2 to single people whereas the original language, grammar, and context show that the Apostle Paul was addressing married people. On p. 92, she uses Malachi 2:15 allusion to the "wife" of one's "youth" as a proof-text for demanding that people get married young. Of course, that is not the focus of Malachi of 2:15 and such a reading puts us in the absurd position of barring marriage to anyone over the age of 35. In short, I believe that Mrs. Maken's misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches may very well be the result of her attempt to superimpose her own cultural values on the Scriptures. It may be a case of her failing to follow her own advice.
The Sovereignty of God and the Problem of Evil (or Singleness)
Debbie Maken is correct that singleness is a product of human free will. The fact that there so many unhappily single women is indeed the result of some choices made by individuals and by the culture at large. Mrs. Maken lists her favorite culprits: modern dating, the education system, failed families, immaturity, and of course, men. Noticeably absent from her list is corporatism, feminism, and the shallowness of many contemporary women. Mrs. Maken's narrative gingerly marches right along and summarily ignores the 300-pound gorillas in the room.
Yet Mrs. Maken is also correct that that God is not obligated to save people from the temporal consequences of their decisions. There is indeed such thing as "generational sin" in the sense that people often suffer the fallout of foolish choices made long beforehand by others. In this vein, we need take a cue from Mrs. Maken and ask ourselves if the unhappiness of women today is the result of "generational sin."
As a case in point, women today are becoming dissatisfied with the passivity of men. Yet for one generation, we have shouted men down, told them that their masculinity is oppressive and problematic, claimed that they need to change, etc. Can we blame men that they are in many cases only a former husk of what they used to be? Let us consider another matter: women entering into midlife alone and single. What or who is the culprit? Is it men who are afraid to commit, or is it women who have insisted on frittering away their youth on careerism and frivolity?
What I am suggesting is that while Mrs. Maken is correct on some principles, she misses the mark in her application. Women are not only reaping the bitter consequences of choices made by others, they are reaping the consequences of their own self-centered, rash decisions. Even Mrs. Maken should be asking herself if her late marriage was really the fault of the society around her or a carefree attitude that she may have had in her younger years. I read her description of herself in her early twenties on p. 11 and wonder if "getting serious about getting married" wasn't really a high priority for her at that time.
Let us turn from the matter of singleness for a moment and realize that even the choice of marrying has consequences. I pose this question: Suppose a woman is married to an emotionally indifferent man. He doesn't cheat on her, so she has no scriptural grounds for divorce (Matthew 19:9). Is it the will of God for this woman to be in a loveless marriage? I suggest that is no more appropriate to say it is the will of God that people should marry than it is to say he wants them to be single.
Why is this so? Simple. We have no business presuming to know the mind of our Creator on a matter if he has not revealed such to us (Deut. 29:29). As it is, despite what Mrs. Maken would have us believe, there is no divine revelation that personally directs us to get married, per se. In the matter of matrimony, we can pray for wisdom and guidance, but the decision to marry is essentially a decision that God leaves to us. He no more tells us which specific person we should wed than he does which road we should take to the grocery mart. The "secret things belong to the Lord." It is our job to pray, trust, and obey, not to try peer through the veil of the heavens the way some peer into a Magic 8-ball. In essence, Chapter 6 leaves us with a valuable lesson about not assuming too much about the "will of God." Unfortunately, Mrs. Maken fails to heed her own advice.
posted by Anakin Niceguy at 4:13 PM
6 Comments:
Anakin,
I especially like this quote: "As it is, despite what Mrs. Maken would have us believe, there is no divine revelation that personally directs us to get married, per se."
This is really the crux of the matter, I think. The Bible simply doesn't say what Maken and co. want it to say, and not only that, but it actually says something closer to the opposite (that is, that choosing singleness is acceptable). Almost everyone I have talked to about Maken's position has had this response almost immediately. If not marrying young or not marrying at all is really the big sin Maken and co. want us to believe it is, then why is it not listed in any of the several passages where Paul tells us "those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Even the fact that it takes a book to argue Maken's point should serve as proof that singleness is not the obvious sin she makes it out to be. Can anyone imagine it taking a book length effort to establish that stealing, or adultery, or idolatry is wrong? And why is that? Because God has clearly declared them wrong. When it comes to singleness though, not only has he not explicitly condemned it, he has actually given us scripture that commends it as a worthy choice. At best, Maken has an arguable position with some precedent in church history (which I don't dismiss out of hand), but the absolute certainty she and her supporters come across with is not warranted by the situation. A little humility might have gone a long way here.
I also like your turning Maken's question on pg. 87 back on her. I think that it is more than a rhetorical question, though, it is also a misleading question. Even if singleness is not a gift, it doesn't follow from this that therefore, marriage is necessary. And even if singleness is a gift of the same standing with marriage, there could still be good reasons why some people would pursue marriage. Maken's question is simply an invalid attempt to push the reader into a false dilemma.
Also, I whole-heartedly agree with Maken that God's sovereignty does not excuse human agency, but this has nothing to do with the validity of singleness per se.
Anakin,
Don't know if you've seen this, but Andreas Kostenberger has an excellent response to Maken and co. over at his blog "Biblical Foundations." Here is the address: http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?m=200608. It's a two part entry. After his first one, Maken responded to him and so he responds to her response. Both of his entries are excellent and address exactly what needs addressing in Maken.
One amusing thing is that Maken apparently accused him of counseling singles to look to their feelings rather than to the Bible. Just one more convincing example of Maken's continual need resort to underhanded and invalid ways of arguing and her inability to disagree with others in good faith.
Thank "someone." Your comment about Debbie needing an entire book to make a case for calling something a sin is a good point.
I have seen Andreas' posts. They are thought-provoking. I am not certain I agree with him 100% on everything. But his disagreement with Mrs. Maken is noteworthy. When a well-known Bible scholar doesn't agree with Mrs. Maken, it shows that there is no set orthodox creed among the Evangelicals for getting married.
Anyway, Andreas has apparently goaded Debbie Maken out of silence and into the blogosphere. I have left her a cordial welcome at her blog. It remains to be seen whether or not she will publish my comments. I have no doubt that she is likely aware of what I have been saying about her book (as I included the URL back to this blog in my greeting to her).
Anakin,
Yeah, I'll be intersted to see if Maken responds to your invitation and is able to engage in respectful dialogue with you. I'm not holding my breath though.
Maken and co. don't seem very interested in reasonable dialogue. The whole tone and demeanor of their enterprise is one of militancy and moral crusading. Her underhanded attempt to accuse Kostenberger of telling people to trust their feelings rather than scripture serves as great example.
She and her followers treat anyone who takes issue with her arguments as if they could only be driven by bad motives or moral deficiency. Unfortunately, this sort of militant, take no prisoners, shoot first and ask questions later attitude is all too common among conservative evangelicals.
Unfortunately, this sort of militant, take no prisoners, shoot first and ask questions later attitude is all too common among conservative evangelicals.
As someone who worships in a very conservative faith tradition, I know exactly what you are taking about. Over time, it can affect one and cause the person to become militant and uncharitable. I look back at the zealous religious writings of my younger years and it makes me wince at times. Those of us who reject the spirit of postmodernism and antinomianism that has gripped our culture need to be careful about falling into the other extreme.
Anakin,
I just visited Maken's blog and noticed that she has yet to publish your comments. Hopefully she will do so, though given her first post, I'm not holding my breath. She opens her first post (responding to Kostenberger) with this,
"I have finally joined the blogosphere, and it only took one article from an actual theologian to draw me out."
She seems to imply that only critiques by an 'actual [i.e. professional ?]theologian' is worthy of her engagement. This is strange in that, unless I am wrong, Maken is not an 'actual theologian' herself.
If I am correct in my characterization of Maken's sentence above, she might not reply to you, 'a Christain with some background in theology'
Post a Comment
<< Home