A Biblical Critique of Debbie Maken's Book "Getting Serious about Getting Married" (part 8)
PART VIII: Chapter 7 - "'Wait on the Lord'" (Act Now Before It's Too Late)
Chapter 7 of Debbie Maken's book is puzzling to me. We are asked on p. 97, "Does God really seek indefinite waiting on the part of single women to get married? Does God really seek unlimited patience in waiting for Mr. Right to appear?" Mrs. Maken consequently spends the rest of the chapter exhorting her audience to be more proactive about getting married.
Wait on the Lord ... Or Wait on the Men?
Here's the ironic part: There is a doctrine, popular among Evangelicals, which equates initiation of romantic relationships with male leadership. Men must make the first move in a love affair according to this line of thinking. In order to give this doctrine legitimacy, many religious pundits scour the Old Testament for examples of how women and men engage in courtship. Awkward situations like Ruth approaching Boaz are explained away in one fashion or another. Other passages like Proverbs 18:22 are given a secondary meaning. The saying that "whoever finds a wife finds favor with the Lord" is reinterpreted from a promise to a commandment that men must be the ones doing the finding. Like many commentators, Debbie Maken believes men must take the initiative in forming relationships with women. Hence we have a paradox. Debbie Maken doesn't want women to be passive about their situation, but her views on courtship demand just that.
I know that Mrs. Maken feels that women can be more proactive by doing such things as demanding "accountability" from men. However, many women already complain enough as it is about single men failing to commit. I don't see how more of the same is going to help the situation. A single woman may come up with some stratagems for getting men to become more serious about marriage, but that doesn't mean men will become more serious about her. Debbie Maken simply fails to give women any meaningful tools for encouraging men to approach them. At the end of the day, a single man may be more devoted to the cause of marriage and yet excuse his personal situation by simply noting that he "hasn't found the right one." I daresay that Mrs. Maken and others could say nothing to him. Pious platitudes are one thing; individual application is another.
The High Cost of Waiting and the High Cost of Everything Else
In Chapter 7, Mrs. Maken notes the costs that come with delaying marriage. These include decreased opportunities for childbearing; more years of sexual frustration and temptation; lost opportunities for shared experiences with a spouse; increased difficulty in changing behavioral patterns that develop while one is single, etc. We have to grant that these concerns are legitimate. However, these are also the high costs of a culture that encourages young women to embrace careerism over relationships. These are the high costs of women who, in their youth, spurn the advances of good men because of mating preferences that are too demanding. These are the costs of women believing what popular culture says about cheating time and "having it all."
Marriage in one's youth has its own costs, too. With youth comes immaturity, and with immaturity comes rash decisions that one may later regret. With younger marriages, the opportunities for certain experiences and self-discovery that come with a single lifestyle are lost forever. Many decisions in life of monumental importance have their own price tag. Mrs. Maken and those like her paint a misleading picture when they conveniently omit these costs from their tally sheet. If there were no costs to marrying young, the women of yesteryear would have never expressed feelings about being trapped, isolated, and oppressed in traditional marriages. People, but especially women in our culture, are going to have to learn that the proverbial grass is not greener on the other side. There is no perfect situation or lasting moments of transcendence this side of eternity. So much of life depends on one's attitude, not upon ideal circumstances.
The High Cost in Dollar Signs - Do We Really Want to Go There?
The other costs of singleness to which Debbie Maken draws attention are the economic and social costs of a dwindling population. Some would have us to be concerned about labor shortages, shortage of consumers, fewer taxpayers, smaller militaries, an increased strain on the Social Security system, etc. Yet as a fiscal conservative, I wonder why I should be worried about there being fewer taxpayers and consequently fewer dollars for a bloated government to funnel into the coffers of bureaucrats. I personally think the military-industrial complex and the welfare machine of the Nanny State could stand to be weaned. Furthermore, why should I be concerned about the market suddenly favoring laborers and buyers; let the captains of our "global economy," the monopolists, and the plutocrats trouble themselves about such matters. Why is there so much urgency to create more babies to promote the interests of the wealthy and powerful? Whose agenda is Mrs. Maken and those like her trying to protect?
I am very concerned when certain commentators who claim to uphold marriage and family betray a very utilitarian viewpoint toward other human beings, and I hope Mrs. Maken has no intention of leaning in that direction. Religious commentators may bemoan the prospect of marriage being seen as a private matter. Granted, in one sense marriage is not private. The married are accountable to God and cannot live without concern for others. Yet in another sense, marriage is private in that it is ordained for the good of the people who enter into it, not for any utility it might have for society. The marriage of a man and woman has worth endowed upon it by the Almighty. If we decry the commodification of sex through pornography, etc., then we must have the same protective attitude toward marriage. We must reject any mindset that would reduce marriage to a mere cog in the larger machinery of culture.
As it is, we've gotten the matter turned around in a typical collectivist, authoritarian approach. People do not exist for the benefit of family and society. Family and society exists for the benefit of people. This is not to say that people should be selfish and live for themselves; it is to say that people have more value in the eyes of God than institutions. Jesus died for individuals, not for a local church, a state, a business, or even a family. Institutions can be reformed, but they cannot redeemed because they will the go way of all the earth.
Even in the Garden of Eden, God did not say, "It not good that there is no one available for marriage, so I'll create people for the institution." No it was the other way around: marriage, like the Sabbath, was created for man. Once family or society ceases to be of benefit to the individuals who constitute these institutions, we must ask if these institutions are acting legitimately or if they are corrupt. As a case in point, if modern marriage has nothing meaningful to offer to men today, we must ask if men should feel any more allegiance to the institution than the Reformers felt to the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Married men are required to honor their vows, but single men are not required to embrace a modern-day travesty of what God intended.
Granted, marriage is valuable for the experience of giving and receiving love when it functions properly. In fact, this is why I take umbrage with those commentators who rail against married people who have no children. Despite the zeal of many of these commentators, their position is unscriptural. Men and women are more than studs and brood-mares. We do not sire younglings for sake of those who rule over us. The Bible speaks of the one flesh relationship as a cause for marriage independent of childbearing (Genesis 2:18-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-6). Even when Jesus spoke of this relationship in Matthew 19, he mentioned nothing about the need to "be fruitful and multiply." If marriage has no worth apart from procreation and the rearing of children, then the marriages of infertile couples and the elderly are illegitimate and worthy of annulment. Who will defend such a proposition?
Marriage has worth whether it serves the economy or not, whether it serves the church or not, etc. In contrast, a utilitarian subordination of marriage to the interests of society leads us not only to debase, cheapen, and profane marriage, it also lead us down a path where we ironically devalue the very people we claim to cherish: poor people, old people, and children. Let us stop viewing human beings as pawns for the petty ambitions of those in power.
The Mysterious Calling
Debbie Maken, like many religious people, makes liberal use of the term "calling." On p. 101, she remarks, "Marriage is what we're to pursue unless God specifically calls us to be single." Similar talk about being "called to marriage" or "called to singleness" abounds among many other believers. I, however, have yet to find one passage in the Bible that uses either of these catch phrases. In 1 Corinthians 7, for instance, it merely speaks of abiding in the state "in which" a person "is called" (v. 24). How does one get "called" to singleness or marriage as it is? Is there some mysterious revelation about matrimony given to the contemporary believer apart from what is already revealed in the Bible? Where are the scriptures that talk about this type of revelation? Does one get "called to marriage" unless one is not attractive to the opposite sex? Does the "calling" happen about the time puberty commences, and does it wane when one skirts over the age of 35? Seriously, I think some people are confusing their own feelings and subjective experiences with a divine calling.
I suppose Mrs. Maken's book is an attempt to figure out God's "calling" for one's marital status without the need for mysterious revelations. It seems to boils down to the idea that unless your asexual, God expects you to get married. But as I have said repeatedly, her exegesis of the Scriptures doesn't support her case. Perhaps there are some who are going to come away frustrated from what I said, wondering how they will ever know if they should marry or not. I suppose Job was frustrated, too, since God never bothered to tell him why he was suffering. As it is, God never promised us a detailed road map for our lives to make the task of decision-making a cakewalk. I already warned against trying to peer through the heavens the way some peer into Magic 8-balls. Let us be content with the assurance God has given to his people about all things working together for their good (Romans 8:28), and leave the secret things to him.
Those Who Just Can't Wait
Mrs. Maken concludes Chapter 7 with the following thoughts:
Chapter 7 of Debbie Maken's book is puzzling to me. We are asked on p. 97, "Does God really seek indefinite waiting on the part of single women to get married? Does God really seek unlimited patience in waiting for Mr. Right to appear?" Mrs. Maken consequently spends the rest of the chapter exhorting her audience to be more proactive about getting married.
Wait on the Lord ... Or Wait on the Men?
Here's the ironic part: There is a doctrine, popular among Evangelicals, which equates initiation of romantic relationships with male leadership. Men must make the first move in a love affair according to this line of thinking. In order to give this doctrine legitimacy, many religious pundits scour the Old Testament for examples of how women and men engage in courtship. Awkward situations like Ruth approaching Boaz are explained away in one fashion or another. Other passages like Proverbs 18:22 are given a secondary meaning. The saying that "whoever finds a wife finds favor with the Lord" is reinterpreted from a promise to a commandment that men must be the ones doing the finding. Like many commentators, Debbie Maken believes men must take the initiative in forming relationships with women. Hence we have a paradox. Debbie Maken doesn't want women to be passive about their situation, but her views on courtship demand just that.
I know that Mrs. Maken feels that women can be more proactive by doing such things as demanding "accountability" from men. However, many women already complain enough as it is about single men failing to commit. I don't see how more of the same is going to help the situation. A single woman may come up with some stratagems for getting men to become more serious about marriage, but that doesn't mean men will become more serious about her. Debbie Maken simply fails to give women any meaningful tools for encouraging men to approach them. At the end of the day, a single man may be more devoted to the cause of marriage and yet excuse his personal situation by simply noting that he "hasn't found the right one." I daresay that Mrs. Maken and others could say nothing to him. Pious platitudes are one thing; individual application is another.
The High Cost of Waiting and the High Cost of Everything Else
In Chapter 7, Mrs. Maken notes the costs that come with delaying marriage. These include decreased opportunities for childbearing; more years of sexual frustration and temptation; lost opportunities for shared experiences with a spouse; increased difficulty in changing behavioral patterns that develop while one is single, etc. We have to grant that these concerns are legitimate. However, these are also the high costs of a culture that encourages young women to embrace careerism over relationships. These are the high costs of women who, in their youth, spurn the advances of good men because of mating preferences that are too demanding. These are the costs of women believing what popular culture says about cheating time and "having it all."
Marriage in one's youth has its own costs, too. With youth comes immaturity, and with immaturity comes rash decisions that one may later regret. With younger marriages, the opportunities for certain experiences and self-discovery that come with a single lifestyle are lost forever. Many decisions in life of monumental importance have their own price tag. Mrs. Maken and those like her paint a misleading picture when they conveniently omit these costs from their tally sheet. If there were no costs to marrying young, the women of yesteryear would have never expressed feelings about being trapped, isolated, and oppressed in traditional marriages. People, but especially women in our culture, are going to have to learn that the proverbial grass is not greener on the other side. There is no perfect situation or lasting moments of transcendence this side of eternity. So much of life depends on one's attitude, not upon ideal circumstances.
The High Cost in Dollar Signs - Do We Really Want to Go There?
The other costs of singleness to which Debbie Maken draws attention are the economic and social costs of a dwindling population. Some would have us to be concerned about labor shortages, shortage of consumers, fewer taxpayers, smaller militaries, an increased strain on the Social Security system, etc. Yet as a fiscal conservative, I wonder why I should be worried about there being fewer taxpayers and consequently fewer dollars for a bloated government to funnel into the coffers of bureaucrats. I personally think the military-industrial complex and the welfare machine of the Nanny State could stand to be weaned. Furthermore, why should I be concerned about the market suddenly favoring laborers and buyers; let the captains of our "global economy," the monopolists, and the plutocrats trouble themselves about such matters. Why is there so much urgency to create more babies to promote the interests of the wealthy and powerful? Whose agenda is Mrs. Maken and those like her trying to protect?
I am very concerned when certain commentators who claim to uphold marriage and family betray a very utilitarian viewpoint toward other human beings, and I hope Mrs. Maken has no intention of leaning in that direction. Religious commentators may bemoan the prospect of marriage being seen as a private matter. Granted, in one sense marriage is not private. The married are accountable to God and cannot live without concern for others. Yet in another sense, marriage is private in that it is ordained for the good of the people who enter into it, not for any utility it might have for society. The marriage of a man and woman has worth endowed upon it by the Almighty. If we decry the commodification of sex through pornography, etc., then we must have the same protective attitude toward marriage. We must reject any mindset that would reduce marriage to a mere cog in the larger machinery of culture.
As it is, we've gotten the matter turned around in a typical collectivist, authoritarian approach. People do not exist for the benefit of family and society. Family and society exists for the benefit of people. This is not to say that people should be selfish and live for themselves; it is to say that people have more value in the eyes of God than institutions. Jesus died for individuals, not for a local church, a state, a business, or even a family. Institutions can be reformed, but they cannot redeemed because they will the go way of all the earth.
Even in the Garden of Eden, God did not say, "It not good that there is no one available for marriage, so I'll create people for the institution." No it was the other way around: marriage, like the Sabbath, was created for man. Once family or society ceases to be of benefit to the individuals who constitute these institutions, we must ask if these institutions are acting legitimately or if they are corrupt. As a case in point, if modern marriage has nothing meaningful to offer to men today, we must ask if men should feel any more allegiance to the institution than the Reformers felt to the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Married men are required to honor their vows, but single men are not required to embrace a modern-day travesty of what God intended.
Granted, marriage is valuable for the experience of giving and receiving love when it functions properly. In fact, this is why I take umbrage with those commentators who rail against married people who have no children. Despite the zeal of many of these commentators, their position is unscriptural. Men and women are more than studs and brood-mares. We do not sire younglings for sake of those who rule over us. The Bible speaks of the one flesh relationship as a cause for marriage independent of childbearing (Genesis 2:18-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-6). Even when Jesus spoke of this relationship in Matthew 19, he mentioned nothing about the need to "be fruitful and multiply." If marriage has no worth apart from procreation and the rearing of children, then the marriages of infertile couples and the elderly are illegitimate and worthy of annulment. Who will defend such a proposition?
Marriage has worth whether it serves the economy or not, whether it serves the church or not, etc. In contrast, a utilitarian subordination of marriage to the interests of society leads us not only to debase, cheapen, and profane marriage, it also lead us down a path where we ironically devalue the very people we claim to cherish: poor people, old people, and children. Let us stop viewing human beings as pawns for the petty ambitions of those in power.
The Mysterious Calling
Debbie Maken, like many religious people, makes liberal use of the term "calling." On p. 101, she remarks, "Marriage is what we're to pursue unless God specifically calls us to be single." Similar talk about being "called to marriage" or "called to singleness" abounds among many other believers. I, however, have yet to find one passage in the Bible that uses either of these catch phrases. In 1 Corinthians 7, for instance, it merely speaks of abiding in the state "in which" a person "is called" (v. 24). How does one get "called" to singleness or marriage as it is? Is there some mysterious revelation about matrimony given to the contemporary believer apart from what is already revealed in the Bible? Where are the scriptures that talk about this type of revelation? Does one get "called to marriage" unless one is not attractive to the opposite sex? Does the "calling" happen about the time puberty commences, and does it wane when one skirts over the age of 35? Seriously, I think some people are confusing their own feelings and subjective experiences with a divine calling.
I suppose Mrs. Maken's book is an attempt to figure out God's "calling" for one's marital status without the need for mysterious revelations. It seems to boils down to the idea that unless your asexual, God expects you to get married. But as I have said repeatedly, her exegesis of the Scriptures doesn't support her case. Perhaps there are some who are going to come away frustrated from what I said, wondering how they will ever know if they should marry or not. I suppose Job was frustrated, too, since God never bothered to tell him why he was suffering. As it is, God never promised us a detailed road map for our lives to make the task of decision-making a cakewalk. I already warned against trying to peer through the heavens the way some peer into Magic 8-balls. Let us be content with the assurance God has given to his people about all things working together for their good (Romans 8:28), and leave the secret things to him.
Those Who Just Can't Wait
Mrs. Maken concludes Chapter 7 with the following thoughts:
"It's time for us to recognize that marriage is God's will for our lives and begin to pursue what God has in store for us. Passively waiting for what God has declared to be his will can only result in paying a price that is far too high ...I am a bit amused by this display of effervescent optimism. If we are to believe Mrs. Maken, marriage is everything great and a bag of chips on the side, too. I'll just note that as I write this, Mrs. Maken has not been married for a long time. I wonder what her attitude about marriage will be like seven years from now.
"In creating us for marriage, God had something truly divine in mind. When we see something ahead that God has told us is in store for us, let's act like kids on Christmas morning and run as fast as we can to get what he has prepared!" (pp. 102-103)
posted by Anakin Niceguy at 4:34 PM
15 Comments:
Very good points you have been making. I just finished her book, and I just wanted to scream. On one hand, she mandates marraige, and then constantly reminds men to not seek women that are out of their league....Such arrogance. No wonder so many men like myself have abandoned women...and Christianity.
Christopher,
I appreciate your feedback. I am saddened, however, that religious people have driven you away from considering Christ. Believe me that I can most assuredly empathize with you what you say. Many churches in English speaking countries are DEAD spritually. But God knows who are his.
Anymore, I go to church to worship God and to exhibit the qualities of love (whether such is returned or not). I no longer worry too much about how I am treated at church. I have been liberated. Yes, Christopher, you can worship in a church full of hypocrites and phonies. Set your mind on Christ, come to the assembly if only to worship God and to be witness with your faith, and what others do or fail to do will not bother you so much.
This gift of singleness discussion in the blogosphere has turned nasty and ridiculous. Check out the comments in Maken’s own blog in her latest post. For the most part the conversations were respectful and civil on the contra-Maken side (except for one overly bitter anonymous poster). However, the pro-Maken camp had the rantings of D and B that were out-and-out nasty personal attacks on single men. I guess the pro-Maken camp is showing its true colors. If I were in a room with those people, they’d be hearing it from me, and the guy would probably get slugged.
If church people really think such things about single men, then maybe I do need to flee the church and Christianity, at least the versions of it that I see. I’ve been tempted many times in the past to bail, but I know that a lot of it has more to do with bad theology and bad teaching, as lots of Christians don’t know what to make of dating and relationships for single people. In the end, the church gets so petrified in teaching about romance because such a topic eventually points to sex and is thus considered sinful. I really think the church doesn’t know what to do with singles because of the difficult topic of sexuality.
A bit of my background: I am a 37 year old Christian single man (guess I fit the profile of the guy that Maken gleefully skewered in her book). How did I get here? I’ve wanted to be married since I was a college freshman. At the time I thought I found the lady of my dreams, but things didn’t work out (lady wasn’t interested). This shook my naïve understanding of romance to the core. I took it hard because I didn’t have much experience with the opposite sex and was ‘socially awkward.’ I got bad counsel from other Christians regarding my various rejections - they told me to just ‘wait on God,’ because ‘He would have someone in store for me.’ This, of course, made me very passive. Well, I waited and waited and nothing happened, and instead of working on improving my self socially, I waited. Of course, subsequently I did get interested in some women, but I tried to get to know them as ‘friends first’ and got turned down all the same. This happened for years, and nothing became of it. I got more bad counsel when people told me that my desire for a wife was idolatry and selfish – that screwed me up more and made me more passive. Fast forward a bit, and I was still in a rut, and Joshua Harris’ IKDG book became the rave. My chances to date lessened even more. Fast forward a few more years and now I’m hearing Mohler and Maken’s message about the biblical mandate to marry and how it’s all the single guy’s fault. So first I’m told wanting a spouse is selfish and idolatrous, and now I’m told not wanting a spouse is selfish and sinful. And in the end, it’s still my fault. Please spare me. They should just shut up. Stuff like this makes me want to leave the church and Christianity, but I’m still a believer, though reluctant.
We men get ridiculed for whining and complaining about our rejections and other relationship woes. “Be man and suck it up,” they tell us. But when the pro-Maken people complain that women are single because of the inaction of men (which is also rejection), that’s not considered whining; it’s considered the truth. Argh, that so maddening that it makes me want to jump out a window. I think I’ll end here. You’ve covered the rest of the criticisms pretty well.
C.S.
C.S.
I agree with you about Maken's blog. I've been going back and forth with the other posters there and the outright condescension on display by the pro-Maken crowd is breath-taking. Guys like us are accused of immaturity, irresposibility and (this is my favorite, compliments of poster Will) 'wasting my time pleasuring myself'. These accusations are leveled with complete confidence, based on nothing more than the fact that we are single.
The last paragraph of your post is right on target. And what makes it even more galling is that Maken and her co-crusaders insist that women have little, if any, responsibility for the current marriage deficit. One of the most telling things about Maken's book, in my opinion, is found in the table of contents. In a book about marriage aimed at women, there are no chapters honestly examing what part women have played in the current 'marriage crisis'. Nor is there a chapter calling women to biblical femininity and fulfilling their God-ordained role. However, there are chapters entitled 'The Real Reason For Protracted Singleness: Lack of Male Leadership' and 'Inspiring Men to Biblical Masculinity' (the titles are something close to that). The impression is that women are already perfectly 'on-track' and it's only the men who need to 'get their act together'. Their unwillingness to 'take the speck out of their own eye' is exasperating.
It's alot easier to 'solve a problem' if you don't have to do any soul-searching yourself - your only resposibility is to harangue someone else.
Wombatty,
I agree, the condescention is breath-taking, and the ultra-assured self-righteousness with which they assert their position is truly frightening. It is the voice of the ideologue, who knows he or she is right and that anyone who disagrees with him or her is not only misguided or wrong, but also morally deficient, maybe even perverse. This comes through loud and clear in everything the pro-Maken crowd say and it makes good faith discussion with them all but impossible. It reminds me of a line from "Corduroy," a Pearl Jam song of the early 90s: "I don't wanna hear from those who know." I never fully appreciated that line until now.
One thing I found amusing is the comment in Maken's final response to Kostenberger about how the "kingdom work of changing diapers, etc. . . doesn't leave much time for debating theology." No one will find me disagreeing with the claim that changing diapers, etc. is kingdom work, however, given the subtext of that remark it comes across like it's clearly meant to be a subtle putdown of Kostenberger, suggesting that Maken is doing the real work of the Kingdom, while Kostenberger is just off discussing purely academic matters. This is a great example of exactly the kind of condescention we're discussing.
Someone:
I agree with you about Maken's 'diapers and kingdom work' comment. In her first post replying to Kostenberger (Response to a Worthy Critic), she begins by saying :
-----------------------------------
I have finally joined the blogosphere, and it only took one article from an actual theologian to draw me out.
-----------------------------------
As if a critique by anyone other than an 'actual theologian' would be unworthy of her response. For Maken, a lawyer, to imply this is just too rich. This attitude seems confirmed by the fact that she has neither published Anakin's
'welcome to the blogoshpere' post, nor has she acknowledged or responded to his critique.
Hi Philippa, nice to see you here
;-) I also thanked her for Debbie latest post, I thought it was really good 'food for thought'. I must say, though, that it seems totally 'out of place' on Maken's blog. It displays none of the finger-pointing, judgement or strident condemnation that characterizes the pro-Maken side of the debate. Interestingly, Smith warns of the danger that some married people end up with a superiority complex vis-a-vis singles. The reasons are a bit different, but this is exactly the problem with the pro-Maken folks. I pointed this out in my post, I hope she publishes it.
I appreciate your encouragement to C.S., I am in a similar situation. I'm a bit awkward in social contexts and I've really never been good at approaching or talking to women. When I have 'jumped into the fray' in the past, I've always landed face-first. If I ever do give it another go, I just pray that I don't run into a Maken disciple.
Another problem with Maken's book has recently occurred to me. Maken spends alot of time decrying the immaturity and irresponsibility of men like me (I'm 33) who are still single. She insists that true biblical manhood (for the vast majority) cannot be achieved outside of marriage. Thus she urges men to grow up and assume their proper responsiblity to puruse a wife and get married. At the same time however, Maken urges grown women to move back in with their parents. This is so women can be protected from immature men and prevented from wasting time with them.
So, in essence, we have Maken demanding on the one hand that men take up their responsibilities, and on the other hand, suggesting that women shirk their own responsibilities and fob them off onto their family.
Let me be clear that I have no problem with women (or men) seeking help and advice from friends and family. That is wise. But I have a real problem believing, as Maken apparently does, that women cannot or should not take personal responsibility for their lives vis-a-vis romance.
Maken wants single mens' access to women restricted; fine - tell women to refuse to 'hang out' with single guys, alone or in a group. Maken don't want women wasting time with losers; fine - urge women to develope discernment and tell losers to get lost..
To suggest that women should put these burdens, in their entirety, on their family (or friends) is appalling. Women can and should exercise responsibility in this arena and for Maken to suggest otherwise is offensive.
I would appreciate anyones comments on this idea. I might well be off-base and reading into Maken's words something that is not there. If I am, let me have it =;-)
So this is what a bitch-fest among men sounds like. Good to know.
Jennifer H.
Anakin,
Thank you for your thoughtful review of Debbie Maken's book. Thank you also for your courage in taking on her biblically questionable arguments.
I submitted a comment on Mrs. Maken's blog respectfully dissenting from her positions and pointing out how her arguments would serve to not only marginalize singles in the church but make it more difficult to evangelize single nonbelievers. She chose not to publish my comment.
As a never-married forty-something Christian man who is sick and tired of being put down because of my marital status, I salute you and encourage you to press on.
Jennifer: if by bitch-fest you mean subtantive discussion of the issues, yes.
Honestly, what do you expect us single guys to do when someone like Maken comes along and smears us with charges of immaturity and irresponsibility simply because we are not married? Are we supposed to just 'take it like a man'? Do you find a man who will not or cannot stand up for himself attractive?
How would you react if a guy wrote a book claiming that unmarried Christian women are, by virtue of being single, are careless and foolish women who won't grow out of their addiction to shopping and soap operas?
Jennifer,
Our ‘bitch-fest’ is no worse than the whining and complaining in Maken’s book and by Maken and her supporters on her blog. And like wombatty said, our ‘bitch-fest’ is a response to the ‘bitching’ from Maken and her supporters.
Let me propose this, then: we’ll stop our ‘bitching’ if Maken and her supporters will stop whining and blaming all the single men for everything and take some responsibility for their own singleness. Fair enough?
C.S.
Jennifer,
Don't know if your comment was meant to be a put-down or not, but either way it makes me smile. Can't say why exactly, but it just does. I especially enjoyed the "Good to know" part. :)
christopher -
i'm a woman, read her book, and it made me scream too. take heart, we're not all like debbie maken (thankfully!). don't give up up women. there's plenty of us out here that are looking for someone to love with and grow old with -- not just looking to fulfill a "mandate".
Did anyone notice how in her last response to Kostenberger, Maken actually compares the contentment of Christian singles with their singleness to the contentment of the lost in their sin? This alone should tell us a lot about the kind of confusion that pervades the thinking of the pro-Maken camp. The idea that being content in one's singleness as a Christian is the same as being happy to live without Christ is ridiculous, even as an analogy.
Also, what's up with accusing Kostenberger of using "juvenile tactics?" The whole tone and nature of Kostenberger's response to Maken indicates that he is not attempting to use "tactics," but is simply stating in good faith the reasons for his disagreement with Maken. Another example of the inability to practice good faith disagreement. The fact that Maken and co. think in terms of "tactics" makes one realize that for them this is not an issue to be discussed or debated, but a war to be won and they know they're on the right side.
The fact that Maken and co. can't see that this is not a debate about a core issue of Chrsitan identity, but are willing to bring division to the body of Christ over a second or third circle issue on which there can be legitimate disagreement about biblical interpretation is disturbing. Even more so when one considers the tendentious and genuinely debatable interpretations of scripture that they use to back up their position.
You don't have to post this. Just read it for yourself.
You all live on planet monkey here.
Just grow up everyone and live as real Christians.
But many people here in the 'West' have no idea what living as a Christian is.
Men don't know how to be men and women don't know how to be women.
Grrrrrrrrr
Bye
Cristina
Post a Comment
<< Home