A Biblical Critique of Debbie Maken's Book "Getting Serious about Getting Married" (part 9)
PART IX: Chapter 8 - "'Jesus Is All You Need'" (All You Need Is Love)
At the beginning of Chapter 8 in Getting Serious about Getting Married, Debbie Maken discusses how others treated her when she was single. Consider her reaction to the people who questioned her about her love life:
At any rate, Mrs. Maken goes on to discuss others who, when questioned about their singleness, seem to be much more positive and accepting of their condition than Mrs. Maken was when she had no husband. Mrs. Maken dismisses the claims of these people with skepticism. That many people can find peace and contentment in their singleness is apparently unfathomable to her.
Don't They Know It's the End of the World?
Perhaps many of my readers are too young to remember a Skeeter Davis tune called "The End of the World." It's an early sixties pop song, a paean to adolescent angst and unrequited love. Over pensive strings, the female vocalist laments, "Don't they know it's the end of the world/'Cause you don't love me any more?" It seems the same maudlin tone undergirds Mrs. Maken's narrative in Chapter 8. From pages 107 to 108, Mrs. Maken details the sad and lonely lives of single women. We are lead to believe that their unhappiness underscores the futility many face in trying to find contentment in singleness. As sad and lonely as these women are, is their pain any more noteworthy than the pain others suffer in this life?
If Mrs. Maken thinks her tales of woe are a compelling case for her radical views on marriage, she is wasting her ink. True, single women are unhappy, but single men are unhappy, too. Married people are unhappy. Divorced people are unhappy. Widows and widowers are unhappy. Poor people are unhappy. Rich people are unhappy. The list goes on. If a man or woman wants to use Mrs. Maken's book as an excuse to be miserable, there is little I can do about that. However, I don't have to jump over the cliff with the others and fool myself into thinking a wedding is the magic bullet for any bleak outlook on life a person might have. At the end of the day, one's happiness is largely based on one's attitude more than it is on externalities.
I concede that women have a right to admit their loneliness and longing for a spouse, just as men do. They have a right to pursue marriage if they desire it, just as men do. What women don't have right to do is to assume that God expects most of humanity to be married or that men have an obligation to wed them.
Mrs. Maken says, "Women are waking up to find that feminist ideology has not satisfied their inner woman" (p. 108). Why didn't these women wake up when men and children were suffering as a result of feminism? How odd that it is only now that many women are changing their tune, muffling any brash talk about "independence" and analogies regarding fish and bicycles. Women have done a stellar job in demonizing and ostracizing men for over three decades. During this time, men's concerns have largely been deemed to be unimportant. It remains to be seen whether a significant number of women are now going to start paying attention to the concerns many men have, even as these same women are embracing a form of neo-traditionalism. In short, the talk of how happy or unhappy single women are represents just one piece of the larger puzzle that confronts us as a society. Their feelings are worth consideration, but not to exclusion of what men are experiencing.
All You Need Is Love
There is a prevailing sentiment in our society that everyone needs the physical and emotional intimacy that only a "significant other" can provide. Even among unbelievers, this notion is widely embraced. When is the last time you heard a man sing on the radio about how he doesn't need a woman?
Debbie Maken's book falls into the same mode of thinking. She says, "God did not design the vast majority of us to be content without a marriage partner. God designed the spouse-shaped void to be filled by a spouse" (p. 111). How does Mrs. Maken propose to fill the "spouse-shaped void" of those who don't win the popularity contest with the opposite sex? What about women with physical defects or men who don't have the mental capacity to provide for a family? What do we do with those who have been unscripturally divorced and cannot reconcile with their ex-spouses? They cannot remarry (Matthew 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:10-11), so what options do they have? Are all of the aforementioned people barred from cultivating the spiritual fruits of joy and peace in their lives because of their martial status (Gal. 5:22; Phil. 4:6-7)? Are they incapable of having the great gain that comes from godliness with contentment (1 Tim. 6:6)?
The Bible informs us that the commandments of God are not burdensome (1 John 5:3). Yet, I am left to infer from Mrs. Maken that single people cannot but find their existence to be a burden. Are we to assume that the dissatisfaction and sexual impurity of unmarried people underscores the uselessness of calling them to chastity and learning to rest in the Lord? In short, has God failed single people? I think not. In actuality, the "spouse-shaped void" of which Mrs. Maken speaks can be filled to a great extent without the benefit of a marriage. It can be filled when people realize that marriage is not necessarily a gateway to happiness or success. It can be filled when we reject the lies our popular culture tells us about needing physical intimacy. It can be filled when people start taking responsibility for their own contentment and peace, instead of foisting their responsibility on the opposite sex. When we start living proactively in this regard, the "spouse-shaped void" can look rather small after a while.
Name It and Claim It vs. Claim Her and Name Her
Mrs. Maken goes on to say something about optimism and religion:
To Mrs. Maken's credit, her criticism of what I would call "emotional correctness" in religion is warranted. The idea that Christians must "grin and bear it" and deny any feelings of sadness, anger, frustration, fear, etc. is unscriptural and downright absurd. Anyone who believes that Christians must be joyful in all circumstances needs to read Eccles. 3:4 (as Maken notes), the Psalms, or even the account of our Savior's emotional anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane. Just the same, single men have been attacked by the agents of "emotional correctness" like women. When men voice their concerns about how they are treated by women and society, they are dismissed as bitter "whiners" who can't get anyone to date them.
Furthermore, why does Mrs. Maken advocate the "claim her and name her" approach for men but allow women to take what I would call the "blame him and shame him" approach? She says at the bottom of p. 114, "Feeding our frustration towards men in protracted adolescence can result in the misguided belief that we're better off without them or that we as single women are somehow better than single men." What effect does she think her book will have in this regard? Is Mrs. Maken not the same woman who, in Chapter 4, targeted single men and their supposed "lack of male leadership" as the "true cause of protracted singleness"? I find her book to be little more than an invitation for women to sink into despair and animosity towards men.
Seeking One's Desire and Seeking God
When considering the matter of contentment, it is best to look at life as a game (see 1 Cor. 9:24-25). We should play by the rules of the Creator, do our best, and live with the outcome like a good contestant. In this fashion, we can avoid the extremes of complacency on one hand and bitterness on the other hand.
I think Mrs. Maken is right to challenge the notion that we must be resigned to live with whatever situation life throws at us. She speaks of the self-defeating approach some take to marriage in this regard: "Many of us have been taught that we must become completely neutral or numb to the idea of marriage before God will bless us with it" (p. 116). Clearly, this line of thinking is unprofitable, yet we must also note that our desires cannot dethone our allegiance to our Creator. Again, there is a balance to be struck between complacency on one hand and bitterness on the other hand (or covetousness for that matter).
With regard to the matter of pursuing marriage, Mrs. Maken is right to make a distinction between "self-interest" and "selfishness." As she says, "Self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest only becomes unholy when we organize our lives apart from God" (Ibid.). Far be it from me to question the desire many people have for a spouse. I only wonder why Debbie Maken and those of her persuasion do not return the same courtesy to those will not marry and/or have children. Single people and childless couples are frequently belittled as being selfish. In fact, I suspect the charge of selfishness is often raised as prima facie evidence that single people and childless couples are living in sin. Will we judge others with the same measure by which we want ourselves to be judged (Matt. 7:2)?
Conclusion
At the end of Chapter 8, Mrs. Maken raises the ugly specter of those who teach the "doctrine of demons" by forbidding others to marry (1 Tim. 4:15). She writes:
Mrs. Maken's mistake is rejecting one extreme for another. True, the fatalism that many singles have about their situation is not necessary. Jesus does not demand that we negate every single desire we have in life for things other than him. But we must desire his will even more than our own. We must not become bitter when life does not reward us with what we want. We must not assume that we are entitled to partake of the blissful fruits of matrimony. Many people are aware of the prayer that asks God to grant the wisdom to discern between those things one can and cannot change. Let us have the same attitude towards our marital status. Our desires for many things in this life are lawful, but in the end, Jesus is most assuredly "all we need."
At the beginning of Chapter 8 in Getting Serious about Getting Married, Debbie Maken discusses how others treated her when she was single. Consider her reaction to the people who questioned her about her love life:
"'Seeing anyone special?' As a single woman, it seemed like parents, married friends, single friends, coworkers, and the rest of the world were bent on ferreting out every detail of any potential man in my life. Didn't people have anything else to ask me about--my job, my Bible study, the weather?" (p. 105)What I find so interesting about this opening statement is that Debbie Maken admits to being uncomfortable with the treatment she received. I say this, because now that Mrs. Maken is married, she seem more than eager to encourage the same kind of meddling in the affairs of single people that she chafed at in her younger years. Her proverbial ox isn't getting gored; it's someone else's reputation that can now be carved up. I indeed wonder if Mrs. Maken ever considered that the question, "Seeing anyone special?" is not as half as brash and prying as asking a man "what kind of eunuch" he is.
At any rate, Mrs. Maken goes on to discuss others who, when questioned about their singleness, seem to be much more positive and accepting of their condition than Mrs. Maken was when she had no husband. Mrs. Maken dismisses the claims of these people with skepticism. That many people can find peace and contentment in their singleness is apparently unfathomable to her.
Don't They Know It's the End of the World?
Perhaps many of my readers are too young to remember a Skeeter Davis tune called "The End of the World." It's an early sixties pop song, a paean to adolescent angst and unrequited love. Over pensive strings, the female vocalist laments, "Don't they know it's the end of the world/'Cause you don't love me any more?" It seems the same maudlin tone undergirds Mrs. Maken's narrative in Chapter 8. From pages 107 to 108, Mrs. Maken details the sad and lonely lives of single women. We are lead to believe that their unhappiness underscores the futility many face in trying to find contentment in singleness. As sad and lonely as these women are, is their pain any more noteworthy than the pain others suffer in this life?
If Mrs. Maken thinks her tales of woe are a compelling case for her radical views on marriage, she is wasting her ink. True, single women are unhappy, but single men are unhappy, too. Married people are unhappy. Divorced people are unhappy. Widows and widowers are unhappy. Poor people are unhappy. Rich people are unhappy. The list goes on. If a man or woman wants to use Mrs. Maken's book as an excuse to be miserable, there is little I can do about that. However, I don't have to jump over the cliff with the others and fool myself into thinking a wedding is the magic bullet for any bleak outlook on life a person might have. At the end of the day, one's happiness is largely based on one's attitude more than it is on externalities.
I concede that women have a right to admit their loneliness and longing for a spouse, just as men do. They have a right to pursue marriage if they desire it, just as men do. What women don't have right to do is to assume that God expects most of humanity to be married or that men have an obligation to wed them.
Mrs. Maken says, "Women are waking up to find that feminist ideology has not satisfied their inner woman" (p. 108). Why didn't these women wake up when men and children were suffering as a result of feminism? How odd that it is only now that many women are changing their tune, muffling any brash talk about "independence" and analogies regarding fish and bicycles. Women have done a stellar job in demonizing and ostracizing men for over three decades. During this time, men's concerns have largely been deemed to be unimportant. It remains to be seen whether a significant number of women are now going to start paying attention to the concerns many men have, even as these same women are embracing a form of neo-traditionalism. In short, the talk of how happy or unhappy single women are represents just one piece of the larger puzzle that confronts us as a society. Their feelings are worth consideration, but not to exclusion of what men are experiencing.
All You Need Is Love
There is a prevailing sentiment in our society that everyone needs the physical and emotional intimacy that only a "significant other" can provide. Even among unbelievers, this notion is widely embraced. When is the last time you heard a man sing on the radio about how he doesn't need a woman?
Debbie Maken's book falls into the same mode of thinking. She says, "God did not design the vast majority of us to be content without a marriage partner. God designed the spouse-shaped void to be filled by a spouse" (p. 111). How does Mrs. Maken propose to fill the "spouse-shaped void" of those who don't win the popularity contest with the opposite sex? What about women with physical defects or men who don't have the mental capacity to provide for a family? What do we do with those who have been unscripturally divorced and cannot reconcile with their ex-spouses? They cannot remarry (Matthew 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:10-11), so what options do they have? Are all of the aforementioned people barred from cultivating the spiritual fruits of joy and peace in their lives because of their martial status (Gal. 5:22; Phil. 4:6-7)? Are they incapable of having the great gain that comes from godliness with contentment (1 Tim. 6:6)?
The Bible informs us that the commandments of God are not burdensome (1 John 5:3). Yet, I am left to infer from Mrs. Maken that single people cannot but find their existence to be a burden. Are we to assume that the dissatisfaction and sexual impurity of unmarried people underscores the uselessness of calling them to chastity and learning to rest in the Lord? In short, has God failed single people? I think not. In actuality, the "spouse-shaped void" of which Mrs. Maken speaks can be filled to a great extent without the benefit of a marriage. It can be filled when people realize that marriage is not necessarily a gateway to happiness or success. It can be filled when we reject the lies our popular culture tells us about needing physical intimacy. It can be filled when people start taking responsibility for their own contentment and peace, instead of foisting their responsibility on the opposite sex. When we start living proactively in this regard, the "spouse-shaped void" can look rather small after a while.
Name It and Claim It vs. Claim Her and Name Her
Mrs. Maken goes on to say something about optimism and religion:
"Somehow we've come up with the idea that the spiritually mature person will experience joy all the time and in every circumstance. By implication, bitterness, sorrow, and unhappiness have become indicators of spiritual immaturity, signs that faith is severely lacking.I am glad that Mrs. Maken takes aim at prosperity theology; however, I could easily imagine a religionist saying: "Are you sad that women don't pay attention to you? You must not be trusting God enough and are not fulfilling your Biblical mandate to seek a wife!" Instead of categorizing this position as the "name it and claim it" approach of prosperity theology, we could use the phrase "claim her and name her" (as in a woman taking a man's last name). Mrs. Maken fails to realize that the marriage mandate theology to which she subscribes is actually a sibling of the "health and wealth gospel." The former has the same naive optimism, overemphasis on earthly blessings, and false standards of piety as the latter.
"This undeclared war on negative emotions is merely another manifestation of the health and wealth gospel that has run amuck. Are you sick? You must not have enough faith that Jesus can heal you. Are you poor? Examine your life for disobedience and get back in line. Are you sad about being single? You must not be trusting God to meet your need for a spouse. No wonder we're surrounded by people who find themselves exclaiming, 'No valleys for me, buddy!'" (p. 112)
To Mrs. Maken's credit, her criticism of what I would call "emotional correctness" in religion is warranted. The idea that Christians must "grin and bear it" and deny any feelings of sadness, anger, frustration, fear, etc. is unscriptural and downright absurd. Anyone who believes that Christians must be joyful in all circumstances needs to read Eccles. 3:4 (as Maken notes), the Psalms, or even the account of our Savior's emotional anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane. Just the same, single men have been attacked by the agents of "emotional correctness" like women. When men voice their concerns about how they are treated by women and society, they are dismissed as bitter "whiners" who can't get anyone to date them.
Furthermore, why does Mrs. Maken advocate the "claim her and name her" approach for men but allow women to take what I would call the "blame him and shame him" approach? She says at the bottom of p. 114, "Feeding our frustration towards men in protracted adolescence can result in the misguided belief that we're better off without them or that we as single women are somehow better than single men." What effect does she think her book will have in this regard? Is Mrs. Maken not the same woman who, in Chapter 4, targeted single men and their supposed "lack of male leadership" as the "true cause of protracted singleness"? I find her book to be little more than an invitation for women to sink into despair and animosity towards men.
Seeking One's Desire and Seeking God
When considering the matter of contentment, it is best to look at life as a game (see 1 Cor. 9:24-25). We should play by the rules of the Creator, do our best, and live with the outcome like a good contestant. In this fashion, we can avoid the extremes of complacency on one hand and bitterness on the other hand.
I think Mrs. Maken is right to challenge the notion that we must be resigned to live with whatever situation life throws at us. She speaks of the self-defeating approach some take to marriage in this regard: "Many of us have been taught that we must become completely neutral or numb to the idea of marriage before God will bless us with it" (p. 116). Clearly, this line of thinking is unprofitable, yet we must also note that our desires cannot dethone our allegiance to our Creator. Again, there is a balance to be struck between complacency on one hand and bitterness on the other hand (or covetousness for that matter).
With regard to the matter of pursuing marriage, Mrs. Maken is right to make a distinction between "self-interest" and "selfishness." As she says, "Self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest only becomes unholy when we organize our lives apart from God" (Ibid.). Far be it from me to question the desire many people have for a spouse. I only wonder why Debbie Maken and those of her persuasion do not return the same courtesy to those will not marry and/or have children. Single people and childless couples are frequently belittled as being selfish. In fact, I suspect the charge of selfishness is often raised as prima facie evidence that single people and childless couples are living in sin. Will we judge others with the same measure by which we want ourselves to be judged (Matt. 7:2)?
Conclusion
At the end of Chapter 8, Mrs. Maken raises the ugly specter of those who teach the "doctrine of demons" by forbidding others to marry (1 Tim. 4:15). She writes:
"I anticipate that those who defend the status quo on singleness will retort that they did not forbid marriage but only told singles to not overelevate marriage in hopes that then they would be not be overly disappointed for not being married. In other words, be neutral. We cannot escape the fact that this new doctrine actually creates an artificial tension between the Maker and something that he declared to be good. They make marriage to appear to be in competition with the One who made it. It is not." (p. 117)Mrs. Maken is simply raising a straw man here. Teaching someone to prioritize their desires in life is a far cry from telling them to be neutral to what they would otherwise want. Teaching someone the value of contentment is not the same as embracing resignation. Mrs. Maken decries the "artificial tension" some supposedly place between God and marriage. I will simply say that our Lord himself suggested some tension in Luke 14:35: "If anyone comes after Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (NKJV). We should not take Jesus' statement as a total rejection of marriage and family, but these things cannot be seen as necessary avenues of sanctification. They must be put in their proper place.
Mrs. Maken's mistake is rejecting one extreme for another. True, the fatalism that many singles have about their situation is not necessary. Jesus does not demand that we negate every single desire we have in life for things other than him. But we must desire his will even more than our own. We must not become bitter when life does not reward us with what we want. We must not assume that we are entitled to partake of the blissful fruits of matrimony. Many people are aware of the prayer that asks God to grant the wisdom to discern between those things one can and cannot change. Let us have the same attitude towards our marital status. Our desires for many things in this life are lawful, but in the end, Jesus is most assuredly "all we need."
posted by Anakin Niceguy at 8:27 PM
15 Comments:
Anakin,
Thanks again for your great comments. I agree that Maken has created a false dilemma and has simply traded one extreme for another. The fact of the matter is, that no matter how hard she and her followers try, they simply cannot back-up their extreme and hostile attitudes towards singleness from the Bible.
I also agree with you that the insistence that there can be no tension between commitments or ordering of priorities in the Christian life is completely bogus. Jesus repeated teachings on marriage and family reveal this tension, as do many other parts of the Bible. Maken's view is unfortunately typical of a large sector of American Evangelicalism that has reduced God to a predictable and managable deity and has lost the theological imagination to conceive of anything better than getting what they want.
I agree with you (and Maken) that suppressing our emotions and hiding how we really feel is neither necessary nor biblical, but while it may be fitting to express our anger over not getting what we want this does not mean that we are thereby entitled to receive it. Also, I think she confuses lamenting our situation to God with feeling the need to blame and scapegoat others for not giving me what I want. This bitterness is evident in many of her women followers as well.
I have suspected all along, and still suspect that for all of Maken's continual accusing others of following their feelings rather than the Word of God (a charge she makes against Kostenberger's view on singleness) that her own position is largely driven out of her own anger and bitterness at not getting married when she wanted to. This comes through in a great deal of what she says and lends a certain brittleness to her confident tone.
In the end, I think what it all boils down to is that the biblical and theological support for Maken's position is so shaky and her arguements so tendentious that no single person should need to feel like they have to justify themselves to her or those who think like her.
Someone:
That Maken's thesis is weak is again demonstrated by her latest post. She appeals to the account of The Fall and Proverbs 5 to support her contention that the blame for the decline in young marriage must rest solely, or chiefly, on the shoulders of single men.
Any application for male/female relationships that can be drawn from The Fall would be relevant to those already married and the responsibility/leadership issues therein.
Proverb 5 cautions against aldutery, vis-a-vis warnings to a young man seeking a wife to steer clear of already-married women.
In neither case is the issue of a young man's resposibility to pursue a wife even remotely addressed. Instead, Maken must draw tendentious conclusions that depend far more on her thesis than they do on the text appealed to.
She also continues her pattern of relieving women of any responsibility. This time, she claims that any problems women have in this regard are common to both sexes, while men have particular 'man issues' that are uniquely to blame for 'protracted singleness'. This constant evasion of accountability is one of the most irritating elements of her argument.
In response to Maken's latest post, commentor Will muses:
-----------------------------------
I just hope those who contend that marital status is a matter of Christian liberty are correct in their assessment when they meet their Maker.
-----------------------------------
My reply would simply turn the his concern back on him:
I just hope those who contend that marital status is a matter of Christian responsibility are correct in their assessment when they meet their Maker, lest they be held to account for adding to Scripture the commands and traditions of men.
I submitted a post making all of these points, but Mrs. Maken declined to publish it.
Anakin,
Thanks for your efforts in creating this blog and rebutting Maken's arguments. It's kind of funny--although superficially I am more on Maken's side of the issue than on yours, in that I believe the vast majority of people should get married and have families, when it comes to the specifics of the arguments I find myself usually agreeing with you. The greatest problem I see with Maken's position is not that she exhorts people to get married, but that she blames the problem entirely on men even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary (e.g., that CDC study you referenced a few posts back.)
someone,
I haven't read Maken's book, but I have had the same thoughts: that she's bitter about not getting married younger. Not having read her book, I'm not sure about this, but isn't it true that she didn't want to get married when she was younger? That she pursued a career (law school) and didn't actively seek a mate? Isn't that the whole point of the title of her book, that she didn't "get serious" about getting married until later? If so, her position is even more untenable, in that she blames men for not purusing her when she didn't want to be pursued. In that case, the only way her argument would make sense is if she honestly believes that men should have stepped in and tried to convince her to get married at a time when she didn't want to; that is, if she were in effect saying "it's men's fault because they didn't convince me I was wrong and needed to change."
Even if that were what she were saying, the problem is that there's no guarantee they would have been successful. I have recently been in that situation, having dated a very spiritual Christian girl--raised in a Christian family, went to a Christian college, teaches Sunday school, never misses daily devotions, interested in overseas missions, you know the drill--for a year and 8 months, trying the entire time to convince her to marry me, and each time I brought the subject up being met with "I'm not ready," "I can't decide yet," "I'm just not sure," etc. Though some might call this a little cynical, I even hoped that some of the practical issues people are always saying women are concerned about, like the biological clock (she was pushing 30), might help my cause, but to no avail. Once I started persistently suggesting that we go ring shopping, she ended the relationship.
The most frustraing thing about the position of Maken and those who agree with her (Al Mohler) is that there's no room in their worldview for that kind of occurrence. They seem to believe that all Christian women are so desperate to get married and have children that they're eagerly waiting in anticipation to marry the first decent Christian man who expresses interest in them. I can't figure out where this notion comes from, since while I'd love it if it were true, many of us have learned from experience that it's patently false. In Maken's most recent post, she even trashed those of us who protest in our defense that we have tried to get married but been rejected as "whining girly men." Presumably her side would claim that we're either lying or that we're doing something wrong. They don't seem to be able to acknowledge the fact that many Christian women are not that keen on getting married, want to delay marriage until they've met their own career or educational goals, have impossibly high standards, or have other "issues" causing them to remain unmarried despite having opportunities to get married.
wombatty,
I actually made a short response to Will's post that said pretty much the same thing except perhaps a bit more strongly. I haven't checked to see if it's been published yet. Will is unfortunately typical of a certain strain of Maken's male fans who seem to think that being married makes them a better man than everybody else and gives them the right to lord it over those who aren't.
Thanks for your examples of Maken's latest abuses of scripture which only further confirm what I already believed. I have seen this kind of thing before from people who act as if they are just telling us what the Bible says when really they are reading it through some lens that causes them to interpret everything according to their subjective bias. In Maken's case it seems that mandatory marriage has become her hermenuetic by which to interpret any passage that speaks of marriage or relationships.
To be honest though, I'm not really that interested in Maken's man bashing, per se, as I think the bigger issue is simply her bad theology and Bible interpretation. Of course, it sucks to be put down as a man simply because I haven't succeeded in getting married yet, but I have actually felt that some of the male responses to Maken have come across as way too defensive. I argue against Maken not because I feel put down as a single man, but because I think her bad theology is destructive to the church.
Someone:
I have also seen some 'over-defensiveness' by some guys; I might even be a bit guilty of that myself. You are correct that any blame she puts on men (or anyone/anything else) is tangential to the central issue of sound hermeneutics and theology.
Despite that, I still think it is necessary to deal with her placement of blame. This is because her book not only addresses the theology of the issue, but her practical advice to women. Here, I think Maken might be creating more heartache for those she is trying to help.
Women have undeniably contributed to this problem, and to deny that is to frustrate resolution of the problem for those women who rightly share the blame. When Maken goes out of her way to exonerate women and the fruits of feminism, as she does in her book, she diverts attention from where it needs to be focused for some women.
The divorce rate in the church is no better than elsewhere and it is women who file for the majority of divorces. Further, in divorce proceedings, guys are at a HUGE disadvantage. We are at risk of losing contact with our children and being all but financially destroyed. Granted, this is more of a problem with statutory law and the court system, but women share the blame here to the extent that they game this system for vindictive ends.
Also worth noting, as Anakin has, is that women are earning more than ever before, while many still insist on 'marrying up the income ladder'. I have no problem with women earning scads of money - more power to 'em. But women need to be aware that the more they make, the less men there are who make more.
If the single guys who should be seeking marriage resolved all of their issues the situation would certainly improve, but that would not relieve women of their responsibilities. There would still be unwanted singleness among women and people like Maken would still be blaming single guys for it.
Thanks again, Anakin, for your continued critique of Debbie Maken's book.
Mrs. Maken has not helped her case by ridiculing her male critics as "whining girly men" in a recent post on her blog. I can't help but wonder if she's seeking advice from Hugo Chavez on how to deal with those who have called her bluff.
Wombatty, I echo your comment regarding the placement of blame. I asked out a number of single Christian women during my 20's and 30's. Most of the time I was turned down. Rarely did I make it to a second date, and never did I make it to the boyfriend/girlfriend stage. More recently, I've had trouble finding single Christian woman who aren't workaholics or have some sort of emotional baggage rendering them incapable of having a healthy relationship. Is that the man's fault?
I await the day when some well-known Christian leader calls short Mrs. Maken and her allies and exhorts them to stop attacking singles, especially single men.
Anonymous,
I don't know to what degree he counts as a "well known" Christian leader, but the respected evangelical theologian Andreas Kostenberger has been taking on Maken over at his blog. Also worth considering for their thoughful and intelligent perspective on the issues surrounding singleness and marriage, even though they are not necessarily "well known" are Laura Smit, Stanley Hauerwas, Rodney Clapp, and Lauren Winner. These have all written books or essays which deal with these issues and which offer nuanced and thoughtful theological perspectives on singleness rather than the simplistic, condemning, theologically anemic, biblically shaky, one size fits all "solution" that Maken and co, offer.
Someone,
I, for one, never heard of Dr. Kostenberger until about a month ago. Given that I've been a Christian for over 25 years, he certainly wasn't well known enough for me to hear of him or for one of my friends or one of the ministers at my church to mention him.
Of the others you mention, the only one I've heard of is Lauren Winner. I've read one of her books and several of her essays and she addresses the subject of singleness well. She's probably better known that Dr. Kostenberger, but I don't know if one could say she's well-known. Plus, some of her early writings were controversial so she still needs to earn some respect before she can be considered a leader.
Perhaps I should have said "well-known and well-respected" instead of just "well-known." Still, I wish someone both well-known and well-respected would have the guts to speak out against Mrs. Maken's arguments. I know it won't be James Dobson; his Focus on the Family ministry is affiliated with the Boundless webzine. Candice Watters, Boundless' founding editor, pronounced protracted singleness to be "sin" in her favorable review of Mrs. Maken's book this past spring.
I admit that some men may have been too defensive in their response to Maken (I count myself as one of them), but I see the situation as a ‘darned if you do, darned if you don’t’ kind of thing. I mean, if we men respond, we’re whining cry-babies, but if we don’t, we’re weak and passive welcome mats. I figure since I’ll be considered a ‘girly man’ either way, at least I get to speak my mind.
I still find it funny that Maken gets so defensive about men’s complaints to her tirades, but then continues her own complaints about the men. Oh, the irony… She should continue calling the few Christian men left ‘girly men’ so that more men will be alienated and turned off to Christianity and the church. Let’s see how that helps her agenda.
I think it’s a pity that Maken and her supporters have decided to do all this man bashing. I actually agree with her regarding being proactive in finding a mate – I had to fight tooth and nail for years against Christians that said any kind of desire for a mate was idolatrous and sinful. Heck, I’ve wanted to get married for a long time; I still do. Where we disagree is how to go about getting married, who to blame, and this whole you MUST get married thing. Getting married or not is our choice, plain and simple. I don’t have to do anything. I want to get married, but anyone that tells me that I MUST get married can go pound sand.
I find it funny how we all read the same Bible, but keep coming up with drastically different conclusions. I thought the Bible’s message is supposed to be clear?
C.S.
I am wondering, what kind of Christian is CS that he thinks some author calling single men "girly" will turn men from Christianity?
Anonymous,
Are you trying to say that calling single men ‘girly’ will endear them to the faith? And what the heck that does any of that have to do with my faith and what kind of Christian I am?
C.S.
CS,
Here is my point. I am trying to be very polite and gentle here.
Is a person (not you CS, but the person you were reffering to)really that shallow, stupid, ignorant or just plain dumb to think this thought. "I can't believe that Debbie Maken called older christian single men girly. How dare she? what kind of faith is this. I reject Jesus because she dare call older single men girly." If someone rejects faith due to reasoning like this, they have no firm foundation of ANYTHING and will spend their entire live swaying from religion to religion, doctrine to doctrine.
Now, if you, CS think that something as major and life altering as faith and religion can be swayed by a comment like girly men, then my friend, you truly are an idiot.
If you bothered to read what I wrote, I said, "turned off the Christianity and the church," not turned off to Jesus. I didn't say that would cause men to reject Jesus.
Damn, why am I even responding to this? That's such a minor point in my post. I won't even comment on the rest. You read what you wanted into my post and now you're throwing out insults about me or my friend being stupid or an idiot. I'm done with this.
Anonymous,
If talking like that is your idea of being polite and gentle (which I seriously question whether you were honestly trying to do anyway) then I'd venture to say that maybe you need to recalibrate your thinking more than a little. When you talk like that you completely destroy any credibility your opinions might have had. And like C.S., I think this is a pefect example of why it's time to say good-bye to this discussion and move on. The Debbie Maken camp has done more than enough to convince me that they and their opinions are more or less completely bankrupt. If the fruits of Maken's perspective are in anyway connected to the way a large number of her supporters talk to others, that's all the evidence I need to dismiss it.
I indeed wonder if Mrs. Maken ever considered that the question, "Seeing anyone special?" is not as half as brash and prying as asking a man "what kind of eunuch" he is.
Bingo. I can't believe that she actually said that to somebody on a date. If a girl asked me something like that, I would probably leave immediately.
Post a Comment
<< Home