A Biblical Critique of Debbie Maken's Book "Getting Serious about Getting Married" (part 10)
PART X: Chapter 9 - "'Being Single = Knowing and Serving God Better'" (You Don't Know Like I Know)
I am certain many, if not most, of my readers are familiar with 1 Cor. 7:32-34. In this passage we read that the unmarried "cares for the things of the Lord" whereas the married "cares about the things of the world," that is, pleasing a spouse. Many probably come away from this passage believing singleness has its advantages if only for the benefit of offering service and devotion to God without distraction. Debbie Maken, of course, takes issue with this notion. In fact, Chapter 9 of her book tries to prove that married people have an intimate understanding of God that single people do not have.
Singles, Sherpas, and Selfishness
At the bottom of p. 119, Mrs. Maken says the following about her former life:
In fact, if marriage is a cure for selfishness, then why do we hear of rampant divorce, adultery, domestic violence, and all the other social ills that seem plague only those who insist on finding a mate? As it is, singles may have extra time to pursue their individual interests, but married people have the privilege of enjoying physical and emotional intimacy with a given spouse. Life is full of trade-offs, so why do we begrudge others the fruit for which we were not willing to pay the price? When a married person criticizes a single person's use of time, such criticism may be an indication of an envious heart. Some commentators simply need to consider their motivations for being so censorious towards the unmarried.
The bottom line is marriage is neither a necessary nor reliable cure for selfishness. So many married people who claim to have less time for the Lord than single people seem to have plenty of time to do all unnecessary things they want to do, including enjoying many things a single person cannot enjoy. Let's look again at what 1 Cor.7:32-34 says. It does not say a married person has less time for church activities than a single person. It says a married person's interests are divided between the Lord and a spouse. Think about that.
What application can we make from what I've said? Simply this: Religious leaders have no business treating single people like a band of Sherpas to take up the loads that married people ought to bear. Too many married pundits who talk of single people "having more time" sound a lot like the man in Luke 14:20: "I have married a wife, and therefore cannot come." The fact of matter is that all our time belongs to the Lord, including the time we spend on recreational pursuits not only as single people, but as families as well. Just because a single man has more time for individual interests than a married man does not mean we can engage in arrogant surmisings about what the single man is doing or should be doing with his free moments. Such judgments are between a single person and the Lord (Romans 14:1-13).
The Church - Family of God or Just Godly Families?
Continuing on in Chapter 9 of Debbie Maken's book, we read that families play a necessary part in the expansion of God's kingdom. Mrs. Maken writes:
Sure, family units do have something to contribute to a local church, and some do indeed learn the gospel from their parents. There is, however, no guarantee that this always holds true. Family religion can sometimes be a stumbling-block to one's acceptance of Biblical truths (Matthew 10:34-36). Let us also note that Mrs. Maken cannot defend her statement about the expansion of the Church always starting "at home". The passage she quotes (Acts 1:8) has nothing to do with families; it simply draws attention to the fact that salvation came to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles (Romans 1:16).
You Don't Know Like I Know
As if Mrs. Maken's understanding of the scheme of redemption wasn't flawed enough, the rest of Chapter 9 only gets worse. Mrs. Maken says on p. 124:
Have we forgotten what Eph. 5:25 says? Paul did not say, "Husbands, know that God loves you the way you love your wives." On the contrary, the Apostle already took for granted that his male audience knew how Jesus loved the Church. In case they didn't know, the Apostle clues them in on the essentials in vv. 26-27. What wasn't so certain was if the Ephesian men knew how to love their wives. Here is clear proof that marriage does not impart the special knowledge of divine realities that some people think it does. The Ephesians seemed to have already grasped the relationship between Christ and Church before knowing what marriage was intended to be.
In essence, Chapter 9 is yet another section rife with implausible statements. I concede we cannot be so presumptuous to think that single Christians are, by default, more devoted to God than married people. Those who take Debbie Maken's position on marriage are justifiably opposed to such thinking. However, claiming that married people have a special knowledge of God that single people do not have is utterly preposterous. Mrs. Maken simply ought to know better than proffer such a claim, but considering what I have covered thus far, I am not surprised she goes to such extremes in her writing.
I am certain many, if not most, of my readers are familiar with 1 Cor. 7:32-34. In this passage we read that the unmarried "cares for the things of the Lord" whereas the married "cares about the things of the world," that is, pleasing a spouse. Many probably come away from this passage believing singleness has its advantages if only for the benefit of offering service and devotion to God without distraction. Debbie Maken, of course, takes issue with this notion. In fact, Chapter 9 of her book tries to prove that married people have an intimate understanding of God that single people do not have.
Singles, Sherpas, and Selfishness
At the bottom of p. 119, Mrs. Maken says the following about her former life:
"I never understood why I was expected to pull such a large ministry load just because I was single. It's not like being single automatically gives you more hours in a day than a married person. Not having a family doesn't mean more time on your hands; it means that you alone bear all of the responsibility of living in today's world instead of sharing it with a spouse. A married couple can divide labor to accomplish daily tasks more efficiently. Instead of having a helper, a single person bears a sole burden of laundry, housekeeping, cooking, paying bills, grocery shopping, running errands--and working to support herself. When I was single, life was often so busy there was hardly any time left for anything else let alone ministry."We should applaud Mrs. Maken for challenging the myth that single people always have more time for church activities than married people. Still, I have to wonder why do so many religious leaders act as if the personal time of single people is more expendable in this regard? Maybe the reason is because many think singles have a proclivity towards being selfish. I have previously discussed how the charge of selfishness is often hurled at single people, but I want to say a little more about this matter. Consider what one marriage mandate proponent recently wrote about single men:
"Are there not biblical indicators of whether one should seek marriage? Would you agree that immature men who employ their singleness for selfish indulgence (e.g., excessive golf or other hobbies, spending a high percentage of their salary on entertainment) would be well-served (with respect to their Christian sanctification) by having to bear the huge personal responsibility of a wife? Granted, they must have a modicum of maturity even to marry, but that minimum standard being met, marriage matures and sanctifies them (far beyond the accountability of male roommates, I might add). Many married men readily testify that their wife has been used of God as a great (even the greatest) instrument towards their sanctification. To lack this instrument would have been to stunt their sanctification, would it not?"So are married people, by default, less selfish than single people? Or is the selfishness of one often simply traded for the selfishness of the group? Apparently, some are not familiar with the old saying about God blessing "us four and no more." This saying pretty much sums up the shallowness of what often passes for religious conservatism in this society. He who without sin in this matter may cast the first stone at single people. A bachelor may indeed have his "golf or other hobbies" but married people have their weddings, receptions, honeymoons, McMansions, oversized SUVs, pontoon boats, family vacations, amusement parks, toys for the kids, and piano lessons for Junior to make the parents proud. As a lawful as these things are, I fail to see how they bring a soul any closer to God than the time a single man spends in front of the computer playing NetHack.
"... a Christian single whose 'contentment with singleness' is based on his being able to live entirely as he pleases and enjoy zero inconveniences to his self-absorbed, pleasure-craven, comfort-seeking schedule has a lot less biblical grounding to base his 'gift' of singleness! Sure, he should get busy reading his Bible, serving in his church, and giving his money sacrificially to the spread of God's kingdom. But as he does so, ought he not seek a wife, lest the absence of significant, intimate relational involvement leave him more susceptible to his lusts (for unlawful sex, for excessive pleasure, comfort, or autonomy)?" (Alex Chediak, "Open Letter to Andreas Köstenberger," available at www.alexchediak.com)
In fact, if marriage is a cure for selfishness, then why do we hear of rampant divorce, adultery, domestic violence, and all the other social ills that seem plague only those who insist on finding a mate? As it is, singles may have extra time to pursue their individual interests, but married people have the privilege of enjoying physical and emotional intimacy with a given spouse. Life is full of trade-offs, so why do we begrudge others the fruit for which we were not willing to pay the price? When a married person criticizes a single person's use of time, such criticism may be an indication of an envious heart. Some commentators simply need to consider their motivations for being so censorious towards the unmarried.
The bottom line is marriage is neither a necessary nor reliable cure for selfishness. So many married people who claim to have less time for the Lord than single people seem to have plenty of time to do all unnecessary things they want to do, including enjoying many things a single person cannot enjoy. Let's look again at what 1 Cor.7:32-34 says. It does not say a married person has less time for church activities than a single person. It says a married person's interests are divided between the Lord and a spouse. Think about that.
What application can we make from what I've said? Simply this: Religious leaders have no business treating single people like a band of Sherpas to take up the loads that married people ought to bear. Too many married pundits who talk of single people "having more time" sound a lot like the man in Luke 14:20: "I have married a wife, and therefore cannot come." The fact of matter is that all our time belongs to the Lord, including the time we spend on recreational pursuits not only as single people, but as families as well. Just because a single man has more time for individual interests than a married man does not mean we can engage in arrogant surmisings about what the single man is doing or should be doing with his free moments. Such judgments are between a single person and the Lord (Romans 14:1-13).
The Church - Family of God or Just Godly Families?
Continuing on in Chapter 9 of Debbie Maken's book, we read that families play a necessary part in the expansion of God's kingdom. Mrs. Maken writes:
"God's plan for kingdom expansion has always involved marriage and family. Even the New Testament gives priority to the nuclear family when it comes to increasing the kingdom: 'For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our Gods calls to himself' (Acts 2:39). The early church grew as families were saved 'household to household.'With all due respect to Mrs. Maken, she is simply misapplying the Scripture in a rather egregious manner. That people were saved "household to household" no more implies the need for families in God's plan of redemption than God's call to the poor (James 2:5) implies that we must embrace poverty in order to be saved. Family or no family, every soul must come to Christ individually. The faith of a given family cannot sanctify or save a person (Ezekiel 18:1-23).
"This expansion always starts at home and works itself outward ('in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth,' Acts 1:8), not the other way around." (pp. 121-122)
Sure, family units do have something to contribute to a local church, and some do indeed learn the gospel from their parents. There is, however, no guarantee that this always holds true. Family religion can sometimes be a stumbling-block to one's acceptance of Biblical truths (Matthew 10:34-36). Let us also note that Mrs. Maken cannot defend her statement about the expansion of the Church always starting "at home". The passage she quotes (Acts 1:8) has nothing to do with families; it simply draws attention to the fact that salvation came to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles (Romans 1:16).
You Don't Know Like I Know
As if Mrs. Maken's understanding of the scheme of redemption wasn't flawed enough, the rest of Chapter 9 only gets worse. Mrs. Maken says on p. 124:
"God has purposely made himself known through familial relationships. Such relationships--husband, wife, daughter, son--show us part of the divine nature of God. When we fail to marry, whether through our own fault or cultural fault, we miss out on this means that God has established to know him more deeply and intimately."Really? Has marriage mandate theology finally come to this? Are we to embrace a wacky form of Gnosticism where the deeper mysteries of the Godhead come through an initiation into the Cult of the Married Ones? I thought a Christian received "all things that pertained to life and godliness" through knowledge of Christ (2 Peter 1:2-3) and that such knowledge came by hearing and obeying the Word of God (John 20:30-31; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; Romans 10:17; 1 John 2:3-5). Perhaps we should cover ourselves with duct tape, roll around in a pile of sheared wool, get on all fours, and start chewing cud so that we may know how Jesus cares for us the way a shepherd cares for sheep. Seriously, do we appreciate the difference between metaphorical and literal language, or the difference between types and antitypes? What vital knowledge does marriage give me about the Trinity that I cannot already glean from the Scriptures?
Have we forgotten what Eph. 5:25 says? Paul did not say, "Husbands, know that God loves you the way you love your wives." On the contrary, the Apostle already took for granted that his male audience knew how Jesus loved the Church. In case they didn't know, the Apostle clues them in on the essentials in vv. 26-27. What wasn't so certain was if the Ephesian men knew how to love their wives. Here is clear proof that marriage does not impart the special knowledge of divine realities that some people think it does. The Ephesians seemed to have already grasped the relationship between Christ and Church before knowing what marriage was intended to be.
In essence, Chapter 9 is yet another section rife with implausible statements. I concede we cannot be so presumptuous to think that single Christians are, by default, more devoted to God than married people. Those who take Debbie Maken's position on marriage are justifiably opposed to such thinking. However, claiming that married people have a special knowledge of God that single people do not have is utterly preposterous. Mrs. Maken simply ought to know better than proffer such a claim, but considering what I have covered thus far, I am not surprised she goes to such extremes in her writing.
posted by Anakin Niceguy at 7:46 PM
48 Comments:
Excellent post Anakin. Maken's tendentious abuses of scripture to justify her position continue to boggle my mind. Acts 2 as promoting the priority of the nuclear family? One hardly knows what to say sometimes.
Thanks also for taking on the question begging arguments of Alex Cheziak. I have known married men who spent their whole marriage living for their own interests and pleasures in exactly the same way that Cheziak stereotypes single men as doing. I have also seen Christian married couples with kids who live the typical American upper-middle class consumeristic lifestyle (the Mcmansion, the expensive cars, the Abercrombie and Fitch clothing, etc.) and are constantly too busy to make it to church becuase of all the activities they have their kids involved with. On the other hand, the church where I currently attend has numerous single men and women who are among the most active in service to the church. Cheziak's argument is a non sequitur.
I especially appreciated this sentence: I thought a Christian received "all things that pertained to life and godliness" through knowledge of Christ (2 Peter 1:2-3) and that such knowledge came by hearing and obeying the Word of God (John 20:30-31; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; Romans 10:17; 1 John 2:3-5). Marriage is in no way necessary to personal spiritual growth or sanctification. What is necessary, as Dallas Willard has so excellently pointed out, is taking Jesus call to discipleship seriously.
Whether or not married people are as capable of frittering away their time fivolously like some single people isn't the issue here. It's whether it's sensible to think that it doesn't matter to the health of the church and society if more or less people marry.
What happens when less people marry? Crime rates go up, sexual immorality increases and so does substance abuse. Is that because ALL single people at loose ends do those sorts of things? No, but more will. Maybe you are the single saint that doesn't surf for porn and can stay socially connected enough to ward off depression and isolation (and its offshoots) without benefit of a family, but most men who remain on their own (yes, I said MOST), do not do so well over time. Anecdotal exceptions do not get you around these well established facts.
As for the church, do you honestly think that most who are Christians today became that way through conversion with no prior exposure or were born into a Christian family that practices Proverbs 22:6? (train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it). Of course, there are no guarantees that a child will accept the gospel when he/she hears it, but please, let's not exaggerate the impact of evangelism in relation to the birthing of children into Christian homes as "the crucible of saint making", as it has been aptly put.
Anon,
Excellent Points.
What happens when less people marry? Crime rates go up, sexual immorality increases and so does substance abuse.
Correlation or causality?
Is that because ALL single people at loose ends do those sorts of things? No, but more will. Maybe you are the single saint that doesn't surf for porn and can stay socially connected enough to ward off depression and isolation (and its offshoots) without benefit of a family, but most men who remain on their own (yes, I said MOST), do not do so well over time. Anecdotal exceptions do not get you around these well established facts.
Your "well-established" facts notwithstanding, perhaps it would be instructive to ask why many single men go down the drain. Is it because they don't have a "good woman" in their life or is it because an anti-male society doesn't afford them psychological and social tools/skills in order for them to have a measure of self-esteem and self-reliance? I am really no different from many other men, expect I started seeing through the worldly lies that culture pushes about manhood. Beyond this, I wonder if your "well-established facts" rest on some dubious studies that cannot differentiate between correlation and casuality. You need to come up with a peer-reviewed study that proves conclusively that marriage improves a man's physical and mental well-being in a way that cannot be improved by other means. George Gilder's pontifications don't count in my book.
As for the church, do you honestly think that most who are Christians today became that way through conversion with no prior exposure or were born into a Christian family that practices Proverbs 22:6? (train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it). Of course, there are no guarantees that a child will accept the gospel when he/she hears it, but please, let's not exaggerate the impact of evangelism in relation to the birthing of children into Christian homes as "the crucible of saint making", as it has been aptly put.
You act as if this is something to celebrate. Our Lord did not intend for his Kingdom to be a hereditary matter. I remember an infidel saying a long time ago that Christianity would vanish except for the fact that people were brainwashed by their parents at an early age. Bible-believers are playing right into the hands of the athiests. Too many of us act as if there is no power in the gospel (though the Bible says there is ) and that we have to sell our message to young gullible minds who'll believe anything we tell them (Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, etc.). That is NOT the norm for church growth we see in the NT. God seeks the alien sinners, not grandchildren. The Lord does not need our "crucible of saint making" ... he is able to raise up saints from stones and he able to make saints through the power of his message. In my observation, Churches that rely on families for growth are not really growing ... their turning inward and stealing sheep from one congregation to another.
Anonymous,
Whatever. I'm done discussing this issue. It has no impact on my life anyway as Maken's claptrap will never be swallowed by the church where I attend (by the way, I have never heard a word about the "gift of singleness" there either). You people can believe anything you want.
For all you boys who think that women are the problem here, I would like for you to read what one of your own wrote on another blog.
"As for joining eHarmony, I actuall did some time ago. My dad heard about them on Focus on the Family and asked me to check it out. They sent me a couple of matches, but I didn't follow up so they made me an 'inactive member'. Why didn't I follow up? I really didn't feel like it. I checkd it out because of curiosity more than anything else."
Now, please tell me you don't see how can be responsible for the decline in marriage. By the way, the fella who wrote this is 33.
Anon:
That's a quote from me. I covered this over at Maken's blog with my 'final' contribution to this debate. However, I'll explain it here again.
First, you'll note that I registered at eHarmony out of curiosity and my dad's suggestion - not because I was looking for a wife.
Second, I've stated several times that I have not been looking for a wife (that may change in the near future). If it surprises you that a man who isn't looking for a wife doesn't follow up on 'internet matches' then there's nothing I can do to help you here.
Third, I'm not sure about the whole 'internet dating' thing anyway. When I decide I want to be married, I probably will not go that route.
Also, as I have stated many times, the existance of specifically male problems (whose existance I have never denied) does not negate the existance of specifically female problems; something Maken's followers are desparate to deny.
Finally, however ones chooses to spread the blame on this issue is irrelevant to Maken's central claim that there is a Biblical mandate to marry. Her argument is far from persuasive on this issue. Instead of trying to shame men who aren't interested in marriage, why not focus on those who are and offer them advice on getting there?
so WHY join eHarmony if you are not looking? Just cause Dad said so? So why not listen to Dad and get serious? You other reason Curiosity???? What are you curious about? Whether you get a hot girl on eHarmony? The purpose behind the site is clear so what are you wondering? IF you are not serious, why devote the time to the matter?
Anon:
Curiosity; wondering what all the hype was about. Since they make such a big deal about doing things differently than other sites.
Your post implies that I HAVE been looking for a mate, but that I am lying about that or perhaps in denial. If that is the case, you're wrong.
In any case, keep hoping. After all, they say curiosity killed the cat. Perhaps it will also vanquish my bachelorhood ;-P
That's it for me and this debate. For real this time.
Yes, indeed. Pastors NEVER preach about Ecclesiastes chapter seven. This should settle the entire issue of marraige for Christian men. It is clearly stated that there are NO -repeat- NO good women. It doesn't say there are exceptions in the church or otherwise. It is warning men about the inherant nature of ALL -repeat- ALL- women.
I presented this scripture to a desperate marraige-minded Christian woman a few weeks ago, and she looked like I had slapped her in the face. She wouldn't respond when I asked her if she agrred with what the Bible said regarding women.
Go figure.
Christian men make a serious unbiblical error when they assume that just because a woman is a Christian she is somehow different than a non-Christian woman.
She's not.
I know a number of Christian men who have had adulterous wives, and three of these fine men are pastors. One Baptist pastor I know who also has three great kids had his wife decide to go lesbian.
Maken, while trying to pass herself off as a Christian woman (who knows if she is) is typical of the rebellious and- dare I say it- evil spirit that permeates Christian women today. I read her book, and aside from the Christ-talk, I sensed the same wicked feminist spirit that I have found in the writings of Dworkin, Brownmiller and other feminist authors.
Feminism has taken over much of the church, and Maken is an example of just how far the evil has reached in the church.
Men should avoid marraige with a passion, and remember Paul's words when he told men they were better off staying single if they could.
so Chris is in favor of a world filled with bastard children?
Chris, you are indeed a massive moron and I wish that you would not identify yourself as a Christian.
I am going to side with Philippa on this one. I think she has comported herself rather admirably. I only wish I could run into single women like her in my religious circle. :-)
Phillipa is right. Not every woman is evil and we are told by the Bible not to judge rashly and unmercifully. I am certain that there are plenty of women that are trying to do the best for the Lord. Phillipa is also right to challenge taking one scripture out of context about women.
That said, I must share the concerns of many men about how many women are today. Arguably, we live in a society that is very hostile to masculinity and/or treats men as the disposable sex. From the feminists to the neo-traditionalists of the right, men are treated at best as workhorses, at worst villains to be blamed for everything goes wrong. Many religious men are taken aback about how their sisters of the faith have imbibed the sentiments of the larger culture about men. While we cannot overgeneralize, there is nonetheless a disturbing trend. The attitude of male-bashing, materialism, entitlement, trying to "have it both ways," is going to turn several men off, including myself. Maken and her female fans need to realize that the old folk adage is true: "You get more flies with honey than vinegar."
Beyond this, there are very nice Christian women who have adapted a set of expectations that form their own personal price tag. This price tag is mish-mash of biblical values, cultural norms, etc. The price tag maybe monetary, emotional, social, whatever. Granted, we all have our own price tag, but many Christian men are looking at the tag on their sisters and realize they cannot afford the cost. If a man realizes he cannot gain much but lose a lot to be married to a woman, shaming and blaming him is counterproductive.
I said it before. I'll say it again. If we want more men to marry, we need to start addressing the cultural factors that make it difficult for them to get married and be married happily.
Anakin, thanks again for an excellent post and your comment in this thread. Philippa and Someone, thank you for your comments as well.
I shook my head as I read over some of the comments. Some folks on both sides of the debate frankly need to think and pray about what they're writing before they click on the "publish your comment" button. The same could be said for bloggers on both sides of the debate as well.
This weekend I discussed Debbie Maken's arguments with a couple who helps run the marriage preparation ministry at my church. They had never heard of these arguments and were astounded that such beliefs concerning marriage are being taught in some parts of the evangelical church.
One other observation I'd like to make - it seems that the marriage-mandate teaching appears mostly limited to Reformed churches. I't certainly not embraced in my church, which is evangelical but not Calvinist. Are any Reformed scholars ready or willing to publicly refute the marriage-mandate teaching?
Anon, are you serious in your comment about this being a Reformed issue? I don't know what Debbie Maken's church background is--does anyone?--but Al Mohler is a Baptist. And in my experience as someone who attends a PCA church, the whole delaying marriage because one doesn't feel a particularly strong command from God to get married thing going on among Christians today fits right in with the Reformed way of thinking "whatever happens or doesn't happen must be God's will, because it's what happens or doesn't happen."
I too, as a man, think Chris and those who make arguments like his are way off base. Even in so far as there are problems amongh women in the church today, one cannot entirely blame them, as they only know what they've been taught since infancy. If you've grown up reading books by Betty Elliott and Joshua Harris telling you it's holy to "wait on the Lord," sinful to actively pursue marriage, and that if God wants you to be married he'll make it unmistakably known to you and if he doesn't you'd better not get married, what are you going to do? Besides, I know many fine women in my church who are dedicated to marriage and family life--the problem is, they're all married already. ;)
I have to violate my pledge again not to post anymore in this debate. I just need to go on record and agree with Philippa here about Chris & Knightwatch.
These guys are worse than Maken and her crowd. At least Maken, et. al recognize that good Christian guys exist, even if they have an unbiblically narrow view of what constitutes a 'good Christian man'. To read Chris & Knightwatch, you'd think all women are, by nature, evil. Sorry guys, that's just unbibilcal and disgusting.
Personally, I think women are God's supreme invention ;-)
And Chris, I'd suggest being careful about your admonition that
-----------------------------------
Men should avoid marraige with a passion, and remember Paul's words when he told men they were better off staying single if they could.
-----------------------------------
In 1 Timothy 4, Paul also warned of hypocritical liars...[who]forbid people to marry. You're not forbidding marriage here, but you're coming pretty close.
I just needed to 'publically' distance myself from these guys - they do not come from my 'neck of the woods'.
Good for you Wom. Very nice post.
Yeah, I'll sound in here one final time by saying, as I have actually said before, that I too find myself dismayed at the defensive, ugly, and ridiculously hostile anti-woman sentiments of some of Maken's critics.
I also find myself dismayed by the ridiculous prrof-texting done by both side of the debate. If there is one thing I've seem clearly displayed in this debate, it is that many evangelicals, despite their generally high view of scripture, could stand to learn a great deal about how to read, interpret, and use the Bible. Also, a lot more graciousness and humility in realizing that our interpretations are just that, interpretations, and that it's possible for us to be wrong.
Francis Schaeffer onc observed, in "the Mark of the Christian," that our love for one another is supposed to be the defining characteristic of the Christian church and that if we fail to love each other, the world has the right to conclude that the Father did not send the Son. Considering the way many people I have encountered in this debate have talked to and about fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I know what conclusion I'd come to if I were an unbeliever witnessing all of this.
Re: Reformed Churches and the Marriage Mandate Position
Anonymous and Jake,
My own personal observation has been that while not all Reformed believers are marriage mandate proponents, most, if not all, marriage mandate proponents are Reformed in their theology.
Debbie Maken quotes the Westminster Catechism and heavily from John Calvin.
Albert Mohler is a confirmed Calvinist and associates heavily with Reformed pastors.
Alex Chediak worships in the PCA church, if I recall correctly.
Tim Challies is Reformed, too.
On the other hand, Maken speaks critically of John Piper's theology on her blog in spite of his Calvinism.
Perhaps, in many ways, marriage mandate theology is an offshoot of Reformed thought the way Christian Recontructionism is. An heavy focus on Old Testament narratives furnishing a "pattern" for social commerce seems to inform both of these belief systems. At any rate, I think I have crossed self-professed Calvinist bloggers who are critical of Maken's work.
Maken seems to uphold the idea of free will in a way that many Predestined Singleness folks do not (by this, I mean those who believe that you have to sit back and figure out whether God wants you to marry or not). On the other hand, she seems to be particularly fatalistic about one's ability to stay sexually pure outside of marriage. It is if she and others believe we are predestined to have sex one way or the other.
For the record:
I certainly do NOT hate women. It would violate everything I believe in. I'm deeply saddened at how they have corrupted themselves.
It is interesting that women and weak men love to haul out the same line of reasoning used by homosexuals, feminists and cultists when confronted with evil.
"You hate me!"
"You're a bigot!"
There's a pattern here.
No; I don't hate anyone. I merely expose evil, and unfortunately, this evil is rampant in the church. Men are largely to blame in some respects. They have sat by and done nothing while the church rotted from within. I suggest everyone read "The War Against Men" by Dr. Hise, one of the finest Christian authors I have ever encountered. He says the same things I'm saying, and he is hardly a hater of women.
He's just probably a bit more tactful than I am.
I don't care too much for what women say these days. As Dr. Hise points out, they are far more responsible for the evil in our country than men. It's not that men are innocent. As he says, the sin of men is omission, while the sin of women is commission.
Men sin as well as women. But, women are far more active in pursuing evil than men. Read his book for yourself.
Then read the Bible.
I'm merely sounding the warning to Christian men that pastors should be sounding- but are not. They would be wise to remember the words of Ezekiel.
I don't waste my time warning women. They generally only listen to their master- Satan, and are beyond hope. Proverbs 31 describes what a woman SHOULD be like, but also tells a man that such a woman is extremely rare. Sure; you can point out a small handful of virtuous women in the Bible.
Two or three thousand years ago.
I haven't met any lately. Besides, it's the exception that proves the rule, as they say. I'm sure the Old Testament prophets were accused of hate by the religious folk in their day. Not that I'm in any way comparing myself to them. It's just interesting that when you speak the truth as pointed out in God's word, the forces of evil unite to condemn you.
Christian women and feminists make strange bedfellows. Sad, but not entirely unexpected. Evil has a way of permeating everything if you let your guard down.
Women are under the judgement of God in this country. The vast majority are infected with Herpes or HPV, not to mention other STD's. "God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man (or woman) sows, that shall he (she) also reap."
Women are responsible for abortion. Millions of babies have been slaughtered by their mothers. If you think God is through judging women, think again. He's just starting.
Wombatty;
I don't forbid marraige. Nor am I even close. Let's be truthful here. You simply don't like what I have to say.
That's okay. I don't have a problem with that. I do not, nor have I ever "forbidden marraige."
I merely sound the warning. If a man chooses to stick his head in the noose- go for it. Every one deserves a shot at marraige if they want. Personally, I think a man has a better chance sky-diving without a parachute......
So many Christian men act shell-shocked when their Christian wives dump them, frequently following an affair.
"I thought she loved me!"
"I thought she believed in Jesus!"
"But her father is a PASTOR!"
Silly, naive men.
READ THE BIBLE!
Proverbs and Ecclesiaistes are repeatedly FULL of warnings about women.
READ THE BIBLE!
Don't worry about what women think. They don't have your best interests at heart.
Just watched the movie dumb & dumber and I have to say, Jim Carrey made more sense in the movie then chris does on this blog.
Anakin, why do you say Al Mohler is a confirmed Calvinist? I'm not saying he's not; I just don't know, and I would think it would be somewhat unusual for the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary to be a Calvinist.
Anyway, while there may be others who seem to be on their side who are Reformed, Debbie Maken and Al Mohler are the only one's I've seen come out and call singleness a sin and claim the Bible commands marriage. Personally, though, I have a hard time getting worked up about anything beyond that, because that's really the biggest problem with their argument. I actually agree that more people should get married, that they should do so at an earlier age, and that they should have more children, than most people are now doing. I just have to acknowledge that the Bible doesn't command that. Though there's also their tendency to blame the delay and decline of marriage entirely on men, which you and others have shown is simply incorrect.
No thanks to Chris, though. I'm a Christian man who very much wants to get married and have been frustrated by the female lack of receptivity I've encountered so far (which is the main reason I find Maken and Mohler so infuriating), but I have no sympathy for views like Chris's. This might be considered an ad hominem, but I believe the members of the "meninism/marriage strike" movement are really just shy, socially inept guys who are unappealing to women and can't get one, so they attempt to ameliorate their frustration by claiming they don't want one anyway. This describes me more or less, and I once considered claiming to be a part of that movement before realizing the above was the only reason I'd have for doing so. The notion that there are legions of men out there--especially Christian ones taking this view, who should be ashamed of themselves--who could get married but are choosing not to because they know that women initiate 2/3 of divorces and are afraid their professing Christian wife will leave them in 20 years taking the kids and half their finances is a complete joke. I have never encountered such a man in real life, only online, where one cannot tell that another is really a 5'4" bald Star Trek fanatic with a pot belly and halitosis who still lives with his mother. Yeah, I'm sure women are reeling from the effects of "marriage strike" on the part of those guys.
Don't get me wrong; I have great sympathy because I'm basically a nerd too. I just think we should be honest and stop pretending we're great catches when we're not. Yes, I wish women had lower standards, but that's a different argument.
Oh, and Philippa, if I were you, I'd cut it out with the Taliban comments. That's the same thing secularists say about Christians who believe abortion and premarital sex are wrong. Plus, I see no evidence that Chris shares any believes with the Taliban, whose most salient characteristic is that they are Muslim, and who believe that women are such tempting seductresses that they must remain covered from head to toe lest they destroy men with their wicked wiles. Somehow I don't think that's what Chris believes.
"a 5'4" bald Star Trek fanatic with a pot belly and halitosis who still lives with his mother."
JAKE, YOU CRAZY STALKER. For the record, I am 5'5.
I am gonna ask mom to install a security system.
Chris;
Indeed, let's be truthful - as opposed to self-serving. Contrary to your assertion, it's not that I 'simply don't like what you have to say' it's that I disagree with much of what you have to say. No, you didn't forbid marriage, but your admonition that 'men should avoid marraige with a passion' has the same kind of reasoning behind it - marriage (or women) are evil and unworthy of a man's consideration.
You are a mirror of Mrs. Maken. Whereas she adamantly denies that women have played any unique roll in the current decline in marriage; you seem to claim the same for men. I have no doubt that Dr. Hise's book makes many good points about issues that Mrs. Maken pretends do not exist. I believe a man needs to consider these issues when thinking of marriage, but you 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. The book sounds interesting and I plan on reading it when I have the chance.
To claim that women are congenitally more evil or sinful than men, or vice-versa, is ridiculous and unbiblical. If it were the case, I imagine Paul might have mentioned it when he extolled the single life. Nor have I read anywhere in the Bible that women, in general, are servants of Satan any more than men are. If you want to get technical, the only people Christ uttered those words to were MEN. This is another area where you mirror Maken. She (subtly) implies that women are congenitally spiritually superior to men. Either position is absurd.
Incidentally, if what you say about the nature of women is true, then it is hardly the Christian response to leave them to wallow in their sin and depravity. Whereas you 'don't waste your time warning women', Christ didn't abandon us though we were drowning in sin and we are to follow His example.
Folks;
I'm hardly a "troll", whatever that term may imply. I'm a Bible believing Christian man who takes his beliefs very seriously.
I am, uh, fairly well educated. 'Nuff said.
I am gainfully employed and do quite well, thank you.
I am not socially inept.
I don't hate women.
I am not a Taliban (They're diet is far too limited, and I hate the desert. Too much sand and sun)
I am not Muslim.
As far as I can recall from stories when I was young, a troll is some ugly Beasty that hides under bridges or things waiting to eat unwary travelers. I believe "The Hobbit" featured three of them. Apparently they're not terribly attractive. Now, I'll never win any beauty contests, but I'm not >that< unattractive, all things considered.
So, in the interests of good manners, please don't refer to me as a "troll" simply because you don't agree with me. It's not terribly honest, and just a bit rude. Not to mention childish. I really don't have anything else to say to a rebellious and apparently un-biblical woman, so I will address my remarks to any man with the sense to listen.
I advocate what Christian MEN used to advocate. A strict application of the Biblical roles for men and women. Rather than call names and hurl insults in a childish rant, I suggest you use whatever intellect you may have to analyze what I'm saying.
Women are in complete rebellion against the plan of God as outlined in the Bible. Satan declared war against God and man back in the garden. His first and most valuable tool in that war was the woman.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED!
Satan is still using women to corrupt men.
Consider the following:
Bisexuality is RAMPANT with women these days. It's even crept into the church. Women are many times more likely than men to have same-sex experiences. Paul warned about this in Romans. He knew how filthy women could be.
Women initiate the overwhelming majority of divorce proceedings in the west without exception. This is true even in the church. So much for women and their desire for "commitment". They are largely responsible for the complete breakdown of family life in this country, at the prodding of their feminist/lesbian sisters.
The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) and other medical authorities now maintain that by age 22 SIXTY-PERCENT of women are infected with HPV, the virus that causes genital warts and many cancers. This is an incurable sexually transmitted viral infection, and it's estimated that by age fifty 80-90 percent of women are infected.
Thirty to fifty percent of women are infected with Genital Herpes. Indeed, according to an article I recently cut out of the paper, (The Oregonian) according to a new study, women are more than twice as likely as men to be infected with Herpes. Researchers try to act mystified and seemingly can't understand the disparity between male and female infection rates.
Frankly, it's not politically correct to say that most women are more than a bit sluttish in their behaviour.
So, I'll say it.
If any of you are actually Christians, and I suspect that most of the men are, I again strongly urge you to read the book "The War Against Men" by Dr. Hise. His credentials are nothing short of astounding, and he is an incredibly dedicated and brilliant Christian man. You can purchase his book from Amazon.com. It's very easy.
1)Push a few buttons on your computer.
2) Enter your credit card number.
3) A few days later the book arrives at your home.
It's just that easy. You will be enlightened.
Sadly, most of the information about the deplorable state of women these days has been written by non-Christian men. We are supposed to be the light of the world. Fortunately, Dr. Hise seems to be one of the only Christian men that hasn't been castrated by women. It's long overdue.
I also advocate serious study of Proverbs and Eccliastes. These books are invaluable to men. Freud whined about not understanding women after his many years of research. Well, now. So much for an education. If he had read the Bible, he would understand women very well. Very well, indeed. Women are NOT a mystery. God understands them. You will, too, if you just study the Bible.
THE WORD OF GOD.
God is not entirely without mercy, you know. He DID give us his wisdom in the scriptures. He made it clear that marraige is NO sin. There is nothing wrong with it. No one should tell you that God doesn't want you to marry, in spite of what the Catholic church may say to their clergy. If you want to give it a shot, go for it. God won't be angry with you.
However, God is certainly no fool. He is an actual thinking being. He remembers what woman did to the man in the garden, and he's been watching women ever since. Samson and Delilah. Abraham and Sarah. Remember that loving story about Lot's daughters getting him drunk, and them repeatedly RAPING him? Ah, yes. The very cream of womanhood.
Ick.
He did, however, provide men with an option.
Singleness.
Bachelorhood.
You don't have to marry. I have read the book by Maken. Such dribble. She quotes extensively from Martin Luther. Now, in spite of the many good things he did, he was a bit of a fruitcake. Dig a bit deeply and you will find that he was not entirely rational. Some of his statements would land you in a mental institution these days.
She also quotes heavily from Calvin. Ah, Calvin. The good Christian who once had a man murdered over a theological disagreement. (shaking head in disbelief)
She is also very guilty of intentionally distorting scripture. There is no excuse for this. She is terribly dishonest and manipulative. The perfect wife.
I am also very familiar with Albert Mohler and his unbiblical foolishness. He is leading many young men astray and into almost certain misery with his VERY dishonest application- no, TWISTING of scripture. He would do well to remember what God said about those who added to His word...
I have spent many years studying the Bible. I don't have a degree in Divinity or Theology. My formal education is in other areas. I simply trust the Word of God to enlighten. It's really not that difficult a concept, if your heart is right with God.
If you want to understand what God says about women, it's right there in the Bible. The Bible has many, many warnings to men about avoiding evil women. Proverbs seven, for instance. That's one of the most beautiful chapters in the entire Word of God.
There are so many places in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes warning men about immoral women. Angry women. Whorish women. Nagging women.
To my knowledge, there isn't a single verse in the entire Book that warns women about immoral men. At least not that I've found, and I have certainly searched. Men are repeatedly told to stay away from evil women, but there are no similar warnings for women. Hmm. I sense that God is trying to say something, I'm just not sure what......
Oh, wait. The Bible does tell women to be silent in church. Now, THAT'S one they don't preach from the pulpits these days. What a pity. The churches have been overrun with angry, rebellious women and the temperature gauge in virtually all churches has been set to feminine. No wonder so many men are abandoning organized Christianity, and are striking out on their own to spread the Word.
Christ found in his day that his most hateful enemies were the religious folk of His day. Nothing much has changed. If you preach the Word, the world will generally ignore you. But the church will persecute you. No, I don't have a persecution complex. But, it astounds me the level of hostility I encounter from Christians when I advocate a return to what God says about women and their relationship to their husbands. I'm not surprised that women react with hate and hostility. A woman is always in rebellion, and leans to the dark side. What is a woman but hate and anger these days?
But, what I find disturbing is the sheer number of witless Christian men who have no back bone. They ignore what the Bible teaches about women completely. They hang onto ONE verse that says that whosoever finds a wife finds a good thing.....and then proceed to ignore the many other verses- even entire chapters -that tell you quite the opposite.
Simply put- if you find a Proverbs 31 woman, you have indeed found a "good thing". No question about that. Such a woman would be heaven on earth.
Good luck finding her.
In this wicked culture, men are constantly brainwashed to think they need women and sex. It surrounds us. It's an evil obsession with the flesh. Men are at least partially responsible for their sin in this area. They ignore the teachings of the Bible, and listen to women. Adam did it to his ruin. So did Samson. And Millions upon millions of other men down through the ages. Nothing new under the sun, you know....
I have a friend who attends an evangelical church nearby. Last year, the pastor finally decided to grow a back bone to address the problems in marraige, and very lovingly tell that congregation that while men needed to take the lead in a loving Biblical way in the home, that women needed to obey their husbands.
The women- supposedly Christian women- actually booed the poor pastor away from the podium. This is no liberal church, but a fairly large, conservative evangelical church.
The men just sat there. Apparently too gutless and terrified to say anything.
Do we really think God doesn't judge people and nations? We really haven't seen anything yet.
It's going to get so much worse.
I don't expect my comments will be met with anything but hostility by most. I simply preach the Word. Right out of the Bible. No additions. No personal interpretations.
The straight stuff.
That type of action got Christ crucified, and the Old Testament prophets murdered. How history repeats itself. The religious folk have usually been the enemies of God, and nothing has changed.
So, ignore me if you choose, or call me names if you like.
But I dare you to prove me wrong using the Bible.
Ain't gonna happen.
I can't BELIEVE what an idiot this fella is. Please whine some more about name calling and proceed to call Maken, Caliv, Luther and Mohler names.
I am deeply saddened by the fact that you call yourself a Christian. I can't even image the harm you must have done to the cause of Christ with this nonsense of yours. Complete blithering fool. By the way, this is not name calling since I am speaking the truth here.
Wobatty;
I like you. You think. Fair enough.
I read your remarks, and I suppose I should be a bit more clear.
I don't oppose the concept of marraige. I simply think that it is not in a man's best interests to get married in the United States in this day and age, and certainly not to any woman that has been raised in this wicked culture. Go to Russia or Thailand. I know many men who have, and they are very happy.
So, I concede that I needed to modify some of my statements.
I stand corrected.
If you will re-read my remarks, and certainly the comments I just posted earlier, I do not absolve men of their guilt. Their sin is generally one of omission. I do maintain that women generally take a far more active role in pursuing evil than men. Why do you thing Satan approached the woman in the garden? Simply, because he knew the man would tell him to blow. He approached the one he knew who would be receptive to his advances.
The Bible does say that Eve was in the transgession. She was used to corrupt Adam, not the other way around. Does this clear Adam?
Not at all.
He ignored and disobeyed God and hearkened to the rebellious woman and her mentor, Satan.
I do not say that men are without sin. I'm certainly battling my own nasty nature on a daily basis. I don't always win.
As to my claim that women are more evil than men -read the Bible. Ecclesiastes chapter seven. The King James is clear, and the NIV even more so. I was taken aback when I first read it, but it's there. There is no way it can be misunderstood. There is a reason why virtually NO pastor goes near this chapter. Ever.
"I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare....I found one (upright) man among a thousand, BUT NOT ONE (UPRIGHT) WOMAN AMONG THEM ALL."
It's there. I didn't write it. God did. No one who has any integrity (and I know you do) can seriously attempt to assert that God was saying anything other than what is clearly written right there for all to see.
I have been preaching Christianity for a long time, my friend. If you want to see a Christian woman, or better yet, a pastor, act like they have ants in their pants, try preaching out of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Especially the scriptures I have been mentioning.
It's almost comical to watch.
As to being a mirror of Maken....not a chance. She attempts to twist scripture for her own dishonest end. It's evil, and she stands to be judged very harshly by The Almighty.
I'm merely quoting the Bible, and letting it do it's own talking.
You are quite correct in saying that I shouldn't let women wallow in their sin. This is one failing that I have, and I'm not especially proud of it. I have grown very disgusted with women and their corruption. I don't yet have the patience of Job. I truly have never met a woman that is, if you will forgive the expression, "worth a tinker's damn". Crude and possibly too judgemental, but I have pretty much lost all hope for women. They always react with hostility and anger when I preach what the Bible says about marraige. And divorce. And remarraige. It just gets old after awhile.
Philipa is pretty typical of what I have encountered. Insults. Name calling. You name it. It doesn't hurt me personally, not that any woman has the least bit of interest in whether or not her comments hurt a man, but it just gets old. I got tired of banging my head on the wall.
Women just don't listen- period.
So, if I come across too strongly at times, no harm is intended. I get frustrated. Family life has been all but destroyed in this once great nation, and the bulk of the blame lies at the feet of women.
Read the book by Hise. If you don't like it, we'll find a way so I can personally refund your money. Seriously. The book is that good.
I hope I have helped.
Chris wrote:
-----------------------------------
Women are in complete rebellion against the plan of God as outlined in the Bible.
-----------------------------------
And men aren't? Rebellion against God is the 'HUMAN CONDITION', not the 'female condition'.
Chris wrote:
-----------------------------------
A woman is always in rebellion, and leans to the dark side.
-----------------------------------
This is just fallacious. As if men don't suffer the same predilections.
Chris wrote:
-----------------------------------
Satan declared war against God and man back in the garden. His first and most valuable tool in that war was the woman.
-----------------------------------
James wrote (1:13-15):
-----------------------------------
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
-----------------------------------
Didn't see anything about women in there. By the way, regardless of who or what is tempting you, it is your responsiblity to resist that temptation.
Chris wrote:
-----------------------------------
Satan is still using women to corrupt men.
-----------------------------------
And he doesn't use men to corrupt women - or other men for that matter?
Chris wrote:
-----------------------------------
If any of you are actually Christians, and I suspect that most of the men are....
-----------------------------------
...and the women aren't? Based on what?
Chris wrote;
----------------------------------
I really don't have anything else to say to a rebellious and apparently un-biblical woman, so I will address my remarks to any man with the sense to listen.
-----------------------------------
This isn't a church and you aren't an elder here. You have no more claim on Philppa's deference in this forum than she has on yours. Being a man isn't a license to be above female scrutiny.
All in all Chris, I would suggest you ponder Romans 12:3 for a good long time:
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.
Actually, Anon, if you call someone a fool, Christ said you are in danger of hellfire....But let's not worry about the Word of God, eh?
As to being an idiot, you may have a point.....lol
Wombatty;
Come now. You're smarter than this. Of course we all have a sinful nature. Every one of us. Sadly, you seem unwilling to address Proverbs chapter seven. Let me refresh your memory.
"...NOT ONE UPRIGHT AMONG THEM ALL."
Again, "NOT ONE (1) UPRIGHT AMONG THEM ALL."
NOT ONE.
ZERO.
ZIP.
NADDA.
We can compare notes all day, and cuss and discuss and pontificate. I certainly do more than my share. But, in the final analysis, the Word of God should settle the issue.
Honestly, I don't think highly of myself. I can be an utter pain in the tail- as you've noticed. Often times, I don't like myself at all, and have made so many stupid blunders in life that I could spend weeks discussing my sins and errors of judgement.
No question about it.
But, if we wait until only perfect people preach the Bible, it won't get done.
I don't seek anything from Philippa. She wasn't interested in discussing what the Bible says. She used the typical female response of name calling and insulting. At that point, I really don't feel obliged to respond to someone who is either unwilling or incapable of carrying on an adult conversation. I have found very few women that have either the intellectual capacity or the self-control to do so. It's usually pointless to carry on any kind of serious Biblical discussion with one of them. "Answer not a fool according to his folly.."
No, I'm not calling her a fool. I simply say that she tends to act foolishly and child-like. Again, nothing new under the sun....
As to the scripture in James......sigh. Again, you disappoint me. Those verses are speaking in general terms about people. You know this. The human condition, as you say. I certainly never said that God tempts men.
But, certain scriptures were put in place to warn MEN about evil WOMEN, and nothing anyone can say will change this FACT.
The Word of God has weathered assaults for centuries, but nothing will change what Proverbs says about women.
NOT ONE UPRIGHT AMONG THEM ALL.
Scary idea, eh? Why do Christian men run from this chapter? I can see why women do, but men? It takes courage to address this issue. If Proverbs is actually part of the inerrant Word of God, and there are really NO upright women, just how does this impact your life? Few men want to consider the implications. It would require a massive re-adjustment of one's thought processes. You would have to stop looking at women through rose-colored glasses and have the COURAGE to stand up to women.
Very few men have that courage. You will note that Proverbs seven also implicates MEN by saying that there was only ONE upright man among them all.
No, men don't get off the hook. None of this evil could take place if men weren't sitting on the sidelines doing NOTHING while women run amock.
Yes, the judgement of God is coming on ALL of society- men and women.
Wombatty;
On re-reading your earlier comments, you show your unbiblical bias about women. You say that a woman is God's supreme invention.
How untrue.
Man was His greatest invention. The woman was simply placed here to help the man. She was made for him, not the other way around. Do not make the error so many men make of placing women on a pedestal. That happened in the west, and as a result, we are in the mess we are in today.
Women have forgotten their place in the grand scheme of things....and so have men.
Anonymous said: By the way, this is not name calling since I am speaking the truth here.
Anonymous,
I'm sorry, but this doesn't fly with me. I agree Chris is way off base, but the fact that you're pointing that out doesn't give you the right to just call him anything you want. The scripture tells us we are to speak the truth in love, and it's hard to see love in calling someone else a fool and an idiot. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who thinks that because their cause is right, that therefore they are excused from common decency to others.
Chris:
I should clarify my citation of James; my point was that you sin when you are enticed and dragged away by your own desires, not the wiles of some woman. I did not intend to imply that you were blaming God for temptation.
As to your citation of Ecc 7:28; you're correct it's there all right. But before we get all carried away, let's back up to verse 20 for a moment:
-------------------------------------
For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin
-------------------------------------
To quote you:
NOT ONE.
ZERO.
ZIP.
NADDA.
That says no man, not 'no one' or 'no woman'. Further, if we do take this passage as a declaration of men's spiritual superiority to women; men still have very little reason to look down on women. A person who can be trusted only one time in a thousand is really no more trustworthy than a person who can't be trusted at all. It's like the difference between 100 degrees below zero and 150 degrees below zero. There's no practical difference; it's too cold to do anything, Btw, I've never heard of any Christian man 'running from this chapter'.
You wrote:
-------------------------------------
Why do you thing Satan approached the woman in the garden? Simply, because he knew the man would tell him to blow.
-------------------------------------
And you base this conclusion on what? Certainly nothing in the text.
As for many warnings in Proverbs about wayward women; have you noticed that are alot more warnings about evil men than evil women? Unless you want to chalk all or most of those references up to 'general statements' about humanity, it would imply that we have more to fear from men than women.
You have said repeatedly that you don't hate women. Fine, I'll take you at your word. It is clear, however, that you regard them as spiritually inferior to men. Also, what of all the positive portrayals of women in the NT and complete lack of any mention of their inherent spiritual inferiority?
In 1 Peter 3:7, Peter writes:
-------------------------------------
Husbands, likewise, dwell with [your wives] with understanding, giving honor to [her], as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
-------------------------------------
(Every commentary I have ever seen states that the word 'weaker' refers to physical, not spiritual, weakness).
I can't believe that Peter meant that husbands are to understand that:
- Ecclesiastes chapter seven... is warning men about the inherant nature of ALL -repeat- ALL- women.
- Christian women are no different than non-Christian women. (God disagrees as he commands us not to be unequally yoked)
- Women (and not men) are in complete rebellion against the plan of God as outlined in the Bible.
- A woman is always in rebellion, and leans to the dark side (even the Proverbs 31 wife?).
- What is a woman but hate and anger these days?
- Women just don't listen- period.
- Women are far more active in pursuing evil than men
Incidentally, if any guys want help in understanding women, I would highly recommend Shaunti Feldhahn's book 'For Men Only (and for the ladies, her book 'For Women Only' will help you understand us men).
No personal offense intended, but I see your belief that women are inherently spiritually inferior to men as unbiblical as Maken's doctrine of mandatory marriage. IMHO, both positions read more into the texts appealed to than is actually there.
Lastly; perhaps I need to restate my 'unbiblical' view on women. My original statement was not meant as a declaration of the biblical station of womankind. I should have said, 'Personally, women are my favorite of God's inventions. Why? Because in woman God combines the mystery of the Cosmos with the beauty of a sunset. And no, I am not claiming any biblical warrant for that statement - it's 100% Wombatty.
I CAN call some an idiot in love. Also, have people forgotten Jesus in the temple?
This might be considered an ad hominem, but I believe the members of the "meninism/marriage strike" movement are really just shy, socially inept guys who are unappealing to women and can't get one, so they attempt to ameliorate their frustration by claiming they don't want one anyway. This describes me more or less, and I once considered claiming to be a part of that movement before realizing the above was the only reason I'd have for doing so. The notion that there are legions of men out there--especially Christian ones taking this view, who should be ashamed of themselves--who could get married but are choosing not to because they know that women initiate 2/3 of divorces and are afraid their professing Christian wife will leave them in 20 years taking the kids and half their finances is a complete joke. I have never encountered such a man in real life, only online, where one cannot tell that another is really a 5'4" bald Star Trek fanatic with a pot belly and halitosis who still lives with his mother. Yeah, I'm sure women are reeling from the effects of "marriage strike" on the part of those guys.
If you except intelligent people to take you seriously, then why engage in ad hominem? I suppose with the same degree of insight we could say that women who care about domestic violence, rape, equal pay, etc. are nothing but a bunch of lesbians with hairy-armpits. What have we accomplished by such name-calling?
It occurs to me that you are very ignorant of the Men Right's community. I do know some of these men - some are married - some are nerdy - some are jockish - some are well-off - some are not - black, white, hispanic. Whether or not anyone takes my word on this matter is besides the point. You statement is a slap in the face of what these men stand for. Hardly Christlike in my opinion. The issues that Men's Rights Activists are addressing are not going away, and no amount of shaming tactics from selfish women and unprincipled men is going to change the situation.
You also fail to realize that 22% of men surveyed in a study by Barbara Popenoe indicated hesistancy to marry for the same that MRAs raise.
Don't get me wrong; I have great sympathy because I'm basically a nerd too. I just think we should be honest and stop pretending we're great catches when we're not. Yes, I wish women had lower standards, but that's a different argument.
Yeppers! All those nasty guys that refuse to marry are just dweebs that no good woman would want anyway! We've heard that one enough times from the gynocentrists. Just one little problem with that idea, my friend -- where are all the men that women DO want? Why are Maken and company whining and moaning about Christian men who won't commit? Why are Albert Mohler and others blaming men? If all those men out there are so undesirable, then why are they accused of "failing their duty to marry"? Really, if marriage was a such a no-brainer for most men, then why do we have Steven Watters and Alex Chediak writing articles trying to make some desperate case for marriage for men??? Hmmm???? You've overplayed your hand on that one.
Apparently, it seems there are more than enough men who are on a "marriage strike" and probably don't even know it. Maybe they are not MRAs - maybe they just like sleeping around - but they are STILL not marrying. Why is it that women want marriage more than men? I think we know who the gravy train is for, don't we?
Chris' views may seem like shock, but until we start taking misandry and gynocentrism seriously, men like him are not going to go away.
I have to agree with Anon and Chris on this one. Too many people - Maken is a perfect example - simply refuse to acknowledge that women have played an important role in the decline of marriage. Maken and her followers seem to take any criticism of her position as 'men whining' or 'men [illegitimately] playing victim'. For his disagreement with Maken, Dr. Kostenberger is smeared as cynically promoting his book, Anakin's blog and the site 'Faith and Society' has been called 'boo-hoo sites'. (I've never been to the 'Faith and Society' site).
Until people like Maken et. al. become willing to open their eyes to the fact that many women have played an active roll (intentionally or not) in discouraging men from marrying, much of the problem will persist.
Apparently, men should just shut up and 'take it like a man' when we're treated like doormats and scapegoats. Books like the one suggested by Chris (The War Against Men by Richard T. Hise), 'Spreading Misandry' and 'Legalizing Misandry' by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young address real problems. Christina Hoff Summers' book 'The War Against Boys' is also worth a look as it details how males are being marginalized and demonized starting in elementary school. The sooner people like Maken acknowledge the reality of these problems, the better.
All of this is not to say that we men don't have a good bit of work to do ourselves; I believe we do. But it doesn't help when one side of the debate insists on keeping their head in the sand about real issues.
Anonymous said: I CAN call some an idiot in love.
I can't judge your heart, but I guess I find this highly questionable. I also find it highly suspicious to invoke Jesus in the temple as a justification for bad behavior. In fact, I'd say it comes dangerously close to sacrilege. Jesus was sinless and perfect in all his motives, something than none of us can claim.
That notwithstanding, the preponderance of biblical evidence is clear that we should treat others with gentleness and respect, especially in the way we talk to them. In Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus actually extends the teaching of the law on murder to include the way we talk to other people. Also see James 3:9-12; Gal 5:22-26; 1 Cor 13: 4-5 among others.
Darn it, it seems like every time a good discussion gets started on the internet it gets hijacked by lunatics.
First of all, Chris's HPV statistic, while disheartening, does not by itself allow the conclusion that women are more sluttish than men. If we look at the issue cynically, and stipulate that men want to have multiple sexual partners when they are young and only settle down later in life, while women want to have sex with these exciting, alluring "studly player" types, it could just be that 50% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women, leaving the other 50% (which includes us nerds and socially inept types) left to scramble for a scant 20% of the women. The problem is that this doesn't apply among Christians who don't believe in non-marital sex.
Now, anonymous...
You also fail to realize that 22% of men surveyed in a study by Barbara Popenoe indicated hesistancy to marry for the same that MRAs raise.
What does this mean, though? If a pollster came up to me and asked me if I refused to get married and if so what the reason was, I could say "fear of being unilaterally divorced by my wife and having my kids taken away and my finances ruined" even though if I approached an attractive woman at a bar or party and tried to pick her up she'd laugh in my face. Besides, 22% is not insignificant, but it still means there's 78% who don't agree.
where are all the men that women DO want? Why are Maken and company whining and moaning about Christian men who won't commit? Why are Albert Mohler and others blaming men? If all those men out there are so undesirable, then why are they accused of "failing their duty to marry"? Really, if marriage was a such a no-brainer for most men, then why do we have Steven Watters and Alex Chediak writing articles trying to make some desperate case for marriage for men??? Hmmm???? You've overplayed your hand on that one.
I don't think you understand me. I think I agree with you on that one, at least, if I understand you correctly. One of the biggest problems is that women's standards are unrealistically high, and Christian women are some of the worst offenders on that count. (I.e., if we don't have the zeal of a Jim Elliott and aren't eager to go get speared by some jungle tribe in the faint hope that they might hear the word "Jesus" pass from our lips as our dying breath, they're concerned that we're not mature enough to be their spiritual leader and so they'd better just remain single.) I think these men that women DO want don't exist, and women aren't willing to settle for the men who DO exist. Debbie Maken and Al Mohler are bemoaning Christian men who won't commit and blaming men for not marrying because, IMHO, they don't get out enough to realize that among Christians, a greater percentage of men care about marriage than women. Instead, they're sitting around watching Friends and assuming it depicts how young Christian men are behaving. However, I also think you're wrong for believing there are so many Christian men who are rejecting the notion that marriage is a "no brainer" and are voluntarily remaining single. Unbelieving men who'd rather continue having more exciting sexual escapades while avoiding the risks of marriage, perhaps. But if what Debbie Maken says about the male sex drive is true (and in my experience it is), the last thing we Christian men would want to do with our twenties is spend them living with roommates and playing video games, which is what she accuses us of. It doesn't make any sense. I'd like Mrs. Maken or Rev. Mohler to introduce me to these hordes of attractive twentysomething Christian women who are so desperate for marriage, but I'm not holding my breath.
However, we shouldn't neglect a legitimate problem women do have, which is that there are fewer single men in churches than single women. In my church of about 1000, I am literally the only post-college-aged never-married man I know of, except for a few older, somewhat mentally ill men. Yet I can think right now of 6 or 7 post-college-aged never-married women. What are they supposed to do? This problem is tempered, though, by the fact that I know several of them have turned down decent opportunities. One of them is my ex-girlfriend, who broke up with men when I tried to take her ring shopping. I'd like to see Debbie Maken or Al Mohler try to explain that one. Would they merely dismiss her as a statistical outlier, would they claim that I must have been doing something wrong, or would they just stammer "that... does not... compute!"
One thing's for sure, though. Anyone trying to claim the Bible teaches that all women are inherently evil and men must avoid them is no different from Debbie Maken claiming the Bible commands everyone to get married.
As for those books, I'll have to add them to my ever-growing list of books I'd like to read which grows faster than I can read them...
Anon 8:25am said
" ... study by Barbara Popenoe indicated hesistancy to marry for the same that MRAs raise."
Good post! I believe you're referring to Barbara Dafoe Whitehead & David Popenoe, btw.
The thing about the men's movement is that it's more than just about battling feminism. It's about men taking control of their own lives. It's about fighting and reversing anti male friendly laws that have made marriage unsuitable in its now comatose state.
Every man can decide for himself why he is unmarried. Everyone has their own story for why he/ she is not married whether by choice or because of demogaphic imbalances in their church, etc., etc., In effect, there are a multiplicity of reasons for many men/ women to stay single.
I've seen men who were unattractive who had very attractive wives/ girlfriends. The point about bitter men who are "frustrated because they can't get any women" has already been done before, and though it might apply to a few gents, I don't believe one should make such a sweeping generalization toward a movement of men. One size doesn't fit all.
Regardless, allow me to add more beef to the discussion.
-- The Christian community can sit back and scratch their heads and remain passive by choice and not get involved by trying to reverse this trend, or they can do something by getting off their duff and turning this culture around, but it's not going to get done by prayer alone.
In my opinion, many Christians do nothing but act like "obedient good little boys and girls", they spearhead nothing, and then assume that by doing this, that not only will America be revived again, but that these good little Christian boys and girls will be richly rewarded in Heaven for their passive behavior.
This analysis may be incorrect, but it appears to be the attitude, and the attitude is what I'm looking at.
I do not believe our forefathers sat passively by while the Revolutionary War was taking place. Can you imagine our forefathers (or King David, for that matter), being a pacifist? And even though there is no Revolutionary War to fight today, there is a culture war that, in many ways, has become tougher to battle.
If you don't think there's a war today, then fine, wait on the return of Christ. Don't get involved. Continue to watch your freedoms drift away as we draw the curtain on the last rays of civilization.
Consequently, if nothing gets done to create an environment and incentive for marriage, then all we're going to have is less people getting married. This, in turn, will propituate into a domino effect of unintended consequences. It's a fact that more men are delaying marriage (for whatever the reason) and it's not going to get any better by renouncing forces that may help the cause. Let's face it, older men such as Albert Mohler are totally going in the wrong direction.
God forbid that we touch those secular men's rights activist, right?
But I'm telling you, if you think that staying couped up in your inner circle, your little Christian box, and ignoring what's going on in the real world is going to make things go away, you're only preparing yourself for the social control of the nanny state. Oh, and by the way, just to interject something here, the voting poll demographic census has shown that there are more and more single women who vote for social entitlements compared to men and that the State has become their new "husband".
Would you really like a taste of what is going on?
From Darren Blacksmith:
"When you feminise education, take away competition from schools, use 'positive discrimination' to discriminate against white men in the workplace, over-tax us, then make us vulnerable to losing vast swathes of our life savings/home in divorce do you seriously think young men will be as eager as ever to rush out and get married and get a mortgage at age 21? I mean, what planet are you people living on? Do you still think that its possible for a typical working man to support a wife, large family and large house like he could in the 1950s? Get real.
One minute we're told that we are oppressive patriarchs who try to entrap women into the slavery of marriage, and who do nothing but destroy the environment with our 'progress'. The next minute we're told that we are losers for not marrying and that we aren't consuming enough! This kind of 'denigrate the person for WHATEVER they do' behavior is the sort of thing that a sociopath or abusive personality inflicts upon others.
What is really driving this whine-fest against young men are two things:
1. Older men being jealous that today's young men are not entrapped by the same social responsibilities as past generations. And women getting bitter that men aren't rushing to support them to stay at home so they can give up work.
and:
2. The fear that the engine of the economy - today's young men - is no longer going to work harder and harder and for longer hours, which is neccessary to fund the retirements of an aging population, and to fund a generation of women who've decided that the workplace isn't the utopia they thought it was, and, if-you-please, can we give up work now and 'retire' to being moms... on your paycheck?
Sorry sister but that era is over. And it was you baby boomers and feminists who killed it. So don't blame us for the effects. The social contracts that held men into being society's workhorses were broken by you long ago, so don't you dare whine at us for not living up to YOUR expectations. Which are actually nothing more than greed-driven shaming tactics. Exactly the same tactics that women and older men have for centuries used to get ordinary men to go off and fight in wars.
Take a running jump, cos this generation of men doesn't care what you think anymore."
From Vox Day:
"For non-Christian men, the answer is easy: Avoid marriage at all costs. Marriage only weakens your legal and emotional positions vis-a-vis a woman, and since American women will freely provide companionship, sex and children upon request, to marry is to give up a great deal for what is literally less than nothing.
A Christian man, on other hand, cannot freely engage in non-committal sexual relationships, and so must marry. He can improve his odds, however, by marrying a Christian woman who is not on the career track. This will significantly increase the chances that he will not find himself at the legal mercy of a sociopath obsessed with momentary happiness über alles, but blessed by a traditional wife committed to building a family and a life together with him instead.
But is it possible for a Christian couple to avoid the state's machinery of control and still marry before God? Yes, according to pastor Matt Trewhella. "What's recorded in a family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their family Bibles. So should we."
Remember, folks, one might consider today that "marriage and the license" is controlled by the nanny state. The "marriage by license" has only been around for 150 American years and has steadily lost its value in the last 40 years as a result of feminist/ socialistic inspired policies. What did we do before that time when there was no marriage license? Hmmm?
But because the nanny state says we have to have a "license" the majority members of the "obedient masses" cave in one by one; they continue to be chattel and pretend that nothing is happening around them. The Christian community, it would appear to these eyes, accept it all as a "part of life" and God's will.
I mean, what can we do, right?
In my own opinion, Darren Blacksmith is right about our culture. As soon as people such as Maken, Dobson, and Mohler hear that some young men are not working 60/ 80 hours per week, are staying single longer, and men are not addressing their leadership roles, they whine and throw a tantrum.
They're upset because a few men like myself are no longer going to work harder for longer hours and replenish the population which is neccessary to fund/ sustain the retirements of an aging population, and to fund a generation of social programs and entitlements. This problem is not confined to the USA, folks. Look at what's happening all over the world just by doing a Google search with key words -- "mass immigration", "low fertility Europe", "Japan marriage", "feminism nanny state", -- mix and match these words. Already I have found articles, such as:
"Men Retreat From Hassle Of 'Loving' Relationships"
"Beasts Of Burden"
"Parasites In Pret-a-Porter"
"Extreme Wedlock"
"Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say"
"It's The Demography, Stupid!"
"'Parasite Singles'"
" More men convinced marriage leads to life of misery"
"FuturePundit Trends Demographic Archives"
"Europe's demographic crisis"
"Germany agonises over 30% childless women"
"Britain: Men behave singularly like eternal bachelors"
"Europe's Angry Muslims"
"Narcissism, Disintegration, Suicidality & the Fall of the West"
"The French Intifada: A Second Look"
"If You Love Freedom Don't get Married And Have Kids"
"Permadolescence"
At any rate, the government's concern for the younger generation is to have more potential offspring to blindly feed into a system, including obeying the rules and regulations of affirmative action, feminism, and other sordid rat turds looking for entitlements. You think their concern for the younger folks goes any further than contribution to the State?
They don't care if the male suicide rate continues to triple, for an example.
For many older folks, the kids from the next generation are nothing more than tax revenue; they are just another dollar sign. As these kids grow older and find a job, they are nothing more than branded cattle used as tax fodder for more social programs and other agendas.
The people who bitch because some men like myself are not loosening our loins, do so because they resent that I refuse to participate in the system.
My opinion is that the real selfish people are the ones who want YOU to share in their dream of becoming a "beast of burden". It ticks them off. It REALLY ticks them off.
Their real fear is that there may not be enough "wage slaves" around for them to continue on the government sow. They fear there won't be enough productive workers and it's killing them that people like me are an anathema to their future plans.
No, do not condemn me for remaining a bachelor. Do not condemn me for my failure to procreate. America is reaping exactly what it sowed and will continue to sow as long as people feed into the system. You think I want my child to become a wage slave to the state? If so, not every man shares that dream, my friend.
And now that its white citizenry are delaying marriage and having fewer children, the government hoodwinks pout and sulk and think of other means to get their totalitarian wishes.
The death of the middle class is definitely a step backward for our civilization. We voted to steal from the young and give to the old, which means cradle-to-grave socialism comes at a huge cost. One cannot pay the bill without a whole lot of productive workers paying into the system. And the oppressive taxation and faulty divorce courts discourages producing the next generation of workers.
Additionally ... "Low fertility rates and an aging [Boomer] population mean that taxation will have to rise". And contributing to this tax burden is our lax 'open borders' to immigration. In effect, this will magnify the problem with more people on the dole.
So please put on your seat belts, folks, 'cuz it's going to get worse before it gets better. If you want to see where we're possibly going fifteen or twenty years from now, just keep watching Europe.
Not everyone shares these views, I agree, but that's not up for debate; and it doesn't make my convictions any less worthy of consideration. A man or woman's reasons for staying single may be different from mine, but regardless, this trend is worldwide and not secluded to western shores only.
In closing, if one wants to marry, that's a choice anyone should make if they have faith in the institution and the State. Marriage is hard work, and no one should be pushed or shamed into it. One has to want to be married because it's for THEM. One has to listen and act upon their own "convictions".
I have listened to mine.
this whole thing sucks!
i just wanna get laid.
Thank you! Thank you! I just found this blog and I wanted to Thank You. As a single, older woman who works in ministry I found Maken's book the worst kind of abuse of cultural values meeting scriptural interpolation. I am single and for the most part happy. I am celibate, which is difficult in this culture. If I were to marry, I would be wonderfully excited. If I remain single, it is where God wants me and it is not an inferior place. AHHH... thanks for your critique of her book! so helpful!!!
Thanks for your post. I'm personally tired of the prejudice and assumption of sin that's thrown upon single people, as if we rejected marriage and family in the name of selfish pursuits (career, money, sexual freedom, etc.). The worse part is having people like Maken try to spiritualize their sin through errant theology, which unfortunately, goes unchallenged by those with power in the church, mainly the married.
My personally observation is that most single people have not chosen singleness, particularly women. With a ratio of 4 to 1 of single women to men in the church, it's inevitable that many good, Christian women will remain unmarried as long as the church does nothing to rectify this situation. Furthermore, most single women I know in the church are single precisely because they refused to compromise sexually. Indeed, if a single woman in the church is willing to compromise in this area, rest assured, she'll be married in no time. I'd say it's time for the church to recognize that most married couples have committed the very sexual sins that they accuse the singles of committing, and that marriage does not rectify this sin isssue. The church is due for some major repenting.
I am getting rid of Debbie Maken's book. Not only does she judge men in an unbiblical manner, she also raises anxiety with stories and statistics. While I can see a trace of validity in her concerns, the issues lie in focusing on scripture and how we allow the Holy Spirit and scripture to dictate the way we ought to live. She writes of a tightfisted God who will only give to the people who does what she believes He is saying.
I have decided to get rid of most of the singles books because they emphasize problems and shovel out blanket solutions. Furthermore, I'd rather work on growing as a believer regardless of where God has me in the relational spectrum.
I have noticed that the more attractive prospects have a firm foundation in God's word and are content with themselves. They seek God for fulfillment and are focused on the welfare of God's kingdom. They take their walk with God and not themselves seriously.
To people who blame the church:
Stop blaming the church. Yes, there may be problems, but it wouldn't hurt to make lemonade out of lemons. Wouldn't it help to try to fix your friends up with some people? It may be hard in your area, but just join some groups and you never know what God may do in your life. The window of opportunity to meet new prospects gets smaller by the day. The more we sit around complaining about what the church is doing wrong, the more lonely and disillusioned many people may become. Do you have a single friend you may like to introduce to another single friend? What are you waiting for?! Do you feel bad about your physical appearance? Try to figure out what's in your control to change. I am not the wealthiest person, but after I made several changes in my lifestyle, I started looking better and hence I actually have started dating more Christian men. Sure it takes sacrifice, but God gave us freewill to make the most out of the situation he put us in. What are you going to do?
God did not guarantee certainty over anything in our lives because of the fall and because He wants to shape our character. For example, I could end up never getting married. Or worse, I could be hit by a bus next Sunday. Do you want your walk to be riddled with doubt or with assurance that He has our best interests in mind?
As a single woman, I have noticed that there is a tendency to view Christian men with some sort of messianic expectation. If I were a man, I would be annoyed and even a little frightened about the idea that a woman is looking to me as a savior from the difficulties of loneliness, work and insecurity. Furthermore, it would probably be unappealing to be with a woman who is waiting around for him to propose, or worse, to pressure him into a serious relationship. While it is important for a woman to be careful about who she allows into her life, it is also important for her to try to see things from the guy's perspective. This is a reminder for myself and maybe other women to adjust her expectations. Just like you would want a man to respect your space, hopefully, you will try to walk a mile in his shoes and respect his.
According to the blog, Maken made the following statement in her book:
"Sally was in her late thirties, owned her own home, and had a respectable job and a decent savings account. She was dating someone who, though older, was a pizza delivery boy. I was shocked. She actually became engaged to this individual, which was even more shocking. At some point she looked up and thought, This isn't fair. The engagement ended, and I have to admit I was relieved." (p. 148"
==I hate to tell Maken this, but that comment is as fleshly and worldly as it gets. What if, and I know Maken does not believe this idea, that man was who God wanted this women to marry? Because of Maken's false teachings this woman may very well have just missed out on God's best for her life. Maybe the poor guy had lost his job and that was the best he could do? She assumes he was a low class, lazy, no good, yet there are other possible reasons for his situation.
I have a masters degree, I work in an office at a state University, I am working on a second masters, and I am trying to start a teaching career in the community college system. Yet I would never, and I repeat never, date/marry anyone who had done (in the past) what the woman in Maken's account did. Why not? Because the woman is worldly, fleshly, materialistic, and carnal. You think I am being "judgmental"? You are wrong. I am just saying it like it is. The woman in the account is more interested in social status than she is interested in the person she was going to promise (BEFORE GOD) to have, to hold, and to love for better or worse till death parts them. Yet her real concern was social status. Thus she would have been lying when she made her sacred promise.
I am not saying that people should not care about a potential mate's career (goals), looks, or social status. All of that is part of the larger picture. However when one of those reasons, alone, causes a person to reject/breakup with someone there is something really, really wrong.
I have some advice for all the angry, single, Christian women Maken is talking to. Read 1Corinthians 7, read Philippians 4, and realize that marriage is not required of all believers. The Bible NEVER shames someone for staying single. It is clear that God leaves this decision up to the individual to make (in prayer and fellowship with the Lord). They also need to learn to be "content" in whatever circumstance they are in. They need to learn to trust the Sovereign God of the Universe, their Lord and Savior, to guide their lives. They need to learn to "be anxious for nothing" and they need to take their desires/needs to the Lord so He can bring them "the right" person.
As for Maken's assertion that people should be aggressive (etc). Well I would advise caution. Please keep in mind what happened to Abraham when he took things into his own hands. Christians only need to step out on the branch (in faith) when the Lord tells them to. Stepping out, even in faith, on that branch when the Lord has not told them to is a good way for them to fall out of a tree and get hurt. Don't change churches in a desperate search for a husband/wife unless God first directs you to do so. Don't sign up, and spend your money on, EHARMONY unless God directs you to do so. Wait for the Lord, trust in Him, and He will do what is best. Am I saying sit back and do nothing? NO! If you have a chance to go out with someone take it. If you see someone you are interested in seek to meet them. But don't get into such a hurry that you do things without FIRST getting permission from the Lord. If you seek Him first, if you desire the Lord first, if you put His plan first, you will not be sad you did. I think part of the problem many Christian singles have today is that they are not trusting the Lord. They are trying to "work things out" themselves. That will not work, they will fail, and they will be angry. Sadly Maken is only helping them in that.
Maken is a false teacher, make no mistake about it. Much of her advice is carnal/fleshly and will do more damage than good.
I could say "MUCH" more, and I am sure I will at a later date, but for now I pray that everyone will take a deep breath and look at the Scriptures I pointed out. Stop trying to read into them what you want (hope) them to say. Let the Scriptures determine your world view instead of Debbie Maken, Al Mohler, the Republican Party, or any social concern.
I'm so glad that many more men and women are turning away from Maken's message.
A wonderful woman I dearly loved turned away from me because I didn't do what Maken suggested a real 'Christian man' should do.
Oh well, we live and learn. I hope she regains an open mind one day. I want marriage and children, not endless argument about what Debbie says is right.
Post a Comment
<< Home