We Know Them by Their Fruits, Too
I've taken a breather from my critique of Debbie Maken's book, but plan to resume it very soon. In the mean time, I have noticed some reactions to this blog. Here is what one respondent to a post at a marriage mandate blog had to say ...
So, instead of dealing with the arguments that those of my persuasion raise, some marriage mandate proponents of the blogosphere have decided to resort to personal attacks, censorship, or maybe just benign neglect with respect to counterarguments we make. Yes, we know at least some of them by their fruits, too (Proverbs 10:18b). To my regular readers who are in agreement with me, you might want to consider yourself honored (Matthew 5:11-12).
"Unfortunately, there is very little merit on the Scripturally Single blogspot. It seems to be a group of overgrown men [sic?] who are looking for biblically inventive ways to justify their perennial bachelorhood. Their sole purpose is to trace sightings of pro-Maken entries and interject themselves into a debate they are hardly capable of managing. More disturbing is the fact that many of the arguments on that site are misogynistic in nature. Mr. Wilson, I know you do not have the time to double check everything that everyone posts, but on this one, you might want to terminate those blog posts with that site reference ...Indeed, a "tree is known by its fruits." What are the fruits of this marriage mandate proponent and of many others? Let us count the apples. My readers and I are said to be ...
"Gordon, A tree is known by its fruits. Maken's fruits include a group of supporters and converts ready to take a serious look at the error of the modern church on singleness. Scripturally Single and other similar blogs however show unrepentance and anger just because Maken dared to say that the emperor has on no clothes. These collaborators are window-washers by day, theologians by night. They seem to be individuals that can barely manage their own lives, much less spiritually steer people in the right direction. Take a look at that sight and judge for yourself who the followers of the Gift of Singleness are-- perennial bachelors twisting Scripture to say they are under no obligation to marry in a timely fashion, men constantly complaining of child support and alimony payments, overgrown adolescents who have no desire to lead a woman but can find plenty of faults with women. The problem is not that we cannot have a good faith disagreement, but your side is always so prone to self-servingly label Makenites to shut them down. The problem in this discussion like other blogs discussing this book is that people like Hackman [have] yet to read the book. I saw in comments from Chris Witmer warnings about 'contentment' and 'God's will.' My point is that if Chris and Hackman would just read the book, they would see a whole new (actually an older) way of thinking about this subject, and then they could actually interject some meaningful critiques, if even necessary."
- "overgrown men" [I suppose we are all over 6'3" here. LOL.]
- "misogynistic"
- "window-washers by day"
- "perennial bachelors"
- "individuals who can barely manage their own lives"
- "overgrown adolescents"
So, instead of dealing with the arguments that those of my persuasion raise, some marriage mandate proponents of the blogosphere have decided to resort to personal attacks, censorship, or maybe just benign neglect with respect to counterarguments we make. Yes, we know at least some of them by their fruits, too (Proverbs 10:18b). To my regular readers who are in agreement with me, you might want to consider yourself honored (Matthew 5:11-12).
posted by Anakin Niceguy at 3:36 PM
26 Comments:
Anakin,
This isn't the first time a discussion of singleness has resulted in such a tirade. I was looking for references to celibacy in Charles Hodge's systematic theology the other day, and it was amazing the unbridled criticism he leveled at the concept of celibacy. Take a look at some of the following quotes:
"...it is an error to assume that there is any virtue at all in celibacy..."
"...Whether the Bible teaches that there is any special virtue in a life of celibacy? This is really a
question, whether there was an error in the creation of man."
"According to the Bible, marriage is a better, higher, and holier, because the normal state, than celibacy."
The last is especially interesting because Hodge frequently quotes from scripture, but he gives no reference of any kind to where the Bible states that marriage is better than celibacy, or that it is the normal state of man. Such views as these are commonly presented as Biblical without any grounds or support, because there are no statements in the Bible that marriage (though good) is better than celibacy, and in fact many to the contrary (1 Cor 7:7, "I wish that all were as I myself am." 1 Cor 7:27, "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.", 1 Cor 7:32-34, "The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.", 1 Cor 7:38, "So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better", 1 Cor 7:40, "Yet in my judgment [a widow] is happier if she remains as she is...)"
The problem, however is that we aren't any safer in our natural views than opponents of celibacy. Hodge himself was reacting against Catholic misuses of celibacy - but because he did not base his critique on scripture, he fell into the opposite error of rejecting it entirely.
May God give us all the grace to tremble at his Word, renounce our own opinions, and live and teach what it alone says about these things!
"Overgrown men," eh? Well, I check in at just over 6', though my doctor thinks I'm a bit overgrown around the waistline. (Of course, a lot of married folks, as well as singles, can be accused of the latter.)
I read the comments on the blog post Anakin linked, and I noticed one woman who embraces the marriage-mandate teaching likened "willfully single" men to homosexuals. Interestingly, Debbie Maken's October 12 blog post likened extended singleness and belated marriage to same-sex "marriage." I find this line of reasoning reprehensible. (I also submitted a comment respectfully disagreeing with Ms. Maken's blog post, but she chose not to publish it, thus illustrating Anakin's point about censorship.)
Furthermore, the commenter accused single men of "depriving a woman of a husband, and therefore of her opportunity to fulfill the creation mandate." I've pursued a number of women over the years but all my pursuits have been rejected. Does this mean I get to accuse these women of depriving a man of a wife, or could it be, as I suspect, that it may have been God's will that I not marry any of them?
Sadly, the tactics used by the marriage-mandate crowd in response to respectful diagreement resemble the tactics used by far too many in the political arena. The fruits they demonstrate reflect poorly on evangelicals in the Reformed tradition and could potentially hurt all evangelicals, even those of us from other traditions. I hope and pray they reconsider, but I suspect that will not happen until they cease idolizing marriage and abhorring singleness.
I'll close for now by noting that the senior pastor at my church recently preached on I Corinthians 7. He stated that both marriage and singleness were equally valid in the eyes of Scripture. I'm grateful to know that not all evangelicals embrace marriage-mandate theology.
Anakin,
The behavior of Maken's supporters has done more to personally turn me off to her position than anything else, even though my main disagreement with her is theological/biblical.
Also, since you quoted from remarks on that other site that were written in response to me, let me say that, in retrospect, I wish I had said some things differently in my initial post over there. Though I still agree with the basic substance of what I posted there, I feel that I myself could have and should have been both gentler and more restrained.
Peace,
Gordon
Hello Anakin and all,
Understanding why religion is strong delusion
Christians often quote things like "know them by their fruits," yet after millennia of being duped into abetting blatantly evil scoundrels, many still don't understand the meaning or import of much of what they read. The same canon paradoxically propounds "faith," which means the complete opposite of "know them by their fruits," i.e., to discern the truth by analyzing deeds and results (works) and to weigh actions instead of merely believing what is said.
The deceptive circular logic of posing a fantasy messiah who urges both discernment of the truth and faith (belief without proof) clearly represents a skillful and purposeful effort to impose ignorance and confusion through "strong delusion." Any sage worth his salt could understand the folly of this contradictory so-called wisdom. This and mountains of evidence demonstrate that faith and religion are the opposite of truth and wisdom. It is no wonder charlatans like Rove, Bush, and others have marked Christians as dupes to be milked as long and as hard as possible. Any accomplished con artist easily recognizes religion as the ultimate scam and fervent followers as ready-made marks and dupes.
We now live in an era where science has proven so much about the vastness, rationality, mathematical preciseness, and structural orderliness throughout every level of our 11-dimension universe. Nonetheless, large percentages of people still conclude that these flawed and contradictory religious canons are the unmodified and infallible "word of God." People who can't (or won't) discern the difference between truth and belief are easily misled about the differences between good and evil, wisdom and folly, perfection and error, reason and irrationality, and right and wrong.
The fact that political leaders have always had close relationships with religious leaders while cooperating to manipulate followers to gain wealth and power is overwhelming evidence that the true purpose of religion is deception and delusion. People who are unable to effectively discern basic moral choices or to reason accurately are easily indoctrinated to follow the dictates of national and imperial leaders who wrap themselves in religious pretense. Truth and wisdom are direct threats to the existence and power of empires. That is why imperial leaders always strive to hide so-called secret knowledge and impose deception and ignorance upon their subjects.
What then is the purpose of "faith" but to prevent otherwise good people from seeking to understand truth and wisdom?
Read More...
Peace...
I've noticed the it's mostly men that are commenting here so I thought that I might add my 2-cents. I'm SO appreciative for this blog because while I began reading Debbie's book I started believing all of the thigns she was saying -- more because I think that I was blindly following something that I desperately wanted to be true. Surely God didn't want me to be single and obviously I was doing something wrong so if I could just find out what that was and change it I would be married and fulfill God's will for my life. Luckily I felt the prompting to look into her claims and came across this site... again, I'm So appreciative. I am saddened by Debbie's and others quickness to blame singleness on men and to attack men for what they're doing wrong. I'm of the opinion that the more feminism creeps in to our belief in God the more harm we do to ourselves -- blaming men isn't exactly making them thrilled to reach out to us. I am at times, overwhelmed by loneliness and a desire to be loved and to love -- but the beauty of it is that my Creator promises to meet my needs, my Savior promises to comfort me and never forsake me. What more can I ask for but that. If and when my God decides to provide me with an earthly companion, I want to be grateful and overwhelmed with adoration and joy -- not feel as though God finally came through on something that was owed to me.
I wanted to let all people interested know that I have responded to a similar article by Candace Watters on my blog found here:
http://puritancalvinist.blogspot.com/2006/10/courtship-controversypart-iis-it.html
I am going to be graduating with a degree in Biblical languages here in about five months, and what I am most concerned about when it comes to this movement is the almost juvinile exegetical procedures that this group presents.
What I think makes it interesting is that I am a Presbyterian. However, much of what is found in the writings of the reformers is due to the fact that the reformers were coming out of a system in Roman Catholicism that had both celebacy [the preisthood] and marriage as a sacrament. Many of the statements quoted by Debbie Maken and others were made in the context of refuting the idea of a celebate priesthood. On the other hand, many of the comments about marriage being essential come out of the idea that marriage conveys some kind of sanctifying grace. This is what many of the reformers could not totally part with. You can still see evidence of this in the writings of people even as late as Charles Hodge.
Anyway, I hope these people will want to honestly dialogue about the issue rather than use this kind of rhetoric. If not, then this mandatory marriage movement may take on the character of the King James Only movement.
Seven Star Hand,
I would invite you to study the issue more carefully than what you have. Most of the websites you have linked to are simply historically and logically rediculious. You even linked to jesusneverexisted.com, which is total historical nonsense because almost all historical scholarship agrees that Jesus did in fact exist. This is because there would be no way for this kind of a legend to develop in 50 years. This was the problem Wells could not surmount in his thesis. This website is nothing more than conspiracy theories disguised to look like scholarship.
The idea of knowing someone by their fruits is simply referring to the truth or falsity of one's claim to follow Christ. Christ has already put restrictions on our behavior, and hence, to violate those is to completely contradict the claim that you are following Christ. This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the claims of Christ and Christianity are true.
Secondly, as far as being circular, all worldviews are inherently circular. For instance, if you say that "we know everything by x," then then next logical question is "how do you know x?" If you answer by anything other than "x" you refute the proposition that everything is known by "x." However, if you say that "x" is itself known by "x" then you engage in a circular argument. That is the way all worldviews are.
Worse than that, given your worldview, why should anyone be truthful, logical, or moral at all? Why do you care if Christians are irrational, immoral, and deceptive. Given an unbelieving worldview, there is no reason for someone to refrain from these activities? In essence, your attack on Christianity is totally self-contradictory as your position cannot even account for why people should be moral and logical. Hence, I would say that the delusion is yours, as you cannot even provide is with any reason why we should be moral, rational, and truthful, and yet you want to somehow criticize us for not being moral, rational and truthful.
puritancalvinist,
Thanks for the link. I am going to check it out. I would argue that, for the most part, the mandatory marriage movement is already on the same level as the King James Only movement. Not only in terms of their disposition towards those who disagree, but also in terms of the intellectual credibility of most of their arguments. I have seen a few people there who seem capable of honest dialogue, but for the most part what I have seen is infantile rudeness, self-righteousness, and culture-war rhetoric.
I agree that there are exgetical problems with this movement, but I would also say there are significant hermeneutical problems as well. For example, in a post she made on her blog a while back, Maken dismissed the descriptive/prescriptive distinction as an oportunistic modern invention meant to elude the authority of scripture. She then went on to state that all of scripture is equally authoritative, by which she apparently means that all of scripture can be viewed as prescriptive, in a very narrow sense, even when the text itself is not. There seems to be no recognition of the fact that even though all of scripture is authoritative, this does not mean that everything in scripture can or should be reduced to propositional commands. As my sister pointed out, based on this kind of thinking, one could declare that women in the Bible always breast fed their babies and that, therefore, this is God's way and anything besides breast-feeding is unbiblical and wrong.
I recently discussed this issue with my pastor and he asked me what the mandatory marriage people did with the parts of scripture that commend singleness for the sake of the Kingdom of God. When I told him that they essentially explain them away by claiming they apply only to those called to some kind of heroic Christian service that absolutely precludes marriage, his response was "Why do you even waste your time with stuff like this?"
Puritancalvinist, thank you for your comment and the link to your blog. I'll go check it out as well.
I've asked several mature Chrsitians if they find the marriage-mandate teaching bibilical. None of them do so. Furthermore, my online research indicates little agreement with the teaching in the evangelical church at large. Most advocates appear to be a narrow subset of the Reformed tradition which embraces a rigid and legalistic view of faith and advocates a formulaic "courtship" method of seeking a spouse. That subset includes Calvinists like Albert Mohler and some folks affiliated with Sovereign Grace Ministries, the denomination of C.J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris and Carolyn McCulley. It also includes Boundless webzine, which is sponsored by Focus on the Family.
Speaking of Focus on the Family, I'm perplexed that Dr. James Dobson, whose reputation has been somewhat sullied by his political activities, would risk further damage to his reputation by lending his ministry's name to a website which promotes biblically questionable teachings. Does Dr. Dobson honestly expect older singles to financially support a ministry affiliated with a website that judges and condemns them?
Hey Gordon!
Ya, I saw that dismissal of the prescriptive-descriptive issue on her blog. I am reviewing that very article. The Bible also describes Solomon as having 700 wives and 300 concubines. The Bible also says that there were people who had boys. Apparently, if there is no prescriptive-descriptive, it is a sin to not have multiple wives and concubines, and it is a sin to have only girls as children. There are so many problems with that herminutical method that Debbie Maken even violates it on page 35 of her book by using the very prescriptive-descriptive methodology she decries to dismiss the fact that Mary, Martha, and Lazerus were Jesus' friends, and they were brothers and sisters who were living together.
However, what bothered me the most is a post found here:
http://debbiemaken.blogspot.com/2006/09/its-mans-world-after-all.html
On that post, she says the following:
-----------------------------------
In Proverbs 5, the mother tells the son that there are two kinds of women— bad and good. She does not justify a prolonged singleness for him because a wayward woman might complicate his life. Instead, she tells him to fashion the garland of Christian discipline around his neck so that he is able to discern the adulteress from the loving wife of one’s youth. In fact, the mother warns the son that his inability to discern will lead him on a highway to the grave where he will have spent his best toils on unworthy endeavors, and that enriching another man’s house will leave him bitter. She urges him not to be taken in by smooth seductive words, but to correctly weigh the situation and stay far, far away from her doorstep. She doesn’t justify or excuse the son’s extension of his single years on unfaithful women or women who make poor choices or all of the other vices of which women could be guilty. She knows God will hold the adulteress accountable for dragging many to the pit, but her son is required to find, assess, and embrace a gentle, loving and faithful wife.
-----------------------------------
Now, I wanted to post the whole thing to show that it wasn't just a mistake, or an accidental typo. Debbie Maken actually believes that a woman wrote the fifth chapter of Proverbs. I have not found any commentator who agrees with this, and with good reason. Right in 1:1, the author is identified as the ben dāwid [masculine], not the bat dāwid [feminine]. Worse than that he is called the melek yiśrā'ēl [king of Israel], not the malkat yiśrā'ēl [queen of Israel]. In other words, feminine terms are specifically avoided in this identification, indicating that the author is masculine, and probably referring to Solomon the wise [even though "critical" scholarship has tried to say otherwise]. There is also no reason to say that this is Solomon getting this material from a different source in Chapter 5, as many of the key terms used in Chapter 1 are used again in Chapter 5 such as benî, hokmâ, mezimmâ, šāma‘, yāda‘, qāšab, and regel. Some of them are even in the exact same form as they are found in chapter 1! I still cannot figure out where in the world Debbie Maken is getting this from, but it is totally bogus.
Obviously, this is not essential to her argument, but I have to wonder why it is that people would trust someone who makes a statement like this that is total exegetical nonsense. I almost wonder how in the world she thinks she is going to convince someone like myself who is going to go to graduate school for Hebrew studies when she shows exegetical incompetence like this. The bad thing is that these people are not stupid. Albert Mohler is very brilliant, and I have often quoted from him, and am even considering going to southern seminary. Debbie Maken is also not stupid, as she was a litigation attorney. Yet, when it comes to this issue, it just seems like the brain goes shut, as I mentioned in my article.
Anonymous,
I agree, and it is amazing to see people with incredible abilities, and positions as the ones you mentioned on that list buying into this movement.
I think I understand why, though. There is a problem with marriage being under attack, and being redefined today, and I think they think they are protecting marriage by saying that it is something that must be done. However, it is kinda like a person helping someone who has problems with overeating that eating is a sin. If you don't diagnose the problem correctly, you can end up doing more harm than good.
puritancalvinist,
You said:
There is a problem with marriage being under attack, and being redefined today, and I think they think they are protecting marriage by saying that it is something that must be done.
I think this is about right. This dovetails with my comment above about culture-war rhetoric. I think what we see with the mandatory marriage crowd is something we see with many conservative Christian groups these days, which is a fixation, maybe even an obsession, with saving our culture and preserving Christendom. I do think Christians should care about our culture, but I don't think winning a culture war should be our primary concern. It's hard not to notice the fearful desperation that seems to fuel this movement and others like it.
In this same vein, Maken seems to me to engage in a dichotomous thinking in which everything must be one of two extremes with nothing in between. This is seen in the same blog piece where she dismisses the prescriptive/descriptive distinction. Here she suggests that anything other than her strict and narrow of definition of marriage ultimately and necessarily leads to legitimizing gay marriage. She also takes a similar tack in her response to Andreas Kostenberger when she accuses him of telling single people to trust their feelings rather than scripture. There seems to be no comprehension that the scriptures might offer us a set of general guidelines within which we still have freedom. It's either her narrow defintion of marriage or it's a free-for-all, with no other possibilities in sight.
Francis Schaeffer talked about how the biblical worldview gives us freedom with form. God gives us certain limits we must stay within, but as long as we stay within these limits we have the freedom to make different choices. In this view of things, biblical injunctions against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc, show us the limits of acceptable relational/sexual behavior beyond which we must not stray. There is no legalistic compulsion here. Maken's view, however, seems to be that instead of offering freedom within limits, the Bible (at least on the issue of marriage) gives us a precise to-do-list which we must follow in every detail without the slightest deviation. Any deviation is tantamount to a complete moral rebellion. As far as I can see, this comes dangerously close to legalism (you must do "X" in order to be pleasing to God).
I'll put my money on Schaeffer's view any day.
Also, Maken's treatment of Proverbs 5 seems to me to miss the point of that passage and skew it's meaning. According to her, the mother (or whoever is speaking) doesn't justify the son's extension of singleness, therefore there must be an expectation to marry. I find it far more likely that the mother doesn't justify the son's extension of singleness because singleness is not even an issue being discussed in this passage. The issue here is primarily the avoidance of the adulterous woman, not the obligation to seek marriage. In the Jewish culture of that time marriage for nearly everyone was a foregone conclusion. Therefore, in that context, contrasting the wife of one's youth to the adulterous woman provides an excellent symbolic argument against adultery. Maken, however, ignores the context completely, reads her own emphases into the text and then pulls out of it, based on her previously mentioned twisted hermeneutic, yet another proof-text for the view that (nearly) everyone is obligated to marry.
Gordon,
I agree with you. My only point was that I can find almost no one who claims that Proverbs 5 was written by a woman. I have checked Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Roger Beckwith, and several other commentators, and I cannot find that view anywhere. No one I have talked to has ever heard of it. My point is that this is the kind of sloppy exegesis upon which people that are part of the mandatory marriage movement are relying on to say that they have a right to shame single men, and write many of the things found on Debbie Maken's blog and in her book. That makes the situation very, very dangerious.
puritancalvinist,
I agree with you that such exegetical carelessness does not bode well for the mandatory marriage movement. Especially on such a simple matter. What errors might be found in more complex, deeper matters of interpretation? In this regard, your point is well taken.
Phillipa,
Thanks for the encouragement. I think that rather or not one is attracted to this marriage mandate theology, is largely connected to one's vision of the Christian life and what one thinks the church should be.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Phillippa,
I wouldn't exactly call two passages (1 Corinthian 7 & Matthew 19) to be a "full blown theology" on singleness.
I think we should also keep in mind that this is not a reformed vs. non-reformed issue. Keep in mind that two of Debbie Maken's targets in her book are John Piper and John MacArthur. I am reformed, and I don't agree with Debbie Maken.
However, it might become a courtship vs. dating issue as many courtship advocates are really pushing this. There is also an element of courtship that plays into this as well. Courtship advocates say that it is wrong to be close to someone [i.e., be "intimate" with someone] outside of marriage. Of course, if this is the case, then who would ever want to get married? It seems to me that people do not want to sin by engaging in "inappropriate intimacy," and so singles are not as close as they once were, and hence, don't want to get married.
Obviously, the better you know someone, the more likely you are to marry them. Hence, if you say that this is "sexual sin," and is to be avoided, you decrease the likelihood of singles getting married.
Interestingly enough, some of the same arguments used by Joshua Harris in I Kissed Dating Goodbye are repeated in Debbie Maken's book. Now, there are courtship advocates who disagree with Debbie Maken, but I do find these things interesting.
Phillipa,
I think a lot of this sort of thing, like what you saw on the homeschool blog, is born out of a basically good desire to protect people from being hurt. I guess the question that comes up is how far should we go to protect ourselves and others? At some point, it is necessary to face the possibility of disappointment and hurt if we are really going to live honestly and fully humanly in this world. There are no guarantees.
I agree that over-protectiveness is not the way to go either. I can also speak to some of that in my own childhood.
I like the C. S. Lewis quote there. I've read and remembered a lot of Lewis, but I wasn't familiar with that one. It definitely sounds like the kind of thing he would say though. The thought provking part of it for me is that it raises the question of rather or not love will involve any risk in heaven. I confess that, up to this point, I have latently assumed that to not be the case. It seems to me like heaven will be perfectly realized love, with no pain or risk attached.
Hello all,
Here’s what I don’t get: Maken is a big proponent of courtship and she rails against extended singleness, but the irony is that the courtship people (particularly Joshua Harris) themselves have promoted all these ideas that have helped keep people single longer. Like Puritan Calvinist was saying, telling people not to date and not to get emotionally involved with the opposite sex has definitely created barriers for people in getting married. The courtship people made things a lot harder for many marriage-minded people out there (me included). During the courtship craze/fad in the churches, I don’t know how many times I heard Christian ladies say that they “don’t date” or won’t go out with anyone they didn’t think was the ‘one.’ My question was, how will you know if I’m the one or not unless you get to know me via a meeting of some sort (like a date)?
Of course, the marriage mandate people would say, “So what? If you’re really a man exerting godly leadership, blah blah blah, these people’s teaching shouldn’t affect your efforts to get married in the least, so you can’t blame them.” Well, to this I turn around say, “Well if that’s the case, then all these ‘bad’ Christian leaders’ teachings of the ‘gift’ shouldn’t affect your efforts to get married, so you can’t blame them or older single men for your singleness.” It’s only fair, eh? So they should stop the whining.
Harris himself talked about “not letting impatience rob you of the gift of singleness” in a chapter of his book IKDG, but then Maken goes and allegedly debunks this ‘gift’ in her book. Well, if the courtship people can’t get their stories straight about this gift of singleness, then I have a hard time taking any of them seriously. Since Albert Mohler endorses the works of both authors, I wonder where he stands on this gift stuff?
By the way, I’m in the middle in terms of my view of this marriage vs. no marriage stuff. I believe one should be proactive in finding a mate IF one wants to have a mate. It’s a personal choice. I’ll have none of this “you MUST get married,” or “you must NOT get married unless you get some big sign from God,” or “you must NOT get married PERIOD” stuff. Any of these extremes is nonsense. If you want to marry, go for it. If not, then don’t. Simple.
C.S.
(Not Clives Staples, if your were wondering.)
CS writes ...
Harris himself talked about “not letting impatience rob you of the gift of singleness” in a chapter of his book IKDG, but then Maken goes and allegedly debunks this ‘gift’ in her book. Well, if the courtship people can’t get their stories straight about this gift of singleness, then I have a hard time taking any of them seriously. Since Albert Mohler endorses the works of both authors, I wonder where he stands on this gift stuff?
Lol, CS, it causes one to reflect on that statement in the Bible: "Is God the author of confusion?"
By the way, Boundless.org, a marriage-mandate website affiliated with Focus on the Family, recently published an essay on "biblical dating." Boundless' blog recently changed its comment policy, and it's amazing to see the number of folks who've called them short, enough so that Boundless editor Ted Slater has told people not to call the dating method "legalistic" even though that is an accurate description.
By the way, the "biblical dating" method described on Boundless looks very similar to the "courtship" method endorsed by Joshua Harris and others in the Sovereign Grace denomination. It also bears the imprints of the "discipleship" or "shepherding" movement once embraced by Bob Mumford, Derek Prince and a few others. More than twenty years after Dr. Prince publicly renounced and repented of his involvement in the movement and apologized for the associated abuses, the movement's legacy continues.
Thanks for the info, anonymous! I was writing a critique of courtship on my blog, and I already reviewed an article by Scott Croft.
I agree with your assessment that this is not dating, and is totally courtship. I think that, by calling it "dating," he is clouding the issue.
I think I got something even worse than the comments that were written about Anakin's blog. Take a look at the comment that was left on my blog by a man named Ted Slater:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=29472599&postID=116088575798090164
I responded to it, but I honestly cannot understand how in the world my comment was taken to mean that I know more than Albert Mohler, or that I am "puffed up." I simply pointed out that, because Dr. Mohler is a theologian, it is more than likely that he simply is unaware of the lexical studies of words like cheros and agamos. Even some people who *are* exegetes may not be aware. The field of NT exegesis is so large that it is impossible to read everything. Hence, given that this is not his area of concentration in the first place, why couldn't one say that it is probable that he just simply does not know of that interpretation?
What is worse is that he wants me to suggest that Dr. Mohler knows this, and yet is just simply hiding it from people. And that this is going to somehow put him in a better position????? I honestly don't think that is his intention, but why then say that this is, indeed, his intention if you are promoting his arguments?
Absolutely amazing...
Puritancalvinist, Ted Slater is the current editor at Boundless. His views on the subject don't surprise me.
As mentioned earlier, I believe this dating/courtship method bears the imprints of the "discipleship" or "shepherding" movement. During my research on the subject, I came across something which relates to the subject at hand. Derek Prince's "shepherds" initially denied him permission to marry his second wife, Ruth. (Dr. Prince's first wife had passed away some years before.) They later granted their consent, and the Princes ministered together for a number of years until Ruth Prince passed away. I had the privilege of attending one of their ministry sessions about 15 years ago and it was obvious to everyone present that God had drawn them together. I can't help but shudder when I think about the potentially missed ministry opportunities had the shepherds' initial denial prevailed over God's plan.
Post a Comment
<< Home