April 19, 2007

A Biblical Critique of Debbie Maken's Book "Getting Serious about Getting Married" (part 15)

PART XV: Chapter 14 - "Inspiring Men to Biblical Manhood" (The Final Solution)

In Chapter 14 of Getting Serious about Getting Married, Mrs. Maken proposes some suggestions that supposedly will inspire Christian men to heed the call of marriage. Yet instead of giving one a reason to find hope in a largely anti-male and anti-family society, Chapter 14 sadly mimics Chapter 4 in its harangue against single men. With that in mind, I will now slog through some of Mrs. Maken's shortsighted observations about those of my gender.

Real Leadership or Romance Novel Leadership?

Near the beginning of Chapter 14, Debbie Maken declares, "God made men to be leaders--to pursue marriage and to seek a wife to ease their loneliness" (p. 180). Statements like this one have caused me to reflect on the subtext of this and other calls by religious pundits for men to "lead." What do so many people (especially women) mean by "leadership"? I fear that there is a disconnect between the leadership to which God calls men and the "leadership" that many women want from men. One could say that the former is best termed as "real leadership" and the latter as "romance novel leadership." What separates the two? The first can be seen through the prism of clear scriptural teachings from the New Testament. The second only through a kaleidoscope of misapplied scriptures, cultural biases, gynocentrism, and emotionalism.

So many Christian women are more than eager to compare the husband's role to the role that Christ assumes with regard to the Church. They do so in ways that go well beyond what passages like Eph. 5:25-33 imply and thus well beyond what is appropriate for any human being to expect from another. Since these Christian women profess a typological view of marriage that points to the Christian's relationship to God, it reveals something about their spirituality. Let me suggest that many Christian women want a watered-down form of "leadership" wherein all the privileges accrue to the woman and all the responsibilities accrue to the man. The mindset of these women, in turn, suggests a view of God wherein he is an unassuming deity that dispenses favors and offers protection while asking for little if any sacrifice at all.

With regard to male leadership in the home, I wonder how many contemporary Christian women are willing to accept the idea that in matters of expediency, their judgments are subordinate to a man's? Can one talk of "equal partnership" and men having "leadership" in the same breath? When we look at 1 Tim. 3:4-5, we see that husbands not only lead, they rule their household. If men are supposed rule their household, aren't women supposed to obey (1 Pet. 3:1-6)? A Christian woman is blessed to be married to man who is considerate about her feelings. Yet even in the best circumstances, there will be some disagreements that can only be settled by deferring to one party in a dispute. Will women honor their husbands or maintain a grudge and grow bitter towards them? I have some real concerns about young Christian women raised in the wake of feminism and their ability to truly understand what "biblical leadership" on the part of a husband entails. We are skating on thin ice when we equate "biblical leadership" when how much money a man makes, asking women out on dates, and other cultural norms, while forgetting or downplaying clear Biblical teachings that may in fact be uncomfortable for some women to accept.

Another matter to consider is whether or not Christian women really want to revert back to the notions that previous generations had about male leadership. If so, would they go back to the station appointed to them by cultures of a bygone age? Would they give up their legal and social rights? Would they retreat from the spheres of influence over which men once held exclusive sway? Would they accept the charge that berating male suitors about their singleness is unladylike? Would they accept the legal right of men to chastise insubordinate and wayward women? I suspect most Christian women would take exception to such treatment. Yet do some still demand that we revive the attitude previous generations had towards single men? Sorry, but this inconsistent thinking doesn't wash.

So many Christian women do not want the kind of leadership that gives a man palpable authority and that demands sacrifice and obedience from a woman. What they want is a kind of "leadership" where men are called upon to the do the heavy-lifting of adult responsibilities while women get to play Martha Stewart. This is why men need to be very discerning when women start talking about men needing to "lead." A man has to separate between genuine, godly women who understand what a husband's role is and those women taken captive by self-contradictory, neo-traditionalist ideas of manhood. I say all of this to make this point: Women need to get off the fence and be consistent. If they want men to lead then they must give up some of the advances they have enjoyed as a result of feminism and modernity. Otherwise, they need to realize that responsibilities come with the perks and privileges of contemporary adulthood. This would imply shouldering some of the burdens that men have had to bear for generations. If they refuse to do this, then they judge themselves to be self-serving and not marriage material. It is simple as that.

Let me also note that real male leadership knows when to draw the line in the sand. It means having the courage to say "No" to women if need be. I believe men who balk at Debbie Maken's shaming tactics qualify as "real men" in this regard. Are we to believe that religious men of days gone by would sit passively while women acted like a bunch of scolds, berating men? I don't.

Going to Restaurants and Grilling the Prize Catch

With regard to Debbie Maken's views of male leadership, let us consider how Mrs. Maken and some of her friends have treated men:
"I would often tell men I dated that because they were over thirty and still unmarried, they lacked biblical leadership that requires securing a wife. They should have to explain why they are still single. Here's what's surprising: Asking these kinds of questions and demanding this kind of accountability doesn't make them run. Sure, some of them will. But when a man of thirty-five who hadn't dated for the past ten years asked my thirty-two-year-old friend for a date, she confronted him about it. 'For every guy like you, there has been some woman dying on the vine like me. What excuse do you have for not pursuing a wife sooner?' This man did not run out of the restaurant but actually confessed that indeed he should have sought marriage!

"Single at the age of thirty-four, my friend Anna desperately wanted to be married. Her boss asked if she'd be interested in dating 'a very godly forty-five-year-old' lawyer. Her response? 'If this man is so godly, why isn't he married by now?' She explained that she wasn't about to 'reward a slothful forty-five-year-old man with someone eleven years his junior,' but that she could recommend some woman who was well over forty, had lost the beauty of her youth, and would have trouble conceiving. She explained that this was the kind of candidate for this man since his inaction in finding a wife had caused this outcome for some other woman.

"While her response may seem harsh, it's fair. There was a time, not too long ago, when women refused to go out with a man who had the reputation of being a cad. We need to start thinking in terms of godly accountability, not open-ended mercy."
(p. 185)
Perhaps men will not run out of a restaurant if they are subjected to the kind of inquisition that Debbie Maken extols. I suppose many men are simply conditioned to sit like inanimate chunks of rock, stoically acquiescing to whatever verbal abuse women heap on them. If the genders were reversed and a man was behaving the way Debbie Maken's friends have behaved, he would be probably have a glass of water thrown in his face. A lot of woman simply have no idea how rude and insensitive they can be.

As it is, I am left wondering what Debbie Maken thinks women can achieve by giving men the third-degree. In my estimation, warding off older single men in the way Mrs. Maken proposes amounts to little more than a Pyrrhic victory. Women over the age of thirty can ill afford to harbor suspicious attitudes towards their male contemporaries. What are these women thinking? Do they think that if they eliminate older single men as "cads" there will still be some men left over? Which men? Younger single men ? Wouldn't chasing them be taking husbands away from younger single women? Mrs. Maken's attitude is basically a classic example of what the economist Thomas Sowell would call "stage one thinking," a mindset that fails the acknowledge the consequences of what it proposes.

In addition, noticeably absent from Debbie Maken's equation is any accountability for older single women. Let us rephrase Debbie Maken's words by reversing the genders and circumstances: "I would often tell women I date that because they were over thirty and still unmarried, they lack biblical submissiveness, a quiet spirit, genuine spirituality, and inward beauty that attracts and secures a husband. They should have to explain why they are still single." It sounds harsh, doesn't it? And yet, ironically, it is true about many women in this culture. Do we really believe that pushy, catty, status-seeking, materialist, crypto-feminist women with fading looks, ticking biological clocks, and a bad attitude about men are going to attract suitors left and right just because they get a little religion? Clearly, not all women fit this bill, but too many do. Mrs. Maken, of course, fails to acknowledge this fact. For her to do so would certainly not go over well with her readership of single women who are hopelessly stuck in the mode of faultfinding. Rather, it is easier to conduct a witch hunt against older bachelors, conveniently forgetting the barriers that society and women raise against those men who aspire to marry young.

Shut Up, Buddy, and Sire My Babies

What is ironic about Mrs. Maken's attitude that even though she is fond of demanding accountability from men and limiting the access they have to women, she still says:
"Ultimately there are no sound reasons or legitimate excuses why men--especially Christian men--are not getting married. Whatever the excuse du jour--lousy parents, divorced parents, protracted educational requirements, the high cost of living, fear of failure, misunderstanding the opposite sex--every excuse to put off marriage is a decision to stay single. Without accountability, nothing will change." (p. 181)
Really? This statements is unfortunate. I imagine some women will come away from it, emboldened with the following attitude: "I am not going to worry my pretty little head about the things that menfolk have to go through. They have a job to perform for us ladies and that's that." Yet when a woman shows a cavalier disregard for the problems that men face in this society, it says something about her as a prospective mate. If a woman refuses to show compassion or consideration for men before she marries, how will she act after she is married? Can such a woman truly be a source of emotional support and inspiration? Can she truly be a helpmate? Can she truly say that she knows how to compromise and be submissive when she makes up her mind in advance not to listen to what men are saying? Is stubborn pride a delightful attribute in women, let alone anyone else?

Ironically, with regard to female attributes, Mrs. Maken thinks she has a clue about what kind of women are desirable to men. She states:
"If we want men to reach their full biblical potential, we should strive for the same. I think most men are searching for women who are smart, intelligent, good conversationalists, intriguing, educated, able to speak their minds, and yes, beautiful. Women should aspire to be these things so that men's desire to pursue is kindled." (pp. 187-188)
The catch is that this is Mrs. Maken's understanding of what men look for in a wife. As admirable as the qualities Mrs. Maken mentions are, they are really not the primary attributes for an ideal wife. Many men want women who are feminine, submissive, complementary (spelled with an "e"), and complimentary (spelled with an "i"). They want women who are honest, nurturing, responsible, kind, merciful, patient, encouraging, conciliatory, and agreeable. They want women who are affectionate, playful, and fond of having sex with their husbands. I have said it before, and will say it again: Just because a man is serious about marriage doesn't mean he is serious about marrying a given woman. There are many "beautiful," "educated," women who are able to "speak their minds" and yet are total duds when it comes to the opposite sex. Shaming and blaming men will not get Debbie Maken's fans any closer to wearing bridal gowns if they don't have the qualities men find desirable, as opposed to just having the qualities Mrs. Maken finds desirable.

Wacky Precepts from the Past

In Chapter 14, Mrs. Maken quotes a couple of luminaries from the distant past in support of her tirades against single men. The quotes cited are really quite fanciful, if not downright nasty. For instance, Mrs. Maken notes, "Remember what John Calvin said? The man who chooses to stay single (without a specific call from God) is guilty of 'stealing' a husband from a wife" (p. 181). With all due respect to my readers in the Reformed camp, I don't think the ipse dixits of John Calvin are so sacrosanct that they cannot be scrutinized or even discarded. The notion of a single man "stealing a husband from a wife" is illogical and patently stupid. It is a gross case of begging the question. Which woman did the single man steal from? What right could the woman in question claim to the man in question? If she rejects him, is he still guilty of theft? If he choses to marry someone else, is he still guilty of theft? If there are more women than men, which women were stolen from and which women received ill-gotten gain? Theft implies taking something that was already the property of another person. If a man's life is already the property of a given woman, then why must he seek her out and impress her if he already belongs to her? I'm sorry, but John Calvin's beard must have had a mishap with a kitchen utensil the day he dreamt up his indictment against single men.

Yet as bad as John Calvin's statement is about single men, it is cannot a hold a candle to the following stinker floated by Mrs. Maken:
"Erasmus said it well in his famous essay In Praise of Marriage: '[W]hat is more hateful than a man who, as though born for himself alone, lives for himself, looks out for himself, is sparing or lavish for himself, loves no one and is loved by no one? Indeed, should not such a monster be thought fit to be driven away from the general fellowship of mankind.' In other words, he saw those who willfully choose singleness as useless drones and fruitless burdens on this earth who have no sense of obligation to follow the familial patterns of their parents or to sacrifice for another." (p. 182)
I ask in response "what is more hateful" than for a person to falsely accuse those who choose to be single of being unconcerned about others and to label these single people as being "useless drones" and "fruitless burdens." This kind of talk is reminiscent of the things Nazis used to say about Jews. Jesus Christ said that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matt. 12:34, NKJV). I do not see anything pure or holy in the statement above above but only carnal disdain for those who dare to live differently. Really, Mrs. Maken doesn't earn any brownie points with me by dredging up the ignorant ideas of misguided religious figures who have long passed away from this earthly life. Some sentiments are best left buried with those who engendered them.

The Final Solution

Overall, if there is any statement in Chapter 14 that reveals Debbie Maken's designs, it is this quote:
"Women, our biggest challenge in holding men accountable and inspiring them to biblical manhood is that they often don't know any better. They don't understand that this issue goes beyond personal choice to being held accountable by God for failing to pursue his will for their lives. We have no choice but to educate men. I think it would certainly be better if it came from ministers, church leaders, parents, or other male friends, but many of them are not particularly aware of the problem either." (p. 182)
I advise Mrs. Maken and any woman that agrees with her to give up the idea of educating us men. Otherwise, they will be defeated. We will drive them back like the Amalekites and Canaanites did the Israelites who rejected God at Kadesh. Why should I believe that God is with Mrs. Maken's female fans on this matter? If anything, the posturing of these women will merely signal to a self-respecting man that these women should be avoided since they are not marriage material. Mrs. Maken says, "There is no shortage of men; one woman's gain is not usually another woman's loss" (p. 183). I think there will indeed be a shortage of men if women insist on treating men in a disrespectful manner. And no, the male collaborators of these women will fare no better if they should choose to go up against their fellow brothers. After all, it's pretty hilarious for a guy to lecture others on manhood when he obviously allows his identity to be defined by women and doesn't do any thinking for himself. Such a man certainly doesn't bring to mind the qualities of self-confidence and intestinal fortitude that one thinks of when considering manhood.

Anyway, the rest of Chapter 14 is essentially a rehash of matters I have already covered in previous installments of my critique: Mrs. Maken's misuse of Biblical characters; her pointless complaints about the private nature of modern marriages; her alarmist notions about the negative economic and social impact of people choosing to be single; her misguided beliefs about the benefits of enlisting courtship agencies and limiting access men have to women; and her dim view towards male-female friendships. In closing, I should point out an unusual statement by Mrs. Maken at the end of Chapter 14. She says, "We must be honest and admit that men don't hold all the blame for the way things are" (p. 188). I am somewhat surprised that Mrs. Maken would say this, and I must give credit to Mrs. Maken for her concession. However, given the overall tenor of her book, it's really too little, too late.

42 Comments:

Blogger newsjunkie said...

Anakin, while I don't agree with all of your points and have found many of the comments on this blog to be just as bashing of women as Maken is of men, I must state that this last post of yours has really made me think. I'm not a marriage mandate person, but I am a woman in my 30's who would still like to be married. I've never been comfortable with man bashing, or with blaming them for everything that goes wrong in society. I've never wanted a man to go to see a chick flick with me, or to take away his time with his guy friends.

Navigating this world of dating is hard enough, without spending the time worrying about whose fault it is that I'm still single. I work every day at being a little more feminine, at becoming a person who is attractive, intelligent, funny, and fun to be with. All of this said, if God has another plan for my life which involves being single, then no man is responsible for that. All we can do is work every day at becoming the godly individual that is mandated by Scripture, and pray the rest falls into place.

Thank you for your critique, because otherwise I might have fallen victim to the disgusting perversion of Scripture put for forth in Maken's book.

4/19/07, 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Martin said...

Debbie Maken's Book Belongs In The Trash Can Of History

Anakin quoted Maken:

"Single at the age of thirty-four, my friend Anna desperately wanted to be married. Her boss asked if she'd be interested in dating 'a very godly forty-five-year-old' lawyer. Her response? 'If this man is so godly, why isn't he married by now?'

==If that is not heresy it is very close to it. Would her friend say that Paul was not godly because he never married? What about Jesus? What about other men in the Scriptures who did not marry? The woman Maken quotes does not deserve a godly husband. In my opinion she deserves to be alone until she learns some humility.

She explained that she wasn't about to 'reward a slothful forty-five-year-old man with someone eleven years his junior

==From her attitude I really doubt she should consider herself a "reward". The assumption that just because this gentlemen is not married at 45 he is "slothful" shows this woman's arrogance and judgmental attitude. She needs to repent. After all Scripture is clear that if you judge, in such a overly harsh way, you will be judged in the same overly harsh way. The woman being discussed is a self-righteous pharisee who needs to repent of her pride.

Is the attitude of this woman what Maken is promoting?

She explained that this was the kind of candidate for this man since his inaction in finding a wife had caused this outcome for some other woman.

==There is no Scriptural basis for this statement. This woman is adding to the Word of God, according to which she is adding judgment to herself, and revealing her unBiblical attitude.

"While her response may seem harsh, it's fair

==I asked above if the attitude of this woman was what Maken was hoping to inspire in women, well, the answer seems to be yes.

There was a time, not too long ago, when women refused to go out with a man who had the reputation of being a cad

==Because he is not married at 45 he is a "cad"? A very sad generalization.

We need to start thinking in terms of godly accountability, not open-ended mercy."

==Well first off, Debbie Maken, Scripture never says someone needs mercy for being single. Never! You, Debbie Maken, are adding your opinion to the Word of God! You are creating laws that God did not create! Keep in mind what the Book of Revelation says about those who add to God's Word.

"Ultimately there are no sound reasons or legitimate excuses why men--especially Christian men--are not getting married."

==Of course Scripture clearly disagrees (1Cor 7, Matt 19). Scripture does not require, or command, every person to get married.

"Erasmus said it well in his famous essay In Praise of Marriage: '[W]hat is more hateful than a man who, as though born for himself alone, lives for himself, looks out for himself, is sparing or lavish for himself, loves no one and is loved by no one? Indeed, should not such a monster be thought fit to be driven away from the general fellowship of mankind."

==To give any weight to Maken's quote of Erasmus I would have to see the context of the statement. Taken out of context, in Maken's book, the passage does not condemn singles. Rather it seems to condemn those who don't care for other people and live only for themselves. Of course there are many single Christians who do care for others and do not live for their own selfish desires. There are married people, on the other hand, who care nothing for anyone and are only concerned for themselves. So the quote Maken provides may, or may not, support her unBiblical, heretical, arguments. Either way Erasmus is not Scripture. He could err.

We have no choice but to educate men

==No man, or woman, needs an education from a person as Biblically ignorant as Debbie Maken is. We need to learn from men of God who carefully, and rightly, divide the Holy Word of Truth. Maken's book belongs in one place, and one place only, the trash can of history.

Martin.

4/19/07, 9:22 AM  
Blogger wombatty said...

Anakin wrote:
---------------------
Let me suggest that many Christian women want a watered-down form of "leadership" wherein all the privileges accrue to the women and all the responsibilities accrue to the man.
---------------------

The above is a pretty good synopsis of Maken's attitude. This is verified by her statement near the end of the chapter, quoted by Anakin:
---------------------
"We must be honest and admit that men don't hold all the blame for the way things are" (p. 188).
---------------------

So, despite this rather late admission, she spent all the previous pages demanding that men nevertheless be saddled with all of the responsibility for 'rectifying' the entire situation.

What kind of person demands that someone take responsibility for blame not their own (except for the obvious exception of God through Christ)?

Here is Maken seeking benefits (i.e. more marriage opportunities for her 'sisters') while denying any responsibility on women's part for helping to 'fix the way things are'. (Her encouragement to women to 'teach' men hardly qualifies.)

Maken writes:
---------------------
"Single at the age of thirty-four, my friend Anna desperately wanted to be married. Her boss asked if she'd be interested in dating 'a very godly forty-five-year-old' lawyer. Her response? 'If this man is so godly, why isn't he married by now?
[...]
She explained that she wasn't about to 'reward a slothful forty-five-year-old man with someone eleven years his junior
---------------------
I'll echo Martin here: If a woman like that is a 'reward', I'd hate to see what constitutes punishment.

newsjunkie wrote:
---------------------
Navigating this world of dating is hard enough, without spending the time worrying about whose fault it is that I'm still single. I work every day at being a little more feminine, at becoming a person who is attractive, intelligent, funny, and fun to be with.
---------------------
Good for you. Your approach will increase your chances of marriage far more than would taking Maken's suggestions to heart.

I actually like the idea (in a perverse way, I suppose) of Maken's 'eunuch question'. If the women who take Maken seriously would make a habit of asking this question of men they date, it would save men alot of time.

I would want to know if my date is a "Makenite' as soon as possible, preferably on the first date. That way, I wouldn't end up wasting any more of my time or money on her. I would then be immediately free to continue my search.

So please, 'Makenites', please ask the 'eunuch question' of all your dates. =-)

Of course, it would be better for everyone (and the truth), if they would just dropped the snotty, judgemental attitude in the first place.

4/19/07, 2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Newsjunkie,

I mainly agree with you, although I think that the 'disgusting perversion of Scripture' charge is better reserved for the likes of Fred Phelps and his vicious little cult.

Anakin, I don't dispute that the last chapter has many problems. However, I am also disturbed by some things you say.

Like this:

Let me suggest that many Christian women want a watered-down form of "leadership" wherein all the privileges accrue to the women and all the responsibilities accrue to the man. Their mindset, in turn, suggests a view of God wherein he is an unassuming deity that dispenses favors and offers protection while asking for little if any sacrifice at all (i.e., these women worship a vending-machine god of easy-believism, the deity of consumeristic, "seeker-sensitive" megachurches).

Anakin, do you actually know women like this, or is this just rhetoric? None of this describes the many Christian women I know (both single and married). And immaturity in the Christian life is hardly confined to one gender.

Then there's this:

With regard to male leadership in the home, I wonder how many contemporary Christian women are willing to accept the idea that their opinions and concerns are of secondary importance compared to a man's?

Woah there. Is this what you really believe or are you simply exaggerating a caricatured view of male headship in order to make a point?????

And then there's this extraordinary little sentence, tucked away in a paragraph:

Will they accept the legal right of men to chastise insubordinate and wayward women--physically or otherwise?

I’ve isolated this sentence because I want to be very clear about what you’re saying. Are you simply acknowledging that this abuse of women did (and does) go on? What historical and current examples do you have of men having a 'legal right' to beat women up?

I'll save my theological ammunition until clarity is provided on this point.

Philippa
(I have to use the anonymous option because Google/Blogger is playing up. Grrrr.)

4/20/07, 9:31 AM  
Blogger newsjunkie said...

Anonymous - (Philippa). You are right and perhaps I was a little strong on my point, although I do find any perversion of Scripture to be disgusting.

Thanks for pointing out those points because I missed them somehow in my quick review of Anakin's points. I too will await clarification before running with this.

4/20/07, 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This 34 year old women has serious issues grasping reality. The only reason for a man to marry is to found a family and have children, therefore women over 35 don't cut it. She should be happy this man was still considering her, a lot of 45 year old man want to marry women between 25-30 years old. Maken seems like a femenist who is trying to fit her beleves into the bible. A lot of American women are delusional, believing their looks won't fade and seek marriage only after the 11 year party gap.

4/20/07, 3:42 PM  
Anonymous someone said...

"We need to start thinking in terms of godly accountability, not open-ended mercy."

Anakin,

This quote from Debbie Maken succinctly sums up exactly what is wrong with her. Her's is not a gospel of grace in which God, through Jesus, reveals His abundant hospitality to sinners who are invited to become students of Jesus in learning how to live the abundant life he came to give us and in extending that life to others. Her's is, instead, a socio-politcal legalistic religion of works in which one must frantically rush about trying to measure up by finding a spouse, lest one be found wanting in the sight of God. Phrases like "godly accountability" are simply euphemisms for attempts to manipulate and bully others into doing the will of Debbie Maken and her followers.

As far as I'm concerned, Maken and her teachings have almost nothing to do with the gospel.

4/20/07, 4:11 PM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Hey Everyone!

Finals week has been approaching, and I have Hebrew and Greek tests, as well as a recital to be working for, so I have had to watch the discussion from afar.

Anakin, I have been unable to locate that quotation from John Calvin. I am beginning to wonder if it even exists. I have used search engines and everything, but it is nowhere to be found. In fact, if you look at the quotation on page 33, she gives a reference. The reference is found on page 200. It is chapter 2 note 5:

5. Conversation with Pastor Duncan Rankin of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, Tenn., who cited John Calvin.

So, in other words, she is expecting us to believe that pastor Rankin quoted Calvin properly in context, that Debbie Maken accurately understood what pastor Rankin was trying to say, and that she accurately remembered what he said when she wrote it down in her book. I would say I have more than enough reason to doubt that this proceedure is foolproof.

I am considering writing to this man and asking him exactly what passage in John Calvin he quoted to her. If anyone can track down the quotation, it would be greatly appriciated.

God Bless,
PuritanCalvinist

4/20/07, 6:35 PM  
Blogger Anakin Niceguy said...

Philippa,

1. Yes, I do find many Christian women to be inconsistent on "male leadership".

2. On the other two points: (a) I wanted to know if women will defer to their husbands when he expects it. (b) Physical chastisement was tolerated by the legal establishment long ago. My point is how women can reject this and yet expect us to automatically defer to the "great Christian societies" of the past in their view of single men. I have reworded my post to reflect my meaning more clearly. Please let me know if I need to reword it better.

4/20/07, 7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Makens' religion is "a socio-politcal legalistic religion of works in which one must frantically rush about trying to measure up by finding a spouse, lest one be found wanting in the sight of God. Phrases like "godly accountability" are simply euphemisms for attempts to manipulate and bully others into doing the will of Debbie Maken and her followers."

BRAVO!!!!

Maken has poisoned so many minds. For evidence, visit thegiftofsingleness.blogspot.com

Many old single spinsters are giving the words of Maken more weight than the words of Christ when it comes to relating to others. The women who are single over the age of 40 can only blame themselves - and should judge themselves very harshly; not the men who would have happily married them 20 years ago.

I married young (22) and do not understand the vindictive and dishonest single women who follow Maken. Clearly, Maken and the Captain Sensible woman are man-hating feminists who are attempting to reconcile their socially trendy beliefs with Christianity. It doesn't work, and this is why they are angry and intolerant. If these women were honest with themselves and men, they would have also married young.

Pray for the deeply disturbed author of the Captain Sensible blog. I think she is going off the deep end as she approaches age 50.

4/21/07, 4:19 PM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

"Women, our biggest challenge in holding men accountable and inspiring them to biblical manhood is that they often don't know any better. They don't understand that this issue goes beyond personal choice to being held accountable by God for failing to pursue his will for their lives. We have no choice but to educate men. I think it would certainly be better if it came from ministers, church leaders, parents, or other male friends, but many of them are not particularly aware of the problem either." (p. 182)

Isn't she begging the question when she uses phrases such as "holding men accountable," "biblical manhood," "being held accountable by God?" Don't these statements already assume that protracted singleness is a sin, and isn't that exactly what she is supposed to be proving?

As far as "educating" goes, I have found that the experience of dialoguing with these folks is more like dialoguing with children who do not get what they want, rather than university professors know their topic.

BTW, speaking of thegiftofsingleness blog, I was wondering if anyone saw this article:

http://thegiftofsingleness.blogspot.com/2007/04/boundless-confusion-some-clarity-at.html

Notice, they are now accusing Ted Slater, yes, the Boundless editor Ted Slater, of violating their mandatory marriage doctrine. All because he said that he had nothing against singleness because he was single until he was 36. Here is the relevant portion:

-----------------------------------

Today he has actually intervened in the comments, to say this: "I do want to mention again that I was single until I was 36 years old. You are not going to find me denouncing the state of singleness."
So there we have it. Men are now effectively encouraged to stay single until they are "36".
(And this is not the first time he has done something so incredibly unhelpful as this...)
Thanks Boundless.
Thanks Ted!

-----------------------------------

Absolutely incredible. Here you have a group of mandatory marriage advocates criticizing Boundless which has embraced Debbie Maken and her teachings. Am I the only one who thinks that there is some dessention in the ranks of the Mandatory Marriage Movement?

God Bless,
PuritanCalvinist

4/21/07, 6:38 PM  
Blogger Anakin Niceguy said...

LOL, Puritancalvinst.

With regard to Ted Slater ...

Watch as the Maenad women lunge at Orpheus.

4/21/07, 9:52 PM  
Anonymous other said...

"Mrs. Maken notes, "Remember what John Calvin said? The man who chooses to stay single (without a specific call from God) is guilty of 'stealing' a husband from a wife"

These days more like "cheating a woman out of her divorce settlement".

4/22/07, 3:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Those who do not marry according to Prophet Maken's schedule, will surely be denied salvation."

-The Book of Debbie, Ch. 3, verse 7

4/23/07, 11:45 AM  
Blogger wombatty said...

I recently finished Emerson Eggerichs' excellent (and very balanced) book Love & Respect. He makes an observation (based on his years of marriage-counseling and ministry) that brings Debbie Maken to mind. On pages 233-234, he writes:

What I see happening in some marriages is that the wife believes - or appears to believe - that she does not sin. In many other marriages the only sin that a wife will readily admit to is her negative reaction to her husbands failure to be loving or for losing patience with the children. beyond these areas, women do not see themselves as sinning, even though they readily admit bad habits and wrong attitudes. They write these off to chemical imbalance, hormonal problems, or dysfunction due to family of origin.
[...]
...it's easy for a wife to discount or disparage a husband's suggestion that she has some problem that need's correcting. Even if he is gently and diplomatic in suggesting that she needs to make a correction to avoid hurting herself or others, he is quickly silenced. She is offended, wonded, and angered by his assessment. He is accused of being without understanding and compassion. He has no right to speak. And he will often wind up being shown contempt.
When I speak on this topic at a Love and Respect Conference, I often get feedback, not all of it positive.


How on earh does any Christian come to believe this about themselves?

I've speculated that a woman who takes Maken's teachings to heart would likely blame her husband for nearly everything that goes wrong in the marriage. I say this because Maken blames men for nearly everything when they're single and I think it's doubtful that a wedding ring would change such an attitude.

I've even seen some material that basically teaches this. Is the wife unhappy? It's likely because the husband hasn't been propery loving her. Is she disrepectful? He's probably been inattentive. And on, and on, and on...

Now I don't believe all women are like this; I don't even believe most women are like this - not by a long shot. I also understand that husband's can be insensitive boneheads at times. But it's patent nonsense to exempt the wife from responsibility simply because she's the wife.

When looking for a spouse, you have to do everything you can to maximize your chances of finding a 'good one'. I think the chances of ending up with a 'sinless wife' are vastly increased by marrying a 'Makenite'.

4/23/07, 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1CORINTIANS7
"now for the matters you wrote about:It is good for a man not to marry...
The Bible does advocate single life for those who can, to devote themselves fully to God. The passage above does recommend marriage "since there is so much immorality".The Bible is very practical in all advice.

"For those who can"It is better not to marry. There is freedom here no shaming for either side of the equasion single or married.

So in these days of feminism satan has played his best trick The father of lies always wraps up evil in an illusion of goodness. We can see that feminism has harmed the churches and caused all sorts of divisions and dissensions. All under the banner of "fairness" and "equality". That is how he sowed doubt about God's fairness in Eves mind . Well these dark and evil times call for much prayer and discernment.We see this confusion sown everywhere and parts of the Bible are deemed not politically correct in some places.I enjoyed reading this blog this is a subject that is extremely important for christians.

4/29/07, 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not only the false promise of "equality" that poisons the minds of women against men and traditional roles. It is also dishonest Christian feminists such as Debbie Maken and her fanatically loyal followers.

Do they offer any kind of understanding for men in a female-oriented West? Not at all, just shame and blame.

Do they embrace submissiveness or feminine virtues? Not at all; they tell us men are deficient in masculinity so women are leading our institutions.

Tell us, Makenites, how do men "step up" and take leadership roles in churches heavily dominated by Christian feminists?

Church, government, education and many other fields are increasingly dominated and controlled by women. Where do men fit in to these girls clubs?

Simply to attack and negate the efforts of men while maintaining a Christian feminist posture is not helping anyone. Maken and her troop of harpies are doing as much damage as secular feminists have.

4/30/07, 6:48 AM  
Anonymous foster said...

I'll be quite happy to have this conversation with the Makenites when they turn 60 without a husband.

Of course, they'll still be right and single Christian men will be wrong.

4/30/07, 6:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check out the feud going on between Capt. Sensible and Ted Slater. Slater caught the "author" of that blog telling lies about him.

It's sad how low the Makenites will go to stir up trouble.

5/1/07, 8:03 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Hey Anon,

Ya, I noticed. I also noticed that they don't want Boundless to have an open dialogue back and forth between different viewpoints. They want boundless to just shut out all opposition. No more articles of people saying different things, no more comments, just, sensor any comment that is not mandatory marriage.

That is one of the things I respect about Boundless is that they are willing to have a dialogue about this topic. I mean, Candace Watters is someone who I think it would be very profitable to have a dialogue with on this topic. The Gift of Singleness Blog, however, is turning very, very cultic.

BTW, anyone see Debbie Maken again criticizing John Piper with some of the most horrible exegesis I have ever seen? This woman is just out of control. I have never met anyone who thinks they are Biblically smart, and has a gift for exegesis that just...doesn't. Sad, very sad.

God Bless,
PuritanCalvinist

5/1/07, 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was good of Slater to visit the GoS blog and rebut the slander against him; it's just sad that the Maken Cult is out to get anyone who disagrees with the Hindu-turned-Fundie Debbie Maken.

The Maken Cult members I've spoken with are all over 40. They have a similar life pattern; devout when young, then a falling away during their teens and twenties, then a return to the church after many years of education and career.

They show up in the dating scene after most young Christians have dated, married and gotten on with life. They ask "Where are the rich pastors of megachurches to marry us???"

Captain Sensible goes on and on about marrying young and really enjoying sex within marriage. Well then, dearie, why not get married and get on with things? Why continue to memorize Maken's book like a Muslim memorizes the Koran? Daily prayer and worship of Debbie Maken is not a rational substitute for going out and finding a husband.

God actually wants us to live our lives while we are here. Spending all one's energy on cursing men while all one's attractive years slip away is simply a bad plan.

I wonder if Maken realizes how much damage she has done to her followers? If she does, does she care? Or is it more satisfying to have a large cadre of blindly loyal followers?

5/2/07, 6:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hindu-turned-Fundie"

So now you have a problem with her because she is off a different color?

Not very nice.

5/2/07, 12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Puritan Calvinist,

I didn't like Piper's sermon. I know he's a well respected pastor but I thought this sermon was awful. His exaltation of celibacy (in itself a high and holy calling, I'm not knocking it) over marriage was virtually pre-Reformation! He paints a glowing, idealised picture of Christian singleness without ever mentioning its costliness. I didn't realise that Reformed folk could be so triumphalistic. ;) Would he preach such a Pollyanna-ish sermon about Christian marriage??

Anonymous 12:56, I share your distaste for Anon 6:45's racism.

Captain Sensible can certainly be annoying but so are the anonymous misogynists and racists who comment here. I have crossed swords with the Captain - and others - in the past over their personal attacks on Carolyn McCulley. However, Captain Sensible is right about some things, and here’s one of them: there is a huge shortage of Christian men in the UK, which is why she and I and many other Christian women are stuck up the proverbial gum tree. It’s all very well getting snarky and exhorting us to get married. Gee whiz, guys, if there WERE enough good, available Christian men to go round, we WOULD get married! That's why this whole debate started, for the luvva pete.

Philippa

5/2/07, 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So now you have a problem with her because she is off a different color?"

Wow! "Hindu" is now considered a color?

Thank the Lord the Makenites are single. It is a true blessing from God. Think of the madness Christian men would have to put up with if they married these harpies.

5/2/07, 7:05 PM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Philippa,

Let me quote from John Piper's sermon, and show you what I think he is getting at:

God promises those of you who remain single in Christ blessings that are better than the blessings of marriage and children.

He is talking about the blessings that we receive in Christ being better than the blessings of marriage and children. Having read John Piper's doctoral dissertation on Romans 9, and also having looked through his book Desiring God, I think I know what he is getting at here. What he is saying is that singles should focus upon the blessings of being in Christ, rather than upon whether or not they are married. This is because marriage is temporal, and marriage will one day pass away. I also take him to mean this from another section of his sermon:

Take heed here lest you minimize what I am saying and do not hear how radical it really is. I am not sentimentalizing singleness to make the unmarried feel good. I am declaring the temporary and secondary nature of marriage and family over against the eternal and primary nature of the church. Marriage and family are temporary for this age; the church is forever. I am declaring the radical biblical truth that being in a human family is no sign of eternal blessing, but being in God’s family is means being eternally blessed. Relationships based on family are temporary. Relationships based on union with Christ are eternal. Marriage is a temporary institution, but what it stands for lasts forever. “In the resurrection,” Jesus said, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).

Therefore, he is talking about marriage being less of a blessing that being in Christ. Therefore, if one is in Christ, one should not worry if you cannot find a spouse. Why? Because you already have a blessing that is eternal. Marriage is a temporal, finite institution. An exulted, and wonderful institution, but a finite and temporal one.

Also, if he did, as you say, "exult celebacy over marriage," then how could he anticipate this objection:

If someone asks, wouldn’t it be better to have both? The blessings of marriage and the blessings of heaven? There are two answers to that question. One is that you will find out someday, and better to learn it now, that the blessings of being with Christ in heaven, are so far superior to the blessings of being married and raising children and that asking this question will be like asking: Wouldn’t it be better to have the ocean and the thimble full? And the second answer is that marriage and singleness both present us with unique trials and unique opportunities for our sanctification. There will be unique rewards for each, and which is greater will not depend on whether you were married or single, but on how you responded to each.

Notice, if he is exulting celebacy over marriage, how could such an objection even be raised? Wouldn't it be better to have both would then have to be interpreted as "wouldn't it be better to have both celebacy and marriage?" Of course, that is not what John Piper was saying. He was comparing the gift of God in salvation to the gifts of marriage and children. And he is right. The gift of God's eternal life is far greater than anything marriage and children can offer.

I love this part of the sermon. It shows that many singles need to get their priorities straight when it comes to marriage:

Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel,” Jesus said, “who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life” (Mark 10:29-30). Single person, marriage person, do you want children, mothers, brothers, sisters, lands? Renounce the primacy of your natural relationships and follow Jesus into the fellowship of the people of God.

Anyway, Philippa, no, I don't think that is what John Piper was doing at all. He was not saying that the gift of celebacy was better than the gift of marriage. What he was saying is that the gift of eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is infinitely better than marriage and children. And to that, I say a hearty, amen!

God Bless,
PuritanCalvinist

P.S., the sermon is available for reading at the following website:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2007/2162_Single_in_Christ_A_Name_Better_Than_Sons_and_Daughters/

5/2/07, 8:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Puritan Calvinist,

Thanks for your reply. I’ve nothing against John Piper: I think he’s a fine man and I’ve enjoyed other things he’s written. I read the sermon again and I agree completely that all Christians should be living 100% for Christ, whether they’re single or married. And of course eternal blessings outweigh earthly ones.

What I still question is the unhelpful conflation of a definite call to singlehood for the sake of Christ with purely circumstantial singleness. This is the elephant in the room that Piper fails to address in an otherwise eloquent and passionate sermon.

Because even those who bear their singleness with grace hope that their single state won’t last forever. Therein lies the huge difference between a less-than-ideal circumstance and a clear and unequivocal call to singleness dedicated purely to the service of Christ. And that’s the difference between Catholic religious, or the tradition of holy men and women in the Orthodox church, and all the Protestant singles floundering about trying to make sense of their singleness … the nuns and the monks go in with their eyes open. They know exactly what they’re giving up. By way of contrast, I don’t know any Protestant singles who choose singleness in the way a Catholic religious deliberately and consciously chooses a celibate vocation.

Philippa

5/3/07, 9:25 AM  
Anonymous foster said...

"Captain Sensible can certainly be annoying.."

Ah, yes. Yes, indeed.

5/3/07, 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The more I learn about single Christian women in the UK, the more I am convinced British women are indeed destined by God to remain single. Perhaps it is a special calling for them to be alone. Would it be too extreme to call it a gift?

In the US, if women want to marry, they simply start dating and find someone appropriate. In the UK, they start little hate groups, worship Debbie Maken and shun any contact with men who appear masculine or intelligent in any way.

Of course, the only polite thing to say is that men are to blame. Pity.

5/3/07, 6:37 PM  
Blogger Songbird said...

This is one of the reasons why this planet is messed and we Christians don't seem act differently from non-believers :(. We spend so much time being nasty about this whole issue of marriage and singleness that it makes feel like I'll end up being an enemy toward either the "marriage mandate" supporters and the dissenters of the "marriage mandate" if I admit that I am not much supporter for either side completely. Why are you guys, both the "marriage mandate" supporters and the dissenters of the "marriage mandate", encourage unChristlike behavior of slander, unkindness, calling each names and so forth? Don't worry. I read some of Captian Sensible's blog and she freaks me out. But you guys are not any better. Why can people just celebrate married people for entering a sacred covenant and guide them to have their marraige be a vessel for God to use for what he decides to? That it of itself is an honor. Also, why can we encourage singles to fight the temptation to invest in themselves as a way to fill up their life and motivate them to explore the interior life for the sake of their relationship with Christ? We need more Brother Lawrences, Mother Teresa, and St.Paul kind of singles, not impatient, striving singles who either feel God doesn't need much attention since they have everything they need or do certain good things to get brownie points thinking that would convince God to give them a spouse.

5/5/07, 11:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course there is a need for dignified debate, but this entire discussion has been about feelings and perceptions and respecting everyone's "truth" whether it be right or wrong.

What about the truth?

The truth is that most Christians care nothing for the "Gift of Singleness" debate as it doesn't impact their lives. The really militant "marriage mandate" women all live in the UK where almost nobody is a church-going Christian.

Here in the US, the situation is better, but not perfect. Christian singles of both sexes do find it difficult to find a partner who will commit to marriage. Bad advice from a committed single such as Carolyn McCulley isn't helpful either.

In short, there is little need for all this debate. Maken, McCulley, Captain Sensible, etc. are all just silly women with far too much time on their hands.

If you live in a place where there are no men, pack your bag and relocate. Don't waste 30 years waiting for a prince charming who will never arrive.

Also, if you are single and enjoy being single (Carolyn McCulley, obviously comes to mind), then don't lie to yourself by supporting the marriages of your friends while you avoid any chance of marriage for yourself.

It's a time for honesty in this debate. Women created the conditions in which marriage is far less likely for them. Now they are upset with the consequences of a social world they themselves created both within and outside the Church.

I honestly have sympathy for all the lonely women, but you all have to wake up. Most of the militant marriage-mandate crowd are over 40, ex-feminists who are very politically correct and only favor debate which agrees with their subjective reality and Maken's scripture-twisting logic.

Whatever happened to simply finding a nice guy and settling down?

...or is it too much fun to be a Christian revolutionary; spending one's blogging hours attacking GoS windmills?

5/6/07, 10:59 AM  
Anonymous sarah said...

I don't think the last comment is entirely fair. Some women want marriage, but the marriage mandate women seem to want debate and confrontation. I don't see Debbie Maken or Captain Sensible trying to reach a compromise with men. They are all saying "agree with us or be gone!"

One thing women will never admit is they like attention from men, even when that attention is merely rejection or argument. It doesn't matter, as long as they are feeling emotion. I think the really vocal marriage mandate women are really just the cackling hens of this debate. They don't want to marry or have families because all this argument back and forth is all the emotional release they need.

There are plenty of Christian men to date and marry. The women who are still single after many years and embracing Maken are simply setting their standards too high.

Guys, women can be their own worst enemy. They can chase away dozens of good men and then feel offended when they don't have a husband.

Trust the women who have married. They know what this debate is about. The longtime singles are single for a reason; they secretly want to be single.

5/7/07, 7:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, there was Carolyn. She didn't fall in love with Christ and the Church, but really found a benign father figure in CJ Mahaney. He is her emotional father, while Josh Harris is her emotional brother. Two harmless male loves to adore from a distance.

Second, there was Debbie. She put career and education first. After many years of solitude she used traditional Indian methods to find a husband no other woman wanted.

All the women who married young aren't part of this debate. Their priorities were in order. As for the older women, they lived for themselves first and avoided relationships until they were too old and it was too late.

Suddenly at age 38 or 40 or 45 they realized marriage wasn't going to happen due to their own poor choices. Who to blame? Men, according to Debbie. What to do? Be content and love your pastor from a distance, according to Carolyn.

More and more people need to stand up and denounce all these Christian feminists for making fools of themselves while wrapping their hysterics in scripture. I'm sure if the Apostle Paul was around today, he would say "it is never good to speak to a Makenite, they are simply nuts!"

Amen and amen!

5/7/07, 4:07 PM  
Anonymous foster said...

Anon 4:07 PM,

I think you summed up all this debate perfectly. Would we be talking about the virtues of singleness vs. marriage in the 1950s?

Women are still fighting for independence and power, still controlling most social institutions and making men as unwelcome as possible.

What is really comic is the women who seem to be crying out for masculinity in the church while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail to make Christian churches an all-female affair.

For men, the most unattractive thing in the world is a bitter old church lady who never wanted to marry, but cannot reconcile her strong female drives with her ethic of absolute Christian celibacy. It causes them so much dissonance, yet attacking an imaginary and inconsequential "gift" of singleness gives them a straw man to rail against instead of their own feminist values.

5/8/07, 7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5/8/07, 8:40 AM  
Blogger Songbird said...

*sigh*, How Christians love other Christians reveals how much they love Lord Jesus along with obeying God's commands. We are kingdom people after all. Unfortunately, this look too much like the verbal ground for burning other each at the stake, while breaking the heart of God in the process. Some people here are able to be speak truth in love but I don't find that effort in several of people here. Lord, have mercy on us.

5/8/07, 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The men on this board are so pathetic. They blame women for everything that is wrong with their pathetic lives. Let's not forget that one reason we don't marry Christian men is that most of them are either effeminate or married to unbelievers. They are cowards and very possibly evil.

For those of you who disagree with Debbie Maken, remember that God is watching! We may never marry, but you are risking your soul by disagreeing with Debbie!

5/9/07, 6:55 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

I find something very funny here:

Anon 4:07 PM,

You are truly a world class Asshole.


Let's not forget that one reason we don't marry Christian men is that most of them are either effeminate or married to unbelievers. They are cowards and very possibly evil.

And then to see this???????:

For those of you who disagree with Debbie Maken, remember that God is watching! We may never marry, but you are risking your soul by disagreeing with Debbie!


One finds it interesting to see how this text fits in to theology of these folks:

2 Timothy 2:24-26 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

Paul says that, even in the most grave of situations where a person's soul has been held captive to do the will of the devil, you still must correct with gentleness, and be kind to all. How can these things be said in public, and yet obey this verse? If this verse is not being obeyed, how can we say that this kind of message is from God?

God Bless,
PuritanCalvinist

5/9/07, 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's not forget that many societies and religions have risen and fallen when social patterns shift. Matriarchal societies represent cultures in dramatic decline. The West is matriarchal, with a very leftist bent. This means Europe and the UK are now post-Christian and the US is becoming more like those societies every day.

Christianity will not fall, but single Christian women in predominantly un-Christian societies are going to be left lonely. It is simply reality.

God wants people to be together, that is why he made men and women to be attracted to one another. To over-spiritualize romance and interpersonal relationships is a surefire way to kill any possibility of a long-term romantic relationship. Most Christian women writers on the subject of singleness are very much over-spiritualizing romance and put so many limitations on themselves and the men they meet that it negates any chance of romance.

5/9/07, 7:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Mother's Day to all the single spinsters! Remember, if you are single, it is a gift from God. To marry is to reject God. Stay single; stay holy.

5/13/07, 9:32 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Happy Mother's Day to all the single spinsters! Remember, if you are single, it is a gift from God. To marry is to reject God. Stay single; stay holy.

Alas, why is it that we keep on getting caricatures of our position? I wish that, just once, someone would deal with something we said. It would be nice to see people actually attack what we say rather then strawmen, and motives.

God Bless,
Puritancalvinist

5/14/07, 9:18 AM  
Blogger wombatty said...

Anonymous said...
-----------------------
The men on this board are so pathetic. They blame women for everything that is wrong with their pathetic lives.
-----------------------
I'm rather content with my life actually - and that's what torques women like Maken off. They apparently don't think I have the right to be content outside of marriage.

Speaking of the blame-game, just read Maken's book: 'It's all men's fault - and we're gonna make them pay!'

I have no problem accepting responsibility for my situation in life - the bad and the good. It's too bad Maken and her acolytes cannot do the same.

My problem with Maken is she wants to blame single men for all of the problems single women have. I'm just not interested in being a scapegoat for some snot-nosed entitlement princess who insists I owe her my attention.

Anonymous said...
-----------------------
Let's not forget that one reason we don't marry Christian men is that most of them are either effeminate or married to unbelievers. They are cowards and very possibly evil.
-----------------------
If you really believe such bilge, you should be glad that Christian men don't bother pursuing you (or pray that they don't).

Anonymous said...
-----------------------
For those of you who disagree with Debbie Maken, remember that God is watching! We may never marry, but you are risking your soul by disagreeing with Debbie!
-----------------------
Thus spaketh the prophet of Maken...

...and all this time I thought my salvation depended on Christ - silly me.

5/15/07, 4:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Debbie is now saying we need more outreach to get men "churched".

But what about her command to starve men of female attention as to cause them to desire marriage?

I think we had better keep Christian single men away from women as much as possible, so someday they will begin to desire marriage.

According to Debbie's logic, men shouldn't even see a woman until their wedding night. Of course, sex is completely out of the question unless he earns a high salary and is extremely devout.

Yes, women should be making the rules and setting the agenda; and they are...in the Church and in the larger society. Men's leadership roles in most institutions are now either shared with women or taken over by women.

I wonder why men aren't motivated for marriage or leadership. Men are primarily motivated by being husbands and fathers; being the heads of families. That is not what women want these days; Christian or not. Women want either independence or a partnership where they hold ultimate authority. This new dynamic has killed male motivation to marry, but women cannot accept this.

Many men turn away woman after woman because they refuse to be married to a woman who insists on controlling the relationship and household. Why live one's life as a slave to a woman when in generations past, a man could be a leader in his home. Now, the best a modern husband can hope for is a partnership where his position is socially ordained to be subordinate.

Not a happy prospect - NOT a desirable life. Men and women know this is true, and it is the primary reason men are leaving the Church and refusing to marry. If you cannot be what God designed you to be; i.e. a leader, husband and father, you might as well live the happy life of a single bachelor.

And why not?

5/16/07, 7:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home