A Response to a Worthy Critic
I have finally joined the blogosphere, and it only took one article from an actual theologian to draw me out. While it is not my normal custom to comment on blogs or put forward a defense of my position to all of the other personalities out there discussing my book, Getting Serious About Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness, I now realize that I have started a debate in which I should participate. At the very least, I should rise to my defense.
I am glad that Dr. Kostenberger’s remarks are bringing to a head a much needed debate. From reading his Biblical Foundations blog, (see The Biblical Foundations blog.), I had to wonder whether he actually read my book, or simply drew his conclusions from glancing at a book review from Christianity Today Online entitled “30 and Single? It’s Your Own Fault.” The author of that book review belied her own title when she wrote:
It is rather self-contradictory to assert that I am telling single women that it is their “own fault” and yet “let[ting them] off the hook” for not being married by pointing the finger at all of these other sources that contributes to this default reality. But I suppose that for some it is better to misrepresent the position of a competitor’s book and have a negative inflammatory book review title. I am just disappointed that Dr. Kostenberger compounds her fallacies, and builds much of his criticism on assuming that Christianity Today was correct, instead of actually going to the source Getting Serious About Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness to form his opinions and conclusions. One faulty conclusion usually leads to another.
Nevertheless, I am thankful that Dr. Kostenberger has addressed a few theological points that I want to see further debated. There is no way to reconcile Dr. Kostenberger’s views on this subject and mine. Either the Bible does promote open-ended legitimacy for singleness or it doesn’t. Either singleness is the gift or celibacy is. That is the question. The debate is as stark as whether Christ is exclusive or there are many ways up the mountain. There is no way to reconcile the two belief systems. While many may want to believe that the “all ways” approach is more balanced, and it may “seem right” and pleasing to man, we who believe in the power and truth of Scripture know the end thereof—death. In the same way, those who want to participate in this debate must ask—where is this open-ended teaching on singleness going to lead? Is it even correct? Is this what we have historically believed? In that vein, I am so glad that Crossway has given me this opportunity to show why the contemporary teaching on I Corinthians 7 may leave an entire generation of hurting young adults, high and dry. I, too, could have taken the easy way out and flattered singles about their status, towed the safe party line amongst modern theologians, and told singles to find a myriad of service activities to “undividedly” sink themselves into, but I care entirely too much to not be Scripturally accurate (meaning the whole of Scripture, not just one chapter in isolation), and historically accurate.
Dr. Kostenberger’s blog article implies different dispensations for singleness:
Singleness has been undesirable throughout history because other peoples recognized how miserable and unnatural the estate could be. They understood that it was “not good for man to be alone,” and that need could not be met by society or friendship, but only by a spouse. Men are civilized through marriage and achieve true biblical masculinity by taking on the mantle of family life. Leadership in church government is predicated on a man first being able to demonstrate good governance of his wife and children before being allowed to exercise authority in any other sphere. (I. Tim. 3:2). Our qualifications for civic government once required likewise.
The reason we have singleness running rampant today is because we no longer cherish marriage as a culture, nor do we teach our young to pursue same. Because marriage is a privatized institution, so is the season of singleness, neither deserving of scrutiny or accountability. Ultimately, the disorganized practice of dating reflects the low view of marriage we hold as a people, in that dating is unintentional and does not have to lead to marriage. Our very infrastructure betrays our desire for marriage. Instead of seeing protracted singleness as the fallout from generations of unbiblical thinking, unwise mating practices, and sometimes sinful behavior, we are looking to validate it using a radical exposition of select verses in Scripture, i.e. I Corinthians 7. The only thing that Scripture gives exception to is the gift of celibacy, or the removal of sexual desire, to fulfill a kingdom mission unaccommodating to family life. (Matt. 19:11-12; I. Cor. 7:6). This is the same reason why Jeremiah in the Old Testament and Paul in the New Testament were single—they were called or “set apart” for such a unique purpose, spent time in prison, and suffered personally for a greater cause. (Jer. 1:5, 16:1-2; Acts 9:15; see also John 1:23, 3:27-30). This was one of the reasons that Christians that preceded us believed that all men were under a divine duty to marry, excepting only those where poverty and martyrdom were required for the dissemination of the gospel. This is why Jesus himself says that only those to whom the gift of celibacy is given can “accept” the condition of singleness. Matt. 19:11-12 (“only to those it is given”). This is the same reason that Paul couches the entire passage of I Corinthians 7 with qualifier upon qualifier, and acknowledges that human beings were sexually hard wired (v.1,2,8). He writes conditionally, relating his advice to the “present distress” (v.25, 28,29,32) and the actual “gift of celibacy” (v.7), not singleness. Singleness is only advantageous when there is a famine or persecution or such a great tribulation that practically speaking, marriage can be temporarily delayed. Paul’s writings were one of expedience, nothing more.
But today in America or in the West, we have none of those common ailments for which any of our singles can justify postponement of marriage. Today’s singleness, whether by lifestyle preference, neglect of Christian responsibility to be wed, by default, or by ignorance, is an end-result fraught with human choices and societal choices. It is an outcome, not some sort of divinely ordained state of life that can be redeemed by pointing to a charitable social service deed done on a weekly basis—that is not “undivided” service to the Lord by any stretch of the imagination. To pretend that God must have somehow willingly “gifted” so many to be single for these indefinite periods of time is to make the Sovereign our puppet.
The call to marriage applies uniformly to all mankind. In my book, I detail the thoughts of great theologians on this matter—Calvin, Luther, and others. It would be nice to pigeonhole their writings as a knee jerk response to monastic orders and forced singleness in the Roman Catholic priesthood. But their words were not limited to dealing with the whoredom in the church in those days (the inevitable consequence whenever singleness is expressed without the actual gift of celibacy). These writings of old were profound and timely for all ages, just like Scripture. They understood that man and his nature and his physical constitution with all its longings has never changed, and that marriage is the only outlet for which man is blessed with companionship and sexual pleasure, by which he can avoid promiscuity, and can create heirs to which to leave an inheritance. Marriage is what creates the “nursery of the church.” This is the real kingdom work to which God calls us, instead of some cerebral pursuit of kingdom righteousness under the belief that God will later add marriage and family as a reward.
When we make the all too common mistake that singleness, as opposed to celibacy, is the gift, we find ourselves in an intellectual morass. Dr. Kostenberger’s advice to singles wrestling with their singleness is to ask whether “fear and trepidation” fills their breasts when wondering if they have the gift or not. So now, instead of looking to Scripture to dictate how we are to live our lives and what we are to aspire to, we get to search our feelings which ebb and flow, and if we feel okay with our singleness, then we should proceed with the status quo. Scripture has a test— were you called and set apart in the womb to accomplish something of monumental proportions that could not be done with a family in tow. (Jer. 1:5; Acts 9:15-16; Matt. 19:11). If we endorse Dr. Kostenberger’s litmus test, he readily admits that we get to keep guessing until we die whether or not we have the gift of singleness. It is a sliding scale approach dependent upon our circumstances, not the revealed word of God. And if we subscribe to a flawed understanding of Reformed Theology, we can dismiss any of our personal choices that have led up to our single estate, and let God take all the heat for it. Very convenient.
We have an entire generation of young adults being falsely validated by the present religious establishment that God wills some to be single. Undoubtedly, God does—because there were a handful of Bible characters that met and passed the test for biblical singleness. But what in the world does that have to do with the rest of us today? We do not have those kinds of occupational assignments that allow our indefinite single status to be validated. Joe Accountant serving on the missions committee and Susie Schoolteacher working with inner city youth do not biblical singleness make. When ministers do not help young adults to correctly process Matthew 19, I Corinthians 7, I Corinthians 11, I Timothy 2:15, 5:14, Prov. 5, Gen. 1, 2, to reach one synthesized coherent whole, and instead throw out loose language so that each listener can construct their own private truth about what is required by Scripture, we do a great disservice to both God and man.
I have finally joined the blogosphere, and it only took one article from an actual theologian to draw me out. While it is not my normal custom to comment on blogs or put forward a defense of my position to all of the other personalities out there discussing my book, Getting Serious About Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness, I now realize that I have started a debate in which I should participate. At the very least, I should rise to my defense.
I am glad that Dr. Kostenberger’s remarks are bringing to a head a much needed debate. From reading his Biblical Foundations blog, (see The Biblical Foundations blog.), I had to wonder whether he actually read my book, or simply drew his conclusions from glancing at a book review from Christianity Today Online entitled “30 and Single? It’s Your Own Fault.” The author of that book review belied her own title when she wrote:
Maken points to many root causes of the current singleness epidemic: our culture, media, the church, single men, parents, previous generations, faulty theology. There might be truth to some of these claims, and it's certainly helpful to examine them, but making such an impassioned case against all these sources won't help the intended audience of the book, single women, the one segment she all but lets off the hook for the current state of affairs.
It is rather self-contradictory to assert that I am telling single women that it is their “own fault” and yet “let[ting them] off the hook” for not being married by pointing the finger at all of these other sources that contributes to this default reality. But I suppose that for some it is better to misrepresent the position of a competitor’s book and have a negative inflammatory book review title. I am just disappointed that Dr. Kostenberger compounds her fallacies, and builds much of his criticism on assuming that Christianity Today was correct, instead of actually going to the source Getting Serious About Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness to form his opinions and conclusions. One faulty conclusion usually leads to another.
Nevertheless, I am thankful that Dr. Kostenberger has addressed a few theological points that I want to see further debated. There is no way to reconcile Dr. Kostenberger’s views on this subject and mine. Either the Bible does promote open-ended legitimacy for singleness or it doesn’t. Either singleness is the gift or celibacy is. That is the question. The debate is as stark as whether Christ is exclusive or there are many ways up the mountain. There is no way to reconcile the two belief systems. While many may want to believe that the “all ways” approach is more balanced, and it may “seem right” and pleasing to man, we who believe in the power and truth of Scripture know the end thereof—death. In the same way, those who want to participate in this debate must ask—where is this open-ended teaching on singleness going to lead? Is it even correct? Is this what we have historically believed? In that vein, I am so glad that Crossway has given me this opportunity to show why the contemporary teaching on I Corinthians 7 may leave an entire generation of hurting young adults, high and dry. I, too, could have taken the easy way out and flattered singles about their status, towed the safe party line amongst modern theologians, and told singles to find a myriad of service activities to “undividedly” sink themselves into, but I care entirely too much to not be Scripturally accurate (meaning the whole of Scripture, not just one chapter in isolation), and historically accurate.
Dr. Kostenberger’s blog article implies different dispensations for singleness:
In a nutshell, what I find is that in Old Testament times, singleness was rare among individuals old enough to marry. . . . The situation seems markedly different in the New Testament. . . . What is more, as Jesus taught, in the final state people will no longer marry but be like the angels in heaven (Matt. 22:30). That is, all of us will spend eternity as singles! When I did research on this chapter for God, Marriage, and Family, I was surprised to find that there is in Scripture a trajectory, or development, from singleness being rare and highly undesirable (OT) to singleness being presented as advantageous for kingdom service and as a divine gift (NT) to singleness being the universal state of humanity in heaven.There is no trajectory of increased social acceptance of singleness; God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and his law does not change. Whether Old Testament or New, marriage was the norm and singleness was rare because the imprint of “be fruitful and multiply” is written on the hearts of all men. Jesus himself restores marriage to its original basis in Matthew 19. Just because there will be no marriage in heaven only means that the number of the elect is complete, and marriage is no longer needed to fulfill that purpose. But being single in heaven has no bearing on whether man on earth is required to timely and dutifully marry the wife of his youth. If one were to use the logic advanced here, one could argue that building homes on this side of heaven is unnecessary since Jesus promises us many mansions in his father’s house.
Singleness has been undesirable throughout history because other peoples recognized how miserable and unnatural the estate could be. They understood that it was “not good for man to be alone,” and that need could not be met by society or friendship, but only by a spouse. Men are civilized through marriage and achieve true biblical masculinity by taking on the mantle of family life. Leadership in church government is predicated on a man first being able to demonstrate good governance of his wife and children before being allowed to exercise authority in any other sphere. (I. Tim. 3:2). Our qualifications for civic government once required likewise.
The reason we have singleness running rampant today is because we no longer cherish marriage as a culture, nor do we teach our young to pursue same. Because marriage is a privatized institution, so is the season of singleness, neither deserving of scrutiny or accountability. Ultimately, the disorganized practice of dating reflects the low view of marriage we hold as a people, in that dating is unintentional and does not have to lead to marriage. Our very infrastructure betrays our desire for marriage. Instead of seeing protracted singleness as the fallout from generations of unbiblical thinking, unwise mating practices, and sometimes sinful behavior, we are looking to validate it using a radical exposition of select verses in Scripture, i.e. I Corinthians 7. The only thing that Scripture gives exception to is the gift of celibacy, or the removal of sexual desire, to fulfill a kingdom mission unaccommodating to family life. (Matt. 19:11-12; I. Cor. 7:6). This is the same reason why Jeremiah in the Old Testament and Paul in the New Testament were single—they were called or “set apart” for such a unique purpose, spent time in prison, and suffered personally for a greater cause. (Jer. 1:5, 16:1-2; Acts 9:15; see also John 1:23, 3:27-30). This was one of the reasons that Christians that preceded us believed that all men were under a divine duty to marry, excepting only those where poverty and martyrdom were required for the dissemination of the gospel. This is why Jesus himself says that only those to whom the gift of celibacy is given can “accept” the condition of singleness. Matt. 19:11-12 (“only to those it is given”). This is the same reason that Paul couches the entire passage of I Corinthians 7 with qualifier upon qualifier, and acknowledges that human beings were sexually hard wired (v.1,2,8). He writes conditionally, relating his advice to the “present distress” (v.25, 28,29,32) and the actual “gift of celibacy” (v.7), not singleness. Singleness is only advantageous when there is a famine or persecution or such a great tribulation that practically speaking, marriage can be temporarily delayed. Paul’s writings were one of expedience, nothing more.
But today in America or in the West, we have none of those common ailments for which any of our singles can justify postponement of marriage. Today’s singleness, whether by lifestyle preference, neglect of Christian responsibility to be wed, by default, or by ignorance, is an end-result fraught with human choices and societal choices. It is an outcome, not some sort of divinely ordained state of life that can be redeemed by pointing to a charitable social service deed done on a weekly basis—that is not “undivided” service to the Lord by any stretch of the imagination. To pretend that God must have somehow willingly “gifted” so many to be single for these indefinite periods of time is to make the Sovereign our puppet.
The call to marriage applies uniformly to all mankind. In my book, I detail the thoughts of great theologians on this matter—Calvin, Luther, and others. It would be nice to pigeonhole their writings as a knee jerk response to monastic orders and forced singleness in the Roman Catholic priesthood. But their words were not limited to dealing with the whoredom in the church in those days (the inevitable consequence whenever singleness is expressed without the actual gift of celibacy). These writings of old were profound and timely for all ages, just like Scripture. They understood that man and his nature and his physical constitution with all its longings has never changed, and that marriage is the only outlet for which man is blessed with companionship and sexual pleasure, by which he can avoid promiscuity, and can create heirs to which to leave an inheritance. Marriage is what creates the “nursery of the church.” This is the real kingdom work to which God calls us, instead of some cerebral pursuit of kingdom righteousness under the belief that God will later add marriage and family as a reward.
When we make the all too common mistake that singleness, as opposed to celibacy, is the gift, we find ourselves in an intellectual morass. Dr. Kostenberger’s advice to singles wrestling with their singleness is to ask whether “fear and trepidation” fills their breasts when wondering if they have the gift or not. So now, instead of looking to Scripture to dictate how we are to live our lives and what we are to aspire to, we get to search our feelings which ebb and flow, and if we feel okay with our singleness, then we should proceed with the status quo. Scripture has a test— were you called and set apart in the womb to accomplish something of monumental proportions that could not be done with a family in tow. (Jer. 1:5; Acts 9:15-16; Matt. 19:11). If we endorse Dr. Kostenberger’s litmus test, he readily admits that we get to keep guessing until we die whether or not we have the gift of singleness. It is a sliding scale approach dependent upon our circumstances, not the revealed word of God. And if we subscribe to a flawed understanding of Reformed Theology, we can dismiss any of our personal choices that have led up to our single estate, and let God take all the heat for it. Very convenient.
We have an entire generation of young adults being falsely validated by the present religious establishment that God wills some to be single. Undoubtedly, God does—because there were a handful of Bible characters that met and passed the test for biblical singleness. But what in the world does that have to do with the rest of us today? We do not have those kinds of occupational assignments that allow our indefinite single status to be validated. Joe Accountant serving on the missions committee and Susie Schoolteacher working with inner city youth do not biblical singleness make. When ministers do not help young adults to correctly process Matthew 19, I Corinthians 7, I Corinthians 11, I Timothy 2:15, 5:14, Prov. 5, Gen. 1, 2, to reach one synthesized coherent whole, and instead throw out loose language so that each listener can construct their own private truth about what is required by Scripture, we do a great disservice to both God and man.
posted by Debbie Maken at 9:48 PM
10 Comments:
Welcome to the blogosphere.
http://www.alexchediak.com/blog/2006/08/gift_of_singleness_maken_respo.php
Hmmm!
This is a most interesting post. I am in general agreement with your criticism of the culture having a low view of marriage and your post may have just sold me on your book.
I do have a few question though. You cite Jeremiah and Paul as specifically set apart by God and you refer to an explicit call by God for their singleness. Am I correct in understanding you to be claiming a moral ought to marriage and children for each and every individual Christian with very few exceptions? Do those exceptions have to be explicitly called by God in the same way that you cite Jeremiah and Paul or can it be a subjective feeling? You seem to imply that subjective feelings are not allowable in this case, or was that just a response to Dr. Kostenberger litmus test?
Arrgh, maybe I should just buy your book. Thanks for your post!
"Who is she to say how God may lead you if you are a woman in your thirties and still single?"
This was the most objectionable statement in Dr. Kostenberger's essay. Having actually read your book, I thought your point was that Scripture and noted interpretive authorities support marriage for all but those with the gift of celibacy for unusual callings, not simply that you think it's a good idea.
It seems that both parties in the debate have made a fundamental error. There will be marriage in heaven. Have we forgotten 'the bride of Christ'??
Our earthly marriages are but pale reflections of that eternal, heavenly, marriage. But it is that pale reflection that God uses to teach us 'through a glass darkly' what the heavenly reality will be like.
Debbie,
I want to read your book very badly and I hope to make time to read it between heaps of reading for my graduate level courses. Based on the reviews I read about your book, I am seeing that you are validating the concerns of unmarried people who desire marriage - but seem to be going nowhere with it.
For awhile, I wanted to be alone because I had experienced some traumatic relationships. But now I am in a place where I am comfortable with dating and exploring and hopefully, I will be able to share my life with a godly man.
Thank you for encouraging believers to be proactive and to take responsibility for their romantic future. Thank you for your intelligence and your willingness to challenge tainted teaching.
Why do you want an absolute dilemma between singleness vs. celibacy as the gift? Couldn't it be possible that celibacy is a gift in some cases in order to strengthen those who are single, while singleness is also a gift in freeing someone up to do God's work in a more concentrated way? I see no absolute disjunction here. Both could be given by God.
A single person who has renounced marriage for the Kingdom of heaven is likely to have the gift of celibacy - or at least an unusually degree of self control over his/her sex drive (1 Cor 7:7).
The trouble is that not all Christians that are single have such a gifting, neither are they usually involved in God's work to such a concentrated degree that marriage and a family would be incompatible.
One of the dangers of the widespread singleness we are experiencing, without a special celibacy-orientated gifting, is the tempation to fall into sexual sin.
I wonder how many of the Christian men that go for decade after decade into adulthood without a wife and with no such celibacy gifting, nor some all-encompassing Kingdom work, struggle with secret sexual sin - particularly given the prevalence and ease with which pornography is available in our society?
Debbie,
I am reading stuff you've written all over the internet and I am compelled to say a HUGE AMEN to the general idea of what you are saying about marriage. This needs to be talked about. I am 31 and finally engaged (YEAH!) but have thought for many years that it wasn't God's WILL for me to be single anymore than it is God's WILL for people to suffer in other ways (health problems, poverty, etc). Instead of it being God's WILL, it was a consequence of the sinful culture I live in. I believe in some mysterious and amazing way He did use it for good, as he did the sin of Joseph's brothers, etc. But no one has ever understood what I've been trying to say. Write more. Say this more. And let's set up all our single friends and get them married!!! Educate men that anatomically it is undeniable that they are meant to GET MARRIED YOUNG. If the Lord blesses me with children, I will raise them with that in mind, instead of the mindset that it will happen "in God's time" when you've done NOTHING to help it happen! Every once in a while I read something that gets me all crazy because I just want to do cartwheels to get others to see it. Doing cartwheels for you, Debbie!!!
What if you literally make yourself a eunuch so that you can concentrate better on full time ministry? would that be ok you think?
(obviously, this isn't the problem that most american christians are struggling with, but i actually wanna know - as weird as that sounds. and if someone does this, does your their sex drive go away? i think i might like that believe it or not.)
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Perhaps you can work out an arrangement with the hospital to have a lobotomy performed at the same time of your chemical castration. That should really help you with any unwanted sexual urges.
Debbie
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home