CONCLUDING REMARKS IN A CONVERSATION WITH A THEOLOGIAN
I probably will not address Kostenberger’s comments again. The kingdom work of changing diapers, coaxing down organic Gerbers, and endless storytelling does not make much time for theological debating. Moreover, Kostenberger and I agree that we are not going to see eye to eye on this. Nevertheless, I would like to dissect his reply and show where it is lacking.
The biggest problem with the Kostenberger camp is that they want to talk out of both sides of their mouth. In one breath, they want to say that of course, marriage is the norm, and singleness the exception. But then, they want to create a highly subjective test for singleness so that the general rule of marriage can be swallowed whole. By his own admission, Kostenberger advises:
Learning that I am not the Holy Spirit has lightened my burden significantly. I rest much better at night now.
Here’s the problem. Singleness is not a question of Christian liberty in the same vein as buying a car. The ramifications of a person remaining single without the proper biblical predicate can be destructive for not only for the individual, but also for the spouse they could have had. With every individual “discern[ing] God’s personal leading for them as they are led by the Holy Spirit,” every individual could say God that had “personally led” to them to be single right up until the point that they got married, if at all. Why we could have scores of people marrying for the first time in their thirties, forties, or even fifties, and it was just “God’s will” by the personal leading of the Holy Spirit for them to marry right at that exact time. So for most of history, Christian singles were being led by the Spirit to pursue marriage early in life, but now the Holy Spirit is directing teams of Christian singles to pursue marriage later in life. Is God taking a detour in redemptive history?
At times, this discussion sounds like the pro-choice/ pro-life arguments—“my body, my life, it’s none of your business.” But as I mentioned in my original response, this conversation is reminiscent of those who argue the exclusivity of Christ against the “other gods/other paths” approach to life. The debates are inevitably drowned in a sea of charges for being “judgmental” “arrogant” “simplistic” for not appreciating “diversity” of beliefs. Then comes the shrill climax in defense of conventional wisdom, “Who made you God?” Television’s Larry King is famous for trying to get Christians on his show to reveal their true beliefs--that those not clothed in Christ are bound for damnation. How “judgmental” indeed to tell otherwise “content” and “sincere” pagans that hellfire awaits them!
Similarly, Kostenberger has not been shy in engaging in the same juvenile tactics. (Please note that I am not calling Kostenberger juvenile, only his tactics; I am also sure that Kostenberger does not think me arrogant, only my deepest beliefs and position). Believing that he is championing the cause of singles, Kostenberger notes that he “would not appreciate being . . . labeled . . . out of God’s will . . . or self-deceived or worse,” especially if “content.” Surely, no “content” single person maintaining a “positive approach to singleness” could be “self-deceived.” When I was single (which was relatively recently), I was waiting with bated breath for pastors to come right out and say that there was a great deal of self-deception as to why many of us were single. There is self-deception at every turn-- in our estimation of ourselves and our own self-importance, to self-deception in what we believe we deserve or are entitled to, to self-deception in our half-hearted attempts to find someone, to self-deception in finding satisfaction with our unwanted state, to self-deception in believing that just because I find myself single, God must also therefore want me to be single. Self-deception and contentment are wonderful bedfellows, so let’s not kid ourselves.
Not only is Kostenberger’s interchangeable usage of “singleness” and “celibacy” sloppy, so is his willingness to use the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God as both sword and shield. Kostenberger’s attack goes something like this-- since “God only knows” who will be single permanently or temporarily, who is Debbie Maken to tell a single person what is “God’s will” for them? One could say that since God only knows who will be the elect, should that necessarily stop Debbie Maken or any other well-intentioned Christian from declaring that there is only one name in heaven or earth by which man may be saved? Does God’s foreknowledge of who will enter the kingdom stop anyone from preaching that a man must be born again, or that he must appropriate the finished work of Christ on his behalf?
It is illogical to say that just because God knows who will be single that therefore He has not left a litmus test for man to follow as to whether he should be? Scripture does not spell out by name who will be married anymore than it spells out who will be the elect. Scripture does however establish what is required of man by His God. Scripture has the parameters by which we shall live, and to this much Kostenberger agrees. The only question here is what are the parameters? Do we believe Scripture provides an objective test or a subjective one? Do we believe that marriage to the wife/husband of our youth is required by God in Scripture, or are we going to privatize our singleness as a cosmic unknown purely dependent on our circumstances or conscience or the personal leadings of the Holy Spirit? If the test is objective as I suggest, will we be obedient to pursue marriage with intentionality and without any undue delay? How is this question to be settled?
There are legions of theologians in bygone times that would have stated that there was no question to settle. Marriage was not something upon which to deliberate as if it were a “choice” for man to make. The very question of--- is it God’s will for me to marry-- was noxious because they understood that the fundamental nature of man required marriage, and that if he failed to marry in a timely fashion, he was placing his body and soul in spiritual peril. This was a settled question because of the way God had designed man. (Gen. 2, Matt. 19, I Cor. 7). These theologians, many of whom are cited and discussed at length in my book, were not quick to dole out flattery and biblical legitimacy because it was after all, someone else’s life. Question 139 of the Westminster Catechism cites the “undue delay” of marriage in “either ourselves or others” as “sin” violative of the Seventh Commandment. The men that crafted that document were certainly aware that some people do happen to get married much later in life, but they weren’t beset from stating the normative for fear of being “judgmental” or “arrogant.” These men certainly seemed to be advocating “hasten the day” of marriage.
I Corinthians 7 was intact in their bibles, and yet those set of theologians understood that Paul was drawing a fine line between not lending support to the ascetics, and yet giving practical advice to temporarily delay marriage because of the impending famine and fast approaching persecutions of 70 A.D., the period to which Jesus referred to as a “shortened time.” (Matt. 24:22). These theologians of old drew nothing more than a statement of expediency out of this section (I Cor. 7) of the Bible.
Ultimately, Scripture does not have the Piper, Hsu, Farmer, Roberts “que sera sera” test to determine if the alleged gift of singleness applies—if you find yourself single, it is God’s gift to you, accept it, relish in it, and serve, serve, serve away! Scripture does not have a Stott’s “evolving-passage of time” test for discerning if singleness applies—had a couple of bad dates and still find yourself single later in life, let your circumstances inform you that marriage is not in the cards! Scripture does not have Kostenberger’s “personal leading” test, with “contentment” or “apprehension” being the tie-breakers.
Scripture shows that those who were single like Jeremiah or John the Baptist knew from infancy (Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:41,44) that they were called or set apart for an unusual, and yes, monumental task, which would be impeded by normal family life. Jeremiah was told specifically not to take a wife. (Jer. 16:1-2). Most singles today do not have a clear turning point by which to explain or justify either their temporary or permanent singleness. They either prefer this lifestyle or simply find singleness their default reality. Just because many of them did not intend for singleness to happen does not mean that there is biblical legitimacy to the state, or that it was God’s “gift” to them.
I do not appreciate my position being labeled an “overreaction” to all of the bad advice out there for singles. My position on singleness was once endorsed by an entire cadre of well respected (and extremely well trained) theologians. Many of these scholars were also students of the law. Today, the tides have changed, and many modern theologians believe something different from what Christians have historically believed for centuries. We have to have the humility to examine if what we are preaching to singles today is correct in light of our deviation from historical precedent, from Scripture, and from good old-fashioned logic.
I am thankful for the few lone pastoral voices willing to say that the deliberate neglect of marriage as a Christian responsibility is a sin. God help them (and me) in this fight. It is just a shame that those who so readily accuse others of being arrogant, cannot humbly self-examine themselves to see if their positions on which they have staked their names, credentials, reputations, somehow got it wrong.
The biggest problem with the Kostenberger camp is that they want to talk out of both sides of their mouth. In one breath, they want to say that of course, marriage is the norm, and singleness the exception. But then, they want to create a highly subjective test for singleness so that the general rule of marriage can be swallowed whole. By his own admission, Kostenberger advises:
“We don’t need to decide for someone else whether or not they are called to marry or to remain unmarried. We are not the Holy Spirit, so why are we not content to leave this decision up to God’s leading in that person’s life and that person’s own conscience and judgment? In the end, it is their life, isn’t it? . . . [Let’s] affirm marriage as the norm and singleness as the exceptional, but honorable calling for those who have received it? Fair enough?”
Learning that I am not the Holy Spirit has lightened my burden significantly. I rest much better at night now.
Here’s the problem. Singleness is not a question of Christian liberty in the same vein as buying a car. The ramifications of a person remaining single without the proper biblical predicate can be destructive for not only for the individual, but also for the spouse they could have had. With every individual “discern[ing] God’s personal leading for them as they are led by the Holy Spirit,” every individual could say God that had “personally led” to them to be single right up until the point that they got married, if at all. Why we could have scores of people marrying for the first time in their thirties, forties, or even fifties, and it was just “God’s will” by the personal leading of the Holy Spirit for them to marry right at that exact time. So for most of history, Christian singles were being led by the Spirit to pursue marriage early in life, but now the Holy Spirit is directing teams of Christian singles to pursue marriage later in life. Is God taking a detour in redemptive history?
At times, this discussion sounds like the pro-choice/ pro-life arguments—“my body, my life, it’s none of your business.” But as I mentioned in my original response, this conversation is reminiscent of those who argue the exclusivity of Christ against the “other gods/other paths” approach to life. The debates are inevitably drowned in a sea of charges for being “judgmental” “arrogant” “simplistic” for not appreciating “diversity” of beliefs. Then comes the shrill climax in defense of conventional wisdom, “Who made you God?” Television’s Larry King is famous for trying to get Christians on his show to reveal their true beliefs--that those not clothed in Christ are bound for damnation. How “judgmental” indeed to tell otherwise “content” and “sincere” pagans that hellfire awaits them!
Similarly, Kostenberger has not been shy in engaging in the same juvenile tactics. (Please note that I am not calling Kostenberger juvenile, only his tactics; I am also sure that Kostenberger does not think me arrogant, only my deepest beliefs and position). Believing that he is championing the cause of singles, Kostenberger notes that he “would not appreciate being . . . labeled . . . out of God’s will . . . or self-deceived or worse,” especially if “content.” Surely, no “content” single person maintaining a “positive approach to singleness” could be “self-deceived.” When I was single (which was relatively recently), I was waiting with bated breath for pastors to come right out and say that there was a great deal of self-deception as to why many of us were single. There is self-deception at every turn-- in our estimation of ourselves and our own self-importance, to self-deception in what we believe we deserve or are entitled to, to self-deception in our half-hearted attempts to find someone, to self-deception in finding satisfaction with our unwanted state, to self-deception in believing that just because I find myself single, God must also therefore want me to be single. Self-deception and contentment are wonderful bedfellows, so let’s not kid ourselves.
Not only is Kostenberger’s interchangeable usage of “singleness” and “celibacy” sloppy, so is his willingness to use the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God as both sword and shield. Kostenberger’s attack goes something like this-- since “God only knows” who will be single permanently or temporarily, who is Debbie Maken to tell a single person what is “God’s will” for them? One could say that since God only knows who will be the elect, should that necessarily stop Debbie Maken or any other well-intentioned Christian from declaring that there is only one name in heaven or earth by which man may be saved? Does God’s foreknowledge of who will enter the kingdom stop anyone from preaching that a man must be born again, or that he must appropriate the finished work of Christ on his behalf?
It is illogical to say that just because God knows who will be single that therefore He has not left a litmus test for man to follow as to whether he should be? Scripture does not spell out by name who will be married anymore than it spells out who will be the elect. Scripture does however establish what is required of man by His God. Scripture has the parameters by which we shall live, and to this much Kostenberger agrees. The only question here is what are the parameters? Do we believe Scripture provides an objective test or a subjective one? Do we believe that marriage to the wife/husband of our youth is required by God in Scripture, or are we going to privatize our singleness as a cosmic unknown purely dependent on our circumstances or conscience or the personal leadings of the Holy Spirit? If the test is objective as I suggest, will we be obedient to pursue marriage with intentionality and without any undue delay? How is this question to be settled?
There are legions of theologians in bygone times that would have stated that there was no question to settle. Marriage was not something upon which to deliberate as if it were a “choice” for man to make. The very question of--- is it God’s will for me to marry-- was noxious because they understood that the fundamental nature of man required marriage, and that if he failed to marry in a timely fashion, he was placing his body and soul in spiritual peril. This was a settled question because of the way God had designed man. (Gen. 2, Matt. 19, I Cor. 7). These theologians, many of whom are cited and discussed at length in my book, were not quick to dole out flattery and biblical legitimacy because it was after all, someone else’s life. Question 139 of the Westminster Catechism cites the “undue delay” of marriage in “either ourselves or others” as “sin” violative of the Seventh Commandment. The men that crafted that document were certainly aware that some people do happen to get married much later in life, but they weren’t beset from stating the normative for fear of being “judgmental” or “arrogant.” These men certainly seemed to be advocating “hasten the day” of marriage.
I Corinthians 7 was intact in their bibles, and yet those set of theologians understood that Paul was drawing a fine line between not lending support to the ascetics, and yet giving practical advice to temporarily delay marriage because of the impending famine and fast approaching persecutions of 70 A.D., the period to which Jesus referred to as a “shortened time.” (Matt. 24:22). These theologians of old drew nothing more than a statement of expediency out of this section (I Cor. 7) of the Bible.
Ultimately, Scripture does not have the Piper, Hsu, Farmer, Roberts “que sera sera” test to determine if the alleged gift of singleness applies—if you find yourself single, it is God’s gift to you, accept it, relish in it, and serve, serve, serve away! Scripture does not have a Stott’s “evolving-passage of time” test for discerning if singleness applies—had a couple of bad dates and still find yourself single later in life, let your circumstances inform you that marriage is not in the cards! Scripture does not have Kostenberger’s “personal leading” test, with “contentment” or “apprehension” being the tie-breakers.
Scripture shows that those who were single like Jeremiah or John the Baptist knew from infancy (Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:41,44) that they were called or set apart for an unusual, and yes, monumental task, which would be impeded by normal family life. Jeremiah was told specifically not to take a wife. (Jer. 16:1-2). Most singles today do not have a clear turning point by which to explain or justify either their temporary or permanent singleness. They either prefer this lifestyle or simply find singleness their default reality. Just because many of them did not intend for singleness to happen does not mean that there is biblical legitimacy to the state, or that it was God’s “gift” to them.
I do not appreciate my position being labeled an “overreaction” to all of the bad advice out there for singles. My position on singleness was once endorsed by an entire cadre of well respected (and extremely well trained) theologians. Many of these scholars were also students of the law. Today, the tides have changed, and many modern theologians believe something different from what Christians have historically believed for centuries. We have to have the humility to examine if what we are preaching to singles today is correct in light of our deviation from historical precedent, from Scripture, and from good old-fashioned logic.
I am thankful for the few lone pastoral voices willing to say that the deliberate neglect of marriage as a Christian responsibility is a sin. God help them (and me) in this fight. It is just a shame that those who so readily accuse others of being arrogant, cannot humbly self-examine themselves to see if their positions on which they have staked their names, credentials, reputations, somehow got it wrong.
posted by Debbie Maken at 10:37 AM
18 Comments:
Mrs Maken,
I hope that you will take my comment in the spirit in which it is meant: robust, but not impolite, dissent.
And for the record, I do intend to read your book. :)
So for most of history, Christian singles were being led by the Spirit to pursue marriage early in life, but now the Holy Spirit is directing teams of Christian singles to pursue marriage later in life. Is God taking a detour in redemptive history?
I don't think that the leading of the Spirit had very much to do with it, in general historical terms. People in earlier generations married for all sorts of reasons, and many of those reasons were not romantic. Rich people married to forge alliances between houses and nations. Poor people might marry for love. Marriage was a strong social glue. Nothing wrong with that, it's something our own culture desperately needs to recover. But let's not look back with overly rose-coloured glasses. Marriage has not always been a romantic affair.
At times, this discussion sounds like the pro-choice/ pro-life arguments—“my body, my life, it’s none of your business.” But as I mentioned in my original response, this conversation is reminiscent of those who argue the exclusivity of Christ against the “other gods/other paths” approach to life. The debates are inevitably drowned in a sea of charges for being “judgmental” “arrogant” “simplistic” for not appreciating “diversity” of beliefs.
The question of whether someone gets married or not is hardly on the same moral level as abortion or the exclusivity of Christ!
Do we believe that marriage to the wife/husband of our youth is required by God in Scripture, or are we going to privatize our singleness as a cosmic unknown purely dependent on our circumstances or conscience or the personal leadings of the Holy Spirit? If the test is objective as I suggest, will we be obedient to pursue marriage with intentionality and without any undue delay? How is this question to be settled?
Mrs Maken, there have been many unhappy marriages in the pages of history. There are many people who have married DISASTROUSLY, and that includes Christians. That doesn't mean that marriage is bad, it means that WE are. Also, marriage is not so much 'required by God in Scripture' as a gift He graciously blesses people with. There is not one shred of Scriptural evidence to suggest that God is offended by people who don't marry. I find the notion wholly preposterous. As for marrying young, well, that's a good and sensible thing to do, especially in terms of fertility, but marrying the wife of one's youth in Proverbs is a descriptive act, not a prescriptive one.
There are legions of theologians in bygone times that would have stated that there was no question to settle. Marriage was not something upon which to deliberate as if it were a “choice” for man to make. The very question of--- is it God’s will for me to marry-- was noxious because they understood that the fundamental nature of man required marriage, and that if he failed to marry in a timely fashion, he was placing his body and soul in spiritual peril.
Our sanctification is hardly contingent on our marrying. And, you know, I will listen with respect to Luther when he talks about justification and to Calvin when he talks of the perseverance of the saints, but when it comes to singleness, neither of them have much of relevance to say to my situation. I'm glad that Luther married happily but the Protestant Reformers threw the baby out with the bathwater when they exalted marriage over celibacy, in itself an understandable reaction to the Roman Catholic Church's error in exalting virginity over marriage.
When it comes to singleness, I look to St. Paul. And even more importantly, to Jesus ... who had two single women in His entourage, Mary and Martha. No mention of their husbands in Scripture at all.
Just because many of them did not intend for singleness to happen does not mean that there is biblical legitimacy to the state, or that it was God’s “gift” to them.
Mrs Maken, you believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to transform a believer's life, right? Do you believe that God can enable a divorced Christian to get over the intense pain and rejection, get on with their life, even find love again? If you do not believe that second marriages are biblically legitimate, then that's fair enough. I would still expect you to provide sensitive pastoral care and concern to those who are 'single again'.
You talk as if there are just two parties of people in this world: those who are married (and therefore in God's will) and those who are not (and therefore out of God's will.) You know as well as I do that singleness happens in all sorts of ways: widowhood, divorce, marriage proposals that never happen.
And then there's homosexuality, a huge issue currently affecting church and society. How would you counsel someone struggling with a lesbian/homosexual orientation? As you seem to think it is so unreasonable and horrifying for a single heterosexual Christian to live without sex, I wonder that you don't regard gay people in the same way. Don't they have as much right to happiness and sexual pleasure as heterosexuals?
I have no quarrel with you counselling today's generation of Christians to intentionally seek marriage. I think that's a thoroughly good thing. Christians need to take marriage seriously as never before.
What concerns me greatly is the unwarranted and unbiblical judgementalism being visited on single people who live well, live chastely and love the Lord. I'm already seeing it in the comments of those who are now berating these older singles as if these people have something wrong with them.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM!! Period. :)
You may well be right in your assessment of the gift of celibacy and separating it out from the gift of singleness (I, for one, believe you are onto something). Dr Kostenberger may well be wrong. But what I do see in him is respect and compassion for singles, an acknowledgement of the pain they sometimes feel, an acknowledgement of their dignity and worth as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. And that goes a very long way.
Whether or not you wish to publish this post, I warmly wish you the very best, and pray that God will bless you richly in your own marriage and family life. :)
Grace & peace,
Philippa
Philippa - Please do read Debbie's book. It will shed more light on these issues than a mere blog article ever could. (Being in the UK myself, I got several copies from Wesley Owen!)
There is much to discuss in your thoughtful comment, but may I suggest that we leave aside the issues of divorce and homosexuality? These are two very important major issues, however this discussion seems to me to be clearly focused on the large numbers of people that are single either through choice or by default because no one has asked them. I think that gives us enough material to work with and the issues of homosexulaity and divorce are more worthy of a separate topic in themselves.
The key question as I see it is as follows: Is singleness a legitimate lifestyle course for Christians?
Let's look to Scripture for the answer to that.
After God created man and woman ("male and female he created them") it says in Genesis 1: 28 "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it...'"
In Genesis 2:18 God explains why he made Eve for Adam, saying: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
In the same chapter verse 24, Scripture reads: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Then also in Genesis following the flood, God said to Noah at the beginning of chapter 9: "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.' This is reiterated again in verse 7: "As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.'
We see an instruction very similar in Jeremiah 29, where in an exile situation, God's command is to marry and have children, even before praying for the peace and prosperity of their city (5-7): "Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper."
Interesting then that God commands the multiplication of Christians when they are surrounded by those that don't know him, through the building of families.
Indeed Godly children are given as a reason for marriage in Malachi 2: 15 (in addition to being the 'helper' outlined in Genesis): "Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth."
Incidentally Philippa, myself also being the UK, you may have picked up on some articles in the press recently discussing the cultural trend of having children later in life and how medically this is highly unadvantageous. This seems to indicate that the Biblical references to marrying young needs to again be heeded by our society as a whole, in particular of course for Christians who at present often squander their most fertile years by marrying later on.
Also in Jeremiah 7: 34, God specifies the absence of marriage as a sign of a curse: "I will bring an end to the sounds of joy and gladness and to the voices of bride and bridegroom in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem, for the land will become desolate."
Against this backdrop of what appears to be commands to marry and have children (Genesis, Jeremiah), we can also look to the Psalms and Proverbs for more information about marriage.
Psalm 113:9 says: "(God) settles the barren woman in her home as a happy mother of children."
In Psalm 78: 63, having no "marriage song" is seen as a sign of God's displeasure: "Fire consumed their young men, and their maidens had no wedding songs."
Proverbs 18:22 says "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favour from the Lord." This seems to indicate not only that a wife is good for a man in natural terms, but that God also views it positively and blesses him for it.
I am sure there is more, but hopefully these references give an indication as to God's view of marriage and family.
Plus of course there are the numerous analogies of marriage to indicate the relationship between God and his people.
So, against this backdrop, is there any legitimacy in the Bible for ignoring God's commands to marry and have children by either remaining single and/or living a celibate life (and yes, quite right Philippa, it is either an attempt to make the Bible more "relevant" to society or very sloppy thinking, to interchange celibacy and singleness as if they were one and the same thing)?
Well, yes.
It appears there are two passages in the Bible where this is discussed.
Let's start with Jesus' words in Matthew 19 where in verses 4-5, Jesus shows that God's view of marriage hasn't changed since he first created us: "'Haven't you read', he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female", and said "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh"?'"
But in answer to the disciples question that maybe it is better not to marry Jesus explains that not everyone can accept this teaching (11): "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage (or made themselves eunuchs) because of the Kindgom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
It seems to me then, that Jesus is saying that unless one fits into the three categories of eunuch, then one "should" get married.
It is my understanding that out of these three categories, the first two are relatively straightforward, indicating either a disablement from birth, or subsequent to that. However this third category is slightly vague. I would deduce that the number that fall into this category is rare - the reason being that it is the third type that Jesus mentions, and if it were widespread, then logic would dictate that Jesus would have mentioned it as the first or primary reason. So my reading of this passage is that there are some rare individuals that forgoe the normal marital relations in order to accomplish some Kindgom task which would be incompatiable with marriage and a family. This to my mind hardly includes the vast majority of singles that actually do lead a pretty normal life where they could accommodate a wife and family, but simply choose not to.
Now let's turn to the 1 Corinthians 7 passage - the source of the teaching of a "gift of singlenes" and the legitimacy of the single state.
There is so much that could be said here! It seems to me that people's views on this passage often vary depending on which Bible translation they prefer. Modern translations - particularly those that paraphrase the Bible in an attempt to make it more understandable for our current generation - seem to indicate that Paul is talking about singleness as opposed to celibacy and also singleness as opposed to not living with a spouse.
Let's begin with verse 1. Some versions (including the NIV) state: "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry". However there is a note to say that actually this could also read "not to have sexual relations with a woman." However there is still a problem here. As we have seen, the Bible clearly shows elsewhere that marriage and children are a good thing. So how can this be, if as we believe, the Bible doesn't contradict itself? It seems like a far better translation - as some theologians have pointed out - and which the King James version shows, is that Paul is saying it is good not to "fornicate" ie have sexual relations with a women that is not your wife. This then is in keeping with the rest of the Bible, rather than being contradictory.
Not let's look at the verse that is translated often (and quite inexplicably to my mind!) as a "gift of singleness", verse 7: "I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that." (NIV)
So what exactly is this gift? If we look immediately before this verse, it is clear that Paul is talking to married people and is saying that he has a great amount of sexual self-control. It seems to make sense then, that Paul is talking about celibacy - particularly within marriage.
Why would Paul view this as being a good thing, and likewise in the rest of the passage, why does he seem to indicate that it is better for those that are unmarried to remain that way? (verse 27)
The only way we can understand this I think - given the weight of the rest of the Bible that is pro-marriage - is to look at the context. Paul makes it very clear that he is a) writing in respose to particular matters, b) that he in several places indicates that he has no command from the Lord about this, but it is his personal recommendation, c) and why it is his personal recommendation? See verse 26 "Because of the present crisis..."
Okay - so what is this present crisis? I have learnt that at this time there was great famine and imminent prosecutions expected for Christians in the area.
Hence, it makes perfect sense - and is not contradictory to the rest of the Bible - if we view this passage as Paul's personal recommendation at a particular time and in response to a particular crisis. Of course, if famine and persecutions about, it would make sense to put marriage temporarily on the back burner - but yet such is Paul's support of marriage, that even under these conditions he makes it plain that those that choose nevertheless to marry are not doing anything wrong.
Phew! I doubt whether anyone is still with me by now, but to summarise: Rather than viewing singleness as a state that is condoned in the Bible - or even put on an equal plane with marriage as a gift - it seems to me that the Bible is very clear. We are actually commanded to marry and have children, unless we have a very good reason not to ie we fit into a eunuch category or we are living in a present crisis.
For the vast majority of the singles today, neither of these conditions apply.
So - what are single Christian men going to say when they meet the Lord and he asks them why they did not seek a wife? Hmm??? :)
Deanna,
As to what I, a 33-year old never-married bachelor, will say when I meet the Lord concerning my lack of a wife? First, I am not at all convinced that the Lord will have such a question for me. Second, if he does ask me why I didn't seek a wife, I'll tell him the truth: 'I didn't want to.'
Third, what will all you single women say to the Lord when he asks you why you rejected so many of the suitors he sent your way? Third, here is Matt. 19 8-12:
-----------------------------------
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagebecause of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
----------------------------------
Here is the way I read this. Jesus states that marriage is a LIFE LONG COMMITTMENT with no escape clause except for unfaithfulness (and probably abandonment as well). The disciples balk at this and say 'Wow, maybe it's better to steer clear of marriage'. Jesus replies, "If you can accept weight of responsibility that comes with a lifelong committment, go for it. If you can't, it's better to stay single.
Personally, I am comfortable as a bachelor at the moment.
Wombatty - Well, I admire your honesty at least! So if God asks you why you disobeyed his oft-repeated command to go forth and multiply, you are going to say "I didn't want to."
Ah, that's okay then...
I suggest looking again at what Jesus says in reply to the disciples:
"Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."
Okay, so Jesus is saying that there are exemptions. But who are these exemptions and why have they been excused from this mandate (which after all God makes plain is a good thing!)?
Here's the answer:
"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the Kingdom of heaven."
Okay - so those are the people that are excused from marriage.
So what is the situation for people other than those categories of eunuch, some of whom may still be thinking along the lines of the disciples ie. that it is better not to marry?
Jesus is quite clear: "The one who can accept this should accept it."
So all those that can accept marriage (ie. those that are not the eunuchs stated) should accept it.
You see, the way I look at it is that if it wasn't for verse 12 (ie the eunuch bit!) yes, you could very well argue that the conditions for divorce are high, so not everyone will want to make that commitment, and if you feel you can't accept the commitment, then sure, you are free to do as you please.
The snag though is that Jesus makes it very clear exactly who these people are that are exempt, and sadly, your "comfort" as a bachelor doesn't seem to be an issue here!
All of which then begs the question: What kind of eunuch are you, Wombatty?
PS: As you to your question about females turing down so many suiters - I am sure many of my Christian sisters will join me in saying the chance would be a fine thing! ;)
PPS: Having turned to this passage in my Bible, I have only just noticed what comes immediately after it. It's where the little children come up to Jesus, and as the disciples try to shoo them away, Jesus rebukes them and instead lays hands upon the children and blesses them.
It's a beautiful picture, isn't it?
The two passages are not unconnected in many ways.
Now, I am glad that Wombatty rather obey the disciples and not Jesus. That makes perfect sense.
Will
LOL @ obeying the disciples rather than Jesus Anon...where you find that I don't know. I was just pointing out that when Jesus layed out the high standard for divorce, the disciples choked on it. Jesus replied to their 'choking' by saying if that is too heavy a burden for you, don't take it up. Deanna - as for 'disobeying God's oft-repeated command', I don't see it that way. First, I regard this issue as one of freedom in Christ as Paul explains in Romans. I would answer the question you pose on the Lord's behalf the same way I would answer if he asked my why I like eating steak. You'll also notice that all of the commands to 'go forth and multiply are given to specific people at specific times - and for good reason. The two that come to mind immediately are the commands to Adam & Eve and to Noah and his family. Good thing they listened too, or we wouldn't be discussing this issue. There is no general, over-arching command to 'go forth and multiply (as there is to 'not forsake gathering together', against lying, adultery, fornication, etc). If this is such a necessary component of the Christian life, why is there no EXPLICIT command to marry (e.g. Let us not forsake the gathering together of ourselves, as is the habit of some...). If it is so vital, why didn't Jesus so command the woman caught in adultery or the woman at the well? Here are two perfect opportunities our Lord had to clarify this issue regarding human relations (particularly as they pertain to sex). No word about marriage at all. Jesus simply said 'Go and sin no more'. Not a word about marriage. As the what kind of 'eucuch' I am - I am a one by choice. You should re-read the passage in question yourself. Christ does not say that ONLY those types of eunuchs he lists are exempt from marriage. He says:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowhere here does Jesus say that ONLY such people can legitmately remain single. Don't you think that Christ might have issued a stern warning to the disciples against using his words as a license to remain single if that was his intention? Expeciialy as some of the disciples were apparently umarried (John, 'The Sons of Thunder', etc - no wives or children are mentioned). This is like your mom telling you, 'Go to the store and get me some milk, eggs and oranges.' Does this preclude you from buying bread as well? Of course not. It would be different if she had said. 'Go to the store and ONLY get me some milk, eggs and oranges, do not buy anything else'. Maken's reading of this passage offers a false choice.
I also like how you avoided your own question turned back on you. There have been many, many perfectly suitable men who have been rejected by women for all kinds of reasons: You're too nice, it's not you, it's me, you're not exciting enough, you're not ambitous enough, successfull enough, rich enough, and on and on and on. Women are just a fickle and picky as guys are. So I pose the question again: What will you and your Christain sisters say when the Lord asks you, 'Why did you, after praying and whining for a husband for such a long time, reject so many of the suitors I sent you - and all too often for silly, immature reasons?' Are you telling me that you and your friends have never rejected a 'good guy' for such reasons?
There's something esle you might be able to help me with Deanna. It seems that alot of women of Maken's (and, I assume, your) persuasion seem to have this attitude of entitlement. You seem to believe that the world, the church, or Christian Men (as a group) OWES you a husband. Speaking for myself, I don't feel I am 'owed; a wife. If I want one and cannot manage to find one, I'm not gonna start whining and blame women for it.
The tone of Maken's book is 'It's the man's fault, it's societies fauly, it's the cultures fault, it's the fault of poor teaching. The one group Maken lets off the hook is women. I find it interesting that, in a book on marriage aimed at women, there is no chapter dealing with a woman's biblical role in marriage or society or anything. Yet, you will find a chapter on 'Inspiring Men to Biblical Leadership' (or something like that). Whatever your position on this issue, your first responsibility is your own conduct and conforming it to God's Word. Maken apparently prefers to focus on someone else's percieved faults and blame them for the decline in marriage
Anonymous, Jesus blessing the children - a passage I love - has absolutely nothing to do with what He says earlier to the disciples about marriage. I've never seen such careless prooftexting! For shame, people, really.
It is deeply ironic to me that people who are questioning what they see as unhelpful teaching on the so-called gift of singleness - and I do think it's a legitimate question, which is why I intend to read Debbie's book - are then alienating their potential audience by heaping unwarranted suspicion and legalism onto perfectly nice normal Christian blokes who simply aren't married yet. This must be the third or fourth comment thread on which I've seen an inoffensive guy like Wombatty get laid into by the Spanish Inquisition.
If Wombatty is devoting his energies as a single man into living for the kingdom - as I hope he is - then well and good. Isn't that what we all aspire to? Living for the Kingdom of God? Who among us dares to say that we do this perfectly, all the time, in the power of the Spirit? Who among us dares to say that we seek to put Christ first in all things - as He calls us to do - whether we are single or married?
And to the inquisitors I say: Are YOU married yet? Why not? What's wrong with you? What kind of eunuchs are YOU? ;)
Nobody has ever been stupid or rude enough to say such a thing to me, and if they did, I can assure you they would get very short shrift.
In Christian love, of course. ;)
There's one thing I would agree with Deanna about, when she says: As you to your question about females turing down so many suitors - I am sure many of my Christian sisters will join me in saying the chance would be a fine thing! ;)
Indeed, and that is a pertinent issue. But if you think that heaping false guilt on single guys is going to help matters any, I believe you are mistaken. Not enough eligible men in the church? Fine, let's insult the ones who are still around and call their integrity and their relationship with the Lord into question! Yep, that makes perfect sense! (Unfortunately, the other anonymous commenter here, with his deplorable and misogynistic language, seems to illustrate a most unfortunate backlash.)
It's coming over as bullying (and totally contrary to the spirit of the New Testament, in which Paul exhorts us to 'build one another up in love'.) Which I am sure is hardly the desired effect.
Or is it?
Jesus would have few to none children to bless if marriage was not an intergral part of his plan. How can one say that oh Jesus loves children and the church is his bride but he really has no opinion on marriage. I am stunned by how selfish the anti-marriage crowd is!!! All there arguments begin with "I am a single 34 year old therefore....." Does it occur to anyone that biblical truth has nothing to do with individual circumstances/mistakes????? Philippa: As an inquisitor, YES I am married. I got married at 26. I did not waste my 20's pleasuring myself because I was too scared to make a commitment to a woman. I now 31 and the father of 2 lovely children. I want to tell all the old men out there. YES you are avoiding marriage because you are afraid of responsibility and fear commitment. it is much EASIER to be single and whine about how bad women are and how much rejection hurts. GROW UP. We have all been rejected. Everyone has had to deal with heartbreak. Not all women are evil. Stop trying to figure your feelings out and take some responsibility for your self. By the way, a woman's most fertile years are in her 20's. Unless you want a surrogate mother, I suggest American men wake up and face the reality. Life is not an episode of Oprah or Dr. Phil. It is no fun to be a 59 year old fat, bald single man who dies alone in a old condo of a heart attack and no one knows about it for days, and finally your neighbors call police because the stench of your rotting body is bringing down property values.
In closing, American/Western European men are trying to figure out the meaning of life and the average Chinese & Indian person is getting married and having children and enjoying the economic benefits of being a fruitful producer. STOP THE INSANITY.
Best regards,
Will
I am stunned by how selfish the anti-marriage crowd is!!! All there arguments begin with "I am a single 34 year old therefore....." Does it occur to anyone that biblical truth has nothing to do with individual circumstances/mistakes?????
Will, please do NOT characterise single people as anti-marriage. Nowhere has Wombatty indicated that he is against marriage. Neither am I. Anything but. I have a very high view of marriage. Thank you. :)
Are you telling me that you and your friends have never rejected a 'good guy' for such reasons?
Actually, Wombatty, some of us really haven't. :)
Adam ... that was a great post. Thank you. :):):):):) (Plus, you're cute. :p)
Philippa
(pearltook@yahoo.co.uk)
Will,
I think it's funny that you complain that guys like me start out by saying "I am a single 34 year old therefore......" And then you ask "Does it occur to anyone that biblical truth has nothing to do with individual circumstances/mistakes?" First, I must point out that you basically tell us that 'I am a married father, therefore...". Why do you think that your individual circumstances are any more valid than mine? No offence, but your last post reeks of a superiority complex. You complain about guys like me that whine about how bad women are (I do no such whining) and then you whine about your old, fat & bald strawman. To hear you tell it, if I don't get married, I'm gonna die fat, bald and alone. You have a pretty narrow view of life, Will. Your insistance that since I am not married, I MUST be "wasting my time pleasuring myself because I am too scared to make a commitment to a woman." is ignorant. Also, your 'wake up' call about fertility rests on the assunption that I plan on having children. By the way, if this is not an episode of Oprah or Dr. Phil, why are you acting like Oprah & Dr. Phil - preaching your shame and blame message and demanding that I 'shape up'?
Further, as point of balance to such mentality consider what Angela Fiori relates in her 2001 article To Single Men on Today's Women: Caveat Emptor. A pastor wrote her:
I've been in the ministry for 20 years and can tell you that pursuing jerks is definitely alive and well even among evangelical Christian women. They marry outside the faith about 6 times the rate of men because they think it's their will (not God's) to not only civilize the men but convert them to Christianity as well. No amount of reasoning will sway them. The end result is yet more broken families that the church has to take care of. Hence most 30s Christian singles classes are composed of 5-7 never-been-married men and 15 divorced women, a complete incompatibility. The women usually end up leaving after I point out that the New Testament (Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11) forbids re-marriage for anyone divorced for a reason other than adultery and state that I have every intention of honoring this command. The wonderful result is that they burden liberal churches with the fallout of their past misadventures while I'm able to use my limited resources to preach the Word of God to people who are really interested in what it says.
Apparently men aren't the only ones that have a problem leaving their adolescence behind. I don't know how widespread this is, but it seems there are some women in the church who need to ditch their 'bad boy' fetish and grown up. I'm not whining about women here, I'm just bringing some balance to the conversation with the other side of the story. Contrary to the message of Maken (and you, Will), women are part of the problem. Open up your eyes.
I, for one, enjoy an honest debate. The tone is in the "ear of the listener". I know Deb Maken personally and I have always known I should be ready to hear a very direct answer to my ideas or sermons. I enjoyed the "tone" of Deb's honesty and deep thought even though it made for a rather intense lunch after church!
I believe the image of God can only be fully revealed in a Biblical marriage. To avoid marriage is to lose the opportunity to reveal the image of God in our world. If we marry or do not marry for happiness, we miss the point of marriage. We marry to make visible and available the invisible attributes of the triune God. Happiness is the by-product of knowing God and His attributes more and more fully. No place is there a better opportunity for knowing God and true happiness than with one's mate who is committed to seeing God's image revealed in the world as sustained love.
Thanks, Deb, for forcing this conversation out in the open and away from cultural pressure of making individual happiness the primary goal of life. I grieve for every person who has not had the privilege of marriage when they wanted to marry. Certainly the Holy Spirit continues to seek homes in which the invisible God can be visible 24X7 through true oneness.
Philippa, :)
Will, I am not sure why you find it necessary to say that singles who do not view themselves as sinning for not being married are "anti-marriage" (as if they wanted marriage to go away). THAT is what is truly stunning. Your zeal for this misguided belief is revealed in how awfully enthusiastic you are to point out all the badges of righteousness you have amongst your talk about how you "didn't pleasure yourself" and how you were so brave to "make a commitment to a woman." This should be a warning to you: you have more in common with the Pharisee than the Publican in that you are eager to point out how wonderful you are in comparison to those "old men out there" who are "avoiding marriage."
But for those who don't see things the way you do, they are able to rejoice that you are so blessed. Why you find it impossible to return the favor to happy singles escapes me.
Ok, Please read this carefully.
The ONLY reason I wrote about my personal life was to address PHILIPPA'S question to the "inquisitors."
Wombatty, not all women have clean hands in this issue and not all men have clean hands. I agree with you. Just because there are idiot women out there does not absolve a man from the responsibility of finding a wife.
Adam: Me being married is not a badge of my righteouness, it is a badge of me being a normal male ready to take on responsibility.
Finally, I am done with this conversation. A faith that can't even agree with the importance and need for marriage is doomed anyway.
I am reminded of a Pro-Life bumper sticker I often see. "Choose Life. Aren't you glad your mother did."
My bumper sticker should read "Choose marriage. Aren't you glad your parents did."
(If you happen to be in favor of bastard children, please don't make any comments to me because there is nothing I have to say about that)
Best regards,
Will
Will: I do not regard finding a wife as my responsibility, I regard it as a matter in which God has granted me freedom to chose. As for your assertion that marriage proves that you 'are a normal male ready to take on responsibility', I've seen plenty of abnormal, irresponsible people married out there to lay that myth to rest. I do agree with you that marriage is necessary and important, just not for everybody. Why it is that you seem so intent on forcing your personal convictions on others is beyond me. It seems that alot of people who do that are insecure in their own decisions and seek to be validated by others following their lead. I have no impulse to scare people away from marriage - if you want it, go for it!
Finally, I have a question for those of you who share Maken's perspective. She repeated appeals to the Scriptural references of the 'wife of your youth' and interprets that as mandating 'marriage in the Spring of your life'. First, as Phillippa mentioned, these verses are descriptive, NOT prescriptive and therefore are NOT a command. But for the sake of argument, I'll grant the point. I am now a 33-year old never-married bachelor, on the trailing edge of the 'Spring of my life'. Therefore, I will never have a 'wife of my youth'. Now, will these verses apply to me if I marry next year? If they don't, am I free to disregard the principals revealed in them? If they will still apply to me, doesn't that indicate that the verses do not mandate marrying young?
I am sorry, Wombatty, but the command to marry and have children is clearly not limited in scope. Quite apart from the fact that it is actually a thread that runs through the whole of God's word, I guess that the great commission to go and make disciples of all nations was only for the eleven disciples to follow then, right?
I know that Jesus' eunuch exemptions are an inconvenience to you, but they are there nevertheless. "Not eveyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given", is not followed directly by: "The one who can accept this, should accept it." Jesus is quite specific about who exactly those are that have not been given this word and therefore cannot accept it. I also think that your illustration of the shopping expedition is more of an INCLUSIVE example, whereas Jesus' words are EXCLUSIVE, if that makes sense. This passage is possibly more like saying: "I want to you to go to the shop, but not eveyone can buy everything. For some already have milk, others have potatoes; and others have cheese. But if you don't have said items, then you should go ahead and enjoy the shopping trip I have designed for your benefit."
Jesus gives us the exclusions - it's not a matter of whimsical choice - and with very good reason too. We are seeing the results of whimsical choice at the moment, one of which is that a lot of women I know are looking outside of the church for a husband. Although I don't condone that, I can certainly understand it. We have a crisis on our hands (in the UK at least) with regard to the number of men in the church, and looking outside is an act of desperation. Having the proportionally few men in the church deciding for themselves that they are quite "comfortable" as a eunuch, sorry, bachelor, is not helping either.
Wombatty, I have just read your post stating your age. Leave it much longer and a Christian woman, who could have been the mother of your children, will have become barren. Sorry to say it, but shame on you.
I am not saying though that there is nothing the women can do to help themself get married. That does not mean just accepting anyone that asks them, any more than we would expect men to ask just anyone themselves! There is nothing wrong with mutual attraction - as Song of Songs shows.
Rather, Christian sisters would do well to ignore a lot of the advice they are given by some church leaders and writers (Carolyn McCulley springs to mind, but she is by no means alone in this) that they simply need to do nothing, and if it is God's will, then He will just provide them with a husband, while they are babysitting their nephews perhaps. This is faulty teaching, and faulty logic, and I wonder what would happen if the same message was preached with regard to any other aspect of our lives; employment for example. Maybe we would then need to start some blogs discussing why it seems to be "God's will" for so many Christians to be stuck in long-term unemployment at the moment, rather than the barren, protracted singleness that we are seeing as the direct result of disobeying God's commands.
Philippa, I am surprised you cannot see the connection between the all too human attitude of the disciples in both the passages I cited earlier. I sincerely hope you do at least see the connection between the blessings of marriage and the blessings of children. otherwise, I think you may need to have a personal chat with someone...;)
Finally, Will, please don't leave this discussion. The input of a responsible, mature man, who has embraced the blessings of the Godly union of marriage, is highly valuable. With love in Christ to your wife and children.
It's hard to object to someone suggesting that a decision to be left up to the individual, as led by the Holy Spirit. It sounds so inspiring in the way it affirms the uniqueness of each soul and God's thoughtful guidance as He tailors His plan for each life. That anyone should question the advice that singles have been given for the past few decades around listening to God for personal leading in the direction of marriage or singleness, seems ludicrous, if not blasphemous.
What could possibly go wrong in telling singles to "leave it up to God"?
Usually nothing, since most Christians do marry, more or less happily, with varying degrees of struggle to get to that place. But for many, the question of marriage seems to have taken on added complications in recent years, ones that are uniquely "Christian", in a late 20th century way, that is. Consider this example from Don Raunikar's "Choosing God's Best": "Before you can determine whom to marry, you must first answer an preliminary question: Does God want you to marry anyone, ever?" Or H. Norman Wright's contention that "God might want you to be single" and that if you think this might the case, you should "eliminate dating for six months to a year". The Bible NEVER requires singles who desire marriage to submit themselves to these kinds of litmus tests! Leaders need to know about the pervasiveness of this type of message, because this what might come to mind for many singles when they are directed back to the Holy Spirit for answers, as suggested by Dr. Kostenberger who most likely wishes to validate their individuality, not scare them.
Pastor Gillis Triplett writes that he has had people come up to him in tears asking if it's God's will for them to marry or stay single and believes that those who teach that singleness is a gift or calling "mislead others down a road of unnecessary prolonged agony and personal and spiritual confusion". The "gift of singleness" might provide support to some singles who feel undue discrimination or pressure to marry, but if it creates this much anxiety and doubt for others, is it really worth it?
It just seems that hyperspiritualizing the question of singleness or marriage evokes three common reactions: the "passively pious" (who are hearing no instructions from God yet, and like it that way), the "brashly certain" (who are good at claiming that what they want is what God wants for them) and the "earnestly uncertain" ("is it me or is it God?"). Is it fair or wise that some people are left to work through such unnecessarily heavy spiritual baggage for years, while others go fancy free assuming God's seal of approval is stamped on everything they do or don't do?
We must admit that after several decades of trying to teach believers to discern God's personal plan for them about marriage and singleness, tremendous confusion has been created. The prolonged intense deliberation around the question of marriage prone to believers today is peculiar to our times, with all our worldly distractions, lest we congratulate ourselves into thinking that we're a more evolved, more complex breed of Christian. We can take the example of previous generations who treated marriage as a much more pragmatic concern, restoring its ordinariness and universality by putting more emphasis on His revealed will, as written in the scriptures which point to mortal intentionality and personal responsibility (i.e. a man “finds a wife” in Proverbs 18:22, or “takes a wife” in 1 Cor 9:5 and 1 Thess 4:4).
I'm sorry but both Philippa and Deanna Holmes are completely wrong. Romantic love has nothing to do with feminist expectations and thick theological discussions.
There are some things that lie completely in the human realm. Our personal romantic love and intimacy is a gift from God to be experienced between human beings.
Quoting scripture and making demands is a real romance killer. At some point, you women will have to stand with a good man and let natural attraction and poetic sensitivity take over. Life and love are blessings from God. Be IN them and experience them. If a guy asks you out on a date, don't try and find some verse in the Old Testament to misinterpret, just go out and spend innocent time together. Be a girl and let your date be a boy. I'm not advancing sin, just saying theory doesn't hold up to reality.
If any woman is wanting love and marriage, she needs to put down doctrine and just enjoy the company of men. Men don't need to be deconstructed or analyzed, just met on their own terms.
Well said.
I agree that some Christian men are just coasting along in bachelorhood waiting for a fantasy woman to drop down from the sky, but others are not. Others have made wise choices, have undergone the same pain over relationships, dating and singleness as Christian women have. I'm speaking of friends of mine here.
Deanna is right that marriage is a commandment, but it is not compulsory in the New Testament.
Women demanding marriage and children is surely a turn-off for normal, eligible men; it comes across as overbearing and desperate. The same would not be acceptable the other way round. I have myself come across some Christian men who have been like that, and they tend to come across as unstable and sometimes abusive and very immature.
The sad truth of the matter is that a major reason for Christians not marrying is that a lot of Christians are actually very immature people. Sadly it is these sorts of people who tend to expect more of the opposite sex in terms of maturity than they themselves are actually working on in their own lives.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home