Before returning to the important kingdom business of changing diapers, Debbie Maken has, in her own words, endeavored to “dissect” my reply in my previous post. As we will see, “dissect” my reply she did, but very selectively, and in many places misleadingly.
The opening salvo is that I and those in my “camp” (?) are “talk[ing] out of both sides of” our mouths. This is a surprisingly inflammatory way to start her critique, especially in light of her previous post objecting to my tone. Is this the tone she wants to use to model proper discourse? As to the substance of her comment, did then Jesus and Paul talk out of both sides of their mouth as well, since both affirmed marriage as the norm and remaining unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom as a divinely gifted exception?
Maken then refers to “a highly subjective test for singleness” I employ “so that the general rule of marriage can be swallowed whole.” I am not sure what she means by “swallowed whole.” I will say more about the “highly subjective” part later.
Maken’s only response to my point that we should leave the decision whether or not to marry in an individual person’s case up to that person and the personal leading of the Holy Spirit is the sarcastic statement, “Learning that I am not the Holy Spirit has lightened my burden significantly. I rest much better at night now.” However, sarcasm is no substitute for argument.
She goes on to note that singleness “is not a question of Christian liberty” as is buying a car. Does she then advocate compelling people to marry? (Elsewhere [see below] she speaks of marriage as a “requirement.”) Certain associations come to mind in this regard.
Maken then expresses concern “for the spouse they [the person who sinfully did not pursue marriage] could have had.” These are fairly complex matters to delve into theologically, and ultimately it would be best to leave these issues up to God’s sovereign providence.
She goes on to say that, “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?” This comment neglects to understand the cultural nature of certain marriage customs. In the ancient near East, girls often married very young, as early as age 13, and were given to their grooms by the parents in the form of arranged marriages. A dowry was paid, etc. (see my book God, Marriage & Family). Is Maken saying that all these ancient near Eastern customs are permanent and normative for today in all cultures, including the United States? Does she advocate girls marrying at age 13, never meeting their future husband, parents paying dowry, and so on? This seems to be the implication of her comments. However, again, very few would support her in this—hermeneutically, theologically, and culturally.
I question whether Maken is right that the decision whether or not to marry is on the same ethical level as the decision whether or not to have an abortion, or whether or not Christ is the only Savior. There is no “gift of hell” in Scripture, but there is a gift of remaining unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom. Those are some really bad analogies, in my opinion. (Note I’m not saying Mrs. Maken is a bad person, just that she is using some bad analogies.)
Maken then attributes to me the statement and belief that “no ‘content’ single person . . . could be ‘self-deceived.’ ” This I never said, and do not believe. Let me ask this, however: Is Maken saying that all unmarried persons are self-deceived? This seems to be the case. If so, I would argue that this is an arrogant, judgmental, and highly inflammatory position for anyone to hold.
Maken also speaks of my “interchangeable usage of ‘singleness’ and ‘celibacy’ ” and calls this “sloppy.” Here is why I actually wrote:
To clarify, it may be helpful to note that neither “celibacy” nor “singleness” are biblical terms; the expression used most frequently in this context in Scripture is agamos, “unmarried.” Rather than erect an unbiblical dichotomy, therefore, it might be better to talk about people being divinely gifted to remain unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom.
After this Maken reiterates her point that we must preach marriage (and having children) to the unmarried just as we must preach Christ to all. I have already addressed this point above. Again, let me say these are complex theological issues, and I believe Maken wades into these without adequate preparation.
Maken proceeds to state that “married to the wife/husband of our youth is required by God in Scripture” and that we ought not to “privatize our singleness as a cosmic unknown purely dependent on our circumstances or conscience or the personal leadings of the Holy Spirit.” Regarding Maken’s appeal to the Proverbs passage, this constitutes a misuse of Scripture, because (1) the passage in Proverbs talks about staying, not getting married; and (2) it is illegitimate to use this passage as biblical support for marriage being a “requirement.” To my knowledge, nowhere in Scripture is “requirement” language used with regard to marriage. As to Maken’s terminology, “privatize,” perhaps “personal” would be a better term. Indeed, the Holy Spirit’s leading is personal, is it not?
With regard to Maken’s claim that she has an “objective test” of whether or not a person should get married, it should be remembered that Matt. 19:11–12 and 1 Cor. 7:7 stipulate a divine gift of remaining unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom. Which “objective” test does Maken suggest for determining if anyone has that gift? The “monumental achievement” test? The “immune to sexual temptation” test? These are hardly more objective tests than the ones she decries as unduly subjective.
She then cites Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 in support of the notion 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.” I find it hard to see how these passages support Maken’s claim. Also, she cites the Westminster Catechism, while elsewhere being extremely critical of Reformed theology (including proponents such as John Piper). This seems to be a case of citing sources when they seem to support our argument but failing to cite them when they don’t. This is commonly known as “selective use of evidence” and does not qualify as serious scholarship.
Later, Maken holds up Jeremiah and John the Baptist as prototypes of those who remained unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom. To be sure, these two individuals fall into this category, but how does Maken know they are typical? Neither Jesus nor Paul specifically cite Jeremiah or John the Baptist, or any other specific individual (other than Paul citing himself), nor do they say that this gift is “rare” or the like as I mentioned in my previous post (no response from Maken on this point).
In conclusion Maken claims that she has “an entire cadre” of theologians on her side, as well as “historical precedent . . . Scripture, and . . . good old-fashioned logic.” If so, one wonders why at the same time Maken gives the impression that she is the lone voice in the wilderness on this issue (sorry for this allusion to John the Baptist).
I mentioned at the outset that Maken is highly selective in “dissecting” my previous post. Here is a list of issues I raised that she does not address:
- her argument that 1 Tim. 3:2 precludes unmarried men from serving in church leadership (to my knowledge held by no serious published commentator today); in addition, she requires that those who are married are also having children, but she never addresses implications of this requirement with regard to those unable to have children;
- her rationale from God’s unchanging nature that marriage as the norm per Genesis 2 cannot now be changed to singleness as a divine gift (incidentally, how does she square this argument with Jesus’ statement that in the eternal state there will be no more marriage? if God is unchanging, and his unchanging purpose is marriage, how are we to interpret Jesus’ statement that there will be no marriage in heaven?);
- my argument that neither in Jesus’ nor Paul’s statements on the subject (Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7, respectively) is there any explicit reference made as to singleness being “rare” or limited to “monumental achievements” (Maken’s “objective test”).
Maken also seems unable or unwilling to acknowledge that I do advocate marriage as the norm today and refraining from marriage as being for those who are divinely gifted to do so. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is an area in which she and I agree (whether or not she is prepared to acknowledge this). It is unhelpful for someone who holds to an extreme position (as Maken does, marriage as the virtually universal “requirement”) to try to push someone who holds to a different view to the opposite extreme. What to her appears to be speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth is in fact an effort to hold biblical perspectives in tension, which is precisely what both Jesus and Paul sought to do in Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7. I invite you to look at both passages and see that both Jesus and Paul sought to affirm the legitimacy of both marriage and remaining unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom for those divinely gifted in those passages. It is unclear to me how Maken can claim to have Scripture on her side while failing to strike the same balance characteristic of Jesus and Paul in her adjudication of the issue.
In conclusion, I am struck by the man-centered nature and emphasis in Maken’s work. She calls on the unmarried to “get serious about getting married.” Is reality really as simple as this? Is lack of serious pursuit of marriage really and ultimately the most pressing problem, and getting serious about getting married the solution? It seems that Maken’s emphasis is almost unilaterally on man’s (or woman’s) initiative, while God’s providence and the Holy Spirit’s leading are disparaged. Are we not to trust God as to his timing and his way of leading in this intensely personal area of our lives? In the end, one wonders just how Christian Maken’s thinking is and to what extent shallow theology masks a focus on people going out and trying to force the hand of a recalcitrant and ambivalent God who has largely left humans to their own devices.
See also my previous posts here and here.
Technorati Tags: marriage, singleness, Kostenberger, Bible
Andreas,
Thanks so much for this response to Debbie Maken. It is encouraging to me that someone of your qualifications is standing up to Maken’s bad theology and worse behavior. I agree precisely with so many of your observations concerning her scholarship and method of argumentation. She and her supporters seem almost completely incapable of good faith disagreement with others.
I just noted today, on another blog, how her last response to you revealed a high level of theological confusion in comparing being content in one’s singleness to being content without Christ.
I also agree that she offers a too simplistic “cut and dried, no loose ends left untied” view that just doesn’t seem to sync with the way the Bible treats the issue. Her interpretations of scripture also strike me as highly tendentious and shaky.
Lastly, I have also noticed how Maken seems to make selective use of evidence. I would say that rather than interacting with her sources and responding to them or dialoging with them, she simply “uses” them like ammunition is used in a weapon. I agree that this does not qualify as serious scholarship. I’m also curious as to why she quotes those from the history of the church who share her position while ingnoring all those who don’t, and then acts like she’s got church history totally on her side.
Thanks for offering independant verification for some of my own observations about Maken’s arguments and the problems with them.
A.M.E.N.
[...] Köstenberger has produced a third article where he systematically responds to Maken’s latest post, and lists the issues that he made that she didn’t respond to. [...]
Thank you for being willing to bring your experience, wisdom, and most of all your humility, to address Debbie Maken and point out the man-centered, Christ-dishonoring approach she has taken to the issue of singleness.
Dr. Kostenberger, I want to again thank you for another thoughtful reply to Debbie Maken’s questionable arguments. I admire your courage in taking up the subject. I wish other well-known Christian leaders would do the same before beleagured single Christians finally get up and walk out of the church feeling unwelcome because of their marital status.
I want to echo Someone’s comment regarding Mrs. Maken and her supporters’ unwillingness to disagree with their views in good faith. I’ll cite two examples. I recently came across a blog which agrees with Mrs. Maken’s arguments but does not permit comments, thus ensuring that dissenting viewpoints will not be publicly seen on their site. Also, a married man recently started a thread embracing Mrs. Maken’s viewpoints on a singles’ discussion forum. When several of the forum members vigorously disagreed with his viewpoints, he lashed out at them.
Andreas,
Regarding the substance of one of Debbie Maken’s comments, you asked: “Did then Jesus and Paul talk out of both sides of their mouth as well, since both affirmed marriage as the norm and remaining unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom as a divinely gifted exception?”. In her book and in all of her blog posts she validates “remaining unmarried for the sake of God’s kingdom as a divinely gifted exception”. Maybe you were aware of that, or maybe that was a bit of sarcasm on your part
. Nevertheless, thank you for remaining in the discourse!
The main reason this debate has become so heated is that for the past several decades we have been told that singleness is “presented as a divine gift in Scripture”, even for NON-EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, such as unwanted protracted singleness. Some find “the gift of singleness” validating, others find it patronizing and not very well supported by the usual scriptures used to justify its existence.
This debate is not about denying anyone that gift, it’s about looking honestly at the consequences of its over-application, especially with those dealing with unwanted protracted singleness.
Nor is it about compelling people into arranged marriages, as you’ve implied. Maken is simply urging us to raise our standards of accountability (a big buzz word among the “true love waits” folks) in terms of making marriage a higher priority. And you can’t do that without looking at some of the unflattering and uncomfortable facts about why so many people aren’t finding their way to marriage these days.
Probably the biggest reason for protracted singleness in the church today is that there’s a serious shortage of men, leaving a lot of marriage-minded women in surplus. Some bloggers blame the women for driving the men away, but clearly, many young men are being drawn away by the world with all its fleshly temptations and those who remain can become quite complacent with so many options available to them. Yes, there are self-deceptively ambitious women who have unrealistic standards and earnest godly guys who get rejected, but still we are confronted with these demographic realities. And don’t all of these things point to our generation’s human depravity, more so than divine giftedness?
Perhaps you think it’s better to leave these issues up to God’s sovereign providence, but then again you could say that same thing to dismiss many of the social issues that provoke Christian concern. That unfortunate circumstances happen under divine sovereignty doesn’t mean that it is right to avoid looking at man-made causality and what can be done about it. On this note, Maken is quite justified in her critique of John Piper’s “whatever will be, will be” version of “the gift of singleness”, however venerable and well-intentioned he may be as a Reformed leader.
In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Piper muddles together those who are circumstantially single with those who are “single for the kingdom” all under the banner of having “the gift of singleness”. What’s more, he erroneously and dangerously claims that “with the gift comes the grace to be chaste”. This is what happens when you equate celibacy and singleness– clearly, too much has been extrapolated from this typically modern reading of 1 Cor 7:7 (and Matthew 19:11-12).
This expansiveness that goes along with this treatment of scripture is what desparages God’s sovereignty and the Holy Spirit’s leading, because it makes those things terrifying to those who would just as soon avoid any possibility of being “called” to singleness. In all, we’ve got to get back to biblical basics about the practical matters of marriage and singleness, which put the onus on human beings to make good decisions based on scriptural wisdom.
Would it not be correct to say that marriage was God’s original design for mankind (Genesis 2), but that the impact of sin has so distorted human relations that tragic consequences have resulted, including singleness. Not that singleness is sin, but that the inability to ultimately satisfy the longing for marriage (inability to find the suitable helper) is one result of the fall. God’s design was that every man be able to find a helpmeet suitable for him, (except for those given this unique charisma of celibacy) but because of sin’s impact on creation, history, etc. this will not be the reality for many. With this consequence in mind Paul, for example, turns our focus to the great opportunity that singleness can bring in a fallen world, a whole-souled undestracted devotion to Christ and his kingdom work. (Perhaps this is akin to the “permission” of divorce for porneia, not because it was God’s original design, but because of the tragic results of sin (hardness of hearts). Thus, those without the gift of celibacy should pursue marriage, but with the recognition that in the mysterious providence of God not all will be able to see this desire fulfilled, and thus should live in the “inbetween time” with contentment, seeking to build meaningful friendships in order to fill the longing for intimate companionship, with a heart of service for God’s kingdom, and with a submission to God’s will. In this way we honor the importance of marriage, while recognizing the “present reality” caused by sin, but redeemed by God’s mercy and grace.
Jim – what a great post.
You’re right about friendship being able to satisfy deep intimacy needs. In many ways it does. Of course I know that the sexual and emotional intimacy that marriage alone can provide (especially a Christ-centred marriage) is a deeper thing, a precious thing, and something I certainly want in my life!
However, nothing hurts more than the shredding of intimacy in a marriage that goes wrong. Having watched several friends suffer the trauma of divorce, I believe that the bitter pain of being despised and rejected by the person who once professed undying love for you is worse, far worse, than the pain of extended singleness.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not cynical about marriage. My divorced friends have got on with their lives – some of them have also been able, by the grace of God, to forgive the spouses who hurt them so deeply. I also have friends who are very happily married, and I thank God for them. They are beacons of hope!
As Dr Kostenberger points out, this is part of holding biblical perspectives in tension as we experience this in-between time, between the victory of Calvary and the glorious culmination of all things.
Ccinnova … in all fairness to Debbie Maken, she does seem to allow dissenting comments on her blog. But I agree with you that some of the behaviour that has been observed elsewhere in this extraordinary blog-war is disturbing and reprehensible.
You do make some good points Jim, and I am in agreement with you largely. But where I disagree is the implication that protracted singleness is just a symptom of our fallen world and there is nothing we can do about it. Not true! It is our actions – as Christians – that have caused this situation to develop. If we would just open our eyes, we would see that it is also in our power to change it.
Philippa, I was not referring to Debbie Maken’s blog when I made my comment. I was referring to the blog at the Boundless webzine. I should have made that clear, and I apologize for any confusion.
I also want to echo your comment regarding marriage gone wrong. I’ve known a number of men and women who have experienced that agony. While I desire to be married one day, I would much rather remain single the rest of my days than enter into a bad marriage.
Ccinnova, no need to apologise. I did realise that you weren’t actually referring to Debbie Maken’s blog – sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
TakeAction: I think you make an excellent point, and one that needs to be taken on board. Debbie Maken has certainly posed a robust challenge in that regard.
What I hit back against is the arrogant and theologically dodgy assumption that ‘protracted singleness’ is a sin. There is no biblical basis for such a view, but a few internet trolls – they always choose to be anonymous, of course – are using this as an excuse to practice sanctimonious thuggery, posting spiteful comments about ‘barren spinsters’ and ‘Christian women who are too holy for normal men’ and all manner of nonsense.
And I’m still not seeing how Debbie Maken’s position helps people who really would like to be married … and yet are still unmarried. I’m not talking about people who have just sat at home and watched life pass them by, I’m talking about people who have been proactive in seeking out relationships with the opposite sex. Hmmmmm …
Jennifer M … I forgot to say that I have appreciated your thoughtful posts here and elsewhere.
Jennifer M. writes: “Perhaps you think it’s better to leave these issues up to God’s sovereign providence, but then again you could say that same thing to dismiss many of the social issues that provoke Christian concern. That unfortunate circumstances happen under divine sovereignty doesn’t mean that it is right to avoid looking at man-made causality and what can be done about it.”
Jennifer seems to be making a giant leap in connecting singleness with “social concerns.” Singleness hardly ranks up there with abortion and genocide. We are called to address social concerns for the sake of the kingdom and the spead of the gospel. Perhaps, then, instead of a single believer investing so much energy trying to “solve” his or her singleness, why not forsake the attempts to spiritualize this often-selfish pursuit? All the focus on solving one’s singleness can prevent single people from actually getting out there and engaging those caught in actual, life-threatening social concerns.
Paul was writing to the Corinthians at a time of “present crisis” when there were persecutions and also imminent famine in the Greek countryside. For that reason, it would make sense to put marriage on hold, as married people with children would have extra worries. This has absolutely no relevance to our situation today, and the idea that the large numbers of single people are dedicating themselves to “a whole-souled undestracted devotion to Christ and his kingdom work” is preposterous.
Paul also gives no indication that those who desire to marry – despite the present crisis – would find it difficult to find a spouse. Quite the contrary. He says let them marry. No sign of any difficulty there.
Let’s not talk about “the mysterious providence of God” in relation to widespread singleness. It’s like Christians deciding that whether or not to work is a matter of Christian liberty, and then saying that due to “the mysterious providence of God” we have widespread unemployment. Please let’s not blame God for the results of our own actions people!
And anyone who thinks “meaningful friendships” can “fill the longing for intimate companionship” must themselves be married. I can’t imagine a person that is single saying such a thing unless they are fooling themselves.
Why are we trying to find such painfully convoluted reasons for our singleness when the truth is far simpler?
The invention in the last 30 years of a gift of singleness and the idea that men shouldn’t pursue a wife but rather “wait on the Lord” to “provide” them with what they should be seeking for themselves has led to the situation we have today.
Let’s not lose touch with our brain here! God will “provide” food for the sparrows. But they still have to go and hunt worms themselves!
Until we renounce the gift of singleness as false doctrine, and church leaders start telling men that they have a duty to obey God’s command to marry and have children, this situation isn’t going to change.
And we can wring our hands and come up with all sorts of ludicrous explanations as much as we want. The truth is very simple, but we have been blinded to it.
BBYB,
Who said this is only about “a single believer investing so much energy trying to ’solve’ his or her (own) singleness”? When large numbers of people don’t marry, there are negative effects on society and the church that go far beyond individuals feeling bad. Most of these things are pretty obvious and and it’s pointless to rehash them over and over again as has been done on a number of blogs. (btw- most abortions are performed on unmarried women, impregnated by unmarried guys). Personally, I think details matter.
Phillipa,
Thank you for your supportive feedback. As for not seeing how Maken’s position helps people who would really like to be married but are yet still unmarried, well, you’d just have to read book. She not slamming women or men who have tried and failed, and I don’t think she’s negating those who choose to stay unmarried for deeply personal reasons such as uncertainty about sexual orientation. You would also see that she’s addressing protracted singleness mostly from the sociological standpoint of “generational sin”, and of course, challenging the individual to look at what they can do about the situation. Otherwise, what would be the point? It would just be another finger wag at “society today” without anyone having to take responsibility. To that, I must say, I’m impressed by how many men are stepping up to the plate and agreeing with at least some of her ideas about taking more initiative to pursue marriage. And isn’t that what you want– more guys taking the initiative towards considering you as a potential marriage partner?
Phillipa,
Love this paragraph:
What I hit back against is the arrogant and theologically dodgy assumption that ‘protracted singleness’ is a sin. There is no biblical basis for such a view, but a few internet trolls – they always choose to be anonymous, of course – are using this as an excuse to practice sanctimonious thuggery, posting spiteful comments about ‘barren spinsters’ and ‘Christian women who are too holy for normal men’ and all manner of nonsense.
I wholeheartedly agree there is simply no serious biblical basis for calling singleness a sin. It’s ridiculous really that we even have to defend ourselves against such charges.
I especially enjoyed the use of the phrase “sanctimonious thugery” which describes the behavior of some of Maken’s supporters (especially some of the guys) about as precisely as anything I’ve heard.
So disobeying God’s commands are not sin then? Right, well that’s news to me!
Okay, would people please show me where in the Bible it validates singleness with a) no physical or mental disablement that would make it impossible b) no deliberate renouncement of marriage for Kingdom purposes or c) no present crisis.
Obviously the vast majority of singles do not fall into any of these categories.
So let’s take a look at the Scriptural passages that validate singleness as a lifestyle option then.
I’m waiting…
The emerging consensus seems to be this:
Singleness is not gift, singleness is not a sin.
Jennifer,
Actually, statistically most people–including Christians–do marry. Marriage is still the norm, so we needn’t fear the downfall of society just yet.
For those who may not marry and are upset about it, have they even considered or sought God in the matter? Have they considered his sovereignty without trying to twist it to suit their marriage desires? Yes, he is sovereign over social and civic troubles, and we are told biblically what to do there. But the same applies to his sovereignty over marriage, and we are also given biblical instruction for that (a la Paul and Jesus) on how to approach it. And singleness may–just may–conduce more to the glory of God for many of us. It seems that there are some unhappy singles who want to avoid facing at all costs the possibility that God just may want them to be single.
In keeping, Paul’s “present distress” alluded to above may have been left deliberately ambiguous (like his thorn in the flesh) so that we may apply it to the present. This is an equally valid interpretation of 1 Cor. 7, but it seems that the discontented-and-single set are not open to interpretations that may not lead them to marriage.
I write as a single woman who would love to meet a godly man but will continue to rejoice in the privilege of singleness should that be how God leads. As I grow in my Christian life, I delight more and more in the fellowship I have with the God of the universe so that marriage has become “take-it-or-leave-it.” I’ll let God choose for me. Some would call this a cop-out, but it is not a cop-out. It’s a result of God’s grace enabling me to relegate marriage to the proper perspective rather than making of it an idol.
Paul doesn’t explain what the “present crisis” is, so basing a perspective on mere conjecture doesn’t lead to the dogmatic pronouncement that “‘a whole-souled undestracted devotion to Christ and his kingdom work’ is preposterous.” Calling such a devotion to Christ “preposterous” shows just how the “singles are sinners” camp really twists things in the name of their culture war.
Furthermore, citing a historical instance, once again on the basis of conjecture, where it was easy to marry does not lead to a position that is similarly easy today. In Paul’s day men married women half their age, usually teenaged girls. Perhaps we should bring that back since we are already canonizing first-century culture?
The bad use of analogies continues on and on now with the idea of willful singles being on par with the willfully unemployed. Quite a stretch to say that contented singleness is unredeemable as is lazy unemployment. The former seeks God through its situation and the other rebels against him. Of course, if we subscribe to the circular reasoning that says singleness is inherently sinful than this distinction doesn’t matter, but why should we embrace that when Paul and Jesus were single? Perhaps there are some qualifiers? Maybe the truth is more nuanced than the bludgeoning talking-points of culture warriors?
When the gift of singleness is defined as a “false doctrine” that “men shouldn’t pursue a wife” I think we can say that we have committed to a moral melodrama where reasonable discussion is no longer possible.
BBYB,
Yes, most Christians are married (many in our churches married while they were not committed Christians), but the percentage of people who marry (esp. in time to have children) has been decreasing. We won’t feel the full effect of this until the entire baby boom cohort has reached old age. Perhaps it’s just a bit colonial of us to assume that immigrants will want to provide the elder care and tax burden of an aging and ailing population. Previous generations would not have been able to fathom such luxurious notions.
“For those who may not marry and are upset about it, have they even considered or sought God in the matter?” What do you expect that God will do or say? The Bible makes no promises that God will provide personal instructions regarding whether or not (or whom) an individual should marry– previous generations of Christians would have thought such expectations to be preposterous. Even if you suspend the historical context of 1 Corinthians 7, it leaves the choice to marry entirely up to the individual: “let them marry”, “if they marry they do not sin”).
Even if some do not succeed in finding a spouse, there is no biblical justification for anyone “unhappily single” to give a moment’s consideration to “the possibility that God might want them to be single”. This just sounds like the usual “permission denying” nonsense that was preached in many of our churches late last century (in case anyone wants to dismiss concerns about the false doctrines AND FALSE DILEMMAS created around the gift of singleness in the past few decades as “melodrama”). Whether we are married or single, we are all called to work with our circumstances to the glory of God, but we walk on thin ice when we make interpretations about God’s intentions such as “you are single right now, because God wants you to be”.
Good on you if you have reached a place of peace about your singleness (btw- so have I. And I don’t condemn all singleness as a sin either, although I don’t assume that all singleness is biblically valid). But you seem to suggest that any thoughtful consideration of man-made factors that contribute to widespread protracted singleness inside or outside of the church (and what might be done about it) shows lack of consideration for God’s sovereignty or “trying to twist it to suit their marriage desires?” or the usual making marriage into an “idol”. What are you afraid that people might do? Are you suggesting that it’s wrong for people to take initiative by using the internet, matchmaking services or other forms of agency? Erect two golden calves in wedding attire, perhaps?
Is it true that “[t]he Bible makes no promises that God will provide personal instructions regarding whether or not (or whom) an individual should marry”? Is it true that “the choice to marry [is left up in Scripture] entirely up to the individual”?
At least in certain cases, God led people very specifically to a wife (e.g., Jacob and Rachel in Gen. 29).
In general terms, Scripture makes clear that the leading of the Holy Spirit is personal, which would certainly seem to extend to finding a spouse. The Spirit personally and individually indwells us, and he can be grieved and quenched by our actions. He is the “other helping presence” who, like Jesus was with his disciples, is with us and provides guidance, protection, and so much more.
What is imbalanced in the above-cited comments, in my view, is a view of providence and guidance that excludes God from this area and says, somewhat deistically, that now that God has given certain norms in Scripture, we must act on these on our own initiative.
I find this completely incompatible with the pervasive teaching of Scripture that God cares for us and is interested in every intimate detail of our lives (e.g. Ps. 139).
Surely we must trust God in this crucial area of our lives. This does not mean we are relegated to complete passivity, of course, but neither does it mean “getting serious about getting married” is an adequate substitute for trust in God.
Adam – What I actually said was that with regard to “our situation today” then “the idea that the large numbers of single people are dedicating themselves to ‘a whole-souled undestracted devotion to Christ and his kingdom work’ is preposterous”. Open your eyes!
No one is talking about marrying at 13. Just that women are squandering their most fertile years and the older you are when you get pregnant the more likely it is that there are complications. That is medical fact.
With regard to Paul and Jesus: Paul may well have been married, and there are a lot of reputable schools of thought that say that he most probably was. The fact that he was no longer living with a wife, does not preclude the possibility that he had one or at least had one at one time. What Paul does say is that he had an unnaturally high degree of control over his sex drive (1 Cor 7:7).
As far as Jesus is concerned – it might be that He did renounce marriage for Kingdom reasons. But even aside from this, He was and is the Son of God and perfect in every way. As such, He never needed a “helper” whilst here on earth. But that’s not to say we don’t!
Don’t forget, it’s only in this generation that the notion of a “gift of singleness” has even come about. Before that, there was an accepted gift of celibacy (that 1 Cor 7:7 again) – but making celibacy and singleness out to be the same thing is ludicrously sloppy.
Blessed by your book – I agree that singleness may be more conducive to the glory of God for some (not “many” though). This is the third category of eunuch at work – renouncing marriage for Kingdom reasons. But I am sure you will agree, the vast majority of singles haven’t “renounced” marriage – they just haven’t married either by choice or circumstantially due to the choice of others. There is then no reason to conclude that they are single in order to better glorify God.
You talk of “the possibility of God wanting them single” but negate to mention the possibility that it could be our own departure from God’s plan for us that has caused protracted singleness.
There is nothing ambiguous about the words “Because of the present crisis”. It implies… a present crisis! If we believe – as I am sure we all do – that Scripture validates Scripture, then in order to conform to the whole weight of the rest of the Bible, it is clear that Paul is giving his personal advice under circumstances of difficulty.
You go on to say that you “will continue to rejoice in the privilege of singleness should that be how God leads”. But what if your singleness hasn’t come about because of God’s leading, but through bad attitudes on the part of Christian single men? What then of your possible squandered fertile years and maybe lonely future? If it is God’s will then wonderful, but what if it isn’t and our failures in embracing the Godly design of marriage are the real cause?
You say you want God to choose for you whether or not to marry. Maybe what is actually happening is we are allowing Christian men to choose for us – and they are not God!
Finally – desiring marriage is not making an idol out of it! This puts a Godly created relationship – and one that can’t be spoken of in higher terms in the Bible – as somehow being in conflict with the One who says it is good for us!
Christian marriage is in conflict with a spiritual force. But it is not a Godly one.
Andreas,
But how well are we led by Holy Spirit when we are so out of touch with scripture? Throughout history, haven’t there been various denominations and sects that were absolutely convinced that scripture said this or that, and then found themselves “led by the spirit” in ways that now seem, with the advantage of hindsight, not quite as divine as originally thought?
There seems to be a lot of erroneous assumptions about 1 Cor 7:6-9 and Matthew 19:11-12, esp. whether or not they are referring to the circumstantially single or those divinely enabled to be single for the sake of the kingdom. This confusion has led to what Blaine Smith (a very humble author with a reform viewpoint who wrote “Should I Get Married?”) to point out the trend of the “overspiritualizing” of the mate finding process that has become common among Christians in the past few years, having a “paralysing effect” on many of them.
Please understand that I’m not suggesting that we go without prayer on this matter or shut ourselves off to the workings of the Holy Spirit (nor am I saying that singleness is a sin, per se). All I’m saying is that just because the Lord appeared to Jacob in a dream saying “this is the place” or “not in this place” as with Jeremiah doesn’t mean we will experience those same signs and wonders!
Is it an exaggeration that these kinds of teachings have encouraged passivity and discouraged people from taking action? Check out this excerpt from the late Don Raunikar’s 1998 “Choosing God’s Best” taken from the Marriagemissions.com website:
“Before you can determine whom to marry, you must first answer an preliminary question: Does God want you to marry anyone, ever? Or is His plan for you to remain single? Scripture teaches that marriage, like salvation, is an unmerited gift from God (Genesis 2:18). When God wanted Adam to have a wife, He brought her to him. Their marriage was a gift from God. But Scripture also tells us that singleness is God’s gift as well.”
H. Norman Wright says pretty much the same thing, stating 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”.
Andreas, do you really think these kinds of teachings are helpful? As mental health professional with over 20 years in the field, I think they are psychologically vexing. As a Christian for over 30 years, I have seen how they put people into bondage. Here’s another example of how Raunikar encouraged passivity:
“If and when God decides you can best serve Him as a team member with a life partner, you won’t need to change Sunday school classes, search the singles ads, or join a dating service He will work out the circumstances. ‘He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD’ (Proverbs 18:22). This favor of the Lord is what God extends to His children in arranging the circumstances for them to meet their life partners.”
So not only does he discourage initiative, he’s got the verse completely backwards: he thinks that God grants you favor in arranging circumstances and then you meet your life partner, when it’s clear that the verse reads that you get out there and find a wife AND THEN the Lord grants you favor!
This is no exaggeration. We have a crisis on our hands. It has it’s origins in Biblical misinterpretation and the popular youth movements in the 70’s (ie. Basic Youth Conflicts, attended by millions) that took hold of it. Now we an epidemic of protracted singleness and a shortage of single men in our churches.
Amen Dr. Kostenberger! Once again you sum up directly what I was thinking. Maken simply swings from one extreme to the other, (rightly) rejecting extreme passivity but replacing it with complete activism. Of course God won’t simply drop a spouse into our laps, but acknowledging that we have role to play in finding our spouse does not mean a desparate and frantic scramble to find anyone suitable. I am currently pursuing a woman that I have been interested in for some time and that I believe God brought into my life. I believe it is an act of obedience on my part to pursue her, but if God should not choose to bless me with success, I do not believe it is somehow my Christian duty to drop everything and desperately go looking for the next possibility or else be in sin. My pastor didn’t get married until he was 43, and hearing his life story, it is clear that God lead him in his life up to that point. According to Maken and co. though, he should have been desparately scrambling around trying to find a wife long before that or else be in sin. It’s ridiculous, really.
To Righteous Anger I can only say that I think you’re interpretation of scripture is a little off. It is dubious whether or not God commands every person to be married. I can only imagine you are refering to Gen 1-2 and I don’t think you can get the mileage out of it you want to. I actually have a friend who is a Hebrew instructor, and I asked her about this passage. She said that while it is prescriptive, that it should be read in the context of the beginning of creation as a general command to all creatures to reproduce and fill the earth, not as a specific command applying to each individual in the same way as say, the ten commandments. I think this is amply attested to by the fact that both the Old and New Testaments continually speak of various kinds of sins, the New Testament even listing things that will keep one from inheriting the kingdom of heaven. Nowhere, in any of these lists, can one find singleness or delaying marriage or any other such thing listed as a sin. It’s hard to believe that if “protracted singleness” was the big sin that you and Maken and others want us to believe it is, that it wouldn’t be mentioned directly at least once or twice.
Jennifer said: Throughout history, haven’t there been various denominations and sects that were absolutely convinced that scripture said this or that, and then found themselves “led by the spirit” in ways that now seem, with the advantage of hindsight, not quite as divine as originally thought?
Jennifer,
I can only say that I agree with you totally on this, however, it is exactly for this reason that I am extremely skeptical about Debbie Maken and co. Maken is, in your words, “absolutely convinced that scripture says this” and cannot admit that her interpretation is just that, an interpretation, not a watertight, absolutely compelling, self-evident truth. Everything she and her followers say indicates that they beleive that they have the one true interpretation of scripture and that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong but somehow morally perverse. I have said before, and will say again now, that a little humility in stating their case and an admission that theirs is a perspective, rather than a morally absolute certainty would have gone a long way, especially given the fact that nowhere in scripture can one find singleness directly condemned as sin. As it is, the tone and behavior of Maken and many of her her supporters has probably done more to keep people from considering Maken’s interpretations than almost anything else.
Someone – With respect to your Jewish scholar, I do not believe that the fundamental design of humanity and our need for a helper, applies at the beginning of creation only. Aside from it being a constant thread throughout the whole of the Bible, this specific command is also repeated in Jeremiah 29 4-7 (NIV):
‘This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: “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.”‘
It is also interesting to look a little closer at the creation of Eve as a “helper” for Adam and perhaps your Jewish scholar may have an opinion on this too. The following extract is from Captivating by John and Staci Eldredge:
‘When God creates Eve, he calls her an “ezer kenegdo”…Hebrew scholar Robert Alter, who has spent years translating the book of Genesis, says that this phrase is “notoriously difficut to translate” The various attempts we have in Englsh are “helper” or “companion” or the notorious “hlep meet”…The word “ezer” is used only 20 other places in the entire Old Testament. And in every other instance the person being described is God himself, when you need him to come through for you desperately…”Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the LORD? He is your shield and HELPER and your glorious sword” (Deut 33:29)…(More examples are then given here)…A better translation of ezer would be “lifesaver”. “Kenegdo” means alongside, or opposite to, a counterpart.’
God created man and woman – joined together – in his own image. By keeping the sexes separate ie. single we cannot each individually fully reflect the glory of God. That is why – I would suggest – that far from being able to dedicate our lives more fully to Kingdom work, what happens in practice is that singles are far less effective. And no wonder – we are trying to live without the essential “helper” that God created for almost all of us.
We should take God’s advice (command even?) in Jeremiah, and then we might find we can be more effective in influencing the culture that surrounds us.
Righteous Anger,
I answer your questions with the following, and with this I will bow out of the conversation. Blessings to all.
“The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps” Prov. 16:9
“For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever, Amen” Rom. 11:36
“Righteous Anger”
You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You affirm that there is a singleness that can be wholly devoted to Christ but that marriage is the “duty” and a “command.” Those that are exempt from it have “the gift of celibacy” yet the text of 1 Cor. 7 doesn’t distinguish between the unmarried state (1 Cor. 7:32) and a supernatural ability to refrain from sexual urges. As Doc pointed out the “I can resist temptation” test is quite subjective, and it is a lie to think that once you are married you are free from it.
Moreover, singles who are not concerned about Christ’s affairs don’t become more pleasing to God if they get married. In fact, they can become even more unpleasing to God. The point of Paul’s discourse is summed up in vs. 29-31 that because the time is short (meaning the old is passing away) one should not look to one’s status in this world for spiritual significance. Devotion to Christ is what matters; not one’s marital status or whether childbearing years are passing by.
Righteous Anger,
Once again, I question your use of scripture from Jeremiah. That scripture, once again, can be read as general command given to a group of people who have just been sent into exile in a foreign land. While I wouldn’t say that there are no applications from that scripture to today, I think it questionable whether or not one can pull out of that scripture a direct command for every individual to marry. I’ve noticed that there seems to be a tendency among Maken and her followers to simply take any scripture remotely related to marriage and attempt to pull out of it a command for everyone to get married. I noted this in my first comment on this thread in which I noted that Maken seems more interested in “using” sources the way one uses ammunition in a weapon than she does in genuinely interacting with or learning from them. As Dr. Kostenberger noted, this does not qualify as serious scholarship or good argumentation.
BBYB,
I love that Proverbs verse, although it does not necessarily mean that when we become Christians, God is establishing our each of footsteps as if we are His remote control robots who never sin again. This is not to say that God is not sovereign or that His purposes are limited by our sin. As much as it is right to give God thanks for everything in our lives, if we become too specific in what we attribute to Him, we can unwittingly assign to Him authorship of our sin! Personally, I don’t know how God will judge my singleness. Surely there were opportunities I passed up for what I thought were good reasons, but He may think differently when I stand before Him one day. And this is why we have the cross. The verse from Romans 11 you provided is proceeded by three others: “33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35 or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?”. This whole passage speaks volumes to me about the mystery of God at work in our lives.
Someone,
I wholeheartedly agree it would be better if humility in stating our various cases would be the best policy all the way around. And you raise some good points about scriptural integrity along the lines of questioning if the descriptive should be taken as prescriptive. But here’s something to consider: Why should the Bible even bother to delve into whether or not God wants people to marry, when historically people just went ahead and did it? The scope of the protracted singleness we face today is unprecedented (along with the sexual free-for-all pervasive at all levels of society), and as such, it really begs the question of whether or not our current climate of singleness really fits in with God’s natural design.
As I read through posts by you and Adam, I can’t help but wonder WHERE IS NATURE IN ALL OF THIS? Just as God will not likely suspend the laws of gravity if Christians en masse take up rock climbing (meaning there will probably be as many falls as among secular climbing groups), why would He go to great lengths to suspend the sexual impulse among people without wedded partners? Single Christians into their late 20’s and 30’s aren’t much more likely to remain chaste as their secular counterparts. Yes, yes, there are exceptions particularly among those few who are seriously doing kingdom work, chastity isn’t everything and sex alone is not a good reason to marry. But as Righteous Anger righteously suggests, we need to look at the reality of our current patterns of how Christians live out their singleness and see if it truly bears any resemblance to our ideal of glorious Christian singleness as much as we assume it does. If not, we’d better get cracking and see what can be done about it, because more sermons on contentment are losing their impact. I agree that nagging is fruitless, but we need to find ways of ENCOURAGING marriage, which will probably mean letting go of some of the things that enable people to stay stuck.
Basic Youth Conflicts did not encourage singleness (and it wasn’t a youth movement), in fact just the opposite. Just because it’s originator never got married, doesn’t mean they justified the attitude.
I’m 40 and single, but don’t consider there to be any good justification. I had my chances and my sins and lack of character ruined them. It’s nobody’s fault but mine.
Marriage is certainly the norm.
Adam: I don’t understand the point you are trying to make with regard to a contradiction between saying marriage is a duty/responsibility/command and the fact that Jesus gives us exceptions whilst Paul gives a personal recommendation of expediency. There is no contradiction there as far as I can see. I also don’t see the point you are making about the gifting towards celibacy. All of God’s gifts are useful for the individual and/or Body of Christ. I would suggest that the celibacy-orientated gifting is one that would accompany someone who has renounced marriage for Kingdom reasons, thus enabling them to accomplish tasks that would be incompatible with marriage. Otherwise, what would be the point?
I still fail to see any contradiction.
You end by saying “Devotion to Christ is what matters”. Does that mean we shouldn’t seek to help the poor and needy, or shouldn’t help to provide shelter for the homeless? Of course not! All these things can be done as part of showing our devotion to Christ – it’s the fruit of our devotion; it’s the actions James talks of that accompany our faith. None of these things are in opposition to devotion to the Lord. And neither is marriage. In a Godly marriage between two imperfect beings, we see a reflection of God’s love for us. Don’t make it out to be an either/or situation when it’s not.
Someone: It seems to me that you are trying to find excuses as to why perfectly appropriate Bible verses somehow don’t apply to us today, or in our situation. I think instead of trying to find excuses to invalidate the references to marriage that abound in God’s word, maybe, just maybe, you need to consider that perhaps God is trying to tell us something that is worth hearing.
As a never-amrried forty-something Christian man, I’m feeling rather bruised, battered and grieved after reading some of the above comments. How many single Christian men still feel welcome in the evangelical church after the pounding they have taken in some of these comments? And how could any single male nonbeliever who was considering Christianity ever desire to darken the doors of an evangelical church after reading said comments?
As for Jennifer M.’s comment about encouraging marriage among Christians, badgering single men won’t accomplish that desire. Furthermore, it’s quite unfair to criticize single men who’ve pursued marriage but have benn repeatedly turned down by single women. Single women must also bear some of the responsibility for extended singleness in today’s culture.
One other thing to consider – if churches are going to encourage men and women to marry, they need to start addressing the economic factors which discourage some men (and women) from considering marriage. I recently read a comment on another blog pointing out that in today’s corporate culture good jobs which could provide a man the income to support a family are being sacrificed to enrich corporate CEO’s. The commenter also pointed out that in some areas housing has become so expensive that more than one income is necessary to pay for it. The fact of the matter is that the conservative evangelical vision of a family living on Dad’s income while Mom stays home is no longer realistic.
Righteous Anger,
I’ve read Captivating. I liked it, although it also left me frustrated on some levels (the Eldredges’ theology is a bit light and fluffy at times: if anything, they don’t delve deep enough.) However, John and Stasi Eldredge do have some good things to say about recovering a biblical concept of masculinity and femininity. They are at their best when they address women who have a wounded sense of their own femininity and need that God-given femininity affirmed.
You also say: God created man and woman – joined together -in his own image. By keeping the sexes separate ie. single we cannot each individually fully reflect the glory of God.
Of course marriage reflects the glory of God, but are you saying, in all seriousness, that an individual, or a single person, does not reflect God’s glory as much???? Is a single man less masculine than a married one? Is a single woman less feminine because she is … well, single? I can’t believe that’s what you’re really intending to imply. As St. Iraneus famously said: “The glory of God is a human being fully alive.”
That is why – I would suggest – that far from being able to dedicate our lives more fully to Kingdom work, what happens in practice is that singles are far less effective. And no wonder – we are trying to live without the essential “helper” that God created for almost all of us.
Again, I dispute this. I know many mission partners: some single, some married. In my experience, single mission partners are in no way less effective than their married colleagues. Of course that has never stopped single mission partners getting married (ha!) but I can assure you, I know many single missionaries who live 100% for the Kingdom, who are wonderful role models.
Jennifer M, you said:
I agree that nagging is fruitless, but we need to find ways of ENCOURAGING marriage, which will probably mean letting go of some of the things that enable people to stay stuck.
I agree 100% with this, Jennifer. And it is in fact your posts, rather than Debbie Maken’s, and certainly not the self-righteous “you’re still single so you must be in sin” crowd, that have helped me re-evaluate some stuff.
Some of the attitudes of Maken’s supporters (and yes, Maken herself) continue to put my teeth on edge. As Someone pointed out, this is unfortunate, as the valid challenge to society that Maken is making is getting buried (in some quarters) under a morass of superficial judgementalism. Thanks for laughing at my ’sanctimonious thuggery’ remark, btw. :p (And it’s not just the men, either!) Adam’s remark about ‘moral melodrama’ made me laugh.
Thanks for laughing at my ’sanctimonious thuggery’ remark, btw. :p
That should have been addressed to Someone, rather than Jennifer M. Sorry for the tedious double post.
(And I wish you well in your romantic pursuit, Someone!)
Righteous Anger,
You said: Someone: It seems to me that you are trying to find excuses as to why perfectly appropriate Bible verses somehow don’t apply to us today, or in our situation. I think instead of trying to find excuses to invalidate the references to marriage that abound in God’s word, maybe, just maybe, you need to consider that perhaps God is trying to tell us something that is worth hearing.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this one. I happen to think that actually trying to interpret scripture properly and not just using it in whatever ways suit our purposes at the time is important. As I mentioned before, it’s easy to find support for almost anything we want in scripture and then claim that we’re being scriptural and that other are “fidning excuses to ignore what scripture says” when they call us on our lousy, sloppy interpretation. I’ve been facing this kind of thing ever since I was a teenager and have seen it over and over again, and this time around fits the pattern. I’m certain that the things I’ve pointed out to you about your questionable interpretations of scripture would be backed up by many, if not most, theologians and Bible scholars.
In any case, I’ve grown weary of debating this subject, and after attending my men’s group at church last night (made up of both married and single men) and spending the evening with other Christian men, I feel completely at peace about where I am in life and feel no need to justify myself to you or Debbie Maken or anyone else, and so I’m bowing out of this debate.
To Jennifer M,
Thanks for your responses to me and for your civil tone. I’d love to respond to your post as well, but I just don’t feel I have the time, energy or will left to gather my thoughts together on it and work ot write something coherent. Sorry.
Phillipa,
Thanks for the well wishes.
Peace
Righteous Anger,
The contradiction is in saying marriage is a command but it can be excepted. Commands are didactic and uncompromising. There isn’t any loophole for worshiping another God or committing adultery. Debbie Maken makes this clear when she compares the debate of singleness and marriage to that of plurality and exclusivity of Christ. Calling marriage a command distorts the meaning of what a command is.
This, and a variety of others reasons, I do not maintain marriage to be a command or a law that must be followed. First is there is no biblical warrant to do so. The Bible teaches marriage is the norm for humanity, that it is good, and that it is the proper context of sex and procreation. Like the creation, it is to be honored by all and cared for, but it is not a rigorous demand of the law that could bring us in right relationship to God if obeyed.
Second, if marriage were not a matter of liberty, then the burden of proof lies upon the marriage legalist to decipher when singleness is protracted and when condemnation is in order. To do this you must set up a sort of age of accountability. Since you don’t believe people should get married at age 13 (when puberty is in full-fledge) you give a grace-period for a person to be single, which seems to end around one’s late twenties.
Third, the qualifications for the gift of celibacy/singleness (categories not mentioned in 1 Cor. 7) are subjective. The two tests put forward are “the wholly devoted to Christ” test, and the “resistant to sexual temptation” test. Who determines whether these criteria are met? Married people like yourself? Is there some magistrate or priesthood we can appeal to determine whether someone is devoted to God enough? Should we structure church discipline in such a way to measure these things?
When you start talking law to answer a problem you get 10 more questions than you started with. Paul had no time for this kind of thinking and neither should we. The most offensive thing about it is that it gives one class of people (the married) the right to judge and condemn another (the singles) based on nothing other than marital status! How convenient for those who are married.
Many singles today want to be married but aren’t for whatever reason. Attributing protracted singleness to a single cause like “the gift of singleness teaching” is a naive approach to an issue that is much more complicated, and blaming men for the problem certainly isn’t a step towards solving it.
Ccinnova: I think we need to differentiate between the guys that are not trying to pursue a wife, and those that are trying, but are being unsuccessful. To the former I would say they need to turn to the Scriptures and realise that it is not good to be without a wife and they should do something about it! To the latter I would say that they might want to sit down and have a heart-to-heart with a married, male church leader. Let’s face it, there are no shortage of women! It may be that the guys is consistently “punching above his weight”. It may be that he needs to take more care with his personal appearance. It could be any number of things that people are too “kind” to tell him, although actually they would be much kinder if they did tell him – sensitively!
Economic excuses do not have much validity in this argument and I fear they are being used as a scapegoat.
Philippa – You said “are you saying, in all seriousness, that an individual, or a single person, does not reflect God’s glory as much???? Is a single man less masculine than a married one? Is a single woman less feminine because she is … well, single?”
Well, let me give you the Scripture to back up what I am saying: (Genesis 1:26 -27 NIV) ‘Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, overall the eath, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.’
God created man and woman to TOGETHER reflect his own image. So, yes, I believe that a man on his own, and a woman on her own, cannot fully reflect the glory of God. They need to “become one” in order to do that. This may sound very controversial to our ears today, but this isn’t some new theory. It is the strangeness of it in our ears today that only make it seem that way.
You can also dispute all you like about mission partners that are single. There is no way really of knowing how much MORE effective they would have been if they were working as a family. But surely, common sense dictates that a family working together would have far more doors open to them than either a single man or a single woman? Never mind the practical and emotional support that a “helper” would give them.
A more general point that has been made is that of encouraging marriage – so what are the suggestions for doing this folks? The last 30 years has seen us affirm the state of protracted singleness as a lifestyle option for Christians that is equal to marriage. Whilst not discouraging marriage outright, this has had the effect of validating the single state to such a degree that the “advantages” of remaining single are seen as equal to the “advantages” of being married. This is a lie. (Witness the so-called advantages often given for singleness. Things like: “You can choose floral bed linen with no one to complain about it!” Please!!! “You can take off around the world without having to justify it to anyone.” Get real! Have these people never heard of jobs? Financial commitments???!!!)
I do not believe it is possible to get back to the Biblical blueprint for nearly all of our lives (and yes, there are some qualfications) – marriage – unless we at the same time ask some hard questions about the validity of protracted singleness, rather than couching it in resassuring-sounding platitudes. That has got us precisely where we are today. And it needs to change.
(By the way, I haven’t even got started yet on the area of sexual sin! :0))
I want to thank all of you who have contributed to this stimulating discussion over the past week. Clearly, the debate will continue, and at times has generated more heat than light, but perhaps there has been some insight generated through the discussion.
Permit me to make a few comments in an effort to bring at least a certain amount of closure as far as discussion on this blog is concerned.
First, we should remember that Christ, not marriage, is the center of God’s creative and redemptive purposes. Paul writes in Ephesians that it is God’s end-time purpose “to bring all things [including marriage!] together under one head, even Christ” (Eph. 1:10).
Second, in a related point, marriage exists, not primarily to fulfill human needs, but for the greater glory of God – or, as Paul says three times in the opening verses of Ephesians, “for the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). So, let’s be married to the glory of God, and for those so called, let’s be unmarried for the glory of God.
Third, if you want to read a fuller account of God’s purposes for marriage and singleness and many other related issues, such as parenting, adoption, abortion, artificial reproductive technologies, divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and so on, read God, Marriage & Family (Crossway). It is much more thorough and wide-ranging than Debbie Maken’s book, which is focused on a fairly narrow topic (and then often argues from experience rather than Scripture).
Fourth, let me issue to all concerned in the debate (including myself) a call to humility. None of us has all the answers, and we can learn from each other. In Scripture, we have a sure foundation, and Scripture, as our sole authority, must always remain our final point of reference and our common ground. But we must not confuse what Scripture teaches with our interpretation of Scripture or assume too quickly that our interpretation of Scripture is equal to Scripture itself.
Let’s also remember that we live in a fallen, sinful, imperfect world where ideals are often not realized. And let’s retain a fear of God and a trust in him and in his wise and inscrutable counsel, especially as it pertains to the future, which is ultimately known only to him.
I realize this is an intensely personal issue for many of us, which is why it is even more important to approach this subject with humility, a commitment to the authority of Scripture, and a passion for the greater glory of God in all things.
“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.” (Eph. 3:20-21)
Phillipa,
Thanks again for your favorable critique…and since you’re at “re-evaluating this stuff”, may I critique your critique (whew!) of Righteous Anger’s here:
God created man and woman – joined together -in his own image. By keeping the sexes separate ie. single we cannot each individually fully reflect the glory of God.
Of course marriage reflects the glory of God, but are you saying, in all seriousness, that an individual, or a single person, does not reflect God’s glory as much???? Is a single man less masculine than a married one? Is a single woman less feminine because she is … well, single? I can’t believe that’s what you’re really intending to imply. As St. Iraneus famously said: “The glory of God is a human being fully alive.”
Now, I can’t speak for RA, but I would wager that he/she isn’t talking about every individual here, but rather, what TENDS to happen when marriage becomes a reduced priority in any society. When you look out over groups of Christian singles over a certain age, you see how unrealized sexual potential exacts a toll on both masculinity and femininity. I don’t think it’s very edifying for large numbers of men or women to wait until their 30’s and 40’s to experience sex, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, etc. OR PERHAPS not at all. Yes, there are some shining examples of resilience that are a testimony to the grace of God, but must we suspend any discussion of the costs of unfulfilled sexuality to us as a church body so as to not offend those exceptions? And as for those who are not exceptions but are obviously suffering in their singleness, I do not understand the resistance to looking at these issues! We’re trying to find solutions here, people!!!
Same thing with missions work. Do you really think it makes no difference to the missions field as a whole whether or not most of the workers out there ever marry? I would guess that you would say it’s preferable that most be married. Of course there are some great single missionaries, but many of those individuals would like to be married. I had a former roommate who was a “recovering missionary”. It never occurred to anyone that she might want to get married and that to do so might take time and intentionality. It all work, work, work for the Lord and if he wants to have a husband he will darn well give you one.
Adam,
It is true that singles today want to be married, but I don’t see why we have to say “whatever” instead of looking at the reasons. Gift of singleness teachings may not be the strongest reason, but it is indeed a factor, and one that the faithful aren’t comfortable looking at because to them, it seems like criticizing the church. I agree with you about scriptural integrity, but I think it works both ways: if you say that there is no scriptural support for singleness as being a sin, then you must also admit that 1 Cor 7:7 does not call singleness a gift.
Lance,
You said: “Basic Youth Conflicts did not encourage singleness (and it wasn’t a youth movement), in fact just the opposite. Just because it’s originator never got married, doesn’t mean they justified the attitude.”
The problem with BYC is that on one hand, they upheld this glorious picture of Christian marriage to millions of young people, yet on the other hand they gave singles an impossible formula to get there. For example, their 1976 training manual said, among other things, that “believing that it is my responsibility to search out and find a life partner” are “natural inclinations that produce wrong friendships”, because “it is God’s responsibility to prepare the right life partner”. Another one: “Loneliness is primarily the result of not knowing how to enjoy my own company”, so of course, you should just ignore not only loneliness but sexuality and all drives that God has designed to bring men and women together, because those things have nothing to do with anything, because God will work things out regardless of our efforts (or lack thereof), right??
So then, what happens when people are taught to disconnect from their natural feelings and drives so that God (and their parents) can do all the work? G. Richard Fischer at Personal Freedom Outreach (pfo.org) wrote about the leader of BYC:
“Gothard’s views on singleness might have led to the scandal that almost wrecked his organization by way of his brother’s repeated and prolonged immorality with secretarial employees, which Gothard admitted in his letter to pastors, July 18, 1980:
‘For many years I have put the ministry ahead of my family and staff, especially my brother. My pride and wrong priorities resulted in encouraging him to postpone marriage because of the demands of the ministry, thus disregarding his personal needs. I have also failed others, including present and former staff members who sought to warn me of my incomplete handling of past staff problems, rejecting reproofs, and personal inconsistencies.’
However, he never recalled any of his materials.”
On the “brandedforchrist.org” website, Dr. Bob Cosby also wrote about his involvement with Gothard’s ministry:
“Bill has never married, basing his doing so on 1 Corinthians 7:8 ‘I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.’ There have been reports of major problems developing from this position but the real problem has developed in the fact that his ministry has become a family ministry and he has never had a family. He is the coach who never played the game. Sometimes the result of this curiosity is funny. When we were at the Northwoods for our training seminar, Bill decided to get off on birth control and by the time he was through, he had prescribed that all married couples be, for all intents and purposes, celibate. When Cathy and I got back to the room she almost incredulously asked, ‘What did you think of that?’ To which I replied, ‘You can tell that boy has never been married.’”
Gothards’ ideas have been met with some criticism and his ministry is pretty much considered irrelevant these days, but many of his ideas live on in the writings of current pundits on Christian singleness. The late Don Raunikar’s writings are filled with Gothardisms, right from the title of his 1998 book “Choosing GOD’S BEST”, a term that refers to the notion that you shouldn’t marry someone who is a “good choice” for you, but “GOD’s choice”. No where in the Bible is mate-finding discussed in such idealized terms– back then, you simply went out and got your pushcart, a wife and a hovel to live in…good enough. Nevertheless, Carolyn McCulley’s website continues to endorse this book.
We need to get back to the idea that marriage is a practical matter. Not that God’s sovereignty isn’t at work here! But the holy written word addresses the route to marriage very much along the lines of making a “good choice”: excercising discernment, wise judgement, moral intentionality and plain old common sense (ie. Proverbs 5, 18:22, and 31, Cor 7:2 and 9:5, 1 Thess 4:4). There are no admonishments to beware of the “good choice”, lest you miss out on “the GOD choice”, at least not where marriage is concerned.
Men aren’t willing to wait through 3-5 year courtships for good Christian women. Secular women, or “lukewarm” Christian women will give them sex and love before marriage. It’s wrong, but it’s a fact.
Over time, Evangelical women have wrapped up dating so tightly with salvation and trying to live God’s will, that they completely miss the human element in dating. So, what choices do men have? With secular women, they have trashy girls; with religious women, they have nuns. Where do you think men will go? Add to this the scandalously high divorce rates among Evangelicals and it is no mystery why so many Christian women are alone every night.
Probably the worst aspect of all this is . . . women . . . teaching women to be content with singleness, to embrace the HOLY gift of singleness and to resist dating anyone who doesn’t match the exact specifications of the local Southern Baptist preacher.
Anyone preaching a “gift of singleness” is doing Christians a profound disservice.
Dr. Kostenberger,
Thanks again for the wonderful arguments here.
Apparently Mrs. Maken is not alone in finding the current lack of/postponement of marriage to stem from a lack of seriousness; I’ve read similar things elsewhere.
I’ve also read defenses from many singles stating they are quite serious about marriage and it is the acknowledgement of the importance of marriage that has many singles almost paralyzed with fear of an unsuccessful marraige, or of putting it all off until they have thoroughly researched what it takes to have the best marriage possible.
There is also the prevailing mist of confusion between the sexes that seems to hamper communication for both the secular and Christian worlds of late.
No small part of the uneasiness in social life is due to modern technology that encourages long hours alone; people today often do not get the kind of practice socializing as they once did.
In any case, thanks again for airing these arguments. It’s such a thrill to have found your blog.
[I was refered by a link in a Carolyn McCulley blog entry.]
I know I am way behind in leaving a comment, but just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to delve into this topic with theological clout. I have only recently stumbled upon this great debate in the US – we don’t talk about dating or singleness or such things down here in Australia
. Anyway EQUIP, which is the biggest thing for evangelical women in this country, recently launched an online book club and I am the contributor for the book on singleness. So I have been doing some research (if you can all it that when you trawl the internet!) and was very pleased to find your series of posts. The number of single Christian women in this country is quite phenomenal, and rising, and so it’s doing Christendom a great service for serious theologians to speak a word for them – and I think I am going to have to purchase your book.
Having read Machen’s book I have several quibbles with her faulty exegesis of Scripture, but what is most disturbing is her tone. If there were any chance that sarcasm and biting criticism were on the verge of being a thing of the past she has kept it alive. That is regrettable, especially coming from someone who says that the advice she offers to young women is built on a biblical foundation. I want to suggest that “a gentle and quiet spirit” (I Pt 3:4)must of necessity be a significant part of that foundation.