Captain Sensible writes: At least we can rely on Debbie Maken to bring clarity amidst the confusion over at Boundless. Her no nonsense, straight-talking is just what confused singles need to hear at the moment. What they don't need is more muddle in the name of "fostering discourse". Since when did Jesus or Paul tolerate the spreading of false teaching, without correction, in the name of "fostering discourse"?
Here is Debbie Maken's comment in its entirety, as posted at Boundless, followed-up by two later postings. Some people may think Debbie's views on the "45 year old bachelor" in the last posting are harsh. But actually they are kind. Kind to women, who are the hapless victims of such 45 year old bachelors. But also, kind to the bachelor himself. Instead of affirming his sad state, Debbie's words may help him to focus on fixing the problem, instead of just pretending everything's ok when it clearly isn't:
"I am having a hard time understanding this campaign to make the term "marriage mandate" look like a dirty word in the conversation. Isn't it just the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply? Perhaps it's me, but there does seem to be a concerted effort to constantly marginalize the marriage mandaters from the debate, make them look "cultic," and make a time-honored Christian ethic look like it is a fringe position, just because it questions the validity of bachelorhood of many professing Christians. I find these attempts to fracture those who are trying to reclaim certain forgotten truths in this discussion indicative of a spirit of "divisiveness," as opposed to a spirit of entertaining honest debate.
Moreover, I am not sure Martin Luther needs the colorful interpretations of his sermons regarding marriage from novice 21st Century theologians. Ultimately, his words speak for themselves, and they are quite clear. . . . "Apart from these three categories of eunuchs, let no man presume to be without a wife. . . ." To then say, as some have suggested, that Luther says nothing of people being "called to singleness," is intellectually dishonest. The exemptions are clearly outlined. If you don't fall into them, then get married. If Luther says that "not one in a thousand" falls into these exceptions, the emphasis is NOT on the "not" to suggest that Luther perhaps meant "more than one in a thousand." How opinions and tortured conclusions like these continue to receive Ted Slater's warm applause ("well said" of comment #28) baffles me.
This open-ended idea that people are somehow individually "called to singleness," just right up until the time they decide that they are called to marriage, is to give the creature a guilt-free, shame-free, spiritually-unquestionable license of pursuing marriage whenever and without any regard to the cost, either individually, or to the spouse one could have had, to the collective impact on the church and society.
There really is no "happy medium" of the marriage mandate position, where single Christians (especially the men) get to imagine that years spent being single are somehow good Christian living because they may have been "called to singleness" during that time (and of course, not taking matters into their own hands or others, hopefully for that matter, and doing something mildly productive). Somehow, we all believe that marriage is the universal norm for adults, and yet, are shocked that one might question or look askance at a bachelor and scratch their head. We want single people to have accountability of their singleness and the extension of their single years on their own terms without feeling any pinch whatsoever since we cannot know every one's peculiar individual situation. That is not accountability; that is man saying that he rules his life the way he sees fit under some spiritual carte blanche, and how dare others judge him for it. It really is not too far from the gays demanding tolerance from others because their "natures" are allegedly wired in this peculiar direction. Yet, Scripture is clear on both the conduct (abominable) and judgment and wrath on societies that tolerate this kind of perversion (Romans 1).
The question is not does Luther mandate marriage, which I would encourage the readers of this blog to look up Luther's own words in The Estate of Marriage in Luther's Works, Vol. 45, as found in Vol.2 of Christian in Society, ed. W.I. Brandt (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962). The question is does Scripture mandate marriage for the vast numbers of men and women. And do the creation ordinances of Genesis (and replenishment commands post deluge) mandate marriage in a way that children grow up and assume the mantle of adulthood by marrying a spouse of their youth and siring another generation so that they are counted among those who were told to "be fruitful and multiply"? Or does Scripture endorse an open-ended nonjudgmental marriage position that allows Christians to make personal choices according to their own unassailable conscience of when to marry, if to marry, and so on . . . ? It can't be both positions as a matter of logic. The patently inconsistent happy medium was already the self-contradictory song sung in most modern churches to the chagrin of most of its single women now suffering its consequences. And if Luther had agreed with the status quo of open-ended reading of I Corinthians 7 and private conscience driven singleness, we would have heard about these Luther sermons long before Getting Serious about Getting Married was published. We certainly did not need a theological giant from Trinity Divinity School (with the deafeningly silent backing of his professors) showing us how to reconstruct very simple words.
Is it just me, or does someone see some of these single male bachelor bloggers contrary position resemble a theological Monty Python-esque version of the Argument Clinic, with a latin term slipped in here or there for that air of wisdom, and always devolving to endless clarifications of didn't say that, didn't mean that, didn't address this . . . . all topped off with a "you don't understand the Sovereignty of God doctrine, you non-Reformed plebe."
There is nothing unusual or new about the marriage mandate position—generally understood, it is one that believes that marriage was instituted by God, is to be honored by all, is expected to be lived in as the norm for adult life, is a sacred duty for those to enter into during the season of youth, and the "rare" (to borrow Luther's word) exception is just that, "rare," and not be dwelt upon incessantly since it "rarely" applies, and such musings are only fancy sidetracking attempts to further add confusion to an area already scarred from misinformation. Consequently, those who choose to be and/or find themselves single without the biblical warrant for exemptions from marriage are in a spiritual no man's land and they are going to go without certain blessings because God is not required to bless outside of the boundaries He himself has instituted. If this viewpoint then raises some eyebrows as to why perfectly normal eligible bachelors go year after year being perennially single, it is a logical outflow, a necessary conclusion, and a good in and of itself, for it serves as an additional impetus to push those dragging their feet toward marriage.
Ultimately, there is no reason to castigate "the marriage mandate for the masses" crowd because the contrary position is a giant ball of self-contradiction. The author of the original article regarding Luther did an excellent job appreciating Luther's depth on this subject, and extrapolated exactly what Luther's own writings would indicate. However, many of your bloggers comments have sought to do the exact opposite in misdirecting the reader from what was actually written by Luther, and have sewn seeds of doubt on writings where there are no doubts. There is no common ground with these rogues because all we will see is lip service to the general rule drowning in an endless sea of exceptions that swallows/undermines the very rule. Boundless should not be an instrument or platform for this kind of sophisticated undermining of marriage in the name of fostering discourse."
Debbie Maken
Next posting:"Sassy Sister: You misunderstand many of my positions; I assume that you have not read the book "Getting Serious About Getting Married." As self-serving as it may sound, I would really encourage you to read it because I think it will edify you in an unexpected way, and it will prevent you from jumping to certain conclusions.
Like you, I believe that Christian singles should live lives to the glory of God, which includes being sexually pure and helping their families and fellow man. And no one has advocated that young people enter marriages erratically, or without thought and consideration. The position of the marriage mandaters is that the creation mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" is written on the hearts of men. God has made us in His image, and that means like Him, we were made to create things that last forever-- like children. When culturally we fail to see that our children will one day be young adults, and that we should prepare them in all wisdom to be making their own colonies, we do both our children and the kingdom a great disservice. So, the choice has never been to enter marriage lightly and quickly, but to be making conscious/ wise choices all along one's youth so that marriage can be entered into during the proper season to fulfill its kingdom purposes.
The test for the Christian single is not go through life thinking/not thinking of marriage every waking moment, all the while somehow in some form "serving/ giving" to others. The test for the Christian single is to understand that living a life for the glory of God means that there is a blueprint the Maker has spoken into existence, and making choices to correlate with what He has revealed as to how our world ought to be ordered. He has unequivocally revealed to us that all of mankind (not just Christians) is required to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and He said this, not once, but thrice: pre-Fall, post-Fall, and post Flood. Early and timely marriage is what achieves this explicit desire of the Lord. (See also Mal. 2:15: Why has the Lord made them male and female? He desires godly seed.) There is a grave difference between redeeming the time, and resigning onesself to a less than ideal fate just because marriage is not actualized. The book was written because the modern church has blurred this line, and most singles mistakenly believe that they should just accept their single by default status. Hence, these singles go about their "most fertile years" doing things that could be as easily done by a married couple, and do indeed "waste" those years by precluding in-wedlock children they could have had. In other words, today's single has no reason being single, like the third set of singles/"eunuchs for the kingdom" that Luther described as "willfully remaining single" for threatening kinds of missionary work that are unaccommodating to family life. The "eunuchs for the kingdom" are people like Paul and Barnabus. Our present day constructs of singles "serving and giving" hardly qualifies on that scale of sacrifice where we are exempt from the ordinance of marriage.
BDB, It is not that I Corinthians 7 does not apply to today's American singles. The problem is that the text itself is written conditionally, and the conditions for when it applies, simply do not exist today, such as famine in the countryside, or mass-scale persecutions. (See I Cor. 7:25: "because of the present distress . . . ). The unusual and difficult times made Paul advise his listeners that delaying marriage ("to spare [them] from worldly anxieties") was an acceptable outcome. This chapter speaks volumes to many Christians in the Sudan today who face similar perils and may be forced to make the same kind of ethical choices. For us here in America, it holds nothing but indictment. When we use verses like (I Cor. 7:6-7), where Paul says "I wish all men were like me (single), but each has his own gift," to suggest that (1) both marriage and singleness are equal, or (2) Paul was setting up his normative wish, we miss the point of the text, which is Paul saying that most men (without God's super-natural enabling) will not be able to exercise self-control in this area, and for that reason "it is better for them to marry than burn" (v.9) (See also v. 2: Let them marry). This was not Paul's statement of how he wished the normative should be any more than the term "all you can eat buffet" is a challenge. Again, many of these matters are better discussed in the book which expose the wrong understandings that modern Western Christians take from these passages, but to no avail.
Lastly, Adam, I have a legal verse for you. Exodus 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness. Maybe people could discuss things with you better if you could cross this hurdle."
Debbie Maken
Final posting:"To that great theologian produced by Trinity Divinity School (with the deafeningly silent backing of his professors):
I am surprised. I thought you would inform the audience that in the Hebrew "neighbor" means someone who lives next door, so one can deconstruct, tell half truths, and interject strawmen (i.e. bear false witness) against those who do not live next door.
It's hard to take you seriously because you want to characterize perfectly substantive answers, as no answers, simply because you do not care for the answers. You want to raise specious questions like, "Where does Luther say rare?" (See your own blog). When you yourself quote Luther as saying "rare, not one in a thousand." (See comment #147). Please do not take Boundless' highly liberal posting policy of your intellectual garbage as an indicator of merit, but more of a "let a fool speak and remove all doubt."
Amir, Amir, Amir. What do I say to you? There are certain things that just speak for themselves. I have nothing to clarify or add about page 185 of the book. You got a 45 year old bachelor, go figure. Either a late bloomer, either was too picky, either consistently choosing poor quality women to date, either no effort, . . . at some point people need to take responsibility for where they are due to decisions/inactions they have made all along the way. The presumption of innocence that Anna did not indulge the 45 year old Christian male in is understandable, as well as her refusal to reward."
Debbie Maken
