Maken on Piper
by Ted Slater on 05/01/2007 at 2:09 PM
Christian author Debbie Maken commented on Candice's recent post, "Being Single is Better says Piper." I wanted to highlight it, so here it is in its entirety, as a post all its own:
Candice,
The Piper sermon is more than just irresponsible for downplaying man's inherent sexual nature. It is wishful thinking to believe that a eunuch and a single person are the same thing. The Isaiah 56 passage where the eunuch laments that he is a "dry tree"-- ought to tell us something. The eunuch is without the ability to fulfill the first order of marriage, to be one flesh and to be fruitful and multiply. What in the world does someone who is physically unable to fulfill the creation mandate (and therefore, a dry tree), have in common with someone who has fully functioning sexual organs to carry out his Master's ordinances? Self-imposed sterility or even circumstantial barrenness has never been congratulated by Scripture. This is one of the reasons that I have suggested that continuing to be single without the proper biblical warrant for doing so, will only bear diminished fruit. Tacking a lemon onto dry tree might make it look pretty, but that is not genuine fruit production.
This is not a debate between what "ought to be" and "what is." Scripture has never set up as the ideal some sort of corporate utopia where marriage is irrelevant, so that singletons can be free to lead chaste, responsible lives. To look at our unwed state in heaven has nothing to do with life here where marriage is the pool from which the Covenant continues and the number of the elect is completed. Singles will fail the goals advanced by Piper, not only because there is no increased Scriptural acceptance for New Testament singleness, but because their sexual nature was never changed or altered in the New Testament. Until we figure out the obvious -- see Old Testament sex drive, see New Testament sex drive (hmmm, no difference) -- we are going to be engaging in imaginary possibilities.
To read that sermon, one would think that God shifted horses in the New Covenant. "Had it with the family institution, let's try a new method for kingdom expansion." The fact that in the New Testament more people outside of Israel's covenant community were coming to know the promise of Jesus, does not mean that marriage is now "relatively unimportant." It means that those who are "far off" are now being called in greater numbers than before. Faith is still what saves, the same faith that Rahab had is what those who are Gentiles must have. Only the sheer volume of the uncircumcised has changed; not the family institution, our inherent need to be in such an arrangement, or its fundamental importance in God's redemptive scheme.
The entire sermon smacked of just taking Bible verses out of context to craft a conclusion more favorable to one's personal viewpoint. Maybe I expect too much from someone of Piper's stature.
Debbie Maken
I look forward to the discussion that's bound to ensue.
1. k. said the following at 2:56 PM on May 1:
In Matthew 19:12, Jesus said that some people "have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." If Jesus Himself approves of these self-selecting kingdom eunuchs (who are effectively eunuchs, although not technically eunuchs), I'm not sure how much room for debate we have.
My impression is that Piper is stressing that God, through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, is expanding His family through regeneration--and that He doesn't depend on us to do this for him. We're supposed to do our part of the great commission, but He's not wringing His hands and worrying that it won't get done if we don't do it. While probably most of us are called to marriage and children, I think Piper's sermon raises valid points. After reading through it, I *definitely* would not call it irresponsible. Rather, it seems to be a well-thought-out and reasoned argument. He's not telling people that they SHOULD be single, merely raising the point that celibacy, for some, is a valid option and has attendant benfits.
2. Claire said the following at 3:15 PM on May 1:
Very, very well put. Piper's entire platform sounds disturbingly similar to the views and teachings of Bill Gothard. Having been deeply involved in Gothard's ministry for 9 of the past 11 years, I can say I've seen firsthand the frustration that comes from such teachings. I always felt as though there was something very wrong with those ideas. I finally figured out why last summer, as I read Maken's book. Things made so much more sense that way, and people are not set up for moral and spiritual failure as they are when following the teachings of Piper and Gothard.
3. Sara said the following at 3:24 PM on May 1:
Besides the last sentence sounding a bit on the sarcastic side (did I read it wrongly?), I say "Amen!" to Debbie's post. She hits the nail on the head and reminds us once again about the whole issue of the true definition of eunuchs.
4. Gillian V. said the following at 4:11 PM on May 1:
I have read Debbie Maken's book. It disappoints me that such a well-known and respected theologian is guilty of propogating false teachings regarding singleness, which Mrs. Maken correctly claims is widespread in our churches. However, something else has occurred to me. It is common knowledge that churches do a far better job of retaining post-college-aged women than it does men, and the good, mature ones the Church does manage to keep tend to marry early. I believe, along with countless others, that this is the number-one cause of protracted singleness for women in the Church. Yet Mrs. Maken, while accurately acknowledging the other causes, ignores this one. I could do everything she suggests in her book -- e.g., move back in with my parents, employ an agent, and refuse to date men who are not marriage-minded and assess their motives early on in my relationships with them -- and still be without a husband because there are just not enough worthy candidates to go around in the Church. Perhaps she chose to omit this reality from her book because it was depressing (and may not have sold as many books). Which brings me to Mr. Piper's point of view. Assuming he is aware of the situation I have described in the Church, is it possible that he believes the problem is insurmountable, that the damage has been done, and that the only thing left to do is tell singles -- intentional bachelors and unhappy, circumstantially single women alike -- that singleness is okay and that their service opportunities are more sanctified than those of marrieds? If this is where Mr. Piper is coming from, merely glossing over the truth to make his audience feel better, then Mrs. Maken is just as guilty as Mr. Piper in this regard.
5. Shannon said the following at 4:28 PM on May 1:
Having listened to Piper's sermon in person (or rather via video feed), I'm surprised that people thought it was irresponsible. It seems like everyone thinks he should have added things THEY would have included. He only has a certain amount of time, so what if he didn't harp (because he did mention!) on the fact that everyone should remain chaste. He said the one who did right was a virgin til the end. How much clearer can a person get?
Sitting through the sermon, seeing the passion and love of people in his eyes, I heard this: 1. That for those that seek God's will and through circumstances of life and calling end up single with no physical children, God offers a hope! 2. Not that the marriage relationship is IRRELEVANT per se, but that in light of God's glory and goodness and grace that it's not the POINT.
Pastor John has always been about God's glory. Maybe this means he doesn't preach his sermons the way everyone thinks he should. But you can't please everyone, I suppose. I just wish that people would stop ripping him in two every time he misses half a step (for which there are tons of articles on Boundless alone dealing with issues people would have LIKED him to address). Why can't people see the message he preaches instead of the message he didn't preach?
Remember, we're all brothers and sisters here. He hasn't been unbiblical (at least not that I can tell). And if you do think he has, where's the gentle admonition in love as opposed to the criticism aired for the world to see?
6. Adam said the following at 4:34 PM on May 1:
No, I think the irresponsible one is Debbie Maken.
She wrote:
The Isaiah 56 passage where the eunuch laments that he is a "dry tree"-- ought to tell us something. The eunuch is without the ability to fulfill the first order of marriage, to be one flesh and to be fruitful and multiply. What in the world does someone who is physically unable to fulfill the creation mandate (and therefore, a dry tree), have in common with someone who has fully functioning sexual organs to carry out his Master's ordinances?
First of all, it is simply not the case that "becoming one" and "being fruitful and multiplying" are commands. Nowhere is the phrase "become one" used in the Bible as a general command. Genesis 1:28 is generally taken as a heterosis, or, a usage of the imperative where the imperative lays asside its normal function, and assumes a secondary function. W. Gesenius, the author of the standard Hebrew grammar, defines this, and then goes on to apply it to Genesis 1:28:
--------------------------------------
(c) To express a distinct assurance (like our expression, thou shalt have it)2 or promise, e.g. Is 65:18 but be ye glad, &c. (i.e. ye will have continually occasion to be glad); and Is 37:30, y Ps 110:2; in a threat, Jer 2:19. So especially in commands, the fulfilment of which is altogether out of the power of the person addressed, e.g. Is 54:14 be far from anxiety (meaning, thou needst not fear any more); Gn 1:28, &c. (for other examples, such as 1 K 22:12, 2 K 5:13, see below, f). Most clearly in the case of the imperative NiphÇal with a passive meaning, e.g. Gn 42:16 Wrs.a†'he ~T,a;w> and ye shall be bound; Dt 32:50, Is 49:9 (Is 45:22, see below, f). [Hebrew Grammar §110c]
--------------------------------------
Another reason why this should be taken as a blessing rather than a direct command is also has to do with the fact that the specific Hebrew term bārak [to bless] is used here. Not only that, but Debbie Maken has addressed the fact that the text does not exempt those who are infertile. If you take it as a command with universal implications, then you are caught believing that infertile people are sinning. There is no exception given in the text. To insert in some exception is totally arbitrary.
In fact, this was the way the Jews interpreted this text. They would say that an infertile woman must have sinned or done something wrong, and that is what has made her infertile. Is Debbie Maken really suggesting that?
Thirdly, the point John Piper was trying to make is that just because you have no children and family does not mean you are exempt from God's blessings. This is because they are rooted in the cross of Christ. Here is his context:
--------------------------------------
All of this is the background that makes Isaiah 56:5 shine like the sun to eunuchs and others without marriage and children: “Thus says the Lord: ‘To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.” So without marriage and without children. these covenant-keeping eunuchs get a name and a memorial better than sons and daughters.
Where did this amazing promise come from? What’s the basis of it and what is it pointing toward? Turn back to Isaiah 53. This is the great prophecy of the sufferings of Christ who “was wounded for our transgressions [and] . . . crushed for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5). In this chapter, we sometimes overlook these words in verse 10: “It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.”
He shall see his offspring. Here is a great prophecy: When the Messiah dies as an “offering for guilt” and rises again to “prolong his days,” he will by that great saving act produce many children: He will “see his offspring.” In other words, the new people of God formed by the Messiah will not be formed by physical procreation but by the atoning wash of Christ.
--------------------------------------
The context of John Piper's application has to do with a connection to Isaiah 53. The reason he connects the two is because of the use of offspring in the context of the death of Christ. Piper is arguing that the basis of whether or not the eunichs are blessed has to do with the death of Christ, not with anything in them. Therefore, it is totally irrelvant to his argument that the term "eunich" is used in a different sense. In fact, that is something he admits! If Debbie Maken wants to argue that the blessing of the covenant keeping eunichs has nothing to do with the death of Christ, and no reference to Isaiah 53, then she needs to argue it.
Also, John Piper is building his point here. To take state what Debbie Maken has said, without considering what he is going to go on and use this to prove that the NT church is the fulfillment of the OT passages on marriage is to rip him totally out of his context.
She said:
Self-imposed sterility or even circumstantial barrenness has never been congratulated by Scripture. This is one of the reasons that I have suggested that continuing to be single without the proper biblical warrant for doing so, will only bear diminished fruit. Tacking a lemon onto dry tree might make it look pretty, but that is not genuine fruit production.
Then I want to know what Debbie Maken makes of the phrase "made THEMSELVES eunichs for the kingdom of God" [Matthew 19:12]. How can you make yourself a eunich if you were just created that way? Also, why is it that Paul calls his single state a "gift" [Corithians 7:7]?
She said:
Scripture has never set up as the ideal some sort of corporate utopia where marriage is irrelevant, so that singletons can be free to lead chaste, responsible lives.
Actually, it *does* set that as the standard:
Matthew 22:29-30 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Jesus is saying that in the ideal state [i.e. the eternal state], people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. While marriage is a wonderful gift, it is finite. It will cease on day. Therefore, our goal is to be united with Christ so we will live forever. Hence, in a certain sense, that *is* the ideal!
To say that people still have sex drives doesn't answer the question. No one is denying the possibility of marriage in the New Covenant. What John Piper is arguing is that the propogation of children in Israel, and OT passages relating to God's people multiplying was connected to the Jewish people, and therefore, to go back to saying that is mandatory is to go back to the old way.
BTW, John Piper is not the first one to present this. C. John Collins, Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, has also taken this position in his commentary on Genesis 1-4 [p.87-88]. This commentary is endorsed by the likes of J.I. Packer, Michael D. Williams, and V. Phillips Long. It is definitely a popular scholarly opinion. For someone who doesn't even know Hebrew to write it off as irresponsible, is, as I said, irresponsible.
She said:
Only the sheer volume of the uncircumcised has changed; not the family institution, our inherent need to be in such an arrangement, or its fundamental importance in God's redemptive scheme.
So, I guess, if there were no families, there would be no salvation??????? What does salvation consist of but the cross of Christ? Is the cross of Christ sufficient to save, or do we need families? She says that we "need" to be in a family. Where does the Bible teach that? Where does the Bible say that it is a need to live in a family? I guess elderly people, who have lost their spouse with all of their children married off are up the creek without a paddle.
She said:
The entire sermon smacked of just taking Bible verses out of context to craft a conclusion more favorable to one's personal viewpoint. Maybe I expect too much from someone of Piper's stature.
When I think of how Debbie Maken got "you must marry young" out of the words "wife of your youth" in Malachi 2:15, and how she said 1 Timothy 3:2 states that an elder must be married, and stated that Jeremiah 29:6 has something to do with God wanting Godly children, and is now proceeding to criticize a well accepted scholarly theory like this, I can only say this is the pot calling the kettle black. As I said, the irresponsible one is Debbie Maken. Andreas Kostenburger, Ben Wetherington, my Hebrew professor Jason Soenksen, and virtually every academic scholar I have read on the subject [other than Albert Mohler, of course] has said that her book is scholarly unacceptable. Some, such as Andreas Kostenburger, has gone so far to say that her thinking is not even Christian. My Hebrew professor, Jason Soenksen, just laughed when I told him the arguments that she used. I will let the reader decide who is "taking Bible verses out of context to craft a conclusion more favorable to one's personal viewpoint."
I can say all of this leaving the possibility that someone will come along and present a sound argument for her position. However, this is not the way to do it. I would say that Debbie Maken is only hurting her own credibility by writing something like this.
God Bless,
Adam
7. Captain Sensible said the following at 6:34 PM on May 1:
Is this the same Adam that took part in this enlightening little exchange a little earlier this year?:
Adam said: “With regards to Hanna, it is more than likely that Hanna was weeping over not having a child mostly because, at that time, being barren was as bad as being a nerd in school. You were often the subject of immense ridicule and that may be what Hanna is upset about.
God Bless
Darren said: Adam,
Are you joking????
You are comparing being barren and childless to being a nerd??????????
She was upset being ridiculed????
I don't know what sort of la la land you live in but you have lost credibility in this debate.
Adam said: Darren,
You said:
Are you joking????
You are comparing being barren and childless to being a nerd??????????
She was upset being ridiculed????
I don't know what sort of la la land you live in but you have lost credibility in this debate.
I think YOU are the one who is loosing credibility here. That is a historical fact. It was a common practice in ancient near eastern culture to view barrenness as a curse. In fact, verses 6-7 says that she was being provoked by her rival. So, we have the text my side and history on my side.
God Bless
Darren said: Adam,
I don't know what to make of you.
Of course, barrenness IS A CURSE. It was and still is a curse.
YOU said she was upset about being ridiculed.
YOU compared being barren to being a NERD.
These are highly insulting statements to people who are dealing with childlessness.
Keep your arrogance about your own knowledge in check and stop making such foolish comparisons.
I'm finding 1 Corinthians 13 springing to mind: "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."
8. ag said the following at 6:36 PM on May 1:
The "you MUST marry" mantra has never made much sense to me.
After all, what example did Jesus set for us with respect to this issue? Was Jesus living an extended adultlescence because he never married? Did he grow the Kingdom by marrying and having children? Was the example he set unbiblical or something God never intended any other human to emulate?
9. Emily said the following at 8:36 PM on May 1:
I have to whole heartedly agree with Shannon. Having also heard the sermon first hand and being a young single woman, I do not feel that many who have commented on the sermon have given it justice. Yes, some things in the sermon are hard for singles to swallow. And yes, we may not all completely agree with EVERYTHING our fellow believers subscribe to.
But I also believe there is need to show us singles that there is so much to hope in and live for in the moment, right now, in Christ. I didn't feel despair about my relationship status after hearing the sermon. I felt a sense of urgency to use the precious moments that I am single because that is where God has called me now. The desire of my heart is to marry in the future. And I hope I am using the time I am given now to prepare for that. I do not think Piper was praising singleness for everyone above marriage. I believe he was saying we as singles need to get in line with the focus of our primary responsibility to glorify Him and not put marriage on such a high pedestal as many singles tend to do, myself included. I want to be blessed by marriage, but not so focused on finding it that I lose sight of bringing glory to God in all I do.
I also agree with Shannon’s point of “gentle admonition in love”. We are blessed to freely discuss such issues.
10. Darren Allan said the following at 8:23 AM on May 2:
I showed Adam's comment above to my Hebrew professor at Wheaton College and he disagrees with it.
I am also amazed that people seem to forget that marriage and family existed before sin (or for that matter before the church). What does that say God's view of marriage?
11. Michele said the following at 9:20 AM on May 2:
Okay, so I grew up in the Catholic Church. I read Piper's sermon and it sounded, to me, an awful lot like a call to the priesthood or to becoming a nun.
I do think, in part, that Piper was irresponsible as Debbie Maken says here, but only because Protestant Christians aren't brought up with this idea of remaining single. From what I've experienced since coming over to "this side" is a drive towards marriage and family from day one. It's no wonder singleness is so deplored and there was such reaction to what Piper had to say!
In the Catholic Church, in my experience, we're presented with the seven sacraments and told flat out that there are two paths after confirmation and before death - marriage or the clergy. Not everyone fits into one of these choices. And each is a ministry in and of itself - if you marry, your charge is to "become one flesh" and build a family that carries the Word. If you enter the clergy, you are leading the flock, or bringing in new Christians.
Chastity and celebacy are radical because we can't imagine giving up something so huge in order to serve the Lord. And that's what we're talking about - sacrificial service. Piper is also right in saying that our current generation of singles is not necessarily doing all that's possible in serving the Lord. Without making an anecdotal case, I'd say it's because we are so anxious to marry (whether we're fully aware of it or not) that we forget about the possibilities that are before us as singles.
It wouldn't hurt for there to be more talk among Protestants about celebacy as sacrificial service.
12. Stephen said the following at 10:15 AM on May 2:
Guys, I'm not being condescending, but the Bible really isn't that complicated on marriage. Let's start at the very beginning. Soon after God created man he said "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen 2:18). "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:24).
When creation was unfallen, marriage and sexuality existed! God created us from the beginning as sexual beings with reproductive systems for the institution of marriage, not as asexual, isolated spirits. Notice that the Genesis verses are general, timeless statements about humanity. There are no "ifs", "whens", or "buts:" nor are these verses limited to one place or time.
A good principle for Biblical interpretation is that when the Bible is 100% clear on something, we should use that as our framework for understanding more specific, difficult parts.
Apply this to 1 Corinthians 7. Remember that Paul was writing to specific people at one place and time, and that this makes it more difficult. Read the whole chapter at once, don't isolate verses. You'll see lots of "singlenesss is good at this time, marriage is good at this time." It's really confusing, but don't make a judgment out of this complex chapter that contradicts the clear words from Genesis.
13. Philippa said the following at 10:31 AM on May 2:
Stephen, good post. :)
Michele, you said:
I read Piper's sermon and it sounded, to me, an awful lot like a call to the priesthood or to becoming a nun.
That is exactly what I thought too.
And I have to say that I am siding more and more with the Protestant Reformers on this whole marriage v. celibacy lark.
And since I really don't believe that God is calling me to nunhood (I've met some great nuns, by the way), for me it's a resounding: "thanks, but no thanks."
It wouldn't hurt for there to be more talk among Protestants about celebacy as sacrificial service.
But isn't marriage also a form of sacrificial service?
14. Nicole said the following at 10:48 AM on May 2:
I haven't heard the sermon but I have read Debbie Maken's book and there are a few good points. I do think we have fallen off track as a society in our idea of marriage, getting married and celibacy. She makes some great pointers at the end that have been echoed by many articles on boundless. As far as the general feel of her post above I saw the same sort of quick to judge, not checking facts kind of attitude in her book. Near the end she hastily claims that the Catholic Church forces people to be celibate. Actually I found it extremely hard to believe that after spending 7+ years in seminary to learn about the vocation and discern their call to the priesthood, brotherhood or sisterhood they are then FORCED to be celibate. These people who are living in a sacrificial way as highlighted by Michele have fully chosen on their own to live the celibate life (this choice including believing they have the gift of celibacy). My point in bringing this up is that Debbie Maken seems to have some good points but is quick to throw out her own opinions withouth going the extra mile to find out if what she's saying is actually based in fact. She seems to state certain things as fact eventhough there is no basis for the claim. As far as I know, some eunuchs were made to be eunuchs from birth in order to serve a certain leader and not leave post to start a family. Others chose to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. Debbie says that self imposed sterility is not celebrated anywhere in scripture, well Isaiah 56:5 “Thus says the Lord: ‘To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.” ...seems to contradict her statement. She seems to be pulling pieces of scripture to bend to her perspective just as much as she claims Piper is. I think the point isn't who's right or wrong it's who has an attitude of love when admonishing instead of a judgemental critical spirit that seems to be motivated by anger and who is being responsible by checking facts before speaking as if by authority.
15. Mandi said the following at 11:31 AM on May 2:
Michele and Phillipa,
What the Roman Church has done is set up a very false dicotomy.
It is strictly a Roman innovation to have celibate priesthood as a rule.
In fact, many of the Lord's Disciples -- the first priests in the Church -- were married. Including Peter. Ironic, since the Roman Church has twisted the ancient interpretation of Matt. 16: 13-20 (included by Roman theologians), but I digress.
My point is the Early Church had as the *norm* married priests. You can still find that today in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.
This reflects a radically different view of, amongst other things, sex. Sex between a husband and wife is so holy that as with the first-century Disciples who were married, a priest can touch his wife one day and celebrate the Eucharist the next, without batting an eyelash.
Interestingly, these Churches have not suffered the tragic scandals that the Roman Church has because its priests have been ordained in the pattern set by the Holy Spirit in the Early Church, in Bible times: marriage.
And any claim that married priests can focus less on their ministry because of the presence of their families is not borne out by an examination of the thriving of their ministries (even in dangerous parts of the world). Nor is it humble, since it presumes to know better than the Holy Spirit Who set the *norm* in the Early Church to be married priests.
What the Roman Church has fused (or confused) is monasticism with priesthood. (Even the linking of "priests" and "nuns" in the same sentence betrays that. Nuns are not the female equivalent of priests; there are no female priests to start with, because the Lord did not choose females to be amongst His first priests, as is clear from Scriptures.)
Monasticism is a perfectly legitimate path to holiness -- but only to the very, very few who are called to it. And it is a calling. A calling to spend literally multiple hours of the day praying for the Church outside its walls, and the salvation of the whole world. Those called to it are also some of the most attacked by Satan. It is to be lived in monasteries or convents typically found in places "away" from the world (deserts, forests, mountains, etc). Given the way we're made, and just the fact that the survival of our species requires many, many, many more non-celibates than celibates, it's safe to say marriage is the norm in terms of callings.
An infinitely better source of insight on marriage and celibacy would be a more ancient pastor than John Piper, whose collection of homilies about the subject in "On Marriage and Family Life" are a Christian classic, John Chrysostom. Can't recommend the book enough. Its homilies cover 1 Cor. 7, Eph. 5:22-33, Eph. 6:1-4, and Col. 4:18. (This Christian classic also has a chapter by him at the end entitled, "How to Choose a Wife".) Literally millions of Christian couples and congregations have benefitted from these homilies since the 4th century when they were written. His advice is timeless.
It's hard to walk away from this book and not be overwhelmed by how *marriage*, not just monasticism, is a path to holiness, too.
16. Adam said the following at 2:33 PM on May 2:
Captain Sensible,
I see you are still not quoting me in context. Again, I was talking about the historical context Hanna's delemma, and trying to offer a modern day parallel to the societal shame Hanna felt.
In fact, I have posted the link to the entire dialogue on my blog for people to get the complete context, and have been referring people to that discussion for a long time. While some have tried to come up with some idea of how I might have been misunderstood, only you, Darren, and Debbie Maken have ever concluded what you have from my comments. For anyone to take my comments, and use them in the way you and Darren have is to show such incredible bias that it is almost impossible to know whether you are operating under any semblance of rationality.
Please cease and desist with these misrepresentations of those who give the slightest challange your position. I saw you even did it to Ted Slater. Do you really think this stuff is truth if you have to misrepresent people to defend it? If truth is truth, then you should have to resort to this kind of misrepresentation to prove it.
Also, you never addressed anything I ever said. I don't believe you can. If all you can to is put out little pieces of propaganda, then that really does not bode well for your position. Deal with what I have said. If you cannot, they you are only showing the emptiness of your position.
God Bless,
Adam
17. Darren Allan said the following at 3:45 PM on May 2:
"I was talking about the historical context Hanna's delemma, and trying to offer a modern day parallel to the societal shame Hanna felt."
The pain of being childless AND the historical societal shame of being childless are in no way shape or form comparable to the pain of being a nerd.
Tell me; was the historical pain of being a eunuch the same as being a nerd in Middle America junior high school?
Rabid attacks do not make you a theologian (nor for that matter repeatedly thrashing Debbie Maken while hiding behind the veil of internet anonymity). Perhaps you are frustrated with your own life? Own extended adolescence? I don’t know what makes you so angry but please spell dilemma correctly.
18. Mandi said the following at 3:52 PM on May 2:
re: Hanna's dilemma, it's my understanding that OT Jews found barrenness to be a particular curse because they were still waiting for the Messiah.
Our Lord has now come, thankfully, so barrenness has lost one of its reasons to be cursed, but it remains out of what we might consider "healthy". In the end, it is God's perogative whether to open or close the womb, as the Scriptures show, to grant health or to take it away...perhaps for our own good, and His Glory, as painful as that may be.
19. Philippa said the following at 5:22 PM on May 2:
Mandi, are you Orthodox? I found your post extremely interesting. :) The Church in the East does seem to have a far more earthed, yet deeply spiritual, approach to sexuality than the Church (both Protestant and Catholic) in the West!
Nicole, that too was an excellent post. I share both your agreements and your reservations about Debbie Maken's book.
I don't agree with John Piper's sermon, and I have detailed why on the 'Being Single is Better Says Piper' thread. I emphatically don't believe, unlike some, that singles are inferior or second-class citizens of the kingdom. Christian singles have enough to cope with without being patronised or insulted or made to feel as if they have 'failed'. But Piper's sermon goes too far in the other direction, virtually exalting monastic-style singleness above marriage, pre-Reformation style (as has been pointed out). As Mandi has said, a monastic-style calling to holy celibacy is perfectly legitimate. But it's rare.
20. Martin said the following at 6:56 PM on May 2:
Response to: Stephen (May 2 at 10:15 AM)
Stephen said:
"Soon after God created man he said "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen 2:18)...Notice that the Genesis verses are general, timeless statements about humanity. There are no "ifs", "whens", or "buts:" nor are these verses limited to one place or time."
>That statement represents very poor hermeneutics. To state that Genesis 2:18 is a "general, timeless statement about humanity" is a classic example of ignoring the context. In Genesis 2:18 Adam, the man, was the only human on the face of the earth. Adam was alone. There was Adam, the animals, and that was it. When God said in Genesis 2:18 that it was not "good for the man to be alone" that was the situation He was addressing. The verse is not a "general, timeless statement about humanity". To make such a claim is to force the verse out of its context, and to twist it to apply to a situation it was not meant to apply to.
Genesis 2:24 is a normative statement and not a command. The verse, in no way, implies that every person should get married.
__________________________________
Stephen said:
"When creation was unfallen, marriage and sexuality existed!"
>So what? That does not directly or indirectly support the marriage mandate doctrine.
_______________________________
Stephen said:
God created us from the beginning as sexual beings with reproductive systems for the institution of marriage, not as asexual, isolated spirits."
>God created us as "sexual beings"? Is this the Oprah show? I am not aware of any verse, or verses, of Scripture that says that man was made a "sexual being". Having a sex drive, and reproductive organs, does not equal "sexual being". Are dogs and cats "sexual beings" as well? Sexuality, as it is called nowadays, does not define who we are as people. And, NEWSFLASH, a person does not have to have sex to be happy. Nor does a person have to be married in order to avoid isolation.
_______________________________
Stephen said:
"A good principle for Biblical interpretation is that when the Bible is 100% clear on something, we should use that as our framework for understanding more specific, difficult parts."
>Sadly, you don't practice what you preach. Refering to 1Corinthians 7, which is VERY clear, you said:
"apply this to 1 Corinthians 7. Remember that Paul was writing to specific people at one place and time, and that this makes it more difficult."
You have tried to apply Genesis 2:18 to all men of all time and now you are trying to limit 1Cor. 7. Why? It is certainly not because either section of Scripture is difficult to understand (etc). This is not Hebrews 6 type stuff. Both passages, when understood in context, are very easy to understand and very straight forward. The problem you, and others on these boards, are having with the verses in 1Cor 7 is that those verses don't say what you want them to say or think they should say. In other words 1Cor 7 is a major problem passage for your position. That is the only reason you think those verses are "more difficult".
Genesis 2:18, as I have shown above, is limited in its scope. 1Cor 7 refers to the problems associated with the end times (vs29-31) and since we are still in the end times...well you get the picture.
21. Curt said the following at 12:42 AM on May 3:
I really recommend that everyone who has an honest desire to understand biblical singleness in more depth go and read the paper by Barry Danylak that Piper refers to in his sermon. It is well written and biblically balanced. You can find it linked in the blog section at Desiring God.org
Curt
22. Captain Sensible said the following at 7:45 AM on May 3:
Adam – I am “misrepresenting” you? I should “cease and desist”? It is impossible to know if I am “operating” under any “semblance of rationality”???
And you have been led to these somewhat hysterical conclusions because of what? Because I quoted your entire exchange regarding Hannah word-for-word in its entirety, including the comment:
“(A)t that time, being barren was as bad as being a nerd in school”?
It’s all very odd from someone who has no fear of misrepresenting Debbie Maken (as if women who are infertile are personally sinning! That salvation depends on marriage! Please!!!) and encouraging others to do so.
Adam, as Darren Allen has rightly pointed out, one Hebrew professor doesn’t always agree with another, so your arguments are not quite the slam dunk you seem to think they are -- although it is touching that you hold yours in such high esteem.
I could make the point that Genesis 1: 28 is obviously both a blessing and a command, and that the purposes of marriage on earth are not required in heaven so the fact that there won’t be marriage as we know it in heaven bears no relation to the here and now.
There's more of course, but it's all been said before, and quite honestly, I don’t have as much time at my disposal as you seem to.
I am also finding it increasingly baffling that we are even having these agonised discussions about something so clearly God’s plan, so perfectly suited to our created form, as marriage.
Be careful that you don’t get too puffed-up with pride at your human teachings. They may serve to only “(show) the emptiness” of your heart.
23. Ariana said the following at 8:55 AM on May 3:
I think that Adam's point about Hannah stands and is well supported by the text. I don't think that Hannah's desire to have a child was quite the same as the desire of women today to have children, which has largely to do with wanting to enjoy giving love to and receiving love from one's children. That's an honorable thing, but for Hannah, her barrennes was an unjust sign of reproach socially. It was not simply that she did not have the blessing of children, but people's perceptions, treatment, judgments toward her regarding that fact were unwarranted and undeserved. And her reproach was not limited to a few mean people, but came from society at large. I think that there is a close similarity in Hannah's desperation followed by joy, and that of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, when Elizabeth says, "Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when He looked upon me, to take away my reproach among people." (Luke 1:25) Elizabeth, too, had been barren and suffered unfairly for it.
The issue in both of their instances is not that the Lord enabled them to fulfill a command--it wasn't that their lives were not already glorifying to Him. Nor were they under His reproach. But he took away their societal reproach.
The irony of this contemporary marriage debate is that those who elevate marriage to a divine command risk creating a similar situation to that experienced by Hannah and Elizabeth who would have had children were they able. The reality is that many, many singles would very much like to be married despit their single status. The prevalence of dating sites and sites like this one testify to that fact. To turn to singles and say, "You have to be married in order to fulfill God's will in your life," can unfairly imply that how they are currently striving to follow Christ is not good enough. And sometimes our form of obedience isn't good enough; but in this situation, speaking of getting married as if it were a command that you can just obey or not obey also implies that singles have control over a situation that they really do not have. And it also risks throwing salt on an already hurting wound.
There are of course those who want to live selfish lives, and I think that the articles addressing adulthood and responsibility that Boundless has published are immensely useful. Addressing the marraige issue from that perspective is proabably a lot more useful than to talk about marriage as a command on everyone's lives since, again, there are scores of those who would change their marital status in a heartbeat if they could.
24. Captain Sensible said the following at 10:46 AM on May 3:
I suggest we take another look at the "it is not good for man to be alone" passage as there is an interesting little phrase in there that often gets lost.
Genesis 2: 18-24 reads:
'The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.'
But wait! Adam and Eve didn't have a "father and mother"!
So these must be "general, timeless statements about humanity" (very nicely put Stephen), and even having a mother and father -- or community generally -- will still not ease the aloneness of man.
25. Darren Allan said the following at 11:59 AM on May 3:
Martin,
Question.
Why didn't God think that Adam should be perfectly content in communion with him?
26. Jessica said the following at 2:47 PM on May 3:
after looking at the last two comments, I will say again:
yes, man was not made to be alone. But you cannot make blanket assumptions about singleness and marriage for the entire young adult Christian population based on your singular experiences. As a single person, I cannot expect everyone to look and live their life like mine, and neither should married people. Singleness is beautiful, and so is marriage, when chosen for the right reasons(not for selfish gain or to win the approval of others). Why must be get into this comparison of whether singleness or marriage is better? While I agree that marriage is a beautiful and blessed thing, I also believe that it is a very serious covenant that you are entering into. I believe that you are making a vow (which is serious enough in itself) to another person and to God. Because of that reason, I will not, under any circumstances, believe that I should be rushing for the altar and freaking out because I'm not married yet(sometimes your articles make it seem weird that a young woman my age isn't married by 25th or wasn't looking for a husband while in college)
I don't believe in entering into a covenant for life without having and demonstrating the emotional,mental, spiritual, and financial maturity to face one(and I'm not saying you should be perfect). But I guess I am afraid that too many Christian people my age are getting married because:
a) their families and churches think they should be "married by now" even though they have been unable to make adult choices and decisions apart from what "Mommy and Daddy think", standing on the Word of God that they have studied and learned for themselves(the last time I checked, there was no set age for marriage)
b.)they feel that marriage will take away their deep loneliness(there are lots of unhappy marriages with lonely people in them.
c.) they are desperate to have children, even though they may have deep reservations about the person they are choosing to have them with.
27. Raj Sharma said the following at 3:07 PM on May 3:
I am really tired of this Christian mentality that people must get married for the "right" reasons. People do, and ought to, marry for "selfish" reasons. All over the WORLD people get married due to family pressure, loneliness, desire for children, etc. etc. and the majority of people have good marriages. I remember Bobby Bowden (football coach for some Florida college) say in an interview once that he got married at 19 because he wanted to have sex with his wife. He has been married for a very long time to the same woman. Marital decisions should be made for selfish reasons. Also, this idea that God will bring you a spouse when you are ready is also CR*P. There is no such thing as being perfectly ready for marriage.
28. Darren Allan said the following at 3:11 PM on May 3:
Jessica wrote:
"But you cannot make blanket assumptions about singleness and marriage for the entire young adult Christian population based on your singular experiences."
But my question was based on the Bible and not my own personal singular experience.
29. Philippa said the following at 4:30 PM on May 3:
Martin,
God's statement that "it is not good for man to be alone" points to something pretty fundamental in His design for men and women. Good heavens, the marriage service mentions it.
God created us as "sexual beings"? Is this the Oprah show? I am not aware of any verse, or verses, of Scripture that says that man was made a "sexual being". Having a sex drive, and reproductive organs, does not equal "sexual being". Are dogs and cats "sexual beings" as well?
Of course they are!!! Animal sexuality is pretty raw, in case you hadn't noticed. Human sexuality is so much richer: we have a wonderful spiritual component to ours. We have imagination, emotion, tenderness, romance. We sing songs, we write sonnets. We marry for love and we marry for life (according to God's pattern). Think of the romantic metaphor of Christ the Bridegroom and the Church as His Bride. Think of the purified eroticism of the Song of Songs. I don't dismiss the interpretations of God and Israel, or Christ and the Church - but primarily the SoS is a holy celebration of human sexual love in its rightful place. Do you think that Almighty God simply tacked our sexuality onto us, like a spare part?
No. He made us relational, rational, thinking, emotional, spiritual ... and sexual. Made in His image. It's all of a piece. If we split body from spirit, we betray our Western rationalism. The ancient biblical writers thought holistically. Unfortunately, we don't.
Ariana, we seem to be on the same page. You speak for me when you say:
The irony of this contemporary marriage debate is that those who elevate marriage to a divine command risk creating a similar situation to that experienced by Hannah and Elizabeth who would have had children were they able. The reality is that many, many singles would very much like to be married despite their single status. The prevalence of dating sites and sites like this one testify to that fact. To turn to singles and say, "You have to be married in order to fulfill God's will in your life," can unfairly imply that how they are currently striving to follow Christ is not good enough. And sometimes our form of obedience isn't good enough; but in this situation, speaking of getting married as if it were a command that you can just obey or not obey also implies that singles have control over a situation that they really do not have. And it also risks throwing salt on an already hurting wound.
Bravo. Well said.
30. Adam said the following at 7:59 PM on May 3:
Darren,
I showed Adam's comment above to my Hebrew professor at Wheaton College and he disagrees with it.
BTW, Darren, did you also show him Debbie Maken's book, and her exegesis? Did you tell him that she is saying that single men should be shamed on the basis of that passage, because they are not agreeing with the mandate? Did you tell him about Debbie Maken seeing the phrase "spouse of your youth" in Malachi 2:15, and says that means we are to marry in our youth? Did you tell him about her saying 1 Timothy 3:2 bars single people from holding church office?
I have no doubt that people will disagree with me. However, I have found very hostile, and almost mockery for Debbie Maken's ideas that are derived on the basis of that interpretation in the scholarly realm.
Second, what was your professor's argument, Darren? Why did he disagree with it? It is one thing to say that someone disagrees with me, it is another thing to actually lay the issues out and deal with them. Let's put the issues foward and deal with them.
However, getting to a much more general question, why didn't Debbie Maken mention that interpretation? Why is it she takes one interpretation, and acts as if it is a settled fact? By not doing your homework, it seems to me that she has just mislead people into thinking that her position is a foregone conclusion which is unchallangeable. That is totally irresponsible.
I am also amazed that people seem to forget that marriage and family existed before sin (or for that matter before the church). What does that say God's view of marriage?
So what, Darren. It is still a creation of God, and it is still finite. It will cease one day, unlike the gospel, which is the word of God. That was the whole point of John Piper's sermon.
Rabid attacks do not make you a theologian (nor for that matter repeatedly thrashing Debbie Maken while hiding behind the veil of internet anonymity). Perhaps you are frustrated with your own life? Own extended adolescence? I don’t know what makes you so angry but please spell dilemma correctly.
Who said anything about being angry? I *do* challange those who would abuse the text of the Bible to make it fit some preconceived notion. We need to handle the Bible with far better care than what Debbie Maken has done.
How would this be about interpreting motives, Darren. "The only reason Darren is promoting this mandatory marriage stuff is because he is being very selfish. He wants a spouse for himself, wants to control other people with unbiblical ideas, and is willing to hurt whoever he wants to get these things." Does that sound good Darren? I can just make it up as I go along. No, my goal, and the reason I study the languages and cultures of the ancient near east is to stop this very kind of abuse of scripture that Debbie Maken is doing. That is the *only* reason why I address this, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Arminianism, or anything else that I address on my blog, is because of this very fact. We need to handle the text of scripture with care.
Finally, I would gladly let it be known that I am willing to do a public dialogue with any of these folks, Candace Watters, Debbie Maken or anyone else. I am not "hiding" behind some anonymity. In fact, my pastor was able to found out that the blog he saw when he clicked on my profile on another website found out that the profile was, indeed, mine. That's not much anonymity.
Also, I find it very interesting that Ariana could understand my argument, but you could not. That should say volumes about the irrational bias you have here.
So, Darren, I am not "hiding" anything. You just simply are unwilling to admit that this position is very weak exegetically. When I point out that Debbie Maken is an irresponsible exegete, and does not understand John Piper's argument [BTW, I wonder if your Hebrew prof. might hold to Piper's argument], you think I am being "angry." I think, from the brief exchanges we have had, it is obvious who is angry here, Darren. I can handle this topic by dealing with the exegesis of the text of scripture, and when I disagree with an interpretation, I can interact with the exegesis offered by the other side. I have yet to see anyone, including you, do that to my post.
God Bless,
Adam
31. Adam said the following at 8:20 PM on May 3:
Captain Sensible,
Adam – I am “misrepresenting” you? I should “cease and desist”? It is impossible to know if I am “operating” under any “semblance of rationality”???
And you have been led to these somewhat hysterical conclusions because of what? Because I quoted your entire exchange regarding Hannah word-for-word in its entirety, including the comment:
“(A)t that time, being barren was as bad as being a nerd in school”?
Actually, what you didn't quote is the comment that I was responding to. You forgot to mention that I was using the statement in a sociological context, and not in an essential context. Again, Captain Sensible, just as in the case with Ted Slater, it is not what you say, but it is what you do not say.
BTW, I wonder why it is that Darren has not come after you because you have the nick "Captain Sensible?"
It’s all very odd from someone who has no fear of misrepresenting Debbie Maken (as if women who are infertile are personally sinning! That salvation depends on marriage! Please!!!) and encouraging others to do so.
Actually, what I said was that this is the logical outcome of saying that marriage is somehow part of God's redemptive scheme. I never said that Debbie Maken believes that, and, in fact, my entire argument depends upon her *not* believing that, because it is in the form of a reductio ad absurdum.
Adam, as Darren Allen has rightly pointed out, one Hebrew professor doesn’t always agree with another, so your arguments are not quite the slam dunk you seem to think they are -- although it is touching that you hold yours in such high esteem.
I asked my professor specifically about Debbie Maken's entire position. Darren said he asked his professor about my interpretation of Genesis 1:28. He never asked his Hebrew professor about Debbie Maken's entire scheme.
I could make the point that Genesis 1: 28 is obviously both a blessing and a command, and that the purposes of marriage on earth are not required in heaven so the fact that there won’t be marriage as we know it in heaven bears no relation to the here and now.
And, of course, you would be under obligation to show other instances of a heterosis which do not totally loose their imperatival force. In fact, one published grammar, Bruce Waltke and M. O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax states the exact opposite:
The imperative, like the jussive, has uses in which its ordinary force is lost. The figure of heterosis involves the exchange of one grammatical form for another; with the imperative, heterosis creates a promise or prediction to be fulfilled in the future, made more emphatic and vivid than would be the case were the prefix conjugation used (## 18–20). [p.572]
There's more of course, but it's all been said before, and quite honestly, I don’t have as much time at my disposal as you seem to.
I am also finding it increasingly baffling that we are even having these agonised discussions about something so clearly God’s plan, so perfectly suited to our created form, as marriage.
Well, Captain Sensible, I am finding it increasingly baffling that people are even calling John Piper's sermon "controversial." All he pointed out was that marriage was finite. That the gospel and the blessings of God are far better than marriage.
Be careful that you don’t get too puffed-up with pride at your human teachings. They may serve to only “(show) the emptiness” of your heart.
Ummmmm, why are you begging the question? The argument is over whether or not these indeed are human teachings. I would say that John Piper's sermon is firmly rooted in the word of God. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
God Bless,
Adam
32. Adam said the following at 8:50 PM on May 3:
BTW, let me give another argument against this position while I am at it.
The problem I am suggesting with this text has to do with the age of Paul when writing 1 Corinthians, as well as his age at his conversion. Remember, Paul was converted shortly after Jesus' death [around 32 A.D.]. The dating of 1 Corinthians is not that difficult. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, gives the following information regarding the dating of 1 Corinthians:
Paul wrote this epistle from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8, 9, 19) while on his third missionary journey. It was probably written in the spring of 54 CE as is evident from the following data: (1) The letter was written some years after Paul’s first visit, since Apollos had ministered there (Acts 18:26-27; 1 Cor. 1:12) and Timothy had also been sent there (Acts 19:22; 1 Cor. 4:17). (2) This letter was written sometime after his first letter (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9) and probably not in the last year of his ministry in Ephesus. He mentions that he intends to spend the next winter with the Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:6), a visit which, nevertheless, is not to be identified with the three-month stay of Acts 20:3. This latter visit (Acts 20:3) reads as though it were at the end of Paul’s Ephesian ministry, while it is doubtful that 1 Corinthians was written at the end because otherwise the chronology does not fit with data in 2 Corinthians. (3) This letter was written in the spring because Pentecost is just around the corner (1 Cor. 16:8). [found at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1200]
I believe this information is self contradictory to the mandatory marriage movement. Why is that? Because, in order for Paul to be 22 at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians, he would have had to have been born at the time of his conversion! In fact, if he were 29 at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians, he would have been 7 years old at the time of his conversion. The best the marriage mandators can hope for is that Paul was a teenager at the age of 13 when he was converted, in which case he would have been 35 when he wrote 1 Corinthians. However, that would seem totally self-contradictory to their movement, given the following text:
1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
However, the mandatory marriage advocate could just simply say that Paul is simply asking the question as to whether or not he has that right, and does not give the answer. The problem with that viewpoint is that it doesn't take into account the fact that Greek can use constructions in which the author is clearly expecting a positive answer or a negative answer. The Greek of this expression in this text is very clear. The phrase begins with "mē ouk echomen." The mē here expects a negative answer to the main clause. However, the main clause in Greek is negated. In other words, the Greek text literally expects a negative answer to the question, "Is it the case that we do not have a right to take along a believing wife?"
A.T. Robertson gives the following information about this construction:
1Co 9:4 - Have we no right? (Mē ouk echomen exousian;). Literary plural here though singular in 1-3. The mê in this double negative expects the answer "No" while ouk goes with the verb echomen. "Do we fail to have the right?" Cf. Ro 10:18f. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1173). [A.T. Robertson Word Pictures of the New Testament]
Hence, the Greek text very clearly expects the very opposite answer that a mandatory marriage advocate would give. The text is saying that Paul can indeed reserve the right to marry someone even when he is in his thirties and fourties. That kind of thinking is totally contrary to everything I have heard here. You guys would say that Paul is delaying marriage, and is thus sinning by reserving the right to marry this late in his life. However, in this very text, Paul is doing the very thing you are criticizing others for doing.
God Bless,
Adam
33. KathleenM12 said the following at 12:26 AM on May 4:
Adam writes: "Matthew 22:29-30 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."
Jesus is saying that in the ideal state [i.e. the eternal state], people will neither marry nor be given in marriage.
---------------
Great point, Adam.
Maken's numerous contortions are running up against the Scriptural facts regarding Jesus and marriage. Jesus rarely regarded marriage as worth mentioning, and when it did rise to a mention, Jesus goes out of his way to describe it as a temporary condition at best, one that assuredly won't make it into the eternal and ideal state of heaven.
For people like Maken, this must be puzzling indeed. While she exhorts everyone with her opinion of marriage as a sort of universal mandate and exalted position, Jesus himself is saying that marriage won't survive death and won't make it into God's everlasting and perfect presence.
If marriage itself is banished by God from his perpetual holy presence (the same treatment reserved for the unsaved), it doesn't quite seem to have the elevated status that Maken would like to create for it.
34. xeres said the following at 10:12 AM on May 4:
I am confused :(. why can people just celebrate married people for entering a sacred covenant and guide them to have their marraige be a vessel for God to use for what he decides to? That it of itself is an honor. Also, why can we encourage singles to fight the temptation to invest in themselves as a way to fill up their life and motivate them to explore the interior life for the sake of their relationship with Christ?
35. Martin said the following at 12:42 PM on May 4:
Darren Allan said:
"Why didn't God think that Adam should be perfectly content in communion with him?"
>I don't know, the text does not say.
36. Martin said the following at 12:48 PM on May 4:
Philippa said:
“God's statement that "it is not good for man to be alone" points to something pretty fundamental in His design for men and women. Good heavens, the marriage service mentions it.”
>The “marriage service” is not dictated by Scripture. The words spoken in weddings should be based on Scripture but there is no Scriptural outline for what must be said.
Philippa said:
“Of course they are!!! Animal sexuality is pretty raw, in case you hadn't noticed. Human sexuality is so much richer: we have a wonderful spiritual component to ours. We have imagination, emotion, tenderness, romance. We sing songs, we write sonnets. We marry for love and we marry for life (according to God's pattern). “
>All of that might be true, and nice for people who enjoy mushy stuff, but none of that indicates that all people are required to get married. I still, btw, don’t believe that people are “sexual beings” since “sex” should not be at the center of our lives, it should not define who we are.
Philippa said:
“Think of the romantic metaphor of Christ the Bridegroom and the Church as His Bride. Think of the purified eroticism of the Song of Songs. I don't dismiss the interpretations of God and Israel, or Christ and the Church - but primarily the SoS is a holy celebration of human sexual love in its rightful place. Do you think that Almighty God simply tacked our sexuality onto us, like a spare part? “
>No, but I also don’t believe biological urges should dictate how we live our lives. Mainly in a post-fall world. Marriage is a complex thing that requires much more than biology.
Philippa said:
“He made us relational, rational, thinking, emotional, spiritual ... and sexual.”
>Of course a person does not have to be married to have emotions, thoughts, etc, and a person does not have to have sex to survive.
37. Blair said the following at 3:15 PM on May 4:
Adam and KathleenM12- I agree that Christ says there will be no marriage in heaven, however he does not diminish the sacredness and necessity of marriage. Yes there will be no marriage in heaven, because there will be no need for marraige in heaven. There is still a great need for marriage here on earth. Not only does God use marriage to make people more like him (in character), and procreation, but the scripture makes clear that godly marriage serves as a testimony of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5: 22-29). As mentioned before the first relationship between people that God created was the relationship of huspand and wife, and that was while our relationship with God was perfect.
Xeres- The reason I think we all just can't agree on this is that there are two very different veiws of marriage and what purpose it serves. I agree that there is a balence. Some are called to celebacy and some to marriage. Those called to celibacy are given a call to serve God in unique ways that they can do better single. Others are called to marriage. Their calling can be best lived out in the bonds of marriage. One of the reasons John Pipers sermon makes me cringe is that it borders on making celibacy out to be the better "choice". It makes singles feel guilty that they desire marriage and I believe does not help the churches issues with rampant sexual sin. I do hope we all find the truth in the middle of this debate (and I admit I can be wrong) but I have a feeling it will take many more blogs and debates to every reach a consensus, but I am grateful this issue is fianlly being discussed.
38. Raj Sharma said the following at 4:07 PM on May 4:
Blair,
Good comment but that the fact that Christians are even debating marriage is a deeply troubling fact. For YEARS conservatives (not necessarily Christians) have been screaming that marriage and family are the basic building blocks of society.
With people like Adam, Martin, and Piper running around our churches, how can one even argue that this issue matters. Heck, if marriage is so unimportant to God, let the homosexuals have it. Who cares?
This debate is a clear indication to me that you might as well pack your bags and go home. The future of Christianity and Western Civilization is over. Say hello to Europe.
39. xeres said the following at 4:53 PM on May 4:
Martin, if you don't think humans are "sexual beings", then what is the purpose for humans to came into this world through sex between a man and woman? Further more, what's the purpose of humans being created male and female, anyways? God could have create humans to reproduce differently making them asexual if that's case.
40. Philippa said the following at 5:10 PM on May 4:
Martin, when I say that we are sexual beings, I am not saying that we are ruled solely by our biology or defined solely by our sexual desires. Of course not. When I say that I can no more help being sexual than I can help being a woman (as if the two were unconnected, LOL), I am not saying that I think about sex 24/7 or battle constantly with lust. But God did not design us to be bloodless creatures who only function from the neck upwards. God will redeem our sexuality as He will redeem everything else in His creation, and our sexuality is to be submitted to Him, if we claim to be His ... but to deny that we are in fact sexual is really to deny that He made us that way.
KathleenM12, you are somewhat missing the point about marriage one day disappearing and the fact that we all be single - 'and like the angels' - in heaven. We're not going to be single in some individualistic way. In heaven, we will be married to Christ. All of us. No, I don't know precisely what that means. How could I? To imagine heaven is to imagine the unimaginable.
I don't agree with everything Debbie Maken says but at least she challenges Christians to take marriage more seriously. I can only assume that the folk here who write about marriage so dismissively are just thrilled to be celibate.
Well, good for you, but as for me, I've always found it over-rated. ;)
41. Tiffany said the following at 6:18 PM on May 4:
Raj,
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish with your comments.
I don't believe anyone has said that marriage is unimportant to God - more so that some are built for marriage, and some are not. The real debate here seems to be over what we think God views as MORE important - service in marriage or service in singleness - which feels like an issue that is unlikely to be resolved.
just my two cents...
42. Anakin Niceguy said the following at 12:22 AM on May 5:
I note with interest Captain Sensible's remark about Genesis 2:24 ...
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.'
But wait! Adam and Eve didn't have a "father and mother"!
So these must be "general, timeless statements about humanity" (very nicely put Stephen), and even having a mother and father -- or community generally -- will still not ease the aloneness of man.
Perhaps if Gen. 2:24 began with "For this purpose, a man must leave his mother and father," I might concede something to CS. But, in actuality, the Hebrew equivalent of "For this reason" actually carries the connotation of "therefore" or "because of this." According to Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew-English lexicon (p. 487), it introduces "more a statement of fact than declaration" ... and is "used to indicate the "origin of a name, custom, and proverb." Gen. 2:24 is listed in such a usage (especially with the preposition that the root word takes).
It makes sense as my NKJV renders it "Therefore." I have always taken that passage to be explanatory, not a mandate. Gen. 2:24 sums up the creation narrative by commenting on why the sexes are attracted to each other (because a woman was created for a man who was alone). It does not necessarily indicate that people feel the same degree of isolation that Adam did (much in the same way men cannot say that their wives are actually taken out of their bodies), but the text simply comments on where sexuality came from.
Why did sexuality continue beyond Adam and Eve? Obviously because of Gen. 1:28. Yet, there is something we should note: being fruitful and mulitplying is tied with filling the earth, just as God commands the fish to fill the seas (v. 22). Did humanity fill the earth? Gen. 9:19 seems to indicate that they did. It's quite stretch to take a blessing for two people and turn it into an ongoing commandment even after (1) its purpose was fulfilled and (2) the New Testament allows people to choose to be single (those who have "MADE THEMSELVES eunuchs" - Matthew 19:12).
43. Nova said the following at 2:00 AM on May 5:
I never read Maken's book and so I will not comment on it, nor I will comment on Adam's or Captain Sensible's posts or other posts for that matter. I think all of you know more than me on this issue. When I heard John Piper's sermon on this, I'm close to tears because it open my eyes not to idolize marriage or focus on that too much. I used to think marriage is superior than being single, that this is the next step in my more "mature" walk with God because of the lessons that can be learned in marriage but I found out recently that's not the case.
I would humbly suggest the focal point just need to be God and what's eternal. What does God want in my life right now instead of what I want-my self seeking desires? I think both marriage and singlenees point to one which is sanctification...to be more like Christ. We know marriage is God's design, I believe being single is no exception. Why do we really need to debate which one is superior or better? Isn't the most important is to do what God wishes may it be single or married? For those of you who wants to get married (including me), are we ready if God says No? Is His grace sufficient for me? This is the question I asked myself when I listened to Piper. This life is never about me. I was a slave redeemed by Him. My life is His and for His glory and pleasure. My work here is all for His Kingdom and His will be done.
Lastly, I want to share a podcast from the village church that I stumbled at my church member site. It's similar to what Piper is saying. The sermons are divided into 2 parts: One focuses on singleness and the other marriage.
http://www.thevillagechurch.net/podcast/index.html
It's titled single mindedess part 1 and 2 (9/18/05, 9/25/05)
I hope you will find this helpful.
Blessings,
Nova
44. Maranatha said the following at 10:13 AM on May 5:
I'm not sure if it was already mentioned but Piper himself actually responded to what he said. It SHOULD have it's own post on here.
Here's Piper on Himself.
Jessica
45. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:46 AM on May 5:
Yikes, some real barbs here! Let's try to keep this civil OK? Even if you don't like someone's arugment or even attitude, that's no reason to make personal attacks or imply character flaws.
Anyway, a lot has been said, and I'll just throw quickly my views in bullet format:
- I like what Ariana said about being barren. In Biblical times, being barren was not just undesirable personally for many women, but there WAS a social stigma associated with it. The predominent Jewish belief was that if you were living a godly life you were blessed, and if live dealt you a bad hand, it must've been because of some sin (John 9:1-3, Duet 30, the whole book of Job, etc.). So to be barren was viewed, rightly or not, as a curse (2 Sam 16:20-23).
- I have read both Debbie Maken's book and Piper's sermon. Although I agree with much of Maken's underlying idea that marriage has been minimalized by the church, I don't agree that marriage is a "command" nor do I think that it's necessary to make it so because of the sex drive and innate desire of humans both male and female, for intimacy and companionship (I also don't agree with her that singles groups as a whole are "bad").
- Regarding Piper, he really doesn't say anything untrue, but in my opinion he puts too much emphasis on the wrong things. No one is suggesting that our relationship with God shouldn't be #1, and that it is the basis for all other relationships. But the Bible is clear that A) God gave these other relationships to us and B) They are very important (Paul wrote in 1 Tim 5:8 "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.").
- My main beef with Piper's sermon is that it seems to convey the message that there are a lot more candidates for lifetime single, celibate service than there actually are. Jesus said that "the one who can accept this should accept it". My belief is backed up by mounds of evidence of sexual problems among most people (including singles) is that most singles CAN'T accept it. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it' just reality.
- Finally, to address Kathleen/Adam's view that "the ideal state [i.e. the eternal state], people will neither marry nor be given in marriage". This almost borderlines on gnostic thinking. That spiritual things are "good" and physical things are "bad". Paul addressed this issue in his letters. Just because things WILL be different in the life to come does not automatically imply that things NOW are bad. As pointed out, before the Fall sexuality existed and copulating was in fact "commanded" by God.
So much for bullets. They ended up becoming paragraphs anyway.
46. chizadek said the following at 11:43 AM on May 5:
Though I think it could be improved, I like how Piper presents a balanced view of singleness in marriage in his http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2163_Married_or_Single_For_Better_or_Worse/”>answer to the question "If what you say about the blessing of singleness is true, then why would one even want to be married?" For singles a biblical understanding of both God-glorifying marriage and God-glorifying singleness are important. To speak of one is not to deny the other, though there are dangers in missing a balance of both. It is not about resigning ourselves to singles being self-centred and comparing God-glorifying marriage and self-centred singleness. It is not primarily about dealing with unwanted singleness, either through promoting the advantages of singleness or by promoting marriage, though both are good. The extent to which marriage and singleness can glorify God depends on specific situations. Each should use their circumstances and abilities to glorify God, including by seeking to change their circumstances. So the married couple might move to some mission field to use their gifts there to God’s glory, or they may choose to glorify Him through family life etc where they are. The single person who is perhaps being unfruitful and struggling with sexual sin may decide to pursue marriage exchanging the advantages of singleness for the advantages of marriage including in overcoming sexual sin. Or they may decide that for them according to their gifts and situation the advantages of singleness in terms of devotion to Christ in ministry etc. outweigh the advantages of marriage, including as an additional means for avoiding sexual sin, and so choose singleness for the sake of the kingdom. In saying that I am rejecting the gift of celibacy interpretation, in accordance with my conviction of how the relevant passages should be interpreted from my study of them. Obviously others, consistent with their gift of celibacy interpretation, deny the possibility that a person with any sexual desire could still be better off single. I find the comments about the redemptive significance of marriage interesting, though they strike me as over-stated. They presumably come from a Presbyterian perspective? Certainly marriage offers opportunities for spiritual ministry towards family members, particularly the possibility of being used in the salvation of children, that are different to the opportunities afforded by not having the responsibilities of family life.