About a month ago, I was listening to a radio broadcast by Albert Mohler which addressed the issue of young people not getting married. I found Mohler's comments, especially his mind-numbingly tendentious anti-male screeds (see 14:04 into the program), to be par for the course for him. But then a caller named "Adam" was put on the air at about 17:50 into the show. I thought the caller sounded familiar, and sure enough, the caller turned out to be none other than our own Puritan Calvinist!
I have to admire PC for his diligence in challenging Albert Mohler's mishandling of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, Mohler's show format evinces the familiar hallmarks of AM talk radio, especially the hazardous slide toward demogogic monologue. In such a format, the nuance and counterarguments of dissenting voices are not likely to be broached in an intellectually substantive manner. And so it was with PC's exchange with Mr. Mohler. PC's exegesis was summarily dismissed by Mohler as being something out of the mainstream (Mohler called it "a very eccentric reading").
PC would like to see some sort of exchange between marriage mandators, on one hand, and those who oppose the marriage mandate (such as himself and myself). Like PC, I also desire to see some sort of a fair, open debate be held with the likes of Steve and Candice Watters, Debbie Maken, Albert Mohler, and others. I don't think it's going to happen, though.
My fear is that the Evangelical Media Establishment (EME), as represented by publishing firms like Crossway and Moody, "family" bookstores, multi-million dollar "ministries" like Focus on the Family, and religious media celebrities like Albert Mohler, does not allow much Lebensraum for criticism. I think this is especially the case for any criticism leveled at the EME that might be both trenchant and biblically sound. We have already seen how the liberal media establishment views people of faith. When people have both an agenda and a microphone, don't expect much airtime for a balanced treatment of the issues at stake.
Another bad cop
2 years ago
84 comments:
Liebenstrom? Perhaps you meant "lebensraum"?
As to the point at hand, I doubt the entrenched evangelical machine is going to surrender its monopoly position any time soon. The gatekeepers no longer hold all the keys, though; the internet has knocked down all the walls of old. If Mohler, Maken, etc. lose enough face in the blogosphere, then eventually they'll stoop to engaging their opponents.
Or, they'll stubbornly refuse, and helplessly watch their influence dwindle away.
Liebenstrom? Perhaps you meant "lebensraum"?
Fixed. Alas, Google's spelling correction only lead me to other people equally in error. :-S
What's the percentage here, Anakin? I actually know people -- and am a person -- who has been rebuked for things like going on an "unbiblical" date*; but I don't know any singlextianmen who have actually been shamed for being single or who have received the "maken" treatment. I don't doubt that it's happened, but is this the thing that actually happening on the ground? Do we know any men who are having struggles with their walk with God because of this kind of pressure?
*once, for literally just for having coffee with a single someone. It was a "bad witness." Are you listening, Ted?
I should also add that Lebensraum is a noun and should be capitalized.
My high school German teacher would not be proud of me for neglecting to do that in my comment...
What's the percentage here, Anakin? I actually know people -- and am a person -- who has been rebuked for things like going on an "unbiblical" date*; but I don't know any singlextianmen who have actually been shamed for being single or who have received the "maken" treatment. I don't doubt that it's happened, but is this the thing that actually happening on the ground?
Good question, SCM. It's probably not widespread (although I've come across irresponsible statements in bible class materials and sermons that were leaning somewhat towards the "men need to married" mantra). Since a couple of years ago, the marriage mandate movement has gained some traction. Even media outlets in my particular faith tradition are giving Maken's book exposure. I also spotted her book in a local Books-A-Million in the religion section. Just two examples. Do I personally know of any situations where single men have been shamed and blamed in this regard--yet? No. But I find it kind of hard for me to chill when the crabgrass is getting close to my backyard.
Triton: I'll fix it again. Lol.
"Like PC, I also desire to see some sort of a fair, open debate be held with the likes of Steve and Candace Watters, Debbie Maken, Albert Mohler, and others. I don't think it's going to happen, though."
The problem is that you as a group don't have a legitimate academic on your side. You don't even have a theologian you can quote with an enduring message that speaks against the "marriage mandate movement". Kostenberger doesn't count because his critique is limited to hearsay about Maken's book, which he admittedly didn't even read. Elsewhere in his book "God, Marriage and Family" are writings that say "a couple ought to seek to have childen" (p 135), which aligns him nicely with the Watters and the rest of Boundless.
Unless you can get a respected evangelical leader to work with you as a group, you'll be confined to blogdom kvetching, and thus, obscurity.
catwoman:
as a single Christian woman, I have seen the influence of the "marriage mandate movement." I also have seen and witnessed enough accounts of the pressure that is placed on Christian men to marry. I don't want to nag, shame, or manipulate someone to making a choice about the covenant of marriage. I don't want someone to marry me because they feel obligated or pressured to do so by the people they call community. I frankly believe that the church has made a lot of mistakes in regards to discipleship and mentoring of men AND women. Instead of going to the Scriptures(and NOT proof texting) for what it means to be a man or woman of God, we have allowed cultural traditions to create a standard of masculinity and femininity that is based on nostalgia and not truth.
I also feel that the marriage mandate movement really has an issue of focus as well. It is one thing to desire healthy and strong families in the body of Christ, but it is quite another to think that by literally creating families as Christians that you are meeting the call to "go into the world and make disciples." Maybe it's me, but I think that is a severe oversimplification of a much deeper problem.
Individually, the only thing I know to do as a single woman is continue to encourage my Christian male friends to not give up hope, pray earnestly for their growth in the Lord, and to accept correction and honesty when I'm saying or doing things that are not affirming them. I can't make them enter community or search for affirming community. I can only love them and pray for them.
The truth is, I used to be one of those frustrated gals in church who didn't understand why some Christian men didn't want to marry. Looking around at marriages in the church, I can totally understand why. I also had to really examine my frustrations, and when it came down to it, I was drinking the social conformity Kool-Aid. If a man chooses not to marry, that decision is between Him and the Lord. We need to stop selling this idyllic view of marriage and family to young Christians and equating it with lifelong bliss and satisfaction. I am not going to look down at married couples in church for their decision to marry, but somehow the church seems to do that for singles(and it seems the few single men that are still going to church get the brunt of it).
We are responsible for our own thoughts, attitudes, and actions before God(and that certainly includes our thoughts, attitudes, and actions towards fellow Christians). I don't think anyone here is saying that marriage and family is evil. What is being attacked is the teachings/doctrine perpetuated by this movement, and rightly so. Total depravity affects men AND women, and blameshifting will never negate that both men AND women have in the body.
Despite how snarky the comments you've given have been, it doesn't change the fact that the arguments will still exist. However, catwoman, my responsibility is to pray that you will be more kind in your words and not resort to such goading....
"as a single Christian woman, I have seen the influence of the "marriage mandate movement." I also have seen and witnessed enough accounts of the pressure that is placed on Christian men to marry."
All cultures apply at least some pressure on men to marry.
"I don't want to nag, shame, or manipulate someone to making a choice about the covenant of marriage."
Why is the global message that believers *ought* to marry tantamount to "nagging" individuals? It circumvents any discussion of the matter. I'm single too, and this is how I look at it -- when judgement day comes, I don't know how God will judge my singleness. There may well have been opportunities I thwarted that He will hold me accountable for. Sin permeates all decisions humans make -- much of life is choosing between the lesser evils in this fallen world. As such, I don't understand this need for so many people hear to have biblical justification for their singleness.
"Despite how snarky the comments you've given have been" -- you realize this is practically a gilt edged invitation to snark rally, don't you? Hey, there's always the option not to return the serve.
When PC gets his doctorate, he'll be a "legitimate" voice on the side against "Marriage Mandators".
Not really knowing much (and not having actually READ this book), I don't know if there's anyone else or not.
But if what Catwoman says is true, that there isn't one, then yeah...your not gonna get a debate going.
Christina: It's more like this. The Mandators are just emperors with no clothes. Other than Mohler--who has never defended the "Marriage Mandate" in an academic peer-review setting--the Mandators do not have any substantial academic support.
This is why Ted Slater--who is reasonable when you discuss this with him--downplays the "mandate" when hit with a direct question. This is why Motte Brown shut down the discussion when I aimed the question at Boundless. This is why Candice Watters has--pun intended--watered down her support of Maken, phrasing it in terms of "oughts".
They're not dummies. They won't come out and repudiate Maken; on the other hand, their responses have given indications that they know they've gotten too cozy with a radioactive hot potato who--in spite of making some good points in her book--has some very worthy orthodox critics.
In the case of Mohler, for him to say what he is saying is reflective that he doesn't have a clue what is going on in his own congregation.
I was a faithful member of his church for over 4 years. I would be happy to illumine him regarding the singles ministry at his church, any time he wants to hear it. He never stepped foot in the classroom, and never once attended any ministry or fellowship event for that ministry in the 4 years I was there.
Whether Adam or Anakin is a PhD is irrelevant. They have raised legitimate questions that neither Mohler nor Maken have addressed with any substantive argument.
Mohler is a theologian by trade, not a Biblical exegete. Adam, on the other hand, is an exegete.
Whether the passages cited by Maken represent a "Marriage Mandate" is a question of exegesis. Adam has provided an exegetical rebuttal that Mohler has not answered with an exegetical basis.
That fact is no small matter.
Mohler is no dummy--I know him, and have talked with him on other matters, and can attest to his extraordinary intellect--but he is a theologian, not a Biblical exegete.
That he has not written any exegetical papers on this matter--subjecting them to peer review--is quite telling.
Catwoman,
The problem is that you as a group don't have a legitimate academic on your side. You don't even have a theologian you can quote with an enduring message that speaks against the "marriage mandate movement".
Catwoman, what do you take as "legitimate?" Is Candice Watters "legitimate?" Is Debbie Maken "legitimate?" Keep in mind that I have more academic training in this area than both of them combined.
Also, did you not forget Dr. Hoffmeier and Dr. Averbeck? What about them is not "legitimate?" Again, I hate the wordgames that go on in this debate. I wish we would just deal with the issues, rather than trying to manipulate people's thinking by using this kind of vocabulary.
Kostenberger doesn't count because his critique is limited to hearsay about Maken's book, which he admittedly didn't even read.
However, he had a dialogue with the author! Don't you think after those exchanges, Debbie Maken could have cleared up the misunderstandings? Not only that, but Kostenberger was not intending to give a full review of Debbie Maken's book in the first place. Maken took it as that for some reason, and that is what started the whole discussion.
Elsewhere in his book "God, Marriage and Family" are writings that say "a couple ought to seek to have childen" (p 135), which aligns him nicely with the Watters and the rest of Boundless.
Ok, I have written:
There is a simple solution for this, and that is the homosexuals repent and believe the gospel. However, as is the case with so much of society today, people love their sin more than they love God, and therefore, they will not repent. That is why we need to trust in an all powerful God who takes away the power of sin, frees people from bondage to their sin, and raises them to new life in Christ. Without the power of God to change peoples hearts and minds, we would be lost in this battle against this evil of homosexuality.
I think this aligns me nicely with the Watters and the rest of Boundless, don't you? They believe homosexuality is wrong, and I do. That means we are all on the same page on the issue of "delay of marriage."
Of course, this has nothing to do with the issue of delay of marriage which is what I called Dr. Mohler to discuss.
God Bless,
Adam
"Catwoman, what do you take as "legitimate?" Is Candice Watters "legitimate?" Is Debbie Maken "legitimate?" Keep in mind that I have more academic training in this area than both of them combined."
I see what you are trying to do Adam, which is to proffer yourself as a "legitimate academic" on this issue, but despite this (or perhaps because of this, lol) you lack the kind of credibility needed to enter into a public dialogue with any evangelical leader.
No evangelical leader or academic has ever linked to or written about your blog, let alone favorably. If you are such good buddies with Dr. Hoffmeier and Dr. Averbeck, then where are they? Why aren't THEY quoting YOU on the so-called marriage mandate issue??
Check out the blogs of Adrian Warnock and Justin Taylor to see what true blogosphere influence looks like. You can see who they link to and who links back to them, who they interview, who guest writes for them -- they have peeps.
But here you are, destroying your chances of creating anything of that caliber everytime you go on one of your self-aggrandizing rants, especially when you take an "exegetical" approach like that of defense attorney looking for the loophole. Nevertheless, keep it up, if you consider "eccentric" to be a compliment.
All cultures apply at least some pressure on men to marry.
Not those cultures where marriage is not the norm. The matriarchies of the rain forest, for example. In fact, I recall reading about one particular culture that didn't even have a word for "father"; the role, in the social sense, simply didn't exist.
Why is the global message that believers *ought* to marry tantamount to "nagging" individuals?
I'm don't think I've ever received any "global messages". And if any globe did speak to me, I think I'd be checking myself in to the loony bin.
catwoman,
No evangelical leader or academic has ever linked to or written about your blog, let alone favorably. If you are such good buddies with Dr. Hoffmeier and Dr. Averbeck, then where are they? Why aren't THEY quoting YOU on the so-called marriage mandate issue??
Simply because it is not something we address most of the time. That's the whole problem. In the academic world, this isn't even an issue. In fact, I would say the amount of time I have spent on this issue this semester is minimal, expecially given all of the work in Akkadian that I have done. The only reason I do address it is to give answers to singles who are approached with these teachings within their own church communions.
In fact, I stopped typing my final paper in Dr. VanGemeren's Exegesis of Psalms class on a defense of the literary unity of Psalm 81 to type this. In this paper, I am dealing with things like word pairs, Janus parallelism, envelope patterns, collocations, etc., and using these things to prove that Psalm 81 is a cohesive literary unit. This and Akkadian is what I have been spending most of my time on this semester. This is what scholarship looks like in the field of exegesis.
Finally, why is it you keep shifting standards of "legitimate" here? First of all, all you asked for is *academic* legitimacy. Now, you are asking for legitimacy in terms of who knows about me, and who links to me?????? As I said before, you can make anyone illigitimate if you keep shifting the standard.
I have become convinced that if I got a Phd, taught at Harvard, and wrote my own Hebrew grammar that it would not give me enough legitimacy in your eyes. I hope everyone can see that now. The fact that you have to keep shifting the standard proves it. Therefore, I don't believe your standards are objective at all, and therefore, I don't concern myself with them.
God Bless,
Adam
catwoman,
And, BTW, there was nothing "self-aggrandizing" in anything that I said. I was merely pointing out the fact that you are inconsistent to believe that Debbie Maken and Candice Watters have academic credibility, but I do not, given that I have far more education then both of them.
God Bless,
Adam
"I was merely pointing out the fact that you are inconsistent to believe that Debbie Maken and Candice Watters have academic credibility"
I didn't even mention their academic credibility. I was merely pointing out that they have academic backers, whereas this blog and your blog **does not**.
Seriously....
Anonymous blogging only goes so far. If you can't find well-known, respected evangelical leaders among the clergy and academia to support your "scripturally single" position -- you're nowhere.
I'm don't think I've ever received any "global messages". And if any globe did speak to me, I think I'd be checking myself in to the loony bin.
LOL :) Now, that is funny
On a serious note, why would it be assumed that a evangelical leader or academic would be unwilling to enter into a dialog with a fellow believer unless they had the backing of another evangelical leader or academic? My academic discipline is totally unrelated to theology or exegesis, but I have found that the leaders in my discipline are quite open to discussing issues with fellow professionals who don't have any sort of "reputation" in the field. That is because in an environment of open inquiry it is about the substance of the discussion, not the credentials of who is saying what.
"On a serious note, why would it be assumed that a evangelical leader or academic would be unwilling to enter into a dialog with a fellow believer unless they had the backing of another evangelical leader or academic?"
It's one thing to have a brief "discussion", as did Mohler with PC. But to have an ongoing dialogue with any facet of the evangelical leadership for the purpose of generating change would certainly take a quite a bit more credibility.
This blog and PC's have been carrying on now for over two years and I don't see them drawing the heavyweights that would indicate a burgeoning consensus among any facet of the evangelical leadership.
Of course, you could say to heck with leadership and create your own offshoot of exegetical thought on this issue. Especially if you don't mind being relegated to the "eccentric".
Catwoman wrote:
All cultures apply at least some pressure on men to marry.
Perhaps so, but Western culture also 'offers' compelling incentives for men to refrain from marriage. See, for instance, Dr. Stephen Baskerville's book Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family.
Such disincentives also come from the Christian community, which seems loathe to hold women accountable as mature, responsible adults (e.g. Doug Wilson, Headship theology, Motte Brown's 'he led her down the path' formulation, etc.)
As long as the church is blind to the former and clings to the latter, their credibility on the issue is suspect.
By the way Catwoman, since you are so concerned with academic authority, where are the respected exegetes who have endorsed Maken's position? In their absence we only have the words of Albert Mohler (not an exegete), a lawyer (Maken), a handful of writers at Boundless (who go soft when cornered on the issue) and a few bloggers. Why should be take them seriously?
Wombatty: That's exactly the point. Maken is not an academic; she's an attorney who graduated from a secular law school and spent a few years representing conservative causes.
Impressive? You bet.
Does it make her an academic? Not by a long shot?
Does her book pass anything close to academic muster? Not a chance.
It's not like Maken's camp has a wealth of academic support. Even Mohler, as I pointed out, (a) is a fine theologian but is not an exegetical specialist, (b) has yet to answer the exegetical case against the marriage mandate, and (c) has yet to defend the Marriage Mandate in an academic peer-reviewed forum.
That last point is a biggie, as--in the academic world--publication for peer review is everything.
Something that Learner brought up in her last post reminded me of this verse...
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
- 1 Peter 2:9
When I first read this verse, I'd been studying alot about the druidic tradition. And one of the things that struck me was that with Druids, you were not entrusted with the mysteries until you met all these standards and underwent all these trials to become a High Priest.
Much like any other secret society, you had to be the upper elite to be entrusted with the scriptures of what they believed.
But in Christianity, we have ALL been entrusted when we accept Christ as our Lord.
In other words, we really DON'T need academic backing. We do not need age, we do not need a formal education that includes Akkadian (not to minimize what your doing, Adam).
All we need is access to our BIBLE...which we have. And a heart and mind that wishes to study it and discover its truths. And God's Holy Spirit.
So yes, I guess it is ok for us to be demanding an "Academically approved" member of society to engage us in some public debate.
Look, you can demand all you want, but you're not going to get it.
Say what you want about Maken and her variants, but they still have more leadership support than you guys, even in academia.
You folks are blind to how what you are doing here erodes your credibility.
Part of the problem is that you've allowed the "is the delay of marriage a sin?" issue to get derailed by MRA issues (see Wombatty's last comment). MRA is a friend to no cause, least of all the quite valid FRA cause, which also gets discreditted by men obsessed with the crimes of bimbo golddiggers, whether they've actually met one or not.
Face it -- you've hit a plateau.
Christina: That's the bottom-line. A legitimate question is a legitimate question.
The scoffers of Jesus' day were not much different from the scoffers on this blog space: they demanded to know by what authority He did the things he did.
Today, the scoffers on this blog space tend to forget that Jesus did not have a large academic following either. Like their scoffing partners of old, they cannot defend their position, so they resort to the old famous "appeal to authority".
In reality, the Mandators are every bit as dishonest as their Pharisaical predecessors: they scoff at the anti-mandate crowd, claiming that they don't have a lot of support in academia, when in fact the same scoffers don't have such support either.
We're onto their games over here. They are a brood of lying vipers.
In fact, the Pharisees of old were better than today's scoffers: at least they weren't feminists.
All we need is access to our BIBLE
This is correct. If we have Scripture, then we are "thoroughly furnished". 2 Ti. 3:16-17.
The scoffers of Jesus' day were not much different from the scoffers on this blog space: they demanded to know by what authority He did the things he did.
And His response was to appeal to Scripture. "You have heard it said...but it is written..."
Debbie Maken and her ilk can appeal to "global messages" and doctoral degrees and many luxury vacations and church gender ratios all they want, but the fact remains that the Bible is on our side, not theirs.
Amir,
I don't think that we don't have academic support at all. Notice how catwoman has tried to explain away every bit of academic support we could bring up. Kostenberger can't be support because he didn't read a book that he only mentioned in passing, and Debbie Maken made a big deal about it, and yet, apparently, never corrected him. He also cannot be academic support because he agrees with Boundless on other issues. Also, Dr. Hoffmeier and Dr. Averbeck cannot be academic support because they have not come out publically, even though this is something that is not an issue within scholarship.
You see, when you start making excuses as to why this person or that person cannot be academic support, then what you are admitting is that we have academic support, only you don't like us using them as academic support for this reason or that reason. Again, you can keep making up standards all day to explain any academic support away.
Hence, I think we should not play these games. It amazes me that we have now 27 comments, and we are still talking about something totally irrelevant to who is right and who is wrong.
God Bless,
Adam
"The scoffers of Jesus' day were not much different from the scoffers on this blog space"
lol. There you go again, Amir, comparing yourself to Jesus with the scoffers. Man, having that coterie of MRA groupies really has gone to your head!
Meow.
"You see, when you start making excuses as to why this person or that person cannot be academic support, then what you are admitting is that we have academic support, only you don't like us using them as academic support for this reason or that reason."
Adam, if you have the support of academics -- or any other kinds of leaders for that matter -- why aren't they coming forward?
catwoman wrote:
Look, you can demand all you want, but you're not going to get it.
Perhaps you and your fellow-travelers should heed these words yourself.
Say what you want about Maken and her variants, but they still have more leadership support than you guys, even in academia.
Who, in academia, are you speaking of? Boundless and their fellow travelers (including Mohler) are about the only ones that I am aware of.
Though he hasn't (that I am aware of) responded to her, John MacArthur (another exegete 0 and a fine one at that) very much disagrees with Maken as can be evidenced by her challenging him directly in her book.
Then there is Dr. Laura A. Smit (not an exegete), author of Loves Me, Loves Me Not: The Ethics of Unrequited Love wherein she argues that our default assumption today, as Christians, should be that of singleness unless you have a very good reason to marry. I don't really agree with her on this point as I think it is an issue of liberty in Christ, but she makes a substantive argument nonetheless.
I don't know that she has ever adressed Maken, much less ever heard of her, but her position is diametrically opposed to hers.
You folks are blind to how what you are doing here erodes your credibility.
At least many of us here actually substantively engage the opposition which is more than you can say for Maken, Mohler, Brown, Watters, et al. Who's credibility is being eroded again?
Part of the problem is that you've allowed the "is the delay of marriage a sin?" issue to get derailed by MRA issues (see Wombatty's last comment).
Wrong. I don't bring up 'MRA issues' to rebut the notion that martial delay is a sin. That issue is dispensed with by exegesis (see Adam's posts). The 'MRA issues' have bearing on why men are delaying marriage, not the moral propriety of doing so.
MRA is a friend to no cause, least of all the quite valid FRA cause,
Here we have a glittering example of why men disregard women like you. You dismiss the legitimate issues raised by men. You simply declare such concerns illegimate while insisiting that women's concerns must be taken seriously. A bit self-serving, don't you think?
Incidentally, you seem to think that 'MRA issues' are simply a concern of men. Wrong again. Read Dr. Stephen Baskerville's book Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family and you will see the destruction visited upon children who are denied their fathers and second wives and subsequent children denied the provision of their husband's/father's income are very pertinent issues. You need to shed your myopia. It nice to know that some women, (Dr Helen, for instance) get it.
...which also gets discreditted by men obsessed with the crimes of bimbo golddiggers, whether they've actually met one or not.
Or that fact that 'the quite valid FRA cause' is consistently discredited by women crying wolf about sexual harassment, rape, etc. But we don't want to shine a light under that rock, now do we?
Face it -- you've hit a plateau.
Last I saw, the blogs of Maken and her chief apostle (Captain Clueless) are all but dead.
Wombatty: Don't forget John Piper. He's VERY MUCH an ally of the anti-Mandate crowd, and is even a target of Maken's. And he has the academic and ministerial credentials to boot. His doctoral work was in the field of Biblical studies (New Testament).
...Who, in academia, are you speaking of? Boundless and their fellow travelers...
I didn't mean to imply that the Boundless crew qualified as 'academia'.
catwoman,
What do you take as coming forward? Do you mean Dr. Hoffmeier's long correspondence with the person who wrote to him [which I suspect to be Deanna Holmes]? Or would it be Dr. Averbeck giving a verbal agreement to what I was saying in front of the entire class? Would Andreas Kostenberger's dialogue with Debbie Maken be coming forward? Again, how do you define these things?
This is why I don't get into these games. You can define it in any way you want to, and then, somehow say that it is relevant because of something else when we come up with a counterexample. It isn't. You are not the judge of what is legitimate academic support. If that is the case, as I said, I could be a professor at Harvard with a Phd in Hebrew, and have written both my own grammar, and a book against Debbie Maken, and you would still find some reason to say that it is not academic support. Given that, I don't see any reason why anyone wants to play this game. It gets nowhere, and is irrelevant to who has the truth.
God Bless,
Adam
I don't bring up 'MRA issues' to rebut the notion that martial delay is a sin.
Martial delay can get one killed. ;)
Wombatty,
It only illustrates the sad state of affairs here when all you can do is cite those who Maken challenged in her book, like John MacArthur and those who pre-date it, like the outmoded work of Laura Smits.
"At least many of us here actually substantively engage the opposition which is more than you can say for Maken, Mohler, Brown, Watters, et al."
Sure, by the opinion of a few regulars here and where else??
"I don't bring up 'MRA issues' to rebut the notion that martial delay is a sin..."
Maybe not, but it always seems to go that way -- and you refuse to see how that hurts your case, rather than helps it, by those who erroneously believe that what they are doing is "adding balance". And by this pattern, no sensible leader will go near this blog.
"Here we have a glittering example of why men disregard women like you. You dismiss the legitimate issues raised by men. You simply declare such concerns illegimate while insisiting that women's concerns must be taken seriously...you seem to think that 'MRA issues' are simply a concern of men. Wrong again. Read Dr. Stephen Baskerville's book Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family....Or that fact that 'the quite valid FRA cause' is consistently discredited by women crying wolf about sexual harassment, rape, etc. But we don't want to shine a light under that rock, now do we?"
Uh, Wombatty...when I said "FRA cause", I was talking (supportively) about **Father's Right's**, NOT feminism. See how quickly you are to fly off the handle?? That's what I'm talking about.
"Last I saw, the blogs of Maken and her chief apostle (Captain Clueless) are all but dead."
It's mission accomplished for them. Capt Sensible has got married last spring and will be having her first baby this spring. Candice Watters and Boundless have picked up from where Maken left off, with some variation -- so clearly FotF is on board and the train has left the station.
WWWWHOOOO...ooooo...WHOOOO!
Buh-BYE!
Is it just me, or did someone just suggest that the whole purpose of Deanna Holmes' online rantings was to get married?
I'm glad it worked out for her. LOL
"What do you take as coming forward? Do you mean Dr. Hoffmeier's long correspondence with the person who wrote to him [which I suspect to be Deanna Holmes]? Or would it be Dr. Averbeck giving a verbal agreement to what I was saying in front of the entire class? Would Andreas Kostenberger's dialogue with Debbie Maken be coming forward? Again, how do you define these things?"
Adam, I repeat: you have absolutely no proof that anyone wants to dialogue with you, outside of this little blog circle. All these big names that you boast about -- do any of them participate in your blog? No -- you've gone about as far as you can go with it.
If FotF qualifies as the torchbearer for the "Marriage Mandate" movement, then the movement is in serious trouble.
After all,
(1) Candice Watters has majorly softened her own stance. While she thinks in terms of "oughts", she is nowhere near Maken in terms of legalism on the subject.
(2) Ted Slater, while rightly promoting marriage as a good thing and helping people choose that, tends to backpedal when put to the test regarding Maken.
(3) I've yet to see Tom Neven touch the subject at all.
(4) Motte Brown--for all his foray into "Headship Theology"--squirms when pressed on the "marriage mandate".
(5) Heather Koerner rarely messes with the subject, instead focusing on financial/stewardship issues.
(6) Neither Denise Morris nor Suzanne Hadley have been running around trying to defend Maken.
(7) Other Christian singles authors--such as A.J. Kiesling and Camerin Courtney--are not in Maken's camp. Kiesling is very even-handed, and Courtney has been a substantial Maken critic.
Moreover, the Christian singles end of the blogopshere tends to play a substantial role in how other Christian singles, and singles ministers, view this issue. And lest anyone get the wrong idea, Maken is hardly the last word on the matter.
Fact is, many of us blog at Boundless. We make a very good case for our positions on various matters, including the "marriage mandate."
We also blog on our own spaces, I can attest to the fact that pastors of various denominations--representing small and large congregations--read them.
And they pay attention to what we have to say because they are concerned about singles as a group.
Rumors of our demise...are greatly exaggerated.
catwoman,
Adam, I repeat: you have absolutely no proof that anyone wants to dialogue with you, outside of this little blog circle. All these big names that you boast about -- do any of them participate in your blog? No -- you've gone about as far as you can go with it.
Actually, I don't need anyone to want to do so. If you think that I am doing this for myself, then I will always have an advantage over you, catwoman. You see, I do it to protect the flock from this stuff. I do it to prevent the kind of shaming of single men that is found in Debbie Maken's book. I do it to get singles back into the scriptures, and not just taking someone's word for it because they happen to have published a popular book. I would like to see people thinking about these issues from a Biblical perspective, and, if I can do it in a dialogue with Albert Mohler, fine. If not, fine too. If I can give one single guy the arguments to combat this stuff when it comes into the single's ministry, or give one pastor the arguments to refute this stuff when singles pick up Debbie Maken or Candice Watters' book, then I will have done my job.
I do know my blog has readers, and I also no that all of those guys will be ready with Biblical answers if it comes into their church.
God Bless,
Adam
You do it for your own self-aggrandizement, Adam. That is plain to see.
catwoman,
You do it for your own self-aggrandizement, Adam. That is plain to see.
Well, then, I will always have an advantage over you. I am not stopping just because I don't get air time. Would I like it, yes. Any time you get to proclaim the truth of scripture like that, it is a privlege. However, I will still keep cranking out articles, and I will still keep refuting new arguments as they come up, and you will always be left wondering why, since, as you say, no one wants to talk to me.
God Bless,
Adam
It's mission accomplished for them. Capt Sensible has got married last spring and will be having her first baby this spring. Candice Watters and Boundless have picked up from where Maken left off, with some variation -- so clearly FotF is on board and the train has left the station.
WWWWHOOOO...ooooo...WHOOOO!
Yep, I saw it on the evening news. It was in the headlines, too, of most major media outlets. Single men everywhere are rushing to the aisles to get married. They've seen the light and are now rocking & rolling on the Estrogen Express.
All Aboard!
*rolls eyes*
Keep it up, Knightwatch. As long as people here maintain the MRA stance, there will be no credible, enduring challenge to what you guys have deemed "marriage mandate".
there will be no credible, enduring challenge to what you guys have deemed "marriage mandate".
I'm trying to keep a straight face, but you're making it awfully difficult. The marriage mandate is a "challenge roughly comparable to herding cats", no offense.
there will be no credible, enduring challenge to what you guys have deemed "marriage mandate".
I'm trying to keep a straight face, but you're making it awfully difficult. The marriage mandate is a "challenge roughly comparable to herding cats" to tuna, no offense.
Catwoman wrote:
It only illustrates the sad state of affairs here when all you can do is cite those who Maken challenged in her book, like John MacArthur and those who pre-date it, like the outmoded work of Laura Smits.
I don't follow. Maken challenged MacArthur in her book and Smit's position on the subject is opposite that of Maken. Both are more qualified to speak on the subject than is Maken (which should impress you, concerned as you are about academia). As to the assertion that Smit's book is 'outmoded', upon what do you base that?
Sure, by the opinion of a few regulars here and where else??
OK, I can play that game. You have Maken, Captain Clueless, the Boundless crew and....who else?
Maybe not, but it always seems to go that way -- and you refuse to see how that hurts your case, rather than helps it,
Another bald assertion; care to share your logic here?
Further, one of the BIG issues in this discussion is women constantly wondering WHY men seem less than enthusiastic about marriage these days. The divorce issue is a BIG part of it. You must first acknowledge an issue before you can address it.
My suspicion as to why the Christian community prefers to sweep this issue under the rug is it gives the lie to their 'everything is men's fault' paradigm (e.g. headship theology). GIven that women, by far, file for most divorces, and that these are most often of the 'no fault' variety, confronting this issue would require confronting women and holding them accountable. And that is something the Christian community seems loathe to do. After all, it's the man's fault right?
Uh, Wombatty...when I said "FRA cause", I was talking (supportively) about **Father's Right's**, NOT feminism.
My bad, sorry about that. Interesting though that you seem to deem men's rights as important ONLY once they become fathers.
See how quickly you are to fly off the handle?? That's what I'm talking about.
LOL...I hardly call that 'flying off the handle.
Triton says: Martial delay can get one killed. ;)
LOL! Yeah...hesitating with the trigger finger can ruin your whole day.
Catwoman wrote:
As long as people here maintain the MRA stance, there will be no credible, enduring challenge to what you guys have deemed "marriage mandate".
To paraphrase you, 'It's mission accomplished for many here - they have managed to stay single and content despite the kvetching and contempt heaped upon them by the mandate crowd.'
btw, as for FotF carrying the mandate torch - that seems a bit much, as Amir detailed above. I remember the Prophet herself expressing consternation that the Boundless crew made it a point to avoid using the word 'mandate' in regard to marriage.
So let's see, the only ones out there beating this drum anymore is FotF, and their playing an awfully soft tune. The Good Captain was just in it for herself and the Prophet has apparently lost interest.
Mission Accomplished!!
Martial delay = No Martial bliss ;-)
Catwoman says:
lol. There you go again, Amir, comparing yourself to Jesus with the scoffers. Man, having that coterie of MRA groupies really has gone to your head!
Meow.
Just for the meow, I'll lift your suspension from my blog, in the interest of Christmas spirit.
On the other hand, my cats have a leg up on you in the logic department...
I compared the scoffers on this blog with the scoffers of Jesus' day.
In fact, I made it a point NOT to compare the protagonists--Anakin, Triton, Wombatty, etc.--with Jesus.
(The only commonality I mentioned was that Jesus did not have a large academic following. I said that with exegetes like Adam in mind, not myself. On the other hand, I left one detail out: Jesus did have academic support in the form of Nicodemus, only he wasn't interested in testing that on the peer-review circuit of his day either...)
Why am I not interested in comparing anyone with Jesus?
When Jesus came the first time, the Pharisees made the mistake of trying to get Jesus to identify with them--to join their circles, embrace their teachings, endorse their rabbis--whereas Jesus wanted people to follow Him.
Those in the latter camp were saved and found forgiveness and joy. Those in the former camp found hell.
Ergo, I refuse to place Jesus on anyone's side. It's our job to be on Jesus' side.
Still, (a) given that you have identified yourself as a mocker, and (b) given that the Scriptures are very pointed about mockers, and (c) given that you have engaged in the same line of argumentation as the mockers of Jesus' day, I'd say you're on dangerous ground.
Adam is hardly a monster; all he is doing is making an exegetical case--a very strong one in fact--that there is no "Marriage Mandate" in Scripture.
Anakin is merely providing balance to the backdrop of "headship theology", and has written a strong critical review of Maken's book.
That you spend so much time mocking them says far more about you than about them.
Is there something about Adam's exegetical case that you wish to contest? Is there something about Anakin's review of Maken's book that you wish to contest?
Please let's hear it.
"I don't follow. Maken challenged MacArthur in her book and Smit's position on the subject is opposite that of Maken."
Oh yes you do -- we went over this already. You only have works that pre-date Maken. She may have critiqued their works, but they haven't gone on record as critiquing hers. You can only guess about what they would say in the debate of her position vs. yours. For all you know, they might say you're both wrong. What makes you think you'd come out better?
"You have Maken, Captain Clueless, the Boundless crew and....who else?"
And you guys have....anybody?? Outside of your own selves, NADA.
"Further, one of the BIG issues in this discussion is women constantly wondering WHY men seem less than enthusiastic about marriage these days. The divorce issue is a BIG part of it."
And Gerv seems to be doing a fine job exposing the divorce phobia "canard" (nice word Anakin, thank u) for what it really is.
"My suspicion as to why the Christian community prefers to sweep this issue under the rug is it gives the lie to their 'everything is men's fault' paradigm...confronting this issue would require confronting women and holding them accountable. And that is something the Christian community seems loathe to do. After all, it's the man's fault right?"
That's a pretty exaggerated description, but someone mentioned it before, so here's my take on the "preacher as man basher" thing -- most gender specific admonishment comes from preachers of the same gender. You get this same kind of message to women ( ie. to submit) when a woman preaches to other women (ie. Women Aglow, "Radical Womanhood", etc.). On any given Sunday, there are more sermons delivered by males than females, so naturally, you're going to hear more messages "tanning the hides" of the men.
And you can't blame this one on a largely female audience either, because you're most likely to hear it in conservative churches that draw men with the expectation that they lead (and be worthy to do so). Sorry, but it goes with the territory.
"Interesting though that you seem to deem men's rights as important ONLY once they become fathers."
When it comes to "men's rights" other than father's rights, what are you left with? The same matters of sensitivity that render much of feminism as trifling in the minds of its critics.
"given that you have engaged in the same line of argumentation as the mockers of Jesus' day, I'd say you're on dangerous ground."
Amir, you are hardly one to talk. You scoff as good as the rest of 'em. PUH-eeze.
"Just for the meow, I'll lift your suspension from my blog, in the interest of Christmas spirit."
lol. Who cares? You can have your MRA groupies and the same slogans you all like to repeat to yourselves.
Oh, Catwoman...you are the one who flat-out said you were "mocking" folks here.
Moreover, you are doing nothing more than engaging a Biblically-based argument with an "appeal to authority", which is the same intellectually bankrupt tactic that Jesus' academic critics used.
Adam has put out a very strong exegetical case--it isn't rocket science. I know this, because I am a rocket scientist--and I've yet to see you challenge it.
If Adam's case is so weak, then surely you could destroy it with minimal cranial exertion.
That you have not done so is quite telling.
Nonetheless, here is your grand opportunity to slay that big bad PuritanCalvinist.
A victory here would put you on ground that Debbie Maken only dreamed of.
You would wreck Adam's chances of advancing as a notable scholar of Scripture.
You could banish him into the outer corridors of professorial hell.
Why would you pass on such a grand opportunity? With a successful rebuttal, you could scream WOOO HOOO--or however you folks do that--and all your allies would celebrate an extra-merry Christmas!
Good luck...you'll need it.
"Adam has put out a very strong exegetical case--it isn't rocket science. I know this, because I am a rocket scientist--and I've yet to see you challenge it."
WHOA!!! HA! Now you're even sounding like Adam! ROTFLMAO...
...excuse me a moment...ahem..
Amir, I will not be baited by you or anyone else to go for a swim in Adam's red herring aquarium. He's claiming public figures as allies without giving any proof that they have even communicated with him. The only proven communication resulted in his argument being declared "an eccentric reading of the text".
But you go on and keep him as your exegetical hero. Good luck with that.
amir:
I feel totally awful about this, but I am going to admit it--reading catwoman's responses to everyone are absolutely hilarious! Please forgive me, catwoman. I shouldn't find humor at your expense...
Catwoman, if you believe you are right and that you have the proof to back it up(in action, not words), then don't use your brainpower arguing with those who disagree with you. You have held to your positions. You have told us your reasons, and you have long decided that no one is going to convince you otherwise. I'm sure you're aware that anakin and others are holding to their positions as well, and are not budging. Can you tell me what the purpose of your comments are? Are they an attempt to disprove those who argue opposite of your opinion, or are they an attempt to have lively debate about opposing viewpoints and perspectives in connection with this thread?
I'm sure that there are things that are surely more important to attend to than debating with anakin and everyone else about, such as your marriage. You have an opportunity to live what you talk about.
"You have told us your reasons, and you have long decided that no one is going to convince you otherwise. I'm sure you're aware that anakin and others are holding to their positions as well, and are not budging. Can you tell me what the purpose of your comments are?"
I'm not going allow myself to be singled out to answer a question that if asked at all, should be directed at all members of this discussion.
btw- you are quite HILARIOUS yourself AT times, ELAINE. And no, I don't believe that individuals dealing with SSA (or anyone else, for that matter) should be pressured into marriage.
catwoman,
He's claiming public figures as allies without giving any proof that they have even communicated with him.
Catwoman, I have been in the same classroom with Dr. Hoffmeier and Dr. Averbeck for nearly two years now. I am working for a M.A. in this field, and am currently looking at applying for a Phd at either the University of Chicago or the University of Wisconsin. I have to have my papers criticised by these folks all of the time. Yet, somehow, I've never even given any proof that I have ever communicated with them??????? [Yes, I know, you are going to find some other standard so that this cannot meet your criterion].
The only proven communication resulted in his argument being declared "an eccentric reading of the text".
...from someone who is hardly unbiased, and not an expert in the field of Old Testament Studies.
Again, this is a game. When you meet her criterion, catwoman will just add one more criterion so that she doesn't have to accept it. That's the name of the game. Lady Elane is right. Catwoman knows she is not going to convince us. Why she has let this drag out to 58 posts if we are no threat is beyond me.
Not only that but statements like:
WHOA!!! HA! Now you're even sounding like Adam! ROTFLMAO...
...excuse me a moment...ahem..
are only hurting *her* own credibility.
God Bless,
Adam
Catwoman says:
I'm not going allow myself to be singled out to answer a question that if asked at all, should be directed at all members of this discussion.
Any member of this discussion--who has a case to present--is welcome to do exactly that.
Given that you have invested substantial energy attacking Adam personally, it behooves you to put your money where your mouth is and make your case against his exegesis of Scripture.
If our brother Adam has strayed in his handling of the Scriptures, surely you can do the Christlike thing and show him the error of his ways, just as Jesus did for Nicodemus...
Otherwise, you are just conceding defeat.
"I have been in the same classroom with Dr. Hoffmeier and Dr. Averbeck for nearly two years now. I am working for a M.A. in this field, and am currently looking at applying for a Phd at either the University of Chicago or the University of Wisconsin. I have to have my papers criticised by these folks all of the time. Yet, somehow, I've never even given any proof that I have ever communicated with them???????"
You tell about how much these guys agree with your views about "marriage mandate", but you have never provided any proof. If they are such great buddies of yours, they'd be quite happy to either guest blog for you, or provide some kind of support. IMO, if you're going to apply at UoC or UoW you might want to remove either your full name or your rambling/nasty/grandiose blog entries before you do. Trinity may be an exception, but most theological institutions care about the character of their applicants.
catwoman,
You tell about how much these guys agree with your views about "marriage mandate", but you have never provided any proof. If they are such great buddies of yours, they'd be quite happy to either guest blog for you, or provide some kind of support.
See, again, you shift the standard. Just as I predicted you would.
Actually, I am very happy with the way I have handled myself here. I have not bought into your game, and I do not need to do so. I simply continue to go about my work, only seeking to please God, and not you.
God Bless,
Adam
"See, again, you shift the standard"
Oh excuse me, you're right. Let me shift it back. What did Mohler actually say? An "eccentric reading of the text"? No, he said "a VERY eccentric reading of the text".
Better? You can say uncle when you've had enough.
Catwoman,
Again you miss the point. You are sitting here making demands, and then, when I bring up something, such as my professors, you shift the standard. That is why this is a cat and mouse game that I just refuse to play.
If you actually want to deal with the issue, then we will talk. The only one who is hurting their credibility here is you, catwoman. This playing of games and the nastiness of all of your posts speaks for itself. When you have to do that, it demonstrates that you don't have concern for truth. I will just let that be the refutation of you.
God Bless,
Adam
catwoman wrote:
Oh yes you do -- we went over this already. You only have works that pre-date Maken. She may have critiqued their works, but they haven't gone on record as critiquing hers. You can only guess about what they would say in the debate of her position vs. yours. For all you know, they might say you're both wrong. What makes you think you'd come out better?
First, the very fact that Maken critiqued MacArthur (rather stridently) demonstrates that they disagree with her. I don’t have to guess what MacArthur’s opinion on the subject is – it is publically available.
As for Smit, again, her position on marriage is diametrically opposite that of Maken. As far as I can remember, Maken has not addressed Smit in either her book or on her blog.
As for Smit’s work being ‘outmoded’, note that her book was published on November 1, 2005 while Maken’s was published on January 9, 2006, a mere two months later. By what logic is Smit outmoded? The passage of time? If so, so is Maken’s as it was published nearly three years ago. Or perhaps it is simply because The Prophet outmodes disagreement by the mere act of publishing her own point of view?
Regarding both of the above when their views were published is irrelevant, it is the content that is at issue. Their content is in direct opposition to Maken’s. Period.
And you guys have....anybody?? Outside of your own selves, NADA.
Which is why I referred to this argument as a game; appeal to authority and numbers (both logical fallacies, by the way) all you want, it doesn’t touch the substance of the disagreement.
And Gerv seems to be doing a fine job exposing the divorce phobia "canard" (nice word Anakin, thank u) for what it really is.
Indeed – and where would that be?
On any given Sunday, there are more sermons delivered by males than females, so naturally, you're going to hear more messages "tanning the hides" of the men.
And you can't blame this one on a largely female audience either, because you're most likely to hear it in conservative churches that draw men with the expectation that they lead (and be worthy to do so). Sorry, but it goes with the territory.
Sorry Catwoman, a pastor is called to lead (and thus admonish) his entire congregation, women included. I know that when a pastor takes on the submission issue forthrightly, many times ‘the claws come out’ and the women protest – I’ve heard women make this same observation. The fact that so few male pastors are willing to address this issue is indicative of their own lack of leadership.
When it comes to "men's rights" other than father's rights, what are you left with? The same matters of sensitivity that render much of feminism as trifling in the minds of its critics.
When you have companies proudly putting out products like shirts emblazoned with the logo Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them (to cite but one example), and nobody but a handful of sensible people protest, there is a problem. Not to mention issues of frivolous sexual harassment claims, false rape accusations, and the like that are used to destroy the lives of men.
Perhaps you should read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers, Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men and Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (the latter two by Paul Nathanson & Katherine Young).
And regarding misandric public policy, Maken and her acolytes like to point out that most politicians are male. Very true, but it is single women, in overwhelmingly numbers, who vote for the big government toadies who promote such bilge. So, apparently, alot of women prefer such men for their 'leaders'. See the relevant chapter of Dr. John Lott's book Freedomnomics in addition to his scholarly papers on the subject.
You could also peruse Dr. Helen’s blog posts on the subject or check out Glenn Sacks’ blog to enlighten yourself. Your ignorance on this point is rather unbecoming…
catwoman:
thanks! I always did pride myself in being able to have a sense of humor. And btw, the purpose of my comments was actually to engage in fruitful discussion and dialogue about this issue--not to mention learn how to(and how not to) respond to those who disagree with you in such conversations.
I do appreciate your comments, for they are providing me with a means to sharpen my critical thinking skills as well as understanding what fallacies are. I think this will definitely come in handy when I enter law school.
Off-topic:
This one's for Motte Brown.
Chalk another one up for the ladies: A 40-something mom/PTA official was busted half-naked in the backseat of a car kanoodling with a 13 year old boy. No doubt this diabolical young man 'lead her down the path', eh Motte?
All is not lost, though. I'm sure Motte & Co. will still find solace in blaming her husband for driving(?) her down the path.
In other news, romantic comedies engender unrealistic expectations about relationships.'Chick Porn', indeed.
Pull quote:
Rom-coms have been blamed by relationship experts at Heriot Watt University for promoting unrealistic expectations when it comes to love.
They found fans of films such as Runaway Bride and Notting Hill often fail to communicate with their partner.
Many held the view if someone is meant to be with you, then they should know what you want without you telling them.
Who says that what we believe must be approved of by any so-called "leaders"? We may not affect the change that we wish on a global scale, but we can within the purview of our own lives. Whether it involves rejecting Maken and her acolytes, or even the MRA/FRA, we need nobody's approval or endorsement to live as we please. I personally don't care whether some media pundit or trash author approves of me or my views. They will not be dislodged nor are they any less valid than anyone else's.
"First, the very fact that Maken critiqued MacArthur (rather stridently) demonstrates that they disagree with her.
This is really a stretch, Wombatty. All it demonstrates is the fact that she disagrees with HIM. If Maken, assuming she's never even met the man or had any correspondence with him, cited Dobson's pro-family books from the 80's as some kind of proof that he agrees with her, you'd be accusing her of "intellectual dishonesty".
"As for Smit’s work being ‘outmoded’, note that her book was published on November 1, 2005 while Maken’s was published on January 9, 2006, a mere two months later. By what logic is Smit outmoded?"
Since better books have come out, no one's been suggested Christians should be single unless they have a "very good" reason to marry. This kind of thinking just sets the bar too high. Christian writers are getting back to the idea of marriage as a practical everyday thing for ordinary people.
"I know that when a pastor takes on the submission issue forthrightly, many times ‘the claws come out’ and the women protest – I’ve heard women make this same observation."
First of all, it's all in how it's done -- and that is true for any sermon on any topic. Secondly, conservative evangelical congregations expect the submission message. So are you defining any critique as "the claws coming out"? Sounds like MRA groupie talk to me.
"When you have companies proudly putting out products like shirts emblazoned with the logo Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them (to cite but one example)...frivolous sexual harassment claims, false rape accusations, and the like that are used to destroy the lives of men."
First of all, no church culture would ever tolerate young women wearing t-shirts with those logos. Frivolous and false legal claims are issues for people of both genders, dealt with on a case by case basis - you win some, you lose some, sometimes (hopefully, most of the time) fair, sometimes not. What else is new?
Conflating men's issues doesn't do anything for men (or women), anymore than what radical feminism. Don't you think by now that people are quite familiar with gender politics -- and their limited relevance?
Catwoman,
I'm curious, if the ideas espoused on this blog or on PCs are so inconsequential why do you bother?
As I said to Elaine, I'm not going to answer "why are you here" questions that really should be directed at all participants, if asked at all.
Okay, To all participants-
If you believe the ideas espoused on this blog or on PCs are so inconsequential why do you bother?
Since better books have come out...
in whose opinion?
...no one's been suggested Christians should be single unless they have a "very good" reason to marry. This kind of thinking just sets the bar too high.
and telling all but a few select 'eunuchs' that they must marry isn't setting the bar too low?
...conservative evangelical congregations expect the submission message.
So why are such sermons so rare (I've heard one good, solid one by an exegetical preacher)
So are you defining any critique as "the claws coming out"?
Not at all. You'll hear protests of sexism and 'Paul's outmoded thinking was a consequence of the sexist culture he operated in'. Then you'll be treated to tortured explanations of 'mutual submission' and the like - anything to soft-pedal the notion that God gave husbands to role of 'head of the home'.
Frivolous and false legal claims are issues for people of both genders, dealt with on a case by case basis
Th difference being that the legal system in America (and much of the West) officially encourages, via policy and court precedent, women to file such claims. Men have no such 'advantage'.
Don't you think by now that people are quite familiar with gender politics -- and their limited relevance?
You would have a point here if the gender-political preferences of radical feminism were not officially encoded in the legal system of the West. As long as such is the case, they are relevant.
"Since better books have come out...
in whose opinion?"
Hey, you have yours, I have mine.
"and telling all but a few select 'eunuchs' that they must marry isn't setting the bar too low?"
Not must, but ought.
"So why are such sermons so rare (I've heard one good, solid one by an exegetical preacher)...You'll hear protests of sexism and 'Paul's outmoded thinking was a consequence of the sexist culture he operated in'"
Maybe you've spent too much time in liberal mainline churches. I've never heard the word "sexist" used in a conservative evangelical church.
"Th difference being that the legal system in America (and much of the West) officially encourages, via policy and court precedent, women to file such claims."
Wrong-o. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, especially with sexual assault and harrassment cases, the former being known for low conviction rates, as compared to other crimes. Wrongful convictions occur among all types of offenses.
Learner asks:
If you believe the ideas espoused on this blog or on PCs are so inconsequential why do you bother?
I'd say the viewpoints expressed here, just as the viewpoints expressed on Vox Day's blog, Dr. Helen's blog, Boundless's blog, my blog, and various allies (Triton, PC) and occasional adversaries (Maken, Mohler, Captain Sensible) are anything but inconsequential.
Compounding matters, the "adversaries" are not always my adversaries. As I said, Maken was an attorney who represented many conservative causes. As a former crisis pregnancy center counselor, board member/spokesperson for a maternity home, and county Right to Life President, Maken and I would probably be allies on many issues. Ditto for Mohler, and almost all of the Boundless crew.
Ergo, it's not like I dismiss everything they say. Nor are they always unreasonable.
Ted Slater is hardly a demagogue.
As for Mohler, I can attest to the positive things that he has done for SBTS. You want the lowdown on what it was like when he got there? I can tell you. I was there. He cleaned up a royal mess. He took out the trash. Literally. (He shafted a few good people, but most of what he did was on the money.)
On the other hand, when they get involved in promoting "headship theology", when they get involved promoting the "Marriage Mandate", when they support a culture that blames men for all failed marriages, then they need a brotherly kick in the ass (Oops...I mean exhortation).
As for me? I blog here. I blog on my site. I blog at Boundless. When Boundless addresses a topic that I think is important enough to merit my comments, I'll chime in. Sometimes, I keep it low key. Other times, Farmer Tom and I--and Christina--team up and bash heads.
On my blog, I deal with a variety of topics, occasionally addressing singles issues. I'm not necessarily against MRA/FRA types--admittedly, I don't spend a lot of time on those sites--but that is not the purpose of my blog.
As for Anakin, I generally agree with what he has here.
Are there times where maybe he addresses something I probably would have let drop? Sure. (The Boundless ad comes to mind.)
Are there times where I think he's off his rocker? You bet. (His take on Palin having a child after age 40 comes to mind.)
On the other hand, his general premise--providing balance against the backdrop of a Church culture predisposed against men--is on the money.
The original question, the one catwoman refuses to answer unless everyone else joins in, was posed by LadyElaine and runs thusly:
"You have told us your reasons, and you have long decided that no one is going to convince you otherwise. I'm sure you're aware that anakin and others are holding to their positions as well, and are not budging. Can you tell me what the purpose of your comments are?"
In the interests of magnanimity, I'll go ahead and answer.
When I learned about the Marriage Mandate, I was pretty astonished that such an absurd idea would be seriously considered by anybody, except perhaps some obscure Mormon sects out west. And maybe the Amish. But certainly not any mainstream evangelical Christians.
To my dismay, I noticed a number of women (mainly from Reformed sects, but many denominations were represented to some degree) jumping on the bandwagon, eagerly lapping up the misandrist philosophy that helps them rationalize their own loneliness and inability to attract husbands. But what really got my goat was the accusation that, as a single man NOT eagerly pursuing marriage, I was committing a grievous sin. Apparently I am a thief for "robbing" a woman of a husband, as if my body is the de facto property of a woman I've never met.
As one accused, I defend myself, both at this blog and elsewhere.
I said that gender politics have limited relevance, but they do have some relevance. As for those who say they are here to provide balance, I would also say "same here".
Speaking of balance -- in my own defense, I will say that the views I express here are a lot more balanced than you guys give me credit for.
Anon wrote:
Not must, but ought.
Still setting a low bar, no?
Triton wrote:
As one accused, I defend myself, both at this blog and elsewhere.
ditto here
Learner said: If you believe the ideas espoused on this blog or on PCs are so inconsequential why do you bother?
"Inconsequential" is the key word that only Catwoman can answer.
Still haven't heard from Learner.
Haven't heard from me about what, anonymous? (is it catwoman anonymous or a different anonymous?) I can't answer the question I posed because I don't think these issues are inconsequential. I can do as Triton did, and answer Lady Elaine's initial question :Can you tell me what the purpose of your comments are? The purpose of my comments is to participate in the discussion about issues that I believe are quite consequential in society and the church today. I participate in the discussion to learn and understand.
Whose turn is it now?
Mine?
I'm here because the first thing I heard from Debbie Maken was on a Boundless blog about the decline of marriage.
In essence, the article I read made complete sense. However, it WAS very biased. I loved the points about a society that doesn't cater to long term relationships.
It made sense to me.
I probably agree with Maken on a few thoughts, though I will never agree that marriage is a "mandate".
I do think that if a man EVER wishes to marry, than he should be preparing himself for that endeavor - even if he doesn't see himself in such a situation for a long time. Same with women, though.
And that's where I align myself with Anakin, Triton, EW, and Amir.
A firm anti-feminist and one with friends that are sympathetic to the feminist viewpoint, I've spent a lot of time trying to learn about it, understand it, and understand what is and isn't good about it.
A lot of it ISN'T, hence the "anti". A lot of the issues in todays dating/marriage society ARE results of feministic indoctrination...and some of it sounds oh so sweet to the ears, but is oh so contrary to God's word.
I want to see men in leadership roles. I want to empower men. I'm sick and tired of women usurping the authority out of their hands.
I also can't stand how easy it is to get a divorce in this country and how bad an effect that has had on the marriage culture. And do you know who is largely to blame for easy divorce? Give you 3 guesses.
I do think this stuff is consequential and sometimes, words are important.
The news boys union of NYC began with words on paper.
The full force of American abolition began with words on paper.
Don't underestimate the power of words. What starts has a small "inconsequential" spark can soon ignite the world.
The news boys union of NYC began with words on paper.
Actually...that was much bigger than the news boys union. it actually started the formation of child labor unions and eventually the child labor laws.
So a bit bigger...but still, started with words on paper =p
Post a Comment