Just Simply Bizarre

A few bizarre odds and ends:

I just saw this on Amazon. As everyone knows, Debbie Maken’s book is out of print. Of course, there are plenty of used copies, and even some new copies that have never been used. What is so funny is that there is someone on Amazon who is selling an unused copy of Debbie Maken’s book for $928.00, plus $3.99 shipping. Yes, folks, we have someone demanding nearly a thousand dollars for the worst book I have ever read.

Also, I read something disturbing this morning from Dr. Russell Moore. To illustrate why it was so disturbing, first listen to Gary DeMar discuss the liberal political interpretation of the birth narrative of Jesus:

Then, go and read what Dr. Russell Moore had to say about the birth narratives of Jesus. The similarities in methodology are striking.

Let me first of all say that I am firmly pro-life and entirely against abortion. I believe it is murder, and I believe it falls under the condemnation of Exodus 22. That being said, the birth narrative of Jesus is not about abortion, or about children, or even our view of children. Dr. Moore is simply reading his views into the text at this point. The text has to do with kings, not babies. The issue is submission to the baby who is coming into the world as God incarnate, and the fact that Herod refused to submit his will to God. Also, it has nothing to to with Joseph and gender roles of providing and protecting. It, rather, shows Joseph’s obedience and faithfulness to God, that he did exactly as God had commanded him! Here you have a man of great faith, and all Dr. Moore can see is the fact that he protected and provided for Mary and Jesus. The real contrast here is between Joseph who submitted to the lordship of the baby in the manger, and Herod who did not submit to the lordship of the baby in the manger.

This is a clear example of politicizing a text. There are plenty of clear texts to go to in order to prove that abortion is wrong. There are also plenty of clear texts to go to in order to show that the covenant community must have some of its people about the task of having and raising covenant children.

Now, it is bad enough that this takes place in interpretation. Politicizing of interpretation of the Bible can be corrected by simply allowing the text to speak for itself. However, what do you do if the actual text of the Bible is changed for political reasons? A case in point is the Conservative Bible Project, which is being undertaken by Andy Shlafly, the son of conservative advocate Phyllis Shlafly. I first heard of this from a New Testament major here at Trinity who works for Creation Ministries International, and informed me of their translation of Genesis. Now, let me first of all say that, like Dr. Mohler and Dr. Moore, Phyllis and Andy Shlafly have done much good for the body of Christ. I highly respect all of these people.

However, there are some things about the Conservative Bible Project that are disturbing. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote the following about this translation:

Conservapedia.com is sponsoring a new Bible translation called the Conservative Bible Project. The project involves open-source editing, which has been an open source of woe or comic relief, depending on your perspective. The Tennesean.com reports that Gen 1.1 was changed by fans of Stephen Colbert as follows: “In the beginning, Stephen Colbert created the heavens and the earth”! The text was later fixed. Al Gore may have invented the Internet, but Colbert did not create the universe. Elsewhere, someone changed ‘Pharisee’ to ‘liberal’ to show that liberals were responsible for Jesus’ death. Schlafly changed it back to Pharisee but admitted to the Tennesean.com, “The possibility that Pharisees, which is a term that’s not familiar to most of us, could be better translated as liberal is intriguing. But we haven’t gone with that yet.”

I think Dr. Wallace summed up the major problem that I have with the interpretations that have produced this movement that makes marriage and children a requirement for virtually everyone, the interpretations that Dr. Moore gave in the above article, as well as the Conservative Bible Project, when he wrote that the “political ideology is so strong that it overrides everything else.” I fear that, if this is not stopped, we will be doing the exact same thing to the text that liberation theology does, only, we will be reading right wing political ideas into the text, rather than the left wing, large government, anti-oppression ideas that you find liberation theologians reading into the text. I hope God calls the evangelical community to its senses before this happens.

Proverbs 25:16 and the Full Quiver Movement

I have just recently got finished with another discussion with some full quiver advocates. As most people know, full quiver advocates will repeat the mantra that children are a “blessing.” I have often challanged full quiver advocates to show, either from the Hebrew term hk’r'B., or from the context of any text where children are called a blessing, that children are somehow something that must be received.

I had one full quiver advocate with the screenname of Zenas argue a different tact. He tried to say that, if we are correct, then having another child when you could not reasonably afford them would mean that children were a financial burden. Since children are called a blessing, we must be wrong because blessing and financial burden are mutually exclusive ideas.

Now, I sat and thought about what the best way to answer this was for quite some time. I even posted a couple of posts that I don’t think got to the heart of what I was thinking. Then, I remembered this brilliant text from the book of Proverbs!:

`At*aqE)h]w: WN[,ªB'f.Ti÷-!P, &'Y<+D: lkoåa/ t'ac'm'â vb;äD.

[If] you find honey, eat [only] what you need, lest you have enough of it, and and vomit it up.

In this text, you clearly have the presentation of a blessing, namely, honey. Yet, this text says that you are to take only what you need, because too much of a blessing is still a bad thing. Consider the comments from these scholars:

Overindulgence transformed the sweet and healing honey into repulsive and sickening food. Ecclesiastes instantiates the exemplar of honey, too. In other words, “too much of anything is bad” (cf. Sir. 37:29).

Waltke, Bruce. The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31. William B Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan.2005 p.326

These two proverbs are joined by their second cola, each warning against overdoing good things and the bad consequences that follow from such behavior….While both of these proverbs have their applications in a particular aspect of life (eating and social relationships), they still raise the question of application even more broadly. Too much of virtually any good thing will have negative consequences.

Longman, Tremper. Proverbs. Baker Academic. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2006. p.455

Don’t overdo good things (v 16) even friendship (v 17). Just as you should not overindulge on sweets, so you shouldn’t overstay your welcome. However pleasant you may be, your neighbor will get fed up (in two senses) and “vomit” you out. Both verses can stand as separate proverbs and very likely were originally independent. In context, v 17 applies v 16 to a particular circumstance. The idea of v 16 is also stated in 25:27a and 27:7a.

Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 10-31, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Yale University Press. New Haven. 2009. p.785

This is important because, as you can see, JoyFullMom tried to ask whether God knows whether or not he has blessed us sick. Obviously, the simple response is, “Does God know when he has blessed us sick with honey? Does that mean we should always eat all the honey even if we “think” it is more than what we need?” The point of this text is that God expects his people to show moderation in relation to the blessings he deals out, because too much of any blessing is not a good thing. I never heard a satisfactory answer to this text.

There was something else I learned about full quiver advocates. When they talk about children as a blessing, what they really seem to mean is that they are a blessing in a way that nothing else is a blessing, and thus, they can be arbitrary in how they apply this idea that children are blessings. Even when they could not come up with a reason why I was comparing apples and oranges, I must be comparing apples and oranges, since children are uniquely a blessing. Also, the personal stories about how people had way more children then they could reasonably afford, and ended up financially okay were repeated over and over ad infinitum ad nauseum. Of course, they ignore all of the bad personal stories that come from this movement. This kind of arbitrariness was all over the thread.

Also, the lack of a sense of humor from some of these folks was amazing. Some of these folks, like JoyFullMom, did seem to have a great sense of humor. However, that was not the norm. I even made a little rhetorical joke. I was pointing out that only having twenty-five extra dollars a month to take care of a child in the current family budget was not realistic. Someone asked me who decides what twenty-five dollars “extra” was, thus, not getting at all what I was saying. So I responded with, “The federal reserve.” All he could say was, “huh?”

However, I do think the weakness in this movement is exegetical, and it really showed in their trying to deal with Proverbs 25:16. I would commend it to you as a text you can use in your discussions with full quiver advocates.

Full Quiver Movement Proponent Supports Murder

I have just gotten done with a conversation with someone from the full quiver movement. The first thing I can say is that I wish I would have stayed with the exegesis of the text of scripture. That is the weakness of the full quiver movement. Hence, I don’t think my comments will be overly useful. However, I wanted to post some of the incredible statements I heard on this forum. The first comment came from a man whose wife has a disorder. Here was his message:

This may not fall into this argument but I think that it provides a unique perspective.

(I apologize in advance if this is too revealing, but I will proceed anyway)

My wife recently found out (about six months ago) that she had a blood clot in one of her ovaries. She was advised by her hematologist that if she were to get pregnant before it dissolved that she ran a serious risk of dislodging it and sending it either to her heart or brain. Both of which could result in serious ailment including stroke, heart attack, or death. She was placed on blood thinners and pain relievers (as it caused tremendous pain at times) and ordered to rest as much as possible.

Now, having said that, my question is this: Should we have not taken every precaution (which we did in limiting our marital activity and using prophylactics) or should we have run the risk of not taking said precautions and allowed whatever would have been?

It also would seem to me that some issues of stewardship should be considered when dealing with this matter!

To which the full quiver advocate responded:

And if the Lord knows that conception will harm her, He will ensure that your wife does not conceive. (And I think He does know!) Nowhere does scripture tell us to cross the street without looking but it does tell us that man and wife are to love one another freely.

To which the gentleman responded:

I’m not sure that you, or anyone else for that matter, are qualified to say that God would prevent that from happening. What if it were God’s will for her to get pregnant and die as a result to bring about a greater good? (Praise God that that didn’t happen!) Who are we to say what is in the mind of God or what he will use to bring about his will in our lives and the lives of all of his children?

Certainly God could have prevented it, and did for that matter, but it is very dangerous to say that He would have. That is somewhat akin to jumping off of a cliff and saying God will save me as opposed to God could save me if it is according to His will.

P.S. Don’t jump off of a cliff!

However, here is how the full quiver advocate responded by first quoting this section from the gentleman’s post:

I’m not sure that you, or anyone else for that matter, are qualified to say that God would prevent that from happening. What if it were God’s will for her to get pregnant and die as a result to bring about a greater good? (Praise God that that didn’t happen!) Who are we to say what is in the mind of God or what he will use to bring about his will in our lives and the lives of all of his children?

and then responding:

If He does not, then such is His will for His people. Amen. Don’t waste it.

(See Piper’s quote on cancer in an earlier thread – sorry, can’t find it, but here is a link to the quote: Don’t Waste Your Cancer :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library)

Worse, he made this comment afterwards:

I know that my above post seems like a harsh post, but I feel uniquely qualified to make it. I have seen my wife’s life be threatened by her pregnancy, but have seen God’s hand in saving her and providing for her each time. Obey His word and the blessings will come, in one form or another.

Now, the only thing I can say to this is “amazing.” Again, these guys will not defend themselves exegetically. In that whole thread, these folks avoided exegesis like the plague. These ideas are adding to God’s word plain and simple.

However, worse than that, in the name of counterculturalism, here we have the sixth commandment being violated. For those of you who do not know, in reformed circles, we believe that there is both a positive and negative meaning to the ten commandments. For example, “You shall not steal” is not only a command to refrain from taking other people’s property, but it is also to show respect for other people’s property. Similarly, the command to not murder also means that we are commanded to take every precaution to preserve human life, as well as refrain from taking human life. One of the clearest explainations of this commandment comes in the following law:

Deuteronomy 22:8 “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it.

The reason why there is bloodguilt that is brought upon the one who does not put up a railing is because he was showing negligence in the protection of human life.

In the same way, imagine a person who builds a very tall skyscraper, and does not put a railing around the roof. He may get many blessings. People may come from far and wide, since his view is unimpeded by a railing, and, therefore, is the best. However, the first time someone falls off that skyscraper, and he gets sued, is he going to respond, “Well, we should just not waste it, just as we shouldn’t waste our cancer.”?

As far as I am concerned, Biblically, this position is equal to murder. If a woman is in this man’s situation, and his wife gets pregnant because the man refuses to protect his wife, and then she promptly dies from it, I believe that the man is Biblically guilty of murder, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. What is ironic is that the full quiver advocates claim to be consistently “pro-life,” and yet, here they have made children such an idol that even human life is meaningless. Also, as far as I am concerned, anyone who openly promotes murder like this is a heretic, pure and simple. As far as “obedience to God,” I think full quiver advocates need to wake up and realize that professional exegetes are not buying their arguments. They are way too reductionistic. That is the one thing I keep hitting myself about this. I wish I would have stayed with the text of scripture. Keep a full quiver advocate in the text, and he will have a hard time.

I guess this is my concern. Yes, this man is a wacko, and does not deserve any kind of serious hearing. However, my question to those who put up this “countercultural” rhetoric is simply this: how far are you willing to go? If you can read things into the text that allow you to say that delay of marriage is a sin, or that not having children is a sin, and say that they are justified in that they are “countercultural,” well, so is this guy’s arguments. This is why counterculturalism doesn’t work. We should not accept something just because it is old fashioned and countercultural. We have to go back to scripture, and engage in responsible exegesis of the text of scripture.

Just Listen and Watch!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I found this video on Youtube, and I wanted to share it with everyone. It is a combination of one of my favorite songs, and simply staggering scenery. I was just left breathless at how beautiful this presentation was. Whoever made it is to be congratulated on a wonderful video.

So, just sit back, relax, and let the words and the pictures of this video be a blessing to you!

[BTW, for the best effect, you should definitely view it at full screen size. Turning off the lights helps too!]

The Mandatory Marriage Movement: A Plea for Humility

Over the past several weeks, I have been appauled at the attitude of many of the women associated with the mandatory marriage movement. Not only that, it seems like sin breeds sin, and the men have responded in a very nasty fashion. I am really concerned about all of this, and I am concerned that, ultimately, the one who is going to get hurt is the woman. It is with this in mind that I write this post.

To what am I referring. Well, I am referring to an article that really started this whole thing by Suzanne Hadley called Not Your Buddy. The whole premise of the article is that there is a possibility of the blurring of the line between a friendship and a relationship, and that one needs to be careful that there is no crossing of the line. For example, she argues that there is, in men who blur this line, a desire to have the benefits of the relationship without commitment.

What I have been appauled at is, first of all, the lack of critical thinking that has been put into this kind of article, but also the utterly arrogant and nasty responses of women, and the likeminded responses of men. Not only that, the drum keeps on being beat ad infinitum ad nauseum. In the last few weeks, I have heard this on the Focus on the Family radio program from Candice Watters, The Boundless Show, and a Boundless article that just came out today.

What is interesting is that I must not be the only one who is noticing it, since Motte Brown posted this at the end of the blog post for the podcast:

Note: And please guys, if you’re thinking about writing to complain that we’re bashing men again, don’t. These are the Inbox questions we get. If you have some questions of your own about the mysteries of the fairer sex, we’ll be happy to answer those as well.

Now, I first have to ask: Are we seriously supposed to believe that these are the only Inbox questions they get? For as big as Focus on the Family is, and as much marketing power as these guys have to get their messages out there, I find it *extremely* hard to believe that this is all they get. Not only that, but why focus on this stuff in the Focus on the Family broadcast, the podcast, and the first article this week?

Not only that, but why focus on this with an uncritical and sometimes downright arrogant attitude? There are several comments that I think need to be made before we can even discuss legitimate circumstances in which this does happen.

First of all, one must ask, given the fact that women tend to think about things through their emotions much more than men, how do we know that all of these instances are legitimate instances of this? Imagine a general friendship that the woman secretly wants to be more than what it is. However, the man will not commit. She complains that they spend way to much time together, and yet, one of her friends tells her that the only time they really talk is after church service, and even then she is preventing him from leaving to attend to his errands, and her friend can tell that he is getting annoyed. She says she is tired of them sharing each others’ deep, dark secrets with him, but the reality is that she is the only one sharing these secrets. In essence, what this turns into is an instance of the “Buddy Syndrome” that is illegitimate, because the woman is interpreting her experiences with this guy through the lens of her desire to be in a relationship with him. How do we know that is not going on?

Now, not only that, we also have to beware of the fact that we live in a culture that is very anti-male. I have talked to lawyers who are getting tired of all of the sexual harrassment and stalking cases that are just getting out of control. I remember a lawyer telling me about a woman who was cheating on her husband, and her husband caught her. However, she ended up kicking him out of the house, and didn’t even give him time to get his clothes. After a while, when he started getting a little ripe, and needed a shower, he called her to ask if he could set up a time to pick up his clothes. Because of that call, he was slapped with a telecommunications harassment charge, and was issued a restraining order.

This that this is the only story? Think again. Phyllis Schlafly tells a story about a twelve year old who was suspended for sexual harassment when he stuck his tongue out at a girl who had just refused to be his girlfriend. One lawyer told me that they hand out these restraining orders like candy. Of course, what do you expect when you define morality on the basis of how the person feels rather than on what the person did? Feelings are subjective, and it will create a mess.

Now, do you expect that a man is going to be very open about his feelings for a girl when he has been through something like that? I rather doubt it. Also, consider the fact that it may not even be related to this kind of abuse. Maybe someone hurt him really bad, or abused him in some other way. All of these things play into this issue, and to just say that this is an example of the “Buddy Syndrome” without asking a few more questions is simply being uncritical. The next question that one must ask is who will ever admit to being treated in this fashion? I think a lot of the answers that are given by men that women think reflect a lack of commitment may be simply ways of getting out of a situation where they have to tell someone about some abuse in their past.

Now, let us suppose that it is not a matter of abuse, nor is it a matter of the woman’s misinterpretation. Let us now suppose that we have a legitimate case of a man who will not commit. Candice offers this advice:

For your part, I think the best thing you can do is back away from him. It won’t be easy because you do like him so much and do wish it were more than “just friends.” But he is defrauding* you; taking advantage of your time, friendship and affections without giving any commitment. He is not protecting your heart. He is acting irresponsibly toward you, even if he doesn’t recognize that he is. (In his defense, it’s possible he’s naive to the pain he’s causing you and the inappropriateness of his behavior. Though that’s no reason to let him continue.)

If you spend less time with him, he’ll either miss you and realize he does want to make your relationship official. Or he will move on to another woman (and likely treat her the same way). As painful as that second scenario would be, it will be even more painful if you delay it (and invest even more of yourself in him between now and then). As happy as that first scenario would be (and it would be happy if it works out that way), it’s unlikely to happen if you don’t cut him off from so much access to you. Either way there is no benefit to delay (you’ve already shown you’re unhappy with the way things are).

Now, I want to compare what Candice says to what Jesus says we are to do when we are wronged by a brother:

Matthew 18:15-20 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. 19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

Notice how Candice’s solution simply avoids everything that Jesus says here. The first step is for this girl to go up to this guy and simply say, “You know, I am concerned about the fact that the amount of time that we are spending together is making it look like we are an item when we are not. I really like you, and I do want to marry you, but if we are not going to be in a relationship, I think that we need to set boundaries so that we do not end up looking like we are.” She can then explain to him that she does want to get married, and that she is afraid of the consequences of this continuing.

If that doesn’t work, then Jesus says you are to take someone else along [another girl, perhaps, who has noticed the same things she has noticed].

If he still will not listen to them, then they need to take it to the church. Both of them need to go to an elder, and tell them that there is a problem here. If he does not listen to them, then, and only then does Jesus say women are to do what Candice is suggesting.

I want you to notice the difference between the emphasis of Jesus and the emphasis of Candice Watters. Candice accuses this man of “defrauding” her, and basically keeping other guys from seeing that she is available. The whole center of Candice’s concern is this woman getting married. We see, again this idolatry coming through in what Candice says and writes.

Now, I want you to notice the emphasis on what Jesus says. Does Jesus want to take away the good, Godly desires that a woman may have? No. However, Jesus recognizes that the goal here is restoration. You see, Candice even mentions that this guy may do this again if given another chance. However, if you, instead, take Jesus’ advice, you will have won your brother.

I also want to notice Jesus’ usage of the term “brother.” This puts the person who has been wronged on an equal level with the person who has wronged them. What I have been amazed at is the arrogance of the way in which Candice Watters and others have handled this situation. For example, take a look at the downright snotty remark Candice makes towards this man:

Thanks for writing! I agree with you that your male friend (and future pastor) is indeed sending mixed signals. Though I disagree that he is “very godly”– at least when it comes to how he relates to women. This is sadly too common these days, in part because men aren’t expected to get married anytime soon and also because women let them get away with it.

Actually, the reason why men do this [in legitimate cases, that is] is because of sin, and not because of some unbiblical expectation that needs to be put in place for men to marry. Again, I have to ask if Candice has thought this position through. Does she really want someone like this to get married, and then have this kind of a relationship with a woman other than his wife? No, that will not solve this problem. Also, I want to notice this whole notion of “women let them get away with it.” I, again, want to ask if that is Jesus’ attitude? Jesus does not tell the person that they must accept that what the other person did is right, but he does tell them that there must approach the other person on equal footing, with the intent of restoring their brother. However, the arrogance only gets worse:

He is acting irresponsibly toward you, even if he doesn’t recognize that he is. (In his defense, it’s possible he’s naive to the pain he’s causing you and the inappropriateness of his behavior. Though that’s no reason to let him continue.)

Yes, let us just throw out all other explainations, and just assume that he is just naive. Again, compare Candice’s attitude with the attitude of Jesus. Her attitude is, “He is just foolishly naive; that’s no reason to not let him get you, though.” Again, I have to ask what will happen next time Candice is in a situation in which she has hurt someone, and does not realize it. Would she appriciate someone calling her naive to the pain she is causing someone else, and have someone tell this person, “But that’s no reason to let her continue.”

However, it gets worse. Consider this quote:

Now to him. If he really does want to be a pastor someday, his behavior will have to change or he’s headed for trouble. What a man like him needs most–in addition to a rock solid commitment to Christ and Christ’s transformative power at work in his sinful heart–is godly, wise and practical mentors who can help him see his need to change the way he relates to women. Then he’ll be ready to find and take a wife. And that’s also something a man like him probably needs to succeed in his life work and calling. (See especially God’s solution to Adam’s aloneness in Genesis 2, as well as Paul’s conversations with Timothy about the centrality of family to making healthy church leaders.)

His behavior is really frustrating (and despicable) wherever it occurs. But especially so in men who are already claiming pastor status. The standard of conduct for them is, and ought to be, higher (James 3:1-3).

The question for you is, will you hold him to it?

Now, I have been over Genesis 2:18 ad infinitum ad nauseum. The best I have gotten in response to my exegesis of that passage is name calling from Albert Mohler calling it “warped,” and leaping out of the text to 1 Corinthians 7, and not engaging in any exegesis there either. I will not repeat what I have said there. However, Candice says this man needs mentors. No, what he needs is someone to lovingly rebuke him in an attempt, not to tear him down, but to restore him, if, indeed, this is the problem. The fact that Candice tells this woman to leave this up to a mentor is in direct violation of what this text in Matthew 18 says. The difference in the attitude between Candice Watters and Jesus Christ is instructive.

As I alluded to earlier, I can see how Candice’s views of marriage being as necessary to an individual as food play into this. If you are being starved to death, then the most important thing is going to be to get your food, and you can act as arrogant and as snotty as you want to anyone who stands in your way, expecially people who have wronged you.

That being said, I have also been alarmed at the superiority complex that women have developed ever since this movement came out. Honestly, I do not blame the women for this. I blame teachers like Debbie Maken who gave a blank check to women to shame single men simply because they did not give them what they want, namely, marriage. The importance of that term “brother” in Matthew 18 is that we need to not treat each other arrogantly when we rebuke one another. We need to recognize that we too are sinners. Hence, we approach rebuking a brother as if we are a beggar who has found food, and wants to show another beggar where he can find food. The point should always be restoration, not “Don’t let him do that to you.” Neither women nor men are spiritually superior. Neither women nor men are more intellegent than the other. If you are a woman, and you think you are more intelligent then men, rest assured that one day you will meet a guy who will be able to refute everything you say, and dominate you intellectually. If you think you are spiritually superior to men, then be prepared to one day meet a man who seems to be always right. I am saying all of these things because, no matter how good you are, there is always someone better.

That is why God requires us to act in humility when we rebuke, even when we are in the right. I am afraid that, if this does not stop, eventually, a woman who behaves in the manner Candice suggests towards someone who has wronged them will one day have that behavior returned. Of course, in both instances, it is wrong, but there are many people who will seek vengance, and the weaker vessel, as the apostle Peter calls her, will get hurt worse than the man. Sin breeds sin; arrogance breeds arrogance.

My plea here is for both sides of this debate to humble themselves before one another and be Biblical in the way we handle those who have wronged us. First of all, we might want to go to scripture, and find out if it is actually sin before we go saying things like, “Delay of marriage is a sin.” However, even when we do find out that something is sin, we need to recognize that we are sinners too, and we need to recognize that God has called us, because of this, to act humbly, yet uncompromisingly in such a situation. We need to be aware that one day we may wrong that same person who has wronged us, and thus, we need to treat him in the same way that we would want to be treated if we were in his shoes. I think that, if we remember these Biblical principles, this firestorm will calm down.

Boundless Matchmaking Service????????

I recently ran across this post on a blog run by Candice Watters. It reads as follows:

And because I’m not content to simply talk about how women are finding very little help to marry well, I’m also thrilled to be able to tell you that we are hard at work developing a next generation dating service, coming soon to a community near you. You can take a sneak peek and sign up to be part of our pre-release team here.

Also, Candice writes in the next post:

We’re excited to see so much interest in the coming-soon dating service brought to you by some of the people who brought you Boundless webzine. Thanks to all of you who’ve already joined the interest list; we’ll be sending more detailed updates, and asking for your feedback, soon. Please feel free to spread the word to your friends, especially guys. The more the merrier!

Now, the website is not up and running, but you can view a sampling of what to expect here.

I am not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, we do want to encourage singles to pursue marriage if that is their heart’s desire. On the other hand, one does have to wonder about how we are to understand this website in the light of Candice’s books and articles. Keep in mind that this is the same woman who wrote that marriage of the same necessity is to an individual as food. How much of this is simply continuing this message of pragmatism?

It is hard to know how to understand this given the whole context in which this movement has taken shape. One also has to wonder how much of this is simply more marketing. The reason is that, when a man signs up for marrywell.org, it appears that the ideas of this movement will be presented along with the matches. For example, on the front page it reads:

-Focus on intentionality and Christian compatability.
-Invite support from friends, family, and mentors.
-Receive coaching at key steps along the way.

Now, those of you who know Candice’s writings know that much of the key language for what she believes about relationships is tied up in those points. Hence, how much of this is more promotion?

I would be interested in hearing people’s comments on this development, especially if you have been dealing with this movement for any length of time. What do you make of this?

What’s So Bad About Carolyn McCulley?

One of the things I remember about Debbie Maken’s followers is how they would literally go after Carolyn McCulley. I could not believe how nasty some of the comments were towards her. Of course, Debbie Maken’s followers could very rarely be nice to anyone with whom they disagreed. However, I also have had several people who do not agree with Debbie Maken who have expressed considerable disagreement with Carolyn McCulley.

Now, I will be the first one to admit that, other then reading her blog to see her review of Debbie Maken, a few of her articles, and some of her interaction with some of Debbie Maken’s followers, I have not read much of Carolyn McCulley. I have not read her book, and have very little familiarity with her writings en toto. However, I did listen to three different shows that both she and Candice Watters did on Focus on the Family’s radio program. They can be found here:

http://listen.family.org/daily/A000002244.cfm

http://listen.family.org/daily/A000002245.cfm

http://listen.family.org/daily/A000002246.cfm

Let me just say that I found Carolyn McCulley to be entirely balanced throughout these three programs. I could find nothing wrong with what she was teaching, and, more amazingly, her balance shined brightly against Candice Watters’ imbalance. Candice was all about “what women can do to help it happen,” and, while Carolyn McCulley certainly didn’t ignore that aspect, she put it in its proper place of God’s sovereignty, and trusting in God to do what is best in your life. In fact, at one point, they got into a little bit of back and forth on 1 Corinthians 7 during the second program, which was interesting.

At the end of either the first or second programs, Dr. Dobson honored her as a wonderful woman of God, and, from what I could hear, it was hard to disagree. I would invite women to listen to these programs. Yes, you will here Candice Watters repeating things I have dealt with ad infinitum ad nauseum. However, I would recommend listening to it in the light of the balance offered by Carolyn McCulley.

Another “Marriage is a Cure All” Message

I don’t know how many people heard Kay Hymowitz on the Boundless Show recently, but, again, it really made me wonder how shallow our views of purity are. The problem that was addressed was the problem male and female immaturity especially around the twenty somethings age. Of course, I agree that this is a problem. We are a very immature, self-centered culture, and the younger you are, the more immature you can be.

However, what was most disturbing is the fact that sociology was brought into the discussion. Now, sociology is an interesting science. However, the hard thing about using sociological ideas in a discussion like this is that they are very deterministic. I remember my sociology professor saying that you can get anyone to do anything if you just put them in a given situation. Of course, this is entirely against the Christian worldview, because it logically ends up destroying human freedom, and thus, rational inquiry. For example, if our thoughts and actions are all deterministic, then the only reason why we disagree on issues is because of the fact that we have different causal factors acting upon our brain, and, therefore, it is impossible to know the truth. However, one will have to grant that there is validity to, for example, Durkhiem’s suicide studies. What is interesting, though, is that there will always be some people who do not fit the mold. Now, sociologists explain this as the result of actions having multiple causes. My initial impression of that is to postulate that there are not *causes* at work here, but *influences.* When one finds other “causes,” we need to consider them as other “influences,” and these influences work to pursuade the individual to do various things. However, ultimately, as a Christian, I believe we do things because of our will, and because we choose to give into those influences. That is why I think the interpretation of those who do not fit is so important.

What is interesting, though, is that the ideas of sociology that were brought into the discussion about the immaturity of men and women in today’s culture. You see, sociology is concerned more with results that come from societal influences, than results that come from influences upon an individual person. Thus, we want to look, not just at the individual, but also at the sociological context of that individual in order to explain the individual’s actions. For example, in Durkhiem’s studies of suicide, he found that the more isolated you are in your societal context, the more likely you are to commit suicide. Hence, according to Durkheim, isolation is a causal factor in suicide. What has happened is that these studies have been applied to the whole issue of selfishness and immaturity in the church. The reasoning is that, because people who are a part of this new age group called “emerging adulthood” are usually living alone apart from a family, they are thus more self-centered and immature than other age groups. Now, of course, their solution was very clear at the end of the discussion with Kay Hymowitz: Get Married.

Now, I think that, both Sociologically as well as Biblically, this is entirely reductionistic. First of all, with regards to sociology, there will *almost always* be more than one factor. To say that not living in families is the *only* factor in this is something that is improper sociologically. Consider other factors, such as churches who stop being deeply involved in the lives of students after they graduate from High School and the youth group. Consider the selfish, self-centered messages that are taught on today’s university campuses. Also, consider the fact that the west is, as a society, extremely self-centered. Hence, you have Christian singles who are isolated from the Christian community, and fed messages of selfishness from universities as well as the culture, and are likewise living alone. One could probably think of more factors that this that could be contributing to this slide in maturity. Hence, even from a sociological standpoint, the solution “get married” is entirely reductionistic.

Now, from a Biblical standpoint, it is also entirely reductionistic. At the end of the interview, Candice Watters gives her solution of “get married,” and says, “It all comes back to getting married. We were made for marriage; we were made for each other. If you believe in a creator, we were created to be married.” Again, an overly simplistic view of man, and completely neglects the effects of the fall upon marriage. Also, we were not created to be married. There is nothing inherently deficient in us when we are unmarried. There is a situational problem [Genesis 2:18], but, now that sin has entered into the world, there is also a situational problem in marriage [Genesis 3:16]. Not only that, but I think such a teaching actually fosters hatred of men, because marriage is viewed as a necessity to life. Marriage is not something necessary to an individual’s life; it is something most people *want,* and something God may or may not decide to give you in this life.

Might I suggest that the problem goes much deeper than just “get married.” We live in a society of selfishness, and we have churches who just throw children out there in society without ever preparing them. Then they get bombarded with selfish philosophy and cultural influences, and end up becoming more and more self-centered. The solution is not to point people towards marriage, but to point people towards Christ. We need to call people to give up self, take up their cross, and follow Christ. If they would like to serve God in marriage, then they should have every right to pursue it. However, God is ultimately the one who will determine whether or not you will marry, and, if God determines that you are not going to marry, your ultimate desire needs to be to serve God and not serve yourself. I have said this before, but when a person presents what Candice says, there is a real danger of good desires like the desire for marriage and children becoming an idol, and thus, becoming just as selfish as the world. Notice how, throughout this whole interview, you have discussion about what people “want” and what makes them “happy.” Of course, God doesn’t care about what we want, or our happiness. He wants us to be holy, and, in fact, if Proverbs 3:11-12 is to be believed, there will be times when it is best for us to have God actually inflict pain upon us, in order to teach us, and to help us grow in wisdom. Ultimately, God’s way is best, and, until we realize that, we will always have the exact same problems of selfishness and self-centeredness, and we will never change.

Another Reason not to Trust Popular Prophecy Teachers

I don’t know how many of you remember me posting this video from Jack Van Impe, but, there have been some new developments, and they are just sad. Here, again, is the video:

Now, just read this from Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563621,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r1:c0.000000:b0:z5

Again, if we just allowed scripture to interpret scripture rather than trying to read some pagan notion into the text, we would not only get the interpretation of scripture right, but, if we study pagan calenders, we will get that right too.

Eugenie Scott’s Philosophical Incompetency

I remember the first time I picked up Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion from the shelf of a bookstore. I had heard so much about it, and people were harolding it is the ultimate refutation of theism. I picked it up, and read through the first two chapters, and, much to my suprise, the book was terrible. There are many, many books that argue from an atheistic perspective *far* better than Dawkins. Now, don’t get me wrong, Dawkins is a bright guy, but he has never studied the area of theology, philosophy, or anything else, and the result is a book that is filled with misunderstandings, naive and uncritical assumptions, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. I never thought I would ever run into someone who was worse than Dawkins.

However, I got a copy of the DVD Expelled, No Intellegence Allowed from the school library, and I ran into someone who is far worse. The woman’s name is Eugenie Scott. This woman is way more naive than Richard Dawkins! You see, the theory of evolution is built upon the presuppositions of naturalistic materialism. Now, naturalistic materialism is in trouble philosophically. Eugenie Scott obviously knows this. How does she keep evolution from the battering rams of philosophy? Just listen:

Eugenie Scott distinguishes between what she calls “Methodological naturalism,” and “Philosophical naturalism.” She defines “methodological naturalism” by saying that

In science, we restrict ourself to natural cause. Science is a limited way of knowing, I like to tell people. We are limited to explaining just the natural world, we are not telling people how to treat each other, morals and ethics. We are just trying to explain the natural world, and we limit ourself to natural cause. The reason we limit ourself to natural cause, to methodological naturalism, is not because all scientists are atheists, because they aren’t. The reason we limit ourself to natural cause is because the essence of science is testing ideas against the natural world.

And, of course, she gives the philosophical definition of naturalism for the definition of “philosophical naturalism.” Now, I want to take this apart, and show that, when you dialogue with someone like Eugenie Scott, this is distinction between Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism is the first thing you have to attack.

The first thing I think that needs to be pointed out here is that Eugenie Scott’s definitions here are a philosophical mess. First of all, when you say that you are going to limit yourself to natural causes, you are presenting a metaphysical position. Eugenie doesn’t understand that, if you believe in a world other than the natural world that interacts with the natural world, then that other world is going to provide you with the context in terms of which you are going to understand the natural world. If you are not allowed to appeal to that context, then what you are, in essence saying is that such a context for understanding the natural world does not exist.

Although she isn’t meaning to say it, what she is in essence saying is [and I cannot believe that anyone would ever fall for this] that you can hold to any philosophy you want outside of the Science classroom, but, once you step into the science classroom, your methodology can no longer be built upon the sovereign God of the text of scripture; it must be built upon naturalism. In other words, when it comes to other things, you can hold to any philosophy you want. When you step into the classroom, you must construct a methodology based upon a metaphysic that, in any other area of inquiry, you do not hold.

What this ends up doing is promoting an inconsistency in someone’s metaphysic. It also creates an inconsistency in one’s epistemology. Eugenie says that science is a limited way of knowing, but, as Christians, the foundation of our knowledge begins with the supernatural, with God and his revelation. Hence, this limitation precludes the Christian worldview from being true right from the very beginning. In fact, Eugenie is basically saying that all scientific inquiry must be based upon the philosophy of Kant. What Eugenie is presenting as “methodological naturalism” is a philosophy of rationalism that is based upon Kant’s brick wall that he set up between the natural and supernatural realms. She is saying that, while you can deny that philosophy in other areas of life, you must hold it when you do science.

Now, what about the idea that someone can believe in evolution and still believe in God? My response is that theism is not Christianity. The view of a theistic evolutionist is far different from the view of a Biblical Creationist [of all forms]. Most theistic evolutionists have a very naturalistic view of God, which, of course, goes back to the fact that they are limiting themselves to the natural world. Even the ones who do not have to answer the question of how they know of God, since they cannot accept the Biblical model, and, even if they can answer that question, the answer is going to be radically different than the Christian answer. In essence, if you are a theist, and you take Eugenie Scott’s position, you are forced into a self-contradiction, or you can only add the supernatural back into the mix after you have begun with a naturalistic conclusion, which, in my mind only delays the inevitable incoherence.

Even Richard Dawkins can see past this. On the Expelled movie, Dawkins says those who believe in evolution and also believe in God are actually atheists. Even he can see the inevitable contradiction that will result from this kind of messy thinking.

That is why, philosophically, this is rediculious. However, I can only imagine the mind of a child who hears this. That is what, to me, is so sad. While it is philosophically absurd, it is deceptive because of the appearance of neutrality. Anytime an unbeliever wants to claim common ground like this, we need to be very suspcious. We are told in scripture that no man can serve two masters [Matthew 6:24], and that we are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ [2 Corinthians 10:5]. Notice what Eugenie is trying to argue. She is trying to argue that you *can* serve to masters [both God and naturalism], and that you do not have to take all thoughts captive the the obedience of Christ, and, in fact, in the scientific realm, you *can’t* take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ! You must leave Christ out of it.

At this point, I would recommend Greg Bahnsen’s lectures on this subject. I only pray that we could get Greg’s lectures into the hands of every Christian student going off to college:

Now, let us revisit Eugenie’s definition of science, and point out what Greg Bahnsen and his teacher Dr. Cornelius Van Til always said. When you take this view of science, you destroy science. Let us again take a look at Eugenie’s view of science and her methodology:

The reason we limit ourself to natural cause, to methodological naturalism, is not because all scientists are atheists, because they aren’t. The reason we limit ourself to natural cause is because the essence of science is testing ideas against the natural world.

Dr. Van Til and Dr. Bahnsen used to say that such a view of science destroys science. Let us look at a couple of examples of why that is.

First of all, I don’t think that anyone would argue that the laws of logic need to be disregarded in scientific research. In fact, Eugenie uses the laws of logic in her research. However, the laws of logic are not part of the natural world. The laws of logic are universal and abstract. As abstractions they are not material, and as universal, it is impossible to test them against the natural world. Therefore, one cannot consider the laws of logic given Eugenie’s position.

Also, how does Eugenie explain the principle of induction using this methodology? She speaks about things such as scientific laws, but the problem is, for something to be a law, it must be true for all times and all places. How does she know that such uniformities exist in nature? It would seem to me [and even to men like David Hume] to be totally irrational to assume such a thing, since any explaination of uniformity in the natural realm is going to necessarily have to rely upon the natural realm [since we are limited to the natural realm] thus begging the question.

Also, Richard Taylor’s argument is a problem. Taylor’s argument begins with an illustration. Let us imagine that we are in England traveling from London to Whales on a train. After a while, you look outside your window and see a formation of rocks that appear to be arranged in such a way so as to convey the message “The British Railway Welcomes you to Whales.” Now, you do realize that it would be perfectly rational to conclude that someone got up on the hill, and arranged those rocks in that formation. However, it would also be rational [although not overly likely] to conclude that that the rocks got into such an arrangement by natural weathering, by explaining how each rock could have gotten into the very place it is at. However, it would be irrational to conclude, on this latter interpretation, that you have information that you are entering Whales from the rock formations.

The question therefore becomes, if our senses are formed by naturalistic forces, then how do we know that they *function* to give us information about he external world? Such is an irrational conclusion if you believe that naturalistic processes formed your senses. In essence, now you cannot even have knowledge of the external world if you are a Darwinistic naturalist in your scientific methodology.

Hence, the logical conclusion of taking Eugenie’s methodology is that you cannot do science at all. Limiting knowledge and metaphysics in the way she has destroys the laws of logic, it destroys natural law, and it destroys investigation of that natural world. Yet, these are all things that are preconditions of science. Hence, Eugenie’s definition of science actually ends up doing violence to science, because such limitations on your methodology limit it to such an extent that the fundamental tools for understanding the material universe are thrown out as well.

Therefore, in reality, I would conclude that, not only does Eugenie Scott’s distinction not work, but her methodology results in the destruction of science altogether.