The CBE Scroll

Comment by LJR

June 16, 2006 @ 1:04 pm

I haven’t had any personal experience in situations where the woman is put up on the pedestal. (The way I grew up, the pedestal was solely for the men. The women were only there to clean it.)

That said, I’ve read some of those books. Even in the perceived efforts to put women on a pedestal, the same books reduce women to vain and shallow objects, caring only about their beauty and their ability to snag and satisfy a man. Women’s personhood and the image of God within us vanishes, leaving only our sexuality and our servitude.

I didn’t quite make the connection to Gnostic ideas until you pointed it out, but I’ve seen definite links between the books you mention and other very worldly views of men and women.

Why Christian men are being encouraged to settle for less than a complete human being, and why Christian women must be convinced to surrender so much of our humanity and God-given abilities if we want our own Christian families, is a mystery to me. It never made sense back in the comp days I wish I could forget, and it doesn’t make sense now. I’d rather have a male human being who wants to love a female human being. Speaking from experience, being ourselves and dealing with one another as we are just works better than all that mess with impossible ideals. Been there, done that, no thanks!

Comment by codepoke

June 16, 2006 @ 1:55 pm

I was raised on this error, and it cost me dearly. Bless you for calling it by name.

The harsh thing is that the role of women in the church is the one area where Brown really has some traction. There are plain quotes from the likes of Tertullian that Brown can bring to bear on the treatment of women in the later early church. He’s got bupkis when he attacks the divinity of Christ, but when he attacks the place of women in the church he can actually quote modern authors and seem to make a pretty sound point.

It makes it hard to navigate between his errors and ours.

Your post sails a straight course. Thank you.

Comment by Geraldine Glasenapp

June 16, 2006 @ 5:46 pm

Please give examples of the ‘Christian books’ to which you refer.
Thank you.

Comment by Makeesha

June 16, 2006 @ 6:37 pm

That is so true. Although, it’s no surprise really — dualistic philosophy and gnosticism pervades much of commonly accepted Christian teaching.

Comment by Seven Star Hand

June 16, 2006 @ 6:54 pm

Most have totally missed the point that the Hebrew and Gnostic texts and others are making. First, they refer to symbolic males and females, hence the philosophical masculine and feminine nature and character. All the Gnostic texts are philosophical and symbolic treatises, not literal narratives. When you try to interpret any of these ancient texts (including the Bible) as literal, you will always come to the wrong conclusions.

Mary and Sophia are parallel symbolic allegories and personifications of the feminine nature of wisdom and the Seven Spirits of God, which are the feminine character. This is the point that all of these texts and hidden codes are alluding to. The creator is properly viewed as philosophically feminine in nature and character (truth, wisdom, compassion, freewill, etc.), not as masculine, which includes greed, materialism, force, and coercion.

Likewise, the symbolism of Mary as a prostitute flows from discussions of wisdom becoming the harlot, hence ancient wisdom and philosophy being recast as religion over the ages. As in the symbology of the Apocalypse, women are wisdom-philosophy focused organizations and harlots symbolize religions that have chosen money and power over wisdom and compassion, hence the three faiths of Abraham. Mary’s daughter’s name Sarah is actually referring to Sirach and symbolizing the Gnostic movement that grew out of the Yahad/Essene movement after Rome scattered them from Judea (to Egypt and elsewhere).

You will not initially agree with everything I reveal, but please be a little patient with my presentation of what I have waited a very long time to be able to say. I promise to amaze and enlighten.

Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door (again), listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing is blindness…

Read verse twelve of the Gospel of Thomas to understand who I am…

Contrary to those who strive to assert that the DaVinci Code created the term, symbology is an ancient philosophical technology and I am a real life symbologist. Likewise, the upper-level members of secret societies such as Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Illumanti, and the Vatican are symbologists. Keeping their “craft” secretive and misunderstood is a purposeful ploy designed to hide the truth about ancient wisdom and the symbology used to model, encapsulate, and encode it. The title “mason” is itself a symbolic allusion to those who work with the “Philosophers’ Stone” which is the symbolic name given to an ancient body of symbology, hence “mason” refers to workers of symbolic “stone.”

Read Proverbs 9:1 below to better understand this situation.

Wisdom has built Her house. She has carved out Her seven pillars.

Notice that “wisdom” is referred to as “Her” and “She”, as in Sophia and Miriam (the Magdala), and that “She” has “hewn” “Her” “seven pillars” (of stone)? Read my Home Page to see what those seven pillars of “stone” have always referred to, contrary to what religions and mysticism have said for millennia. Do a search through Proverbs for wisdom, she, and her in a searchable Bible and compare these to the Dead Sea Scroll (4Q184) (Seductress) on page 195 of Geza Vermes “The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English.” There are similar allusions in other books and texts. You can see the transformation of the feminine wisdom/compassion (Sophia, Miriam, Kuan Yin, etc.) into the Seductress/Harlot of this Dead Sea Scroll and the Apocalypse (Revelation).

Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk…
Here is Wisdom!!

Comment by imanon

June 16, 2006 @ 7:35 pm

I can see the problems behind the “knight in shining armor saves damsel in distress” mode of thinking about relationships between men and women. I can also see how viewing women as ideals and not as individuals can be harmful, to men, women, and all relationships. However, I am not sure I am willing to discount the idea of the gendered soul just yet. It seems to me that there are some major differences emotionally and psychologically between men and women, and I cannot help but wonder if the “traditional roles” that the dating literature talks about are not helpful tools for recognizing and honoring those differences.

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, a guy, and he was talking about how he feels no confidence in himself, how he always feels like he is hiding from other people, how he cannot seem to make stong connections with other people. He was talking about all of the philosphical and spiritual issues behind these feelings, and I found myself thinking, what you need is a good woman that respects you and believes in you, and that will do wonders for you. I have seen it happen. If the damsel in distress needs to be rescued, it’s just as much for the sake of the man as it is for the sake of the woman. Where women need to know that they are loved, men need to know that they are respected, and they will not feel respected unless they have done something (aka- rescuing) that is worthy of respect.

I am by no means sure of all this. I feel a strong affinity for being gender neutral about everything and not gendering people’s souls. But what I see and experience doesn’t add up to that.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 17, 2006 @ 10:25 am

Amen and amen! I would also observe that what such books say about men as “archetypes of God the Father and God the Son” are equally unbiblical. And they are so far off the mark of what the single life is really all about, it’s no wonder so many mature singles don’t even bother to read them. Singles are not merely people waiting to get married. I find it ironic when writers hold Jesus and Paul up as the authorities on the married life (which I don’t doubt) while saying nothing about how they, as single persons, managed to serve God and neighbor as few ever have. I think it’s writer bias, for one thing: most of these authors have been married for years. They treat singles like the much younger sibling: “One of these days you’ll get to have sex, too.”

We singles struggle from time to time to keep our libidos under control. But like most of our married brothers and sisters, sex (or the lack of it) is not the primary thing in our lives!

Loving neighbor as self is what Jesus teaches us is like the other great commandment, loving God with the whole self. This is to be our focus. If we put the focus on God and neighbor, and take it off that mythical “rescuer” or “damsel,” I think we’ll be far better equipped to recognize when God is leading us into marriage. “Seek ye first” is not followed by “to get married.”

Comment by TeriLynn

June 17, 2006 @ 4:39 pm

Hello imanon,

The idea of a gendered soul is not new. As recent as the 1800’s Christians thought that one’s soul was gendered the opposite as one’s flesh, thus making a whole person. But there is nothing in Scripture that can support any view of a person’s soul being gendered.

Differences in make up are all mixed up with culture, upbringing, personality, etc. It is all but impossible to find any tendency that is hardwired only to one gender or the other and shared by every person of that gender. People have tried. But we can always find some person of the opposite gender that shares the same tendencies, thus canceling out true sexually oriented characteristics, other than those pertaining to the physical. This is not by any means suggesting that there are no differences between how men and women generally behave. There are no personality, emotional, intellectual, characteristics in the human race that are limited to only one half.

Comment by Liz Sykes

June 18, 2006 @ 6:05 am

Geraldine - you asked for examples of recent gender specific books. Two which come to mind are I’ve given up on dating by Josh Harris and the two books by Hayley Morgan and Justin Lookadoo: Dateable: Are You? Are They? and The Dateable Rules.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 19, 2006 @ 6:59 am

I recently came across an article called “When the Princess is Ready, the Prince Will Come.” Had I known it was a Crosswalk article, I wouldn’t have bothered to read it because I know the POV and vetting process there and understand it is used to further a particular denominational stance. However, this was advertised beyond CW and it caught me off-guard.

The title set off all kinds of alarms for me, and in reading it, I found the alarms were well-deserved. As I suspected, the article presupposes that all women want to be married, expect to be married, and God has someone for everyone. It goes on to say that if God hasn’t sent you your prince yet, it’s because you aren’t ready for him and to use your waiting time for perfecting yourself in preparation for him. Oh, and it was written by a man.

How disappointing it is that such non-biblical tripe is gobbled up so eagerly by young and not-so-young women today! Sure, most women want to and will eventually marry. But whatever happened to seeking — in all of life’s circumstances — to grow in Christ, striving to please God in everything? When did it get twisted into “you’re a princess, and the man God has chosen for you is a prince, so be sure you’re ready for him”?

Ugh!

Comment by SingingOwl

June 19, 2006 @ 8:46 pm

What a title! Do you suppose the author ripped a few pages out of the New Testament before writing such balderdash? And egalitarians are supposed to be the ones who do not respect the scripture?

Comment by Lori

June 20, 2006 @ 5:18 am

Lauren Winner wrote a very good article on this subject called “3 Fibs and a Truth About Sex.”

Fib #2: Women don’t really want to have sex

Okay, I admit it: this is a fib that really ticks me off. Many folks in the church insist on perpetuating this false idea that women don’t have libido. One example: in a chapter called “What Girls Need to Know Before They Start Dating,” one Christian parenting book reminds readers that “From early childhood, [girls'] fantasies are of Prince Charming and motherhood, not sex.” By high school “a boy’s sex drive … may be the strongest driving force in his mind. While girls may have an increase in libido, their thoughts are about nonsexual socialization, dating, fun, parties, holding hands, and maybe kissing. Every mother … should teach her daughter what boys are like.” The rest of the chapter details just that, telling us that “Boys are high-octane sexual creatures.” Moms must tell their daughters “not [to] fall for a boy’s lies or lines.”

Apparently moms don’t need to talk to daughters about how to control their own desires—just how to fend off the raging bundles of hormones that take their daughters to the movies.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2005/002/15.50.html

I think it does a terrible disservice to girls when we tell them the Victorian myth, which says they are supposed to be marble statues with no sexual feelings. God created both men and women with sexual urges, to be expressed within the bounds of marriage. What happens to these poor girls on their wedding night?

And speaking of “damsel in distress,” that’s one of the things which irritates me about the courtship movement. In his second book, Boy Meets Girl, Josh Harris pretty much spells out that women are supposed to go on with their lives, until Mr. Right shows up and says he loves them. They must never, ever indicate to a guy that they like him, because that would be immodest.

I always thought that was terribly unfair to the men. If they are supposed to go up to a woman and expose their feelings, without any indication of whether they will be returned or not, then why risk the humiliation? No wonder Christian guys aren’t asking women out.

And I think Harris also gives a misleading impression in his books. All the examples he uses of couples who blissfully find marriage are in their early 20’s. This seems to imply that if you follow the rules and wait patiently, God won’t let you pass the advanced age of, say, 30, without bringing you a spouse. As many Christians can attest, including myself, when it comes to marriage God doesn’t always follow our timetable.

Comment by amy

June 20, 2006 @ 11:00 am

And now I know why I didn’t read any of Josh Harris’ books because he is just a kid who got married in his 20’s. I am in my 40’s. I have heard him speak at one of the PDI churches and all I have to do is tune him out because I cannot relate to him or he cannot relate to me. I no longer attend PDI church because I have trouble reconciling myself to their doctrines, especially to women in marriage and in ministry.

Comment by Lori

June 21, 2006 @ 2:29 am

And now I know why I didn’t read any of Josh Harris’ books because he is just a kid who got married in his 20’s. I am in my 40’s.

Yes, he met his wife while they were both in their early 20’s. I didn’t meet my husband until my 30’s, so my life didn’t look anything like his, either. Therefore, I share the sentiment about not relating to his books. In fact, I have talked to numerous Christian singles who have said they don’t like them, primarily because they are older and still waiting to get married.

Although he doesn’t talk about gender roles, per se, I believe that Harris is probably a complementarian. At least, that’s the impression I got with all of his talk about female passivity and men taking the initiative.

Comment by Can Dance

June 21, 2006 @ 10:37 pm

Very comp. He is in “bed” with Piper; I believe he pastors a church with him in fact. Oh and check out this book on Amazon: Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye? — specifically the sixth chapter (they are listed in one review). I almost gagged when I looked at the title and its completely serious.

Comment by Lori

June 22, 2006 @ 6:15 am

I think you mean the book written by Carolyn McCulley. She’s on the staff of Harris’ church, however, and pretty much endorses what he says, so I can see why you would confuse them.

I just looked up the sixth chapter of her book. “Obeying and Serving the Men Around You.” Oh my goodness, I haven’t laughed so hard in a while! :-D I am definitely going to buy the book, just to see what that chapter says.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 22, 2006 @ 2:31 pm

Just be sure to buy it used, so the author doesn’t profit by your purchase. :P

Comment by Lori

June 23, 2006 @ 2:56 am

I went and read the reviews of McCulley’s book on Amazon, and I must say I was surprised. There were a few glowing reviews, all from women and none of them mentioning the “obey men” chapter. I would love to know what those women thought of it, but somehow I think I know what they would say.

What I really found interesting, however, was the following review.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581345798/sr=8-2/qid=1151050681/ref=sr_1_2/103-8505486-2957405?%5Fencoding=UTF8

(You have to scroll well down the page to “The Gift of Singleness Backlash Has Begun.”)

The author of this review really takes McCulley and other Christian single writers to task for basically promoting the “damsel in distress” view. Specifically, these writers are telling women, “Just be content with your unmarried state. Don’t try dating or any other form of ‘chasing after’ a man. If God wants to give you the gift of marriage, then He’ll send you a husband. In the meantime, accept your singleness as a gift from Him, also.” McCulley bases this on I Cor 7:7, which the reviewer says is a faulty reading.

What’s worse, though, is that McCulley promotes this view without looking at the bigger picture. There are more men than women attending churches now, and as almost any single Christian woman will tell you, women are especially dominant in church singles’ groups. Indeed, McCulley says of her singleness: “It’s not because there are more women than men in our singles group.”

The reviewer says it best:

Indeed, the church currently has a widespread epidemic of protracted singleness on its hands, particularly among women, and it is caused by sin: most notably, the shortage of marriageable Christian men, due to men leaving or avoiding the church. McCulley seems oblivious to the pervasiveness of this problem: “It’s not because there are more women than men in our singles group.” Hello?…Only recently has Christianity Today identified the gender imbalance as being the issue that “rises to the top” for Christian singles. For years, these women have been living with their failure to find a mate and with no one willing to confirm the true reason for their predicament, going back and forth between self-blaming and blaming God…leading to the invention of “the singles contentment sermon”.

The review is pretty lengthy, so I can’t discuss it all. I would really recommend people read it, though, because it has some excellent points to make about misusing scripture to suit your theology, gender roles, etc.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 23, 2006 @ 10:05 pm

The “traditional roles” mentioned by Imanon have never seemed liberating to me; in fact, I have found them stifling. Traditional roles may highlight differences between men and women, but do not “honor” them. Traditional roles hold people captive. Traditions that may at one time have served a legitimate function in the life of some person or family, have outlived their forgotten purpose, and now only get in God’s way. Every time our Lord wanted to do anything, the “traditions of men” always got in His way because He cared nothing for tradition and cared everything for people. Anything that bound people and held them captive, preventing them from being healed and whole, in right relationship with God, themselves, and each other, was obnoxious to Him. God wants us to be whole and healthy, whether married or single. If you aren’t already a whole person before you marry, you’ll be in for a big letdown if you expect it to be the cure-all. Seek God and be made whole. Don’t let traditions hold you captive.

Comment by Lori

June 25, 2006 @ 2:39 am

I don’t have a problem recognizing that there are differences between men and women. I mean, to take just one example, it’s pretty obvious that men are more aggressive than women. My only problem is when we take those differences and turn them into rules. “Men are more aggressive, therefore they should be out working while the women stay home doing the housework.”

Now, it would be nice if my husband made tons of money so I could stay home reading and eating chocolates all day. :D However, I would like to have the choice of working without being stigmatized as a feminist who doesn’t care about anything except a career.

On the housework front, I didn’t meet my husband until I was in my 30’s and he was in his 40’s. We were both used to doing all our own housework. Now that we’re married, we happily share the chores, and in fact, my husband loves to do the cooking. I would like for people to recognize his skills in the kitchen without stereotyping him as “weak” and “unmasculine.” :P

Comment by TeriLynn

June 25, 2006 @ 6:12 pm

Re post #20

“I would like for people to recognize his skills in the kitchen without stereotyping him as “weak” and “unmasculine.”

So true. Fact is that a lot of women would love to have a man around who enjoyed cooking. Makes it all much more fun, enjoyable, and lively.

It’s just so much prejudice at work, because people don’t stereotype male chefs that way.

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 25, 2006 @ 10:16 pm

Of course, if he stayed at home while you earned the big bucks he’d be stereotyped as “lazy” even though he works hard around the house. Men are still not accepted as an at-home spouse. As inferred above, there is prejudice on both sides.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 26, 2006 @ 5:53 pm

With the rigid, stereotype-based roles prescribed by some patriarchalists for boys (and girls), I shouldn’t wonder if fewer and fewer male Christians choose careers in the arts (including culinary) and academia. So much of the contemporary writing by these people is about active, outdoorsy, “adventurous” “manly” pursuits…and hanging about the kitchen, studio, or classroom is antithetical to what these supposedly masculine pursuits would require of boys.

Singing is already largely a lost art among men of the younger baby boomers and later generations. Boys in the US are largely being taught, even by secular society, that unless it’s rap, music is not for boys. As I understand it, it’s even worse for dance. I suspect that it’s fear of “homosexual artists” that drives such attitudes, but I really don’t know. Whatever the source, it’s a disaster for culture. It drives the wedge between what’s “masculine” and what’s “feminine” even deeper when only girls are even occasionally encouraged to pursue the arts in their education and/or as a vocation. Really…just who is it that’s really “feminizing” the “non-adventurous” institutions such as the classroom…and the church?

Comment by Kathryn Vance

June 26, 2006 @ 9:31 pm

Psalmist: You make a very insightful point. I had not thought of it in quite that way. It goes to show that both sexes are imprisoned in different ways by patriarchy, and that the church, society, and classroom all lose out. Thank you.

Comment by Lori

June 27, 2006 @ 6:20 am

Oh, yes, both sexes are imprisoned. I’ve heard stories from mothers whose sons were ridiculed in school for not being “masculine enough,” when all they wanted to do was read or pursue the arts. Our culture, both secular and Christian, is very good at stereotyping both genders and putting narrow labels on them. In fact, I believe the modern Christian “hyper-masculinity” movement is simply a secular belief with the name of God pasted on it. Hey, John Wayne and Braveheart were tough, so Christian men need to be, too! As if God is so unimaginative that He can only create men with one personality type and every other kind is a “defective model.”

Comment by TeriLynn

June 27, 2006 @ 10:22 am

I shudder to think what would have been said of Thomas Edison had he lived today! :) Or John the Baptist. Or St. John who was very spiritual and contemplative.

Comment by Lori

June 29, 2006 @ 1:17 pm

You forget that John the Baptist went around calling the Pharisees names. That’s a very masculine thing to do. Sort of like a biblical Braveheart. :P

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

June 30, 2006 @ 6:44 am

Oh, and so did Jesus, Lori. One would think that “Go thou and do likewise” were given as a commandment for name-calling, to hear all the rationalization by some Christians for demeaning those who differ in opinion from them. But have you ever noticed how many pro-patriarchy women call names as well? The names I’ve been called, all because I defend biblical equality, are incredible, and I’ve read even worse aimed at other egalitarians. For all the rigidly different “gender roles” of patriarchy, name-calling is apparently an equal-opportunity comp sport. I think it’s neither “masculine” nor “feminine” to resort to name-calling. Frankly, it’s both “human” and “sinful.”

But this reminds me of a specific type of name-calling that I think is the worst, namely that of questioning the sexuality of one’s “opponent.” That’s where the underlying patriarchal disdain for the feminine comes out. Epithets such as “girly man” and “feminized” are as common as cow pats among patriarchalists when they (mis)characterize egalitarian men. And what about calling egalitarian men homosexual, and women lesbian? I’ve heard those a lot, too. A person’s insults say a lot more about the name-caller than about the object of the insult. I’ve come to the point where I no longer believe someone respects women if he or she uses feminine terminology for insulting others. Likewise, I think it’s duplicitous for someone to say they “love the sinner, hate the sin” about same-sex attracted people if they use terms that describe SSA people to insult others. And I’m not even going to get into specifics on use of the “F” word (”feminist”) for insult.

To bring this little rabbit trail back closer to the original topic, I think the same sort of thing is implied, more subtly perhaps, in the above-mentioned dating books and articles. An unmarried woman is less-than, a “pre-wife” sort of being. And yet, how many of these authors, I wonder, would insist that no way, no how is a divorced woman ever permitted scripturally to remarry. I think the attitude about single women carries over to the divorced, except that they have no chance to join the “real-women-are-married-women” club again. Basically, I think these books are patronizing to singles, promote extrabiblical theology and attitudes, and are damaging to the body of Christ.

Comment by Lori

July 3, 2006 @ 8:22 am

Great comments in #28. I agree with all of them.

Check this out. It’s the latest Christian book telling singles how they can get married. Are you ready? Ok, if you’re a single woman, you need to move back home! Seriously, you need to move back in with your parents and allow your father to screen your male relationships. He can give you guidance as to which man will make a proper husband for you. The author actually says that living own your own, especially for women, fosters too much independence, which is not good for marriage. It’s called Getting Serious About Getting Married by Debbie Maken, who moved back in with her parents when she was 28 and is now a happy wife and mother). Here’s a blistering review of the book by Camerin Courtney if you want to learn more about it.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 12, 2006 @ 11:36 am

re: posts 28 and 29

I wonder what their recommendations are for the older women that these men toss aside for younger models, or for divorced older women in general. Perhaps, the only real marriageable women are between 18-45. Cannot imagine elderly parents supporting their older daughter and screening her potentials. :)

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

July 13, 2006 @ 11:01 pm

TeriLynn, unfortunately, these are the women who, since they don’t fit the patriarchalists’ system, get treated like they don’t exist. They can’t remarry, according to so many churches, yet they’re not supposed to support themselves because that’s not a woman’s “role.” And the post-menopausal widows and never-married women can’t have babies, which some patris will tell you is what their calling is supposed to be. So rather than deal with life as it actually is and include such women (and all other “outside the box” people), just pretend they don’t exist and, whatever you do, DON’T welcome them into your churches…they’ll make your convoluted rules look bad!

I’ve heard such women (and such am I) called “inconvenient.” What a blessing that GOD is not inconvenienced by us!

Interesting, don’t you think, how no patri church (that I’ve ever heard of) takes on the support of their over-60 widows. And *that’s* scriptural.

Comment by Lori

July 14, 2006 @ 1:34 am

I know this is a fairly serious issue, but honestly, I have to laugh at books like Maken’s. I used to attend a large church for years, and the majority of the people in the single’s class were divorced. Many of them were older and owned their own homes. So where do they fit into the scheme of things? Maybe they should invite their parents to live with them? :P And when I met my husband, I was in my 30’s and living several states away from my parents. For some reason, however, he didn’t see my independence as a bad thing and still wanted to marry me, anyway. Go figure.

Comment by gortexgrrl

August 4, 2006 @ 6:44 pm

As much a I cringe at the “smug married” attitude of Maken’s book, I must say, parts of it are absolutely groundbreaking. In Part Two, she takes on the “shut up and be content” subtext of “the gift of singleness” message, shooting down all those prooftexted platitudes such as “Jesus will be your husband.” The “GOS” is more than just a platitude. For the past several decades it has pretty much become a rogue doctrine.

For those who have felt pressure to get married in their church experience, it can be hard to imagine that an equal number of us have encountered the opposite: a “better to stay single” message that twists 1Cor7 and discourages intentionality towards marriage (vestiges of the old sex-denying/celibacy-is-holier-than-fleshly-marriage, perhaps?). But this is what has happened since the mid 70’s “born-again fever” with all its promises of special revelations galore: God will either find you a spouse or he’ll give you “the GOS,” aka “called to singleness.” Almost all of the books on Christians and singleness published in the past several decades spew this stuff. And women suffer because of it, because they avoid the truth about the fact that there’s a shortage of Christian men and treats unwanted singleness as “God’s will.” This just keeps them on the spiritual self-improvement treadmill, buying more books, of course.

On Amazon.com, I have harshly reviewed some of these GOS books, such as “Choosing God’s Best,” that says “Before you can determine whom to marry, you must first answer an preliminary question: Does God want you to marry anyone, ever? Or is His plan for you to remain single?” Aside from the fact that no one in the Bible ever sought an answer to these kinds of questions– let alone got one– it’s just plain spiritually abusive to scare young people with this kind of hyperspiritualized teaching that orders them to wait on standby in case God wants to dash their dreams.

Sure, not everyone wants to get married, and some individuals may feel that their singleness is a gift. But just as Maken is wrong to prescribe marriage to everyone, she is the only one out there that seems to be questioning the family values pundits who have ironically been pushing singleness on those who don’t want it! She encourages men and women to act on their desire to marry, rather than oppress it in some kind of Abrahamic sacrifical exercise, and tells the GOS pundits where to go. She even gives that old biddy Elisabeth Elliot a kick in the pants– you gotta admire her for that!