Pastors vs the Bible: should men be shamed into marrying?

Recently, a book was recommended by Ligonier Ministries that tried to shame men into marrying. Here is a review of that book on Amazon.com – currently rated the “most helpful” review, because it quotes the book and cites the page number, so you know this person actually read the book.

Some quotes from the book, which is written by a pastor:

“it is imperative for your well being that you be married, to move beyond the “not good” status of single adulthood” (pg59).

“And the first step for many of us in becoming the men God wants us to be is to become married, so that we will leave behind our selfish ways and begin fulfilling our masculine calling through our relationship with our wives.” (pg64)

“It does not work very well when a man remains unmarried” (pg57)

“to realize how vitally important it is (in the vast majority of cases) that you become married” (pg59).

“Today, when God looks on single males and says, Not good, He undoubtedly has in mind a long list of truly unfit helpers, among them the pornography, video games, sports obsessions, and empty pizza boxes that are intrinsic to so many young adult male lives, even among Christians” (pg60).

“The best thing a young Christian man can do… is to marry a godly woman” (pg59)

“If you have shied away from marriage, let me urge you to reconsider and (perhaps)
to commit to the necessary growing up” (pg59).

“God says the same thing about single adult men today. He looks into their apartments and refrigerators and sighs, Not good” (pg57)

“But it is especially good to have to rise up in masculine virtue and strength for the sake of my wife, leaving behind a self-focus that was, at best, only intended for a temporary season of singleness” (pg64)

“If you are single, what is keeping you from marriage? Pray for God to enable you to take a wife and for God to provide you with a wife.” (pg158)

Keep in mind that Paul was single. Was he able to obey and serve God while being single? According to this pastor, Paul was a self-centered failure who needed to grow up, man up and get married so he could serve God instead of being an irresponsible, messy, immature loser. Paul needed a godly wife to civilize him, but he failed in life because he stayed single and immature. This view is probably the majority view in churches today, and it probably explains why men can’t be bothered with church. According to most pastors, women are already fully qualified to become wives, it’s only that the lazy, useless men like Paul are not mature enough to abandon their video games and pizza boxes and get civilized by their saintly wives.

But what does the Bible actually say about men and marriage?

Let’s look at this exegesis of the Bible from Unmasking Feminism.

Excerpt:

And then there is this: 1 Corinthians 7:25-27 and 32-38

Now concerningthe betrothed,I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

Some Christians will say the “present distress” cited is not the same distress as our modern times and therefore we can reject this, but yet the bible is suppose to true at all times and all situations. There is and will always be a constant undertone of distress in our fallen world. If there wasn’t, this would be Eden. The distress we are in now, which is clear to any red-pill thinker, is obviously the burden of feminism, liberalism, socialism, et al and the strains it has be put on our society. Under those strains,  is it wise to seek a wife?  Yes, if you have passions that will prevent you from being celibate, but if you can manage that, under the present distress, is there a point in taking a wife? See “Note” below for more on celibacy.  Because there is no going back–these are hardcore, legitimate verses that men need to consider when pondering marriage.

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife,34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

Again, if you have your passions under control, a life free of the worldly distraction (known as learning/managing/pleasing your wife) is the better, anxiety free route, to living a life that pleases the Lord.  As it is said, “no man can have two masters”.  Either a Christian man is single and devoted to the causes of the Lord or married and devoted to the causes of Lord and wife.  A distraction for sure, but necessary if his passion burns. He will just have to learn how to keep his wife from becoming a second master.

36 If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

Those who refrain from marriage with their passions under control will do better. They will be more focused and dedicated on the Lord. That is very clear and Christian men need to hear that in order to weigh marriage properly. There is nothing wrong with marriage, just that it can be burdening. There is nothing wrong with being single, just that you can’t have sex, but as you will see in my “note” below that marriage may entail no sex anyway.

I say all this not to be a downer and to sway men from marriage, but so they can make an informed decision. Wives are not always sunshine and lollipops.  The modern Christian message is to just man-up and marry any Christian looking woman and instantly your life will be transformed into this Garden of Eden haven. Don’t be fooled. There will be no heaven on earth. A wife can be a blessing if she is a good wife, one that does not place undue burden and strain on her husband. One that does not cause anxieties. But, and its a big BUT, there is no guarantee that marriage for the sake of marriage will make a woman a good wife or that any given wife will not be wearing sheep’s clothing. Its a gamble and tolerance for risk should be considered.  A single, celibate life is for those averse to risk. If you can manage yourself, its smooth sailing and a life with minimal anxieties. That is all you have to control.

1 Corinthians 7 is the chapter that many a pastor cannot afford to take seriously. He cannot accept the plain meaning of the text as it is written. If he did, he would offend many people in the church who believe that the primary purpose of men is to please women, not God. In church, a man has no right to evaluate a women for marriage and then decide for himself whether a prospective marriage is worthwhile for God or not. He has no right to ask a woman questions or lead her in order to see whether she can perform what he needs her to perform in order to make the marriage serve God. Many pastors believe that a man exists to serve a woman, and not to serve God.

When these feminist pastors cannot find support in the Bible to make the case for their “blame men” view, then they resort to shaming men without the Bible. “Man Up” they bellow to single guys – as if marrying a woman were something that could be accomplished by spending more time in the weight room. Or that flexing muscles protects a man from the threat of no-fault divorce. “Single guys: don’t overlook the single moms” as one particularly foolish pastor recently advised. It’s very important to understand that many women who attend church today do not look to the Bible as an authority on morality. Many are also not prepared. Men have to be encouraged to select a woman who is ready for marriage, not be forced to rush into marriage with just any women.

According to polls, women are more likely to support gay marriage than men, for example, which shows that many women don’t really understand the need that a child has for a mother and a father. So that needs to be checked. And women are less likely to know how to defend their faith than men, as well. So that needs to be checked. Some Christian women are attacking the Bible’s teaching on fornication, saying that they should be allowed to have premarital sex if they are “in love”. So that needs to be checked, too. Instead of holding them accountable for being wrong on these issues, many pastors just urge men to “man up” and marry women, as is. But not all women are worth marrying, and so it may be better for a man to stay single if he can’t find a good one.

The best thing for a Christian man to do with a woman is to ask her questions to see exactly how she has applied the Bible to her own life, and whether she has taken on obligations and duties in order to serve God that were not easy or pleasing for her. It’s not enough to ask simple questions and await easy answers, you need to see that she has done the work to move from opinions to convictions. If she hasn’t done the work, then it’s better to stay single (and chaste). As 2 Timothy 2:4 says, “No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer.”

Filed under: Polemics, Bible, Celibacy, Chastity, Christianity, Church, Feminism, Marriage, Marry, Pastor, Theology

Does science cause people to disbelieve in God? A look at the research of Dr. Elaine Ecklund

Dr. Elaine Ecklund explains her research about scientists and their beliefs in this paper.

Excerpt:

Scholars talk a great deal about research done in the 1960’s that revealed differences in religious beliefs among members of different disciplines (especially comparisons between natural and social scientists). My findings, however, do not reveal vast discrepancies in religious belief and practice among disciplines and fields. The true difference lies between academics in these scientific disciplines and members of the general public. With little doubt, scientists at major research universities are less religious—at least according to traditional forms of religion—than members of the general public.

During public lectures about the study, the question inevitably asked first is: Do the professors you studied believe in God? When asked their beliefs about God, nearly 34 percent of academic scientists answer “I do not believe in God” and about 30 percent answer “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,” the classic agnostic response. This means that over 60 percent of professors in these natural and social science disciplines describe themselves as either atheist or religiously agnostic. In comparison, among those in the general U.S. population, about 3 percent claim to be atheists and about 5 percent are religiously agnostic. When it comes to affiliation with particular religions, scientists are also vastly different from members of the broader society. About 52 percent of scientists see themselves as having no religious affiliation when compared to only 14 percent of the general population. Scientists who are not religious justify their inattention to religion through language that stresses the irrelevance of science to religion. Those not raised in religious homes, the case for the majority of scientists without religious affiliation, also emphasize their lack of experience with religion.

[...]What are we to make of this lack of traditional religion? Is knowledge of science somehow in conflict with being religious? Childhood religious background, not exposure to scientific education, seems to be the most powerful predictor of future irreligion. Those scientists raised in almost any faith tradition are more likely to currently be religious than those raised without any tradition. In addition, scientists who describe religion as important in their families as children are much more likely to practice faith currently. When compared to the general population, a larger proportion of scientists are raised in non-religious homes. When one considers that many more scientists come from non-religious homes or homes that were nominally religious, the distinctions between the general population and the scientific community make more sense. A large part of the difference between scientists and the general population may be due more to religious upbringing, rather than scientific training or university pressure to be irreligious, although these other possibilities should be further explored.

I heard about this research in the latest episode of the Reasonable Faith podcast. You can listen to it to hear Dr. Craig’s comments.

I think this research raises an important question that we need to ask scientists who don’t believe in God. That question is: “which particular pieces of scientific evidence led you to doubt God’s existence?” And then we should have done our scientific homework about the Big Bang, the fine-tuning, the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, the habitability arguments from astrobiology, and so on, to be able to make a positive case for God’s existence from science. Christians ought to be more excited about science, because we have nothing to fear – and everything to gain – from knowing a lot more about science than we know now.

You can see Ecklund’s book about her research here on the Oxford University Press web site. You can also buy the book here from Amazon.com.

UPDATE: Commenter Eugene has found a related lecture from Cambridge University featuring Dr. Ecklund.

Filed under: Polemics, Agnosticism, Atheism, Book, Childhood, Elaine Ecklund, God, Non Belief, Religion, Research, Science, Scientists, Study, Theology, Unbelief

J. Warner Wallace: important differences between Christianity and Mormonism

Here’s a podcast featuring J. Warner Wallace that I listened to twice on a recent road trip. This is an after action report from Wallace’s recent missions trip to Utah to evangelize Mormons.

The MP3 file is here. (74 minutes)

Topics:

• Mormons disagree with Christians about the nature of God, Jesus and salvation
• The differences are so dramatic that the two religions are completely different views
• Mormons try to portray themselves as a denomination of Christianity
• The Utah missions trip: how Christians were trained to engage with Mormons
• Mormonism is a works-based religion – you earn your way to eternal life by doing works
• In Christianity, eternal life is a free gift from God to anyone who accepts Jesus as their leader and redeemer
• Mormons believe that doctrines can change from generation to generation (progressive revelation)
• Mormons commonly make the case for a works-based theology by appealing to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount
• Mormons believe that you have to be perfect in order to get “exalted” eternal life
• Christians are perfect because Jesus has paid the price of our rebellion against God
• Christians: Jesus’ sacrifice pays for anything evil that we have done and could do
• Christians are made perfect because Jesus’ perfection is applied to them
• Christians are not practically perfect, but they are perfect by accepting that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross
• God credits righteousness to Christians because Jesus has already died to pay off the punishment for their sins
• The good works that Christians do are a voluntary response to this free gift of salvation
• The good works do not secure a Christian’s salvation, they are the natural outworking of accepting the gift of salvation
• The Mormon view of the afterlife is different from the Christian view
• The best Mormon afterlife (“exaltation”) requires continued righteousness to the end of one’s natural life
• This is not compatible with Christian teaching about salvation being by grace and not by doing good works (Gal 3:10-14)
• Mormons can never know whether they are saved or not until the day they die
• Christians can be sure of their salvation from the moment they accept Jesus as their leader and redeemer
• The Bible is clear that we can know whether we are saved or not (John 5:9-14)
• It is inconsistent for Mormons to claim to be Christians and then try to convert Christians to Mormonism
• The reason why Mormons go door to door is because they think Christians are wrong
• The Mormon view of Jesus is nothing like the Christian view of Christ (from the Bible)
• Mormonism is polytheistic, whereas Christianity is monotheistic
• Mormon “gods” are just beings who have a human nature who were “exalted” for doing good works
• When debating Mormons, they will try to argue that Mormonism is true because it results in good works
• The Biblical standard for a good prophet is to see whether his prophecies come true
• The Mormon view is that Joseph Smith is reliable because he did good works
• But good works are not a good way to test truth claims – a person could be “good” and still say false things
• A good question to ask Mormons: is the Book of Mormon ancient? It claims to be ancient, but is it?
• They may try to answer this question by appealing to fideism: praying for confirmation by burning bosom
• But this is not a question that can be assessed by subjective feelings (just pray about it)
• This is a question that needs to be assessed by historians using historical evidence
• There is no historical or archaeological support for the claims in the Book of Mormon
• In contrast, we have direct eyewitness testimony about the life of Jesus in the New Testament
• We have fragments of NT manuscripts dating back to first century so we know that the New Testament is ancient

Previously, I posted my refutation of Mormonism which used two evidential arguments. And J.W. Wartick has posted two philosophical arguments against Mormonism as well.

Filed under: Podcasts, Apologetics, Bible, Bible Study, Christianity, Doctrines and Covenants, Evangelism, Exaltation, Grace, Joseph Smith, Monotheism, Mormon, Mormonism, Polytheism, Salvation, The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, Theology, Works

What is more important? True beliefs about God or doing good actions?

What does the Bible teach about the relative importance of actions and beliefs? Which should we settle first?

J.Warner Wallace explains:

I just came home from a week in the great state of Utah. Our missions team of high school students had the opportunity to talk with many LDS and Christian believers about the nature of salvation. Many of our conversations centered on the relationship between faith and works. Christianity is unique in its characterization of salvation as the free gift of God:

Ephesians 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.

This concept of grace is missing in Mormonism (as it has been classically described by LDS prophets and Mormon scripture). In fact, many of the Mormon believers we talked with described Christians as people who consistently take advantage of “cheap grace”. One member of the LDS church told us, “Christians say a prayer, get ‘saved’ and then run out and live like hell. They don’t think it’s important to obey the commandments.” At times, in an effort to emphasis the free nature of salvation, many Christians minimize the importance of good works in the Christian life. We sometimes neglect to tell our LDS friends that a grateful life, surrendered in response to what Christ has done for us, does actually result in a life of good works. The passage in Ephesians provides us with an important equation that can help us make this distinction. If you divide this verse in the middle, you’ll find faith and salvation on one side of the verse and works on the other:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith | not by works, so that no one can boast.

This verse in Ephesians provides us with a simple equation that can help us remember a life transformed by the saving grace of God produces good works, even though good works are not what save us:

The Christian equation:
Salvation + Faith = Works

The Non-Christian equation:
Faith + Works = Salvation

The question is not whether someone performs good works, but why someone performs good works. Both Christian and non-Christian believers have a place for good works in their respective equations. Works are not missing from the Christian calculation. But for us, good works are the result of our gratitude for (and recognition of) what God has done. When we realize that our own efforts are utterly impotent, we begin to understand the gift that God has given us. When we understand what God has done for us, we can’t help but be humbled and grateful. A grateful life, ever reflective of the depth of God’s kindness, results in a surrendered response. We can’t help but want to live differently.

I think it’s pretty important to get it clear that in Biblical Christianity, the focus is on getting the beliefs correct first. I actually think that the heavy burden of a works-based faith is a big reason why people are turned off about religion in general. It would really be much better for us all if we figured out who God is first and then made adjustments to live in light of that, instead of leaving the theology aside and just trying to join an organization and do what people tell us to do. Let’s meet God in truth first, then act accordingly once that relationship is settled.

Filed under: News, Faith, Grace, Salvation, Theology, Truth, Works

Weekly Standard podcast on Sebelius vs Hobby Lobby

The Weekly Standard has a great podcast that covers fiscal, social and foreign policy issues from a conservative perspective.

Excerpt:

THE WEEKLY STANDARD podcast with the Becket Fund’s Adele Keim on the Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius case.

This podcast can be downloaded here. Subscribe to THE WEEKLY STANDARD’s iTunes podcast feed here.

THE WEEKLY STANDARD would like to thank The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Adele Keim for joining us.

Fox News has a report.

Excerpt:

In the most prominent challenge of its kind, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. asked a federal appeals court Thursday for an exemption from part of the federal health care law that requires it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill.

The Oklahoma City-based arts-and-crafts chain argued that businesses — not just the currently exempted religious groups — should be allowed to seek exception from that section of the health law if it violates their religious beliefs.

The arguments Thursday centered on the Green family, founders of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and a sister company, Christian booksellers Mardel Inc. An eight-judge panel peppered both sides with questions about whether the contraceptives mandate is an undue burden on the Greens’ religious belief.

The Greens contend that emergency contraception is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. They also object to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices.

Hobby Lobby’s lawyer argued that the Greens shouldn’t face fines for not complying with mandatory contraceptive coverage simply because their business makes a profit. The stores are a “profit-making company, yes, but also a ministry,” Kyle Duncan argued.

Duncan cited the Citizens United campaign-finance decision that said corporations have constitutional protections.

“We don’t say, well, a corporation can’t exercise a right because it’s in corporate form,” Duncan said.

“Is religion the kind of right can only be exercised by a natural person? Well, the question nearly answers itself. … It’s not a purely personal right.”

In other news, voters support the repeal of Obamacare by a 22-point margin, which is increasing as more and more of the law is actually implemented. Too bad we did not vote to defeat Obama by a 22-point margin last November.

Filed under: News, Abortion, Barack Obama, Civil Disobedience, Conscience, Conscience Protection, Conscience Rights, Court, Democrat, Freedom of Religion, Hobby Lobby, Infanticide, Mandate, Obamacare, Relativism, Religion, Religious Freedom, Religious Liberty, Sin, Theology, Trial, Truth