Charity Suffereth Long

Many, many years ago, when I was a young wife and mother, I heard a wise woman say, "The real test on whether you are willing to serve is how you  react when people treat you like a slave." The context of her remark was a discussion on what it means to be a bond slave of Christ. What does Christ ask us to do and was He willing to do the things He asks of us? It seems to be a simple answer. Of course we serve willingly, even to the point of suffering, right? The apostle Peter explains well in his first letter in chapters 2 and 3. I don't want to reprint the whole thing here, you can read it for yourself, but the premise is basically that Christ suffered as an example for us. We are supposed to suffer! And that suffering often comes in the form of other people asking (forcing?) us to do things we would rather not. If we are following Christ's example, we submit willingly, with joy even.

As wives though, we seem to believe that in our relationship with our husbands we should not only NOT suffer, but that we are failing in our roles as helps meet for them if we don't judge their every behavior and insist that they do everything they can to prevent us from feeling like slaves. This is more true with men who are kind than with men who are tyrants, because if a man genuinely sees his wife as his slave, he really doesn't care how she feels about it.

What has prompted me to write about wives as slaves, you ask? It was this article titled "My Wife Divorced Me Because I Left The Dishes By The Sink." I don't think it was written by a Christian man, but it was posted on facebook by a Christian woman who, while she wasn't advocating divorcing a husband over this issue, did say that it was part of her job to train her husband and children not to make her feel disrespected or feel like a slave. It gave me a sick feeling in my stomach and I have spent the better part of two days trying to understand why I think she is so wrong. I want to articulate the error in a way that is both accurate when compared with Scripture and edifying in terms of helping wives to love their husbands and children. (Titus 2:4)

First, let me say that no one is responsible for your feelings. No one. No person can MAKE you feel this way or that. Also, feelings can be wrong. Feelings can tell you lies. Just because a person feels disrespected does not mean that her husband disrespects her. It is unfair, and I believe a bit outrageous, to impose attitudes or thoughts on a man that he, himself, does not have. A wife does not get to define her husband's love for her and she would be completely outraged if he attempted to do the same. For example, if a husband said, "IF you really loved me, you would always do what I like. You would never wear clothing except when others are around and you would initiate sex 3 times every day. If you don't do that, you don't love me."  Most wives would protest. Most wives would say that everything she does, she does out of love for him, including having children, cleaning the house, preparing meals, etc. How could he even THINK that she doesn't love him just because she doesn't do everything he wants all the time?

But in this article, the wife does precisely that. She claims that because she is extremely bothered by dishes on the counter, her husband makes her feel unloved and disrespected by leaving them there. Even though he is not motivated in any way by disrespect or dislike when he does not put the dishes into the dishwasher. From his description of her, she sounds obsessive about the dishes, which is not unusual, I see myself in that obsession. But her obsession does not become the standard of righteousness for everyone in the world. There is nothing immoral about putting a glass on the counter rather than inside the dishwasher. The fact that it makes her blood boil is HER problem, not his. For her to make it into his problem when he has a perfectly healthy attitude about dirty dishes is highly unloving on her part, and I would say that HER behavior borders on being immoral.

Divorce is not an option for me. Having that as a starting point is good, because instead of going towards that end when my feelings are telling me lies, I am forced to look at myself and say, "Do you want to live in misery, with these feelings, for the next few decades? Or do you want to stop telling yourself lies about your man's motivations so that you can move forward and enjoy your marriage and your life?"  

It is just so much more useful, not to mention it is the only thing that I have control over, to simply change my perspective. Instead of dwelling in my imagination on the ways he could behave differently in order to demonstrate his love and care for me, I can choose to think of how I can demonstrate my love and respect for him in ways that are meaningful to him. You may be familiar with Jesus' admonition "as you would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31)

We call this the Golden Rule, because it is so very practical and there are few situations in which it does not apply. In Philippians 2, the mind of Christ is described as not looking upon your "own things" (meaning your own interests and desires) but to look upon, instead, the "things of others". This includes the "things" of your man. The Apostle Paul tells us that Jesus himself "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant." Should we not, dear wives, "follow his steps"? (1 Peter 2:21)

Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him who judges righteously. (1 Peter 2:22-23)

Even if my husband sins against me, my place is not to judge and to make the rest of my life revolve around that. That would be hateful. Yes, dwelling on, tattling on, carrying on about the sins of others is hate. 

Hatred stirreth up strifes: Ouch. Dare I heat up my big pot of hatred, stirring and stirring until the strifes are bubbling up, perhaps overflowing? But... but... but... this Proverb tells us what to do instead:

But love covereth all sins.(Proverbs 10:12)  Yes. If my husband has sins, even sins that are against me, the command of God to love my husband means that I cover those sins. I bury them. I do not stew, and I do not return sin for sin. Nor do I play the martyr, but in LOVE, I forgive and move on. I find ways to reward him with good from a meek and quiet spirit. 

The Apostle Peter says the same in his first epistle, chapter 4, "And above all things have fervent charity among  yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins." (verse 8)

Those are only of few of the passages that come to mind on this subject. I could write an entire book. The Scripture is replete with instructions to die to self, to care for others, to love without expectation, to dwell at peace in ones own house, etc. Be instructed by the precepts of God's law to love your neighbor, including that very close neighbor, your husband. 

Winning at Potluck

When I lived in the South, there was some aversion to the word "potluck" because we Christians know there is no such thing as luck. Providence and all that... 

Regardless of what you call it, pitch-in-dinner, pot-providence, whatever, the people of the South know how to do it. During my over 16 years living in the American South, I never once attended a potluck dinner where there wasn't enough food. Not once. They are the experts. I don't know if they invented the potluck, but they know how to win it.

Southerners don't need instructions on how to potluck, but in the geographic area of America where I live now, the people definitely need some instructions. I have been to countless potlucks in which the food ran out before everyone had gone through the line. It's a travesty. Especially if I spent two hours in the early morning preparing a dish or two and I go home hungry. Why does this happen here with such regularity?

It's simple. Some people need help. They need some guidelines. It doesn't have to be complicated, but apparently it needs to be said. So I'm going to say it. Here are the potluck rules. Follow them and be filled.

Rule #1
Make Enough to Feed Your Own Family and AT LEAST Two Other People. 
This is aimed at the wives/moms who are the ones doing the cooking in most conservative Christian families. Make a main dish. It can be a meat dish like a meatloaf or it can be a casserole. Tuna and noodles is just fine. If you have 7 in your family, your potluck main dish should serve AT LEAST 9 people. You might  need to bump up your regular recipe, maybe double it, just in case. Be generous. This is probably the only meal that people are going to eat today!

Rule #2
Make a Dessert.
That's right. Bring a main dish AND a dessert. You and your children are going to eat a main dish AND a dessert, right? So bring both.

Just a word here about salads and side dishes:  Don't worry about it. No one is going to go home disappointed if there wasn't enough coleslaw or green beans. If your main dish tastes better with a particular side dish, for example you don't like meatloaf unless you have mashed potatoes, then go ahead and bring a side. But don't bring a side dish INSTEAD of a main dish. The only exception is if you are a widow or a single person and it would be outside of your ability or budget to bring a main dish. Single young people can get away with bringing something from the deli, like a potato salad or a bag of Nacho Cheese Doritos. Everyone likes those and we don't expect single people to know how to cook for a crowd.

Rule #3
Teach Your Children How to Go Through a Potluck Line
Parents need to teach this and someone from the church should remind parents about it right before they ask God to bless the food and the potlucking commences. Children under 10 (and maybe even 12) should not be allowed to go through the food line alone. One or both parents should accompany them. Young children need someone else to hold their plate. The church should provide trays for moms trying to fill 3 or 4 plates at once.

I have been to churches that invite moms with young children to go through the line first. This is ideal because the older children can help the moms with younger children, since the older children are not worried about getting into the line.

Children should only take food that they are very likely to actually eat. This isn't the time to force your children to try some of everything. If they don't like broccoli salad, leave that for the adults who DO like it and will be happy to get it. It is better if a child goes through the line and ends up with only one food that she will eat than if she has 10 items that end up in the trash. At potlucks, children may be more interested in playing than eating, so don't  make a scene. If you are worried that your own children will be hungry later, then either train them to suck it up or bring a snack in the diaper bag that they can eat later.

Do not let children go directly to the dessert table. Everyone should go through the regular line before visiting the dessert table. At my church, there are adults who go directly to the dessert table upon entering the potluck room and take a dessert to their table to make sure they get the dessert they want. This is completely unbelievable to me and the height of selfishness. If the worst thing that happens to you after a great day of worship and fellowship is that you don't get the dessert you want, you should sleep well. They are also setting a terrible example for the children who are being taught to delay their gratification.

Teach your children to take only one dessert. This may be two cookies or one piece of cake or pie. After it is clear that everyone has had a chance to get a dessert and there are still goodies remaining, children may return for a second dessert.

Rule #4

Take Responsibility For Set Up

 At a southern potluck dinner, each person who brings food will find a place on the serving table to set her dish (usually grouped by category: main dish, sides, dessert) and will provide or find some sort of serving utensil to place in the dish. For some reason that I cannot get anyone to explain, in this area, one or two people are expected to do all of the set up, including heating anything that needs heating, setting the food out at the appropriate time and making sure there is a serving utensil. If the meal is taking place following the worship service, the kitchen help are expected to be absent from worship so they can stay in the kitchen and "prepare" the potluck. I put "prepare" in quotes because the whole point of the potluck is that no one has to do anything except bring a dish to share and set it out. If it needs to be heated, or ingredients need to be combined, that task is performed by THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE DISH! 

I was shocked the first time I was in the kitchen placing my casserole in the oven before worship in order to keep it warm for dinner, and other women started coming into the kitchen with their food and started explaining to me what needed to be done with it. Sort of the same way parents just drop their babies in the church nursery for someone else to deal with. I had no idea why they were telling me what temperature oven was needed and what time it needed to go into the oven so it would be hot, but not burnt, at potluck hour. They were not happy when I told them that I had every intention of being at every second of the worship service and had no plans to stand around in the kitchen like some sort of caterer. 

Anyway, if you are new to the place, and you don't know where to find the serving spoons, bring your own from home or just ask where the drawer is located. If you are bringing a dish that needs to be served hot, bring it in a slow cooker or put it in the oven which will be set on a low temperature for that purpose. Don't bring raw food and expect to be able to turn the oven up to 400 degrees and have someone else cook it while you're worshipping. Obviously (ok, maybe it isn't obvious to everyone) all the women can't expect to use the oven to cook their food at the same time, and while the worship service is happening. 

Bring it hot and ready to eat, and put it where it belongs so we minimize the amount of time and the effort needed between when worship ends and when we start eating. 

And that's it! If you follow these simple rules and teach the rest of the families at your church to do likewise, you will never run out of food. You will have enough for visitors and sometimes  you will even take home a few leftovers. That's why you should always make food that you, yourself, like to eat. You may have to eat it.

Did I forget anything? What is your experience with potlucks, especially at church? What do you think about churches assigning which families bring what? What about those websites where you list what you're bringing? (I hate those)

Don't Do It Just Like the World, but Expect Different Results

I was prompted to blog today by this post over at Dalrock.

Dalrock was asked some questions by a commenter named Rachel about how to help her daughters find husbands. Her inquiries concerned her daughters' behavior with young men and whether a Christian girl should "settle" in choosing a marriage partner. This mother obviously has concerns about her daughters being at risk for spinsterhood and she wants to avoid that. 

While Rachel didn't mention her husband, Dalrock said that she does have a husband. If that is the case, why is she not following his lead on this matter of marrying off the daughters? Why did Dalrock, who blogs specifically for Christian men, not direct her to seek wisdom from her husband? To his credit, Dalrock admitted that he has no experience in this area. But one thing I have learned from knowing God is that God empowers those whom He has put in authority and gives wisdom to those who ask, without upbraiding.

Unfortunately, Dalrock went on to offer advice on the behavior of young women in general. By doing this, he is consenting to the presupposition that single women should be on the hunt for their own husbands and that they are somehow qualified by their design to do this. It is saying, if only we can explain these things to women, they will behave exactly correctly and use good judgment and make right decisions. And yet we know, and Dalrock knows from his years in the manosphere that women, by their very design, do NOT make good decisions based on reason and sense.

Women are simply unqualified to decide who they should marry. It isn't a matter of intelligence or training. It isn't even a matter of godly character.

What should Dalrock have done instead? He should have appealed to men who have already had success with their daughters. He should have appealed to men who have spent years studying the Bible to see what God has said about marriage, about sex, and about avoiding fornication. Interestingly, in the comments, such a man appeared!

Most of the comments consist of complaining about how awful women are and how hopeless it is to think a man can get a good wife or that daughters can be raised to adulthood without rebelling and fornicating and choosing the world over Christ. And when a commenter suggests that dads can have fulfilling marriages and joyful daughters who look to dad to find them a husband by following the guidance of the Word, the other men pile on with shouts of "You'll go to jail!" "It can't be done!" "It's too hard!" "No one will like you!"

Yes. Daddy is not a popular guy. So what? Do you want your daughter to be a fornicator or a spinster? Do you want her to be a shrieking feminist? If not, take heart. God is good and He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

There are a LOT of comments, so hopefully this link will take you to where the good comments start.

Ten Year Blogaversary

I was checking through old blog posts the other day, reminding myself of the things I've thought about over the years and I was quite surprised to find that I started the blog 10 years ago. Wow. They weren't kidding about how time flies! Here is my very first post.

It looks like my major interest has been marriage. I've pondered the definition of marriage, the role of a wife, how to find spouses for sons and daughters, how to love a husband and the meanings of submission, obedience and authority. Marriage is a topic that flows directly from God and is a like window into the mind of God. God created marriage specifically. Without His ordination of it, marriage would not exist. And since the Father arranged a marriage for His Son, we have a view of how marriage comes about, who the parties are, and how those parties should relate to each other. Without God's revelation on this subject, we would be clueless and each of us would be free to form and act upon our own opinions. However, since God did speak, we are now obligated to seek God's thoughts after Him, and to make no statements about marriage that contradict what He has said or done concerning it. It has been a challenge studying each place that marriage is mentioned in the Scripture, comparing and contrasting, and attempting to find the truth about a subject that is foundational to daily life. I don't claim to have all the answers yet, but my understanding is wider and deeper than when I started my search, and I am grateful for that. I know God better by knowing marriage better.

I've written a bit about politics. These are mixed with my posts on economics and public policy. How we live our lives should be a direct reflection of what we believe about God and what we believe God requires of man. This includes how we govern (or if we govern), how we conduct business, the way we work, even the way we love. There is no topic that is outside the domain of the rule of Christ and His Law. I was mostly a political conservative when I started, then I moved into what I would classify as the libertarian camp. It was a short stay then in the minarchist's company before I embraced what I would call anarcho-capitalism. I am really a theonomist. I believe that we should all obey the Law of God, and that we should all enforce it within our own families and spheres, without an institutional government.

Childbirth, particularly unhindered, unassisted, natural childbirth is a passion of mine. As women, we ought to be welcoming to having God open our wombs and we ought to be deliberate in our choices about where and how to birth our children. Our bodies are specifically designed by God to give birth. We should seek to understand that design to the extent necessary for extending the years we are fertile and birthing healthy children to the glory of God. We ignore or resist the design at our own peril, discomfort, and danger.

Along with childbirth/childbearing, I have covered the topic of breastfeeding, a uniquely womanly art. Like childbirth, seeking to pursue God's intent in feeding our children from the nourishing abundance of our breasts is, as I see it, a duty and a privilege. The babies deserve the best, and the benefits to both mother and infant touch on our hormones, our overall health, our relationships, our longevity, our economic status and our responsibilities to God and man. Isn't that overwhelming and amazing? All of that from boobs and milk.

I have covered feminism, vaccines, child training, home education, taxation, law, theology, worship, circumcision, and the war on drugs. All of these things are interesting to me. Most of them have a direct impact on myself and on my family. While I don't disparage those who have no care about such things, I seem to feel compelled to seek the truth and to incorporated it into every single subject. It wouldn't be an over-statement to say that I can't even go to the bathroom without wondering what the Bible has to say about it. It might be an obsession, but I hope it is a profitable one. 

Writing this blog is a great way for me to interact with my own thoughts, and to communicate them, or at least corral them, in case I need to share them with others. Much of what you see here, though they may appear as unmovable opinions, are a work in progress. I don't expect to “arrive” during my short life here on Earth. But do like knowing I'm further from the start line, that I took what was given me and exercised it, massaged it, used it and passed it on.

Perhaps some day my children will compile all of my ramblings and say, “See, she really was crazy.” Although they may also say, “At least she was right about that one thing.” Won't that be precious? I think so.

Dreams of Our Daughters

At some point before our daughter was married, my husband was speaking with the father of a man who could have been a potential suitor. My husband was explaining to the father that our daughter had been prepared for marriage and that she was looking forward to becoming a wife and a mother. Then, as if the father had not heard a thing that was said he responded with, "That's all fine, but what are her dreams?"

Huh? What are her dreams? Did you just hear what my husband said? She wants to be a wife. She is looking forward to fulfilling the role for which she was created. Only women can be wives. Only women can be mothers. It is the most important thing she will ever do. She will impact the lives of countless thousands by becoming a wife.

I am somewhat confused as to why men would find it an attractive trait in a potential wife that she wants to be something other than a wife.

Perhaps I have been jaded by the lies I've been told by both the world AND the church. Actually, I KNOW I'm jaded by it. I am not going to pass along those lies to my daughters. It is depressing to think that they may embrace such lies after they leave my home, but they certainly won't hear them from me. And I will actively work to prepare them to resist untruth.

So you can imagine how refreshed I was to read this post at Chalcedon by Jenni Zimmerman. I hope you will click on the link and see what she has to say about their oldest daughter.

Like EVERY author I have read in my life, I don't agree with absolutely everything Jenni says. I don't even agree with everything I've ever written. So I will just say up front, in case anyone is wondering, I do not agree with this statement that she makes, and don't believe the Bible teaches or supports this view of wives:

 She is chief counselor to her husband, knowing the word of God alongside him, giving godly counsel when needed.

Raising daughters is difficult. I appreciate what the Zimmermans are doing with their daughters and I stand with them, encouraging them to stay the course. Perhaps it won't be long until their oldest daughter is married and putting all of her good training to use. 

As A Jewel Of Gold in a Swine's Snout..

As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.  Proverbs 11:22

Noah Webster described discretion like this:

1. Prudence, or knowledge and prudence; that discernment which enables a person to judge critically of what is correct and proper, united with caution; nice discernment and judgment, directed by circumspection, and primarily regarding ones' own conduct.

2. Liberty or power of acting without other control than one's own judgment; as the management of affairs was left to the discretion of the prince; he is left to his own discretion.

The primary audience I have in mind when writing here is one of women, Christian women, like myself. Wives, mothers, grandmothers, daughters and sisters. And this topic, I think, applies more particularly to women. That is not to say that all men are discreet, only that many women are indiscreet. It seems to be accepted as inevitable, with little or nothing being taught within Christian circles about how women should learn to practice discretion.

The aged women likewise...that they may teach the young women...to be discreet. Titus 2:3-5

 This is especially noticeable to me when I read fiction written a long time ago. Even fiction written by women. I offer the works of Jane Austen as an example. More on that later.

One of the ways I have been a witness (and a participant) in indiscretion is in the seemingly insatiable way that women want to know everything that is happening in the lives of every person they know. If the woman is a mother, this desire is often accompanied by a sense of entitlement to know every detail. Family members, church attendees, friends, even distant acquaintances, no one is excluded or protected from the constant acquiring and collecting of data. And to what end?

Obviously, the first use that comes to mind is gossip. Once she has the information, what else would she do with it except share it? After all, nothing hides indiscretion better than making it universal and therefore, normal. But even if she has the incredible self-control necessary to keep the information to herself, the tidbits themselves are up to no good within her mind. She is judging, comparing, formulating advice, imagining conversations, misunderstanding relationships, destroying reputations and wishing ill of others, all within the confines of her own brain box.

While it is fairly common to hear admonitions against gossip from the pulpit or in books and articles directed at Christian women, it is rare, VERY rare to hear anyone speak against wanting to know things in the first place. I can only think of one instance, and think it was in a radio broadcast by Elisabeth Elliot. I am just now coming to understand the peace that comes from not knowing things.  

I have my husband to thank for bringing this understanding to me in a very practical way. The Bible speaks of discretion, and in a non-personal, intellectual way, I probably believed I knew the meaning of discretion. It wasn't until we arranged a marriage for our daughter that I learned from experiencing it how discretion feels, how it works, what it entails, and what a blessing it is. How did he do this? Simply by not telling me things. He would speak with the father of our now-son-in-law, and my husband did not offer to let me know the things of which they spoke. He wasn't purposely keeping it from me, it wasn't that I asked and he refused to tell me. He just didn't think most of what they discussed was important or relevant to me. And he was right. (As usual.) I am not a naggy sort of person, and I trust my husband, so if he didn't offer up information, I didn't ask.

It wasn't until the whole thing (the arranged marriage) was done that I realized how blessed I was to have been out of the loop for most of the conversation. Now I can see that I would have been fretting over nothing, worried about mole hills, concerned for disaster, when actually everything was smooth sailing. I was spared much heart ache and nonsense that I might have created for myself. After we told the story to others, I was surprised to find that much of the shock people had was not so much that we arranged a marriage, but that I, the mother, was not intimately involved in the details. Other mothers could not even imagine letting their husbands handle such a thing, and even if they let them, they would want to be consulted at every step and be told every word spoken on the subject.  Why? Because they, like the old me, have no understanding of discretion. They are, unfortunately, like bejeweled swine. 

Our family has been hurt by indiscretion. You have probably been hurt by it. People say things they shouldn't say because others want to hear things they shouldn't hear. After the hearing, the information gets distorted like a typical game of Telephone. Woe is everyone if the information gets re-shared.

My challenge to you, Christian woman, is this: Try not to know. Try not to desire to know. Reject hearing about things, even when the information is offered without your asking. Don't ask people about their relationships. Don't ask for or listen to people talking about OTHER PEOPLE'S relationships! Are the ladies next to you discussing the courtship of so-and-so with what's-her-name? Move to a different seat so you can't hear. If someone begins a statement with, "Don't tell anyone about this because the whole family doesn't know yet...."  RUN! Did you hear me? RUN! This is not for you to know.

Sometimes, for whatever reason, we come into the knowledge of something that either does not concern us, or only concerns us in a very peripheral way. When that happens, resist the urge to dwell on it. Or to make judgments. Your first impressions may be wrong, or the entire situation may change so much over time that your revelations to others on the matter will result in hurt that never needed to occur. Here I am going to return to my previous mention of Jane Austen. I am sorry if you are not familiar with her books or with the movies based upon them. Maybe this blog post will inspire you to take a look.

 In "Pride and Prejudice" the main character is the second oldest of 5 sisters. Her name is Elizabeth Bennett. During the course of the story, Elizabeth becomes privy to information about two other characters who eventually become the husbands of two of her sisters. As I watched this being portrayed in a movie, I felt very strongly that Elizabeth should go share this information. I felt is so strongly, that I nearly wanted to jump out of my chair and shout it at the older sister, Jane. In my mind, Jane would have been comforted to know that her suitor loved her, but was dissuaded from marrying her because of the undue influence of his rich friend. Why wouldn't Elizabeth immediately tell Jane about this?

Elizabeth, does share her information about the other young man with her sister, Jane, but only because Jane is known for her kind heart and her discretion, and Elizabeth needs the advice of her sister with how to deal with this potentially explosive information which could ruin the reputation of the young man, as well as that of a young lady who was formerly involved in a scandal with him. Jane advises her to let the information die with them.

The women in "Pride and Prejudice" tend to fall into two, very distinct categories. Those who are discrete, and those who are not. Only Elizabeth seems to fall into neither category. This is fiction, so it is easy to force women into boxes, but in real life, none of us are fully one or the other. The indiscreet women are portrayed as having bad character (Lydia, Kitty, Mrs. Bennett, Lady Lucas), while discreet women are generally portrayed as being good. These distinctions do not exist, or barely exist today. Most of us would be hard pressed to identify an act of indiscretion, and we are all so thoroughly immersed in our own indiscreet and loquacious ways, that we wouldn't dare point a finger at another woman. One woman even tries to make lack of discretion into a virtue.

So Elizabeth shares her secret knowledge of  Mr. Wickham, but doesn't reveal what she knows of Jane's would-be-suitor, Mr. Bingley. In the end, things work out. Jane is married by Mr. Bingley, never having been hurt by the information known by Elizabeth. Mr. Wickham's bad character is revealed on its own, without any assistance from Elizabeth, protecting the reputation of the more-or-less innocent third party. Mr. Wickham marries Elizabeth's youngest sister, Lydia.

What is striking to me is that during the 19th century, it was obvious to everyone that women have a problem with discretion and that discretion was considered a virtue. Today, if we don't immediately tweet something we heard or saw, or we wait one day before making a facebook post about something, we are considered to be highly restrained. What also struck me as interesting about the 19th century, was that it was not considered necessarily inappropriate for a man to rebuke a woman for public bad behavior. If a man tried that today, he would probably get sued and the woman would remain offended until the day she died.

I recently (within the past 3 years) had a man rebuke me for interrupting him in a conversation. The rebuke was strong. I fully deserved it, but it was quite the blow because I am so used to being allowed to run all over people. I had unconsciously come to believe that civilized men don't attempt to restrict the behavior of women. We just do as we please and expect our husbands to cover for us. Or intercede for us. My husband was right there when this happened, and said nothing. He knew I deserved it, too. I had to use all the power of my logical brain to force down my feelings that the man was trying to offend me. He intended no offense at all. It was just a statement of fact that he had let me finish my thought and he was entitled to the same courtesy. It was terribly embarrassing for me, not just because the poor man had to call me out, but also because I was not saying anything at all worth saying. I was adding NOTHING to the conversation. I just wanted to talk. I just insisted on having my say on the matter and more. It was shamefully indiscreet. My husband is such a patient man to even take me out in public.

It is much too late to try to cut this short, so I will just leave this here. I  hope you were edified. Writing this has been a good and much needed reminder for me.

Marriage God's Way - All of the Posts

I'm just going to link to all of the posts I've written based on Scott LaPierre's book Marriage God's Way: A Biblical Recipe for Healthy, Joyful, Christ-Centered Relationships.

BFF... or Not

Marriage God's Way - a Book Review, part one

Marriage God's Way - a Book Review, part two

Marriage God's Way - a Book Review, part three

I don't plan to write any more about this book, but I'm not going to promise that I won't.

Breastfeeding is NOT Immodest

I saw this very interesting story and thought it would go well with my post here.

In my previous post, I tried to make the case that Christians ought to own the idea that openly breastfeeding human children is normal. I know that several of the links in that story are broken now, but the point still stands and there are still some good images remaining.

In this link you will see some photos that I would call precious. Mothers, cherishing their limited time of nourishing their children at their breasts. Don't look if you are too squeamish and are still judging God for His audacious design, that design where He actually caused human milk, food for infants, to be manufactured within breasts. Further, He designed for the milk to be removed from the breast and made available to babies by means of suckling. Scandalous, I know.

Here is the link again, in case you missed it above: Victorian-era Deguerreotypes of Women Breastfeeding


After posting the above, I came across this in the Daily Mail

Marriage God's Way - A Book Review, part three

Here is my third installment in my review of the book Marriage God's Way: A Biblical Recipe for Healthy, Joyful, Christ-Centered Relationships by Scott LaPierre. You can read part one here and part two here, which you should probably do before proceeding with this to give yourself some context.

My title for this part of the review is “Who Speaks For God?” which flows from this statement I made in Part One:

In several places, the author asserts that God speaks to us through other people, such as people in our small group Bible studies, our pastors and to husbands through their wives. I know of no biblical support for this principle. In fact, I can think of several places in the Bible where we are warned against this and where we are informed that the only authority through which God speaks is His Word.

So the question I am asking is, does God really speak to us through other people, and, in particular, does He speak to husbands through their wives? Should men be seeking the will of God in the words of their wives? Is that reliable? Is that wise? Or does it fly in the face of what the Bible actually teaches about authority, leadership, and revelation?

On page 124 of the book, Pastor LaPierre begins a section entitled “Submission Does Not Mean That Husbands Do Not Listen To Their Wives.” In the following paragraphs he gives his opinion that “God can use His Holy Spirit to speak to husbands through their wives.” I have no doubt that God can do this, but there is no evidence that God actually does this, and there are no examples or commands in Scripture for a man to listen to his wife unless God, Himself, separately confirmed the prophecy or, the case of Abraham and Sara,  in which God specifically told a man to do the bidding of his wife. In addition, the whole idea contradicts the principle of the man as the leader and head of his home.

Because the author is unable to provide any Scripture to support his assertion that a husband should listen to (obey?) his wife, he gives, instead, examples from his own life where his wife's advice turned out to be correct. Can you see why this is problematic? We cannot test whether something is the voice of God based on whether it turns out well. Our assessment of whether the outcome is “good” may not be the same as God's will. God may want us to go through hard times or to suffer. Outcomes are a terrible way to determine God's will or whether God has spoken.

Even unbelievers, who do not have the Holy Spirit, can give good advice. A wife is no different. Some of her advice may be good, other times, it may be bad. The simple fact that she is a wife does not mean her husband should value her advice and there is no reason at all to assume that God is speaking through her. Why would God speak to her when he could speak directly to the head, by means of His Word? God's Word is the ONLY test for authority. Before the Reformation, there were false teachers saying  the Pope or the Church could speak for God. That was a doctrine of demons, as we know the Bible itself is the only authority and is sufficient for all our faith and life. A wife NEVER enters into the revelatory chain from God to man.

The author gives, as an example from Scripture, the story of the wife of Pilate telling her husband that she was warned in a dream that Pilate should have nothing to do with Jesus (pgs. 124-125). LaPierre claims that her dream was from God, even though the Bible does not say this. It could have been based on her feelings that Jesus was simply not guilty of any crime. Being correct does not make her a prophet. During the times of Jeremiah, there were other prophets advising the king, claiming that God was speaking through them. Was there a way for the king to have known that Jeremiah was the true prophet? Yes. By the written Word of God. Jeremiah was proclaiming the Law of God to the king, and exposing the violations and punishments that God was sending. The false prophets were speaking pleasant words without regard to the Word. The Word is always the test of whether a “word” is from God.

God could speak to a husband through the grocery store clerk or through the dog. But He doesn't. God has chosen to speak to us through His Word. The Holy Spirit guides us to understand and apply the Word, but the Holy Spirit does not give special revelation, outside of the Word of God, to wives or any other advisers. To make such a claim is unbiblical. It goes against the entire counsel of God and the history of the Church's understanding of how God speaks to His people.

If your wife gives good counsel, great! That does NOT equate her words with the words of God. Some wives give rotten counsel and no husband is required to seek his wife's advice, just because she is his wife.

In the book, Pastor LaPierre shares that his wife wanted him to take the job (his current pastoring job in Washington) and it has turned out to be a good move. He claims this proves it was from God. What if a man takes counsel from his wife and it turns out to be horrible? Does that prove men should never listen to their wives? Of course not. I once told my husband to turn at the wrong place. Does that prove something? Does the outcome determine whether the choice was or was not based upon the voice of God? It is from God if it comes from and agrees with his Word. PERIOD. That is the only test for whether it comes from God.

God's Word has authority and must be obeyed. The words of wives do not carry such authority, regardless of whether they are “confirmed” by the Senior Pastor (see pg. 125), or any other person. It would seem, from Pastor LaPierre's own comments about the move to Washington, that even he is  not settled about whether it was his choice or hers.

On page 125 he says the following: 

I would like to share about a time I believe God really used Katie to direct me, and it's when I was an associate pastor at Grace Baptist Church in Lemoore, California. Although it was a wonderful season of life for me, Katie found it difficult because she thought God had gifted me to shepherd my own church. The senior pastor shared Katie's thoughts, so she had confirmation from him as well....

Looking back, Katie's encouragement is one of the only (emphasis added) reasons I was able to make the move.... I invite you to recognize that it was trusting that God was using Katie that allowed me to become the senior pastor of Woodland Christian Church.

From his description, she is the one leading here, she is the one guiding and directing him to move to Washington. He didn't want to go. He didn't feel that God was leading him away from a good thing. Instead of just telling him, the leader of the family to move, God instead spoke to his subordinate, his wife, and to another man, the senior pastor. But a few pages later, he back tracks a bit on this by trying to say that his wife expressed her opinion, but he made the decision for himself; that he was leading, and she was following. Here is what he wrote on page 129:

Though Katie encouraged me to take the position, she could see I was very hesitant. I remember her clearly saying, “If this moves ends up being a mistake and we went there because of me, I couldn't live with that. The only way I can feel good about this decision is if you (emphasis in original) make  it. I respect your leadership, and I believe God will direct you. Whatever you decide, I will support you.

Very noble on her part, to let him know that she wants to move, that the senior pastor agrees with her, even though she KNOWS her husband doesn't want to do it, but if he actually takes her advice, she doesn't want to be responsible for the outcome. She respects his leadership? Really? She knows he was not leading them to move to Washington, that his leadership is keeping them in California. She does not respect his leadership. She is leading from the rear. Pastor LaPierre has said in previous pages that one of the only reasons he made the move was because of her encouragement. He cites no other reasons at all. So she gets what she alone wanted, but she announces in advance that if it doesn't work, she is not to be blamed. This is what LaPierre calls "putting your husband in a position to lead." Apparently it means telling him what you want him to do, then saying, "But it's your decision, and if you blow it, I'm not responsible." This is disturbing. Deeply disturbing. To advance this type of behavior in a book aimed at wives is beyond irresponsible.

The closest the author comes to a proof text for his assertion that husbands should listen to their wives and that God speaks to husbands through their wives is the reference on page 124 to Genesis 2:18 which says:  

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Did God intend for this meet help to communicate God's will to the man? What if Eve had said to Adam, “I know you like working in the garden here, but I really feel that your full potential would be better reached outside of this garden.”? Does anyone believe that God would choose the woman over the man as the recipient of His instructions? Wouldn't it make more sense for God to tell Adam directly if he wanted him to exercise dominion in another location? It sounds ridiculous to me to consider such a thing.

And then, making sure we understand that God DOESN'T intend to work around the husband and give secret instructions or wisdom to the wife, God says this to the man after he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, (emphasis added) and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for they sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Gen 3:17

God directly rebuked Adam for listening to and following the desires of his wife. Why didn't God just say, “Because you ate of the tree...”? The pattern we see being established in Genesis is God leading a family through the husband. There is no time in history, since the Garden of Eden, where God has changed this pattern of dealing directly with men, rather than using wives as a conduit. In the New Testament, Paul explains that the head of every man is Christ and the head of every woman is the man, confirming the order established by God in the beginning. (1 Cor. 11: 3) To suggest, endorse, imply, or teach that God sometimes speaks to the wife instead is to turn this entire order upside down.

To suggest to wives that God speaks through them is unbiblical. It opposes the very design of God for marriage, where the husband is the head, the Christ type, and the wife is under him, the Church type. I'm not saying, nor does the Bible say that a man is forbidden from seeking the opinion or counsel of a wife. But the Bible does not command it, and her advice to him is no more the "voice of God" than any other advice. He can give her opinions whatever weight and value that he believes is appropriate. And if he chooses to never consult her, he does not sin.

How did churchianity change the role of a wife from that of a help, meet for her husband, to one of trusted adviser and prophet of God? It frightens me to see how feminism has infiltrated the elect.

Worship in Song

At the risk of sounding like I am ranting, I have to express my deep disgust at what passes for worship songs today. All worship must be directed at God, the LORD of all, the creator and ruler of the universe. From the Call to Worship until the Benediction, all that is said and done is to be a proclamation of God's glory, His greatness, His mighty works and His gospel. There is no room for acknowledgement and praise of our own good works. God isn't interested in our protestations of our love for Him or promises to praise and worship Him.

Let's have a short grammar lesson. Do you remember learning the parts of a sentence? If so, you know that the subject tells us who is acting in the sentence. The englishlanguageguide.com says it like this:

The subject of a sentence is the noun, pronoun or noun phrase that precedes and governs the main verb

So, if you are singing a song during the service of worship that includes the word "I", you are most likely singing a song about the works of man. You and/or your fellow worshipers are the subjects of those songs. You are telling God about yourself, as if He doesn't know. What is even worse is that you may very well be telling God lies, which is an abomination. Do we want our worship to be an abomination to God?

Let me give some examples.

Here I am to worshipHere I am to bow downHere I am to say that You're my GodYou're altogether lovelyAltogether worthyAltogether wonderful to me

If you are saying right now, "This is from Hillsong. No one should be singing songs from Hillsong in church." I will agree with you. If your congregation never sings this song, more power to you. Unfortunately, it does happen in others, such as the one where I worship. So let's analyze what is wrong with it.

This is the chorus and is repeated several times. It is basically a personal statement about what a particular person is doing/feeling right then. Let's pretended that the person is named John, and instead of saying "I", we will just substitute John's name and have the congregation sing it like that. Ready?

John is here to worship
John is here to bow down
John is here to say that you're his God
You're altogether lovely
Altogether worthy
Altogether wonderful to John

 Does that seem appropriate for worship? Gathering as a congregation to tell God how John is holy and committed to God? If you don't think God wants you to sing to Him about John, what makes you think that God wants John to sing to God about John? Or, more exactly, that God wants you to sing to God about you?

There are other problems with this song. God is God. Or, as He might say, "I am that I am." It doesn't matter to Him, or anyone else if we say our God. That sort of leaves it open that someone else might have another god. But there is only one God. We don't make Him God, we don't make Him Lord of our lives. He IS all of those things by His own existence. God is also lovely, worthy and wonderful. Full stop. This is true. Full stop. To add that God is all of those things "to me" is to say that His character is somehow dependent upon my belief or upon me recognizing or allowing those things to be true. That's like saying gravity is powerful "to me." No. Gravity is powerful. I don't have anything to do with it. There is no need to mention John, or me, in a worship song.

Another problem with this song is that it turns the congregation into a gathering of individuals, each worshiping in his or her own little emotional wonderland. It doesn't recognize the communal nature of of the Church or the unity of that particular congregation. It is coming together on the Lord's day to worship communally, not as a bunch of individuals. The feelings of one particular person might not be representative of the whole, so singing about our feelings, or our individual actions or motives is not appropriate for congregational worship.

These types of worship errors are not only found in what we might call modern worship songs. They are common in many of the gospel songs written after 1850, which are commonly called hymns in many churches. Here is another example, written in 1892:

I'm pressing on the upward way,
New heights I'm gaining ev'ry day;
Still praying as I onward bound,
"Lord plant my feet on higher ground."
Lord, lift me up and let me stand,
By faith on heaven's table land,
A higher plane than I have found;
Lord, plant my feet on higher ground.

How does that song speak of the glory or the works of God? Who is the subject of that song? Again, what if we substitute the name of John for the I's in that song? How ridiculous would it be for us to sing it in worship? "John's pressing on the upward way, new heights he's gaining every day;"  Pretty stupid, huh?

Now let's look at an example of a true hymn, one written by Martin Luther:

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.
Our helper he amid the flood
Of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe
His craft and power are great
and armed with cruel hate
On earth is not his equal.

This song tells the story of the gospel and continuing powerful work of God in the lives of His church. It is about God's power and what HE does.

Here is another from around 1800:

O worship the King, all glorious above,
And gratefully sing His power and His love;
Our Shield and Defender, the Ancient of Days,
Pavilioned in splendor and girded with praise.

 Both of these songs are sung from the perspective of the whole church, not one individual, and they focus on God, His character, His attributes and His works.

Another type of song that is common to the congregation where I worship is a focus on the misery of life and how great it will be to die. Perhaps those songs are comforting to an old or terminally ill person on death's door. But to young, healthy believers, those songs are depressing and don't represent what the Bible teaches about life and its abundance. Christ didn't save us just so we could sit around and wait to die. There is kingdom work to be done here and now. Christians should embrace the gift of life and rejoice in it. Songs like this don't belong in the worship of God:

Oft times the day seems long
Our trials hard to bear;
We're tempted to complain,
To murmur and despair;
But Christ will soon appear,
To catch his bride away;
All tears forever over
In God's eternal day.

 This goes for songs that have bad doctrine and untruth in them, as well. If the song talks about us having harps in heaven or how God is going to take us by the hand and lead us around the promised land (which is not ever mentioned in Scripture)  it should be eschewed in public worship.

I'm not saying that these songs have no place in the life of a believer. Fanny Crosby's song My Savior First of All is uplifting and not totally doctrinally bereft. But it is about her hopes for heaven, God is not the subject, and it fails as a worships song.

Worship should be participatory for all of the congregation. That is why it should include reciting creeds, responsive readings from Scripture and singing. The Word is proclaimed to the entire congregation and we all enter the worship gates together. Every element of worship should be directed at God or be God's words to His people. There is no place for directing our focus inward and towards ourselves. Every word spoken or sung must be true.

Douglas Wilson on The Fear of Women

I have a love/hate reaction to the writings of Douglas Wilson. Mostly love. He says things really spot on the truth, and he says them in a way that is poignant and humorous.  Occasionally I read of him doing things that seem to contradict what he has written, and that is where the hate reactions come in to play. Not so much hate as frustration.

Anyway, I think this blog post is excellent in every way. I hope you like it, too.

The Fear of Women Bringeth Two or Three Snares

Good News!

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a proclamation. It is not a sales pitch.

Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. Even if no one believes it, it is still true. There is no need to convince people of the gospel. Jesus said,

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:27-28

We don't preach the gospel in order to convert people, we do it so that the sheep can hear the voice of their Shepherd and follow Him.

Marriage God's Way - A Book Review, part two

This is part two in my series reviewing the book Marriage God's Way by Scott LaPierre. Part one can be read here.

Right at the beginning of the book, Pastor LaPierre attempts to establish a foundation for the rest of the book. On pages 4 and 5 we can find what I believe to be the most important things said in the entire book. In fact, the principle related there, if followed, is the key to a wife finding fulfillment and success in her role as a wife. (I won't spend as much time discussing what husbands can learn from the book because I dislike very much the notion of a woman immersing herself too deeply in a husband's duties before God. I may comment where I think the author has totally missed the mark or stated something that is outright unbiblical in this area). Here are some examples:

A wife cannot submit to Christ without submitting to her husband.

Likewise, a wife submits to her husband not because he is a wonderful spiritual leader, or because he loves her the way she wants to be loved. A wife submits to her husband because she wants to submit to Christ.

Pastor LaPierre is hitting the target right in the bullseye with these statements and it isn't hard to find Scripture passages that teach this exact thing. (1 Cor. 11, Eph 5:24, 1 Peter 3:1-6, and others)

The first chapter left me hopeful because the foundational principles were so clearly stated and it seemed safe to assume that the rest of the book would be affirming of this. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. There are many places in the book where it reappears, but there are other places where it is outright contradicted. I believe the book could also benefit from real life examples of wives submitting that don't involve the author's own marriage. He and his wife are too young and lack the depth of understanding that comes from decades of practicing submission.

The undermining of the principle that a wife submits to her husband in obedience to God begins in a footnote right on page 4 that says

1  Chapter thirteen addresses the "what ifs" of submission: "What about an abusive husband? When does a wife not need to submit?"

I think I may have groaned out loud when I read that. Conspicuously absent is a chapter devoted to the "what ifs" of love. "What about an abusive wife? When does a husband not need to love?" No one EVER writes a book on marriage and includes instructions on when a husband is relieved of his duty to love his wife like Christ loves the church. And yet so many authors feel somehow compelled to let wives know that they don't always have to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.

To be clear, the commands to both husbands and wives in the Bible are unqualified. And just in case there was some question about whether the wives are really supposed to submit to their husbands in EVERY THING, Paul says this in Ephesians 5:24

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

There is no exception clause. No exceptions are given anywhere. And, just in case there is still some question, Peter goes on to explain in chapter 3 of his first epistle that when a husband is being disobedient to the word of God (abuse perhaps?) the wife is to be subject to him. He even gives the example of Sara obeying Abraham at a time when he was not obeying the word. Now, I am assuming that Peter didn't have some supernatural knowledge of the life of Sara, but was basing his argument on what he knew about Sara from the Scriptures and on what his audience would have known about Sara. When did Sara obey Abraham? When did Abraham disobey the word? It was when Abraham told Sara to say that she was Abraham's sister (not wife) so that she could be taken to wife (adulterously) by two different kings. (Gen 12:13 and Gen 20:5) You can read what I wrote about that passage here.

On page 122 of the book, Pastor LaPierre entitles a subsection Submission Does Not Mean That Wives Submit to Sin.  I disagree, based upon what Peter said about Sara making herself subject to Abraham. IF Sara had been taken as a wife by Pharaoh or Abimelech it would have been sinful. But the sin would have been Abraham's, not Sara's. God caused both Pharaoh and Abimelech to rebuke Abraham for his lie. No such rebuke was aimed at Sara, on the contrary, God preserved her obedience as a memorial to her in 1 Peter 3.

By telling wives that they don't have to submit to sin, they are set up to be continually in a position of judging their husbands, deciding whether what the husband wants to do is sin or not. The wife is granted a veto power over her husband with her trump card of "I believe it would be sinful." When the wife has the final say, it is SHE that is the head and ruler, not the husband. It turns the whole meaning of submission on its head. God is not the author of confusion, and this is a doctrine of confusion. Instead of telling wives, as the Bible does, that they are free to offer their unconditional submission to a husband and to trust God for the results (Committing themselves to him that judgeth righteously, 1 Peter 2:23) this author would have a wife judge every command of her husband, putting a burden on her shoulders that God did not intend for her to carry.

Sometimes submission will lead to suffering. That is the entire context of 1 Peter, which is particularly applicable to the present discussion in chapters 2 -4. Peter admonishes different people to submit to those in authority, even if it involves suffering. Then Peter offers the example of Christ's suffering and death on the cross and says to the wives "LIKEWISE..." like what? Like Christ suffered, so should a wife, if that is what her situation requires. Keep reading chapter 3, all the way to verses 17 and 18 which say:

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.

In part one of my review I stated that one of my criticisms of the book is that when Pastor LaPierre uses Scripture, he doesn't look at it within its entire context and this is a perfect example. He deals with each of the first 6 verses of 1 Peter 3 as if they were standing alone, rather than being sandwiched right in the middle of chapters 2 through 4. 1 Peter 3:1-6 is not a recipe for a happy, peaceful, easy life, free of suffering. It is a description of one of the ways the people of God are called to follow Christ in His sufferings, which will sometimes occur within marriage.

It is unfortunate that in attempting to find a biblical example of a wife submitting to sin, Pastor LaPierre uses Ananias and Sapphira, whose story is told in Acts 5. There is no mention in this story that Ananias told Sapphira what to do or that she was submitting to him by lying to the apostles about the money. It says that Ananias kept back part of the price and Sapphira was privy to it. There is no mention that she was against it, or considered it sinful. So it really does fail as an example of why a wife shouldn't submit to sin. Again, the proper example, the one used by God, is the example of Sara, who was praised for her submission.

On pages 162 and 163, we read a pretty good description of Sara obeying Abraham in the matter of saying she was his sister rather than wife. But he is, again, separating verses 3-6, which are talking about Sara, from verses 1-2. In discussing verses 1 and 2, Pastor LaPierre attempts to make the case that Peter is talking about a husband who is an unbeliever. (pages 142-144) IF Peter was talking about an unbelieving husband, it would have been completely nonsensical to use Sara and Abraham as an illustration of the principle.

Also on page 122, Pastor LaPierre says that wife should not submit to her husband if he is breaking man's laws, which he equates to blatant sin. He mentions "cheating" on income tax and drug dealing. This is bordering on idolatry to claim that violating some arbitrary statute of men is a "blatant sin." What if the law of men prohibits home schooling or mandates sending children to state homes or boarding schools? This is just turning into dangerous territory for a wife who is now going to wrest the reins of family leadership from her husband by standing as judge over his every decision, ruling whether it is or is not sin.

On page 121 there is a subsection entitled Submission Does Not Mean That Wives Submit to Abuse. Again, why doesn't it mean that? Is abuse part of the "every thing" to which a wife is commanded to be in subjection to? If not, why not? Why does 1 Peter 2 describe the suffering of Christ as our example and then Peter says, "Likewise ye wives..."?  Pastor LaPierre gives permission to a wife who is being abused to separate from her husband. He asserts that God permits this based upon 1 Cor 7:11 which says:

But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

But this is ignoring the context, even the command in the verse immediately preceding which states:

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.

Pastor LaPierre gives permission for something God forbids, by direct command? Further, 1 Peter 3 clearly states that when a husband is not obeying the word, a wife is to submit -- not leave.  We also see on page 121 that he gives a wife permission to call the police on her husband. And yet, in 1 Cor 6 Paul instructs the church that it is better to suffer and take wrong than to go to law before unbelievers.

The overarching problem that I am seeing is that while Pastor LaPierre correctly states the principle that a wife should submit to her husband as an act of obedience to Christ, he then goes completely outside of the Bible to find exceptions to the rule. The Bible does not give an exception clause. If a wife decides to forego submission for any reason, she can't use the Bible to justify it, and no one should tell her otherwise.  If you want to label something as being "God's Way" then you must stick directly to what God has said.

Go to part three of my review here

The Origins of Courtship Plus Chivalry

I wrote here about my objections to the idea that Christians should court as a pathway to marriage. One of the most obvious problems lies in the fact that courtship behavior, historically, involved extramarital affairs. It would have been better if I had done more research and given some sources, as I was primarily relying on my memory and I don't necessarily know from whence the information came.

Here Dalrock gives more shocking insight into courting, including the concept of chivalry. As I stated in my blog post, courtship was an adulterous undertaking. The principles underlying chivalry weren't even related to the behavior of a man within marriage.

Courtship is not a valid model for marriage and Christians should eschew it in favor of pathways that don't involve romantic entanglements outside of marriage.

Questions to Ask About Vaccines

One of the most disturbing things I learned from this article is that people will accept government stats about decreased rates of polio, even if it means ignoring an INCREASE in paralysis and death. I've been saying for years that we have the same rates of paralysis in this country that we've always had, but we just don't call it "polio" so that vaccine companies can make false claims about efficacy and safety.

I hate that we put the agenda of vaccine companies and government fat cats above health and safety. It is evil.

Read this and share it with your friends and family who want to know more.

4 Questions that May Change Your Mind About Vaccines

Contemporary Worship

I have started a couple of posts about the problem modern churches have with the songs they sing and the way they use singing in the service of worship. I can't seem to finish those posts, but I'm sure I will some day.

In the meantime I came across this post which I think is very good. I don't agree that a liturgical form of worship must follow the so-called church calendar, and I do not like the word "Eucharist" used in reference to communion or the Lord's supper. It is mostly associated (at least in the U.S.) with transubstantiation, where the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. This isn't technically the meaning of the word, but the associations are tainted with Roman Catholicism, so perhaps it is best avoided in an article written for a mass (pardon the pun) audience.

Anyway, here is the article. Feel free to comment, even though I didn't write it.

7 Ways Contemporary Worship is Starving the Church

Marriage God's Way - A Book Review, part one

I'm going to be reviewing Marriage God's Way: A Biblical Recipe for Healthy, Joyful, Christ-Centered Relationships by Scott LaPierre.  I won't be doing it in one long post, because I have a lot of comments to make and I don't want it to get tedious. For this first part I will start with just giving my overall opinions and save the specifics for later.

What I Like About This Book

• The author is pro-marriage. He makes it abundantly clear that God instituted marriage for our good and that as a person and a pastor, he is in favor of marriage. He doesn't lament that marriage is some sort of necessary evil, but rather promotes it as a part of a joyful life. He intends for his book to be a help for all of those who want to enjoy marriage.
• The book acknowledges that God is the creator of marriage. When marriage is not good, in nearly all (if not all) cases it is because one or both parties to the marriage are not following what the Bible teaches about marriage and they need to go to the Scriptures for the solutions, or they may just need to repent and change course. This point is a strong recommendation for the book.
• I know some people who attend the church pastored by Scott LaPierre, and from what I know of this congregation, it is a place where happy marriages and long-term marriages abound. Pastor LaPierre himself seems pretty happily married and he testifies that his parents are as well, which means this stuff isn't just theoretical to him. I once had the unhappy experience of having a pastor who spoke disparagingly of marriage nearly every week, even going so far as referring to his wife (from the pulpit!) as being "that neighbor I can never get away from." This man does know marriage, and his experience with it is good. 
• There is no shying away from the fact that God designed men and women differently. Their roles and responsibilities in marriage are different. The passages of Scripture dealing with husbands and wives are boldly proclaimed without apology. There is no attempt to ignore aspects that might be considered less than politically correct. Bravo!

What I Don't Like About This Book

• The book is written to both husbands and wives. Unfortunately, one of the greatest and most destructive temptations for wives is to judge their husbands. Instead of reading the Bible as a mirror and seeking to recognize their own sin, it is too common for wives to read the Bible as a means of identifying their husbands' short-comings. A book like this provides the same temptation. While it is appropriate for husbands to instruct their wives, washing them with the water by the word, the reverse is not true. No husband wants to listen to his wife saying, "The Bible says you should...." and it isn't any better to hear them say, "Pastor LaPierre says you should..."  Any wives reading this book should restrain themselves from using the book as a club on their husbands. This is why some of my all time favorite books on marriage are written by women, for women, sparing me from having to read about my husband's duties.
• In trying to analyze verses and passages, the author frequently focuses so tightly, sometimes on a single word, that he misses the meaning that is given by the context of the surrounding words and verses. Examples of this are 1 Peter 3:1, Titus 2:1-5 and Ephesians 5:22-33.
• While seeming to be comfortable with a wife's responsibility to submit to and respect her husband, he doesn't mention obedience to husbands at all. If one is attempting to expound on "God's way", one should be careful to include the whole counsel of God. 
• I'm not in agreement with Pastor LaPierre's assessment of the book of Judges. No book on marriage that is directed at wives would be complete without a discussion of Deborah, I guess. But that doesn't warrant a mischaracterization of what it was that judges did (they were not primarily rulers) or how that entire period should be interpreted (as the worst days of Israel's history). In my opinion, the advent of kings to the throne of Israel was the commencement of one terrible time in Israel after another. Things were better under the judges, where they sometimes experienced peace for as long as 80 years at a time. Few countries in the world can rival that record. 
• In several places, the author asserts that God speaks to us through other people, such as people in our small group Bible studies, our pastors and to husbands through their wives. I know of no biblical support for this principle. In fact,  I can think of several places in the Bible where we are warned against this and where we are informed that the only authority through which God speaks is His Word. 
• Over and over in this book it is stated that men have the propensity, if not the outright inclination, to be harsh, cruel and unkind. On the contrary, women are presented as meek, gentle, compassionate, etc. There is no evidence in history or in the Bible that harshness and cruelty are the in the exclusive purview of men. Women are every bit as capable and culpable when it comes to meanness. This lie is pervasive in the Church and it is time to put it to bed. The notion of women as sweet and men as tyrants needs to die a quick death. 
• This author says that men and women are equal. Since equal means "the same as" I am at a loss as to how men and women are equal. That is like saying that apples and oranges are equal. They are not. Wives are subordinate to husbands in authority, and therefore unequal. Men and women are equal in their inability to save themselves and in their need for the Savior. Beyond that, they are not equal. 

This is not the worst book on marriage that I've ever read. There are some gems to be gleaned from within the pages. However, like the Bereans of old, one should compare every word and concept presented here against the Word of God to avoid the errors contained within.  Stay tuned for more specifics as I go through my 12 pages of handwritten notes and share the ones that I can make coherent for you.

Go on to part two of my review here
Part three can be found here

Teach the Young Women To Love Their Husbands

This is going to be a follow up to my previous post on whether husbands and wives should be best friends. In the comments on that post, the topic of how a woman should love her husband was raised and I am going to share here the results of my research on the meaning of Titus 2:4.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a Greek scholar and I don't even play one on TV. For the most part, I believe that a good English translation of the Bible is sufficient for English speaking people to understand how to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, which is man's primary purpose according to the Westminster Confession of Faith with the accompanying proof texts. However, because of our culture and because of our pathetic use of the English language, Americans have lost the meaning of many important words, replacing their meanings with mere shadows of their former selves.

For that reason, sometimes it helps a person, like a homemaker, to consult the Greek text in order to fully understand and exercise her duties to God. Over the years there have been several important New Testament passages which have guided me in my relationship with my husband, with 1 Peter 3:1-6 and Titus 2:3-5 topping the list. I have already covered 1 Peter 3:1-6 here.

On to the text!

Titus 2:1-5King James Version (KJV)2 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

There is so much here that could be addressed, but this is a blog post, not a book, so I am going to attempt to limit my discussion to only verse 4 and the words “to love their husbands.” Right here I'm just going to add that this is a grave issue. It is highly important, because when the older women don't do their duty to teach these skills to the younger women, it results in the word of God being blasphemed, which sounds pretty awful and I don't want that to happen.

The word translated “love” here is the Greek word philandros. This is a combination of two words, the word philos which has the basic meaning of dear, fond or affection. As a noun, by itself, it can mean associate, neighbor or friend. The second part of the word is aner which means a man (an individual male), fellow, husband or sir. Putting these two words together into philandros, combined with the context (an act or skill that is to be taught to young wives) I believe the most useful working definition of it would be “to love their husbands in an affectionate way, the way a wife loves a husband.” In other words, teach them to be their husbands' lovers. George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament says it this way:

...that they may school the young [women] lovers of [their] husbands to be

Let's ignore that it sounds like the Yoda translation, shall we?

I feel very confident in saying that Paul believed the young wives need to be taught how to be affectionate towards a husband, particularly in a physical way. This word is used in no other place in the New Testament, Paul chose this very specific and detailed word to describe the acts of a woman toward a man to whom she is married and toward no other person in the world. It refers to acts unique within the marriage relationship. It would include, but not be limited to, how to make love.

This verse demonstrates graphically that Greek is superior to English in expressing specific types of love. In this very same verse we see another related word, philoteknos, which is translated “to love their children” which conveys a very different type of affection from that shown to a husband. Also, the word is not only specific to being an affection for children, it is also specific in being a maternal love, that is, the type of affection that comes only from a mother. Even though fathers should love their children, this Greek word would not be accurate in describing that action.

It is not possible to use Titus 2:4 to state that wives should be “friends” with their husbands or even that they should love them with “brotherly love.” The Greek language, in which this passage was originally recorded, offers better and more specific descriptions of the nature of a wife's love toward her husband. This love is not a feeling or an emotion. This love expresses itself in acts of affection and physical relations.

There may be some confusion as to whether wives are commanded by God to love their husbands. I would say they are not, or at least not in Titus 2. The context here is one of the apostle Paul instructing Titus in how to shepherd the flock, the church, at Crete. Titus was there to set it in order. By application, these instructions should apply to all pastors. Pastors should direct the older women in the church, if they aren't doing it already, to school the younger women in proper behavior within their homes, towards their husbands and children, as well as in the greater congregation and world-at-large. The difference between commands and instructions is that a violation of a command of God is sin, even if the transgressor is not aware of the command. Instructions are there for the improvement of a person. We all need skills to make our lives enjoyable, to enable us to survive, and to improve our relations with our fellows. Just as children are to be trained up in the way they should go, young wives need guidance to acquire proficiency in areas that are less than intuitive.

As children are not punished for not knowing how to do a task, wives are not punished for not knowing how to love (philandros) their husbands. A failure in this area is not a sin but simply evidence of the need for better training. A church full of young wives who do not love their husbands is not necessarily the evidence of rebellious women, but is more likely the evidence of older women not passing on their knowledge of how to do this. The danger of this is that the young women will either wing it or acquire wrong instruction from the popular culture. I can see why Paul thought it important enough to admonish Titus to pay attention to this.