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.

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.

BFF... or Not

I was recently reading Marriage God's Way. My husband asked me to read it so that we could discuss it before he would be giving some feedback to a friend who wanted his opinion on the book. I don't intend for this post to be a review of the book, although I am writing one. Here, I just want to address something that the author, Scott LaPierre, says on page 61,

...we forget that marriage should actually be the union of two best friends... Your spouse should be your best friend.

This sort of statement has always rubbed me the wrong way and I have never taken the time to really put my finger on why this bothers me. Sometimes I see a meme or something that says, "Share if your husband is your best friend" and I just cringe. What is with this modern obsession with friends and best friends?

The basis for my disgust with this notion is that a friendship is fundamentally a non-sexual relationship. Having sex with a friend transforms the relationship to something else entirely. We try to be clever and use terms like "friends with benefits," but the truth is that we don't have sex with friends. Having sex with a person means the person is a lover (in the case of fornicators) or a spouse, in the case of married people.

Different types of relationships have different titles, naturally. The woman who gave birth to me is my mother. The way we are related tends to set the parameters of the relationship. While not every parent/child relationship is identical (since no two people are exactly alike), every parent/child relationship has similar elements. For starters, I don't have sex with my mother or my father, pretty much by definition. Just as I don't have sex with my friends. Mothers and fathers are entitled to honor and there is an exalted status that goes with the parenthood relationship which is not enhanced by referring to them as my friends. But for some reason, in America, the culture gives exalted status to friendship over every other relationship, so that it isn't respectable to be a sister, brother or uncle unless that is qualified with ,"but I consider him a friend."

Not only do we want to have lots of friends and we want to lump every person related to us in any capacity into the group titled "friends." We also like to rate our friends. We have good friends, close friends, old friends and la creme' de la creme', the "best friend." This friend is sometimes referred to as the BFF (best friend forever). But there can only be one BEST friend, right? Otherwise it isn't the best. This is problematic.

Why is it problematic? you may ask. Because we are asking our friends to compete for the title. This is my friend, Jenny, and this is my friend, Mary, and THIS is my best friend, Rita! Now Rita gets to bask in her elevated title and the other gals get to feel inferior and plot how they can knock Rita from the pedestal to which she was exalted. Imagine if Jenny considered me to be her best friend, and I just stated that my best friend is Rita. This is not only confusion, it is cruel and pretty stupid.

Now, let us factor males and females into this mix. Let's say an unmarried woman by the name of Jane has male and female friends. Todd is one of her friends. Todd would like to be more than a friend to Jane, but so far, Jane doesn't seem to share this interest. Jane has declared that Maria is her BFF. According to Scott LaPierre, "marriage should actually be the union of two best friends" so does Jane marry her friend Maria? Of course not. Can Jane marry Todd? I mean, he isn't her best friend.

If Jane decides that Todd would be a good marriage partner, does she have to wait to marry him until Todd achieves BFF status with Jane? What if Todd and Jane become best friends and they don't want to marry? Are they forever forbidden from marrying other people unless they break up as BFFs?

I submit that "husband" is a superior relationship status to "best friend." It is superior in quality and fundamentally different in expression. The husband/wife relationship is, at its base, a sexual relationship. A one-flesh relationship. If I were to refer to my husband as my best friend, it would be a downgrade from the exalted status he holds in my life.

In our relationships with people, we should use care not to become conformed to this world, or to a particular culture. There is a biblical culture that transcends time and location. When God created marriage, He did not look around at the various existing relationships and say "A spouse is like a friend, but of the very best sort."  Instead, he created marriage to illustrate to us the relationship between Christ and the Church. It is valid in every corner of the globe and in every culture. While it might be comfortable for an American to say that his wife is his best friend, in other cultures that idea might be totally preposterous. It just doesn't compute. "A friend? Are you kidding? She's my WIFE!" Because the answers to "what is a friend?" and "who can be my friend" are not universal, we should not be proclaiming that in "marriage God's way" a spouse is a best friend. God did not say such a thing and the Bible doesn't endorse this idea.

Outside of marriage, Americans are equally careless in identifying, quantifying and rating friendships. We would do better to limit the use of friend and to use other more specific terms to define what other people are to us. For example, a person I have just met is more properly described as an acquaintance. In the same way, the men that I know are my husband's friends or the husbands of my friends. I try to never call men my friends. It is not appropriate for men and women to be in friendships as that relationship is thought of in America.

Between the same sex, as in friendships between women, it is wise to identify no particular woman as a best friend. I forbid my children from using this terminology. Among girls, it is almost dangerous because of the multiple ways they will hurt each other by classifying each other. It is ok to say that someone is a close friend, because I may have several women who fit that description. I can say from experience that these sorts of friendships are transitory because life is not static. A close friend to an unmarried woman may move from the inner circle when the woman marries, or when she has children. People change churches and move to other towns and their circles of friends are ever shifting. There is nothing wrong with this and no one should feel burdened to maintain a close friendship whose season in life has passed.

So there. I've said it. My husband is NOT my best friend. He is dearer to me than any other. We share a oneness that no other type of relationship can approach. He is not threatened by my relationships with my close friends, because the nature of my relationship with him and my relationships with my women friends are so completely different in quality. If I were to expect from him the things I look for from my friends, it would be wearisome to him. Likewise, he doesn't look to me for friendship. It doesn't mean we don't have fun together, or that we don't share common interests. We do. But those things do not define our relationship as husband and wife.

I think the author has a presupposition that everyone should have a best friend, and so it is understandable that such a thing might be seen to compete with or endanger the relationship between a husband and wife. Therefore, it would naturally follow (from the presupposition) that husbands and wives should be best friends. However, the Bible doesn't prescribe having a best friend, and it is a good practice for Christians to avoid such decisive relationships. Instead, just call a friend a friend and call a spouse a spouse.

Arranged Marriage - The Daughter's Perspective

I've given my view of the arranged marriage of my daughter in two parts found here and here.

My husband has also written about the process here.

Today it gives me great pleasure to share my daughter's testimony of the matter. Her story is not a typical romance story or a courtship story, because she did not get to know her husband in that way until after they were married. Instead you are about to read about a many-year journey of the heart. I hope you will be amazed and encouraged, as I was, to read of the sovereignty and goodness of God in the life of a young woman.

A few months before I turned 11, my mother made an announcement to me and my three siblings. She was going to remarry. She would be marrying a man she met in law school and the wedding would take place in a month or two.

My mother and biological father had been divorced since I was 2 and I was very excited by the news of her remarrying, as I knew she could not have any more children until she was married and I very much wanted more younger siblings.

A year and a half later we moved from my childhood home-state to the state where my step father was from originally. This was also exciting for me. The new home was in the country, with a river on our land and many places for adventurous children to play.  I looked forward to a new home and being next door to his parents, whom I quickly came to regard as my own grandparents, and the affection was returned with greater vigor.

Through the years I began to become unhappy with the changes in my life that, at the time, had created such excitement in me. I began to resent the man who took charge of our family and made changes to us that were, to me, hard. This resentment only got worse as I grew older. I did not trust that he was doing what was best for me and the relationship with my parents grew strained.

By 17 I had decided I no longer wanted to live with my mother and stepfather and had made arrangements to leave home forever and live with my biological dad. I was in a state of mourning with this decision. I greatly loved my younger siblings whom God had given to our family, and I knew from what my parents had said that if I left home I would not be allowed to see or talk with them.  During this time I did not read my bible, or pray in any way. I tried to succeed where all others had failed at ignoring God, and hoping to slip by unnoticed by Him. Perhaps He would forget me.  It is with great joy now I can say that He did not. When it came time, instead of leaving as I had planned, I came home. I do not know, even now, why I returned home from the trip I was on instead of going through with my plan, except to say God’s plan was unavoidable.

Once I was home I spoke with my stepfather and set before him how I was, and was still,  feeling, and the need I felt to do something drastic. I do not know how he truly felt about this, but after two or three months of prolonged conversations, I made a choice. I would stay at home. I would trust in God to provide for my happiness, and I would change my attitude to that of one of contentment.

This was a changing point in my life. I used to always plan for two futures, one at home and one away. I was prepared at any time to catch a ride to the airport and forever leave my family. Now I depended on God. I truly believed He placed me in this family for my own good, that He was sovereign and I could not escape His plan by running away, but I could certainly make that plan much harder on myself.

I am not proud of how I behaved, or my confusion as a teenager. I do not tell these things to bolster a view of me or show false pride in my actions. Rather I relate them so it can be known that I did not always trust  my parents. We have not always had the relationship we do now, and it was a struggle to get there. But even in the midst of my own fears and doubts, not the least of which was trusting my parents to search out and find the spouse I would live the rest of my life with, I make the conscious decision to trust not only them, but God.

After making my decision to stay home, my parents started to actively train me in wifely ways. They had tried before of course but, due to my attitude, while I could clean and cook not unwell, many of the spiritual lessons were lost on me. The ability to have a peaceful mind, a forgiving heart, and an understanding spirit had until this time been impossible to attain. We now talked of marriage often, and it was my earnest desire to be married. (I had wanted to be a wife and mother from a young age, but how to go about that had always eluded me.)

My parents explained to me how they were going to go about finding a husband for me, and the specific Scriptures that had lead them to this way of thinking. I was reassured to not feel pressured into doing this by myself. I was instructed to not show favoritism, to not seek out the favor of young men and to let my works be my apparel.  My parents urged me to protect my heart, and not let it float around, ready to be damaged.  Through some experiment I conducted on my own I came to the realization that “Attitude is Everything”. I could fully control my own attachments. By the end of a year I was firmly convinced I could love anyone.

I reached this conclusion by age 20 but I did not marry until just after my 22nd birthday. It was a long two years (was that all!) but I found contentment at home. I knew my parents (and especially my step-father)  were doing all in their power to go new places, usually 3-4 hours away, to meet new families and talk to fathers, but it all seemed to me to be taking too long. What was God, (and all these eligible sons) waiting for? ( I now know my sweet, wonderful and perfect husband was at that time fighting for his life in a hospital and was not available for marriage.)

Finally a good tip came in from a friend. Their church (about 4 hours away) had many young men who were looking for a spouse. Off we went to visit and sure enough there were more than one, or two, that I had no objection to at all. We met one family in particular and over the course of three months we saw them 3 times. For my family that was a lot of traveling and meeting them so often was encouraging, though I never suspected anything more.

(The following is my favorite part of the story so forgive me if I add too much detail.) Imagine my surprise when one day in May 2015 while at our favorite grocery store, my step-father took me in alone, and whilst buying me chocolate, let me know there was a young man who had answered the questionnaire my father and I had put together years ago, and that soon I might be asked to answer one as well. I tried not to show my excitement, but I am sure my father figured it out by the way I kept pestering him to see the suitors answers. Father did not want me to see the suitor’s answers until I had answered my own questions to prevent me from tailoring my answers. I suspected at this time the suitor was from this particular family we had been meeting with, but as they had a few sons I was not sure which son it was.

About a week later I answered the questions put to me. (The questions were sent to my father’s email, and he emailed them to me to prevent my knowing from which son the questions were coming. So crafty, as I was hoping for a clue from the email address.) I was then allowed to see the suitors answers and all but three were satisfactory. Those three we continued to discuss for the next month, and I was told who was seeking me: Brad. We saw each other once while these discussions were going on. It was a slightly nerve racking time for me because I was expecting at any time to be rejected, but even expecting that, I could not help but see the many good things in this man Brad, and to see he would be a good husband indeed. However, my answers could never have been as satisfactory as his, so I assumed he would soon come to his senses and tell me this was done. His family came to visit mine, and a week later we were engaged. (At a dance, it was all very romantic and beautiful.)

Two months after that we were married, and despite being told often and by many people what to expect, we have found it to be complete bliss. We have yet to encounter many of the hiccups we hear other couples talk about or even have a major disagreement.

I was asked to write this up to show my perspective of what my parents did. Truthfully, the only fault I have is, after Brad and I were engaged we were not allowed to hold hands. That is it. (I found out later it was not just my parents, my husband also did not think it was a good idea.)

I truly appreciate my parents keeping Brad’s identity from me, and that he was even interested, until he had already been approved. I am glad they did not tell me about the talks going on between his father and mine before Brad was told I would be a good match for him. I like to think I am usually level heading and wouldn’t have gotten stresses or worried about it. But after I was engaged and my emotions got rolling, I had a hard time controlling them and that was after I knew we were getting married. If I had known before, and there was a chance of it being called off, I don’t know what I would have done with myself.

I have been married over a year now, and I could not be happier. I see no signs whatever of my marriage not lasting forever, and everyday I thank God for my husband. I do not believe Brad or I have in anyway been damaged by our parents being involved in the process, quite the opposite in fact. We are both very happy that we got all the important questions out of the way and settled quickly so we could move on with getting married, being confident that our parents would let us know if we were rushing through disagreements merely because our emotions were aroused. We had no romantic relationship until married and I believe that was excellent. We of course got to know each other after marriage (Favorite colors, foods, movies, books, etc.) but with the benefit of no bedtimes, other people listening in, or physical boundaries, I firmly believe this was the best way for us, and I would not change anything. 

I don't have anything to add to that. 

Dalrock on Boisterous Women

I'm just going to leave this right here.

Dalrock on Boisterous Women

Dalrock has rules for commenting that I don't have, so feel free to comment here, especially if you are a woman.

All About Feelings for $500, Alex

Christians can have many opinions about the proper way to go about finding a spouse, about the proper "path to marriage," if you will. However, when a Christian begins to make claims about what the Bible says it is imperative such claims are backed with citations to Scripture. I recently read an internet posting in which a woman claimed that a certain practice needs to be repented of, and I managed to take offense at such a statement because I have engaged in that practice. Since she publicly made her objection, I shall publicly make my rebuttal. I shall respond to her objectionable statements one by one.

The Bible has a lot to say on this topic!
It teaches there is great wisdom in having *purpose* and being ready to marry before a single person begins to actively pursue a romantic relationship with another person.

She says the Bible has a lot to say on the subject of what she calls "pre-marriage relationships." As per the purpose of my blog post here I must ask, "Oh really? Where? What does the Bible have to say about pre-marriage relationships?" Is she talking about boyfriend/girlfriend relationships? Because the Bible doesn't mention them. If she is talking about those who are betrothed, the Bible likewise does not mention how such couples would interact, if at all.  Romantic relationships in Scripture are specifically restricted to those who are married. Romantic relationships outside of marriage are not mentioned at all, except within the context of extra-marital sexual contact, which is sin. The only possible exception is the Song of Solomon and the couple there are, at the very least, betrothed when speaking to each other in a romantic manner. I would refer my readers to my posts To Court or Not to Court, and Does Physical Contact Lead To Sex?  for my explanation on why romantic relationships outside of marriage are sinful.

My second objection is to her claim that the Bible talks about a single person having "*purpose* (sic) and being ready to marry" before pursuing a romantic relationship. She is clearly making a distinction between romantic relationships and marriage. Since I already covered that, I'll just deal with her claim that single people should have purpose and "be ready" to marry. What does that even mean? What makes a person ready to marry? What makes a person unready? The Bible gives no answers that I can find and if she wants to say the Bible DOES define these things, the burden is on her to show it. She doesn't even try. The entire quote above is just a lie. The Bible does not say what she claims it says, and no one is even questioning her on it! She just boldly makes the statements and gets a bunch of comments agreeing with her. It is just frightening what Christians will say and believe.

The Bible supports having the *parents* and families & more mature believers as involved as possible.

 Let's forget for a moment her use of the * in every paragraph, annoying as it is and address the content of her claim. The Bible does not support having a bunch of people involved in deciding whether a particular man and woman should marry. If it did, she could easily post her references. Instead, what do we see in the Bible? We see fathers deciding whether their son or daughter should marry and to whom they will be joined. In the case of Rebekah and Isaac, Rebekah's brother, Laban is also involved. Even in the New Testament we see Paul saying that the father of a virgin has the right to either give her in marriage or not. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)  Here is the rub for her, SHE wants to be involved in the match-making of people who are not her own children. And in order to justify her meddling, she tells us that the Bible supports her meddlesome ways. She operates a facebook page where she acts like the matchmaker, Yenta, from Fiddler on the Roof, but she works directly with young men and women, rather than with their fathers. The Bible does not "support" this practice.

God's Word commands singles to *protect physical purity*. I think it wise to have boundaries and daily accountability to a parent or more mature Christian friend.

 Again with the *s. Anyway.....  God's Word says to all people, single and married, to "flee fornication." (1 Corinthians 6:18)  Daily accountability is not the same thing as simply fleeing or avoiding situations in which fornication could occur. As Douglas Wilson says in his book Her Hand In Marriage, "Don't heat up the oven if you aren't going to bake the bread." There is no way a person can be fleeing fornication while becoming physically affectionate with a person to whom he is not married. It is inappropriate outside of marriage. It isn't an issue of setting boundaries, unless those boundaries are the same as those that would apply between a single person and married person. For example, a single man should have no more physical contact with a single woman than he should with a married woman. Any woman who is not his wife is off limits to him. The Bible no more approves of unmarried people holding hands, kissing and hugging or petting than it does of oral sex. All sexual contact, from the least to the most intimate is approved for the married, but the Bible cannot be used to justify any contact that doesn't reach sexual intercourse for the unmarried. It just isn't in there.

To go against the God designed process of *REALLY* getting to know someone before marrying them.

 This is not a complete sentence, so it is difficult to understand her point here, but I object, quite adamantly, that God has designed a process for a man and woman to really get to know each other before marriage. God has NOT designed such a process, unless he revealed it to her personally. I will refer to one example in the Bible where God has shown us just the opposite, the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah. They got married before they knew each other AT ALL. They had never spoken to each other, and Isaac didn't even know who she was until she showed up at his tent. She is perfectly entitled to have the opinion that a man and woman should get to know one another before marriage, but she is NOT entitled to state that God prefers such a thing, requires such a thing or that He designed a process for such a thing. She is wrong. And it is a pretty frightening thing to be stating wrong things about God. Or it should be. 

It has also caused families to *hide* the fact that their single child is "getting to know someone" until it's certain that person is the one, for fear of shame. In addition to not being honest and open so others can learn how it *really* works, at the same time these hidden relationships perpetuate the false idea that people actually ARE marrying the first person they talk to.

 This is the part where I begin to take offense. As you may already know from reading about my daughter's arranged marriage here and here, we did not make it public that we were arranging a marriage until they were engaged. The woman who wrote the quote above is known to me, and I suspect that our daughter's arranged marriage is the only one she knows of where the matter was kept private until it was settled. She is making straw man arguments and is misrepresenting what we did and our motives for what we did (unless she knows of other people who would actually fit her description - which I highly doubt but remain open to being enlightened). What we did was to keep it private, we were not hiding anything. We had no fear of shame and I don't even understand what she could mean by that. Shame for what?  I guess she's upset that we didn't seek her input?  We were dishonest? We weren't open? What business was it of hers or anyone else? This woman takes "busy body" to new levels of height. As for letting others know how it *really* works, both my husband and I blogged about it and have made ourselves available to anyone who wants to discuss it. We have written extensively, although not exhaustively, about the dangers of public courtships and the potential for damaged reputations and the loss of perceived value in the eyes of potential suitors, but we never considered a failed marriage arrangement to be shameful. She has no basis for stating such a thing except for her own imaginations. I doubt if she has read what we have written and she has not personally asked us about our process or our reasons for how we conducted the arrangement. She did, however, provide a forum for people to bash us on her private match-making facebook page where we were unable to defend ourselves or respond to comments made about us. So much for her being honest and open.

She is also misrepresenting our process. Our daughter was not "talking to" her suitor. The fathers were talking to each other. We weren't "perpetuating" any false ideas about anything. Women who dream up ideas and then assign the origins of those ideas to others are fantasizing. We have never assigned any moral value to whether a father is able to secure a husband for his daughter on the first try, and I'm not sure why she is making an issue of it. I do believe that multiple courtships, where people are entering into romantic relationships and then ending them, is wrong. Since I believe that romantic relationships outside of marriage are little more than fornication light, obviously having multiple such relationships is repugnant to me. The authoress of the above quote may not think so, but she is not able to dictate how that sort of thing rates with potential suitors. She may believe that her daughters having been through multiple boyfriends doesn't diminish their value, but she really has no control whether men use that issue to cross those daughters off of their list. Likewise, I believe her son-in-law would not be happy to see the names of her daughter's former boyfriends/suitors being proclaimed publicly. Why would he want the whole world to know that he wasn't her first choice? How does the cause of being open and honest trump his dignity?   I believe it would be fabulous if every Christian reserved romantic relationships for within the bonds of matrimony, and therefore every Christian had only one romantic relationship. There is nothing wrong with promoting that standard within my family and within greater Christendom.

This is FALSE & a twisting of the Scriptures. Let us repent of black and white, of extra-biblical labels and ideas, of systems, rules and shame. Let's NOT confuse commands with opinions. Instead, let us stand confidently on God's Word & the certain and sure guidelines He's given for pre-marriage relationships.

 Calling others to repent is to accuse them of sin. This is probably best done in private, but she appears to have no idea what that word means. The one presenting extra-biblical ideas (such as romantic relationships outside of marriage) is this authoress. She is the one stating the "Bible says..." without citations. To close with a reference to the "sure guidelines He's given for pre-marriage relationships" is pretty ironic, when she didn't reference a single verse or passage from Scripture in her entire rant. By all means, steer us all to these "sure guidelines" as you call others to repent for violating them.

I hope she will follow this post with her biblical analysis, with citations, for the role that mothers and match-makers should play in bringing men and women together in marriage. The burden of proof is on her to justify her methods, I've already used the Scriptures to justify mine.

Finding a Spouse - WWJD?

Wouldn't it be great if we knew how God would find a bride for his Son?

Then, just to make sure we are understanding the picture correctly, and to give a hint of how we could do it, maybe God should give an example in the Bible of a godly man (maybe Abraham?) getting a bride for his son?

Naw. We should just invent stuff for ourselves. After all, if God wanted us to understand marriage better, He would have given us some direction.

The Help Meet For Him

This is a very good and simple to understand analysis of the words translated as "help meet" in the KJV.  Your elementary school grammar will be useful here.

Help Meet -- Let Them Marry

The Straw Man is Strong With This One

I'm back to write more about the horror I'm reading on Visionary Womanhood. Natalie Klejwa has done a complete 180 on everything she believed about womanhood and being a wife. This is sad for her, of course, but what is disturbing is that she is now convinced that she has discovered the truth and is encouraging other Christian women to follow her path. She thought she knew the truth for 40 some odd years, in one or two days she finds out she had it all wrong, and NOW women should trust that she knows about that of which she speaks? She doesn't doubt herself even the tiniest bit after following the wrong path for 4 decades? Scary. How about some humility and spending some decades testing your new theories before you call other women to join?

But today I'm here to expose one of her straw men. It is a common tactic on her blog whereat she states some false teaching and then  proclaims it is false. She's not very thorough at knocking down her own straw men, but then, most of them are so ridiculous that she's counting on you to dismiss them for being outrageous based on basic common sense and the most rudimentary understanding of the gospel. The problem is, the false teachings that she is protesting don't actually exist within mainstream or orthodox Christendom. Since I have written somewhat extensively about 1 Peter 3, I'll just talk about her suffering-wife-straw-man. Here is a quote from her blog post The One Sure Sign You are in an Emotionally Abusive Relationship:

There are some people who think a wife needs to suffer for Christ even if it means physical beatings. Christ’s suffering wasn’t enough for her. She’s got to complete it for Him. Total rubbish, of course.

I find it interesting that she provides no link, no citation, to ANYONE who says that a Christian man or woman needs to complete Christ's suffering for Him. Jesus was pretty clear when He said "It is finished" that nothing more needed to be done. His work was complete. For her to suggest any Christian leader teaches that is just, oh, I don't know -- stupid? But wow, she really knocked that one out of the park by proclaiming it to be "total rubbish." Duh.  While setting up this straw man though, she is also treading dangerously close to saying that women are entitled to a marriage free of suffering, or that it is outside of God's will for Christians to suffer, and suffer deeply. Even within marriage. If she is going to talk about Christ's suffering, and about women suffering in marriage, I would think it would be the perfect place for her to direct her readers to the book of 1 Peter, when the apostle actually addresses the very issue. But, no.  So, I'm going to go there.

Let's look at what Peter had to say about suffering wrongfully:

¹⁹ For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
²⁰ For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
²¹ For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
²² Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
²³ Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
²⁴ Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
²⁵ For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
3 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;...
¹³ And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
¹⁴ But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
¹⁵ But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
¹⁶ Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
¹⁷ For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
¹⁸ 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: ...

4 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

² That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

This selection starts in 1 Peter 2:19 and goes through to 1 Peter 4:2. I specifically selected the verses that are most applicable to the topic at hand, whether it is within the will of God for Christians to suffer and why. It starts out stating that it is "thankworthy" to suffer and grieve. This means a person who is in the midst of suffering should be thanking God. If a person is to thank God, that means  God is sovereign over our suffering. No need to question what kind of God would permit such a thing (Romans 9), just thank Him.

Then Peter goes on to say that this thing, this suffering, this grief is something to which God has specifically called us. Did you hear that? God called us to suffer. But before he called us to suffer, He did another thing. He caused His own Son to suffer so he (Christ) could serve as an example to us for how to do it. Is there any disagreement about what is being said there? It isn't ambiguous, right? He starts out addressing servants and their mistreatment by masters. He is describing this mistreatment, not as inconvenient, but as suffering and grieving. It's bad.

Peter tells the servants how to suffer. Without reviling. Without threatening. Without sin and without guile. The servants don't need to fear because God is seeing all of that and is judging with righteous judgement. They don't even need to attempt to make their own case.

Here comes the amazing part to me, as a woman. Chapter 3 starts out with the words "likewise ye wives..." We know Peter didn't write this as a separate or stand alone chapter. He wrote it as one long narrative and verse 1 of Chapter 3 follows up the advice to servants to suffer righteously by addressing wives and telling them to also suffer in the same manner as the servants, and to follow Christ's example. We don't "complete Christ's suffering" as was comically asserted as a common teaching by Natalie Klejwa at Visionary Womanhood, instead we suffer in His footsteps, following the example He set. Peter said that some wives will SUFFER at the hands of their husbands who do not obey the word. And was his advice to those wives that they should take a test to see if their husband is an emotional abuser? Nope. Peter's advice, it might even be considered a command, is for the wife to make herself subject to her husband. Not because he is loving her like Christ loved the Church, but precisely because he IS NOT.

And did you see verse 14? Again, I am amazed. God's ways are not my ways. He says that if I, as a wife, suffer at the hands (or mouth) of my husband I should be happy, I should not be in terror or be troubled. Why? Because of the hope that lies within me. The hope of the gospel. The sure knowledge of God's love and His righteousness. Then we see in verse 17 that my suffering, if I suffer for good, IS the will of God! God wills that I suffer! Can this be true? I assure you, it is. And Peter urges us to have the mind of Christ in this matter (in the same way Paul urges us to have the mind of Christ in Philippians 2), to not live in the flesh, and to live "to the will of God." Amen.

Natalie Klejwa would have you believe that if your husband does not obey the word, you are in a "destructive relationship." But the Word of God tells you to believe that God's will, which sometimes includes suffering in marriage, cannot destroy you.  So, who is telling the truth in this matter?