Introduction:
We should recall that a firm understanding of the husband’s federal responsibilities does not diminish in any way a woman’s personal responsibility to be a godly wife, but rather provides a firm foundation for her.
The Text:
“An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, but she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones” (Prov. 12:4).
A True Help Needed:
Many women tend to assume that their intentions are the measurement of what they have contributed to a marriage. Because God created them to be a help to their husbands, they have every intention of being a help. But help is measured by the Word of God, and not by a woman’s intentions. We might be reminded of C.S. Lewis’ observation of a particular kind of women, i.e. the kind of woman who lived for “others.” You could tell who the “others” were by their hunted expression.
If this causes panic, do not address it by coming to your husband and asking, “Am I help to you? Really?” In a congregation this size, it is safe to say that some of you are not a help, but rather a nuisance. e live in a sinful world, and sin gets into marriages. If this concerns you, then look to the mirror of the Word. You may be able to manipulate your husband with your tears, but the Word remains constant. This is obviously not a sentimental approach to marriage, but it may help if what is needed is true repentance.
A Woman To Be Praised:
First, a godly woman knows how to respect her husband. When God requires our respective duties of us, he does not require that women love their husbands. Of course as Christians we are all to love our neighbors, which includes a woman’s husband. But when Scripture tells wives to focus on particular duties, what is mentioned to wives is respect, and not love. In Titus 2:3-5, the older women are told to teach the younger women to be “husband-lovers,” which should be rendered as “into husbands.” The word for love refers to a warm affection.
Second, a godly woman manages her home well—“. . . that they admonish the young women to . . . be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Titus 2:3-5). “She watches over the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness” Prov. 31:27). A godly wife has managerial responsibilities and must develop and cultivate managerial skills. She is the executive officer of the home.
Third, a godly woman is mistress of her tongue—“She opens her mouth with wisdom, and on her tongue is the law of kindness” (Prov. 31:26). Many women tear their homes apart with their niggling, whining, complaining, resentful comments, carping, and criticizing. hen those in your household think of your words, does the phrase “law of kindness” come to mind?
Next, a godly woman is sexually responsive: “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me” (Song of Songs 7:10). A woman should be a locked garden, which no one may approach but her husband. But the woman should not be a safe, one who changes the combination every other day or so. Women who are difficult to approach sexually are women who want their husbands to wander. This does not give him any right to wander, but we all have enough temptations already.
Fifth, a godly woman shops wisely and well. Her husband must provide her with the wherewithal. When he has done so, “she brings her food from afar” (Prov. 31:14). Shopping for groceries and clothing is not her entertainment; it is her vocational responsibility. Some women are good at it, while others are wasteful.
After this, a godly woman is a good cook— “She also rises while it is yet night, and provides food for her household . . .” (Prov. 31:15). As the executive of the home, she is aware of the importance of good food.
Seventh, a godly woman is theologically educated—“Let a woman learn . . . (1 Tim. 2:11). We sometimes wrongly emphasize that women should learn in all submission. The point is that Paul requires them to learn, and to do so in a certain way.
Eighth, a godly woman respects masculine leadership—“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church” (1
Cor. 14:34-35; cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-15; Prov. 31:20). In our time, it is particularly important for women to resist the lies of feminism as dangerous heresy.
But ninth, a godly woman s involved in the mission of the Church—“And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life” (Phil. 4:3; cf. Rom. 16:1; Acts 18:26). Those who say that evangelism is for the men, or that Bible studies are, or apologetics, don’t get it.
Tenth, a godly woman dresses nicely—“Her clothing s fine linen and purple” (Prov. 31:22). Modesty and decorum do not require dressing in a mattress sack. And with all the references to perfume in the Song, a woman should take care to smell good.
Eleventh, a godly woman honors her husband with her hair—“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor. 11:7). A godly woman should know her hair is a daily sermon on how her husband is doing.
Do whatever I say… I mean, Respect the husband
Take care of the house woman!
Puts out whenever called upon to do so.
Keeps her nagging, whingeing mouth shut.
Woman love to shop!
Make me some grub woman.
Hey, I said keep your trap shut. Especially in church! Zip it!
Oh, but please get involved.
…is the feminist clap-trap that a Godly woman should ignore, as she trusts in the Lord for the strength to support a husband to be the Godly man that she can truly respect.
Interesting that whenever women have their side of things supported, religio-patriarchs resort to attacking feminism. Tom worries that giving his woman freedom and respect (as if it is his to give) will only lead to lack of same. So too, Tom would disrespect his children, demand they obey his every whim and order, probably whack them into submission if they had the audacity to question. Do you hit your kids, Tom, to teach them God’s way?
We have twins (boy & girl). Although we certainly taught them God’s way, we spared the rod more often than not. I am paying for my negligence now. (They are teenagers).
Ha! Good sense of humor. If you had beaten them properly, they would have stayed obedient children, perhaps forever! We always tried to say “Yes'” to ours, even when it was not easy. We let them lead and never hit them for God or Country. Mine were close together too; 15 months apart. At the time, my wife earned more money than me, working in education so I became primary at home for a few years. One of the greatest gifts I have ever enjoyed, being an attached dad. So sad to me that most men never get this chance.
My parents did not spare the rod, and they paid dearly for their harshness. Several of us came to ruin, and those of us who didn’t have a frosty relationship with them, at best. My husband and I found ways other than the rod to guide our children, and when we were in doubt, we opted for kindness and leniency, and spent a lot of time praying. Our young adult and teenage children are doing very well. But there is so much more to how young adults fare than parenting! They make their own choices, too, and they face challenges… Read more »
Thank you for the encouragement.
I think the difference between discipline and abuse is the difference between loving our children and selfishly wanting to control our children, as you say.
Then there is the question of whether the government has the right to dictate what is discipline and what is abuse. Which is a whole other can of worms.
giving his woman freedom and respect (as if it is his to give)
Why do you think that women shouldn’t be given freedom and respect, English?
Your preference that they have all of their movement curtailed and be treated with disrespect puts you on the wrong side of history
Arwen, I think PE is being sarcastic, suggesting that by opposing Randman’s absurd characterization of Doug’s exhortations, he’s advocating lack of respect and brutal discipline. And I think that the “as if it is his to give” comment is intended to suggest that no one ought to consciously give freedom and respect to another person because that implies that they might withhold it. Which is ridiculous — OF COURSE people might withhold it, and they do it not only out of a sense of control, but out of selfishness or laziness or a myriad of other reasons. So of course… Read more »
You may be right, Jane, but English’s reply was to Tom’s comment, not RandMan’s.
And since I have seen actual feminists post the same self-contradictory argument that English did… *shrugs*
Jane, I am simply saying that the freedom of another and basic respect makes simple sense. It works both ways. If give and expect it, that doesn’t mean it is always returned or honored.
My initial characterizations were purposefully absurd. To point out the absurdity of that patriarchal garbage Doug vomited up above. I am liberal about some things. More conservative about others. I think children need to become civilized. PE, I agree with your yes-based approach, but in our house, we say no to our children when boundaries are appropriate and needed. I imagine that he would say the same. I am gifted to share child care with my wife. We both have flexible jobs that get intense for extended periods and I wouldn’t trade my dad time during her crams for anything.… Read more »
When i said- I imagine that ‘he’ would say the same I meant right ‘you’ as in PE. Tom, not so much.
To strike a child is pure ignorance and a failure. There is NEVER a good reason to strike a child and Jane, don’t you dare say anything about kids running into traffic!
Nonsense. Some kids need it. We can’t all be soy fed little soccer kids, you know, and I don’t take kindly to you slandering millions of good mothers and fathers. It is pure ignorance on your part.
A biblical understanding is that people are born with a spirit rebellious to the purposes of God and that discipline, including specifically physical discipline, is necessary for life lived according to God’s will. Since life lived according to God’s law is also the most fulfilling for the individual this leads to the divine good of God’s will honored, individual good of a well lived and disciplined life, and a broader social good of life lived among well ordered individuals. All that being said, is your objection that some people will carry out the biblically mandated actions of parental discipline irresponsibly… Read more »
Good to know what I’m not allowed to say.
I’ll stake my ignorance and failure at parenting in the form of my mostly-grown kids against any form of “I know better than the Bible” any day. I committed tons of ignorance and failure along the way, and the fantastic teenage and young adult kids I have get credited to God and not my “awesome” parenting (which really hasn’t been), but my failures weren’t at the points where I actually took seriously the Bible’s understanding of discipline in all its many dimensions.
After repeated games of “don’t run towards the road!” the kid ignores you and runs into traffic. This time you don’t catch him in time and only by God’s grace is he not hit and killed.
You discipline with the rod. The child stops playing the game. The conversation happens later.
snicker.
YOu snicker but children are beaten and it is done while quoting some pastor’s interpretation of verses.
The difference between discipline and violence is the difference between love and sin. Same act, different motive, different results. The discipline is somewhat equivalent to the “rhetorical punch in the face” that I frequently deliver here to slap a commenter (like you) into thinking. It is not verbal violence for its own sake. It has a telos. Ditto discipline. Violence has a telos too–it ends in destruction. In the case of a violent parent it is the parent who needs discipline. I have done this. A man was letting his grandchild walk freely in the home-depot. A fork lift was… Read more »
Children are also beaten by people who mouth philosophies of non-violence and respect and then are driven beyond the point of self-control by kids who are not learning self-control themselves, well past the point when they should have.
I am absolutely not accusing you of doing or contributing to that consciously, but it is as real as parents who beat their kids based on philosophies superficially similar to biblical ones.
That’s what YOU might do and you would suck for it. No excuse to strike a child. It only means you lost control of yourself and have work to do.
Your emotional immaturity and lack of responsibility for the well being of children is typical of your smug, progressive, coddled American. Are you aware of a Biblical principle for this? God uses a “smack” on adults too. Do you know why? He does it to turn us from the wrong road–a road that will get us killed–to the road of life. People are very different in temperment and some men, like some children, need that smack on the ass to keep them from killing themselves with their headstrong destructive actions. it only means you lost control of yourself and have… Read more »
I wouldn’t worship a capricious god who needs to ‘smack’ down his little children to teach us a lesson. Clearly you cannot see how primitive this conception is, though I can only imagine all the ‘sophisticated’ theology that will come out of the woodwork to try and support it.
If you hit a child you have ceded any high ground whatsoever. End of discussion.
Something like this happened to me when I was little. I never ran into the street again.
To fail to apply real pain to certain forms of disobedience is to fail to tell our children the truth about sin. The purpose of the pain is not to damage children, but to impress important truths about the world God has made. Telling a lie about the world is not love, which is why Scripture says that those who withhold the rod hate their children.
Whatever. Beating ‘important truths’ into little children is ethically bankrupt. Bible or no bible. Think for yourself if that book fails so completely.
Again, why does everyone hide behind the old testament as ‘context’ until they can parse out some aweful little wisdom to toss around to justify their own bad behavior?
Ugh.
They are not hiding. They are actively opposing their own pain, the pain they cannot face. Well, I guess that is hiding…. People who were given the belt, most often give the belt. I have seen large groups of children together who were not beaten, and they tend to respect others as they have been respected. It is rocket science to beaters. They knock their truth into children and that truth is, I am bigger. I am god, I beat you into submission. Those who try to intellectualize their hitting are usually quite transparent because they are arguing a point… Read more »
“. It is rocket science to beaters. They knock their truth into children and that truth is, I am bigger. I am god, I beat you into submission. Those who try to intellectualize their hitting are usually quite transparent because they are arguing a point that buries or attempts to bury their own childhood harm. “MY dad beat me when I was bad and I WAS bad!” (That sort of nonsense)”
I haven’t seen anyone in these comments hold the position you are describing here. Please try using something other than straw next time.
Rubbish abusive talk… you were harmed and you harm others. If you had been respected and loved, you would not be able to harm innocence.
Are we still talking about children???
So the way you’re talking (writing) about people different from you, what are we to infer about your parent’s vocabulary? Did they spare the rod and bring you to tears with words?
God is love, and Scripture says that He scourges the son whom He loves. This is a kind of love that the world does not understand because it does not know love. The world seeks to redefine love according to its understanding, this usually results in the death of 10s of millions. Regardless of how many times it is assumed and asserted, the use of pain for correction and discipline need not be for the purpose of physically or emotionally damaging children. Rather it’s purpose is to reach the heart, and do heart surgery. Plain English may have no category… Read more »
So, your problem is with the Bible then, not Wilson. To misunderstand this in this way.
Oh, “‘Rand’man”. Never mind.
So, what brings you here then?
It is pretty darn clear. Can’t say I misunderstood anything.
We can’t?
What happened to the good ol’ days, when this blog’s trolls had at least a modicum of intellect, insight, nuance, and creativity?
I can’t really speak to Randman’s intelligence or lack thereof based on his post, but I can’t speak to yours either. Going out of the way to say “modicum” does not in of itself give the writer superior intellect, insight, nuance, or creativity. You didn’t write enough here, and I’m not passing judgment on your actual intelligence, but sometimes, especially on this blog, I laugh at the uncommon language that is used for the simple purpose of trying to sound superior.
The irony of your post, intentional or not, is that it attempted to sound far superior and more judgmental than mine did. Anytime someone says “I’m not passing judgment, but……” you know darn well what comes next.
Otherwise, I appreciate some of the more creative, well-thought-out and [big word alert!] articulate posts on this blog from both Doug and commentators, even when they use words some might sneer at.
You are a rude man. Any verses come to mind about harming others for your own pleasure?
Wait! What? jesuguru is a man?
“I laugh at the uncommon language that is used for the simple purpose of trying to sound superior.”
Some people actually think in a large vocabulary and naturally speak that way. Not everything about what people say or do is calculated, let alone pretentious just because it’s not what you might choose to say or do.
I will try to resist pointing out that you prefer ‘common’ words, Jane. But sometimes uncommon words help us reach into our gray matter and possibly share in a more fully human way, don’t thee think?
Of course. So why the previous crack about it being used to sound superior? Is it used to sound superior when it’s somebody else, and inspiring of deeper thought when you do it?
A lot of emphasis here on outward appearance. I pity the woman with health problems or not enough money to keep her hair beautifully styled or not enough time to wash the baby puke off herself multiple times a day or the money to buy or grow tasty food or not enough money to buy fine linens. What of the farmer who works the farm alongside her husband and smells of manure and has hay in her hair. The interpretation of some of these scriptures seems to come thru the lens of white, upper class, educated, American culture.
“white, upper class, educated, American culture.”
Aly: You are quite observant. DW’s world and reality conflict. A wife with health problems or a husband with health problems, a household faced with serious financial challenges, these are just a few of the scenarios that don’t fit nicely and neatly with DW’s perspective.
Of course that is true, but it doesn’t make all advice meaningless. I have read Pastor Wilson’s counsel to married men (which I seem to remember was more trenchantly expressed). The fact that some men have terrible accidents and become hopelessly incapacitated does not mean that it is wrong for a pastor to advise husbands in general to support their wives and families. A wife suffering hideous nausea from chemotherapy as she battles for her life is probably not the woman Pastor Wilson would advise to run a comb through her hair and spray on some Dioressence. Reality is usually… Read more »
Doug Wilson’s church has a pretty good mixture of yuppies and farmers. I think he is less concerned about creating Stepford wives and more about encouraging women to maximize what they have been given for the good of themselves, their families, and the church.
Interesting that you bring Stepford wives into the conversation. Me thinks it fits in perfectly with the topic at hand.
Oh, please. He used the expression because that’s the picture you and Aly were already painting.
Thank you Jane.
What would your interpretation be?
And what culture do you think it was written in? Do you think they were as offended as you?
Douglas, I am just awestruck by your overwhelming desire to control others. (And your need for backup and audience.)
It is truly something to behold.
Ayn Rand was my favorite atheist, but was she a model wife? And was she not a control freak? Would you rather be married to her, or to the woman that pastor Wilson describes/the woman Proverbs 31 describes?
That is called a false dilemma. Or a ‘who would you rather’ in high school.
Help! Doug! Help! Please tell me what to say to Randi! Doug? Doug?
Oh well, I guess I’ll have to go with The Word and the Spirit.
Ephesians 5
28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.
Boy! That Christ is just all about control! Who does He think He Is? LORD or something?
All, sorry for the formatting problems. I was traveling and uploaded it via my iPad in the Denver airport. After wondering for a few minutes who to blame, I settled on the TSA.
Also the (actually surprising) response to this sermon outline gave me an idea for an EPIC post. Stay tuned.
Wilson says husbands don’t have to respect wives but they do have to love them. What kind of love doesn’t include respect? That’s the relationship an owner has to a pet, which is apparently the one Wilson advocates between a husband — the owner — and his pet/wife.
Karen, I actually say that all human beings must love and respect one another. Peter says that we are to honor all men, which includes our wives. We are to love our neighbor, which includes our husbands. Thus, when the apostles turns to the peculiar responsibilities of husbands and wives to each other, the assignments of love and respect respectively, this would be a matter of emphasis.
IOW wives would be more likely to be tempted to love without respect, and husbands not to truly love at all. Does that sum it up properly?
It seems to fit with experience.
Even secular self-help books on finding and keeping a man emphasize a crucial gender difference that men need respect and admiration for their achievements in order to feel loved by women. When women love without respect, they can end up in the kind of marriage that feels like mommy and her little boy. Whatever else may be the effect on the husband, that kind of relationship does not elicit a manly, tender, protective love towards the wife.
The most informed way I can speak of marriage is of the one I am in with my husband. What I think of all those other marriages out there – even those that I am more personally involved with – all escape me just a bit, because I don’t live with that husband and wife. I don’t know all the details and so there are times when I have been hoodwinked. Not that any intentional hoodwinking was going on. Rather, it more than likely was my own myopic vision of other’s marriages. When it comes to my own marriage, I… Read more »
Amen to that!
Nonni, Seriously, nice job on the tone here. This topic must be easier to talk about,
or as God said: (per our last exchange)
Proverbs 25:15
Through patience a ruler can be persuaded, and a gentle tongue can break a bone.
; – )
Hey….whasup Daddy O?
Sure, then you can move onto all the lovely fine points listed above. I’ll subjugate you and or expect obedience out of my love and respect for you. Brilliant. I like to wash that kind of purposeful-perversion sandwich with cool glass of The Kool Aid. How about: First: Respect one another each to each. Love and respect one another and teach younger generations how to do that. This does not require your deference to your husband in any realm, nor his to you. Only your mutual respect and pact to work out the details from there. Second: Be a homeaker…… Read more »
This does not require your deference to your husband in any realm, nor his to you.
You haven’t been shopping with your wife, I presume.
I know that is supposed to be a nudge wink, but I just went shopping with my wife at the Farmers market an hour ago. We are a team.
Wow, the Farmer’s market even , talk about progressively adorable. Could you two kids get any cuter? ;)
Digging the sarcasm carole. Don’t steal my licks.
It sounds lovely and idealistic, and I hope your marriage will always be a support and joy to you both.
Cheers, we are on year seven. I lucked out with an amazing woman. We check in on all these points often. She earns way more than I do, Is a better investor than I am and is an incredible builder of homes. Rocks it all in high heels and gets her hands dirty in our garden. Also helps the homeless in our community, is the room mom at school and is active in many charities. And is the best mom I know. My hero.
Well, my husband has always made way more than I, but we both can cook. In fact, sometimes he insists on doing the cooking – like today, for instance. We both do the shopping, although he has it down to a science with coupons and knowing which days have the best sales. But discretion – he thinks I have that in spades. Often, he relies on me to make some of the important decisions with regard to our relationships with other people, in how we manage our time, etc. We each have our particular skills and talents in which we… Read more »
Amen, Jillybean! If I were in the prospect of finding a husband, RandMan’s guidelines would certainly be included. Mutual love and respect: perfectly articulated!
I’m more interested in hearing what God tells us about the relationship between a husband and wife. I’m thankful that Pastor Wilson effectively lays that out for us from the bible. Thanks anyway.
“That’s the relationship an owner has to a pet, which is apparently the
one Wilson advocates between a husband — the owner — and his pet/wife.”
Nonsense, Pastor Wilson does no such thing in this article or in any article I’ve read from him. Take a breath. Read it again.
You really have to have a stomach full of the Kool Aid to not be put off by that.
I was certainly put off by the mischaracterization of Pastor Wilson’s views. It has nothing to do with kool-aid. You?
No, Wilson did not say that husbands don’t have to respect wives, nor has he ever.
Fat lesbian btch
You’re absolutely out of order, AndrewDowling. Your post should be removed.
Ok, is the hair one in there just to pad the list to 11?
Am I to understand that no women are allowed to speak in your church? What about the women who are not married? Or the divorced women (say the woman who is divorced because criminal hubby tried to strangle her….)? Who are they to ask at home? Maybe I misread…
It sounds strange but, when I stop to think about it, who actually talks in church anyway? It’s not as if the men in the congregation are free to stand up and disagree with the preacher! (I have heard sermons where that would have been a welcome interruption)
Jillybean, a close friend of mine is Catholic and she is a reader of the epistles at Mass. Also teaches a Bible study at the church with the support of her priest. What do you think of this kind of responsibility given to a woman?
I am fine with it, but there was a time when any lay reader, male or female, would have shocked me! I think the Catholic view is different from the Reformed. Women can’t be ordained as priests, meaning they can’t celebrate the Holy Eucharist. I don’t think there is any objection to women as lectors and certainly not as teachers.
I think it is fine, as well, Jillybean. But I can say with certainty that those who support Patriarchy in the Reformed tradition would be absolutely opposed to a woman having such responsibilities. It is against the roles that God has assigned women within such a system. Any local church permitting a woman to engage in such activity is rebelling against God’s Created Order.
I think some of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists feel the same way. I can’t get myself very worked up about that. Obviously the women are deriving something they consider very valuable from their church and they believe they are following our Lord’s teachings. I don’t think it is my place to tell them they should feel differently. But, then again, I can’t get worked up about the Catholic church not ordaining women either!
“Or the divorced women (say the woman who is divorced because criminal hubby tried to strangle her….)”
Why say that divorced woman? Do you say she represents the majority of divorced women, and if so, based on what? What about women who are divorced, oh, because they wanted to be? Why did you feel compelled to pose a worst case in order to make your point? Ask yourself.
Part of honoring a husband is to give him the chance to function as the spiritual leader in the home, rather than just go around him straight to the pastor/elder. Bringing questions to her husband will provoke him to dig deeper in the Word and study. The end result is that both are built up, rather than just the wife. If a woman is divorced or widowed, she can certainly bring her questions to friends and family, and to her elders in the Church. But if a woman is married, she has an opportunity to model the Church, and to… Read more »
katecho, I continue to have a question about the elders’ role for you. I’ve asked before, but you didn’t answer, so here it is again: The session of Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian denied Steven Sitler the privileges of membership because his grievous and persistent sexual immorality caused them to question his salvation. But Christ Church granted Steven Sitler the privileges of membership. So why did the elders of Christ Church not respect the decision of the elders at Emmanuel, Sitler’s home church? Why should we then honor the decision of the Christ Church elders and Doug Wilson more than we would… Read more »
Now I know where that expression “split p’s” comes in when speaking of Presbyterians. Seems they are known for their schisms.
I guess so. But if even the elders don’t respect the elders then how can they ask the members to respect the elders?
I didn’t see such a question directed to me from guester in the past. Perhaps Disqus dropped it from my notifications. In any case I’ve never claimed any inside knowledge regarding the Christ Church handling of Sitler’s case. At one point I simply offered a general observation that the specious attempts to malign Wilson’s character seem to assume that Wilson was acting alone, and without any oversight from the rest of the session. So those who have prejudged Wilson (without knowing all the facts), have implicitly prejudged the entire session as well. Notice that this is not a statement that… Read more »
“Was Sitler denied membership by another church because they questioned his salvation? Maybe, but I’m not inclined to take guester’s word for it. If he was, what basis was there to question it? Did the two elder sessions correspond about the issue? Was there any excommunication in place by the other church, or did the other church simply not want to take responsibility for him as a member?” katecho, most of these questions could be answered by simply reading the primary source document, a letter from the Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian session. You can read it in its entirety here: http://sitler.moscowid.net/2005/03/20/confidential-for-members-of-emmanuel-orthodox-presbyterian-church-only/… Read more »
These quotes raise more questions than they answer. Was Sitler excommunicated or not? Temporary suspensions are in a different category than excommunication. Did Sitler confess and repent of his sin? How is confession and repentance evidence that he isn’t saved? Was there something besides the seriousness of the sin that disqualified him from continued fellowship? Was he forbidden from fellowshipping elsewhere? guester didn’t address the questions about whether Christ Church was in communication with the other church about the matter. Is this because guester doesn’t know, and has to assume the worst? I am familiar with suspension from the Lord’s… Read more »
“These quotes raise more questions than they answer”
I totally agree, katecho. Why don’t you ask Doug Wilson to clear it up for us all?
guester wrote: But if even the elders don’t respect the elders then how can they ask the members to respect the elders? I just wanted to point out that guester hasn’t established that Christ Church disrespected the elders of another church. He doesn’t appear to be aware of what conversations may or may not have taken place between them. It’s possible that the other church was happy to see Sitler move on, even if they disagreed with Christ Church about offering fellowship and membership for the confessed sin at issue. In other words, I’m not going to simply grant that… Read more »
“”Was Sitler denied membership by another church because they questioned his salvation? Maybe, but I’m not inclined to take guester’s word for it. If he was, what basis was there to question it?”
Well, you also weren’t inclined to believe that Sitler had been denied membership because his salvation was questioned, until you were presented with actual. documents, were you? Since you have “personal experience and friendship” with several Christ Church elders, why don’t you ask them what information they had from Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian? I’m sure you could clear this issue right up.
Having read this statement by Pastor Wilson I depart this site:
http://natalierose-livewithpassion.blogspot.ca/
Curious – how many of the usual posters here see the cited DW + elders letter in the same way as she does?
Thx
doug, you need to look at why you sided with the perpetrator. Look at your own history and go far back, as far back as you are able. You have caused grave harm to protect your own suffering past… face it and move on from there…
Now, why’d you have to spoil the dramatic exit.
Doug, you better openly address the issue over at http://natalierose-livewithpassion.blogspot.ca/
You really have to be open and let it be…. what is done, is done. You have sided with a perpetrator and used Jesus as an excuse to harm Natalie and her family. How can you expect others to do what you refuse to do?
With pitchforks like these, who needs a court!
Got on here to thank you for this sermon, but I didn’t realize how good it was until I saw the number of comments. Thank you *very much* for this sermon!
These sort of sermons never really deal with the complications of real life. Here’s an example: a wife who struggles with chronic skin issues is going to be incredibly self-conscious and sensitive to touch, at times even not able to be with her husband. Is it her “intention” that he wander? Well, you could say that, but it would be a cruel maligning of her heart. Hair length? Hmm. What of women who live in incredibly hot climates, or need to deal with serving children who bring lice and disease to a school, etc? Is her hair still a “sermon”… Read more »
Here here Chris, I feel the same way about that white light picture of a hairless person in the cross walk sign. First off, some of us do not have such round heads, many people are not white and even others can’t even walk! In fact some of the signs actually say “walk”. How are those born without feet or runners supposed to feel?!?
If only the preaching of God’s word was as pedestrian as a crosswalk sign. I hope the mocker’s seat is comfortable.
Actually, it is quite comfy at the moment, since I just awoke and am laying in bed. It would be even more comfortable if i could rely on sarcasm to make a point.
Oh well, I will try something more straightforward:
Chris, don’t you think the post was for most people most of the time? Do you really think Doug wants to shame women who have lost their hair from Chemo?
Not sure what Doug ‘wants’ to do, but I know what he said. Chemo? Not sure, should ask him. Who mentioned chemo?
These sort of sermons always appear to apply to the overwhelming majority of the congregation. Pastors should, rather, address unlikely hypothetical situations that undermine clear application of scripture to everyday life.
Undermine? Really? Being particular and sensitive about actual pastoral work is undermining Scripture? So, if I like to cook and my wife sucks at it, she’s in sin and I’m a feminist? Unlikely, hypotheticals? So, eczema and other skin ailments (as I mentioned) are hypothetical and unlikely? Not in my experience in the church. You see, the Word of God speaks to us in the particulars, and it deals with us in our suffering. You, my friend, seem to think that the majority of people in your church are above all that. If the Bible’s application is as flat and… Read more »
Judging general advice based on specific and largely exceptional circumstances is also not dealing with real life. Real life is that physical touch is generally better for both parties than the withholding of it, and real life is that appearances reflect what’s going on inside, appropriate to the circumstances of each situation. Don’t use examples and applications to reject principles; look at the principles, and decide if the application is valid. Applying and using examples is not “binding consciences,” nor does every exceptional example or application need to be spelled out if the hearers are actually interested in understanding the… Read more »
Jane, you disagree with me in theory, and disagree with Wilson in practice (see #8). But going along with you for the moment, These are not “general” principles, like “love your neighbour”. When a wife is to be “a good cook” based on a text that says “provide food”, we are getting into some particulars. So, yeah, philosophically we are moving into the realm of values that seem to go beyond the text. Hey, I’d love it if my wife could cook like Jacque Pepin, but I’m not so sure the Bible requires that. So yeah, being urbane in preaching… Read more »
There will always be alternative circumstances that don’t do away with the principle. If my priest preaches on the importance of truthfulness in daily life, does he really need to cover every weird set of facts that my fertile imagination can invent? Does he need to say, “Dear brothers and sisters, I am not talking about occasions on which you might be interrogated by SS officers about the Jewish children hiding in your attic.” If he preaches on the sin of gluttony, does he need to specifically warn the anorexic or the glandularly challenged that he is not referring to… Read more »
posted on wrong thread
So I need to let this rest. I think I’ve answered everything directed specifically to me so far (I apologize if something has slipped by) and I’m pretty sure I’ve said what I needed to say. Until another thread….
funny how when I posted so much evidence of complementarianism really being a sham
the comment gets deleted…
the bible seems to mean nothing anymore…