Pastor Wilson doubles down.

Back in July Pastor Doug Wilson published a post titled:  On a Wife Deciding to Leave Her Husband.  In this post Wilson referred to 1 Cor 7:10 (NIV):

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

Wilson explained that the verse meant the opposite of what the Apostle Paul wrote:

It is interesting here that Paul advises a woman not to leave if she can help it—“the wife should not separate from her husband.” That is his apostolic counsel, but it is clear from the context that it is merely advice. If she sees that his generally good advice is not pertinent to her situation, she is left free to leave without being hassled about it by the apostle. So if he would leave you alone in this decision, then so should the elders of your church.

I noted Wilson’s reversal of Scripture here, and another blogger (Bnonn) did the same in a post titled Straddling the stallion and the mare:

While I agree with Doug that there comes a time when a wife is justified in leaving her husband, I don’t believe he describes that time in this article. In fact, this piece straightforwardly reverses what God actually says. Doug’s counsel here is false teaching, because the very scriptures he appeals to say precisely the opposite of what he claims. This is brazen enough that it really gobsmacks me.

The verse literally starts with an explicit statement that this is not Paul’s opinion, but the Lord’s. That is the immediate context of the words Doug quotes—words whose context, he says, make it clear this is “merely advice.”

Pastor Wilson responded to Bnonn’s thoughtful post, doubling down on the same absurd claim (emphasis mine):

When I say that Paul is giving advice here, I am not referring to the restriction placed on any other relationship. That is not advice. The advice part is the where he says not to separate, but in the same breath does not require church discipline if she does separate. When Paul says “don’t do x, but if you do x, then you absolutely must not do y,” we are free to assume that the church would not intervene with discipline at point x, but would intervene at point y.

Wilson then tries to sneak this by:

This is why we would allow a woman in our congregation, if married to (an extraordinarily) difficult man, to separate from him.

Wilson’s whole point in the original post was that the elders of a church are prohibited from questioning a wife who decides to leave her husband.  According to Wilson, the choice is hers alone, and the elders can’t tell her she is wrong for doing so.  Yet Wilson asserts that in his church they only allow women to leave their husbands if the woman is leaving an extraordinarily difficult man.  From Wilson’s original post:

But let me include something else here that really needs to be emphasized. Because I am saying that a wife in your position can simply “go,” then it follows that all any woman needs to do is just say she is in your position (whether she is or not), and there she has her automatic “get out jail free card.” What is to prevent a woman from applying this principle in a way that grotesquely wrongs an innocent husband?

This is a fallen world, which means we must take risks. This is one of them.

…It is far better to let one lying wife go free without penalty than to keep an innocent wife in the penalty of living in a terrible situation. In the worst case scenario, an innocent man loses a wife, but keep in mind it was a lying wife.

Wilson is pretending in his follow up post that he didn’t claim in the original that elders need to mind their own business when wives separate from their husbands!  As I already quoted in the beginning (emphasis mine):

If she sees that his generally good advice is not pertinent to her situation, she is left free to leave without being hassled about it by the apostle. So if he would leave you alone in this decision, then so should the elders of your church.

Bnonn also asked why Wilson avoided 1 Pet 3 altogether in his discussion of how a wife should respond to a sinning husband:

What is especially puzzling is that Doug goes only to 1 Corinthians 7, but studiously avoids 1 Peter 3, which explicitly covers this kind of situation, down to the bad behavior of the husband. Indeed, it even deals with examples of sexually degrading behavior, and of treating the wife like a slave; surely these apply to Sarah also, yet Scripture commends her for trusting God and remaining with Abraham through such trials.

Doug’s failure to even mention this more relevant passage makes me think he is not dealing forthrightly and boldly with a difficult situation for which Scripture has hard advice. He is trying to straddle two horses: the word of God, and the feelings of women. And when that gets too hard, he seems to prefer leading the former from the saddle of the latter.

Wilson quoted from the second paragraph in his response to Bnonn, but shrewdly continued to studiously avoid any reference to 1 Pet 3.

H/ T Hmm.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Bnonn, Pastor Doug Wilson. Bookmark the permalink.

208 Responses to Pastor Wilson doubles down.

  1. Pingback: Pastor Wilson doubles down. | @the_arv

  2. Lexet Blog says:

    Scripture must be read consistently. That means this discussion also involves allowing divorce or temporary separation based on “fornication,” which is based off of a very broad Greek word.

  3. Magneto2975 says:

    For Christians, there is nothing in scripture that authorizes a divorce, let alone a second marriage. The Lord himself says that hardness of heart is not a reason. Once joined as husband and wife, nothing can separate them, not a bishop, not a priest, not a judge, not even the couple themselves. This has been inconvenient for some people through the ages, and it is most inconvenient for feminists now, but that does not change it.

  4. thedeti says:

    Thanks for this post.

    After all these posts, counterposts, replies, counterreplies, “clarifications” and explanations, I just don’t have any idea what Wilson is trying to say, what his positions are, or what his preaching is. I can’t rely on him to tell me what Scripture says, accurately and faithfully apply Scripture, or give me a faithful exegesis.

    I have no idea what he’s saying anymore.

  5. I agree with deti wholeheartedly. I will accept that I find his equivocating-from-the-high-ground nonsense too tedious to read when he gets into this too clever by have form of dissembling.

  6. Anchorman says:

    So, if a man is married to an (extraordinarily) difficult women, he can leave his wife – no questions asked/no church intervention?

  7. Anchorman says:

    Magneto,
    I’ve studied the divorce/remarriage issue a lot. I’m divorced. I reached the same conclusion(s).

    Even if we twist Scripture to justify a particular divorce, nothing short of the death of the (ex) spouse allows remarriage.

    If still in doubt, consider: Is it better to remain single or remarry and risk further angering God? Our ransom is paid, but that doesn’t give us free rein to wipe our feet on holy ground.

  8. Darwinian Arminian says:

    …It is far better to let one lying wife go free without penalty than to keep an innocent wife in the penalty of living in a terrible situation. In the worst case scenario, an innocent man loses a wife, but keep in mind it was a lying wife.

    Doug Wilson conveniently fails to mention that thanks to the modern family court system the innocent man is going to lose not only a lying wife but probably also his children and at least half of all his possessions and future earnings as well.

    But if he brings that up, Wilson will only wag his finger and admonish him to remember that he must follow the example of Christ, who also gave up everything He had for the sake of a faithless bride.

    And people wonder why men despise the American evangelicalism . . .

  9. Opus says:

    Yesterday I discovered that in addition to Christian Feminism there is Christian Womanism which sees Feminism as too white-female centric. Womanism seeks to interpret The Bible from the point of view of non-white women. Not to be outdone there is Asian Christian Feminism which does likewise for Asian women – though I don’t think that there were any Asian women in the Bible so I would think that they might there have their work cut-out. I am sure it does not stop at that and clearly The Bible needs to be reinterpreted for tall people (I am sure Peter was tall, Paul perhaps not so much) left-handed people (Satan, obviously) and those with lower than average intelligence (plenty of those). Perhaps The Inquisition of The Holy Roman Catholic Church may have been right after all (on balance I think they were right and Galileo wrong) though I understand the Catholics have now been over-run by the same sort of nonsense that infects Protestantism.

  10. earl says:

    ‘I have no idea what he’s saying anymore.’

    He worships on the altar of wimminz feelings…so much so he could care less if it destroys a man and his family.

    …It is far better to let one lying wife go free without penalty than to keep an innocent wife in the penalty of living in a terrible situation. In the worst case scenario, an innocent man loses a wife, but keep in mind it was a lying wife.

  11. earl says:

    And the reason why it’s confusing to figure out is that he has to keep clarifying feelings. Things like the honest to God truth need no clarification because it’s not based on subjective emotions.

  12. SirHamster says:

    So, if a man is married to an (extraordinarily) difficult women, he can leave his wife – no questions asked/no church intervention?

    The standard is as Jesus loves the church.

    Which does not mean giving her an easy time. Discipline is for those who are loved.

  13. Damn Crackers says:

    Agree with the post, but are all you saying the exception clause in Matthew means nothing?

  14. Anon says:

    This would be more valuable if Pastor Wilson were made aware of these articles that shine the light of day on him.

  15. Daniel says:

    To make sense of the Bible teaching on these issues, they must be properly divided. We must not confuse what God orders in civil law with His standard for Christian ethics. And the rules are not symmetrical for men and women.

    Separation:
    If two believers are having problems, they are not to separate, if possible. But if there are serious problems, including abuse, she may have to leave. It’s not ideal, but it might be necessary, and the goal is reconciliation. She is to remain unmarried during their time apart, and her options are to remain unmarried or be conciliated. This is what pastors should advise to Christians.

    Divorce:
    God allows men to legally divorce their wives because of the hardness of men’s hearts – it is a civil necessity. Because men are sinners they will often grow tired of their wives and send them away. It is a necessary evil to allow legal divorce.

    Christian men are called to a higher standard. They are not to divorce their wives. If a man finds another woman he likes better, and divorces his wife to marry the other, it is adultery. A Christian man should only divorce his wife if she commits harlotry.

    No woman can write a legal bill of divorcement – she doesn’t have the authority.

    Desertion:
    If an unbeliever is not pleased to make a home with the spouse, let them depart. The Christian is not enslaved – they are under no obligation to seek reconciliation with the unbeliever who wants out. If an unbelieving wife leaves, the husband should give her a divorce. If an unbelieving husband sends his believing wife away, she should ask for a divorce.

    Remarriage:
    Divorce is legal permission for the wife to remarry. Because sinful men will send their wives away, women will be left destitute. It is a civil necessity to allow divorced women to remarry.

    Christian women are called to a higher standard. If she is divorced, she is forbidden to remarry as long as her first husband lives. Paul concludes that it is adultery in 1 Cor. 7:39. Jesus says whoever marries a divorced woman is committing adultery.

    Paul recommends singleness because of the present affliction, but if you’ve been loosed from a wife and you get married, it is not a sin. 1 Cor. 7:27-28

  16. Gage says:

    …It is far better to let one lying wife go free without penalty than to keep an innocent wife in the penalty of living in a terrible situation. In the worst case scenario, an innocent man loses a wife, but keep in mind it was a lying wife.

    The complete disregard for the suffering of the man in this type of situation is staggering. Not unexpected, but still staggering. The husband will lose his wife, whom he may still love? who cares. The husband will lose his kids who he undoubtedly still loves? Who cares. The husband will forfeit half of his earnings and assets for years to come? Who cares. According to Wilson, all the suffering of that man (who is no doubt at fault 100% for his wife leaving) is preferable to a wife staying in an unhappy (at least in her mind at the time) marriage.

    Sickening.

  17. Boxer says:

    Daniel:

    To make sense of the Bible teaching on these issues, they must be properly divided. We must not confuse what God orders in civil law with His standard for Christian ethics. And the rules are not symmetrical for men and women.

    Thanks for this exegesis. I find this to be sensible advice for all people, not just Christians. It’s a shame that Mormons, who love to divorce each other so much that we have made divorce a religious sacrament, are so resistant to Paul’s good advice in the text.

    https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/12/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-happens-when-a-couple-gets-a-temple-divorce?lang=eng

    Boxer

  18. BillyS says:

    Anchorman,

    Even if we twist Scripture to justify a particular divorce, nothing short of the death of the (ex) spouse allows remarriage.

    An explicit exception is given for a believer whose unbelieving spouse leaves them. They are not compelled to remain single forever.

    I believe a wife acting like an unbeliever is sufficient to fulfill this, especially if the husband did nothing to force that, but you are free to not believe this part.

    I also find the principle that God does not hold a wronged party in bondage because of something the one who wronged him did. That is a core principle. Jesus was addressing the idea that man should not split things apart, not that one who was left high and dry is stuck forever.

  19. BillyS says:

    Opus,

    I have read enough that I am convinced Galileo was just an obnoxious person. That caused his opposition, not the “science” that many worship today.

  20. Pingback: Pastor Wilson doubles down. | Reaction Times

  21. Mac says:

    How does one make the leap from “I command, yet not I, but the Lord” to Paul advises, I am having trouble and need enlightenment.

  22. earl says:

    Which does not mean giving her an easy time. Discipline is for those who are loved.

    Biggest problem in marriages are people seem to expect adversity won’t happen to them…or when it does that means it was never meant to be so let’s get the McDivorce. The true husband beating the wife around because he’s a drunk is certainly more rare than the wife who is bored or unhappy and using that to justify a divorce.

    What area in life that’s worth anything doesn’t have some adversity…Jesus and the cross, lifting, getting a job, marriage, childbearing, etc. Wilson seems to think it should be an easy ride for women no matter what.

  23. RichardP says:

    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): (I Corinthians 7:10-12)

    Everybody points out that God said the first bolded part.
    Does God also say the second bolded part?

    Of course he does, according to Paul. That language is contained between the not I, but the Lord, statement and the I, not the Lord statement. It IS part of what Paul says that God says.

    But if she does … That statement is perfectly clear (that is, not ambiguous), and is spoken with no restrictions. There is no But if she does, and only for these reasons …. Only the But if she does …. But if she does, thunderbolts will not be thrown; hell will not open up and swallow her. God has no response to her leaving other than to say either don’t get remarried or be reconciled to your husband.

    Paul says that is the word of the Lord. It either is or it isn’t. If it is not the word of the Lord, we don’t need to pull in what Peter or anybody else says. If it is the word of the Lord, then whatever Peter says cannot override it.

    Elsewhere are listed the acts of the flesh that will keep someone from inheriting the kingdom of God. You will note that “divorce” is conspicously missing from those lists. But adultery and fornication are not. What Paul says that God says in 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 is consistent with these other lists. It is not the leaving a spouse that makes one an adulterer or a fornicator. It is the being joined together with another that is not your spouse that creates that. And in what Paul said that God said, and in what the scriptures linked to in this post say, both are warning to stay away from what creates the sin – leaving the one you are married to and being joined to another that is not your spouse. None of them are saying that leaving the one you are married to, all by itself, is a sin.

    I’m not arguing for wives to leave their husbands. I’m arguing for the clear and consistent application of logic. That is not being done in this discussion about what 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 says.

  24. earl says:

    OT…but discussed before. A case where being a daughter & spouse of the King…is more than just saying it to feel good about yourself. There comes with it certain traits.

    This is from the Liturgy of the Hours Office of the Readings…A letter of St Clare to Blessed Agnes of Prague

    ‘ Look into that mirror daily, O queen and spouse of Jesus Christ, and ever study therein your countenance, that within and without you may adorn yourself with all manner of virtues, and clothe yourself with the flowers and garments that become the daughter and chaste spouse of the most high King. In that mirror are reflected poverty, holy humility and ineffable charity, as, with the grace of God, you may perceive.
    Gaze first upon the poverty of Jesus, placed in a manger, wrapped in swaddling clothes. What marvellous humility! What astounding poverty! The King of angels, Lord of heaven and earth, is laid in a manger. Consider next the humility, the blessed poverty, the untold labours and burdens which he endured for the redemption of the human race. Then look upon the unutterable charity with which he willed to suffer on the tree of the cross and to die thereon the most shameful kind of death. This mirror, Christ himself, fixed upon the wood of the cross, bade the passers-by consider these things: ‘All you who pass this way look and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow.’ With one voice and one mind let us answer him as he cries and laments, saying in his own words: ‘I will be mindful and remember and my soul shall languish within me.’ Thus, O queen of the heavenly King, may you ever burn more ardently with the fire of this love.’

  25. BillyS says:

    The problem with some of this is that it ignores that it was very difficult for a woman to live on her own when this was written. It is far too easy today, even if she is unskilled. She can extort money out of her ex husband and then the State (other people’s pockets/taxes) today. My ex is more than happy to live on her own, at least that was her plan. She is not worried about any ban on remarriage since that is not on her radar (as far as I know at least).

    Churches and pastors need to speak actively against leaving, to be consistent with the first part, but few do. How many ever seek to counsel a divorced woman who enters the church ti reconcile?

  26. If you’re the sort of man who wants to get married, have a family, and have a happy loving home, church seems like a really stupid place to take your wife. What next, take her to a Hillary Clinton rally?

  27. Luke says:

    Anchorman says:
    August 10, 2018 at 1:14 pm
    So, if a man is married to an (extraordinarily) difficult women, he can leave his wife – no questions asked/no church intervention?

    Actually, what a Christian church SHOULD be advocating is that a husband with a difficult (or, willful) wife should have as an extreme remedy the option to EXPEL her for as long as necessary from the marital home and assets, which of course include all children she is not currently breastfeeding. Traditionally, this means that she gets NO money from him while unrepentantly apart from him, and was not allowed to take ANYTHING he gave her, not even a comb.

  28. earl says:

    Traditionally, this means that she gets NO money from him while unrepentantly apart from him, and was not allowed to take ANYTHING he gave her, not even a comb.

    Which goes to show just about everything out there is the promoter and encourager of women’s rebellion. That’s actually what every wave of feminism is all about.

  29. Paul says:

    After a long and careful study it is my opinion (and I might be wrong) that although divorce might be forced upon Christian (women) against their will (the Pauline “exception”), remarriage is forbidden to Christians. I base that on

    1. The clear command of 1 Cor 7:10-11 to either stay single or to reconcile after separation
    2. The Rom 7:3 text that shows that a woman is called an adulteress if she marries another man while her husband lives [this is in line with OT Law that did NOT allow the woman to divorce]
    3. The key Mt 19 text against divorce : “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate”. No one, i.e. no man.
    4. The multiple texts that show that marriage after divorce constitutes adultery. And I don’t buy the explanation that the single act of marrying is to be called adulterous (i.e. the wedding day/making the vow), and after that it somehow ceases to be called adulterous. To be called “adultery” means the divorce somehow did not terminate the marriage bond in the first place.
    5. The Mt 19:9 “exception clause” that might not be an exception after all (see Leslie McFall https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/divorce_aug_2014.pdf)

    This was the majority view of the church for the first 1500 years or so.

    This combined with the severe warnings against adulterers not inheriting the kingdom of God (1Co 6:9) makes that I strongly advice Christians not to remarry after divorce.

  30. Sharkly says:

    RichardP,
    1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
    RichardP says: None of them [the Apostle Paul & God] are saying that leaving the one you are married to, all by itself, is a sin.

    RichardP, I don’t mean to be insulting, but is it a reading comprehension issue, or a desire to not be commanded to stay together in marriage, that has you saying that?
    It clearly says that God does not permissively let the wife depart from her husband. Disobeying God is sin, “all by itself”.

    Earlier in the same chapter:
    1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

    How is the wife who has not departed with consent, not also defrauding her husband, stealing her half of their “one flesh” away from him, thereby not meeting his fleshly needs contrary to her vow to be his, “to have and to hold”?

    Your false teaching is as bad as Doug Wilson’s. You’re giving marital deserters a free pass to destroy their kids lives, marriages, and to cause the Gospel to be blasphemed.
    Titus 2:4 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.

  31. Eidolon says:

    @Paul

    Jesus doesn’t speak against polygamy, which was practiced at the time. In the OT it was regulated, and God doesn’t regulate things that are sins in themselves, so presumably it is not inherently sinful.

    When we talk about divorce, we tend to think of it as “becoming unmarried,” returning to the original state. However, from what Jesus says it seems clear that “putting away” a wife is essentially a demotion — he no longer must give her what she’s owed as his wife, and she need not give him what he’s owed as her husband. It’s not sinful for them to live apart, him not to provide for her, her not to give her body to him regularly, etc., since the husband has made this choice. But they’re still married to each other. Marriage only ends at the death of one or both spouses, “till death do you part.” When you “put away” your old coffeemaker in a closet, you haven’t returned to the state of not having a coffeemaker, you just have one that isn’t fit for the purpose which you choose not to use.

    However, a man can “remarry” in this situation, which really means taking a second wife, who is given first wife status since the original first wife has been demoted to “put away” status. Jesus states that if a man puts his wife away for an illegitimate reason (any reason other than the single one he gives) then to marry another woman afterward constitutes adultery, and that any other man marrying the woman who was put away makes her an adulteress. He does not say that marrying another woman after putting away one’s wife for a legitimate reason is not allowed.

    This makes sense when you look at the analogy, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the Church. If God had chosen to “divorce” the Hebrews and save another group, that would be perfectly legitimate (they deserved it many times over). However, this does not release the Hebrews from their covenant with God; they still may not seek after other gods, as they pledged themselves to Him in perpetuity.

  32. Paul says:

    @Daniel: “It is a civil necessity to allow divorced women to remarry. ”

    If the apostle Paul advises both men and woman that it is better not to marry (i.e. stay single), it can never be a necessity to remarry.

  33. Eidolon says:

    @RichardP

    Sharkly answered well. I was assuming it was stated in that way because women might impulsively break the clear command, and are further enjoined if they make mistake #1, not to go on to make mistakes #2 and #3.

    As mentioned above, adulterers are said not to receive salvation. Leaving her husband against his will is rebellion, fraud, and treachery, but not yet adultery. God is advising them to come to their senses if they make a foolish emotional decision, before it endangers their souls.

  34. SirHamster says:

    Agree with the post, but are all you saying the exception clause in Matthew means nothing?

    The exception clause in Matthew is not in the other Gospels.

    Deep Strength has a good post on it – it’s a highly specific exception and overall the Sermon on the Mount is about the PERFECT standard that sons of the PERFECT heavenly father live towards.

  35. Paul says:

    @Eidolon

    Jesus does not directly talk about legitimate ways to put away your wife; that’s what you’re reading into it. Instead He directly instructs that you should NOT put away your wife. Read Leslie McFall on the so-called Mt 19:9 “exception clause”.

  36. freebird says:

    Pastor Wilson says these things because he put a gerbil in his rectum once and it never came out.

  37. Paul says:

    @Eidolon : “God doesn’t regulate things that are sins in themselves”

    Divorce was regulated in OT Law. Is it sin? If not, why : “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” and “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. […] And a husband must not divorce his wife.”

  38. sipcode says:

    The wife never has any authority to leave her husband. If she did, she then has the final say in the relationship; she would then – now and always– be the head over him. That would always be hovering over his head and a constant threat from her to him …which, not coincidently, is what we have in every marriage in the church today [stop kidding yourself].

    Scripture is very clear God damned clear [carefully chosen words] that she submits to him ‘in everything,’ that she is his servant and in the marriage ONLY for his purposes, and he as her lord –good or bad lord at that, as 1 Peter 3 notes. And, his authority over his wife is not stripped from him by anything that the shepherds of the church might instruct to her; I find that authorization nowhere in scripture. The leaders are charged to confront him, but not remove anyone.

    I have never ever come across anyone who is not afraid to say this, as they are effectively proposing that she gain the world and lose her soul, and blaspheme the Word of God –Titus 2, in the meantime.

    All that said, — since people usually demand an answer to scripture they cannot fathom can really work [they don’t REALLY believe it], 1) I suspect that many husbands will see a TRULY submissive wife in due time, a wife that truly surrenders in respectful obedience to his outlandish demands [knowing that there are also many ‘non-elect’ out there complicating this]; and 2) I wonder about individual men in the church stepping in to intervene in these so-call infinitely-definable ‘extraordinary’ situations …as to where the wife has protection for a period, so as SHE does not then make herself head over him. On this last point I may very well be wrong, as it is in conflict with my words above —‘his authority over his wife is not stripped from him,’ albeit that did refer to formal oversight in the church and not individual oversight, friends, family, etc, which I am suggesting for thought here.

    We must remember that marriage is about focus on the bridegroom and not the bride, just as the marriage supper of the Lamb is about Him and not the church. He is to be glorified. All the actions of the wife are to glorify her husband –1 Cor 11:7 – and not directly to the Lord, she cannot bypass her glory to him. Her leaving him would not be glorifying him. Her surrendering to him? …now that is glory!

    Yes, this is not the language of the church or the world, for neither speak the language of God about marriage. But …..come to know your Lord. Really. This is THE healing of the church.

  39. info says:

    @Opus
    ”Perhaps The Inquisition of The Holy Roman Catholic Church may have been right after all (on balance I think they were right and Galileo wrong) though I understand the Catholics have now been over-run by the same sort of nonsense that infects Protestantism.”

    To use a disease analogy removing the infected people may be effective. But that simply leads to a population vulnerable to the infection. Better a vaccine so that even with greater infectivity it doesn’t work.

  40. feeriker says:

    After all these posts, counterposts, replies, counterreplies, “clarifications” and explanations, I just don’t have any idea what Wilson is trying to say, what his positions are, or what his preaching is. I can’t rely on him to tell me what Scripture says, accurately and faithfully apply Scripture, or give me a faithful exegesis.

    I have no idea what he’s saying anymore.

    He’s tickling women’s ears in order to avoid their wrath and to convince them to give him more of their money. He fears –and has more faith in– women than he does in God.

    It’s really no more complicated than that. And obviously he’s not the only “pastor” who operates that way.

  41. SaltMark says:

    Eidolon explained well above @

    August 10, 2018 at 7:55 pm

    So if a woman never committed adultery against her husband, yet divorces him, if he marrys while she’s alive that makes him an adulterer. But suppose that at sometime after divorced she then intimates with another man in some manner (hook-up, LTR, marriage, lesbian relationship (?), etc. (?) ), then is he free to marry while the divorced wife is alive without him becoming an adulterer?

  42. SaltMark says:

    sipcode above @

    August 10, 2018 at 8:40 pm
    Excellent. The institution of marriage must truthfully reflect the reality of the relationship between God and his bride, like the holy tabernacle was to accurately reflect its spiritual reality, not to be twisted into something that lies about and tries to usurp that reality. Thank you.

  43. dudedont says:

    Regarding the application of marriage, divorce, remarriage and adultery law. There is case law that John the Baptist, Christ and Paul all knew about in the life and times of David.

    David’s 1st wife was given to another man by her father King Saul. David subsequently took wives. Famously, David took Nabal’s widow as a wife during his time on the run. According to the biblical account, Nabal was a extraordinarily difficult man. Anyway, King Saul gets himself killed but David has a marriage problem blocking his path to the throne. David’s 1st wife is not acting like his wife. In fact, David’s first wife was acting as another man’s wife. This is the bride you may recall David brought 200 philistine foreskins for the right to marry. Even after doubling the bride price, king Saul gave the first prized daughter away to another guy anyway. Like Pastor Wilson, King Saul was messing with laws governing marriage before and after the fact. This was very bad because it made David appear unworthy of the throne. Politically, King Saul had compromised David’s pathway to legitimately succeeding him on the throne. David’s illegitimate marriage problem was a House of Saul insurance policy that could be used to discredit and disqualify his claim to the throne by remnants of the 1st royal family.

    Knowing this, David demanded the return of his 1st wife. She was returned because come on, whose going to defeat the Goliath Slayer? Nobody took more foreskin from the enemy than he did on earth. David slew tens of thousands. Men loved him, women sang songs about him and fortunately for him – Pastor Wilson wasn’t alive to rebuke him.

    On the way to do the wife swap, her unlawful husband followed her in tears. Whimpering. Michal turned on David after that and looked down on how her husband entered Jerusalem as King. Like a man. With his shirt off to the tune of all the available one cock rule metropolitan women screaming his name. What’s a King to do? He hasn’t seen the breast of Bathsheba yet so he makes a lawful decision. Puts the 1st wife gone cold up in a royal apartment, pays for her maintenance like a King and then like a man, never looks at her the same way again.

    Lawfully, David put her away. Following the law of Moses the way he did, the king protected the legitimacy of all his subsequent marriages and all of his kids.

    This, all before being called out on the carpet by the Prophet Nathan for committing adultery with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba. Who he married after he made her a widow. Which then made Solomon a legitimate contender to the throne and no matter how he slices his silly judgement calls, no way Pastor Wilson would think that the legal underpinning that called for splitting the baby was the innocent bastard in King Solomn’s Family Court was there because he didn’t have a father and his single mother didn’t have a husband.

    Has Pastor Wilson heard the one about the patriarch that could have gotten the King killed by setting him up to commit the crime of adultery? His name was Abraham and trading his wife for security like that makes modern readings of 1 Peter 3 blush.

  44. BillyS says:

    David has a marriage problem blocking his path to the throne.

    Huh? Can you provide the Scripture that says that her return was required for David to ascend to the throne?

  45. BillyS says:

    SaltMark,

    So if a woman never committed adultery against her husband, yet divorces him, if he marrys while she’s alive that makes him an adulterer. But suppose that at sometime after divorced she then intimates with another man in some manner (hook-up, LTR, marriage, lesbian relationship (?), etc. (?) ), then is he free to marry while the divorced wife is alive without him becoming an adulterer?

    That puts an incredible burden on him to track exactly what she is doing and goes against the principles in the Scriptures. Honoring the Sabbath was very high as well, but God says man is above the Sabbath, in the proper circumstances.

    Many who “forbid to marry” sound like the legalists that Paul wrote against so much. Clearly a man should not exploit this as an escape hatch for himself, but keeping him in bondage to an unfaithful wife for the rest of his life is wrong as well.

    Though I am not sure how a man would find a faithful helpmeet wife at a later age. Most are divorced themselves. Either they caused it, so they may cause it again, or they were truly wronged and will be therefore more controlling of the man than they should be to keep it from happening again (at least in their own eyes).

  46. As some already pointed out, the ‘exception’ clause in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 points to the statement on fraudulent marriage in Deut 22 where a woman claims to be a virgin but it was discovered that she had fornicate prior to marriage. This would allow the husband to “put her away” without a certificate of divorce because the marriage was a fraud — it was never binding because of untruthfulness. Covenants require truthful vows/commitment between all parties: husband, wife, and God.

    Aside from this, some of you guys are missing the point here. It doesn’t matter if your wife commits adultery or not.

    You made a vow to your wife, also before the Lord, to:

    “I, ___, take thee, ___, to be my wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith [or] pledge myself to you.”

    You’re going to break your “till death do us part” vow to your wife and to God because your spouse wronged you by cheating or whatever? Good luck explaining that before God on judgment day.

    Also, choose your wife wisely because there is no get out of marriage clause unless she dies.

  47. Let me add a few more things.

    If that sounds harsh to you, then you’re in agreement with the disciples:

    Matthew 19:10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

    Don’t marry if you can’t keep your vows to God. The goal is to honor God with your word above all else, even if you get wronged over and over and over again. Again, choose a wife wisely or not at all.

  48. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Bnonn has Wilson’s number right here:

    “He is trying to straddle two horses: the word of God, and the feelings of women. And when that gets too hard, he seems to prefer leading the former from the saddle of the latter.”

    And for Wilson, this isn’t even a first time thing. Dalrock’s already chronicled a few of his misadventures in pastoral cowardice, but it’s worth pointing out that this sort of behavior was already habitual for him more than a decade ago. Like Al Mohler, Doug Wilson used to spend a lot of time banging the drum for the idea that matrimony should be mandatory for Christian men. At one point a reader asked him how the church (or a father) should go about considering whether a young man was even ready to be some woman’s husband. Wilson replied with a post called “21 Questions for a Prospective Suitor” in which he encouraged church members to ask single men in search of a girlfriend a series of personal and somewhat awkward questions (such as: “Have you ever participated in bestiality?”) and to show them the door if they at any point objected to the questioning.

    But when it was an issue of the men wanting to get some questions answered about a prospective wife, Wilson sang a different tune:

    “Given the nature of the case, these are not necessarily questions that someone might ever get to ask. A young man is coming to a father because he knows his own intentions, and he is inviting questions. He should be surprised if the young lady’s father had no questions. He is asking to be asked; he is asking to be examined. If the father asked him something, and the young man said, ‘Mind your own business,’ there is no need to wonder too long about why his suit was denied. But a young lady who is minding her own business is under no obligation whatever to answer any questions that a young man might want to have the answers to.”

    No one should be surprised that Doug Wilson is now encouraging wives to play fast and loose at the expense of their husbands. It’s not like he hasn’t already been encouraging single women to behave similarly during a courtship for years already.

    Links for Wilson’s lists of questions are here: https://dougwils.com/books/21-questions-for-a-prospective-suitor.html
    And here: https://dougwils.com/books/21-questions-for-a-prospective-wife.html

  49. Dave says:

    When Scripture says you do not need any man to teach you, because you are being taught by the Holy Spirit, that fact is true. Doug Wilson is a false teacher and should be exposed as such, as Dalrock is doing. Unfortunately, so many innocent but less informed people under his teachings will continue to hold him up as a pastor in Christ’s Church.

    ———————
    1 John 2:27:
    But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

  50. Emperor Constantine says:

    Sheila lays down the gauntlet defending her daughter, basically declaring a new Church run and policed by women. Her feminist followers went wild of course.

    If weak beta male feminists like Wilson don’t understand that they have to take sides soon in this war, they have another thing coming.

  51. Emperor Constantine says:

    Here’s Sheila’s money quote so that you truly understand the level of her “rebellion”. I don’t actually consider her a Christian, she is actually a feminist, so she is more of an invader rather than rebel.

    This incredibly dangerous message is amplified by her social media platform to 10’s of 1000’s of followers. With feminism literally tearing Evangelicalism apart, with homosexual bishops and cardinals destroying the Catholic hierarchy, we live in dark times indeed. Good luck to all as we try to navigate it.

    “But as a woman, I believe a sleeping giant has awakened. Women are looking at the church, with all the #churchtoo stories & coverups, and how women are treated like second class citizens. And the dam is breaking. God is pouring out His Spirit, and His daughters will prophesy.

    And God will call down judgment on men like these commenters who blaspheme against His name in this horrible, wicked way.”

  52. Emperor Constantine says:

    Regarding all the comments here regarding marriage and divorce, the “right” to divorce and remarry, etc.

    It’s pretty clear divorce and remarriage are at a minimum highly frowned upon and likely not allowed at all by true Christian doctrine. As someone whose spouse not only abandoned him and the marriage, but brought her Chad’s into the house to fuck in one night stands while my kids lay there sleeping (eg she was a harlot as bad as Gomer, maybe worse), and someone who also remarried, I’m biased to believe that divorce and remarriage should be OK, but I’m honest enough with myself to know that’s probably not correct. I also find myself thinking that modern “marriage” is so dysfunctional and otherworldly compared to marriage as defined in the Bible, i.e.,

    (1) Christian culture enforced female submission to men (fathers, husbands, etc.); today, culture strongly encourages outright defiance and rebellion by women against men (i.e. read thread by Sheila above, which is blasted to 10s of 1000s of women)

    (2) Christian culture enforced shaming and isolation for harlots; today, the culture is divorce porn and glorification of “strong, independent” women (who make sure they get child support and alimony and 50% of assets to stay strong and independent)

    (3) Christian culture informed the legal marriage rules; now, the rules are diabolically designed to undermine and destroy Christian marriage

    (4) Christian culture enforced strong fatherly powers over the family; today, modern culture undercuts and destroys the father’s rights and authority at every turn

    (5) most importantly: Christian culture informed women about their roles as submissive partners who obeyed their husbands in marriage; modern culture does the exact opposite.

    Given 1-5, and especially 5, I seriously doubt that even 10% of modern “Christian” women have any intention when they marry to truly follow through on their vows, and if therefore they make these vows falsely and essentially with malice, the marriage is not real and just theater. As I said, I have a strong cognitive bias to believe this personally, but when I look around at what a farce modern marriage is compared to truly Biblical marriage we are all discussing and striving towards, really how many of these “marriages” are valid?

  53. Emperor Constantine says:

    Couldn’t resist this shot at Sheila in response to her declaration of war and rebellion against men trying to bring her back to Biblical Truth:

  54. Sharkly says:

    Sheila says: God is pouring out His Spirit, and His daughters will prophesy. And God will call down judgment on men like these commenters who blaspheme against His name in this horrible, wicked way.

    If Sheila is telling us what God is going to do, she is already prophesying, unless of course she is just commanding God what he has to do. If she is prophesying she’d better have a symbol of a man’s power over her, on her head, like 1 Corinthians 11 orders her to wear while praying or prophesying. I’m not holding my breath on that though.
    Crazy Whores!

  55. PokeSalad says:

    Hmmm, maybe we should ask her husband what he thinks…. oh, wait.

  56. Boxer says:

    Sheila lays down the gauntlet defending her daughter, basically declaring a new Church run and policed by women. Her feminist followers went wild of course.

    If weak beta male feminists like Wilson don’t understand that they have to take sides soon in this war, they have another thing coming.

    LOL! Sheila didn’t even teach her skank-ho kid to cook. She’s a complete failure as a woman, mother, and human being.

    https://v5k2c2.com/2018/08/08/boasting-about-failing/

    Christians boast about ruining their kid’s lives. They wear their most dismal failures as a point of pride. This woman is the perfect example.

    Always enjoy your twitter feed, by the way. Keep holding those clown-sized feet to the fire.

    Boxer

  57. dudedont says:

    @BillyS

    Why don’t I just bring you the head of John the Baptist.

    Hosea 4:6

  58. seventiesjason says:

    Man…..I so enjoy french press coffee on a morning off……gonna get freshly barbered today……walk to the record shop……spend a few hours……….

    I stopped by the vet yesterday after to make an appoint for Viktor (my cat) to get his claws trimmed next week. The place is full of women…….and meowing cats waiting to see the Vet (which I have to say, she is incredibly cute….couldn’t help feeling attracted to her when I got my cat established care here when I moved to town). I was talking to the receptionist and one of the women waiting with her ‘mitzie-pooh’…..thirties, pretty actually says to me just loud enough “oh wow, a man who owns a cat and doesn’t talk with a lisp”

    I spun around, looked at her and said “Well, I could turn that on, but there are no men here so I don’t need to use a mating call!” She laughed,and several of the other women there actually snickered, she asked me my name. I told her to guess. The receptionist then says my name and I give the recptionist a look of “hey thanks you just blew my cover”

    As I am leaving, the woman says to me “you’re funny…..what do you do?” I put my shades on and said “Your best friend.” Flashed a smile and said a general loud enough “goodbye, have a good weekend” and got outta there.

    In a place that is really full of women, like a Vet……….I usually start to panic and get a complex bc many of the women there I have to say……..are indeed pretty and I have to keep up some sort of defense or I am going to labeled a ‘creep’ and I don’t need that in a vets office,,,,,and the still entranched stereotype of a guy owning and actually taking care of cat is still viewed as flaming gay….even here in “tolerent, open minded-California” is frightening.

    So…..today, record shopping…barber…..lumch out somewhere……..I actually feel bad for SHelia and her entitled daughter…..their hubbys must live in fear in their own homes.

  59. freebird says:

    Don’t feel bad for Sheila Jason.
    She will never be held to account for anything,she will feel free to lash out at any male anywhere at anytime for the rest of her life without consequence.
    As shown by your veterinarian experience once in a small pack women’s only “attraction” game is passive aggressive negs, which stroke the ego however they are taken.
    Poodle girl wanted you to Bernakify her with the butthex lolozzlollollll and the banker bailout
    US supported Syrian terrorist camps.
    ^^ code for not a chain of swearing in the am.

    “What do you do?”
    “How much money ya got, Mark?”
    “I teach old dogs new tricks”

    Buy free adderal for your sons now, special sale community approval

  60. Emperor Constantine says:

    Boxer said:

    “LOL! Sheila didn’t even teach her skank-ho kid to cook. She’s a complete failure as a woman, mother, and human being.”

    I totally agree Boxer. But she is a success at convincing women that Christianity is Goddess worship, and that message is resonating with many women, given our feminist age and weak beta males like Wilson. Sad!

  61. Paul says:

    Sheila : “And God will call down judgment”

    This is not the first time Sheila is very condemning towards her opponents. It borders on spiritual abuse.

    E.g. https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2018/06/steve-camp-florida-sbc-pastor-sexist/

    “If you think Jesus would EVER have spoken as Steve Camp did, then I’d ask you to reread your Bible, and to please stay silent on social media. Because trust me–if you have this attitude, then you ARE turning people off of Christ. And He will not be happy when you see Him face to face one day. “

  62. seventiesjason says:

    freebird…

    First. I pray for Shelia. Not because she’s wrong….not because I am ‘white knighting’ but for the fact Christ will expect me to…..I mean, at judgment…..where that verdict is FINAL……..I could be posed of “You did not marry. You did not father children. What were the responisbilites claiming me, if you did not have them to children or a wife? Were you visiting people in jail? Clothing the naked? Feeding the hungry? Praying for those who need a conviction of the heart? What about the gifts I gave you of pray, empathy, helps to express in my name?”

    Second….any woman that passively-aggressively “negs” me is not worh flirting with, trying to get naked, meeting up for a date, flirting or talking to. I don’t care how hot she is. She was trying to put me down in a room full of women. It was not a “sh*t test” it was straight up rude behavior. If she said, “Hey…..what’s your cat’s name?” If she tried that, I might have actually talked to her as a person….but if she bahaves like that in a first meeting…………not worth my time to pursue, date, try to get naked, or “build” attraction with (cough) confidence.

    This is part of the problem today with Christian men. Any woman that gives them talk….even with this unacceptable behavior is construed to mean “she wants me”

    She wants to dominate, control and PROVE how thirst you are.

  63. feministhater says:

    So…..today, record shopping…barber…..lumch out somewhere……..I actually feel bad for SHelia and her entitled daughter…..their hubbys must live in fear in their own homes.

    You are damn right about that. You actually had a good day; enjoy it, embrace it and give thanks for it. There are far worse things in life, Jason.

  64. ray says:

    Here’s a bon-bon for She-la and her daft dotter. Hope they’re dressed for warm weather! :O)

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/dems_promise_to_subordinate_men_if_they_retake_the_house.html

  65. OKRickety says:

    Deep Strength said: “You made a vow to your wife, also before the Lord, to ….”

    Admittedly, most Western Christian weddings do include vows along those lines. But should they? If divorce is never allowed, then there is no reason to vow “until death do us part”‘, because it is already assumed to be until death.

    Do all husbands and wives always “love and cherish”? I have my doubts. And, in the case where the wife vows to obey her husband, will she always do this? Probably not.

    What is the consequence when one fails to follow their vow? If there is no penalty, then what is the value of the vow?

    Just as the Christian aims for a sinless life but fails at least occasionally, I think marriage vows mandate perfect behavior, although, even when made, it is known that no one will be able to maintain that level. I have heard of many instances where one, most usually the wife, considers that they are released from their own vow because the spouse has broken their vow.

    I think marriage vows should be reworded to be promises to strive for the ideal. They also should include a reminder that Christians are to forgive those who repent of their sins against us.

  66. Vektor says:

    This pastor appears to suggest that wives shouldn’t leave their husbands without a ‘good reason’. Is he then willing to speak out against the institution of no-fault divorce?. That is, wives should have tangible, provable reasons that can be presented to a church and to a court for exploding their marriages (and families).

    Every day, the Left drops a little bit more of the mask to the general public. Their TRUE beliefs and intentions. No-fault divorce was one of the weapons meant to destroy the family….the Christian family, and by extension Christianity itself. Maybe someday this pastor will see that. Maybe he is so cucked it won’t matter anyway.

  67. earl says:

    She will never be held to account for anything,she will feel free to lash out at any male anywhere at anytime for the rest of her life without consequence.

    If she was aware of her final judgement (she seems to get others will have it)…then she would know at some point she will be held to account.

  68. earl says:

    I have heard of many instances where one, most usually the wife, considers that they are released from their own vow because the spouse has broken their vow.

    Do they ever think of the vow they made to God though? It was said the vow was to God and husband .

  69. earl says:

    Like DS said…if you aren’t willing to keep that part of the bargain to God and aren’t discerning when choosing a potential spouse, perhaps it’s wise to not get married.

  70. feeriker says:

    What is the consequence when one fails to follow their vow? If there is no penalty, then what is the value of the vow?

    If marriage was treated like a legally enforceable contract like every other interaction of its kind and its terms strictly enforced upon both parties by a court of civil law in the manner of every other civil contract, then we would be seeing almost none of the nonsense happening that is characteristic of Marriage 2.0 today.

    I think marriage vows should be reworded to be promises to strive for the ideal.

    For all practical intents and purposes, asking western women to even make a half-hearted attempt to do ANYTHING contained in the marriage vows IS “striving for the ideal.” After all, putting any expectations and responsibilities upon them at all is considered “misogynistic” and “abusive.”

    They also should include a reminder that Christians are to forgive those who repent of their sins against us.

    That would just be interpreted by women as a “get out of repentence and contrition free” card. “I can abuse, neglect, and commit adultery at will and he HAS to forgive me.”

  71. earl says:

    That would just be interpreted by women as a “get out of repentence and contrition free” card. “I can abuse, neglect, and commit adultery at will and he HAS to forgive me.”

    That’s called presumption of mercy. Even God doesn’t do that.

    https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-sin-of-presumption

  72. Sharkly says:

    Do all husbands and wives always “love and cherish”?
    That’d better not be the beginning of some fucking excuse for a woman’s sin! They always start that way. Well, Sharkly, you’re not as perfect as Jesus, so when your wife is trashing your marriage and your kids home, we’ll all cheer her on, ‘cuz, well, you’re not so perfect yourself.
    I actually do feel like I love and cherish my wife all the time. Do I get angry, yes. Have I called her a bitch and a whore, yes, and deservedly so. But, do those things mean I don’t love her or cherish her, No. It means I love her enough to not lower my expectations for her behavior, but to want the best for her. Hosea, a most loving man, and in fact an example of God’s love did much the same. He even enlisted the kids to try to get her to stop her wicked behavior.
    Hosea 2:2 “Plead with your mother, plead—
    for she is not my wife,
    and I am not her husband—
    that she put away her whoring from her face,
    and her adultery from between her breasts;

    I don’t need a bunch of whoring churchians telling me what loving and cherishing look like. Read Hosea. It shows what God’s love looks like. And trust me, I’m fucking paying! I’m buying her back.(proverbially) And in the end, I have no guarantee she’ll even want to be my wife or to change a bit of her unfaithful ways. My love is real. The rubber meets the road. I don’t give a fuck what it appears like to the blind. My love has cost me more than I can explain. And I pray that I can love still more, because I struggle mightily with it.

  73. feeriker says:

    Do they ever think of the vow they made to God though? It was said the vow was to God and husband .

    They’re not afraid of betraying their husbands because the State has their back on that. They’re not afraid of betraying God because He doesn’t punish them immediately and tangibly (remember that most people, especially most WOMEN, have no future time orientation). If God doesn’t punish them right away and in a manner that they clearly recognize as punishment, as the World would do, then He’s not going to punish them at all.

  74. earl says:

    If God doesn’t punish them right away and in a manner that they clearly recognize as punishment, as the World would do, then He’s not going to punish them at all.

    If that’s the case then they really have no clue what eternity means. I think we are certainly seeing what happens when people have no faith in God and don’t recognize they have a soul. It suddenly becomes all about the world, State, and the pursuit of tingles.

  75. earl says:

    Perhaps if we recognized that marriage has a spiritual component to it (namely God)…we would see it more than a just a state contract between two people that can be broken at any time for just about any flimsy reason.

  76. SaltMark says:

    Emperor Constantine concerning what you said @

    August 11, 2018 at 7:56 am

    Thank you for your clear explanation. I’m in the same situation as you and sadly, I agree with your conclusion. I’m not sad because I can’t get out of my vow, indeed I thrilled in my vow to God and my wife and am honored to live it out whatever the consequences, to the glory of God. What a glorious, joyful day so many years ago – the honor to stand before the Creator with my bride and vow to him…

    I’m sad because of the rank treachery and criminal spiritual behavior she perpetrated against me and our children. I loved her. I love our children. I thrilled in leading a Christian home (the attempt, anyway, in face of all her rebellion). I miss being a husband and father, grandfather with hearth and home. Gone. All gone with seemingly no prospect to restart and to realize that happiness that could be found with a godly wife. It is not good for man to be alone. Nevertheless, forced MGTOW. That wasn’t on my radar 35 years ago.

    Yes, sad for a time, but joyful and confident in the Lord in how it all will resolve into eternity with him.

    Thank you, Dalrock, for this blog, and to all the good commentors. Like no church, you’ve all helped me to understand. By sound reasonings and discussions, you’ve bound up the wounds of my spirit so I could heal (and I have!), strengthened my mind with clarity, and thus, encouraged me and carried me out of despair. What a wonderful group of men’s voices. Truly a band of brothers.

  77. earl says:

    The woman leading the flock is what happens when you let women lead the religion…you get rebellion of God along with goddess and sex worship.

    It’s also the same if your pastor is a homo.

  78. @ OKRickety

    Admittedly, most Western Christian weddings do include vows along those lines. But should they? If divorce is never allowed, then there is no reason to vow “until death do us part”‘, because it is already assumed to be until death.

    Do all husbands and wives always “love and cherish”? I have my doubts. And, in the case where the wife vows to obey her husband, will she always do this? Probably not.

    What is the consequence when one fails to follow their vow? If there is no penalty, then what is the value of the vow?

    Just as the Christian aims for a sinless life but fails at least occasionally, I think marriage vows mandate perfect behavior, although, even when made, it is known that no one will be able to maintain that level. I have heard of many instances where one, most usually the wife, considers that they are released from their own vow because the spouse has broken their vow.

    I think marriage vows should be reworded to be promises to strive for the ideal. They also should include a reminder that Christians are to forgive those who repent of their sins against us.

    Let’s ignore the vows for a moment, and see what God has to say to Christian wives and Christian husbands. One example:

    Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 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. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

    I don’t see any conditional statements here. The passage doesn’t say: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord…. but only if he loves you like Christ the Church.”

    1 Peter 3 says the opposite… wives should be respectful and chaste, with a quiet and gentle spirit, and submit to their unbelieving husbands so as to potentially win them to Christ and set a good Christian example.

    The value of the “vow” is that you made it, so you’re required by God to uphold it.

    If a wife isn’t obedient, sure, there are certain consequences according to stewardship. For instance, if the wife is burying the family in credit card debt, cutting up the credit cards, freezing the credit, and otherwise eliminating any possible way to destroy the family is the husband’s responsibility.

    However, the core of the gospel message is that God revealed to you and to me that we are sinners and we need to Jesus. We need His grace and mercy, so we follow Him and we become like salt and light. Our salt and light is able to influence others to change. Christianity is inside-out. So, when we talk about vows and God’s roles and responsibilities for marriage, you are tasked with upholding your end, and influencing your spouse to do the same. You don’t get dragged into their sin, like Adam did with Eve.

  79. Sharkly says:

    “I, ___, take thee, ___, to be my wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith [or] pledge myself to you.”

    OKRickety says: I think marriage vows mandate perfect behavior … I think marriage vows should be reworded to be promises to strive for the ideal.

    Wrong! Marriage vows ask for faithfulness to your combined union. That is doable. It also means that you need to confess, repent, and get back to faithfully following your vow, if you transgress it.
    If my employer asked that we just “strive for the ideal”, nobody would do any work at all. My employer asks us to do certain things and will fire us for insubordination if we do not do them without good cause. So marriage vows also ask us to do certain things, and we should be held to doing them. Unfortunately feminism has stripped away every means of enforcing the vowed behavior on a wife, while requiring men to even do things they never even vowed, at gunpoint.
    The answer is not to water down the vows to allow for all this evil.
    The answer lies in this video that Feministhater linked to in another thread:

  80. Sharkly says:

    Language Warning, on the video above.
    Women are apparently claiming they want men who will be leaders, men they can look up to.
    “You don’t look up to someone you’re equal to,” ~ Turd Flinging Monkey 2018

    Women and the church need to get back to preaching that God’s word says that God created man in His own image and glory, while the woman was created from the man and for the man, and is the man’s glory. And a woman should cover her head to reflect this when she prays to God. The answer to feminine Hypergamy is society getting back to realizing all men are created superior in position, image, and glory to all women by God. No exceptions. If women will accept their subordinated role and give back their Feminist “rights” to lead through voting, and Etc., putting men back into a position of authority, God could bless us yet again with a time of His patience and favor.

  81. Anon says:

    From the Good Mangina Project :

    “You are a bad person if you support Trump”.

    https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/good-people-dont-defend-bad-man-dg/

    Manginas keep doubling down. Even after people have figured out that a ‘male feminist’ is always a creepy predator in disguise.

  82. BillyS says:

    Emp Const,

    It’s pretty clear divorce and remarriage are at a minimum highly frowned upon and likely not allowed at all by true Christian doctrine.

    No it is not. Jesus didn’t address the issue of abandonment in his words. Paul did and specifically allowed for it in one case.

    Applying it to the other cases takes thought no matter what. It is certainly easier to say what you do, even banning it outright, but that doesn’t make the position true. It just makes it another bald assertion made without evidence.

    Dudedont,

    Why don’t I just bring you the head of John the Baptist.

    Hosea 4:6

    You do seem to be misled by not using the brain God gave you to truly seek His will, not just push a trite solution. At least that is the case if you mean what I think you mean. Your reply is very sparse.

    Paul,

    Steve Camp is likely just reaping what he has sown. He was just as judgmental with those who disagreed with him in the past. I don’t agree with this attack on him, but he has done the same to others, so I have much less sympathy. I expect he would rail against many here even now.

  83. BillyS says:

    I would agree with feeriker here. My wife would say she “strove” for our marriage for almost 30 years, but just couldn’t tolerate my ______. (Fill in the blank with something she will berate.

    She never really had her heart in it and felt like a slave the entire time, so naturally she was unhappy and gave up on the “strive” part of things. No one ever confronted her poor attitude though.

    I wish I had realized it earlier however. I would be in much better financial shape now and could possibly even build a positive family life, as hard as that is, when the signs started leaking out. I didn’t think divorce was ever an option, so I didn’t pay the head I should have.

    But then some men here would have been chastising me for not being faithful and would deny any remarriage right because of a misinterpreted Scripture and not looking at the whole thing in the proper scope.

  84. seventiesjason says:

    Anon….well, I don’t really support Trump either…..meet the new boss, same as the old boss thing for me………The president should put Twitter down, he obviously has the maturity of a teenager with it. Some his “tweets” as far from intelligent and mature. I also don’t like an arms deal with Saudi Arabia…..the nation that gave us most of the 9-11 hijackers, and the terrorists from the WTC attack in 1993…….I don’t understand why all the liberals are upset with his tarriffs, and a potential trade war……since the 1980’s most liberals and Democrats WANTED this to protect “the working mans jobs”

    This changed for some bizzaro reason in the 1990’s with that party……..

    I like his Supreme Court nomination. His tax cut with all the log rolling won’t really do much of anything. I was hoping for a flat 10%-20% cut across the board on federal spending. Wishful thinking there. SO much for draining the swamp.

    Sure, he’s better that Hillary. But I’m getting tired of this “lesser than two evils” thing. Thats why I voted for Johnson / Weld.

  85. Jack Russell says:

    Someone a few articles back posted a video of Sheila’s daughter criticising Lori Anderson. The commentator would interject some interesting colour commentary. Like when daughter said, “This is the worst thing I have ever seen”. The commentator said ,(paraphrasing)”She never mentioned pornography, abortion?. She believes Lori saying men prefer debt, tatoo, free virgins is worse. But only a feminist would actually believe that.

  86. feeriker says:

    That’s called presumption of mercy. Even God doesn’t do that.

    No, but churchian wives expect their husbands to do it.

  87. ray says:

    feeriker — “They’re not afraid of betraying their husbands because the State has their back on that.”

    Maintaining the divorce mill feeds a vast industry in the U.S. Not only ‘churches’, as exposed herein, and endless government agencies and departments (often staffed by females), but a huge private sector including (anti)family law firms and associate entities. Many run by predatory and foul fem-lawyers. Big city firms can have staffs of dozens or even hundreds. Somebody’s paying their inflated salaries and expense accounts. That’d be you.

    Satan has made it very profitable to destroy fatherhood, family, and masculinity. In the old days he just tried to beat it out of folks but times have changed. Not him though.

  88. seventiesjason says:

    Had a good day…….went to an ‘eglish themed’ pub tonight…….chatted with the owner, asked him about doing a potentional “northern soul” spin. He said “No one would like that kind of music here” but the act he had tonight no one seemed to like either…..a militant rasta singing songs about racial hatred by “babylon” and “colonization” to a pub full of white people…………….

    Noticed something…..a lot of women have gigantic, axe-handle-and-a-half rear ends……..and many of them are under 35. I watch epidsodes of ‘soul train’ from the 1970’s……….not one person with gigantic rear end.

    How do younger cats deal today?

  89. ray says:

    SaltMark —

    You have reason to be confident in the Lord.

    Don’t assume that because you’re separated from your children now, it’ll be that way permanently, including in the Kingdom. Life here doesn’t last long, just seems like it. God is pretty good about keeping loving things together.

  90. SirHamster says:

    Admittedly, most Western Christian weddings do include vows along those lines. But should they? If divorce is never allowed, then there is no reason to vow “until death do us part”‘, because it is already assumed to be until death.

    The vows aren’t creating additional obligations. Marriage is two becoming one flesh (Genesis). God hates divorce (Old Testament).

    There is a time and place for stating given assumptions. The marriage ceremony, done in public to many witnesses, is one such place.

  91. Paul says:

    On marriage:

    The vows are the current form of a marriage ceremony, and are a solemn pledge towards your spouse, towards God, and towards the community of believers. As such you promise to uphold these vows in front of witnesses. (And although some modern marriage vows removed the “till death do us part”, I’ve NEVER heard any vow which included “until death or divorce do us part”)

    A vow has value in itself, but marriage is also a covenant. That is something that is lost on most people. Even many leaders in the church see marriage as only a contract; if one of you should break one of the conditions, the other party has the moral right (and sometimes even obligation) to declare the contract null and void by that act. This is the common understanding behind many views on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. David Instone-Brewer is his somewhat influential “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context” argues along these lines.

    A covenant on the other hand establishes a permanent relationship, ended only be the death of one of the covenant partners. It binds people by a mutual and personal commitment, not just by a series of tasks as in a contract. As such, marriage vows can be seen as an oath that is part of the covenant. This fits beautifully in the different images of two-flesh into one-flesh, Christ-Church, virginity, man-woman.

    When understanding marriage as a covenant, the NT texts of Jesus and Paul become immediately clear in their insistence on not divorcing, and for reconciliation in case of separation.

    Malachi 2 (ESV)

    And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.

    Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselvesi in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”

    [Note again: in the OT it is only the man who is able to divorce]

  92. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Jason: I also don’t like an arms deal with Saudi Arabia…..the nation that gave us most of the 9-11 hijackers, and the terrorists from the WTC attack in 1993

    I don’t know that the Saudi government gave us the 9/11 terrorists.

    I am convinced that the Israeli government (specifically, Mossad) followed the 9/11 terrorists for months, possibly years, in the U.S. Knew they were up to no good. And did not share intelligence with the U.S. Then when 9/11 happened, Israeli spies (employed by Urban Moving Co.) were seen cheering atop a building in New Jersey: https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Enigma-11-Israeli-Connection/dp/0595296823/

    The Saudis aren’t our friends. But neither are the Israelis.

  93. Paul says:

    @RPL “Then when 9/11 happened, Israeli spies […] were seen cheering atop a building in New Jersey”

    Really? People cheering atop a building counts as evidence for anything? I do not even need to read the book if this is the best “evidence” it has to offer. It’s rubbish.

  94. Sharkly says:

    C’mon Paul,
    Some anonymous guy on the internets tells you a story about known Joooooww spies being observed publicly celebrating while Muslims are attacking Jew York. What’s not to believe? Its almost like you don’t trust spies or something. /S

  95. seventiesjason says:

    all the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia……and now its a Jewish conspiracy………if Obama signed an arms deal with the Saudis, and the one Trump signed was…beyong huge……..you would all be telling us “he’s a Muslim, a traitor” and the like.

    Evil is evil. Trump doesn’t get a pass from me in this matter just because “he isn’t Hillary”

  96. seventiesjason says:

    The liberals here in California STILL make fun of W Bush “he’s stupid, he’s dumb, he was a terrible leader”..and a bunch of other words……..but boy oh boy….9-11

    Now he’s an evil genius who worked out every detail of the attack, the plot, the blame, the intrigue…..organized it himself and, and kept EVERYONE sworn to secrecy and for an operation like that it would be way into the thousands

    but he’s dumb, stupid…..

  97. Rick says:

    Is it possible that Pastors like Doug Wilson and his ilk are showing a huge crack in Protestantism? Not trying to start a religious debate by any means, but as a lifelong Protestant I’ve been looking into the Orthodox Church and Its argument against Sola Scriptura allowing people to interpret the Scripture anyway they want and the dangers that poses. A lot of the Pastors quoted here really solidify the strength of this argument. I never thought I would even be questioning Sola Scriptura in my life, but the fact that there is no church authority to reign these men/women in or remove them all together is destroying Protestantism in my view.

    Also, finding a Protestant church that doesn’t borderline worship Israel is nearly impossible, but that’s another topic.

  98. earl says:

    I never thought I would even be questioning Sola Scriptura in my life, but the fact that there is no church authority to reign these men/women in or remove them all together is destroying Protestantism in my view.

    Also, finding a Protestant church that doesn’t borderline worship Israel is nearly impossible, but that’s another topic.

    You’re getting closer to Catholic/Orthodox…we understand the importance of why church authority is established by Christ (even if those in authority abuse their power by focusing on the world instead of Christ).

  99. seventiesjason says:

    Well, I also don’t like praying to “saints” or “icons” because the Word doesn’t mention that either, Christ never once told people to pray to “Moses” or “Elijah”

  100. earl says:

    One day Jason I hope you understand the difference between praying ‘to’ and asking intercession by praying ‘for’.

  101. Paul says:

    Although I understand why you might question Protestantism, Sola Scriptura does not pretend that a person claiming “Sola Scriptura” implies his exegesis will be non-heretical. As we have documented even on this site, many of these so-called Protestant leaders blatantly ignore what Scripture is telling (as are leaders in other denominations). And strictly speaking a hierarchy in a church by itself will not guard against error either. It is not without reason that the RCC went through a period called the Counter-Reformation, which acknowledged many errors that Luther rightly pointed out.

    In the end what counts is if you’re being led by the Spirit yourself, if you’re born-again, a new creation in Christ, and persevere upholding your faith, by the power of the Spirit of the Living God.

  102. Dale says:

    SeventiesJason:
    >How do younger cats deal today?

    I’m not sure I qualify as “younger” anymore, but I went to eastern Europe and found a woman who is willing to obey Scripture. Praise God!

    >Christ never once told people to pray to “Moses” or “Elijah”
    As I mention to Rick below, God’s Word specifically says that is wrong. See 1 Tim 2:5-6.

    Rick:
    >but as a lifelong Protestant I’ve been looking into the Orthodox Church

    Me too. The Orthodox church has theological problems, but at least the people there can be obedient to Scripture while they are in service. Head-coverings, sex-appropriate clothing, etc. And let’s face it, ANY Christian will have theological problems. It is a reflection of our sinful nature and limited understanding, this side of eternity.
    It is hard for me to say the Protestant chuches are better when half the Protestant congregation is actively sinning, DURING the service. When both have theological problems, but one also has half the congregation in open, visible rebellion, it seems obvious which is better.

    A related point is the obedience of the leaders. When the religious professional cannot even get his own family to be obedient to the Scriptures, or if he himself is unrepentant, how can he possibly be an appropriate choice for elder? See 1 Tim 3:1-7, re “for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”
    Some Orthodox religious leaders have long hair, which is disobedient to 1 Cor 11:14-16. But, they say they are being obedient to a prior set of rules instead (Nazarite vow), ignoring the newer command from 1 Cor 11. Although I disagree with this, I can understand that a guy with limited Biblical understanding might, in honnesty, come to this position. So if we choose to give grace in this area of dispute (Rom 14:1-23) and accept his decision in this area, then I cannot give even one criticism of the outward behaviour, during service, of an Orthodox religious leader or his family. I cannot say the same for most Protestant religious leaders. (Not to say that the Orthodox preaching is correct though.)
    The one exception is my Russian Protestant leaders; they all have a far better result in their management of their own families, which is a good example for the flock (1 Pet 5:1-4).

    >Sola Scriptura allowing people to interpret the Scripture anyway they want and the dangers that poses

    It is dangerous. And it is also how I peceive Christ to have set up HIS church. Who am I to argue that Christ did not know how to set up his own church correctly?
    – We are to pray directly to God, not to any human authorities or intemediaries (Matt 6:9-15, 1 Tim 2:5-6). Yes, I know (some) Roman Catholics and (some) Orthodox pray to dead Christians, but they are wrong to do so, per Scriptures listed above.
    – We will be judged by Christ, not the religious leaders (Revelations). So I should obviously be concerned with Christ’s acceptance, not a self-important religious professional.
    – Christ had the opportunity to set up an authority structure during his ministry on earth, but never did so. The disciples were all following Christ’s leadership. Christ did not give commands to John or Peter, and then have John or Peter then command the other disciples — not even once. Yes, I know the Roman Catholics claim that Jesus’ instruction to John to take care of his mother Mary was somehow putting her in authority, but the RCs are obviously reading in something not stated in the text. Similarly, the RCs claim that when Jesus said in Matt 16:18 that he would build his church “on this rock”, he meant Peter was now an authority figure for all of Christ’s church. When the context allows the obvious interpretation that Jesus was (correctly, as always) prophesying that Peter would be instrumental to the building of Christ’s church. Or that Christ was referring to the confession that Peter had JUST GIVEN, specifically that “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And these last two interpretations are far more consistent with the remainder of Scripture.

    Plus, consider the options.
    1) We can have each man trying to obey Christ as best he can, with the problems that result. or
    2) We can have each man trying to obey a sinful, human religious professional, as best he can, with the problems that result.

    Really, am I to think that the second situation is better? That is obviously stupid. Humans have limitations, which is why any army needs to pass commands down through a hierarchy; we cannot reasonably expect the General to speak personally with every front-line solder. But God is capable of hearing prayers from all of us. God the Spirit is capable of teaching all of us.
    The fact that we can show men who claim to be following #1, while ignoring God, does nothing to prove that #2 is better.

  103. Boxer says:

    Well, I also don’t like praying to “saints” or “icons” because the Word doesn’t mention that either, Christ never once told people to pray to “Moses” or “Elijah”

    Mormons have a huge problem with this. To be fair, our side is probably more in line with a plain reading of the text. There are specific prohibitions against graven images, and there’s some ambiguity in the text as to who Jesus actually is. Is he God, or is he God’s son? These are important questions, and I understand those who err on the side of caution.

    Even so, I pray to Mary, weekly. I don’t really take such things as realistically as most, but such exercises do a lot to center me. Mary is a useful symbol of healthy womanhood. She’s a chick who did the right thing, didn’t become a tattooed skank or troublemaker, and concentrated on her family. It’s a necessary symbol in today’s world.

    For those who do take a literalist interpretation of the text, I don’t find it unreasonable that they would ask Jesus’ mother for help. Who has Jesus’ ear, if she doesn’t?

    Anyway, speeches in the Journal of Discourses assure me that I’m going to outer darkness for praying to these statues. If the Mormon God is that uptight, I suppose I’ll take my punishment. I really don’t see Him as being the sort of asshole they all paint him as, though. I think he probably accepts my prayers, if He does exist. And if He doesn’t, then what difference does it make?

    Peace,

    Boxer

  104. Barnie says:

    When Jason Meyer undermines the authority of husbands and fathers he doesn’t hesitate to link to a meticulous list of so-called abusive behaviors. That’s not Doug Wilson’s style. He doesn’t like to have to defend specific claims but rather stays in a realm of plausible deniability. He chooses to misapply a verse from Deuteronomy regarding slaves because there are no standards of behavior or abuse attached. That’s a feature, not a bug, for Wilson. Wilson delegates the dirty work of defining abuse to the aggrieved wife and goes with a presumption of guilt. If the husband wasn’t truly abusive well he created an ungodly aroma, or he is ultimately responsible for his wife’s sin and anyway, he should have simply done a better job of choosing a wife.

  105. Dale says:

    Earl:
    >One day Jason I hope you understand the difference between praying ‘to’ and asking intercession by praying ‘for’.

    One day I hope that you will admit that talking to God and asking him for something is functionally identical to talking to a dead saint and asking him/her for something.

    God is not visible to me. And I talk to him and ask for help.
    Your dead Christian is not visible to you. And you talk to him/her and ask for help.
    Where is the difference? And far more importantly, how does that claimed difference give a reason to negate the the teaching of 1 Tim 2:5-6? (You may want to read Isa 55:10-11, Isa 66:2 and Micah 6:8 before you answer that last question.)

    The Orthodox religious professional I spoke with about this said that they do not pray to dead Christians. So I asked him to describe what they do in fact do. And he described exactly what my prayers to God are like.
    Use whatever words you like (e.g. “venerate”), and re-define them how you like, but it does not change the truth. Same as when the feminists do it.

  106. feeriker says:

    “Also, finding a Protestant church that doesn’t borderline worship Israel, women, and the ways of the temporal World in generalis nearly impossible, but that’s another topic.”

    Fixed for the sake of inclusive clarity.

  107. Dale says:

    Boxer,
    >Anyway, speeches in the Journal of Discourses assure me that I’m going to outer darkness for praying to these statues

    It grieves me to think of your acceptance of eternity in hell. I respect the free-will God gave you; I do hope you will choose to submit to God (Jesus is Lord) and to believe, that you can have salvation. Romans 10:9-13 shows we need ONLY those TWO things for salvation; nothing else is necessary; not a certain religious group, not to give to Dale all your money, not the right parents.
    9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

    And BTW, praying to some dead saint, despite 1 Timothy 2:5-6, is not enough to guarantee you will be rejected by God. The Bible only lists two unforgivable sins.
    1) Blaspheming the Holy Spirit
    2) Accepting the mark of the anti-Christ (I don’t remember if it mentions worshiping the anti-Christ also)
    Don’t do those two. Otherwise, accept Jesus as Lord (master/king/boss), believe that God raised him from the dead, and you WILL be saved. What I, or anyone else thinks, about you or any action you do is irrelevant to whether you will spend eternity with God.

    And hey! God WANTS you. That seems significant to me. 2 Peter 3:9: The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

    May God bless and guide you.

  108. ray says:

    seventiesjason — “Well, I also don’t like praying to “saints” or “icons” because the Word doesn’t mention that either, Christ never once told people to pray to “Moses” or “Elijah””

    I’m no expert on Orthodoxy but it’s the glaring gap, like the Mary stuff and rituals for Catholics. As with Catholicism, what I like about Eastern Christianity is its socio-cultural traditionalism, esp. family and extended family. But those images of saints and whatnot at service detracts from what’s important.

    The Bible is real clear about images and iconography, the prophets were always giving those things the axe. Worse, the saint and angel elements of Orthodoxy are worship of the host of heaven. Them not knowing it changes nothing.

    Pray to Father and to Jeshua. You don’t need anyone else and if anyone else is required, they’ll let them know.

  109. Rick says:

    Dale:
    Great response, thank you. It gave me some idea’s to consider. Maybe I have an issue with a lack of faith that God has all of this under control and has allowed it. I know that 2 Tim.4:3 perfectly describes our current situation, but man, it can be hard to endure. I’m just tired of modern day church in America. The “worship”, seeker friendly, immodestly dressed women, commentary preaching, gossiping pastor wives, cliques, celebrity worship ect. I wish there was a “church” that was like this site where a group of men sat around and discussed Biblical issues. I’ve learned a lot, and been challenged more reading the articles and accompanying comments on this site for the last year than any church I’ve been to.

    Unfortunately, the Orthodox Church isn’t an option for me right now as the nearest church is four hours away. I’ve watched a lot of stuff on youtube and I love the worship. But I still have a lot to learn.

  110. earl says:

    Even so, I pray to Mary, weekly. I don’t really take such things as realistically as most, but such exercises do a lot to center me. Mary is a useful symbol of healthy womanhood. She’s a chick who did the right thing, didn’t become a tattooed skank or troublemaker, and concentrated on her family. It’s a necessary symbol in today’s world.

    Keep at it Boxer…one day I hope she leads you to her son.

  111. earl says:

    @Dale

    Your dead Christian is not visible to you. And you talk to him/her and ask for help.
    Where is the difference?

    Abraham, Issac, and Jacob all physically died…so what is the point of addressing them here?

    ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Matthew 22:32

  112. earl says:

    The Orthodox religious professional I spoke with about this said that they do not pray to dead Christians. So I asked him to describe what they do in fact do. And he described exactly what my prayers to God are like.
    Use whatever words you like (e.g. “venerate”), and re-define them how you like, but it does not change the truth. Same as when the feminists do it.

    I’ll do an easy prayer for you to prove it’s veneration, the Hail Mary….

    Hail Mary,
    Full of Grace,
    The Lord is with thee.
    Blessed art thou among women,
    and blessed is the fruit
    of thy womb, Jesus.
    Holy Mary,
    Mother of God,
    pray for us sinners now,
    and at the hour of our death.

    Amen.

    We pray to God…we ask for prayers of intercession from Mary, Joseph, the saints, and our brothers and sisters on earth. I don’t pray to you…I pray for you.

  113. seventiesjason says:

    I attended Eastern Orthodox service again this week….the woman who I met at the bookstore was there with her husband this week. I went and greeter her and her husbnad before the service started. She was very quiet and pretended or acted as if she did not know me. Her husband was a bit defensive as well. I explained I met her at the Orthodox Bookstore…..I thought he was going to pound me or get fists up by me talking to his wife…..

    I don’t have a problem with a longer service. Black protestant churches tend to have longer services too, and I have sat in many of them on and off over the years.

    I briefly met the priest after the service. I told him I was interested more about this faith and holiness tradition. He gave me a web address to go to, and he also told me “one doesn’t decide to become an Orthoox Christian”

    It seems to be more tied into the culture of Eastern Europe……maybe I am wrong. If I am, it’s cool.

    I admire the holiness, I admire the seriousness, but it’s a closed club here in Santa Rosa. They don’t seem to want new folks or even peeked interest….perhaps this is just this church…..I know Sally Army Corps that are dead and cold, and others that are polite and want to help people understand. I get it.

    My search will continue. I don’t expect people to fall over backwards to get to know me…….however, if a person cannot even feel a modicum of welcome in a place where the flock proclaims the love of Christ…………………well………

    Anyway…….hope all had a good day

  114. earl says:

    “one doesn’t decide to become an Orthoox Christian”

    Then they are there because of force or duty? That seems to be an odd statement for those perhaps in the journey of conversion.

  115. Paul says:

    Even if praying to(wards) passed away Christians would not be wrong, I cannot understand why people feel the need for an extra layer between themselves and God; the sacrifice of Jesus Christ has restored us into direct fellowship with Almighty God the Father. We don’t NEED anyone else.

    Phil 4:6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.

    Not to “saints”, not to Mary, present your requests to God, IN EVERY SITUATION.

    1 Tim 2
    I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people [..] This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

    ONE mediator between God and mankind, not MANY (“saints”, Mary, priests, pope etc.)
    And petitions, prayers, INTERCESSION, and thanksgiving are obviously to be offered to God alone. NO mention implicit or explicit that this should be directed to anyone else but God Himself (THANKSGIVING should NEVER be directed to anyone else but God!)

  116. earl says:

    We don’t NEED anyone else.

    We ask for other’s help for a lot of things, my buddy asked for my help to film an engagment…why would it be any different in the spiritual sense? Do I need to explain the difference between asking for help and doing it all by myself?

    ONE mediator between God and mankind, not MANY (“saints”, Mary, priests, pope etc.)

    Do I need to explain the difference between mediator and intercessor now?

    And petitions, prayers, INTERCESSION, and thanksgiving are obviously to be offered to God alone. NO mention implicit or explicit that this should be directed to anyone else but God Himself

    They always are…do I need to explain the difference between ‘to’ and ‘for’ again?

    Pray for me, to God.

  117. seventiesjason says:

    Earl…..no hate or “offense” on this church. I just won’t go again. I am sure many are holy and set apart. Scott seems to be, or strives that way with his family.

    I just really don’t know what to do.

  118. feeriker says:

    My search will continue. I don’t expect people to fall over backwards to get to know me…….however, if a person cannot even feel a modicum of welcome in a place where the flock proclaims the love of Christ…………………well………

    Again, welcome to 21st Century churchianity. Today’s flavor: Eastern European.

    Not to discourage you, Jason, but your search for a church “home” may be never-ending if what you are looking for is a body of people who are truly striving to live as Christ (if these churches can’t even welcome a fellow believer into their part of the fold, how the heck are they ever going to be effective in reaching out to lost souls? And no, this insularity is not unique to ethno-centric Orthodox churches). Believe me, I’m still treading that path. Finding anything even remotely resemnbling a New Testament body of believers amid the sea of churchian retail stores in this day and age is like trying to find the lone head of a pin in a field full of haystacks.

    At this point you might want to consider doing what Boxer (among others here) has recommended: starting your own small group with other men in your same situation and on the same quest you are on. Yes, it will take time and effort and it will probably be a very small group (not, of course, that numbers matter; “where two or more gather in my name…”), but better a siritually vibrant handful than a multitude lacking the Holy Spirit or living in the faith.

    Don’t give up, brother. Now is the time more than ever to ask for God’s guidance.

  119. earl says:

    Honestly…if the Catholic church was like what people outside of it think it is…I wouldn’t be Catholic.

    From Bishop Fulton Sheen, it’s long but worth the read:

    There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

    If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates… Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men…

    If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown.

    Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great “potentials,” for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend?… Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ.

    It is to these millions who believe wrong things about the Church and to these marginal Christians, that this little book is sent. It is not to prove that they are “wrong”; it is not to prove that we are “right”; it is merely to present the truth in order that the truth may conquer through the grace of God.”

  120. feeriker says:

    We don’t NEED anyone else.

    Referring back to Jason’s experience this morning, that seems to be what many churches of all denominations seem to be saying, in attitude and (lack of) deed if not in word, when it comes to outreach or welcoming new potential members. Kinda flies in the face of that pesky thing Jesus left with His disciples called “the Great Commission.”

  121. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The Museum of the City of New York celebrates Rebel Women: https://www.mcny.org/exhibition/rebel-women

    We may think of the Victorian era as a period of constraints on women’s lives, a time when middle-class ideas about femininity defined women by their roles as guardians of virtue and relegated them to the private, domestic sphere. But 19th-century New York City was full of women who defied those expectations — women of different classes, races, and ideologies who challenged the social expectations that attached to them because of their gender.

    Some of the things that these women did would not be considered boat-rocking today: a woman could be a rebel simply by speaking in public, by working outside the home, or by disregarding middle-class morality or decorum. Rebel Women explores the lives of activists like Elizabeth Jennings Graham, an African-American New Yorker who refused to get off a segregated trolley in 1854; professionals like Hetty Green, a wealthy businesswoman and broker branded “the witch of Wall Street”; and working women like Helen Jewett, New York’s most prominent courtesan — all of whom challenged the Victorian ideal.

    Featuring photographs, garments, paintings, and prints from the Museum’s collections, the exhibition brings to light the compelling and often untold stories of the city’s independent, unconventional, and path-breaking women who had an indelible impact on New York’s society, culture, and economy by the turn of the 20th century.

  122. seventiesjason says:

    feeriker….people get ‘caught’ up and I cannot hold offense……I had to learn to let go on some of the attitudes of the Salvation Army and it does have many solid folks…….

    I am not looking for a perfect church because if I did find one, and I walked in…..wel,, it certainly would not be perfect anymore 🙂

    Earl…….those stances you mentioned by the Catholic church…….well, that probably is true…..and my discussions with Father Garcia about the issues of “praying to Mary” and statues, and candles, and the like………….

    It comes down to people.

    I have met Cathoics who treat Mary as God Himself. I have met Catholics who would make the Pope look like a heretic………Father Garcia is just a man, but I liked his frank honesty to me about my questions from a protestant…..and they were made not in an “accusatory way” to “get him” but as a inquiry from the heart as to “why” Catholics do this or that.

    I liked his answers. I accept them.

    The times we are in are going to need more of a cross-church understanding. I would indeed like to know some Catholics who not only hear but obey……and in these times I know I could depend on them…..and I do know firsthand many Catholics would want to know some of the more holy and set apart protestants in their neighborhood as well.

    The churches have plenty of lukewarms, and culturals…….to deny this is really foolishness.

    The times are coming when those who do believe, do live a life of His favor are going to need each other. They are gonna be plenty of Catholics and Protestants sharing company in the enternity of hell

  123. earl says:

    I have met Cathoics who treat Mary as God Himself.

    Are you sure of that? What did they specifically say that made the claim that Mary is basically God?

  124. seventiesjason says:

    Let me add…that I pray that I am not one who will be in this company of eternity in the infernal regions!

  125. earl says:

    If we claimed Mary as God…then we are basically worshiping a goddess. How is that any different from the feminist churches? I can tell you if they start invoking Mother Goddess or some flavor like that in the liturgy…you got yourself a feminist church.

    I went to Mass this morning to worship & glorify the Father, Son, and Spirt…to receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. We don’t worship a goddess.

  126. seventiesjason says:

    I don’t know, walking into a Cathoic shrine in San Juan Bauptista, a huge statue of Mary. A billion candles around it, and people praying in front of the statue……..mostly of Latin descent. In Catholic stores, statues of Mary, and the St. Gudalupe…….everywhere. Didn’t even see one of Christ. I don’t know that tradition inside and out…….but form what the untrained eye sees here in some places in California……one could think that Mary is being worshiped. Now, I do know for a fact that is not doctrine. I have heard Cathoics says “she is venerated among women” and I know that doesn’t mean worship…..but I have had Catholics say “she is the mother of God, she needs to be prayed to”

    Don’t think I am picking on Catholics, cause I am not……..plenty in protestantism bothers me. It’s discussed frequently enough….and frankly an embarassment and foul in the nostrils of God

  127. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Sharkly: Some anonymous guy on the internets tells you a story about known Joooooww spies being observed publicly celebrating while Muslims are attacking Jew York. What’s not to believe? Its almost like you don’t trust spies or something. /S

    It’s unfortunate that whenever someone criticizes Israel, defenders of Israel will respond with It’s the Joooooos! or some similar nonsense, to foreclose serious examination of the topic.

    Israel spies aggressively on the U.S. It’s right up there with China and Russia. And Israel is far more aggressive, and successful, at influencing U.S. elections and policies than is Russia, but you won’t hear anyone in the media or government deride Israeli “foreign influence.”

  128. earl says:

    In Catholic stores, statues of Mary, and the St. Gudalupe…….everywhere. Didn’t even see one of Christ.

    Are you sure of that? Every Catholic store I’ve been to has had pictures of the Divine Mercy & the sacred heart, statues of the crucifixition, the Holy Family. I get we have statues of Mary, angels of the Lord, and saints…but I’ve never seen one that had nothing with Christ in it.

  129. Paul says:

    @earl: “We ask for other’s help for a lot of things, my buddy asked for my help to film an engagment…why would it be any different in the spiritual sense? ”

    Yes, it is different. You’re setting up a very loose analogy as proof for, what?

    “present your requests to God, IN EVERY SITUATION.” is a command.

    If you have anything to ask, you ask God. You don’t ask a “friend” for “help”. And of course you can pray together, and you can pray for others, but that can never be a substitute to pray in your place. God is our Father. If you need help, you ask your Father, you don’t start asking your brothers or sisters to ask for you because you’re afraid to approach him yourself.

    And as for intercessory prayer (your “Hail Mary”); only God is omnipresent and omniscient. In life I can go to a fellow Christian and talk to them, and ask them to pray together. After death how can millions of people at the same time all over the world pray to Mary or any other “saint” and expect that these will be able to hear to these millions of people at the same time? That is not a property we as humans possess, not before or after death. It is a divine property that belongs to God alone.

  130. earl says:

    Yes, it is different. You’re setting up a very loose analogy as proof for, what?

    Proof I need help.

    After death how can millions of people at the same time all over the world pray to Mary or any other “saint” and expect that these will be able to hear to these millions of people at the same time?

    If I get to Heaven, I’ll let you know…if you get to Heaven, let me know.

  131. Paul says:

    @earl: “If I get to Heaven, I’ll let you know”

    How?

  132. earl says:

    How?

    However it works in the afterlife. That place outside of space and time.

  133. Paul says:

    Luke 16

    “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
    29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
    30“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
    31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”

    … if someone from the dead goes to them (Lazarus, who is in heaven) they will repent …

    That is, to be able to communicate to the living, Lazarus would have to be raised from the dead first. Abraham confirms this: they will not be convinced EVEN IF someone rises from the dead. He does not correct the man by telling him Lazarus is able to communicate from within heaven directly to the brothers, no, he acknowledges to be able to communicate, Lazarus would first have to be raised from the dead, then go to the brothers, then warn them.

  134. Swanny River says:

    Jason,
    Regarding long services – always drove me nuts. With children, it’s worse. And for what purpose? A 15 minute sermon on the radio is often inspiring, why does a sermon need to be 45 or 60 minutes long?

  135. Spike says:

    After reading Wilson’s post, I think he’s missing a big point of his ministry:
    If a woman in church is married to a difficult man, then it’s the job of the church to straighten out said difficult man:
    ”As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” – Proverbs 27:17
    That might start with the pastor meeting the husband. It might start with an elder meeting. It will be confronting for both parties. None of it is going to be pleasant. With persistence however, many men have had changed lives because godly men have confronted them and changed them.
    I’ve done it, I have seen it work and on one occasion* I feared for my life.
    Has Pastor Wilson done this in the course of his ministry?

    *Truly scary occasions happen rarely in life. I have never been a soldier or in a profession where I see the worst of humanity on display constantly, as in the civil services. I distinguish between merely unpleasant and life-threatening. The unpleasant confrontation happens often throughout ministry.

  136. SirHamster says:

    Regarding long services – always drove me nuts. With children, it’s worse. And for what purpose? A 15 minute sermon on the radio is often inspiring, why does a sermon need to be 45 or 60 minutes long?

    Just wait till you get to spend an eternity with them!

  137. Hmm says:

    @Spike:

    Wilson’s original post concerned a man that was difficult to his wife in the home, but presented a different, benign face to the church. There was no evidence that anyone but her saw that he was a cruel, abusive man. If she took recourse to the elders, they could do nothing without a second witness. There was no one lawfully to back her up, or take her side. So he encouraged her to separate herself from him. Move quietly out, into her sister’s home. Not divorce. Not call a lawyer. Just separate.

    In doing this she would of course be enlisting her family in her defense. And it would certainly raise questions in the church about why she did this, which might bring her husband under closer scrutiny. It might even drive him to a chargeable offense. But she is not enlisting women to her side, not dividing the church over the issue, not doing anything chargeable as gossip or slander.

    The controversy is over whether there is Biblical warrant for a Christian woman to separate from such a man (who also claims to be Christian). Wilson chops logic to postulate that, though the Bible commands her not to, if she does separate anyway (disobeying God), the church is to let it be – not force her back into the situation she escaped from. He uses the analogy of slavery – slaves Scripturally weren’t to leave their masters, but if they did, no one was to force them to go back. The tacit assumption in this was that the master of such a slave must be an unjust, cruel man, and the cruelty was too much for the slave to bear.

  138. seventiesjason says:

    Swanny……it depends. In protestantism……the “praise” part is becoming longer, and longer…..the pop “praise” band always has an opening, then after the call to worship, welcome, announcemts then its more praise……and the songs are performances now. The singer is holding out a note longer, then they are not. People clap, sway, always a 7-11 song now……seven lines of a verse “I was in the dark, but you are the light showing my heart the way breaking my chains, I’m set free” then the chorus “you are my God and I will worship you” (11x) aftetr the third verse, then no music for the chorus and clapping and singing the verse…..then the praise leader says “come on church, one more time, praise Him like you mean it” 11x repeated again.

    After tha a “slow” song always about darkness, a struggle but His love overcame”

    Then another upbeat number….same as before……a soloist during the collection……..collection is done, and the song STILL isn’t finished.

    After every song….APPLAUSE. NO! NO! It’s not a performance, it is suppose to ready us for the Word, the message, and conduct and bring an attitiude of prayer and Holiness. These same churches if you bring that up…..they will say…”our church has talents, and we want to acknowlege the gifts of praise God has given them…..oh no, its not a performance….you should read your Bible more / you should not have a critical spirit ”

    At this point just over half the service is done………….the podium is taken by the pastor and and the usual self depreciating joke or two about men……a reminder for the money we’re raising to send his daughter to Germany to preach the Gospel of Christ (you see, Germany is a country that has zero connection to Christianity………..)

    The sermon usually never speaks of sin…only hope, love, and come as you are……..then an altar call so you can have “jesus as your lord and savior” and then “bring your friends next week”

    A postlude of sorts, the popular cliques go out to lunch somewhere and most leave unchanged, unconvicted and still dead.

  139. Frank K says:

    In Catholic stores, statues of Mary, and the St. Gudalupe…….everywhere. Didn’t even see one of Christ.

    Are you saying they didn’t have a single crucifix? I find that hard to believe.

  140. Hmm says:

    On the whole Protestantism / Roman Catholic / Orthodoxy thing:

    One can easily admire the various Orthodox churches, because they have withstood countless persecutions at various hands, and survived: The Russian Orthodox Church (as well as several other Eastern European Orthodox churches) from the communists, the Orthodox churches in the Mideast and North Africa from the Muslims.

    Historically, after the time of Constantine, the Roman Catholics were net persecutors, not persecutees. They counted on being the top dog church, and jockeyed governments and armies to make it so.

    The classic Roman Catholic (and sometimes Orthodox) charge against the Protestants is that there’s no one in charge, no one to correct abuses, no dynamic holding believers together in a single church. In England the RCs were kicked out in favor of Henry VIII’s new Protestant Church of England, which largely remained the RC church in microcosm. The problem with a national church is that, if the rot sets in, there’s no corrective, no other group with enough clout to have an effect. People disaffected with the CoE mostly don’t go elsewhere, they just drop out. This has also occurred in many other historically Protestant countries with national churches (mainly the Scandinavian countries).

    In the U.S., Protestants’ division problem is also a large contributor to their success. If a church or denomination starts to rot, the faithful ones can leave and start another church. Over time, the unfaithful churches will wither and die (witness the mainstream Episcopal and Presbyterian churches), and the churches with life will grow and thrive. That’s one reason why Protestant Christianity is still so strong in the U.S. And if the myriad Protestant churches here start to rot at once (which we may already be seeing signs of), the Holy Spirit will begin working somewhere else (there’s amazing church growth and multiplication in the Global South right now – the next missionary you see in the States might be sent from Africa to evangelize us).

  141. ray says:

    Oh look how coincidental. :O) Talk about your wailing wall —

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/11/jerusalem-wailing-western-wall-crumbling-stone-exposes-religious-frctures

    ‘Roughly a metre thick, and weighing around 100kg, the slab crashed down in late July, narrowly avoiding a worshipper. It smashed into a wooden platform used by liberal-minded Jews who prefer a mixed-sex prayer space rather than the central plaza, where religious authorities require men and women to pray separately.’

    Seems the critical ‘fracture’ was between Jewish male and female. Ortho and femprog. The Israeli State isn’t immune to Anglo-prog culture. It’s part of general babylon too. Jerusalem should have learned what crumbling walls mean.

  142. Spike says:

    Hmm August 12, 2018 at 8:25 pm

    You make a good point, that situations are often complex. Wilson’s analogy, however, isn’t – I believe – scriptural. It isn’t, because the Bible discriminates between wives and slaves.
    While both wife and slave can be property of a man, one is master, one is husband. A slave’s person is owned by his / her master. The slave does whatever is the bidding of the master in this instance. St Paul gives instructions about master-slave relations, where he doesn’t seek to end slavery, but rather seeks to ensure that better relations between master and slave occur.

    In the instance of husband-wife, the husband does not own the wife’s person. He owns her sexuality. It’s an important distinction. She is free to travel and move, even I believe in ancient times, where a slave was not. The husband does however own her sexuality. This confers him exclusive sexual rights and why the products of sexuality – children – bear his name. They bear his name because – he paid for them when he married his wife. St Paul also gives his various instructions about husbands and wives, detailed often in this blog, to ensure better relations between them, for example, ”Husbands, do not be harsh with you wives and wives, respect your husbands….”.
    In doing so, St Paul and Scripture as a whole, is consistent in aiming for better relationships as a whole.

  143. Bee says:

    Jason,

    “Anyway…….hope all had a good day.”

    Thanks Jason. All the best to you also.

  144. seventiesjason says:

    It was good. After church I took a long walk, went to the library…….checked out a few books. Bought a new hat. We have a “Christies” here in Santa Rosa, I am sure our friend Opus knows abou them. Got a tatseful felt pork-pie hat that will be stylish with a shirt and tie and functional for when the cold damp fog hits this area of California from October to April.

    I have a devotional I am going to read before bed, and prayer too. Yeah, it was a good day Bee

  145. Dale says:

    @SeventiesJason
    >She was very quiet and pretended or acted as if she did not know me

    That has been my experience at Orthodox churches also. Unless you already know them, they do not have any interest in talking to you.
    Once I asked to speak to the religious leader (in Canada); he was busy that week so he suggested I call after a week. I did, twice, and left a voice mail message both times. No response.

    When I go with my wife it is different, as people already know her, so they’ll actually talk to us.

    @Earl
    >>ONE mediator between God and mankind, not MANY (“saints”, Mary, priests, pope etc.)
    >
    >Do I need to explain the difference between mediator and intercessor now?

    You might want to check how the Bible uses a particular English word, before you try to use that word to obscure what you are doing. There are 3 verses (according to ESV) that use intercession in English.
    1) Isa 53:12 – This is talking about God. Specifically God the Son. Not Moses, Mary, David, etc.
    2) 1 Tim 2:1 – This is the same paragraph that says there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (The verse that two men here have pointed out to you.)
    3) Hebrews 7:25 – This is talking about God. Specifically God the Son. Not Moses, Mary, David, etc.

    So we see that all three times that we see the word “intercession” being used, that passage is talking about going through God the Son. This is nice and consistent. Whether mediator or intercessor, the result is the same: only God does this. There is another verse that talks about God the Spirit interceding with groans… but that passage also is talking about God. So still nice and consistent. Almost like God designed it that way 🙂
    As much as I would like to insult your stubborn unwillingness to submit your religious beliefs to what the Bible clearly says, our host has repeatedly shown that people claiming to be protestant leaders will be rebellious in the same way. So, glass houses and all that. Although, I do not consider Doug Wilson to be an example of a genuine protestant leader. (aka “No true Scotsman”)

  146. Frank K says:

    One can easily admire the various Orthodox churches, because they have withstood countless persecutions at various hands, and survived: The Russian Orthodox Church (as well as several other Eastern European Orthodox churches) from the communists, the Orthodox churches in the Mideast and North Africa from the Muslims.

    Catholics have suffered at the hands of Islam; Spain and Hungary come to mind, not to mention that at one time all of North Africa was part of Christendom, a lot of it affiliated with Rome. They also suffered behind the Iron Curtain. It wasn’t just the Orthodox.

  147. Frank K says:

    “one doesn’t decide to become an Orthoox Christian”

    Then they are there because of force or duty? That seems to be an odd statement for those perhaps in the journey of conversion.

    I suspect that what the Orthodox Priest meant was that unlike in some ecclesial communities on the Protestant side of the aisle one doesn’t become an Orthodox Christian in an instant, standing up and saying that one accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior, but rather one embarks on a catechumenal journey, which can take a year or longer, before being baptized and chrismated into the Orthodox Church.

  148. Sharkly says:

    My search [for a good church] will continue. … I just really don’t know what to do.

    Well, I go here, and I also listen to sermons on the radio as I drive to and from work, which is a long drive.
    I agree praying to anybody but God, is likely wasting your prayer. It goes against how we are directly instructed to pray in the Bible, as others have pointed out. ‘The Lord’s Prayer’, is a good model to follow, considering that the disciples asked to be taught how to pray, and that is how Jesus taught them, including Peter.

    Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

    Sometimes when I don’t even know how to rightly pray about something, or can’t express the pain, or don’t even know what a solution would look like, or what to pray for, I beg the Spirit to plead for me and to groan for my cause with unutterable intercession.

    Dale says: The Orthodox church has theological problems, but at least the people there can be obedient to Scripture while they are in service. Head-coverings, sex-appropriate clothing, etc. … It is hard for me to say the Protestant churches are better when half the Protestant congregation is actively sinning, DURING the service. When both have theological problems, but one also has half the congregation in open, visible rebellion, it seems obvious which is better.
    Sad but true. Our choices for a bricks and mortar church really suck.

    Around here, some old order Mennonite, and Amish churches have folks dressed appropriately, and don’t make their worship into a talent show, often forbidding applause, wanting all the praise to go to God alone. However I believe these churches also have a few doctrinal, and cultural problems, which need corrected, and the world is seeping into them also. My fathers Mennonite church now allows applause, and a bunch of heresy too. They’re getting downright mainstream or should I say “broad road”. I also don’t think Jesus felt that “the traditions of men” were something to be held to in opposition to God’s commands, our consciences, and our liberty in Christ.

    So I go here. I pray, worship, and fellowship as I feel best suits the Lord. Hi Jason! Welcome to Dalrock’s church. Thanks for sharing. You’re always welcome here.
    Obviously we, here, come from many religious backgrounds and disagree on many things, but we are able to share and sharpen each other nonetheless. I gave up looking for a good church, and am instead focused on just being a better Christian, and learning, getting sharpened. So that when the time is right I can go back to those houses of hypocrisy and skewer the hirelings and their minions with the sword of God’s word.
    1 Kings 18:22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
    1 Kings 18:38 Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The Lord, he is the God; the Lord, he is the God. 40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

  149. Opus says:

    It is true: Anglicans are Catholic though not Roman. If however that is not to ones taste one can become Methodist, Baptist or United Reformed or join one of the many other similar though lesser brand-names. The English don’t much do religion; forum shopping is seen as insincere, but The Anglican Church is one of those things that were it not there one would miss it such that people would write letter to The Times claiming to be disgusted. Not being Anglican is always a cause for slight suspicion because it suggests religious enthusiasm and religious enthusiasm is always suspect. Being an Anglican Priest is a 24/7 job – part social worker, part property manager, in addition to taking the ceremonies as well being expected to have some knowledge of The Bible and I suppose Church Fathers – but nothing too in-depth or heavy because Anglican Vicars are supposed to be approachable and not hell-fire.

    My recommendation to Jason is that he should try The Quakers where no one will tell him to shut up as speaking up is what Quakers do and it would be rude to halt a fellow Quaker in full flow. In London there is a Quaker Meeting House just up from the Coly* in St Martin’s Lane which is only a short walk from where Jason will be staying.

    Can Jason’s reference to Christie’s really be to the up-market auction house?

    *The Coliseum Opera House

  150. Opus says:

    I want to add (on the subject of Anglicans) that if one is not Anglican there is always the suspicion that one may not be entirely loyal to The Crown which is why Roman Catholics go out of their way – protesting too much, almost – to demonstrate their loyalty. There being few English Catholics and most Catholics in England being Irish (and England being a smaller and more crowded on top of each other country) with all that that implies tends to make Catholics even more suspect.

    This must be unknown in America.

  151. Luke says:

    Related: back in 2013, I spent some time in Scotland. I visited a Church of Scotland. In my early 50s, out of about 26 people present, I was apparently the second youngest. I had a conversation with several attendees, one of whom identified himself (he seemed mid-60s in age) as a visiting pastor from another such church. He volunteered that he say nothing a priori against sexually active homosexual clergy in Christianity. I said nothing, feeling myself a guest in their country and church, but considered him apostate — and that church doomed, and rightly so.

  152. Jon Patch says:

    Wilson has fully embraced the strategy of “baffle ’em with bullshit”. I note that he clarifies Bnonn as a “friendly critic”. Could this be a subtle jab at Dalrock and a self-justification for not responding to Dalrock? Be friendly Dalrock!

  153. Derek Ramsey says:

    “That is his apostolic counsel, but it is clear from the context that it is merely advice.”

    Even if it were advice, it’s still not a good argument for Wilson to make.

    Some advice is considered neutral. If one receiving advice on whether to between becoming a speech therapist, occupational therapist, or physical therapist, it is quite subjective. Other advice is not neutral. Advising someone not to get a divorce is not morally neutral advice. We will call this advice because we recognize that there might be some situations where it is necessary to do it anyway, but this will always be the statistical outlier.

    Wilson is treating Paul’s advice as neutral when it is clearly not neutral. Just because something isn’t an absolute commandment doesn’t mean it isn’t correct. Sometimes one engages in a lesser evil to prevent a larger evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that evil was done. This is true whether the thing is capital punishment or divorce.

  154. earl says:

    Whether mediator or intercessor, the result is the same: only God does this.

    Yeah…I haven’t said otherwise. I keep saying the reason why we ask for the prayers of intercession from Mary and the saints is for our help much like asking a brother or sister on earth to pray for us…obviously God is the one who does it.

    Perhaps this explains it better.

    http://www.pauline.org/Pauline-Books-Media-Blog/ArticleID/1539/Why-Catholics-Ask-Marys-Intercession

    ‘So how do we become like God? The short answer is through faith and the sacraments. Looking at it more broadly, however, Saint Thomas makes an interesting point. I’m paraphrasing a bit, but basically he says that we can become like God in two ways. First, because God is good, we become like him by being good. Second, because God is the cause of goodness in creatures, we become like God by bringing goodness to others, by doing good (see Summa Theol., I, q. 103, a. 4).

    That second point is the key aspect in regard to the intercession of the saints. By praying for us, they play a role in bringing goodness to us. It’s part of God’s plan. It’s more perfect for us to reflect God’s goodness by doing good rather than simply by being good. We’re meant to be active, to reach out, to help others, and that reflects God. And while we can help others in all sorts of ways, to help them get closer to God is the best thing we can do for them. The intercession of the saints does precisely that.

    When you think about it, isn’t this the way God acts in regard to other things? He brings about goodness through other creatures. For example, he could have just directly created all the people he wants, instead of having them come into the world through their parents. But by giving parents a role in procreation, God is acting through them to bring goodness to others. And the parents’ role is not only good for their children, but good for themselves too. It gives them the wonderful ability to cooperate with God in bringing life into the world.’

  155. seventiesjason says:

    Christys Opus….the hattery…..I got a smashing one too!

  156. seventiesjason says:

    Probably will just attend, not join the AG church here…..I did sign up for one of their ministries…..will just watch Ravenhill sermons, some of Paul Washer…..read the Word and pray in the meantime. I don’t have an excuse with God to say or plead “well, there are not any chuches so I’ll just wait until you bring one”

    How did hermits function? The prophets (Iam not a prophet) when they were on their own? What about a bedridden man who loves God?

    I suppose I will make do for the time being

  157. OKRickety says:

    “A 15 minute sermon on the radio is often inspiring, why does a sermon need to be 45 or 60 minutes long?”

    “Just wait till you get to spend an eternity with them!”

    It’s not my expectation that there will be sermons in heaven, but we will be eternally worshipping God.

  158. BillyS says:

    You’re getting closer to Catholic/Orthodox…we understand the importance of why church authority is established by Christ (even if those in authority abuse their power by focusing on the world instead of Christ).

    Yeah, Pope Francis is so great….

    Popes and anti-popes in the past….

    Everyone wants a strong central authority until they don’t. Remember that even Peter got rebuked by Paul for incorrect Christian actions, not the Church leaders in Jerusalem.

    Look at the disagreements in this forum. Nothing will make men operate in proper unity until Jesus returns and reigns on this earth.

  159. OKRickety says:

    Spike and Hmm,

    Regarding Wilson’s letter, are either of you bothered that Wilson is arguing that the principle of a Mosaic law regarding treatment of a slave is applicable to a Christian marriage? I find this to be highly suspect because I consider the Mosaic law to be deprecated with the New Covenant. If one admits part of the Mosaic Law, even if it’s only the principle, where does one cease with this?

  160. Swanny River says:

    Jason,
    Aren’t you still new to the area? If so, there could still be churches nearby that you aren’t aware of. Not likely, because you see a lot by scooter (or bike, walking, etc).
    I would find applause troubling also, but used to go to an awesome church that applauded occasionally.
    I still don’t hear you or others explaining the benefit of a long sermon. I don’t sit that long comfortably for anything. Does having it be an endurance test add to your worship, similar to the role of fasting to prayer?

  161. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Jason, Opus,

    Synagogue member: Rabbi, I heard that some of the people from the synagogue have been going to Quaker meetings.

    Rabbi: Yes, I know. Some of my best Jews are Friends.

  162. seventiesjason says:

    One of the aspects that moved me intially with the Salvation Army was a brass band for praise, and the songs were marching, but heartfelt praise….from Scripture with “thees” and “thous” and “arts” and “doths”. Our SOngbook also had many wonderful hymns by Fanny Crosby and some I even remember from my Episcopal days as a boy “Love Divine” and countless other Wesley hymns.

    In my time..the brass band was dying. Corps were switching to modern “prasie bands” and the older crew was dying off…….we only had one march when I was there…..traditionally, the Army would march on a Sunday……the band would play and lead all that followed back the Corps for a meeting, or to a park where an open air sermon would occur….

    i also liked how ‘Victorian’ the movement was…….sooner than later they will be allowing gay marriage…..when their crucial funding is at stake for their social work. its on the raod to that now

  163. Barnie says:

    Bnonn is another half-wit, absolutely sure that the God who commanded the extermination of Amalekite infants is really a good neoliberal first-wave feminist and Old Testament slavery was a voluntary welfare system. He’ll soon close comments to keep people from schooling him with inconvenient scripture.

  164. BillyS says:

    Hmm,

    Wilson’s original post concerned a man that was difficult to his wife in the home, but presented a different, benign face to the church. There was no evidence that anyone but her saw that he was a cruel, abusive man. If she took recourse to the elders, they could do nothing without a second witness. There was no one lawfully to back her up, or take her side. So he encouraged her to separate herself from him. Move quietly out, into her sister’s home. Not divorce. Not call a lawyer. Just separate.

    It is her claim that he is difficult. What man is not difficult to a rebellious woman?

    This is the same “emotional abuse” charge that gets me so riled up today. Disagreeing with a woman is “emotional abuse” and many pastors would support the woman even though it is ludicrous.

    A man should always keep His cool in many ways, but having a contentious wife can increase the difficulty of that to make it extremely difficult for most men to not fail in some ways. Yet no one deals with that aspect of the equation.

  165. BillyS says:

    Clapping/Applause is neither praise nor worship, unless you happen to be a tree, then it is unclear.

    Though I would note that the churches I have been to with that are no clapping for the ones on the stage. I don’t care for the practice, but it is not the man worship some claim.

    I also can’t find the evidence that hymns written at some point in the last 500 years are inherently more holy than modern music, even though I find the trend to always write new worship songs to be an unnecessary waste of time in many cases.

    (I also get irked by songs like “I Can Only Imagine” – who cares what you will do before Him at this point in life. You will do what you will do, focus instead on living your life well now.)

  166. seventiesjason says:

    Billy, a lot of songs are in that vein now….and it fits the times, and attitude of “once saved, always saved”…..do what you want, sin, fornicate, lie, cheat, take only the Book of James as a suggestion.
    You said a prayer, a pastor told you that you have Jesus in your heart and repentance?? Well, yeah…you repented but you are not changed………doesn’t matter…you can now only imagine to be in heaven…….danicng with Jesus, and having everything you ever wanted!

    Yes, we we all get to heaven….every man is gonna ask Adam “why” he let his wife eat that fruit, and we’re going to walk daily with Paul and all the amazing saints of old…….

    We’ll do no such thing!

    In Revelation, John who “Jesus loved” and the same John who was one of the most important people in history said that when he saw Christ, he fell to his face as worshiped Him as if he were dead!

    If this man, behaved like this in his Revelation…..and was the man who walked with God on Earth….and he behaved in this matter……we (ordinary men) will not be “dancing with Jesus”

  167. John Q Public says:

    This PCA Reformed types are all a bunch of wimps.

  168. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    Clapping/Applause is neither praise nor worship, unless you happen to be a tree, then it is unclear.

    I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

    Psalm 47
    1 O clap your hands, all peoples;
    Shout to God with the voice of joy.
    2 For the Lord Most High is to be feared,
    A great King over all the earth.
    3 He subdues peoples under us
    And nations under our feet.
    4 He chooses our inheritance for us,
    The glory of Jacob whom He loves.

  169. Oscar. What we’re talking about is after a song….applause…….turning into a performance……if you go to just about any protestant church that does do this…it’s not for the Glory of God…its for the performers on the stage. The soloist. The commentary in between songs “the attitude of your heart really matters the most to God / remember we are not allowed to ever, ever judge / Jesus is our buddy and friend…….he understands when we sin”

    Hairsplitting, probably……legalism? Oh, I am sure I will be accused of that…….it’s God’s house, and we’re turning into a social hall…….applause. Drinking coffee, soda and water during the service….eating……head buried in a cellphone the entire time (yes, I know…..everyone is reading the Bible during service……) and just a carefree attitude to Holiness. Now, do little children cry? Yes. Do people sneeze? Yes. Can people be moved by the Holy Ghost? Yes.

    We are told that praise is important…but from what I have seen, it’s about the performers. Not God.

  170. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    From the Catholic point of view, there’s nothing wrong with praying directly TO a saint (or angel) and asking for direct favors from him/her. This is part of the doctrine of the “communion of saints”. You aren’t limited merely to asking a saint to pray FOR you, in intercession to God. And of course, you should pray FOR the poor souls in Purgatory. So just wanted to clarify that.

    Let me add that for those who find it distasteful how much the RCC “worships” the Virgin Mother (and yes, “worship” is the correct word…but in the old English sense where you referred to a judge or cleric as “your worship”. To be precise, the correct Latin term for the honor given to the Blessed Mother is hyperdulia, which is different from the honor given to God alone, which is latria)…wait until you learn that traditional Catholic doctrine also names her as “Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces”, lol.

    This means that any graces the Almighty dispenses to humankind always pass through the hands of the Blessed Mother. So it is only and exclusively from her hands that anyone receives any graces. This will probably be formally declared ex cathedra as Catholic dogma some day, just as her Immaculate Conception was so declared in the mid 19th century, and her bodily Assumption into Heaven in the mid 20th.

    On another topic mentioned above – the Israeli Jews who celebrated while they watched the Twin Towers burn is a real thing. It’s not some unsubstantiated rumor. Just Google “dancing Israelis” or look it up on Snopes. There were 4 or 5 of them, and a New Jersey housewife called the cops when she observed them high-fiving, dancing, and celebrating as they took pics of the burning towers. They were detained by the police, and it was determined they were part of an Israeli spy ring. Their cover was a moving company named “Urban Moving Systems”. The truck they drove tested positive for explosive residue.

    While being detained, they told the cop “We are Israeli Jews. We are not your problem. The Palestinians are the problem.” (I’ve listened to a podcast interview with the arresting cop, and he confirmed all this).

    They were released shortly after and returned to Israel, no charges being filed against them. Several of them appeared on an Israeli talk show, and when asked what they were doing there in the first place (in Jersey, directly across from Lower Manhattan and the Twin Towers), they answered “We were there to document the event.” How they could have known there would be an event to document was never explained.

    Anyway, that is all 100% fact, confirmed, it really happened. Research it yourself and see,

  171. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    I do think salvation is simple and based on Rom 10:9-10. It is also based on the state of one’s spirit. If that is reborn, you go to heaven, if not, you go to hell.

    Rewards are an entirely different matter and many will live throughout eternity knowing they fell far short of what they could have. This is one reason God will “wipe away every tear” when that realization really hits home.

    As to songs, “Jesus is my boyfriend songs” are the worst. Those that glorify God are fine whatever music they are backed by or the way they are phrased. The Psalms have a decent amount of repetition as well, perhaps not as much as now, but a fair bit nonetheless.

    Oscar,

    That Scripture says nothing about applause. Clapping your hands is not necessarily applause. You would need more Scriptures with clearer context to indicate applause is appropriate praise or worship. Clapping to the beat of a song is different than applause.

    I don’t agree with Jason that it is applauding the song leaders and musicians, but I don’t think it is necessarily appropriate.

    Everyone,

    I wouldn’t waste time arguing against RCC things. Just note the inconsistencies and move on. That is one reason I left the church many years ago. I was in a service and found that while it was close in many ways, it was still off in areas of the Scripture that were too much. I have spent very little time to convert others however, as that is largely a waste.

    I did have a nominal RCC member chastise me for not staying and correcting the RCC, but that seems even more arrogant so I didn’t give it much thought.

  172. ray says:

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/12/deputies-rescue-inflatable-unicorn-minnesota-lake/

    Next time it’ll be an inflatable hamster. And there will be a storm.

    I’m already praying on it. :O)

  173. Swanny River says:

    I am not wading into Jeff’s nazi obsession but want to note that Snopes didn’t have an article about 5 dancing Israelis.
    I offer that as evidence that Jeff should show restraint and not write on Dalrock about Jews or Nazis. How hard can that be?
    Please, spare the snark about Jesus being Jewish, you know when you are grinding your axe and when it’s pertinent to the original post.
    You’ll do what you want anyhow, granted.

  174. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    That Scripture says nothing about applause. Clapping your hands is not necessarily applause. You would need more Scriptures with clearer context to indicate applause is appropriate praise or worship. Clapping to the beat of a song is different than applause.

    Again, I wouldn’t be so sure about that, since the Scripture doesn’t say either way.

    Psalm 47
    1 O clap your hands, all peoples;
    Shout to God with the voice of joy.
    2 For the Lord Most High is to be feared,
    A great King over all the earth.
    3 He subdues peoples under us
    And nations under our feet.
    4 He chooses our inheritance for us,
    The glory of Jacob whom He loves.

    It’s foolish to shout where the Scriptures are silent, so if the Scripture says “clap”, and it doesn’t specify whether that means clapping along to a song, or applauding to the Lord after the song, then we shouldn’t criticize either practice, because we have no Scriptural basis on which to do so.

  175. Reading Jeff Strands reply to Earl…..how on earth could someone “learn” all of this in the church and apply it to daily living? Not every Catholic speaks fluent Latin, not every Catholic is going to remember which feast, of which festival to which saint on which calendar or lunar cycle…….

    My fathers side of the family is deep, deep, Polish Catholic culturally. I have never heard any of them talk like this? I am sure most if not all are lapsed so to speak…but they are all convinced of going to heaven because they “take communion”

    Christ’s ministry was never this complex….never. I just don’t understand all of this, or how it is ‘biblical’

  176. Well it says nothing about showing up to church dressed for a nightclub either, nor about wearing pajama bottoms, flip-flops and mid-riffs exposed either…….it doesn’t say anything about using a cellphone, or eating, or drinking during a service….but if I went to Temple (which I did do once with a Jewish girl I knew in college).

    I could not enter unless I had my head covered, and I had to sit in the upper loft behind smoked glass with the women because I was a gentile.

    God is Holy…..and we should accept those that “come as they are” but for people who profess Christ, are members in that respected church or place of worship……more is to be expected thereof…..

  177. Frank K says:

    Drinking coffee, soda and water during the service….eating……

    Seriously? Wow, just wow.

    Reading Jeff Strands reply to Earl…..how on earth could someone “learn” all of this in the church and apply it to daily living?

    Well, there is this book called the Catechism. And parishes do have adult education programs. But few will attend, most are content to receive Communion on Sunday and call it a week. Go to a weekday Mass, and you will meet those who are serious.

    As for Feasts and Memorials, their observance is optional. And they are enumerated in weekday Missal, easy to find.

  178. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    Wilson’s original post concerned a man that was difficult to his wife in the home, but presented a different, benign face to the church. There was no evidence that anyone but her saw that he was a cruel, abusive man. If she took recourse to the elders, they could do nothing without a second witness. There was no one lawfully to back her up, or take her side. So he encouraged her to separate herself from him. Move quietly out, into her sister’s home. Not divorce. Not call a lawyer. Just separate.

    Wilson reveals his standard TradCon pedestalization of women; in a “he said / she said” case he will Believe The Woman, just as his feminist mistresses have demanded most of his adult life.

    I very much doubt that Wilson will ever write the mirror hypothetical, to a man (elder or not) whose wife is contemptuous, argumentative, contentious, perpetually angry, perpetually disagreeable, using sex as a weapon, etc. in private, but pleasant and agreeable in public, probably even waving her hands in the air during church, etc.

    Because to write such a letter, even hypothetical, Wilson would have to believe a man’s word, and doubt a woman’s tears. He’s just not up to that. It would tear at some of his real belief.

    So his advice is hypocritical, and he is a hypocrite. Like other TradCons of the Boomer generation, he gives responsibility to men but takes all authority away (“I did not do that!” – Wilson) in an attempt to make women haaaaaaapy. Because that’s what it’s all about, eh? Women’s haaaaaapiness.

  179. Thanks Frank…now my dad told me when he was a boy in Poland……you could not even take Communion unless you went to Confession….this was 1940’s Poland……

  180. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    That is the same phrasing, just in a different place. Color me unconvinced. I suppose we should be shouting after most songs too, right?

    Jason,

    I come to church in shorts and flip flops at times. I live in Texas as well, where it is usually hot and I can barely tolerate shoes and socks most of the time. I commune with God all week and I am His house, so coming to a service in “Sunday Best” is just a cultural tradition, not a Biblical requirement.

    BTW, my grandfather was so strongly Polish RCC that he drove about an hour every Sunday to the only RCC church nearby that had the Latin mass (in the downtown area). My grandmother was so committed to him that she continued to do that until she died as well, even though she was a “Lutheran” in here confession. Much stronger dedication there.

  181. BillyS says:

    AR,

    My wife was sad much of the time in church, making them believe the bad things she said about me were worse than what she noted. They never bothered to think that she could be causing her own sadness, it must have been me. She could do almost whatever she wanted and didn’t even have to work a job (other than supposedly taking care of the home, which was a challenge for her). Yet she found it unbearable to have to do anything for her husband, so she broke her vow with cover from women in the church including the pastor’s wife.

  182. My father remembers that too Billy in Poland and the USA…this was northern New York State. Latin Mass. The last Catholic Mass my father ever went to was at his mom’s funeral. He was 15, she died in childbirth back in 1953 with her fifteenth child.

    He, as he told me until I brought him back to Christ was “I turned my back on God, the church and anything to do with church after that……”

    Now my parents were married culturally in the CoE / Episcopal church….but even when my mother rarely rent and dragged me with her…..my father never came.

    I don’t like the “sunday” best attitude, it’s not a fashion show….but I get annoyed with pajama bottoms worn by “cute” teenage girls that say “juicy” on the butt and she has been coming to church she she was an infant. More should be expected.

  183. BillyS says:

    I haven’t seen pjs in church, fortunately, though I do see them in WalMart.

    The church is largely influenced by the culture to some extent, since the people come from it. You can’t eliminate that, but you can stand against it.

  184. Paul says:

    @Jeff : “traditional Catholic doctrine also names her as “Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces” [..] This will probably be formally declared ex cathedra as Catholic dogma some day”

    WIkipedia:
    “It has always been controversial and has never formed part of the dogma of the Church.”
    It will probably never become declared as dogma
    Ratzinger: “the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings. ”

    René Laurentin, theologian specializing in Mariology, said ““There is no mediation or co-redemption except in Christ. He alone is God.”

    And I’ve heard from several loyal RCC members, the moment Mary will be declared Co-redemptrix, they will consider the RCC to be a false church, and leave it.

  185. Paul says:

    @Jeff: “This means that any graces the Almighty dispenses to humankind always pass through the hands of the Blessed Mother. So it is only and exclusively from her hands that anyone receives any graces.”

    I cannot understand people have come up with this stuff. It effectively promotes Mary into goddess status. And makes worship of Mary goddess worship. No wonder Mohammed in his days with limited contacts to Christians in his area was convinced the Trinity consisted of Father, Mother (Mary) and Son

    And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah’?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. [Qur’an 5:116]

  186. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Post 9/11, Fox News did a report on Israelis spying on the U.S.

  187. earl says:

    No wonder Mohammed…

    Nothing like using a false prophet’s rants to make your point.

    How about you read Catholic dogma about Mary and see what it says.

  188. earl says:

    I don’t like using the term ‘praying to’ because it’s really more of asking them to pray for us.

    https://www.aggiecatholicblog.org/2015/11/why-do-catholics-pray-to-saints/

  189. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    That is the same phrasing, just in a different place. Color me unconvinced. I suppose we should be shouting after most songs too, right?

    I never wrote that we should be doing anything. I wrote that you shouldn’t be criticizing another Christian’s worship with zero scriptural basis for your criticism.

  190. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    coming to a service in “Sunday Best” is just a cultural tradition, not a Biblical requirement.

    Sucks having cultural traditions pushed on you as though they were Biblical requirements, don’t it?

  191. BillyS says:

    Not really Oscar. I tend to just ignore things. I haven’t worn a suit in quite a while except for 1 or 2 interviews and I don’t think I had a tie on even then.

    I grew up in life and the faith when many preachers indicated that not wearing a suit to church was not honoring God. I didn’t believe it then and I still don’t know.

  192. seventiesjason says:

    Don’t worry Billy….if anyone else had said what I said,. Oscar would not have said a peep….he has to constantly pick on anything I mention, dare it not match scripture 100%…….and he’s been a Christian longer than any of us…and he served in the miliray so what he says goes.

  193. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    Great. You’ve yet to provide any Biblical basis for your criticism.

  194. Oscar says:

    @ Jason

    I addressed Billy, not you. Not everything is about you. Also, I wrote exactly zero of the statements you attributed to me.

  195. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “I don’t like using the term ‘praying to’ because it’s really more of asking them to pray for us.”

    Sure, and that’s fine. But you might be giving the impression to Protestants on this blog that Catholics may ONLY ask angels/saints to pray for us. And that’s not correct. It’s perfectly kosher to pray directly to an angel or saint and ask him/her for direct favors or graces. Such as when people pray TO St. Jude to help them find a lost item. Or pray TO St. Joseph for his help in selling your house. Or pray TO St. Michael and implore him directly to “cast into Hell Satan, and all the evil spirits who prowl the world seeking the ruin of souls.”

    This is part of the dogma of the “communion of saints”, which is such an ancient belief of the early church that it’s found in the Apostle’s Creed. So anyway, just wanted to make that clear for non-Catholics who may not be familiar with it. I pray directly to angels and saints often, esp. St. Michael the Archangel and St. Philomena. And of course, the Blessed Virgin as well (I have a special devotion to her under the title Our Lady of Good Succes…which is so relevant to our times).

  196. Jeff Strand says:

    Paul,

    I’m not surprised that, as a Prot, you have such a visceral reaction to the proposal that the Mother of God is the “Mediatrix of All Graces”. It really cannot be proven from Scripture alone, after all. However, I can assure you that the RCC defined the Trinity as “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”, making clear the Mother of God is a created being and therefore not divine, a millennium and a half before there ever were any Protestants. Remember, Prots themselves get the doctrine of the Trinity from the RCC.

    However, I WAS surprised to see someone object to labeling the Mother of God as “Co-redemptrix.” Because Prots believe in the Gospels, don’t they? Obviously, she becaome co-redemptrix the moment she gave her “fiat” to the angel Gabriel and said the Magnificant. Without her assent, the Savior would have never been born. So I can’t see how there’s anything controversial at all about merely stating that she is, in fact, our co-redemptrix.

    Wasn’t this the point the Church Fathers were making when they called her the new Eve? That by a woman sin and death come into the world, and by a woman life and light came into the world.

    Anyway, as St. Louis de Montfort said: “Concerning Mary, nothing is sufficient!”

  197. Jeff Strand says:

    Swanny River,

    Are you on crack? Where did I mention Nazis? Are you one of those nutjobs who sees ‘Nazis’ hiding under your bed at night, lol? Dude, get psychiatric help asap!

    I merely stated the facts concerning the “dancing Israelis” on the morning of 9/11. You heavily implied that I was making that up. Well, since you’re apparently too lazy to do a simple Google search, I’ve done it for you. Here’s a summary of the event, from ABC News. (And as I said earlier, I’ve listened to an actual interview with the cop who detained the celebrating Israeli spies)

    I think an apology is in order. If you have any honor or integrity at all, you’d issue one to me.

    https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1

  198. Paul says:

    @Jeff: “This is part of the dogma of the “communion of saints”, which is such an ancient belief of the early church that it’s found in the Apostle’s Creed. ”

    Well, not really. It is the interpretation of what “communion of saints” implies that is questionable.

    If you cannot pray to me when I am alive, how come you can pray to me after I die?

  199. Paul says:

    @earl : “Nothing like using a false prophet’s rants to make your point.”

    Well actually that was NOT my point. But it does show how he understood the Trinity, and it was not HIS idea. If no one ever spoke about praying to Mary, he would not have come up with this.

    “How about you read Catholic dogma”

    I just respond to what Jeff says. If that’s according to RCC dogma, you tell us.

  200. Jeff Strand says:

    Paul: “If you cannot pray to me when I am alive, how come you can pray to me after I die?”

    Maybe, just maybe, because the saints in Heaven, having reached perfection and achieved the Beatific Vision, have abilities we mortals lack?

    Just sayin’.

  201. Jeff Strand says:

    Paul: “I just respond to what Jeff says. If that’s according to RCC dogma, you tell us.”

    Just keep in mind, what I am telling you is authentic RCC doctrine (meaning, pre- Great Apostasy of Vatican II). Don’t even bother asking what FrancisChurch teaches, as it changes every other day…based on what mood the Argentinian Apostate is in.

  202. Dalrock says:

    @Hmm

    Wilson’s original post concerned a man that was difficult to his wife in the home, but presented a different, benign face to the church. There was no evidence that anyone but her saw that he was a cruel, abusive man. If she took recourse to the elders, they could do nothing without a second witness. There was no one lawfully to back her up, or take her side. So he encouraged her to separate herself from him. Move quietly out, into her sister’s home. Not divorce. Not call a lawyer. Just separate.

    In doing this she would of course be enlisting her family in her defense. And it would certainly raise questions in the church about why she did this, which might bring her husband under closer scrutiny. It might even drive him to a chargeable offense. But she is not enlisting women to her side, not dividing the church over the issue, not doing anything chargeable as gossip or slander.

    The controversy is over whether there is Biblical warrant for a Christian woman to separate from such a man (who also claims to be Christian).

    Not at all. The controversy is over Wilson’s astounding twisting of very clear verses in 1 Cor 7. Where the Apostle Paul says “Not I, but the Lord”, Wilson tells us Paul is just giving his own friendly advice. Where Paul urges wives not to separate from their husbands, pointing out that by remaining they might save their husband’s soul, Wilson says Paul is urging wives to leave their husbands in order to save their souls. See my original post, as well as the post from Bnonn that Wilson responded to.

    I think you are reading this all backwards. You are assuming Wilson set out to explain how to handle a hard case, but simply mangled it beyond all comprehension. Twice. This is theoretically possible. It could be that Wilson is just really, really bad at explaining Scripture. If so, he needs to immediately find a new line of work. But I don’t think Wilson is incompetent. I think he set out to teach that all wives can separate from their husbands whenever they feel is right and church elders need to leave them alone. From there, he crafted both a tangled backstory and a wacky interpretation of Scripture to achieve this goal. But the backstory was always only a distraction, a magician’s misdirection. He wants us tangled up in the backstory he spun so we don’t notice how putrid his interpretation of 1 Cor 7 is. Note that a few hours after I wrote my post criticizing his interpretation of 1 Cor 7, Wilson added a postscript:

    Postscript: In this fictional scenario, the elder board of the church this woman is leaving is complicit in the sin of the husband. When the Westminster Confession says that the church can be part of the remedy in prevent marriages from blowing up, I should add that I support a godly and judicious use of elder authority in such cases.

    Why did he do this? It doesn’t address the problem at all. We could assume that this is Wilson just being really bad at his chosen profession. That is possible. But my hypothesis makes more sense. Wilson desperately wanted to change the subject back to the backstory. Note that his postscript doesn’t help anything. He already explained why such a wife should be allowed to leave without being “hassled”. Wilson told us that Scripture commanded it. If he believed that, why now tune the backstory to explain why she should be allowed to leave? Moreover, his sudden change of the backstory makes much of his post absurd. Remember the bit about her not wanting her elders to take disciplinary action against her husband, because without the requisite witnesses it would be unjust?

  203. earl says:

    If no one ever spoke about praying to Mary, he would not have come up with this.

    He came up with the wrong conclusion then…much like many Protestants do.

  204. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    Moreover, his sudden change of the backstory makes much of his post absurd. Remember the bit about her not wanting her elders to take disciplinary action against her husband, because without the requisite witnesses it would be unjust?

    Tagging along on this just to reiterate my primary point: Wilson is willing to accept the hypothetical wife’s word unconditionally. He’s obeying the 2nd and 3rd stage feminist command to Always Believe A Woman. There is no chance of him writing the reverse image of this hypothetical, because it would require him to look at a crying woman with a skeptical eye. This is a form of pedestalization, it is essentially saying that women do not lie about such things. If lying by a woman was sinful in the Bible sense, there might be a problem here…

    Ironically, Wilson is thus agreeing with New Age guru/writer David Deida. There is an entire chapter claiming that “women do not lie” in his book “The Way of the Superior Man”, published in 1997. It does not even pass the laugh test.

  205. Pingback: Don’t chase the misdirection. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.