Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from March, 2010

More Conversation with a Friend

John: Trev if it truly is this way and my wife wants to agree I think you might have won me over.Trev:Rachel may be perfectly comfortable with you taking responsibility John. Her own Christian background may include that expectation, ie. that you should lovingly lead her and take a "headship" responsibility within the home. That's why I don't want to rock your boat too much if that's the way things are expected to be done and you are both happy with that. All that I'm pointing out is that is not the only way that things can or should be done in running the home. I'm suggesting that there is a more inclusive way but some women may feel insecure in that in the same way that you feel that your manhood is threatened if that were taken away from you. Other women feel totally demeaned by the thought that when they were courting their mental competence was acknowledged and celebrated but now that they are married she is expected to become a "kept" woma…

Ongoing conversation

John:If after a lot of disagreement and putting it before God etc. etc. a decision cannot be made but one must be or the consequences, let say it is financial, who should make it? Lets say the guy says, "Hey I am easy, you make it." Then let’s say it is a wrong decision. Who takes responsibility for the wrong decision. Let’s say the woman. What then?Trevor: All that I'm suggesting here John is that both marriage partners discuss and pray about the issues before God and both come to consensus about what is the right path and both take responsibility (and blame) if it turns out to have been an unwise decision. Where an issue arises that affects one marriage partner more than the other, the one who is most affected should have the larger portion of input. If there appears to be a stalemate the couple continue to wait on God until they can agree about a direction to take. In Liz and my case we don't consider buying anything or spending any money on ourselves without cons…
There has now been some ongoing conversation on this topic. I will post excerpts of it here in stages as my reply got a bit long for one post.Trevor: Thanks for keeping on coming back on this one. I know that it's very difficult for you to take on board the way of looking at things that I'm suggesting and in some respects I'm reluctant to continue rocking your boat, knowing that you are doing good in your marriage with what you have learned about how marriage should work with the whole headship thing. I'll answer what you've written, in a different colour, between the lines of your own comments.John:There is something that my soul as a man is finding the approach you are suggesting really robbing me of my man hood. I am continuing to hold it up to the Lord.Trevor: John you are not the first man to have felt or said that in respect to what I am proposing. Many men have expressed that to go this way seems to rob them of their significance. For me personally it's …

Paul Washer Sermon

Managed to track down a 'U tube' audio of the "What it takes to be a man" message. Pleased to hear that it had such an impact for you personally John. The message was in 6x10 minute segments and took a bit of getting through but I got the gist of it. While I can appreciate the guy's sincerity, passion and belief that this is what the Bible teaches I did find it very American, with constant references to manliness and his love for hunting etc. He is right on the money about the Western mindset of dating and of how unbiblical and harmful it can be in the development of responsible relationships. Where I strongly disagree with him though is on the issue of men being designed to lead women, to be the sole provider and protector. His premise that until a man is willing to lead and provide for a woman he should not be considering dating a women leaves men with the notion that they are destined to lead and women are simply to follow their lead.Granted, for some men, pos…

Without Blemish

The Pastor of the Church that Liz and I attend thought to tackle the book of Leviticus for his next ministry series and encouraged the congregation to read it along with him. It was an offer that I was very happy to take up. While reading in chapter 21 of the holiness required of the priests I was struck by the words, (verse 16, GNB) The Lord commanded Moses to say to Aaron, "None of your descendants who has any physical defect may present the food offering to me. This applies for all time to come." The verses that follow spell out the extent of the physical defects that apply.
So often I was reminded, when in ministry myself, of the need for the Lord's servants to be pure. Usually it was related to marital purity and fidelity, particularly in respect to divorce and remarriage. My ministry colleagues were very committed to the notion that divorce, for any reason, automatically disqualified one from ministry. It's interesting to note that it was citing passages like th…