Husband's leadership when he has "minority" theological views

Status
Not open for further replies.

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Holidays, headcoverings and EP are issues that are minor, but as has been said, they are a matter of practice, but they do affect who a husband and wife live and raise children together. If these issues are that important to you, then I would not get involved with a woman who does not agree with you already, and I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to persuade her to think like you do.

Getting someone to change their beliefs for your sake is a recipe for disaster. I'd look for someone who already agrees with you.
If these are all minor issues then any Godly woman who knows the clear important teaching of a wife being submissive to the husbands headship would have no problem submitting to them.
Read the clarification in my last post. They are minor in the sense that they do not affect our salvation, but to those who practice headcoverings, EP and do not celebrate holidays, they are a huge issue, because they change how you live out your life from day to day.

I would have a difficult time submitting to a man who did not allow me the grace to make a decision about these issues before the Lord on my own and insisted that I submit. I believe these issues are a matter of conscience and Christian liberty. While neither my husband nor I hold to these views, I personally am thankful that my husband was not insistent one way or the other while I was working through them (and other similar issues). He gave me the freedom to work them out before the Lord.
 

Tim

Puritan Board Graduate
I would have a difficult time submitting to a man who did not allow me the grace to make a decision about these issues before the Lord on my own and insisted that I submit.
You make a good point and I thank you for it. Did you make a decision before or after you were married? Hope you don't mind me asking, but what if you came to disagreement after you were married, rather than before? What then?
 
Last edited:

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
I do not think agreement on these is necessary. It is ideal but not necessary if one will submit to the other.

For example though the husband think her hair should be covered he could let her not cover until she is convinced. If he is in a church of mostly covered women it would not take long most likely till she change.
If he is in a church of uncovered women she may never change due to peer pressure or just not wanting it to be an issue of controversy or to divide.

Same with the other issues.

So no the women does not need to change her belief to accommodate the husband. Nor must she be the one to give in on practice.

How holidays are celebrated depend on extended family as well. Some way wish to blow off the rest of the family regardless, while others may allow visits to the extended family during holidays though they do not practice them at hone.
OR can the parents visit your treeless home in Dec and bring gifts for the kids?

I think this is challenging for kids. But again it depends on the society you are in.

As I was counseled and I always counsel, spend time with the in-laws because you are usually marrying them too, in a sense.
 

he beholds

Puritan Board Doctor
I think if there are important things, like friendship, attraction, and compatibility, that are already established, you and your future-wife would both desire to work hard to make your relationship work. My husband was Reformed and I wasn't. He went to Sunday school and I barely made it to church--but I quickly started going to both, as well, so as to please him (not that he told me to). Mine is a different example, but I think a woman who wanted to love you would want to agree with you and do those things.
Maybe she is un-informed about head-coverings, EP, and religious holidays being from the Devil. I agree with others that you should explain these things to her, but not like: "No wife of mine would ever have her hair down or give me a present on Dec. 25th!" *Stamps foot*

I think you would just explain what reality is for you, like, "So, I just wanted you to know that I don't believe in celebrating holidays because I don't think they..." And, "In my church, we only sing Psalms because they are the inspired song book."
And, "I think women should cover their heads in worship--don't you?" If she says no you can elaborate and keep an open discussion. I would have said "I have no idea what you are talking about," if my husband had asked me that. But I would have studied it for sure.
 

Kevin

Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks for that Jessi. You have a great spirit. I pray that my daughters will grow to become "mothers in Israel" with the same humble spirit as you showed here.

(BY the way, my own dear Jessi(ca) has the same spirit!)
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
I think a woman who wanted to love you would want to agree with you and do those things.

:agree:

"No wife of mine would ever have her hair down or give me a present on Dec. 25th!" *Stamps foot*
That's what I did to mine .
:rofl:

Seriously, good words Jessi
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I would have a difficult time submitting to a man who did not allow me the grace to make a decision about these issues before the Lord on my own and insisted that I submit.
You make a good point and I thank you for it. Did you make a decision before or after you were married? Hope you don't mind me asking, but what if you came to disagreement after you were married, rather than before? What then?
I made up my mind about headcoverings before I was married, but I struggled back and forth with the EP issue, holidays and Saturday sabbath vs. Sunday worship after we were married. For awhile, I refused to do any work on Saturday (though we continued to worship on Sundays), because I was afraid I was disobeying God by working on Saturdays. We went to church on Sundays, and I worked all Sunday afternoons. As long as the weekend work got done, my husband was patient with me.

For a year, my husband agreed to let me celebrate the OT feast days as the Messianic Jews do, and he went along with it. I followed him around on Christmas and Easter doing the family thing.

A lot of good came out of those struggles. For one thing, I know now how I believe, and I was able to discuss it freely with my husband without fear that he was going to jump all over me. Finally, during the time we went through the Jewish holidays, I was able to teach my children a lot about the OT, and we developed some lovely family traditions that we still enjoy that teach about Christ.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
I would not marry someone who was offering spurious fire, esp celebrating the PAssover or day of atonement, which is to say Christ has not come.

But anyone I knew doing it I would strongly urge them not to and if I could stop them or if my wife wanted to I would protect her and stop her from the sacrilege and sinning against Christ so because of my love for God and her.

I think it is extremely loving to stop someone from sinning.

I think it is most unloving to leave them in known sin.

And for sure if I knew better I would not let her cause me to be in sin and watch her go on in it. This is what Eve did to Adam. She sinned and then offered him to.
Adam's sin was going along with his wife and not saying no to her and obeying God.

This is why the woman is told to submit because God's normal order is to work through the man to protect the woman from her emotional weakness in these areas.

Her emotions are a strength in some areas.

But if a woman does not understand how God made her and does not have the submissive desire Jessi stated above I would encourage the man to find another or wait for her to change.
1 Tim 2:9-15
9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. NKJV

1 Cor 11:7-10
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. NKJV

Though a man would be wise to recognize the strengths and gifts in his wife and seek her counsel and decide to go with her opinions where she is more effective than he is, the order is still set by God and the man is held responsible for the woman. We fell not because of Eve but because Adam took her advice over God's and did not protect her from making the bad decision in the 1st place.

But a woman who is not prepared to submit to an imperfect man, is not ready to trust his decisions spiritually and accept him as her new spiritual leader should remain single. She is not ready for marriage or he is not the man she will trust God to work through for her best and obey.

1 Peter 3:5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. NKJV
Perhaps you may think this is another part of scripture that has no application today either.

2 Tim 3:16-17
6 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, NKJV

Ezek 33:8
and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.
NKJV
 

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
Jessi I hope I grow to be more like you, too -- sincerely.

I disagree that a man has to marry a woman within his own minority group: if one truly believes the areas are (relatively) 'minor' I see no reason why one would not be willing to submit to good man even in disagreement -- a good man is not a 'minor' thing; a good man you have come to love is even less so; and submission in a woman is more important in God's sight than many minors.

It seems evident from even the mix of people on the board that there are considerate and reasonable people on both sides of all these issues. A woman may prefer to submit to a reasonable and considerate man with whom she disagrees, than to marry a man she merely entirely agrees with. But that kind of trust takes knowledge of an individual, not just his positions: probably nobody is going to give up their own understanding of these things in the abstract, or marry a statement of faith.

I wondered reading through, if the thread has been geared towards giving advice about relationships that function with one sort of dynamic: for instance, most women who read/post on reformed message boards are more likely to feel strongly about the importance of their convictions on minor matters (however 'minor' the matters are openly acknowledged to be) than many who don't read/post etc. Obviously the ladies here are beautiful and exemplary Christians, submissive wives, good mothers: but there are different personalities and so the submission dynamic is working differently in different relationships -- so while some things said here are good for one kind of relationship, they might not be able to be turned into blanket statements?

I would also tentatively disagree that there is no room in these areas for a woman to come along. For instance, a girl who considers minor convictions to be less important than submission to her husband might be more distressed to give what she perceives as unnecessary offence in other relationships; and the kind of man she trusts will take that into consideration -- patience and kindness to her will be more important to him than his own preferences, and he will be willing to examine how far he can accommodate her in conscience. So one might wind up eating the big holiday dinner with family as a societal and not a religious thing. (Though obviously patience and accommodation can take different forms: my example may be blundering). If you would rather not be involved in any form of accommodation or patience with a woman who did not grow up with your convictions, it does seem to be maybe wiser to seek a wife who is convicted in agreement to begin with? But I suspect this too is something that 'gives' in a relationship not in the abstract -- when someone trusts to that degree, a trustworthy man naturally does all he can in conscience to be kind.

I think no matter what the dynamic, we all learn to submit more throughout a marriage, and we are all sinners so patience is needed. I have changed my opinions on a few things to agree with Ruben's, and on a few things to disagree; and in all things I learn that I'm at least as likely (likelier) to be the one whose reasoning is faulty; and that God leads me through, not around or disregarding of, him. I have learned to value his judgment and care of me even more than I did when we were married; and I know that it's more important for him as my head to get these things right. Perhaps even if my disagreeing positions do turn out to be right, it will have been more significant for me to learn other things -- my rightness or wrongness about EP/non EP/Credo/Paedo etc might not be the ultimate end God has in view. It has been Ruben's goodness and wisdom that has helped me to learn these things. If he changed his mind about all the minors I think it would be my duty to follow him regardless of my convictions (and I'm speaking of my own conscience), but he makes my duty a joy because he is so kind and rational.

Re: agreeing to go to a third party in cases of disagreement: this idea is an odd one to me. I think it must though still be the husband's humility and reasonableness in the disagreement that one trusts? (I think if I had felt the need of an arbiter where Ruben and I disagree I wouldn't have married him: I would have been more attracted to the arbiter! :)
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
Knowing the "type" of man who would have these views... and the ethos that typically surrounds such a fellow... I find it hard to believe that such a man would serious consider marrying a woman who didn't hold to those views. Unless, of course, he was just desperate.

Let me add that when I speak of the "ethos" that often accompanies adherance to at least the first two items on this list - particularly when these things are held at the same time - I mean that negatively.

I would strongly discourage my daughter from getting involved with such a man... or my sons from being with such a woman.
In light of all the discussion that has transpired since I posted this, let me clarify some things.

1. I was serious when I said that I've found the "ethos" -the attitude, way of thinking, personality, etc. - surrounding adherents to these positions to be such that I'd rather my kids - nor my grandkids or even my wife and me as inlaws! - not have to endure such a person. However... should my child marry such a person (against my counsel) then I would love and accept that person as my son/daughter.

2. If my daughter marries such a man - or if any woman marries a man with these views - she must submit. Period. I don't care what she personally thinks about the issues. She is called to submit to her husband and he is not calling her to sin against the express Word of God so she has no valid excuse (in my opinion) for rebellion against her husband and/or giving him grief.

3. That said, I want to restate and reemphasize that in matters such as these, I think an adherant to these positions would most likely be happier if he/she finds someone of likemind. Trust me, life itself will bring forth issues for you two to argue and fight. Don't add issues. And things like holidays - where the entire cultural background for most Americans says to celebrate them - to be told NOT to celebrate these holidays is a big thing culturally. And EP or headcoverings... these really are big things in practice. While it is true that often times a woman will "come along" and ultimately accept her husband's views, that isn't always the case. And matters of faith are so fundamental and basic that if you have contention there, it will surely add difficulties in other areas. So marry someone who agrees with you. And if you can't find someone? Then perhaps you've been called to celibacy.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
I think there is a lot of wisdom in Heidi's post

And both in a marriage need to be willing to change, to flex and bend, and compromise, but not compromise clear scripture. For example, celebrating birthdays with the kids and family would be one a person should be quite willing to give in on if more conflict is created. It is not specifically cited in scripture or as a real strong principle that I can deduce. It is an area of conscience to me and so I would be willing to yield on it for a matter of greater importance, peace with my wife.
These are helpful verses for me in living with my wife. We should seek to be of one mind, and willing to submit to each other both ways.

Eph 5:21 submitting to one another in the fear of God. NKJV

1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
8 Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; 9 not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. NKJV

The hard one for me to learn was when to trust my wife that she had the best idea and that God was working through her to guide me where she was smarter than me.

When you think you are smarter than the other because you can balance a checkbook better, it takes time to see how smart they are.
But God will allow you to make mistakes where they have warned you and you soon begin they are not there to help you live as you want, but they are there to help you cuz you have stupid parts too.

Amen Praise God for the glory of a help mate, and God forgive me for not learning this enough and sooner.
She is much smarter now than when I married her just like my parents have gotten smarter as I aged, wonder how that happens??

PS I have learned my wife learns more from my praying to God for her to get it than me trying to convince her. She is a tough woman. Praise God, because she stuck by me through my ignorance, sin and learning.

To me there is no greater thing on earth than a submissive woman who prays in faith for her husband
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
I would be somewhat concerned about a young man with too many extreme positions. Not that I would put my foot down, but I would watch him to check for other tendencies.

I'm writing as an agreement to what I see Ben is saying. Putting another slant on it, I would wonder about why he thought he was so much wiser than everyone else around him, being a young and therefore very ignorant man.

If for instance he just couldn't understand why everyone else around him wasn't enlightened like he was, if he assumed that everyone else around him didn't know how to worship God properly because they didn't sit for a moment in silence and prayer by themselves before church started in addition to the other things, then my concern would be things like arrogance for one, and for another the breadth of his vision. In other words assuming that your world view is some sort of template that others automatically need to follow, otherwise they haven't got "the truth".

But if the young man was from a denomination where the majority or substantial minority practices these things, that would be different.

But even in that case, I'd want to be either sure that he was going to settle next to one of those churches, or I'd like to see him come to my church and see how much Christian liberty he's willing to extend to those of us who have thought about these issues and rejected them as requirements for pleasing the Lord.
 

Kevin

Puritan Board Doctor
Ben & Tim make good points.

I also would worry about a guy that "by the grace of God & a DSL connection" has learned that no church in the tri-state area is pure enough for him.
 
Last edited:

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
I agree with TimV and appreciate Ben's points -- it's just that guys who don't have 'minority views' can also fall into arrogance, and have a sort of 'we are the people' attitude (at least in my experience!)? This might not show up so clearly in their case, in a setting where they agree with all the practices, but one would want to watch for that in any case?

[I have to edit to clarify regarding the 'ethos' that I believe it is possible to hold these things humbly and with charity, without accusations of rebellion, idolatry etc., as I have witnessed it on the board.]
 
Last edited:

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
Let me add that when I speak of the "ethos" that often accompanies adherance to at least the first two items on this list - particularly when these things are held at the same time - I mean that negatively.
What exactly do you judge to be the attitude of people who hold these views?

Are they judgmental or ...?

Would you say that these same attitudes often be attributable to the church fathers who wrote against these things too?
 

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
Just wanted to add thinking further about this that -- though it's clear neither Ben or Tim are susceptible to this criticism (in that they are willing to accept, love, and advise their children to submit to spouses who hold different views if it comes to that!) -- there is a danger for dads to not want their little girls to marry and submit to anybody who disagrees with *them*. In that case perhaps it's the dad's arrogance that might make relations difficult and someone with minority views might want to consider that as a factor in marrying a girl who was not raised with his convictions.

(Fortunately we have Marrow Man, Prufrock, etc to show us up should we ever be tempted to think it isn't possible to hold a minority position with charity, affability, and grace. I'm sure Scottish Lass doesn't feel she's been subjected to any more oppressive aura than the powder coming off of her husband's wigs!)
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
And I'll add that I'm speaking personally, and from the experience of a failed marriage, and if I could do it over again I'd listen to her views more. At the end of the day the way God made women is that especially a Christian women is going to come around to most of her husband's convictions anyway, so why not make her happy by giving her the time and respect to follow the lead rather than exercise power that you do have (but just because you have doesn't mean you should always use).

And again, realize that by being young you're by definition inexperienced and not anywhere near as wise and holy as you think. Not by a long shot. Look to the older men in your church who have good marriages and assume they know more than do. Because they do. Lots more.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
rather than exercise power that you do have (but just because you have doesn't mean you should always use).
I will seek to tread carefully and considerately here as we may disagree and that is fine.

but I am not sure a man has power over his wife. He cannot make her do anything. He can't even make her submit. She can rebel and then what can you do? Just pray.

So I hope one would not think he can power or control his wife and make her think or do anything.
This would not be the way God would have us instruct our wives, or exercise headship in the relationship.
 

Tim

Puritan Board Graduate
You know, I have to say that I am a bit troubled by how this thread has gone. I do have some views that are in the minority today, but were the majority view, historically speaking. But some of you have labeled these positions extreme and made sweeping statements that people like me are arrogant and uncharitable.

This only confirms the importance of my thread, in that it shows that there is great need for me to tread carefully if/when I have the opportunity to explain my views to a prospective mate. I am disappointed that on a website called the Puritan Board, many are so quick to paint people like me with a brush of arrogance.

I wonder if some of you can't see past the fact that you disagree with some of these things, which are just being used as a point of discussion. Admittedly, these issues always rate highly in the vigorous debate they attract on the PB. But to label these views as extreme does not help and only furthers any unfair stereotypes that may exist about the kind of husband that would "make" his wife wear a headcovering, for example. It is not at all fair.

If someone is to be labeled arrogant, then may it be demonstrated by what he has said, written, or done; not by assuming this from doctrinal beliefs. I had hoped that by my creation of this thread, it would indicate my recognition of the need for sensitivity in discussing these matters.

I could state that people who disagree with me haven't done enough study and don't really care about following the Bible. But I WILL NOT because it is NOT true. In the same way, I ask folks not to claim that those with minority views "think themselves wiser than everyone else". I know that the people here are honest and sincere in holding their views and are only acting in accordance with what they believe to be the truth, as far as they are able.

All of us are accountable to the Lord and to our consciences and must honor Him to the best of our ability. The comments that have encouraged care and sensitivity and communication between spouses have been helpful. But statements that people with these kinds of views are bad news and should be "kept away from my daughters" because of the accompanying "ethos" are, frankly, borderline offensive and definitely uncharitable. There are better ways of contributing to the discussion than giving a warning about people who hold such beliefs. There are many such people on the Puritan Board who daily find themselves in the minority, even within their own churches. It is unfair to alienate them just because they come to a different conclusion than you on what the Bible teaches. All of us, as 21st century Calvinists, know how hard it is to go against popular opinion. In this, we are together, not apart.

Be charitable, people, I beg you. Please.
 
Last edited:

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
You know, I have to say that I am a bit troubled by how this thread has gone. I do have some views that are in the minority today, but were the majority view, historically speaking. But some of you have labeled these positions extreme and made sweeping statements that people like me are arrogant and uncharitable.
You asked for opinions, and got them, including from people with both tons more experience and knowledge than you and from people who are busy but still care enough about you to share their hard won experience, so don't whine too much. By all means ignore the advice that you don't like.

As far as the repeated pointing to the church fathers by Don, how many of them even had wives? How many thought romantic involvement with a woman was not optimum, or even bad? I think it too ironic that they'd be constantly referred to on a thread like this.

I'm out.
 

Kevin

Puritan Board Doctor
Tim, The thread title was asking about "minority" views. Those of us that do not hold these views do not reject them because we know in our hearts that they are correct, but we just can't stand the heat. We reject them because we do not believe that they are taught by the scripture.

As a father, I am concerned about a person that comes to a view that 90+% of those that share his presupositions do not find. The fact that at some period of history a larger percentage of christians self-conscously held to these views (a doubtful assertion) does not change the reality, that only a very few believers are able to find these views in scripture or can deduce them by good & necessary consequence.

I cannot speak for others, but for me a young man that holds to views NOT taught by his church or denomination AND believes these views are central to his identity as a christian is a troubling prospective mate for my daughter.

It raises all sorts of red flags about his submission to his own head within the church.:2cents:
 

CharlieJ

Puritan Board Junior
Tim (as in the one who started the thread), I met my wife while in a place where my views were minority. I was a Calvinist and a head-covering proponent at Bob Jones University. I was working as a pastoral assistant in a non-Calvinist church (odd, I know) and involved in ministry out there. I had a great group of friends with whom Bible talk was common. They all knew my positions. I believe they respected me b/c I could hang if they wanted to debate, but I purposely chose to be broader than my "minority" opinions. We could talk about anything in Scripture, not just Calvinism or covenant theology or whatever. Since I was leading the evangelism class at that church, the big stereotype of "Calvinists don't witness" was inapplicable to me. It made people willing to listen.

So, my future wife was one of these friends. She had never really heard of Calvinism, but was aware that it was supposed to be bad, or something. After I explained it to her, she was fairly receptive, though limited atonement would take awhile. Eventually, she came to embrace it. When we started dating, I talked about the headcovering thing. After a while, she said she didn't agree, but would be willing to do it. (Girls from BJU are generally used to doing things they don't necessarily agree with.) That was good enough for me.

So, to sum this up. When people know your heart and general love for God, they are more willing to accept or listen to your "minority" views. During the normal course of our friendship, these issues came up and she moved considerably toward my views. As we got closer, more issues came up and were satisfactorily resolved. I would not have married her if she were not at least willing to wear the headcovering. I also would not have married her if she herself were not a convinced Calvinist. So, Tim, if you find a good woman who doesn't at the outset agree on all your "minority" stuff, I wouldn't walk away too soon. You never know how someone's mind might change once they're exposed to an idea.
 

Ex Nihilo

Puritan Board Senior
I cannot speak for others, but for me a young man that holds to views NOT taught by his church or denomination AND believes these views are central to his identity as a christian is a troubling prospective mate for my daughter.

It raises all sorts of red flags about his submission to his own head within the church.:2cents:
Your concern about lack of submission to church authority makes a lot of sense, but certainly that isn't inherent to holding minority views? Surely the situation is different if the man is part of a denomination that holds those views, or (the more difficult scenario) would be if he could.
 

smhbbag

Puritan Board Senior
I cannot speak for others, but for me a young man that holds to views NOT taught by his church or denomination AND believes these views are central to his identity as a christian is a troubling prospective mate for my daughter.
I think this second aspect is where most of these guys get in trouble...majoring in the minors so to speak.

Like many others here, I hold to views that are in the extreme minority in my community. On most of them, very few if any fellow church members are aware of it, and the same goes for my parents and in-laws.

On the issues raised in this thread (EP, theonomy, headcovering, etc), anyone who holds to them ought to be very comfortable participating in any solid, confessional church without being divisive. I do not hold to all of these, but my minority views are things I am very seriously convicted about and are extremely important to me. In that sense, they almost feel "central" to my identity as I love the doctrines dearly for how God is magnified in them.

Yet, objectively, in my actions, I would have to say they are not central to my identity in that I would not even dare consider breaking fellowship or relationships with Reformed brothers over them. Many times, that means being silent when I want to speak. And when I am appalled by something and want to use strong language, it makes me temper it, especially as one not in authority.

Similar to CharlieJ - my relationship with my wife began through theological discussion, and I laid all my 'unsightly' cards on the table to her in a humble manner when I asked to pursue her toward marriage. Our first 6 months of courtship were probably too heavily focused on discussing these things, but it let us begin to know one another spiritually very well.

I did not, and still have not, revealed many of my/our convictions to her (or my) family. Some may call that deceitful, and I sometimes still doubt myself over that decision, and I'm open to rebuke on it. In the end, I kept these things to myself because her father's concerns were adequately addressed - I am committed to the glory of God, membership and activity in a Reformed congregation, and leadership in the home. If her father ever directly asked my opinion on these minority issues, I would have been very direct and honest....but I just don't see a need to poke at it.
 

Kevin

Puritan Board Doctor
Evie, yes IF the church or denomination held to the views then they would not be minority, n'est pas?
 

Tim

Puritan Board Graduate
I cannot speak for others, but for me a young man that holds to views NOT taught by his church or denomination AND believes these views are central to his identity as a christian is a troubling prospective mate for my daughter.
For the record, the church at which I am a member (see my signature) does practice EP and does not follow a church calendar (headcovering is not taught, but let's ignore that for now). So, I am submitting to the teaching of my church. You know the practice of my church in Halifax, don't you Kevin? You are only 3 hours away!

But, my situation is that I am "stuck" in Africa with no congregations that I agree with on the issues originally mentioned (and more...). Does that make me any "worse" simply because I happen to live in a part of the world where I am more of a minority. If I lived in Scotland or Northern Ireland or Greenville or Pittsburgh, would it then be okay, because there was a church to join with whom I agreed?

It doesn't make any sense to argue this way.
 
Last edited:

Kevin

Puritan Board Doctor
Of course I know your home church, Tim. And a large number of the members.

My point was not in reference to any congregation, or pastor. Although now that you bring it up it is the only EP congregation in the presbytry... I guess you might consider that a minority?

(For the record John is not "odd" in the ordinary sense of the word;))
 

Tim

Puritan Board Graduate
...I'm writing as an agreement to what I see Ben is saying. Putting another slant on it, I would wonder about why he thought he was so much wiser than everyone else around him, being a young and therefore very ignorant man.
Let us also dispense with such comments. It is important for the young men to learn from the older men, yes. But it doesn't necessarily follow that if you are young, you are ignorant.
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I did not, and still have not, revealed many of my/our convictions to her (or my) family. Some may call that deceitful, and I sometimes still doubt myself over that decision, and I'm open to rebuke on it. In the end, I kept these things to myself because her father's concerns were adequately addressed - I am committed to the glory of God, membership and activity in a Reformed congregation, and leadership in the home. If her father ever directly asked my opinion on these minority issues, I would have been very direct and honest....but I just don't see a need to poke at it.
While reading through this thread, I can't help but think of I Jonn 3:20,21 "For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God."

Whatever position we hold on these issues, they are matters of our heart before God, and they are matters of interpretaion. I know after having walked with the Lord for a very long time, that we go through periods of doubting and questioning and learning what the Scriptures teach. Our backgrounds are different, our consciences have been trained differently and the order in which God helps us retrain our consciences is different based on who we are and what we need.

That is what is so wonderful about our God. He knows us so well that He knows what we can handle at what time. Since that is true, honesty, patience, understanding and love are key in our relationships. Some embrace ideas quickly, others struggle through them. God is certainly patient with us on these issues. Ought not we to be the same with our brothers and sisters in the Lord, especially our spouses and children?

While a wife who is a mature believer would easily submit to covering her head at her husband's request, a younger believer might not be able to handle it, and it might cause her to stumble. A husband has to be sensitive to this. It was why I said earlier in the thread that if an issue like this is really important to a man, he should seriously consider making sure he and his wife-to-be agree on it before entering into a marriage or determine if the woman feels she can submit to it willingly without violating her conscience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top