Loving and Serving Both Wife and Family

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

I’m terrible with books. I pick one up and put one down. I start one, two, three and take forever to finish them. I haven’t finished the books showcased  on my sidebar yet, and already have begun others. That is the way I am, and I am trying to get better.

Anyway, I recently picked up the book Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God: What Every Christian Husband Needs to Know by C.J. Mahaney. I was planning on giving it to someone for a wedding gift, and then I started reading it for myself. It is very quick reading and I’m already almost half way done. Since posts around here have been too rare lately, I thought I could post some thoughts about what I’ve been thinking as I have started this book.

About the Book.

Yes, as the title indicates, the book is about sex. And it focuses on Song of Solomon. But I have read 50 pages and still have not come to the sex part. While I would not say sex is not important and good, I was not looking for a sex manual or anything. And this book is certainly not that. It really only contains 2 chapters which deal with that subject. No, this book is more of a theology of marriage which provides just the right backdrop for a look at how Solomon deals with sex.

I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but it looks like one of the best books I have read on the topic. It sets sex in the proper and Biblical context in which God intended it to be so great. And it calls men—Christian men—to love and romance their wife. It calls us to lead in deepening our marriages and strengthening the love we share with our wives.

The Purpose of Marriage.

Mahaney reminded me afresh of the true purpose of marriage. Ephesians 5:31-32 says, “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” So marriage then is intended to be a picture of how Christ relates to his Church. Let me quote Mahaney at this point, since his words are much more adequate than mine:

Please don’t think of this as merely a helpful illustration or an interesting perspective. It’s much more than that. This is the essence of marriage. This is the divine purpose for your marriage….

So we see that there is a purpose in marriage that goes beyond personal fulfillment. Something of the selfless love, care, and sacrifice that Jesus shows toward the Church is supposed to be evident in you as you relate to your wife. Something of the respect, submission, and devotion that the Church shows toward Jesus is supposed to be evident in your wife as she relates to you. That’s the purpose for your marriage. That is why God has given her to you, and you to her. [pp. 23-25; underlined emphasis was italic in original]

Romancing Your Wife.

The part of the book which has been most helpful and most challenging so far has been its call for men to romance their wives. Mahaney encourages us to plan and work at delighting our wife in any number of small yet meaningful ways. He provides practical pointers and suggestions and strongly encourages a weekly date of some kind.

The truth he wants us to remember, if nothing else from this book is this: “In order for romance to deepen, you must touch the heart and mind of your wife before you touch her body.” [emphasis his, page 28]

In this section he provides a must-ask question: “Do you feel more like a mother or a wife?” [pg. 29]

Concerning this point he continues:

There can be a selfish, sinful tendency among husbands to view their wives as a goal that, once achieved, is then taken for granted. That is how a wife with children comes to feel primarily like a mother. And that is why the very idea of asking a question like this can cause many husbands to swallow hard and consider going off to watch a little TV. But please don’t—I want this to be an encouragement to you.

…A variety of legitimate activities may consume huge quantities of your wife’s time….But whatever your situation, if you make it a priority to love and care for your wife as Christ does the Church…God will touch her heart so that, even when surrounded by diapers, dishes, and diseases, she can answer that question with joy: “I feel more like a wife.”

…Motherhood is exceptionally important. It calls for immense sacrifices and deserves great honor. But I can say with full conviction that according to Scripture, motherhood is never to be a wife’s primary role. In fact, I think the most effective mothers are wives who are being continually, biblically romanced by their husbands. [pg. 30]

Loving and Serving Your Family.

Finally, I wanted to quote just a brief story Mahaney shares which was a challenge and encouragement for me to remember that I am to love and serve my wife and family as Christ serves and loves the Church.

When our first two children were still quite young, I realized that my commute home in the evening was functioning as little more than a review of my day. As far as I was concerned, by the time I got in that car, my responsibilities were pretty much over until the next morning. I saw my home as a refuge, a place where the emphasis, for me, was on being served rather than on leading and serving with Christlike love.

In God’s mercy, he showed me the selfish motivation I was bringing home each evening. I saw that my commute could be best utilized as a time of transition, so that I might be prepared to finish the day by loving and serving my family well.

So I made a practice of pulling the car over a few blocks from my home so I could take a couple of minutes to make an effective transition in my soul. There on the side of the road, I meditated on Ephesians 5 as well as on some other passages. I confessed to God my sinful tendency to be selfish and sought to prepare my heart to serve my wife and children when I arrived home. In this way I learned to see my home as the context where I have my greatest privilege and opportunity to serve…. [pp. 50-51]

Read part 2 ofthis review.

Hyper Fundamentalism and the Family

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

A few weeks ago I received the following comment on my blog:

I am not sure what your blog was talking about, but I gather that you understand about the strictness of fundamental Baptist churches.
My son is in one, and I am gathering information about this church. It is independent and the pastor controls everything the members do. I only see my son Thanksgiving and Christmas. Probably not at all now, since I will not attend his church. I was saved in that church and immediately left soon after, when I realized what it was about. I am attending another church. If you can help me, I would appreciate it. —A Reader

I wish the predicament that this dear lady finds herself in were uncommon. But, sadly, this is all too common in hyper fundamentalism. I have encountered several examples to a greater or lesser degree myself, personally. And I am sure my readers have their own sad stories to add here.

Long before I ever made a break from fundamentalism, I felt this was wrong. A certain relative of mine treated his wife’s parents very badly—with great disrespect, I believe. Although at the time they were driving a long distance to go to a fundamental Baptist  church they could agree with, he apparently viewed them as not good enough for him to spend any time with them. The decency of visiting and loving the family God gave him was downplayed and evidently separation and loyalty to his own church and movement emphasized. But hey, isn’t Deut. 5:16 still Bible?

My Dad always warned me to be on the lookout for any emphasis to distrust your family or to not go home over the holidays. And indeed among some students, the implication was that if you stayed over the summer, or if you stayed over the Christmas break that you were a more devoted Christian. Or at least that is the impression one could get (especially if they did not come from one of the churches which strongly supported the college).

I can’t say the church and college I went to explicitly taught us to distrust your family or to separate from them. In fact they emphasized that we go home and be a help to our churches. But in the teaching they gave concerning the family, they made it very clear that your family could be very wrongly influenced by your relatives and you needed to be extremely careful. Generally, I would agree, to an extent. But that advice was often taken to an extreme.

People whose children are still faithful Christians, albeit not fundamentalists (or not as much a fundamentalist as the parents would like), practice a firm separation from them. It is unnatural and ungodly. And yes, I have heard first hand of such goings on. And in this lady’s example above, she is facing such separation from her children.

Can’t strict fundamentalists appreciate that God is at work in their families’ lives—even if they aren’t fundamentalists? Can’t they agree on the big things like love for Christ, mutual faith, salvation, the fundamentals, etc., and then agree to disagree on the minor issues which define them as fundamentalists?

Does anyone else see this as a big problem for hyper fundamentalists (IFBx)? Is the problem wider than just this segment of fundamentalism? Does anyone else think that this trait of IFBx is one which seems very similar to a cultish characteristic?

I am interested in your responses. And lastly, does anyone have any hope to offer this reader? I encourage her to look to Christ and trust Him for support and love. She should also get involved in a good church where she can be ministered to. And then, she should try to love her son and family and try to show them she is a dedicated Christian, albeit not a fundamentalist. Any other thoughts?

Programming Note

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

We have company coming today and then we embark on a short trip with my brother and his family. Needless to say I won’t be able to post anything, or comment much at all until at least Thursday night. I do, however, still hope some discussion takes place here regarding my recent post desiring a “re-run of original fundamentalism”.

Also, I want you to know that I have not abandoned my controversial post. It is not finished yet, though it is well on its way. I had hoped to finish it by now, but alas this has been a crazy week. I’ll have to keep you all waiting!

Until I post again, you might find the following links worthwhile. (This is not a full fledged Bobspotted Blogroll post. I won’t comment at all on these links: I’ll just give them to you.)

 

Links of note

 

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

"Worthy Is the Lamb" by Darlene Zschech

~ fundyreformed ~ 23 Comments

There is a common criticism today that much of today’s contemporary praise & worship music is shallow. And to a large extent, I would grant that the criticism is valid. But only if it likewise indicts many of the hymns written in around the turn of the last century (1900).

When we look at the Psalms, however, we see a mix of very deep theologically rich psalms, and simple heartfelt songs. Today’s music (much like the popular “gospel” hymns from around 1850 through 1930) often emphasizes the emotional response of the believer to the truths of God. As long as the song expresses Bible truth and responds in a Biblical way, I would say the song is a Biblical song! And as such we can and should use it.

Now we may prefer the richer, deeper songs, and we probably should major on those songs for their teaching value. But we must not hesitate to use the songs which help draw forth our spirits in heartfelt praise.

One such song is “Worthy is the Lamb” by Darlene Zschech. This song is by no means shallow doctrinally. However, you will notice there is no 2nd and 3rd verse. My recent post on the modern hymn movement was not meant to convey the idea that only hymns are useful for praise. This song, repeated twice (and the last half repeated more than that), is written in such a way as to focus our hearts and souls on a few key thoughts: the cross, the wonder of our personal redemption, & the exalted glory of our Savior. And the music builds throughout the song making it the perfect vehicle for expressing our emotion of joy and love and wonder to God in a holy way.

I have been meaning to post on this song for quite some time, as every time I sing it, it soooo moves me! I trust you will be moved by the message of this song, too.

Worthy Is the Lamb
Words & Music by Darlene Zschech

Thank you for the cross, Lord.
Thank you for the price you paid.
Bearing all my sin and shame, in love you came
And gave Amazing Grace.

Thank you for this love, Lord.
Thank you for the nail-pierced hands.
Wash me in Your cleansing flow, now all I know…
Your forgiveness and embrace.

Worthy is the Lamb
seated on the throne.
We crown You now with many crowns
You reign victorious!
High and lifted up
Jesus, Son of God.
The darling of Heaven, crucified…
Worthy is the Lamb.

 © 2000 Darlene Zschech & Hillsong Publishing. CCLI #1596342

One little note, our church substitutes “High King of Heaven” for “The darling of Heaven” at the end of the song. I am not sure if it is just us, or it this is a more common substitution. It does add to the song, I think to change it, yet it stresses a different side of Christ. Yes, He was the Ultimate Sovereign  who humbled Himself, but He also is the Beloved Son of God, too.

For an idea as to the melody, click here (mp3). Also, I found the entire song on YouTube.Com. The video part  shows some young ladies doing a choreographic dance to the music, but if you click on the link, you will at least here the song in total, even if you prefer not to watch the dancers (nothing immodest, here, too by the way). If you click here, you will see a guitar chord chart of the music; and this link, will take you to a preview of the sheet music, which you can purchase should you so desire.

To learn more about Darlene Zschech, check out her  personal website. This link, also gives a bio and a collection of links (and interviews) concerning Darlene, best known for her song “Shout to the Lord”.

Hoping for a Re-Run of Original Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 8 Comments

The Fundamentals, edited by R.A. Torrey

 

Nathan Busenitz over at Pulpit Blog(an online magazine/blog published by John MacArthur’s church)  gave us a must read article yesterday entitled “Our Fundamentalist Future.” In it he compares what is happening today within conservative evangelicalism to what happened more than one hundred years  ago in the rise of the fundamentalist movement. I encourage you to go give his article a read first, but I’ll whet your appetite with a few excerpts here below. Then come on back and see if we can discuss the article here.

Fast forward 128 years from 1878….Now it’s 2006. Yet the basic theological issues of today are not all that different than in 1878. The church of their day was faced with the temptation to compromise. The church today is faced with the very same temptation. The only difference is that we put a “post” in front of the “modernism.” …

The original fundamentalists rallied around core doctrines, desperately desiring to honor the Scripture, and vowing to stand firm against the advances of modernism. Interestingly, they found their rallying point not in denominational ties, but in a common love for Christ and a shared commitment to the truth. Their fellowship crossed denominational boundaries, finding an outlet in national Bible conferences like the one held near Niagara Falls. The movement itself was led by godly leaders from various backgrounds. It was undergirded by doctrinal creeds, and it was promoted through preaching and writing.

In the face of postmodernism, today’s conservative Christian leaders are again rallying around the same core doctrines as the original fundamentalists. Vowing to stand firm against the advances of postmodernism, today’s “fundamentalists” again cross denominational lines. Baptists like Mark Dever and Al Mohler, independents like John MacArthur, Presbyterians like R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncan, reformed charismatics like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney””they are standing united because something more important than denominational lines is at stake. The purity of the gospel is at stake.

Thousands of pastors across the nation are standing with them….Like the original fundamentalists,  these conservative evangelical  leaders don’t agree on every secondary doctrine. But they do agree on the essentials. And that’s what makes them fundamentalists: they hold fast to the fundamental doctrines of the faith…. [Read the whole article. Underlined emphasis was italic in the original.]

This article is really thought-provoking. And I believe it is worth some discussion. I posted the following  observations/questions as a comment over on Pulpit blog.

1) What is the contemporary remake of The Fundamentals? It seems that it would be good to have something like this today, is there anything out there already? Or do you think we don’t need anything like this?

2) Is this rerun of fundamentalism to be Calvinist-only? It appears most of those you mention are Calvinist. Can we not join together with Biblically minded, theologically conservative, non-Calvinistic brethren? And along this line, do you think this is already being done? I know the Together 4 the Gospel Affirmations & Denialsdid not explicitly shun contemporary Arminianism.

3) Should there be a push for us to unite around something like the T4G Affirmations & Denials statement mentioned above? Could we try to get diverse groups like the Association of Confessing Evangelicals and other counterpart groups to join in affirming some basic fundamental document? Would this help the movement or hinder it?

For my readership, which includes many self-described fundamentalists (most are hard at work reforming fundamentalism, or moving away from hyper fundamentalism–IFBx), a few “hyper fundamentalists”  (they would disagree…)  looking in on the discussion here, and a few recovering/ex fundamentalists (I would label myself here—I accept historic fundamentalism but not the secondary and tertiary separation that still defines [in a large degree] mainstream fundamentalism today), let me point out something of interest and add a fourth point of discussion.

In the comments section, Nathan Busenitz had this clarification to make concerning his article and the mainstream fundamentalism of today:

If I am reading your comment correctly, you seem to be saying something like: “It’s about time the evangelicals realized that modern fundamentalists are right, and started separating like they do.” … [let me] respond by suggesting that conservative evangelicals have no desire to embrace the hyper-separatism, anti-intellectualism, or moral externalism that characterizes much of modern fundamentalism. (Please note that I said “much,” not “all.” )

My point in the article is that conservative evangelicals share much in common with the original fundamentalists. In fact, I believe the conservative evangelical movement today has more in common with the original fundamentalists than the modern fundamentalist movement does. Much more in common, in fact.

Those who are the truest to original fundamentalist beliefs are not those who separate over secondary and tertiary doctrines (not to mention social issues). They are instead those who unify around the fundamentals of the faith. And that, I believe, is the key difference. [bold emphasis mine; underlined emphasis was italic in the original]

Joel's Pipe-Dream??You may not be too  surprised that I tend to agree with Nathan’s sentiments above. But here is an opportunity to discuss whether Joel Tetreau’s oft-blogged about vision of Type B and Type C fundamentalists (for the uninitiated, Type B is mainstream Fundamentalism, and Type C is conservative evangelicalism) standing shoulder to shoulder on common ground, is anything more than a mere pipe-dream.

So here is a 4th point of discussion.

4) Can mainstream fundamentalists really join the push for a modern re-run of original historic fundamentalism? Would they want to/be willing to? Would conservative evangelicals even let them? What could be done (from either side of the aisle) to widen the movement to include mainline fundamentalists? How exactly could joining such a movement be a capitulation from the ideals of rigid separatism? And if it is, how then can you defend the original fundamentalists for doing the same thing? Why shouldn’t separatists unify with others around these causes?

I hope we can generate some worthwhile discussion here. It would be great to be thinking and working (in however small a way) toward a more real unity in the body of Christ rallying around the cause of maintaining the purity of the Gospel in the face of the threat of post-modernism.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7