| God v family|
Jeff wrote: I merely was responding to the broad brush general statements that I (& scripture & church history) do not agree with. While there may be error in the OP being addressed, the right Biblical solution is never an equal & opposite error on the other side that has no Biblical or historical balance. The answer to apparent so called Biblical contradictions is always "more Bible". The full sum of the whole counsel of scripture.
While that passage/s (& others like it/them) does speak much on leaving worldly goods behind, you have to be intentionally ignoring the very clear statements about family (even wife specifically) or something? We are to never neglect our wife/family, while at the same time we are never to neglect the Lord, His Christ, His Gospel, His calling, etc. If the two seemingly "conflict", then what you're proposing is "choose family first", & I contend that the scriptures are crystal clear that our love & obedience doesn't contradict it, but "trumps" all. Jesus, the apostles, early church, much of the modern worldwide church, etc. were/are crystal clear on this both in doctrine & example.
No one said anything about disrespecting their wife (I sure didn't). But the issue is loving wife, children, brethren, neighbor, lost, etc. but all in secondary submission to our primary "first love" of Jesus preimmenently. This is what scripture clearly teaches in balance, doctrine & example.
Art Katz said one time in a message called "Daughters of Sarah" (based on the NT principle in scripture of this & being in submission, a husbands headship role in the family, a wife's Biblically ordained right response, etc.) a man & his wife came forward at the end of a meeting. The wife said "my husband thinks we are to sell our successful business & move our family to the mission field! I told him as soon as God tells me, then I'll go!" Art gracefully, "in an understanding way considering the wife as the weaker vessel" said, "o dear precious daughter: if the Lord has spoken to your husband, He has already spoken to & concerning you. God appointed Him over you under Himself." Our modern feminist cultural thinking from childhood doesn't like that, but it doesn't make it any less true.
Again, I'm not speaking to the OP & message AT ALL. Merely the "reactionary" over statements of broad brush generalizations that followed (that I already highlighted, particularly the Unbiblical in-historical view that missions should be for the single people & not the family). David Wilkerson preached & taught against this error in thinking. John Piper does. David Platt does. Art Katz did. The very lives of William Carey, Afonirum Judson, & countless others did. The teachings & examples of Jesus, the apostles, the early church, the modern historical church the world around, etc. speaks volumes otherwise. To emphatically presume to teach & say otherwise is not Biblical & a careless opinion & poor extraction of truth from scripture IMHO,
I didn't want to derail the other thread or leave this question unanswered.
Regarding the early church and apostles being married, the situation is rather different in that there was no-one else to go. Since that time, there have been plenty of people to go on mission.
It is not a matter of serving God or family - I just think that many who go and leave their families, are mistaken in thinking that God has called them, even Mark Greening who was obviously a godly man and anointed, made in my view and also Zsuzsanna's (thanks) the error that it was okay to stand his wife up on important occasions, once without even ringing her to cancel.
Is it not strange brethren, that these men often end up in broken marriages? Of course, some will blame the wives and say that they were not submitted to |God's calling on their husbands, but why should they not be allowed to disagree that their husbands had been called?
Most wives know their husbands much more than they know themselves. I do not accept that God will call a married man without letting his wife know of the calling to the mission field. That idea is reducing her to a piece of equipment.
I do not say that no married man will be called - in certain circumstances, no singles will be available and perhaps a woman will be needed on the field too. And even possibly that there might be young children involved.
But in this day and age, I believe that God will call people whilst they are at college and single and any so called calling oiutside of this should be treated with great caution and delay. I do believe that most callings take place in young people.
It is my opinion that many of these callings of married people were not from God. We often make mistakes over God's will for us - I have myself.
| 2016/5/27 5:49|
| Re: God v family|
Are these three comments scripturally supported, or are they merely your opinion?
1) "...why should they not be allowed to disagree that their husbands had been called?" Are you equating being "allowed to disagree" with her 'refusing to submit and follow'?
2) "Most wives know their husbands much more than they know themselves."
3) "I do not accept that God will call a married man without letting his wife know of the calling to the mission field. That idea is reducing her to a piece of equipment."
| 2016/5/27 8:43||Profile|
| Re: |
1 Peter 3:7
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Christian men, often today do not see their wives as "heirs together of the grace of life", and often miss "godly fellowship" with them. Their wives have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and much wisdom from them often goes unsolicited or ignored. A patriarchal spirit has conditioned men in this way.
| 2016/5/27 9:04|
| Re: God v family|
The original situation was that a husband was supposed to choose whether to break a promise to his wife (but calling her to cancel and apologise would have been enough) or miss an urgent opportunity to minister. The husband chose not to call his wife and did the ministering.
By that I believe he disrespected the wife. This is a mistake we do sometimes but God is graceful, so is our partner, if we admit that sin and apologise all is well. Unless someone is doing this all the time it is not a big deal. But if a person does not admit this mistake but says that it was completely ok because he was doing Gods work and sticks to this opinion, that person is proud, arrogant, not acting in love, not seeking peace. This kind of attitude is disobedience to God and hurts deeply.
Just think of it: What would Jesus do?
Keeping promises is a basic godly thing to do, along with admitting mistakes. If we do this we are already doing Gods work by demonstrating this behavior. c
This is the reason why I believe God calls families to the mission field, so they can demonstrate how Gods love works in their family, and how they trust God to meet their family's needs.
I agree that wives should submit their husbands. Except when the husband asks the wife to sin against God. In that case they should rather obey God, but be careful not to disrespect their husband.
The wife I believe is directly responsible to God, and can directly pray to him, she doesn't have to go through the husband to establish a relationship with Jesus.
I think the question God v family is not relevant when the minister is humble. I believe God provides a perfect balance to those that obey him.
An impatient worldly wife or an arrogant husband can make it look like the God v family question is a valid one, but I believe God can harmonize everything if they both are humble.
| 2016/5/27 9:42|
| Re: |
God established the family, and it is a logical fallacy to imply God is pitted against the family as in "God vs Family". I don't think Brenda meant it that way.
We are all brought into the family of God where love and respect and honesty, reign.
| 2016/5/27 9:49|
| Re: |
Brenda did not say it should be a question.. The title rather says: SOME THINK God vs family is a question.
| 2016/5/27 9:59|
| Re: God v family|
The truth is kind of in the middle. Yes family is very important. Brother Zac Poonen says that our walk with God is a 3 story building. Lowest level is our personal walking with God. The next level of the building is our family life with wife and children. Their level is our ministry. The problem with many ministers today is they are trying to build level 3 without a solid Level 1 and 2. That is why we hear many ministers falling in Adultery (personal fall) and Divorce (family fall).
Regarding God calling a family man, I do not believe it is important for a man to leave his family struggle and then go and serve God. If the wife agrees to come with him, then he can take her.
It is a very rare call where God tells a man to leave his wife. In most cases it is because the man is unequally yoked, etc. But even in that case it is very rare.
| 2016/5/27 10:17||Profile|
| Re: God v family|
Brother Keith Daniels has (imo) done this "balancing act" very well.
While he is often on the road preaching, as he has done for years, when his wife (Jenny) is not present he will often credit her publicly, praising her diligence, sacrifice, godliness and perseverance in maintaining the family in his absence. I do believe (from his many words about his father) that he would honor his commitment to God above his wife,... but not at her expense.
The proof is in the pudding and his family has been kept in order and not only has Jenny penned books of her poems but now his son Roy has begun to really have a notable ministry himself.
I do believe allot of brother Daniels success in bringing the gospel
is due to his godly wife:)
| 2016/5/27 10:34||Profile|
| Re: |
I was also thinking of Keith Daniel, and how evident it is that he respects his wife even though he can not be home with her often and sometimes for longer times.
| 2016/5/27 10:53|
| Re: God v family|
"a man & his wife came forward at the end of a meeting. The wife said "my husband thinks we are to sell our successful business & move our family to the mission field! I told him as soon as God tells me, then I'll go!" Art gracefully, "in an understanding way considering the wife as the weaker vessel" said, "o dear precious daughter: if the Lord has spoken to your husband, He has already spoken to & concerning you. God appointed Him over you under Himself."
The danger of quoting "famous" preachers is that we do not know all the circumstances. Let's break it down though.
1) The husband has not left for the mission field yet because he is waiting for something to happen? It seems he is waiting until his wife has a submissive spirit about going.
2) that's a good thing, that he has not simply uprooted and left his wife and children.
3) Art was not telling the couple to leave for the mission field but that (in his opinion) God had already spoken to the wife. I personally disagree with Art very strongly on this point.
4) So the answer then is to simply wait. Until the wife either submits to this huge decision or hears from God herself, they are to sit tight. God is not in a hurry.
5) But imho, it would be wrong for the husband to leave his family and it would be wrong for him to "force" through coercion or threats or religious abuse to make her comply. Both of those scenarios will end in disaster.
| 2016/5/27 11:00|