# Man wants to go into missions, wife wants to stay



## Pergamum

Parchment and Pen How My Passion for Ministry Almost Ended My Marriage


What are your thoughts on this article?


I have encountered some young couples that are in this situation, the man wanting to go but the woman wanting to stay.


What sort of counsel is best in these situations? 

What are good things to advise both parties?


----------



## au5t1n

I disagree with the article. He is supposed to be in charge. Does God always give every missionary a special magic feeling about it before they can honor the Great Commission through missions? Is the call always an obvious, dramatic event? I suspect not. The Great Commission would be in danger if everyone waited around for an overt sign from heaven.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, I was surprised that the man came off looking like a jerk and the wife was excused for what I take to be her weakness. 

BUT, 

a man must know the limits of his wife, though those limits, too, are not praiseworthy.



Is it ever appropriate for a husband to train his wife in poverty and hardship to get her away from a false reliance on affluence and comfort?


----------



## au5t1n

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I was surprised that the man came off looking like a jerk and the wife was excused for what I take to be her weakness.
> 
> BUT,
> 
> a man must know the limits of his wife, though those limits, too, are not praiseworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it ever appropriate for a husband to train his wife in poverty and hardship to get her away from a false reliance on affluence and comfort?


 
I think so, if done in the right spirit and in a respectful manner.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Pergamum said:


> Is it ever appropriate for a husband to train his wife in poverty and hardship to get her away from a false reliance on affluence and comfort?


 
I would argue that's a separate question from your OP, though...that most certainly could be done without going to the mission field, and if that's a primary reason factoring into his desire, that's a problem.


----------



## Pergamum

Yep, my wife grew up sorta poor and having to work to support herself from 16....so, praise God for hard-boned people with calloused hands and strong lower backs - beautiful qualities in a woman to a man wanting to do Third World Missions. 

And our health still might fail.

But, I have wondered what to do if I had a resistant wife...and, I do encounter this now as I counsel with people wanting to go.


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> What are your thoughts on this article?


 
They seem to be the words of a man who is much more mature now than he was when he entered seminary. 

When I read it, it struck me that it would be a good item for discussion in a premarital counseling session.


----------



## Pergamum

What would a pastor say during this premarital counseling sesssion?



To husband: You can only drag the wife as far as she will relent to.

To wife: You should be willing to be dragged as far as you are able to and enlarge your comfort zone.



What would this session look like?


----------



## TimV

> Thus began quite a struggle. Was I a follower of the Lord or follower of my wife? That was the question as I began to see it. In fact, I began to think that if Kristie would not go with me, I would go alone. After all, which is the greater good: staying married or saving souls? Or better, which is the greater evil: divorce or not following God’s call?



At this point in his life, the person was an ignorant child, and in no way qualified to be an elder. Most of these sorts of personnel problems would sort themselves out on their own if people would realize that missionaries should be ordained elders.


----------



## Pergamum

Even MAF pilots and mechanics, literacy workers, dorm parents, translators, women ministering to women and childen in muslim lands, field administrators, nurses, dentists, and other roles...ALL need to be ordained elders?

Your view on missions and missionaries is overly rigid.


----------



## TimV

> Your view on missions and missionaries is overly rigid.



Possibly, or more likely a semantic deal. But the person who wrote what I quoted, at that time in his life, had no business being a pilot or mechanic attached to an orthodox missionary work, and it should have been pointed out to him immediately.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, we agree there...if you would LEAVE family for ministry, this is evidence that one should leave the ministry.


----------



## jambo

To survive on the mission field a man needs the support of his wife. If his wife is not fully behind whatever ministry and the location he is in then he will struggle and return.

When I was young if I heard any missionary speaker I would want to go wherever he was- China, India, Africa, South America I'd have gone anywhere. But that is not a call, that is the prospect of adventure, blessing etc. Nor is being made aware of a need a call either, that is just compassion. A call is a call where there is that conviction that this is what a person has to do. (Of course there are all sorts of complexities attached to all this) 

Although I felt the wife in this case is a bit closed to any disruption, but I do feel if a man is married God also calls the wife. Now it may take a lot of discussion but I feel the couple go forward with one mind. 

I also feel any Christian considering marriage should discuss prior to engagement how the other would feel if one was to feel called to the missionfield at a later date.


----------



## LawrenceU

If the husband truly 'heard God call him' to mission work then the Lord will also call the wife. It may take some time to sort things through, but God is not so inept that he can call a united couple and somehow not get through to one half of it. The man was full of youthful zeal.


----------



## Mushroom

The guy was being a bonehead, and thankfully the Lord intervened. The last thing any missions needs is overzealous adventure junkies who mistake their wanderlust for a call to the mission field while ignoring the obvious divine decree that half his own flesh is not willing to go. PAH!

"I think I'll get married!" "I think I'll be a Pastor!" "No, wait! Here's a kewler movie... misshunss... yah! Hey babe, God told me we're movin' to Swaziland!"

Glad somebody got a net over this nut.


----------



## Pergamum

I agree with the above posts.

But, practically speaking then, 


What sort of counsel is best in these situations? 
and,
What are good things to advise both parties?

Finally, 
In one instance, the wife did previosuly tell the husband, before marriage, that she would follow him anywhere...even to the mission field. So the man then began to prepare to go. But now she appears to be getting cold feet and the husband is upset because this was a major question before marriage.


Few would argue that men insist she go, and many fault William Carey with Dorothy, but what sort of practical advice does one give in these above situations?


----------



## TimV

> Few would argue that men insist she go, and many fault William Carey with Dorothy, but what sort of practical advice does one give in these above situations?



Again, if you are determined that missionaries of the type in your above example don't need to be elders, then things are inherently messy. If you are determined that someone who doesn't have his household in order is necessary for the expansion of the Kingdom, then things are always going to be difficult. On the other hand, if you insist that someone sent by the church with the intent of teaching is an ordained elder 90 percent of problems disappear. I will assume this man isn't interesting in being a mechanic for missions vehicles.


----------



## Pergamum

I have seen elder-qualified men have this happen too (their wives flat out say no to even the possibility of missions).


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> What would a pastor say during this premarital counseling sesssion?
> 
> 
> 
> To husband: You can only drag the wife as far as she will relent to.
> 
> To wife: You should be willing to be dragged as far as you are able to and enlarge your comfort zone.
> 
> 
> 
> What would this session look like?


 
I was thinking more of what the couple might say to each other in light of this recitation. Both might have an opportunity to learn what the other really thinks about submission and leadership, and sacrificial love.


----------



## TimV

> I have seen elder-qualified men have this happen too (their wives flat out say no to even the possibility of missions).



Elders are people too (now THAT was funny ;-) ) so they have shortcomings. But if a mature man, confident of his calling and after consultation with the church decides he needs to move to the next city to support his family financially, and the wife refuses to budge, then at that particular point in his personal history, he isn't elder qualified. It's more like a one time drinking too much, or cusing the guy that cut him off, or falsely accusing and verbally beating a church member. Something to be repented of, and changed. Which brings us back to the points made by Laurence and Stuart. Until he's got his house in order he ain't ready.


----------



## JBaldwin

I couldn't agree more with the comments about the wife and husband being in agreement about missions. I have worked on the mission field as a single missionary, and personally observed a couple who struggled over this issue. Both felt called to missions, however, he felt called to work with the French, she always felt called to Africa. While she submitted, she was never happy about the decision to work in France. In the end, they left the mission field, and he ended up teaching in a Bible college. 

If the wife and husband are not in agreement then, as some have already said, their house is not in order, and they are not ready to serve on the mission field.


----------



## Edward

JBaldwin said:


> I couldn't agree more with the comments about the wife and husband being in agreement about missions. I have worked on the mission field as a single missionary, and personally observed a couple who struggled over this issue. Both felt called to missions, however, he felt called to work with the French, she always felt called to Africa. While she submitted, she was never happy about the decision to work in France. In the end, they left the mission field, and he ended up teaching in a Bible college.


 
That's sad. 

Did they ever consider Francophone Africa? Or working with African immigrants in France, for that matter?


----------



## lynnie

I agree with that blogger. Jesus tells a man to lay down his life for his wife. Lay it down- all of it, especially the ambitions. ( and yeah, you tell the gal to submit and trust God). 

It is so easy when you are young to want to be in ministry for your own ego's sake, and to be "needed" or to have an identity. I've never seen a resistant wife where the hubby didn't have obvious issues. Jesus said to PRAY that the Lord sends out laborers into the harvest and I've seen people heading out to "do" who hardly pray.

In this article, you don't see the guy in any kind of relationship with his church where he is getting counsel. Not to diss the prof and his wife, but here is a guy having major marital conflict and they aren't going to an elder, pastor, or the local CCEF biblical counselor? He finally calls the prof? I may not be the brightest lightbulb in the lamp here, but over the years when my hub and I got to the point of ongoing tension, we went together to talk to somebody who was objective and insightful and confrontative. (both CCEF and pastoral). A wife will submit to a guy who won't submit to anybody himself? Ha. You want a submissive wife, try humbling yourself and submitting to elders/men's group/accountability group. Even if all you have is an online forum, at least that's a place to get advice. He was a typical young independent guy and certainly not ready to face the mission field battles alone dragging her into it.

My first year of marriage my dear hubby was very busy ministering and discipling all sorts of young guys who wanted lots of his time. We had some conflict and he got real frustrated. He sat down one day and started griping to God about how I would not submit, and the Holy Spirit impressed on him that verse about laying down your life for your wife, and to start trying to meet my needs instead of demanding I meet his wants. He vowed in that moment to put me first. He didn't tell me this for many months but he said that I totally changed overnight, he was amazed, it was like I became another person in submitting to him. I wasn't even aware of anything outwardly, but I think either God changed me when he did what was right, or else I intuitively could feel his care instead of his self centeredness with his "ministry to God". Women are very intuitive. 

It hasn't always been conflict free (I'm not the naturally submissive type, ha) but on anything major he insists on our unity. He knows I will submit, but for big decisions that affect me significantly, he'd rather we have unity than that he drag me into something that my heart isn't in. And in return I've been able to give up a lot to follow God's call on his life, it is a delight to, and I think a lot of that is trusting that his heart is to take care of me. And I think we've had more impact on people for good because of our marriage than we ever could have any other way.


----------



## au5t1n

I said I disagreed with the article earlier, and that's still true. I just want to point out, though, that if the man's primary point in this article had been just "I wasn't mature enough to be a missionary because I didn't have control of my family" or "I wasn't qualified because I wasn't qualified to be an elder," then I would have agreed with the article, and I agree with those sentiments here. But here's where I'm not sure I agree. He seems to think that unless his wife has an absolutely certain divine "good feeling" about it, they must not be called. But I don't know that it's always that obvious. Sometimes it's hard to accept the call, and she may have been resisting it for selfish reasons (not going to impute motives here, though). However, it's clear that the man wasn't mature and didn't have proper shepherding abilities to be an elder on the mission field.


----------



## JBaldwin

lynnie said:


> I agree with that blogger. Jesus tells a man to lay down his life for his wife. Lay it down- all of it, especially the ambitions. ( and yeah, you tell the gal to submit and trust God).
> 
> It is so easy when you are young to want to be in ministry for your own ego's sake, and to be "needed" or to have an identity. I've never seen a resistant wife where the hubby didn't have obvious issues. Jesus said to PRAY that the Lord sends out laborers into the harvest and I've seen people heading out to "do" who hardly pray.
> 
> In this article, you don't see the guy in any kind of relationship with his church where he is getting counsel. Not to diss the prof and his wife, but here is a guy having major marital conflict and they aren't going to an elder, pastor, or the local CCEF biblical counselor? He finally calls the prof? I may not be the brightest lightbulb in the lamp here, but over the years when my hub and I got to the point of ongoing tension, we went together to talk to somebody who was objective and insightful and confrontative. (both CCEF and pastoral). A wife will submit to a guy who won't submit to anybody himself? Ha. You want a submissive wife, try humbling yourself and submitting to elders/men's group/accountability group. Even if all you have is an online forum, at least that's a place to get advice. He was a typical young independent guy and certainly not ready to face the mission field battles alone dragging her into it.
> 
> My first year of marriage my dear hubby was very busy ministering and discipling all sorts of young guys who wanted lots of his time. We had some conflict and he got real frustrated. He sat down one day and started griping to God about how I would not submit, and the Holy Spirit impressed on him that verse about laying down your life for your wife, and to start trying to meet my needs instead of demanding I meet his wants. He vowed in that moment to put me first. He didn't tell me this for many months but he said that I totally changed overnight, he was amazed, it was like I became another person in submitting to him. I wasn't even aware of anything outwardly, but I think either God changed me when he did what was right, or else I intuitively could feel his care instead of his self centeredness with his "ministry to God". Women are very intuitive.
> 
> It hasn't always been conflict free (I'm not the naturally submissive type, ha) but on anything major he insists on our unity. He knows I will submit, but for big decisions that affect me significantly, he'd rather we have unity than that he drag me into something that my heart isn't in. And in return I've been able to give up a lot to follow God's call on his life, it is a delight to, and I think a lot of that is trusting that his heart is to take care of me. And I think we've had more impact on people for good because of our marriage than we ever could have any other way.


 
Lynnie, I couldn't have said it better. You are right, when the husband is submitting to the Lord, the wife wants to fall in line, and the unity comes. In the case I mentioned above, the husband constantly made decisions without considering his wife. The case of where they were ministering was typical of all the decisions he made without even asking her what she thought. As far as I know, he is still dragging her from one place to another trying to find God's will for them, and she remains very unhappy.


----------



## Scott1

It's interesting that our local practice (and perhaps denomination wide this is standardized), is that, if married, the wife of a candidate for office- deacon or elder is asked if she consents to her husband standing for office.

If she does not consent, he is not allowed to stand.

Per I Timothy 3 and Titus I, an officer must have not a perfect, but an exemplary life.

The wife's character is also examined for a few characteristics mentioned there such as trustworthiness (not being a gossip), and as an evaluation of the character, gifts and calling of her husband.

So, it is quite possible an officer is ready, willing and able to serve in his own right, but he is not able to stand (for election). This can be because:

1) things are not right at home, or
2) things are not right with the wife.

Both of these can disqualify a man from serving in church office.

As part of the qualification process, we must have faith God will confirm those whom He would appoint as officers over His people.

This can be a painful process, but it is part of what leadership requires.

It doesn't mean the man can never serve, he may be able to serve in some other way. Or, he may be able to serve in that capacity but the timing is not right- it may come, but not by bypassing the high biblical standards for church office.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Per advice given by Jack Black in _Year One_, "Bop her on the head and drag her back to your hut."

LOL


----------



## Curt

Wives are gifts to their husbands and often more spiritually discerning. This does not mean they are always right, but I don't believe God calls one spouse and not the other.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Think of how wonderful it would be if John Wesley had believed a man wasn't called to ministry unless his wife also felt a call to ministry! None of those pesky "evangelical Arminian" denominations would even exist!
Think about how wonderful it would be if guys like William Carey had held to the idea that when God calls a man He also calls the wife! We wouldn't have a flood of independent missions organizations! 


In all seriousness, I do think that a man's attitude towards his wife's desires should be considered in determining his suitability for ministry, but I also believe there are times in which the woman is acting as a pawn of Satan.


----------



## lynnie

_I also believe there are times in which the woman is acting as a pawn of Satan. _

Yes of course...... and do you really want that influence on the younger women? All the more reason to keep the guy out of ministry. I've heard a few nasty stories over the years from churches with a problem pastors wife, and I know of one missionary wife that has left a trail of trouble behind her. A truly fine guy can be married to a rebel or a self centered whiner or a credit card spender, and I didn't mean to come off like I was blaming husbands for everything. (I know what it is to get stubborn or independent and mine isn't to blame.) But the problems with the wives seem to ooze out and infect entire churches; often other women get hurt somehow. I know one church that split and when a reconciliation ministry came in to try and deal with the mess, they said the biggest problem in the entire church and the root of the split was an elder's wife . ( I had known her years before and she was a first class b**** even then, pardon my hebrew). Life is full of problems so at least start off in ministry with a happy supportive wife! 

I will say that almost all the real horror stories I've heard of are outside the sphere of Reformed Churches. I've heard of a little in Presbyterianism, but nothing like in typical evangelicalism.


----------



## Amazing Grace

TimV said:


> I have seen elder-qualified men have this happen too (their wives flat out say no to even the possibility of missions).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elders are people too (now THAT was funny ;-) ) so they have shortcomings. But if a mature man, confident of his calling and after consultation with the church decides he needs to move to the next city to support his family financially, and the wife refuses to budge, then at that particular point in his personal history, he isn't elder qualified. It's more like a one time drinking too much, or cussing the guy that cut him off, or falsely accusing and verbally beating a church member. Something to be repented of, and changed. Which brings us back to the points made by Laurence and Stuart. Until he's got his house in order he ain't ready.
Click to expand...


Can you elaborate on this Tim? A one time event is not a barometer of having ones house in order. The over emphasis of the Pauline qualifications as I believe you and Scott are adhering to will only bring about 2 fruits. 1) The Elder will not discuss his 'dirty laundry' with anyone for fear of someone with a proverbial flea comb ready to strain some harmless gnat and call for his stepping down. 2) It becomes too subjective on what the qualifications mean to each individual examining the life of others. According to this type of logic, the Father with the prodigal son somehow failed in keeping his house in order and would be treated as one unqualified. And since Christ represents the father, I somehow disagree with this assessment. 

If an Elders life, as a whole, is righteous in the eyes of the Lord, they are most certainly qualified even if some pesky gnat appears. There is absolutely no way that Paul, who understood grace more than any of us, would have intended to have Elders be under the microscope for others to dissect. I can imagine myself and perhaps others calling for Paul to step down when he involved himself in the Nazarite vow. What would his answer have been?


----------



## TimV

> Can you elaborate on this Tim? A one time event is not a barometer of having ones house in order.



In this case the wife's rebellion (rooted probably in common sense, or in instinct like Lynnie so insightfully explained it) is on going. An elder who's 16 year old gets drunk once isn't disqualified, but if his 16 year old becomes a meth addict in constant long term rebellion needs to step down because he isn't qualified. And even more so, a man who's 16 year old living at home is a meth addict has no business being appointed an elder.


----------



## CredoFidoSpero

On the OP and what advice to give to couples in this situation - it sounds to me like an excellent opportunity for learning to practice intercessory prayer and fasting for you spouse, for your marriage, and for truly discerning God's will and call on your life. And I agree with the others here that have mentioned that the first thing to go to God with is where you yourself might be walking in disobedience or selfishness or pride, etc.

Some other thoughts:
Some of the best advice I ever heard on marriage, from a strong-willed, strong complementarian pastor, was that if there is not unity in the marriage on a decision, most especially on a major decision, and the decision does not _have_ to be made immediately, then they should take all they time they need to reach unity. If a decision _has_ to be made and there is not unity, then I think that's a case where the husband should lead and the wife should submit.

It seems to me that we generally assume that a strong call or passion from God must mean that it's got to happen now, right now, right this very minute, everything else has to stop that does not directly support or lead to that goal. Moses, Joshua, David - who can dispute the clear call of God on their lives when they were young? And how many DECADES in their lives before those things truly came to pass? God prepares us for the things He has called us to, lovingly and patiently, gives us hopes and dreams to sustain us through dry and weary times. Part of diligently seeking His will is also seeking and trusting in His timing and His ability to accomplish all things toward His goals. Married, single, at home, abroad, it seems to me that in all seasons we are called to wait, pray, and do carefully and faithfully the things that are set before us now. And, yes, be ready to go when it's time to go.

So much in the Bible on waiting on God, and I don't think I've ever heard one sermon on that. Have any of you?


----------



## Amazing Grace

TimV said:


> Can you elaborate on this Tim? A one time event is not a barometer of having ones house in order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case the wife's rebellion (rooted probably in common sense, or in instinct like Lynnie so insightfully explained it) is on going. An elder who's 16 year old gets drunk once isn't disqualified, but if his 16 year old becomes a meth addict in constant long term rebellion needs to step down because he isn't qualified. And even more so, a man who's 16 year old living at home is a meth addict has no business being appointed an elder.
Click to expand...


Again, this action brings to light exactly what I pointed out above in my 2 fruits. I am an Elder. And if this is the case, then I would not take counsel with anyone regarding a home situation that would be looked at as somehow my fault and disqualify me. I want to know where I can find your list of disqualifying situations and who determines it. And how many have to charge the leader with the issue? It presents a time line for one to be 'safe' from the fruit inspectors ad accept the calling until their children reach 16. A one time drunk by my son, would not even make me think twice about my calling. A two time drunk neither. Would Philemon have been disqualified if you were there for him not having his house in order when Onesimus ran away? I find this a prefect time for Paul to question his eldership of the local assembly yet he does nothing of the sort. Who, for instance, is perfectly temperate in all areas of his life? I see many elders, deacons, and well-known preachers who are fat slobs because they are not temperate in their eating habits and disciplined in exercise. Yet, we never think twice about selecting such men to these offices. Form a practical standpoint, I doubt many blind side their wives one day and say, I want to go into the mission field next week. If God has called the person, He alone will either convert the wife, or the husband shakes the dust off his feet and goes without her if after a period of teaching and admonishing the wife proves futile.


----------



## TimV

> If God has called the person, He alone will either convert the wife, or the husband shakes the dust off his feet and goes without her if after a period of teaching and admonishing the wife proves futile.



Interesting. Abandon your wife even if she doesn't commit adultery or abandons you. Because he gets a "call". In my church I think you'd not only get kicked out as an elder, but as a member as well.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Amazing Grace said:


> If God has called the person, He alone will either convert the wife, or the husband shakes the dust off his feet and goes without her if after a period of teaching and admonishing the wife proves futile.


 
Now THAT is hardcore.


----------



## kjat32

As the wife of a couple wanting to "go" I don't know that I'm wise enough to counsel anyone on what to do in such a situation. However, I have learned a lot personally in the last couple of years of our "waiting". 

You can trust God with everything, even your spouse.

You must be willing to submit yourself, your plans, your desires, your hopes, everything, all to God. And when things don't go your way, then submit it all again.

Once married, always married in God's sight (unless partner has died or committed adultery). So you're stuck together for _better_ or _worse_.

And personally, I don't know a single Christian woman who wouldn't acquiese to a husband's call and desire if she is being loved as she should be and if he is patient until she is ready. Sometimes God puts other people's unreadiness into our lives to prepare us to learn how to wait on Him and submit to Him.

Hope that helps, Pergamum. I imagine you get lots of Q's. May God bless you with His wisdom at such moments.

Katherine


----------



## ZackF

Pergamum said:


> Parchment and Pen How My Passion for Ministry Almost Ended My Marriage
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on this article?
> 
> 
> I have encountered some young couples that are in this situation, the man wanting to go but the woman wanting to stay.
> 
> 
> What sort of counsel is best in these situations?
> 
> What are good things to advise both parties?


 
This may put me too far to the left, but I had several conversations with my wife about a possible job relocation before I entertained any offers. If she wasn't on board I wasn't interested. Let alone a call to the mission field.


----------



## Pergamum

I do get lots of questions and people seeking my advice - advice that I often cannot give.

I try very hard not to give a "message from the Lord" when there isn't always a clear one to give, and a lot of my "answers" are, "Well...I don't know...talk to your elders and pray about it..." or, in this case, "Are you and your wife really talking and praying together about this?..."


What other practical advice would you give me as I counsel and talk to couples in this situation?


----------



## Amazing Grace

TimV said:


> If God has called the person, He alone will either convert the wife, or the husband shakes the dust off his feet and goes without her if after a period of teaching and admonishing the wife proves futile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Abandon your wife even if she doesn't commit adultery or abandons you. Because he gets a "call". In my church I think you'd not only get kicked out as an elder, but as a member as well.
Click to expand...


A total non sequitur. Who said anything about abandoning my wife? I would make sure she was supported well. How can you disagree with my above statement? And out of all the truth I penned, this is the one part you focus on? There is certainly a reason we are not told about the apostles wives or families after they were called. I mean, if Andrew and John, and James and Peter said, "Um hold on Jesus, let me check with my wife and see if she wants to go or if she says its OK for me to follow you, he may have cuffed them in the back of their head!!!! 

I also think you are overreacting with your above statement about being kicked out, I certainly have scripture on my side and would not approach this flippantly. You obviously have not been effectually called to do something out of your comfort zone. Tim, let the dead bury the dead. Let the rebellious wife sit and stew while her husband is doing God's work. I myself would be like Job or David when their spouses tried to get between them and the Almighty.


----------



## SemperEruditio

lynnie said:


> I had known her years before and she was a first class b**** even then, pardon my hebrew).


 
I'm taking Hebrew. Guess I haven't gotten to that section of the vocab.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Perg,
the answer I'd give anyone in that situation is found in1Cor.7

v4, the wife is refusing to go, and the husband is demanding that she go. Both have "authority" over the other's body.

v7, the problem would be simplified if only they were single!

vv32-33, I wish you could be like me, without care of the world, and able only to please the Lord.
But you are obligated to see to pleasing your wife.

v34, the woman who is unmarried, she too is able to serve the Lord free of cares of this life, otherwise she must please her husband

In the end, the person who wants to please God in this situation will see the obstinacy of the spouse as an obstacle imposed by divine providence. Wait until he moves it, or helps you channel your desire in the way he wishes, that doesn't involve pressuring your spouse.


----------



## TimV

> A total non sequitur. Who said anything about abandoning my wife?



You did.



> I would make sure she was supported well.



Are you going to have a brother have sex with her? You can abandon your spouse and still live under the same roof. Shaking off the dust of your shoes and sending her a monthly check? Now who's talking non sequitur???



> You obviously have not been effectually called to do something out of your comfort zone. Tim, let the dead bury the dead.



10 years in Africa and Papua New Guinea? Without any financial support? Working my own way, while teaching literacy, Bible, agriculture and raising 7 kids on an African salary? Coming back to the US with 9 in the family, no house, car, job, phone, credit and 3000 in cash? Not to brag, but I doubt a lot of people out there would beat me in that particular peeing contest. But since you brought it up, how's about a thumb nail CV from you?


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> What other practical advice would you give me as I counsel and talk to couples in this situation?


 
My advice would be to not spring things of this sort on a spouse. Start with abstract discussions/questions. Maker sure that the spouse knows that they are part of the decision process. Get answers to known concerns. Know her weaknesses - and yours.


----------



## Amazing Grace

TimV said:


> A total non sequitur. Who said anything about abandoning my wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would make sure she was supported well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to have a brother have sex with her? You can abandon your spouse and still live under the same roof. Shaking off the dust of your shoes and sending her a monthly check? Now who's talking non sequitur???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have not been effectually called to do something out of your comfort zone. Tim, let the dead bury the dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 10 years in Africa and Papua New Guinea? Without any financial support? Working my own way, while teaching literacy, Bible, agriculture and raising 7 kids on an African salary? Coming back to the US with 9 in the family, no house, car, job, phone, credit and 3000 in cash? Not to brag, but I doubt a lot of people out there would beat me in that particular peeing contest. But since you brought it up, how's about a thumb nail CV from you?
Click to expand...


Well you definitely caught the bigger fish!!! Kudos to you. You win the peeing contest against me in that area. Now back to the task at hand and your misuse of the Pauline requirements.

And you had a supporting wife obviously. Why? Because God blessed you with her and obviously had hand in the situation. If your wife had enough after 5 years and returned back to the US, you have every right to remain in what God has called you to do. There is no disqualification from a call of yours because she rejected her role. The line of thought you are taking on this matter is like blaming a pastor for the lack of conversions in his ministry. I have provided scriptural examples, concrete examples of Job, David,Jacob the Apostles, that show the effectual irresistible call of God trumps a rebellious wife. Or having ones house in order. If you would like to speak about the specific scriptural examples I have given, I will be more than happy to discuss. And I again repeat, leaving ones miserable obstinate wife, who is unteachable, to go into the mission field, is a no disqualification whatsoever. And I have no clue what you mean about having a brother having sex with her, satisfying her sexual appetite would be last on my list if she remained obstinate to the call of God.


----------



## TimV

> And you had a supporting wife obviously. Why? Because God blessed you with her and obviously had hand in the situation.



No, I didn't have a supporting wife. And I had the same attitude you do. And I'm now divorced, since she left me due in large order to the trauma of me running rough shod over her feelings. You're as ignorant and self righteous as I was 10 years ago, and about the only reason I'm having this stupid dialogue with you is so that people immature in the faith can learn from my mistakes. You can listen to me now, or wish you had later.


----------



## Amazing Grace

TimV said:


> And you had a supporting wife obviously. Why? Because God blessed you with her and obviously had hand in the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't have a supporting wife. And I had the same attitude you do. And I'm now divorced, since she left me due in large order to the trauma of me running rough shod over her feelings. You're as ignorant and self righteous as I was 10 years ago, and about the only reason I'm having this stupid dialogue with you is so that people immature in the faith can learn from my mistakes. You can listen to me now, or wish you had later.
Click to expand...


Tim, my intention was not to come across as self righteous and definitely not ignorant. I never once suggested one should 'run rough shod' over the spouses feelings. If you look back, you will see I continuously mentioned that after a period of discussion, teaching and admonition, the decision to answer the call of God still trumps an obstinate wife. Your individual situation should not be the barometer for the whole. Neither should you feel guilty for the rest of your life. I am positive you repented of your actions. Going into the mission field should not be treated lightly and must take much discernment and prayer. If not, problems will certainly arise.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Amazing Grace said:


> If your wife had enough after 5 years and returned back to the US, you have every right to remain in what God has called you to do. There is no disqualification from a call of yours because she rejected her role.


 

Which, I think, is entirely different than deciding whether to go in the first place, which is the focus of the OP.


----------



## ZackF

Amazing Grace said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A total non sequitur. Who said anything about abandoning my wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to have a brother have sex with her? You can abandon your spouse and still live under the same roof. Shaking off the dust of your shoes and sending her a monthly check? Now who's talking non sequitur???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satisfying her sexual appetite would be last on my list if she remained obstinate to the call of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?? Are you also saying a wife not satisfy her husband's sexual appetite if she is upset with his station in life? According to scripture, it seems conjugal duties are the highest among priorities of living according God's will in marriage not the lowest.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Pete

My wife and I are new missionaries and will be heading to Bulgaria this summer. While we were trying to decide if this is what God was calling us to, we spoke to many missionaries about what it means to "be called". One thing that was interesting was that many families had a time of waiting before they went to the field, because of where their children were age/school wise or one of the spouses not be ready at the time. One man waited and prayed for 14 years, before his wife was called to serve over seas. Now they are serving overseas and have been for almost 8 years. I just don't think it would be healthy or a good example for the people we are ministering to seeing a couple separated by "ministry" or miserable because one of the spouses does want to be there.


----------



## Pergamum

Amazing Grace said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God has called the person, He alone will either convert the wife, or the husband shakes the dust off his feet and goes without her if after a period of teaching and admonishing the wife proves futile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Abandon your wife even if she doesn't commit adultery or abandons you. Because he gets a "call". In my church I think you'd not only get kicked out as an elder, but as a member as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A total non sequitur. Who said anything about abandoning my wife? I would make sure she was supported well. How can you disagree with my above statement? And out of all the truth I penned, this is the one part you focus on? There is certainly a reason we are not told about the apostles wives or families after they were called. I mean, if Andrew and John, and James and Peter said, "Um hold on Jesus, let me check with my wife and see if she wants to go or if she says its OK for me to follow you, he may have cuffed them in the back of their head!!!!
> 
> I also think you are overreacting with your above statement about being kicked out, I certainly have scripture on my side and would not approach this flippantly. You obviously have not been effectually called to do something out of your comfort zone. Tim, let the dead bury the dead. Let the rebellious wife sit and stew while her husband is doing God's work. I myself would be like Job or David when their spouses tried to get between them and the Almighty.
Click to expand...

 
Peter appears to have dragged his wife about with him in his missionary labors: 




> 1 Corinthians 9
> 1Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
> 
> 2If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
> 
> 3Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
> 
> 4Have we not power to eat and to drink?
> 
> * 5Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? *
> 
> 6Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?


----------



## thegospel

*William Carey*

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't William Carey leave his wife to work in India? God used him, but I would never advocate his actions and we see God's amazing grace.

The things that concerned me about the article are, as most have mentioned:

1. The wife is not addressed to see her reasoning for resisting.
2. So many desire to do international missions, myself included, but how am I seeking to reach my neighbor or neighborhood. Not that reaching your neighbor is a requirement for international missions, but what drives a person to think that they are qualified for missions if that person is not seeking to reach the lost and dead in their community.


----------



## lynnie

Carey's wife went with him to India and eventually died there, but spent many years unhappy and even "insane" so they say. After their little boy died she apparently just "lost it." Andrew Fuller back in England was so very busy with the missionary society supporting Carey that his wife complained that he had no time to even talk to her. One does get the impression that ministry came first and wives second. It is a pity, as the heathen nations to which they went needed the picture of loving Christian marriage- Christ and His bride- so desperately.


----------



## Pergamum

What are ways in which a husband can begin to "train" a spouse into readiness or cultivate a love in the spouse towards the missionary call? What are ways in which wives can cultivate a happiness in following their husband's call, whether it be as a pastor in the next state over, in a new job which requires a relocation, or going as a missionary cross-culturally? 

Loving your wife sometimes means NOT giving her the best physical comforts, and loving your wife means not always succumbing to her weaknesses and desires for affluence and comfort. Yet, man are often blockheads and we drag our wives forward instead of winning her over to our side so that she follows happily.


----------



## Pergamum

lynnie said:


> Carey's wife went with him to India and eventually died there, but spent many years unhappy and even "insane" so they say. After their little boy died she apparently just "lost it." Andrew Fuller back in England was so very busy with the missionary society supporting Carey that his wife complained that he had no time to even talk to her. One does get the impression that ministry came first and wives second. It is a pity, as the heathen nations to which they went needed the picture of loving Christian marriage- Christ and His bride- so desperately.


 
Ironically, many churches speak ill of soft missionaries sometimes and glamorize the days when people packed their coffins and headed to africa, fully expecting to die for the cause. They talk about missionaries needing to sacrifice and fully being ready to die and to "spend and be spend" or be "totally consumed by their passion for the lost" and then, when it happens, they get chided by the same churches for this compulsive drive which sacrifices family time, family health and family emotional stability.

Balance is hard. 


I marvel that God uses anyone of us.


----------



## JBaldwin

> What are ways in which a husband can begin to "train" a spouse into readiness or cultivate a love in the spouse towards the missionary call? What are ways in which wives can cultivate a happiness in following their husband's call, whether it be as a pastor in the next state over, in a new job which requires a relocation, or going as a missionary cross-culturally?



The two things that come to mind are prayer and example. That doesn't mean the husband runs off and abandons the wife while he serves the Lord. If a man feels called to do mission work, it would seem he is already doing that work in some capacity at home, and the love he has for the Lord and the joy he finds in serving the Lord should be evident in his service in the community and especially at home to his wife and family. If the wife is content and secure in her husband's love and in the love the Lord has for her, she will follow him wherever he goes.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> You obviously have not been effectually called to do something out of your comfort zone. Tim, let the dead bury the dead. Let the rebellious wife sit and stew while her husband is doing God's work. I myself would be like Job or David when their spouses tried to get between them and the Almighty.



I believe this is a poor understanding of David and Job. David was a terrible husband and father. The fruit of his offspring reveals this. Job didn't abandon his wife even when she gave him a death wish. He was a good father and husband and God prospered him even more later on. 

There are charges to both wives and husbands. Let us not forget God's charge to the husband. Especially since it effects our communion with God. 



> (1Pe 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.


----------



## Amazing Grace

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have not been effectually called to do something out of your comfort zone. Tim, let the dead bury the dead. Let the rebellious wife sit and stew while her husband is doing God's work. I myself would be like Job or David when their spouses tried to get between them and the Almighty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is a poor understanding of David and Job. David was a terrible husband and father. The fruit of his offspring reveals this. Job didn't abandon his wife even when she gave him a death wish. He was a good father and husband and God prospered him even more later on.
> 
> There are charges to both wives and husbands. Let us not forget God's charge to the husband. Especially since it effects our communion with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1Pe 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Martin: I certainly agree with this assessment. My clarity is lacking in my statements hence you and others are hearing what i am not saying. I am just very cautious to play the wife rebellion card to disqualify ones calling.


----------



## Mushroom

The fact that God has used individuals both in scripture (David) and in subsequent history (Carey, Fuller), to further His kingdom are not endorsements of the obviously errant behaviour in which they engaged. Maybe we all ought to be selling our younger brothers into slavery? If not much is said about the Apostles' wives, why would anyone assume they did anything other than treat them lovingly and honorably as scripture instructs us? That would be slanderous. Abandoning a wife is never acceptable for a Christian, much less a Church officer or a missionary. What a perniciously wicked idea! What an insult to the Cross!

I am always confounded by the concept that the disqualifications for Church office are only applicable if they can be proven to be the 'fault' of the potential/serving officer. That is nowhere inferred. Is it a woman's 'fault' she's a woman? Was it a Benjaminite's 'fault' he wasn't a Levite? If a man sees that he does not fulfill the qualifications, regardless of 'fault', it is incumbent upon a Christian man to decline nomination. If a serving officer finds himself no longer qualified (unbelieving children, estranged wife, etc.), regardless of 'fault', it is incumbent upon a Christian man to step down. For some reason that's very rare these days. Maybe if we were more concerned with the peace and purity of the Bride of Christ, such that we would be loathe to bring scandal upon her, than we are with our own prestige and position (and sometimes salary), the Church would be in a far healthier state than She is. None of this was tolerated 100 years ago. Thank you, existentialism and individualism. PAH! Again.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Brad said:


> The fact that God has used individuals both in scripture (David) and in subsequent history (Carey, Fuller), to further His kingdom are not endorsements of the obviously errant behaviour in which they engaged. Maybe we all ought to be selling our younger brothers into slavery? If not much is said about the Apostles' wives, why would anyone assume they did anything other than treat them lovingly and honorably as scripture instructs us? That would be slanderous. Abandoning a wife is never acceptable for a Christian, much less a Church officer or a missionary. What a perniciously wicked idea! What an insult to the Cross!



Jesus Christ disagrees with this assessment. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life --he cannot be my disciple."

If your loyalty to Christ causes pain and tension with family members, you endure that as a Christian, but remain faithful to the Lord. There is no relationship that is more important, there are no person who deserves greater loyalty. This is what's involved; this is the loyalty, this is the depth of commitment necessary to be a follower of Christ.


Gill on Luke 14:26 is exactly what I am attempting to convey. . 

not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in ( Matthew 10:37 )* yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples.* The Ethiopic version inserts, "his house", into the account.

Now perhaps I am wrong, which will not be the last time, but if one had to choose between abandoning an unrepentant rebellious wife vs Serving Christ in a calling, Are we not commanded to choose the later and not be disqualified by this inspired choice?


----------



## calgal

Amazing Grace said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that God has used individuals both in scripture (David) and in subsequent history (Carey, Fuller), to further His kingdom are not endorsements of the obviously errant behaviour in which they engaged. Maybe we all ought to be selling our younger brothers into slavery? If not much is said about the Apostles' wives, why would anyone assume they did anything other than treat them lovingly and honorably as scripture instructs us? That would be slanderous. Abandoning a wife is never acceptable for a Christian, much less a Church officer or a missionary. What a perniciously wicked idea! What an insult to the Cross!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ disagrees with this assessment. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life --he cannot be my disciple."
> 
> If your loyalty to Christ causes pain and tension with family members, you endure that as a Christian, but remain faithful to the Lord. There is no relationship that is more important, there are no person who deserves greater loyalty. This is what's involved; this is the loyalty, this is the depth of commitment necessary to be a follower of Christ.
> 
> 
> Gill on Luke 14:26 is exactly what I am attempting to convey. .
> 
> not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in ( Matthew 10:37 )* yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples.* The Ethiopic version inserts, "his house", into the account.
> 
> Now perhaps I am wrong, which will not be the last time, but if one had to choose between abandoning an unrepentant rebellious wife vs Serving Christ in a calling, Are we not commanded to choose the later and not be disqualified by this inspired choice?
Click to expand...

 
Robert how do you know it is the WIFE that is "unrepentant and rebellious" and not the husband who may be pursuing a mission for all the wrong reasons?


----------



## Honor

ok here are my two cents for what it's worth.
If the bible says the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself up for her then if a husband loves Christ and wants to go to the mission field shouldn't his desire be to take his wife with him? not drop kick her to the curb the second she says hold up a sec.If you read the article they were newly maried with, what was it a 2 year old and one on the way... dude I JUST got done with carrying a child and I can tell you that for one if my husband would have come home from class one day and had wanted us to up and move to ANOTHER COUNTRY right then with a toddler and me pregnant I would have hit him over the head with a frying pan. Pregnancy is stressful, dealing with a toddler is stressful, being newly married is stressful.... him going to school and I assume having a job leaving her with very little time with him much less a break for herself is stressful and then he comes home and expects her to jump up and down with joy when he wants to go into the mission field? and you are saying he should have just left her,,,,, and their child and the unborn baby.... so that he could go "fullfill his call"
are you kidding me? If and this is a BIG IF God called him, He would soften her heart, He would have made her more open to the idea. but obviously this guy is a starter and not much of a finisher. He wanted to just jump in with two feet and not finish his schooling, not finish his duties at home. when you are single.... fine, go, whatever but when you are a husband, a father, your mission field should start at home. not dump them off just because she's not as flighty as you. worse (in my opinion) than an unbeliever.
now to the second thing that bugged me.... the whole train the wife thing. maybe I'm the only one offended by that statment but....
dude I'm not a dog, I'm not a child. I see nowwhere in Scripture that a husband is to train his wife. that to me is insulting. You can talk to me, show me things, but train me? what do I get ??? a treat if I do a trick for you? Come on.


----------



## BJClark

Pergamum;



> What would a pastor say during this premarital counseling sesssion?




It would be much like mine was...where our pastor asked me..

"if God were to call him to the mission field overseas, would/could you be supportive of that? would you be willing to give up your comforts and go to a foreign land where they may not have running water? Where the life style and language are completely different? He even asked about children, and how we would feel about having children where there may not be a hospital around (we aren't planning on having anymore children) but he asked anyway..those were just a few of the things he asked about..

But those are things any Christian should consider before they marry...and they should at least be discussed..


----------



## BJClark

Pergamum;



> ]What are ways in which a husband can begin to "train" a spouse into readiness or cultivate a love in the spouse towards the missionary call? What are ways in which wives can cultivate a happiness in following their husband's call, whether it be as a pastor in the next state over, in a new job which requires a relocation, or going as a missionary cross-culturally?
> 
> Loving your wife sometimes means NOT giving her the best physical comforts, and loving your wife means not always succumbing to her weaknesses and desires for affluence and comfort. Yet, man are often blockheads and we drag our wives forward instead of winning her over to our side so that she follows happily.



I think one way would be by encouraging them to go on short term missions trips together--that could allow her to get to know the people, and see the need first hand..while allowing God to work in her heart or not towards that end..

it would allow them both to witness first hand the conditions they may be living in, before either of them make the final decision, a short term trip could change the husbands mind as well..


----------



## Amazing Grace

calgal said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that God has used individuals both in scripture (David) and in subsequent history (Carey, Fuller), to further His kingdom are not endorsements of the obviously errant behaviour in which they engaged. Maybe we all ought to be selling our younger brothers into slavery? If not much is said about the Apostles' wives, why would anyone assume they did anything other than treat them lovingly and honorably as scripture instructs us? That would be slanderous. Abandoning a wife is never acceptable for a Christian, much less a Church officer or a missionary. What a perniciously wicked idea! What an insult to the Cross!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ disagrees with this assessment. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life --he cannot be my disciple."
> 
> If your loyalty to Christ causes pain and tension with family members, you endure that as a Christian, but remain faithful to the Lord. There is no relationship that is more important, there are no person who deserves greater loyalty. This is what's involved; this is the loyalty, this is the depth of commitment necessary to be a follower of Christ.
> 
> 
> Gill on Luke 14:26 is exactly what I am attempting to convey. .
> 
> not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in ( Matthew 10:37 )* yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples.* The Ethiopic version inserts, "his house", into the account.
> 
> Now perhaps I am wrong, which will not be the last time, but if one had to choose between abandoning an unrepentant rebellious wife vs Serving Christ in a calling, Are we not commanded to choose the later and not be disqualified by this inspired choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert how do you know it is the WIFE that is "unrepentant and rebellious" and not the husband who may be pursuing a mission for all the wrong reasons?
Click to expand...

 
Then he should be rebuked and admonished. Yet the OP did not delve into this area.


----------



## Montanablue

Honor said:


> ok here are my two cents for what it's worth.
> If the bible says the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself up for her then if a husband loves Christ and wants to go to the mission field shouldn't his desire be to take his wife with him? not drop kick her to the curb the second she says hold up a sec.If you read the article they were newly maried with, what was it a 2 year old and one on the way... dude I JUST got done with carrying a child and I can tell you that for one if my husband would have come home from class one day and had wanted us to up and move to ANOTHER COUNTRY right then with a toddler and me pregnant I would have hit him over the head with a frying pan. Pregnancy is stressful, dealing with a toddler is stressful, being newly married is stressful.... him going to school and I assume having a job leaving her with very little time with him much less a break for herself is stressful and then he comes home and expects her to jump up and down with joy when he wants to go into the mission field? and you are saying he should have just left her,,,,, and their child and the unborn baby.... so that he could go "fullfill his call"
> are you kidding me? If and this is a BIG IF God called him, He would soften her heart, He would have made her more open to the idea. but obviously this guy is a starter and not much of a finisher. He wanted to just jump in with two feet and not finish his schooling, not finish his duties at home. when you are single.... fine, go, whatever but when you are a husband, a father, your mission field should start at home. not dump them off just because she's not as flighty as you. worse (in my opinion) than an unbeliever.
> now to the second thing that bugged me.... the whole train the wife thing. maybe I'm the only one offended by that statment but....
> dude I'm not a dog, I'm not a child. I see nowwhere in Scripture that a husband is to train his wife. that to me is insulting. You can talk to me, show me things, but train me? what do I get ??? a treat if I do a trick for you? Come on.


 
Amen. 

He really even admits as much in the article:



> What was here message? In essence it was this: “Michael, God is not going to call you into something that he does not also call your wife into.” You can add about a hundred exclamation points after that and you will catch my drift. I would not even be surprised if there was not a curse word thrown in here or there. I can’t remember. “If God sovereignly calls you into something, do you think he is going to forget about your wife?” she continued. “If she is against it, it is not his will. Period!”
> 
> Well, so much for that idea.
> 
> That conversation changed me. It changed my marriage. I will never forget it and never be able to express how much of an effect Priscilla’s boldness had on me that night. She helped to re-prioritize this passionate and selfish maverick. She helped me to know that my first priority in ministry is to my wife and family. In a very real sense, Priscilla saved my marriage from my passion for ministry.



And yes, let's try to avoid the word "train" as though we were dealing with an errant dog and not a human created in God's image. For pity's sake... I show my father these posts sometimes and he just shakes his head...


----------



## Mushroom

> Now perhaps I am wrong, which will not be the last time, but if one had to choose between abandoning an unrepentant rebellious wife vs Serving Christ in a calling, Are we not commanded to choose the later and not be disqualified by this inspired choice?


If one were to abandon a wife, rebellious or otherwise, he would be disqualified from Church Office - period - and he would have no business working in any official capacity in any ministry. Stretching the exhortation Christ gave on holding the kingdom of God first in our hearts above all else to cover committing the sin of abandoning a wife is appalling, and made even more so by inferring it would be acceptable to do for the purpose of 'serving' God. That is about as satanic a thing as I can imagine.

The scripture you reference cannot mean that Christians 'give up' those things by abandoning their responsibilities. It must refer to an unbelieving spouse doing the abandonment, because a Christian is elsewhere commanded never to do such a thing. God does not contradict Himself. I've heard of wacked-out synergistic charismaniacs coming up with loopy ideas like this, but how could any man who trusts in the sovereignty of God over scripture and over marriages ever conceive of this? Is God not sovereign over the heart of all wives? God will NOT 'call' a man to the mission field or to Church Office whom He has not decreed the particulars of his life to conform with the requirements of the Word. I gotta say it... PAH! again!


----------



## a mere housewife

Having met T&T, I'm sure Pergy did not mean anything at all demeaning by 'train' -- I think he means to ask how a man can lead in such a way that his wife will follow him into greater hardship? And leadership that helps others to follow is of course fully Biblical.

I do think what Bruce said is the key to this sort of discussion: a single person is free to please the Lord; a married person *must* care about the things of the world, how to please their spouse. This is Paul's argument for singleness, and if a married person could simply use a spouse to be basically an even better single person, that would completely destroy the argument in favor of singleness (and destroy the self sacrificial beauty of marriage). 

In light of that, I think one way to help a wife endure more hardship is to accept that no matter how much hardship one is able to eventually lead her into, one is never going to be freed up by her to behave like the single person. If a husband can't fulfil his wife's material needs as she has been used to, I think it is important not to neglect caring for her emotional and spiritual needs, and pleasing her in whatever ways are still available. That will take time and effort away from other things he could be doing; but he's a married man, not a single one, and that time and effort are a commitment he made before the Lord, that necessarily limit his service -- he cannot get out of caring about the things of the world, and that is going to break into ministry opportunities -- or again, where is the superiority Paul is arguing for, for singleness? (I think if a man truly is called to serve in the ministry, caring for his wife in this way will not be all consuming because as a help meet for him, she will be strengthened by it to serve as well -- and then of course he has the benefit of being a married and not a single person, in that he has the consolation of a wife who shares his burdens.)

As for Carey and other truly great men whose wives have suffered, I don't think these areas in their lives are allowed so that we will look at them and think 'They did this, and they were great people whom God used, therefore we should do this, too' -- but precisely for the opposite purpose. No matter how wonderful we see that they were by God's grace, we see as Pergy said, that it was His grace in them: they were as fallible as the rest of us, and it is a wonder that God uses anyone (so God can use even not so great me).


----------



## calgal

Amazing Grace said:


> Robert how do you know it is the WIFE that is "unrepentant and rebellious" and not the husband who may be pursuing a mission for all the wrong reasons?
> 
> Then he should be rebuked and admonished. Yet the OP did not delve into this area.


 
But robert the husband in the linked article was admonished in no uncertain terms. And the OP did "go there" by asking what counsel is best and what to advise both parties to do.


----------



## a mere housewife

Amazing Grace said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ disagrees with this assessment. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life --he cannot be my disciple."
> 
> If your loyalty to Christ causes pain and tension with family members, you endure that as a Christian, but remain faithful to the Lord. There is no relationship that is more important, there are no person who deserves greater loyalty. This is what's involved; this is the loyalty, this is the depth of commitment necessary to be a follower of Christ.
> 
> 
> Gill on Luke 14:26 is exactly what I am attempting to convey. .
> 
> not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in ( Matthew 10:37 )* yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples.* The Ethiopic version inserts, "his house", into the account.
> 
> Now perhaps I am wrong, which will not be the last time, but if one had to choose between abandoning an unrepentant rebellious wife vs Serving Christ in a calling, Are we not commanded to choose the later and not be disqualified by this inspired choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert how do you know it is the WIFE that is "unrepentant and rebellious" and not the husband who may be pursuing a mission for all the wrong reasons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then he should be rebuked and admonished. Yet the OP did not delve into this area.
Click to expand...

 
Robert, isn't a problem with much of what (I'm sorry if I've misunderstood) you've been advocating, that in order to determine whether a man wants to go into the ministry for the wrong reasons or has a genuine call you have to resort to some mystical way of determining God's will, not only over and above but actually canceling out a man's revealed duty as a husband, and the revealed qualifications for the ministry? (I'm not meaning to break into the argument, but would like to know how you determine God's call not just apart from, but against, these things?)


----------



## BJClark

> ]What are ways in which a husband can begin to "train" a spouse into readiness or cultivate a love in the spouse towards the missionary call? What are ways in which wives can cultivate a happiness in following their husband's call, whether it be as a pastor in the next state over, in a new job which requires a relocation, or going as a missionary cross-culturally?



I'm curious (as others have mentioned) does the 'training' of the wives include some form of reward/discipline system as well.. 

Pergy, I believe you should have used the "" marks over the words 'cultivate a love' as opposed to 'train'; as it is not a husbands responsibility to 'train' his wife anymore than it is a wife's responsibility to 'train' her husband (something I hear quite frequently from women about training their husbands to pick up after themselves and other such things), that was HER parents responsibility to train her, and raise her up in the love for the things of God, including the willingness to go to the Mission field if that is God's will for her future husband and thus their marriage..and if her parents failed in some way to do this, then the older women within the church can certainly help teach her these things as she grows in her walk with Christ, but it's not her husband's responsibility to train her..as if she was his child, because that would diminish her role as his helpmeet, and any children they have would not respect her authority over their lives...it would also effect many other areas of their marriage, including the marriage bed..as what woman would desire to give herself sexually to a man that makes her feel she is married to someone who treats her as a child?? And he is trying to take on the role of her father?? How insulting and lacking respect for her..and their marriage..


----------



## lynnie

_I can tell you that for one if my husband would have come home from class one day and had wanted us to up and move to ANOTHER COUNTRY right then with a toddler and me pregnant I would have hit him over the head with a frying pan._

hey, where are all the rotfl little thingeys? This is the best line in the whole thread.

By the way Robert, did you ever stop to think if maybe there might be something wrong with a guy who chooses a rebellious wife in the first place? To be fair, I've seen marriages where they appear to both be totally sold out to the Lord, and things emerge later that the other one never could have guessed were there, and even their friends and elders never saw it coming. Sin nature runs deep and can be well hidden. But on the other hand, I've seen plenty of guys who had the pick of some real nice friendly warm intelligent women who would have made nice wives and mothers, and they end up tossing aside the girls they actually have good fellowship with, for a hot number with not too much underneath.The guy is functioning on the brainstem instead of by the holy spirit if you get my drift. I've seen this over and over and over. Its amazing how a man can be felled into marriage by the gorgeous figure. And that isn't the best candidate for missionary work. Not saying this about the linked blog author, but just pointing out a not so uncommon situation.


----------



## JBaldwin

BJClark said:


> ]What are ways in which a husband can begin to "train" a spouse into readiness or cultivate a love in the spouse towards the missionary call? What are ways in which wives can cultivate a happiness in following their husband's call, whether it be as a pastor in the next state over, in a new job which requires a relocation, or going as a missionary cross-culturally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious (as others have mentioned) does the 'training' of the wives include some form of reward/discipline system as well..
> 
> Pergy, I believe you should have used the "" marks over the words 'cultivate a love' as opposed to 'train'; as it is not a husbands responsibility to 'train' his wife anymore than it is a wife's responsibility to 'train' her husband (something I hear quite frequently from women about training their husbands to pick up after themselves and other such things), that was HER parents responsibility to train her, and raise her up in the love for the things of God, including the willingness to go to the Mission field if that is God's will for her future husband and thus their marriage..and if her parents failed in some way to do this, then the older women within the church can certainly help teach her these things as she grows in her walk with Christ, but it's not her husband's responsibility to train her..as if she was his child, because that would diminish her role as his helpmeet, and any children they have would not respect her authority over their lives...it would also effect many other areas of their marriage, including the marriage bed..as what woman would desire to give herself sexually to a man that makes her feel she is married to someone who treats her as a child?? And he is trying to take on the role of her father?? How insulting and lacking respect for her..and their marriage..
Click to expand...


I agree heartily. As I stated earlier, putting the "training" comment aside, if a man (or a wife for that matter) feels called to the mission field and the other is not in agreement, they need to pray that God will bring them to unity. God is not restricted to calling both the husband and wife at the same time, though in the end both will be convinced they are doing God's will. In my humble opinion, in ANY ministry whether on the mission field or in the local church, a couple needs to be united. At the very least, the spouse should be unified as to the call of the other so as to be supportive.


----------



## au5t1n

Question: When this man had his immaturity exposed, he concluded (and was told) that he was necessarily not called into missions at all. Is his conclusion necessarily true, or might it be that he needed to grow up first, prepare, and get to a point in his marriage when he and his wife would both be ready and willing for such an endeavor? Was he right to assume that he was absolutely not called to the mission field, period, because his wife was resistant, for obvious reasons, to up and leaving right then and there with young children? This is the statement in the article that I'm asking about in particular:



> “If she is against it, it is not his will. Period!” -Priscilla



Isn't there a possibility that in spite of valid reasons not to leave right then and there, unqualified, with young kids and a wife who didn't want to go, they may still have been called to prepare for the mission field?


----------



## Skyler

Wasn't Carey's wife also resistant to his calling to India as a missionary?


----------



## au5t1n

Skyler said:


> Wasn't Carey's wife also resistant to his calling to India as a missionary?


 
I think there was some discussion of that on page 1 of the thread.


----------



## BJClark

austinww;



> Isn't there a possibility that in spite of valid reasons not to leave right then and there, unqualified, with young kids and a wife who didn't want to go, they may still have been called to prepare for the mission field?



Yes, there is, which is why prayer over the matter would be encouraged..and a LOT of discussion over the matter should take place..

But even with the couple mentioned in the article, he was apparently still in his first years of School, so over those next few years they could have discussed it and prayed over the matter..as opposed to ruling it out all together..(in trying to give the man the benefit of doubt here) I don't think he was wanting to drop out of school and rush off to the mission field..but I think that is what many are assuming...in that he came home after class one day and said.."I think God wants me to go into Missions"

The way he could/should have handled it..would be "Honey, I think God is calling me to missions, let's pray about this" as opposed to trying to convince and insist God was doing such by trying to strong arm her into agreement..but as we all agree the man was immature in his walk w/ Chris, he was also still young and immature in his marriage relationship and how to relate to his wife..


----------



## au5t1n

BJClark said:


> austinww;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a possibility that in spite of valid reasons not to leave right then and there, unqualified, with young kids and a wife who didn't want to go, they may still have been called to prepare for the mission field?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is, which is why prayer over the matter would be encouraged..and a LOT of discussion over the matter should take place..
> 
> But even with the couple mentioned in the article, he was apparently still in his first years of School, so over those next few years they could have discussed it and prayed over the matter..as opposed to ruling it out all together..
Click to expand...

 
I think that is the main disagreement I had with the article. He was told that if his wife is initially opposed to the idea, he must absolutely not be called to missions, ever, period. But I do think he is supposed to be the spiritual leader, ultimately, although he clearly was not mature at this point in his life. 

I apologize to anyone offended by the word "train," although I didn't use it personally, I responded in agreement. From Pergamum's posts on the board that I have read, I highly doubt he meant there to be any dog or child training connotations. There must be a better word to express the concept of spiritual leadership that is sacrificial and that recognizes the fact that a wife is an adult, not a child. I am sure that's what he meant too.


----------



## daver

Paul acknowleges that a married man has is not as free as a single man in service to the Lord. I believe Paul was speaking of the reality of marriage and not being critical of the consequences. If your wife is unwilling to go into the mission field and you are still in the "family making" time of life, stay put. If the kids are grown and your call is strong then you may have to go wthout her. In my humble opinion


----------



## Skyler

austinww said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Carey's wife also resistant to his calling to India as a missionary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there was some discussion of that on page 1 of the thread.
Click to expand...

 
Page 2, but yeah, I must've missed it. Thanks.


----------



## a mere housewife

daver said:


> Paul acknowleges that a married man has is not as free as a single man in service to the Lord. I believe Paul was speaking of the reality of marriage and not being critical of the consequences. If your wife is unwilling to go into the mission field and you are still in the "family making" time of life, stay put. If the kids are grown and your call is strong then you may have to go wthout her. In my humble opinion


 
Is Paul then only speaking about the superiority of singleness with regard to children?

Again, I'm confused as to how one determines the legitimacy of a call, if it is not only something added onto, but something that goes against, duties that are revealed?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Brad said:


> Now perhaps I am wrong, which will not be the last time, but if one had to choose between abandoning an unrepentant rebellious wife vs Serving Christ in a calling, Are we not commanded to choose the later and not be disqualified by this inspired choice?
> 
> 
> 
> If one were to abandon a wife, rebellious or otherwise, he would be disqualified from Church Office - period - and he would have no business working in any official capacity in any ministry. Stretching the exhortation Christ gave on holding the kingdom of God first in our hearts above all else to cover committing the sin of abandoning a wife is appalling, and made even more so by inferring it would be acceptable to do for the purpose of 'serving' God. That is about as satanic a thing as I can imagine.
> 
> The scripture you reference cannot mean that Christians 'give up' those things by abandoning their responsibilities. It must refer to an unbelieving spouse doing the abandonment, because a Christian is elsewhere commanded never to do such a thing. God does not contradict Himself. I've heard of wacked-out synergistic charismaniacs coming up with loopy ideas like this, but how could any man who trusts in the sovereignty of God over scripture and over marriages ever conceive of this? Is God not sovereign over the heart of all wives? God will NOT 'call' a man to the mission field or to Church Office whom He has not decreed the particulars of his life to conform with the requirements of the Word. I gotta say it... PAH! again!
Click to expand...


I would appreciate if you can tone down the over dramatic use of language. To equate what i said with a satanic influence is demeaning. I will let it go because obviously you are not looking at what the scriptures say and not approaching this in a manner worth of dialogue. 

Now that being said, if you can back up your fleshly rant with some scripture, I will then make all the time necessary to dialogue with you. I will end again with what Dr. Gil rightly divides the verse to mean, and unless you offer some other option, I am compelled to remain where I am at. Leaving an unrepentant rebellious wife who is standing in the husbands way of serving Christ is not only commanded, but applauded. It says nothing of the sort of an unbelieving spouse doing the leaving. It is not even inferred. And I certainly agree that God is Sovereign. 

Gill on Luke 14:26 is exactly what I am attempting to convey. .

not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in ( Matthew 10:37 )* yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples.*


----------



## Honor

it can not be applauded if the husband is leaving his wife and two small children.... ever. there is no scripture that backs that up. In fact there are a whole slew of verses that say quiet the contrary. 
If I had to talk to the couple I would tell her to really search her heart, and plead with God to change one of thiers heart. Be it her's to give her an open heart towards missions or his heart towards the way he feels about missions at that moment. and I would tell the husband, in the mean time to start with his house and then his neighborhood. Is everyone on his block saved? Have all heard the Gospel from him? use this time to study, learn and practice here.... states side. it said that the wife was only willing to live in one of two places... well, fine when they move back, perhaps they can move to a poorer section of town. Minister to those people. learn a trade that will be useful so that you are not only telling people the good news but you are also a help to them as well. The mission feild, while vastly needed over seas is not the only place. The homeless, the poor, the sick and mentally ill. they need to be reached out to too. If his call to be a missionarry is real then he should be chaffing at the bit to tell EVERYONE the gospel, not just people over seas. If his wife is strongly opposed then let him do it here and approach the subject in a few years or after the kids are in collage and out the house. That way he is catering to her as the weaker vessal and lovingly sacrificing for her. Plus I strongly believe that God would never call a man knowing it would force him to abandon his wife and small children. He can make the rocks cry out for heaven sakes He certainly doesn't NEED this one dude to ruin his family, cause life long damage to his children, and ultimatly sin. and before God calls someone to do something.... anything.... He already knows the hearts of everyone involved. so, sorry you wouldn't get a cookie or a gold star for leaving your wife.


----------



## TimV

> in the "family making" time of life, stay put. If the kids are grown and your call is strong then you may have to go wthout her.



Your denomination would excommunicate you if you did that, and rightly so.


----------



## au5t1n

Christ's words about leaving wife to follow him are no more warrant for abandoning a wife and children for a perceived call than God's command through Moses for the Levites to slay "each man his neighbor" is a warrant for us to start slaying our neighbors. Christ gave his commands to follow him in person, but our perception of a call could be wrong, especially when it contradicts what Scripture has already clearly revealed about providing for one's family.


----------



## Amazing Grace

TimV said:


> in the "family making" time of life, stay put. If the kids are grown and your call is strong then you may have to go wthout her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your denomination would excommunicate you if you did that, and rightly so.
Click to expand...


Tim is the OPC this extreme on the Marriage ?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> (1Ti 5:8) But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.




This is a passage where a charge is laid at the mans feet to take care of his household. If he neglects it he is to be considered a non believer at worse. At best he is considered untrustworthy and faithless. 

How can this be considered in this conversation?


----------



## Pergamum

Taking care of your family spiritually is much more important than physically. And pushing family members out of comfort zones may, in fact, be taking care of their souls by motivating them to greater holiness and dependance upon God.

I actually had the James verses used against me because we were taking our children to a remote location. But my children actually benefit spiritually by being in harder physical places and seeing how people across the globe live.

Pushing a lazy, indulgent personality into greater sacrifice means to take care of them.


----------



## BJClark

> Now that being said, if you can back up your fleshly rant with some scripture, I will then make all the time necessary to dialogue with you. I will end again with what Dr. Gil rightly divides the verse to mean, and unless you offer some other option, I am compelled to remain where I am at. Leaving an unrepentant rebellious wife who is standing in the husbands way of serving Christ is not only commanded, but applauded. It says nothing of the sort of an unbelieving spouse doing the leaving. It is not even inferred. And I certainly agree that God is Sovereign.


 
1st Cor. 7 would address this issue---

If you left your wife alone you would be depriving her of a sexual relationship with her husband..and could certainly open that door to temptation for both of you---and even then it says they should be in agreement concerning that time..

But no where does it say a man should leave his wife behind and go serve God, but it does say that a man who has a wife should not seek to be free from that wife..



> 1Cr 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
> 
> 1Cr 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
> 
> 1Cr 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
> 
> 1Cr 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
> 
> 1Cr 7:5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.



and further down..



> 1Cr 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband
> 
> 1Cr 7:11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
> 
> 1Cr 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
> 
> 1Cr 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
> 
> 1Cr 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.
> 
> 1Cr 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.



Even Christ Himself say's you have become one flesh--so to divorce your wife to go into missions you would be separating what God has joined together..



> Mat 19:5 "and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'?
> Mat 19:6 "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."






> Eph 5:28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
> 
> Eph 5:29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,


----------



## TimV

> Tim is the OPC this extreme on the Marriage ?



It's not extreme.


----------



## a mere housewife

Pergamum said:


> Taking care of your family spiritually is much more important than physically. And pushing family members out of comfort zones may, in fact, be taking care of their souls by motivating them to greater holiness and dependance upon God.
> 
> I actually had the James verses used against me because we were taking our children to a remote location. But my children actually benefit spiritually by being in harder physical places and seeing how people across the globe live.
> 
> Pushing a lazy, indulgent personality into greater sacrifice means to take care of them.


 
Pergs, here is a quote making your point, somewhat:

"There is kindness in Love: but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness . . . is separated from other elements of Love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object, and even something like contempt of it. . . . Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering. . . . It is for people whom we care nothing about that we demand happiness on any terms: with our friends, our lovers, our children, we are exacting and would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes."

-C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

However I don't know about a husband or wife allowing themselves to think things like 'lazy' and 'self indulgent' of their spouse? Charity begins at home, and surely a woman would respond better to hardship, if she were being led into it by a man who was thinking as well of her as he could.


----------



## py3ak

[Grumpy Moderator]*I think people are talking past one another, to some extent, and if it doesn't stop I'm going to stomp on this thread.*[/Grumpy Moderator]

Being a disciple and serving Christ are not the same thing as going to the mission field. If my father, wife, son or maiden aunt want to stand in the way of conversion or of following Christ, then I must hate them. BUT, I must hate them in such a way that I continue to provide for my own, OR I am worse than an infidel. God does not call us to be worse than infidels, but to be imitators of God as dear children and to walk in love, to walk in light, to live soberly, righteously and godly. Anyone who has a family has a divine call staring him right in the face. No pretext of a high and lonely destiny will absolve him from that responsibility. That is clear; that is obvious. A call to the mission field, like any call to the ministry, is a blend of subjective (desire) and objective elements (gifting, recognition by appropriate people). 

That said, if any ties of family or tradition or culture interfere with OBEYING Christ (which shouldn't be equated with running off to the mission field regardless of your circumstances), then by all means let family be offended; but their offense doesn't change your responsibility until they *abandon*, rather than merely oppose or mock you.

We have to keep following the Lord (for which we should be willing to abandon family if that is what it takes) from pursuing a specific avenue of service. And that is not a piece of sophism designed to justify compromise, it is a recognition of the fact that following Christ means caring for those in our household. Following Christ may involve many painful sacrifices, but it does not involve sacrificing obedience to God.

Now I would point out that parents are sometimes unwilling to "lose" their children to the work of the Lord, and that does strike me as a piece of selfishness that shouldn't be tolerated.


----------



## Amazing Grace

PuritanCovenanter said:


> (1Ti 5:8) But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a passage where a charge is laid at the mans feet to take care of his household. If he neglects it he is to be considered a non believer at worse. At best he is considered untrustworthy and faithless.
> 
> How can this be considered in this conversation?
Click to expand...

 

First of all. People are equating obeying God's call to go into the mission field and not staying with a cantankerous rebellious wife as abandonment. I find this a false equation. I said the man could still care for his wife even if not under the same roof. Then I hear, "Well what about sex?" Sexual relations with a rebellious stumbling block wife is not first on any man's list that I hang with. And I that is not a sinful thought on my part.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Pergamum said:


> Taking care of your family spiritually is much more important than physically. And pushing family members out of comfort zones may, in fact, be taking care of their souls by motivating them to greater holiness and dependance upon God.
> 
> I actually had the James verses used against me because we were taking our children to a remote location. But my children actually benefit spiritually by being in harder physical places and seeing how people across the globe live.
> 
> Pushing a lazy, indulgent personality into greater sacrifice means to take care of them.


 

Pergy: You are the man in the mission field. I keep getting questions asking how does one know their calling is God;s will? If your wife asked you to leave your mission and became rebellious, threatening to leave regardless if you came or not, what woudl you do? May as well get it from the horses mouth instead of mine.


----------



## Amazing Grace

TimV said:


> Tim is the OPC this extreme on the Marriage ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not extreme.
Click to expand...


A better answer from you would have added, 'It is scriptural"


----------



## py3ak

Amazing Grace said:


> First of all. People are equating obeying God's call to go into the mission field and not staying with a cantankerous rebellious wife as abandonment. I find this a false equation. I said the man could still care for his wife even if not under the same roof. Then I hear, "Well what about sex?" Sexual relations with a rebellious stumbling block wife is not first on any man's list that I hang with. And I that is not a sinful thought on my part.


 
Robert, your argument amount to this: an unsubmissive wife forfeits her rights. However, if being unsubmissive in rejecting God's command to repent doesn't make you forfeit your rights, why would being unsubmissive to an admittedly lesser authority? In other words, if a hypothetical wife does not forfeit her rights by being an unbeliever, I don't think you can make out a Scriptural case that she forfeits them by being obstinate.


----------



## Mushroom

Amazing Grace said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1Ti 5:8) But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a passage where a charge is laid at the mans feet to take care of his household. If he neglects it he is to be considered a non believer at worse. At best he is considered untrustworthy and faithless.
> 
> How can this be considered in this conversation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all. People are equating obeying God's call to go into the mission field and not staying with a cantankerous rebellious wife as abandonment. I find this a false equation. I said the man could still care for his wife even if not under the same roof. Then I hear, "Well what about sex?" Sexual relations with a rebellious stumbling block wife is not first on any man's list that I hang with. And I that is not a sinful thought on my part.
Click to expand...

Robert, it appears evident that you disagree that God is sovereign over 'cantankerous rebellious wives' and over the particulars of a man's life in a calling to the mission field. God is able to meticulously arrange the qualifications of His servants such that they are never called to commit sin to follow any of His calls. Abandoning a wife, regardless of her cantankerousness, is always sin. That has been clearly demonstrated with scripture throughout this thread. If a man had to sacrifice his marriage to follow Christ, it would never be to a mission field or Church Office, because that abandonment would automatically disqualify him from those calls. Again, the idea that disqualifications for those callings only apply if there is no fault on the part of the man is individualism overthrowing the faith. He could not rule his own house well in that situation. And that is God's sovereign will. We have no 'right' to a special calling in the Church, God chooses as He wills, and has delineated the marks of that choosing.


----------



## TimV

> A better answer from you would have added, 'It is scriptural"



I disagree, and that's the reasons for confessions. You don't have to continually reinvent the wheel. When it comes down to two people who disagree, who see the Bible teaching two different things on a subject the confession deals with, you just appeal to the confession. You can't abandon your spouse except for adultery and abandonment, and even those things go through the church, since the church has to do what it can to stop these things. There's no room for a person's feelings having anything to do with the subject.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Pergamum said:


> Parchment and Pen How My Passion for Ministry Almost Ended My Marriage
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on this article?
> 
> 
> I have encountered some young couples that are in this situation, the man wanting to go but the woman wanting to stay.
> 
> 
> What sort of counsel is best in these situations?
> 
> What are good things to advise both parties?


 
I think the wife of the professor had it perfectly right. Nowhere did the man say his wife was not a Christian ... and it would not have changed my mind even if she was an unbeliever ... the word is fairly clear that he would be violating a vow by not holding to his wife. If that means he does not become a missionary, then I would say the subjective "call" he says he received was a false perception. Not only that, but his approach to the situation is exactly the antithesis of caring for the one whom he vowed to love, on this earth, above all others (including himself).

While a hypothetical situation might be made that a person would find a wife that refuses to leave and it really is God's call to go, I don't believe God would allow that to happen in reality. God is sovereign over her heart as well as his. He cannot presume that her concern for children and family are not from God any more than he can presume that his call is not just the result of an emotional appeal. If she is dead set against going, he cannot abandon her, but must support her as the Bible commands (which includes his presence).


----------



## Amazing Grace

Brad said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a passage where a charge is laid at the mans feet to take care of his household. If he neglects it he is to be considered a non believer at worse. At best he is considered untrustworthy and faithless.
> 
> How can this be considered in this conversation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all. People are equating obeying God's call to go into the mission field and not staying with a cantankerous rebellious wife as abandonment. I find this a false equation. I said the man could still care for his wife even if not under the same roof. Then I hear, "Well what about sex?" Sexual relations with a rebellious stumbling block wife is not first on any man's list that I hang with. And I that is not a sinful thought on my part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robert, it appears evident that you disagree that God is sovereign over 'cantankerous rebellious wives' and over the particulars of a man's life in a calling to the mission field. God is able to meticulously arrange the qualifications of His servants such that they are never called to commit sin to follow any of His calls. Abandoning a wife, regardless of her cantankerousness, is always sin. That has been clearly demonstrated with scripture throughout this thread. If a man had to sacrifice his marriage to follow Christ, it would never be to a mission field or Church Office, because that abandonment would automatically disqualify him from those calls. Again, the idea that disqualifications for those callings only apply if there is no fault on the part of the man is individualism overthrowing the faith. He could not rule his own house well in that situation. And that is God's sovereign will. We have no 'right' to a special calling in the Church, God chooses as He wills, and has delineated the marks of that choosing.
Click to expand...


So what do you do with Luke 14 Brad? I am not convinced leaving ones spouse, who is standing in the way of obeying a call from God is a sin. And I must have missed the the clearly demonstrated truth of this throughout this thread. And i do not see it as individualism. Please understand I have repeatedly said this should and must take much prayer and time together. Not some wake up one day and I am going to China calling. To say I must remain with an unrepentant rebellious stumbling block wife and accept her as she is disobeying a call from God is like saying God Himself should stay married to a rebellious bride. And this certainly was not nor is the case. DO yo think I take this lightly? I certainly hope not. And I do not deny God's Sovereignty at all. In fact I believe He does put these blocks in front of His disciples to see how serious they are to follow Him.


----------



## Amazing Grace

py3ak said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all. People are equating obeying God's call to go into the mission field and not staying with a cantankerous rebellious wife as abandonment. I find this a false equation. I said the man could still care for his wife even if not under the same roof. Then I hear, "Well what about sex?" Sexual relations with a rebellious stumbling block wife is not first on any man's list that I hang with. And I that is not a sinful thought on my part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert, your argument amount to this: an unsubmissive wife forfeits her rights. However, if being unsubmissive in rejecting God's command to repent doesn't make you forfeit your rights, why would being unsubmissive to an admittedly lesser authority? In other words, if a hypothetical wife does not forfeit her rights by being an unbeliever, I don't think you can make out a Scriptural case that she forfeits them by being obstinate.
Click to expand...

 

Ruben, I am not following you here. What rights are you speaking of?


----------



## py3ak

The rights Paul speaks of 1 Corinthians 7, among others.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Pergamum said:


> What would a pastor say during this premarital counseling sesssion?
> 
> 
> 
> To husband: You can only drag the wife as far as she will relent to.
> 
> To wife: You should be willing to be dragged as far as you are able to and enlarge your comfort zone.
> 
> 
> 
> What would this session look like?


 
Oooh, you are going to hate this reply. If you think that way, and have a wife that loves you anyway, you are truly blessed.

The command to the husband is to love the wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. If the husband loves his wife to the point of being willing to die, then he has the right attitude. A man may be "in charge" but his duty is to his wife to love her and understand her needs more than his own. He is to so care for her, that he would never think of anything apart from how it would affect his wife and what it means to her and her needs (both physical and spiritual). The idea is that what ought to occur is that each person would be arguing for what the other wants, not their own. The man should be willing to do whatever it takes to provide for his wife ... that is the command of scripture explicitly given to husbands. While there are general commands to Christians, the clear teaching to men in scripture is to love their wives sacrificially. I cannot imagine a man sacrificially loving his wife and thinking "how far can I drag her" as even entering into his mind. If there is no choice but to leave somewhere, I can see a man making a choice, with consultation with his wife, on where to live.

That does not mean that the woman is in charge. Just as the man is told to sacrificially love his wife, wives are commanded to obey their husbands. If a woman is dead set against going into missions, there is no way a Godly husband would insist she has to submit to him. The Godly husband would listen to the wife. The Godly wife might express grave concern (which if the husband is doing right, he will listen to *very* closely, as his wife is a channel for God to speak to him as well) but be willing to submit to even as the church does submit to Christ.

My own view of the idea of a wife submitting in this situation is that it would be a grave error for any organization to allow a man that has a wife that is not fully committed to the mission field to be sent into the field. If the wife submits, it would be out of duty, not out of a perceived call. I cannot think of a more clear recipe for failure.


----------



## au5t1n

It also needs to be pointed out here that taking care of one's family is more than financial provision. So going to the mission field alone and sending back a check does not qualify as providing for one's family sufficiently. The man in the article had children, and young ones at that. Who is responsible for providing for their spiritual education, for their encouragement and growth, for disciplining them, and for making sure they have a father who is with them to teach them, and to model a godly marriage for them? The father bears those responsibilities as well as financial provision, which is really only a small part of a father's duty. And all this before we even get to his responsibilities as a husband.


----------



## a mere housewife

I know the OP was about the husband's responsibility but I am not sure about some statements made in response to that, because surely a married woman's 'calling' is to her husband? He has the duty to lay down his life for her, and she has the duty to follow him: if I refuse to go where Ruben says the Lord is leading him, I think I will have forgotten my calling (and I hope someone will tell me so as straightforwardly as this lady spoke to the man in the article). A situation was brought up earlier in the thread where a woman felt called to one people and her husband to another and she was always unhappy -- but does a wife need a call to the French people or the African people or any other people on earth when she is called to help her husband (if her 'sense' or burden for where they should go conflicts with her husband's, isn't God's revealed will for her to lay aside her own feelings )? Sarah doesn't seem to have felt like she needed a call as well as Abraham, when God called him away from his kindred and his father's house.

(I am hesitant to say this because I am not a model wife, but I asked Ruben and he agrees with me that some of the statements lack balance in that regard?)


----------



## Mushroom

> So what do you do with Luke 14 Brad?


Gill is not God, and I believe you are stretching even that dear Baptist's statements on the text beyond his intent. I could post Henry's, Sproul's, and a dozen other sound theologians' views on that portion of scripture, and nothing you are inferring would be found among them. Less clear scripture is to be interpreted by that which is more clear. The laws dealing with marriage definitely proscribe what you are suggesting.


> I am not convinced leaving ones spouse, who is standing in the way of obeying a call from God is a sin. And I must have missed the the clearly demonstrated truth of this throughout this thread.


The scriptures have been posted.Your choice to ignore them notwithstanding.


> And i do not see it as individualism. Please understand I have repeatedly said this should and must take much prayer and time together. Not some wake up one day and I am going to China calling.


God will not call a man whom He hath joined together to an unwilling woman to the mission field. Why is that so complicated for you to see? The commands pertaining to marriage are not exempted simply because a man has some erroneous idea that he is 'called' to something.


> To say I must remain with an unrepentant rebellious stumbling block wife and accept her as she is disobeying a call from God is like saying God Himself should stay married to a rebellious bride.


You are altogether categorically 'other' from God. He joins a man to his wife. Who joins God to His? Sorry brother, but that is incredibly arrogant.


> And I do not deny God's Sovereignty at all.


Except where it pertains to marriage of a Christian man to a rebellious wife and calls to ministry.


> In fact I believe He does put these blocks in front of His disciples to see how serious they are to follow Him.


Maybe. But only to demonstrate to them that His calls only come with the qualifications He has declared in His Word, and that to follow Him would mean to lay aside self-important imaginary calls and submit to His commands concerning marriage, even if that is not as 'exciting'or 'fulfilling' as running off to China may be.

Robert, you are an Elder in the Lord's Bride. I am amazed at what you have said here, but I realize that I am called to honor you, so I will make this my last post. I apologize if my statements have been disrespectful, but I confess this does flabbergast me. Please forgive my weaker conscience in the matter.


----------



## Brian Withnell

a mere housewife said:


> I know the OP was about the husband's responsibility but I am not sure about some statements made in response to that, because surely a married woman's 'calling' is to her husband? He has the duty to lay down his life for her, and she has the duty to follow him: if I refuse to go where Ruben says the Lord is leading him, I think I will have forgotten my calling (and I hope someone will tell me so as straightforwardly as this lady spoke to the man in the article). A situation was brought up earlier in the thread where a woman felt called to one people and her husband to another and she was always unhappy -- but does a wife need a call to the French people or the African people or any other people on earth when she is called to help her husband (if her 'sense' or burden for where they should go conflicts with her husband's, isn't God's revealed will for her to lay aside her own feelings )? Sarah doesn't seem to have felt like she needed a call as well as Abraham, when God called him away from his kindred and his father's house.
> 
> (I am hesitant to say this because I am not a model wife, but I asked Ruben and he agrees with me that some of the statements lack balance in that regard?)


 
And that is what I would say to the woman as well. But the wife is not what I believe the OP was in connection with ... when the Bible speaks to men "Husbands ...." it does not tell them what the duty of the wife is, nor when the Bible speaks to women "Wives ...." it does not say what the husbands are to do. The Bible tells men what to do, and the Bible tells women what to do. It never says "husbands, make sure your wives submit to you" nor does it say "wives, make sure your husbands love you."

I cannot change my wife by command, nor can my wife change me by command. I can probably win my wife to my view with care and love, just as she can win my heart with submission and support. The Lord is working in my life to have me love my wife more ... I trust he is working in Jean's life to have her submit and support me more. Only with the most gentle spirit could I dare approach my wife (out of respect for what God commands me) to correct her, just as she to me shows gentle humbleness of spirit in coming to me with correction. *Only when both are so inclined is God honored in the marriage as he ought to be.*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

To lighten the topic up a bit I want to interject some things I was once told. 

"The Pope ought to stay out of things he has not ventured into."

My argument against that was that Paul was probably never married even though he was divinely inspired. But the point was made by my friend. I use to think I could give the best counsel because I knew the Bible as a very young unmarried man, and sometimes even now as an older Christian. It amazes me how much I thought I knew and how much I know I don't know now. I am so perplexed at how much I don't know. I am much slower to respond to certain scenarios and questions that I don't have much knowledge about. Well, even in things I think I know about. God grant our Elders wisdom in the counsel of his word and between themselves. Many times things are only as clear as mud. 

If we look at what Jesus said about love and how to respond lovingly we have all failed. But we do have a great example in the condescension of Christ in lowering himself to our level so that we could be loved and relate to him. Many husbands don't know how to do this. I truly didn't when I was married. Sometimes it might just be destined to failure. I am not sure. I have taken a lot of comfort in these few passages of Scripture. 



> *(Rom 7:18) For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.*





> *(1Co 8:2) And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.*





> (Php 3:3) For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
> 
> (Php 3:4) Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
> 
> (Php 3:5) Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
> 
> (Php 3:6) Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
> 
> (Php 3:7) But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
> 
> (Php 3:8) Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
> 
> (Php 3:9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
> 
> (Php 3:10) That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
> 
> (Php 3:11) If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
> 
> (Php 3:12) Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
> 
> *(Php 3:13) Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
> 
> (Php 3:14) I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.*
> 
> (Php 3:15) Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
> 
> (Php 3:16) Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
> 
> (Php 3:17) Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.



I guess what I am trying to point out is that we are called to love. We see through a glass darkly. We grope some. We hit the mark sometimes in our groping. We miss the mark sometimes in our groping. God is good to his children whether they are right or wrong. He loves us. I pray we all see clearly in a very muddy world. 

Thy word is a light unto my feet. Be zealous for a good thing but with humility, wisdom, and knowledge from above.


----------



## a mere housewife

Brian, I agree -- I think the only part of your previous post I was unsure about was where you said something about the wife needing to have a call herself or the whole thing would be a recipe for failure. I am not sure that she does need to have a call herself, given Sarah's example, and because she already has a call in the form of being a help to her husband.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Heidi. I think we need to define a call. I do believe that some men may be called and the wife may not be called to leave. Peter is a good example. How many years was he away from his wife. I know many don't know much about C. T. Studd but he and his wife were ministry partners while a hemisphere away for many decades. They loved each other dearly if I understand the situation correctly.


----------



## BJClark

PuritanCovenanter;



> I do believe that some men may be called and the wife may not be called to leave. Peter is a good example. How many years was he away from his wife. I know many don't know much about C. T. Studd but he and his wife were ministry partners while a hemisphere away for many decades. They loved each other dearly if I understand the situation correctly.



We don't know how many years if any Peter was away from his wife, do we know for certain she didn't travel with him?

I don't know anything about C.T. Studd, but apparently, even though they were a hemisphere away from each other, she was in agreement with his calling..and his being gone for long stretches of time and was okay with it..but not many women I know, would be okay with being apart from their spouse for years or even decades at a time..


----------



## Pergamum

BJClark said:


> Pergamum;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]What are ways in which a husband can begin to "train" a spouse into readiness or cultivate a love in the spouse towards the missionary call? What are ways in which wives can cultivate a happiness in following their husband's call, whether it be as a pastor in the next state over, in a new job which requires a relocation, or going as a missionary cross-culturally?
> 
> Loving your wife sometimes means NOT giving her the best physical comforts, and loving your wife means not always succumbing to her weaknesses and desires for affluence and comfort. Yet, man are often blockheads and we drag our wives forward instead of winning her over to our side so that she follows happily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think one way would be by encouraging them to go on short term missions trips together--that could allow her to get to know the people, and see the need first hand..while allowing God to work in her heart or not towards that end..
> 
> it would allow them both to witness first hand the conditions they may be living in, before either of them make the final decision, a short term trip could change the husbands mind as well..
Click to expand...

 
Excellent and practical!


----------



## Pergamum

a mere housewife said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking care of your family spiritually is much more important than physically. And pushing family members out of comfort zones may, in fact, be taking care of their souls by motivating them to greater holiness and dependance upon God.
> 
> I actually had the James verses used against me because we were taking our children to a remote location. But my children actually benefit spiritually by being in harder physical places and seeing how people across the globe live.
> 
> Pushing a lazy, indulgent personality into greater sacrifice means to take care of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergs, here is a quote making your point, somewhat:
> 
> "There is kindness in Love: but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness . . . is separated from other elements of Love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object, and even something like contempt of it. . . . Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering. . . . It is for people whom we care nothing about that we demand happiness on any terms: with our friends, our lovers, our children, we are exacting and would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes."
> 
> -C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
> 
> However I don't know about a husband or wife allowing themselves to think things like 'lazy' and 'self indulgent' of their spouse? Charity begins at home, and surely a woman would respond better to hardship, if she were being led into it by a man who was thinking as well of her as he could.
Click to expand...

 
There would be some objective identifiers for knowing when one is "lazy" or "self-indulgent" right? Charity is not self-delusion, is it? A hubby might still love his wife despite her short-comings; this doesn't mean he is unaware of those short-comings. Hence, the long-term desire by a husband to give opportunities to a wife to grow in this area.

By the way, AWESOME quote. You and Ruben have a knack for finding good quotes.


----------



## Pergamum

BJClark said:


> PuritanCovenanter;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that some men may be called and the wife may not be called to leave. Peter is a good example. How many years was he away from his wife. I know many don't know much about C. T. Studd but he and his wife were ministry partners while a hemisphere away for many decades. They loved each other dearly if I understand the situation correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know how many years if any Peter was away from his wife, do we know for certain she didn't travel with him?
> 
> I don't know anything about C.T. Studd, but apparently, even though they were a hemisphere away from each other, she was in agreement with his calling..and his being gone for long stretches of time and was okay with it..but not many women I know, would be okay with being apart from their spouse for years or even decades at a time..
Click to expand...

 
It seems Peter took his wife about with him at least some of the time, since Paul refers to this.


----------



## BJClark

> Excellent and practical!



I wanted to add a couple things that should also be addressed...I'm sure they are all things you had to consider before you went to the field..

How would their ministry be financed?

Which Missions Organizations have they looked into? and what is expected of them?

How much money do they think they would need to raise in support? And which churches besides their own would they be willing to go to and speak at?

What do they really think being a missionary means? do they think it's just sharing the gospel? or is it more than that?

How are they at learning languages? are they willing to put the time in it will take to learn those languages?

I think in counseling couples in this area, I would also advise them to speak to Missionaries in various parts of the world, at least in the area they 'feel lead' to go to..and learn about the challenges they face--be it within their marriage/families, not seeing parents and siblings for long periods of time; being some where that very few people actually speak their language..and the challenges that presents..

Maybe something you could do (not like you really have the time) but you or even your wife, could sit down and write out some questions based on looking back to what you know now..that you wish you would have known or understood better before you went into Missions to begin with..

You mentioned something in another thread, that I believe would be helpful for new missionaries to know when they are seeking support from churches..and that is "when I come to visit and speak at your church and share with you what we are doing..would I be welcome at the table for communion or is your table closed to only your church members?"


----------



## Honor

Amazing Grace said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all. People are equating obeying God's call to go into the mission field and not staying with a cantankerous rebellious wife as abandonment. I find this a false equation. I said the man could still care for his wife even if not under the same roof. Then I hear, "Well what about sex?" Sexual relations with a rebellious stumbling block wife is not first on any man's list that I hang with. And I that is not a sinful thought on my part.
> 
> 
> 
> Robert, it appears evident that you disagree that God is sovereign over 'cantankerous rebellious wives' and over the particulars of a man's life in a calling to the mission field. God is able to meticulously arrange the qualifications of His servants such that they are never called to commit sin to follow any of His calls. Abandoning a wife, regardless of her cantankerousness, is always sin. That has been clearly demonstrated with scripture throughout this thread. If a man had to sacrifice his marriage to follow Christ, it would never be to a mission field or Church Office, because that abandonment would automatically disqualify him from those calls. Again, the idea that disqualifications for those callings only apply if there is no fault on the part of the man is individualism overthrowing the faith. He could not rule his own house well in that situation. And that is God's sovereign will. We have no 'right' to a special calling in the Church, God chooses as He wills, and has delineated the marks of that choosing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you do with Luke 14 Brad? I am not convinced leaving ones spouse, who is standing in the way of obeying a call from God is a sin. And I must have missed the the clearly demonstrated truth of this throughout this thread. And i do not see it as individualism. Please understand I have repeatedly said this should and must take much prayer and time together. Not some wake up one day and I am going to China calling. To say I must remain with an unrepentant rebellious stumbling block wife and accept her as she is disobeying a call from God is like saying God Himself should stay married to a rebellious bride. And this certainly was not nor is the case. DO yo think I take this lightly? I certainly hope not. And I do not deny God's Sovereignty at all. In fact I believe He does put these blocks in front of His disciples to see how serious they are to follow Him.
Click to expand...

but aren't we as the bride of Christ rebellious and stubborn? Don't we do our own thing? I mean look at the way the church was back when there were puritains and then look at todays church/ still the same bride but wouldn't you say that she is not where she was in her love for Christ. 
also my husband made a good point when we were talking about this thread..... are you really going to make enough as a missionary to live AND send back to the states to take care of her and two children? my husband asks what it is as a missionary that you do that will allow you to make that much money because our church supports several missionaries and would love to see them not struggle as much.
and what mission statement does your leaving say to the young children involved? because they look not only to what we are saying to them but also our actions and if the husband leaves the wife especially with that heart attitude then what does that say to them?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Brad said:


> So what do you do with Luke 14 Brad?
> 
> 
> 
> Gill is not God, and I believe you are stretching even that dear Baptist's statements on the text beyond his intent. I could post Henry's, Sproul's, and a dozen other sound theologians' views on that portion of scripture, and nothing you are inferring would be found among them. Less clear scripture is to be interpreted by that which is more clear. The laws dealing with marriage definitely proscribe what you are suggesting.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not convinced leaving ones spouse, who is standing in the way of obeying a call from God is a sin. And I must have missed the the clearly demonstrated truth of this throughout this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The scriptures have been posted.Your choice to ignore them notwithstanding.
> God will not call a man whom He hath joined together to an unwilling woman to the mission field. Why is that so complicated for you to see? The commands pertaining to marriage are not exempted simply because a man has some erroneous idea that he is 'called' to something.
> You are altogether categorically 'other' from God. He joins a man to his wife. Who joins God to His? Sorry brother, but that is incredibly arrogant.
> 
> 
> 
> And I do not deny God's Sovereignty at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except where it pertains to marriage of a Christian man to a rebellious wife and calls to ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact I believe He does put these blocks in front of His disciples to see how serious they are to follow Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe. But only to demonstrate to them that His calls only come with the qualifications He has declared in His Word, and that to follow Him would mean to lay aside self-important imaginary calls and submit to His commands concerning marriage, even if that is not as 'exciting'or 'fulfilling' as running off to China may be.
> 
> Robert, you are an Elder in the Lord's Bride. I am amazed at what you have said here, but I realize that I am called to honor you, so I will make this my last post. I apologize if my statements have been disrespectful, but I confess this does flabbergast me. Please forgive my weaker conscience in the matter.
Click to expand...


Brad, no need to apologize. Do not let my 'title' hider your zeal. Just know I do not approach dialogue flippantly. The satanic connection ticked me off, but I got over it in 3 minutes. I agree the Marriage covenant is very important. I have probably looked at this thread with the grid of debate I am currently involved in with our denomination regarding the feminization of the Church. The question always posed to discipleship to a man is "Have you asked your wife her feelings about the situation" and when I respond, "No, I tell her since I have little feelings and cannot relate on their emotional level." I get castrated by the feminine voices. I just wish that the inspired word showed that when the effectual call came to the first disciples, they said ,"Hold on Jesus, let me ask my wife how she feels." And since they didn't, I can conclude 2 things with certainty. The men knew their wives would support them, or they did not weigh their wife's 'feelings' in the balance and left them to the Lord to convert in time. I am sick and tired of the emasculation and men wearing dresses to church.


----------



## a mere housewife

Pergy I think the problem with allowing oneself to think too freely of one's spouse in negative terms is that we aren't infallible; we can be mistaken and easily overlook a host of things that should be taken into consideration in their circumstances -- that perhaps God alone knows they are dealing with -- and because it tends not only to a feeling of superiority and self righteousness but of bitterness against them, which may become a much larger problem than any they possess. I think it is best to think of other people's failings as sympathetically as we can, trying to understand the things they are struggling against that make the situation difficult for them, and being grateful for them in all the ways that they display God's grace (often of course their strengths are the flip side of their weaknesses, and we are subject to the same sort of flipsideness and hope people will think kindly of us). This does not mean that we stop encouraging each other to grow in grace, and to become more like Christ in every area: but I think it is a much more Christlike (he is so charitable to us) and effective, way of being encouraging in that regard. I would rather think as well of people, esp of people closest to me, as I can, until they leave me no other choice -- and I don't think that is blind. Time and again my lack of charity has been proven shamefully and cruelly blind.

But I know that's something of a digression (though I can't help thinking it would be much more helpful for a man to lead his wife as lovingly and humbly as possible), so I won't distract the thread further with it . I love that quote, too.


----------



## Mushroom

> Brad, no need to apologize. Do not let my 'title' hider your zeal. Just know I do not approach dialogue flippantly. The satanic connection ticked me off, but I got over it in 3 minutes. I agree the Marriage covenant is very important. I have probably looked at this thread with the grid of debate I am currently involved in with our denomination regarding the feminization of the Church. The question always posed to discipleship to a man is "Have you asked your wife her feelings about the situation" and when I respond, "No, I tell her since I have little feelings and cannot relate on their emotional level." I get castrated by the feminine voices. I just wish that the inspired word showed that when the effectual call came to the first disciples, they said ,"Hold on Jesus, let me ask my wife how she feels." And since they didn't, I can conclude 2 things with certainty. The men knew their wives would support them, or they did not weigh their wife's 'feelings' in the balance and left them to the Lord to convert in time. I am sick and tired of the emasculation and men wearing dresses to church.


Robert, maybe this is where we have different perspectives. My denom has not yet traveled down that road, although there are those within her that seem to want to take that trip. And in my own circumstance, if I were to come to Mindy and tell her we were going to Timbuktu to serve the Lord, she would accede to my leadership regardless of her personal opinion on the difficulties such a move would entail. But I love her - with my whole, albeit faltering, heart - so I would never make such a demand on her without first determining, by both consultation and my own knowledge of her, whether a move like that would be tenable.

But the reality remains that a man would not be able to obey Christ's commands concerning marriage if he were to abandon his wife for ministry, and thus would be disqualified from ministry. It's a very simple equation. If the denom in which a man resides stands in the way of obedience to Christ, it wouild seem to me that he would have more biblical warrant for leaving the denom than ever for leaving his wife.

But a biblical parallel in my view is this:


> Mar 7:6-13 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; (7) in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' (8) You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." (9) And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! (10) For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' (11) But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)-- (12) then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, (13) thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."


Here is an example of men disregarding God's law to accomplish what it is they deem to be important, even what they consider to be 'good'. They are using a cloak of 'giving to God' to excuse their disobedience. God doesn't want that kind of giving. Nor does God put calls upon men's lives that will cause them to sin against Him. Any man who perceives such a call to be from God is deluded.

I can understand your frustration with the effeminization affecting the Church. Part of the cause of that is the abdication by men of their offices within Her and their families. I would even venture to say that the mindset you are proposing in this hypothetical is a direct result of that effeminization. Godly masculinity is loathe to abandon wives and families, but rather leads and loves them.

If your denom is so far gone,maybe it is time to leave it. Swimming against the tide becomes pointless when the whole of the bowl is swirling down the with the flush.


----------



## BJClark

Robert,




> I agree the Marriage covenant is very important. I have probably looked at this thread with the grid of debate I am currently involved in with our denomination regarding the feminization of the Church. The question always posed to discipleship to a man is "Have you asked your wife her feelings about the situation" and when I respond, "No, I tell her since I have little feelings and cannot relate on their emotional level." I get castrated by the feminine voices. I just wish that the inspired word showed that when the effectual call came to the first disciples, they said ,"Hold on Jesus, let me ask my wife how she feels." And since they didn't, I can conclude 2 things with certainty. The men knew their wives would support them, or they did not weigh their wife's 'feelings' in the balance and left them to the Lord to convert in time. I am sick and tired of the emasculation and men wearing dresses to church.



"feelings' aside, are not a wife's 'thoughts' on the matter important? 

Don't you believe God gives a woman a different view point than a man, that should also be taken into consideration when making a decision for something that will effect her and her family as well?

And with all due respect, YOU do have 'feelings' as God created all of us with 'feelings' and 'emotions', you may think you base decisions on them, but you do, everyone does to some extent.

Even Christ showed His emotions and feelings--when relating to others..both men and women; he showed it by his actions and reactions towards them..just as we do.
He showed emotion when he wept..he showed emotion when he cried out to God to remove this cup from Him..and again he showed emotion here, the emotion he showed was anger:



> Mar 11:15 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.



The point is, we should not let our 'emotions' or our 'logic' control us, whether we be men or women..there is a balance for both that we find in Christ through the Holy Spirit, 

And to say women are 'controlled' by their feelings is an insult, the same as it would be to say a man is 'controlled' by his most logical conclusion.. as one of the fruits of the spirit is 'self control'..


----------



## BJClark

In thinking about this a bit more, It dawned on me that..a man who would abandon his wife to go to the mission field----could be viewed as being 'controlled by his emotions' and not thinking things out--even in reading back to the story of the Pastor's youthful recollections...he came home reacting on his 'emotions' of what he had heard and was trying to get the same 'emotional reaction' from his wife...


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Think about how wonderful it would be if guys like William Carey had held to the idea that when God calls a man He also calls the wife! We wouldn't have a flood of independent missions organizations!



When William Carey drug his wife to India she ended up going insane and he didn't get much done his first ten years. I think he should have waited for God's timing. Your first ministry is to your family, God's ministry will work within that. If she doesn't want to go, you should pray until she is ready.


----------



## py3ak

*Take Heed to Thyself*

[Moderator]*All right, this thread seems to have exceeded the boundaries that would have allowed for discussion to be profitable.* 

Discussions where we talk about the duties of other people are always a little perilous. It's very easy to have strong opinions when you're not involved. It's also very easy to have strong opinions when you've been in a similar situation, and assume that everything carries over, which is not always the case. It seems wisest for each one of us to concentrate on our own responsibility, rather than someone else's. I think that is a crucial point not only for this kind of discussion, but also for the Christian life in general. If you concentrate on your duty, you spend less time feeling aggrieved at people for their wrongdoing - because even when they have objectively done wrong you have a duty of some kind towards them. Of course, to some extent we all have to think about the duty of others, because we are all told to exhort one another while it is called today: and naturally pastors and elders have to spend time thinking about the duties of others in order to be able to make application in preaching or to give counsel when asked. But while we can carefully point out to others what their duty is, we should be very careful of dwelling on the ways they are not fulfilling it, as having a strong tendency to make us unfit for our duties, if it does not actually impel us to shirk them.

I know this has been said time and time again in the thread, but to wrap up the thread, instead of just halting it, let me point out once again that if you have a family (and this is true for men and women) then you have a calling from God right there. That may not be your only calling: its horizons may be broad enough to include, for instance, extensive mentoring of younger women in the skills of godly housekeeping, or blazing trails into dense jungles to take the Gospel to unreached peoples. But the calling of your family is not negotiable: indeed, the only calling more fundamental is that of holiness (which can't be carried on without regard to this calling). Circumstances will vary, and what is reasonable latitude for one person may be gross dereliction for another (e.g., a woman with an invalid husband who has to supplement their income may well be less able to participate in church socials than another woman without those same difficulties). 

Now because this is true, you men who have a family need to consider them - their needs and their wishes (do unto others as you would have them do unto you doesn't cease to apply the moment you pop a wedding ring on, after all). God will not call you to something inconsistent with the other callings you've been given. So were you called having a wife? Seek not to be loosed - from her, or any of the responsibilities of provision, care, and tender love that have been imposed upon you. And if she fails in submissiveness or spirituality, it's your responsibility to go on loving and doing your best to support all her good points and any progress she makes or impulses she feels towards new good points.

And because this is true, you women who are married, need to show yourselves to be daughters of Sarah. God spoke to Abraham and revealed a little of His purposes: and Sarah knew she was along for the ride. Your husband may well fail in consideration, in tact, in sympathy, in patience; but that doesn't change your duty to submit, in the recognition that as a general rule a woman's calling centers around the home, while as a general rule a man's calling includes the home and a vocation that relates to the home inasmuch as it is a means of provision, but also extends outside the home. 

*This thread is done and we're not going to have any thinly-disguised duplicate threads for a while.*[/Moderator]


----------



## Pergamum

Ruben is allowing me to post an answer to the question Amazing Grace posed above. He asked what I myself would do, since I am the one who posed this question.

Here is my answer:


What I would do...


"I am married and must tend to my family as my primary ministry. If I succeed in evangelizing a tribe, but not my own family, I cannot count that as success. I would, therefore, leave the field and try to be the best husband and father I could be. I think a husband sets the tone and helps even nurture his family and equips/teaches/trains them. But, once joined into a family, a man or a woman is bound....and a wife can disqualify a husband from ministry and a husband must nurture the wife."


Thanks Ruben. 

Thanks for all who have contributed. 

Glad this thread stimulated discussion, I am very sorry and grieved if heat as well as light also occurred. I praise God for all of you and hope the Lord edifies us all.


----------

