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



## Tim

I am interested in receiving comments from both wives and husbands regarding the husband's leadership on certain viewpoints that, although they may be confessional/Biblical, are not the majority, even within reformed circles.

Some examples using some of my distinctives:

1. Exclusive psalmody: Man (EP) courts woman who is not;
2. Headcoverings: Man (believes in coverings) courts woman who has not heard of this practice;
3. Christmas/Easter: Man (doesn't celebrate) courts woman who does.

In all of these issues, there is a certain sensitivity. How does the man lead in these positions while not bombarding the woman with "strange" theological views, but while still leading with integrity according to his beliefs? 

The idea is to not "scare off" the woman, but to still be clear about the positions that are taken. And to be clear how the future/potential family will be led.

-----Added 4/10/2009 at 11:47:36 EST-----

I understand that before marriage (during courtship), the man is not in a true leadership position. He is just trying to communicate how he will lead if/when marriage happens.


----------



## Idelette

Are you only interested in hearing from the married couples?


----------



## Scottish Lass

Would the pair be involved in Bible study during courtship? I ask because some would prefer not to be alone like this at all, some would be willing to do this if chaperones were nearby, some would be comfortable doing this in public, etc. If so, studying together what the Word has to say on these issues could be beneficial. I might start off with something less controversial or work up to in context (studying all of 1 Corinthians, not just chapter 11).


----------



## Honor

personally I think if he has strong standings on things and he is courting so it's cheif end is to end in marriage he should come right out and say what he believes. then if she's cool with that or at least open to moving in that direction. Or if she's like me she would know that that was not the man she was to marry. Right before I married my husband I asked him three questions :
1.) Do you belive that abortion is ok?
2.)Are you a Democrate 
3.) Do you believe in predestination?
if he would have answered yes to any of them I would have walked out. (obviously we both learned about and slightly changed one of the answers  )
The point is... those were my top three BIG issues. if those are his BIG issues that he isn't willing to waver on then he needs to lay it out on the table.


----------



## DonP

Tell her all of it upfront and if she is unwilling to submit, she isn't the one. 

I told my wife, a new Christian at the time, 2 & 3 and that she would need to be a keeper at home and submit to me as the head and that there was a good chance I would want to go off to the mission field. 

If she was not willing to submit to my headship in these things then lets not go any farther. 

That is courting. Anything where this is left out is dating. 
When would you be planning on springing it on her? 

Now I had a lot to learn about headship, and making her feel heard and respected as a sister in Christ filled with the Spirit and being my helpmeet, to not help me do what I would do if I was single, but as a we, that God have given her smarts and intuition where I was dumb; that was the hard part that took time. And learning how to make her feel good about giving me advice and being able to be used by the Spirit as much as me. 

Now the hard one is, if you are married and one changes convictions. 

Patience, patience, more patience and get some of those gardening rubber knee pads. You will need them for al the praying you will be doing.


----------



## Idelette

Well, I'll just tell you my opinion on the subject....I think the man should discuss these issues with the woman beforehand. And ultimately he should find out ,regardless of what her views are, if she is willing to submit to him. Ultimately, I think it would be a matter of submission.


----------



## DonP

Honor said:


> 1.) Do you belive that abortion is ok?
> 2.)Are you a Democrate
> 3.) Do you believe in predestination?
> if he would have answered yes to any of them I would have walked out. (obviously we both learned about and slightly changed one of the answers  )
> The point is... those were my top three BIG issues. if those are his BIG issues that he isn't willing to waver on then he needs to lay it out on the table.



I certainly hope you didn't change on #2 ??

That would be the worst spiritual decline!


----------



## Honor

FTR I'm a very straight foward type of person. I don't like to tip toe around issues. I've had to tell people that thier loved one has died and it's always the same "(person X), so- and so passed away. I'm really sorrythey didn't suffer/didn't suffer for long/ died in their sleep." short and to the point.
So my post is just how I would handle the situation.


----------



## Wannabee

First, he should share his views with the lady's father before pursuing her. Her father has the responsibility to give her to a man who will lead her well. If he usurps this then he has already shown that he does not understand godly headship and has disregarded the role of her father.
Second, he should just be up front with her. Let her decide if these are hills to die on for her. He may be persuaded later, and he may not. Is he a godly man and someone she would love to serve and raise a godly family with, to the glory of God? Will their marriage proclaim the Gospel as the love and submission of Christ and the church is exemplified in their relationship? If so, then these things become less important.


----------



## DonP

Amos 3:3
Can two walk together, unless they are agreed? 
NKJV

Yes but it isn't easy and takes lots of grace and praying. 

And you have to submit to her sometimes too. I mean fair is fair. 
If you don't like the term, switch to decide to do it the way she wants


----------



## lynnie

Complete and total honesty!!! 

BE SURE!!! to promise her that if you have a conflict you will seek counsel together from somebody agreeable to both. I cannot begin to tell you what it has meant to me knowing that when we cannot come to unity on something major, we will both, together, talk to somebody. We have rarely had to do it- just knowing that he will submit himself to someone else helps me submit. 

The times we did it was sooooo helpful. Men and women can see things so differently about kids and various other subjects. An objective person helps you both see the other side and where you might have a Romans 14 attitude problem.


----------



## Scott1

Tim said:


> I am interested in receiving comments from both wives and husbands regarding the husband's leadership on certain viewpoints that, although they may be confessional/Biblical, are not the majority, even within reformed circles.
> 
> 
> 
> Some examples using some of my distinctives:
> 
> 1. Exclusive psalmody: Man (EP) courts woman who is not;
> 2. Headcoverings: Man (believes in coverings) courts woman who has not heard of this practice;
> 3. Christmas/Easter: Man (doesn't celebrate) courts woman who does.
> 
> If these are the only three things you don't have the same understanding of, you indeed have something rare.
> 
> While I would not want to dissuade any convictions on these, they ought not be "deal breakers" for relationship. Not that God might not provide someone will all three of these convictions, but it would be, realistically, very rare.
> 
> One of the things that attracts two peoples is differences. Ordinarily, you are not attracted to someone exactly like you. That doesn't mean compromising your faith or even your doctrine. Practically, the fewer doctrinal differences the less you get to apply God's grace to in resolving. But, let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> 
> Generally, the man leads and serves and the woman helps and follows. This is a beautiful thing, and something we can only do by God's grace. We are called to live it, as a testimony of God in our life before the world. While a wife needs to follow her husband's authority in pattern, it does not mean she can be made to believe something she does not (and vice-versa).
> 
> In all of these issues, there is a certain sensitivity. How does the man lead in these positions while not bombarding the woman with "strange" theological views, but while still leading with integrity according to his beliefs?
> 
> The idea is to not "scare off" the woman, but to still be clear about the positions that are taken. And to be clear how the future/potential family will be led.
> 
> Also, again not trying to dissuade conviction, but there are a whole lot of things before these kinds of things to look for in a spouse; nor would I condition marriage on these sorts of things.
> 
> I would look for ways, by God's grace, to resolve differences that really matter. That's something tested in any close relationship, and the stuff of which good marriages are made.
> 
> -----Added 4/10/2009 at 11:47:36 EST-----
> 
> I understand that before marriage (during courtship), the man is not in a true leadership position. He is just trying to communicate how he will lead if/when marriage happens.


.


----------



## CNJ

It is wonderful when a husband takes the spiritual lead. When we were courting in 1999 my husband had me read The Westminster Confession Explained. The three issues that Tim mentioned (EP, head covering and holidays) we didn't deal with and still don't consider major and neither does my church. His grown children and grandchildren celebrate holidays, and those traditions I have always felt exemplify family. 

My husband has been diagnosed with dementia this past December and I have new questions on headship and will consult with others as needed. My husband trusts me and that is a quality built up over time. Life is more difficult for him now, and for me also as I am becoming the caregiver.


----------



## Galatians220

CNJ said:


> It is wonderful when a husband takes the spiritual lead. When we were courting in 1999 my husband had me read The Westminster Confession Explained. The three issues that Tim mentioned (EP, head covering and holidays) we didn't deal with and still don't consider major and neither does my church. His grown children and grandchildren celebrate holidays, and those traditions I have always felt exemplify family.
> 
> My husband has been diagnosed with dementia this past December and I have new questions on headship and will consult with others as needed. My husband trusts me and that is a quality built up over time. Life is more difficult for him now, and for me also as I am becoming the caregiver.


 
CNJ, you and your husband have just been added to my prayer list... Big-time...

Margaret


----------



## Honor

me too!


----------



## calgal

It depends on how important the minor issues are to you. And to her family. Would your declining to participate on Christmas or Easter be a sign of disrespect to her parents? And are these issues core values to you?


----------



## Rich Koster

We have had some differences in our almost 25 years of marriage. One thing that is different from some of the other posts is that we came to know Christ about 10 years into it. I have learned that being a tyrant by inflicting my convictions on someone else never works. However on things like C&E, I find that I have to pick and choose which events to participate in and which ones I tell everyone where I stand up front. Family dinners I can go to (the pagan who invites you to a meal being OK from 1Cor), but don't ask me to do an egg hunt, play S**ta Cl**s, sing to a tree or the like. As far as doctrinal differences, most of them seem to iron out as we study Scripture and seek wise counsel on certain subjects. 
My views were in the minority as we came out of Rome or the world (and are still doing so), but sometimes her questions went before me on certain issues. She was concerned about the covering thing before I gave it any thought. Whenever we can't come to unity on an issue, it needs to be studied, discussed and prayed about (and repeat as necessary). It must never be used as a weapon against the other, but used as iron sharpening iron in love.


----------



## Edward

Scottish Lass said:


> I might start off with something less controversial or work up to in context



I disagree. These views are so uncommon that they should be disclosed fully and early in the relationship. If the woman isn't at least open to the ideas, there is no point wasting either person's time. And this certainly isn't a situation where you want to wait until the hook is set before springing them.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Edward said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might start off with something less controversial or work up to in context
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. These views are so uncommon that they should be disclosed fully and early in the relationship. If the woman isn't at least open to the ideas, there is no point wasting either person's time. And this certainly isn't a situation where you want to wait until the hook is set before springing them.
Click to expand...


I completely agree. I'm not sure the first meeting is the place, that's all.


----------



## AThornquist

Scott1 said:


> Ordinarily, you are not attracted to someone exactly like you.



I could go so many directions with this... UGH fight it! FIGHT IT!!! "Maybe I'm the only one, but..." 



And I agree with the Scottish lass. On the first meeting, such issues might seem pretty intimidating, especially since the situation is that these things would be unfamiliar to the woman. I really liked the suggestion to go through a Bible study and to tackle the issues that way. It would be a good way to get to know her and examine her spiritual maturity (at least to a degree). And Wannabee's advice =


----------



## DonP

AThornquist said:


> And I agree with the Scottish lass. On the first meeting, such issues might seem pretty intimidating, especially since the situation is that these things would be unfamiliar to the woman. I really liked the suggestion to go through a Bible study and to tackle the issues that way. It would be a good way to get to know her and examine her spiritual maturity (at least to a degree). And Wannabee's advice =



Well as much as I would agree if you had met some woman who you didn't know and she was a full Arminian or Charismatic. 

But then I ask, where did you meet this woman and why would you be courting her? 

Did you go off to a heretical church to find a wife? 

Or maybe you meet her at a heretical campus group. Or you were witnessing to her? 

I suggest evangelistic dating and courting is not best. Help her come to the truth before considering courting. 

If the D of G and your beliefs would be so shocking to her, you probably should be having nice social conversations, inviting her to your church etc and not considering courting yet. 

What would be the grounds to court her? 

She is female and professes to know Christ? I would hope you could do better. 

But if not, then the Lassie's advice is acceptable.


----------



## AThornquist

PeaceMaker said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree with the Scottish lass. On the first meeting, such issues might seem pretty intimidating, especially since the situation is that these things would be unfamiliar to the woman. I really liked the suggestion to go through a Bible study and to tackle the issues that way. It would be a good way to get to know her and examine her spiritual maturity (at least to a degree). And Wannabee's advice =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well as much as I would agree if you had met some woman who you didn't know and she was a full Arminian or Charismatic.
> 
> But then I ask, where did you meet this woman and why would you be courting her?
> 
> Did you go off to a heretical church to find a wife?
> 
> Or maybe you meet her at a heretical campus group. Or you were witnessing to her?
> 
> I suggest evangelistic dating and courting is not best. Help her come to the truth before considering courting.
> 
> If the D of G and your beliefs would be so shocking to her, you probably should be having nice social conversations, inviting her to your church etc and not considering courting yet.
> 
> What would be the grounds to court her?
> 
> She is female and professes to know Christ? I would hope you could do better.
> 
> But if not, then the Lassie's advice is acceptable.
Click to expand...


What if she is like Bathsheba? Err--I mean, she can have clothes on or whatever, but is one fine lookin' senorita?


(And Don, the only issues that I was talking about were those of the "minority" as mentioned in the OP. The situation [I thought] assumed she was a solid Christian who had differing understandings or a lack of knowledge about those minority issues.)


----------



## SolaScriptura

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

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

I would strongly discourage my daughter from getting involved with such a man... or my sons from being with such a woman.


----------



## DonP

AThornquist said:


> (And Don, the only issues that I was talking about were those of the "minority" as mentioned in the OP. The situation [I thought] assumed she was a solid Christian who had differing understandings or a lack of knowledge about those minority issues.)



If she is reformed then I don't see why sharing what you believe pretty near up front, before courting would be a good idea. 

I mean it also depends on one's practice. To me courting means

I have been around the woman, talked with her in groups, and maybe even her folks, believe her to be godly and a good wife and mother. 

So now I have progressed in that relationship enough to ask her if she would consider marrying the possibility of getting to know me enough to decide if she would marry me. 

If she says eys, maybe not the first discussion you have but soon these issues, if you are not willing to compromise on them, must come up. 

In fact her parents may forbid her to court you since you are a old fashioned fundie zealot or something, terms some of us have been called here on this board even for holding to such views, now considered minority which until this past century were majority. 

So why wait and get her hurt, or yourself. Will you deceive her and lead her on the once she is hooked on you say, but by the way you have to come to a church with me where head coverings are required or we sing only psalms.


----------



## AThornquist

In a sense I see what you are saying Don, and I suppose a lot of the issue has to do with poor wording. I have the same general view of courting as you do (except the parents would be greatly involved and, in fact, the ones I approach first about courting their daughter way before I show any interest to her), so not talking about the minority issues "on the first meeting" doesn't make much sense. However, perhaps in the case of meeting someone online, I wouldn't start off by saying, "so, do you cover your head, sing only psalms in corporate worship, and refuse to celebrate Easter and Christ? If not, would you submit to me if we were married and do these things?" It is just so much of a culture shock to those who haven't been exposed to these views. Or what about if a woman is a new believer but clearly has attractive qualities and a willingness to submit herself to the truths of Scripture? The minority views can be troubling until they can really be explained and talked about. The hypothetical situations are endless, and a different approach will probably be needed for each. Soli Deo Gloria, the Lord is in control...


----------



## DonP

AThornquist said:


> In a sense I see what you are saying Don, and I suppose a lot of the issue has to do with poor wording. I have the same general view of courting as you do (except the parents would be greatly involved and, in fact, the ones I approach first about courting their daughter way before I show any interest to her), so not talking about the minority issues "on the first meeting" doesn't make much sense. However, perhaps in the case of meeting someone online, I wouldn't start off by saying, "so, do you cover your head, sing only psalms in corporate worship, and refuse to celebrate Easter and Christ? If not, would you submit to me if we were married and do these things?" It is just so much of a culture shock to those who haven't been exposed to these views. Or what about if a woman is a new believer but clearly has attractive qualities and a willingness to submit herself to the truths of Scripture? The minority views can be troubling until they can really be explained and talked about. The hypothetical situations are endless, and a different approach will probably be needed for each. Soli Deo Gloria, the Lord is in control...



Agreed, that is what I said. You are not yet courting her, you are only getting to know her. 
So of course, in this situation the Lassie is wise. 

But as soon as you think you want it to be courting if not before this, they need to come up or you both may be wasting time.


----------



## AThornquist

Okay I see what you mean then. I concur!


----------



## Edward

Scottish Lass said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might start off with something less controversial or work up to in context
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. These views are so uncommon that they should be disclosed fully and early in the relationship. If the woman isn't at least open to the ideas, there is no point wasting either person's time. And this certainly isn't a situation where you want to wait until the hook is set before springing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I completely agree. I'm not sure the first meeting is the place, that's all.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with your comment here, but I don't see it as inconsistent with my post. I may have made some rash assumptions about the situation. I was assuming that things had moved past the first date stage to one where the guy, at least, was trying to determine if this was 'the one'. At that stage, I'll stick with my 'early and full'. A blind date or a casual first date? I won't disagree with your point.


----------



## DonP

AThornquist said:


> Okay I see what you mean then. I concur!



Must have been the language barrier, *Eh*?? 

Are you getting ready to try this out ?? 

or is this truly hypothetical?


----------



## AThornquist

PeaceMaker said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I see what you mean then. I concur!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been the language barrier, *Eh*??
> 
> Are you getting ready to try this out ??
> 
> or is this truly hypothetical?
Click to expand...


Well, it is all hypothetical in my case, though I am actively preparing to be a godly man capable of providing for a family, but oh how I pray my help-meet has great patience.  I didn't write the OP though, so I don't know if his situation is hypothetical or not.


----------



## DonP

Sorry I was thinking I was replying to Tim in the last one

So Tim is this totally hypothetical or are you using us here to help you get prepared??

Anyone in mind?


----------



## Tim

Scott1 said:


> If these are the only three things you don't have the same understanding of, you indeed have something rare.
> 
> While I would not want to dissuade any convictions on these, they ought not be "deal breakers" for relationship. Not that God might not provide someone will all three of these convictions, but it would be, realistically, very rare.



Agreed. I might have done better in 1646, but nowadays it's different. That is why I made this thread.



> The idea is to not "scare off" the woman, but to still be clear about the positions that are taken. And to be clear how the future/potential family will be led.



Absolutely. How do I do this?



> Also, again not trying to dissuade conviction, but there are a whole lot of things before these kinds of things to look for in a spouse; nor would I condition marriage on these sorts of things.



Of course, there are other issues that must be first considered. But because these three issues necessarily result in a real practice (or a change of practice), I thought it important to consider them. As such, they really aren't that far behind. 



PeaceMaker said:


> But then I ask, where did you meet this woman and why would you be courting her?



There is no woman. Hypothetical. 



SolaScriptura said:


> Knowing the "type" of man who would have these views... and the ethos that typically surrounds such a fellow... I find it hard to believe that such a man would serious consider marrying a woman who didn't hold to those views. Unless, of course, he was just desperate.
> 
> Let me add that when I speak of the "ethos" that often accompanies adherance to at least the first two items on this list - particularly when these things are held at the same time - I mean that negatively.
> 
> I would strongly discourage my daughter from getting involved with such a man... or my sons from being with such a woman.



Well, you have basically told me what you think of my views. Surely you know that there are a number of people on this board who take such positions. I am a real person who is trying to follow the Bible the best I can and to lead my future family as best I can. I made this thread so I could better learn how to deal with responses such as yours; and to know when not to pursue a relationship that obviously would never work. Please tell me I have misunderstood your post.



PeaceMaker said:


> Sorry I was thinking I was replying to Tim in the last one
> 
> So Tim is this totally hypothetical or are you using us here to help you get prepared??
> 
> Anyone in mind?



At this point, it is hypothetical. I have another two years or so in South Africa, and I don't believe there are _any_ churches in South Africa that teach these positions. Therefore, I can't expect that anyone would hold such distinctives. Perhaps Afrikaans churches do, but I am not a part of that culture at all.

What is not hypothetical is that because I am involved in the Christian community here in Cape Town, I meet people. And one of these days, I might meet a young lady who, although she might not hold to such distinctives, might otherwise have good Christian character and a good heart. I am trying to prepare myself to know how to deal with such a situation.


----------



## Ruby

Be encouraged Tim!
I was a lapsed Roman Catholic and had NEVER heard of any of these things before I met my husband. (We did cover our heads in worship as children but that seemed to die out) There are women out there who believe as you do and also tender hearted ones who will be prepared to study these things and follow your lead. But for sure, these can be major grievences so they need to be discussed before any relationship developes. As a new christian I embraced many new beliefs (and maybe even some hubby didn't!) 
May the Lord bless you with a Godly wife in his time!


----------



## Scott1

Tim, one thing that might be helpful if things get definite is something like an "Engagement Encounter" ("Marriage Encounter") weekend. One can even be done before one is engaged, I think by their rules.

While I don't want to spoil the surprise of their format, a lot involves discussion between yourselves of all sorts of issues that potentially could divide.

There is a section on "What are we going to do on holidays?" You'll want to think through how you will deal with both your friends and relatives (hers and yours) who will be celebrating holidays like Christmas and Easter. What are each of your expectations?

To say merely "we don't do holidays" is not the whole story because friends and relatives will have their own expectations. You may be of conviction that doesn't matter (what they think) but, in reality, your potential wife needs to understand the implications. Her mother may be expecting you to visit (and participate) in Christmas every couple years at least so the two of you need to talk through and agree on how you will deal with this. (And let me tell you this... one thing you will need to find a way to 'celebrate' is your wedding anniversary and her birthday).

While many different denominations sponsor these, here is one link to information from the United Methodist Church about Engagement Encounter weekends (link at the bottom):

Video List

Here's one for a "Reformed Engagement Encounter"
http://www.reformedengagedencounter.org/what.html


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Tim if the woman is not hardened but merely ignorant of these beliefs, then this is an opportunity to teach her and strengthen her in the faith.

-----Added 4/13/2009 at 10:40:08 EST-----



Honor said:


> 2.)Are you a Democrate


----------



## Tim

Anton Bruckner said:


> Tim if the woman is not hardened but merely ignorant of these beliefs, then this is an opportunity to teach her and strengthen her in the faith.



I think we would all agree that this would usually be the case today. It's more likely that people on this board would have taken a good hard look at EP or headcoverings or holy-days, but I would think that most people in reformed churches have not.


----------



## Scott1

Tim, 

It is good you are considering such things because you understand that beliefs will have practical effects.

Take, for example, two basic parts of the Christian life that will _regularly_ affect the way you live together as a family:

1) Sabbath
2) Tithing (offering)

The first will affect 1/7 of "your" life, might even affect whether you keep a job, and how you prepare Saturday night.

The second will affect 1/10 of "your" money initially (and then grow as a percent from there). Ordinarily, you will both need to agree and restrain yourselves to live on say 90% of what you earn. This cannot be done unilaterally.

The man is responsible to set the tone for these in the household.

While it means setting some practical guidelines to obey and, by God's grace, keeping them, it also means being loving and listening in the details to others at home who don't necessarily agree with the detail application. I think the latter part is as important as the former and something a husband, as leader, cannot even begin to imperfectly obey without God's grace.

God is looking for obedience and He is also looking for loving your neighbor. That certainly begins with those closest to you. Being 'right' about the precept is often easier than being the suffering servant God calls a man to be as a husband. Somehow, there has to be both.


----------



## DonP

Scott1 said:


> (And let me tell you this... one thing you will need to find a way to 'celebrate' is your wedding anniversary and her birthday).



And Tim if you are not into birthdays you don't need to celebrate them. 

I have been married over 30 years and don't celebrate birthdays simply because it seems a bit prideful and self centered and the little written on it shows only bad things happened in scripture on BD celebrations like Herod chopping J t B head off. 

So we make no big deal of them. Maybe on some years a special dinner request was offered or I take her out to dinner where she would like to go. 

We gave gifts to kids out of love all around the year but we did give them a few at once at Thanksgiving. A time we chose to focus on thanks to God at home and discuss what we were thankful for and give gifts like others do at XMas. 
This was a little hard on my folks and more so on my grandparents who weren't Christians and considered it winter holidays.

Her parents didn't seem to care and respected our wishes and sent presents at thanksgiving to our kids.

We choose not to be much involved in the world and don't find a need to. 
But I mainly believe these are wrong to be celebrated in church but if people choose to learn the way of the heathen and do those practices at home and confuse their kids with Santa, East star, etc. that is up to them. 

We have Pizza parties and game nights etc for the kids where they can have their friends over or overnight all during the year so they do not feel deprived. Other kids think they are lucky they get presents at Thanksgiving and all year. Mom did give the kids one or 2 gifts on their birthdays but no party. They had parties for other reasons. 

But you certainly want to make sure she is on board with this and willing to suffer for Christ and even from some who are called brothers that would attack people for these beliefs. 

The kids we work with in orphanages in Mexico and Africa don't have birthday parties or get gifts and we are way better off than they. 
We could be them, we should be prepared to go live with them and give up anything in the world for their sakes. 

And pray a lot and consistently for what you want and believe God will provide, He is able. 
Mk 11:22-24


----------



## JBaldwin

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

Getting someone to change their beliefs for your sake is a recipe for disaster. I'd look for someone who already agrees with you.


----------



## DonP

JBaldwin said:


> Holidays, headcoverings and EP are issues that are minor, but as has been said, they are a matter of practice, but they do affect who a husband and wife live and raise children together. If these issues are that important to you, then I would not get involved with a woman who does not agree with you already, and I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to persuade her to think like you do.
> 
> Getting someone to change their beliefs for your sake is a recipe for disaster. I'd look for someone who already agrees with you.



If these are all minor issues then any Godly woman who knows the clear important teaching of a wife being submissive to the husbands headship would have no problem submitting to them.


----------



## Montanablue

JBaldwin said:


> Holidays, headcoverings and EP are issues that are minor, but as has been said, they are a matter of practice, but they do affect who a husband and wife live and raise children together. If these issues are that important to you, then I would not get involved with a woman who does not agree with you already, and I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to persuade her to think like you do.
> 
> Getting someone to change their beliefs for your sake is a recipe for disaster. I'd look for someone who already agrees with you.



I definitely agree that attempting to change someone's belief "for your sake" is a disaster. I've seen it attempted and its never been pretty!

I disagree that holidays, headcoverings, and ep are minor issues though. Certainly some people may see them as "minor," but I think you'd find a lot of people who find them very important (myself included). Even if the issues themselves might seem small, often the underlying thought and reasoning for holding to those practices is a big issue. For me, for instance, even though I disagree with the practice of headcovering, the bigger issue is the line of thought that gets a person to practice headcovering. That, I think, is where I would have the bigger problem. - I hope that makes sense... I'm having trouble verbalizing it...


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Tim said:


> Anton Bruckner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim if the woman is not hardened but merely ignorant of these beliefs, then this is an opportunity to teach her and strengthen her in the faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we would all agree that this would usually be the case today. It's more likely that people on this board would have taken a good hard look at EP or headcoverings or holy-days, but I would think that most people in reformed churches have not.
Click to expand...

You're correct. But I think we have to be careful to not measure our spouses or future potential spouses by "our standard", that is Me-ism. No one can be you but yourself. Sure they are non negotiables i.e Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace etc. I would say that if a girl is solidly Reformed and willing to submit to the headship of a Christian man, things such as EP and Head coverings can be worked out. And usually when push comes to good Christian folks are willing to drop the frivolous traditions of Christmas, Easter etc.


----------



## Kevin

SolaScriptura said:


> Knowing the "type" of man who would have these views... and the ethos that typically surrounds such a fellow... I find it hard to believe that such a man would serious consider marrying a woman who didn't hold to those views. Unless, of course, he was just desperate.
> 
> Let me add that when I speak of the "ethos" that often accompanies adherance to at least the first two items on this list - particularly when these things are held at the same time - I mean that negatively.
> 
> I would strongly discourage my daughter from getting involved with such a man... or my sons from being with such a woman.




Wise words.

A few years ago I was active in the leadership of a youth group in a PCA church. A couple of the girls (sisters) asked me (& my wife) what we thought of a guy that they met at various reformed functions in the region.

They called him "Mr. Trinity Hymnal". It seems his opening line was "Do you prefer the Blue or Red Trinity Hymnal?" This was his way of deciding if the girl he was speaking to was on the same page as him on some very strange minor points. BTW he had a lot more strange & odd minor views (OK, some were not odd, but they were all very minor).

MY wife gave tham some good advice (in my opinion) she asked them if they wanted to spend the rest of their life learning to "grin and bear it" as they practiced submission to a ongoing series of ever stranger "convictions" about the "clear teaching of scripture".


----------



## Scott1

I hope none of us are implying it is odd or very unimportant to believe in:

1) exclusive psalmody
2) women headcoverings
3) non-marking of holy-days

While some of these seem new to us in this generation, they all have, at least arguably, a biblical foundation and were practiced by at least some of the Puritans.

Blessings and charity to all, especially those of the household of faith


----------



## JBaldwin

> I disagree that holidays, headcoverings, and ep are minor issues though. Certainly some people may see them as "minor," but I think you'd find a lot of people who find them very important (myself included). Even if the issues themselves might seem small, often the underlying thought and reasoning for holding to those practices is a big issue. For me, for instance, even though I disagree with the practice of headcovering, the bigger issue is the line of thought that gets a person to practice headcovering. That, I think, is where I would have the bigger problem. - I hope that makes sense... I'm having trouble verbalizing it...



I appreciate your clarification, and I do understand what you mean. Perhaps a better way to express it would be that they are not matters of salvation. If a person does not hold to head coverings or EP or celebrating Christmas and Easter, they will not go to hell. And you are right, they are major issues in the lives of those who hold them.


----------



## Montanablue

JBaldwin said:


> I disagree that holidays, headcoverings, and ep are minor issues though. Certainly some people may see them as "minor," but I think you'd find a lot of people who find them very important (myself included). Even if the issues themselves might seem small, often the underlying thought and reasoning for holding to those practices is a big issue. For me, for instance, even though I disagree with the practice of headcovering, the bigger issue is the line of thought that gets a person to practice headcovering. That, I think, is where I would have the bigger problem. - I hope that makes sense... I'm having trouble verbalizing it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your clarification, and I do understand what you mean. Perhaps a better way to express it would be that they are not matters of salvation. If a person does not hold to head coverings or EP or celebrating Christmas and Easter, they will not go to hell. And you are right, they are major issues in the lives of those who hold them.
Click to expand...


Yes, this is exactly what I meant. You put it much more clearly than I could - thanks!


----------



## Kevin

Scott1 said:


> I hope none of us are implying it is odd or very unimportant to believe in:
> 
> 1) exclusive psalmody
> 2) women headcoverings
> 3) non-marking of holy-days
> 
> While some of these seem new to us in this generation, they all have, at least arguably, a biblical foundation and were practiced by at least some of the Puritans.
> 
> Blessings and charity to all, especially those of the household of faith



Umm, yes. That is, more-or-less, what I was trying to convey.

Not one of these views has anywhere near a 10% minority within conservative reformed & presbyterian denominations. Now they may be the correct view. Not my point to argue that here, but by any meaningfull standard they are "odd" & "minor". QED.


----------



## DonP

Kevin said:


> Umm, yes. That is, more-or-less, what I was trying to convey.
> 
> Not one of these views has anywhere near a 10% minority within conservative reformed & presbyterian denominations. Now they may be the correct view. Not my point to argue that here, but by any meaningfull standard they are "odd" & "minor". QED.



Are you saying the Confession is ODD? Or all the church fathers who held to these were ODD. 

You may want to study some church doctrine and history that goes back more than 150 years. 

The current practices of modern christianity are novel and not what the church has dominantly practiced for centuries. 
These were the predominant until the more recent years and the decline of the church, watered down theology, liberalism. the fall of our original seminaries, easy believism gospels and seeker friendly and emotional services. 

The number of people on the narrow way compared to the wide way never determines truth. 

That is the herd mentality of the blind leading the blind off cliffs. I hope you do not really consider that as a reason for what you believe. Be Berean. 

Also to the thread here it doesn't matter how few hold to it, he is asking for advice since he does, how one would handle initiating this in a relationship with one who may or may not. 

We aren't debating how many do, or if you think it is right.


----------



## Grymir

When I was courting my wife, Many pots of coffee were sacrificed getting to know each other well. I was looking for a female Rush Limbaugh. She fit that very well. (When I get home from work, I get the days political news from her!!) Was also Dutch Reformed. Mega-Dittos!!.

Then we came to the nitty gritty. We both like butter, no evil margarine for us. Also whole milk. No skim. And Dawn dishwashing detergent. But when I found out she didn't like Peter Frampton too, well, we got married a few months later!!


----------



## calgal

Kevin said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope none of us are implying it is odd or very unimportant to believe in:
> 
> 1) exclusive psalmody
> 2) women headcoverings
> 3) non-marking of holy-days
> 
> While some of these seem new to us in this generation, they all have, at least arguably, a biblical foundation and were practiced by at least some of the Puritans.
> 
> Blessings and charity to all, especially those of the household of faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, yes. That is, more-or-less, what I was trying to convey.
> 
> Not one of these views has anywhere near a 10% minority within conservative reformed & presbyterian denominations. Now they may be the correct view. Not my point to argue that here, but by any meaningfull standard they are "odd" & "minor". QED.
Click to expand...


 And again I state that if the man is that determined to hold these beliefs, he is best off finding a wife who agrees with them.


----------



## Grace Alone

calgal said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope none of us are implying it is odd or very unimportant to believe in:
> 
> 1) exclusive psalmody
> 2) women headcoverings
> 3) non-marking of holy-days
> 
> While some of these seem new to us in this generation, they all have, at least arguably, a biblical foundation and were practiced by at least some of the Puritans.
> 
> Blessings and charity to all, especially those of the household of faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, yes. That is, more-or-less, what I was trying to convey.
> 
> Not one of these views has anywhere near a 10% minority within conservative reformed & presbyterian denominations. Now they may be the correct view. Not my point to argue that here, but by any meaningfull standard they are "odd" & "minor". QED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again I state that if the man is that determined to hold these beliefs, he is best off finding a wife who agrees with them.
Click to expand...


I agree as well. A man holding to these views would be wise to attend a church that teaches this so he could meet women there who already have those beliefs. I'll have to say that I've never met anyone who held to these beliefs in the three PCA and ARP churches we've attended. I thought churches that used the red Trinity Hymnal were the most conservative around here because many use contemporary music!


----------



## DonP

Grace Alone said:


> I agree as well. A man holding to these views would be wise to attend a church that teaches this so he could meet women there who already have those beliefs. I'll have to say that I've never met anyone who held to these beliefs in the three PCA and ARP churches we've attended. I thought churches that used the red Trinity Hymnal were the most conservative around here because many use contemporary music!



So if you had met your husband and he held to any of these things would that have been a deal breaker and you would have dropped him, rather than submit to it until he could explain it to you so it made sense?

You wouldn't have married anyone if you were born 2 00 years ago when almost all held this?
Jus hypotheticing here


----------



## satz

PeaceMaker said:


> So if you had met your husband and he held to any of these things would that have been a deal breaker and you would have dropped him, rather than submit to it until he could explain it to you so it made sense?
> 
> You wouldn't have married anyone if you were born 2 00 years ago when almost all held this?
> Jus hypotheticing here



Before marriage I think it is not a matter of being willing to submit on this or that matter. Even if practically speaking these three items may not require a huge life change, they still reveal a different way of reading and interpreting the bible. As such, they can reveal a large difference between two parties, which may make a future marriage difficult. 

I would agree that these matters should (must?) be settled before marriage...


----------



## Montanablue

PeaceMaker said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree as well. A man holding to these views would be wise to attend a church that teaches this so he could meet women there who already have those beliefs. I'll have to say that I've never met anyone who held to these beliefs in the three PCA and ARP churches we've attended. I thought churches that used the red Trinity Hymnal were the most conservative around here because many use contemporary music!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you had met your husband and he held to any of these things would that have been a deal breaker and you would have dropped him, rather than submit to it until he could explain it to you so it made sense?
> 
> You wouldn't have married anyone if you were born 2 00 years ago when almost all held this?
> Jus hypotheticing here
Click to expand...






I don't mean to be argumentative, but 200 years ago (1809) almost no one held to head covering or EP, and most Christians celebrated religious holidays such as Christmas and Easter. Its true Puritans did not celebrate Christmas/Easter, but that would have been 1600s and early 1700s. By about the mid-1700s most Americans were celebrating religious holidays (although to some extent it depended on region). Some Moravians might have practiced head covering at the turn of the 18th century, but even that is iffy. I don't know as much about EP practices, but I've actually never run across any historic EP congregations in my study of American church history (which, has been fairly extensive). So to say that a woman 200 years ago wouldn't have been able to marry if she didn't hold to these three practices is...incorrect. 

And with that, we should probably leave people to discuss the original post. (Sorry to semi-hijack your thread, Tim)


----------



## Galatians220

I think that Presbyterians celebrating Christmas was a relatively late practice, not until the waning days of the 19th century: Eldrbarry's Reformation Class: Father Christmas and Mr. Grinch

Likewise, it appears that the headcovering issue has been around for *awhile* -- The Sisters' Prayer Covering. It was certainly not unknown among the early Reformers.

Just my  worth; _carry on... _

Margaret


----------



## Tim

In an attempt to get us all on the same page, let me provide the reminder that _all_ of us on this board are the minority as far as beliefs go. Most people aren't Calvinists. Most people don't know what the RPW is. Most people don't know what the Five Solas are. For those seeking a mate, there are always lines to be drawn as to what is an "acceptable" view held by the potential partner. 

If you live in an area without a reformed church, this will be a likely scenario. Even if there is a consciously reformed church in your area, we all know that there are varying views that are important TO SOMEONE. 

My aim is to investigate how do deal with this so that the following things don't happen:

1. One becomes so restrictive that they are alone forever;
2. One becomes so open that they become yoked with someone who is not "equal";
3. The wife resents the husband for his views.

Here's what we want:

1. A husband who is sensible and knows what he believes;
2. A wife who is willing to submit;
3. The wife will probably have to move toward the husband, rather than the husband toward the wife, since it is the husband who must lead;*KEY FOR THIS DISCUSSION
4. It is acknowledged that God will change both during the marriage;
5. Some of these changes will occur for the couple together; some will occur in just the individual.

-----Added 4/14/2009 at 09:33:17 EST-----

I would be interested hearing from wives who have followed their husbands to adopt EP, headcoverings, or rejecting holy-days, even if they didn't believe in these things when they first were married. 

Again, the reason why I am using these examples is because:

1. They necessarily have definite practical outworkings;
2. They can be sensitive for the following reasons:

a) Hymns in church can be sentimental;
b) A woman could think a headcovering makes her look like she is from "Little House on the Prairie"
c) Christmas is especially sentimental - family gatherings, traditions, etc.

You can't choose to postpone a decision regarding these things - you either "do" or "don't". This is not the case with accepting limited atonement, for example - you aren't "forced" to choose a practice immediately.


----------



## Montanablue

Galatians220 said:


> I think that Presbyterians celebrating Christmas was a relatively late practice, not until the waning days of the 19th century: Eldrbarry's Reformation Class: Father Christmas and Mr. Grinch
> 
> Likewise, it appears that the headcovering issue has been around for *awhile* -- The Sisters' Prayer Covering. It was certainly not unknown among the early Reformers.
> 
> Just my  worth; _carry on... _
> 
> Margaret



A quick correction - I double-checked the celebration of Christmas, and although it was widely celebrated among the Moravians and in regions settled by the Germans (and the Dutch too, I think) it fell out a bit out of favor among Ango-Americans after the Revolution (it was considered too "English") By the 1820s, it looks like it was being celebrated pretty widely. So, I was a bit off there, apologies. I was operating from memory and probably should have checked a book before I posted.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that headcovering has never been practiced - just that it wasn't being practiced 200 years ago. You're absolutely right that many early reformers promoted the practice. I believe Knox and Calvin both promoted head covering. But in 19th century America, not many non-Catholics were covering their heads. 

I'm stepping out - for real now.


----------



## satz

Tim said:


> 2. A wife who is willing to submit;
> 3. The wife will probably have to move toward the husband, rather than the husband toward the wife, since it is the husband who must lead;*KEY FOR THIS DISCUSSION



I don't know if I agree. 

To use one of the examples - whether or not EP is scriptural is a matter of fact that has been set by God. Hence, a wife's submission has nothing to do with her beliefs. Her beliefs should be determined by what God has revealed in the bible. She cannot, and should not, change what she believes in -whatever that position maybe- to accommodate her husband.

Now, if she does not believe in EP, she can _physically_ submit to the practice of her husband, after all even if you are not EP, to practice EP is not sin (of course if she is already married she must submit). However, this to me is still far from an ideal situation. 

As I tried to explain in my first post, these issues reflect how a person interprets the bible. Even if physical compliance is a small thing for a wife, there will be a distance between them because they read the bible - the basis of all truth - differently. A wife only knows she has to submit to her husband in the first place because of the bible. How can two walk together unless they are agreed? 

I am not saying it cannot work, and I am sure it people have made it work. But I still believe the solution is to be upfront about such differences and work them out prior to marriage, or even courtship. I don't believe that the wife's submission is the answer to this dilemma.


----------



## Scott1

> *satz*
> 
> As I tried to explain in my first post, these issues reflect how a person interprets the bible. Even if physical compliance is a small thing for a wife, there will be a distance between them because they read the bible - the basis of all truth - differently. A wife only knows she has to submit to her husband in the first place because of the bible. How can two walk together unless they are agreed?



Yes, and you are getting at something important here.

The heartfelt beliefs are one thing, but how we lead when they are different between two persons is another issue.

There may be two married people who agree on every doctrine and every practical application flowing from them out there- but I have never seen it. And let me add, I don't think God intended it (remember whatsoever comes to pass, He ordains).

Being married and leading as a husband is about both- it's about believing and applying "right" but it is also about leading when two imperfect sinners do not agree. God uses close relationships to sanctify us.

Two can (and must) "walk" together when they don't both agree on some points. We cannot be unrealistic about this. In fact, God uses disagreements to demonstrate His power in our lives- and He does so regularly. So, if it's not "EP" it will be something else. 

If these points specifically are convictions that will require practice submission:

1) abstaining from non psalm singing
2) requiring her to wear head covering
3) disallowing celebration of holidays, at home or with others

The spouse needs to know about it and be willing to submit, somehow, by God's grace to it for her whole life. (And there you have one mature Christian wife right off the bat, and praise God every day for that for indeed you have found something special).

The second item requires her alone to do the practical application. One also needs to consider they are asking her family and your family (to the extent they celebrate holidays) to submit as well. That's something that cannot be considered in a vacuum.

It seems to me it is as important for the husband to learn to lead as a loving, suffering servant, despite her sin as it is to get every doctrine and every practice right. God is looking for both, and will not give us a life free of the effects of sin.


----------



## Tim

satz said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. A wife who is willing to submit;
> 3. The wife will probably have to move toward the husband, rather than the husband toward the wife, since it is the husband who must lead;*KEY FOR THIS DISCUSSION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if I agree.
> 
> To use one of the examples - whether or not EP is scriptural is a matter of fact that has been set by God. Hence, a wife's submission has nothing to do with her beliefs. Her beliefs should be determined by what God has revealed in the bible. She cannot, and should not, change what she believes in -whatever that position maybe- to accommodate her husband.
> 
> Now, if she does not believe in EP, she can _physically_ submit to the practice of her husband, after all even if you are not EP, to practice EP is not sin (of course if she is already married she must submit). However, this to me is still far from an ideal situation.
> 
> As I tried to explain in my first post, these issues reflect how a person interprets the bible. Even if physical compliance is a small thing for a wife, there will be a distance between them because they read the bible - the basis of all truth - differently. A wife only knows she has to submit to her husband in the first place because of the bible. How can two walk together unless they are agreed?
> 
> I am not saying it cannot work, and I am sure it people have made it work. But I still believe the solution is to be upfront about such differences and work them out prior to marriage, or even courtship. I don't believe that the wife's submission is the answer to this dilemma.
Click to expand...


I don't think we are that far apart, Mark.

I agree that the first step is to to be clear up front about positions that are held. You are right that a woman cannot betray her beliefs. But I would say that if a woman has a clear position about something, she would probably prefer to just say no to the relationship and no further discussion would be needed.

However, it may also be the case that a woman not be perfectly firm in her convictions, that is, she has not really given every issue a thorough investigation. It is rather this scenario that I wish to discuss. 

To me, the onus is on the potential husband to know where he stands on the issues, since he will be the spiritual leader of the family (of course all Christians have a responsibility to know their Bible, but I think you will agree on the leadership dynamic that God has ordained).

So, now, we have a man who is clear on what he believes and a woman who may not be sure. She may be nervous about what she is getting into because she has not heard of these issues before. And this is the point I want to discuss. A husband who says he believes in Biblical inerrancy is not going to seem weird. But someone who says Christians should not celebrate Christmas will seem strange. 

How can a man gently explain his position?


----------



## JBaldwin

PeaceMaker said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holidays, headcoverings and EP are issues that are minor, but as has been said, they are a matter of practice, but they do affect who a husband and wife live and raise children together. If these issues are that important to you, then I would not get involved with a woman who does not agree with you already, and I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to persuade her to think like you do.
> 
> Getting someone to change their beliefs for your sake is a recipe for disaster. I'd look for someone who already agrees with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If these are all minor issues then any Godly woman who knows the clear important teaching of a wife being submissive to the husbands headship would have no problem submitting to them.
Click to expand...


Read the clarification in my last post. They are minor in the sense that they do not affect our salvation, but to those who practice headcoverings, EP and do not celebrate holidays, they are a huge issue, because they change how you live out your life from day to day. 

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


----------



## Tim

JBaldwin said:


> I would have a difficult time submitting to a man who did not allow me the grace to make a decision about these issues before the Lord on my own and insisted that I submit.



You make a good point and I thank you for it. Did you make a decision before or after you were married? Hope you don't mind me asking, but what if you came to disagreement _after_ you were married, rather than before? What then?


----------



## DonP

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

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

Same with the other issues. 

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

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

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

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


----------



## he beholds

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

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


----------



## Kevin

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

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


----------



## DonP

he beholds said:


> I think a woman who wanted to love you would want to agree with you and do those things.
> 
> 
> 
> "No wife of mine would ever have her hair down or give me a present on Dec. 25th!" *Stamps foot*



That's what I did to mine . 


Seriously, good words Jessi


----------



## JBaldwin

Tim said:


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


I made up my mind about headcoverings before I was married, but I struggled back and forth with the EP issue, holidays and Saturday sabbath vs. Sunday worship after we were married. For awhile, I refused to do any work on Saturday (though we continued to worship on Sundays), because I was afraid I was disobeying God by working on Saturdays. We went to church on Sundays, and I worked all Sunday afternoons. As long as the weekend work got done, my husband was patient with me. 

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

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


----------



## DonP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her emotions are a strength in some areas. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## a mere housewife

Jessi I hope I grow to be more like you, too -- sincerely. 

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

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

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

I would also tentatively disagree that there is _no _room in these areas for a woman to come along. For instance, a girl who considers minor convictions to be less important than submission to her husband might be more distressed to give what she perceives as unnecessary offence in other relationships; and the kind of man she trusts will take that into consideration -- patience and kindness to her will be more important to him than his own preferences, and he will be willing to examine how far he can accommodate her in conscience. So one might wind up eating the big holiday dinner with family as a societal and not a religious thing. (Though obviously patience and accommodation can take different forms: my example may be blundering). If you would rather not be involved in _any_ form of accommodation or patience with a woman who did not grow up with your convictions, it does seem to be maybe wiser to seek a wife who is convicted in agreement to begin with? But I suspect this too is something that 'gives' in a relationship not in the abstract -- when someone trusts to that degree, a trustworthy man naturally does all he can in conscience to be kind.

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

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


----------



## SolaScriptura

SolaScriptura said:


> Knowing the "type" of man who would have these views... and the ethos that typically surrounds such a fellow... I find it hard to believe that such a man would serious consider marrying a woman who didn't hold to those views. Unless, of course, he was just desperate.
> 
> Let me add that when I speak of the "ethos" that often accompanies adherance to at least the first two items on this list - particularly when these things are held at the same time - I mean that negatively.
> 
> I would strongly discourage my daughter from getting involved with such a man... or my sons from being with such a woman.



In light of all the discussion that has transpired since I posted this, let me clarify some things.

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

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

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


----------



## DonP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## TimV

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Kevin

Ben & Tim make good points.

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


----------



## a mere housewife

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

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


----------



## DonP

SolaScriptura said:


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



What exactly do you *judge *to be the attitude of people who hold these views? 

Are they judgmental or ...?

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


----------



## a mere housewife

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

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


----------



## TimV

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

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


----------



## DonP

TimV said:


> rather than exercise power that you do have (but just because you have doesn't mean you should always use).



I will seek to tread carefully and considerately here as we may disagree and that is fine. 

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

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


----------



## Tim

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be charitable, people, I beg you. Please.


----------



## TimV

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



You asked for opinions, and got them, including from people with both tons more experience and knowledge than you and from people who are busy but still care enough about you to share their hard won experience, so don't whine too much. By all means ignore the advice that you don't like.

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

I'm out.


----------



## Kevin

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

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

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

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


----------



## CharlieJ

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

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

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


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Kevin said:


> I cannot speak for others, but for me *a young man that holds to views NOT taught by his church or denomination* AND believes these views are central to his identity as a christian is a troubling prospective mate for my daughter.
> 
> It raises all sorts of red flags about his submission to his own head within the church.



Your concern about lack of submission to church authority makes a lot of sense, but certainly that isn't inherent to holding minority views? Surely the situation is different if the man is part of a denomination that holds those views, or (the more difficult scenario) _would be_ if he could.


----------



## smhbbag

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



I think this second aspect is where most of these guys get in trouble...majoring in the minors so to speak.

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Kevin

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


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Kevin said:


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



Fair enough -- I thought he meant minority among Reformed people generally.


----------



## Tim

Kevin said:


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



For the record, the church at which I am a member (see my signature) does practice EP and does not follow a church calendar (headcovering is not taught, but let's ignore that for now). So, I am submitting to the teaching of my church. You know the practice of my church in Halifax, don't you Kevin? You are only 3 hours away!

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

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


----------



## Kevin

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

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

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


----------



## Tim

TimV said:


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



Let us also dispense with such comments. It is important for the young men to learn from the older men, yes. But it doesn't necessarily follow that if you are young, you are ignorant.


----------



## JBaldwin

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



While reading through this thread, I can't help but think of I Jonn 3:20,21 "For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God."

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

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

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


----------



## Tim

Okay, I am done addressing comments that I don't like.

The point I want to get back to is that sometimes, it is going to be the case that there will be a man who lives in an area without a reformed church to attend. Or perhaps there is a reformed Baptist church and he is Presbyterian, or vice versa. He will be the minority and people who live in this area will not be familiar with his views. 

But he must continue to maintain fellowship with believers there. He can agree to disagree with the elders on some issues, but if he marries, he must really be in closer agreement with his wife.

The question is, how can this agreement be fostered? During courtship? During the early months/years of marriage?


----------



## JBaldwin

How are they fostered? I would discuss them before marriage. If my husband had suddenly announced to me after we got married that he wanted me to cover my head, never sing anything but Psalms in worship and never celebrate Christmas or Easter, I would not have handled things too well. 

I think sometimes there is a false idea about spiritual leadership and submission in a marriage, and I touched on it in my last post. Even though the husband is the head of the home and the spiritual leader and his wife and children should submit, the woman is not less intelligent, nor is the husband necessarily more spiritually mature than the wife. Nor does God tell him that he should order his wife around. God tells him to love His wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it, and then he tells the *wife* to submit.

If a man walks into a marriage thinking he is going to change the woman to his point of view or if he thinks that he will be able to just tell her what to do when they get married, he is not showing respect, love or concern for where she is with the Lord or what she can bring to the marriage. 

During courting, if you are not in a position to be in a church that practices your personal views, then you would have to sit down and share your position and show her your views from Scripture and come to an agreement as to how this would play out in a marriage. Frankly, starting off with how can I bring her around to my point of view is not going to make for a good marriage no matter what the view is.


----------



## a mere housewife

I think that would take place during courtship and with patience and accommodation during marriage? If she is willing to learn and consider as you introduce topics, and is not unwilling to_ learn_ how to submit (she is not someone who says 'I will/can never do that' etc; but is willing to try to work towards things she might not at first be capable of) then I think that would be very important?

I think what Charlie said about people seeing your love for God and others is also key to them accepting your 'minority' views. My husband was not a fundamentalist and we had both always been in fundamentalist circles: at first my dad didn't want me to marry him. But after a while of getting to know Ruben in Christian fellowship and seeing the way he cared for the saints in general and for me in particular his concerns were alleviated.

I wanted to add that while I appreciate the concerns of fathers here because I've seen families wrecked when a man is divisive etc., there is danger also on the other side of mere 'menpleasing': growing up I knew of several situations where men were highly approved in their own circles, and yet they mistreated their families. This is not all that uncommon in an atmosphere where dissent is always 'insubordination' and the authority is always right. I was attracted to Ruben because he was gentle and patient; reasonable when contradicted; one of the very few young guys I'd met up to that point who didn't seem arrogantly unwilling to examine his _own_ beliefs and attitudes -- a person who can examine himself with humility is less likely to oppress a wife. Yet other people thought he was arrogant because he disagreed with almost everyone in our circles. Holding to a minority position may be laudable evidence that someone has the humility to critically consider his own views, rather than blindly accepting a paradigm and only turning a critical eye on other peoples'. I think probably how a person tolerates disagreement etc. and how much fellowship they are willing to have with other Christians with whom they disagree is more of an indicator than a mere minority position.


----------



## DonP

TimV said:


> You asked for opinions, and got them, including from people with both tons more experience and knowledge than you and from people who are busy but still care enough about you to share their hard won experience, so don't whine too much. By all means ignore the advice that you don't like.
> 
> As far as the repeated pointing to the church fathers by Don, how many of them even had wives? How many thought romantic involvement with a woman was not optimum, or even bad? I think it too ironic that they'd be constantly referred to on a thread like this.
> 
> I'm out.



Hit an run eh?? 

He got opinions from some, Plus he got judgment based on a person's experience with other people and their judgment of them. 

And what would the fact of whether the fathers were married or not have to do with what the majority doctrinal position of the church has been through history? 

Anyway Tim my experience is that people who hold a stricter view in the Reformed faith, often do it because of strong convictions to obey God more than please men and fit in. It is sacrificial and they are often more studied on the subjects because they had to wrestle with both sides before settling on it after meeting people who oppose so they can defend it. 

And those who hold looser views tend to be fearful of losing their freedom and convicted so they do not even want others around who remind them. 

Else why would they care if a woman wants to wear her head covered in church? 
Some just want to argue to make themselves right. Whereas the stricter person who does not hold the view in any legalistic way, usually has more acceptance of those who don't, since they know how challenging it was for themselves to come to solid conclusions and what the cost is. 

Esp. now that these are minority positions in most churches and no longer majority. 
But because they are well studied and strongly convinced they are passionate about helping their brothers to know these truths as well and return to the historic majority position. 

But it points the need for these people to discipline the passion so it does not come out with an edge of leftover fleshly anger, self righteousness, impatience, etc, none of which are a means of Grace but do give cause for others to take offense.
Care must be used to show acceptance of the other person and not make them feel judged or not accepted. But mainly encourage to be open to study the issue then pray for them. 
Remember what did it take for you to become convinced? How long? So do not be too excited or expect them to get it all at once. 

Highly emotional issues it is best to use great care and respect for others and the power of the flesh to hold us in blindness and resistance. 
More prayer less talk. Give them things to read and study. 

And realize who makes you to differ? Only God. 
So do not think that you are better, holier, closer to god, more used of God or anything because of your beliefs. Humbly thank Him for the responsibility He has given you and see it as a lesson for you to learn to handle since He is not giving this knowledge to all men today. Only He can cause one to see it. If He is not opening their eyes, who are you to oppose God ranting at someone. 
Not accusing anyone here of doing this, just a reminder of what God had to teach me too. 
Its actually quite amazing to gently put it out and watch them get all upset then be patient and calm and let them see their own ethos over the matter and then just ask them to ask themselves why? 
If you are not upset and take yourself out of the equation, they are left with themselves before God to argue.


----------



## he beholds

Tim, to be as practical as possible, I am going to write an imaginary possible scenario:

You meet a nice African girl who loves God, you find her physically attractive, and you like who she is:there is nothing about her her-ness that you would like to change. 
You aren't sure what her views are on these things that don't come up in most African churches. 
You are friends with her, at least a little bit. 
I think from there, you simply set out to have a discussion, just to find out what she does specifically believe about these issues that will definitely matter in marriage. 
You tell her what you believe. Has she ever heard of that? I really can't imagine anyone who has never studied the issue, or especially even heard of it, being so quick to shoot the idea down. _Maybe_ she says something like, "I can't believe people actually do that!" because it is such a novel idea to her. But I doubt she says, "Who in their right mind would only sing PSALMS????" *gasp*
So you talk to her and feel out her teachability. If she is at all interested in you, or interested in being interested in you, I would think, again, that she would be more than willing to learn about your practices. 

Now what happens if she isn't convinced? Well, perhaps the Lord won't convict her for a while, or forever. But what do you do?? As you are growing closer to her, and she is no longer a hypothetical but a very possible future wife, you will grow in charity toward her, and she you, and you two would naturally be able to come to some type of agreement/solution, etc. (The heart does very strange things when it mingles with another's heart...much more than can be imagined or predicted. Until you actually want to marry a specific person, you can never understand exactly how you'll feel about that person when that time comes.)

If you believe that to sing hymns is to sin, it is not enough for her to merely be quiet in submission to you! You would hope for her to come to the same beliefs, else you'd see her as sinning. So I do see that submission works, pragmatically, but it is not the solution. Aren't we more concerned with hearts than behavior? If she throws on the headcovering, but is bitter, bitter, bitter about it, she is sinning in her supposed sign of submission! You do not want to cause bitterness, nor do you want a bitter wife--even if it is well-disguised. 
If she resents you for not allowing her the fun of gifts and feasts and families in December, that resentment would only grow--for December comes around every 12 months. 

Now on the otherhand, as the husband, you not only want respect and submission, you will deserve it based on your role alone! So it would be very damaging to your relationship to have a wife that won't submit. 

So you are, in this hypothetical scenario, stuck. But again, in a real relationship, the two people will be so interested in serving the other--especially at first, when you are really trying to get to know each other and really trying to make it work, that something will work out! 
I go back to my first post and reiterate: a woman who is hoping to love you will want to please you. She will, in fact, love you because of your commitment to your beliefs. I was very attracted to the seriousness that my husband had for the word of God, for worship, for piety, even though I personally lacked in those areas! I respected him so very much that when he started explaining predestination to me, I wanted to understand it! Even though it made me, like so many other former "non-denominational" un-educated, Christians, ANGRY! Now predestination is a lot more difficult a thing to grasp, in my opinion, than the fact that your husband believes that the Bible requires you to show him submission by covering your head in worship. And I was very willing to learn it, just because I thought he was the best guy I have ever met (he is, by the way) and couldn't imagine him being wrong about anything! There will be a girl for you that will someday feel the same way--but it may not be @ that first "pre-" courting conversation! (And, truth be told, it may not last forever--hopefully it will, though!)

But you will both need to continue working toward true belief and common understanding in order to prevent some sad resentment from taking root in your family. I think you will know from the beginning what kind of woman you are dealing with when you see her reaction to your own beliefs. 



PeaceMaker said:


> Hit an run eh??
> 
> He got opinions from some, Plus he got judgment based on a person's experience with other people and their judgment of them.
> 
> And what would the fact of whether the fathers were married or not have to do with what the majority doctrinal position of the church has been through history?
> 
> Anyway Tim my experience is that people who hold a stricter view in the Reformed faith, often do it because of strong convictions to obey God more than please men and fit in. It is sacrificial and they are often more studied on the subjects because they had to wrestle with both sides before settling on it after meeting people who oppose so they can defend it.
> 
> *And those who hold looser views tend to be fearful of losing their freedom and convicted so they do not even want others around who remind them.
> *
> Else why would they care if a woman wants to wear her head covered in church?
> Some just want to argue to make themselves right. Whereas the stricter person who does not hold the view in any legalistic way, usually has more acceptance of those who don't, since they know how challenging it was for themselves to come to solid conclusions and what the cost is.
> 
> Esp. now that these are minority positions in most churches and no longer majority.
> But because they are well studied and strongly convinced they are passionate about helping their brothers to know these truths as well and return to the historic majority position.
> 
> But it points the need for these people to discipline the passion so it does not come out with an edge of leftover fleshly anger, self righteousness, impatience, etc, none of which are a means of Grace but do give cause for others to take offense.
> Care must be used to show acceptance of the other person and not make them feel judged or not accepted. But mainly encourage to be open to study the issue then pray for them.
> Remember what did it take for you to become convinced? How long? So do not be too excited or expect them to get it all at once.
> 
> Highly emotional issues it is best to use great care and respect for others and the power of the flesh to hold us in blindness and resistance.
> More prayer less talk. Give them things to read and study.
> 
> And realize who makes you to differ? Only God.
> So do not think that you are better, holier, closer to god, more used of God or anything because of your beliefs. Humbly thank Him for the responsibility He has given you and see it as a lesson for you to learn to handle since He is not giving this knowledge to all men today. Only He can cause one to see it. If He is not opening their eyes, who are you to oppose God ranting at someone.
> Not accusing anyone here of doing this, just a reminder of what God had to teach me too.
> Its actually quite amazing to gently put it out and watch them get all upset then be patient and calm and let them see their own ethos over the matter and then just ask them to ask themselves why?
> If you are not upset and take yourself out of the equation, they are left with themselves before God to argue.



I'm sorry, but I disagree.


----------



## a mere housewife

> She will, in fact, love you because of your commitment to your beliefs. I was very attracted to the seriousness that my husband had for the word of God, for worship, for piety, even though I personally lacked in those areas! I respected him so very much that when he started explaining predestination to me, I wanted to understand it!



Great point Jessi, and absolutely true. You take another person whole in friendship and in marriage: you don't divide them up and discard what you don't like as if you could have them without those things. If a woman trusts and desires to learn submission to a particular man who believes certain things, it will work out as he is patient and loving of the 'whole' her.


----------



## DonP

he beholds said:


> I'm sorry, but I disagree.



Which part, the top or the bottom? 

Thats ok. I disagree with your story's premise and feasablility. I would advise a man not to marry a woman who did not agree with him on these things before marriage or 
Would not submit to Christ through him cheerfully and willingly though
she is not convinced of the other. 
And not to marry a woman who lives in bitterness which is a sin and therefore has no right to hope she has been converted by the miraculous grace of God that gives us a new nature and makes us a new creature that desires to please God. 

She is continuing in sin if she won't submit willingly 

Either way this is not a woman you want to marry. 

So if she faked me out and lied and said she would submit and stays bitter, then I would say yes she would be the one who would need to work it out with God, not the other to change his convictions for her. 


WC on Liberty of Conscience

3. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any
sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty,
which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies,
we might serve the Lord without fear,

4. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the
liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to
destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who,
upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or
the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the
ordinance of God.p And, for their publishing of such opinions, or
maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature,
or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith,
worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous
opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the
manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the
external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church,
they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
NKJV

1 John 3:3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. 
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother NKJV

1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. NKJV


----------



## CharlieJ

he beholds said:


> I go back to my first post and reiterate: a woman who is hoping to love you will want to please you. She will, in fact, love you because of your commitment to your beliefs.
> ....
> And I was very willing to learn it, just because I thought he was the best guy I have ever met (he is, by the way) and couldn't imagine him being wrong about anything! There will be a girl for you that will someday feel the same way--but it may not be @ that first "pre-" courting conversation! (And, truth be told, it may not last forever--hopefully it will, though!)



Jessi, I really liked your post, but this one part is a bit troubling. I understand exactly what you mean about a woman wanting to please her man by agreeing with him, and about how your adoration for your husband makes it hard for you to think he could be wrong about anything. However, I'm not sure this is necessarily a good thing. 

I purposely took time w/ my wife Hannah. Our discussion of theology started when we were just friends, since I talk about Bible stuff with all my friends. So she knew where I was before there was romantic involvement. One of the things she realized in college is that she had never developed her theological mind. She just believed what she was taught and did what she was told and was a "good little Christian girl." I watched her begin the long, hard process of critically evaluating a lot of things. Several of my friends counseled me against getting involved with her too quickly, since there would be a very real danger of her transferring her implicit faith from her parents/upbringing to me. I wanted to make sure she was competent and confident in the Scriptures, not just a good little girl who would repeat whatever I said because she loves me and wants to make me happy. I mean, if I died married to a woman like that, how would she raise my children in the Lord? She might go fall in love with some Catholic guy and convert to Catholicism.

Anyway, as you have probably guessed, she made tremendous progress in this area and I had/have no reservations about marrying her. She's even willing to ask me hard questions and pick at my logic. What a blessing! So, when should these discussions take place? Whenever. I think a lot of Bible discussion should go on amongst "just friends." Attraction should be at least in part based on respect for one another's spirituality.


----------



## TimV

> Hit an run eh??



I would never, never run from you, Don.



> And what would the fact of whether the fathers were married or not have to do with what the majority doctrinal position of the church has been through history?



Because we were talking about marrying?


----------



## he beholds

CharlieJ said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> I go back to my first post and reiterate: a woman who is hoping to love you will want to please you. She will, in fact, love you because of your commitment to your beliefs.
> ....
> And I was very willing to learn it, just because I thought he was the best guy I have ever met (he is, by the way) and couldn't imagine him being wrong about anything! There will be a girl for you that will someday feel the same way--but it may not be @ that first "pre-" courting conversation! (And, truth be told, it may not last forever--hopefully it will, though!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jessi, I really liked your post, but this one part is a bit troubling. I understand exactly what you mean about a woman wanting to please her man by agreeing with him, and about how your adoration for your husband makes it hard for you to think he could be wrong about anything. However, I'm not sure this is necessarily a good thing.
> 
> I purposely took time w/ my wife Hannah. Our discussion of theology started when we were just friends, since I talk about Bible stuff with all my friends. So she knew where I was before there was romantic involvement. One of the things she realized in college is that she had never developed her theological mind. She just believed what she was taught and did what she was told and was a "good little Christian girl." I watched her begin the long, hard process of critically evaluating a lot of things. Several of my friends counseled me against getting involved with her too quickly, since there would be a very real danger of her transferring her implicit faith from her parents/upbringing to me. I wanted to make sure she was competent and confident in the Scriptures, not just a good little girl who would repeat whatever I said because she loves me and wants to make me happy. I mean, if I died married to a woman like that, how would she raise my children in the Lord? She might go fall in love with some Catholic guy and convert to Catholicism.
> 
> Anyway, as you have probably guessed, she made tremendous progress in this area and I had/have no reservations about marrying her. She's even willing to ask me hard questions and pick at my logic. What a blessing! So, when should these discussions take place? Whenever. I think a lot of Bible discussion should go on amongst "just friends." Attraction should be at least in part based on respect for one another's spirituality.
Click to expand...


I absolutely agree! I don't mean to say that you want someone who will just say what you want to hear. I didn't do that. (And of course, still don't )
BUT, I think that the more a woman respects a man, the more she would be willing to learn what he is trying to teach her. I don't think that means that the Lord will convict her of your opinion just because she likes you, but I think the point is that she is willing to try to see your side. 

And I did mean for a lot of these questions and things to happen while in "just friends" mode. I think, as a woman, that is how one comes to actually trust the man enough to think that his opinion counts for something and should be considered. I don't think it should be expected at first contact, nor should one wait for marriage to determine trustworthiness and respect. 

I didn't say with my respect for him I was willing to believe it, but to learn it. I guess to be absolutely clear, I should have said I was willing to study it. 
Thanks for helping me see the need to clarify!


----------



## DonP

TimV said:


> Hit an run eh??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never, never run from you, Don.
> 
> Just funning with you Bee man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the fact of whether the fathers were married or not have to do with what the majority doctrinal position of the church has been through history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we were talking about marrying?
Click to expand...


So they are unqualified to teach Biblical principles on marriage, or specifically what I referred to was the doctrines we are discussing as to whether they were in the majority???

And yes you can learn a whooooole lot from history and avoid the pitfalls of the past. 
His/story does have a tendency to repeat Himself.


----------



## SolaScriptura

TimV said:


> Hit an run eh??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never, never run from you, Don.
Click to expand...


----------



## calgal

TimV said:


> Hit an run eh??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never, never run from you, Don.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the fact of whether the fathers were married or not have to do with what the majority doctrinal position of the church has been through history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we were talking about marrying?
Click to expand...


And marriage is NOT something to play with. For the OP, the question would be "what hill do you want to die on and why?" And how will I gracefully handle differing views within family is another question.


----------

