Man wants to go into missions, wife wants to stay

[a mere housewife]

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

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

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

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

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

-C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

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

 

[py3ak]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

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

How can this be considered in this conversation?

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

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

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

Tim is the OPC this extreme on the Marriage ?

It's not extreme.

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

 

[py3ak]

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

How can this be considered in this conversation?

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

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

 

[TimV]

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

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

 

[Brian Withnell]

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


What are your thoughts on this article?


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


What sort of counsel is best in these situations?

What are good things to advise both parties?

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

How can this be considered in this conversation?

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

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

 

[Brian Withnell]

What would a pastor say during this premarital counseling sesssion?



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

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



What would this session look like?

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

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

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

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

 

[au5t1n]

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

 

[a mere housewife]

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

So what do you do with Luke 14 Brad?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brian Withnell]

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Php 3:3) For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

(Php 3:4) Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

(Php 3:5) Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

(Php 3:6) Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

(Php 3:7) But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

(Php 3:8) Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

(Php 3:9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

(Php 3:10) That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

(Php 3:11) If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

(Php 3:12) Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

(Php 3:13) Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

(Php 3:14) I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

(Php 3:15) Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

(Php 3:16) Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

(Php 3:17) Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

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

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

 

[a mere housewife]

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

 

[BJClark]

PuritanCovenanter;

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

Pergamum;

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

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

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

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

Excellent and practical!

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

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

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

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

-C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

PuritanCovenanter;

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

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

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

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

 

[BJClark]

Excellent and practical!

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

How would their ministry be financed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Honor]

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

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

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

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

 

[Amazing Grace]

So what do you do with Luke 14 Brad?

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

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

The scriptures have been posted.Your choice to ignore them notwithstanding.
God will not call a man whom He hath joined together to an unwilling woman to the mission field. Why is that so complicated for you to see? The commands pertaining to marriage are not exempted simply because a man has some erroneous idea that he is 'called' to something.
You are altogether categorically 'other' from God. He joins a man to his wife. Who joins God to His? Sorry brother, but that is incredibly arrogant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[a mere housewife]

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

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

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

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

But a biblical parallel in my view is this:

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

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

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

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

 

[BJClark]

Robert,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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