Church Discipline Floundering
“let there be no doubt about it, church discipline is often the result of inept ‘biblical’ counsel, and as if that’s not tragic enough, the church discipline is then executed incorrectly.”
As I stated in another post: “Since I became a christian in 1983, I have seen the church move back to the practice of church discipline in a big way. After years of seeing open sin tolerated in the church [ and I was not in a liberal church ], the discovery of church discipline was an epiphany for me some 7 years after becoming a christian.” I forgot to mention how glad I was to see it make a come back, until recently. The evangelical churches attempt to bring back church discipline often looks like something out of a Keystone Cops movie, with Barney Fife directing.
Point in case, The Rebecca Hancock case http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,469928,00.html. After consuming several articles pro and con, enough facts can be ascertained to make an all too familiar judgement. Once again, a church has muffed a church discipline situation. The result? The whole messy situation is now public for the express result of a pooling of ignorance so huge in it’s proportions, that it could only be matched by the oceans and seas. I was recently put into a situation where I had to delve deep into what the Bible says concerning church discipline and I’m amazed at how wrong most churches have it. Grace Community Church in L.A. seems to cut it pretty straight, but Grace Community Church in Jacksonville Florida, Hancocks old church, well, that’s another story.
Let’s get this straight, I am not defending Hancock. Obedience to Christ is how we love him as Lord and Savior. The boy friend needs to take a back seat to Christ in her life, like yesterday. But tomorrow, the church’s elders are going to announce her sins to the church, and possibly for no good biblical reason. As stated in their letter posted by Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Church_Extortion.pdf , their premise is Matthew 18. This scripture addresses sins against other believers, not personal moral failure of the baser sort:
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.2And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.3For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Let me pause here before I make my first point. As a former elder, I was involved in several situations like this, where someone submitted a letter of resignation from membership after being confronted with a church discipline issue. Another elder suggested in this situation, individuals “discipline themselves” by leaving. I scoffed at this notion and brushed it aside as a lame attempt to move on with business as usual. However, I now see some scriptural wisdom in this, especially if this is explained to the erring member accordingly. In regard to living in open sin, Paul’s concern is that the membership stop associating with this individual. The purpose of congregational involvement is to turn such a one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, if this person is still present with the congregation. If they have already left and have been informed that they are outside the protective realm of the church, it may be a mute point. It would only be an issue if they came back for any reason in an attempt to fellowship with the congregation. Keep in mind, God disciplines some Christians living in secret sin without the congregations knowledge:
“But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.” 1Cor 11:28-32
I also offer this practical consideration: Does good usually result from doing things without the application of biblical wisdom? It just so happens that a demand to return to a church for the purpose of making things right with the threat of public humiliation attached to the demand is considered to be extortion in some states. In Ohio for instance, preventing someone from executing a legal act by threat of bodily harm or public humiliation is considered coercion or extortion under state kidnapping laws. Leaving a church is a legal act. If Florida law is the same, these elders have put this in writing, but under the wrong premise of Matthew 18. GOOD GRIEF!!!
We must take note that 1Cor 5 is very distinct from Matt 18 for those living in fornication. The calling together of the congregation is for the purpose of exclusion and not a third exhortation to repent. In the case of Rebecca Hancock, what were they even doing in Matthew 18? Applying Matthew 18 to the situation simply created the mess that it now is. But there is yet another angle here. This lady was sharing the situation with her “mentor.” There is also an indication that it was an off and on again struggle.
1. Some part of her wanted to deal with it or she wouldn’t have shared it with her mentor.
2. She had a mentor. Usually, those who are not serious about there relationship with the Lord, don’t bother with mentors.
3. She broke off the relationship several times, but for some reason ended back in this sinful relationship.
This makes me wonder; how solid was the counsel she was getting from the mentor? let there be no doubt about it, church discipline is often the result of inept biblical counsel, and as if that’s not tragic enough, the church discipline is then executed incorrectly. Apparently, a new trend among church’s is people showing up for a counseling appointment and finding themselves in the church discipline process. People who seek out counsel and end up being disciplined is very unsettling to me for many reasons. Without a doubt, before you would move toward any kind of church discipline, you would employ Proverbs 11:14, “Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory.” Before anybody who came to you for counsel ends up excommunicated, it seems that you would want to make sure a shortfall in your wisdom did not contribute accordingly.
One may also want to be cautious in regard to the fact that 1Cor 5 seems to be dealing with people who are being brazen and arrogant in their sin, as opposed to a weak believer or perhaps ignorant as well. From what can be gleaned from this account, it seems possible that Hancock was truly ignorant of the biblical ramifications. If this situation suddenly went from a counseling situation to the second step of church discipline, confusion and that feeling you get when you have been ambushed could have resulted, which is not helpful. This is certainly possible if you consider the letter she received from the elders. They do not even explain the biblical purpose for the third step of discipline, which is a third exhortation. But Paul doesn’t want the congregation hanging out with this individual according to a Matthew 18 situation. Once the fact of unrepentant fornication is established, the church is to turn the individual over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that they are not judged with the world. Is this the purpose?, or is it the Matthew 18 purpose? They don’t even say!, and frankly, they probably don’t even know.
The buffoonery list of inept church discipline goes on and on. For instance, imagine going to witnesses for the second step with the option of following through only if they wanted to. But yet, it’s done all the time in the third step. Listen, if you are going to “tell it to the church”, they should be educated accordingly: involvement in the third exhortation should not be optional. If it is optional, don’t tell them, and if there are stipulations, educate accordingly. If the congregation is not educated according to their practical responsibility in the matter, it is merely gossip and nothing more. Worse yet, many churches combine exhortation and excommunication in the third step, eliminating the fourth step altogether. Furthermore, it is clear from scripture that different situations warrant different discipline processes, and different treatment in the final analysis. In regard to process and final treatment, compare Matt 18:15-20, 1Tim 6:3-5, 2Jn 10, Titus 3:10, 1Tim 5:19,20, 1Cor 5:1-13, 2Thess 3:6-15, Gal 6:1. But yet, the grid of Matthew 18 is painted over everything. This is just a plain sloppy rendering of the scriptures and to the detriment of many.
I am weary of all the whining and moaning about these issues being “dragged into the public.” What do we expect? If the Church will not clean up it’s own mess, the world will be more than happy to do it for us. Many church’s had better get rid of it’s attitude that sloppy church discipline is ok because, after all, we are dealing with people who are sinning.
paul
God’s love and purpose in failure: Luke 22:31-34
“This is the love of Christ, he meets us where we are in weakness with wisdom and extended hand to lead us out no matter how pathetic that picture is, and our failures and lack of faith paint that picture.”
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded {permission} to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” But he said to Him, “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!” And He said, “I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me.” Luke 22:31-34.
Christ speaks directly to Peter (formally Simon) and calls his name twice to make sure he had his attention. He knew Peter was still intoxicated by verse 29 where Christ tells the apostles that they will rule with him in the kingdom. Peter had no lack of appetite for such possibilities. Christ then informs Peter of an event at the throne in Heaven. When Satan and his hordes where at God’s thrown for their periodic mandatory parole meeting with God, Satan requested permission to destroy Peter’s faith. We have a clear-cut picture of this in the book of Job:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. The LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” The LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.” Then Satan answered the LORD, “Does Job fear God for nothing? “Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. “But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face” ( Job 1:6-11).
Satan is the accuser of the brethren (Rev 12:10). Here he tells God that Job will deny Him if God lets him attack everything Satan thought Job was living for. Satan is asking permission to sift Job like wheat the way they use to separate the chaff from wheat on the threshing floors. In other words, separate Job from his faith. Christ informs Peter that Satan has requested permission to use the situation surrounding his crucifixion to destroy Peters faith. That’s why Christ prays that his faith will not fail. This prayer is according to God’s will because Christ already promises Peter will rule with him in the kingdom; a good lesson for us when we pray, to pray according to God’s will. The one thing we should all admire about Peter was his deep desire and zeal to honor Christ and love him. He thought he was ready; Christ knew he wasn’t and also knew the plan was in place to fix that. Christ informs Peter that his failure would be devastating and then reveals one of the purposes. When this trial was done doing its work, and he “turned again”, he was to “strengthen [his] your brothers.” Always remember this about trials and failures: God wants to use them to teach us so we can strengthen others. Hear this and hear it well, with all of the talk about knowing God’s will, here is something that is clear from the scriptures; when you have overcome a trial or failure in your life, you have your assignment from God.
Not many failures eclipse this one by Peter. He denied God three times, even after being warned that he would. Also, Christ said to Peter and the others just prior to being taken into custody: “and said to them, ‘Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not enter into temptation'” (Luke 22:46). Peter’s experience and what he learned through this experience may have colored this passage that he wrote at a later time, “Be of sober {spirit,} be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (IPeter5:8). Peter was not alert in this situation. He failed to remember the specific warning of Christ and obviously failed to pray per the Lord’s instruction. Also, Peter’s plan to be with Christ in that hour was not well thought out and led him into an environment fraught with the possibility of compromise. Also interesting is this: the part Christ assumed, was to pray that Peter would not be separated from the faith. Peter’s part was to pray that he wouldn’t fall into temptation. We colabour with Christ always, knowing however, that he is the keeper of our faith (Phil. 1:6).
But now we come to this reality; that for the Christian, when we fail, the revealing of God’s love will follow. The greater the failure and personal devastation, the clearer we see God’s love. Peter’s spirit was willing but his flesh was weak ( Matthew 26:41 Mark 14:38), but God’s love revealed in failure will motivate us and make us stronger. Peter was not the only one that went AWOL after the resurrection. When Christ comes back in person, he begins to personally restore and uplift the faith of the disciples and other followers. Regardless of what Jesus preached over and over and over again about his death, burial and resurrection while he was with them, here was the mentality among the disciples as illustrated by this discourse with Jesus on the road to Emmaus:
“But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened. “But also some women among us amazed us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning, and did not find His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive. “Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also had said; but Him they did not see” (luke 24:21-24).
1. Jesus did not do what they expected him to do.
2. Jesus said he would rise from the dead, but it’s been three day’s and no one has seen him.
3. Some angels said he was alive, but when some disciples went to the tomb, he wasn’t there.
Yep, that would be us if we were there, trust me. This is the love of Christ, he meets us where we are in weakness with wisdom and extended hand to lead us out no matter how pathetic that picture is, and our failures and lack of faith paint that picture. His goal is to draw us closer to himself through his word:
“And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25).
In addition to the encounter with the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus ministers to more doubting followers as recorded in Luke 24:36-53. The way he counsels them to vanquish doubt is a study in itself. But in conclusion, we come full circle to Peter in John 21. The Lord entices him to profess his love for him three times, once for each time he denied him and then reveals that in the end, Peter would not deny him the second time:
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me” (John 21:15-19).
For sure, at times, Christ rebukes us as he initially did to the two on the road to Emmaus. But the one who loves us and is greater than our failures never beats us down, but uses our failures to show his love for us and make us better for the kingdom. Peter, the rock that Christ built the church on, was not chosen because of his spiritual prowess. Even after everything Peter had learned, The Apostle Paul had to publicly rebuke him for downright silly behavior( Galations 2:11-14). If Christ used Peter in such a mighty way, he will also use you. Learn from your failures and glorify God because of his great Love. But also remember what else Christ seeks in His working with us; as he said to Peter, “Follow me.”
paul
A New Reality: Denominational Cults
“I paid good money for my children to be brainwashed and for my marriage to be ruined”
~Michelle Freeman
Let’s take a test: Mormonism, cult or denomination? Cult. Correct. Methodist, cult or denomination? Denomination. Correct. Jehovah’s Witnesses, cult or denomination? Cult. Correct. Pentecostalism, cult or denomination? Denomination. Correct, but like the other denominations listed here, not always. Enter Calvary Temple of Sterling, Va. Clearly a cult by anybody’s standards. You can read the newspaper article here: http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081206/FEAT04/812060412
The reality of the matter is this, any denominational church can become a cult. The following is a dictionary definition of a cult: “A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.” The article link above is a fascinating study in regard to recognizing cults who don’t identify themselves by commonly known names such as “latter Day Saints.”
1. Most of these ministries start out as solid churches that honor God: “They had joined eagerly, drawn to Scott’s energy as a new religious broadcaster and his commitment to living by the literal word of the Bible. ‘What started out as a Christian organization has turned into a cult where people are controlled,’ said Jonathan Ernst, a Calvary pastor until he was blacklisted by Scott in 1994.”‘
2. The church may have the appearance of vitality complete with building programs and growing numbers: “Under the leadership of longtime pastor Star R. Scott, Calvary opened a school, television and radio ministries, and satellite churches around the globe. The local congregation at one point numbered 2,000.”
3. Watch out for niche doctrines that seem to indicate that the church leaders want to stand out as unique among other Churches: “In his sermons, Scott teaches that his church is scripturally superior to others and views keeping people in the fold as a matter of their salvation.”
4. Watch out for a movement by the leaders to disassociate themselves with church organizations within the denomination that offer accountability. This is a big one: “Scott’s decision to dissociate Calvary Temple from the Assemblies of God organization removed a level of financial oversight, and he eliminated boards and public votes, former members said.”
5. Look for movements by the leaders toward control issues in two areas: administration (such as self perpetuating elder bodies) and the personal lives of members: “Former members contend that much about their lives, from how they spent their money to how they raised their children, was dictated by Scott and other church leaders. Scott is Calvary’s ‘apostle’ and presiding elder, and in 1996, he named himself the sole trustee, putting him in charge of virtually all of the church’s operations, its theology and finances”
6. Look for the use of fear to control people, especially in the area of church discipline and excommunication. If you sense fear of the leaders among the congregation, grab your family and run for the exit doors: “Scott describes those who decide to leave the church as ‘depraved,’ and Calvary’s practice is to cut them off.”
7. Watch for aloofness among the leaders when you try to nail them down on doctrinal issues. If their answers are nebulous and have disclaimers attached, hit the road running: “Calvary leaders are careful never to explicitly tell people what to do, she said. We just say: ‘This is what the Bible says. You make a decision.’” Ya, right.
8. Watch for the division of families, especially over doctrinal issues. This is one of the major hallmarks of a cult: “When parents have left the church, some young children have been urged to stay; a few have been taken in by pastors. Scott’s family has been divided, too: Scott is estranged from his 36-year-old son, Star Scott Jr. After 12 years at Calvary, Freeman is furious. ‘I paid good money for my children to be brainwashed and for my marriage to be ruined,’ said Freeman, a U.S. Postal Service secretary.”
9. Watch for exaggerated or extreme confidence on the part of the leaders. Their unwavering pre-canned answers to your tuff questions does not make what they are teaching true: “Most current members declined to talk to the Washington Post, although Scott and three other leaders spoke at length. ‘I’m at perfect peace with them being gone,’ he said. ‘We’re happy with what we believe, so why aren’t they happy?”’
10. Never judge your interpretation based on the congregational following. People in today’s churches are all but completely mindless: “In 2002, three weeks after the death of his wife, Scott, who was then 55, stood before the congregation and announced that the Bible instructed him as a high priest to take a virgin bride from the faithful. A week later, he did – a pretty 20-year-old who a couple of years earlier had been a star basketball player on the church high school team.” This incident did not lead to a mass exodus in this church. Unbelievable. Remember, this is an affluent church in America full of business professionals.
11. Watch for an over emphasis on love and community at the expense of truth. This is the major mode of operation for the cults: “Kim Heglund, Scott’s daughter and the wife of a Calvary pastor, said members feel strongly loyal to Calvary because they believe they are living out the Bible. ‘This is Christianity, people being a family. Bitter feelings and divided families are the exception and caused by people who ‘pretended to be Christians.”’
12. Watch out for counsel that undermines self confidence and encourages over dependence on the leaders or the church in all areas of life, especially discernment. This is another mark of a cult: “Former members contend that much about their lives, from how they spent their money to how they raised their children, was dictated by Scott and other church leaders.”
13. Watch out for a we are the only sound church within a hundred square miles of here mentality. This way of thinking lays a dangerous foundation: “Scott’s followers see him as an inspiring interpreter of God’s word. Members pack the church most nights, united in their desire to live as the Bible intended and reject what they view as society’s moral ambivalence. ‘Church isn’t for everyone who wants to just show up,’ Scott said in an interview. ‘It’s not a community club. We’re not looking to build moral, successful children. We’re looking to build Christians.”’ Sounds good, doesn’t it?
14. Watch for what looks like difficulty in leaving the church. Have persons leaving membership been put under undue stress? Do the leaders seem defensive about people leaving? This one is big. Are persons who have left the church been maligned?: “But for hundreds of members who have left the church during the past decade, Calvary is a place of spiritual warfare, where ministers urged them to divorce spouses and shun children who resisted the teachings. ‘Scott is twisting the Bible’s message,’ they say, and members who challenged the theology were accused of hating God.”‘
Pay attention. The longer your family is in a church that ends up like this, the more trauma there will be for your family when you leave . The most telling sign is a developing pattern among the leaders that shuns outside accountability. Another major question is this: does the teaching divide families or bring them closer together? Teach your family that this could happen to any church and agree together in regard to discerning these signs; that way, a smooth exit strategy can be planned. Your departure must not be a protracted event. Leaders of “churches” like this will use this time to drive a wedge between you and your family. Keep this in mind; more than likely, other Christians or ministries are not going to take a stand. Per the usual, it is a secular newspaper that sounds the alarm, as in this case. Try to avoid a war because you will probably fight it by yourself, so practice preventative medicine.
Always lay the burden of scriptural correctness on the leaders regardless of the troubled people they are dealing with. As the pastor of this church said himself: “When asked about the divided families, Scott answered, ‘That happens. They accepted Calvary’s theology until it affected them,’ he said.’They were ready to see it apply to others lives for years and served many times in the orchestration of it.’”
Remember also, we live in a time when independent autonomous churches loosely associated with fellowship (fellowship, not accountability) groups are very popular. These churches are especially susceptible to becoming cults. Truth from scripture is the bottom line, that must guide you:
“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8;32
Be a good berean: “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily {to see} whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).
paul
Book Report: Love And Respect; Dr. Eggerichs, Part One
The whole question of how to have a happy marriage has been jettisoned to the front of my consciousness lately. That is why the new book “Love & Respect” by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs has drawn my attention and for two reasons: It immediately brings to mind Ephesians 5:33,
“Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must {see to it} that she respects her husband.”
…and it also looks to speak to both sides of the issue from both husband and wife. More on that later.
I was skepticle. As I purchased the book at the nearest christian book store, I was disappointed that I did not have to order it because as you know, christian book stores usually stock what moves now days, namely, pop-psychology and biblical theories born of the imaginations of men and women who drink too much coffee. However, I am concerned with where I see marriage counseling going in circles that are considered biblical focused by many.
I have finished the first two chapters and though I can tell, I will not agree with everything, the book starts out by delivering on two vital truths that have been lost in today’s biblical counseling, even in reformed circles. First, though the Bible has a myriad of marriage elements to be followed, it also gives very simple, but powerful themes to keep us on track. Dr. Eggerichs has chosen Ephesians 5:33. Without a doubt, many wheels can be added to this primary biblical concept, but this is a theme that can be employed by counselors and married couples to stay on track. This is very very very powerful. Name one marital dispute where love or respect does not come into play. Let me paint you a picture with this scenario of words properly fitted for the occasion:
Now honey, remember, we both agreed that love and respect would be the thrust of our marriage and that we would continually remind each other of this and both work to get better at it. That’s not where this conversation is going, we need to back-up and re-evaluate.
Most marriage counseling is information overload. Look, I have been a security technician for thirty years. I have a gazillion training certificates. Trust me, I could not go back and pass any of those end-of-course examinations. How would any couple take all of that information and consign it to a concise plan of action?, especially when you consider the distractions and busyness of our culture. It is the proverbial forest lost in all the trees. Dr. E himself mentions that at a time in church history when more books than ever have been written on marriage, the divorce rate among professing Christians is fifty percent. As I suspected from the title, Dr. Eggerichs gives marriage couples a narrow focus as a premise to build on. This alone makes the book worth it’s weight in gold.
Secondly, Dr. E hits it out of the park with this statement:
“Many books on marriage stress the need for husbands to love wives, but the unique feature about this book is the concept of wives showing unconditional respect toward husbands” [page 19].
Dr. E pre-qualifies the above statement with this simple but profound observation of Ephesians 5:33:
Christian spouses should not read this verse to say, ” Husbands, love your wives unconditionally, and wives, respect your husbands only if they have earned and deserve it.” As the old saying goes, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. in this verse, respect for the husband is just as important as love for the wife [page18].
Let me not mince words here. There is much counseling today that goes something like this: “Get the husband straightened out first because he is the leader of the home and the rest will fall in place naturally.” “The wife will love the husband if he is God’s kind of husband.” “It’s always the husbands fault when there is no love in the home, he has not led by example.” Proponents of this approach actually quote 1 John 4:19 for their proof text:
“We love because he first loved us”
So, they reason, if husbands love their wives the way they should, wives will love them in the same way we love God because he loved us first. Beware of any theology that makes no distinction between vertical and horizontal realities. Such an approach disregards the plain sense of scripture and looks at scripture through a distorted prism. This approach has, and will continue to destroy many marriages by fostering an attitude that respect on the part of the wife is earned by the husband. Well, who is the judge of when he has done that sufficiently? Besides, Ephesians 5:33 would then lend the same to the husband in not loving the wife until he thought she respected him enough, as Dr. E aptly points out. Obviously, that scenario is going nowhere.
However, there is a third emphasis in the first two chapters by Dr. E that the title of the book did not hint at, but is of profound import. In working on and through Ephesians 5:33, both husband and wife must assume that regardless of any lack of love and respect, ultimate good will is always intended by the other. Hey, doesn’t 1Corintians 13:7 say love believes and hopes all things? I will discuss this further in my next play by play reports of this book as well as some disagreements. However, based on the first two chapters alone, I would almost consider it must reading for the reasons above alone.
paul
Book Report: Love And Respect; Dr Eggerichs, Part Two
As I said in part one, the monumental importance of this book is the re-discovery of Ephesians 5:33 and the fact that it will take team work on the part of both spouses to make any marriage work. Ephesians 5:33 breaks down the two primary responsibilities for the husband and wife. The husband is to love his wife and the wife is to respect the husband. Dr. E thinks there are deep reasons for this distinction and he is right. In chapters one and two, he begins to build on this premise with the importance of communication and what I would call needs enablement. I am not big on “love languages” or any kind of hierarchy of needs philosophy, if indeed that is where Dr. E is going with this. It is too early to tell, but he has earned a complete hearing on the matter. For sure, he makes his case on how fallen communication disrupts the Ephesians 5:33 goal. Also, I wouldn’t buy the idea that the husband has to receive respect before he can love the wife, but let’s not focus on that. Suffice to say, if a husband knows he isn’t respected by the wife, it creates a huge obstacle to love and strips the husband of the big H, hope. Why even end up there? Marriage – hope + lack of belief in God’s word = divorce. Divorce is rarely the result of failure on the part of onespouse. Two sinners in the same house with one claiming complete innocence is suspect at best.
More on all of the above later. Going into chapter three, Dr. E addresses “unconditional respect” on the part of the wife and though I am not that far yet, I assume he addresses “unconditional love” on the part of the husband later in the chapter. Where he got the gaul to actually exergete that concept from Ephesians 5:33 is anybodies guess. Gee, could he really be a Dr.? But this is the plain sense of the text by virtue of the fact that Paul presents it as an imperative with no “if”, “ands”, or “but’s.” Paul says the husband is to love his wife and the wife is to respect the husband. End of conversation. But I find Dr. E’s insertion of the truthful but outragous “unconditional respect” concept a breath of fresh air in the junkyard of broken marriage models. Once you grasp this simple concept, you see it everywhere you go as you observe couples functioning in the malieu of life. As Dr. E testifies, wives in troubled marriages will quickly testify that they love their husbands, but when you ask them if they repect their husbands, you get what I call a “Scooby Doo” in the headlights look. It’s not only the look, it’s also the “Uhrrrrr?” One respected pastors wife and counselor put it this way: “Deep, deep down inside, every wife thinks her husband is an idiot.” Who can deny that TV panders to this view thru a mirriad of commercials and sitcoms. Our culture is awash with this mentality in just about every corner and churches are no exception. When was the last time you heard a sermon on “unconditional respect” on the part of the wife? In this chapter, Dr. E discusses the “why” in regard to wives not respecting their husbands and hopefully right thinking that leads to respect and the same in regard to husbands loving their wives. Stay tuned.
paul
2 comments