Questions: Is there any emphasis in REFORMING MARRIAGE on the husband laying down his life for his wife, giving up his life for her, and loving her as he loves his own body? Any proper reminder that the one who would be great in God’s Kingdom must be the servant of all?

If so, the book may be balanced. If not, it may be unbalanced. In fact, it may be unbalanced in a dangerous way. It may be teaching a concept of authority that Jesus said was part and parcel of the whole Gentile world – an emphasis of being lord, and exercising dominion over other human beings, an emphasis Jesus said was not to characterize his followers, and certainly is not the NT teaching on a husband and wife relationship.

I don’t know. I haven’t read the book. All I can say is the quotes provided are not what I read about commands to husbands in the NT, and if that is the main thrust of the teaching to husbands, it may not endorse or necessarily lead to abuse, but it isn’t biblical teaching.

Here is a remark from one who claims to have read the book, who says Wilson is flat out wrong in three areas of his teaching. I think he messes up when he talks about missions is my “vocation” and homemaking my wife’s “vocation,” but Christ is our “calling,” for the two words are synonyms. It appears to me he meant either job vs calling, or else earthly calling vs eternal calling (of far more importance). But beyond that, he gives an interesting take on the book, and one which jives with “commenter’s” views:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2LDETARJ5TRAP/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2LDETARJ5TRAP

I suppose I am the only male to give this book less than five stars, but here goes. There are many good points in this book (which is why I gave it two stars, and might even give three), but there is a major foundational error. The error is three-fold (1) Man’s calling, (2) God’s love and (3) spiritual authority

I am sorry, Mr. Wilson, but Christ’s love for his bride is very passionate and yes even sentimental. I suggest a fresh reading of the Song of Solomon with a Christ centered perspective. Christ is infatuated with His bride.

In two instances in the distant past, there was the spoken attitude (ie- people actually said this) that the man’s addiction problem was the wife’s fault.

Your claim about church discipline is pretty glowing. I only wish it were that way, but my experience of it happening in the church where I am a member is very mixed. Some good, and a lot bad, and some things not dealt with that ought to have been.

Not that the women were under discipline when others said their husbands’ adultery and the pornography were their wives’ fault, don’t get me wrong. But these wives picked up on the attitude from others that they were to blame for their respective husbands’ sin problem. That much I do know from talking to them. Also, the gossip and judgmentalism in blaming these women was not disciplined at all.

By the way, are you the person who also wrote this, that the Bayly blog just published? There are some remarks in both that sound amazingly alike, is why I ask.

http://www.baylyblog.com/2009/10/the-dangers-of-insomnia.html#more

Just curious.

You said: “I used to be comp, that’s how I was raised, and I went through a living hell trying to apply those rules to an abusive ex-marriage. ”

As I see it, you can’t be “comp” in an abusive marriage. It’s sort of like an oxymoron. It’s like the guy that stole that little girl from her mother, and then called her his “daughter”. She wasn’t. She never would be. An abusive person can’t be “comp”.

Also you said: “trying to apply those rules”. It’s not about rules, but about grace and gospel. It won’t be right if it’s “rules”. You knew that all along and now you are out. You might still be “comp”, but only if you married a “comp” guy in a “comp” marriage.

You also said “always defer”. Again, that’s a rule. It’s not about “always” or never deferring. If it has to be one way or the other it won’t work. In a true relationship, love will find a way.

All of the couples that I know, that I would consider to have “comp” marriages, are very happily married, respect each other immensely, do not divorce, have excellent parenting skills and probably have never heard of complementarian. Most of the couples that I know that I would consider to be “egal” struggle mightly with their marriages, experience multiple divorce, have problems with their children and finances, and are both often unhappy (man and woman). That’s just what I see around me.

In my house, if you asked my wife and kids who’s boss they would probably say that I am (most of the time ). That’s not because I say I am, it’s because they say that I am. It’s an often uncomfortable place to be. I essentially always defer to my wife concerning child raising, for example. She always knows better what to do. She is always in charge of my relationships with other women. It’s not a jealousy thing. It’s just because she know’s better. She has a discernment about other people that I do not have.

It’s sort of like the word humble. If you make a list of things to do to be humble, you probably won’t make it. It’s not like welding, the more you practice, the better you are. It’s about our hearts. The pharisees tried making lists and it didn’t work. It’s a fruit of the Spirit. If two Christians marry, worship together, study the Word and build a life together, then maybe, 40 or 50 years later, someone might say, “Hey, those two have a complementarian marrage.”

Also, I don’t think that this is something that a husband normally teaches his wife. If she doesn’t get it from listening to her pastor and studying the Word and praying, then she probably won’t get it. Same thing for the husband. Our hearts are shaped by the Spirit and we come along side each other, building a marriage together. It works when Christ is first the ruler of the husband’s heart and is first the ruler of the wife’s heart.

I’m sure everyone here would hope and pray, that if it’s Christ’s desire, that you would find a Christian man and enter into a Christian marriage. Then, many years from now someone might say, “Wow, Michelle and X have a great ‘comp’ marriage”, or they might say “Great, Michelle and X have a great ‘egal’ mariage”. It would be even better if they said, “It’s Wonderful, Michelle and X love the Lord, have a great Christian marriage, and have been an inspiration to me and my husband in our walk with the Lord. Praise God!”

/snark

I was just telling someone recently about how I don’t see Driscoll as a “men’s ministry expert” in the same way I would see Weber or Eldredge. The shouting… it’s all condemnation and has no place in the church.

But I listen to him because, occasionally, he does talk about Jesus.

(hi, Michael!)

Go Yankees!

Wisdom from over 1000 years longer experience with what works and what doesn’t, which ideas are actual new ideas and which are really old mistakes. Mistakes they’ve made before. A LOT longer institutional experience than any of these megachurches.

“Been there, Done that, Got the T-shirt.”

Since you quote me I am eager to respond and say, that you are making a wise point. I think that perhaps the bulk of my point still stands. It is precisely for those people you are discussing that we must teach wisdom and understanding. But I take what you have said with great concern.

You are right that it is precisely the people who are most likely to be inappropriately influenced by all the advice givers of the world that are the most likely to listen in the first place. Violent people are most likely to listen and act upon violent advice, gluttonous people are most likely to act on the advice to eat. Athletes are the most likely to act on the advice to exercise.

Perhaps it is a universal phenomena that the less you need a piece of advice the more likely you are to listen to it and act on it. This may be the reason that scripture issue such special warning to those who would teach, and certainly these warning apply to those who would write books of advice. Advice in book form is doubly dangerous because it cannot be tailored to the needs and proclivities of the reader but is necessarily static and consequently open to much unforeseen twisting and exaggeration.

Nevertheless I wonder do you agree with my central point that we “cannot reject the book merely because of possibly destructive readings.” Or am I suggesting a standard that is too low. If so, what standard would you suggest? Surely the standard cannot be that we reject all books that might lead to destructive readings. No book would meet that standard.

As a pastor who recommends a lot of different books in the course of a year, I am always searching for the right standard so I ask these questions as part of a genuine struggle, not to create controversy.

Ethan