“The Context of Marriage” by Jeremiah Johnson

gty-teaching-highlight

 

The most important aspect of the family is that it exists for God. It is natural to want a happy family, a prosperous family, a loving family. But, the Word of God teaches us that both the starting point of family well-being (shalom) and the goal of the family (glory) are in the Triune God, who made us, redeems us, and fills us with his life.

This is the context of marriage:

The point of God’s design, after all, is not that we have impressive families or easy lives. The point is that every aspect of life in the family lines up under submission to His ultimate and final authority. The end result of all this is that God is glorified and the gospel adorned—nothing short of that fulfills His design.

Here’s how John MacArthur makes that very point in The Fulfilled Family:

“Besides, apart from a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, we have no motivation for righteousness, no constraint from evil, and no real ability to obey from the heart what God commands for our families. That, then, is the essential foundation: Christ must be first in our hearts and in our families.”

The full article here: The Context of Marriage

BS149

Advertisements

“My Brush With Feminism” by Rebeka Merkle

This is a great post from September at the Femina blog. Here’s a snippet to whet your appetite:

I have, now and again, had occasion to pop off on the subject of feminists who can’t decide if they’re trying to channel a swaggering machismo persona – or delicate, hyperventilating, victimhood. And the thing is, the whole situation is funny. It really is. One minute these ladies are rough, tough, and hard to bluff . . . and the next minute they’re pasting trigger alerts on all the sharp corners of everyone’s lives like those dreadfully inelegant foam protectors for the edges of coffee tables. You’ve seen those moments of high heels gone wrong in which the poor girl staggers violently in every possible direction before actually falling down? That’s what the evangelical feminists remind me of. There’s no clear trajectory. One minute they’re galloping nor’-nor’-east, and then suddenly they’re staggering to the sou’-sou’-west. On the one hand, they want to be hard edged modern women, all pant suits and nun chucks, but then again, what they really want to be is tender and empathetic, cherishing and tenderly petting the hurt feelings of everyone everywhere.

Like I said, I find that whole thing funny. But actually, in a surprise move, I wanted to actually take a moment to explain in what way I totally sympathize with them. I don’t agree with the nonsensical road they’ve taken, mind you, but I can at least understand how they came to be in this ridiculous place.

Men. Men who are chumps. Let us be frank – that’s the real problem here. If we want to dig in and get down to first causes, this is where the problem lies. There are lots of chumpish men of course, and each is chumpish in his own way . . . but there’s one particular breed I wanted to look at for a minute.

The thing that makes the evangelical feminists (which is a bit of an oxymoron really) as mad as fire is that Great Nemesis of the Western World – Patriarchy, and anything that reminds them of patriarchy, or alliterates with patriarchy. (Like “Paul” for instance.) So let’s take a moment to peer into the bushes that the feminists are setting up a squawk about. What men do we find in that camp? Well, if we let the feminists define the boundaries of who is in “That Camp” then we find a whole smorgasbord of men because it turns out that feminists aren’t terribly good at defining their terms. We find little tin-pot dictators who advocate for old school patriarchy and who rule their sparsely populated and badly educated red-neck demesne with a rod of iron. But we also find timid little would-be-hipster-city-dwellers who are trying to hide behind the label “Complementarian” and hoping that will fool the feminists and make them go away.

Interspersed in there we find a whole number of strong, faithful, masculine men who assume a godly authority in the home . . . but, and let’s be real here, we also find plenty of men who are chumps. By the grace of God, I have lived my entire life surrounded by the first kind . . . but I have actually been around the block a time or two, and I’ve seen plenty of the second kind as well. And it’s those men – the chumpish ones – who provide much of the ammo which the feminists are flinging at the faithful men. So I would like to humbly offer the suggestion to the menfolk – if you don’t like the feminists, then for heaven’s sakes stop making their point for them!

I’ve had men (in the name of headship and submission) tell me I ought not to be educated.

I’ve had men (in the name of headship and submission) tell me I ought not be wearing anything but dresses.

I’ve had men (in the name of headship and submission) tell me I ought not to disagree with them . . . because I was a female and they were male.

I’ve had men (in the name of headship and submission) tell me that any woman who disagrees with a man doesn’t have a gentle and quiet spirit.

I’ve had men (in the name of headship and submission) tell me that women don’t need an education, because they only need to know how to have babies and cook.

And I’ll be straight-up honest with you. I didn’t handle those men in a very saintly way. I called them names and made rude remarks. I danced around in a tight little circle and lit my hair on fire. And without fail, after about ten minutes of conversation with these pills I was ready to wear nothing but pants for the rest of my life, go to law school, run for president, and become a rugby player.

Read the rest of the story (it’s great!) here: My Brush With Feminism

No “Mothers” or “Fathers” Allowed!

Charlotte Allen at the Independent Women’s Forum reports on another example of feminist and LGBTQI activists using institutional power to suppress traditional values. The smiling leadership of the ruling New Democratic Party, not content with promoting sexual sins, have adopted a set of repressive restrictions on traditional or biblical forms of speech in Alberta, Canada. Her article, “Alberta, Canada’s Progressive New Government Bans the Words ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ in Schools” states:

It used to be: “Heather has two mommies.”

Now, it’s: “Heather has two non-gendered and inclusive caregivers.”

That’s the language the New Democratic Party government in Alberta, Canada, is telling teachers and school administrators to use when adressing the adults with whom students are living. Out: “mother” and “father.” In: “parent,” “caregiver,” “partner,” whatever.

And God help you if refer to one of the little rascals as “him” or “her.”

God help us indeed, but for real!

Keep your eyes clear and your mind grounded in the word of God–radicals in educational and ecclesiastical settings are obsessed with taking over language, with using words to create an imagined reality that is different from the one God made. Thankfully, he is still on the throne!

See the whole article at: Alberta, Canada’s Progressive New Government Bans the Words “Mother” and “Father” in Schools

HT: D. C. Innes

“The Fallout of Failed Marriages” by John MacArthur

gty-teaching-highlightAll around us we see both the roots and fruits of an ungodly approach to gender and sexuality. The answer for Christians is to return to God’s design for human life, described clearly in His Word. The same God who teaches us how to think and live is the God who designed us and the rest of creation–following the Creator’s design then is both our duty (since He has commanded it) and our delight (since He has made us for it).

Here is an excerpt from an excellent series from John MacArthur we will be highlighting on the Lydia Center blog:

The point of God’s design, after all, is not that we have impressive families or easy lives. The point is that every aspect of life in the family lines up under submission to His ultimate and final authority. The end result of all this is that God is glorified and the gospel adorned—nothing short of that fulfills His design.

Here’s how John MacArthur makes that very point in The Fulfilled Family:

Besides, apart from a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, we have no motivation for righteousness, no constraint from evil, and no real ability to obey from the heart what God commands for our families. That, then, is the essential foundation: Christ must be first in our hearts and in our families.

The full article here: The Fallout of Failed Marriages

BS149

Why “Lydia”?

Over the years we’ve noticed that those who reject a biblical view of womanhood sometimes use the name of New Testament saints to attempt to bolster their credentials. We’ve noticed the same thing lately with Lydia of Thyatira. Both noble and less-than-noble organizations call themselves “The Lydia Center.” But this “Lydia Center” has a specific, joyful mission:

The Lydia Center for Biblical Womanhood has one goal:
to exalt the glory of the God by spreading the biblical truth about godly womanhood.

Rejoice in the Lord!

Lydia
Lydia, Seller of Purple