The Wife Test Fails Again

Would you let your wife play a role as soccer mom even if she kept her clothes on (via Tim Challies)?

My wife and I are wading through the murky waters of youth sports with our kids as well. They play for travel soccer teams, which keeps us busy each weekend for about two-thirds of the year. We have two children, but numerous sports-overwhelmed families have more.

There’s an idolatry problem in our community related to youth sports. I see this problem every weekend as families gather at the field rather than their church. It’s a problem in my heart, too.

I feel deep tension as we walk through this season of family life. Jesus makes it clear we cannot serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). And the taskmaster of sports success always demands my attention.

Or, would you let your wife play the role of a woman who drinks more than two glasses of wine in one sitting?

Paul tells the church at Corinth that they must not associate or eat with “anyone who bears the name of brother” and who is a “drunkard” (1 Corinthians 5:11). Why? Because drunkards (among others) “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10). Again, Paul says, “those who do such things (like get drunk) will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21). Elsewhere, he commands, “Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). Peter agrees: “The time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do (which includes getting drunk)” (1 Peter 4:3).

If not, why single out sex?

Advertisements

88 thoughts on “The Wife Test Fails Again

  1. Can somebody else please take this? Maybe I’ll copy and paste the numerous times it’s been answered by myself and others in the other thread.

    Darryl, next time you’re in town, I’ll buy ya a beer. I don’t drink, but I’d be happy to show some hospitality. Though I hoped for it, I’ve never had the pleasure of an actual real life conversation with you. I must know if you are really this dense. I’m sticking to my guns and giving you the benefit of the doubt until you prove me wrong. Just so you know.

    Like

  2. Greg

    Did you do the art work on those posters?
    If you did, you are very talented!

    As for what you all are discussing, I have an opinion about when nudity and sex is appropriate on film.
    Maybe, I am wrong but It’s what I think makes art art and not porn.

    I think it is okay when it is romantic. And I mean the portrayal of seeking the other towards noble ends.
    When the audience can know, through the portrayal, that a tender love story is the overarching theme,then skin can be shown. But it will then have to be revealed with modesty otherwise it will break the tender love story.
    When the audience is let in that the focus is now on sex, the story loses the only element that kept it elevated. If we see two people fully naked but perfectly modest and virtuous within themselves and with each other(integrity), they are still right and good but we have no right to their intimacy, so we break that modesty by looking on.
    Think of it this way, if the characters are virtuous they would not allow your eyes to view their intimacy. They shut the door to preserve your and their dignity. If you have been allowed to observe “heat”, then they and you are morally wrong.
    For instance, say a couple’s married love and tenderness is portrayed by showing an old man who, deathly ill and delirious having flashbacks of his youth and his beautiful vibrant bride , and say he cries about what is now gone as he calls his wife’s name and in his dilerius memory he speaks endearingly of the pleasure her love and beauty have him. Say his elderly wife and caregiver removes all his clothes and then removes hers and climbes into bed so that he can feel her skin next to his one last time.
    In that kind of potrayal human dignity is kept because it isn’t “about” sex. We witness a poignant moment of what it means to be human, not only sex.
    When the story focuses in on the sex part of relationship, we are given privy to something we have no right to see and that harms out own modesty.
    My favorite sexual scene is in” The Quiet Man” when John Wayne and Maureen O’ Hara are in an old cemetery when a rain storm comes. The threatening crack of thunder pushes her towards the protection of his arms and chest as the rain begins to fall. His shirt gets wet revealing his skin and muscled arm( a sign of protection and care) as he holds her close. Then, they kiss.
    John Ford films are the best.

    Contrast that, with say the movie “Sideways”, The contrast alone should tell you what is good for your soul and what is not. One film shows a participation with something greater while the other shows a lesser degree of perfection.Wine doesn’t redeem that movie just like gorgeous costumes don’t redeem period films that are poorly written.

    Naked Bottoms in Much Ado About Nothing and in Chariots of Fire and The Martian are fine in my opinion.
    I couldn’t do it, but Emma Thompson revealing her breasts in the movie( forgot the title) where the character has cancer and is dying alone is also fine.

    Just my two cents 🙂

    Susan

    Like

  3. It was not meant maliciously Chortles.

    No slight or slam to him obviously, but let’s pretend that Tim Challies was never born and it’s just us reformed protestants discussing these topics Darryl. You were right about one thing for sure. TLM is far more protestant than RCC as far as this topic is concerned. I spent maybe 6 months at catholicforum and it was all I could take. The very last place I would look for moral clarity is Rome.

    Like

  4. Susan says: “Greg,
    Okay then! Sorry, I tried to help.”

    Susan, you’re a nice lady and you’ve always been good to me personally. I don’t mean to come of so harsh, but I expect emotional, hip n groovy, artsy shfartsy compromise from papists. Not from the descendants of Westminster.

    I’m still sorry if I hurt your feelings though. I apologize. 😦

    Like

  5. Greg the meany

    Nope, my feelings aren’t hurt.
    I never said I supported the act of sex being portrayed. I don’t.
    There are probably Catholics who would agree with you on this.
    But it’s not as open and shut as you think though.

    Like

  6. One of the biggest shifts in youth sports is the consistent use of Sunday as a game day. My children play games on Sunday. Those games, however, are not our first priority. We will attend church together as a family on a weekly basis. It’s okay if this worship requires us to arrive late or even miss a game. I communicate that priority graciously to their coaches.

    This strikes me as a strange way for a Presbyterian pastor to describe how one should keep the sabbath holy,

    This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy

    He then goes on to say,

    This one is tricky. Intensity within a sports team binds players together. Since most of my kids’ teammates are not Christians, though, there’s no opportunity for gospel fellowship and community with their teammates. So we fight to have our kids attend church youth functions consistently and even miss games occasionally for retreats or other events. We also provide regular opportunities for interaction between our kids and godly adults.

    I suspect that he means well, and I’m sure it is a great goal. But can you really tell your kids that the kids you see once a week at church (and on a retreat a couple of times a year) have to be your close friends (because gospel fellowship natch) while the kids you see four or five days a week on the soccer field are just acquaintances (or whatever?). I suspect that this is why so few of our kids remain in the faith. Our peer group plays a huge role in our faith development and when your kid’s peer group is largely comprised of something other than fellow believers, it is highly unlikely that his loyalty to that group will remain strong. Not saying that it is bad to play soccer or anything, but if you want your kid to grow up to be a presbyterian, it is helpful if most of his friends are presbyterian and so forth. Now I hear a lot of folks say something along the lines of “I don’t care if my kids grow up to presbyterian as long as they love Jesus”. Who could argue right (well I’m on old life, so of course I can argue!!!)? It seems to me that mindset is what inculcates the so-called MTD so prevalent among the nominal church going set. I’m pretty sure this is why redbull, donald trump, vaping, and tattoos are so popular too….ugh.

    Like

  7. Not saying that it is bad to play soccer or anything, but if you want your kid to grow up to be a presbyterian, it is helpful if most of his friends are presbyterian and so forth.

    sdb, we’ve been here before and diverge on whose more influential on kids, their families (me) or their peers (you). But this seems formulaic in a Challies-ish sort of way. It’s probably more accurate to say that if one wants his kids to grow up P&R then raise them that way, but don’t fool yourself into thinking it’ll stick like glue. And besides, aren’t friendships supposed to naturally unfold regardless of someone’s religious affiliation?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. As I was reading this, I was thinking back to Mike Gerson’s post-Obergefell piece that appeared in the WaPo last fall. In it, he noted that conservative Protestants seem to make too much of sexual sin, and, by implication, seem to get too uptight about supposed precursors of it.

    I spent some number of my adolescent years living in Japan, where people just aren’t as uptight about nudity. My family also lived in Germany for a while, where nakedness abounded during the short period of sun and warmth. Americans, and especially evangelicals, would do well to stop being so prudish about nudity.

    As for kids sports, I suppose that’s a concern. During the adolescent years I spent in the US, I doubt that I had a single friend who was a Christian. That probably explains why I turned out to be an evangelical theologically but not culturally, meaning that I agree with the basic evangelical theological tenets, even as the subcultural embodiments of evangelicalism make my skin crawl. That said, I visited a PCA church in Toronto a few weeks ago, and liked it.

    Like

  9. I think what we need is naked wives acting out fake sex scenes with gay paramours on set on Sundays while husbands are busy yelling at their sons to give the other guy ‘what for’ on the pitch and berating the ref until he gets booted from the sideline but then proceed to slash the ref’s tires and harangue him in the parking lot. That’s what I’d do.

    What is wrong with Challies? These aren’t murky waters, if your child is holding up the progress of my child or the team, they need to go. I was forever having to get these guys out of my way as it was, parents do your child a favor and move them on. If you need to hire speed coaches and running coaches and skill coaches for your yut, he’s not good enough to be traveling with the team. Give it up.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. @zrim My experience has been that I’ve tended to form friendships from among sentient homosapiens created in the image of almighty God that I spend time around (both of them).

    Like

  11. sdb, sure, but didn’t your mother ever want to manipulate a friendship onto you? That what I hear when you say “…but if you want your kid to grow up to be a presbyterian, it is helpful if most of his friends are presbyterian and so forth.” Ok, mom.

    Like

  12. @zrim I think heredity is the most influential, so usually parents are most influential. The effect of your intentional attempts to otherwise influence how your kid turns out is mostly limited to the social environment you provide. Here’s a fun and nterview with Caplan…bottom line is you probably aren’t going to mess your kids up by how you parent (your genes are another question). The one bit of influence you have is the peer group you provide for kids. If you are Jewish and socialize your kid accordingly, he will likely identify as Jewish. How intense he is about his faith is out your hands.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/the-case-for-having-more-kids/?_r=1

    Like

  13. If Luther was living and able to read Challies, I wonder what his take would be….and also if it would be bombastic…

    After a while, especially when you find a church, with a pastor & session who predominantly hold to sound Reformed Doctrine (aka rightly understanding the Gospel and the Confessions) you just don’t worry about ‘lawmakers’ like Challies anymore. When you are in their domain (Challies and his followers) and world, it seems that the entirety of Christendom goes along with every jot & tittle written, and every word expressed. The rest of the sheep don’t want to appear unspiritual so they adhere to what is broadcast, especially when the threat (spiritual abuse) of church discipline hangs over the heads of all church members (like the sword of Damacles) in that context………

    Like

  14. When you go through it, you never forget it……especially when one’s youth is robbed….living under such legalism, threats, and abuse.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Greg,

    I appreciate your dogmatic strident view on a high view of the church, but this type of spiritual abuse does exist in Reformed churches. Protestant Sacerdotalism is a reality and to deny this (or mock it…’lively and diverse crowd’) with an over-realized ecclesiology (way to high view of the church) is to actually deny the magnitude of sin and its impact, impact in even the Reformed churches.

    We Reformed too often make and preserve waxed noses (reformed traditions of men) of the authority of the church beyond biblical grounds. It (church) has authority to be sure, but not to the degree of the moving of the wax to fit its own man centered power.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. D. G. Hart says:
    February 25, 2016 at 3:08 pm
    So far that’s two Roman Catholics against Challies, one with fins for him.>>>>>

    The CCC says that what Challies described “offends against chastity.” Yes, I am for him because I see little difference in how he argued his case and the statement I pasted below from the CCC.

    So, Challies, the CCC, and your own Westminster standards all seem to be in agreement on this particular point.

    Your guys broadened the discussion to all kinds of other situations that were not even mentioned in the original article. That’s fine, but a lot was attributed to him that he didn’t actually say.

    2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

    Like

  17. “When you go through it, you never forget it……especially when one’s youth is robbed…living under such legalism, threats, and abuse.”
    Listen friend, I don’t know you at all, so I’m not making any pronouncements with regard to you personally. You did however say: “…(spiritual abuse) of church discipline”… seeming to very strongly indicate that church discipline is by definition spiritual abuse.

    Additionally, I have talked to many dozens of so called survivors of so called “spiritual abuse” and visited many dozens of their blogs. There are some tragic and heartbreaking stories of actual abuse and actual legalism out there. I must say though, just to put a round number on it, that probably 70% of the time when these people cry “spiritual abuse” and “legalism”, when pressed what they mean is that they grew up in a godly church that dared to enforce biblical standards upon it’s members.

    And now, WHEW!!! Thank god they have seen the light and thrown off all those restrictive boundaries of biblical holiness and are now free to live their self exalting life of anti-Christian, antinomian “liberty”.

    Not sayin that’s you. I don’t know. But when someone equates discipline with abuse out of hand, my suspicions cannot help but be stirred.

    Like

  18. Greg,

    I pretty much agree with everything you just stated in your last post, with perhaps this qualifier…….

    I don’t believe church discipline properly done is spiritual abuse. I still would strongly say that the biggest problem in the Reformed church (NAPARC) is Neonomianism, NOT Antinomianism. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. Antinomianism is a sin and no doubt there are pockets of it in Reformed circles, but it is a bigger issue in the Evangelical world. For the Reformed world a better book to write would be……Neonomianism: Reformed Theologies UnWelcomed Guest. Based on seeing your hyper link about judging I’m guessing you will disagree with me. While I agree with most of your comments in the hyperlink, this is a matter of spotlight, top billing or emphasis. You seem to think that of all the passionate doctrinal issues at hand deserving of emphasis that one is a burning hot button, I simply do not agree. There are bigger issues. For Pete’s sake we are living in a Reformed world where many (not just a few) presbytery regions have flat out punted on the issue of the Federal Vision. A Reformed world where for all practical purposes federal vision theology is indeed alive and well in the “Do the gospel, live the gospel, social justice” majority ethos, of Reformed circles anyway. That is just one issue showing proof positive that probably 70% (just to throw a round number on it) of the Reformed world has a bigger Neonomiam problem. The practical ethos as worked out seems to be…..get in by grace, stay in by works righteousness.

    Neonomianism is the issue deserving more emphasis. People who obsess otherwise have a distorted view of the landscape and usual possess a spiritual pride tilt toward being fruit inspectors or the sanctification police to boot. I am all for discipline, growth in Christ,etc. However, these folks would be wiser to let the Holy Spirit, be the Spirit on some of these lesser doctrinal issues.

    Of course when one speaks the way I just did one is then accused of being an Antinomian or a Lutheran……here it comes……. 🙂

    Like

  19. E. Burns, you seem like a decent fella. I must however disagree, pretty much down the line. It is not possible for me to engage you further in this regard at the moment though. No offense. I apologize. There are only so many hours in a day.

    Like

  20. Hi Greg,

    Waiting at the DMV, so I will try to respond. That’s a good and important question. We could both find some definition out there, but I fear we wouldnt agree.
    For instance, I found this:
    “a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs.”

    Since it exists within Islam, this definition doesn’t work, so it has to be characterized by something to be noted as something( I know brilliant, eh?)

    I have a definition, but my phone is about to die.What do you think it is?

    Liked by 1 person

  21. classicaled says:
    February 25, 2016 at 2:49 pm
    Greg

    Did you do the art work on those posters?
    If you did, you are very talented!

    As for what you all are discussing, I have an opinion about when nudity and sex is appropriate on film.
    Maybe, I am wrong but It’s what I think makes art art and not porn.

    I think it is okay when it is romantic. And I mean the portrayal of seeking the other towards noble ends.
    When the audience can know, through the portrayal, that a tender love story is the overarching theme,then skin can be shown. But it will then have to be revealed with modesty otherwise it will break the tender love story.
    When the audience is let in that the focus is now on sex, the story loses the only element that kept it elevated. If we see two people fully naked but perfectly modest and virtuous within themselves and with each other(integrity), they are still right and good but we have no right to their intimacy, so we break that modesty by looking on.
    Think of it this way, if the characters are virtuous they would not allow your eyes to view their intimacy. They shut the door to preserve your and their dignity. If you have been allowed to observe “heat”, then they and you are morally wrong.
    For instance, say a couple’s married love and tenderness is portrayed by showing an old man who, deathly ill and delirious having flashbacks of his youth and his beautiful vibrant bride , and say he cries about what is now gone as he calls his wife’s name and in his dilerius memory he speaks endearingly of the pleasure her love and beauty have him. Say his elderly wife and caregiver removes all his clothes and then removes hers and climbes into bed so that he can feel her skin next to his one last time.
    In that kind of potrayal human dignity is kept because it isn’t “about” sex. We witness a poignant moment of what it means to be human, not only sex.
    When the story focuses in on the sex part of relationship, we are given privy to something we have no right to see and that harms out own modesty.
    My favorite sexual scene is in” The Quiet Man” when John Wayne and Maureen O’ Hara are in an old cemetery when a rain storm comes. The threatening crack of thunder pushes her towards the protection of his arms and chest as the rain begins to fall. His shirt gets wet revealing his skin and muscled arm( a sign of protection and care) as he holds her close. Then, they kiss.
    John Ford films are the best.

    Contrast that, with say the movie “Sideways”, The contrast alone should tell you what is good for your soul and what is not. One film shows a participation with something greater while the other shows a lesser degree of perfection.Wine doesn’t redeem that movie just like gorgeous costumes don’t redeem period films that are poorly written.

    Naked Bottoms in Much Ado About Nothing and in Chariots of Fire and The Martian are fine in my opinion.
    I couldn’t do it, but Emma Thompson revealing her breasts in the movie( forgot the title) where the character has cancer and is dying alone is also fine.

    Just my two cents 🙂

    Susan>>>>>>>

    This is worth much more than two cents, Susan. See, the problem is that Brother Hart did not accurately represent what Challies was saying. He was not applying a “skin test”, as in “showing skin is always sinful.” If he had done that, then some of the reactions here at Old Life would have made more sense.

    You have taken the broader moral arguments that others tried to make and given clarity. Well done. I applaud you. Thank you.

    On this thread, if anyone cares to go back to what Challies actually said in this case as well, it has little or nothing to do with what Brother Hart says. Of course, he does bring in other issues that are related. Christians do need to talk about these issues in a kind of open forum like this. In that way, Brother Hart provides a place for that. There is a lot of crazy making teaching out there that Christians try to sort through.

    I don’t think it is fair to paint Challies as one of those legalistic types who wants to spoil everyone’s fun and bring them into bondage to manmade religion.

    BTW, I love John Wayne – also a convert to Catholicism, BTW.

    Love to you,
    Mrs. Webfoot
    BTW, I didn’t change my name. This is the original name that some decided to play with. So, I just went with The Little Mermaid because I love the Christian themes in the original Hans Christian Anderson story – about sin and the redemptive power of self sacrificial love.

    I do like the name Ariel, though, that Zrim uses. It’s sweet. So, I often don’t understand Zrim, but I do like the name he gave me.

    I’m surprised that no one picked up on the duck theme which a Webfoot is. My husband called me a Webfoot when we first met. It’s about people who come from rainy climates.

    Like

  22. sdb says:
    February 25, 2016 at 10:58 pm
    @zrim I think heredity is the most influential, so usually parents are most influential. The effect of your intentional attempts to otherwise influence how your kid turns out is mostly limited to the social environment you provide. Here’s a fun and nterview with Caplan…bottom line is you probably aren’t going to mess your kids up by how you parent (your genes are another question). The one bit of influence you have is the peer group you provide for kids. If you are Jewish and socialize your kid accordingly, he will likely identify as Jewish. How intense he is about his faith is out your hands.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/the-case-for-having-more-kids/?_r=1>>>>>

    BTW, sdb, I did not accuse you of anything, so the only thing I might apologize for is not being clearer. Lack of clarity is not damnable. Next time maybe you could ask for clarification?

    A lot of parents beat themselves up if their kids make the kinds of decisions that take them away from Christian faith and practice – to use the Reformed term. Most parents do the best they can, but it does not guarantee an outcome. Is that what you mean? Something like that? It will tend to produce a certain outcome, but there are other factors that come into sway. Parents can become guilt ridden if they did everything “right” and their children turn out all “wrong.”

    Human beings don’t easily fit into formulas.

    We observe some of our friends who have adopted children. There is other “stuff” that comes into play besides environment.

    Like

  23. Susan: I have an opinion about when nudity and sex is appropriate on film. I think it is okay when it is romantic. And I mean the portrayal of seeking the other towards noble ends.When the audience can know, through the portrayal, that a tender love story is the overarching theme, then skin can be shown. But it will then have to be revealed with modesty otherwise it will break the tender love story.

    ‘cause who can argue with any ‘tender love story’? How could ‘love’ be wrong, when it feels so right? Who can help who they ‘love’? right?

    Like

  24. Greg, It’s the learning curve of a cite administrator. What I should have done the last time you and Erik took over Old Life. Not much new light, lots of old light. This is Old Life.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Ali says:
    March 1, 2016 at 8:46 am
    Susan: I have an opinion about when nudity and sex is appropriate on film. I think it is okay when it is romantic. And I mean the portrayal of seeking the other towards noble ends.When the audience can know, through the portrayal, that a tender love story is the overarching theme, then skin can be shown. But it will then have to be revealed with modesty otherwise it will break the tender love story.

    ‘cause who can argue with any ‘tender love story’? How could ‘love’ be wrong, when it feels so right? Who can help who they ‘love’? right?>>>>

    Ali, quit abusing Susan. Quit twisting her words and representing her in a bad light. Stop it.

    Like

  26. D. G. Hart says:
    February 29, 2016 at 10:37 am
    Mermaid, and Challies narrowed the discussion in a trivial way.>>>>

    You deliberately misrepresented what he said. Your yes “men” fall in line with you – without THINKING.

    Like

  27. Susan, haven’t heard from you about my comment to yours today – I perceived you would be no bruised reed re it (let me know if I have offended you)- and knowing you are thoughtful; have children; and understand the complexity it all, I commented.
    When one’ thinks of the potential harm, particularly to our young people through the bombardment of anti-biblical messages in film, it is distressing. E.G. about love – about what ‘love’ is and how it ‘feels’ and how it ‘ happens’ and who can ‘help it when it does’ and what we do when ‘it just goes away’ or perhaps when ‘better, happier love’ comes along- what else can one do but act upon it all.
    Anyway, the comment was continuing DG’s… THINK… and realize how much in media may be a hazard, particularly to young formative minds, perhaps compounded if parents fail to instruct in a biblical worldview – and mostly realizing they have the same natural heart inclinations as we all do….. but for Christ.

    Like

  28. Ali, you need to THINK. I hate to see you, a good Christian women, imitating the bad behavior of some here who believe themselves to be leaders. Your message, “follow Christ” is good. You can’t go wrong with that. If you are following Him, you will not be following most of the men here.

    I hate to see you copying DG. Call me a slanderer, but I hate to see you corrupt yourself here.

    Be extra nice to Susan. They treat her like dirt, and she is a precious jewel. You are, too. Don’t diminish your beauty by imitating ugliness.

    Now, you might say that I have gotten ugly here, and you may be correct. You are a good woman who loves Jesus. Never let these guys make you forget that. It is never wrong to preach Jesus. Don’t let anyone or anything get you off message.

    Now, these guys twist it around to make it out that I am claiming to be the best example of what love looks like. I never claimed that. I would never claim that.

    Don’t ever let them make you forget Galatians 5:6 and what really matters.

    Don’t forget who you are, Ali. You are not like them. You really do love Jesus. Let that light shine in this dark place.

    Like

  29. cw l’unificateur says:
    March 1, 2016 at 3:21 pm
    Ain’t no cat fight like a Christian cat fight. (Sorry, DGH, for the disturbing mental images of feline-on-feline violence this remark may have produced.)>>>>

    Ali, as I was saying…you are not one of them.

    Like

  30. Mrs. Webfoot,

    Thank you for the kind things you said about me, and for sticking up for me. You are a sweetheart.
    When I said that I wished I knew your real name I meant the name your friends call you 🙂
    In your gravatar all I can make out is the top of your head so I also dont know what you look like! That is the same with most everyone here except Greg. It’s a shame to know each other only by made-up names and pictures.
    It’s cute that ZRIM calls you Ariel.

    Like

  31. Ali,

    I don’t know how to answer you. My kids turned out very well and excercise prudence. Sometimes we as viewers see scenes that we don’t want to see( and that says a lot about our moral state) when we see a film, but that is bound to happen.
    But you misrepresented ( or misunderstood) what I had in mind about romance.

    I was raised with confused morals, as I shared eatlier, and have a very tender conscience when it comes to determining what is modest. I’m probably more strict than most.

    Like

  32. Ali,

    “Cause who can argue with any ‘tender love story’? How could ‘love’ be wrong, when it feels so right? Who can help who they ‘love’? right?”

    Huh. No. I never said that. You misunderstood.
    It’s kinder to assume the best and ask me to clarify rather than put words in my mouth.

    Ali, If you were hiking and came across a married ( let’s assume)couple skinny dipping in a lake and they thought they were alone, would you avert your eyes and wall swiftly the other direction? So would I. I do that I’m real life so I do that when I watch movies too.
    I still saw, but I didn’t desire to see. If the image keeps popping up and temps me to imagine more, I push it away.
    I assume you do the same.

    Like

  33. Hi Susan, I want to apologize for using your comment to further present scenarios which you apparently weren’t even thinking about (and I wasn’t really implying you specifically anyway, it was just the logical next discussion in my mind with my logic)
    When I read your comment, I was thinking how few of the situations you might be talking are about already married couples in films. They are more often unmarried. So, I did wonder if you might have meant unmarried couples as well in very intimate situations, as long as it was ‘romantic’. Anyway, again, I apologize. Have a good evening

    Like

  34. Zrim says:
    March 1, 2016 at 5:46 pm
    Ariel, is that any way to talk about separated brethren? Yeow.>>>>

    Well, Zrim, if the brothers act like, well, brothers instead of harsh judges, then maybe the love would flow both directions? Maybe? Sure, brothers and sisters can have disagreements and even fights, but there has to be a limit, right?

    Besides, I said that your calling me Ariel was sweet.

    Like

  35. Thanks, Susan. I think the guys get a little rough. Greg has a good heart. He’s a good example around here, even though I am sure we do not agree on much. A guy can be tough and kind. Greg got rough, and then backed off when he saw that feelings were hurt. That’s good.

    Girls can be a little rough at times, too. Kindness is a Christian virtue. Maybe I forget sometimes.

    You are always kind. I like the way you think.

    Like

  36. Hi Ali,
    “When I read your comment, I was thinking how few of the situations you might be talking are about already married couples in films. They are more often unmarried.”

    I understand and I agree those situations are rare with married couples.
    It would only be good if it were a married couple. It wouldn’t be good to show a “on screen” married couple having sex even if they were married in real life.
    Of course, if the actors aren’t married it would be bad for them morally to perform even the scene I described.

    Do you think it’s okay for a man or women to pose as a nude model? Is it wrong for an artist to paint or sculpt a nude model?
    Honestly, I don’t know the answer.

    Anyways, thank you for apologizing.

    We are good:)

    God bless!

    Like

  37. Mermaid, “Girls can be a little rough at times, too. Kindness is a Christian virtue. Maybe I forget sometimes.”

    Actually, sbd and Jeff are still awaiting apologies.

    And I think it’s fair to say, God is not mocked.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Darryl says: “Greg, It’s the learning curve of a cite administrator. What I should have done the last time you and Erik took over Old Life. Not much new light, lots of old light. This is Old Life.
    I hope you reconsider. Obviously it’s your call. I try to restrict myself to one thread as you see by my addressing Susan back in the other one when she accidentally commented on that topic here. A site can’t be taken over that way. Yes, it is irritating when someone jumps from thread to thread on the same topic regardless of what the topics of the other threads are.

    If it were me (which of course it’s not) I would ask commenters to keep a specific conversation in the original thread if they started to wander. That way, my reputation as a free speech guy is maintained and an ongoing conversation in a single thread does not disrupt the rest of the site.
    Oh well, I said my unsolicited piece. I’m disappointed. I really was going out of my way to be as considerate as possible.

    Like

  39. Susan: Do you think it’s okay for a man or women to pose as a nude model? Is it wrong for an artist to paint or sculpt a nude model?Honestly, I don’t know the answer.

    don’t know for sure either; just know for sure it was different before this disaster….. Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. …Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Gen 2:7+

    cw l’unificateur Ain’t no cat fight like a Christian cat fight. (Sorry, DGH, for the disturbing mental images of feline-on-feline violence this remark may have produced.)

    !!
    !thought of l’unification, as I read this am that Trump calls himself a ‘unifier’ ;and the kind he maybe promotes?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/the-governing-cancer-of-our-time.html?_r=0

    “Trump is the culmination of the trends we have been seeing for the last 30 years: the desire for outsiders; the bashing style of rhetoric that makes conversation impossible; the decline of coherent political parties; the declining importance of policy; the tendency to fight cultural battles and identity wars through political means.”

    “Trump represents the path the founders rejected. There is a hint of violence undergirding his campaign. There is always a whiff, and sometimes more than a whiff, of “I’d like to punch him in the face.””

    “I printed out a Times list of the insults Trump has hurled on Twitter. The list took up 33 pages. Trump’s style is bashing and pummeling. Everyone who opposes or disagrees with him is an idiot, a moron or a loser. The implied promise of his campaign is that he will come to Washington and bully his way through.”

    “Trump’s supporters aren’t looking for a political process to address their needs. They are looking for a superhero. As the political scientist Matthew MacWilliams found, the one trait that best predicts whether you’re a Trump supporter is how high you score on tests that measure authoritarianism.”

    “This isn’t just an American phenomenon. Politics is in retreat and authoritarianism is on the rise worldwide. The answer to Trump is politics. It’s acknowledging other people exist. It’s taking pleasure in that difference and hammering out workable arrangements. As Harold Laski put it, “We shall make the basis of our state consent to disagreement. Therein shall we ensure its deepest harmony.””

    Like

  40. Greg,

    I believe in church discipline, or else I would not be in a Reformed-Confessional church. I know it is biblical, and one of those issues which is never pleasant, and dreaded whenever it must happen/be undertaken.
    Very likely, the way I phrased it – ‘spiritual abuse of church discipline’ – might warrant grammatical improvement to avoid ‘nuancing’ and being misunderstood. So here it is expressed a little differently: church discipline is instituted by God, and although painful and unpleasant, it achieves a good result when practiced with wisdom, and discernment. Unchecked, however, in the hands of those who are committed to ‘getting rid of all the sin within the camp’, a church becomes extremely legalistic and controlling, producing an atmosphere of paranoia, fear, and witch-hunts – sadly, mercy, love, and joy are lost. It becomes a spiritual police-state……minutia become major issues, and everything is set in motion to root out and destroy sin in every heart, mind, and body so that the Lord will show favor and bless with true rewards in this life and the next as well as bringing/showering revival. This is the goal and objective of every Arminian, Pietist, Higher-Life disciple, and even, Calminian. It is an effect similar to the mythical Ouroboros, which began eating itself, starting at the tail. Those pastors and elders who fall into this trap usually do so by way of being ‘spiritual dictators’ in personality, or cult-of-personality, or most commonly, by not understanding the Gospel and the Covenants – emphasizing Sinai over Calvary, which was my problem (as a parishioner who got caught up in the pursuit of total-absolute holiness-victory) though I also suffered under leaders who were in both categories (tyrannical and/or confused).

    By contrast, yes, indeed, what you bring to light is exactly right – some folks just want the warm fuzzies (no church discipline). Church discipline keeps the church healthy, and free from being damaged/severely damaged.
    I think about church discipline quite frequently – in a healthy way, and I want to live in such a way as to not bring reproach on our Lord or the church, but at the same time, I know that I am capable of committing sin(s) which could do damage to the Body of Christ – and cry out to Christ for His grace to keep me. This is my hope, my trust.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. I am glad you said that, Semper Reformanda. Here at Old Life, insults fly. None of the men ever apologize. To be singled out like I have been fits your description of spiritual abuse. No one stands up to it here, so it seems that no one in your Reformed churches is willing to stand up to it either. It is a deeply ingrained part of Reformed culture it seems to me. You guys might want to work on that.

    So, you might want to examine yourselves and ask yourselves why your focus is so much on the sins and failings – real or imagined – of others.

    Some have called this blog a Good Old Boys club. Is this typical of your church culture? Are you really willing to do all you can to change that culture of shame? Begin the work here.

    Like

  42. Mermaid, “Here at Old Life, insults fly. None of the men ever apologize.”

    That’s odd since Jeff and sbd are still waiting for apologies from you.

    I pity the man.

    Like

  43. Thank you so much mrswebfoot ~ our circle is not like that (prone to spiritual abuse) like the one before. Some saints like ‘banter’ (lobbing potato mashers) but I’m not one of those. But I think I have come to learn that it is the way some people are geared – like boxers who find a local gym and go to it. I love football, but I could never play/fit in because I lacked ‘the killer instinct’. I have seen/know of people who do stand up to spiritual abuse, and, depending on the church culture, it can be an uphill battle. Most of the congregation ‘suffers in silence’ because of all the admonitions to honor…give double honor to those who rule. But that doesn’t mean that one should ‘suffer’ just because of the office. You can still give honor/double honor, even when you object to that which does not edify. Not too long ago, One day I got to church early and one of the elders came up behind me (and saw me reading the bulletin) and remarked that maybe what I was reading is a case for coming before the elders (suggesting I was reading inappropriate material) – ‘Bad Joke,’ I said immediately – and his face turned red – embarrassed, he began changing the subject. This elder is a godly man, but he came from a church background where spiritual abuse was present in the church. Like flour in a flour mill, it settled on him just by walking through the mill.

    Like

  44. Ariel, isn’t there already enough drama in the world? All these demands for apologies–sounds like presidential politics and the culture of offense. Aren’t we supposed to be counter-cultural? That’s the drum you keep beating.

    Like

  45. Zrim, three people have asked mermaid to apologize for her lying about them. You should honor that. In my case, she said that I attributed all miracles today to the enemy and was a blasphemer. She repeated that at least one more time -a serious charge and not something to ‘kid’ about.
    Anyway, on a positive note, the then following self-justifying serves as a good reminder to us all who participate in the same.

    Like

  46. Ariel, if so serious then require repentance over apology. The latter is cheap, the former more difficult. Another option is to let offense go so it can rest on the head of your accuser. But in blogdom it’s all about the drama.

    Like

  47. thanks zrim, always something to THINK about; to discern; what applies; how it does; to what; for why; apropos too, to think about related to the ‘Ironic’ post comments here today

    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and the beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; and with all your acquiring, get understanding. Prov 4:7; 9:10

    Like

  48. … another option is to let offense go so it can rest on the head of your accuser. “
    Boys n girls, Zrim has said something I agree with wholeheartedly. I had to examine myself and see if I was still of the faith. 😀

    Honestly though. An apology or repentance that had to be pried outta somebody is not usually worth getting. If they are the Lord’s, the Holy Spirit will convict them through the grace I show them and they’ll eventually do it voluntarily. If they are not the Lord’s, then I want them to become the Lord’s. Demanding an apology will not facilitate that end.

    Like

  49. Zrim says:
    March 3, 2016 at 9:57 am
    Ariel, if so serious then require repentance over apology. The latter is cheap, the former more difficult. Another option is to let offense go so it can rest on the head of your accuser. But in blogdom it’s all about the drama.>>>>

    Yes. If there is a real offense, then a person should follow Scripture and go to the person in private. Otherwise, the accusations and drama should be ignored.

    If I were to apologize, it would be for not ignoring people who demand apologies. Any real offenses should be taken off list and dealt with in the proper way.

    So, I will let the offense go and the accusers will have to deal with it somehow.

    This blog is all about drama, that’s for sure. Not to be taken so seriously. I apologize for taking it seriously.

    Hey, thanks, man.
    .

    Like

  50. Zrim, it’s a Christian version of something (that used to be) cool. I don’t think Challies will ever see the irony of creating a Christian Onion that pokes fun at the lame stuff in Pop Christianity.

    Like

  51. Thank you mrswebfoot for your very kind encouragement; I feel as though I know so little, have so much to learn, and have made so many mistakes, so many missteps in my life. The term ‘life-long learner’ is a good fit for me.

    Like

  52. Semper Reformanda says THIS
    Despite a possible alarm or two in there, I’ll assume the best and just say that as stated, I don’t think I have a problem with what you said here. I appreciate your gracious understanding too.

    Like

  53. Semper Reformanda says:”Thanks Greg ~ we all have ‘blind spots’ (I fear I have the most), so yours was an excellent point and reminder.”
    Well isn’t that a fine attitude to take. Bless your heart sir 🙂 Of course, this side of the resurrection, we will all live and die with some blind spots.

    Like

  54. Semper Reformanda says:
    March 3, 2016 at 8:18 pm
    Thank you mrswebfoot for your very kind encouragement; I feel as though I know so little, have so much to learn, and have made so many mistakes, so many missteps in my life. The term ‘life-long learner’ is a good fit for me.>>>>

    Beautifully said. Thanks.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s