70 thoughts on “Our Daily Thread 11-20-17”

  6. Good morning, Chas. I have been outside moving four overflowing yard debris containers to the street along with our regular garbage. Then I decided to sweep a bit and while outside I heard a large explosion in the distance and thought something big happened. When I go online and checked Facebook, a local news Fred said they had imploded the Georgia Dome. Yep! That’s something big.

    I fixed our usual breakfast of fried eggs and a small peeled apple split between Art and me. It makes for a good diet food breakfast.

    Now onto Bible study.

    Like

    Reply

  10. Ever had one of those mornings where nothing you put on looked ok so you change clothes multiple times? Yep. Then I came in the office to pack up my computer, but first check in with you. My computer went through an update. So here I sat waiting……
    I should head to work soon. I won’t be home until very late tonight.

    I did get my own feelings hurt over the weekend. Friday was #1 Grandchild’s birthday. His party was Saturday. We sent gifts. Every vacation we have taken since we have been married has involved going to see and/or take care of grandchildren until week before last. In that time they have been back to Texas a couple of time where #1 stepson’s mother and sisters live. They have never been here. They couldn’t afford the trip. Yesterday when video got posted grandson was opening the present from the Texas grandparents.
    Today will be #2 Grandchild’s Birthday. I know American Girl stuff was sent. We shall see.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  11. Kim, I hope it just happened because they were out of power and could not do a video of when your gift was opened. I hope you will see it if #2.

    I need to get to the tag office today since I got the emission test done Friday. Then Art has a doctor’s appointment for his back this afternoon. And, I keep putting off the hunt for medical insurance, but the need does not go away and the deadline draws closer.

    Like

    Reply

  12. I have never put on something and thought it didn’t look right
    II did change shirts and ties a couple of times.
    I notice of “Fox and Friends” that the lone woman wears a different dress every day.
    The men wear the same black suit they wore yesterday. With a different tie.
    Elvera thinks they have only one suit.
    But every man needs a different suit to wear when the other one is in the cleaner’s.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  13. I woke up 2.5 hours ago but have been writing a blog post and taking care of the morning’s Utmost Response.

    I’m getting a bit of pushback from friend about this idea:

    The November 20 Utmost reading is stark, plain, obvious and an arrow to the heart.

    “Beware of the pleasant view of the fatherhood of God: God is so kind and loving that of course He will forgive us.”

    How many of us heard that concept when we became Christians?

    Yes, God did so love the world that He gave His only son that whosoever believes in Him will have eternal life. Hasn’t everyone memorized John 3:16?

    For many, however, that profound statement of Jesus’ has morphed into the cheap grace Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes about in The Cost of Discipleship–that we’re already forgiven by Christ’s death, so if we sin, we easily confess and move along to sin once more.

    Really?

    The reading’s opening line, the concept God is so kind and loving of course He forgives us, according to OC,

    “based solely on emotion, cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament. The only basis on which God can forgive us is the tremendous tragedy of the Cross of Christ.”

    Maybe mine is a fine point, but it has everything to do with the attitude of our heart and our view of God.

    “Forgiveness, which is so easy for us to accept, cost the agony at Calvary.”

    Liked by 8 people

    Reply

  14. My daughter, btw, loves the kitten and was out buying presents for her within 12 hours.

    My daughter-in-law picked up Tasha last night and said, “wait, she’s not a kitten anymore.”

    Cat. 5 months. We grow ’em big in our family.

    But she is entirely playful and that is fun.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  16. The sin of “presumption” was covered in our sermon yesterday — “presuming” God will forgive us as we continue in a particular sin.

    Also pointed out — there are ‘degrees’ in our sanctification.

    But there are no ‘degrees’ in justification — we are either justified or not, period, even though our faith is as large as only a mustard seed. It shall never fail.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  17. God is the Father. Therefore He loves us and desires to forgive us, just as we as parents love our children and want to forgive them.
    That doesn’t mean He doesn’t punish us or let us suffer for our willful ways, just as we as parents have to let our own children make mistakes and suffer the consequences. He/we are waiting with open arms to forgive when it is time.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  19. Kim, and God’s discipline is then also used in our growth — we also read a portion of the Westminster Confession yesterday about how God sometimes will take us through seasons of (our) disobedience and (God’s) withdrawing from us in order to renew us & to teach us how utterly dependent we are upon HIm.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  20. fyi for the ladies, if you’re looking for curtains, countrycurtains dot com is going out of business and offering 40-60 percent off everything. I’d been looking there for a curtain to cover my spare bedroom closet opening (someday I’ll get doors but I can’t afford that in the near future). They have some other things as well, throw pillows, etc., I believe.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  23. Michelle, I think that OC had an important theological point, in that it isn’t because God is our Father that He loves and forgives us. That forgiveness only comes through the blood of Christ, and it is only in Christ that we can call God Father. I recall reading a quote from theologian Fenton Hort, though I cannot find the book I read it in, that said, in effect, “It may be possible for one to believe in God without Christ, but no one can call God Father without Christ.”

    Nevertheless, it must be remembered that the love of God is, according to the Apostles Paul and John, both the impetus for Christ’s coming and it existed while we were still sinners:

    “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8, ESV)
    “Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (I John 4:10, HCSB)

    The correction for the concept of cheap grace shouldn’t be to make us feel guilty where God, through Christ, has declared us innocent (Romans 8:1). Rather, the Apostles use the love of God as a spur, because if we truly love God because he first loved us, we will keep his commandments (I John 4:19, 5:2).

    If there is one prevalent fault I have to find with the theology of orthodox Scottish church leaders, it is that they tend to emphasive the severity of God over His goodness. They do so on the basis of human depravity, arguing that we will depend too much on God’s patience and not seek to improve ourselves. Yet the Scripture holds both God’s goodness and severity in balance (Romans 11:22). Sanctification, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is as much an act of the goodness of God as salvation is, carried out only by the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:1-17). If people are walking willfully in sin and yet claiming to know God, one of two things will happen, either God will discipline them and bring them to repentance (I Corinthians 11:32, Hebrews 12:7-8); or they will be shown, either in this life or the next, to be none of Christ’s (I John 2:19, Matthew 7:21-23).

    Overcorrecting the balance of Scripture in order to correct a real or percieved imbalance of Scripture simply leads to an imbalance in the opposite direction, and doesn’t actually change anthing. The people who are libertines under an imbalanced teaching of God’s love will be hypocrites under an imbalanced teaching of God’s wrath. Former church leaders of the likes of Tullian Tchidavijan – a man who did preach cheap grace and was revealed to have mutliple affairs – are ultimately no different than leaders the likes of Jack Hyles – a man who led the Fundamentalist movement, with its emphasis on strict legalistic rule keeping, and who kept his secretary as his mistress for decades. The Spirit of God will lead those who are truly Christ’s, while the tares will eventually be rooted up and burned. The Church of Christ will either self-correct or God will correct her. Our responsibility is to preach and learn the whole counsel of God, including both His love and His justice.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  24. Speaking of the pitfalls of rule keeping, in the wake of all the recent sexual harassment and assault allegations, some church leaders are saying that Mike Pence/Billy Graham’s rule is looking wise. Others have pointed out that actually is not the case, not according to Scripture. Our pattern for living the Christian life is our Lord Jesus Christ, who lived as fully human, walking in the power of the Holy Spirit. He did not scruple to speak with women alone (recall the disciples wondered at him talking to the Samaritan woman) and even allowed them to touch him (recall Simon the Pharisee’s repulsion at Jesus allowing the sinful woman to wash his feet with her tears), although he was a single man in a culture that was even worse than ours when it came to destroying people’s reputations by rumour. As Dorothy L. Sayers wrote in her essay ‘The Human Not Quite Human’, our Lord was exceptional in his treatment of women simply as fellow human beings. That included using women as the first witnesses to his resurrection, when, as this blogger points out, a woman’s testimony was not considered valid in Judaic law: https://thethinkingsofthings.com/2017/11/18/a-prescription-for-our-roy-moore-problem/. I’ve listened to many sermons in my life, but with the wonderful exception of Pastor A’s systematic preaching through the Gospel of John, the life of Christ is seldom spoken of, beyond those seasonal Christmas and Easter sermons on his birth, death, and resurrection. Perhaps, that is the imbalance that needs to be corrected in churches.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  25. I love to see videos of my grandchildren. However, pictures or videos of them opening gifts from us, I would prefer on Messenger. It is easy for grandparents to compare gifts and that is a big mistake. Like all relationships, ones with grandchildren will be individual; they will ebb and flow. Things can be easily misunderstood online.

    This does not stop my daughter from posting those, however. It does not upset me, but it is not my preference.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  26. I solved that problem long ago. I just don’t send presents to the grandkids. Then I can be known as the cranky old woman and the other grandmas can be the gift giving ones and it can all be appreciated.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  27. Roscuro, ideally, that would work, but we are not living in an ideal world. Yes, Jesus was able to withstand temptation, so should we. Yes, He is living in us, yet we still sin. Jesus drank wine, do we encourage people who cannot handle it to drink it? Jesus did not ride in cars, so we should avoid them? He tells us to flee from evil. Men and women together is not evil, but if a person thinks he or she is weak in this area, doesn’t it make sense to flee from the situation? We are told, if we are prone to eating like a pig, eat at home first. That is a form of fleeing the situation. (I did not read the article)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  28. My mother is not on social media of any kind, as despite mutiple efforts to teach her, she is not even comfortable turning a computer on; while my father can handle a computer enough to surf the web, but neither does he partake of social media. As a result, my mother does not see any of the posts either Eldest or Youngest’s mothers-in-law put up of their mutual grandchildren. I do, and none of them would provoke envy, since both grandmothers are thoroughly nice people. My mother does sometimes feel left out in the cold with Youngest’s children, because they tend to desert her company if their other grandparents show up, but that is more to do with the children’s, particularly Little Niece’s, attitude as they will also prefer myself over my mother, much to my chagrin – I have gently reproved Litte Niece for her favoritism, telling her that her grandmther is my mother and it hurts me when I see her treated badly. Youngest’s in-laws are in a higher income bracket, and can thus afford more gifts of more expense than my mother can, but my mother gives what she can (often money to help Youngest buy a needed item) and doesn’t let the gift disparity bother her.

    Eldest’s in-laws, who were also of higher income, intially sent many gifts, when Eldest Niece and Nephew were the only grandchildren, but now the gifts from Eldest’s mother-in-law (her father-in-law died several years ago) are monetary, allowing Eldest to get something for each child. Second’s father-in-law (she never met her mother-in-law, who died before Second was married) has far too many children and grandchildren to be regularly sending gifts to them all, and probably wouldn’t anyway, Mennonite culture being what it is, although he will, out of the blue, give them some interesting article he has made. My mother has always deliberately tried not to set herself in competition with her fellow in-laws, not only because she knows that she can’t compete, but also because she is concerned that her daugthers’ relationships with their husband’s and families not be made difficult by any poor attitudes on her part. My father, for his part, regards the in-laws as part of the package deal that comes with his daughters getting married. He got and gets along well with each of them.

    Like

    Reply

  29. Mumsee, Jesus Christ was fully God, but he was also fully human and it is in that humanity that he lived while on earth. That is why he said he couldn’t do anything except by the Father through the Spirit (Matthew 12:28, John 5:19). He limited himself to his humanity, only doing his miracles by the Spirit of God, in order that we could live as he did (John 12:14; Philippians 2:5-8). It isn’t just the miracles the early church performed which show that Christ’s gift of the Spirit has been given to the church, by far the greatest display of the Comforter’s power is in his work of conviction, faith, and sanctification, as Jesus relates in John 14-17. Paul expounds on this in Romans 8, where he presents the work of the Spirit through Jesus Christ as the solution to his cry in Roman 7 that he was a wretched man needing delivery from his body of death.

    It is entirely possible to walk in the kind of purity that Christ did in relationships between the sexes. Paul, in telling Timothy (I Timothy 5:1) to regard the younger women as sisters, with all purity, was neither telling him to avoid women, since brothers do not avoid their sisters, nor setting him an impossible task. The work of the Holy Spirit in the sanctification of the believer is another widely neglected teaching in the church, but it is vital to understand that when we walk in the Spirit, we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). Paul wrote those words to the Galatians, who were trying to follow rules to stay pure. He told them that their rule following was discounting the work of Christ and warned them that such rule following meant they were fallen from grace and would only lead to corrupt fruit (Galatian 5:4, 16-25). He said rather to depend on the Spirit of God to produce good fruit in their lives, including the fruit of self-control.

    That spiritual fruit of self-control is what utlimately will keep the alcoholic from drinking. “Be not drunk with wine, but be continually being filled with the Spirit” (Ephesian 5:18). My father quit alcohol, although he was an alcoholic, when he came to faith (one of his aunts, who had not seen him since he became a Christian, was reported to have whispered to another relative at my parents’ wedding, “The poor girl! Doesn’t she know how much he drinks?’). He later said that no one told him to stop drinking, he just picked up the bottles of alcohol and dumped them out because he knew he wouldn’t be needing them again. He has never, in my memory or to my knowledge, said he wouldn’t ever drink again. He has had many opportunities to resume drinking, as his company’s social gatherings included alcohol. As children brought up among Baptists who were against alcohol, we were always a little scared, when the non-Christian neighbours would invite him to share a glass of eggnog, that he would get a taste for alcohol again, since that is what those temperance stories depicted. When I got older, I realized that would have never happened. He is simply not interested in drinking alcohol. That is real self control.

    Like

    Reply

  30. Roscuro, I am interested in drinking alcohol, and I do so, and it is not less self-control. A bottle of wine lasts in our fridge a week or more, and most weeks we don’t have one in there. I believe that alcohol is a good gift from God, and nothing to fear, though I respect it that some people don’t feel the freedom to drink.

    I do not believe that this is theologically accurate, by the way: “He limited himself to his humanity, only doing his miracles by the Spirit of God, in order that we could live as he did (John 12:14; Philippians 2:5-8).”

    Theologians always emphasize He was fully God and fully man; He did not act as God in heaven and then in becoming man, act as 100% man. It was as God, for instance, that He was able to see men’s hearts and He saw Nathaniel when he was under the fig tree. He limited the exercise of His deity, but He was more than the human Jesus who had greater power and authority only by being sinless–if that had been the case, it would actually have been a sin for Him to receive worship, since it would have been only the man Jesus whom His disciples had seen, and the man Jesus whom they were worshiping!

    In college I had a class on homiletics (only women were in the class), and I chose to preach one of my three sermons on “Jesus the man.” I thoroughly enjoyed doing the study for that sermon.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  31. Self control is being able to have the amount you think best for you and not exceeding that. If a person does not think he or others have self control, he is correct with removing himself from the situation.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  32. Cheryl, my father may have, once or twice in his subsequent life, taken a glass of alcohol. When I said he had no desire to drink, I meant the kind of drinking that is sinful, the drinking for the sake of enjoying the mind altering effects of alcohol. I know, in my own life, in my youth, due to the effects of sexual abuse from a childhood playmate, I experienced difficulty with twisted sexual fantasies. When the Lord finally gave me freedom from that, it was absolute. I had no desire to walk that path again and anything that approaches it still repulses me – I find myself shuddering with disgust and horror over twisted sexual content that I happen across in films or books. That doesn’t mean I don’t have the natural desires of a woman of my age, for that which is a part of marriage, but the idea of fulfilling those desires in any other way fills me with horror. That self-control only came from the work of the Holy Spirit, because I tried for years to control those fantasies myself, using techniques prescribed by the likes of Gothard and many other more well-intentioned teachers, and failed miserably.

    For the second part, I would refer you to the words of Jesus, in which he said he cast out demons by the Holy Spirit. As the second member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit was inextricably linked to God the Son just as the Father, but Jesus waited for the visible coming of the Holy Spirit after his baptism to begin his ministry and he said, more than once, he could do nothing without the Father (Matthew 3:13-17, John 8:28). Our Lord did discern the hearts of men, but even there, he speaks of the Spirit guiding us into all truth of which discernment is a part. Paul later judged the case of the man who married his father’s wife in the church at Corinth by the Spirit, while Peter perceived the true spiritual state of Simon the Magician. The mystery of Godliness can never quite be fully explained, but the way Christ limited himself, for example, saying he did not know the hour of His own coming, though he was the Sovereign God who knew the end from the beginning, would certainly indicate that he lived within the limits of His humanity (Mark 13:32) and those limits may clearly be seen in his prayer in Gethsemane, in which he not only contrasted his human will to that of his Father’s will, but also required angelic support to get through that dreadful hour. That he received worship as God was because he was God. Him acting purely as a human would not change that fact. His humanity and His deity were and ever will be inextricably linked in his person. If I have unintentionally said something in theologically incorrect terms, that would be because it is almost impossible to convey the paradox of the Incarnation in human language.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  33. This is a good piece on “the Pence Rule” Roscuro was alluding to: http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/pickpocketing-purity#.Wg8h21WnGM9

    I admit I have some sympathy for the Pence rule, but it depends on the setting, and it shouldn’t be used to make women feel like the minority. For instance, rather than the man who is meeting with a female business prospect bringing along a man as a chaperone, why not bring a man and a woman? Either that or simply meet one on one but in a public place–surely any man should be able to control himself alone with a woman for long enough for a job interview or similar conversation! For the protection of both of them, I wouldn’t have it in a windowless office, and I think it’s a bad idea for a pastor to regularly spend 30 hours a week with only himself and an unrelated female secretary in the office, or to have a woman come in weekly for counseling without someone else present or at least an open door.

    But I’ve been the recipient of some of the “girls are spooky and scary and a risk to my otherwise perfect morality” behavior, and it’s troublesome. One time our office was briefly supposed to park a bit farther away in a different parking lot, toward a part of town that really wasn’t very safe. Recognizing a man from a different department (not a friend, but someone whose face I recognized, and who might have been expected to have recognized mine), I sped up so that I wouldn’t be walking to the parking lot alone . . . and he sped up too. Even if he didn’t recognize me, if he had bothered to glance at me he would have seen that based on my attire, my heading toward that parking lot at the same time of day as he was, etc., he might have safely assumed I worked for the company, and that more that likely I did not have plans to rob him or rape him, and furthermore that slowing down to escort a woman to a work parking lot should not be a black mark on his reputation. Speeding up to stay ahead of the woman was, actually.

    Like

    Reply

  34. I was thinking of the verse “Flee also youthful lusts” in relation to Mumsee’s point. The context of that phrase is in Paul’s second letter to Timothy (2:22) on how to deal with prideful false teachers. The youthful lusts, in that context, seem to be more related to the heady ambitions to lead that young people often experience in those naïve days when they think they can conquer or even just change the world. The verse immediately following the command to flee says to avoid foolish and unlearned questions, further confirming that the youthful lusts relate to the conceit of youth that they have all the answers.

    Like

    Reply

  35. I thought of saying that if a woman had an evil reputation, then perhaps a man should avoid being alone with her, but then I remembered the Samaritan woman had an evil reputation. Certainly, we must use that gift of wisdom that comes from the Holy Spirit. There have been times in my life, when I knew, with absolute certainty, that I should not do something that otherwise seemed permissible. But that kind of wisdom recognizes that individuals are not all alike and neither are circumstances. There are circumstances in which one could be alone with a member of the opposite sex to whom one is not married, and other circumstances in which it would be wiser to not be alone.

    At the risk of appearing to engage in argument by anecdote, I will relate a personal anecdote about the inefficacy of the Pence/Graham Rule. The pastor who resigned, when he first came to the church (when I was away in Africa) had an unfortunate connection to a news story when one googled his name. A former associate pastor of his in another church had been charged with the murder of his wife (the man was found guilty of manslaughter, but that was more because of a lack of evidence than anyone being persuaded of his innocence). The pastor, when I heard him relate what he knew of the case, attributed the associate pastors actions to a violation of the rule of never being alone with a woman – this young man had regularly driven a young woman home, they had an affair, and then he killed his wife [If there is a logical link between the second and third act, I can’t see it. Why didn’t he just get a divorce?]. The pastor, while he was with us, was scrupulous to observe the not-being-alone-with-a-woman rule, keeping the door of his office open, etc. etc. I mentioned sometime ago that he resigned due to family issues and that he was separated from his wife. He is now divorced, living with another woman, and attending a very liberal denomination. Observing the rule didn’t keep him from a similar path to his former associate. That is because both of them tried to be righteous by the works of the law (I base that not just on the rule, but on the other legalistic characteristics he displayed and clearly expected others under him to display).

    Like

    Reply

  36. As I said in days gone by on this topic, if it is not a problem for you, you are free to walk however. But if it is a problem for the people with whom you are dealing, it is best to allow for that. Sin crouches at the door.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  38. I am not talking about people with evil intent. I am talking about people who put up boundaries on themselves to keep themselves from doing evil.

    We are told in Corinthians that we are free to eat but if a brother worries about the food being offered to idols, we are to let it go and join him with a plate of veggies.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  39. Roscuro, Jesus set aside His glory, but not His deity. The wind and the waves obeyed Him! His incarnation was not a substitution; He became man while He remained God. I still maintain that if He acted only as man, then His disciples were worshiping a perfect man, and that’s blasphemy. Peter didn’t fall at His feet and say, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man” because he found himself in the presence of a sinless man. Christ was God come in the flesh, but still God, even when He restrained the use of some of His powers.

    In addition, He did not fulfill the Law primarily to set an example for us–in other words, it really isn’t true that if Jesus could do this and that, then we can. We are not sinless, we are not God; we have neither His authority nor His power. He fulfilled the Law perfectly in order to be the perfect sacrifice. We are to walk as He walked–in some ways. We don’t have His authority, and we are fallen. We cannot, for instance, say, “Well, Jesus would not have succumbed to this temptation I’m facing, and therefore I won’t worry about it anymore” and set aside caution. The man who has decided pornography is too big a temptation for him to have the internet at home, for instance, can and should call on Christ’s power over sin. But it may still be wisdom to recognize the place where Satan has tripped him up, and avoid it for a time or even forever. (I’m not in the camp that says no former alcoholic should ever pick up a drink again. I think at a different point in spiritual maturity he may be able to accept it as a gift from God. But it would be foolish to take home a bunch of six-packs the next week.)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  40. Mumsee, I would never try to persuade my brothers to drink in violation of their conscience, but if I ever had the opportunity I would definitely try to persuade them that their conscience is misguided and not bound by the Word of God. The man who sped up rather than let me catch up and walk near him to our cars may have had a problem with lust, for all I know–but he wasn’t going to slay that sin by pretending Woman was his problem.

    I have heard credible arguments that we have done grave disservice to our young men–and sinned against our young women–by encouraging a man to “bounce his eyes away” if a woman isn’t dressed like a nun. What is a better solution? To respond to her as a human being worthy of respect. It’s actually deeply insulting to refuse to look at someone, to make eye contact with her or speak to her, because her skirt is three inches above the knee and in your household you were taught that skirts must actually touch the knee. You’re reducing her to only temptation, not human. If you’re talking to the girl, then you tell her that she makes it difficult if her top plunges to her belly button. But if you are talking to the boy, then you tell him that she too is made in the image of God.

    The one with the weak conscience goes for the plate of veggies, and respecting that he is new to the faith, we join him and avoid the meat offered to idols while we are with him. But if he is still eating only veggies when he has been a Christian 30 years, it’s time to say “You should by this time be a mature man of God, so here is a point I see lacking in your maturity.” Obviously you wouldn’t say it like that.

    If someone tells me that every generation of their family has had huge problems with alcohol and thus alcohol holds no appeal to them, I can respect that. But if someone tells me they are abstaining from worldly pleasures such as alcohol, I will remind them just who created that good gift. He’s free not to drink it if he chooses, but not free to see himself as more holy for not drinking. Likewise, he is free to marry or not marry, but the man who dies a virgin has no extra-credit points over the man who dies after a life as a faithful husband (or vice versa–the married man or woman has no extra credit).

    Like

    Reply

  41. Mumsee, a plate of meat is easily changed for a plate of vegetables. But if being a woman is the source of temptation to a man, or vice versa, one’s sex cannot be changed. Food and sex are not comparable in that regard. Lust comes, as Christ said, from an evil heart (Mark 7:21). If that heart is made new in Christ, and the person is under the control of the Spirit, lust should not be an issue. Certainly, the temptation to lust may come, but Christ taught us how to resist temptation. That temptation may have to be resisted daily, but that is why we are told to take up our cross. Sanctification is for the Christian about mortifying one’s own flesh, not other people’s. Taking up one’s cross and mortification may sound like contradictions to what I said about the Spirit’s sanctifying work, but they are not. Yet again, the paradox of Christianity comes to the forefront, as we work out our own salvation, because it is God who works in us the power and will to do his good pleasure.

    Like

    Reply

  42. Cheryl, I never said Christ set aside his deity. When I expressly said he was still God while on earth, I do not understand how you could interpret my words as saying that. Let me use an example commonly found in folklore, that of the prince who goes in disguise as a peasant. Does the prince’s guise as a peasant, living, working, dressing, speaking, acting, and eating as a peasant, somehow make him no longer a prince? No, his birthright of being the King’s son is still his, no matter what station of life he chooses to assume, even if he does not exercise his power as a prince. So it is, in a much greater and more glorious way, with Christ. It says in Philippians 2 that Christ made himself of no reputation and took on himself the form of a servant, and was made in the form of a human. Dr. Liam Goligher, in his post criticizing those who misinterpreted Jesus’ statements of dependence on the Father as meaning he was enternally subordinate to the Father, has this to say of the Incarnation:

    It is this humiliation that distinguishes His eternal and divine life before His incarnation, from the creaturely and earthly life He lived in His flesh. The Son continues as God after His incarnation, and what He does in the flesh He does as one person, the God-man. So, in His earthly life we see this mixture of the earthly and heavenly. What is creaturely about His life on earth cannot be read back into the life of the Triune. When it comes to us His people we can only imitate the earthly and godly aspects of His life…As such, His ‘food’ is to do the will of Him who sent Him and to ‘finish’ His work. His obedience was entirely congruous with His having taken our creatureliness into Himself. We derive our model of servanthood, submission and obedience from His perfect example.

    Furthermore, nor did I say he came only as an example to us. You have read enough of what I have written of the death and resurrection of Christ to know that I believe in his work of atonement as our only source of salvation. Nevertheless, his life is a pattern for us. The writer of the book of Hebrews says again and again that he shared in our humanity so that we could have an advocate, a high priest, a captain of our salvation, who knew what we faced as human beings. For consider him, Paul says, who endured such a contradiction of sinners, lest you be weary and faint in your mind. If Christ’s example is not to be followed, if his work on the cross as applied by the Holy Spirit to our lives is not efficacious, then we will never improve and be simply waiting helplessly for the Resurrection, trapped in our fleshly appetites until we die. I’m not arguing for Wesley perfectionism, simply that Christ broke the power of sin on the cross, so that we can live, here and now, in his victory as well as have life to come.

    Like

    Reply

  44. I once encountered the argument that Jesus was God so we cannot fully imitate him in a different context. In this case, it was a question regarding the team I worked with. One of my colleagues had chosen to tell a friend from the village, when they came after hours with a health problem, to come instead to the clinic. Another colleague expressed to me that even if the first colleague was tired, they should still have taken the case. I replied by pointing out that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, would sometimes turn people away and otherwise put limits on what he did. The reply was that Jesus was God, so he could know who really needed help and who didn’t. So, I have seen the Jesus was God, we aren’t argument to both argue that we should do more than Christ did (in not turning sick people away) and less (in not being alone with members of the opposite sex). Which is it? Do you not see how any part of Christ’s ministry (other than his redemptive work on the cross, and there Paul says that we died with Christ) can be limited in application to us by saying, “Well, Jesus was God and we aren’t”? We don’t look at the temptation of Christ and say, “Well, Jesus was God, so he could resist temptation, but I’m not, so I can’t”, do we?

    Like

    Reply

  45. Absolutely, we are to follow His example–but Christ’s good works are efficacious more than they are “example.” You didn’t precisely say He set aside His deity but that He “limited himself to his humanity,” and if you mean that He did not make use of His deity, that is practically the same thing and it is, I believe, biblically indefensible. Many of His actions while on earth were clearly done in His divine power, and His disciples saw that and in spite of being good monotheistic Jews, they worshiped Him.

    I have a deadline today, though, and you might well have meant something else, so I’ll leave it at that.

    Like

    Reply

  46. Cheryl, of course Jesus made use of his deity on earth. He could not have died for the sins of the world else. But he repeatedly said that the words that he spoke and the works he did were not of himself, which is taken to be referring to his humanity as Goligher said. It is a theologically sound position to say he did those works in the power of the Holy Spirit. Yes, Christ was the second Adam, conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, and so did not have a sin nature like we do. But the whole of the New Testament is one argument for how, although we are the sons of Adam, Christ’s finished work has made us new, into his image rather than Adam’s. We do not say that because we are the children of Adam, we are doomed to always sin. Certainly, we can and do sin, but we press toward the mark of the high calling of God in Christ. Our status as physical descendants of Adam does not have so important a place that we can say that Christ’s example is unattainable and therefore should not be attempted. If we were to try to follow Christ in our own strength, it would be unattainable, but we live in the power of his death and resurrection. To quote Paul yet again,

    “If the Spirit of him that raised Christ from the dead is dwelling in you, then the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead shall also make alive your mortal bodies.. for if you through the Spirit do put to death the works of the flesh, you will live, for as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.”

    (Romans 8:11-14)
    We die to ourselves by the Spirit of God, through the death of Christ, and thus, can be self-controlled.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  48. Nor am I saying that everybody is required to live by another’s standards, but each individual is allowed to fight sin in his own way. Because a man does not choose to be alone with a woman, does not mean she can’t find another man to be alone with.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  51. Mumsee, I don’t think we are talking about women who are “looking for a man to be alone with” (that is, looking for chances at sexual sin). We are looking at things like whether a man should always perceive the presence of a woman to be a threat to his morality or his marriage–like the example I gave of trying to catch up to a man from my Christian company because we were walking into a neighborhood that even the police avoided in order to get to our cars, and his immediate response was not to think that I might be looking for “safe conduct” but apparently to think “mortal moral danger” and to speed up.

    Women who are looking for promotions in the workplace often complain they are at a distinct disadvantage because the boss will have lunch with other guys but not with her–and if she happens to be called for an interview, he may well bring another man along (for propriety) because he is treating her as a woman first, and a threat, and not in the same way he’d treat another man. That can be a good thing or a bad thing. But sometimes it feels insulting and it feels like her primary characteristic is her sexuality, and that can at times feel creepy. Like he thinks that she is only waiting for a chance to seduce him. Another time (same company) I approached on foot to a man in his car, wanting to ask a question, I forget what. He studiously looked ahead, avoiding eye contact, rather than taking the risk of looking toward me, acknowledging me, and maybe then having to do the polite thing of rolling his window down. It made me feel like a prostitute. I was dressed in the conservative, professional attire of our company on the company property–even if he didn’t recognize me, chances were far better than even that I worked for the same company. But I wasn’t “fellow employee” but “woman–mortal threat to my reputation and maybe a seducer.”

    We can and should be appropriate in our conduct toward one another. For example, I’m a big proponent of the old-fashioned concept of what is or isn’t appropriate conversation in “mixed company.” But the Christian man who immediately thinks “sex! run!” every time he sees a woman isn’t a whole lot better than the pagan who thinks “sex! I want it” every time he sees a woman.

    Like

    Reply

  54. Here’s a different example of “not being alone with a man” to absurdity.

    After my brother-in-law died suddenly, my husband and I spent just short of two weeks with my sister and her family. While we were there, one day the power went out with a “boom.” Soon we saw a truck driving down the street trying to find the source of the outage . . . and we also ourselves saw the source of that outage. Toward the back of her property, a power pole was on fire at the top. We grew concerned it would catch the trees on fire–the flames were touching neighboring trees at times–and potentially endanger houses. My husband jumped into our car, which was the closest vehicle to the house. Someone (me) needed to stay with the children, but the home owner needed to go and explain the situation, so as he jumped into the car and turned on the engine, he yelled to my sister, “Get in!” But I saw on her face that she had a horrible dilemma. She could not drive off with a man! She took a while to make up her mind, but ultimately decided it wasn’t sin if she had her 14-year-old son ride along.

    And I stood in the doorway and watched her face as she debated what to do, and thought “Really, woman? I trust my husband, and I trust you, and this is an emergency, and we’re only talking about driving a half mile down the road to catch up with the truck. Get in the stupid car!” It really just made no sense. What is particularly funny about the whole thing is that when I moved to Nashville, this sister offered her husband to drive the moving truck. So I bought him a one-way plane ticket to Chicago, and he drove (with me in the cab with him). But nine years later, it was nearly a mortal sin for my sister to jump into a car driven by my husband, because she’d spent too many years in the meantime in a hyper-patriarchal church that saw nearly any interaction between men and women as sinful. (Couples were expected not to touch until they married, and my brother-in-law stopped hugging me the last few years of his life, even on my wedding day . . . though the last time I saw him, just weeks before he died suddenly, he came to the door and hugged me goodbye, leaving me to wonder later if he had a sudden sense he would never see me again. I’m glad he did.)

    When “Man + Woman = Sin” becomes so ingrained that a woman who worries about her house being in the line of a fire hesitates to jump into the car with her brother-in-law to drive half a mile down the road, or when a woman in her forties is cautioned with tears to please, please not hold the hand of this man who is courting her when he comes to town next week, because handholding inevitably leads to lust in every woman who isn’t frigid (yes, I was told that), we have gone a long way from understanding relationships within the church as those of brothers and sisters. When “sex” is the only thing we can think of when a man and woman are in proximity, no matter the relationship, our thinking is skewed.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  55. You might not be bothered by it and I might not be bothered by it but I can not say that Joey or Susie are not bothered by it and they should be as free to do it their way as I am to do it mine.

    Like

    Reply

  56. And, my thought of the two car incidents you shared, Cheryl, unless you asked them why they avoided you, you have no way of knowing. It may well be what you thought or it might have been something else. Fear of being robbed. Minds on other things. We often think others are thinking one thing and their thoughts are far from that.

    Like

    Reply

  58. Mumsee, it may absolutely have been fear of being robbed. That’s why I made a point of saying that visibly I was an employee, and in one case I recognized the employee and he surely could have recognized me (since I had been around there for several years by that point). But I’m pretty sure that fear of being robbed is not the most reasonable response to seeing a 110-pound woman in a dress in the middle of the workday at your workplace, anyway. People don’t always act in wisdom, and I’m definitely not writing off all of my male former co-workers, just saying I have seen that over-avoidance of male/female interaction in action among Christians, and if it’s frustrating for Christian women then I can imagine it’s a bad testimony to women who aren’t Christians. Reacting to every woman as though she is a prostitute is unloving, whether you are treating her that way to sleep with her or treating her that way to run from her in fear she’ll contaminate your holiness.

    One of my brothers once was planning to enroll in a conservative Christian college, and he moved to the town in which it was located to work and save money for a year or two before enrolling. But he noticed a curious thing that kept him from enrolling. See, he was working at a fast-food restaurant a few blocks from the campus, and he soon noticed that he could pick out the students from the campus (that’s an easy one for anyone who has lived in a college town; college students do rather stick out), and he didn’t like what he saw. The men wouldn’t look him in the eye, and the women not only wouldn’t look him in the eye, but they always put the money on the counter rather than handing it to him, which he found abnormal and actually disrespectful. And ultimately he decided that the Bible says, “Perfect love casts out fear,” and he didn’t want to attend a college that taught its students fearful relations with one another and those outside its campus bubble.

    Scripture really does call us to treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Sometimes caution is wise, sometimes it’s individual variation, and sometimes it is simply unloving.

    Like

    Reply

  59. I would just be careful about judging others’ motives. After hearing the set up of your story in the parking lot but before your thoughts on the finish, husband said he would have thought it was one of those gang deals where a conservative looking female is sent in to distract while the thugs wait for the bait and would have sped up.

    Like

    Reply

  61. What it comes down to I suppose, is some people are legalistic and some people aren’t but may have different views on interactions than you. I would be careful about coming from a legalistic background and bouncing the other way to where nobody is allowed to follow their conscience without being called legalistic. It is a form of bondage of its own. And I have seen it in many people coming from a legalistic background. They tend to look at everything they don’t endorse as legalism.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  62. Mumsee, good caution, and I mean that–thank you. But that is absolutely not my risk. I understand that people’s consciences vary greatly on things, and in fact have defended to others people whose consciences are much “stricter” than I on certain things. For instance, I have defended the right of parents to say “As long as you live in my house, if you enter a relationship, you will do all the courting within our house, and you are not to touch until marriage.” (I have also said that parents have NO biblical authority to say that an adult child, even a daughter, may not move out of the house. I personally prefer the idea of single adult daughters living at home, believing it to be in general the best for everyone involved, but “preference” is not biblical requirement. “This is the way they did it in Israel,” and we know that because biblical stories tell of the way it was done, is also not biblical requirement. We cannot say, for instance–as I have heard it said–that a firstborn son must get a double portion of the inheritance because that’s the way they did it then.)

    I have, likewise, defended the Christian liberty of those who choose to abstain from all alcohol. What I have not defended is those who would not allow ME Christian liberty, but would believe me to be in sin if I have a glass of wine with my husband, and who “take advantage” of teaching other people’s children to have those children sign pledges that they will never drink alcohol. I do not believe drinking to be such a clear and obvious sin that a Christian has a right to try to bind the consciences of other people’s minor children, without any ideas what the households believe–and one of my brothers does this. Another brother actually likes alcohol, and he regularly hosts people in his home for business meals–but both of these brothers, and one other older brother, are not just personally choosing not to drink but taking the unbiblical stance that drinking alcohol is as wrong as fornication. I would, if I could, see them free to choose it or not, but not considering themselves mature Christians while they unbiblically bind others’ consciences on such an issue.

    I have defended those who believe it is sin to send one’s children to public school. Though I do not agree with the position, I understand the biblical case being made, and honor it enough to explain and defend it to others. I also understand, and have defended, the case of “no conception control of any kind, ever” although I believe it to be extreme and I believe it sometimes hurts women and sometimes leaves children in poverty–but I can defend it, can explain to a person who doesn’t hold it why another person believes it to be a biblically necessary stance.

    I also still hold many positions considered ultra-conservative. For instance, I believe strongly that it is wiser for a household with young children not to own a TV–strongly enough that I would not have married a man who wanted to continue to use a TV in our child-rearing years, and strongly enough that had my own children still been children I would have had a real dilemma on whether to marry my husband, since it would not be right to the girls to suddenly change the household dynamics in such a way, yet I would be knowingly going against strong principle were I to marry into a household using TV with children in it. (If they were very young, both of them say eight or younger, I would have willingly changed the household dynamics to no TV had my husband been willing, but I’m thinking about a household with children maybe ten and twelve. The reality is this household doesn’t watch much TV by America standards, sometimes going days without any, and the girls hardly ever watch. So I was comfortable, and those were questions I did ask before marriage.) I have already cautioned my husband that I would like us to be screen-free in terms of visits of eventual grandchildren. Their parents can show them TV or videos if they choose, but if possible I would like us to choose not to do so–and I would pretty much insist on such a stance with preschoolers. When I had foster kids, since they were already screen people, I did a compromise by having them allowed to watch one video Friday evening, and when they asked about TV I pointed ahead to that one video . . . but interestingly, they tended not to really watch the video when we did watch it, and often I turned it off well before it was over.

    My tendency is to be OK with it that one woman’s conscience about what to wear is stricter than my own, one less so, as long as neither one is (1) insisting others are in sin if they don’t choose the same “high” standards or (2) wearing outfits that are clearly designed to be sexually seductive, with plunging necklines, for instance. But I understand we have a range of standards on such subjects, and I accept it. But it bothers me when I see Christian women so obsessed with “modesty” that their lives are lived around it–I think at that point it becomes harmful to themselves and to their children, and also harmful to other people who find themselves being judged. (More than one of my friends have TOLD ME about having one of my family members look her up and down to check out the modesty level of an outfit, and how creepy it felt.)

    Roscuro can tell about the damage to children within an ultra-legalistic system. I have family members still in bondage to such a system–one in ultra-legalistic churches (their pastor keeps the Old Testament food laws!!!) and at least one who thinks Gothard is a wonderful man who has been unjustly maligned. I am perfectly fine with family members choosing never to attend a movie, never to drink, to use only the King James, and so forth. Where it becomes a problem is when variations that the apostle Paul would call matters of conscience are seen as matters of sin. That’s where I try to draw the line. Our standards will vary a bit. I won’t call it “sin” if someone else lets her two-year-old watch TV, but I also don’t want to have you call it “sin” if I choose to go to the theater to watch a Narnia film. (One of my siblings recently expressed shock that after our family got a TV when we were teenagers, our parents let us watch “The Andy Griffith Show,” saying that the show is “filthy.” There is one episode of that show that I believe to be in quite questionable taste, and Barney Fife is no role model . . . but the idea that our parents sinned against us by letting us watch such a “filthy” show is a rather extreme stance, I think. The farthest it goes sexually is showing couples kissing each other on the cheek, and it never even implies removal of clothes or sex. It shows Barney to be a bit of a playboy even within those limits, but “filthy” it isn’t.)

    Hopefully that clarification helps a bit, though I know it is lengthy.

    Like

    Reply

  63. Mumsee, the dismissal of arguments because of the background of the person making the argument is what is known as an ad hominem (against the man) logical fallacy. In effect, it is saying that the ideas raised by the argument made do not have to be listened to because the person who made them is not capable of making good arguments since their background is flawed. Such an ad hominem is not only, to use a boxing term, hitting below the belt, but it also does nothing to invalidate the ideas of the argument because it fails to address them.

    Certainly, I am capable of making mistakes. I can see, for example, how Cheryl initially misunderstood what I meant when speaking of Jesus’ works in the Incarnation, as my wording was not cautious enough, for which I sincerely apologize, as I have no desire to say the wrong thing about my Lord.

    But to suggest that due to my background, I perceive everything I do not agree with as being legalistic not only exaggerates but also ignores what I actually said. I did not call for more libertine behavior amongst Christians and certainly not for the ability to be alone with man if I wanted, rather I am calling for more self control. A self control based not on rules, but on the power of Christ through the Holy Spirit. My argument against a hard and fast rule is based not on my personal experience, but on the words of Paul:

    If you died with the Messiah to the elemental forces of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations: “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”? All these regulations refer to what is destroyed by being used up; they are commands and doctrines of men. Although these have a reputation of wisdom by promoting ascetic practices, humility, and severe treatment of the body, they are not of any value in curbing self-indulgence. (Colossians 2:20-23, HCSB)

    Paul puts the case so clearly, I would have done better to have started with his words.

    Like

    Reply

  64. I was not trying to say your words were not listening to you. What I was attempting to say was that we should be free to live our lives without worry and concern. But it that is an area we have not allowed ourselves to be free, it is fine to set ourselves some limitations to keep us on the straight and narrow until we are able to accept the full gift. Few of us, when we become Christians, fully comprehend the breadth and length and height and depth of His love which surpasses knowledge. It is a growth thing. Why else did Paul say such things as: But if they do not have self-control, let them marry? in 1 Cor 7? It appears to be that he is saying, if you don’t yet have the self control developed in you, take precautions. Sounds wise to me.

    Yes, there are a lot of churches who teach wrong stuff and that is not healthy and we should call them out. But, if a man and his wife determine this is an area they want to be cautious, or if a young man (or woman) chooses to not put themselves on the edge, who are we to argue? We don’t know another person’s heart or sins.

    I am still baffled at the way women dress. If it is not to draw attention to themselves, what is the purpose? It certainly is not to keep warm. And when it is a sister, it is a concern of mine, but when it is a nonbeliever, I just feel sorry for them and for the men who are not being pointed to God. Is that judgemental or what? On the other hand, I don’t let that keep me from trying to reach them for Christ.

    Like

    Reply

  65. Mumsee, personally in “the way women dress,” I think it is the rare woman who dresses for men. She dresses for herself or for other women, meaning she dresses for what she believes looks good, or maybe what is comfortable. That “looks good” might be sexy, feminine, ultra fashionable, something that makes her look thin, or whatever. I think that some women do dress to seduce men or to entice them and tease them, but I think that just as many think of dressing “sexy” as something about how she herself feels and nothing whatever to do with men. Or she thinks it will attract a man but she has no idea what that actually means.

    And for sure it can be proper to set ourselves limits. I’ve argued with many young women, for instance, that in a serious dating relationship it is a very good idea to have the limit of never being alone together behind closed doors. I really do not believe that my husband and I would have had sex with each other, or sexual play with each other, had we not had that boundary–we are mature Christians and neither of us is the sort ruled by emotion. But it nonetheless was a wise choice, and it was also helpful to be able to tell our daughter when she was engaged and really struggling with temptation, “Look, we’re old people, and we had that rule too!”

    I’ve had discussions with more than one young woman who admits to repeatedly having engaged in oral sex with her fiance, but who is determined that with enough will power she just won’t do it any more, but she has no interest in “never being alone together” because their Friday nights cuddling on her couch in front of a TV are so meaningful. I say I set that boundary and kept it even thought I wasn’t finding myself crossing any such lines (nor was he), and even though I was 44 years old, and how much more should a couple finding themselves in repeated sin be willing to set such boundaries in the future? (Not to mention that sometimes couples who back off on excessive and/or inappropriate touch realize there is nothing to their relationship but sexual desire–that he isn’t actually a godly man or a man inclined to be a good provider, for instance, but viewed through the lens of lust none of that has mattered. Step back from the lust–which you’re gonna have to do when real life hits, anyway–and you suddenly have a better perspective to view whether or not this is an honorable, good man.) I’ve even told them “Privacy is a marriage thing. You can have private conversations planning for marriage, but hold them in places where you aren’t really alone with the ability to cross those lines. Go to the park, or a fast-food restaurant that has no customers in it but it’s still a public place, or have a friend over so that you can have a private conversation but your friend is in another room and so you have some accountability, or talk on the phone so that you can talk at length and privately but without temptation. There are plenty of ways to hold private conversations that stop short of the temptation involved in cuddling on the couch in a house with no one else present! After you marry, you will have all the privacy you want–but that’s a marriage benefit, not a dating benefit.”

    I’ve heard numbers ranging from 70 to 80% of couples marrying in the church have had sex with each other, and I’m assuming that does not include oral sex and obviously it does not include couples who have sinned sexually in previous relationships but not with each other . . . and probably most of those couples did not go into a relationship intending to sleep together before they married. But they set no limits on being alone together, told no one when in fact they encountered temptation, and then they had a 14- or 15-month engagement, being alone together for hours and hours every week!

    So I certainly believe in knowing your own temptations, or the temptations common to man, and setting appropriate limits. But we Christians are way too inclined to set fences around the fences. (“Not only will we never be alone together, but we’ll always have someone close enough to see our hands, and we’ll never touch at all! And we won’t say ‘I love you’ until our wedding day!”) And sometimes we can’t keep up fences and love people at the same time. Seeing Jesus’ examples, we see more “love” than “fences.” Yes, Jesus is God. But if it was truly “improper” for a woman to touch His feet (for example), then He was still setting an awfully bad example for His disciples–and also allowing that woman to be in a place of sin! Even if it was OK for Him, it would not have been OK for her. In sexualizing all contact between men and women except for biological relatives, we have perverted the Gospel call to love one another.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  66. So we are in agreement. It is okay for a woman to wash a man’s feet. And that principle applied in a lot of ways. But if a person is uncomfortable with the idea, it is okay to say no thanks.

    Which brings us back to Pence and his wife. They have chosen a path. It works for them. Others can emulate it but they are not saying everybody must.

    It appears quite a few people should have followed their example.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  68. Sure. I think Pence’s rule makes a lot of sense for him, and in fact anyone in the public eye who can be brought “down” with a false accusation as easily as a true one. When my housemate and I were living in Chicago and letting children into our house, someone advised us never to allow just one child to come into the house–it doesn’t negate the possibility of a false accusation, but it cuts down on the chances of one.

    In fact, when I was in the hood one day during a block party two little girls I didn’t recognize knocked on my door, with the little one squirming and saying, “I have to use it.” I quickly let them in, deliberately leaving the outer door and house door unlocked, and showed the older sister where the bathroom was and then retreated to the living room. Normally I would help a four-year-old girl in the bathroom without thinking anything of it, but having let strange kids into my house whose mother might or might not know where they were (because an emergency situation precludes “rules”), it was wiser to let the six-year-old be the one to help out if any help was needed. I was really glad for how I handled everything, because the mother came bursting right in without knocking (I was glad I hadn’t locked her out and thus worried her or slowed her down), and I was visibly right there, in the living room, not back with her daughter. The girls were coming out of the bathroom, and she grabbed both of them, chastising them with “What are you doing, going into some stanger’s house?!” The reality is, they probably heard from their friends that I allowed children in, but their mother was possibly quite unimpressed that they chose the home of the only white person on the block. But I did a quick act of kindness, but with the care to do so in a way that kept me safe from any false accusations.

    Like

    Reply

  69. And my sister had overheard one of the teen girls to whom they ministered saying vile things about her (my sister’s) husband a couple of times, and she knew the girl had made possibly false accusations against her mother’s new husband (she couldn’t stand him and was quite pleased with herself that because of her accusations the husband had to move out). So my sister warned her husband clearly that he could never be anything close to alone with this girl, that he should if at all possible not be in the same room with her even if other people were present. The girl did need help and my sister was helping her, but “wise as serpents, harmless as doves” is sometimes a crucial principle.

    Like

    Reply

  70. Ah, yes, the accusations. Not just children but there are many women and men running around with accusations just waiting to spout. I tend to not believe them over the alleged perpetrator. Nor do I believe the alleged over the accusers. That is why I like husband to limit his time alone with anybody other than me.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a reply to the real Aj Cancel reply