79 thoughts on “Our Daily Thread 3-25-19”

  3. Good Morning Everyone. I am about to head to Pensacola for the day. This afternoon there is a forum at the Board of REALTORS (trademark called “How Not to Get Sued”. I will be there and I have threatened a few of my agents that I better see their smiling faces. Some of my agents are TOO helpful. “Oh, don’t worry about that. I will get MY handyman to come to fix it. Oh, you can’t afford it? No problem. I will pay for it.” Just HOW MUCH LIABILITY did I pack in that sentence????

    Liked by 3 people

  4. The header may be from a bridge?

    Good morning. It must be Monday since the garbage cans steal congregating on the street. I have one full of vines I pulled and the other one full of grass clippings from mowing. Then I decided I had to sweep up the final collection of fallen beech leaves that recently blew Into the carport.

    I just talked to my brother and mentioned the park where Wesley played baseball in our community. I asked if he remembered going to any of Wesley’s games. He said he remembered trying to get Wesley to tie his shoe so he would not run out of it. That is just like him to remember that above anything else.

    I already hear the garbage truck. Good to get some of it taken away before we have rain and stormy weather later.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Art and I watched Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close last night. It was one of the remaining movies we had not watched while Wesley was home I need to get it back to the library. It is quite a good movie and story about what happened to a family who lost a much loved dad at the World Trade Center attack. Has anyone here seen it? The young boy who plays the main character so well had never acted before but was found from his appearance on Jeopardy.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Morning! That looks to me like some frozen water on top of a creek bed….
    We are having Spring here this week up until Friday…then we get snow for the weekend. I am going to enjoy the snowmelt and warmer temps while I can….

    Liked by 1 person

  7. It’s sunny here this morning but still chilly in the house, I had to flip on the heater — for just a bit.

    I made spaghetti last night which should last most of the week for dinners. I may have to cover a 6 p.m. meeting Tuesday to see plans for another temporary homeless shelter, but am hoping to write most of it ahead of time so I don’t have to spend much time there.

    Today I’m expecting to do a story on the new waterfront development.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Missy’s 1st Birthday is April 4th. The party will be on April 7th. While out shopping Saturday I found a gift for Grandpa to give her. It is wrapped and he doesn’t know what’s in it. It is a book and the title is Grandpa Loves You.

    Liked by 7 people

  9. Speaking of denominations, which somebody was, yesterday: I, the dunderhead, continue to be confused. Feel free to ignore this and march on.

    Truth for Saints, I have no idea who that is but looks like a fine site to me, has a nice compilation of denominations and cults, when they were started, and by whom. For example, Christian and Missionary Alliance became a denomination in 1974 by a Presbyterian minister, Simpson.

    Almost all of them were started at least one thousand years after Christ was crucified. And most of them since the 1700’s. They were started by one man or more, deciding the church at the time was not meeting the need or standing with Scripture. Meeting the need would be like the Salvation Army, started as they saw a need for more evangelism to the prostitutes and alcoholics and poor, with the plan to direct them to solid churches already in place.

    Yes, there are many that were totally wrong and most of those fell apart at the death of their founder, as Nicodemus mentioned. Or they grew and mainstream Christians decide they are a cult based on their denial of Christ or whatever. But many are now flourishing denominations.

    That seems to have been an acceptable mode of operation right up until about forty years ago. Why is it now not acceptable?

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Mumsee while the CM&A did not “officially” declare as a denomination until 1974, AB Simpson founded the CM&A in 1887…he died in 1919. We are a part of the CM&A. Are you suggesting CM&A is a cult?

    Like

  11. Not at all, NancyJill, and I saw where it was started in the 1800’s, but not recognized until 1974. I know many good solid believers in that denomination, though I had never heard of it prior to moving here. My point is simply that people have started many denominations in relatively recent years, and I used what I thought was a good solid one as an example. I did not list any cults, merely mentioned that they too start but seem to be recognized for what they are. The question is, why was it okay four hundred years ago or less, but is not okay now?

    The Christian Church we used to attend, put great emphasis on their founder as the one with the true understanding, one of the reasons I was uncomfortable there as I believe a lot of the denominations are solid thought they each tend to emphasize their own preferences.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Amusingly, I see the church I mentioned above, who call themselves the Christian Church, are apparently a branch of the Church of Christ and the United Church of Christ which, I believe, we all on here have determined to be about the most liberal of churches and not even a real one with a true Christ Gospel. But when we attended it was continually stated that our life is in Christ alone. The Scripture was adhered to. My only concern was the lack of unity with other known believers in town. The “we got this right, feel sorry for the brethren” idea.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. It’s the frozen edge of the reservoir.

    Now is the frozen boat launch, and the only launch I’d add. Needless to say, no boats out. I like ice, the texture, the patterns. You’ll see more in the coming days, not ice, but random pictures with texture that don’t really have a subject or focus of the photo, just the look if it. Does that makes sense?

    Plus, it’s art, it’s not supposed to make sense, except to the artist. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  15. We have been a part of CM&A for a while. Back in the late 70’s while in Myrtle Beach we left the Baptist church and attended a CM&A church. We again attend one here and have never heard reference to the founders of the denomination….other than Christ. 😊
    There are many “start up” churches in the Springs area and I would consider most of them of the “seeker friendly” contemporary come as you are congregations.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. The perspective looks the way it does in the first photo do to it being a rounded cove cut into the reservoir. It looks like I’m straddling the water line, one foot in, one out on the rocks, but I wasn’t within 10 feet of it. Most shots would be straight out from the edge onto the water. I didn’t want it to look like most shots. Mission accomplished. 🙂

    Sorry, I’m moving on from just birds. Bear with me. I see other things that fascinate me, so I want a pic. And they all make sense to me. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Mumsee, I don’t understand your question; I was with you until the question. Are you asking why are denominations no longer acceptable, why is it no longer acceptable for a single individual to do his own thing, or what? As far as I know, most Christians don’t have a problem with denominations; they give us some sort of idea of what a specific church believes, and if they are functioning correctly they give some accountability to the local churches and their pastors, and some fellowship.

    But I’m not really sure what you are asking.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. AJ, my husband the watercolor artist would fume at the idea that art needn’t make sense except to the artist. 🙂 Your journal or your humming doesn’t need to make sense to anyone but you, but art needs to make sense to the person looking at it, not just the one creating it, or it isn’t actually art.

    Like

  21. I disagree Cheryl.

    There’s plenty of “art” out there that makes no sense to me when I look at it whatsoever. Understanding it is unnecessary to appreciating it’s beauty.

    In fact, most art makes ask, ” what the heck is that supposed to be?” But that doesn’t mean I don’t like or appreciate the artist’s efforts even if I don’t get their point.

    I could see why he might think so for a painting, he must convey to the audience what his subject is. He’s creating a picture, not taking one.

    A photo is what it is. It’s a fixed point, a place, and a moment in time, captured. It requires no interpretation, it simply is what it is. It’s beauty and what it conveys is simply in the eye of the beholder. What I intend to photo may not be what some notice, or like/dislike most in it.

    There’s a difference.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. I have a question, for anyone who would like to answer.

    What are healthy boundaries between parents and their adult offspring who are still living at home? How much, if any, parental direction is appropriate as far as chores or other household-management-type activities are concerned? (Timing, procedure, etc.)

    My husband and I have differing, but not yet fully-formed, views on this, and our 21-year-old daughter (the oldest of the at-home children) is showing signs of exasperation that I suspect are, at least in part, due to micro-management at home.

    Thanks in advance for any thoughts you’d be willing to share.

    Like

  24. 6arrows….my house, my rules. You supporting yourself gains you some freedom, but dies not exempt you from being a productive member of the household. As with all of life, the older you are, the more responsibility you have.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Thanks, RKessler. And I was just coming here to add that this isn’t one of those “adult-child-playing-video-games-all-day-in-parents’-basement” situations we hear about. If I ever had to deal with that (none of my adult children was ever like that), that “child” would get the boot from home.

    She works an outside job nearly full-time, pays for her own phone and insurance, and pays us some room and board, as well. She chooses how much and in what ways to help around the house, but sometimes gets testy when she’s asked to do some particular task.

    Could you further clarify what you mean by “my house, my rules”? What rules do you have in place for adult offspring who are functioning both in and out of the home, but have different ideas than one or both parents about what to do when, and how much to do, around the house?

    Thanks.

    Like

  26. What RK said. If you want to live at home, you will pay room and board (to be decided by the parents). You will participate in the household, doing whichever chores/duties are agreed upon. They will be done as needed, whether weekly or daily. The decision of when things are needed are made by the parents. You will be respectful of other members of the household and treat them as you wish to be treated. If you are going to be later than expected, please send a text so we are not worried for no reason.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Kare, looks like we cross-posted. Great specifics — I think you read my mind, as you answered the question I asked RKessler at 3:55. 🙂

    Like

  29. Janice and Kare, that is why I used them as a good example of a successful new denomination. I knew several people here had mentioned them in a positive light. So I still wonder, if it was okay for one guy to start a denomination that we all agree is a fine one, why is it a problem for the guy (who will not be named) to try to start a different idea that he probably hopes will never become a denomination though, because we are human and like to label, probably will become one?

    Like

  31. The irony of the C & MA is that AB Simpson did not want to start another denomination. He merely wanted Christians to come together and be very mission oriented.

    He also wrote a multitude of hymns, which while theologically sound, are very bad musically.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. 6 – can you tell we had an adult living at home for a while? It didn’t last long as we were making a killing on the room and board 🙂 But it sure helped with the grocery bill for a while, especially when they chose to eat out rather than eat our food.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. 6arrows, we have an adult child living at home. She is our youngest and up until today had worked full time after college (she was laid off today…see prayer thread)
    She worked at Kohl’s while in college. She has a very determined work ethic. It is our choice not to charge her to live at home, however, she is required to put monies into her savings, which she has done and has saved quite an amount. She is respectful and always willing to help around here when asked. There have been tense moments but they were worked through. (Usually at certain times of the month if you know what I mean)
    When we travel she is here to house sit and watch the bird and the dogs. She is a responsible young woman purchasing her own food, preparing it, most of the time cleaning up after herself, does her own laundry, cleans her room and bathroom (although not up to my standards which has caused the most angst around here)
    One of these days I know she will find her niche in life and move away. She loves the Lord and is honorable unto Him. I cherish these days….mostly 🙃

    Liked by 1 person

  34. What Kare said… Mine had certain chores that were their obligation to get done. I work full time and I don’t get to come home and do nothing to benefit the household just because I have a job. Mine did not have to pay rent, but they did have to save 1/2 of their paycheck and take over one of the utilities and contribute to the grocery budget. We all had our designated duties around the house and farm. I dd not feel like I was doing them a favor by having lots of disposable income with only luxuries for themselves to spend it on.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. AJ, we’re saying different things, but not in contradiction. Much “art” today is deliberately designed to befuddle people. Pretty much by definition it isn’t art. I’ve seen macro photos that are obviously of something that God made, but I have no idea whether it’s animal, vegetable, or mineral–just that it’s beautiful. That’s art. But if I splash mustard, ketchup, and some of the smelliest bits from the cat’s litter box–no design, no beauty, and some foulness–onto a canvas and call it art, and then claim viewers don’t have to understand it since I made it for myself, that simply is not art. That is what my husband is objecting to.

    Like

  36. 6 Arrows, I found this to be an excellent book: https://www.amazon.com/You-Never-Stop-Being-Parent/dp/1596381744 Their ideas on what kinds of consequences work for young adults seem particularly wise.

    Honestly, it probably would have been helpful for my husband and I to read it together, and come to an agreement on what to expect from the children, before we married. He told me stories from when they were growing up that showed me he had been a strict father . . . but he wasn’t particularly a strict father to young adults, and it caused me a lot of tension (the hardest part of our first two or three years of marriage) that he would not insist on the standards and I could not do so.

    For example, I found out a few months into our marriage that he told the younger daughter (who was a senior in high school) that she didn’t have to do any housework that year except her own laundry, because he thought she’d be busy enough with schoolwork and a part-time job. Well, I was busy enough with my own job, and with learning a new household, and with cooking for three and sometimes four people when I had been used to cooking for one, and had he run that idea by me, I wouldn’t have agreed to it. She had free room and board and free use of one of our cars, and doing a little bit of work at home would have been a proper thing for a member of the household.

    Once the older one graduated college and moved back home for two years before she married, we eventually agreed that they would be responsible to wash dishes two days a week each (and they marked their choice of days on the calendar each week) and we would do the other three, and one cooked one meal a week and the other a meal every other week (since it frightened her to cook for us, I chose to give her grace), and they continued to wash their own laundry, and they also started cleaning their own bathroom (sort of–my husband, in reality, usually did it). In my mind that was too little in terms of expectations–I asked to have them responsible for washing all the dishes, partly because they were 20 and 22 and that just didn’t seem too much to ask, and partly because I knew that leaving them responsible only for certain days would probably end up leaving my overly gracious husband washing most of the dishes (which often happened). I myself am not inclined to do a job that has been assigned to someone else, unless as an act of grace–I will do it because she has been working hard and I’d like to give her a break this once, but not because she hasn’t gotten around to doing it and I might as well do it myself. And when they moved out and the bathtub/shower had literally not been cleaned since it had been installed seven or eight years before, and was appallingly filthy, it was my husband who spent many hours scrubbing it over the next few months until it was clean. (I had suggested they do it or they hire it done–I told him it was filthy before I ever moved in, it was beyond my strength to clean it, and I did not see it as my job. He told them to do it, and they each worked an hour or two on it, and then he did the rest. It was hard for me to watch him doing it, but it was his own choice, so oh well.)

    I think the “household rules” extends to things like: everyone in this household keeps music low if others are sleeping, tells someone if they are leaving the house that they are leaving and approximately what time they will be home, and keeps up with their own household duty. And in this house we do not allow unrelated people of the opposite sex into bedrooms, or to stay overnight, nor do we allow pornography or smoking or illegal drugs. (You might add drinking or whatever else is out of bounds in your household.) Also, perhaps something like anyone who drives pays for insurance and gas for their own car, and anyone over 18 also pays rent.

    After I had had housemates for several years, I started writing up an actual contract (which covered my responsibilities as well as the tenant’s) so that we each knew where we stood. Something like that is said to be helpful with adult children. If you want her to babysit younger siblings four hours a week in exchange for you continuing to wash, dry, and fold her laundry, then put it in writing.

    Like

  37. Mumsee, I really don’t think it’s “OK for one guy to start a denomination.” Denominations are often formed because a group of pastors sees their own denomination drifting, or they study and see that something they were taught does not align with Scripture (Martin Luther), and so they break away from what is already there. But biblically, elders receive authority from God through the “laying on of hands” of other elders, not by deciding “I think I’ll call myself a pastor and start a church.”

    There is disagreement now between pastors in my previous denomination, the PCA. It is widely believed that conservative churches will be leaving at some point (some already have), and the question is whether they will start a new denomination or bring their churches under the umbrella of another denomination that is already around. Either of those is a viable option; they are acting with other Christian pastors, and with accountability, and not just going out and doing their own thing.

    On the other hand, some churches and denominations have been started through rebellion. In some cases, a pastor has sinned and has lost his ordination, and he has just gone out and started his own denomination and considered himself his own authority. In other cases, a man (or woman) never has been ordained by qualified pastors and elders in the first place, but just decides to start a church–often after deciding that none of the existing churches are quite holy enough for his standards. These are individuals operating outside the church, and their actions must minimally be observed with extreme caution. Others (like Bill Gothard) start their own parachurch “ministries” that do much harm to the church. God gave authority to groups of elders, not to individuals who want to do their own thing without submitting to God-given authority. That, by the way, is why Martin Luther wasn’t trying to start his own church, but to reform the church in which he served–he knew that even though the church was wrong, he couldn’t just go out and do his own thing.

    Like

  38. So none of those denominations in the list, started by individuals, are okay? Which ones are okay? So Ulrich Zwingli was wrong?

    Again, I don’t believe their intent was to start a denomination, but that is where it ended. Or several in his case. He did not go along with Luther into rebellion, because they could not agree on the Lord’s Supper, apparently. So they both started things but in slightly different directions. They neither had the support of their sending church, by the way.

    Like

  39. And of course one must wait to see if they are true or not. Unless one is one of the few in the beginning or there would be nothing to see. So, somebody needs to share the vision and see it as a good direction. And if it is solid, others will join and other denominations will agree they are solid. If not, others will follow and other denominations will say it is a cult and advise people to stay away. Or so it seems, historically. But it looks like they all started with somebody or we would all be followers of The Way and just get along or go our separate ways for a season like Paul and Barnabas.

    Like

  40. Mumsee, I am not an expert in church history, and don’t feel qualified to speak to most such instances. I do know of some fairly recent cases that do not seem to have been done correctly. I also know that in my own denomination’s history, when pastors in Scotland had been persecuted and the church was left without pastors, they went without pastors for 50 years! They continued to meet and have laymen bring the Word of God, but it was their understanding of Scripture that they did not have the authority (as lay members) to declare someone to be a pastor and to ordain him. So they waited decades until pastors were again in their land and able to ordain other pastors.

    It seems to me that that shows integrity–I will not act on my own initiative and take authority that is not mine. It’s a very different matter from some man saying, “I don’t like any of the churches in my town, so I’m going to start a church in my house.” A person doesn’t become a pastor just by deciding one day that he is one.

    The issues we have been discussing on here the last few days are not a mater of beginning a denomination, however. Maybe something resembling a denomination, but really it’s just a group of Christians getting together to form Bible-study groups (not churches). Now, I have a problem with that, and wouldn’t be interested in attending any of those small groups, but that’s really rather secondary. The bigger issues are how he talks about the church (it’s rather fashionable now in some circles to bash “the institutional church,” but talking badly of Christ’s bride is improper) and his choices in the recent event (before, during, and after). I don’t imagine his organization will amount to much long term (I can’t see it still being around, in the same form at least, 30 years from now), but the bigger issue is really tearing down the church in order to build his own denomination and also aligning with heretics.

    Like

  41. There have been cults started from the beginning. Nothing new under the sun. But, according to your own words, you ought to be attending a Coptic church or some such. They all seem to have been started with an idea in one guy’s head, leaving the “umbrella” of the established church. They did not just suddenly appear as a church. Or denomination. Or whatever.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. I am in the closet again as we are having storms. I cooked spaghetti this afternoon and have containers ready to freeze after they cool. I hope I can go upstairs in a bit and put covers and labels on them for the freezer. Spaghetti is about Art’s favorite for lunch, dinner, or both.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. Kare, 5:01 — I was thinking perhaps that was the case. 🙂

    NancyJill, 5:05 — I was sorry to read that about your daughter being let go from her job. Always hard when it happens, even though it may eventually open the door to something better.

    Your daughter sounds a lot like my 21-year-old. And, yes, I think that “time of the month” thing is a thing. 😉 Most of the time she’s fine (and better than fine; enthusiastic, very helpful, etc.), but there are the few moments now and then that it’s clearly a good idea to give her some space…

    RKessler, 5:20, designated duties are a good idea. The semi-complicated thing around here is that both 3rd and 4th Arrows have the outdoor wood boiler duty, and its schedule for being loaded with wood varies based on the temperature outside, on the type of wood used, and both daughters have variable work schedules. So sometimes it gets missed for a while if one is thinking the other will be taking care of it, or it might not get loaded as full, or various other factors that are ever fluctuating.

    Maybe I should learn how to do it, since I’m here most of the time.

    Cheryl, 5:51 — Thanks for that book link. Appendix D: Sample Contracts With Your Young Adults was an interesting read. I agree with most of it. The statement under the heading “What your child should be able to expect from you” that caught my attention was this: “We will not micromanage your life, but will show respect to you as a fellow adult.”

    That is what we’re trying to flesh out, essentially: the distinction between expectations and micromanaging. Where do the lines get drawn? It’s not good to be on the far side of the micromanaging line, or over the expectations line that is in the no-expectations-whatsoever territory.

    I’m searching for the middle ground, which doesn’t seem to me to be as large as I’d like it to be, if that makes sense.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Spent the day observing in the NICU. I am comfortable taking care of babies, unless they are sick, and then they terrify me with their fragility.

    Disagree about the adult children having to obey house rules. Or rather I disagree that there needs to be hard and fast house rules if one decides to invite their adult children to stay and live with them. Let me put it this way. Second and family now live in my parents’ house. My parents wanted them to share the house. I am sure everyone here would see how detrimental it would be for my parents to impose ‘house rules’ on Second’s family. In doing so, they would be compromising the marriage bond that make Second and her spouse and the children of that marriage, an independent family unit. My parents and the Seconds are all responsible adults and are perfectly capable of discussing and ironing out any disagreements and difficulties that come from having two families under one roof.

    Now, the only difference between myself and Second is that Second is married and I am not. Otherwise we are both adults, both currently unemployed, both in our mid-thirties. If Second is able to live in my parents’ house without my parents imposing rules on her, and instead having issues worked out by mutual agreement, then there is no reason why I should have rules given to me. My parents do not believe that an unmarried woman is continuously under the authority of her father. Indeed, before Second moved back with her family and when I was the only adult child in the house, my parents had already recognized that fact. Certainly, I help out when I am able (there have been times when my health was too fragile to do so) and I am considerate of others in my personal habits, but I do so out of love and concern for my parents and the other members of the household, not out of any imposed obligations.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. I’m glad you weighed in on my question, Roscuro — I was hoping you would. 🙂

    Thank you. I appreciate your perspective.

    Like

  50. From my readings in church history, I recall that Ulrich Zwingli did not have the best reputation, especially where women were concerned. Also, he was a militant, and was killed on the battlefield. Then there is the awful method of execution by drowning inflicted on Anabaptists under his watch at Zurich. Baptists, who are not Anabaptists but sympathize with that much persecuted group (Second’s husband is from an Anabaptist background, and his Mennonite forebears were driven from country to country over the centuries), tend to view the Protestant Reformation in a more measured light and do not regard any of the Reformers as being entirely in the right with their methods. Whether one looks at Europe or Great Britain or even colonial America, it is true that the Protestants were frequently in the wrong, as is evidenced by the massacres and unjust executions which their various factions inflicted on those they disagreed with throughout the 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries. It was the English Baptists, not Protestants, who first proposed the idea of a separation between church and state.

    Like

  51. 6, my suggestion is that you discuss with your 21 year old where you could use some assistance and what her schedule allows her to do, so that you can work out between you how she will contribute to the household. I do not have any designated tasks when I go home, so I just pitch in where I see a need and I can help, such as washing up dishes after a meal or hanging out the finished laundry in the washing machine. Second or my mother might ask me to do something, such as make pizza for dinner one night, and both they and I understand that I am free to say yes or no to the request as I see fit (I usually say yes).

    Liked by 2 people

  52. The association (not denomination) that my city church is a part of broke off from the Salvation Army over doctrinal matters – the Salvation Army is decidedly shaky in its doctrine of salvation, believing both that it is both possible to lose one’s salvation and possible to attain a state of sinless perfection: https://salvationist.ca/about/doctrines/. They also eschew both the practice of baptism and communion. Needless to say, the city church practices both baptism and communion and disagrees with both the idea that it is possible to lose salvation or possible to attain sinless perfection.

    I do not know very much about the United Church in the U.S. My father grew up in the United Church of Canada, so I know a lot about that organization and have spoken about it on here from firsthand knowledge.

    Liked by 1 person

  53. Roscuro, did you see the list of “house rules” I listed? My list was things fellow Christian adults who are not related would expect from each other if they were to live together–that Christians might realistically expect even of a guest. For instance, if we had people over for dinner, and a guest took out a cigarette to light it, he would probably think to ask permission before he did, but if he didn’t think to ask, my husband would probably politely ask him to step out onto the deck to smoke.

    Also, while a father may not have authority over his adult daughter as her father, I do think that he retains some measure of authority as the head of the household. Let’s turn it around a little, and imagine that my mother-in-law were to move in with us, and at some point she has a boyfriend spend the night (no, she would not do that). My husband, as head of this household, can rightly tell her (respectfully) that he can’t have such a thing happening under his roof. On the other hand, if we were to move in with her (and she was the head of household), and she had that imaginary boyfriend over to spend the night, he could appeal to her as a fellow Christian, but he couldn’t forbid it. He could only decide whether or not to move out if it continued.

    I know a widowed mother (early seventies) and her single daughter (late forties) who live together, and I suspect they don’t see either of themselves as “head of the household.” But in a family with a husband and wife, some adult children, and some minor children, the father of the household would seem to retain head of the household authority, though he will treat his adult children differently than he will his minor children. In our case, once our daughters graduated from high school, they no longer had to ask permission to be out past a certain time; they simply told us they were going out (and usually volunteered where they were going) and an approximate time to expect them back.

    When I suggested that our girls (who had not yet come up with an adult sense of responsibility for the house) should be the ones to do all the dishes, it was because it was the simplest “division of labor” and the easiest portion of the work. It would have been better if they had the maturity to see what needed to be done and to do it. If one had said, “We originally specified that my sister and I would be doing the dishes, but my work schedule makes that difficult. How about if I take responsibility to cook two meals a week, vaccum weekly, and edge the lawn when it needs to be done?” and then she simply did it without reminders that it needed to be done–at that point she would be functioning as a fully adult member of the household. One of them initiated such a trade. She was supposed to be paying for her own cell phone, but she asked if instead she could buy the ingredients for the meals she cooked (which cost her more money, because she bought more expensive ingredients than we kept on hand). She was taking responsibility for something new, and of course we said yes.

    I’m an adult woman, but I still fall under my husband’s authority–he is head of our household. That is different from a father’s authority over his adult children, especially children not under his roof, but it wouldn’t make sense to say that my husband could forbid me to use alcohol under our roof (if he were so inclined) but could not require that of a daughter who happened to live with us. In our old house, I took my shoes off when I entered the house, because it was my husband’s house rule. So did our children, even into adulthood. I didn’t like the rule, and I’m an adult woman, but he had the authority to put the rule in place. (And I, as an adult who didn’t like the rule, said that when we moved, we needed to get flooring that could handle shoes if I were inclined to wear them–and we did. If we had bought a house that had flooring that couldn’t handle shoes, and he had said we need to continue to not wear shoes, I wouldn’t necessarily have liked it, but I would have submitted cheerfully as I did up north for seven years.)

    More than one household of adults living under the same roof will have to figure out how to juggle who has what authority, but I do think that the parents can require certain behavior until the adult children come to the maturity to volunteer adult actions on their own–and I think that the head of household retains authority, if need for such authority arises.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. Cheryl, I am going to push back on the idea of the man being head of the household. Scripture calls the husband the head of his wife. Nowhere is the man called the head of the household. There is that verse in I Timothy 3:4 that says an elder should rule his household well, but other translations render that phrase as ‘manage well his household’, which seems very similar in meaning to the verse in Titus 2:5 that says the woman should be the keeper of her home. The word in I Timothy 3:4 means to be a superintendent, protector, or guardian, while the word in Titus 2:5 literally means guard of the home. The husband and wife, just as in Creation they were given joint dominion, share a joint responsibility to be stewards of their home. In Paul’s instructions to children, he tells them to obey and honour both their parents, not just their fathers. Furthermore, just as the Church does not consist of a building, no more does a home consist of a house, which is why Second and her spouse are free to make their home separate from my parents’ home in the same house. Pagans such as the Hindus and theists such as the Muslims hold the man of the house in such high regard that what he says is law (in Hindu parlance, he is god) to both his wife and the rest of the house, holding the power of even life and death over the members of the household, whether adults or children, so that to be put out of such a household is to be disowned and considered dead to the family (and also to be fortunate to have made it out alive). We did not so learn Christ. He that would be greatest in the kingdom of Christ should be a servant, which is why the parents of a Christian home are given the duties of guardian and stewards to their children, rather than deities or rulers.

    Like

  55. As for the details of how separate families should live together, that can be negotiated. Smoking and alcohol are not issues in my family (Eldest sibling in-law drinks in moderation, but he does not think it necessary to drink when he comes to visit my parents). Premarital relations are not an issue either, although both Eldest and Second had their young men visit and stay overnight in separate rooms, with the approval of my parents. But other things, such as gardening or pets, do require negotiation. Second in-law loves dogs, and would like to have one. I cannot live in the same house as a dog due to allergies and my father does not like pets in the house, so Second in-law is more than welcome to have a dog when he can afford it, just not in the house. The Seconds are both avid gardeners and Second in-law likes to make things, so they and my father have ongoing negotiations regarding what will be done on the property and in the house – not always unheated, but that is human nature.

    Like

  56. Cheryl, we were not talking about Chan, but about denominations and where they come from and if it is actually wrong for a new one to start. That has baffled me for years and it came up in the discussion, but I had mentioned I was not going to be discussing the Chan question anymore. But I did wonder where the idea that nobody should start a new denomination fits with the idea that the vast majority of our denominations come from an idea in one person’s head and did not consider it the same.

    What Roscuro said about her association separating over doctrine makes sense to me. But somebody was the first to say it and somebody was the first to suggest a break. (my understanding is that the Booths did not consider it a denomination as they would direct people to an existing church, therefore they might not consider baptism or communion to be their mission.) Whether they ever become a “denomination” is to be seen. I understand a denomination title is given when a church and its daughter churches reach a certain number of members and locations.

    Yes, Roscuro, a lot of the church leaders over the years have been found to be very human with a tendency toward the darker side in the line of “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” as well as just day to day sin. Not just with the Protestants, but on all sides. They all seem to have some dirt that we can dig up, some more than others. But if God wants a new denomination started, He can use whom He chooses to use and I will not stand in His way. But I will look at what they say they believe and what their actions say they believe, to determine if I will trust them or not.

    The Vineyard is an example of that. Coming out of Calvary Chapel which came out of Foursquare, which came out of the brain of a woman who divorced her second husband and was influenced by Salvation Army and the Holiness Pentecostal movement. It gets very tangled. But if God wants it done, it will happen. He allows bad ones and good ones and sometimes allows good ones to turn bad and bad ones to turn good. Amazing, really.

    And so I wonder. I understand we need labels so we can associate with like minds, and of course, if opportunity arises, it probably does not hurt to fellowship with other denominations so we can learn a bit more about God.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Denominations can be evidence of a pursuit of truth. Our denomination came out of the (then) mainline Presbyterian church in the 1930s and it was over the issue of what should take priority in missions (though it spread further than that, of course): Material help first and foremost (and sometimes solely?) Or the gospel message taking priority with the material help accompanying that primary mission?

    Calvary Chapel used to insist it was not a ‘denomination,’ but in essence it has become one, just without some of the historic checks and balances found to be wise.

    Like

  58. On the homefront, I’m thinking one can learn a lot about their neighborhood by visiting the NextDoor App, if only looking at the subject lines. Mine lately are:

    * Coyote
    * Shower grab bars
    * Ants in the kitchen
    * Stray chicken needs a home
    * Car broken into last night
    * Found your dog
    * Suspicious gentleman
    * Drone flying over our yard
    * Mountain lion

    Liked by 2 people

  59. Mumsee, one cannot judge that something is good simply because it continues to exist. As the Psalmists observed so often, the wicked do prosper for a season (Psalm 73:3). God allows the tares to grow with the wheat (Matthew 13:30). He gave us the written Scripture and the interpretation of the Holy Spirit to discern the truth (John 16:3). The Apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders that false teachers would spring up in their own ranks (Acts 20:29). The Apostle John said that those with the spirit of antichrist went out from the Church so that it would be known that they were not part of the Church (I John 2:18-19). The worst cults have sprung from wolves who began by claiming a form of Christianity, from the Gnostics who threatened the early Church to the Lord’s Resistance Army that terrorized Uganda.

    Like

  60. And, granted, the Reformation did unleash some very bad behavior all around, including among the anabaptists who rose up at the time.

    Like

  61. Mumsee, I don’t see how it could be “wrong” for a new one to start. The Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe it to be wrong, since they think they are what we all should be, and some denominations believe they are the only correct ones–but I don’t know how anyone else can believe it is wrong with any sort of consistency.

    Some today are in the “denominations are wrong, so I’m just forming a group of churches” camp or “denominations are wrong, so I’m just forming one church that isn’t in a denomination” camp, but those are hair-splitting distinctions. And being in a denomination of one church is definitely not a protection against error–it goes without accountability.

    I recently realized how “separate” Southern Baptist churches are–I didn’t realize until the news stories came out about how unaccountable they are to one another, and that means a man might be fired from one church for gross sin, even crimes, and other churches never know. In other words, they are a denomination without most of the benefits of a denomination–no thanks.

    Like

  62. Roscuro, I hope I never said I thought only the good would survive. I thought I said only the ones God wanted so survive would. He has His purposes. My part is to look with the discernment He gives to me and look for the Fruit. We have many clear examples of denominations being positive and many examples of them going awry.

    DJ, I like that and it certainly fits my view of them. Evidence of a pursuit of Truth. When it becomes clean the church is going in the wrong direction or not in the direction the person is being lead by God, it makes sense to find another or do something. One should not just sit there and soak up lies. Obviously, with that thought carried forth, we could have two and a half billion denominations or whatever the current estimate of Christians is. So one needs to be awfully certain it is God doing the calling and not just a dissatisfied person.

    Like

  63. Denominations (good ones) provide accountability and do not concentrate power in the hands of a few. They also serve as a check on member churches, unlike other groups like the Baptists which, as Cheryl points out, are very independent of one another and of the overall structure.

    Our denomination (Presbyterian) is set up similarly to the US government model, a representative government. There are several layers of appeal if someone feels they’ve been mistreated. Pastors and elders are chosen by the local congregation in a popular vote; the pastor has no more “power” than the other ruling elders of which he is one. Decisions must be made in agreement with that body, a pastor can’t simply do what he wants to do. Our pastor sometimes jokes that 2/3 of what he wants to do is turned down by the rest of the elders. He also says he openly invites (and expects) the other elders (and church members, for that matter) to take him to task if something he says in a sermon seems “off.”

    Like

  64. Roscuro, you might be right that Scripture never says that a man is the head of his household, but I do think it rather presupposes that he is. His wife and children are under his authority, and his servants are also. (And yes, a mother has authority over her children and over her own servants.)

    I haven’t researched this, but I think it would be hard to make a biblical case that a man has any authority over his adult children who do not live with him, but that you can definitely make a case that a father has some authority over every member of his household. If nothing else, a man gains respect as he gains age, and younger people are to defer to him, and the household of the church reflects the household of the home to some extent. At any rate, I think that if cases like your household are exceptions to that, they are rare ones and not the “norm.” Practically speaking, in most cases a household would function more smoothly if the head of household has a real, but gentle, authority over those within it.

    Like

  66. Cheryl, we have great liberty in Christ. The huge number of different denominations that are solid clearly shows that. We all come from our own position and are being made like Him, That is going to look different in each individual.

    Yes, we need to be wary. We need to immerse ourselves in the Word and we need to be about doing what He tells us in His Word. We need to fellowship with other believers. Denominations help us to find people of like mind, supposedly. But we should not be limited to that or we are preaching to the choir.

    Like

  69. I Corinthians 7:3-4 makes it apparent that the power sharing in marriage is mutual. The wife’s submission in Ephesians 5 is a parallel to the husband’s self-sacrfice – in essence, each submits to the other. To be the head is to be first, not in a procession of honour, but the first into battle.

    I find it extremely problematic to even consider a scenario where my father, much as I honour him, has any kind of authority over Second and her spouse simply due to their presence in the house that he built. That is utterly abhorrent to all that I understand about the exclusivity of the marriage relationship. My father does sometimes find it hard to no longer be the only man in the house, but that is something he needs to work on. He has no kind of right to dictate to the younger couple. For him to do so would be to endanger the marriage bond, by forcing my sibling to chose between honouring her father or mutual submission to her husband.

    Liked by 1 person

  70. Cheryl and DJ, if hierarchy in a church denomination were proof against sin, then the Catholic Church should have been safe. I would note that the Apostles, in warning about wolves, did not prescribe a particular kind of church structure which would prevent against the wolves. In fact, in I Timothy 5:19-20, Paul goes on to prescribe how Church elders should be disciplined, so he clearly foresaw that some elders would go sour. Saying that the Southern Baptists experienced scandal because of their structure is like saying the Catholic church experienced scandal because of their celibacy. Neither church structure nor marriage are foolproof methods of stopping sin.

    Like

  71. I never said you put your whole trust in the church hierarchy. Neither would our church elders.

    Keep your Bibles open.

    Like

  73. Roscuro, whether or not “head of household” is a Scripturally defined notion, it is a legitimate practical one. My wife and I bought this house, keep it up, buy most of the groceries, pay the taxes, are liable for what happens here, and have to put up with whoever lives with us. It’s reasonable and appropriate for us to expect others to abide by the rules of our house.

    That said, it would be unwise to have many and unreasonable rules, micromanage everything, or be closed to negotiation.

    Our two adult children live with us, a 21-year-old in college and a 26-year-old limited by chronic illness. We give them a lot of freedom and we negotiate with them. But we do have expectations of how they’ll behave and what they’ll contribute, and if they don’t want to live up to those they are free to find somewhere else to live. We all get along pretty well.

    Liked by 2 people

  74. But …

    The visible church is God’s ordained vehicle here on earth and there are good vs. not so good examples of that. It’s all flawed this side of heaven, no one would dispute that. But that doesn’t mean we toss it all out and go our own ways, figure it our on our own. That’s is a much scarier prospect in many/most cases.

    Liked by 1 person

  75. And yes, I do absolutely believe there are church structures that are better equipped to guard against error and abuse. Is that not self-evident?

    Liked by 1 person

  77. By the way, Hindus get around the dilemma of the wife being ruled by her husband or her father when it comes to adult married children living with parent by having married sons live with their parents, while married daughters leave the home of their fathers and become absorbed into their husbands family, so completely that a widowed woman remains in the house of her in-laws. This runs entirely contrary to Scripture, which, in Genesis 2 notes that the man leaves his father and mother to cleave to his wife. Examining the traditions of the unbeliever is beneficial to understanding where exactly the difference between Christians and the rest of the world lies. Jesus often contrasted the ways of the heathen or Gentiles to how his followers should act (Matthew 5:46-47; 6:7; 20:25-26). Second, understanding the hierarchy of the traditional family structure – for there is a strong resemblance to modern Hindu and Middle Eastern family structures to those described in Roman history and in the Old Testament – increases the understanding of what Jesus meant when he said that he that followed him would have to hate his family. To convert out of a patriarchal Hindu or Muslim or Jewish family is to be considered a traitor to the head of the household and a dishonour to the family. On the surface, in the current cultural upheaval, traditional patriarchal structures seem the ideal and the preservation of the family seems paramount. But it is not. Following Christ, and laying down one’s life is: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26-27).

    Like

  78. Roscuro, one of my college professors was an evangelical feminist, at one time on the board of Christians United for Biblical Equality, and she (a lifelong single) taught the mutual submission thing, that women could be pastors, etc. (She didn’t teach such things in the classroom, but she taught them to students she befriended and mentored.) I therefore researched what the Bible said. Part of me wanted her to be right–I wanted to agree with her (because I respected her, but also because it was important to her and I didn’t want to disappoint her), but there also is a part within a woman that says “Wouldn’t it be lovely–there would be freedom in that.”

    At any rate, I read quite a bit of CBE material, sat in on a panel (as an observer) discussing it, ate quite a few holiday meals in which the whole group but me were evangelical feminists, etc. But I determined that it is not true to Scripture, that the idea of “mutual submission” within marriage as in any way the sense of “head” is both biblically and logically untenable, and that God did indeed institute a male-led order within the church and the home–and that it was for our good.

    Human beings aren’t generally only under one authority, so no, there is no automatic conflict between the head of a household having a few expectations of those in the home and a husband and wife forming their own household within that home. For the record, my sister used a very similar argument to explain why no woman can have a paying job outside the home unless she is working for her husband (or, if she is single, her older brother). She says that since she is under her husband’s authority, she cannot put herself under the authority of another man, because “no man can serve two masters.” I know you would dispute such an argument passionately, but the idea that one cannot submit to more than one authority at a time leads naturally to such reasoning. I am under my husband’s authority, but a policeman can still pull me over, I also am under the authority of my elders, and if I had a job outside the home I would have one or more managers over me. And our condo can tell us what we can or cannot plant in our planting area and whether or not I can have a pet skunk.

    Being head of the household and having some limited authority over adults within the home does not mean telling them what time to go to bed, how often to have sex with their spouses, how to discipline their children, etc. But it does mean that he has the right to set household standards–whether or not alcohol can be kept in his fridge, whether it’s OK to have a TV in the living room, whether pornography may be used in his home, under what conditions guests can be invited over, etc. My childhood home was small, and we had a lot of people in it. So we had two childhood rules that probably are absent from most houses with young children–no running in the house and no ball throwing. (I think Nerf balls were briefly an exception.) If for some reason I had moved into my parents’ house with my own children, it would be proper to teach my own children not to run in the house and not to throw balls in the house, no matter what my own standards might be if I were to someday live under another roof. That in no way undermines my own authority–in fact, it might help my children to understand that even adults have people to whom they submit! A father in such a household cannot demand that his adult daughter or daughter-in-law must wash these dishes before she can go into her room and talk to her husband–that would indeed be coming between them as a couple. But he CAN insist that the other household within his household wash their own dishes and not leave them for his wife. That is not coming between husband and wife, or it should not be doing so. And he can insist that while they are free to let their five-year-old play drums, that drum playing must be done in a way that it does not harm the rest of the household.

    I am no fan of “traditional patriarchal households.” It need not be one extreme or the other. When I rented out a bedroom in my Nashville house, I became in one sense the head of the household to each boarder. I set a few household policies–for example, she had to have her own cell phone or get her own phone line; though I had a landline, she could not use it, because I used it for personal and business reasons and I couldn’t afford to have a tenant tying it up. She was also responsible for cleaning her own bathroom and washing her own dishes. The household TV was close to my office area, so she was free to have her own bedroom TV or ask to use mine, but not just to come in and turn on the TV without asking. These guidelines were stated right up front; there was nothing untoward about having them, nothing that conflicted with her being an adult. But it was my house, and any adult choosing to share it with me needed to be able to operate in a way that did not hurt me. In return, I told her what I was committing to–I was the one who did the vacuuming and sweeping and mowing and so forth. But an adult really can submit to another adult without becoming a child in so doing.

    And by the way, it is a matter of public record that the Southern Baptists experienced scandal because of their structure. It isn’t because of their structure that they had pastors who sinned against their flock, but it is because of their structure that they had pastors who sinned against more than one flock–therein lies the “scandal” part of the problem. Because of their independent structure, they refused to keep any sort of central record of offending pastors, and pastors were free to move to new churches and offend again.

    Like

  79. I think I sort of conflated two ideas in one phrase–of course “mutual submission” is not the meaning of “head.” I meant to say that the argument that “head” doesn’t mean authority, and the argument that Scripture calls for “mutual submission” between husband and wife, not for actual authority by the husband, are untrue. The church is told to submit to one another, and wives to their own husbands. Those are two different issues–mutual submission within the church, wifely submission within the home. And the idea of “head” meaning “source” (with no implied authority) has been well answered within scholarship–it has no such meaning in the original. (We speak in English of the head of a creek, but that is an English meaning of the term.)

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.