My response to the Clear Chapel Elder's
Resolution to end my marriage.
This is my response in regard to a written resolution for my wife, Shirley Dohse, by the Clearcreek Chapel Elders (Springboro, Ohio) in which they counsel her to divorce me. [Click here to view] Right here, they would quickly contest that they did not counsel her to divorce me but only counseled her that she was free to divorce me according to the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, here is how they explained it to a local pastor who has been involved in the situation; in his words: "they gave her a green light to divorce you, but they also gave her the green light to stay in the marriage." However, I will demonstrate from their own document that this is not the truth. This is the culmination of an unfortunate situation that has been going on for several months.
I was not supposed to have the Elders document; Shirley refused to show it to me. My apologies ahead of time for how I obtained it, I found it in Shirley's Bible, but this is about keeping my family together. If it was about my reputation I would have done this months ago, for the public onslaught against my name by Clearcreek parishioners has been relentless and shameful as demonstrated by a letter to my Daughter by a Clearcreek parishioner. Though the church discipline brought against me was unjust and unbiblical, I made no defense for myself in this matter. But now it is the premise for telling my wife to divorce me and I cannot and will not be silent. I now address the document with all excerpts in order including Shirley's copious notes. The resolution is written by Greg Cook, elder over counseling, on behalf of the elders. Sometimes I speak directly to him in this response and also whomever it may concern in other places. However, It is my belief that their own document to my wife stands alone as a shameful indictment.
In addition to myself three other witnesses desire to share their own testimonies. you can read their statements below.
First Witness Second Witness Third Witness
"Shirley, you know how long I have been working with you and Paul. You know how much time I have spent with Paul in helping him to get his life in order by helping him to learn to sell and market when he was in the alarm business a long time ago,"
I know this as well Greg, and when you where the one that temporarily halted counseling, here is how you left it: "I think you both want the same thing". At the time we started meeting for breakfast so you could teach me sales techniques and philosophy, it wasn't to "get [my] his life in order", it was because I had just left ADT for a sales job with Securenet. At that time, and for some time prior I had a very blessed career at ADT. As a matter of fact, only a couple of months prior to that you cautioned Shirley and I not to start spending unwisely because of the expendable income that was coming in. Greg, you make it sound like I was financially irresponsible "a long time ago" and you where trying to help me even to the point of teaching me how to sell. Do you deny this Greg? You say that you where trying to help get my life in order by making me a better salesman.
"how I went to two CPA's with him with tax issues, how I helped get him ready to meet with the lRS, how I tried to get him to get his financial situation in order by preparing a statement of all of your debts and all of what you own. I also tried to help by trying to get a listing of all of your income and expenses to see how much he needed to make for the family to survive"
Greg, you only went with me to one CPA, not two. The other items you mention are concerning your counsel to have the total business and personal tax debt I owed In the amount of $7000.00 (it is looking like the IRS is willing to adjust 2004, reducing my total tax liability to $3000.00) declared "noncollectable" by the IRS. You said that this is what you had done concerning your own business tax debt. You stated that, plus the amount you owed the IRS and the details of the circumstances to Shirley and I in counseling. One might wonder why you would share such intimate and controversial information with a rascal such as myself per the information in this resolution. Upon further research on my own, I found out this is exactly the same direction that landed you well over a $100,000 in debt with the IRS, 180,000 If I remember correctly. If I seemed aloof, it was because I was not going to follow your counsel. I'm sure you would understand. Neither do I appreciate your statement that I didn't know "how much he needed to make for the family to survive." I have always known that Greg. These kinds of statements are particularity offense to my daughter Heather, one of the witnesses in this matter, because she witnessed over the years my sacrifice to support the family and this sacrifice enabled Shirley to do what amounted to full time ministry.
"I attempted and I'll admit that I didn't do a very good job at sorting it out in a timely manner to help Paul get the alarm business with the Beavers off and running"
My debt came after my involvement in Onika Security Solutions and much of my debt is directly linked to that, of which I take full responsibility. You are attempting to establish that I had financial problems before I went into business with the Beavers. That just isn't true. Revision: I worked at Securenet for approximately one year prior to going into business with the Beavers. Some financial problems started for me sometime during that time period.
"It is our intent in this document to present the biblical evidence that you are free to divorce Paul."
That is what you say, but on page 5 you say:
"The command now is for the believing spouse to let them go - to not fight with going through with the divorce"
This slight twist with the hyphen indicates a command not to fight the idea or decision concerning divorce by the believer in regard to what you say in the previous paragraph. otherwise, you would have worded it this way (the subject / verb agreement also indicates an imperative by Paul to divorce me in this situation):
"The command now is for the believing spouse to let them go - to not fight the unbeliever in regard to him or her going through with the divorce"
Since it doesn't make any since in context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 to discuss a departure by me to Shirley, with it being common knowledge that I do not want the divorce, you must have been speaking in regard to her decision, not mine, and then making it imperative. This clearly implies to Shirley that she is commanded to divorce me. What 1Corinthians 7:15 is talking about concerns the lost spouses decision to leave. The saved spouse is not obligated to stay in the marriage for well meaning motives such as winning the spouse to the Lord which usually leads to a life of turmoil. The objective operative here is the lost spouses decision to physically leave or divorce. This is clear if you look at the following verse (16), which you leave out. At Clearcreek Chapel, the elders strongly emphasize "speaking to the heart" and not saying anything that will produce an action that doesn't come from the heart. When I was in the church discipline "process", Devon and Mark were very careful not to say anything that would give me the idea that I could soon be released from the "process" if I did certain things. But instead of simply presenting the "biblical evidence" and letting it speak to her heart, the elders remove any possible stress in the decision by promising her a job, housing, accompaniment with the attorney and payment of all legal fees! Why not address all of that after she makes a "heart" decision? It's supposedly her decision, It just seems inappropriate to offer enticements that favor a certain direction. Where is the "green light" to stay in the marriage? It is nowhere to be found in this document.
Greg, there is only one sentence in your introduction that might be the truth. I just really have a problem with that Greg.
"Shirley, I am going to use the passage in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 as the core of this teaching. in addition, I'm going to use Dr. Jay Adams book Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible. Dr. Adams is the man that God used to return counseling to the church and has been referred to as the father of the Biblical counseling movement. We have used his work extensively in the counseling training that we do at Clearcreek Chapel."
This statement speaks to the integrity of the Clearcreek elders and I warn my wife to take this under advisement as she listens to their counsel. I only state the following for that purpose at this time. They use the name of Jay Adams extensively in this document, but the truth is that they see Jay Adams as a propagator of works salvation. How ironic that my beliefs in Jay's sanctification principles is what led to much of the stress between myself and the Clearcreek elders. Jay Adams is continually slammed at Clearcreek Chapel through veiled comments about "living by lists" and "techniques." The Clearcreek elders believe he is the father of those things. While at a Sunday evening service, a visitor said she was visiting Clearcreek Chapel because "she liked N.A.N.C" Chad Bressen (a Clearcreek elder) then said to her: "we like N.A.N.C too." That's a lie. This is indicative of how the Clearcreek elders are living off the foundation that has been laid at Clearcreek by N.A.N.C, while holding it in contempt. Greg Cook and other leaders are on N.A.N.C's national referral list of counselors. This is not truth in advertising. Yet another integrity issue is keeping the Clearcreek congregation in the dark concerning certain doctrines and policies while pretending more traditional views, especially in regard to church discipline, and then placing people who become privy to these issues under gag orders. I myself did not want to question anything as I had my own personal problems to deal with, until it became apparent that what was being taught indicated that I was leading my family in "works salvation." Obviously, I then wanted answers.
"When Paul (the apostle) talks in verse 10 about the Lord giving this charge, he is referring to what Christ taught while he was here on earth. if you go back to Matthew 5:31-32 and 19;3-12, Christ was talking to those who were supposed to be the believing community, the Jews. This is the key to understanding these 2 verses. What Paul the apostle is saying that Jesus taught was that two believers do not get divorced."
Greg, This text does not say Jesus is only talking to believers or people who are supposed to be believers. That is an assumption on your part and is not the "key" to understanding this passage. This is indicative of your usual sloppy hermeneutics and careless statements from the pulpit. The implication by you is that Jesus is not concerned with divorce among unbelievers. If you conceded that God is concerned with that, it would take God's view of divorce to another level. Frankly, I am often concerned with Shirley's attitude that her first divorce "doesn't count" because she was an unbeliever. The fact that she has been divorced before should loom large here and give her great pause. Though I think she is saved, could the same attitudes that led to her first divorce be contributing to this divorce? And what were those attitudes? Do you even know? Some time ago, Shirley mentioned to me that intimacy was an issue in her first marriage. Sound familiar?
"Divorce between two believers would be sinful."
Greg, divorce between two unbelievers is also sinful. I went through four of them with my mother. In one, I was PJ's age. From my perspective, no divorce is insignificant, but it's obvious that's not your perspective.
"Things have changed. Your husband Paul has been counseled by two elders (Mark and Devon) since June of 2007. They have attempted to come alongside of Paul and help him in any way that was necessary. All of those attempts were eventually rejected as Paul became more and more hostile toward these men."
Concerning your statement that Mark and Devon had been counseling me since June of 2007, I do not even know what you are talking about. However you are probably referring to when You, Devon, and Mark ambushed me at my house with Shirley's help. This surprise visit took place following an incident in Sunday School. Before that, I wasn't even on your (or the other elders) radar screen. You see, one of the practices of the Clearcreek elders is to have long- time core members teach their material to give it credibility, even though the member doesn't understand the materials (I have firsthand knowledge of this). That is why Greg Simmons, who was teaching that morning got barbequed. He was teaching concepts of New Covenant Theology and didn't even know it. He got barbecued when he spoke of dispensationalism as some kind of false teaching that people get "entangled in." All of a sudden (after that Sunday) these elders who came over that night were concerned about my financial difficulties and golly gee, don't worry about what we are teaching for "at least 2 years." After this night there were a series of visits by a combination of you, Devon, and Mark. These visits were not to come alongside to help me in anyway necessary. These were to address ongoing issues in regard to doctrinal disagreements. As a matter of fact, on one of these visits Greg became frustrated and told me that if my doctrinal disagreements against the chapel were that strong, then I should get out. Let me also add that it would have been my preference as well to not worry about doctrinal issues at that time except for the fact that the Sunday school series implied that I was leading my family in works salvation.
First of all, when the Church Discipline started on Dec.7th 2007, these men did not counsel me, they were "examination sessions" to determine true repentance in accordance with a 4 step process derived from Psalms 51 (per Devon, by written documentation). The first step is "confession". I never got past the first step because there was supposedly a bunch of sin in my life that I was not confessing. Neither was there any counsel, that would be telling me what to do, we can't have that. They would give me portions of scriptures to read that they thought applied to my sin but wouldn't reveal what they thought the issue was. That way, all of the observed repentance would be from the Spirit. Apparently anyway, that's my best guess on that one. But this can also be seen in the letter of clarification (which I had to request) concerning the 2 reasons they brought me up on church discipline. [click here to view] One of the 2 reasons was: "Love you wife". They then recommend large portions of scripture to study in this regard. So, this approach can be seen clearly in their letter. I only got "hostile" when Devon Berry was using psychiatric communication techniques on me. Also, I was not amused by the constant accusations based on Shirley's words alone without tentative investigation as to the accuracy of the accusations. I now wonder aloud,(in regard to the assumption of massive unconfessed sin) due to some comments made to me by Mitch [------] (a comment to me by Greg that the elders put him in "chemical prison" was also somewhat unsettling), if this is the kind of counsel that made Mitch flee the Chapel.
"The process of redemptive church discipline was begun as Christ has commanded in order to bring a believer to his senses and be reconciled to God and others or else to show himself to be what he truly is - an unbeliever. The Chapel followed the instructions given to us, in Matthew 18 with the prayer that God would use His resources to bring Paul to repentance"
Reconciled to God and others in regard to what Greg? In your visits by you, Mark, and Devon no need to reconcile was discussed. No one had come to me saying that we needed to be reconciled, and again let me be clear that your bogus church discipline began on Dec. 7 of 2007. "Redemptive Church Discipline."? Well, at least now I know what the official term is. To say that it is according to Matthew 18 is a joke. This all makes sense though. The Clearcreek elders are trying, and have been trying for some time, to form a consistent theology with NCT, Gospel Sanctification and a Christocentric hermeneutic. The new church discipline they are practicing would be consistent with an extreme view of repentance in some of those circles. The clear plan of the Clearcreek elders is to feed this "consistent theology" to the congregation a little at a time until they have digested the whole elephant without knowing it. The elders where particularly alarmed by the use of interpretive labels during this time. Interpretive labels allow people to merely do Google searches with the term and be up to speed in a hurry. Myself and another individual were put under a gag order for using the term: "New Covenant Theology." Because my questions were not being answered in Sunday school, I did my own research and pretty much figured out the whole package. This is where all the trouble began. This is when the Clearcreek elders started coming between Shirley and I and exaggerating my problems. This has always been about protecting their game plan to spoon feed the congregation their "radical departure" (Russ Kennedy's words) from what Clearcreek was founded on.
The deception surrounding what the elders believe concerning church discipline is appalling. The vast majority of Clearcreek parishioners have no idea what the elders really believe about church discipline. When I was cast out of the church in a Sunday morning service, the congregation was told I left in the middle of the process. Of course they thought this to mean I had been confronted about an offense in a first step or second step with witnesses and left for the purpose of not dealing with the problem. But what really happened is this: I left a process where there is no opportunity for repentance; the repentance is determined within the "process" and this can be for any general sin. True repentance is determined by the examining elders. If they come to you and say you're in the process, you're in, and for a period of time determined by them, and probably without warning. These elders know that the terminology cuts both ways and the congregation really doesn't know what is going on. I am sure most of the members thought I committed adultery or something of the sort. For sure, most of them would have thought that I left after being confronted in the first or second step. I myself was totally unaware of what kind of discipline I was under, assuming it was the traditional one that everyone practices. When I questioned Devin about it, he said the following: "At Clearcreek, we see church discipline as a 'process'. " and referred me to their book of faith and order, where it talks about the church discipline "process." But everyone calls it that in regard to the steps leading up to possible removal. This is indicative of the constant use of deception in communication by the Clearcreek elders to hide what they really believe until the congregation is "ready." Tell me this; if this in-house process goes to the third step, who among the congregation would be the examiners? What if some of the congregation thought I was repentant but yet others thought otherwise? Would you vote on it?
"Because of Paul's unwillingness to repent, we recognize Paul for what he is- an unbeliever." "You know that you have been married to an unbeliever all along."
This is a deceptive statement. Greg, you and all the elders know that I submitted to your creepy in-house purification process for 4 months. I also submitted to it regardless of the fact that I had already removed myself from the Chapel. Devon and Mark came to my house a week after I submitted my letter and attempted to put me under "the first step" of discipline. There was no discussion or hint of any church discipline before this visit as would be indicated by the fact that Devin himself said: "it was the first step", and this a week after I submitted my letter. I told them I would pray about it and get back with them. I was then counseled to submit to it by a pastor who assumed it was a traditional form of discipline, as I did. He figured I could go back and illustrate my willingness to take their concerns seriously and the whole thing would be over within a week. In the back of our minds, we thought the whole thing was a little strange, but at this point, I still trusted the Clearcreek elders, though there was much doctrinal disagreement between us. As time went on, disturbing things became evident: 1. In the elders weekly "examination" meetings with me by Devon Berry and Mark Schindler, new issues were being added to the original 2 reasons for putting me under discipline, which were subjective to begin with. [click here to view] These additional issues where being supplied by Shirley and taken as gospel in a build as you go church discipline. 2. I was going to have to agree with and live out the elements of sanctification as presented by the Clearcreek elders, even though they could not answer the tuff questions concerning their teachings. In other words, I could not get out of the process until I embraced the elders teachings concerning sanctification. Any attempt by the elders to deny this will not end up looking well in the end. 3. The process became a cruel endeavor of my attempts to figure out where I was "missing it", while my pleadings that I was repenting in certain areas was met with silence. Mark Schindler recognized that the process was taking its toll on me and suggested that they assign an "encourager" to me (Mitch Miscotti). 4. There was going to be no end to the “process”. I would not have pretended to adopt their beliefs in order to get out of the “process”.
I eventually told Mark Schindler that I was walking away from this discipline based on scriptural truth and taking my family to another church. He sternly warned me that I was going against the authority of the elders. He also said that whether the elders were right or wrong concerning the scriptures was "not the point." As all of the elders know, I then searched the Scriptures with prayer and counsel from others in regard to the question of elder authority. Does elder authority go beyond Scripture? Are we obligated to obey elders when their instruction is not Scriptural, within reason? Does Christ recognize an unbiblical church discipline? As you well know, I concluded that the answers to all of the above was no, coupled with my concern that my family was being taught continual error in regard to sanctification. A professor of New Testament theology at a well known university put it this way in reply to one of my emails: "Paul, you 'feel' like you are being held there against your will [due to the threat of excommunication] because that's exactly what’s going on. Stop submitting yourself to wayward Sheppard’s and submit yourself to the Chief Sheppard." The Clearcreek elders refused to address my concerns because as one under church discipline, I did not have the right to question their authority (per Mark Schindler).
After I submitted my second letter, Mark and Devin visited me at my house on a Saturday evening to inform me as to what would take place the next morning if I didn't recant the letter. Though I was in the "first step" of church discipline, a third witness did not come, only Devin and Mark who had been involved all along. But what the heck, even though the original 2 reasons for discipline were offences against Shirley, she was never instructed to come to me first, and with the recognition that it was the beginning of a church discipline process. This is the reality in spite of their continuous deceptive claims that the process is according to Matthew 18, knowing full well how most Christians understand that. However, if you understand their philosophy, this is somewhat easy to understand. The traditional understanding of Matthew 18 lends opportunity for the vile sinner to wiggle out by a mere verbal confession of repentance with the result of the sin never really being dealt with. That is, if the one who comes to him "alone" is specific, which is a problem in and of itself because it lends the offender opportunity for mere "outward obedience." Better to determine if this person needs to be under discipline by observation, and then go and inform him or her that they are in the process, with the steps being a progression of failure to repent as true repentance is determined by a 4 step process derived from Psalm 51 (per Devin Berry). They may have a point. But it is far past the time for them to be honest about what they believe in regard to this and educate the congregation accordingly, if it can be done without losing half of them. I walked into the process ignorant as to what it was and I strongly suspect they knew that. I also suspect that I was their first test case, an accusation they have yet to deny. Devin Berry informed me at one point that their view of church discipline was common knowledge at the Chapel (I seriously doubt that) and had been taught that way for a "long time." I guess some merit may be in order here which would explain why so many people were afraid to ask questions in the controversial Sunday school series. I myself, for sure, would have kept my mouth shut. This "process" was rotten from the beginning. The night Mark and Devin came over to tag me with the process, they cited 4 subjective reasons. Later, as I was making a decision as to whether to submit to it or not, I requested that the reasons be put in writing. 2 subjective reasons were then put in writing. One of the reasons in writing was debated in front of me at my house that night between Devin and Mark, I guess they decided later that it was invalid.
1. The elders know that my reason for walking away from this so-called church discipline was the conviction that I was submitting to fear of man and not the truth of scripture.
2. There was also the issue of being forced to subject my family to what I perceive as erroneous teaching in regard to sanctification and a flawed premise for the very interpretation of scripture itself.
This is what the elders call "an unwillingness to repent." They stood in front of the congregation and said that I was "unrepentant." Though they mentioned to the congregation that I disagreed with the church discipline, the clear and deliberate implication was that I was unrepentant concerning whatever I was disciplined for. However, in just another example of more contradictions and confusion that you can shake a stick at in the midst of this fiasco, they stated the following to the congregation: "The process of church discipline moves from step to step because of a lack of repentance" I was still in what they call the first step. Why was I still in the first step if I was unrepentant? They knew the congregation would assume that I was confronted by a sin and I issued a letter before the person could come back with witnesses. This is verified by the fact that they stated to the congregation that church discipline is to protect the church from sinful influence and protect the reputation of Christ. If that's the case, why would they practice the process within the church? In their statement to the congregation, is the discipline outside the church or inside the church? Are the steps to determine if the member needs to be rejected or are the steps part of a process of examination to be conducted within the church? In their statement to the congregation, they have it both ways. They also note that according to their book of faith and order, the congregation is to be informed of any outstanding issues concerning the reasons the person left. The outstanding issue is church authority in regard to the church discipline. They did not reveal that or any specifics of what I was unrepentant of, leaving the congregation to their own imaginations in regard to the types of sins people are usually disciplined for. To top it all off, one of the reasons (offence) was not a reason at all, but a command: "Love You Wife", but Shirley is the one telling people that she does not love me. The whole situation is just plain wacky.
In the final analysis, they have taken upon themselves to brand me a life-long unbeliever to my wife and the public in general because I followed my convictions after their refusal to address the issue because I supposedly had no right to question them. Also, this is their premise for telling my wife to divorce me. The foundation is upon the supposed "fact" that I am unsaved. Greg Cook therefore tells my wife "you know that you have been married to an unbeliever all along." In light of the circumstances, what kind of man would dogmatically tell my wife of 24 years; "you know" that he is unsaved, also labeling every one of my acts, thoughts, joys and tears in the name of Christ as filthy rags?
The following excerpt is a jpeg to include Shirley's hand written notes:
{Click on 1 Cor. 7:12-14 to enlarge.}
|
Shirley does well to note here that much of the elders case to divorce me depends on the one word in this verse: "consent." The word simply means to "agree with."
{ Click on Word study to enlarge}
{ Click on Word study to enlarge}
|
The word simply means to be in agreement. The only definite determining factor in this passage is: "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so" What makes Jay Adams the expert on Paul's intent behind the word "consent?" In light of Romans 7:2 and Matthew 19:9, somebody determining what level of "peace" constitutes divorce is just way too subjective in such a serious consideration (see Shirley's notes on the bottom of page 2). There is no perfect peace in any marriage.
"The passage begins by stating the goal, even in marriage between believers and unbelievers, is to continue in the marriage if at all possible. lf the unbeliever is willing to honor the their marriage vow. (consents to live with them), then the believer is not to divorce them. The question that needs to be answered is whether Paul has consented to live with his wife. In other words, has he abandoned you?"
Paul begins this passage by stating "the" goal of marriage?, which you say is to stay together "if at all possible?" It also sounds like the standard isn't much different between believers and unbelievers according to you Greg. I find your glib attitude toward the marriage bond chilling. As far as honoring "their" marriage vow, Shirley and I made the vow to stay together "for better or worse." Sounds like all bets are off on that one. I would also like for someone to tell me how I have made it impossible ("if at all possible") for Shirley and I to stay together. So, your last question, which I'm sure you will answer, is: 'has Paul abandoned you even though he hasn't left or filed for divorce?' Below is a biblical contribution by a pastor friend to this question:
A more thorough treatment of 1 Cor 7:12-16
is necessary here to point out Paul's basis for biblical divorce:
1 Cor 7:12-16
But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 7:12-16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
The situations these verses apply to are stated in verses 12-13:
1 Cor 7:12-13
But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 7:12-16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
To begin with, Paul is setting a standard for a believing spouse married to an unbelieving husband. Verse 12 is direction for the believing husband married to an unbelieving wife. Verse 13 is direction for the believing wife married to an unbelieving husband.
The basis Paul provides for biblical divorce is whether the unbelieving spouse agrees to live with he believing spouse, "...and she consents to live with him" (v. 12) and "...and he consents to live with her" (v. 13). So, as long as the unbelieving spouse agrees to continue with the marriage, "...he must not divorce her" (v. 12). The question should be asked here, what does Paul mean by "...live with him" (v. 12) and "...live with her" (v. 13)? Does this simply mean to live under the same roof? No. A couple of examples will suffice. Is it possible for two to live together in one house and not be committed to a marriage? Yes. Also, isn't it possible for a husband who has to travel a lot (i.e., not be in the house all the time) to be fully committed to the marriage? Yes. So, what does Paul mean? Paul is indicating a desire on the part of the unbeliever to want to be married to the believer.
"After the problems which beset the respective identifications of the audience and subject matter in the previous three sections, it is a relief to find virtual unanimity about these issues in this passage. The Christian partner is to remain with his or her spouse, subject to their agreement."
Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A commentary on the Greek text (527). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Hendriksen writes on this passage:
"In the case of mixed marriages, Christian spouses should do everything in their power to stay with their unbelieving partners. They should never be the first to seek divorce."
Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). Vol. 18: New Testament commentary : Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary (224). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
MacArthur writes on this passage:
"First, the believing wife has the responsibility to stay with her unbelieving husband. If he wants to maintain the union, she must not divorce him: “A woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away” (1 Cor. 7:13; ?cf.? v. 39; Rom. 7:2-3)."
MacArthur, J. (2004). 1 Peter (177). Chicago: Moody Publishers.
As both commentators attest, the passage means exactly what it says. The believing spouse is not to divorce the unbelieving spouse as long as the unbelieving spouse is committed to the marriage. Another way to state this is that the path of divorce can only be initiated when the unbelieving spouse states they are no longer committed to the marriage.
Yet, in spite of this clear teaching from scripture, Shirley is being counseled to divorce Paul.
Now, why is it important for the believing spouse to stay with the unbelieving spouse? Paul provides three reasons in verses 14-16:
1 Cor. 7:14-16
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 7:12-16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
What reasons does Paul give for the believing spouse to stay with the unbelieving spouse?
1) For the sake of the household (v. 14):
"Being unequally yoked, one flesh with an unbeliever, can be frustrating, discouraging, and even costly. But it need not be defiling because one believer can sanctify a home. In this sense sanctify does not refer to salvation; otherwise the spouse would not be spoken of as unbelieving. It refers to being set apart, the basic meaning of sanctify and holy, terms that are from the same Greek root. The sanctification is matrimonial and familial, not personal or spiritual. In God’s eyes a home is set apart for Himself when the husband, wife, or, by implication, any other family member, is a Christian. Such a home is not Christian in the full sense, but it is immeasurably superior to one that is totally unbelieving. Even if the Christian is ridiculed and persecuted, unbelievers in the family are blessed because of that believer. One Christian in a home graces the entire home. God’s indwelling that believer and all the blessings and graces that flow into the believer’s life from heaven will spill over to enrich all who are near."
MacArthur, J. (1996, c1984). 1 Corinthians. Includes indexes. (166). Chicago: Moody Press.2)
For the sake of peace (v. 15)
Again, note that Paul makes it abundantly clear that it is the unbelieving spouse that initiates the separation ('...if the unbelieving one leaves"). Again, the believing spouse is not to initiate the separation Shirley, and that is exactly what you are being counseled to do!
If the unbelieving spouse is not committed to the marriage ("...if the unbelieving one leaves"), the believing spouse "...is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace". In other words, if the unbelieving spouse no longer wishes to continue with the marriage, the believing spouse must pursue peace and allow the unbeliever to leave.
Hodge writes on this passage (verse 15):
"The command in the previous verse was based on the assumption that the unbelieving party consented to remain in the marriage relationship. If the unbeliever refused to remain, the believer was then free. The believer was not to divorce the unbelieving husband or wife; but if the unbeliever broke up the marriage, that liberated the Christian partner from the contract. This is the interpretation that Protestants have almost universally given to this verse."
Hodge, C. (1995). 1 Corinthians. The Crossway classic commentaries (1 Co 7:15). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
3) For the sake of evangelism (v. 16)
Paul writes that as long as the believing spouse stays with the unbelieving spouse, there is hope of evangelism. With these three reasons states, Paul has provided the reasons that the believing spouse should not seek divorce with their unbelieving spouse.
{Click on Abandonment to enlarge}
"The passage begins by stating the goal, even in marriage between believers and unbelievers, is to continue in the marriage if at all possible. lf the unbeliever is willing to honor the their marriage vow. (consents to live with them), then the believer is not to divorce them. The question that needs to be answered is whether Paul has consented to live with his wife. In other words, has he abandoned you?"
Paul begins this passage by stating "the" goal of marriage?, which you say is to stay together "if at all possible?" It also sounds like the standard isn't much different between believers and unbelievers according to you Greg. I find your glib attitude toward the marriage bond chilling. As far as honoring "their" marriage vow, Shirley and I made the vow to stay together "for better or worse." Sounds like all bets are off on that one. I would also like for someone to tell me how I have made it impossible ("if at all possible") for Shirley and I to stay together. So, your last question, which I'm sure you will answer, is: 'has Paul abandoned you even though he hasn't left or filed for divorce?' Below is a biblical contribution by a pastor friend to this question:
A more thorough treatment of 1 Cor 7:12-16
is necessary here to point out Paul's basis for biblical divorce:
1 Cor 7:12-16
But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 7:12-16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
The situations these verses apply to are stated in verses 12-13:
1 Cor 7:12-13
But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 7:12-16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
To begin with, Paul is setting a standard for a believing spouse married to an unbelieving husband. Verse 12 is direction for the believing husband married to an unbelieving wife. Verse 13 is direction for the believing wife married to an unbelieving husband.
The basis Paul provides for biblical divorce is whether the unbelieving spouse agrees to live with he believing spouse, "...and she consents to live with him" (v. 12) and "...and he consents to live with her" (v. 13). So, as long as the unbelieving spouse agrees to continue with the marriage, "...he must not divorce her" (v. 12). The question should be asked here, what does Paul mean by "...live with him" (v. 12) and "...live with her" (v. 13)? Does this simply mean to live under the same roof? No. A couple of examples will suffice. Is it possible for two to live together in one house and not be committed to a marriage? Yes. Also, isn't it possible for a husband who has to travel a lot (i.e., not be in the house all the time) to be fully committed to the marriage? Yes. So, what does Paul mean? Paul is indicating a desire on the part of the unbeliever to want to be married to the believer.
"After the problems which beset the respective identifications of the audience and subject matter in the previous three sections, it is a relief to find virtual unanimity about these issues in this passage. The Christian partner is to remain with his or her spouse, subject to their agreement."
Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A commentary on the Greek text (527). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Hendriksen writes on this passage:
"In the case of mixed marriages, Christian spouses should do everything in their power to stay with their unbelieving partners. They should never be the first to seek divorce."
Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). Vol. 18: New Testament commentary : Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary (224). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
MacArthur writes on this passage:
"First, the believing wife has the responsibility to stay with her unbelieving husband. If he wants to maintain the union, she must not divorce him: “A woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away” (1 Cor. 7:13; ?cf.? v. 39; Rom. 7:2-3)."
MacArthur, J. (2004). 1 Peter (177). Chicago: Moody Publishers.
As both commentators attest, the passage means exactly what it says. The believing spouse is not to divorce the unbelieving spouse as long as the unbelieving spouse is committed to the marriage. Another way to state this is that the path of divorce can only be initiated when the unbelieving spouse states they are no longer committed to the marriage.
Yet, in spite of this clear teaching from scripture, Shirley is being counseled to divorce Paul.
Now, why is it important for the believing spouse to stay with the unbelieving spouse? Paul provides three reasons in verses 14-16:
1 Cor. 7:14-16
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 7:12-16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
What reasons does Paul give for the believing spouse to stay with the unbelieving spouse?
1) For the sake of the household (v. 14):
"Being unequally yoked, one flesh with an unbeliever, can be frustrating, discouraging, and even costly. But it need not be defiling because one believer can sanctify a home. In this sense sanctify does not refer to salvation; otherwise the spouse would not be spoken of as unbelieving. It refers to being set apart, the basic meaning of sanctify and holy, terms that are from the same Greek root. The sanctification is matrimonial and familial, not personal or spiritual. In God’s eyes a home is set apart for Himself when the husband, wife, or, by implication, any other family member, is a Christian. Such a home is not Christian in the full sense, but it is immeasurably superior to one that is totally unbelieving. Even if the Christian is ridiculed and persecuted, unbelievers in the family are blessed because of that believer. One Christian in a home graces the entire home. God’s indwelling that believer and all the blessings and graces that flow into the believer’s life from heaven will spill over to enrich all who are near."
MacArthur, J. (1996, c1984). 1 Corinthians. Includes indexes. (166). Chicago: Moody Press.2)
For the sake of peace (v. 15)
Again, note that Paul makes it abundantly clear that it is the unbelieving spouse that initiates the separation ('...if the unbelieving one leaves"). Again, the believing spouse is not to initiate the separation Shirley, and that is exactly what you are being counseled to do!
If the unbelieving spouse is not committed to the marriage ("...if the unbelieving one leaves"), the believing spouse "...is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace". In other words, if the unbelieving spouse no longer wishes to continue with the marriage, the believing spouse must pursue peace and allow the unbeliever to leave.
Hodge writes on this passage (verse 15):
"The command in the previous verse was based on the assumption that the unbelieving party consented to remain in the marriage relationship. If the unbeliever refused to remain, the believer was then free. The believer was not to divorce the unbelieving husband or wife; but if the unbeliever broke up the marriage, that liberated the Christian partner from the contract. This is the interpretation that Protestants have almost universally given to this verse."
Hodge, C. (1995). 1 Corinthians. The Crossway classic commentaries (1 Co 7:15). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
3) For the sake of evangelism (v. 16)
Paul writes that as long as the believing spouse stays with the unbelieving spouse, there is hope of evangelism. With these three reasons states, Paul has provided the reasons that the believing spouse should not seek divorce with their unbelieving spouse.
{Click on Abandonment to enlarge}
|
Greg, I think Shirley's question as posed by her own notes here will make my point. She asked if it is still abandonment if "2 of the 3" are provided. Why does she ask that Greg? Also, Shirley's notes on Exodus 21 is a good indication of what a stretch it is to use that Scripture to make your point (as much as I respect Jay Adams, I would certainly part with him here if he isn't being taken out of context).
Besides all of that, I enter the following email I sent her in regard to additional concerns of the above:
Shirley,
In regard to Greg's argument from Exodus 21 that I abandoned you, there are several serious problems. First of all, they (CCC elders) hold to New Covenant Theology which teaches that you interpret the Old Testament thru the New Testament. I do not have a huge problem with that other than how they change the rules whenever it better serves them. Here, they are interpreting I Cor. 7:12 thru Exodus 21:10,11. Secondly, they hold to the Christocentric hermeneutic which teaches that the proper use of the Old Testament is to find Christ in the passage in regard to redemption and to avoid "practical application." When Russ taught on Exodus 21, this is exactly what he did. Chad Bresson is continually railing on those who use the Old Testament for "practical application." But this is exactly what Greg does in regard to their "resolution." Thirdly, the Christocentric hermeneutic [again, the issue is not my view of these things but rather the reasonable expectation of consistency] avoids "verse by verse" exposition of the scriptures. The Clearcreek elders are constantly railing on John MacArthur Jr. and even John Street for "verse by verse" exposition of the scriptures. But yet, their argument to you is based on one word in one verse!!!!!!!!!!!! [ "consent", 1Cor 7:13]. Fourthly, the CCC elders are antinomian, which teaches that the Law of Moses is not for us today, as well as "Third uses of the Law." But yet, Exodus 21 is part of the Mosaic Law. Fifthly, they pretend to be supporters of Jay Adams but carefully say others call him the father of a resurgence of biblical counseling. In reality, they believe he is a propagator of works salvation. This is evident from Russ's series on Galatians as well as the Sunday school series on heart theology. Russ teaches that the use of the law, list's [the CCC elders are constantly railing on "lists"] and techniques in the "transformation" process is equivalent to works salvation. These things drive Jay's heavy emphasis on "practical application" in counseling and spiritual discipline. They quote Jay Adams, while pretending to respect him, whenever it suites their purposes. However, the man they truly respect, John Piper, specifically teaches against the use of Exodus 21:10,11 to interpret 1Cor 7:12. The link to this article is the following: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2443_Tragically_Widening_the_Grounds_of_Legitimate_Divorce/InFirefoxHTML%5CShell%5COpen%5CCommand
John Piper call's the very position they outline for you in the resolution: "Tragic." [actually, maybe the guy isn't so bad after all. I must conclude from the article that if we went to his church, we would defiantly not be where we are today. If that were so, I would gladly put up with his occasional 'Alice in Wonderland Theology'] Sixthly, one of the 3 reasons for abandonment by me is the intimacy issue. While in counseling with Greg, he would not address that because it was a "heart issue." We needed to fix the underlying heart issues and that would take care of it's self. Except that, IT WAS YOUR ISSUE, NOT MINE. Now they are calling it abandonment on my part!!!! I think it is telling that because I stopped asking in year 24, that I am now guilty of withholding intimacy and they present it as a reason to divorce me!!!! What they are saying now is that you were the one who abandoned me on this point some 20 years ago. Seventh, Their whole premise is based on the supposed fact that I am a unbeliever because I refused to be held hostage at CCC by threat of excommunication and public humiliation. Some think that their motive was to keep me under their authority because of what I knew they were spoon feeding the congregation. Frankly, I believe that may have some merit. I have an attached file that is an excerpt from a public statement I am preparing. It is a line by line rebuttal of the elders resolution they prepared for you and includes your copious notes. It recites the facts surrounding the church discipline.
Shirley, why are you following these confused men? The fact that you have many friends at CCC is no reason to submit yourself to men who are no longer capable of handling the word of God. Listen, there is no love lost between me and Ft Wayne. Let us flee to men who can handle the word of God and get us out of this mess that we have both made.
Love, Paul
[Click definition of marriage to enlarge]
Besides all of that, I enter the following email I sent her in regard to additional concerns of the above:
Shirley,
In regard to Greg's argument from Exodus 21 that I abandoned you, there are several serious problems. First of all, they (CCC elders) hold to New Covenant Theology which teaches that you interpret the Old Testament thru the New Testament. I do not have a huge problem with that other than how they change the rules whenever it better serves them. Here, they are interpreting I Cor. 7:12 thru Exodus 21:10,11. Secondly, they hold to the Christocentric hermeneutic which teaches that the proper use of the Old Testament is to find Christ in the passage in regard to redemption and to avoid "practical application." When Russ taught on Exodus 21, this is exactly what he did. Chad Bresson is continually railing on those who use the Old Testament for "practical application." But this is exactly what Greg does in regard to their "resolution." Thirdly, the Christocentric hermeneutic [again, the issue is not my view of these things but rather the reasonable expectation of consistency] avoids "verse by verse" exposition of the scriptures. The Clearcreek elders are constantly railing on John MacArthur Jr. and even John Street for "verse by verse" exposition of the scriptures. But yet, their argument to you is based on one word in one verse!!!!!!!!!!!! [ "consent", 1Cor 7:13]. Fourthly, the CCC elders are antinomian, which teaches that the Law of Moses is not for us today, as well as "Third uses of the Law." But yet, Exodus 21 is part of the Mosaic Law. Fifthly, they pretend to be supporters of Jay Adams but carefully say others call him the father of a resurgence of biblical counseling. In reality, they believe he is a propagator of works salvation. This is evident from Russ's series on Galatians as well as the Sunday school series on heart theology. Russ teaches that the use of the law, list's [the CCC elders are constantly railing on "lists"] and techniques in the "transformation" process is equivalent to works salvation. These things drive Jay's heavy emphasis on "practical application" in counseling and spiritual discipline. They quote Jay Adams, while pretending to respect him, whenever it suites their purposes. However, the man they truly respect, John Piper, specifically teaches against the use of Exodus 21:10,11 to interpret 1Cor 7:12. The link to this article is the following: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2443_Tragically_Widening_the_Grounds_of_Legitimate_Divorce/InFirefoxHTML%5CShell%5COpen%5CCommand
John Piper call's the very position they outline for you in the resolution: "Tragic." [actually, maybe the guy isn't so bad after all. I must conclude from the article that if we went to his church, we would defiantly not be where we are today. If that were so, I would gladly put up with his occasional 'Alice in Wonderland Theology'] Sixthly, one of the 3 reasons for abandonment by me is the intimacy issue. While in counseling with Greg, he would not address that because it was a "heart issue." We needed to fix the underlying heart issues and that would take care of it's self. Except that, IT WAS YOUR ISSUE, NOT MINE. Now they are calling it abandonment on my part!!!! I think it is telling that because I stopped asking in year 24, that I am now guilty of withholding intimacy and they present it as a reason to divorce me!!!! What they are saying now is that you were the one who abandoned me on this point some 20 years ago. Seventh, Their whole premise is based on the supposed fact that I am a unbeliever because I refused to be held hostage at CCC by threat of excommunication and public humiliation. Some think that their motive was to keep me under their authority because of what I knew they were spoon feeding the congregation. Frankly, I believe that may have some merit. I have an attached file that is an excerpt from a public statement I am preparing. It is a line by line rebuttal of the elders resolution they prepared for you and includes your copious notes. It recites the facts surrounding the church discipline.
Shirley, why are you following these confused men? The fact that you have many friends at CCC is no reason to submit yourself to men who are no longer capable of handling the word of God. Listen, there is no love lost between me and Ft Wayne. Let us flee to men who can handle the word of God and get us out of this mess that we have both made.
Love, Paul
[Click definition of marriage to enlarge]
|
You now attempt to make a case for divorce if a spouse does not hold up their end of the "marriage covenant" by doing the above as stated in Jay Adam's book. If the marriage doesn't "look like" the above description, there is grounds for divorce. Greg, how many witnesses do you want that will state Shirley is the one who didn't want the above description?
{Click when he was home to enlarge}
{Click when he was home to enlarge}
|
Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg. None of the above is true. Shirley's own hand written notes refute what you are saying. However, per the normal craziness of this situation, even her correction needs to be corrected. The debt is being paid down and we have $1800.00 in savings. Not only that, all of your information is coming solely from her. I am not going to pick apart the above accusations due to the fact that they are too easily refuted by available documentation. Greg, what was I supposed to do when Shirley deliberately filled up her schedule every weekend that I came home? Stay home anyway in hopes that you wouldn't tell her to divorce me? Greg, I met Jack Bliss, a friend of 34 years, for pizza at Kramers 3 times in a 4 month period and never if Shirley was available. Also, I think Pastor Wilson, who was counseling Shirley and me while you were telling her to divorce me, can refute some of the above.
"Paul has had the Biblical definition of a Godly husband pounded into his head for years. I have personally had him read Christian Living in the Home and The Exemplary Husband. & nbsp; He can give no defense that he doesn't know what he should be doing as a husband. Paul cannot be excused for lack of knowledge."
Greg, why is this point even in here? I'm an unbeliever, remember? But what you have done is made my point for me. An unbeliever could never comprehend or be expected to live up to all of the theology you compress into 1 Corinthians 7:13, especially the marriage covenant stuff. This bolsters the interpretation that Paul is speaking of a physical departure, not a departure where the person departs without leaving. Also Greg, you never told me to read Christian Living in the Home. Furthermore, you told me not to read The Exemplary Husband (we both know why, don't we?). You said you would get back with me on something better, and then you never did. I took it upon myself to buy it and sent you several emails sharing what I had learned from it. I also shared this with Mark and Devon and explained how the book had helped me as a husband. I also shared these things with the guy's at Iron Sharpeners.
"He did not inform you when he left the job in Columbus and moved to Ft. Wayne."
There are many witnesses that can refute this, including Pastor Wilson and Pastor David Ingram. This is a ridiculous accusation.
"He has not provided for his family. He gave you $825 over the first 11 weeks. He has paid no bills, including the mortgage."
Nice try Greg. You picked a window where you knew I did not get paid $1500.00 by my former employer in Columbus and would have to wait 3 weeks for my first check in Ft. Wayne. However, thanks to the side business I have, that Devon advised me do give it up, I was able to give her all that she needed to maintain our monthly expenses. The truth is, Shirley told me the last week of July 2008, our bills where paid a month ahead. Why is it alright to misrepresent the facts when you are telling my wife to divorce me Greg?
"When he is gone he makes no effort to contact you"
Beside the fact that I have the phone records to disprove this statement, again, you are basing your accusations solely on Shirley’s word without ever asking me or seeking to confirm any of the assumption you were stating to be the truth.
"When he does decide to come home, you normally have no warning."
Why does she need a warning Greg?
“You have done everything you can, with God’s help, to live at peace with Paul.”
I emailed the elders a lengthy plea to address the fact that Shirley had been persecuting me for several years. This plea was totally ignored. To say that Shirley did everything thing that she could to live at peace with me is an absurd statement.
“ Again, this is not the last 11 weeks. This has been the normal for at least the last 3 years since I have been counseling you as consistently as Paul would allow me to.”
So what you are saying is that I have not provided the basic needs of my family for the last three years. Though I would not even know where to start with sighting evidence to the contrary, the following is a link to a statement by Erma Dohse Who was my company administrator in 2005 and 2006, two of the three years that you speak of. [Click here to view]
Once again it was not I who stopped the counseling it was you, and stated that you felt we both wanted the same thing.
Your final paragraph is such a ridiculous rendering of I Corinthians 7 that I will not even address it. However, your list of enticements to encourage Shirley to divorce me is a very tragic testimony as well. Because there are so many distortions in this document, there is no way that I have time to address them all. I have already spent countless hours refuting what is here. However, my pastor friend again offers his biblical insight in this scathing response to "Our commitment to Help."
The following is his contribution:
Honestly, a greater indictment against the unbiblical leadership of Clearcreek could not be pointed out than in the so called, "Our Commitment to Help" which will now be cited:
Our Commitment to Help:
1. We believe that Paul, as an unbeliever, does not have authority to tell you and PJ where you can go to church. We are counseling you to return to the Chapel where you are a member and your shepherds are, to allow us to shepherd you and take care of you, as we should.
2. We are prepared to restore you to your position as custodian at Clearcreek immediately.
3. If you choose to seek a divorce with Paul, we will go with you when you seek legal counsel, and will help defray the costs as necessary.
4. We will provide temporary housing to you and PJ, if that is needed.
It is a shame that the leadership of a church would counsel ungodly behavior
and endorse it through their own actions.
1 Peter 3:1-6
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external-braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Pe 3:1-6). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
This text outlines the responsibility of a believing wife to an unbelieving husband. What Clearcreek should be counseling Shirley to follow her husband in all things except when it is sinful.
"Peter counsels believing wives to submit to their own husbands so that by their exemplary conduct they may lead their spouses to Christ."
Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). Vol. 16: New Testament commentary : Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary (118). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
" He proceeds now to another instance of subjection, and bids wives to be subject to their husbands. And as those seemed to have some pretense for shaking off the yoke, who were united to unbelieving men, he expressly reminds them of their duty, and brings forward a particular reason why they ought the more carefully to obey, even that they might by their probity allure their husbands to the faith. But if wives ought to obey ungodly husbands, with much more promptness ought they to obey, who have believing husbands."
Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: 1 Peter : Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (1 Pe 3:2). Albany, OR: Ages Software.
"Believing wives married to unbelieving or pagan husbands might, even apart from the then prevalent demoralization of the conjugal estate, be tempted to seek close intercourse with enlightened men, strong in faith, and to be led by them; such a course might easily shake the confidence of the conjugal relation; hence the Apostle’s delicate caution. The Apostle takes it for granted that the greater number of husbands of believing wives are also believers in the publicly preached word; but even if (?a? e?) this should not be the case, the wives must persevere in self-sacrificing, self-denying obedience, and thus seek to win their husbands, not by talking and arguing, but by the powerful preaching of a quiet conversation."
Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Fronmller, G. F. C., & Mombert, J. I. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures : 1 Peter (52). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
"Disobedient to the word describes the unbelieving husband's rejection of the gospel
(cf. 2 Thess. 1:8-9 Heb. 4:2 ).
"MacArthur, J. (2004). 1 Peter (178). Chicago: Moody Publishers.
"Here St. Peter is speaking primarily of the women who at that time had heathen and unbelieving husbands. "
Luther, M. (1999, c1967). Vol. 30: Luther's works, vol. 30 : The Catholic Epistles (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (30:87). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
"But Christian wives must be peacemakers; they must, as far as possible, live at peace even with unbelieving husbands."
The Pulpit Commentary: 1 Peter. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (128). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
"The phrase “disobedient to the word” (cf. 2:8) points to situations where Christian wives were married to unbelieving husbands (cf. the phrase, “disobedient to the gospel of God,” in 4:17; also perhaps the “disobedient spirits” of 3:19-20). Balch (Domestic Code, 99) comments that this “disobedience” entails for Peter “more than passive disbelief. Some husbands were almost certainly among those actively … slandering the Christians” (e.g., in 2:12, 15; 3:9, 16)."
Michaels, J. R. (2002). Vol. 49: Word Biblical Commentary : 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary (157). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Clearcreek should be encouraging Shirley to follow her husband in all respects unless it is unbiblical.
Regarding point #1
Above, I most certainly have authority to determine where my family goes to church. As I have found a Bible believing church where I now work that preaches the gospel and practices the sacraments, there is no Biblical reason for my wife and family NOT to be there. This is now where I work and live. What right or text of scripture does Clearcreek have for interfering with my direction for my family? As long as it isn't unbiblical, there isn't a right. The Elders have grossly overstepped their boundaries on two points. First, it is beyond scripture for Clearcreek to counsel my wife to disobey my wishes when they aren't unbiblical. Secondly, they are counseling Shirley to sin. In counseling Shirley to not leave Clearcreek, you have kept a family from being together.
Regarding point #2
Above, again, Clearcreek is interfering with my right to care for my family. I wish to clothe, feed, and house my family and Clearcreek is clearly wanting to undermine my position in the home by offering another choice to Shirley.
Regarding point #3
Above, this is the most shameful of all. Note that the way it is stated, "If you choose to seek a divorce with Paul". Clearly, from the study of 1 Cor. 7 above, Shirley should not be making that choice and Clearcreek should not be counseling her to sin. Not only that, it is stated that Clearcreek will go with Shirley to commit a sinful act and pay the charges. Do the members of Clearcreek know that Clearcreek promotes unbiblical divorce AND is willing to use money for the members of the church to commit a sinful act? This is shameful beyond words and is the grossest mishandling of Eldership.
Regarding point #4
Above, again, Clearcreek is interfering with my right to care for my family by once again offering to provide housing. Not only have I been helping with the housing in Dayton, but I have repeatedly asked Shirley and PJ to join me in Fort Wayne. A church that is offering biblical shepherding would have encouraged Shirley to go seeing that:
1) That is where her husband is.
2) I have found a bible believing and sacrament practicing church that provides biblical counseling.
3) I want my family there and can provide for them at the new location.
There is no biblical foundation for any other course. In light of 1 Peter 3 and "Our Commitment to Help", is Clearcreek promoting sin? Without question! Objectively, if I were to counsel my wife to stay at Clearcreek, she should reject it because she is obviously receiving unbiblical counsel. On the other hand, since I'm offering my wife a new church which loves the Word, she should immediately leave.
~Paul Dohse~
"Paul has had the Biblical definition of a Godly husband pounded into his head for years. I have personally had him read Christian Living in the Home and The Exemplary Husband. & nbsp; He can give no defense that he doesn't know what he should be doing as a husband. Paul cannot be excused for lack of knowledge."
Greg, why is this point even in here? I'm an unbeliever, remember? But what you have done is made my point for me. An unbeliever could never comprehend or be expected to live up to all of the theology you compress into 1 Corinthians 7:13, especially the marriage covenant stuff. This bolsters the interpretation that Paul is speaking of a physical departure, not a departure where the person departs without leaving. Also Greg, you never told me to read Christian Living in the Home. Furthermore, you told me not to read The Exemplary Husband (we both know why, don't we?). You said you would get back with me on something better, and then you never did. I took it upon myself to buy it and sent you several emails sharing what I had learned from it. I also shared this with Mark and Devon and explained how the book had helped me as a husband. I also shared these things with the guy's at Iron Sharpeners.
"He did not inform you when he left the job in Columbus and moved to Ft. Wayne."
There are many witnesses that can refute this, including Pastor Wilson and Pastor David Ingram. This is a ridiculous accusation.
"He has not provided for his family. He gave you $825 over the first 11 weeks. He has paid no bills, including the mortgage."
Nice try Greg. You picked a window where you knew I did not get paid $1500.00 by my former employer in Columbus and would have to wait 3 weeks for my first check in Ft. Wayne. However, thanks to the side business I have, that Devon advised me do give it up, I was able to give her all that she needed to maintain our monthly expenses. The truth is, Shirley told me the last week of July 2008, our bills where paid a month ahead. Why is it alright to misrepresent the facts when you are telling my wife to divorce me Greg?
"When he is gone he makes no effort to contact you"
Beside the fact that I have the phone records to disprove this statement, again, you are basing your accusations solely on Shirley’s word without ever asking me or seeking to confirm any of the assumption you were stating to be the truth.
"When he does decide to come home, you normally have no warning."
Why does she need a warning Greg?
“You have done everything you can, with God’s help, to live at peace with Paul.”
I emailed the elders a lengthy plea to address the fact that Shirley had been persecuting me for several years. This plea was totally ignored. To say that Shirley did everything thing that she could to live at peace with me is an absurd statement.
“ Again, this is not the last 11 weeks. This has been the normal for at least the last 3 years since I have been counseling you as consistently as Paul would allow me to.”
So what you are saying is that I have not provided the basic needs of my family for the last three years. Though I would not even know where to start with sighting evidence to the contrary, the following is a link to a statement by Erma Dohse Who was my company administrator in 2005 and 2006, two of the three years that you speak of. [Click here to view]
Once again it was not I who stopped the counseling it was you, and stated that you felt we both wanted the same thing.
Your final paragraph is such a ridiculous rendering of I Corinthians 7 that I will not even address it. However, your list of enticements to encourage Shirley to divorce me is a very tragic testimony as well. Because there are so many distortions in this document, there is no way that I have time to address them all. I have already spent countless hours refuting what is here. However, my pastor friend again offers his biblical insight in this scathing response to "Our commitment to Help."
The following is his contribution:
Honestly, a greater indictment against the unbiblical leadership of Clearcreek could not be pointed out than in the so called, "Our Commitment to Help" which will now be cited:
Our Commitment to Help:
1. We believe that Paul, as an unbeliever, does not have authority to tell you and PJ where you can go to church. We are counseling you to return to the Chapel where you are a member and your shepherds are, to allow us to shepherd you and take care of you, as we should.
2. We are prepared to restore you to your position as custodian at Clearcreek immediately.
3. If you choose to seek a divorce with Paul, we will go with you when you seek legal counsel, and will help defray the costs as necessary.
4. We will provide temporary housing to you and PJ, if that is needed.
It is a shame that the leadership of a church would counsel ungodly behavior
and endorse it through their own actions.
1 Peter 3:1-6
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external-braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Pe 3:1-6). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
This text outlines the responsibility of a believing wife to an unbelieving husband. What Clearcreek should be counseling Shirley to follow her husband in all things except when it is sinful.
"Peter counsels believing wives to submit to their own husbands so that by their exemplary conduct they may lead their spouses to Christ."
Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). Vol. 16: New Testament commentary : Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary (118). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
" He proceeds now to another instance of subjection, and bids wives to be subject to their husbands. And as those seemed to have some pretense for shaking off the yoke, who were united to unbelieving men, he expressly reminds them of their duty, and brings forward a particular reason why they ought the more carefully to obey, even that they might by their probity allure their husbands to the faith. But if wives ought to obey ungodly husbands, with much more promptness ought they to obey, who have believing husbands."
Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: 1 Peter : Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (1 Pe 3:2). Albany, OR: Ages Software.
"Believing wives married to unbelieving or pagan husbands might, even apart from the then prevalent demoralization of the conjugal estate, be tempted to seek close intercourse with enlightened men, strong in faith, and to be led by them; such a course might easily shake the confidence of the conjugal relation; hence the Apostle’s delicate caution. The Apostle takes it for granted that the greater number of husbands of believing wives are also believers in the publicly preached word; but even if (?a? e?) this should not be the case, the wives must persevere in self-sacrificing, self-denying obedience, and thus seek to win their husbands, not by talking and arguing, but by the powerful preaching of a quiet conversation."
Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Fronmller, G. F. C., & Mombert, J. I. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures : 1 Peter (52). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
"Disobedient to the word describes the unbelieving husband's rejection of the gospel
(cf. 2 Thess. 1:8-9 Heb. 4:2 ).
"MacArthur, J. (2004). 1 Peter (178). Chicago: Moody Publishers.
"Here St. Peter is speaking primarily of the women who at that time had heathen and unbelieving husbands. "
Luther, M. (1999, c1967). Vol. 30: Luther's works, vol. 30 : The Catholic Epistles (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (30:87). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
"But Christian wives must be peacemakers; they must, as far as possible, live at peace even with unbelieving husbands."
The Pulpit Commentary: 1 Peter. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (128). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
"The phrase “disobedient to the word” (cf. 2:8) points to situations where Christian wives were married to unbelieving husbands (cf. the phrase, “disobedient to the gospel of God,” in 4:17; also perhaps the “disobedient spirits” of 3:19-20). Balch (Domestic Code, 99) comments that this “disobedience” entails for Peter “more than passive disbelief. Some husbands were almost certainly among those actively … slandering the Christians” (e.g., in 2:12, 15; 3:9, 16)."
Michaels, J. R. (2002). Vol. 49: Word Biblical Commentary : 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary (157). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Clearcreek should be encouraging Shirley to follow her husband in all respects unless it is unbiblical.
Regarding point #1
Above, I most certainly have authority to determine where my family goes to church. As I have found a Bible believing church where I now work that preaches the gospel and practices the sacraments, there is no Biblical reason for my wife and family NOT to be there. This is now where I work and live. What right or text of scripture does Clearcreek have for interfering with my direction for my family? As long as it isn't unbiblical, there isn't a right. The Elders have grossly overstepped their boundaries on two points. First, it is beyond scripture for Clearcreek to counsel my wife to disobey my wishes when they aren't unbiblical. Secondly, they are counseling Shirley to sin. In counseling Shirley to not leave Clearcreek, you have kept a family from being together.
Regarding point #2
Above, again, Clearcreek is interfering with my right to care for my family. I wish to clothe, feed, and house my family and Clearcreek is clearly wanting to undermine my position in the home by offering another choice to Shirley.
Regarding point #3
Above, this is the most shameful of all. Note that the way it is stated, "If you choose to seek a divorce with Paul". Clearly, from the study of 1 Cor. 7 above, Shirley should not be making that choice and Clearcreek should not be counseling her to sin. Not only that, it is stated that Clearcreek will go with Shirley to commit a sinful act and pay the charges. Do the members of Clearcreek know that Clearcreek promotes unbiblical divorce AND is willing to use money for the members of the church to commit a sinful act? This is shameful beyond words and is the grossest mishandling of Eldership.
Regarding point #4
Above, again, Clearcreek is interfering with my right to care for my family by once again offering to provide housing. Not only have I been helping with the housing in Dayton, but I have repeatedly asked Shirley and PJ to join me in Fort Wayne. A church that is offering biblical shepherding would have encouraged Shirley to go seeing that:
1) That is where her husband is.
2) I have found a bible believing and sacrament practicing church that provides biblical counseling.
3) I want my family there and can provide for them at the new location.
There is no biblical foundation for any other course. In light of 1 Peter 3 and "Our Commitment to Help", is Clearcreek promoting sin? Without question! Objectively, if I were to counsel my wife to stay at Clearcreek, she should reject it because she is obviously receiving unbiblical counsel. On the other hand, since I'm offering my wife a new church which loves the Word, she should immediately leave.
~Paul Dohse~