Divorce.... is it endorsement if you...?

No, not in anyway whatsoever. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, those words about loving people and helping them in need fall on deaf ears when we refuse to actually do it. Providing a place to stay isn't approving the act of separation. Only the worst kind of thinking can make such a broadbrush statement. It may in fact be true if you provide a long term place.

Pragmatism isn't always wrong, especially when it is right. Acts of love and concern include providing care and biblical counseling.

No one here disputes that, so far as I have seen. In fact, I have told women married to serial adulterers that they do not have grounds for divorce in their present states. I can guarantee you that there is no one here that is stronger on marriage than I am.

Not always true. Separation does sometimes serve a legitimate purpose in biblical repentance and change. And sometimes it is necessary for personal safety. I encouraged a woman to leave her husband because of physical violence and threats to her and hte kids from an abusive alcoholic husband. It would have been a dereliction of God-given duty to encourage her not to separate.

I am not saying this situation is one where separation is right. Quite honestly, no one here knows enough to know that. Quite frankly, in this case, Dianne is probably correct. This woman would be travelling 1200 miles. That is not good.

Only if you don't tell them the truth about their situation and what they should be doing.

This is certainly true. But if you cut off contact, you will have no input on their spiritual welfare.

Again, I am not saying Dianne is doing the wrong thing here. She probably isn't. But your broad brush strokes are certainly not giving an accurate picture of what is involved in marital counseling and solving marital problems. We simply need to point out that there is much more to it than what you have put forth here.

 

Diane, is this young lady who hypothetically wants to leave her husband a believer? Is her husband a believer? Is her history reflective of similar situations? Do they have children?

Please bear with me if I'm asking questions answered in earlier posts. I pop in and out on break and lunchhour and only have time to skim everyone's posts ...

PJ

 

Is it sin to show compassion for the sinner?

Questions like these must be answered individually and yes it does count to a certain extent, what other people perceive. We don't want other to stumble in thier walk by what we do in ours.

However, what others think shouldn't be our primary concern. Our primary concern should be what God thinks. Our next concern should be whether or not our decision will bring the person closer to the Lord or push them further away. After those two things are answered we should consider how those watching will respond. Only those close to the actual facts of the situation have a need to know. In this case, Diane must consider Nick's feelings and future spiritual growth. Then when those are answered, we won't be so concerned with what the busybodies think as we will already have an answer.

We all have these decisions to make. When I hug my gay cousin in public, am I expressing my love for him or am I condoning his sin? My children realize that what he is doing is wrong. They also realize that the reaction of our extended family has done much to push him further and further from the Lord. If we do the same as them and reject him, are we helping or hurting the cause of Christ in his life? (however, as of yet he hasn't been invited to my house. My children are young and unable to make the distinction between loving and accepting, so where a hug is love I still believe they would think of a home visit as acceptance of his lifestyle)

As I said, each situation must be treated individually.

 

I'm late into this...

I can't say if I would be sinning, but I would certaninly would be "enabling" the situation. Our kids must grow up and while I would not abandon my own children, they must take responsibility for their decisions and accept the consequences that come with them.

 

Okay, I went back and read previous posts and have a better understanding of the topic. And thank you, Diane, for the clarity in your most current post.

Every case is different, but I do understand your take on this Diane. No matter the angle, it's a sticky situation. I will make this a matter of prayer ...

PJ

[ May 31, 2005, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: PJ ]

 

This is certainly true. But if you cut off contact, you will have no input on their spiritual welfare.

Again, I am not saying Dianne is doing the wrong thing here. She probably isn't. But your broad brush strokes are certainly not giving an accurate picture of what is involved in marital counseling and solving marital problems. We simply need to point out that there is much more to it than what you have put forth here. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, so what is your approach to marital counseling and solving marital problems? Of course there is more than I have put forth but my statements and principles are true and right. Time and space limit my posts. I have literally hundreds of books and many notebooks of my notes on this topic. I have searched and exegeted Scripture. During just this past year, I have read and studied dozens of books on counseling with at least 4-5 books on divorce and remarriage including works by Laney, Heth, Wenham, Adams, Murray, et. al. You are talking about an area that I have studied. I am persuaded of the Biblical foundations of my statements. Can you refute them Biblically? I believe the Bible ought to be our guide in counseling and dealing with people. I accept the sufficiency of Scripture.

Much of so-called Christian marriage counseling involves integration of psychology with some out-of-context Bible verses. It focuses on emotions and feelings. We cannot act on the basis of desires and feelings. We must act on Biblical teaching and the right feelings will follow.

This so-called marital counseling is mostly strokes in helping the counselees feel better about themselves. Marriage problems are the result of sin and self. Sinners don’t need strokes and coddling but they need loving confrontation about their sin. One can say, “What you are doing is wrong and sinful. I love you but I cannot condone or help you do this thing because it is not in your best interest and it is sin against God.” You can warn them of God’s chastening if they’re saved or you can evangelize them if they’re not.

Sometimes loss of contact is beneficial. Contact with us is not essential since it is God, working through circumstance and hardship many times, who reaches and changes the heart (Phil 2:13). I do not presuppose that contact is essential. We must do right and trust God for the results—too often we try to do God’s work and force the issue—it’s bound to fail.

BTW, you seem more intent on disproving me than making any valid points. Did I ruffle your fur? Let’s talk ideas instead of engaging in repartee. Okay?

 

More intent on disproving you? Hardly. I honestly don't remember what you said. You didn't ruffle my fur. I don't even have any.

I have read books on marriage and counseling by all the men you talked about, plus more. I have exegeted every major passage on marriage in the Bible.

Counseling, marital or otherwise, is never about making hte person feel better about themselves but about calling them to obedience. I have taken much heat on this board for what many believe are extreme views of counseling. Divorce is always the result of sin and hardness of heart by one or both parties.

Marital separation can be a wise and useful step in marital counseling, particularly when there is abuse or danger. I have never recommended it. I have in fact counseled wives to stay married to serial adulterers in the name of forgiveness. So don't accuse me of being soft on marriage.

The particular question in view here is whether taking someone into your home for a limited period of time during a marital separation is "condoning" or "sending the wrong message." My answer to that is No, in most cases. I would say that Dianne would not be necessarily wrong to take her daughter in for a limited period of time and counseling and working with her in marriage. It is not enough to say "She has seen 35 years of a good marriage." She might need to see more. She needs loving confrontation. There is no one easy right answer to this. Much depends on circumstances, history, personalities, etc.

 

More intent on disproving you? Hardly. I honestly don't remember what you said. You didn't ruffle my fur. I don't even have any.

I have read books on marriage and counseling by all the men you talked about, plus more. I have exegeted every major passage on marriage in the Bible.

Counseling, marital or otherwise, is never about making hte person feel better about themselves but about calling them to obedience. I have taken much heat on this board for what many believe are extreme views of counseling. Divorce is always the result of sin and hardness of heart by one or both parties.

Marital separation can be a wise and useful step in marital counseling, particularly when there is abuse or danger. I have never recommended it. I have in fact counseled wives to stay married to serial adulterers in the name of forgiveness. So don't accuse me of being soft on marriage.

The particular question in view here is whether taking someone into your home for a limited period of time during a marital separation is "condoning" or "sending the wrong message." My answer to that is No, in most cases. I would say that Dianne would not be necessarily wrong to take her daughter in for a limited period of time and counseling and working with her in marriage. It is not enough to say "She has seen 35 years of a good marriage." She might need to see more. She needs loving confrontation. There is no one easy right answer to this. Much depends on circumstances, history, personalities, etc. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, you seem to be coming around. You almost sound like Jay Adams at times. Glad you read books. Just note who is missing from my list of authors: Dobson, Collins, Smalley, Minirth, Meier, Crabb, et. al.. I have their books but I don't read them anymore because I can't take them seriously.

 

Coming around?? To what? What I said now is what I said at the beginning. I have read a lot of Jay Adams. I have read a lot of the stuff from CCEF, also very good (Tripp, Welch, Powlinson, etc). Adams is one of the most solid guys out there on biblical counseling and life change. Dobson, Collins, Smalley, Minirth and Meier, and Crabb are all integrationists who do not believe that God's word is sufficient for life change. That renders them less than useful for those who are interested in biblical change. I have read some of all of them and don't even waste my money or time on their books.

 

WOW! And I thought you were a mealy-mouthed intergrationist. See, you are coming round.

 

Some of you sound like self-righteous busybodies who enjoy delving in to other people's business.

If Jesus were around, I can't imagine him asking questions like these. If a soon-to-be divorcee arrived at Jesus' doorstop, I can just hear him say, "I'm so sorry that things aren't going well in your life; come on in, stay as long as you like; and let's talk."

And he'd say all of that while greeting them with a warm, welcoming hug.

If WE turn our backs on people when they're hurting & broken, what kind of Christian does that make us?

Sheesh.

 

Well, that's your opinion and no one has a corner on being opinionated and wrong. There are a number of problems with what you say.

1. The post is purely speculative. It has no basis whatsoever in fact but it is found only in the writer’s fantasy. We do not know what Jesus would do. He confronted the woman at the well about her sin and He drove the moneychangers out of the Temple. The situation with the woman caught in adultery cannot be used in this case because he was dealing with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees there. It is true that Christ forgives but forgiveness takes place only upon repentance. The pastoral epistles teach confronting those involved in sexual sins even to the point of breaking fellowship or declaring them to be unsaved. This fantasy of Jesus is not consistent with his actions and the picture portrayed in Scripture. Instead, Jesus is morphed into a 21st century caricature of what we want Him to be. This is the Jesus twisted into our modern misconception of tolerance—anything goes.
2. There is an apparent discrepancy between the attitude professed and the attitude expressed by the post. It is ironic that the writer vehemently castigates posters on this thread for chastising others. There is name-calling (e.g. “self-righteous busybodies”). You even ascribed a motive—“ enjoy delving in to other people's business.” Seems that you were doing a little delving too.

What kind of Christian does this make us? It shows a loving Christian who stands for truth and righteousness. Where do you stand?

 

Touche, bro!

However, from my chair, it appears that you have a fantasy of Jesus based on a "20th or 19th century caricature" of what you want him to be--a mean spirited, unmerciful, judgemental, Pharisee of the Pharisees.

Yikes.