In general one finds that the strongest and most secure people are willing to listen and judiciously yield to other strong and reasonable people around them.

I respect men and women who try to do their highest and best and don’t suffer any illusion that my judgment is ipso focto the best. I’ve been proved wrong often enough to know this.

Report comment to moderator

I certainly don’t deny that people respond to incentives. And you are right that God repeatedly explicates the blessings and curses that attend obedience and disobedience. It is a stretch, however, to argue that we are therefore enjoined to create similar incentives in our marriages. The blessings/curses of God reflect the boundaries and properties of his Law, covenant, and natural order. They draw His people to Him. The purpose of marriage is, likewise, that man might glorify, enjoy, and draw closer to God. When we introduce incentives into the relationship, we put that purpose of marriage aside, that the marriage might serve our ends. We also expect our partners to have concommitant thinking, for if they are responding to our incentives, rather than to God’s call (which must be its own incentive), then they have likewise adopted the attitude of self-service.

As for the parable of the shrewd servant, you’ve chosen perhaps the most difficult, from an exegetical point of view, parable in the Bible, the meaning of which is debatable. Even if we accept that Christ’s point was to admonish shrewdness in our dealings with others, it is still undeniable that the point of shrewdness is service to God, not service to self.

As for Thomas’s intentions, I stressed that there is a difference, I am sure, between what he believes and what his words mean. But his words are straightforward:

If you’ve stopped caring whether you’re ‘good in bed,’ then you’re giving less effort to your marriage than many a mistress would give to her adultery.”

Regardless of what Thomas meant to say, those words mean that the wife who is not attending to her sexual prowess is putting less effort into her marriage than a whore puts into adultery. There are so many things wrong with this claim that I’ll just take one here. Notice how it equates a woman’s sexual enthusiasm with her effort in the marriage. Never mind that she may be going out of her way to raise children, pray for her husband, feed and care for him and stroke his fragile ego — unless she’s “getting it done in the sack,” the rest of it counts for nothing.

Again, I’m sure Thomas doesn’t mean that, but it’s what his words mean. And that’s a destructive message.

I think your points in comments 19 and 20 are dead on, namely, that there is a big problem when we begin to think that by virtue of our actions we are owed a response. My point is that counsel which encourages transactional thinking inevitably leads to that sense of entitlement, and to disappointment when the spouse doesn’t reciprocate as we’ve hoped.

Report comment to moderator

We tend to think of “If I do such & such, then I’ll get so & so,” as being manipulative. But I find my own thinking to be that if I don’t do such & such, then I don’t deserve so & so. Although I know better, I sometimes tend to think I need to earn my husband’s love & appreciation.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

you state “If we allow into our thinking a calculus that says: I must do so-and-so to get such-and-such in return, then we have become hopelessly pagan in our thinking. And we should not be surprised when divorce rates in churches mirror that of their surrounding communities.”

I think that you are looking at this incorrectly. There many aspects in life where we do things in order to get a return. And often if we don’t do the required so-and-so we will not get the desired result.

The main problem is not when we think that we must do a good thing, but when we start thinking that when we do it we are owed the desired return. Or if we start thinking: if I do so-and-so I WILL ALWAYS get such-and-such in return. It would be much better to think if I do so-and-so, GOD WILLING, I WILL get such-and-such in return. Then we will be more likely to focus on God, his will and power over us and our circumstances, and his desire for us to do good things.

Report comment to moderator

If we were totally mature Christians, we would always do things for our spouses (and others) and not need the resulting return to ourselves. But none of us is totally mature. Often the desire of a return is what gets us to do the right thing.

Think of the commandment in Exodus 20:12. “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land…” In this and many other passages in scripture God tells us of a promised return (or consequence to avoid) to further encourage us to do the right thing. So what is so wrong when a Christian author does the same thing?

What about Luke 16 where Jesus admonishes us to be shrewd like the unjust steward? Is this example that you quote from Gary Thomas much different than the one that Jesus used? Jesus is not encouraging us to be unjust and Gary, I assume, in not encouraging the wife to be a whore. But is in not in the wife’s interest (and also the interest of the husband and any kids, relatives and friends) to encourage her husband to look to her for any sexual gratification?

Yes, our culture and most Christians are overly concerned about themselves and sexual stimuli, but it seams that you are being overly critical to make a point.

Report comment to moderator

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7708223601

Don’t miss this one either!
What’s Wrong with American ‘Christianity’ – by Paul Washer

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91907553144

Report comment to moderator

Personally I agree its non-biblical but I also claim capitalism at its root is non-biblical and at times contradictory with biblical claims. Capitalism and capitalist economist like self help because it dismisses responsibility for the rich and the capitalist for any poverty. Its a blame the poor ethos.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator