Book Review: “The Foundation of Communion with God: The Trinitarian Piety of John Owen”

Reformation Heritage Books has added another delightful volume to their series, Profiles in Reformed Spirituality.  I was not familiar with the author, Ryan McGraw, but as I read through this short book one thing became quite clear, this man loves John Owen just as much as I do.

The author begins with a short biographical sketch of Owen that will be very helpful to any who are not familiar with this eminent Puritan.  He then provides the reader with 41 selections from the works of John Owen that are particularly well chosen to demonstrate Owen’s genius and piety.  These readings are divided into three sections:  1. Knowing God as Triune, 2. Heavenly-Mindedness and Apostasy & 3.Covenant and Church.  As the reader makes his way through these wonderful examples of Owens writing, he will inevitably be amazed at the depth and insight Owen repeatedly displays, but more importantly he will be drawn to contemplate and worship the God who Owen so patently loved and adored. McGraw concludes the book with some excellent insights about why many find Owen difficult to read and very helpful suggestions as to how one might begin to read Owen.

John Owen stands above his peers in every age as a man of eminent genius and piety. This genius and piety is especially displayed in his remarkable insights into the nature and character of our Triune God and his marvelous grasp of the nature and character of the human heart.  These insights, both emanating from the remarkable depth of his knowledge of Holy Scripture, combine to make Owens writings not only intellectually satisfying, but amazingly practical.  I must repeat my previous comment and thank the author for his skill in choosing  selections from Owen’s writings that display him at his best.

Whether you have been reading John Owen for years, or have never picked up one of his works, you will benefit greatly from this small volume.

5 out of 5 stars!

Reformation Heritage Books

Amazon

His Throne is Forever and Ever!

rex

Jim Savastio on Pastors Loving Their People

rex (1689Nut):

Excellent Admonitions from Pastor Savastio

Originally posted on GORDONFLASH:

Jim Savastio, Pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Louisville and a fellow student at Trinity Ministerial Academy, spoke on the theme of Pastors loving their flocks at the 2014 Trinity Pastor’s Conference. He agreed to let me post the nine points of practical cultivation of Pastoral love that follow:
 
III.  CULTIVATING PASTORAL AFFECTIONS

A.     Prayer— Obviously part of this exhortation is that you will pray for your people.  Don’t just pray for them, let them know that you have prayed for them.  Ask them how you can pray for them. 
But I am here referring to your prayerful desire for the Lord to increase your affections for all the people of God…especially that one who is most difficult for you to love from the heart.  The Lord is giver of every good and perfect gift.  The scriptures promise us that when we ask anything according to his will…

View original 799 more words

Rules For Peace

rex (1689Nut):

While I can see some possible exceptions to #29, these are indeed excellent rules to live by if we truly desire Biblical unity! Thank you Dave Chanski and Paul Gordon!

Originally posted on GORDONFLASH:

The following are 31 Rules for Peace presented by Pastor Dave Chanski at the 2014 Trinity Pastor’s Conference:

1. I will aim to never cause or create sinful divisions among God’s people.

2. I will mortify the sins that tend to result in division and disunity.
a. Pride
b. Self-love
c. Touchiness
d. Anger and bitterness
e. Paronoia/assuming evil
f. Rigidity
g. Rashness
h. Willfulness
I. Inconsistency; carelessness in keeping a clear conscience
j. Jealousy and envy
K. Covetousness
l. Contentiousness
m. Gossip

3. I will be reluctant to believe a negative report about a brother.

4. I will not judge a brother guilty until I know the facts.

5. I will cover as many sins as I can with a blanket of love.

6. I will deal with people with patience and gentleness, including when they have sinned.

7. I will seek to win an offending brother through openly…

View original 307 more words

Biblical Principles Concerning Dating/Courtship

 pretty_red_scrolled_heart_graphic_0071-0906-0321-4737_SMU

 

I clearly recall a thread I followed a number of years ago on a Reformed Baptist discussion board.  Someone posed a question to the group about whether or not there was anything he should do with regard to something he knew a female friend was planning.  She was going to elope with her boyfriend without letting her parents know.  This was a professing Christian young woman and he was concerned as to whether he should try to stop her, warn her parents, or something else.  What I remember the most was the comment made by someone that made my jaw drop.  He said something to the effect of:  “She’s over 18, so she can make her own decisions and her parent’s knowledge or blessing is irrelevant.”  I was dumbfounded that a mature Christian who taught at a well known seminary could make such a statement.  Where in the Bible do we find any such notion?  Where in Scripture do we find the idea that a woman leaves the protective care and authority of her father for any other reason than being given to a husband?  I bring this up, not simply because it is shocking, but because it reveals just how much Christians can unwittingly imbibe from culture without realizing how unscriptural it may be.

I promised a follow up to my last post about dating/courtship in which I would flesh out some of the scriptural principles I believe must guide us through the difficult waters of courtship and dating in our day.  As I stated from the beginning, I do not claim to have all the answers.  I do not have a new scheme that will solve all our problems and ensure that our children will all end up with great marriages and live lives free from heartache.  I will, however, lay out the principles I think we need to keep in mind regarding the issue, and discuss how I am attempting to navigate these waters with my children in light of them.

It is not good that man should be alone

Gen. 2:18

At the completion of each day of creation God declared that it was good.  It is not until verse 18 of chapter 2 that He describes something as not good.  It was not good that man should be alone.  God did not create man to live a solitary existence, he created a helper comparable to him.  Even before falling into sin it was not good for man to be alone, how much more so today.  If unfallen man needed a helper, how much more does fallen man?  When Christian singles find themselves yearning for a godly spouse, it is a good thing which they desire.

We need to recognize this as a fact and live in light of it.  We ought to direct our children to actively seek the Lord’s aid in finding a spouse.  We should help them in any way we can.  We should teach them early on, by scripture and by example, what kind of a spouse they should seek.  We should also teach them what kind of a spouse they need to become, and help them to develop the character and attitudes that the Lord requires of them.  We should pray with them and for them as they go about this difficult task.  We need to teach our sons that they need a helper and teach our daughters that the Lord has a man who needs their help.

This being said, we must also teach them that no spouse will ever fulfill their desires.  No spouse can ever fulfill all their needs.  Only Christ can do that.  They must seek Christ above all else.  They must be fully satisfied in Him and Him alone.  Disappointment , discontentment and frustration will be the inevitable outcome of a failure to understand this.  Whatever spouse God provides for them will be a sinner, and they will experience first-hand how difficult life yoked to a sinful man or woman can be.  Yes, a godly spouse will be an incredible blessing to them, but if they ever expect to gain from that person what they can truly find in God alone, the results will be devastating.

What about Celibacy?

The Bible does teach that the Lord sovereignly chooses to grant the gift of celibacy to some.  We ought to teach our children this as well, but we need to recognize that this is the exception and not the rule.  God may indeed reveal that one of our children is never going to marry, and His grace is sufficient to sustain them if this is the case.  But how do we know?  There are indeed many factors to take into account that I will not take the time to attempt to lay out.  I do have a simple litmus test that can help though.  It is a fact that ought to be recognized by all, that men and women typically struggle with lust in different ways.  Men struggle with the lust of looking upon women, and women struggle with the lust of desiring to be looked at.  If a young woman or man has not attained an unusual ability to mortify these particular lusts, I think it is a very strong sign that the Lord has not given them the gift of celibacy.  I can’t proclaim this as dogma, but it seems like sound reasoning to me.

Make No Provision for the Flesh

Romans 13:14

God commands all Christians to “flee youthful lusts”(2 Tim. 2:22).  The very description of these lusts as “youthful” makes it clear that they are particularly strong in young people, even though they do not disappear with age and must be mortified by all.  Notice the verb as well.  We are to flee from these lusts.  We are not to toy with them, let alone indulge them.  We find a parallel admonition in 1 Cor. 6:18, “Flee sexual immorality.”  Again, the verb denotes the urgency.  We are to flee from youthful lusts and sexual immorality as if they were a battalion of armed men or a bear robbed of her cubs!  We are never to see how close we can come without stepping over the line.  We are never to indulge in “just a little”.  Parents must instill this in their children early on and repeatedly admonish them, for this is as exceedingly deceitful a sin as any.

This is why it is so important that young people be careful to make no provision for the flesh.  They ought not to be placing themselves in positions in which it would be easy for them to give in to carnal lusts.  Spending time alone with a member of the opposite sex in private ought to be avoided like the plague.  A young woman should not be comfortable in such a situation, for she is indeed in great danger, whether she realizes it or not.  Every man has lust within him.  A Christian man is indeed striving to mortify that lust, but a woman has no way of looking into his heart to observe how successful he is.  I am well aware that there are examples of Christian men and women who spent time alone in private and did not give in to such lusts.  But there are myriads of examples of those who attempted to do so and failed miserably with dire results.  We should never presume upon the grace of God when He has so clearly admonished us to make no provision for the flesh.

I once had a former youth pastor tell me about how devastated he was to find out that the majority of girls in his youth group were taking birth control pills.  This was in a conservative PCA church!  What were their parents thinking?  While the fear of getting a girl pregnant is far from the main reason a man should flee fornication, it is indeed an obstacle that should not be removed.

I do not mean to say that an unmarried couple should never have private conversation.  There are plenty of ways to be in private in one sense while still being in public in another sense.  Dinner in a restaurant, being in a room alone while the door is open and others are in the house etc.  But a single man living alone ought not to have a girl over for dinner without others present.  I’m sure this seems restrictive and legalistic to many, but the Biblical admonitions I’ve cited, as well as many others throughout the word of God make this very wise counsel.

Guard Your Heart

Prov. 4:23

While most will recognize that what I propose looks more like what is commonly known as courtship than dating, it is not dating per se that I have the biggest problem with.  It is recreational dating.  What I mean by recreational dating is a man and woman entering into a romantic relationship simply to enjoy the romance, with no commitment to each other except that they will continue as long as the relationship gives them pleasure.  The Bible is perfectly clear that physical intimacy is to be confined to marriage, and that fornication, which I do not believe is confined to intercourse, is sin.  But what is marriage?  Is it merely a commitment to an exclusive physical relationship?  Of course not.  Marriage is a commitment of the heart as well as the body.  A man or woman can commit adultery in many ways without ever committing the physical act.  How devastating it would be for one to hear his/her spouse say “I love you” to someone else!  It is my sincerest conviction that just as singles must be diligent to reserve their bodies for marriage they must also seek to reserve their hearts.  This is why I oppose the practice that leads, multiple times in some cases, to “falling in love” with someone with no intention of ever marrying them.

I recognize that this idea will meet strong opposition from many quarters.  I also realize that it will be far more difficult to work this out practically than it is to avoid fornication.  And I’m not saying that a couple should attempt to somehow not fall in love until after the marriage ceremony.  Hopefully setting forth some practical advice will help to clarify what I’m talking about.

A young man or woman should never date someone that they would never marry.  The idea that it would be fun to date someone even though they have some character flaws or something else that makes them unsuitable as a possible spouse is unwise to say the least.  A romance that cannot rightly end in marriage will end in heartache.

A young man ought to be careful not to lead a girl on.  He may at first desire to get to know a young woman better because he recognizes her Christian character and finds her attractive.  He may spend time with her in small groups etc.  A mutual attraction ( and I mean that in a wholesome way) may begin to become obvious.  In such cases a girl’s heart is very vulnerable.  He should be careful to keep from giving her the impression that she means more to him than she actually does, and if it becomes clear to him that he does not see her as a potential spouse he should make it known in a gracious manner.

A young woman needs to guard her heart.  As my wife said to me recently, a girl can fall in love with a guy on the first date.  She needs to be diligent not to allow herself to do so.  She needs to keep a close watch over her affections and be careful not to hand her heart to someone just because he has taken notice of her, even if he is a fine Christian man.  I know this is easier said than done, but if she is successful, she will indeed save herself from much potential heartache.

I do believe there may be a good degree of affection of the heart between a couple by the time they are prepared to pursue marriage, and that it will grow stronger and stronger as their wedding day approaches.  But they must both be diligent to practice restraint before there is any sort of commitment involved.

The Role of Fathers

1 Cor. 7, Prov. 7, Num. 30

The biblical role of a father is a great responsibility.  He is not a pope over his family, for a pope is an unbiblical usurper of authority.  He has a delegated authority, under God, to fulfill a multitude of duties for the good of those in his family.  He must provide for them (1 Tim. 5:8).   He must instruct them in godliness (Prov. 22:6, Eph. 6:4).  He must lead by example as he directs his family to live as faithful servants of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The father has a peculiar role in regard to his daughters.  His authority over them extends even to the overruling of vows unto the Lord (Num. 30:1-5).  He has the authority to refuse to give her in marriage if he deems it wise (1 Cor. 7:36-38, Exod. 22:16,17).  But this authority is not for his benefit, but for his daughter’s.  He needs to teach her the dangers of adulterous men just as he is to teach his sons about the dangers of adulterous women (Prov. 7).  He needs to teach her what manner of woman she should strive to become (Prov. 31).  He needs to teach her to be modest and diligent (1 Tim. 2:9-11, Titus 2:5).  He needs to teach her to be sweetly submissive under godly authority (Titus 2:5, Eph. 5:22, 1 Pet. 3:1-6)  He must ensure her safety and guard her reputation to the best of his ability (1 Tim. 5:8, Prov. 22:1, Eccl. 7:1).

A father’s responsibilities toward his daughters a manifold, who is sufficient for such matters?  It is only by God’s grace that any man can begin to fulfill his God given role.  How sad it is to observe how much of this responsibility is neglected in our day.  Every time I see an immodestly dressed young woman from a Christian family I ask myself “What is her father thinking?”  Take responsibility, man!  Guard your daughter’s good name and virtue, please.  She needs you.

This is why, if a young man asks my daughter to go out on a date with him, she will direct him to speak with me.  (Unless she has no interest, she is free and perfectly capable of saying “no” without my assistance.)  Since I take my responsibilities seriously, I need to know what kind of man he is and what his intentions are.  If he’s looking for a romance without commitment, he’s looking for “love” in the wrong place.  However, if he makes every appearance of being a sound Christian who would like to get to know my daughter better, I will give him permission within certain parameters and guidelines.  He needs to be willing to remain in the presence of others.  I will suggest that if they go out for dinner or a movie etc. they will need to take along one or more of her siblings, or other godly friends who I know.  He doesn’t, however need to be ready to marry her.  I know that because of our current culture’s ideas, it may seem like the equivalent to asking me for her hand, but I will do my best to set him at ease and treat him with Christian dignity.  I will also make it crystal clear, that if he willfully misuses her, physically or emotionally, he will have to deal with me, and it won’t be pretty.  But as long as he conducts himself in an upright manner, he has nothing to fear.  If he starts to have feelings for my daughter, I will expect him to speak to me about it, but I will do my best to keep this from being anything to be apprehensive about.

My sons must be diligent to mind the authority of the father over any girl they might become interested in.  They will speak to him before any form of dating occurs if that is what her father expects.  I am aware, however, that many fathers would be quite troubled by a young man who has never dated their daughter asking to speak to him first.  They may jump to the conclusion that he is indeed asking for her hand.  Such things need to be worked out with wisdom and care.  In a culture as diverse as ours we cannot demand a cookie cutter solution.  Regardless of her father’s attitude, they must keep all the above principles in mind and take great care not to misuse the young woman’s heart or reputation in any way.

Know Your Children

The Lord has graciously blessed my wife and I with eight wonderful children.  It amazes me how much diversity there is among their individual personalities.  Parents need to recognize the individual strengths and weaknesses, propensities and inclinations of each of them if we are to guide them well.  I have one daughter who will be very difficult to woo.  I am really looking forward to meeting the man who can gain her heart, for it is a strong city, fortified by walls.  I have another daughter who I will need to watch much more closely.  Not because of any moral deficiency or lack of virtue, but because she takes after her father and I believe will easily fall in love.  Two of my sons have few female friends and one of them has many more female friends than male friends.  Each of them need to be reminded of their responsibilities with regard to the affairs of the heart and guided or admonished with regard to their own unique personalities.

Compatibility

In my response to Mr. Umstattd’s article, I stressed the fact that when looking for the reason any marriage failed, we cannot come to the conclusion that the couple were simply not compatible.  I also stressed the need to place Christian virtue as the primary trait to look for in a potential spouse.  This may have given some the impression that I think there’s nothing more to the equation.  I apologize if I lead anyone to that conclusion.  There are many factors that need to be considered in the search for a godly spouse. However, I stand by my conviction that one need not date multiple people in order to recognize who it is they are supposed to marry.

I will reiterate that godly character and virtues are paramount.  Young people should be looking for the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5) in the Christian singles of their acquaintance.  A young man should be looking for a girl who is sweetly submissive to her father, for if she is not, she will not be a submissive wife.  A young man who chafes under authority must be avoided as well.  He is likely to either shirk his proper responsibilities as a husband and father, or show himself to be an abuser of his own authority, either of which will lead to a very unhappy marriage.  Diligence is a virtue to be eagerly sought in a future husband or wife, for both roles require this grace in abundance.  Such virtues are utterly lacking among a large portion of professing Christian young people, which will make the search difficult, but when you indeed recognize these graces in a potential spouse you will know you struck gold.

I must also apologize to any Arminian friends who were insulted by my reference to them in my previous post.  I did not intend to set this doctrinal view on par with the sin of lying, that was not my intent.  I simply wished to convey that a certain degree of doctrinal agreement is absolutely necessary in a Christian marriage.  Of course there must be agreement on the essentials of the faith, that is a given.  But it is also equally true that you will be very unlikely to ever find anyone who agrees with you on every jot and tittle.  I believe it is of utmost importance that there is agreement on many major issues that genuine Christians disagree about.  An Arminian and a Calvinist would end up with much strife, for such doctrines reach into every corner of life.  A Cessationist and a continuationist would also face many difficulties.  Agreement on issues like these, as well as doctrines like the Regulative Principle of worship or credobaptism vs. paedobaptism is important, though possibly not an insurmountable obstacle.  Where would a couple with such differences worship together in unity?  At the very least, the woman must be able to sweetly submit to her husband, and if her convictions are too strong to do this a marriage ought not to be pursued.

While I am unshakably convinced that the above two considerations ought to be foremost in the minds of those searching for a spouse, I am well aware that other things come into consideration as well.  Some personalities just clash, even among genuine Christians with similar doctrinal convictions.  What I want to make clear is that one can recognize such things without recreationally dating multiple people.  Hobbies, interests, personality quirks and the like can all be discovered in a group atmosphere without entering into the dangerous practice of casual dating.

But Where Can We Look?

I conclude with the question that inevitably arises from a commitment to all I have just discussed.  A large number of faithful Christian singles are in small churches in which they are the minority.  They do not have a large pool of Christian singles with whom they are acquainted.   Where are they to find their future spouse?

It is indeed possible that the Lord will bring a future spouse into the congregation to which they are joined, we ought not to rule out this possibility.  But neither should we simply sit back and wait, for that may not be the means of God’s provision.  In my previous post I mentioned Christian conferences.  Building Tomorrow’s Church or a Reformed Baptist singles conference is a great place to meet other singles who share doctrinal convictions and demonstrate godly character.  Other conferences, such as G3 are also excellent, though they are not specifically geared toward singles.  My sons really enjoy these conferences, they are a great blessing in meeting new friends and feeding upon the word of God.  Finding a potential spouse isn’t even the primary reason they attend.  Many Christian couples have met each other while attending a Christian college.  I mentioned the idea of visiting other faithful churches within driving distance.  There may be a doctrinally sound church in your area that has a larger number of Christian singles.  While I insist that leaving a faithful church for the sole purpose of finding a spouse is wrong, I don’t see anything wrong with attending Bible studies that most of these churches have for their singles.  This may be a great idea for a godly young man.  A man with strong doctrinal convictions and virtues would stick out in such an atmosphere and be quite attractive to a spiritually minded young woman who is tired of the shallow Christianity she sees in most professing Christian young men.

It is also difficult to know what to do once you’ve met someone who fits the biblical criteria for a potential spouse, but you don’t know them well enough to conclude that you may want to pursue a relationship with them.  One idea is to plan some sort of activity with friends and invite them along.  You can enjoy the company of friends and get to know them better as well as observing how they interact with others.  This can actually be much more fruitful than asking them out on a date, since you have no romantic expectations or apprehensiveness that comes along with a “first date”.

As I stated from the beginning, I do not have all the answers to the difficult questions regarding dating/courtship.  I do believe I have laid out some vital biblical principles that must be kept in mind as we guide and direct our children in their search for a godly spouse.  It is my intention to leave the comments section open and hope others will provide other ideas that will be of assistance to others as well as myself.  Please refrain from responses like, “Well, my spouse and I did such and such when we dated, and we have a strong marriage.”, if your purpose is to prove that some biblical principle can safely be ignored.  There are happily married couples who followed biblical principles in courtship/dating, just as there are happily married couples who followed none.  My wife and I were unbelievers and our relationship before marriage couldn’t have been much less biblical, but God has graciously given us an incredible marriage.  That does not in any way lead me to believe that it isn’t important that my children take every biblical principle into consideration.  What I’m interested in receiving, are ideas that will help us guide our children in following such principles while searching for a spouse.

 

His Throne is Forever and Ever!

rex

 

The Wrong Answer to the Real Difficulties of Modern “Courtship”

 dadblog3

(Computer generated audio of this post)

Follow-up Post

When dealing with emotionally charged issues it is quite common to find muddled thinking on both sides.  I have found this to be particularly the case regarding the subject of dating/courtship.  I have three adult sons, and daughters who are 17 & 18, so I’ve had to give the subject a lot of thought.  A few years ago I scoured the internet for ideas about courtship and dating, and was unable to find anyone promoting a view that I could entirely agree with.  On the courtship side, I found what I would consider overreaction to dating culture.  I even heard some insist that it was wrong or sinful for a father to take his daughter’s feelings into consideration when he dealt with the issue of whom his daughter should marry.  On the other side I found a great deal of misrepresentation of what courtship proponents believe.  I remember one respected Reformed Baptist pastor, in a series on Christian dating, insisting that the best example in the Bible of what courtship adherents propose was Samson, but they were unwilling to admit it because of the dire results.  I do not know what specific courtship literature he was responding to, but I have a hard time believing that anyone is recommending that the proper way to find a spouse is for a young man to find a woman who it is unbiblical for him to marry, and then insist that his parents arrange a marriage with her!

So I have come to my current views on courtship/dating, not by following any model proposed by a group on either side, but rather by my own meditations upon the word of God.  Indeed, the Bible does not set forth a specific pattern for courtship, but there are a number of Biblical principles that we must take into consideration.  I have never pressed my conclusions on others, nor am I claiming to have all the answers.  My wife pointed me to a recent blog post by a former proponent of courtship that she saw a friend endorse, and I saw a number of problems with it.  As we discussed the matter she suggested that I write a blog in response and my immediate answer was “No way”.  However, the amazing number of Christians I find praising this blog has, I feel, forced me to point out what I see as a number of fundamental flaws.

Link to the blog article I refer to:  http://www.thomasumstattd.com/2014/08/courtship-fundamentally-flawed/

The blog article is authored by Thomas Umstattd Jr., the founder of PracticalCourtship.com.  In a nutshell, he claims that the modern idea of courtship is fundamentally flawed, and the best solution to the problems in that system is to switch to a system of casual dating.  Now I agree with him on some points with regard to some problems with modern ideas about courtship.  However, I believe that many of what he calls fundamental flaws are merely difficulties, and that those difficulties can be overcome by better means than throwing the whole courtship idea out the window and beginning the practice of casual dating.  I believe there are also a number of Biblical principles that he does not take into consideration, and some of his suggestions are directly contrary to those principles.

Wrong Expectations

Within the article I can find only two reasons that he had formerly advocated courtship instead of dating.  He had believed that courtship rather than dating would ensure a happy marriage that would not end in divorce.  “The deal was that if we put up with the rules and awkwardness of courtship now we could avoid the pain of divorce later.  The whole point of courtship was to have a happy marriage, not a high divorce rate.”  And courtship promised less heartbreak than dating.  “One of the promises of courtship is that it can lead to less heartbreak than dating. I laugh at this to keep myself from crying. This could not be further from the truth.”

One of his fundamental arguments is that many marriages that began with courtship have ended in divorce, but most of the marriages from a past generation who engaged in casual dating did not, therefore casual dating leads to a lower divorce rate.  It doesn’t even seem to cross his mind that while casual dating was the social norm in those days, divorce still held a great social stigma.  He admits from the start that the generation whose model he now advocates were nominal Christians at best.  “People went to church on Sunday but that was the extent of their religious activity.”  He is proposing that we adopt the dating practices of those who did not take Biblical principles into account, simply because they had a lower divorce rate.

The very idea that the way one goes about finding a spouse will ensure a good marriage in the end is unsound.  Neither is it logical to assume that the reason a marriage that was entered through courtship and ends in divorce failed because it was entered through courtship.  A marriage is kept from failure by both spouses loving Christ more than each other, loving one another more than themselves, and living according to the commands of scripture.  No amount of “doing things right” beforehand, whether that be courtship or dating, can ever ensure a marriage that endures unless both parties are determined to do things right for the rest of their lives together.

As for the promised lack of heartache, we can never expect to be free from heartache in a fallen world.  He points out a number of ways that young men and women still have their hearts broken while practicing courtship, and I recognize the truth of them all.  But his new view of casual dating will not eliminate heartache either.  He is correct when he points out that exclusive dating is more dangerous than casual dating in this regard, but the model he promotes still includes exclusive dating, just not until you’re out of junior high.  “The Greatest Generation was encouraged to date and discouraged from going steady while in middle school.”  & “Do what your grandparents did and go out on dates with lots of different people before going steady with any of them.”  We can never ensure that our children’s hearts will never be broken, but teaching them not to give their heart to someone whose only commitment to them is to keep hanging around as long as they make them happy will indeed prevent a great deal.

Compatibility

Another assumption of the article is that courtship does not enable a person to learn what kind of spouse they will be compatible with, and the best way to know who you are compatible with is to date a large number of people.

“How can you tell who you want to marry if you aren’t going out on dates?”

“…by the time she graduated from high school, she had gone out on dates with over 20 different guys. This meant that by the time she was 17 years old she knew which Bob she wanted to marry.”

“’If I had only gone out with 3 or 4 guys I wouldn’t have known what I wanted in a husband,’”.

“We need a system to help young people make good decisions. Fortunately, we have one: Traditional Dating.”

First of all, as previously stated, what makes a marriage last isn’t the fact that the couple is “compatible”.  Commitment to Christ, commitment to one another, and commitment to nurture the relationship are what makes a marriage last.  But I find this concept flawed at another level as well.  Is a young man or woman really unable to know what kind of person they want to marry without previously engaging in casual dating?  How about looking to the Bible to determine what kind of character you need in a spouse?  Does my daughter really need to date a few Arminians before she knows she doesn’t want to marry one?  Does she need to date a handful of liars before she realizes it’s not a good idea to spend the rest of her life yoked to one?  I stand by the age old maxim that the way a man treats his mother is a good sign of how he will treat his wife.  You can seek out godly character in a future spouse without dating around first.

He makes another statement related to this point that I will shortly address.  He writes:  “Dating also trains people to continue dating their spouse after they get married. It is important for married couples to be able to have fun with each other. The kind of parents who are the strongest advocates of courtship are often the ones who go on the fewest dates with each other.”  Couples do not require any “training” to date each other after marriage.  Sure, they will have the fond memories of the dates from their earlier years, but they will also have all the memories of all the dates with others, and those are hardly helpful in the pursuit of keeping marriage fun.  It may be true that some couples who entered marriage through courtship do not relate to one another as they ought, but they can change that at any time without the “benefit” of having dated before marriage.

Temptation

Mr. Umstattd repeatedly makes the claim that temptation will be less in his system of casual dating than in the courtship model.

“The lack of exclusivity helped the girls guard their hearts and kept the boys from feeling entitled to the girl. How could a boy have a claim to her time, heart or body if she was going out with someone else later that week?”

“It is easier to justify promiscuity when you are exclusively committed to just one person, even if that commitment is only a week old.”

“– It is hard to fall in love with Bob on Tuesday when you know you are going out for coffee with Bill on Thursday. This lack of emotional commitment leads to less physical temptation.  Less temptation leads to less compromise. I have no idea how women are supposed to guard their hearts while in an exclusive relationship with the purpose of marriage.”

“The commitment, exclusivity and intensity of dating is what lead to temptation and compromise in the first place. Courtship makes the problem worse by increasing the commitment which intensifies the temptation. The advocates of courtship know this, which is why chaperones are so critical to the system.”

The only way I can figure that he came to this conclusion is that he is familiar with the temptations that do exist in the courtship culture, but is looking at his grandmother’s model through rose colored glasses.  He’s bought into his grandmother’s naiveté, when she told him, “The guys wouldn’t even want to kiss you!” Yes they did.  Those middle school boys may not have had the courage to try, but they wanted to.

Again, he is correct in his observation that temptation is not as great a problem when going on a few casual dates with different people as it is once a couple is dating exclusively.  But what happens in this system once a couple has decided they really like each other and do not want to date others?  I’ve already pointed out that exclusive dating is part of his process of getting from casual dating to marriage.  But now the couple has already eliminated the hedges that can be wisely used to avoid temptation to sexual sin.  They are already used to spending time alone together.  Are they likely to now limit themselves to group activities?  They eliminated accountability structures before they even got to the point that the temptation will be greatest.

In his description of courtship he lists “High accountability (chaperones, monitored correspondence, etc) and “Rules about physical contact and purity” as elements, but he gives no sign of the need for such in his “traditional dating” model.  He tells my daughters to go out on dates with Christian men I don’t even know.  Does he not know how many professing Christian men have less than honorable motives?  Is he unaware of the promiscuity level among professing Christian teens?  If I, as an adult, am to flee youthful lusts, can I ignore the fact that they lie in the bosom of every male who would ask my daughter out?  Am I to assume that since a man professes Christ he is truly godly enough to mortify those lusts when I haven’t even met him?

The Problem with Fathers

In that last paragraph you were probably able to sense what’s coming next.  Mr. Umstattd seems to have quite a problem with the idea that fathers typically play in the courtship model.  He describes it here:  “Fathers typically hold a ‘permission and control’ role rather than the traditional ‘advice and blessing’ role held by their fathers.  He later complains that you can’t have blind dates if you must first get permission from a father.  And he does point out some realistic problems that exist when fathers behave badly.

This is an issue that rests upon Biblical principle.  This post is too long already so I will not take the time to exegete the texts, but I believe the Bible makes it quite clear that a daughter is under the authority and protection of her father until that time at which he gives her to a husband.  Ex. 22:16-17, Num. 30:1-5, Deut. 22:13-21, 1 Cor. 7:36  (For a faithful exposition and discussion of these pertinent texts see:  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12703112322 , while I do not agree with everything Pastor Coleman teaches on courtship, his treatment of these texts is excellent.)

God has given me the responsibility to watch over and protect my daughters until they are married.  There is nothing anywhere in scripture to indicate that this ends when they get a driver’s license, when they turn 18 or 21, when they go off to college, or when they are “mature enough” to live on their own.  That doesn’t mean I can’t let them out of my sight.  It doesn’t mean I must keep them locked up at home.  It does, however, mean that I am responsible for their emotional, spiritual and physical well-being.  I need to train them to have the proper attitude toward men.  I need to train them to take care of themselves in situations they may find themselves in.  But I don’t need to allow them to go out alone on dates with men I do not know, or do not approve of.

dadblog2

His advice to any man who would ask out my daughter is to just move on.

“If she says you need to talk to her dad first, just move on to the next girl. Don’t let the fact that some women have controlling fathers keep you from dating the girls with more normal families. There are a lot of fish in the sea and some dads are nicer than others.  Remember that this man would have become your father-in-law, and controlling people tend to control everything they can. So avoiding women with those kinds of fathers can save you a lot of heartache down the road.”

All I can say to any man who takes this advice in regard to any of my daughters is that he is missing out on getting to know one of the most wonderful young women on this earth.  You can find a girl with a more “normal family”, but I must point out that a young man ought not to be looking for a girl from a normal family, but from a Christian family.  If the fact that a father takes his Biblical responsibilities seriously scares you off, it is your loss.

Christmas2013fb

(Not quite “normal”)

goofy

He does bring up some realistic problems with fathers that I will address.

I know several godly, hardworking and attractive homeschool guys who have been rejected by as many as a dozen fathers. I respect their tenacity. Getting turned down by courtship fathers is tough on guys because the fathers are rarely gentle or kind. So if you are a courtship-minded girl wondering why the guys are not calling, you may want to ask your dad how many guys he has run off.” (emphasis his)

“It is easy for “no guy to be good enough for daddy’s little princess”. The sad result of enforcing this mindset is a daughter who becomes a spinster.”

First of all, I don’t think a father should be “running off” guys without his daughter having any knowledge about it.  Secondly, my previous comments may lead one to believe that I fit in the category of fathers in the “little princess” quote.  But allow me to make this clear.

From the very day my daughter was born I have been praying earnestly that God would raise up a godly husband for her.  When a young man comes to me I do not intend to converse with him while I polish my Glock.  (Though I admit there is a part of me that would like to.)  I will treat the young man with Christian dignity and respect, he may be the man I have been praying for.  I do not expect a Charles Spurgeon or John Murray to show up at my door.  I will not turn him away if he doesn’t have all his theological ducks in a row, if he is willing to be taught.  However, any young man who professes Christ, who would not be willing to sit down with the father of a girl he is interested in, and learn from her father’s experience and wisdom, is not the man for my daughter.

I also do not think that a young man needs to be ready to marry my daughter before he comes to me about getting to know her better.  When Mr. Umstattd states that “the fact that ‘the purpose of courtship is marriage’, makes asking a girl out for dinner the emotional equivalent of asking for her hand in marriage.” I believe he has a point.  What I am looking for is not a commitment to pursue marriage with my daughter before getting to know her better.  What I am looking for is the assurance that he is not desiring to have a romantic relationship with her without any commitment involved.  We rightly teach our children to reserve physical relationships for marriage, we must also teach them to reserve their hearts for their future spouse as well.

Group Activities

The author complains about the downside to limiting personal contact among members of the opposite sex to group activities.

“The problem with group settings is that not all personality types open up in group settings. Many married couples include one spouse who is more comfortable in group settings than the other. These couples may have never found each other if they were limited to ‘group dating.’

In group activities, it can be hard for the wallflowers to be discovered for the flowers that they really are. They need a less intense 1-on-1 setting in which to bloom. Group settings are particularly rough on women who grew up in communities where they were trained to value submissiveness, meekness and quietness.”

While I recognize some truth in this complaint, I do not believe the problem is insurmountable.  I would simply recommend smaller groups.  A wallflower does not need to be in a 1-on-1 setting to ever open up.  In a small group that is comprised mostly of her intimate friends she should be able to open up to some extent.  The fact remains that the temptations that are inherent in 1-on-1 time between members of the opposite sex that are interested in one another are too great to be ignored so that a wallflower may open up.  How many dates would it take for the wallflower to open up?  In this casual dating system any man who could not recognize her beauty in a group is not likely to continue casual dates until the time she lets her guard down.

The Church

Here we come to what I believe is the greatest difficulty for Christian singles.  Mr. Umstattd asks, “Where is a stay-at-home daughter who attends a small family integrated church supposed to find groups of young people to hang out with?”  He has an excellent point, but I find his suggested answer to be unacceptable.  He advises singles to:

“Find a church with lots of single people. There are still churches out there with a healthy culture of traditional dating. If no one in your church got married last year, don’t expect to break that trend. You can always move back to your parent’s church after you find your sweetheart.”

Is this in any way a Biblical directive?  We ought to teach our children the importance of joining themselves to a church where the whole counsel of God is faithfully preached and the pastors conscientiously nurture and care for the souls of the people.  Are they to set that aside until they have accomplished the more important task of finding a spouse and then return?  Perish the notion!  It is indeed difficult for singles in small faithful churches to find potential spouses.  There are conferences that can be attended in which a potential spouse may be met.  I’ve contemplated visiting other faithful churches as a family occasionally in order to seek out other faithful Christian singles.  But ultimately we must trust in the Sovereignty of our Almighty and caring Lord.  I have been praying for God to provide a godly spouse for each of my children since their infancy and I trust that He will answer that prayer without requiring me or my children to compromise Biblical principles.  I must also point out the obvious fact that the difficulty singles in small faithful churches have is in no way fixed by deciding to casually date.  Who exactly are they supposed to start casually dating?  His claim that the more people you date the faster you will find your future spouse is also problematic.  God will use His means to bring your future spouse into your life in His timing.  Going out on a lot of dates with a lot of people who you will never marry can do nothing to move up God’s time table.  Trust in Him to answer your prayers, His grace is sufficient to sustain you until that day comes.

Conclusion 

Mr. Umstattd has pointed out many of the problems and difficulties in the modern system of courtship.  These things do need to be addressed, but the solution he proposes, changing to a system of casual dating that was used by his grandparent’s generation is not an acceptable answer.  He’s ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  He fails to recognize the dangers inherent in the system.  He fails to take Biblical principles into consideration, and offers suggestions that are directly contrary to those principles.  I do pray that God will help us to discern solutions to these problems and trust that he will do so.  I also pray for all those who are committed to Biblical principles on these matters and are suffering because of it.  I pray that God would sustain them.  I pray that God would keep them from compromise.  I pray that God will mercifully provide godly spouses for them.  And I know that our God answers our prayers.

Follow-up Post

His Throne is Forever and Ever!

rex

Some Thoughts on Family Integration

I have a great deal of respect for much of what I have noticed in the Family Integrated Church movement, as I will demonstrate.  However, I also have some issues with some of the practices I have noticed lately.  I just want to take a moment to share my thoughts.

 Background

 As I look back to when I first entered a conservative Southern Baptist Church in the early 90’s, I am troubled by what seemed to be the common practice in those days.  I was very zealous to learn, and fed upon all the teaching that was offered in Sunday School and Discipleship Training as well as the preaching in the morning and evening services.  I really enjoyed learning from the older men in the church in Sunday School discussions.  Unfortunately, the church had a “vision” for a young adult ministry.  As soon as we had a small group of young adults, we were put in our own class.  I longed to gain wisdom from those who had been Christians for years, but instead, I found myself co-teaching a class for those who were my own age.  Of course we did have profitable instruction and conversation, but to this day I am convinced it would have been much better for all of us if we had been allowed to interact with those with much more experience and wisdom.

Another practice that I can’t abide is “Children’s Church”.  Removing the children from the worship service before the preaching of the word is something quite wrong in my opinion.  Just because they might not understand every word is no reason to remove them from sitting under God’s primary means of grace.

I also am a firm proponent and practitioner of home-schooling.  Five of our children have now graduated high school, having been home-schooled the entire way through.  (And their performance in college has proved that their training at home was more than adequate.)  We have one being home-schooled at present and fully intend to do the same with the two who are not yet old enough.  I have always had one primary reason for home-schooling:  1 Cor. 15:33 “Do not be deceived: ‘Evil company corrupts good habits.”  From the time I was converted I could immediately look back at my childhood and recognize the fact that spending most of my waking hours with peers my own age was a great influence upon me in the wrong direction.  I’m sure everyone who home-schools has seen the quotes from the likes of Dewey that demonstrate that one of the purposes of the public school system is to keep children in peer groups in order to lessen the influence that their parents have over them.  I recognize this as a fact and am convinced that my duties as a father demand that I not allow that to happen.

These three factors give me great sympathy for the Family Integrated Church movement.   But I find that I am somewhat troubled by how many churches are now so keen on the idea that they have no age segregation of any kind, as if it would be wrong to ever place children with those at their own learning level together to teach them lessons from the Bible that are particularly suited to them.

 Sunday School

I have noticed that a number of churches have completely removed Sunday School from the church.  I see this as a great detriment.  I agree that the preaching of the word in the worship service is the primary means of teaching.  However, I am also convinced that much is lost by not having a Sunday School as well.  There is a great deal that the people of God ought to be taught, such as systematic theology and church history that quite frankly are not appropriate for sermons.  Teaching through the confession of faith or quality catechisms is a great benefit for Christ’s church as an accompaniment to the faithful exposition of the word.  It is my sincerest belief that Christ’s sheep ought to have such teaching on a regular basis.

I also recognize that we need to understand our children’s frame just as God does ours.  It is indeed a bit much to expect small children to sit through two full hours of teaching on a Sunday morning.  What is wrong with placing them in a class with a godly instructor for the Sunday school hour to learn things at their age level and engage in some activities that make it “fun” for them?  As I stated, I am in full agreement that placing our children among their peers instead of with their parents for the majority of their time is a problem.  But an hour a week learning about the Bible at their own level is not the same thing.  Nor does allowing another person to teach our children remove their parents as the primary responsible parties for their religious education.  Of course the eldership must ensure that they are not being taught unbiblical nonsense, which is unfortunately quite common.  But a godly eldership ought to be quite capable of keeping that from happening.

Nursery

I am also somewhat troubled by the fact that many churches have ceased providing a nursery.  Now by advocating a nursery I am not implicating that all infants must be put there.  As a father of eight, I have used the nursery for some of my children and refrained with others.  I’ve had some children sitting in the church service in a booster chair quite well by the age of one.  I’ve had others that would have been a great distraction to other worshipers as well as their parents had they been kept in the worship service.

Young mothers need a Sabbath too.  They have a 24/7 job that is more hectic than any job a man has.  What a blessing it is for them to have a service provided that allows them to rest from that labor for the worship hour and actually concentrate on the ministry of the word of God without distraction!

Conclusions

Let me just offer my suggestions.  First of all, we ought to have a Sunday School.  A class should be provided for smaller children with a qualified teacher who will teach them at their learning level and provide them with Christ centered activities.  This will not only help keep them from becoming as distracted in the worship service, but also provide teaching for children who may be visiting or come from homes where the father does not fulfill his role as he ought.  If a particular church member is prevented by conscience from putting his kids in the class, they should feel free to keep them in the adult class, and should not be asked not to do so.

I do believe that by the time the children are 10-12, they ought to be in the adult class.  They may not comprehend all that is said, but by that age they ought to be able to follow along for the most part and will definitely benefit from the teaching.

A nursery ought to be provided, but it ought not to be expected that every infant be absent from the worship service.  It is also a great blessing to provide a place for nursing mothers, where they can still hear the sermon without worrying about distracting others, even when their child is being unusually fussy.

 

His Throne is Forever and Ever!

rex

 

Dancing Naked?

It seems inevitable, an utter certainty, the rule, not the exception.  Any time someone publicly complains of the lack of reverence in what passes for worship in so many modern churches, a particular objection is bound to be set forth.  “David danced naked!” or “David danced in his underwear!”.  Those who make this objection think it is doubly strong, because not only did David supposedly behave in this way in the worship of God, but Michal, his wife, wrongfully judged him for behaving in such a way and was subsequently cursed with barrenness for the remainder of her days.  I even remember some “Christian Rock band” in the late 80’s or early 90’s had a song entitled “Dancing Naked” that boldly proclaimed at the end that they would not be surprised if those who spoke out against their form of worship would not be able to have kids.  (My wife and I both find this form of music to be irreverent in worship, but God has graciously blessed us with eight children, to answer foolishness with foolishness.)

But where does this common claim come from?  Did David actually behave in such a way in the act of worshiping God?  Should we all keep our mouths shut when we witness what appears to us to be irreverence in worship in the fear that God may judge us for holding such standards?

Biblical Data

Let us look at the Biblical passages in regard to this event and see what they teach us.  The event was the bringing of the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem.  I will provide the pertinent passage, 2 Samuel 6:14-15, 20 in three major English versions.

NKJV

Then David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod. 15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting and with the sound of the trumpet.

20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, “How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!”

NASB

And David was dancing before the Lord with all his might, and David was wearing a linen ephod. 15 So David and all the house of Israel were bringing up the ark of the Lord with shouting and the sound of the trumpet.

20 But when David returned to bless his household, Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, “How the king of Israel distinguished himself today! He uncovered himself today in the eyes of his servants’ maids as one of the foolish ones shamelessly uncovers himself!”

ESV

And David danced before the Lord with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod. 15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting and with the sound of the horn.

20 And David returned to bless his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, “How the king of Israel honoured himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!”

Ephod

We see first of all that David was not naked.  Verse 14 informs us that he was wearing a linen ephod.  As Mathew Henry notes, “On this occasion David laid aside his imperial purple, and put on a plain linen ephod, which was light and convenient for dancing, and was used in religious exercises by those who were no priests, for Samuel wore one, 1 Samuel 2:18. That great prince thought it no disparagement to him to appear in the habit of a minister to the ark.”  An ephod was not underwear, but a light religious garment.

We have no reason to believe that the ephod was all that David was wearing either.  It was customary to wear an ephod along with other garments, not by itself, as we can see here:

Leviticus 8:6-9  Then Moses brought Aaron and his sons and washed them with water. And he put the tunic on him, girded him with the sash, clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod on him; and he girded him with the intricately woven band of the ephod, and with it tied the ephod on him. Then he put the breastplate on him, and he put the Urim and the Thummim in the breastplate. And he put the turban on his head. Also on the turban, on its front, he put the golden plate, the holy crown, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

And the parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 15:27 speaks directly against the idea: “David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, as were all the Levites who bore the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah the music master with the singers. David also wore a linen ephod.” (emphasis mine)

Nakedness

As if these facts were not enough to lay aside the claims of David dancing naked, or in his underwear, an understanding of this event in its context makes the idea even more indefensible.  David’s first attempt to bring the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem failed. He had acted irreverently by transporting the ark on a cart instead of following God’s specific instructions in regard to its transport.  As a result, God struck Uzzah dead for touching the ark.  Now, a short time later David is carefully following God’s instructions.  He has taken the time to study God’s word on the matter and is reverently obeying.

That same law that demanded such detailed obedience with regard to the ark is not silent about nakedness.  Take this passage for instance:

Exodus 28:40-43  “For Aaron’s sons you shall make tunics, and you shall make sashes for them. And you shall make hats for them, for glory and beauty. 41 So you shall put them on Aaron your brother and on his sons with him. You shall anoint them, consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister to Me as priests. 42 And you shall make for them linen trousers to cover their nakedness; they shall reach from the waist to the thighs. 43 They shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they come into the tabernacle of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister in the holy place, that they do not incur iniquity and die. It shall be a statute forever to him and his descendants after him.(emphasis mine)

When offering worship to a Holy God, a careful lack of nakedness is demanded!  To “uncover nakedness” is repeatedly used as a euphemism for unlawful intercourse throughout the Mosaic law.  And even as Noah’s two righteous sons were in the act of covering his nakedness they were careful to do so in such a way as not to unnecessarily expose themselves to it.  So the idea that David would feel free to expose himself in the very act of rejoicing at the Lord’s goodness toward him in allowing him to bring the ark into Jerusalem, is patently ridiculous.

Dancing

But must we at least admit that this scriptural example gives us warrant to include dancing in our public formal worship?  I think not.  This is not an example of dance as performance art.  As Matthew Henry expresses it:

He himself attended the solemnity with the highest expressions of joy that could be (v. 14): He danced before the Lord with all his might; he leaped for joy, as one transported with the occasion, and the more because of the disappointment he met with the last time. It is a pleasure to a good man to see his errors rectified and himself in the way of his duty. His dancing, I suppose, was not artificial, by any certain rule or measure, nor do we find that any danced with him; but it was a natural expression of his great joy and exultation of mind.

Or as John Gill notes:

“not a set dance, or along with others; but he leaped and skipped as “car”, a lamb, does, and that for joy that the ark was like to be brought home to his house, without any token of the divine displeasure, as before.”

These expressions of David were no part of formal worship, but rather, on this special occasion were the physical manifestations of the outpouring of joy in his heart.  This was no dance meant to entertain others.

But he was uncovered!

The idea that David was somehow exposing his nakedness or his underwear must surely come from Michal’s accusation: “How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!”  But does this statement annul what we have already seen?  Is all our evidence laid aside by this testimony?  Again, I think not.

This is not the testimony of God in regard to David’s behavior, rather it is the statement made by a hostile witness.  Michal was ashamed that David had not behaved himself in a stately manner as she supposed a King ought to, but had allowed his joy and exuberance to be displayed before the entirety of his kingdom.

Matthew Henry’s insights are very helpful here:

Observe, 1. How she taunted him (v. 20): “How glorious was the king of Israel today! What a figure didst thou make to-day in the midst of the mob! How unbecoming thy post and character!” Her contempt of him and his devotion began in the heart, but out of the abundance of that the mouth spoke. That which displeased her was his affection to the ark, which she wished he had no greater kindness for than she had: but she basely represents his conduct, in dancing before the ark, as lewd and immodest; and, while really she was displeased at it as a diminution to his honour, she pretended to dislike it as a reproach to his virtue, that he uncovered himself in the eyes of the maid-servants, as no man would have done but one of the vain fellows that cared not how much he shamed himself. We have no reason to think that this was true in fact. David, no doubt, observed decorum, and governed his zeal with discretion. But it is common for those that reproach religion thus to put false colours upon it and lay it under the most odious characters. To have abused any man thus for his pious zeal would have been very profane, but to abuse her own husband thus, whom she ought to have reverenced, and one whose prudence and virtue were above the reach of malice itself to disparage, one who had shown such affection for her that he would not accept a crown unless he might have her restored to him (2 Samuel 3:13), was a most base and wicked thing, and showed her to have more of Saul’s daughter in her than of David’s wife or Jonathan’s sister.

Or as Gill tersely notes:

because he had put off his royal robes, and put on a linen ephod; for that he had stripped himself naked cannot be supposed, nor do her words import so much though a passionate exaggeration of the case.

And so, with all the evidence before us we must rightly conclude:

David was not naked or in his underwear, he was clothed in a robe and ephod.  He was not engaging in performance art.  He was expressing the joy of his heart through his outward actions.  Michal was not cursed because she felt David’s worship lacked reverence, but because she despised his willingness to lay aside his royal pomp and circumstance and joyously express his delight in God’s graciousness toward him and his kingdom.

His Throne is Forever and Ever!

rex