"Michael, God is not going to call you into something that he does not also call your wife into"
After reading the article and portions of the blog I found that much of the problem really didn’t have to do with Patton’s wife not being “called” to do what Patton impetuously believed he was suddenly called to do but his overall immaturity which, unfortunately, seems to still be quite noticeable in his writings.
Secondly, the premise of the article itself I find doctrinally flawed and dangerous. This is not to say a wife’s wisdom is to be ignored or her prized perspicacity to be overlooked or that she cannot at a right time lodge a valid protest or objection when a husband deliberates matters such as vocation but that making a “calling” to the same thing essential for her is not what I find prescriptively supportive in Scripture. She is called to follow him.
Secondly, the premise of the article itself I find doctrinally flawed and dangerous. This is not to say a wife’s wisdom is to be ignored or her prized perspicacity to be overlooked or that she cannot at a right time lodge a valid protest or objection when a husband deliberates matters such as vocation but that making a “calling” to the same thing essential for her is not what I find prescriptively supportive in Scripture. She is called to follow him.
Other than the main point - your marriage is your top priority - the whole article seemed a little off. Even if one accepts the premise that “calling” is a legitimate phenomenon, why would a wife’s non-perception of a call be deemed more accurate than a husband’s perception? Even in that framework, there are more options than, “Oh, I guess I was wrong about my call.” Of course, I strongly agree that divorce is a senseless act for a would-be missionary.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
It could be that his response to his missions teacher was primarily emotional and the Lord used his wife to redirect him. I know I have wanted to go to half a dozen fields after a passionate presentation.
I also believe there have quite likely been many men called of God to do a certain thing and their wives kept them from going. Every godly wife has a responsibility to balance and advise but in the end follow.
I also believe there have quite likely been many men called of God to do a certain thing and their wives kept them from going. Every godly wife has a responsibility to balance and advise but in the end follow.
Since I live in the country that he seemed fascinated with due to the professor’s stories (Poland), I do regard the wife’s reaction as strange.
It is strange to me that she had such a selfish attitude about life. Obviously she hadn’t even considered the mission field as a child/young woman. He married her, so obviously it wasn’t important to him when he married her (big problem for someone going into the ministry).
I agree that if she isn’t on board, they shouldn’t go to the mission field, but I have problems with her attitude. I have problems with his too. It seems very sudden, whimsical, and emotional. (Someone in the comments section wisely mentioned that any mission board worth anything wouldn’t accept them if the wife wasn’t on board.)
She acts like they don’t have planes that fly around the world. With the internet you can communicate with family and we live in the age of modern aircraft! You can get back to the states to visit family/friends. Maybe not often, but at times that can be an advantage. Certainly staying out of the mixed up political scene in the states is a blessing! :)
From a woman’s perspective, I didn’t “get her” attitude. It seemed completely selfish. We came to the field with 3 little ones and I was 7 months pregnant. Why is that so awful? Other missionary wives have babies over here. Why not? Millions of Polish women have babies each year here. Maybe there was another issue here…maybe she really doesn’t live “tight” financially in the states and fears that as a missionary (no matter where). That is a different matter. We really don’t know. But if the reason is the children, it isn’t exactly a “godly” reason and I fail to be impressed. I’d be furious and humiliated if my husband had written about me in a blog like that.
It is strange to me that she had such a selfish attitude about life. Obviously she hadn’t even considered the mission field as a child/young woman. He married her, so obviously it wasn’t important to him when he married her (big problem for someone going into the ministry).
I agree that if she isn’t on board, they shouldn’t go to the mission field, but I have problems with her attitude. I have problems with his too. It seems very sudden, whimsical, and emotional. (Someone in the comments section wisely mentioned that any mission board worth anything wouldn’t accept them if the wife wasn’t on board.)
She acts like they don’t have planes that fly around the world. With the internet you can communicate with family and we live in the age of modern aircraft! You can get back to the states to visit family/friends. Maybe not often, but at times that can be an advantage. Certainly staying out of the mixed up political scene in the states is a blessing! :)
From a woman’s perspective, I didn’t “get her” attitude. It seemed completely selfish. We came to the field with 3 little ones and I was 7 months pregnant. Why is that so awful? Other missionary wives have babies over here. Why not? Millions of Polish women have babies each year here. Maybe there was another issue here…maybe she really doesn’t live “tight” financially in the states and fears that as a missionary (no matter where). That is a different matter. We really don’t know. But if the reason is the children, it isn’t exactly a “godly” reason and I fail to be impressed. I’d be furious and humiliated if my husband had written about me in a blog like that.
Maybe Kristie’s attitude wasn’t right. Maybe she should’ve simply said, “Well, if that’s what you feel God’s called you to do, then let’s go for it.” But she wasn’t there. God will often use the spiritual immaturity(?) of one to temper the improper emotional zeal of another. Michael’s correct response is to back off, pray for the Lord to change hearts (hers OR his OR both), and wait.
Of course, he could’ve just done the William Carey thing: tell his wife & kids he’s leaving for ___, and he’ll see ‘em sometime in the indefinite future….or forced her into compliance through some clever manipulation, only to suffer the horrific consequences on the other side of the world.
Incidentally, in my nearly 30 years of marriage, I have found on numerous occasions that if my enthusiasm for something is unmatched by my wife, then that thing is not right for us at that time. Does that make my wife the leader in the home? Absolutely not! If you don’t believe me, just ask her :). This goes both ways: my lack of enthusiasm has tempered her zeal, too. This is called a marriage; this is how we complete & complement one another. Operating on the premise that “the two shall be one,” if there’s not a oneness in the decision, then (generally) back off. The time’s I have said to my wife, “This is what we’re doing, so ‘get on board’!” could be counted on one hand. In fact, I’m trying to remember a specific situation, and can’t. I also know that, in nearly every case where her reluctance caused me to back off, I was so glad I didn’t force the issue because of the way things turned out.
Of course, he could’ve just done the William Carey thing: tell his wife & kids he’s leaving for ___, and he’ll see ‘em sometime in the indefinite future….or forced her into compliance through some clever manipulation, only to suffer the horrific consequences on the other side of the world.
Incidentally, in my nearly 30 years of marriage, I have found on numerous occasions that if my enthusiasm for something is unmatched by my wife, then that thing is not right for us at that time. Does that make my wife the leader in the home? Absolutely not! If you don’t believe me, just ask her :). This goes both ways: my lack of enthusiasm has tempered her zeal, too. This is called a marriage; this is how we complete & complement one another. Operating on the premise that “the two shall be one,” if there’s not a oneness in the decision, then (generally) back off. The time’s I have said to my wife, “This is what we’re doing, so ‘get on board’!” could be counted on one hand. In fact, I’m trying to remember a specific situation, and can’t. I also know that, in nearly every case where her reluctance caused me to back off, I was so glad I didn’t force the issue because of the way things turned out.
From a woman’s perspective, I didn’t “get her” attitude. It seemed completely selfish.I personally didn’t feel like we were given sufficient detail in the blog post to assume anything about the wife’s viewpoint. I certainly didn’t feel like there was enough there to label her attitude selfish. Yes, it said that she felt that there were only two options and that community was important to her, but I don’t see how that equates to selfishness. Apparently God was NOT telling her to go to the mission field at that time; God was telling her that community was important. I have no basis to assume otherwise.
When I first read the post I was ready to write a quick, strong reply to what seemed some very bad theology of missions and marriage. However, he did a much better job of explaining his position in the followup comments.
However, I still have two major problems with his post: First, the statement, “If she is against it, it is not his will. Period!” is wrong. If there was more to what the professor’s wife said that qualified this statement he should have written it in the original post. Second, he seems to be avoiding the issue that his wife was wrong in what she said. This does not mean that he should have somehow dragged her to the mission field, but that the way she stated her opposition – and it seems her reasons – were wrong.
My wife and I came to the mission field over 23 years ago and had a very good first term. However, civil war prevented us from returning after our first furlough and our second term was spent working with refugees under very difficult conditions. After a year we decided to take a break in the States to recoup. During that time my wife began campaigning to not go back: she wanted to stay in missions, but to go anywhere else.
Towards the end of that break, after thinking and praying about the situation I realized that it was not right for me to force my wife to go back if she COULD not (as opposed to not WANTING to). So I confronted her with the choice: if she COULDN’T go back we wouldn’t but if she just didn’t WANT to, we would. Thankfully she responded truthfully that she COULD but just didn’t WANT to. At that point I told her we were going back and she was going to have a good attitude about it. I praise God that she accepted my leadership in this and we went back. She will freely tell you that she was wrong in not wanting to follow my leadership. And both of us agree that this event was a turning point in our relationship and ministry – it was the time when we really began to develop a better relationship with each other and with God, and He was able to begin using us in very special ways.
I cannot take up space telling the whole story, but we learned two very important lessons from this. 1. There are situations where either the husband or wife cannot (due to physical, emotional, or intellectual issues) go into certain areas of service. Therefore it is not necessarily sin to not go to – or even leave – a difficult place of service. 2. Our mission was so concerned that my wife was “called” to the work we were going to they did not ask if she was willing to follow her husband’s leadership. If the husband truly is the head of the home a godly wife will seek to follow his leadership. In our situation my wife brought burdens on herself that she had no grace to bear because she was attempting to co-lead in our family.
However, I still have two major problems with his post: First, the statement, “If she is against it, it is not his will. Period!” is wrong. If there was more to what the professor’s wife said that qualified this statement he should have written it in the original post. Second, he seems to be avoiding the issue that his wife was wrong in what she said. This does not mean that he should have somehow dragged her to the mission field, but that the way she stated her opposition – and it seems her reasons – were wrong.
My wife and I came to the mission field over 23 years ago and had a very good first term. However, civil war prevented us from returning after our first furlough and our second term was spent working with refugees under very difficult conditions. After a year we decided to take a break in the States to recoup. During that time my wife began campaigning to not go back: she wanted to stay in missions, but to go anywhere else.
Towards the end of that break, after thinking and praying about the situation I realized that it was not right for me to force my wife to go back if she COULD not (as opposed to not WANTING to). So I confronted her with the choice: if she COULDN’T go back we wouldn’t but if she just didn’t WANT to, we would. Thankfully she responded truthfully that she COULD but just didn’t WANT to. At that point I told her we were going back and she was going to have a good attitude about it. I praise God that she accepted my leadership in this and we went back. She will freely tell you that she was wrong in not wanting to follow my leadership. And both of us agree that this event was a turning point in our relationship and ministry – it was the time when we really began to develop a better relationship with each other and with God, and He was able to begin using us in very special ways.
I cannot take up space telling the whole story, but we learned two very important lessons from this. 1. There are situations where either the husband or wife cannot (due to physical, emotional, or intellectual issues) go into certain areas of service. Therefore it is not necessarily sin to not go to – or even leave – a difficult place of service. 2. Our mission was so concerned that my wife was “called” to the work we were going to they did not ask if she was willing to follow her husband’s leadership. If the husband truly is the head of the home a godly wife will seek to follow his leadership. In our situation my wife brought burdens on herself that she had no grace to bear because she was attempting to co-lead in our family.
MS--------------------------------Luke 17:10
[BryanBice] Incidentally, in my nearly 30 years of marriage, I have found on numerous occasions that if my enthusiasm for something is unmatched by my wife, then that thing is not right for us at that time. Does that make my wife the leader in the home? Absolutely not! If you don’t believe me, just ask her :). This goes both ways: my lack of enthusiasm has tempered her zeal, too. This is called a marriage; this is how we complete & complement one another. Operating on the premise that “the two shall be one,” if there’s not a oneness in the decision, then (generally) back off. The time’s I have said to my wife, “This is what we’re doing, so ‘get on board’!” could be counted on one hand. In fact, I’m trying to remember a specific situation, and can’t. I also know that, in nearly every case where her reluctance caused me to back off, I was so glad I didn’t force the issue because of the way things turned out.
Thanks for putting that out there, Bryan - I’ve only been married for five years, but that’s been my experience as well. I wonder how many families go through unnecessary strife or heartache because the husband insists that he alone knows what God wants and overrides the wife’s input.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion