[Vision2020] Misunderstanding what I read - I think not

[Douglas]

Visionaries,

First, my sincere apologies to Rose. We were looking at two different 
columns on the same subject. I was looking at a Femina entitled "Respect 
When It's Hard." She was looking at one entitled "Submission." So she was 
correct that there were references to a stink in the church, etc. Mea 
maxima culpa.

But having said that, back into the fray. My point remains exactly the 
same. Below is the section from the article that Rose quoted. I want you to 
notice the dot dot dots. What is contained underneath those dots?

>If a man is acting foolishly, a woman is foolish to go along quietly. Of 
>course this requires great wisdom. I am not advocating giving wives 
>license to disobey in a willy-nilly fashion. That is what I am objecting 
>to in the paragraphs above. But there are times when a godly wife should 
>beseech her husband not to act in a foolish manner. It may involve 
>doctrine. Perhaps she is alarmed that he is being attracted to heretical 
>ideas, whether it is "openness theology" or Roman Catholicism. She should 
>speak to him respectfully about this, but letting him know she cannot 
>follow him there. If she belongs to a godly church, her elders would 
>support her in this. Perhaps he is plotting to create some kind of stink 
>in the church. Abigail would not stand for it. A good Christian wife 
>should go to the elders and ask them how she can be a good church member 
>and a good wife at the same time. She should not simply stand by, hoping 
>that her husband will do the right thing. Nor should she just accept 
>anything her husband does as though he is infallible. If a husband is 
>bad-mouthing his elders, his pastor, or his friends, a godly woman should 
>refuse to go along. She should speak to him privately first, but if he is 
>not receptive, she should go to her pastor or elders and seek their advice 
>. . . .A wife is to be a helper to her husband not a blind follower, and 
>this sometimes includes going past him to get help. God blessed Abigail 
>when she did this.

Now here are the missing words:

"This same pattern should be followed if a husband is violent, if he has a 
temper, if he is cheating on his income taxes, if he is not providing for 
the household, or if he is being sexually unfaithful in any way. This is 
not an exhaustive list. "

Far from being an example of us teaching members of families to function as 
stool pigeons, this is simply proves that we do not teach what you assert 
we do. We believe that no unquestioned authority ought to be placed in the 
hands of sinful men *anywhere.* This applies to husbands, parents, elders, 
pastors, presidents, governors, etc. In all Trinitarian societies, there is 
mutual submission and mutual accountability -- for everyone.

I can see it now. A woman comes into a police station or a safe house. She 
is bleeding from the lip, has a black eye, and her dress is torn -- another 
victim of domestic violence. The sergeant looks at the officer next to him. 
"Oh great. Another stool pigeon."

Cordially,

Douglas

P.S. I am curious how we got to the point of me defending a woman's right 
to challenge her husband's authority, with feminists attacking me for 
saying so. But I don't mind. I think it is kind of funny.