The Pressure Of Corrupted Ministry
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:17)
The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us. (Micah 3:11)
Last time, I wrote of Sheila Gregoire and her resistance to interpret 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 correctly. As well, I agreed with Dalrock’s observation (*) about the erratic nature of what Sheila Gregoire writes. By the necessity that has been put on her ministry to make money and create demand for her personal services, her products, and her web sites, she is required to draw people in and please them in order to make a purchase. As I indicated last time, the reason she is discussed here is not because she is a woman or a feminist or anything else of that nature. It is because she contradicts the word of God. This may not warrant the attention of three bloggers (the ones I’m aware of) who have addressed it alone, but as Dalrock writes:
This is astounding because Sheila isn’t just another blogger; she and her husband hold Christian marriage seminars and she has written five books aimed at women on the topic of Christian marriage. In fact, she not only considers her work a ministry, but she teaches other women to start their own ministries as well. She has been doing all of this for many years, yet there is no consistency in her writings on the core topics she claims to be an expert on. Some of her advice sounds fairly good one day, but then not long after she comes along and directly contradicts herself.
Ultimately she is nothing different than the average pastor, who has machinery to run and keep up. So her goals are as the other Churchian pastors out there: 1. Increase attendance. 2. Increase offerings. 3. Provide an appearance of “spirituality”. The plan she has to accomplish these things seems to be well established, since the pattern was discernable after a number of her posts on core topics of her ministry. There are things that she holds dear to her feminist sensibilities that she won’t compromise, but it seems she has found that she has to muddy the waters and provide enough sweet sounding words to scratch the ears of her customers to keep people buying and keep people thinking that some good truth rests with her.
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:33)
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:2-4)
As you may recall, Sheila started out by claiming 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 to be a “hard question to wrestle with God” (really rebelling against God). In light of that alone, we can find that she is following her feminist self in using her tradition, reason, and experience over Scripture. In doing this, it is no wonder she is so erratic, as well as rebelling against Scripture. But in using this tactic, she gets the chance to send all her readers away with something that itches their ears. If this passage is not clear-cut in her mind it is because she chooses to make it so:
1. “Do Not Deprive” Means Sex Can’t be a Weapon
I would argue the same thing applies when it comes to our sex life. This isn’t something that is optional in marriage. And it isn’t something that should be minimized or used as a weapon, either. This is something that is part of an “abundant life”.
Playing this “hard question” game gives her cover when her real positions are questioned as they come out. They are obvious to those who follow her enough, but for the uninitiated, her or her adherents can point to this post and say “see she saying to not use sex as a weapon right here!”. The problem is that she argued much more forthrightly in the last part than this one, and many of her other posts are consistent with that part. Hence, the amount of discussion here that centered on her first part and not the other two. Continuing:
A healthy relationship is only possible when both spouses believe that sex is important.
And what of Sheila Gregoire herself and her adherents that believe sex isn’t important, and for whom sex is not mutual with their husbands? That is the first step towards sex as a weapon. Next, point #3 really melds into point #4:
If sexual release were the only need, and if sex had nothing to do with anything else, God could have designed a different way for us to get that release. After all, our other physical needs can be met on our own: we breathe on our own; we can eat on our own. And it is possible to obtain sexual release on our own! That, however, is not what God designed us for. That’s what God designed marriage for.
This is a restatement of her men physical, women emotional meme, ultimately wrapping back to an argument parallel to the Cheetos one. She states here that sexual release (the physical) plays a part here, but claims no such thing in other places. No “come get me hubba-hubba” tells me that she is physically repressed. She simply doesn’t seem to relate to physical sexual desire.
Moving to part 3, Sheila Gregoire spends about the first half of the text talking about how people are different. This may have some bearing in her mind, but it is ultimately wasteful for her position:
Our response to this problem must always be to look at God, not to try to change our spouse. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that we should demand our rights if we’re not getting what we deserve. That’s why “Do not deprive” should never be used as a weapon; it goes against everything Scripture is for. Scripture focuses on servanthood, not on tyranny.
It is another restatement of part 1, establishing sex as a weapon in the hands of wives. Coupled with the standard Churchianity line in Marriage 2.0, where a woman has the perfect right to change her husband at every opportunity and not respect him in any way, she is literally again advocating for use of sex as a weapon. Holding to this position gives the wife complete and full license to sin against her husband without repercussions. Sure Sheila suggests in a very slight way that it doesn’t justify not changing, but given her other writings it holds no force in a world where women are not held to account for their sins against God.
To assess the parts of her final position in bold:
1. Looking at God will cause you to see the imperfections in yourself as well as those around you.
Especially when husbands are being sinned against, as Sheila teaches wives to do in this case.
2. Sheila treats the issue of sin in terms of “getting the rights we deserve”.
As has been pointed out, the issue of unconditional sexual access is part of the marriage vows made in the sight of God. He sets out this condition of marriage in 1 Cor 7:1-5 and is implied by Genesis 2:24. To not follow Scripture is to sin, and sin has redress in Scripture:
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:15-17)
3. Sheila Gregoire teaches the women of her audience to sin!
Sheila Gregoire views the use of Scripture in the life of a Christian towards a wife as a weapon, and holding a wife to Scriptural dictates as “tyranny”. So in her mind, rule of the family by Scripture is tyranny, so in essence, Christ’s rule is tyranny to her! When she writes “servanthood not tyranny”, she is talking the servanthood of the personal Jesus and the butler Father, and her supplicant husband to her. Scripture clearly speaks of servanthood but to Christ or God and not to her personal Jesus:
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10)
Marriage 2.0, woman worship, and feminist Churchianity are only out to please men and are not servants of God! We know clearly where Sheila Gregoire stands.
(*) – I include links to this post so much in this part and the last because it brought up statements that Sheila used in Part 1. As well, it has much discussion involving that part, including several comments from me and others I wished to reference here.