The resources below give greatly differing perspectives on this controversial leader. He is someone well worth studying.

https://www.amazon.com/Hendrik-Frensch-Verwoerd-Greatest-Minister/dp/1717041426/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?crid=3JL0KFV16U4N2&keywords=hendrick+verwoerd&qid=1678678288&sprefix=hendrick+verwoerd+%2Caps%2C143&sr=8-1-fkmr0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHgU1Jw6oyw

https://www.amren.com/features/2017/02/verwoerd-still-matters/

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fdd6/9167a4f75eba3383e6e1a9c05e4a6fb9f6eb.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Verwoerd-Architect-Apartheid-Henry-Kenney-ebook/dp/B01GIT3PZ8

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-should-south-africa-remember-architect-apartheid-180960449/

The book of Philemon in the Bible is important to consider on the topic of slavery. The standard interpretation of Philemon in older commentaries (John Calvin, Matthew Henry, and many others) goes something like this:

– Slaveholding is not sinful per se. If slaveholding were sinful per se, then surely the Apostle Paul would have rebuked Philemon for being a slaveholder and would not have sent Onesimus back to Philemon. What would be the point of sending Onesimus back to Philemon, if slaveholding is immoral? For example, if Philemon had been a brothel owner (which is per se sinful) and there were a runaway whore, would the Apostle Paul have addressed the matter in the way he addressed this case, by sending the woman back to the pimp?

– The arguments of verses 13-14 assume that Onesimus was rightfully the chattel slave of Philemon, such that it was Philemon’s choice to decide how Onesimus would be employed. As John Calvin points out, “Paul himself, through modesty, was unwilling to deprive Philemon of his right”.

– In verse 16, when it reads “not now as a servant”, the Apostle Paul did not mean Onesimus was no longer a servant (or chattel slave) of Philemon, but (as Matthew Henry comments) he meant “not merely or so much” a servant. In other words, there is an implied “merely”, even if not express, as can be deduced from the overall context.

In contrast, many modern commentaries interpret verse 16 as stating that Onesimus was being returned to Philemon, but not as a servant. They view chattel slavery as per se wrong, and they assert the Apostle Paul viewed it as wrong, and hence said Onesimus was being returned but not as servant. For instance, Nelson’s Bible Dictionary, as published in 1986, says that the Apostle Paul expected “that Philemon would receive Onesimus back as a brother in the Lord, not as a slave (v. 16)”, as if the two were inherently contradictory. Nelson’s goes on to say that “although Paul never, so far as we know, called for an end to slavery, the Epistle to Philemon laid the ax at the root of that cruel and deformed institution…”

But this modern interpretation begs the obvious question: why is Onesimus even being returned to Philemon if Onesimus has no ownership rights over him? Furthermore, if slavery is inherently sinful, then how do we account for the Old Testament treatment on slavery, combined with no clear statement in the New Testament that chattel slavery is wrong? Where in the Bible can we clearly deduce that slaveholding is a sin? Or is this instead a modern Western view being imposed upon the Biblical text? And if it is an imposition, then it contradicts the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

I believe the Bible, exhibited in the book of Philemon, teaches that chattel slavery is an appropriate punishment for sinful rebellion, and that in a Fallen sinful world slavery can be an appropriate civil response to criminal behavior, some forms of debt which cannot be repaid, conquered enemies in a lawful war, etc. Even the Michigan constitution, which in general prohibits slavery, recognizes its appropriateness as punishment for some forms of criminal behavior. Slavery in various circumstances can be the merciful response. And God has mercifully used it to bring some to Christ who likely would not otherwise have done so. Contrary to the modern view, the Bible teaches that all of Adam’s sinful race deserve to be chattel slaves eternally, which is why Jesus Christ vicariously became a suffering servant to redeem His people.

The book of Philemon also teaches the great value of the Biblical gospel, and hence the great debt owed by recipients of that gospel to the human instruments bringing that gospel. We read in Philemon verse 19: “I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.” Philemon owed much to the Apostle Paul because he was the human instrument bringing the gospel to Philemon. Such was also the role played by Protestant white slaveholders in relation to their black slaves brought from paganism in Africa. As expressed by the Puritan Rev. Cotton Mather in his booklet “The Negro Christianized”: “Christianity does Marvellously befriend and enrich and advance Mankind. The greatest Kindness that can be done to any Man is to make a Christian of him. Your Negroes are immediately Raised unto an astonishing Felicity, when you have Christianized them. They are become amiable spectacles, & such as the Angels of God would gladly repair unto the Windows of Heaven to look upon.” This past period in redemptive history thus played a positive role in bringing people from paganism to Christianity. It contradicts the Bible to sue for reparations what instead should be looked upon with gratitude. This does not mean at this point we should return to race-based slavery of blacks; we should not. Rather, at this point in redemptive history we should be seeking that all nations, including ones majority black and ruled by blacks, should “kiss the Son”. This should be our goal now that Christianity has been brought to blacks and many have at least nominally embraced, and some savingly.

The struggle of Anglo-Americans against imperial tyranny is not new. It reaches back centuries, and continues to this day. It is rooted in Protestant nationalism, brought to North America primarily by British and Dutch Protestant settlers. Some of its historical manifestations include:

• Obtaining and maintaining the Magna Carta (see https://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_1215/!all ) against the opposition of the king and the Papal Bull which sought to nullify it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_papal_bulls and https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-papal-bull-annulling-magna-carta )
• John Wyckliffe, the Morningstar of the Protestant Reformation, defends national and individual rights, opposing the usurpations of the Papal Anti-Christ (https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/moversandshakers/john-wycliffe.html )
• English Protestants struggle against “Bloody Mary” and the Pope (see https://www.gotquestions.org/Bloody-Mary.html )
• Scottish Protestants, led by John Knox, struggle against Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Pope
• English Protestants defend their national rights against the Spanish Armada and the Pope
• Dutch Protestants struggle against Spanish imperial rule and the Pope
• English Pilgrims and Puritans leave England to establish a Protestant colony freer from the dictates of the Monarch
• The British colonies that became the USA struggle against imperial rule based in London.
• The anti-federalist struggle to prevent the imposition of Federal Constitution and the illegal abandonment of the Articles of Confederation.
• The on-going struggle for states’ rights against an ever expanding assumption of power by the Federal Government based in Washington, DC, since the adoption of the Federal Constitution, which has brought us to a point where it is a modern tyrannical Babel.

Even today imperialists in Washington, DC and Rome are weaponizing foreigners against Anglo-Americans in order to further their imperial agenda, asserting that Biblical forms of nationalism are wrong and “racist.” Such weaponization of foreigners by imperialists is not new, as exemplified in the US War of Independence in which the following were weaponized:

• French Roman Catholics of Quebec (see https://ushistoryscene.com/article/quebec-act/ . As noted at https://archive.org/details/rulersofevilf.tuppersaussy/page/n195/mode/2up : “To complete the overkill, Parliament passed the Quebec Act, which cut off the claims of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, and New York to their western lands, and placed these lands, to add insult to injury, under the French Catholic jurisdiction of Quebec.”)
• Hessian soldiers (https://allthingsliberty.com/2022/08/hessians-german-soldiers-of-the-american-revolution/)
• American Indians (https://socratic.org/questions/why-did-more-native-americans-side-with-the-british-than-with-the-patriots)
• African Americans (https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/educational-magazines/native-americans-and-blacks-american-revolution)

God brought down ancient Babel, and He will bring down modern Babel. “…Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen…” (Revelation 18:2)

Babel’s end is destruction, because God detests “global nation” empires, especially ones committed to anti-Biblical, humanistic principles. God’s model for the world is described here :  “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.” (Revelation 15:4)

Prof. David Engelsma of the Protestant Reformed Churches of America has spoken and written  on the topic of “spousal abuse”, such as presented in videos at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eBSHUgoNU and in the article at http://exprc.freeforums.net/thread/627/spousal-abuse-follow .  The views he expresses here appear to be growing in acceptance in the reformed Christian community, so it is proper that Christians be aware of the views and approach them with a Berean spirit.  In this article I lay out questions I have regarding what Prof. Engelsma states, as well as explain our background doctrinal differences and how I believe those doctrinal differences play out on this issue.  All married people must inevitably have opinions on the topics he covers because he touches on issues regarding marital relations.

There are areas of creedal agreement and disagreement I have with Prof. Engelsma.  Regarding agreement, both Prof. Engelsma and I would profess agreement with the Three Forms of Unity. However, in reality Prof. Engelsma and his denomination (Protestant Reformed Churches of America) do not agree with the Three Forms of Unity in their original form, but in an amended form, whereas I agree with the Three Forms of Unity in their original form. Specifically, Prof. Engelsma and his denomination disagree with Article 36 of the Belgic Confession which is why they have an amending note rejecting the Establishment Principle (see http://www.prca.org/about/official-standards/creeds/three-forms-of-unity/belgic-confession/article-36), whereas I agree with Article 36 of the Belgic Confession in its original form. The rejection of the Establishment Principle by Prof. Engelsma and his denomination has implications far beyond the narrow area of church-state relations, because embedded within it are issues relating to the nature of God’s authority via human agency and the nature of Fallen man.  Furthermore, Prof. Engelsma and his denomination reject the Westminster Standards in quite a number of critical areas, whereas I fully subscribe to these standards. As it especially relates to the topic of spousal relations, Prof. Engelsma and the Protestant Reformed Churches of America hold to this view: “The Bible gives one ground only for divorce, namely, adultery. And there is no remarriage for a divorced man or woman so long as the spouse lives” – http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/articles/item/4163-marriage-divorce-children .  In contrast, here is what the Westminster Standards say on the topic:

“…In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.…Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage;^a wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.^b”  – Westminster Confession, Chapter 24

“Q139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment? …unjust divorce,[15] or desertion;[16]…” – Westminster Larger Catechism

Note the different views on the issue of desertion.  Upon thorough analysis, these creedal differences between us will almost inevitably lead to differences of view on the topic of spousal abuse.  So at one level, the basic question I ask is this: are the original Three Forms of Unity and Westminster Standards correct (as I believe) or are they incorrect (as Prof. Engelsma believes)?

So with this background regarding our basic doctrinal agreements and disagreements, here are some of the questions I have of Prof. Engelsma’s treatment on spousal abuse:

1. In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eBSHUgoNU Engelsma speaks of “rape within marriage” and defends use of this term. In the United States, a husband could not be charged with raping his wife until 1979. Here is further historical information on the topic:

“In his History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736), Sir Matthew Hale made the following pronouncement: But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract. As Hale had held the office of Chief Justice for five years, there can be little doubt that what he wrote was an accurate expression of the common law as it then stood, even though he had died some 60 years before the publication of the work. Hale’s justification for his statement was that, on marriage, the wife gave up her body to her husband and gave her irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse. That Hale’s pronouncement was accepted as an enduring principle of the common law is evidenced by the first edition of Archbold, A Summary of the Law Relative to Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases (1822), which simply stated: ‘A husband also cannot be guilty of a rape upon his wife.’

• http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415639989/downloads/rape-marriage.pdf

Is traditional English common law consistent with scripture in asserting that “rape” cannot occur in marriage, or is the modern view which Prof. Engelsma has apparently embraced consistent with scripture?

This is no small issue for every man married to a wife.

2. Engelsma cites I Corinthians 7 as evidence that a husband can commit rape on his wife. Can he cite any reformed theologian before 1900 who agrees with him and provide the basis for their argument? How precisely does I Corinthians 7:4 (“The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. ”) support the view that a husband can criminally have sexual intercourse with his wife?  Does it not imply precisely the opposite?

John Calvin comments on this passage: “Unless by mutual consent He requires mutual consent, in the first place, because the question is not as to the continency of one merely, but of two;” In other words, Calvin points out that sexual intercourse cannot be stopped unless both spouses agree to it.  So is it not patently absurd and contrary to God’s word to suggest that sexual intercourse when one spouse does not want it is criminal?  Is Prof. Engelsma not engaging in malfeasance as a church officer by promoting the concept of marital rape? Is the abuser here Prof. Engelsma in twisting scripture to fit modern humanistic shibboleths?

 

3. In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eBSHUgoNU Engelsma asserts that “verbal abuse is every bit as destructive as physical abuse if not more so”.

He later proceeds with the following syllogism:

Prop. 1: verbal abuse is every bit as destructive as physical abuse if not more so

Prop. 2: physical abuse warrants marital separation since it is proper for the endangered party to flee for physical safety

Conclusion: verbal abuse warrants marital separation

Does Prof. Engelsma’s assertion that “verbal abuse is every bit as destructive as physical abuse if not more so”, especially as it relates to justification for separation of a married couple, have scriptural warrant?  How should we think of it in light of Matthew Henry’s treatment of Proverbs 21:9 as it relates to the topic of desertion below? (“It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.”):

 

• “1. What a great affliction it is to a man to have a brawling scolding woman for his wife, who upon every occasion, and often upon no occasion, breaks out into a passion, and chides either him or those about her, is fretful to herself and furious to her children and servants, and, in both, vexatious to her husband. If a man has a wide house, spacious and pompous, this will embitter the comfort of it to him-a house of society (so the word is), in which a man may be sociable, and entertain his friends; this will make both him and his house unsociable, and unfit for enjoyments of true friendship. It makes a man ashamed of his choice and his management, and disturbs his company.
• 2. What many a man is forced to do under such an affliction. He cannot keep up his authority. He finds it to no purpose to contradict the most unreasonable passion, for it is unruly and rages so much the more; and his wisdom and grace will not suffer him to render railing for railing, nor his conjugal affection to use any severity, and therefore he finds it his best way to retire into a corner of the house-top, and sit alone there, out of the hearing of her clamour; and if he employ himself well there, as he may do, it is the wisest course he can take. Better do so than quit the house, and go into bad company, for diversion, as many, who, like Adam, make their wife’s sin the excuse of their own.”

 

 

 

So is it correct that even if one does have a vexing spouse, God does not give license for departure from the household?  Where is the scriptural support for the proposition that “emotional abuse” should be treated as equivalent to “physical abuse” as a basis for someone to engage in spousal separation?

 

4. In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eBSHUgoNU Engelsma cites for support of his views certain “recognized experts in the field of abuse…” Specifically he mentions “Crippen and Wood”.  I looked up and found that their full names are Jeff Crippen and Anna Wood. Crippen is a Baptist currently living in Oregon and Wood is a Baptist who lives in Alabama, and they have co-written the book described at https://www.amazon.com/Cry-Justice-Domestic-Abuse-Church/dp/1879737914 .  Prof. Engelsma does not refer to any pre-1960 reformed theologians, but instead to these two.  Is this where reformed Christians should be looking for how to think on this topic?  And what resources have they primarily been studying to come up with their views?

Anna Wood, the “expert” to whom Prof Engelsma refers, has written the following:

“Maybe you aren’t really sure if your husband is an abuser. Ask yourself these questions: Do you walk on eggshells around your husband? Have you changed your beliefs, the way you speak, act, or dress, or what you like or dislike, not just to please him but because you had no choice but to do so? If you are constantly stressed when you are around your husband, if you must do whatever he says or accommodate his wishes no matter how bizarre, if he gets angry for little or no reason, if you’ll do anything to keep from setting him off, the chances are very, very great that you are in an unhealthy or even a dangerous relationship. Domestic abuse is a sin. Domestic abusers may masquerade as Christians but no true Christian abuses his family. If you are married to an abuser, do whatever it takes to protect yourself and your children, including leaving if you need to.” –  https://feminasolagratia.wordpress.com/category/domestic-abuse/

Is Anna Wood Biblical here, and is someone who holds this view someone reformed Christians should be following? Is she not advocating “willful desertion” which is a heinous sin condemned by scripture according to the Westminster Standards?  Setting the husband aside, does Anna Wood understand that she must not only love Christ, but also fear Christ and obey His commandments?  Is there not a proper fear element involved in man’s relation with God?  Is Anna Wood’s dispute perhaps really with God and not the man she regards as an “abuser”?

So why is Prof. Engelsma siding with Anna Wood?  Could it be that this is a logical outworking of his rejection of the Establishment Principle, which is an implicit rejection of Christ’s full authority as exercised through human agency?

Also, is there not a real danger for women in the conflation of what Anna Wood and Prof Engelsma place under the category of verbal or emotional abuse with that which falls under the category of physical abuse?  If there is much crying of “wolf” for that which is really not a wolf, then when a woman cries “wolf” in the case of real physical danger, then might it tend to be ignored when it should not be?  Obviously, the woman as the “weaker vessel” needs to be protected when there is real physical endangerment.  Also, by conflating that which is truly proven with that which is not, is there not also danger?

 

5. Here is more information on Anna Wood who Prof Engelsma cites as the “expert” he looks to on these issues (not John Calvin, not Matthew Henry, not …, but Anna Wood):

https://www.womenspeakers.com/united-states/montgomery-/speaker/anna-wood :

Anna Wood

Christian Speaker Christian Woman Speaker at Tamar Weeps Montgomery Alabama 36116

…

Contact Information

Name	Tamar Weeps
Position	Christian Woman Speaker
Location	Montgomery, AL 36116 United States

Speaking Ministry Details

• Salvation Date
• 1970
• Home Church
• Home church
• Relationship to Church
• Member of
• Available for
• Conferences, Retreats
• Speaking Experience
• Full Time (over 20 events per year)
• Fee Range
• Love Offering

More About Anna Wood

My name is Anna. Along with Jeff Crippen, I am the co-author of A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church. I’ve spent my life walking the broken pathway of abuse. I know its lonely, craggy, pathways far too well. My father was an abusive drunk. My mother became emotionally and verbally abusive when I was around 9. I was molested. I married into abuse. The horrors of abuse once defined my life. Now Jesus does.

I can’t say with certainty when God saved me, only that He did. I grew up in church, and believed myself to have been saved at age seven. Whenever God’s justifying work was actually done in me, I praise Him that it was. Broken bit by broken bit, God has worked on mending me. Daily He’s delved into my angry, broken heart, exchanging the ashes of a destroyed life for the beauty of His holy one. I’m a work in progress as we all are but, praise the Lord, He’s patient. He’s working on me still.

The lessons I’ve learned in the fires of abuse aren’t easy lessons. They’re lessons of dependency on God alone, of trust in His faithfulness in the blackest darkness, of hoping in His goodness when all hope was seemingly gone. As God comforts us not to make us comfortable but to make us comforters to others, it is my desire to come alongside abuse victims in their pain, and also alongside the church as she learns about abuse and how to minister to abuse victims, in order to share His glorious healing truth.

Soli Deo gloria!

 

Is it not highly irresponsible of Prof. Engelsma to look to Anna Wood as the expert he follows?

 

6. Engelsma for the most part seems to brush aside reformed theologians of past centuries and their treatment on the topic of desertion. Is this not a serious flaw in his treatment?  What should we think about the following in relation to Prof. Engelsma’s treatment?

 

Calvin’s Commentary on I Cor 7:10-11

 

10. To the married I command. He now treats of another condition of marriage — its being an indissoluble tie. Accordingly, he condemns all those divorces that were of daily occurrence among the heathens, and were not punished among the Jews by the law of Moses. Let not, says he, the husband put away his wife, and let not the wife depart from her husband. Why? Because they are joined together by an indissoluble bond. It is surprising, however, that he does not make an exception, at least in case of adultery; for it is not likely that he designed to curtail in anything the doctrine of Christ. To me it appears clear, that the reason why he has made no mention of this ³⁹⁹ is, that as he is discoursing of these things only in passing, he chose rather to send back the Corinthians to the Lord’s permission or prohibition, than to go over everything in detail. For when persons intend to teach anything in short compass, they content themselves with a general statement. Exceptions are reserved for a minuter and more extended and particular discussion.

But as to what he subjoins — not I, but the Lord — he intimates by this correction, that what he teaches here is taken from the law of God. For other things that he taught he had also from the revelation of the Spirit; but he declares that God is the author of this, in respect of its being expressly taken from the law of God. If you inquire as to the particular passage, you will nowhere find it in so many words; but as Moses in the beginning testifies, that the connection between a husband and wife is so sacred, that for the sake of it

a man ought to leave his father and mother. (Genesis 2:24.)

It is easy to gather from this, how inviolable a connection it is. For by right of nature a son is bound to his father and mother, and cannot shake off that yoke. As the connection of marriage is preferred to that bond, much less ought it to be dissolved.

 

11. But if she depart That this is not to be understood of those who have been put away for adultery, is evident from the punishment that followed in that case; for it was a capital crime even by the Roman laws, and almost by the common law of nations. But as husbands frequently divorced their wives, either because their manners were not congenial, or because their personal appearance did not please them, or because of some offense; ⁴⁰⁰ and as wives, too, sometimes deserted their husbands on account of their cruelty, or excessively harsh and dishonorable treatment, he says that marriage is not dissolved by divorces or dissensions of that nature. For it is an agreement that is consecrated by the name of God, which does not stand or fall according to the inclination of men, so as to be made void whenever we may choose. The sum is this: other contracts, as they depend on the mere inclination of men, are in like manner dissolved by that same inclination; but those who are connected by marriage are no longer free, so as to be at liberty, if they change their mind, to break in pieces the pledge, ⁴⁰¹ (as the expression is,) and go each of them elsewhere in quest of a new connection. For if the rights of nature cannot be dissolved, much less can this, which, as we have said already, is preferred before the principal tie of nature.

But as to his commanding the wife, who is separated from her husband, to remain unmarried, he does not mean by this that separation is allowable, nor does he give permission to the wife to live apart from her husband; but if she has been expelled from the house, or has been put away, she must not think that even in that case she is set free from his power; for it is not in the power of a husband to dissolve marriage. He does not therefore give permission here to wives to withdraw, of their own accord, from their husbands, or to live away from their husband’s establishment, as if they were in a state of widowhood; but declares, that even those who are not received by their husbands, continue to be bound, so that they cannot take other husbands.

But what if a wife is wanton, or otherwise incontinent? Would it not be inhuman to refuse her the remedy, when, constantly burning with desire? I answer, that when we are prompted by the infirmity of our flesh, we must have recourse to the remedy; after which it is the Lord’s part to bridle and restrain our affections by his Spirit, though matters should not succeed according to our desire. For if a wife should fall into a protracted illness, the husband would, nevertheless, not be justified in going to seek another wife. In like manner, if a husband should, after marriage, begin to labor under some distemper, it would not be allowable for his wife to change her condition of life. The sum is this — God having prescribed lawful marriage as a remedy for our incontinency, let us make use of it, that we may not, by tempting him, pay the penalty of our rashness. Having discharged this duty, let us hope that he will give us aid should matters go contrary to our expectations.

 

 

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on I Cor 7:10-11

 

In this paragraph the apostle gives them direction in a case which must be very frequent in that age of the world, especially among the Jewish converts; I mean whether they were to live with heathen relatives in a married state. Moses’s law permitted divorce; and there was a famous instance in the Jewish state, when the people were obliged to put away their idolatrous wives, Ezra 10:3. This might move a scruple in many minds, whether converts to Christianity were not bound to put away or desert their mates, continuing infidels. Concerning this matter the apostle here gives direction. And,

• I. In general, he tells them that marriage, by Christ’s command, is for life; and therefore those who are married must not think of separation. The wife must not depart from the husband (v. 10), nor the husband put away his wife, v. 11. This I command, says the apostle; yet not I, but the Lord. Not that he commanded any thing of his own head, or upon his own authority. Whatever he commanded was the Lord’s command, dictated by his Spirit and enjoined by his authority. But his meaning is that the Lord himself, with his own mouth, had forbidden such separations, Mat. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11; Lu. 16:18. Note, Man and wife cannot separate at pleasure, nor dissolve, when they will, their matrimonial bonds and relation. They must not separate for any other cause than what Christ allows. And therefore the apostle advises that if any woman had been separated, either by a voluntary act of her own or by an act of her husband, she should continue unmarried, and seek reconciliation with her husband, that they might cohabit again. Note, Husbands and wives should not quarrel at all, or should be quickly reconciled. They are bound to each other for life. The divine law allows of no separation. They cannot throw off the burden, and therefore should set their shoulders to it, and endeavour to make it as light to each other as they can.

 

OPC Issue Paper on Desertion which includes Scriptural Exegesis and Historical Review

 

https://pohopc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/divorce-desertion_committee_final_report.pdf  (Note: I am not a member of the OPC, but of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, but this is a thorough treatment on the topic worthy of consideration.)

 

7. In the video Prof. Engelsma defines “verbal abuse” as “degrading words that destroy her [the wife] emotionally…she does not know she is…Specialists in abuse call this ‘loss of personhood’”. He then relates this modern psychological jargon to the term “railer” or “reviler” in I Corinthians 5:11 and 6:10.  I Corinthians 5:11 reads: “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon references Proverbs 25:24 as having a word with same essential meaning as a “railer” in I Corinthians 5:11: “It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.” The Greek Septuagint uses the same word for “brawling woman” as found in the Greek New Testament for “railer” in I Corinthians 5:11 and “reviler” in 6:10.

Given this relation, why does Prof. Engelsma target men as the primary violators of the sin of being a railer when scripture itself does not do that?  Indeed, could one not make the case that it is more typically a female sin in the context of marital relations, based upon what is indicated in Proverbs?

Furthermore, Proverbs 25:24 in no way warrants a spouse to leave the home, but just the opposite, as addressed in 3. So why does Prof. Engelsma take it in this un-Biblical direction?

8. Prof Engelsma asserts in the video that “invariably the abuser will lie to church authorities and deny it”. But is Prof. Engelsma not himself guilty of being a false accuser and false judge when he states the following:

“When a wife takes action or seeks help alleging abuse, abuse on the part of the husband is almost always, indeed invariably, a reality. A consistory may safely believe the woman. Naturally, the woman desires to maintain her marriage and family intact…“How does one approach a husband about sin he has denied from day one, but whose wife has left him because of alleged abuse? In a situation in which it is unknown whom to believe, will this cause more harm to young children who are still in the church? As a matter of right terminology, if a husband and a wife are living separately because of the husband’s abuse, the wife has not left the husband, but the husband has driven the wife away. In the case of the husband’s denying the abuse, the consistory must determine guilt. They do this by closely questioning the man, by questioning the man and the woman together, and, if necessary and possible, by questioning the children who may be members of the family. Involving the children in the questioning will be harmful to the children, but the fault lies not with the consistory but with the abusive husband. Even when the husband persists in denying abuse, the consistory will be able to determine that the wife is telling the truth and that the man is lying. Unless in the extremely rare case the consistory is inclined to doubt the woman and to believe the man, the consistory will then charge the man with both the sin of murder (in abusing his wife) and the sin of lying.” ( http://exprc.freeforums.net/thread/627/spousal-abuse-follow#ixzz63JaNnF5l )

“Since abusers are so secretive and deceptive and seemingly good people in public, what are some of the signal symptoms of an abused wife that the church can look for? Abusers of their wife are all the things that this question suggests. They present an appearance in society and in the church that impresses everyone (except the wife and children). This is a reason why, when the wife finally cries out for help, the response of society and church is that her complaint cannot possibly be true. They blame her rather than the abusive husband, thus adding to her misery. This is why, as the rule, the church ought to accept her complaint as true, and doubt her husband’s denial of the wife’s charge against him.” – http://exprc.freeforums.net/thread/627/spousal-abuse-follow#ixzz63JZJgGL6
Does the above have the marks of even-handed justice?  How can the church authorities make a determination if there are no witnesses and the spouses disagree?  And why does Prof. Engelsma lie by saying “When a wife takes action or seeks help alleging abuse, abuse on the part of the husband is almost always, indeed invariably, a reality”?  Is Prof. Engelsma wiser than God who inspired the book of Proverbs and paints a different picture of the reality of human relations?  Is it not an unjust judge who would convict a man of murder and lying on such insufficient evidence?

 

9. Per the video Prof Engelsma looks to “experts and specialists” to find out what makes the supposed abuser tick. He says they say the reason is “entitlement”, and Prof. Engelsma agrees.

In order to understand the theoretical underpinnings of what Prof Engelsma says here, it is necessary to look at humanistic psychology resources such as http://stoprelationshipabuse.org/educated/what-causes-relationship-abuse/ , which says:

“Relationship abuse is a choice and it is a learned behavior. For these reasons, it is difficult to say that relationship abuse is caused by any one single factor. However, the following beliefs and attitudes are common for abusers:

• Sense of entitlement
• A belief they should have power and control over their partner
• Belief that they can get away with it
• Learned experience that being abusive gets them what they want
• Belief that their lives should take priority

 

… Throughout history, societies around the world have systematically devalued and oppressed women. In the United States, steps to make intimate partner abuse illegal began only in the twentieth century. Many continue to see men’s violence against women as a historical problem, but the reality is that 1 in 3 women worldwide and in the United States continue to be abused and raped by a partner. It wasn’t until 1993 that marital rape was considered a crime in all 50 states. Having a common understanding of the causes of domestic violence can help communities develop more effective responses to victims and perpetrators. Such an understanding helps us to avoid offering conflicting responses that could undermine efforts to protect victims and hold batterers accountable.

Feminist Theory

• Feminist theory sees men’s violence against women as a result of a patriarchal structure.  “Patriarchal means of control are often subtle and deeply entrenched, with the most violent forms not emerging until patriarchal control is threatened–as when individual women leave or threaten to leave relationships or groups of women assert their rights.”
  Gelles (1997) Intimate Violence in Families
• The feminist gender politics modeltheory about domestic violence holds that male control over women is present in many areas, ranging from intimate relationships to economic life. Most men do not abuse women, but any man can be a perpetrator. Additionally, any woman can become a victim: there has been no specific personality trait found that makes a person more likely to experience abuse–the primary shared trait of victims is being “female.” Victims of relationship abuse are often forced to stay in those relationships because of fear, lack of support, and victim-blaming by friends and larger communities.
• Exchangeor “choice” theory builds on the feminist model, suggesting that men choose to behave abusively toward their female partners because they can get away with it and because doing so gets them what they want in the form of power and control. Ultimately, men abuse women because they can…”

 

Now Prof. Engelsma obviously does not go anywhere near this far, and he does acknowledge that the husband is head over his wife.  But why is Prof. Engelsma leaning at all on “experts and specialists” instead of keeping to historic reformed theologians and theology? Why does he borrow concepts and theories regarding “abuse” and “entitlement” from such modern wicked sources as above, even if they are filtered through professing Christians like Crippen and Wood? Is there no danger of syncretism?

 

10. At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ijEhMGBDS8&t=514s Prof Engelsma condemns churches and church officers who do not follow his view. Is this placing false guilt?

 

11. At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ijEhMGBDS8&t=514s Prof Engelsma says without qualification the so called “abuser” is damned if he does not repent. Is Prof. Engelsma warranted in making such an unqualified assertion?  What about Prof. Engelsma?  Will he be damned for his unrepented of sinfulness, even if they are sins of ignorance?

 

12. At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ijEhMGBDS8&t=514s Prof Engelsma says often professional help (specifically psychologists) from outside the church is necessary in cases of spousal abuse.  He says the pastor can counsel spiritually, but the psychologist is necessary for counseling because of the expertise such has.  What theology do such psychologists have?  Is it reformed Christian?  Does that not matter? Is it the mark of wisdom to encourage Christians to go to psychologists often steeped in un-Biblical views for counsel?  Is there a Biblical basis for laying that moral burden on church members?

 

13. Per Prof. Engelsma’s article “Questions and Answers Regarding the Speech on Spousal (Wife) Abuse” available for reading at http://exprc.freeforums.net/thread/627/spousal-abuse-follow#ixzz63JZJgGL6 , Prof. Engelsma advises this course of action for the allegedly abused wife:

 

“Scripture does not permit divorce on the ground of abuse. Scripture recognizes one ground for divorce: fornication on the part of one’s husband or wife. Scripture also forbids a husband to drive his wife away from him by abusing her. But if the husband does wickedly drive his wife away from himself, there is nothing the woman can do to prevent the physical separation. In this case, even though she does not divorce her husband, who remains her husband, there are remedies at law for her physical and financial distress. The state recognizes legal separation and provides for the protection and financial support of women in such circumstances. The woman who is driven from her home and husband by an abusive husband should seek good legal counsel.”
Keep in mind that Prof. Engelsma has included within “abuse” the category of “emotional abuse”, as previously explained.  Also keep in mind what Prof. Engelsma says regarding elder adjudication of what is truth:

“When a wife takes action or seeks help alleging abuse, abuse on the part of the husband is almost always, indeed invariably, a reality. A consistory may safely believe the woman.”

“… as the rule, the church ought to accept her complaint as true, and doubt her husband’s denial of the wife’s charge against him.”

 

So Prof. Engelsma is advising under the above circumstances that the woman should get an attorney and have US civil courts handle the matter.  Is that consistent with I Corinthians 6, given how US civil courts embrace no-fault divorce, so called “gay marriage”, etc.?  (“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?…”)

14. Is not Matthew Henry’s treatment in his commentary on I Peter 3:7 on the necessary relation between husband and wife much more sound than that promoted by Prof Engelsma? Why would Prof Engelsma ever look to Anna Wood and not sound reformed Christian theologians and ministers like Matthew Henry, Wilhelmus a Brakel, and John Calvin? But even if Prof Engelsma does not, should not we?

 

• • The duties of Christian wives being in their nature difficult, the apostle enforces them by the example,
    • (1.) Of the holy women of old, who trusted in God, 5. “You can pretend nothing of excuse from the weakness of your sex, but what they might. They lived in old time, and had less knowledge to inform them and fewer examples to encourage them; yet in all ages they practised this duty; they were holy women, and therefore their example is obligatory; they trusted in God, and yet did not neglect their duty to man: the duties imposed upon you, of a quiet spirit and of subjection to your own husbands, are not new, but what have ever been practised by the greatest and best women in the world.’
    • (2.) Of Sara, who obeyed her husband, and followed him when he went from Ur of the Chaldeans, not knowing whither he went, and called him lord, thereby showing him reverence and acknowledging his superiority over her; and all this though she was declared a princess by God from heaven, by the change of her name, “Whose daughters you are if you imitate her in faith and good works, and do not, through fear of your husbands, either quit the truth you profess or neglect your duty to them, but readily perform it, without either fear or force, out of conscience towards God and sense of duty to them.’ Learn,
      • [1.] God takes exact notice, and keeps an exact record, of the actions of all men and women in the world.
      • [2.] The subjection of wives to their husbands is a duty which has been practised universally by holy women in all ages.
      • [3.] The greatest honour of any man or woman lies in a humble and faithful deportment of themselves in the relation or condition in which Providence has placed them.
      • [4.] God takes notice of the good that is in his servants, to their honour and benefit, but covers a multitude of failings; Sara’s infidelity and derision are overlooked, when her virtues are celebrated.
      • [5.] Christians ought to do their duty to one another, not out of fear, nor from force, but from a willing mind, and in obedience to the command of God. Wives should be in subjection to their churlish husbands, not from dread and amazement, but from a desire to do well and to please God.
    • The husband’s duty to the wife comes next to be considered.
      • The particulars are,
        • (1.) Cohabitation, which forbids unnecessary separation, and implies a mutual communication of goods and persons one to another, with delight and concord.
        • (2.) Dwelling with the wife according to knowledge; not according to lust, as brutes; nor according to passion, as devils; but according to knowledge, as wise and sober men, who know the word of God and their own duty.
        • (3.) Giving honour to the wife-giving due respect to her, and maintaining her authority, protecting her person, supporting her credit, delighting in her conversation, affording her a handsome maintenance, and placing a due trust and confidence in her.
      • The reasons are, Because she is the weaker vessel by nature and constitution, and so ought to be defended: but then the wife is, in other and higher respects, equal to her husband; they are heirs together of the grace of life, of all the blessings of this life and another, and therefore should live peaceably and quietly one with another, and, if they do not, their prayers one with another and one for another will be hindered, so that often “you will not pray at all, or, if you do, you will pray with a discomposed ruffled mind, and so without success.’ Learn,
        • (1.) The weakness of the female sex is no just reason either for separation or contempt, but on the contrary it is a reason for honour and respect: Giving honour to the wife as unto the weaker vessel.
        • (2.) There is an honour due to all who are heirs of the grace of life.
        • (3.) All married people should take care to behave themselves so lovingly and peaceably one to another that they may not by their broils hinder the success of their prayers.

 

 

 

Liberals are salivating that the strategy they successfully employed upon the erstwhile State of Ronald Reagan will soon prove a success in Texas. Liberals used illegal immigration to turn the State of California completely Blue. Now no conservative Republican can win statewide office in California. Now California is a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants. Now California leads the way in pushing “abortion rights” and the LGBT agenda. Now California adds tax upon tax, regulation upon regulation, and government spending upon government spending. Now California is making it harder and harder for law-abiding citizens to have guns for protection. Now California has become the first State to provide government-subsidized health benefits to illegal immigrants. Now the cities of California are becoming homeless camps because of laws that prevent curtailment of loitering and enforcement of public health. Now there is no apparent end to progressive legislation which is transforming California into Mexifornia or worse. Furthermore, the results of such a transformation of Texas will not be limited to Texas, because if Texas becomes like California, national politics itself will change. The whole USA will become one giant California mess.

 

Beto O’Rourke, the Castro Twins (Julian Castro and Joaquin Castro), Steve Adler, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Al Green stand poised for the takeover of Texas, completely undoing what American patriots like Stephen F. Austin, Sam Houston and Davy Crockett did for Texas. Here are just some of the things they have proposed:

 

• De-criminalization of illegal immigration
• Health care benefits for illegal immigrants
• Removal of walls and other barriers to entry on the southern border
• Reparations for African Americans and other non-whites, to be paid for mainly by Anglo-Americans
• Mandatory gun buy-back and gun control to overthrow Second Amendment rights
• Criminalization of “white nationalism” (i.e., anything that stands in the way of the liberal agenda)
• Criminalization of opposition to the LGBT agenda
• Complete government takeover of healthcare
• Removal of all barriers to abortion, along with government subsidies for abortion
• Turning the State’s cities into homeless camps because of laws that prevent curtailment of loitering and enforcement of public health, starting with the City of Austin
• High taxation and high regulation, which will inevitably chase the Anglo-American middle class out of the State like it has been doing in California
• Tearing down monuments honoring past American patriot leaders
• Impeaching any Republican leader who dares defy their agenda or makes politically incorrect statements

 

The results of Texas’ recent senate election featuring Beto O’Rourke, combined with demographic statistics, show just how close things are to liberal victory. Beto O’Rourke captured 48.3 percent of the vote for Senate in 2018. 64% of Hispanics voted for Beto O’Rourke, and only 35% voted for Ted Cruz. 89% of African Americans voted for Beto O’Rourke, and only 11% voted for Ted Cruz.  In 2018 Anglo-Americans made up only 42.6% of the Texas population, and that is the older segment in decline. Soon, if not already, Hispanics will outnumber Anglo-Americans in Texas. The political writing is on the wall if bold action is not taken now.

 

Liberals have used lies and illegality to achieve their end, and now they expect American conservatives to acquiesce and lie prostrate to their tyranny. But American patriots should rise to the challenge, and join the Texas Committee of Correspondence effort to lobby elected government representatives in Texas to adopt the American patriot agenda for Texas.

 

The first item on the American patriot agenda for Texas is a necessary amputation, if the Texas body is to be saved. Providence has provided Texas the tool for this amputation. Unlike any other State, the State of Texas has the recognized legal right to partition out of itself up to four states without Congressional approval. So what Texas should do right now is surgically partition out of Texas as one separate State all of the heavily concentrated Democratic population areas with large Democratic populations but relatively minor territorial loss. This partitioned out State will be many small Blue islands in a large Red Texas ocean. If it be argued that a new State cannot be such “islands”, then American patriots can point to the island State of Hawaii and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as examples of how State unity does not require land contiguity.

 

The second item on the American patriot agenda should be Texas calling all States to send delegates to an American patriot Continental Congress, patterned after the American patriot First Continental Congress.  For those States which refuse to send representatives to this American patriot Continental Congress because American patriots have lost control of said States’ governments (like is the case with California), the patriot Committees of Correspondence in each of these States can select representatives to send. This Continental Congress should list the grievances of the States against the federal government, point out how the Bill of Rights has been thoroughly trampled upon, insist that the federal government acquiesce to the partition of other States, and give the federal government time to amend its ways before the States return to the US Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the USA. The Articles of Confederation got the USA through its most challenging war, provided better hedges against federal over-reach, and acknowledged our dependence on God more clearly. Anti-federalists like Patrick Henry had warned against abandoning the Articles of Confederation. They were abandoned only on condition that the Bill of Rights be enacted and maintained by a US federal government, but that condition has been flagrantly violated.

 

The third item on the American patriot agenda should be to encourage the other States to partition themselves following the example of Texas.

 

The fourth item on the American patriot agenda should be to raise America’s first national flag (called the Continental Colors or Grand Union flag) alongside the current US flag and the Lone Star State flag as a symbol of support for the American patriot cause, and to adopt English as the official language.

 

The fifth item on the American patriot agenda should be to deport all illegal immigrants, stop the “anchor baby” phenomenon, build necessary border barriers, repeal the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, and take other measures necessary to preserve Texas for permanent American patriot majority rule.

 

The sixth item on the American patriot agenda should be to reinstate anti-abortion laws and repeal “gay marriage”, declaring that the US federal government has no right legally or morally to overturn such State laws. And it should enact measures to encourage increased American marriage and birth rates.

 

In the next several years Texas is going to show whether “Don’t Mess With Texas” is a real threat or an idle boast, as well as whether the historic American patriot cause rises and lives or withers and dies. Patriots, Remember the Alamo!!!

 

Facebook Page:  https://www.facebook.com/TexasCommitteeOfCorrespondence/

USA.Life Page:  https://usa.life/page-setting/TexasCommitteeOfCorrespondence/Help Stop Texas From Becoming Another California Before It Is Too Late