The Duty of Natural Affection | Doug Wilson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- As I have watched the Twitters over the months gone by, just going on as they do, one of the things I have witnessed is Stephen Wolfe being outrageous. He has said things like “birds of a feather flock together,” and this is obviously not to be tolerated.
As we observe what sets people off these days, things like “be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home,” and if we combine that with what doesn’t set people off, a good example being the medical establishment throwing their support behind the grotesqueries of child mutilation, I thought it might be time for a refresher course on what Scripture calls natural affection.
Doug Wilson's Blog & Mablog video is presented by Canon Press. - Розваги
It felt so liberating when I discovered in the Scriptures what you have just been talking about. I thought, 'wow, I can love my wife like Christ loved the church ' and 'I don't have to feel guilty if someone I'm not immediately responsible for gets left out'. Amen to every liberating word you said. 👌
I’ve seen and heard a variation of this. Christians singles are often told they’re “idolizing marriage” simply for desiring and pursuing it. This leads to prolonged singleness, if not lifelong singleness, and the destruction of the family.
It's almost as if to some people, every desire is wrong. If I understand Buddhist theology correctly, this is what they teach.
Everything is idolatry to them, which just isn't true. Paul brings this out in 1 Timothy 4, I believe. I'll have to look that up.
@@DaDitka Not so at all. Buddhist dharma teaches that desires; craving pleasure, material goods and immortality are the cause of great suffering. Through practices like recitation of the heart sutra, Buddhists work to liberate themselves and all beings from their confusion and suffering.
@aallen5256 so you are saying not all desires but only some? I'm not sure i quite follow. But thank you.
@@DaDitka desire leads to suffering, that is one of the four noble truths and a central tenet of Buddhism. A state of liberation cannot be reached while grasping, desiring, hoping, fearing, etc.
@aallen5256 No disrespect but you didn't quite answer my question. Is it ALL desire, or just SOME desire?
Thank you for this clear teaching. This is in agreement with what we hear at our church. We can sometimes get mixed messages when we’re reading things like missionary biographies.
I’m happy that I can know that my service as a wife and homeschooling mother is as holy as any other extraordinary missionary work. Sure, my scale of outreach may appear smaller to our understanding. But God alone sees the generational impact of one faithful woman’s work.
The reordering of the affections is the work of the Spirit. It is a relief to me as a single woman to know that my desire to be a wife and mother does not have to be “killed” but only reordered in its proper place never taking the place of desiring God Himself. Not turning aside to temporal things/people but to Him alone, knowing that I can glorify Him through those roles and relationships; ultimately to please Him.
And the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ said, Amen! Well said Doug!😎👍👍
I have to say I really enjoy your teaching. Even though I'm not convinced of your eschatology, I can see it's the best way to live our lives. Build healthy families, look after future generations and impact society for good. We don't know when Christ returns, but it just seems your outlook is better. Any plans to plant in south africa?
great take brother
One of the things I realized about why majority of films are suffering from the woke mind virus is because of the lack of showing the value of family. In masterpieces like Godfather, Lord of the Rings, there were scenes that showed that the characters had to honor their fathers by expecting to be brave in the face of danger and be competent for your loved ones. The most modern film that is shows this was the film A Quiet Place, which there’s one scene that shows family sitting at dinner, playing games and even praying at the table (which is a rare thing in films today).
So it doesn't matter of your parent(s) were addicts or abusive? Please, think for yourself. Stand on your own 2 feet. Grow in your faith. Set aside childish teachings like Wilson's. Follow Paul's teaching to "test all things.."
@@manager0175My parents are not addicts, and am I supposed to ignore one of the Commandments? “Honor thy father”. Go be a troll somewhere else
@manager0175 Hmm... you tell to grow and listen to Paul rather than Wilson. Yet here you are basically saying to me, "Listen to Paul."
"Listen to ME. Follow Paul and ignore Wilson."
Quite ironic that you are telling us to do the very thing that you chastise him for doing...
@@manager0175"set aside childish teachings"
I have set yours aside, appropriately, thanks.
@@DaDitka Touché! One of the shackles of using language to communicate.
Had a bit of a disagreement with a member of my church lately at one of our house meetings over the question of how to treat deconstructionist ex-vangelical types. Apparently when they leave the Church they are not treated the same as when they were members of the Church, which he feels is some kind of scandal. While I could agree with his concern that we not refuse any kind of friendship with such confused people and ideally will succeed in apologetics against their doubts there seemed to me a sense in which he was expecting things to be no different after someone has apostatised. In fact it became quickly apparent to me that he has no concept of treating the brethren with greater care than those outside the church which was already basically put forward in our examination in the Bible study prior to discussion on Acts 2 and my own quotation of John 17. I'm not sure how to get through to him honestly.
Bringing a covenantal lens to the conversation may be useful and helpful, perhaps. Someone who has left and denounced the Church is being a covenant-breaker.
Just like a husband or wife deciding to leave the marriage would be a covenant-breaker. They are no longer in the covenant as they have decided to leave and therefore break it. This should grieve us (the Church) just as it would grieve the spouse who got left behind.
But now that the covenant is indeed broken, there is no expectation that the relationship between the two parties remains “just the same.” In fact, the party who got left is understandably going to seek distance from the other party, and while we should be earnestly praying for reconciliation (which IS possible, we should remember) we are also not going to delude ourselves by thinking that a broken covenant means nothing. It does mean something.
So anyways, I know you already know all of this, but perhaps taking the covenantal approach to this conversation will clarify your perspective and edify your brother/sister. Blessings
Excellent.
Thank you, this is really helpful.
I think the reordering of affections is the main thing I've heard discussed relating to this topic. I've known several individuals who, every time I see them, I hear about their romantic woes. That's the primary thing I know about them. That to me is indicative of idolatry.
I've known people who regularly forsake the gathering because they're taking their kids to a sporting event (I've been there as a teen). That to me says they've idolized their children and are now serving them. In my experience, these are the things condemned as "idolizing the family."
Be careful of those who do not love God who use your love of God against you. They do not have a correct starting point, and in most cases are not of good will. They will seek yo trap you rather than enlighten you.
I don't know anything about Russel Moore, but his words sound like that of a person who has no qualms about using our love for God as a weapon to get what HE wants. Be careful.
It took me a twice listen to get the last part but got it ....
I often listen twice. There are hidden gems.
Let the reader understand
Grateful to be alive during the same century of our brother DW - 🙏🏼🙌🏽
I used to be kind of obsessed with Luke 14:26, there certainly is temptation to idolize the family, idolatry may actually not be completely avoidable it appears, some idols are certainly much more tolerable than others I suppose. Married people may often technically idolize their partners in some capacity but that might be some of the least harmful technical idolatry a lot of the time. The last quote is kind of tricky from my perspective, the invisible church certainly is not primarily American, we technically could massively benefit both as a nation and for the visible church from large Muslim/Jew/Africa/India/China people immigration from my perspective seriously but we certainly would have to convert them and we certainly should try to do the best with who is here with us regardless of their ethnicity.
yeah, idolizing of the family, all too familiar with that.. overwhelming in the south too. and we don't realize we're doing it.
What do you exactly mean by that? What (to you) is the difference between the good and right and godly natural affections for and within the family versus when it becomes idolatrous?
Did you actually watch and comprehend the video, or do you mean to rebut it?
And this is why a Nation, in the true biblical meaning of the word is an homogeneous ethnic group. It begins with family and grows out until there are just too many differences to live in the same “home” together. It’s not hatred to separate into different places with boarders. It’s ordained by God since the Tower of Babel.
Yes, sir. And not a curse, by the way. God's judicial ruling here was for our good. A one world government would be disaster for the human race. Dividing us into nations keeps power from being concentrated in the hands of a few sinners. Nations are well advised to separate powers to keep governments from becoming too powerful.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
This is a lot of what Jen Hatmaker was selling…we see where she is now.
Nice Mikado quote. You are off the list.
Lol, I see what you did there...
21 When the Lordsmelled the pleasing aroma,he said to himself, “I will never again curse the groundbecause of human beings, even though the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth onward. And I will never again strike down every living thing as I have done.
22 As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, and day and night
will not cease.”
For Anyone who thinks family isn’t an idol in the modern church, look at all the churches that cancel their regular activities if they happen to fall on Christmas Day, Valentine’s Day, etc.
That isn't idolatry of the family, that's just a messed up church you should avoid. Idolatry means something is in the place of God, not in the place of the church. Also, the decision to cancel the service rests with the church leaders, not the congregation.
I’m not seeing how that’s idolatry of the family. What that might indicate is that a particular church that cancels things on certain holidays (which I personally have never heard of, but I believe exists in certain circles) is following the winds of our cultural whims and follies.
Their logic is perhaps that the coffee shop or retail clothing store has decreased hours on a holiday, so the church should follow that pattern as well.
This is a church that has accepted that they are merely an institution, just like how the coffee shop or clothing store are institutions.
This is a church that sees her congregants as an audience or (even worse) as customers. This is a church with a severely skewed ecclesiology; their sin is idolatry of culture and disobedience to what Scripture calls the Church to be. Not idolatry of family.
Does that make sense?
@@mcgheebentle1958 I call it idolatry of the family because the reasoning I always hear from the church leaders is “we’re not having church so our staff/volunteers can spend time with their families.” It’s a regular controversy when December 25th falls on a Sunday.
@@vanessaloy1049 That’s exactly my point. A church that has a correct view of herself will know that Church IS spending time with family. What’s at the fundamental heart of this issue is not that the church is idolizing family, but that the church has messed up somewhere so badly that it tears mothers and fathers from their children. This is not how Church is supposed to be. This is not idolatry of family; this is disobedience to what God calls the Church to be. Church should be family time. Any church that isn’t doing that and has to take a “break” for families to be reunited and spend time together has been too influenced by culture.
I don’t find any holy day(s) mentioned in the New Covenant. If you’re a sabbatarian of some sort, the original sabbath command specified “ceasing”. It did not require going to a building to worship.
Will I get a degree (or at least a certificate) for completing all "blog and mablog" videos?
Mmm, nice strong finish.
Interesting that you would quote Augustine on the subject of a proper family. Augustine being a man who wouldn't marry the mother of his son after he came to faith. Choosing instead a life of celebacy over marriage. (Yes I know he raised his son.) (And yes maybe she wouldn't marry him after he became a Christian.)
A lot of "maybes" there for us to exclude Augustine's opinions.
@@Chief_Of_Sinners there was one maybe
@@aallen5256 thanks, I misread. Still, that was the only "maybe" that mattered... maybe.
@@Chief_Of_Sinnersa allen is an atheist feminist reviler of the brethren fwiw
@@cosmictreason2242 reviler of the brethren?! Slander!
Reddish filter looks nice.
AKA "It's ok when Doug and the Moscow boys do it"
Doug & The Moscow boys are my favorite early church fathers.
30 seconds ago.
"Chinese orphans" If it were november would you have said "African orphans" ? XD
Chinese orphans 😂
The only problem when saying "kin" (05min mark point) is that some make it mean skin color.
Those of the "household" does not refere on a large scale to those who, at some point, were habitants of our country.
It refers first and foremost the woman who you ahve entered a marriage covenant with and the kids you are responsible to look after. And it doesn't really matter the skin color of your wife and children in that point.
In a second sense, it could mean "those of my city/state/country". But also does not include skin color in any way.
Which is something some "wolfians" are trying to convice us it does.
I think you should do a proper look into what kin means and the origin of the word. It refers to ones family and by extension has been used synonymously with ones race (extended family), look up the Latin origin. In no sense is kin tied to completely propositional ideas of “city/state/country”. By taking care of your own after God comes extended family (same kin), and extended further from their is your tribe/people/race whatever you want to call it (same kin). This is the way it has always been understood historically in normative life all over the world and also understood from reading the Scriptures without a Marxist tint on the reading glasses that the majority of Christians today seem to view it with.
Every person who has received Christ is my brother, therefore kin.
We can and should have the political discussion about how many people we can shelter. I can't fit all 50 of my cousins in my two bedroom house. Nobody would be happy.
@@yeji4358 Yes, and none of that has to do with skin color. You can be same kin with someone of a different skin color
@@YSLRD None of this has to do with imigration. All illegal imigration should be banned to whites,blacks or whomever. Nor should the State subsidize anyone's living cost (specially not immigrants)
Nope they are not your kin, they are brothers in Christ. The Bible is full of examples of the word “brothers” being used to identify fellow Christians but also used in cases referring to blood relations only. Stop equating the two.
Immigration is simply an application of economic policy. The question is one of amount. How many people does it take for a particular country to have a strong economy, for the benefit of the whole? If we apply the Jeremiah 29:7 principle, then what we want is enough to do good, but not so many as to do harm. And good and harm must be measured against the whole, and that objectively so. The Word presupposes the absolute standard of "good." It doesn't mean, "Good according to the standard of the elites or even the majority." If a certain large amount is objectively bad for the whole, because of a strain on the economy or whatnot, then when the Jeremiah 29:7 principle is applied, the Christian is duty-bound to be against it. As exiles and pilgrims (1 Peter 2:11), we have to seek the objective good of the "city" in which we find ourselves as proverbial exiles (Jer. 29:7). The other part of that is that we ought to seek the right enforcement of laws, provided those laws (even onerous ones) neither mandate disobedience to Christ's commands nor prohibit obedience to His commands. In other words, all laws that aren't against Him are essentially from Him. (1 Peter 2:13-17).
The problem arises whenever the civil magistrate even refuses to obey an objectively "ok" law. In that, they have no authority from Christ (to paraphrase Rutherford).
I'd posit that organic growth of populations and economies, and 'doing your own work' is the only way, long-term, to create stable and peaceable prosperity. Unfortunately immigration today is used in western countries to dilute the 'democratic' will and identity of the native populations, enrich and empower oligarchs, and push us toward a homogenized one-world society. No population ever suffers more than 10 or 15% foreign populations before social problems arise, and where a hostile government can leverage them as a bludgeon against the people. In the current year, we're beyond the point of needing to get into the weeds about the particulars of when some immigration can be "ok".
sounds like "kinism" to me...
Foolish then because Doug has fought very aggressively against the kinists
@@cosmictreason2242 that's what i'm trying to say. he would label me a "kinist" but this video basically outlined my beliefs
@@kuhatsuifujimoto9621 then you're deceitful about your views
@@cosmictreason2242 there is no deceit in my heart or views. doug wilson is just a boomer hopped up on 20th century propaganda
@@cosmictreason2242 he can't see the hypocrisy in this video compared to his bashing of what he calls "kinism"
Geez. Doug could make getting out of a paper bag complicated.
I guess it is to dazzle y'all.
He makes it complicated because after the show, he is counting your money. Tax free.
Wait… you think this is complicated?
@@mcgheebentle1958 oh no it was crystal clear. But trite and Doug is verbose. But I'm sure it dazzled you.
????????????????????????????
He pays taxes on money earned from UA-cam clicks so idk what your point is
@@cosmictreason2242 There you go. So dishonest. You know I'm not talking about his YT revenue.
Why do you people love to play dumb? It is your favorite (and only) play in your playbook.
Immigration is simply an application of economic policy. The question is one of amount. How many people does it take for a particular country to have a strong economy, for the benefit of the whole? If we apply the Jeremiah 29:7 principle, then what we want is enough to do good, but not so many as to do harm. And good and harm must be measured against the whole, and that objectively so. The Word presupposes the absolute standard of "good." It doesn't mean, "Good according to the standard of the elites or even the majority." If a certain large amount is objectively bad for the whole, because of a strain on the economy or whatnot, then when the Jeremiah 29:7 principle is applied, the Christian is duty-bound to be against it. As exiles and pilgrims (1 Peter 2:11), we have to seek the objective good of the "city" in which we find ourselves as proverbial exiles (Jer. 29:7). The other part of that is that we ought to seek the right enforcement of laws, provided those laws (even onerous ones) neither mandate disobedience to Christ's commands nor prohibit obedience to His commands. In other words, all laws that aren't against Him are essentially from Him. (1 Peter 2:13-17).
The problem arises whenever the civil magistrate even refuses to obey an objectively "ok" law. In that, they have no authority from Christ (to paraphrase Rutherford).