Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Biblical Patriarchy: How Complementarianism Falls Short Of Scripture
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 авг 2024
- *TRIGGER WARNING: This Is One Of Our Most Controversial Episodes | In this episode of Theology Applied, @thisisfosterand Bnonn Tennant, from It’s Good To Be A Man, discuss biblical patriarchy, “head-coverings,” women in civil government, women in the military, and why being “complementarian” is not enough, according to biblical standards. Subscribe to our RUclips channel for more content like this!
To support Right Response Ministries, visit: rightresponsem...
Subscribe to Theology Applied full episodes below:
Apple podcast: bit.ly/theolog...
Spotify podcast: bit.ly/theolog...
Google Play podcast: bit.ly/theolog...
If you live in the Austin area, Pastor Joel just started planting a brand new church called Covenant Bible Church in Hutto, Texas. He would love for you to come visit on a Sunday. Check out the church’s website for details: covenantbible....
#Patriarchy #BiblicalPatriarchy #Complementarianism
_________________________________________________
Keywords: biblical patriarchy, patriarchy, Complementarianism, theology, Reformed theology, podcast, Christian podcast, theology podcast, theology show, Christian show, the gospel
Pastor Joel was ready for that challenge, he was quick with “Well Baptists divide at the local level but Presbys have to start a whole other denomination”.
Good point
With the 12 year old, get them baptised as it’s a command. Let them vote at the age of responsibility as an adult in our society, 18 in England.
When he laid out the "This is why we have churches that split but you have denominations that split" yes just yes
------Under pat-comp teachings a kind and loving christian man will continue to be a kind and loving christian man towards wife family and others.
------Under pat-comp teachings an abusive man uses scripture to justify his abuse towards wife family and others.
------Under egalitarian or mutual teachings a loving christian man will continue to be a loving christian man towards wife family and others.
------Under egalitarian or mutual teachings an abusive man has no excuses ! The door that justifies his abuse towards wife family and others is SHUT!
An abusive person is going to find a way to abuse, regardless of what doctrine you pick. You are not supposed to pick doctrines based on how people may misinterpret them or abuse them. You are supposed to pick doctrine because it is true, backed by scripture.
@@nerychristian
true yes abusers abuse with many having narcissistic personality which is a hard nut to break but they are much easier to spot in an egalitarian church.
but too often well meaning church counselors under pat/comps teachings advise the abused wife to stay in the marriage and be more obedient, more submissive and grow spiritually in suffering. They do not realize that advice rarely if ever works.
First the abused wife was already being obedient, and submissive. And is is often asked of her what she had done wrong to cause the problem which is victim blaming.
These well meaning church leadership/counselors often have not had training in the area of abuse and marital relations. They use the bible out of context to solve problems that need more than bible advice.
They do no recognize 1- narcissistic men rarely change 2- they are misusing scripture 3-that the woman is the equal to the man and able to make her own decisions and not be under male authority, especially abusive.
In an egal marriage, she and the husband being equals, are mutually submissive one to another could discuss their problems and come to a solution that suits both of them. Under pat/comp it is the male authority that decides and does not have to take the woman’s perspective into account and narcississtic men take full advantage of this as they are selfish to the nth degree.
And if the church were egalitarian they would not advise a woman to stay in an abusive situation and they would recognize early on that the marriage is abusive and have better ways to deal with the situation by dealing with the man who if he is narcissitic would never go to an egal church anyway because its very theology of equality of the sexes would expose his evil deeds the first time he tries to manipulate, gaslight or mistreat his wife in any way shape or form.
47:20 *"if you think it's important to debate something, that makes you scary, so you get put out."* My experience in effeminate churches and toxic workplaces in a nutshell. I consider myself TOO conciliatory, agreeable, and reserved. I respect existing authority structures and am not pugnacious. But the mere fact of asking questions about why things are done a certain way, or making a suggestion, that has led to a disconcerting number of wrongful terminations and abuses of authority. The men are acting like women: nonconformity must be destroyed. I was literally told by the elders of one church that the variety in the color scheme of my Sunday clothes was not enough and that if I changed that, I might be accepted and permitted to join a small group. One employer terminated me for promoting reconciliation between store management and complaining coworkers by asking the management to clarify the reason for a specific policy that was not universal across locations and therefore was at the discretion of local management. I'm giving these details to contextualize my statement at the top, because how will you know if I'm just a bitter troublemaker or if my criticisms are valid if I don't explain?
The messenger of God's truth should not need to validate himself.... but it is better if he does. The message is validated by the character of the source which is God. The messenger can be the town drunk or Billy Graham which doesn't affect the truthfulness of the message but may affect how readily it's accepted by the hearer. So, you have a point even though it shouldn't be that way.
So glad I didn't get married lol and neither did any of my friends. No wonder the birth rate is plunging globally.
Did you just mention how you contributed to the birth rate plummeting, and then immediately deride the birth rate plummeting?
Disgusting talk and I respect my husband and he love me God help this women
English, please.
the problem with patriarchy/complementarianism living under the "commands" of women submit and be silent is the glaring question......TO WHAT DEGREE?
to what degree does the woman submit and to whom, when and why---
when does the woman say "no", or "enough" or "God told me different."
there is the rub. if Jesus saved us to have that personal relationship and be our leader then anyone else claiming headship is taking the place of the Holy spirit. How unfair to fallible person to be responsible for another's spiritual walk.
Christ is the head of man
MAN is the head of woman
The "personal relationship " is another subtle feminist trick taught to the church in order to rid of God's hierarchy between the sexes.
I think a woman needs to pick a husband who has sound judgement and is loving. That way she doesn't have to worry about the husband trying to abuse his authority. A godly man is not going to abuse his authority over a woman. A quality man will be confident enough in himself that he doesn't need to pull our the man card. Only in some situations, in which there is an important decisions that needs to be made that affects the wife or family, he may be forced to have the final say.
@@nerychristianHow is a "godly husband's" authority not redundant to God's authority? A "godly husband" will by definition follow God's leading in all his decisions, which, the wife already has access to in her own relationship with God.
Thank you for this thoughtful discussion, guys!
Thank you!
Neglect and abuse is a biblical ground for divorce. Please read Exodus 21 and the books of Dr. Instone-Brewer. 🙏🏻
I've always thought voting should be based on those paying into the system. If any man or single mom (Lydia) is holding down a job and paying into the system they should vote. Those on welfare or jobless have no right to vote. The land ownership idea was on the right track, but misses a large portion of people who have more than earned the right (responsibility) to vote
is landownership biblical? No. Why is the church mirroring the gross-world?
@@rachelm9350 Yes it is biblical. Besides the obvious laws on property and land ownership in the Torah, you have the protection of these rights in the 8th and 10th commandment. In Acts 5 believers had the right to own and sell their property according to their own generosity. God gives wealth and Scripturw teaches us He expects the wealthy to be generous with what they have - including their property, crops, etc.
Have you ever read the history of voting in the US and why it was broadened to more people? It's a fascinating subject.
I have certainly seen a gross abuse of galatians 3 rise up in the past few years. To me, the neither jew nor Greek, male nor female...is strictly talking about salvation being offered. I think anyone who tries to apply it in other ways runs into the issue of ignoring context and SOMETIMES heresy. Unfortunately missing context to apply a verse to our worldview has probably happened to all of us.
Right on. Well said.
do they ? What about the context of when Paul wrote the New Testament.?
@ Levi Speth
This verse has been INTENTIONALLY misapplied by feminists in order to push their wicked agenda. If there is neither male nor female , then homosex is perfectly OK and cross dressing should be the way.
No excuse . This has been done PURPOSELY and the lie has reached the whole Western world.
Yes how dare we use relevant scriptures when making our points.
@37.00 "I think of it as a long line of dominance..." oh, sorry, that was "...a long line of dominoes".
I agree shouldn't be Police Officers, but women shouldn't vote? Really?
women are delusional
Great discussion gentlemen. I'm subscribing
Thanks!
I wish I understood what u guys meant by the bad attributes of a female, you used words like “brassy and opinionated”. And I truly don’t know precisely what you mean by that.
its all based on gender stereotypes, just like how the gay community does the same thing. Its absurd.
@@rachelm9350 I'm sure you're equally outraged when stereotypes are used against men.
Lmao our recent cross-talk on the subject of JBP would be one thing that comes to my mind. Don't get me wrong, I love an opinionated Christian woman, and the best public example I can think of is Allie Beth Stuckey. Passivity is not only unattractive, it's a sin. But having opinions and being opinionated are obviously different, and I would say the difference is in the degree of wisdom present in the opinion, and, more key, the degree of sinful stubbornness in the maintenance of that opinion when given correction. A further consideration is that when either sex makes public comments putting down the other judgmentally, it tends to be grating. Bonus points if those comments come from a uniquely sex-specific attitude, eg men having comments about sluts or passive aggression, and women having comments about creeps or guys being 'uncaring' with all of its dozen synonyms.
The Bible speaks about how *fools* utter all their mind, but a *wise* person holds it in till afterward. Brassy, opinionated people are fools, or at least acting foolish in the moment. The Bible does not divide between men and women on this topic.
I don't know either but it sounds like the contentious woman that every man wants to get away from.
Just started watching your channel. I google words I don't understand as I watch, lol.
Hahaha. Good for you. Glad to have you with us!
Was thinking through this idea the other day, as I realized the only examples we have from Scripture are patriarchal (even NT descriptions are patriarchal). I think in some sense egalitarianism is good, that we view each other as equals, and complementarianism is good in that we see our roles balance out the family. However, neither address the authoritative responsibility of the husband.
And then looking around at society, seeing how most husbands are weak and spineless and most wives are overbearing, it kind of makes sense. Doesn’t work.
Excited to hear you guys flesh it out.
Vast vast topic…
I think it does address the authority of the man. It says the man is the head. And complimentary roles when properly applied by guys like doug wilson and crew are great at properly defining and applying it. I would call it real complimentarianism. What most evangelicals call complimentarianism is really egalitarian mixed with complimentarianism
@@repentorperish1386 what if the man is a fool? Should he still be "the head"? A man who is a drunk and whores around then commands his wife to do something sexual with him.. should she really comply to that ? no. sorry not sorry!
@@rachelm9350 you're talking about a what if situation...
Sure if the man isn't living up to his responsibilities and isn't doing what he is called to do then thats a problem obviously. but i even said as long as properly applied. So idk why people have yo throw out these hypothetical situations when thats not what is being talked about. Do you think someone that holds my views would say no you submit always in everything no matter what? If you husband isn't acting in a biblical way then guess what? Tell him. You're meant to be a pair and if he is a professing Christian then call him yo repentance, go to a pastor, sit down and read the bible together. We have The Spirit and The Spirit changes hearts and minds. On the other end of that you will have no ground to stand on when calling tour husband to repentance if you aren't submitting as a wife. Also, why when we speak of submitting do yalls minds go to sexual things? Anyways, you said no thanks at the end of your comment, does that mean you would leave him? Does that mean you would say no no redemption for you im done? Is that the way Jesus treats us? No Jesus redeems the most wretched of us. So in summary based on the little information you gave in your comment, i would say make sure you're doing what you're supposed to do as a wife and then call this man to repentance and get your pastor involved. If you're speaking in the sense of you aren't married yet then i would say dont marry a guy like that, marry a guy you can submit to. Remember submission is a choice and to submit you have to respect your man. If you don't respect him then you shouldn't marry him. If you're already married then ask yourself why. Again, i dont have much information but based on what you said then you cant submit because he isnt submitting himself to the Lord. But to me it seems you dont like the idea of submitting regardless of the situation and i think you should ask yourself why, then again maybe im reading too much into it. If you could give specifics i would be glad to help, but submission isnt a dirty word, men must submit to Christ and women to men because they both are submitting to Christ.
@@repentorperish1386
Rachel perhaps carelessly used the phrase "what if," but that doesn't make the situation she described hypothetical. She could have also said "When..." Maybe it's real in her life and she doesn't want to throw her husband under the bus publicly (out of kindness and respect), or if not the situation she described certainly and definitely applies to thousands of other couples.
Since what she described does happen all the time, it's not "her mind" going to sexual things -- it's actual men acting that way and then demanding sex. And yes many Christian leaders and husbands do use 1 Cor 7:4 to command her to give it.
Her question is an honest good one: "What then?" -- in those many cases that actually do exist.
Only by God's grace am I not married to, more a single parent by, the godly fool I was engaged to in 2008. Yes, "godly fool" -- he really was godly in ways and foolish and abusive in others. Manipulative, controlling, gaslighting... And using "Submit!" to get his way EVERY time, including when his wishes stomped on the rights of and were rude to every family member and friend we had. Such as when he told me "Submit" to his decision that we were going to use every one of my mom's 6 avocadoes, without permission and that she had obviously bought with a plan to make something, on the pizza we were making for our friends. Rachel's question is good: "What then?" (Not if!)
Was the discussion on head coverings in the bonus part?
Hey, what was the name of the book mentioned to help with this topic? The name of the author would be appreciated 😊
I found it! "Three views on the millennium." but I want to know the authors name please
Can you make Gods design for men and women a playlist on your channel? Patriarchy, manhood, womanhood, etc.
It’s interesting to hear Joel say his church has a simply majoring vote that’s necessary, because my Baptist church has a 2/3 majority vote necessary
Jesus did not prevent Judas from partaking of the Lord's table and Jesus knew he was a thief and about to be possessed by the devil, so I think you should leave that decision up to each person.... you don't have the authority to ban someone from the Lord's Table unless you usurp it.
The dominoes analogy is very good.
I like your theory on the "intermediate bodies", especially when you consider Rev. 6:11. I could be interpreting wrongly, but you kinda have to have some form of body to wear the robes given lol
Thanks
In philosophy, the term "substance" is used to refer to "stuff," and matter is one form of substance and spirit is a category term referring to any non-material substance. So when Jesus tells the woman at the well that the Father is spirit, he is making this category distinction and not actually saying God is "a" spirit/soul in the sense of humans, angels, demons (the word literally means spirit in the Greek), and perhaps speculatively, some animals. The LBC talks about the incarnation by saying that Jesus 'took to himself a reasonable soul.' In the Trinity, only Jesus has a human soul, and if we mean a human soul when we say 'soul,' then in that sense God (the divine essence) does not have/is not a soul. We aren't given any clarifying instruction on types of non-material substance, but it seems that human/angelic souls are not the same kind of thing as the spirit of God, because God is everywhere present and eternal, but our souls are limited to one place at one time, and have a distinct beginning. Both share in common that they are not 'extended in space' so that if you cut off your arm you don't lose part of your soul, and likewise there is not more of God in one place than another place. That is something we have in common which is distinct from material substance, which does have extension in space. All of this was to answer the original question by saying that in the intermediate state we can have a body which to our perception may seem physical, even though it is immaterial.. We might not notice any difference from our own perspective. Jesus exists in heaven in a physical body, the same one he was resurrected in, so there's that, also. Bottom line, spirit just means not composed of quarks/atoms/leptons/photons, it doesn't mean gaseous, intangible, invisible (for a given definition of visible), etc.
@@horrificpleasantry9474 substance can mean seed as well. Proverbs command not to give your substance is talking about releasing seed wich drains your vigor
Amazing!
Is this a reupload?
Yes. We’re airing a couple reruns for the holidays.
Joel, have you reconsidered Congregationalism since this podcast? It seems to me that it creates more problems than it solves.
In my current church, we practice elder rule. We believe it is consistent with the New Testament. In Acts 14:23, new elders are appointed by the current leadership, and Paul tells Timothy to do the same (Titus 1:5).
Elder rule also seems consistent with patriarchy, since the relationship of the elders to the laypeople would mirror that of a father to his family.
In our church it is a blessing. The elders make the decisions. Since there are multiple elders, they don’t make any decisions unless they agree in total.
Curious to hear your thoughts.
I held to “elder-rule” for several years. For the record, 1689 polity does not permit the congregation to vote on everything. The congregation simply has a say in ordination and excommunication, according to the confession.
In short, a majority of the congregation must approve the current elders’ recommendation for new elders and deacons (both being ordained officers in the church) in order for these individuals to be ordained. The congregation must also agree to remove someone from membership (which seems to be the plainest reading of Matthew 18). The elders cannot merely “inform” the congregation that they kicked someone out of the church.
In addition to these two things, in my church, the elders cannot alter the Statement of Faith or the Church Bylaws without a majority approval of the congregation.
Lastly, at the end of each year, the elders present the annual budget for the upcoming year to be approved by the congregation. Everything else falls to the elders.
One quick warning: When I held to “elder rule” back in the day, I too thought unanimity was a good idea. In theory, it sounded right. The problem was that Scripture plainly teaches that false teachers will “arise from in your midst.” In other words, sometimes one or two of your elders turn out to be snakes. How do you vote out an elder when your bylaws state that all elders have to agree on any decision. It’s a bit of a catch 22. This happened in churches all over the country last year when Covid hit. Many churches discovered that they had cowardly elders on their board, who when tested, lacked discernment, courage, and integrity.
@@RightResponseMinistries Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response, brother. This gives me a couple of things to think about.
Appreciate everything you are doing for God’s people! Keep up the good work.
@@grahamoliver1996 thank you very much. We need all the encouragement and support we can get.
@@RightResponseMinistries "How do you vote out an elder when your bylaws state that all elders have to agree on any decision. It’s a bit of a catch 22. "
Hopefully I gave you something interesting to think about in my attempt to reply to that. Summarizing here, I suppose one way is for the bylaws not to state that, but given the situation where you've got a snake among them, the good elders can leave, with the congregation, and begin a new congregation. If no elder does, the congregation can leave and join a sound church. To a lot of guys -- notably, in my opinion, the conservatives in the SBC who didn't immediately leave after the convention in 2021 -- there's a sense of "no way, that's giving up and quitting/losing. We should be able to win!" and there's just no such obligation in Scripture. The members aren't leaving the church. The Church is leaving the edifice.
Hey guy there's this 6th century Arabian guy I think you'd really like, you say a lot of the same things.
Nice one. I heard Hitler also used sarcasm. I guess you’re the same.
See how easy that was.
@@RightResponseMinistries Oh dang, I'm part of the official reply club, and I got a Hitler comparison I guess I ruffled some feathers.
I can't finish listening to these guys. They expend effort to define what we will be like between our death and the final judgement. We're not told in the bible yet they speculate with no foundation. Why not spend your time on stuff that matters like the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These guys need to understand that God has given us the government that we have and quit wishing that they lived in Old Testament Israel. I'm out. This stuff borders on or is legalism.
Joel, may I send you a moderately lengthy email with some thoughts on the ecclesiology of voting? I'm arriving at this stuff much later than everyone I'm listening to, so I don't have any authority from longtime experience, but on the other hand, I'm coming with less baggage and digesting the theology more "fresh"-ly. Maybe I have some considerations that would be helpful.
Sure!
Frankly, the number and types of the things a church should be voting on should be mostly 2nd-ish to 3rd tier issues, so voting in the church should really not be very contentious thing in terms of the mode and structure.
The mistake can be to call things that are of 1st tier importance, like women pastors, 2nd tier issues instead.
Problem: A liberal single female member has as much of a vote as the stalwart godly elder head of household. Solution: Don’t let women vote unless they are widowed and have a family.
Started off sounding very theonomic.
Good
Amen
Michael Foster... from cincinnati. Where is your church??? I am located in cincinnati and looking for a reformed church.
Thanks
If a husband is not in submission to God, his wife can never submit enough for a happy home.
The wife can please God by doing it God's way and leave the outcome to Him. Wives know God can change her husband.... they just don't like God's timeline and method, so they take the wheel and help God out a little which will not please God and will most likely provoke the husband which is kind of what many wives want to do anyway (provoke) because they are mad
@@jasminestovall4049 I was talking about 2 Christian's. 1 cor 6 unequally yoked refers to salvation... not "submitted" Yes, you get to choose. Most women choose the bad ones... the abusive ones... but not always.
@@jasminestovall4049 even strong Christian men sin and fail. Walking in the Spirit is not guaranteed.
@@jasminestovall4049 true, abuse doesn't have to be physical. Women have to trust God and their husband. The husband has authority and opportunity to be abusive. The wife can be abusive as well. What can the husband do against abuse?
@@jasminestovall4049 I agree. The problem is God's government structure for family, church, and society is "father rule" or "patriarchy " which is attacked mercilessly because the devil hates it. Just because sinful men abuse the authority, you don't demonize and get rid of what God designed. Patriarchy was designed to honor God, function well and produce the most joy and satisfaction for every member of the family, church and society. Just because a judge abuses his authority, you dont6get rid of judges altogether... you deal with the sinner individually.
Women are naturally concerned about abuse as we all should. Whoever is under authority bears the most abuse. If you turn it into a matriarchy, I would argue that the abuse would be more prevalent but it would manifest itself differently. A woman who does not Biblically submit undermines herself, her husband, her family, her church family, society, and Gods reputation. All of life is based on "father rule" because that is how the trinity is set up and the relationship between Jesus and His bride. No government structure will function efficiently without someone having the authority to make the final decision. When a wife can embrace this truth and trust God to handle her husband who frequently fails and disappoints, then there will be more peace and happiness. It is a step of faith to trust God and the authority structure designed for us. It's easy for me to say "trust God's plan" but it's never that simple because each spouse has to suffer the sin of the other until God provides a remedy or repentance. As long as God is on the throne and we have the Holy Spirit power to choose to forgive, choose to trust, and choose to love... we have hope and not really any good excuses. God says love our enemies and be not overcome with evil but overcome evil with good. Easy to say but requires Holy Spirit power to do. God loves you and he knows your pain. He took our pain of death upon Himself and suffered in our place. If we are thinking of submitting as to the Lord, it is easier to accept the authority God gives us. That doesn't mean the authority gets to sin without accountability or consequences, but we should seek accountability God's way to have God's favor and blessing on everything we do. If we don't do it God's way then it usually turns out worse for everyone.
There's a place for the "yeah buts"but we have to agree on structure first, then application and problem solving. Most women are focused on the problem because it's a pain they are feeling now. Once agreement and understandings is made on structure, some problems begin to heal immediately. Think about it from the husbands perspective... how is he "the captain", supposed to lead when he has mutiny, insubordination and sabotage of what he's trying to do. I'm not accusing you of anything here... just saying we've seen it or done it. It's extremely frustrating for a husband because he can't make his wife do anything, but we all know this is when coercion, persuasion, and manipulation gets out of line and sometimes gets sinful... and both spouses usually have their own ways to do it. Lou Priolo has a book on resolving conflicts Biblically that I recommend to anyone. It has helped me.
I've seen effects of different kinds of abuse. My wife was molested and date raped which is tragically about a 1 in 3 occurence. She doesn't trust men and she only trusts me a little. Sin causes problems for everyone and the effects are far reaching, and it has made my life hell at times but God is merciful and gracious, kind and loving, forgiving and encouraging....all the time.
Baptism has nothing to do with voting. It is for the forgiveness of sins, and you are withholding it from your children.
Baptists are like a box of chocolates.... you just never know 😄 ...I'm a baptist so I can say it, and I'll throw in that we more resemble a Jerry Springer show than a purified bride... but hey...families do what families do... we sin and then sit around and talk about it over caserole and pie
Wouldn't allowing women to vote in church be the same as allowing women to speak in church? I think the answer is, yes, it would be the same exact thing, and it would be an exercise or authority over men. Also, "there is no male or female in heaven" in only about heaven, as you've taught, it does not apply now to this earth nor does it apply to the new earth which is this earth made new.
Mike. Great podcast. You look younger. Lol
Women no vote!! Yeah!!!! I gotta join this guys church !
There is nothing wrong with having the child baptized as an adult. Because at that stage in life, they are (or should be) of SOUND MIND. And by default, it would be their decision, without social or collective pressure of their parents or fellow church goers.
And while I am NOT a feminist enabler, in a free society, women are NOT second class citizens. And they aren't going to give up the right to vote just to appease your male authoritarian Calvinistic ego.
lmao well that's a way of telegraphing your rebellion
@ Nathan Kinman
" your male authoritarian ego"
If you read your Bible , you would see that God has a HUGE male authoritarian ego and man , made in his image, has too .
I think God should seek help from all the spiritual charlatans called "marital counsellors" who always tell husbands to bow down to their wives's irrational and ungodly whims.
Yeah that's what God should do.
@@framboise595 well, if men fantasise a god in their image…what do you expect?
@@joygibbons5482
Men don't fantasise anything. Man is the image and glory of God. He resembles God's masculine attributes in many ways.
Masculinity existed before man was ever created.
I don't think a 23-year-old single woman would necessarily have to have the same voting power as a family of 8. Would she not still be under the headship of her father, being unmarried? Not sure how that plays out for someone who is much older and still single, or whose father has died.
honestly this sounds like Saudi Arabia.
@@rachelm9350 Good because they have it correct on that specific topic.
@@g00gle1sw4tchingme They have a monarchy not a democracy.
The OT specifically discusses the issue of self-sufficient widows. I think it's in the context of oaths. A father can cancel his daughter's vow, a husband can cancel his wife's vow, but an older widow is responsible for her own vows. So from that, we get the 'General Equity' principle that elder widows would be able to represent themselves.
One of the reasons ladies fought for the right to vote was so that they could get domestic abuse laws in place. It's funny how it was completely legal to beat your wife until women were allowed to vote.
Patriarchal men should want women to be protected. One way to do that is to have women vote.
You are to leave your father and mother and cling to each other and become 1 flesh. Love and unity. What God has joined together, let man not separate. You are separating what God has join together. Fish and birds are not called to love or make decisions that will go into all eternity. You cannot back Patriarchy with scripture. Marriage is a team. The best decisions Larry and I have made as a couple was when we were United and honored God. It’s about loving one another. Yes, I homeschooled, that too was undergird per with Christian agape, self sacrificial love. Everything I have heard from Michael Foster is commanding your wife to serve him, as the husband.Jesus said the greatest among you, must be your servant. Turn to the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. It’s good to be a man Facebook, Twitter is against the Gospel, and not at all biblical.
1 Corinthians 11:3-But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
No. You're mistaken. In their blogposts they reject any leadership where persons are commanded to submit.
Every week they focus on cultivating virtue and competence. They see these things as necessary for men.
They often critique men who demand submission but are sinful, incompetent and weak. They never have recommended that husbands command their wives to submit. They have done the opposite.
I think you should read their blogposts to form a more informed opinion of them. I think your speculation is incorrect.
They have prioritized the gospel. In their podcast they have spoken of the importance of men to be followers of Jesus if they desire to be leaders and to be good sons and learn obedience before they lead.
@ Theresa Read
Take off your feminist mask you Vasti ! You are being debunked.
You want power over your own husband and he is weak enough to let you rule over him. Women rule , men serve is THE feminist slogan.
You hate the Lord who set up Patriarchy on earth , supposed to mirror his own heavenly Patriarchy since
God is head of Christ
Christ is head of man
Man is head of woman
"Love and unity"
Feminist serpents like you love bringing the love stuff all the time since it gives women a free pass to rule.
They have turned marriage into a love stuff when the BIBLE says that marriage is allowed by the Lord because of our sexual urges , in order to keep believers safe from carnal temptations.
Marriage has never been about love in the first place. The love marriage insanity is a Western utopia that has led to our modern disaster : no more righteous hierarchy , ie man ruling over wife (because the woman was made for the man , in no way the man for the woman) and no more sex in marriage.
@@bobfridge
The post modern church and its clique of so called pastors should shut their ugly feminist mouths !
The BIBLE that they hate says that a man who takes a wife for himself does GOOD in God's eyes. So , why on earth do those wolves think they have to add , always criticising married men and shaming their own male sexuality IN MARRIAGE ? !!
A man who gets married does not fornicate , he does not take his neighbour's wife , he has in own wife for sex. But this , they cannot stand it. They hate men so much that all they can do is trying to blame them for imaginary sins.
When a man gets married , his wife is his and it is between He and his Lord. All the pastors , counsellors and other muckrackers have nothing to do with that. They have nothing to say. CHRIST is the head and the judge of man and husbands.
All the wolves who have taken hold of the post modern church have defrauded husbands of their authority and rights (especially their right to sex).They have been preaching lies for decades.
They NEVER teach men to lead anything in fact. They teach men to lead with no authority , they preach their insane servant leadership whose goal was to turn husbands into servants at the mercy of female's irrational whims and wicked desires of usurpation.
It is hideous.
@Jasmine Stovall same thing applies. Again I recommend you read their posts on Discipleship & Dominion.