RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That sums up where I am. If one of the episode summaries is true, when they had a chance to put all the dirt on display about Wilson, they interviewed a Unitarian professor. Really?
Sons of Patriarchy
- Thread starter Guido's Brother
- Start date
- Status
That sums up where I am. If one of the episode summaries is true, when they had a chance to put all the dirt on display about Wilson, they interviewed a Unitarian professor. Really?
The second table of the law begins with honour thy father and thy mother, which, according to our Catechisms, includes all the superiors God has placed over us, even though they are mere men. This requires power structures as a necessary part of society in family, church, and state. It might not appeal to your particular "self," but Christ calls us to deny our selves in order to follow Him. Loving sinful selves is self-indulgence, not love. We are to avoid those who are lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.
Yes, again I find it perplexing that some take a verse that conjuncts father and mother and disjunct them, inserting a power differential between them. Like I said before, it is not the subordination of wife, but the protection of a woman/wife that seems to be the preoccupation of the law.
That is certainly the aim of the law; but to fulfil that aim the subjection of the wife is necessary on her part. Paul states this so plainly that it leaves me wondering why you would not consider this important.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
@AnAnders:
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."
"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands."
"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord."
"Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
Do you believe a wife should be in subjection to her husband?
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."
"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands."
"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord."
"Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
Do you believe a wife should be in subjection to her husband?
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
I looked up 1 Peter 3:1 and used the tools available to look up the word in Greek. This is the result of that:
Strong's Lexicon
hupotassó: To subject, to subordinate, to submit, to be under obedience
Original Word: ὑποτάσσω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hupotassó
Pronunciation: hoop-ot-as'-so
Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-ot-as'-so)
Definition: To subject, to subordinate, to submit, to be under obedience
Meaning: I place under, subject to; mid, pass: I submit, put myself into subjection.
Word Origin: From the preposition ὑπό (hupo, meaning "under") and τάσσω (tassó, meaning "to arrange" or "to order")
Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: The concept of submission in the Old Testament is often conveyed through words like כָּנַע (kaná, Strong's H3665), meaning "to humble" or "to subdue," and שָׁמַע (shamá, Strong's H8085), meaning "to hear" or "to obey."
Usage: The verb "hupotassó" primarily means to arrange under, to subordinate, or to subject oneself. In the New Testament, it is often used to describe the relationship of submission or subordination, whether in a social, familial, or spiritual context. It implies a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of submission was integral to the social order, particularly within the household. The paterfamilias (head of the family) held authority over the household, and members were expected to submit to his leadership. This cultural understanding of hierarchy and order is reflected in the New Testament's use of "hupotassó," especially in passages addressing family and community relationships. However, the Christian perspective introduced a transformative view of submission, emphasizing mutual respect and love, as exemplified by Christ's own submission to the Father.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from hupo and tassó
Definition
to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey
NASB Translation
put in subjection (5), subject (16), subjected (7), subjecting (1), subjection (4), submissive (3), submit (2).
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
to subject, put in subjection
From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey -- be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
So I'm not understanding the objection to the subjection of the wife to her husband Anna. It does seem the Bible teaches that. Are you referring to something else?
Strong's Lexicon
hupotassó: To subject, to subordinate, to submit, to be under obedience
Original Word: ὑποτάσσω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hupotassó
Pronunciation: hoop-ot-as'-so
Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-ot-as'-so)
Definition: To subject, to subordinate, to submit, to be under obedience
Meaning: I place under, subject to; mid, pass: I submit, put myself into subjection.
Word Origin: From the preposition ὑπό (hupo, meaning "under") and τάσσω (tassó, meaning "to arrange" or "to order")
Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: The concept of submission in the Old Testament is often conveyed through words like כָּנַע (kaná, Strong's H3665), meaning "to humble" or "to subdue," and שָׁמַע (shamá, Strong's H8085), meaning "to hear" or "to obey."
Usage: The verb "hupotassó" primarily means to arrange under, to subordinate, or to subject oneself. In the New Testament, it is often used to describe the relationship of submission or subordination, whether in a social, familial, or spiritual context. It implies a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden.
Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of submission was integral to the social order, particularly within the household. The paterfamilias (head of the family) held authority over the household, and members were expected to submit to his leadership. This cultural understanding of hierarchy and order is reflected in the New Testament's use of "hupotassó," especially in passages addressing family and community relationships. However, the Christian perspective introduced a transformative view of submission, emphasizing mutual respect and love, as exemplified by Christ's own submission to the Father.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from hupo and tassó
Definition
to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey
NASB Translation
put in subjection (5), subject (16), subjected (7), subjecting (1), subjection (4), submissive (3), submit (2).
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
to subject, put in subjection
From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey -- be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
So I'm not understanding the objection to the subjection of the wife to her husband Anna. It does seem the Bible teaches that. Are you referring to something else?
My submission to my own husband is temporal and didactic. I follow him because I have a covenantal view of man and woman in Genesis 2. The first man/husband was the covenantal head of humanity and to lead his wife (and all humanity) onward and upward to Sabbath rest in the highest heavens. When I willingly submit to my husband's spiritual leadership, I mirror the church's submission to the Second Adam who has spearheaded his bride's ascent by his perfect obedience and vicarious death, accomplishing what the first Adam failed to do. That is not the same as a wife submitting to abuse. Abuse, which I define as the unlawful use of power, distorts the picture, therefore a wife should be careful not to submit to abuse. A wife is to help her husband's obedience, not his disobedience.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Did anyone in this thread mention that a wife needs to submit to abuse? Weren't we just discussing whether the Scriptures teach that a wife is to be subject to her husband?
As for the podcast that this thread talks about, it seems most of the people on this thread want abuse in the church to be addressed and handled properly (witnesses, evidences, civil magistrates getting involved, no more cover ups, etc.), but they seem to find the SoP podcast very unhelpful to that goal.
It is undoubtedly true that abuse is an unlawful use of power. Nobody here advocates for that. We would all recommend equal yoking in the marriage bond -- believers with believers; and for this the beautiful pattern of Christ's behaviour to the church is paramount. But marriage applies to all, even to unbelievers. If the husband were an unbeliever Paul would require the wife to stay with him and Peter would require her to win him by her example. Scripture addresses real life. It gives us high ideals for marriage but it doesn't make marriage itself dependent on those ideals. Subjection is required as a moral duty. Just as love is required from the husband as a moral duty. It is not a negotiated arrangement.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Not sure why we are arguing with someone who keeps shifting the line of reasoning and context whenever someone refutes her. From what I have seen, the line of argumentation is similar to what liberals use (e.g. head doesn't mean head, completely ignoring commentaries, not responding to verses where head isn't even used). @AnAnders please stop shifting the conversation and using strawmans and respond to the arguments actually being made.
I listened to “Groomed to Submit -Abuse in the CREC Pt2”
This is composed of two long interviews with abuse survivors, Jean and Emily. As I listened to these stories I was conscious of the fact that I am hearing the viewpoint of participants in terrible sins, gross sins of a kind that no session can easily cope with, and no possibility of the participants enduring such things without suffering damage. I am naturally inclined to believe and sympathize with women who are suffering, even though I know that I am hearing just one side of the story. How can I achieve objectivity given my predisposition? In hearing just one side of the story there is no realistic possibility of my achieving balanced analysis. In that sense Peter Bell is doing us all a disservice by publicising these interviews. It is as if someone has driven past, shouted out, “Doug Wilson and the CREC are evil” and then just driven off.
Nevertheless I can still listen to the interviews and hear just one person’s view and at least understand how the world looks to them, and understand their experiences to some degree.
The first one was Jean. She said she had a alcoholic husband, involved in p0rnography and eventually unfaithful. The elders said she had grounds to divorce him, which she eventually did. So the CREC elders seemed to have made some attempt to support her and discipline the husband. Whether he was ever a Christian and whether he really repented is uncertain. So Jean complains that she felt isolation, and then her conclusion is that the church teaching causes depression. She makes the extravagant claim that the church mistook immorality for holiness, but offered no evidence. She said at one stage she was asked to submit to her husband and the session, which I can understand, but what she thought that meant in practice is unclear, and she makes it sound like an unreasonable imposition. Without hearing the elders explain what they were doing no firm conclusions can be drawn by the listener. It sounded like a miserable situation causing pain for all concerned, but no clear evidence of misbehaviour by the church. I could not see how this story gave any substance to Bell’s accusations against the CREC.
The second interview was with Emily who was “ groomed” or seduced at 17 by a 50 year old teacher at the CREC school. My heart was touched by the awful experience of this young girl, and naturally I found the reported behavior of Nance, the teacher, despicable. My natural inclination is to regard the man as the problem in these situations, as the leader, and particularly so when it is an older man. But then I tried to put on my analytical persona and my perception shifted a little. She complained all the way through the interview that she had nobody to talk to, but the obvious people to speak to were her parents, who were always available. For some reason that is not explained very well she did not confide in them. She said she did not want to because of feelings of shame. This was a major mistake on her part. I have daughters and I know how important it is that they should keep me informed because when it comes to attracting male attention they can be naive. Emily admits that she was naive. I have also learned that Christian men can be incredibly naive regarding close relationships with women they work with, whether in the church or elsewhere. You can be the most godly man on the planet, but if you spend long periods of time with another woman, and she is of similar age or younger, you will find that there is something of an attractive Eve in every woman. Men who appear to be godly can be really stupid in this area. So if the story is true, Nance ended up walking down a well-trodden path, and dug himself in deep, and had to own up to his sin, eventually. But Emily clearly states that she has no guilt, no shame, no responsibility, and Peter Bell says he agrees, because she was groomed. How Peter Bell can pass judgment on the behavior of Doug Wilson and the CREC based on hearing just one side of the story is beyond me. Bell cannot understand why Emily was accused of covering up, and accused of consenting to the relationship. Well, I can explain. By her own account, after severing all ties with Nance, who had been partially exposed by this time as guilty, she admits that she decided to meet with him again, and so at 18 years old restarts the relationship at a higher level of intensity! How are the elders able to draw any other rational conclusion other than that the relationship was consensual? She uses the word, “groomed” which carries the connotation of a passive animal which follows the direction of its keeper. But surely an eighteen-year old woman with enough brains to go to college, and having already identified the relationship as being sinful, should be held accountable for again doing what she knew was wrong. She also objects to being accused of covering up because the full magnitude of the sin was not revealed by her the first time the relationship was discovered. I can well understand the irritation of the elders at this lack of disclosure of key facts by both parties, and regardless of her inner turmoil, she had a responsibility to spill all the beans. She does not seem to understand that is obviously why the second time around the school and elders wanted to know everything in detail. Then the school and elders had to weigh up whether they should involve the police. The first time it seems that the evidence was not so strong because both Emily and Nance were not forthcoming. The second time the evidence threshold was reached and so the police were called. It has hard to criticise the school and church leadership for their decisions under such trying circumstances. But what must have exasperated the school, the elders, Wilson and the police is that when she was then questioned she says she backtracked and denied everything! She covered everything up. How could the police proceed when the chief witness will not cooperate? Then at a later stage, too late, without consulting with anybody, she decides to fully spill the beans on Facebook. This is wild behaviour. Yet she takes no responsibility at all, says all her decisions were reasonable, and feels no guilt. She complains that nobody understood her inner state, but kept quiet and so expects them all to be mind-readers.
Her conclusion is that the teaching of the church is the problem, turning men into predators, the only concern is for money and reputation. This accusation is not borne out by the facts she presents. If you are going to make these kinds of serious accusations you need to have some very good evidence. The church clearly condemned the behaviour of Nance, and tried to help her. Their help did not meet her expectations. She has high expectations of others but not so much for herself.
Bearing in mind that she is giving her personal account of events, which I have no way of verifying, and exonerates herself of blame, she unwittingly makes herself look bad and makes the CREC leaders look quite reasonable. By publicising this woman’s story in order to attack the CREC I would say Peter Bell has scored an own goal. He should stop this series of attacks if this is the best he can do. He has made it clear that he despises Doug Wilson, the CREC and others that promote patriarchy, but we all need to justify our beliefs and words. We have to carefully present the truth. Otherwise our accusations become slander, and slander is a serious sin.
Prov 10:18 Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads slander is a fool.
This is composed of two long interviews with abuse survivors, Jean and Emily. As I listened to these stories I was conscious of the fact that I am hearing the viewpoint of participants in terrible sins, gross sins of a kind that no session can easily cope with, and no possibility of the participants enduring such things without suffering damage. I am naturally inclined to believe and sympathize with women who are suffering, even though I know that I am hearing just one side of the story. How can I achieve objectivity given my predisposition? In hearing just one side of the story there is no realistic possibility of my achieving balanced analysis. In that sense Peter Bell is doing us all a disservice by publicising these interviews. It is as if someone has driven past, shouted out, “Doug Wilson and the CREC are evil” and then just driven off.
Nevertheless I can still listen to the interviews and hear just one person’s view and at least understand how the world looks to them, and understand their experiences to some degree.
The first one was Jean. She said she had a alcoholic husband, involved in p0rnography and eventually unfaithful. The elders said she had grounds to divorce him, which she eventually did. So the CREC elders seemed to have made some attempt to support her and discipline the husband. Whether he was ever a Christian and whether he really repented is uncertain. So Jean complains that she felt isolation, and then her conclusion is that the church teaching causes depression. She makes the extravagant claim that the church mistook immorality for holiness, but offered no evidence. She said at one stage she was asked to submit to her husband and the session, which I can understand, but what she thought that meant in practice is unclear, and she makes it sound like an unreasonable imposition. Without hearing the elders explain what they were doing no firm conclusions can be drawn by the listener. It sounded like a miserable situation causing pain for all concerned, but no clear evidence of misbehaviour by the church. I could not see how this story gave any substance to Bell’s accusations against the CREC.
The second interview was with Emily who was “ groomed” or seduced at 17 by a 50 year old teacher at the CREC school. My heart was touched by the awful experience of this young girl, and naturally I found the reported behavior of Nance, the teacher, despicable. My natural inclination is to regard the man as the problem in these situations, as the leader, and particularly so when it is an older man. But then I tried to put on my analytical persona and my perception shifted a little. She complained all the way through the interview that she had nobody to talk to, but the obvious people to speak to were her parents, who were always available. For some reason that is not explained very well she did not confide in them. She said she did not want to because of feelings of shame. This was a major mistake on her part. I have daughters and I know how important it is that they should keep me informed because when it comes to attracting male attention they can be naive. Emily admits that she was naive. I have also learned that Christian men can be incredibly naive regarding close relationships with women they work with, whether in the church or elsewhere. You can be the most godly man on the planet, but if you spend long periods of time with another woman, and she is of similar age or younger, you will find that there is something of an attractive Eve in every woman. Men who appear to be godly can be really stupid in this area. So if the story is true, Nance ended up walking down a well-trodden path, and dug himself in deep, and had to own up to his sin, eventually. But Emily clearly states that she has no guilt, no shame, no responsibility, and Peter Bell says he agrees, because she was groomed. How Peter Bell can pass judgment on the behavior of Doug Wilson and the CREC based on hearing just one side of the story is beyond me. Bell cannot understand why Emily was accused of covering up, and accused of consenting to the relationship. Well, I can explain. By her own account, after severing all ties with Nance, who had been partially exposed by this time as guilty, she admits that she decided to meet with him again, and so at 18 years old restarts the relationship at a higher level of intensity! How are the elders able to draw any other rational conclusion other than that the relationship was consensual? She uses the word, “groomed” which carries the connotation of a passive animal which follows the direction of its keeper. But surely an eighteen-year old woman with enough brains to go to college, and having already identified the relationship as being sinful, should be held accountable for again doing what she knew was wrong. She also objects to being accused of covering up because the full magnitude of the sin was not revealed by her the first time the relationship was discovered. I can well understand the irritation of the elders at this lack of disclosure of key facts by both parties, and regardless of her inner turmoil, she had a responsibility to spill all the beans. She does not seem to understand that is obviously why the second time around the school and elders wanted to know everything in detail. Then the school and elders had to weigh up whether they should involve the police. The first time it seems that the evidence was not so strong because both Emily and Nance were not forthcoming. The second time the evidence threshold was reached and so the police were called. It has hard to criticise the school and church leadership for their decisions under such trying circumstances. But what must have exasperated the school, the elders, Wilson and the police is that when she was then questioned she says she backtracked and denied everything! She covered everything up. How could the police proceed when the chief witness will not cooperate? Then at a later stage, too late, without consulting with anybody, she decides to fully spill the beans on Facebook. This is wild behaviour. Yet she takes no responsibility at all, says all her decisions were reasonable, and feels no guilt. She complains that nobody understood her inner state, but kept quiet and so expects them all to be mind-readers.
Her conclusion is that the teaching of the church is the problem, turning men into predators, the only concern is for money and reputation. This accusation is not borne out by the facts she presents. If you are going to make these kinds of serious accusations you need to have some very good evidence. The church clearly condemned the behaviour of Nance, and tried to help her. Their help did not meet her expectations. She has high expectations of others but not so much for herself.
Bearing in mind that she is giving her personal account of events, which I have no way of verifying, and exonerates herself of blame, she unwittingly makes herself look bad and makes the CREC leaders look quite reasonable. By publicising this woman’s story in order to attack the CREC I would say Peter Bell has scored an own goal. He should stop this series of attacks if this is the best he can do. He has made it clear that he despises Doug Wilson, the CREC and others that promote patriarchy, but we all need to justify our beliefs and words. We have to carefully present the truth. Otherwise our accusations become slander, and slander is a serious sin.
Prov 10:18 Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads slander is a fool.
This thread is about Peter Bell's Sons of Patriarchy. It is addressing abuse in the church --- emotional, sexual, and spiritual abuse between fathers and daughters, husbands and wives, pastors and members of our churches. Mostly it is women who are crippled in the name of God. Peter Bell is not highlighting relationships between believers and people who would call themselves unbelievers, but rather abuse among those of us who claim to be Reformed Christians. Many who are abused have been groomed to see what you might call their "moral duty." I have entered the conversation to say that a woman bears the image of God and is thus related to God, made to fit God as a seal and its impression. She lives today and forever coram Deo. She looks to God. She honors God. Her submission to her husband is not her primary moral duty. Her primary moral duty is to love the Lord with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength. And then she mirrors what he asks her to mirror as unto him. Anything short of that could be called idolatry, including submitting to a husband out of fear (Is. 51:12). Submitting to the oppressive, manipulative, and coercive control of an abusive husband opposes what we represent in the love and submission asked of us in Eph. 5. I also wouldn't oppose respect and love. Love entails honor (1 Cor. 13:4-5).
I wanted to add that Doug Wilson's historical, socio-political, and theological ideas have been wreaking havoc in the Reformed world and leading to the stories that we hear on Peter Bell's podcast. The commentators whom he invites on to his show are experts on topics where Doug Wilson has written copiously and claimed expertise. These experts have read him carefully and are best able to reveal his misconceptions and trace his missteps. We also can hear how Wilson has infiltrated our churches from people who read him carefully. They are helping us see his movement for what it is if we are willing to learn.
I wanted to add that Doug Wilson's historical, socio-political, and theological ideas have been wreaking havoc in the Reformed world and leading to the stories that we hear on Peter Bell's podcast. The commentators whom he invites on to his show are experts on topics where Doug Wilson has written copiously and claimed expertise. These experts have read him carefully and are best able to reveal his misconceptions and trace his missteps. We also can hear how Wilson has infiltrated our churches from people who read him carefully. They are helping us see his movement for what it is if we are willing to learn.
I understand head to be source based on our representation of God internally, the Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son internally, as well as the primary manifestation of himself in the heavenly temple dwelling of God. The woman of Genesis 2 proceeds from the man and returns to the man representing the internal circulation of the trinity in perichoresis. So when I read that man is the head of the woman, I return to the woman of Genesis 2:21-22 taken from the sacred side of Adam, built by God, and brought to Adam. I see a temporal and earthly circular movement patterned after an eternal and heavenly archetype. We reveal Father, Son, and Spirit, equal in power and glory, and yet ordered internally.
Last edited:
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
I agree that the thread is primarily about the SoP podcast. That said, nobody is forbidding you from giving straightforward answers to direct questions. Nobody asked you if you condoned abuse, because nobody here condones it. At least one person (which would be me) quoted Scripture passages explicitly stating that wives are to be subject to their husbands, and then asked you point-blank if you believe wives should be subject to their husbands. Those are questions that you should be able to answer rather straightforwardly, without obfuscation and evasion.
Many of the things you might regard as abuse could be the common lot of women who are quite happily and contentedly married to men who take the lead in their marriage. Using words like "grooming" is pejorative. Equality refers in the first instance to the eyes of the law. There is not one standard of judgment for men and another for women. To be an equal is to accept responsibility for one's own actions in a consensual relationship.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Wow... just wow... It seems this podcast is not really doing anyone any favors nor is it God glorifying.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
With all due respect elder (as I believe I am the younger person here), this is getting nowhere.
When we arrive at the end of our lives here and enter the glory of that city, we will see better what we were called to mirror on this earth.
Yes. It mirrors something that I find glorious.
Christ humbled Himself to become a man. Equality for humanity cannot mean the same as it means for divinity. "Equal in power and glory" is true for God. Man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man is the fact for humanity. Your theology is not taking into account the DIFFERENCE which God has created.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
I agree. It's not supposed to be an end in and of itself, especially for men. Thank you for the straightforward answer. I don't condone abuse nor do I condone tyrannical behavior on the part of men.
That is certainly untrue. Mankind mirrors God in his unity, as he exists as the simple, undivided essence. And mankind mirrors his diversity in our equally ultimate differences as male and female. Our unity as mankind and our diversity as man and woman take our thoughts to the God from whom we have come. Woman exists as the glory of man in that she points to his end in the feminized city of Sabbath rest. She points to the glory that awaits us in the throne room presence of God as the bridal city and people of God. Eve stood before Adam as his glory, representative of the realm that he was called to receive through personal and perfect obedience. Adam reveals the means (obedience of the covenantal head) and Eve reveals the end (Zion, the city of our inheritance).
God is a spirit. He does not have sex characteristics and differences.
I never asserted that God did. But there most certainly is opposition (difference) within the Godhead: the Father is unbegotten; the Son is begotten; and the Spirit proceeds or spirates from the Father and Son. These are called incommunicable personal properties. And God is most certainly revealing himself through the things he has made, most explicitly the creatures who are made in his image and likeness in Genesis 1:26-28.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
That's an interesting idea, and not one I've had a lot of exposure to. It reminds me of material I've read from Aimee Byrd; are you familiar with her work?
I first heard it from a Mark Garcia lecture. Yes, I am!
You said, "mankind mirrors his diversity in our equally ultimate differences as male and female." Do you want to retract or modify that statement?
Your attempt to draw an analogy between God and man in this respect is misplaced. Bad theology. It doesn't work. I suggest you throw it away before it leads to ill consequences.
Man is male; woman is female. There are biological sex differences. God created them. The call for subjection is based on biology.
Mark Garcia of Greystone? If so, I had him for Patristics in seminary. Great teacher.
William Gouge: "Nature hath placed an eminency in the male over the female: so as where they are linked together in one yoke, it is given by nature that he should govern, she obey. This did the heathen by light of nature observe."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
