Adam first, then Eve...

For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man... (1Corinthians 11:8)

God had a purpose in creating Adam first and His purpose is not complicated.

Creating Eve second established order between the sexes. Man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man. Man is to be responsible and woman is to help man. 

Sadly, we're so contaminated by our culture of rebellion that we turn into weasels...

We claim male authority is a concession to sinful men that Godly men will rise above. Thus Tim Keller says the husband's authority over his wife is only "tie-breaking" authority. So what kind of husband allows the argument to get to that point? The Godly man would have deferred to his wife long ago.

We claim male authority is only applicable in the home. Thus Roger Nicole taught women could be pastors and elders in the church while at home the husband remained the head of his wife. (Later in life, Dr. Nicole became more consistent, denying male authority in the home, also.) 

We claim that adhering to male authority outside the home and Church weakens male authority in the home and Church. In a recent e-mail explaining why he was working to add women to his college's board of trustees, a friend explained: "(By maintaining male authority on our board of trustees) I think I weaken my arguments for restrictions where they are Biblically warranted, such as in the authority structure of the family and of the church."

We nitpick, claiming this applies to that over there in every case that arises on the third Sunday of the seventh Thursday following Good Friday, while the other thing has to do with cases in which the hypotenuse is squared by the orangutan as long as two-thirds of his body is under the perambulator. We diagram, parse, and divide domains, structures, and spheres until those nasty "restrictions" are all that's left.

We've eviscerated manhood and womanhood of the Creation Order, leaving sex a petty thing having to do only with certain restrictions pertaining to church pulpits, session meetings, and body parts (if you're called to marriage).

As I never tire of repeating, Christians of all previous ages would universally condemn our faithless denial of the application of God's Creation Order to all of life. Further, they would scorn our hypocritical attempts to pass this faithlessness off as a mark of our zeal to guard the few "restrictions" remaining in the New Testament.

Wherever man is man and woman is woman, God's Creation Order applies. It is no special revelation for God's Covenant People. It is the universal law of mankind.

We may disagree over how to witness to it or how and when to seek its implementation, but the fact of it is as indisputable as life-long fidelity and heterosexuality. To fail to testify to male authority is to be ashamed of our Lord and His Words.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

Exactly Tim.

I reckon that a mixture of catering to a hyper-sensitive culture, the capitulation to secular feminist ideology, and the push of charismatics to include women into ministry has led to this wholesale rejection of God's order. Very sad indeed.

The approach of limiting the scope of male authority cuts both ways:

a) If male authority only applies to the home, then "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church" should only apply to the home too.
b) If male authority is only a “tie-breaker” then why don’t we limit Eph. 5:25 to mean “only in extreme emergency/crisis situations are husbands obligated to sacrifice themselves for their wives.”

Nobody teaches a) because it’s illogical and nobody teaches b) because it’s utterly shameful. So turning it around, why is it not equally illogical and shameful to limit the scope of male authority?

I appreciate your candor in flatly stating that you believe women are always and in every circumstance inferior to men.

Karen,

We appreciate your candor in declaring your feminism by flatly, always and in every circumstance, equating the concept of being subject and the concept of inferiority. How liberated your young children were (unless you've escaped such equality by escaping ever having children).

>>I appreciate your candor in flatly stating that you believe women are always and in every circumstance inferior to men.

Dear Karen,

If you were to live in all areas of life by your stated principle that subordination equals inferiority, you might well refuse to be a daughter, student, citizen, church member, or Christian because each of these stations would require you to affirm your inferiority to your mother, teacher, mayor, elder, and Jesus.

Now of course you would not, I hope, object to embracing infinite inferiority to Jesus. He is God, after all. And yet I wonder? Since you hate inferiority so very much, why would it stop with God? Would we not expect you to operate on the principle of pride in religious worship and justification when we see you operating on the principle of pride in the most basic category of submission God decreed by your DNA; namely, your womanhood?

If, as the Apostle John put it, we can tell who loves God by whether or not he loves his brother, can we not tell who submits to God by whether of not he submits to his brother? Or, in the case of a woman, can we not tell who submits to God by watching to see if she submits to her subordinate station by which God made her the glory of man?

Feminists want us to be browbeaten into silence concerning man and woman, but not to extend their so-called principles to any other relation in life. Woman is the glory of man, wives are to submit to husbands, therefore women are inferior to men and wives are inferior to their husbands. By the same logic children are to obey their parents, therefore children are inferior to their parents. Citizens are to submit to their rulers, therefore citizens are inferior to their rulers. Christians are to submit to their pastors and elders, therefore Christians are inferior to their pastors and elders. And on it goes, through every square inch of life, not even stopping with God.

But always keep in mind that God resists the proud. Few are prouder than the feminist out to prove her equality at the expense of her femininity and Christian faith.

And I will make mere lads their princes, And capricious children will rule over them, And the people will be oppressed, Each one by another, and each one by his neighbor; The youth will storm against the elder And the inferior against the honorable. (Isaiah 3:4, 5)

The simple truth you act as if you don't know is that submission doesn't imply, let alone necessitate, inferiority. If we didn't know this from watching the baby at her mother's breast, we should know it from the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity—that Jesus is equal to his Father and that Jesus said, "Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done."

Love,

In conversations like this, where some confuse subordination with metaphysical inferiority, I remember that even as a child, Jesus was infinitely superior to Mary and Joseph, and yet he was obedient to them even when they did not understand His Father's work He was about (Luke 2:51).

Good point, dear brother.

Love,

Posts like these get just plain tiring. Person A posts a comment in disagreement followed by derogatory comments posted by those who agree with the post. Please stick to the scripture without putting others down or making assumptions about their beliefs or character. And that all I am saying on that.

Mary,

When I look above, the first derogatory comment was from a dissenter, and the response following was really just a play on the dissenter's words.

Children grow up. Elders, pastors, and government officials complete ther terms of office and then have to live with the rulings they made or laws they enacted. Employees get to go home at the end of their workdays at which point their bosses authority ends. What is the time limit for a husband's authority. Further, parents can punish children, elders and pastors exercise church disciple, employers can fire employees, people who break the law go to jail. All forms of authority have an enforcement mechanism. What is the husband's method of enforcing his authority on his wife?

Dear Karen,

Tim wrote, "Man is to be responsible and woman is to help man."

Man provides, protects, commands, and takes responsibility. When he is gone, the fatherless and the widow are vulnerable, lacking his care. Why do you ask "What is the time limit for a husband's authority"? It is like asking, "How long till my husband dies?" It is not a normal question. Something is wrong.

Love,

One good point I remember Stephen Clark making in his book "Man and Woman in Christ" is that when older writers referred to women as inferior they were referring to her rank. Male and female are not of equal rank. A wife is inferior in rank to her husband, for example.

Everyone knows nobody is saying women are inferior with respect to worth and value in God's sight.

Regarding Tim's larger point and the belief of older writers, here are short lines from the first 2 commentaries I picked up that address the reason underlying some of the Apostle Paul's prohibitions concerning proper behavior for ladies:

The rational ground for this prohibition is that it is contrary to the relation of subordination in which the woman stands to the man that she appear as a public teacher. (Charles Hodge)

And another:

We have here the reason for the injunction: It is God's law and commandment that they should be under obedience (vs 34); they are placed in subordination to the man, and it is a shame for them to do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing ranks (Matthew Henry)

How tepid is our preaching today on these matters in comparison!

It really is so simple, the secular world understand it and could tell us how to we should apply these principles much better than many Christians can (because they know they don't have to do it).

But then again we also have the modern option of listening to the chauvinistic dimwits in Africa. This from a sports piece I just read:

It reminds us that Africa is still much more of a chauvinistic place than the US. When LRC’s Wejo was in Kenya in 2007, a Kenyan asked him about the upcoming presidential election. When the topic of Hilary Clinton winning came up, the reply was ”No one would respect America with a woman president.”

This seems to insinuate that, as a female, I am subordinate to every male that is not my child, is this correct? I just want to be sure. Further, though husband and wife are a team of sorts (I guess not - I am his ranking inferior), how much authority do I have over my children, or is my authority only an extension of his when he is absent?

Now, since 1 Corinthians says that I MAY pray and prophesy with my head covered, may I prophesy, or should I remain silent and just prophesy to myself?

I honestly believe a few things are kind of misunderstood here, and that possibly man, who is still sinful, takes these passages and takes a little more liberty with them than necessary. Ephesians 5 calls all believers to submit to each other before going into specifics, and any woman who had a husband who truly delighted in her and would honestly love her enough to die for her has a husband who is unlikely to decree anything odious for her; real leadership is never requiring anything of your subordinate that you yourself would be unwilling to do. In real life, though, men have been known to insist their wives work while still keeping house, taking care of children, etc., while they stay home or while they also work but do absolutely nothing to help with the responsibilities left at the end of the day. In real life in some patriarchal churches (this is now from life experience) a battered woman will be quoted 1 Peter 3 and told that she must stay with the batterer to redeem him and lead him to Christ with her virtue, and if he continues to batter her, she should work to further subordinate her will, since no man would ever strike a woman unless she deserved it. However, if she can prove adultery and he is unrepentant, she is finally free of him (thank goodness; it did lead me to a good man).

Is there ever a time when a woman may prophesy or expound Scripture in a mixed group? I think this is frustrating me because I have been terribly impressed upon by the Spirit lately, but have no one I am allowed to share with, unless it be other women outside of church (sadly, I don't leave my house much). I cannot understand why God would urge me so strongly and give me gifts if it were a sin, and have to honestly ponder - do I need an exorcism? Is this of Satan and I am misled? Should I be in repentance?

I was raised in a very "man is in charge" life - from a father who refused to have his wife work outside the home to the miserable marriage of rape and abuse where I was continually assured I was saving my husband through my sacrifice. I have had several instances now of the Spirit pressuring me in the congregation, but have never shared them, because it is supposed to be sin...

... and I wonder if it really is, or if maybe, if she is under the authority of the men in charge, and granted permission, and if it is in order, if maybe a woman's voice can be heard.

If it cannot, how will our sons and daughters ever prophesy?

Hello Lisa, I'm honestly not sure if you are writing with sarcasm. I've not seen you post here before, don't have time to get into a long discussion, but just incase you are being sincere:

This seems to insinuate that, as a female, I am subordinate to every male that is not my child, is this correct? I just want to be sure.

I think it would be more accurate to say it is shameful for you to hold public rule over any man who is not your child. Someone could perhaps nuance it better than that, but do you see the difference?

Is there ever a time when a woman may prophesy or expound Scripture in a mixed group? I think this is frustrating me because I have been terribly impressed upon by the Spirit lately, but have no one I am allowed to share with, unless it be other women outside of church

Why not arrange a meeting with your pastor/elders? If it is because you can't leave the house (why? - though you can to go to church right?) then do you have a telephone? If not you could invite people round to visit. I think you should be wary of allowing a strong feeling to lead you to do something that scripture forbids. The spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets remember. There are differing views on this blog on the question you pose about women speaking in mixed assemblies, but my own view is that Paul does not permit public address by women in the assemblies of the saints. My understanding is that this has been the historic position of the church up until recent history. At the same time women can 'prophesy' so that must take place somewhere. Calvin made a distinction between formal gatherings of the church and informal meetings in peoples houses. That may or may not be right. But in any case, given the practical considerations earlier there is no obstacle that I can see that would prevent you speaking your mind with any particular man or woman that you wish to in a more private setting. Hope that helps.

No sarcasm. I have a chronic illness and I have to manage my choices carefully. I choose to be sure to budget time and energy to participate in church - they have very few musicians, so rely on my heavily; without me, things just kind of aren't the same. I play piano for three services, sometimes sing special music, sometimes lead a more contemporary praise and worship (under the headship and direction of an elder; but I sing), and of course play the offertories, etc.

I do not attend a congregation of my choosing. As a submitted wife, I go to my husband's church. It is a very small sect, and at last Sunday's meeting (after church) when everyone aired their grievances regarding changes, etc., in our church, it was pointed out that "we need priesthood to be teaching everyone to be doing things according to Scripture." This church runs a lay priesthood which is only made up of ordained on males 12 years old and older. Though the church has discussed being led by the Spirit, the Spirit apparently does things exactly as it has for more than 100 years, and anything else drives it out of the building.

Since the structure is made of ordained laity, I could get a dozen different answers. When the person stood up in the back and announced that we needed to only have priesthood teaching classes, I couldn't think of a single class that had non-priesthood teaching it. That Sunday, the adult class had a substitute woman teacher, who was asked to cover by her son, though. First time I have seen a woman teach a Sunday School class, unless you count the nursery, where you make sure they get crackers and juice and change their diapers. The woman who had substituted for her son that day said, in a very sad voice, "then where does my voice go?"

Where is the voice of a woman welcome? May we may only teach our own children at home? Even though 1 Corinthians says I may pray and prophesy with my head covered, I am assured here that is a misunderstanding, too, and that can only be outside of the assembly in more casual gatherings (must they also only include women and children under 12?). If the more casual gathering is in the church building, must it still only be men who speak, or is it more about purpose than location?

The one word used for silent in one of the passages can also be translated "invisible" in the Greek. Should women who truly want to be obedient to God in all things dress in dark clothing which covers all but their hands and wear a head scarf? I have, at times, worn very long skirts and plain shirts with a scarf... I go back and forth. I want more than anything to honor God, and I am considering asking for an exorcism for these thoughts that keep overcoming me in church.

Last Sunday really broke my heart... in some meetings we allow anyone to pray, but because I have been so troubled by all of this, when I felt very strongly led to pray (after my husband had finished his prayer, actually, and before the meeting actually started), asking that God reignite the fire that originally burned with in us, and that He inspire us to win hearts for His service and that He open up our hearts and grant us opportunities to lead the lost to Christ, I did not. I don't think any of the elders at the service would have felt that my prayer was out of order, and I would have asked first, but when I wasn't noticed for the very brief time I held up my hand (granted, no one ever sees me behind the piano), I lost my nerve and lowered my hand. Later in the meeting, a woman in tears sobbed as she talked about how much what I was led to pray for was exactly what we needed. Imagine how edifying that prayer would have been if she heard it BEFORE she asked for those things, instead of me admitting afterwards that I had ignored the leading of God for fear of looking like I might be trying to do something that wasn't right? :(

I guess pray for me. Have I been so sinful that I am possessed by demons? God has been so good to me, and I was blessed repeatedly in the years after my abusive spouse left me. I cannot understand how I could have allowed the Spirit to abandon my heart and allow the Devil or his minions to take up residence. :(

On inviting to the house - not healthy enough to be a good hostess, and the house is often not up to standards I would want to entertain in. I choose what I expend my energy on. Church service, taking care of my family as best I can, and taking care of the other living creatures around me (we have some chickens, goats, etc.) holds higher priority than a spotless residence, unfortunately. I also struggle with that, because I am not the wife I would have been, and the Godly man who loves me now got the dregs of what I was, and not the whole and competent woman I used to be. I marvel at his love for me, and so often wish I were more of what I wish to be for him.

Dear Lisa,

I'm sorry that I have not been reading the comments for the past day or so. Reading your comments leads me to the conclusion that it would be best for you to process these questions, to address your fears and specific desires to honor God in your church and home, with your own pastor and his wife. Or, lacking a pastor, with a wise older (Titus 2) woman of your church.

There are such weighty issues in what you've written and they are so very connected to issues we can't know through internet discussion that it would be unwise for any of us even to try. This is not because we don't care. Henry and I, at least, do care very much and want to see you released from your sense of failure and your fear of demonic possession.

But God's method for such ministry is the church, not an online forum. An online forum such as Baylyblog can do some things well, such as teach general Scriptural principles. But it can't counsel very personal issues and weaknesses and fears. That is to be done day by day, from house to house, around the table of food and drink and fellowship, following morning worhip in a small group of fellowship, etc.

I will pray that God will give you someone to talk to, to help you, and to pray for you as they in the discernment of the Holy Spirit, think wise. For us to do so here, online, would I believe be unwise. Dangerous to you and your soul, even.

With love in Christ,

The more y'all have to defend this topic of the woman's subordinate role (what, like twice a week?), the more it seems you are insecure and even doubtful of it. At this blog, of all places, shouldn't you be preaching to the choir? (pun fully intended) So why do you continue to write as though you're on the defensive? Aside from a smattering of us apostates, to whom are you defending this creed?

Dear Bertie,

We're guarding the good deposit.
Men may argue that it's not good
Or that there couldn't be a deposit
Or that guarding it is passe
Or a sign of weakness
But we've been commanded
And guard it we will
May the Lord open your eyes
To the beauty of His Word
Today

Love,
Daniel

No one has answered my question: how does a husband enforce his authority? Parents can spank; employers can dismiss; police can arrest. What force may a husband use?

No one has answered my question: how does a husband enforce his authority? Parents can spank; employers can dismiss; police can arrest. What force may a husband use?

Karen,
you're so very wrong at nearly every level. Perhaps you didn't realize the difficulty in answering your question. Daniel highlighted a serious issue with how you brought this up: It's like asking when your husband is going to die.

But "how does a husband enforce his authority?" There are any number of ways, legitimate, and illegitimate. Complicating a response is the way you couched the question: each example of "enforcement" you provided was penal in nature. Spanking. Firing. Arrest. Formal church discipline. 

Authority doesn't come into play only when there is a violation on the part of one under authority. It isn't just penal, that is how it responds to un-submission to authority that is already there. Which brings me to a conclusion: I don't think you're wondering about how a husband may exercise authority; you simply chortle at submission. Based on how you have couched your question, the problem doesn't lie in answering how a man may exercise authority, rather, it would appear that it lies in your rebellion. Not all men can pull a Petruchio, no matter how valiantly they may begin.

So I can't answer your question other than to say the "mechanism" starts working when there is submission, but before that, there must be repentance.

Please explain the enforcement mechanisms available to husbands?

>>Please explain the enforcement mechanisms available to husbands?

Like elders with congregations, moral suasion.

Love,

And if that doesn't work?

Karen,

What happens when spanking doesn't work for parents?

Parents can impose further restrictions including further physical discipline short of something that requires an emergency room visit. Now, tell me, what can a man do to his wife if she disobeys him?

And if the "further restrictions" don't work?

Then the parents either sequester the child like prison wardens or throw the kid out. Your turn.

Dear Karen,

Well, when speaking, often I recommend wives go to the elders about flagrant and destructive sins of their husbands. The elders of the Household of Faith have authority over the marriages and blood households of the Church, and so I teach this regularly. The wife is to submit to her husband, but God has given her the elders as a court of appeal.

Similarly with husbands. The husband has courts of appeal and jurisdiction against his wife. If his wife is beating his children, he is to go to the civil magistrate. If his wife is cursing her husband or refusing to repent of adultery, he is to tell it to the elders.

This is elementary. I can't figure out why you don't know it. You might want to ask your husband about these things so he can explain them to you.

Love,

The church I went to said physical abuse was obviously due to an unsubmitted wife, and recommended submitting more. If you insisted the violence was rather unpredictable and your life had been threatened, they quoted 1 Peter 3 and told you that you should, again, work harder at making sure he was happy in every aspect, and assured you that continued obedience would lead him to repentance.

Some churches, Karen, have no problem telling a man methods of making a wife submit. This way sounds a little kinder.

>>The church I went to said physical abuse was obviously due to an unsubmitted wife, and recommended submitting more.

Dear Lisa,

Thank you for this.

The officers of such churches are false shepherds. Run for your life!

Love,

Karen,

First, I am in complete agreement with what Craig has said to you above. I add two things that take a stab at the following: (1) to anticipate a Gotcha I suspect is lurking in your handbag, waiting for an answer from a patriarchalist that will trigger your springing it on them; and (2) with your “gotcha” in view, to answer the question you keep pressing here, and also to draw out the implications of the answer I will give to it. I fear you will not find much use for these implications except to raise further petty objections.

First, the Gotcha …

Your question points to the capacity for penalizing sanctions that reside with three authorities – the authority of the government over its subject citizens, the authority of parents over their children, and the authority of the church over its members. As Craig noted, this capacity to deploy penalizing sanctions always has the insubordination of someone subject to the authority in view – a citizen transgressing a law, for example; or, a willful child rebelling against parental direction; or, a church member whose conduct transgresses the law of Christ, especially in a manner that brings disrepute upon the body of Christ.

Now, it's a standard rhetorical attack by religious feminists to observe (as you have observed) that governments, parents, and churches are vested in Scripture with this capapcity to levy penal sanctions against those the insubordinate. Next comes the observation that Scripture lacks an express vesting of a similar capacity to coerce or to penalize behavior when the husband's authority over his wife in marriage is in view. You have repeatedly demanded to know just what such capacity for penal sanctions looks like, how it is implemented, and (I'm guessing here) just where in Scripture this is found.

The Gotcha occurs when the patriarchalist acknowledges that Scripture never grants such capacity to the husband. Upon such an admission, the religious feminist triumphantly crows, “Well, then, that 'authority' you speak of is chimerical, is it not? Why speak of authority if the supposed authority cannot sanction insubordination?”

Thus far, Karen, you have not pulled that particular Gotcha out of your purse, and perhaps it isn't even there (we can hope so!). Still, your insistence to press patriarchalists in this thread makes me wonder if it's there after all. The challenge you're making is one I've seen many times by religious feminists over the years.

Now, I acknowledge that Scripture grants nothing to a husband comparable to the sword it grants to the state, or the paddle to the parent, or excommunication to the church, what are the implications (if any) for the headship of the husband in marriage? We've noted the inference that religious feminists draw, viz. that the husband's headship is a mirage. But, this supposes that headship or authority exists only when insubordination is present. Craig has already dealt with the negative side of this notion.

Positively, the husband's headship arises from a different source, namely the express statement of the Apostle, speaking the commandments of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37), who tells wives to “submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; ... just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”

Of course, the responsibility for rule in marriage, family, church, and society is everywhere displayed in Holy Writ from Genesis to the Apocalypse. But, in these verses of the Ephesian letter, St. Paul distills patriarchy down to a few, pungent, crystal clear sentences which are convenient for this discussion.

Now, the husband is responsible for so much, but he evidently has so little ordinary power to compel compliance when it comes to his own wife! What are we husbands to think about this?

Much of what we're to think is already expressed in comments above. In many instances of insubordination, the authority of the husband – in a world that operates in a healthy manner – is “backed up” by authorities in other areas along with ~their power to penalize insubordination~. The civil magistrate is one of these authorities. The shepherds of the local assembly are another. A few situations where their authority impinges on a marriage have already been suggested in comments above.

But, is that all? No. Much more is going on, usually out of sight, cloaked behind the veils of marital privacy.

The husband's very identity, his actual “essence” as a husband, is iconic. Better, perhaps, is to see him as a sort of window through which the light of Christ shines. The husband is a steward of that portal, and the light of Christ passes through the portal in better or worse ways depending on the husband's own relationship to the Lord.

Alternately, the husband is a badge, a sign, what we Anglicans call a sacramental – a visible, tangible presence of something otherwise invisible, namely the Lord of the church who commands his icons (husbands) to reflect His love upon the wife. And sacramentals, like the Sacraments which they mimic, are certain and effective signs of the things they signify.

The husband, then, wears a crown with the word "Husband" emblazoned on it, but as C. S. Lewis remarked, its glory is the same as found in a paper crown, bedicked with tinsel and spangles.

In chapter 3 of his book The Four Loves, Lewis observed:

“The sternest feminist need not grudge my sex the crown offered to it either in the Pagan or in the Christian mystery. For the one is of paper and the other is of thorns. The real danger is not that husbands may grasp the latter too eagerly; but that they will allow or compel their wives to usurp it.”

And that is the downside, if you will, for a husband to live in his marriage as a faithful icon of Christ. He is called by his Lord to suffer, patiently to endure all manner of insult, insubordination, dismissal, or, what is worse over a lifetime, indifference.

The husband has the word of Christ with which it is his duty to cleanse his wife of every spot or blemish or any such thing. But, if she will not receive his ministration, if she will not be subject to him in everything as the Apostle commands her, then the husband must defer to others – the civil magistrate or the elders of the church – in extreme and public situations of insubordination, or suffer quietly as he waits for the time, place, and manner in which his Lord will back up His servant. I testify that the Lord seems extravagantly gracious to insubordinate wives, granting them entire lifetimes to repent. The consequence for the Lord's icons in those marriages ... well, of all the ways a man may know the fellowship of Christ's sufferings, for most men it is in their marriages where that fellowship with their Lord is the deepest.

Actually my assumption was that you would approve of husbands scolding their wives or denying them any extra money. Conservative churches generally don't take domestic violence seriously either.

Add new comment