women preachers/pastors....biblical or not?

[thatbrian]

"women preachers/pastors....biblical or not?"

Not. God's decree and design both make that abundantly clear.

 

[utilyan]

There shouldn't be Women OR Men Preachers or Pastors.

Unless God tells them to.


My Mom preaches to me 24/7.

If you can tell the difference between things of GOD and the things of LOVE, you should sit down and shut up, because you don't know a thing about either one.

That's who should not be a pastor or preacher.

 

[Yeshua1]

"women preachers/pastors....biblical or not?"

Not. God's decree and design both make that abundantly clear.

There are NO NT verses that support other than male pastors/Elders. Those who are seeking to have femals in both roles are accommodating to culture, and this false idea of equality meaning no role distinctions.

 

[Darrell C]

Hi Darrell, thank you for engaging sincerely and respectfully with my questions. By "free moral agency" I meant Christ's concept of freedom within love and grace.

But isn't there a directive in regards to freedom within love and grace, and boundaries which cannot be crossed? For example, we would not use freedom within love and grace to violate God's principles. An example of the example (lol) might be allowing a child to do something we know they should not do, and thinking we are showing "love."

Again, any "free moral agency" is not necessarily free, because we are beholden to Biblical principles. If we violate those principles we sin, rather than show love and grace.

I also meant the free will God gave humans to choose or reject Him.

And see that is a broader discussion, one which I would recommend you look at.

I reject "Free Will" in a salvific context, because Scripture is clear that...


Romans 3:10-18
King James Version (KJV)

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17 And the way of peace have they not known:

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

...and...


1 Corinthians 2:14
King James Version (KJV)

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


The long and short of it is this: at all times throughout man's history that which God intended men to know, obey, and refrain from doing...was revealed to them by God. That has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the content of the revelation being provided, and the means of delivery. God has three primary ways in which He reveals spiritual truth to Man (and my references to men will be a general reference which includes women):

1. The Testimony of Creation;
2. The internal witness provided directly to man's heart;
3. Direct Revelation (God speaking to men directly, through men, and through His Word).

While the Holy Spirit has always ministered in and through men, it was not until Christ returned to Heaven that the Comforter was sent, and it is His ministry in this Age to reveal to men and women the Gospel of Jesus Christ:


John 16:7-9
King James Version (KJV)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


Verse 9 shows this ministry is towards unbelievers.

And understanding that the Gospel of Christ was a mystery (previously unrevealed truth until it is revealed and designated as a mystery) helps us to understand God's ministry towards men in a salvific context in the Old Testament. If you look, you will find a couple irrefutable truths that are consistent throughout Biblical History:

1. God has always demanded men to be obedient to His will as revealed to them;
2. God has always revealed His will to men;
3. God has never exacted penalty on men for something they did not know;
4. No relationship with God ever began through the efforts of any man or woman, God has always initiated every relationship.

Again, that has not changed.

So rather than "Free Will," salvation has always been a response to God initiating relationship and revealing His will to Man. It is the Spirit of God who enlightens the natural mind to spiritual truth that he may respond. If I said to you something offensive, you would react. You would not use free will to react, it would simply be the reaction to what I have said. A man goes to the doctor and is told he has cancer, and has a month to live. Most will react with fear. Again, that reaction is not a product of free will, but a reaction to what is told them.

So too, God reveals truth to Man (and today the truth revealed is the Gospel of Jesus Christ) and he/she responds. And this is where it may be relevant in your case: in regards to your husband, simply sharing the Gospel is not enough for him to be saved, what has to take place is that God has to show him that truth, and he will then respond. This is not always something that takes place quickly, in my own case, I know he was ministering to me for over a year, at least. So there is always hope for the atheist, and this is why you must be the exemplary model of the Christian woman. That doesn't mean I am demanding perfection from you, lol, just pointing out why Paul teaches what he does in regards to the woman married to an unbeliever. And what is critical for all of us is that our understanding of the Bible, or our daily conversation...doesn't conflict with what the Spirit reveals to the heart of the unbeliever. So your discussion towards "free moral agency" is a little disturbing, and don't get mad at me, but it sounds more liberal than a view based on Christian principles.

And it is, in my view, based on a false doctrine, however popular it may be.

But looking at Free Will is a lengthy discussion which involves a number of elements that all have to be understood. It's not something I would suggest can be understood apart from diligent study. It takes work.

And just so you know, I reject Calvin's position as well. God does not, while he ministers to the unbeliever, regenerate them so they can have faith to believe.

It is my idea of what gives meaning to this life

And I hate to say it, but free will does not give meaning to life. Our lives have meaning when we our relational priorities are sound. Our first priority is our relationship with God. If that is weak, it will affect all other relationships. Our second is to our spouse (and I have seen more than a few place their relationship with their church over this, and that never ends well). Third is our children and family. Then Church Family. Then our neighbor, which means everyone else, lol.

After all, God could have created Christian-bots but chose instead to create human beings who have free will.

We do have free will, but, not in a salvific context. The natural man and woman have no ability to understand the spiritual things of God. THat is an undeniable fact.

We see in Romans...


Romans 2:13-16
King James Version (KJV)

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


...we see the revelation of God's will on the hearts of men.

Two things to understand about this in regards to free will:

1. This is revelation from God, not free will;

2. Men are not eternally redeemed by performing God's will as God's reveals it to them.


Men are only eternally redeemed by the Blood (Death) of Jesus Christ. For those who have not both heard the Gospel and had it revealed to their hearts as truth, they stand in the same position as the Old Testament Saint, who had a general faith in God, but had not had the Mystery of the Gospel revealed to them. When Noah, Abraham, Job, and Moses died, the last remission of sin they would have received would have been the temporal remission afforded by the Provision of God in the Old Testament, which means they would have offered up animal sacrifice (vicarious death) and received the atonement and remission of sins that afforded. But we cannot equate that with being justified through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus.

I mention this because I do not want you to think that Paul is teaching free will and salvation through free will, because he does not. He is teaching the same thing that is the reason why any man or woman is going to be saved, the revelation of the truth by God, and His grace on the parts of those who fall short of His glory.

And this may be a little long, so I will continue in another post.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I was speaking of the historical source of the idea of the individual and of individual rights and liberties. That is the idea that each individual needs a sphere of freedom so that they may learn to make moral choices in this life.

And that is not how the natural man learns to make moral choices. Left to his/her own, they will inevitably fail in moral issues. That doesn't mean that the unsaved are incapable of doing good, it just means that they are incapable of being righteous to the point where they can remedy the one condition which will send them to Hell: their separation from God.

Men are not separated from God because they sin, they sin because they are separated from God.

It is not love if we fail to obey the Biblical principles that children are to be disciplined, taught right and wrong, and that God is taught to them.


Proverbs 23:13-14
King James Version (KJV)

13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.


Didn't know the Bible taught we are to beat the Hell out of our kids, did you?



Just kidding, a little bit of humor there (perhaps very little, lol).

In view is discipline, and that is tempered by a proper understanding of when to discipline. We wouldn't take a rod (or belt, as the case was when I was a kid) to a child unless it was pretty serious, but, if it calls for it, then it should happen.

Paul stated:


Ephesians 6:4
King James Version (KJV)

4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.


It's kind of like our discussion about marriage, submission cannot be taken to the extreme of one to the neglect of the other, meaning, it is not license to discipline at the drop of a hat, just like a woman is not expected to "submit" to being beaten.

Eventually this gave rise to Classical Liberalism, which replaced the older system.

And I view Liberals as holding to a perversion of what is right and wrong.

For the Liberal, its all about how they gain, whereas for the Christian, it is about how others benefit.

The Roman system that existed during the time of Christ and the apostles was based on practices of male ancestor worship. In this system, they did not have any concept of individual conscience. They only knew shame, not guilt.

I was not aware of that, though I spend little time outside of my Bible. Like those who identify counterfeit money, they do not study the counterfeit, but the genuine. THe same is true for our studies, if we stick with what is true, we will be able to identify what is counterfeit more easily.

They had a concept of virtue but not of morality.

And that is not very relevant to a goal of having a productive marriage with someone who does not hold to the same principles we do.

Their concept of virtue consisted of a a social order characterized by fixed inequalities. If you had virtue you were in your place and performing your role. There was no idea at all of any moral egalitarianism in the sense that the Hebrews had, of a King who could sin equally with a little guy.

Even the Hebrew people perverted God's will in regards to our interaction with others. They needed lessons about how to treat their sevants too, lol.

Christ did not come as a revolutionary or a social reformer, but the historical effect of his coming was a ripple effect starting from the simple beginnings of self-regulated individuals forming communities based upon voluntary association.

Not sure I would use the term "communities." Believers did not start states or nations, they simply met, just as the Hebrew people did. I think that imposes more into Christian interaction than it should, and we are reminded of those who have started "communities" rather than existing as strangers and pilgrims in this world. Jim Jones. David Koresh.

Although the main purpose is eternal life, not justice in this life, lots of people behaving according to the golden rule could not help but increase social justice over time.

Not the "main purpose," the only purpose.

God was in Christ reconciling the World unto Himself. No man or woman prior to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection...

...had life.

You are familiar with Christ stating numerous times that He came that men might have life. That life is eternal life which is bestowed unto the believer through the eternal indwelling of God. And it did not take place in the Old Testament. Man is basically conceived and born dead, having no life. He/she has a spirit, and has physical life, but so do animals. It is not until one is Baptized with the Holy Ghost, or, put another way, immersed into God, that they have the life that Christ came to bestow:


John 6:48-53
King James Version (KJV)

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


Read John 6 in its entirety, and you will see that He contrasts Himself with the provision of the Old Testament, which sustained physical life only. Moses would have eaten of the manna, and is said to be...dead.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Eventually centuries later our whole world changed from Roman times. Now we have lost the original sense people had about rights as being about learning to live morally and think of rights only as what we have coming to us, not as how we are responsible to regulate ourselves in our freedom.

No, we haven't lost the original sense about rights, not when we place that in a Biblical context and hold a Biblical worldview.

Christianity isn't about our rights, its about service to God and our fellow man. One preacher said "The chief end of Man is to glorify God," and I agree with that.

You, as a wife of an unbeliever, do have rights within the Laws of this country, and within Biblical Principles. But, consider the rights of the Son of God, set aside...that we may live. Now consider that your husband does not have life, and you are the primary connection between him and God. You serve in a role of "priestess," so to speak (a Priest is someone who speaks to God for man, as opposed to a Prophet who speaks to men for God). My hope for you is that you will be able, by the grace of God, to be instrumental (and that is all we are, lol, instruments in the hands of the Lord) in your husband's salvation, that God may use you to bring the truth to him.

So individualism now has a bad name, yet it would never have existed without Christianity eventually leading to Classical Liberalism.

"Individualism" isn't necessarily about having "free moral agency." We can be individualistic because we are all...different.

And I am sorry, but Christianity didn't lead to "Classic Liberalism." Sin has led to classic liberalism, and it has gotten worse. Christianity is about servanthood, and liberals seek only to serve themselves under a guise of doing what is right for the "greater good."

What I also have in mind is that we are not supposed to give away our conscience to an authority to make our moral choices for us.

I agree. We are called to submit to governing authorities, because God has placed them in power for a purpose, but we do not deny our faith in submission to those authorities. And unfortunately liberalism and personal rights have led to a perversion of what governing authority is intended to do, which is hold in check those who commit evil.

Long ago my mother stood by while my father spanked a baby as a method of teaching him to listen to commands, in accordance with their sect's teachings about child rearing.

If we were just like God, we would discipline based on what one understands. Babies have very little understanding. However, I maintain that discipline, even spanking, is a necessity at times.

One preacher stated that we should never use our hands, and that the Bible never teaches using the hand. The reason is if we use the rod/belt, the child will fear the rod/belt, rather than the hand, and subsequently the one the hand belongs to.

This was my oldest brother, who grew up to become a felon and went to jail from age 16 to age 30.

You blame this on your dad spanking him? Not much of an excuse.

He became a felon because he committed crimes. Our upbringing is not an excuse to commit crime. Many have suffered much worse than your brother and did not end up as felons. That is a liberal mentality which seeks to place the blame on someone else. And while it is true our upbringing can lead to unfortunate results, it is still no excuse.

Because of my family history, I am keenly aware that women allow children to be hurt when they don't speak up from conscience and instead give their free moral agency away to authority.

Perhaps you are imposing a moral quality to people in which it doesn't exist. The assumption is that the women's actions are the result of the man, again...placing the blame on someone else.

I don't think I have ever seen a mom allow their children to be hurt. Usually, a mother will protect her children. Even at the risk of being beaten themselves.

But that is in a perfect world, and we do not live in a perfect world, but a cursed one, where the consequences of sin have vile repercussions on most.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I'm not sure why being married would mean a woman can't have freedom or self-expression,

Me either, lol.

It doesn't, and hasn't for millennia. We see Sarah and Job's wife express themselves, lol.

so long as it remains within the parameters of loving God and following the golden rule.

Its a little more complicated than that. How about all of the other instruction specific to women and wives?

This sets parameters on freedom but does not dictate every option somebody must choose within those parameters.

I would agree. As long as Biblical Principles are not violated both men and women can express themselves as their conscience allows. Again, if those principles don't mean anything to someone, its a moot point.

I don't mean radical self-expression such as wanting to get plastic surgery to look like an alien or cults of self-expression that make a religion out of art.

What's wrong with looking like an alien?

I'm not quite sure how you are imagining self-expression as being necessarily not something morally available in any way, shape or form to a married woman.

I don't recall saying that, but that we do not have "freedom" as being married. We are beholden to the principles which govern marriage.

After all some Christian women are creative and artistic.

This is true. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Nothing about this would be disrespectful to a husband or unfaithful to him, since behaving unfaithfully or disrespectfully would not be in accordance with the golden rule.

It has nothing to do with "the golden rule." There is a difference between our relationship with our spouses and our relationships with our neighbor. Huge difference.

It is a higher form of behavior to do something from the motive of your own conscience than from the motive of obedience.

Why would we separate the two?

Should we not be motivated to do everything in accordance with the will of God?

This is what God wants of us and is why God gave us free will so that we could freely love God and choose to obey Him.

But we don't "freely love God and choose to obey Him," not in our natural condition. We love God because He first loved us.

And the first thing we have to do in order to accomplish the will of God is to understand what that will is. And we will not find that will outside of Scripture, nor outside of the parameters of Scripture.

If you are only doing it because you are not free to do otherwise, there is no moral development in that.

Do you really think you had a "choice" to repent and turn in faith to Christ?

Rejecting Christ is not a "choice," lol, it is suicide, and usually fueled, not by the will, but also as a reaction powered by emotion, not intellect. People get mad at God for numerous reasons, when in fact it is usually the people they knew who they thought were in relationship with God they are mad at. You say your brother became a felon because he was spanked as a baby, but it is more likely that his crime was more an act of spite which was directed, not at God, but at the parents.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, I am a woman married to an atheist. I married him before making a conscious choice to re-embrace my childhood faith with a better understanding of it after praying and reading the Bible.

So you were not unequally yoked in the truest sense when you were married, so it may be your husband feels as though you have gone in a direction without him, and that is true in a sense.

As a man, that is understandable to me. And again, I would reiterate that your relational priorities are important. God first...then your husband, despite the fact he is an unbeliever. If you put more into your relationship with your church or friends, in my opinion, you are violating your marriage.

And I am not saying you are, I have no idea.

My husband and I have had conflict occasionally that boils down to the fact he wants me to be a tough negotiator and approach other people as if they are a business adversary.

I want the same thing for my wife, when she is dealing with people outside of the marriage. I don't like to see my wife taken advantage of, because that happens, because she is such a sweet and gentle heart.

Secondly, I can appreciate his feelings because no man wants his wife even broaching an intimate personal relationship with someone besides ourselves.

You have to remember, men can be babies sometimes.

He does not want me to be charitable,

Maybe he, like myself, sees some of the "charity" as overdoing it. And please don't respond with a list of things you do, I'm just making a suggestion. Second, again, perhaps jealousy is arising from your charity: never do anything that makes a man jealous. There is a good jealousy, and a bad.

and he does not trust me trusting other people.

He is right, lol. The only person I trust is my wife. Only she has that trust because we are one. And you are one with your husband, unbeliever or no. That relationship is not like any other relationship you have. Not your parents, not your kids, not your Pastor, not your church family.

So don't give him any reason to question that bond, and you will do well.

He has also wanted to discipline our child in a harsher way than I thought was right.

Well, that is something that should be able to be worked out through discussion. I don't either of your views on discipline, and don't need to, it's just a matter of you two talking about it and coming to an agreement.

Anyway, thanks for the response, I am out of time, so will check back on that other post. Not sure if that was directed at me. Just so you know, if you scroll over what someone says (in their text, not in what is quoted in the text), and highlight it, you will see prompts, "Quote" and "Reply." If you hit Quote, when you go to the box at the bottom you can hit "insert quotes" and have everything parsed as you like it, and it will notify the other members that you have responded to them.


God bless.

 

[I Love An Atheist]

I'm just now reading your replies. You are clearly a caring person who puts a lot of thought into your replies. Thank you. I could go on at great length to respond to some of the things you said, but it would be too personal.

There are too many issues to discuss and they could go off in all directions, so I'll just restrict my reply to clarification on a couple of points.

First, I regard history's Classical Liberal as being much closer to today's conservative than to today's progressive or liberal.

Second, please realize I know of course that it is basic to all orthodox (not new age or cult or sect) Christians to know that we get our salvation from Christ's sacrifice and we do not earn it. I take that as a given.

Third, when I say "the golden rule" I have in mind what Christ said: all of the law can be summed up as love your God and love your neighbor.

I think we will have to agree to disagree about free will. I am surprised you find it so controversial and incompatible with Christianity, but I suspect you are viewing it in an Enlightenment way -- rather than the much older and deeper way that plumbs the depths of the human heart as Augustine did.

 

[I Love An Atheist]

I also wanted to add -- but I hope and assume there is a 90% chance I don't really need to say this -- that it is not developmentally appropriate to spank a baby. A baby is a stage of establishing trust and security and cannot experience spanking as anything other than bewildering pain and cruelty. When toddlers are ready for discipline, you know they are at that stage, because they are constantly testing boundaries. They give you no choice but to set boundaries. You could not live with them otherwise. There is no need to be overly anxious and jump the gun out of worries of spoiling a child.

The teachings of the legalistic sect my parents belonged to recommended spanking as a method of teaching obedience and starting in infancy. Puppies are trained with more sensitivity most of the time. But animal training was an organizing metaphor of this baby training manual (which I have read myself, so I know what it contains.) So my eldest brother when he was just a little over a year old would be told to sit or come and would be spanked if he did not obey. He was not a five year old being spanked for damaging property or for hurting another child or even for behaving defiantly. He was literally a baby being spanked if he did not obey a command.

He was different than my other brothers. He would try to hit my face every time we played scatter dodge. He made me watch while he burned a wounded baby bunny in the burning barrel. He threw an axe at me as I was walking away from him, when I refused to join his club after he got kicked out of the neighborhood treehouse club. There was no warmth between him and my parents. There was only coldness and alienation. He preferred other families, and he always had one he hung out with in all of his free time. He would constantly make fun of my father, and he was very funny and witty. He always got into trouble from a young age for juvenile delinquency and skipping school. He called himself the Black Sheep of the Family all the time.

Among adult children of my parents' former sect, it is well known that the children become either rebellious or withdrawn, according to personality. My eldest brother was rebellious. Myself and my middle brother were withdrawn and suicidal. Only my youngest brother was relatively well adjusted. He was treated more leniently than the rest of us. He sat in my mother's lap until he was ten years old. He got a real job before us, got married before us, and had more children than we did. He is the most normal and happy of us all. By the time he came along, my parents were much less strict.

 

[I Love An Atheist]

Regarding disciplining our own son, it is complicated by the fact he has ASD and PANDAS. When he was a toddler I was trained in a child-led play therapy called Floortime. I did over twenty hours a week of Floortime with him. From that he gained non-verbal communication skills, engagement, joint attention, the desire to communicate, simple two-way communication skills, and then more complex two-way communication skills. It is a very playful therapy, in a sense making everything into a game -- a game whose purpose is to harness the child's motivation so that they are motivated to communicate.

Suddenly at age five my son exploded with behavioral problems, becoming even aggressive at times, scratching and pinching and sometimes kicking and hitting and occasionally biting and eye poking. But mostly he was just aggravating and oppositional defiant in silly ways such as throwing things in the toilet and laughing, throwing things in the litter box and laughing, lying down and laughing when time to eat or leave the house or go anywhere to do anything, and on and on.

All of these behavioral problems were blamed on me. It was my fault, because I made him think everything was just a game. Meanwhile I suspected at age four and knew at age six that my son had PANDAS. My husband did not consider it proved to him until age eight. That was when he watched our son go through Scarlet Fever while he was home for the week-end. He was on the sofa with him all week-end due to his severe separation anxiety so that I could get anything done. Then in the aftermath, he observed the aggression and oppositional defiant behaviors coming back after they had been gone for a while. Then he saw the behaviors get better once the PANDAS was treated. So finally he was a believer in PANDAS.

Treating PANDAS got rid of 95% of my son's behaviors. Withdrawal of cartoon-watching privileges got him over the remaining 5%. When he was in a terrible zone, only spanking worked, but all it took was one slap to the butt with a flick of the wrist to make it sting. It would sober him up. Every other form of discipline or consequence, he would turn into a game. But once he got out of his severe zone and into a mild zone, he no longer needed it. Indeed, had I needed to continue it, I would have also needed to escalate it. And this, with a child who we don't want to grow up to be violent.

So it was good to be done with the swats ASAP. Withdrawal of privilege got his attention. After that he started listening. After a while he bought into what we tell him is good and what we tell him is bad. He is always pushing me to explain more and more things and tell him rules for more and more things. I am teaching him moral equivalence for all people including adults (not only him and other children). I d

I don't want him to be sexually abused by an adult just because he thinks he always has to obey anything an adult tells him. I had a scare recently where I suspected possible grooming. It turned out he was hard to question because he seemed to fear he would get into trouble.

The devil is often in the details.

Faced with this, I need more than generic statements about spare the rod, spoil the child. At times like this I pray. In fact, this is the stuff that made me Christian, when God helped me heal these things and resolve them. I would not care at all about scripture if I didn't even believe that God exists. It was prayer experience that convinced me God is not only real but good.

My favorite scriptures are the things that Jesus did and said. I can only handle the Old Testament in small doses. It scares me because I have thoughts about it that make me think God will be mad at me for my thoughts and feelings and withdraw my blessings. LOL. I'm very neurotic.

 

[I Love An Atheist]

But actually I put all my faith in what Jesus said and did as the gold standard. If anything in my reading of the Bible seems to contradict that, I assume I don't understand it. I assume I can't completely understand God's mind and God's ways this side of eternity. So for me that is how I experience my faith. I feel okay understanding Jesus and try to understand the rest of the Bible over time, praying for the Holy Spirit to help me.

At first I took the instructions for wives in the most literal, conservative way. Over time I think I have a deeper understanding that is both elegant and dynamic. To me it is very beautiful now that I think I comprehend it. It was how Paul solved the problem of living as a Christian within the Roman Household Codes. The beauty can be illustrated by the example of slaves. The same Paul who said that in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor gentile, slave nor master -- also told a slave to return to his master. But many masters who became Christian freed their slaves. And many slaves became some of the first church leaders in the early church. Comprehending the simple, elegant solution -- but not static solution: dynamic solution -- makes perfect sense to me now.

If Christianity is about service from love, but you are a slave, you have to obey and serve anyway, so how can you then grow as a Christian? But if you go above and beyond you then dignify your lot within a Christian narrative. You also help your master to believe Christianity is about something real. In the process, both slave and master were often no doubt transformed.

Very soon, within three hundred years after Christ's death, men were writing statements like, why should I own slaves? Why shouldn't I give my daughter an inheritance?

My understanding of husbands and wives is very similar to my understanding of masters and slaves in Christianity and history. After all, we're talking about the Roman Household Codes, remember. It was the foundation of Roman law.

Patriarchy transformed from Roman times to Christian times. It became reformed patriarchy.

Only cults and sects and sociopaths attempt to make of Christianity something authoritarian. If there is too much emphasis on obedience, in fact, it is a red flag for a cult. I guarantee it's not just the wives being oppressed in a cult. In my parents' former sect, the church hierarchy micromanaged the members' lives and financially exploited the congregation.

I know that Baptists are more complementarian than authoritarian, so I don't really have a serious issue with Baptists.

I do think God created women to be mothers. Eve means mother. Not helpmeet. Having lots of babies makes you serve lots of those who are least, and the mother and father have to both team up to sacrifice for their children. I helped my husband much more before I had a child. We need to be realistic about this.

I like the Catholic tradition because in this tradition, women weren't relegated to a role in the home because that's all they were supposed to be good for. It was more that motherhood was understood to be a woman's highest vocation. This is subtle to everybody who is not a mother. It is not a subtle distinction at all when you are the one who is not getting respect. When everything is taken away from you, God is the one who gives dignity, and it was my experience of my faith that it gave me more dignity than I had before -- not less. Except when I was confused about the instructions for wives, before I more deeply comprehended them.

 

[Darrell C]

I also wanted to add -- but I hope and assume there is a 90% chance I don't really need to say this -- that it is not developmentally appropriate to spank a baby. A baby is a stage of establishing trust and security and cannot experience spanking as anything other than bewildering pain and cruelty. When toddlers are ready for discipline, you know they are at that stage, because they are constantly testing boundaries. They give you no choice but to set boundaries. You could not live with them otherwise. There is no need to be overly anxious and jump the gun out of worries of spoiling a child.

"Spanking babies" leads to a whole lot of speculation. Babies generally do not have self will which comes into conflict with what the parent seeks to teach them as right and wrong. So to spank a baby doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I agree, when the time for discipline is right, it will usually be known, and how one disciplines often depends on how they were disciplined as a child. My wife and I (I was 30 when we married, she was 33) have never had children of our own, but we half-raised my nephew and two nieces. For me this began when they were born. Not one of my uncles ever spent any time with me, and while it may sound trifling, I regretted that, and in fact resented it. So I determined it would not be that way with me, I was going to be a great uncle, and being a new Christian, had my mind set on trying to bring the family closer anyway. And unfortunately, my understanding of discipline was the traditional way, meaning...kids got spankings, lol. IT was years later that preacher said "The Bible always teaches the use of the rod, not the hand. The child will grow to hate the rod, but you don't want them to grow to hate the hand." Great advice, but a little late in the case of my nephew, lol. The girls got a few swats along the way too, but, eventually (after he was older than 6), discipline became more instructive in nature, and probably, after getting some talking to, they probably wished I would just spank them and get it over with.

Bottom line is discipline is a necessity, children must learn, and at an early age, that there are consequences for wrong behavior. And if the behavior is worse, the consequences are worse.

The teachings of the legalistic sect my parents belonged to recommended spanking as a method of teaching obedience and starting in infancy. Puppies are trained with more sensitivity most of the time. But animal training was an organizing metaphor of this baby training manual (which I have read myself, so I know what it contains.) So my eldest brother when he was just a little over a year old would be told to sit or come and would be spanked if he did not obey. He was not a five year old being spanked for damaging property or for hurting another child or even for behaving defiantly. He was literally a baby being spanked if he did not obey a command.

What was the name of the sect?

I don't really have a problem with that. As long as he was not being severely beaten, I see nothing wrong with a parent using a swat on the butt to get their point across. Of course, that is something you don't want to do a lot of, because a child can become desensitized to the discipline, and will misbehave because he knows what he gets isn't as bad as what he wants to do is good.

He was different than my other brothers. He would try to hit my face every time we played scatter dodge. He made me watch while he burned a wounded baby bunny in the burning barrel. He threw an axe at me as I was walking away from him, when I refused to join his club after he got kicked out of the neighborhood treehouse club. There was no warmth between him and my parents. There was only coldness and alienation. He preferred other families, and he always had one he hung out with in all of his free time. He would constantly make fun of my father, and he was very funny and witty. He always got into trouble from a young age for juvenile delinquency and skipping school. He called himself the Black Sheep of the Family all the time.

I am wondering, if your brother had grown up in the generation your son did, if he might not have been diagnosed with some condition as well.

The fact is man is going to sin, and some worse than others. It may be that a highly religious household (not to be confused with a Christian household) breeds severe rebellion to not only parents, but God. Most atheists I talk to hate God, not because they know anything about Him, but simply because they hate people they perceive to be Christians. I have, to date, never spoken to an atheist that had a realistic understanding of what it means to be a Christian. They simply know the religions they were brought up under.

But even if one is fortunate enough to grow up in a Christian household (I was not), that doesn't mean that the proclivity of children to rebel is not going to rear its ugly head. It usually does. Hence the wisdom of properly teaching a child about God when they are young. When they do rebel, they will have that knowledge which, I believe, acts as a restraint even in the unregenerate.

Among adult children of my parents' former sect, it is well known that the children become either rebellious or withdrawn, according to personality. My eldest brother was rebellious. Myself and my middle brother were withdrawn and suicidal. Only my youngest brother was relatively well adjusted. He was treated more leniently than the rest of us. He sat in my mother's lap until he was ten years old. He got a real job before us, got married before us, and had more children than we did. He is the most normal and happy of us all. By the time he came along, my parents were much less strict.

It was the same for us in raising our nephew and niece.

Parents have to learn too.

But I still have my doubts that your brother's wickedness can be blamed on strict parents. Plenty of kids grow up like that (especially back when we were kids) without burning bunnies alive in burning barrels.

We had to go out to the willow tree and pick a branch to be whipped with, and if it wasn't big enough we'd be sent back to get a bigger one (and that was just sheer genius, lol, that had more effect than the whipping). And what we did with barrels was rope them up in a tree, put a saddle on it, and let other kids try to throw you off like a bucking bronco. Of course, we also had dirt clod battles (no-one ever lost an eye), so, perhaps its just a matter of people were just stranger back then, lol.

So what is the name of this sect?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Regarding disciplining our own son, it is complicated by the fact he has ASD and PANDAS. When he was a toddler I was trained in a child-led play therapy called Floortime. I did over twenty hours a week of Floortime with him. From that he gained non-verbal communication skills, engagement, joint attention, the desire to communicate, simple two-way communication skills, and then more complex two-way communication skills. It is a very playful therapy, in a sense making everything into a game -- a game whose purpose is to harness the child's motivation so that they are motivated to communicate.

Suddenly at age five my son exploded with behavioral problems, becoming even aggressive at times, scratching and pinching and sometimes kicking and hitting and occasionally biting and eye poking. But mostly he was just aggravating and oppositional defiant in silly ways such as throwing things in the toilet and laughing, throwing things in the litter box and laughing, lying down and laughing when time to eat or leave the house or go anywhere to do anything, and on and on.

All of these behavioral problems were blamed on me. It was my fault, because I made him think everything was just a game. Meanwhile I suspected at age four and knew at age six that my son had PANDAS. My husband did not consider it proved to him until age eight. That was when he watched our son go through Scarlet Fever while he was home for the week-end. He was on the sofa with him all week-end due to his severe separation anxiety so that I could get anything done. Then in the aftermath, he observed the aggression and oppositional defiant behaviors coming back after they had been gone for a while. Then he saw the behaviors get better once the PANDAS was treated. So finally he was a believer in PANDAS.

While I understand there are problems that may need to be treated with medications, I am highly opposed to the alarming rate at which America is more and more dependent on treating everything with Psych Meds.

They said my nephew had ADD and wanted to put him on meds and that's when we stepped in. He was going to the same school I went to, getting in pretty much the same trouble I had gotten into, and thought his hyperactivity called for meds. I told my brother, all he needs is a little discipline and instruction. We put him in a private Christian School, and a year later his sisters wanted to go too.

No medicines, just love, discipline, stability, and a daily exposure to the Word of God.

It worked.

I looked up the conditions you mention and what I saw was they were physical issues, is this correct or did the Medical Site I looked it up on have a different condition?

Treating PANDAS got rid of 95% of my son's behaviors.

What kind of treatment?

Withdrawal of cartoon-watching privileges got him over the remaining 5%.

I would have rather been spanked.



Take away cartoons...how cruel...

When he was in a terrible zone, only spanking worked, but all it took was one slap to the butt with a flick of the wrist to make it sting.

Right, it doesn't have to be a severe beating. It's more psychological than anything. It represents "I have gone to a place where I am alone."

Meaning, it creates a separation between them and the one they know loves them. It causes a breach which most kids don't want, at least until they turn thirteen.

It would sober him up. Every other form of discipline or consequence, he would turn into a game. But once he got out of his severe zone and into a mild zone, he no longer needed it. Indeed, had I needed to continue it, I would have also needed to escalate it. And this, with a child who we don't want to grow up to be violent.

I just don't see spankings as making people violent, any more than first person shooter games do. That is usually a result of who the person is around. A kid grows up in a tough neighborhood, for example, he is likely to be more prone to violence. And in the case of your brother, that is an ancient issue, the older mistreating the younger.

I was ten years old before I realized I didn't have to do what my older brother told me to do, lol. And got to the point where we fought on a daily basis. One time we were going at it in the living room and my Dad recounts he hit us five times with a belt before we even knew he was in the room.

I think there are just people who like to be violent towards others, and they will be when they get the chance. That's how the typical bully is.

So it was good to be done with the swats ASAP. Withdrawal of privilege got his attention. After that he started listening. After a while he bought into what we tell him is good and what we tell him is bad. He is always pushing me to explain more and more things and tell him rules for more and more things. I am teaching him moral equivalence for all people including adults (not only him and other children). I d

Sounds like a normal childhood to me.

I don't want him to be sexually abused by an adult just because he thinks he always has to obey anything an adult tells him. I had a scare recently where I suspected possible grooming. It turned out he was hard to question because he seemed to fear he would get into trouble.

The devil is often in the details.

And its your job to make sure he isn't.

We took our Nephew and nieces out of one school because an 18 year old boy was messing around with my 13 year old niece. I went down and confronted the Administrator who assured me they would be kept apart. That didn't happen, and the second time I went down there I confess I was feeling quite violent myself.

Right now I just have my wife and a yellow Lab to keep safe.

Faced with this, I need more than generic statements about spare the rod, spoil the child. At times like this I pray. In fact, this is the stuff that made me Christian, when God helped me heal these things and resolve them. I would not care at all about scripture if I didn't even believe that God exists. It was prayer experience that convinced me God is not only real but good.

And He is the One Who sets the example. Its just a fact that children must be taught about right and wrong, and right and wrong is based on what God sees as right and wrong.

The hard part is our (those bringing up the children) living in a manner that won't cause a child to view us as hypocrites. Its usually going to happen though, because try as we might, we cannot live up to the standard of right and wrong expressed in God's Word.

But thankfully, ILAA, we have the Gospel of Jesus Christ to temper the rigid standard of righteousness, meaning, we already know we are going to fail, therefore we know our kids are going to fail, so the standard we set must be tempered with the same grace God bestows on us.

Or in other words, we keep in mind that we can't hold our kids to a higher standard than that which we live by.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

My favorite scriptures are the things that Jesus did and said. I can only handle the Old Testament in small doses. It scares me because I have thoughts about it that make me think God will be mad at me for my thoughts and feelings and withdraw my blessings. LOL. I'm very neurotic.

What you need is to understand the Old Testament in a context of the Whole Counsel.

The God of the Old Testament is the same God Who manifested in the flesh and died on the Cross for you and I.

Jesus Christ is the Creator, the same God that destroyed the world in the Flood, and destroyed the inhabitants of Canaan.

If you are still in the stage where you have a hard time reconciling the love of Christ with the judgment of God in the Old Testament (and this is normal for new students of Scripture) be of good cheer...understanding will come.

For example, when God destroyed the world in the Flood, we assume pregnant women, children, and little bunnies died, right? Sounds harsh, right? Well think about this: the unborn infants and children that died physically did not grow up to reject God and thus come under the judgment their parents will face when they stand before God at the Great White Throne judgment. There is actually mercy in God destroying their physical lives, that He might show them the same grace He showed all Old Testament Saints.

Probably the most controversial issue I post about is the fact that men were not born again before Pentecost, which means that when the Old Testament Saints died (i.e., Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc.), the last atonement for sin offered would have been that of animal sacrifice, which could not take away sins according to Hebrews. When they died, they had not confessed Jesus Christ as Lord and been made sons of God, being immersed into eternal union with God through the Reconciliation Christ made available to men (again, men and man is general and includes women as well). God did not exact the penalty of sin upon them, but showed grace in justifying them according to their response to the revelation they had at that time. When Christ died on the Cross, their sins were retroactively atoned for.

Now here is the thing to consider: the children in the Flood, as well as those who died in the conquest, will certainly be judged according to their deeds, because that is how God judges, justly. And those children will see the same grace God showed to the Old Testament Saints. God judges man based on their response to the revelation He has provided them. That is how He consistently judges man all throughout Scripture.

Something else to consider is that the people of Noah's Day, and the Amorite/Canaanite both had a responsibility to...

...teach their children about God's right and wrong.

And they were not doing that.

That is why they were judged and put to death.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

But actually I put all my faith in what Jesus said and did as the gold standard. If anything in my reading of the Bible seems to contradict that, I assume I don't understand it. I assume I can't completely understand God's mind and God's ways this side of eternity. So for me that is how I experience my faith. I feel okay understanding Jesus and try to understand the rest of the Bible over time, praying for the Holy Spirit to help me.

Something to take to heart is this: God gave us His Word for the express purpose that we know His heart and mind and will for our lives. That's the whole point of the Bible.

So don't think you cannot know, because not only does He want you to know, He will teach you Himself:


James 1:5
King James Version (KJV)

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


That you are a woman has nothing to do with it, He wants all of His children to know His will.

And let me ask you this: if God demands of men that they train their children up in the way they should go, shall we expect any less from our Heavenly Father?

And I think you are in a place where God can use you in the salvation of your husband. My prayer is that one day you two will share in the salvation of the Lord, and that it will be a gift far greater than anything this world can offer.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

At first I took the instructions for wives in the most literal, conservative way.

There is actually nothing wrong with that.

We are not going to change the fact that authority runs on this wise, God, Christ, husband, wife, children.

Doeswn't mean a dictatorship, but, the husband carries the burden of being the spiritual head of the household. While this is not the case for you, that does not nullify GOd's desire that you submit to your husband. Not to the detriment of your faith in Christ, of course, but, there is still a respect you should have for the role of husband. And if he sees you being faithful to God's Word, that will have an impact.

Over time I think I have a deeper understanding that is both elegant and dynamic. To me it is very beautiful now that I think I comprehend it. It was how Paul solved the problem of living as a Christian within the Roman Household Codes. The beauty can be illustrated by the example of slaves. The same Paul who said that in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor gentile, slave nor master -- also told a slave to return to his master. But many masters who became Christian freed their slaves. And many slaves became some of the first church leaders in the early church. Comprehending the simple, elegant solution -- but not static solution: dynamic solution -- makes perfect sense to me now.

Again, Paul taught that we are servants of Christ and one another.

When he is speaking of "neither...male nor female" it does not nullify the principles in regards to husband and wife. That context deals with out unity in Christ, that we are all one in Christ.

But there is still husband and wife, teacher and student, master and servant.

Nullifying that could be likened to nullifying the master/servant roles. Today, our employer/employee roles are much like the master/slave roles of the Hebrew culture. An employee cannot shrug off the authority of the employer because they are both Christian, just as the Hebrew slave/servant could not deny the authority of their master.

In regards to the slavery of the world, there is a general concept of our working within the cultures we find ourselves in.

Here is Paul's statement concerning Onesimus:


Philemon 10-16
King James Version (KJV)

10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:

11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:

12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:

13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:

14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.


Paul states he would have liked to have kept him with him that he might help him (in his bonds), but, he did not go against Philemon's decision as to how it would be handled.

He simply asks that he keep in mind that he is now a brother as well:


15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;

16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?


I think perhaps you are trying to counter what is a caricature of Christian submission in a marriage, rather than what the reality is. I think in most marriages founded on Christian values, there is a submission on both parts to each other, rather than a master/servant atmosphere. The husband/wife relationship is not a master/servant relationship, but, the husband is given, again, the burden of responsibility as the head of the household. Even in your marriage your husband still has that burden, which while giving the husband a higher accountability, is still actually a blessing if viewed properly. Think about your son, you have a responsibility which is likely burdensome, but, you are blessed to have that responsibility.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

If Christianity is about service from love, but you are a slave, you have to obey and serve anyway, so how can you then grow as a Christian? But if you go above and beyond you then dignify your lot within a Christian narrative. You also help your master to believe Christianity is about something real. In the process, both slave and master were often no doubt transformed.

Do you have a problem being a slave out of love? Paul didn't:


1 Corinthians 9:19
King James Version (KJV)

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

Very soon, within three hundred years after Christ's death, men were writing statements like, why should I own slaves? Why shouldn't I give my daughter an inheritance?

What men said then or now doesn't change the principles of God's Word.

I'm not sure exactly at what it is you want.

Again, I think you are battling against a caricature of Christian roles in a marriage, or even regarding men and women. And usually when we battle against caricatures and false arguments there is a tendency to go to extremes. THe best course is to simply seek to understand God's will better, then you will know your role, and you might be surprised that one day you will look back at laugh at this.

You mentioned the Golden Rule, which means if you want to abide by that, then you have to put the concerns of others before your own.

My understanding of husbands and wives is very similar to my understanding of masters and slaves in Christianity and history.

And that is incorrect.

God created the family, the husband and wife before there were children, masters, or slave.

That relationship is always going to be unique, special to God, because in it is the picture of His union with us:


Ephesians 5:31-32
King James Version (KJV)

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.


Paul speaks about that same mystery (which is a previously unrevealed truth) here:

Colossians 1:27
King James Version (KJV)

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:


Even though your husband is an atheist, you two have been made one in marriage, which again, is a picture of being made one in Christ. He may not abide by Christian principles of marriage but you can.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

After all, we're talking about the Roman Household Codes, remember. It was the foundation of Roman law.

No, lol, we aren't speaking of Roman Household Codes, we are speaking of Biblical Principles.

Patriarchy transformed from Roman times to Christian times. It became reformed patriarchy.

That suggests Christianity was Roman when it began. You don't really believe that, do you?

Only cults and sects and sociopaths attempt to make of Christianity something authoritarian.

Christianity holds a strong authoritarian quality. Essentially all Doctrine is based on authority. First, God's authority. Secondly, those to whom God gives authority (such as the husband over the wife, the parent over the child, the Prophet of God over the false prophet, etc.).

Not sure why the husband being the head of the household would be a problem, but, it is a clear principle given in Scripture presenting God's will.

If there is too much emphasis on obedience, in fact, it is a red flag for a cult.

Obedience is a primary theme of Scripture as a whole. God's Word has been given so that we know His will and thus come into obedience to it.

Opposition to obedience and authority is more a red flag in my view, beginning with opposition to what God's Word teaches.

I guarantee it's not just the wives being oppressed in a cult. In my parents' former sect, the church hierarchy micromanaged the members' lives and financially exploited the congregation.

And there is nothing in God's Word about leadership having any control over the money of members of the Body.

There is, though, a command to be in obedience to those who have the rule over us:


Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)

17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

I know that Baptists are more complementarian than authoritarian, so I don't really have a serious issue with Baptists.

Baptists are as diverse as any other group, lol.

You would probably have a problem with Independent Fundamental Baptists.

I do think God created women to be mothers.

I'd have to see Scripture on that one.

Just kidding...

Eve means mother.

Eve means mother. Not helpmeet.

But she was created for that specific purpose:


Genesis 2:18
King James Version (KJV)

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Having lots of babies makes you serve lots of those who are least, and the mother and father have to both team up to sacrifice for their children. I helped my husband much more before I had a child. We need to be realistic about this.

You don't neglect your husband because you have responsibilities to the child, just as the husband is not to neglect the wife because he has other responsibilities.

I hate to say it but you are rationalizing rather than trying to comprehend Biblical Principles.

As in the case of woman being created a help meet for Adam, you seem to want to deny that. You imply, essentially, "Well, I cannot fulfill that role because I have children, thus I have to put God's will on hold to fulfill that role."

They are not mutually exclusive. Kind of like being a wife and a mother, you are both, and you don't neglect one for the other.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I like the Catholic tradition because in this tradition, women weren't relegated to a role in the home because that's all they were supposed to be good for.

Come on, Catholics holding women in high regard? Get outta here...

It was more that motherhood was understood to be a woman's highest vocation.

Because of their extreme view of Mary as "the Mother of God."

They still do not allow women to be Priests.

Do you view that as gender bias?

This is subtle to everybody who is not a mother.

I think Scripture has a good track record of how it deals with women. But read Proverbs 31 and see why this woman is magnified.

And he starts out with...


Proverbs 31:10-11
King James Version (KJV)

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.


Your husband deserves no less, though he be not a believer. And in his trust of you it is very likely he may be converted.

It is not a subtle distinction at all when you are the one who is not getting respect.

Demanding respect is usually from those who do not deserve it. You can't ask for respect, it has to be earned.

Take child rearing as an example, you can beat respect into your kids, or you can gain it through proper avenues. You wouldn't want your kids to respect you because they have to, right?

When everything is taken away from you, God is the one who gives dignity, and it was my experience of my faith that it gave me more dignity than I had before -- not less.

Perhaps it is just a matter of your self esteem improving? A relationship with God will make that happen. And I promise you, the better you understand the Word of God the stronger your self confidence will be, because you will be trusting in something other than your own sense of self worth.

Except when I was confused about the instructions for wives, before I more deeply comprehended them.

I'm thinking you should leave the jury be for a while, lol. Just be patient and God will give you the wisdom you need through His Word.


God bless.