27 April 2009

Some More Thoughts on Effeminate Evangelicalism

by Phil Johnson
This is a continuation of the topic introduced last Friday. The following notes are from a message I gave at a men's conference last year. Before we get into it, here's a definition, taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:

ef · FEM · in · ate —Characterized by or proceeding from unmanly weakness, softness, or delicacy.


That's not a slur against women or femininity. The point is that certain qualities which are admirable traits for mothers and wives are dishonorable mannerisms for men to exhibit (or hide behind) when duty calls them to proclaim truth boldly or defend the faith against error. While there are certainly times in ministry when it is appropriate for ministers to be gentle (1 Thessalonians 2:7; 2 Timothy 2:24-25); that's not true all the time (1 Thessalonians 2:11-13). And daintiness is a particularly inappropriate attribute when it defines someone's pulpit style. A preacher is supposed to deliver the message "as one who speaks oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11). The pulpit is not for wimps.



oday's evangelicals seem committed to keeping the church a soft, delicate, sissified environment. All the sharp corners are carefully filed down and rounded off every truth. Even the tone of the preacher has to be suited to the sewing circle—and qualities like sponginess and hesitancy have become a thousand times more common than accuracy and plain speaking. Evangelicals constantly say they want their leaders to be "vulnerable."

VUL · ner · a · ble—Able to be wounded; susceptible to physical or emotional hurts; easily damaged or harmed, esp. by aggression or attack

Think about this: we're nearing the end of evangelicalism's twenty-five-year-long love affair with the seeker-sensitive movement. Have you ever thought carefully about what's implied in just that term (seeker-sensitive)? It sounds like something a weak and frightened person thought up. Where does "seeker-sensitivity" fit into the biblical description of what the church should be?

Answer: it doesn't. It's a typically effeminate trend.

Now we've got something even worse—the post-evangelical myth that "conversation" is morally superior and pragmatically more effective than preaching. Churches are rearranging the furniture in a circle; trading pews for couches; exchanging preachers for "discussion facilitators"; giving then a bar stool in the center of the room instead of a pulpit at the front; and hosting a perpetual, aimless dialogue about everyone's personal opinion.

Post-evangelicals don't want teachers who will declare the difference between truth and error with manly conviction. They just want to have fun.

The whole drift of the evangelical movement reflects a steady movement away from the one, singular New Testament command that ought have first place on every pastor's agenda: "Preach the word . . . in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.") And it reflects a movement in the opposite direction, toward an ego-massaging message that conditions people "not [to] endure sound doctrine, but [to] heap up for themselves teachers [who cater to their itching ears]; and . . . turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

And they tend to get angry when anyone points those things out.

It's worth pointing out the problem anyway. Coddle an effeminate disposition and it will get worse. And this could very well be the worst possible time in all of history for the church to go soft. It's not a problem we can afford to ignore politely.

"Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong" (1 Corinthians 16:13).

Phil's signature

65 comments:

Bill Honsberger said...

Good post. In one of my presentations on postmodernism I did years ago I noted that "postmodernism child proofs the room for the human mind, no tough decisions, no painful commitments or stands." The lack of moral courage is astounding. What makes it worse is the Derrida et al and his children (Maclaren, Jones, etc) are posed as moral prophets, all the while undermining the very notion of morality. Only in The Hitchhikers Galaxy can this make sense. In this real galaxy it just shows how quickly we can become fools. As I read in Doug Giles article on Townhome just a few minutes ago, it is sad that a beauty queen contestant has more more backbone and BIblical courage than many SS "pastors".

PuritanReformed said...

Amen Phil. Great post.

Blue Collar Todd said...

Sort of like the Rodney King version of Christianity "Can't we all just get along?" The Gospel is not a conversation.

Colin Maxwell said...

Very enjoyable post.

Our mutual friend, Mr Spurgeon famously wrote:

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again" I am currently reading Knox's History of the Reformation in Scotland. It would blow the mind of the "...so long as it doesn't upset the horses" type Evangelicals.

Regards,

Nick Mackison said...

Ooh Phil, you're spanking my inner child. You've really hurt my feelings, boo hoo...

Great post! Keep up the non-PC truth telling.

Boerseuntjie said...

Brother Colin Maxwell,

As I read the qoute from Mr Spurgeon and your words a chilling truth is again revived within me:

Not ONLY does England again require committed Elders like Mr Spurgeon; Scotland, Germany - THE WORLD needs Elders such as Augustine, Calvin, Knox, Spurgeon, Edwards etc...

AND

We lowly lay men are CALLED unto that sanctification of the Spirit of grace and truth by the word; that we may become useful in the Hands of Almighty God to be like unto those men whom have gone before us (Not to hatily presume ourselves qualified; but to be growing into that qualification - that the Elders and Churches may call us out as men noticeably qualified accroding to the Oracles of the Living Great I AM.)

Well may it be that our Churches will be the training facilities of men to become qualified to take up the good fight as they lay hold of the prise of the upward calling by the enablement of the Spirit who calls and sanctifies and qualifies His Elders to teach His people by His Scriptures as Oracles.

Your fellow bondslave for the glory of our Triune LORD YAHWEH,
W

Chucky said...

Too right! Great post.

asterisktom said...

Great article. Moral courage - coupled, of course, with biblical understanding - is something that is rare today.

The only minor caveat I have is about the pews. I don't think that Christianity has been necessarily helped by this innovation. But that doesn't mean the I want a touchy-feely share-your-feelings church either.
http://asterisktom.xanga.com

donsands said...

Encouraging post. Thanks.

We need a meek boldness, full of gratitude and joy, and love for our Lord Jesus Christ.

Frank Turk said...

As we say in the Turk household, "put on your big girl panties and deal with it."

Elizabeth said...

Great article, Phil!

Gregg said...

Needed to be said and well said at that. Thank you!

Colin Maxwell said...

Frank: Have you considered sending that one to the Reader's Digest's "Towards more picturesque speech"?Regards,

David said...

Well said Phil.

But, are we witnessing a sad contrast unfold? The vulnerable, careful-speaking Sensitive vs. the manly and crass Mars Hill Seattle type?

Johnny Dialectic said...

Frank: Image deleted.

Phil: Well said.

Boerseuntjie: And Wesley, Moody, Torrey, etc...

Jeremy said...

Phil, any chance you could post a link to an audio recording of the message these notes are taken from? I'd like to hear more. Thanks.

Phil Johnson said...

David: "are we witnessing a sad contrast unfold"Yes, one of the points I'll be making is that "crass" isn't manly; it's carnal. Obscene language is no more "manly" than adultery.

Evangelicals have diminished manhood and lived in a culture committed to androgyny and egalitarianism for so long that even whose who rightly hate the effeminate flavor of evangelical religion seem confused about how to remedy the problem.

John Eldredge's recipe for manhood is just as disturbing (and just as wrong-headed) as the guys who think manhood is achieved by swilling beer and watching UFC while talking like a sailor. I'll prolly say some things about that in a post planned for Friday or thereabouts.

Jeremy: "any chance you could post a link to an audio recording"Thanks for asking. I thought that message was on line but when I looked I couldn't find it. If I can dredge up a copy somewhere, I'll have my friend Will add it to the GraceLife Pulpit website.

Phil Johnson said...

What's with Blogger's comment-formatting? It leaves out paragraph breaks if you have an html code at the end of a paragraph.That's really annoying.

DJP said...

Like it did to you just there?

Yeah, we were chatting about that last week. Best solution seems to be to put your end-punctuation outside of the html tag.

DJP said...

PS - it's a new "feature," I guess.

/c:

SolaMom said...

Seems like most prefer a stick of cotton candy to a sword.

Associate-to-the-Pastor said...

Wait...YOU don't swill beer and watch UFC Phil? I bet you don't even like Sufjan...

Joe Selness said...

I remember hearing from an old acquaintance who went to THE emerging church in Minneapolis, and after a few years, had to leave because he couldn't stand the conversation any longer. He just wanted a preacher who would speak with conviction instead of leaving everything up in the air as though all opinions are equally valid.

Mark B. Hanson said...

I will repeat and expand my comments from the end of the previous blog on this subject, since the discussion there ran out of steam.

What pastors are doing in feminizing themselves is in part because they, with our culture's cooperation (even at their insistence), have already feminized Jesus.

Dorothy Sayers' comment is appropriate here:

"The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused him of being a bore; on the contrary, they thought him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified him 'meek and mild,' and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies." (from Creed or Chaos?)

If many modern pastors are feminized, could that be partly because they are imitating their version of a feminized Jesus?

Mark B. Hanson said...

By the way, I read somewhere that the psychological profile of the average American pastor is virtually indistinguishable from that of a homosexual man.

D.R. Brooker said...

Horatius Bonar:

"For there is some danger of falling into a soft and effeminate Christianity, under the plea of a lofty and ethereal theology. Christianity was born for endurance…It walks with firm step and erect frame; it is kindly, but firm; it is gentle, but honest; it is calm, but not facile; obliging, but not imbecile; decided, but not churlish. It does not fear to speak the stern word of condemnation against error, nor to raise its voice against surrounding evils, under the pretext that it is not of this world. It does not shrink from giving honest reproof lest it come under the charge of displaying an unchristian spirit. It calls sin ’sin,’ on whomsoever it is found, and would rather risk the accusation of being actuated by a bad spirit than not discharge an explicit duty. Let us not misjudge strong words used in honest controversy. Out of the heat a viper may come forth; but we shake it off and feel no harm. The religion of both Old and New Testaments is marked by fervent outspoken testimonies against evil. To speak smooth things in such a case may be sentimentalism, but it is not Christianity. It is a betrayal of the cause of truth and righteousness. If anyone should be frank, manly, honest, cheerful (I do not say blunt or rude, for a Christian must be courteous and polite), it is he who has tasted that the Lord is gracious, and is looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God. I know that charity covereth a multitude of sins; but it does not call evil good, because a good man has done it; it does not excuse inconsistencies, because the inconsistent brother has a high name and a fervent spirit. Crookedness and worldliness are still crookedness and worldliness, though exhibited in one who seems to have reached no common height of attainment."

-Taken from God’s Way of Holiness, 1864.

(Hopefully this wasn't too long to post).

DJP said...

D.R. Brooker, that quotation is excellent.

Citizen Grim said...

"...hosting a perpetual, aimless dialogue about everyone's personal opinion."


When I was in college, our Dean of the Chapel (Dr Richard Allen Farmer) called this sort of thing "Share-Your-Ignorance Christianity." He tended to be a bit skeptical of small groups for this reason. They're great for accountability, but poor when it comes to Bible study.

DJP said...

"Group Gropes."

John said...

About seven hundred years ago, even before Luther and Calvin upset the applecart, Dante Alighieri wrote:

"You mortals do not walk a single way
in your philosophies, but let the thought
of being acclaimed as wise lead you astray.

Yet Heaven bears even this with less offense
than it must feel when it sees Holy Writ
neglected, or perverted of all sense.

They do not count what blood and agony
planted ot in the world, nor Heaven's pleasure
in those who search it in humility.

Each man, to show off, strains at some absurd
invented truth; and it is these the preachers
make sermons of; and the Gospel is not heard.
. . . . . . . . .
These fables pour from pulpits in such torrents,
spewing to right and left, that in a year
they outnumber the Lapi and Bindi in all Florence.

Therefore the ignorant sheep turn home at night
from having fed on wind. Nor does the fact
that the pastor sees no harm done set things right.

Christ did not say to His first congregation:
'Go and preach twaddle to the waiting world.'
He gave them, rather, holy truth's foundation.

That, and that only, was the truth revealed
by those who fought and died to plant the faith.
They made the Gospel both their and shield.

Now preachers make the congregations roar
with quips and quirks, and so it laugh enough,
their [heads] swell, and they ask for nothing more."
_________________________
The Divine Comedy: The Paradiso, Canto XXIX, 85-117
by Dante Alighieri (translated by John Ciardi)

Colin Maxwell said...

Citizen Grim:

Thanks for sharing that...(The diplomatic end of small group bible studies)

Regards,

Stefan said...

Citizen Grim, DJP, Colin:

Of course, it depends on how small groups are governed, directed, and shepherded, and how rigorous the elder oversight is, that is exercised over them.

Brad Williams said...

Stefan,

I don't think that Phil was implying that every group discussion was effeminate and lousy. Just that when aimless group discussion replaces preaching and everyone's opinion is "validated" no matter how silly.

We have community groups that are basically small groups, but each group is led by an elder (or potential elder) and the topics/materials are chosen and discussed by the elders. Good stuff there.

S2 said...

It seems to me that mainstream evangelicals are so worried that Christianity might be off-putting and are so willing to be anything but off-putting that they forget that Jesus told us that it is difficult to enter the Kingdom of God (see Luke 14:26 and Mark 10:17-27). In so doing, those of us who say we hold to the doctrine of election imply that we don't truly believe that what we say we believe is true: that salvation is all of God.

Stefan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stefan said...

Brad:

My issue was not with what Phil wrote, but with some of the recent comments, specifically in regards to small Bible study groups.

It's a safe bet that the vast majority are just touchy-feely, how-do-you-feel discussion groups that lead away from the Word rather than toward It.

But as you pointed out—and I can attest—there is a way to conduct them that builds up and edifies.

(Especially when your Bible group leader is one of your church's prime overseers on matters of doctrine and teaching—I can't get away with anything!)

Stefan said...

That last sentence was, of course, tongue-in-cheek. Coming under the teaching of my particular small group leader has been a providential gift from God.

Bobby Grow said...

Great post, Phil!

I totally agree with your line of thinking on this whole topic.

~Mark said...

You were able to present a manly issue in a manly way yet without crude language.

Are you in touch with Chuck Swindoll?

;)

KM said...

I spent some time in a small group. It was a women’s group. Then a mixed group. Finally it was almost a men’s group, except that I’m not a man. Toward the end, whenever it was my turn to do a teaching and I did mine from the Bible, there never failed to be an emotional outburst, and/or crying and threats to quit the group. After the 3rd time I was asked to find a new group. The men explained to me that they really felt they needed a men’s accountability group and that these Bible studies made them feel like they “were dying.” I was also told I was a bully. But, what’s saddest about the whole thing is that while in their presence I felt like the most masculine one there. Maybe to them I was like a bully. Either way, that’s what other small groups can be like. They’re not all good and many cater to the type of men this post is about.

DJP said...

~Mark, not sure how to read that.

Are you suggesting that Swindoll is, or is not, a good model for manly preaching?

~Mark said...

DJP,

over the last couple of years Mr Swindoll has gotten pretty free with the crude language in preaching. Not as far as the "cursing pastor", but enough that we got frequent calls of complaint at the radio station.

Another broadcaster actually pulled Insight for Living off the air due to repeated instances.

He did it most flagrantly in talking with groups of men and I thought this post could provide a nice antidote! :)

Here's a recap: some of the language IS included.

Sir Aaron said...

There are churches with couches instead of pews? Maybe I can convince my church to get some laz-y-boys with cup holders!

donsands said...

I listen to Chuck Swindoll every now and then, and have never heard any crudeness. I hear exhortations mostly; nothing too deep, yet biblical, in an Arminian sort of way. He comes on the radio right after John MacArthur, who is right after Alistair Begg.

Chuck is a solid preacher. Definitely not a girlie-man preacher.

Sir Aaron said...

Mark:

There seems to be a couple beliefs floating around. First, is that crude and vulgar language is a part of being manly. Actually this just displays a lack of vocabulary skills. Some language should never be used and most of us don't want our kids speaking like that.

The second belief is that you have to exhibit all charachteristics of manliness from the pulpit. When I'm working in the garage or the yard and my wife brings me lunch, I think it is manly to be outside, kinda dirty and stinky eating my sandwich. But I would never think it appropriate to be that way when taking my family out to eat. Likewise, I expect a certain demeanor from the pulpit. I don't expect the Pastor to speak to me in the same manner as he would when we are watching the playoffs and having a hamburger.

BTW, that article you linked I think goes over the top. The Lion King? They certainly read a lot into a movie about talking animals.

~Mark said...

I listen to Chuck Swindoll every now and then, and have never heard any crudeness.We air Insight every morning and I rarely missed a show. Then after hearing enough crudeness I quit listening. I'm not saying he's teaching anything false, just that I won't be around to hear it.

Sir Aaron,

I agree. The media representation of manliness that has convinced so many people of what a "man" should be has perverted the right view of manliness even into many churches.

That's why I appreciate this post. :)

Oh, and I don't agree word for word with that article, they just recounted the facts well.

Julius Mickel said...

Amen and Amen, there is a way to wield the sword and yet be a gentleman!
I can recall some men taking the punch out of the sermons with unnecessary apologies and constantly saying 'I believe'. I like how Lloyd-Jones pointing out in preaching and preachers that you don't let the pew control the pulpit.
It was Albert Martin who has warned preachers that congregations quickly learn if they can control you with their frowns or smiles.
We should love the truth and love people so much that we preach truth not because we idolize Luther or Knox but because it's their only need and it's how we glorify God! MacArthur is a good example of this!

Kevin Stilley said...

I guess this bodes ill for my hopes that the Pyromaniacs blog would be redone in pastels.

Sir Aaron said...

Kevin:

they already use mints...I mean TRUE men relish bad breath...

stratagem said...

"...hosting a perpetual, aimless dialogue about everyone's personal opinion."

Here's how I like to deal with small group Bible studies, if they start the whole "what does this passage mean to you?" business:

Me (hypothetical response said in sarcastic tone): "well, this passage meant x to me a few minutes ago. But now that I've taken a toke on this weed, it means y to me." (Or something like that. Everyone can see that I'm not really smoking anything).

Maybe someone else can use this tongue-in-cheek technique to illustrate how ridiculous the whole "what does it mean to you" thing is. Usually people get the point right away.

Colin Maxwell said...

Small Bible Studies have their place - especially in small works. I don't think that I would go along if I intended to denigrate them any. Sometimes, we've got to make the most of what we have.

Perhaps they tend to bring out of the woodwork thoughts that are in people's minds but cannot be expressed because normally the preacher preaches and doesn't ask for opinions. At least, we can indentify and deal with potential problems that are lurking there.

They do have the advantage of having the student discover something for himself.

Overall, I am a pulpit person - and the people cried "God save the pulpit!" - but there are advantages in both, if done properly. There is just a bit more risk with the open Bible study end of things.

Handle with careRegards,

John said...

"Post-evangelicals don't want teachers who will declare the difference between truth and error with manly conviction. They just want to have fun."

There is perhaps more truth in this than you know. For fun, watch any given church objectively for a few sundays, then compare the format with popular television shows. I have found that resemblance disturbing - the temporal distribution of liturgy typically mimics prime-time TV exactly. And to top it off, many of the "discussions" in the PoMo world can be found on the NPR website...

~Mark said...

I love good small group studies. Cell groups have taken a beating in reputation but in my experience, when they are under the authority of a strong church and led by men who've earned the place of leadership, they provide a great maturing and learning environment.

'specially since you can't do Q&A or be personally (specifically) challenged during the main sermon! :)

Stefan said...

Yes.

If small Bible study groups are under the careful, watchful leadership of elders; if the curriculum is carefully chosen and directed; and if their leaders are carefully chosen (in our church, meeting the qualifications for eldership, even if they are not themselves elders).

On which points, we do all three, and by the sounds of it, so do Brad's and ~Mark's churches.

And they go hand-in-glove with the preceding Sunday's sermon, involving extended Bible study around the preached text and related texts, and personal application. Each week's points are prepared by a pastor whose primary ministry is the small groups.

They are also means of accountability, teaching, edification, prayer, support, and building each other up in the love of Christ: each small group leader is there to teach and shepherd the small group members, and has oversight over them (formal, if they are elders; or informal otherwise), and in turn (in their capacity as small group leaders) are under the oversight of the small group pastor, who reports back and is accountable to all the other elders.

In a large church (in our case, not large by choice, but by providential circumstance), small groups are an integral part of shepherding the church well.

Respectabiggle said...

"There a three sexes: male, female and clergy." - George Bernard Shaw

Aaron said...

The question I have then is what is true masculnity? There are many who try to make church more masculine and it either turns into something out of Iron John by Robert Bly or some sort of absurd Rambo kind of Idea where to be a "real" you need to bench press a buick with your pinky and kill a Grizzly with your bare hands.

Julius Mickel said...

Thomas Watson declared:
“I am tormented with the desire of preaching better than I can. But I have no wish to make fine, pretty sermons. Prettiness is well enough when prettiness is in its place. I like to see a pretty child, a pretty flower- but in sermons prettiness is out of place.
To my ear, it should be anything but commendation (praise), should it be said to me, “You have given us a pretty sermon.” If I were put on trial for my life, and my lawyer should amuse the jury with jokes or bury his arguments beneath a profusion of flowery rhetoric (speech), I would say to him, “What are you doing? You care more for your vanity than for my hanging! Put yourself in my place-speak in view of the gallows (execution by hanging) - and you will plead my case plainly and earnestly instead.”

Sir Aaron said...

Aaron: Well, you don't have to bench a buick. We'll settle for one of those small hybrids. And you can use both hands...

Gilbert said...

Sir Aaron,

You wrote:

"First, is that crude and vulgar language is a part of being manly. Actually this just displays a lack of vocabulary skills."

I disagree. This display a sinful attitude. Even when quoting someone else. The late comedian George Carlin could speak eloquently. But...

Blue Collar Todd said...

It seems part of this "conversational" approach to Liberal Christianity is befriending homosexuals. Not only that, but claiming one can be an unrepentant gay Christian. I am wondering if Christians ought to befriend gays or focus on preaching the Gospel to them in a loving and truthful manner. It seems once Christians befriend gays, their view of homosexuality changes and their conviction of its sinfulness subsides.

Sir Aaron said...

Gilbert,

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I want you to imagine those people though that do use curse words heavily as part of their "everyday" language. Now I want you to imagine them having an expansive vocuabulary. It's very hard to picture isn't it? The reason for that is because they choose to express everything they know or feel through the use of a small set of curse words.

Now that doesn't mean that isn't also a display of sin.

Stefan said...

Sir Aaron:

I beg to differ. Certainly, in some cases, a heavy use of swear words bespeaks a limited vocabulary; but when I think of the people I've run across whose every second utterance is a four-letter word, there were other personality factors at play as well.

As for myself, Before I was reborn in Christ, I used to swear quite freely (though not to the point that I couldn't express a thought without resorting to obscenities), and I would be lying if I said that I have never sworn since then. (Though I sometimes surprise myself now when during a moment of great stress or shock, I don't swear.)

...And it has never been for want of vocabulary. At that point in my life, however, coarse vulgarities seemed to offer a visceral expressiveness that more restrained speech could not.

Sir Aaron said...

Stefan:

First I'm not referring to the occasional expletive that slips during times of stress or pain. I'm talking about those who cuss to describe everything. I think you'll find that my observation is more often the case than not. It isn't always the case, but its difficult to maintain a decent working vocabulary without actually using it.

And again, it isn't a question of one over the other. I'm not even saying that lack of vocabulary is the reason. I think there is a link, however.

A. Friend said...

What would be really masculine would be a return to the days of the Crusades!
Now that is manly! Not a woman in sight on those escapades...

I think this is a bit of a distraction really. It is meant to provoke thought but too many people believe it wholesale.

We are meant to proclaim the truth unapologetically. What that implies is that we are to have a sense of the seriousness of sin and that we are to proclaim that freedom from sin is here.

But such a message can only come from people who understand what it is to live deep in sin and appreciate the sacrifice that God made for them.

The problem is not the "seeker-sensitive" at all. The problem is that the people who can spread the gospel are busy talking about other people and less about Christ. Lift up Christ and He will draw all me unto Him. Forget about Saddleback. If it is not of God it will fall.

Lisa Nunley said...

When men act like what you have described, it makes it so much harder to be Biblical women... especially in the church.

A woman fairly new to our church said "One of the things that really stands out to me about this church is that the women are intelligent and willingly submissive AND the men LEAD. It is so refreshing... and sadly unusual."

My response: "It makes it easier on us women to fulfill our God designed roles when we consistently have Biblical teaching and Biblical leadership."

I am so genuinely thankful that you will never hear the following questions asked at my church:

"How does this Bible verse make you feel?"

"What do you think this verse means to you?"

or "What is your opinion of this Bible verse?"
And we women pray constantly for the men of our church. Especially that they would continue to be steadfast, bold and uncompromising in the proclamation of God's Holy Word and the pursuit of holy living for His glory.