Not for nothin', but Lifeway pulled Jen Hatmaker's materials from their shelves when she started going public with her views on perversion. But up until somewhat recently, they were platforming Rebecca McLaughlin -who personally identifies as "same sex attracted"- in their stable of women's "Bible" study authors/speakers. If I were Jen, I'd be a bit miffed.

If I might offer some respectful feedback: "The title “lord” is not exclusive to Jesus, otherwise it wouldn’t make sense that he’s “Lord of lords” (1 Tim 6:15)" I'm aware that the position of "lord" and terms like "my lord," as a title of respect addressing men, have been used at various times and in various cultures throughout history. I understand that and have zero problem with it. What I said was: "for Christians *in 21st century western culture* who call the Godhead "Lord," it can be awkward and potentially confusing to others." and "It's not fit for *our current culture*." In *our* current culture, the position of "lord" does not exist, and no one in *our* current culture is going around calling men "my lord" and women "my lady". If they did, we'd think they were weird and probably aping medieval Europeans. That's because when people in *our* current culture hear or say "Lord," they're talking about God. That was my point. "The modern “sir” is similar to “lord” in that it’s a respectful title for a man in authority" Yes, in *our* current culture it's a respectful title used by adults to other adults in situations in which lip service "respect" is forced or demanded to someone you do not have the intimate relationship of spiritual oneness with, not in a godly marriage where respect is freely given -by both spouses to one another- out of love, oneness, selflessness, and affection. It would be just as weird for a man in our culture to say "yes ma'am" to his wife as a term of respect as it is for a woman to say "yes sir" to her husband. "Most modern women have no problem saying “yes sir” to their boss at work, but would never say “yes sir” to their husband at home." See above. It has nothing to do with *actual* respect and everything to do with the fact that no woman in our current culture would think to do that because that's not the way things are done in our current culture. There are lots of things other cultures do that we don't think to do because they're not part of our culture. For example, in Asian cultures people bow to one another as a greeting and a sign of respect. Nobody here does that because it's not part of our culture. It would feel and be viewed as weird. But that doesn't mean that a handshake in *our* culture is DISrespectful just because it's different from Japanese culture. In *our* culture, one way of demonstrating respect is with a handshake. I once read that somewhere in the Middle East it's considered a sign of respect and gratitude to one's host to burp loudly after a meal. Here, that's considered rude. But that doesn't *make it* rude in the Middle East. It just means we're two different cultures with two different ways of showing respect and gratitude. "I would argue that a wife should not give more respect to other men than she does to her own husband." And I would argue that a godly wife calling her boss "sir" is not giving him *more* (quantity) respect than her husband, she's giving him *a different kind* (quality) of "respect" than her husband. A lip service kind of respect that's actually *lesser* than the respect she gives her husband because the "respect" for her boss is forced rather than the organic respect she *wants* to give her husband because of her love for, and oneness with him. Frankly, I would say it's not *truly* respect if its forced, and husbands ought to give that some serious thought. "A wife calling her husband “sir” would not only honor him, and show respect for his authority in the home, but would also be an excellent model for their children about how to speak respectfully." And if that's what you and your wife agree on for your home, knock yourselves out. You're free in Christ to do that. You (not you, personally, general "you") are not free to bind the consciences of every Christian to your conscience and practice. And that's what hyper-patriarchalists are trying to do. In my home, it would NOT honor my husband for me to call him lord or sir. As I explained, it would actually be unsubmissive for me to do so because he has told me he doesn't want me to (in obedience to 2 Timothy 2:15). What I'm trying to get across here is that the Bible instructs women to respect, be subject to, and submit to our husbands. It does not give us any specifics about *how* to do that, like "Serve dinner at 5:30 every night," or "Polish his shoes weekly," or "Call him lord or sir". It's very similar to many other instructions the Bible gives us like "Bring your children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord". How? Every father has to give his children an 8 p.m. bed time? Every father has to implement a Scripture memory program for his children, and, if so, which Scriptures? Every father has to make sure his daughters only wear floor length dresses? The Bible doesn't give us these types of specifics because God, in His wisdom, knew that it would have to be applicable to Christians in *every* culture and country across thousands of years of time. What He told us to do is to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling," *knowing* we would have to do so within the time, culture, and context in which He sovereignly placed us. God is OK with cultural differences. Why aren't hyper-patriarchalists? This HP demand (I'm not saying you, personally, are making this demand) that all wives call their husbands lord or sir goes against the grain of the way God created us to live in our particular cultures, and goes beyond Scripture in both letter and spirit (Not to mention, as I pointed out, using this passage to demand that one's wife call him lord is clearly taking this passage out of context and mishandling it. Husbands who do so are being disobedient to 2 Timothy 2:15.). There are numerous ways godly wives in our culture can and do show our husbands deep and heartfelt respect without this legalistic demand of hyper-patriarchalists that has been imposed on this text of Scripture. We must obey what God's Word *actually says* rather than man's mishandling of God's Word. Finally, I would just end with a rhetorical "food for thought" question. Hyper-patriarchalists place so much emphasis on men leading (which I heartily agree with), but all I ever see them doing is putting the burden of the marriage relationship on wives. If something is going wrong in the marriage, it's ALWAYS the wife's fault. She's rebellious. She's a feminist. She's not being respectful and submissive enough. She's weak. She's stupid. As far as I can recall, I have NEVER seen these guys admonishing husbands to love their wives. To be self-sacrificial. Not to be harsh with their wives. To act in a way that naturally inspires respect. To be humble. To lead like Jesus led. Hyper-patriarchalists are so focused on whether or not women are doing what they're supposed to do. When are they going to start focusing on whether or not men are doing what they're supposed to do? If they're truly leading biblically, looking in the mirror should be their first order of business. I don't see that happening, and I have no respect for that.

I would encourage all hyper-patriarchal men to follow through and be consistent about their beliefs. If women are so contemptible, stupid, sinful, and beneath you, stop marrying and fathering children (lest you bring more females into the world). I mean, we can't help it, but what does it say about you when you *choose* to marry us terrible people?

"The period theologians" Do y'all need any more evidence of the hyper-patriarchy camp's ungodly contempt for women image-bearers?

Observation: The ditch on the antinomian side of the road (NAR, Word of Faith, seeker driven, progressive) seems to be more oppressive to men, while the ditch on the legalistic side of the road (IFB/Holiness Pentecostal, hyper-patriarchy/CN) seems to be more oppressive to women.

Jesus didn't appear to Joseph Smith. That was a demon or his own imagination or hallucination. But that's one thing we know for sure - it wasn't Jesus. I'm not going to debate/argue with you, just presenting the facts.

Show us the toes! (If you knows, you knows!😀)

The older I get, the more I realize how wise God was to instruct us in Titus 2:3-5 that younger women are to be taught, trained, and discipled by older women, not by their contemporaries - especially those who are influencers, podcasters, and evangelical celebrities. Even the "Reformed" ones.

You know, the only things I ever hear about the WNBA are controversy, strife, perversion, and horrible behavior. Maybe it's time to get rid of it.

Mormonism's own history/documents confirm. (I'm fully aware that Mormons in the comments are going to play word games with this and say that Smith didn't "disavow Christianity," but thought he was given the only pure form of it - i.e. Mormonism - but the Christian church is the tangible representation of the intangible concept of "Christianity," so by disavowing all churches as corrupt and dreaming up a non-Christian religion, he did, in fact, substance, and practice, disavow Christianity.) I'm not the one who's being foolish and inaccurate here, as some are falsely claiming.