Voddie Baucham preaches the Truth. He knows that the power of a transformed life preaches the Gospel better than anything else. If the world sees marriages that don't resemble Christ and His church, they won't see anything different that will cause them to seek Truth. God prescribed marriages speak LOUDLY. In this sermon, Pastor Baucham attempts to illustrate the lies Christian women have believed about submission ~
My wife is a highly educated woman who has laid down all her pursuits
in order to submit herself to my vision for the family.
My wife does not contradict me in front of others.
She shows me that respect and honor.
My wife communicates to myself and others the vision that
I have established for our family.
My wife has forsaken other opportunities for independent self-fulfillment of her gifts in order to put her gifts under submission for me and my vision for our family.
I say these things and feminism cringes but what if
I tweaked those things just a little bit ~
Dr. Condoleezza Rice is a highly educated woman who has laid down
all her pursuits in order to submit herself to President Bush's vision for the country.
Dr. Rice does not contradict President Bush in public.
Dr. Rice committed herself and her vision for President Bush's
administration's vision and not her own.
Dr. Rice had forsaken other opportunities for independent self-fulfillment
of her gifts for the sake of helping President Bush fulfill his agenda.
How come she does it and she's a hero but my Bridgett does it and there's something wrong with it? You've been lied to. You believe that working for some man in the White House has more value than laying your life down beside a man that would lay his life down for you.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ,
so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Ephesians 5:25
This was an older sermon but completely relevant for today.
You can listen to more of Voddie Baucham's sermons HERE.
Logging you in...
Genny Ower · 560 weeks ago
Lori Alexander 122p · 560 weeks ago
Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." {John 10:30}
Since ALL of Scripture is inspired by God and Jesus said that He and God were one, yes, Jesus said that a wife should submit to her husband numerous times.
Ken · 560 weeks ago
An argument from silence is about as weak an argument as one can make in that it goes both ways. It is true that although Jesus always treated women with high esteem He never speaks about gender roles or marriage roles in the gospels. As much as a revolutionary as Jesus was, would it not have made sense if he did go against the ways of the time and had chosen a woman disciple, or at least made one comment that might call into question the patriarchy of the times? No he was silent on these issues.
Instead he speaks directly to Paul and makes him an apostle, who goes on to write quite clearly about husband leadership and wifely submission. Did he make a poor choice? Because most of what the church has believed theologically for 2000 years comes from this great man of God who sold out his life for Jesus. For a guy who wanted to get it all straight, Paul certainly must have misunderstood Jesus.
Lastly, Jesus personally chose Peter to be the leader of His disciples, part of his inner circle, and the Rock on which he built his church. Peter, not Paul has the strongest and most convincing arguments for wifely submission saying that wives should obey their husbands "even when their husband is being "disobedient to the word." He makes Paul sound mild as Paul at least commands husbands to love their wives, which Peter does not. Although, Peter does say to treat one's wife in an understanding way and with honor.
We would have to take a pretty small view of God's ability to communicate clearly with us from His word to assume that He would let His church, both Eastern and Western churches, accept the inspiration of the words of Paul and Peter when they are not inspired like the words of Jesus. Half of the church's beliefs and practices would disappear if we only were taught from the "red lettered" words in the Bible, thus meaning that the church never got it right after the first century.
That seems like way too small a view of what God is doing and desiring to do with His creation, His people and His gospel. I much prefer to believe all of what is written in the Bible, even the things hard to understand, like why God says I am to lead my family and Lori is to follow my lead. In many ways Lori is more of a leader than I am, especially in areas of food and righteousness. But I believe God is not such a poor communicator to leave Paul and Peter both writing about husband leadership, and 2000 years later we suddenly decide it was a mistake?
My God is clear, even if at times I do not like what He has to say to me. He wants my obedience, not my picking and choosing what to obey from His Word.
I hope to see you soon! Warm up the weather and the lake for us please :).
kidfarmers 1p · 559 weeks ago
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Jesus Christ laid His life down for us and we are commanded to do this as well. Doesn't get any clearer than that.
Rebecca · 560 weeks ago
Lori Alexander 122p · 560 weeks ago
Rebecca · 560 weeks ago
And I have no idea what you mean by 'criticized the intent of my post.' I got the intent of your post and had no wish to criticize it.
I don't know whether you'll post this comment, but I hope you understand that I'm not trying to criticize you or Mr Baucham personally. There's a difference between criticizing a person, and having a difference of opinion on something that person has said. I'm doing the latter; the former is something I don't believe in doing. And I don't believe that there is anything in God's word that says we're not allowed to have a difference of opinion about something a preacher has said. It's not his message I have a difference about, it's just the example he used. Preachers are humans, too, and should be open to suggestions (constructive, not rude, of course!), and different points of view. I don't know much about Mr Baucham, but I would imagine he would be reasonable enough to at least consider my point of view and discuss it with me. At least, I hope he would.
Lori Alexander 122p · 560 weeks ago
You accused Mr. Bauchman of doing an odious thing by making any comparison as "comparisons are odious." Yet, now it appears that you are not against comparisons so long as it is Hilary Clinton? It was that one line I objected to It makes no sense as the comparison was about similarities, not dissimilarities.
Rebecca · 560 weeks ago
I can see where you might think I thought Baucham was doing an 'odious' thing. My quote (it's an old saying, don't know where it's from) wasn't really directed at him, but at all of us in general. Every day, all over the Internet and in print media (I read a lot) I see so much comparison, especially of women by other women. I just wish we could all stop comparing (and by inference judging as well) and instead start trying to build each other up, encourage one another.
Ken · 560 weeks ago
I am sure that had you not been so strong in your original comment as to hating comparisons, your comment would have stayed. I think what Lori could not understand is why you went off on "odious comparisons" when it is next to impossible to communicate most thoughts and ideas without them. Jesus was the master of comparisons.
Now you write, "I just wish we could all stop comparing (and by inference judging as well) and instead start trying to build each other up, encourage one another."
There is no judgmental comparison Mr. Baucham gives here. To express your sentiment as if somehow the post was judgmental in any way takes things off topic and away from anything that Lori was hoping to discuss. It may be your hot button of sorts, but nothing at all to do with the post, yet you bring it into the discussions and it distracts from the topic at hand.
Hilary Clinton would have been a poor choice for the comparison as she is a Senator at the time of his sermon, and not under the President's direct authority.
It is hard to keep the discussions on topic and that is why Lori is exercising her prerogative as blog writer to delete some comments that require a response from her, but are far off topic. She is choosing not to take her time up going down rabbit trails that may be important to others, but not the direct subject of her post.
Deb · 560 weeks ago
Ava Joy · 560 weeks ago
Desiree · 560 weeks ago
hiswife522 43p · 560 weeks ago
Emily · 560 weeks ago
If Ms. Rice did not agree with Obama, then she could always resign if he was asking her to do things that she was completely against. In most work places there is rarely complete submission to the boss.
Ken · 560 weeks ago
It sounds like many commenters have ears to hear and are not all caught up in needing a 100% comparison. Instead they see clearly that if a woman can willingly follow the lead of, and submit to a man in the work place, or for the sake of her country, she certainly should be able to choose to willfully submit to her husband's leadership. It is a choice one must make, and if a pay check can get a person to submit, so too should the well being of a family l that is sold out to do things God's way.
Wifely submission is not for all marriages. It is just for those who desire to do things God's ways and reap the blessings that come from it. Almost all the best things in life come from some sacrifice. And the entire message of the gospel is to sell oneself out for Christ and do things as He desires, not what we think is best, or most enjoyable.
Ashley Zedicy · 560 weeks ago
marciferrell 1p · 559 weeks ago
Pup · 559 weeks ago
People are hired to do a job for a specific purpose. Most of the time they are working for an organization that has a specific purpose. Those who work for a government entity (such as the C. Rice example) are bound by obligations to align with the constitution or other written purpose (goal/vision) for that government. Even someone hired by an individual, not an organization, is still hired for a specific purpose -- ie, gardener, housepainter, electrician.
Sometimes the nature of that purpose requires employees to be highly submissive/obedient to their higher-ups, in order to accomplish the purpose. Most work environments are less extreme but still have a hierarchical structure. Some work environments are completely egalitarian, or nearly so. It all depends on what is needed to achieve the purpose. Hierarchy and submissiveness is not there for its own sake, but as needed to accomplish the purpose.
On the other hand, and perhaps this is where we might disagree with each other, a marriage is a *partnership* -- a sharing and support system that encompasses all aspects of two people's lives, including all their myriad goals and "purposes". If we were asked to put into words some overarching *purpose* for the whole marriage, it would be something along the lines of "to foster an enjoyable and satisfying life for both parties".
One's religious beliefs or allegiance to God would be presumed to be a prerequisite for an "enjoyable and satisfying life" for those with religious beliefs -- just to spell out how my description isn't overlooking a person's religious priorities. Likewise if there are children then there are many obligations and purposes that parents have, but that would likewise fall under the umbrella of what's needed to create an enjoyable and satisfying life for the parents, at the time they make the decision to become parents.
So, back to your focus -- if both people in a marriage prefer, for their own personal reasons or beliefs, to have one of them behave submissively toward the other, that is fine. But with the job example, the submissiveness is only due to the requirements of meeting the purpose -- NOT because it's inherent in any way for one person (or one kind of person) to submit to another.
I understand that you will probably disagree with this, I just wanted to share my perspective.