A friend passed along this awesome sermon from Kris Vallotton, founder and president of Moral Revolution, an organization dedicated to global cultural reformation, and Advance Redding, which is committed to the social/economic transformation of Redding, California. He is also the author of ten books, including this gem:
In the introduction to his sermon, Kris tells us his publisher asked him to double his book, which required 400 extra hours of research. You can click the picture above to purchase his book on Amazon.
Bethel provides free previews for a short amount of time, so you may not be able to listen for free. I highly recommend paying to download the sermon in that case, but tried to transcribe as much as I could as I was listening. No time to pause or go back, so it’s far from a perfect transcription, but take a look. Good stuff!!!
Kris explains that he will be addressing the six passages in the New Testament that seem to restrict women. After his introductory comments, he begins here:
Between Matthew and Malachi, before Jesus walked the earth, there was a period of four hundred years in which the religion Judaism developed. Judaism is not a word for the Old Testament religion, which we would call Mosaic Law. There were no Pharisees and Saducees in the Old Testament. N.T. scribes also had a new role than O.T. scribes. What happended was there were hundreds of extra rules added to the Mosaic Law, which included 252 laws. When Jesus walked the earth, there were 613 laws – 113 written against women. Pharisees hated women and the most oppressed people group in Judaism were women.
There were Jews, Romans and Greeks when the disciples were writing the Gospels and Paul was writing the epistles. In Judaism, women were second-class citizens with no rights, no respect and no voice. They were the property of men, literally, and were afforded no education. Like the women in Afghanistan, women were not permitted to speak to men and were required to veil their faces in public. Under Judaism, women could not work outside the home and marriages were arranged, so they could not marry for love. Polygamy was legal for men, not women, and men could discard/divorce their wives. Women could not be witnesses and were relegated to the outer court of the synagogue. They were not allowed to read the Torah. The most famous 1st century rabbi, Eliezer, said he would rather burn the Torah than read it to women.
The Romans were less restrictive (it is interesting how the further you get from religion, the less restrictive it is). Roman women could work outside the home and own property. The Greeks, though, adored women. They believed women were more powerful than men and made gods of them. The whole thought behind this was that the sex drive of men was stronger – women had something men wanted and had control over that, so they were more powerful.
Paul the Apostle was formerly a Pharisee, a self-described “Pharisee of Pharisees” – a former oppressor of women. Paul wrote to nine geographic locations and restricted women in three of them – Corinth, Ephesus, and the island of Creed – all Greek cities! Not only were they Greek, they happened to have goddesses instead of gods as the chief leader of their city. Goddesses had more authority than gods.
Also, it is important to note that no church would have had all the letters. There was no New Testament at this time, 30-70 years after Christ. Paul wrote specific letters to specific churches, and told the reader who to share the letter with. For instance, Colossians 4:16 “When this letter is read among you, share this with the church in Laodicea, and read the letter that I sent to them as well.” In Philippians, he says, “I’m writing this letter to the saints of Philippi, and also the elders and deacons,” i.e. “I’m talking to you!”
You cannot relate to the book of Corinthians in the same way the Corinthians would have. It was written to a certain people to address certain issues. You cannot relate to the N.T. epistles, written to a smaller community, in the same was as the O.T. books, which were written to a whole people group.
What happens when you superimpose God’s situational counsel over universal circumstances, is you will not come to a redemptive solution.
The epistles tell us how God thinks, but you would only apply the counsel if you were in the exact same context. People say, “I believe the Bible!” But I say, “You filter the Bible through a certain context. If you sent your son, who is struggling with pornography, to a pastor to receive counsel, and he came back with one eye gouged out and one hand cut off, you’d call the police. Because you understand that there was a context to Jesus’ words, and you automatically apply the context whethere you think you are doing that or not!”
In the O.T., the curse over women was that they would have pain in child birth, and the husband would rule over his wife. In Hebrew, the word for woman and wife is different, and man and husband. We know for certain the curse is that husbands will rule over wives, not men over women. in the N.T., there is no difference in the Greek language, so it is more complicated. But in the O.T., we had queens, judges and prophetesses that were women, and we celebrated them. Does it make sense that after Jesus broke the curse on the cross, we cannot have a woman elder in a church of 50 people, but we could have a queen of a nation then! When do women get free???
We’re going to read some of the hard passages that Paul wrote, starting with 1 Corinthians chapter 7. This was a Greek city with a goddess with temple prostitutes. Temple prostitutes coming out of Greek mythology were priestesses. If this woman gave herself to you, it was not a sex act as much as it was an act of anointing, and it wasn’t shameful or dirty, it was the highest act of Greek mythology. These women were the most important women in the city.
In 1 Corinthians 7:1, “Now concerning the things you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Paul is answering questions the Corinthians are asking. They came out of Greek mythology, so they are reacting. Ok, we elevated women, so now we should oppress them. Is it ok to touch women? They are reacting tot he religion they came out of. But here is the challenge: Paul will repeat the question and then tell you his answer. But by the time he gets to the 8th chapter, he stops repeating the question.
7:1, “….but because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each wife her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does.” If you knew where Paul was coming from, you’d think he’d put a period here, but he doesn’t. “And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” The woman went from being a possession to the ability to own her husband, and a Pharisee just wrote that!
Verse 10,” to the married I give instructions that a wife should not leave her husband, but if she does leave, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.” There is no such thing as women divorcing a man in Judaism. Paul has left that behind. From our perspective this is restrictive, from their perspective, incredibly releasing. “A woman who has an unbelieving husband, if he consents to live with her, she should not send her husband away.” She’s a powerful woman now! “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife. And the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her husband. For otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy….How do you know, oh wife, whether or not you will save your husband?” This guy just said, wives, you might be saving your husbands. And if you stay with him, you are sanctifying him and making your whole family holy, wives.
Some people say the letter to Corinthians was written just to men because in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul writes “…Now I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you should prophesy.” All. It’s not “all you men,” it’s “all you all,” and he doesn’t make an exception here. You can all prophesy.
In 14:26, “when you assemble together, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation,…for you can all prophesy one by one”….and that’s “all you all,” because Paul has been writing to wives and husbands. This book is for everyone in the church.
And now we come to 1 Corinthians 14:34-ff:
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
There’s two schools of thought. One thinks this is contextual, that men sat on one side of the room and women on the other, and women would shout questions across the isle to their husbands, causing chaos and disorder. It is true that men and women did not sit on the same side of the room. But we’re not talking to the Hebrews who would have understood O.T. law. If we were talking to the Jews, it would have made sense that the men would have known more because they had been taught the Torah. But we’re talking about Greeks. The men knew as little as the women.
The other way to read this is as a question, as some theologians believe it is. After that verse, there’s an explosive of disassociation. There is no perfect translation, but it means, “What? No Way! Nonsense! It can’t be!” And it’s after verse 35.
God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of every man, and man is the head of every woman. Here’s the problem, woman and wife are the same in Greek and man and husband are the same. So you can end up with a more restrictive Gospel than the curse. There are 43 translations of the N.T., 16 translate that woman/man. All the others translate it husband/wife.
Then it goes on to say a woman needs to have her head covered when she’s praying. Here’s Paul’s point in 1 Cor 11, as long as a woman is in order, she can pray and prophesy.
Let’s walk the Corinthian Road:
1 Cor 7: A man does not own his body, his wife does.
1 Cor 11: a woman needs to be in right alignment with her husband, but when she is, she can pray and prophesy
1 Cor 12/13: you can all pray/prophesy/have a ministry
1 Cor 14: women cannot speak, just as the law says.
You can read the entire law and there is not one place in the O.T. where it says a woman cannot speak. That cannot be written by Paul, an expert in the law. And Paul has already said women have equal gifts and can minister. It is opposite of what he has been saying for 14 chapters. It also doesn’t make sense that women would have been shouting questions to men who would have replied, “I don’t know.” And then we have the imperitve right after that question that says, That’s nonsense! And then, did the word of God only come to you??? That makes sense, and that’s a good word.
And we have one minute and two more verses we haven’t talked about. Jesus loves you, and if you’re a woman, you’re free. You know when Paul says in 1 Tim 2 that women will be saved through child birth, remember that Timothy is the senior leader in Ephesus, where the goddess is Diana, the goddess of fertility, who was famous for making sure women didn’t die while giving birth. So Paul is telling Timothy, she doesn’t need the goddess to protect her because she has a relationship with God. They were having trouble getting women to convert to Christianity because they were all afraid of dying in childbirth. In fact, women would travel to Ephesus to give birth. That’s just a little taste of Timothy, and there’s a bunch more you might like.
If you’re standing near a woman, lay a hand on her shoulder and let’s pray: Lord, we release right now, we break the power of the curse over our women that reduced them, that said you can’t live you dreams, you have to live a man’s dreams. We break that. We pray that women will be more powerful in the church than out of the church. And we pray you will break the Spock-like Vulcan spirit that has overcome the church because w have no women bringing life and emotion and drama – good drama! We release them right now to be leaders and teachers and prophetesses and judges and queens. We release them now to fly, fly, fly!
I want to make sure you see this great comment from Susanna:
On the podcast part of Kris’s website you can download any of his sermons for free: http://kvministries.com/podcast/feed (the last one at this point is the one you’re talking about here, with ‘Part 1′ added to the title). Also wondrous is Danny Silk’s talk and book on the subject, The Invisible Ceiling. You can find a review of and link to it here: http://somebody-elses-story.blogspot.ca/search?q=The+Invisible+Ceiling
Thanks for visiting The Beautiful Kingdom Warriors. Please “like” us on Facebook for more great resources like this one!
Instead of trying to find ways around outdated theology, just ditch the theology.
Thanks for visiting and leaving a comment. I don’t know if I understand your suggestion. Ditch God?
Ditch theology. God and dogma are two different things.
Gotcha. God = good. Dogma = bad. 🙂 Theology is ‘the study of God.’ There is good theology and bad theology. It can be a lifelong pursuit to better understand God and figure out what is true and what is false. For instance, most people don’t recognize that they interpret the Bible through a patriarchal cultural lens, which leads to sexist teaching = bad. I’m learning that we all have bits and pieces of the truth and a lot of lies we inherited that we need to chip away throughout the course of our lives (with God’s help!). And lots of the lies come straight from religion = bad theology (what this sermon/blog post was illustrating).
Great article,I never thought of the childbirth verse in that context. I will definitely check out the book.
Yeah, it looks really good! Thanks for reading and commenting. Keep on keeping on. 🙂
Your commentary is flawed in several areas.
Thank you for your comment, Jed. Can you show us how? This is a transcription, not my own commentary. I welcome yours. 🙂
The first and most obvious is that the author seems to distinguish between the extent of inspiration of Paul’s writings and the writings recorded about Christ.
He never says anything about inspiration. He talks about context. Paul was writing letters to specific congregations with unique cultural contexts. He is not suggesting that Paul’s words were uninspired. His words were just what those churches needed to hear – the intended audience for his letters was narrow, not larger like the Old Testament books of law, etc.
To generally make Paul’s writings only temporary and cultural has the same effect as destroying their authority which is gained from their inspiration. If one can dismiss Paul’s teaching about headship as only cultural and because of male dominance then the impact of the headship teaching is destroyed.
Yes, absolutely. But I wouldn’t say that Paul’s teaching is destroyed…only an incorrect interpretation of his meaning. Which is a good thing, if you’re misunderstanding someone’s meaning, to come to a right understanding.
Of course, there is the rub. What did Paul actually mean? Did he mean what thousands of people, hundreds of commentators over centuries have taught, or did he mean what some recent reinterpretation, in my opinion, diminution, of his teaching is now propounded. Modern reinterpretation is not necessarily better, indeed it could be argued to be worse, than is traditional teaching. If women should now be elders, in spite of hundreds of years of other teaching, then inherent to that teaching is the assumption that all of those commentators and all of those men and women over the centuries have been wrong. That seems to me to be a bit bordering on, if not outright, egotistical. “We now know better than did all those poor uneducated, culturally enslaved, predecessors of ours.”
I believe that highly educated people can be predisposed to see something from a culturally socialized perspective. we have deeply ingrained beliefs that stem from our environment and what has been modeled/taught to us. I’m learning that to see an issue from another perspective takes humility, not pride. Here is an excellent explanation of how this happens: https://thebeautifulkingdomwarriors.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/bob-edwards-fascinating-discussion-on-the-origins-of-male-authority-in-the-church/
While I don’t have the time now to respond in detail, what I do see is that the question Pilate asked, “What is truth?’ is still very much with us. If when Eve was created God did not intend for her to be a “helpmate” (older English) to her husband, why did the author of Genesis write it that way. If the Holy Spirit inspires God’s word through human authors, then He knows the future and the cultures of the future. He gave a trans-cultural principle in the creation of Eve. She was a helper to her husband. That in itself does not define male dominance, but it does speak to the Christian husband/wife relationship. Sorry, don’t have time right now for more. I do see a very dangerous slippery slope away from truth and inspiration to re-definition from a modern cultural perspective.
JN, I really appreciate you taking time to interact with me. I understand your concern. I come from a complementarian background myself, interpreting the Bible through that lens for nearly 30 years, as well as through my seminary years. I have only been studying this issue for the past four years after I was baffled by a call from God to co-pastor with my husband. Here is an egalitarian explanation of our understanding of “helpmate” that I found to be very ‘helpful’:). Again, thank you so much for your comments. I am enjoying our conversation! http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/a-suitable-helper/
The following Stott commentary gives a deep sense of the Biblical intention of the husband/wife relationship. The stereotypical condemnation of those of us who see equal value but differing roles is unfair and consequently without merit. One needs only to look at the human body to see the differences. If biologically we are different then emotionally, sociologically and spiritually we are different. Why to women want to be men or women want men to become women, as seems to be the case with some feminists and even some Christian feminists? For husbands to fulfill their God-given responsibilities they must be different than their wives. This by definition is complementarian. I know the Stott comment is long but I believe it will be helpful to keep this discussion Biblical not so strongly cultural. There is much more to be said, but this is already too long.
THE MESSAGE OF EPHESIANS. A Commentary by John Stott.
Ephesians 5:21-33 Summary.
Taking the husband first, what Paul stresses is not his authority over his wife, but his love for her. Rather, his authority is defined in terms of loving responsibility. To our minds the word ‘authority’ suggests power, dominion and even oppression. We picture the ‘authoritative’ husband as a domineering figure who makes all the decisions himself, issues commands and expects obedience, inhibits and suppresses his wife, and so prevents her from growing into a mature or fulfilled person. But this is not at all the kind of ‘headship’ which the apostle is describing, whose model is Jesus Christ. Certainly, ‘headship’ implies a degree of leadership and initiative, as when Christ came to woo and to win his bride. But more specifically it implies sacrifice, self-giving for the sake of the beloved, as when Christ gave himself for his bride. If ‘headship’ means ‘power’ in any sense, then it is power to care not to crush, power to serve not to dominate, power to facilitate self-fulfilment, not to frustrate and destroy it. And in all this the standard of the husband’s love is to be the cross of Christ, on which he surrendered himself even to death in his selfless love for his bride. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has a striking way of enforcing this truth, ‘How many of us’, he asks, ‘have realized that we are always to think of the married state in terms of the doctrine of the atonement? Is that our customary way of thinking of marriage?… Where do we find what the books have to say about marriage? Under which section? Under ethics. But it does not belong there. We must consider marriage in terms of the doctrine of the atonement.’
As for the wife’s duty in the marriage relationship, it surprises me how unpopular this passage is among many women. When it is read at a wedding and it provokes a feminine outcry, I find myself wondering how carefully it has been read and in particular whether it has been read in its total context. Let me spell out five points which will, I hope, demonstrate that it is not the blueprint for oppression which many think, but rather a charter of genuine liberty.
a). The requirement of submission is a particular example of a general Christian duty.
That is, the injunction ‘wives submit’ (verse 22) is preceded by the requirement that we are to ‘submit to one another’ (verse 21). If, therefore, it is the wife’s duty as wife to submit to her husband, it is also the husband’s duty as a member of God’s new society to submit to his wife. Submissiveness is a universal Christian obligation. Throughout the Christian church, including every Christian home, submissiveness is to be mutual. For Jesus Christ himself is the paragon of humility. He emptied himself of his status and his rights, and humbled himself to serve. So in the new order which he had founded he calls all his followers to follow in his footsteps. ‘Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility towards one another.’ (1 Pet.5:5). Should not the wife even rejoice that she has the privilege of giving a particular demonstration in her attitude to her husband of the beauty of humility which is to characterize all members of God’s new society?
This is specially so when it is seen that her self-humbling is not coerced but free. It must have been very obvious in the ancient world. The wife had no status and few rights, as we have seen. Yet the apostle addresses her as a free moral agent and calls upon her not to acquiesce in a fate she cannot escape, but to make a responsible decision before God. It is this which ‘begins the revolutionary innovation in the early Christian style of ethical thinking.’ Voluntary Christian self-submission is still very significant today. ‘Jesus Christ demonstrates rather than loses his dignity by his subordination to the Father. When a person is voluntarily amenable to another, gives way to him, and places himself at his service, he shows greater dignity and freedom than an individual who cannot bear to be a helper and partner to anyone but himself. Ephesians 5 supports anything but blind obedience or the breaking of the wife’s will. Rather, this chapter shows that in the realm of the crucified Servant-Messiah, the subjects respect an order of freedom and equality in which one person assists another – seemingly by renouncing rights possessed, actually in exercising the right to imitate the Messiah himself…A greater, wiser, and more positive description of marriage has not yet been found in Christian literature.’
The John Stott Bible Study is taken from The Message of Ephesians: God’s New Society. The Bible Speaks Today John Stott. Used by permission of Inter-Varsity Press UK, Nottingham. All rights reserved.
If you would no longer like to receive our e-mail updates, please click here.
I think it is important to note that the earliest copies of Ephesians do not repeat the word “submit” in verse 22. Paul wrote in vs. 21 to all Christians to submit to one another, and goes on to describe what that would look like in marriage. There were also no verse numbers or titles when Paul wrote his letters, so vs. 21 and following were more clearly connected thoughts. The injunction, “wives submit” was edited later on and does not come from Paul. I agree with Stott’s commentary about mutual submission, which I think this passage in Ephesians is fleshing out.
I would also like to say that I do not condemn complementarians. I respect your viewpoints and I understand your heart in the matter – you love Jesus! You love God’s Word! You are here talking with me because you care about truth. It would be unjust of me to think poorly of you and not give you the benefit of the doubt.
And I don’t think the idea is to make men women and make women men. Feminism is about equality between men and women. Egalitarianism is a worldview that believes God’s heart on the matter of gender roles is that there is no more male or female, we are all one in Christ. Not that biologically we are not different, but spiritually God gives gifts and callings regardless of gender, and leadership in the Church is open to women.
No male nor female clearly is not a statement of redefinition of cultural roles or Paul would be denying himself. The matter of value is the issue. Men never were more valuable spiritually before the Lord, but you cannot read Scripture and not distinguish role differentiations. You have not Biblical basis to say that all Scripture was tainted by culture and is therefore invalid when the culture changes.
I never said Scripture was “tainted” by culture, or that it is invalid when the culture changes. I said you have to consider culture when you are interpreting the meaning of a particular passage. We all read Scripture through a cultural lens, interpreting according to our deeply ingrained cultural associations.
What would Paul be denying himself of? I don’t think Paul’s spiritual authority came from his maleness. It came from God.
Paul cannot both say there is not difference in everything in one place and there is a difference in other aspects in another place.
There is the question that first bothered me as a complementarian. If male-only authority is the rule, then why are there so many exceptions to that rule throughout the Bible?
What exceptions? If you are referring to the female judge, she herself was reluctant to exert that authority. Almost every principle has a few exceptions. Is there ever a time to lie? The pretend beggars with worn clothes and dried bread lied. The mothers of Egypt lied when they hid their male babies. So, obviously there are exceptions to good principles.
The clear historical teaching of Scripture is the male headship of the home. The male eldership in Israel. The male eldership in the church. Why does the modern feminist movement believe it has the right to contradict the Bible. Male leadership is not male dominance nor female subservience at its core, it is order. The human body has a head. The visible church in the world has a head (the group of male elders). Why does anyone think that what God prescribed in the Old Testament and described in the New Testament is less acceptable now because we have feminism demanding “equality.” There is no such thing as equality in function. Equal value, yes, but never equal function.
Here are some more exceptions: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/the-propriety-of-women-with-authority/. This article talks more about N.T. female church leaders: http://godswordtowomen.org/pastors.htm. And this is an excellent post about women’s leadership in the early church: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1988/issue17/1706.html.
I would highly recommend reading this article by Dr. Walk Kaiser, former president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, on the Biblical teaching on women: http://www.cbeinternational.org/files/u1/resources/14-kaiser-pdf.pdf.
And here is an article on Paul’s main point in Ephesians 5:21-33: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/pauls-main-point-in-eph-5_22-33/.
Also, this article on “Kephale and Male Headship in Paul’s Letters.: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/kephale-and-male-headship-in-pauls-letters/
I strongly disagree with you that Egalitarians (this is not a feminist movement) believe they have a right to contradict the Bible. People have had different views on many issues since the beginning of Christianity. Egalitarians are not demanding “equality” because of a new cultural viewpoint on the Bible, they are demanding equality because they strongly believe God’s design is not hierarchical, that hierarchy is a result of the fall. They are trying to work with God towards reconciling the world, abolishing the effects of sin. I am sharing these articles to demonstrate the Egalitarian perspective. It doesn’t come from an agenda but from an interpretation of Scripture. Both complementarians and egalitarians have a high view of Scripture. In fact, we have a whole lot in common. Just not the idea of male-only authority.
Dr. Walt Kaiser is a fine scholar. I however do not agree with his interpretation of the Genesis passage. Without that interpretation his extended arguments are much weaker, if indeed they can be maintained at all. The fact still remains that all the elders of the OT and the NT were men. All the description of responsibilities in the NT are for men. Paul does not say the elderess should be the wife of but one husband. He does say the elder should be the husband of one wife (technically, a one-woman man and not a one-man woman).
As you said, it comes down to interpretation. We can continue to go back and forth, but we are coming from very different perspectives and it is unlikely that either one of us is going to change our mind today. I was hoping more than anything to demonstrate that egalitarians are sincere followers of Jesus and that this is not a matter of rebellion towards God and His design. Jesus prayed that we would have a spirit of unity, and I believe that you and I can still affirm each other as brother and sister in Christ and go on with genuine love for each other despite our differences. I appreciate your interaction here on the blog and hope you continue to be a reader.
I have no problem with fellowship as open doors make such possible.
What I do have a problem with is that there seems to be a willingness on the part of egalitarians to assume that we complementarians have a low regard for women. I don’t think that is fair nor do I think that women who are complementarians are in any way, for that reason, limiting themselves.
The matter of headship is not only a Biblically correct thing, it is a freeing thing. As Christ is the head of the church, we are freed to respect his responsibilities toward us. As the husband is the head of the wife, she is freed to allow him his role. If his role is filled with love, it is not an onerous thing. It does bring order to the home as the head brings order to the body and as Christ being head brings order to the church body. If she “reverences” her husband, he will be strengthen and able to lead in a humble godly way as he should.
But as you say, we will not likely persuade each other. Minds that are made up are hard to change.
I wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn’t assume negative things about other people. Egalitarians should not assume complementarians have a low view of women, and complementarians should not assume egalitarians have a low view of Scripture. Because you know what happens when you assume something? You make an “ass out of you and me.” 🙂
Thanks again and God bless.
On the podcast part of Kris’s website you can download any of his sermons for free: http://kvministries.com/podcast/feed (the last one at this point is the one you’re talking about here, with ‘Part 1’ added to the title). Also wondrous is Danny Silk’s talk and book on the subject, The Invisible Ceiling. You can find a review of and link to it here: http://somebody-elses-story.blogspot.ca/search?q=The+Invisible+Ceiling
awesome! thank you, susanna! 🙂
Pingback: An egalitarian and a complementarian walk into a blog… | The Beautiful Kingdom Warriors
Love this book so much!