Obedience to God the Father. Jesus talked over and over about how he obeys his father.
The point is, God is our Lord, and is our God, and we serve, worship, honour, obey, submit to, and are not superior to, above, or over him.
Yes...but also he came not to be served, but to serve. And he calls us friends and makes us joint heirs. He took upon himself the most humble form. In a similar way, we should relate to women, per 1 Corinthians 11.
Yet 1 Co. 11 teaches us that Christ is the head of man, and God is the head of Christ. This seems to remind me of where my "spot" is. I do not view Jesus as my servant.
But if you do not permit him to serve you, you have no part in Him.
"Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." John 13:8
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2026 2:41 pm
But if you do not permit him to serve you, you have no part in Him.
"Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." John 13:8
Yes, but that's entire his decision. The normal relationship with a servant is that you tell them what to do. (The word "deacon" is also servant, yet clearly we understand that a deacon isn't someone I can order to go mow my lawn for me.)
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2026 2:41 pm
But if you do not permit him to serve you, you have no part in Him.
"Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." John 13:8
Yes, but that's entire his decision. The normal relationship with a servant is that you tell them what to do. (The word "deacon" is also servant, yet clearly we understand that a deacon isn't someone I can order to go mow my lawn for me.)
.
Mark 10:45. NIV “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
I'm still thinking about the cultural elements of the Dugger family and Gothard that trouble me. Beside isolating women and girls to service roles (and removing men and boys from contact from service roles) there is also active teaching the boys are being called to greater things, to change the world, to be the "Joshua generation" who slays culture and takes possession of enemy ground for God.
I was raised in a culture that was structured in opposition to this in several ways. First, men did service work. They cared for children and infants, it was normal to see men with an infant and even a diaper bag, especially on Sundays to give Mom a little break. Men cooked and shopped for food, not as often and maybe not as well but they did it. About every third carry-in meal was done by the men and it was very well done. Men (along side women) cleaned the church house.
Secondly women were not sequestered to inside work. Some were more than others due to circumstances but some milked cows, drove tractors, hung wallpaper for new construction homes, taught school alongside men and and had various other jobs.
The world changing that was being done was being done together, not in opposition and the general feeling was we serve God best when we serve together. This is not a magical formula that will prevent sexual abuse but it is worth thinking about.
As for the Gospel according to Gothard, years ago we were in a church setting that strongly supported Gothard. Everyone was encouraged to attend at least one of Gothard's teaching seminars. His teachings were so glorified, to the point that if you never attended any of his Institute of Basic Life Principles seminars, you were deemed a lesser spiritual person. However, I had a friend who attended one of his Seminars at the Hershey Stadium. And she was prophetic when she said, he comes across as a "creep". I never went to any of his events so I felt I couldn't make a fair evaluation. But it turned out her evaluation of him was right.
barnhart wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 7:56 am
I'm still thinking about the cultural elements of the Dugger family and Gothard that trouble me. Beside isolating women and girls to service roles (and removing men and boys from contact from service roles) there is also active teaching the boys are being called to greater things, to change the world, to be the "Joshua generation" who slays culture and takes possession of enemy ground for God.
I was raised in a culture that was structured in opposition to this in several ways. First, men did service work. They cared for children and infants, it was normal to see men with an infant and even a diaper bag, especially on Sundays to give Mom a little break. Men cooked and shopped for food, not as often and maybe not as well but they did it. About every third carry-in meal was done by the men and it was very well done. Men (along side women) cleaned the church house.
Secondly women were not sequestered to inside work. Some were more than others due to circumstances but some milked cows, drove tractors, hung wallpaper for new construction homes, taught school alongside men and and had various other jobs.
The world changing that was being done was being done together, not in opposition and the general feeling was we serve God best when we serve together. This is not a magical formula that will prevent sexual abuse but it is worth thinking about.
Could you explain to us, then, how problems with abuse are just as bad (or worse) in circles that embrace a great deal of egalitarianism?
I really get tired of hearing about how following biblical teachings for Christian living somehow leads to more "abuse".
The world changing that was being done was being done together, not in opposition and the general feeling was we serve God best when we serve together. This is not a magical formula that will prevent sexual abuse but it is worth thinking about.
This is how I see it. I think masculinity and femininity together are the truest representation of God. I think in almost every case, adding women's voices to the equation, governance, decision making, etc...makes for better decisions, more wise, etc.
Grace wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 9:29 am
As for the Gospel according to Gothard, years ago we were in a church setting that strongly supported Gothard. Everyone was encouraged to attend at least one of Gothard's teaching seminars. His teachings were so glorified, to the point that if you never attended any of his Institute of Basic Life Principles seminars, you were deemed a lesser spiritual person. However, I had a friend who attended one of his Seminars at the Hershey Stadium. And she was prophetic when she said, he comes across as a "creep". I never went to any of his events so I felt I couldn't make a fair evaluation. But it turned out her evaluation of him was right.
My mother could not bear to watch him even on video.
barnhart wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 7:56 am
I'm still thinking about the cultural elements of the Dugger family and Gothard that trouble me. Beside isolating women and girls to service roles (and removing men and boys from contact from service roles) there is also active teaching the boys are being called to greater things, to change the world, to be the "Joshua generation" who slays culture and takes possession of enemy ground for God.
I was raised in a culture that was structured in opposition to this in several ways. First, men did service work. They cared for children and infants, it was normal to see men with an infant and even a diaper bag, especially on Sundays to give Mom a little break. Men cooked and shopped for food, not as often and maybe not as well but they did it. About every third carry-in meal was done by the men and it was very well done. Men (along side women) cleaned the church house.
Secondly women were not sequestered to inside work. Some were more than others due to circumstances but some milked cows, drove tractors, hung wallpaper for new construction homes, taught school alongside men and and had various other jobs.
The world changing that was being done was being done together, not in opposition and the general feeling was we serve God best when we serve together. This is not a magical formula that will prevent sexual abuse but it is worth thinking about.
That's all good, I think, but is there a reason we can't just simply place the blame on the individual. There are people who grew up in a conservative Anabaptist culture that was similar to what you describe who now appear make it their business (literally) to routinely critique the entire culture because of bad actors who were in that culture or because their home was dysfunctional. Human nature is what it is, and within any culture there are humans who are prone to sin. I feel like we are a little quick to blame other things sometimes when the reality is, the individual himself chose to sin.
