Benevolent leadership headship authority...what?

The Big Cheese Shows Benevolence

Does anyone else get the impression when you READ some author's explanations of 'headship' it more reads as 'top dog'?  Does TOP DOG mean benevolence?

Wayne Grudem to me is a great example when attempting to explain away why Egalitarianism is 'bad'. He begins a chapter in his book about how for 19 centuries people clearly understood WITHOUT confusion Ephesians 5:22-24, and of course he also noted other passages.

If we look at those past 19 centuries the human race truly struggled with respect and dignity towards those 'lower' on the hierarchy chain of command.  Notice how he didn't bring up that point!  We can't ignore this lack of benevolence, but we do when we 'glorify' the past without those facts.

They seem to truly struggle with WHY people started to search, because something JUST didn't line up!  It could be due to claims of 'how God intended' things to be were NOT lining up with a sense of benevolence they claim to represent.

• We have all heard about the schools or organizations that took care of children or women that found themselves in abusive circumstances. 
• If you look today at articles that 'announce' pastors or church leaders that were found guilty of crimes against someone else in the church?  You find excuses as to WHY they fell, and how it was the person that the crime was committed against was at fault.  Check out just about ANY sexual abuse conviction!
• When "Christians" came to America did that they treat the Indians with this type of benevolence?
  
• Did "Christians" NOT use scripture as a weapon to keep slaves? They can chant all they wish about how you are to show benevolence towards your slaves, but we also can see from history words were cheap!
  
• Lets look at the benevolence shown towards unmarried women that had babies. The boy or man could walk away, but the woman and child were gifted so much benevolence it wasn't even funny right?

We can come up with tons of examples of how supposedly 'benevolent' leaders were far from the example they claim. Even to this day MOST won't acknowledge it unless their backs are against the wall.

Does that look like we 'understand' with no 'confusion' what passages within the bible truly mean?  PLEASE!  Give me a break!  Actions speak louder than words!


Could it be the definition of benevolence is what is confusing to them?  Or could it be what they claim is benevolence is actually a mockery of what the bible stands for?!

It never dawned on the leaders of today I guess - just like the leaders of the past - that their unique type of 'authority and leadership' doesn't line up with scripture, and YES that does make a HUGE difference!

They want people to acknowledge their 'right' as leader, head, authority.  Placing the word benevolent prior to the words 'leader, head, authority' is meaningless, and its just a game they play to keep their position of 'top dog'.  The definition is more important than the role.

Galatians 6:7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

If we look at the corruption of the past?  Did we sow to please the spirit?  It sure doesn't look that way.  According to CBMW its pretty much the feminist that are ruining the world, and things were down right awesome before THEN!  I mean they didn't 'question' scripture prior!  (Okay then!  lol)

The leaders used their benevolent position to shut the masses, and the 'leaders' decided THEY would teach what their 'reality' truly is.  They didn't need to walk in their shoes, and they didn't need to hear of their experiences.  THEY being the benevolence authorities will tell you how things 'truly' are when things are a little too dirty for them to touch.

The flesh wants the top dog position, but not the responsibilities that come along with it.  They attempt to 'confuse' issues with strange conclusions.

For example, their diversions about how if there is no 'authority' in the world chaos would begin.

Having laws, and law enforcement is a must I think most would agree.  You can use a boss - employee, or military examples to show YES some forms of 'order' is needed in the world.  If we speak of being egalitarian?  Suddenly, those 'concepts' have no meaning.

You notice how they switched from if 'my benevolent' authority is gone this means there is 'no authority' anywhere!  Chaos is what you would have!'  Notice the 'top dog' mentality there?  If I'm not in charge then no one can be?

You would think a truly benevolent person would somehow choose to ask questions before making such an insane assumptions.  NOT so most of the time, and to me that shows no benevolence whatsoever.  They are more concentrated on the 'authority' factor more than 'benevolence'.

When the Southern Baptist Convention was debating its statement on marriage and the family, I am told that there was a motion from the floor to add “mutual submission” to the statement.  Dorothy Patterson, a member of the drafting committee for the statement and one of the original members of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, spoke against the motion and explained how egalitarians have used it to deny any sense of male authority within marriage. The motion was defeated, and appropriately so. If “mutual submission” had been added to the Southern Baptist statement, in effect it would have torpedoed the whole statement, because it would have watered it down so much that people from almost any position could sign it, and it would have affirmed no unique male authority within marriage. (These events were reported to me by friends who were present when the statement was being debated on the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention in the summer of 1998.)

So you can't show a benevolent nature unless we have unique male authority within marriage.  History has shown that human benevolence by definition can be very wicked.  To me allowing God to transform you as a 'person' is when you truly learn the meaning of the word benevolent.

 Luke 18:9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ 13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” 

People shouldn't chant about 'God Given Rights" for the man's position, and then turn around as tell women that feel stepped on that they are selfish when they ask for 'rights' as well.  That isn't benevolent.

If we used common sense at all?  Benevolent listeners would have compassion towards others, and not play the silly games with words that we see today.


The next thing you know they are using 'women' as their mouth piece to be WAY more blunt with their message - like the True Women's Conference! 

Bending to culture?  Lets see:  men stating things in a more 'palpable' manner for the world, and then using 'women' like Mary Kassan to drive the point home because it wouldn't 'look' so good if men did it that way!  THEN using those women's statements, because they said it FIRST in order to NOT make them look so bad again?

Its strange how they use 'women' to be their mouth piece isn't it?  Most of the time that would be 'unheard' of, because (grasp!) they may 'teach' or usurp!

Then they play dumb stating that respect, dignity, and equality among 'God's People' is gender SAMENESS!  They tell you the world is 'gender confused'.  Give me a break!

The next thing they wish to point out is centuries old pedigrees (his words not mine), and they use the words of leaders within the church of the past.  That personally doesn't do it for me.  The pedigree of the past were human, and they also had incorrect viewpoints as we learned from history as well.

Change isn't something humans like!  Pointing out that our belief systems have holes may not be something we like to admit.  I think that is MORE of the truth, and the fact they don't wish to give up their power!

If we have to rely on the pedigree of the men in the past?  What is their viewpoints on how to treat the Indians when we came to America?  The slaves?  The unwed mothers?  What about all the awful institutions that abused and neglected men, women and children that the church backed?  We can read from history the fact it was 'wrong' wasn't an easy thing to shallow.  Matter of fact they WOULDN'T admit it until they HAD too!

That is not benevolence, but lack of there of

The gender confusion, the equality sameness, the fear mongering over the feminists?  Its all a bunch ball puckie!  They do have good insights in other areas, but making excuses do show the lack of benevolence with all the silly junk they came up with.  I don't know how they can live with themselves personally.  Is the need for power more important to them?

My prayers are that myself, and everyone else do truly learn and live the aspect of benevolence.  There has to be more than - the other side is wrong because MEN don't have their 'authority' otherwise.  Allow God to be your top dog, and he will make sure things happen as he 'intended'.  No one can stop the man upstairs!

If you enjoyed this post and wish to be informed whenever a new post is published, then make sure you subscribe to my regular Email Updates. Subscribe Now!

Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it: