First Wave Feminism SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 Pastor Steven L. Anderson

Man, the title of my sermon this evening is

First Wave Feminism.

First Wave Feminism.

Now look, feminism is an ungodly, unbiblical ideology

that unfortunately has been infecting our country

for a long time.

It's infected our churches.

And now people get up and preach what the Bible says,

just sound doctrine from the Bible

and everybody acts like it's some crazy thing.

It's really because our society

has just become so brainwashed

by this wicked ideology of feminism.

Now a lot of people will come along and say,

oh, well feminism was really good

and it really did a lot of good things for our country

and for women in the early days,

but then it just sort of got out of control at some point.

But I'm gonna show you that even the very first wave

of feminism is 100% unbiblical.

This was never a godly movement.

This was never Bible believing Christians

trying to promote good Christian womanhood

or anything like that.

It's always been something that is non-Christian, okay?

Now the first wave of feminism goes from 1848 to 1920.

That's pretty much what it's delineated as.

And there was this document that was drafted

at the first meeting for women's rights in 1848.

And this sort of became the founding document

for the women's rights, women's lib,

feminist movements in our country.

And again, it's from 1848.

And my sermon tonight is just,

I'm just gonna go through this document tonight

and just show you what the Bible says.

And there are basically 16 main points to this.

And I'm gonna try to get through all 16 of these.

A lot of them are redundant with one another.

There's really only six main points that they're making.

I was able to boil it down to that.

But first I'm gonna read for you part of the introduction

because what this thing is,

this document's called the Declaration of Sentiments.

And it's meant to be like kind of a mockery

of the Declaration of Independence.

So it's worded like the Declaration of Independence,

when in the course of human events,

but it's this weird, I am woman, hear me roar stuff.

But let me just read you part of the introduction.

It says this, the history of mankind

is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations

on the part of man toward woman.

Having a direct object,

the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her

to prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

And then it gives the 16 points.

So notice, they are claiming that man is quote,

usurping authority over the woman.

I don't think that it's a coincidence

that they use this language,

which is the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches

because look down at your Bible.

It says in verse 11,

let the woman learn in silence with all subjection,

but I suffer not a woman to teach

nor to usurp authority over the man,

but to be in silence,

for Adam was first formed, then Eve,

and Adam was not deceived,

but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

And so what we see here is that the Bible is saying,

look, do not allow the woman

to usurp authority over the man.

And then these broads are basically saying,

no, no, no, it's the man

who's usurping authority over the woman.

No, that's his God-given authority over the woman.

The husband is the head of the wife.

Even as Christ is the head of the church,

that's what the Bible says.

So let's look at their 16 points.

Number one, he has never permitted her

to exercise her inalienable right

to the elective franchise.

So point number one is women aren't allowed to vote.

That's their number one grievance.

Point number two, he has compelled her to submit to laws

in the formation of which she had no voice.

So point number two is also women aren't allowed to vote.

Point number three, he has withheld from her rights

which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men,

both natives and foreigners.

Again, we don't have the right to vote.

Basically, she's saying, the dumbest bozo

if he's a dude has the right to vote in America,

yet women don't.

And so the first three points, again,

there's a lot of redundancy here.

The fourth point says having deprived her

of the first right of a citizen, the elective franchise,

thereby leaving her without representation

in the halls of legislation,

he has oppressed her on all sides.

So you notice that out of 16 points,

the first four points are all the same thing

saying women don't have a right to vote

and that's what we're upset about.

So you can see that the big push in the first wave

of feminism was getting women the right to vote

and that's why the first wave is seen as ending in 1920

because by the time you get to 1920,

you've passed the 19th amendment

and then women were allowed to vote nationwide

at that point.

Now, what does the Bible say about this?

Well, flip over if you would to Isaiah chapter number three.

Isaiah chapter number three.

But first of all, let me give you

some dictionary definitions here, okay?

Because our country is founded as a democratic republic, right?

And even we have two parties in the United States,

we have the Republicans and the Democrats

and the reason that they're called that

is because the Republicans tend to lean more toward

like the Republic aspect of our government,

whereas the Democrats tend to lean more

toward the Democratic aspect.

So those names are fitting names for the ideologies

that kind of drive the two parties

but our country has elements of both.

It's a republic but it's considered a democratic republic.

So what do these words mean?

What does the word democracy mean?

Well, here's this a dictionary definition, democracy.

Government by the people, a form of government

in which the supreme power is vested in the people

and exercised directly by them

or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

And so the definition here is saying

that democracy means the power is in the people

and they exercise that power by voting, okay?

Now listen to the definition of a republic,

a state in which the supreme power rests

in the body of citizens entitled to vote

and is exercised by representatives chosen directly

or indirectly by them.

Notice both of these definitions,

whether it's Democrat or Republic, right?

It's saying that the power, the supreme power,

the ultimate power is resting in the citizens

who are allowed to vote, who are able to vote.

Well then here's my question.

Then if women are allowed to vote

is that not women ruling or having power

or having authority in the political process?

If that is the final most supreme authority is the voter

then why would it be God's will to grant that power

to women when the Bible specifically says

that women are not to exercise authority over men?

Now look what the Bible says in Isaiah chapter three,

verse 12, it says, as for my people,

children are their oppressors and women rule over them.

Oh my people, they which lead thee, excuse me,

they which lead thee cause thee to err

and destroy the way of thy paths.

And so you notice here that the Bible is saying

that when women rule over you,

this is a backward situation.

You don't give authority to the children in the home.

You don't give authority to women to rule over men.

This is an error.

This is wandering away from God's plan.

Paul said, I suffer not a woman to teach

nor do you serve authority over the man

but to be in silence.

I mean, imagine if we were in a church

and what if the church were made up 60% of women

and 40% of men and then we're gonna have some

out of a democratic process

and then the women are basically running the church.

Literally.

They're literally the majority vote are women

and that's what's going on in churches all over America.

Now the sad thing is none of these 16 points are biblical.

They're not coming from a place

of godly biblical Christianity

and yet as I went through these 16 points,

I believe that the independent fundamental Baptist

and evangelical Christians of America

probably agree with about 14 of these at this point.

I agree with zero of their points.

And you know how I can prove it to you

is that literally in fundamental Baptist churches

across America, they have business meetings

and women vote in the business meetings.

So if they believe that women should vote in church,

how much more do they believe

that women should be voting for political things?

They're letting them even run the church

and vote in the church.

Even though they can often even make up a majority.

Now our church is not majority women.

Our church has a pretty balanced demographic

and always has been, but you know what?

A lot of churches, unfortunately,

you go in and it's more women than men

and you say, well, why is that a problem?

Well, because here's the thing about that is

it's a shame when you're such a pansy of a preacher

that you can't get a hair-legged man

to come hear you preach.

And the only people who want to come hear you preach

are women and old ladies and the elderly and children.

And you can't get a hair-legged man

to come hear you preach because he doesn't respect you.

And by the way, there've been all kinds of studies

that show that if dad goes to church,

the rest of the family will follow,

whereas if the mom goes to church, not necessarily.

Statistically, men tend to be the anchor

that's gonna get the whole family in church, if anything.

But to sit there and have a church that's 60, 70% women,

you know, that's too bad.

You need to figure out how to go be fishers of men,

get some men in church,

but then you're gonna invest them basically

the final supreme authority by running it

in a democratic way.

And that's what we have going on today in churches.

We have women voting in business meetings,

women voting on decisions that the church makes.

Every fundamental Baptist church I've ever been a part of

had women voting, and you know what, they're wrong.

And it goes back to this stuff from 1848

and it's not biblical, nowhere does the Bible say,

hey, we gotta put the women in charge,

we gotta have the women decide,

we gotta make sure that they agree with, no, no, no.

The church is supposed to be a man-run institution.

Okay, God is ultimately the boss,

Jesus Christ is the head of the church,

and then he has appointed a bishop, elder,

overseer, pastor, and that guy,

and I emphasize the word guy,

is responsible to Christ to lead the church,

and it should be men running the church.

How do I know that?

Because the Bible says, I suffer not a woman to teach,

nor do you serve authority over the man.

So women are not supposed to take over positions

of authority in the church,

and if you're gonna run the church like a democracy,

then if you give women the power to vote,

you are allowing the most supreme power

to be put in the hands of women,

that's the definition of democracy and republic

is that the supreme power is in the hands of the voter.

So if you're gonna run the church based on a vote,

and then you're gonna let women vote,

you're basically letting women run the church.

Now you say, I don't know, man,

this is some radical stuff, this is the Taliban.

You know what?

You can call it whatever you want.

This is the Bible.

The Bible was written 2,000 years ago.

In 1848, these women are mad

because nobody agrees with them.

Churches don't, you think women were voting in churches

in 1848, you think Bible-believing,

fundamental Baptist type churches

or even conservative Presbyterian churches, Baptist churches,

you name it, you really think that they're letting women

run the church in actual conservative

Bible-believing churches, they weren't.

Just like they weren't allowed to vote politically.

You know the Bible says in 1 Corinthians chapter 11,

1 Corinthians 11 · chapter mention

verse three, I would have you know

that the head of every man is Christ

and the head of the woman is the man

and the head of Christ is God.

It's what the Bible says.

All right, let's go back to this.

So the first four points are just about women voting.

I don't believe in it.

I don't think it's biblical.

It doesn't make any sense.

And you know, it's wrong.

But number five was this on their grievances.

He has made her if married in the eyes of the law,

civilly dead.

Okay, so go through it to Romans chapter seven.

So they said, number one, we're not allowed to vote.

Number two, we're not allowed to vote.

Number three, we're not allowed to vote.

Number four, we're not allowed to vote.

Number five, man has made woman if married

in the eyes of the law, civilly dead.

And here's what they're saying.

They're basically saying that once a woman gets married,

it's like she loses her own independent legal existence.

She no longer is her own free agent.

Now she's basically just under the canopy of her husband.

So she's like civilly dead

because she no longer has like total autonomy

and authority to do her own thing.

Now she's married, she's under his authority.

Yeah, that sounds like a biblical worldview.

I mean, the Bible says that as the church

is subject unto Christ,

so let the wives be unto their own husbands and everything.

The Bible says that wives should love their husbands,

love their children,

and be obedient to their own husbands.

But look what the Bible says in Romans seven verse two

because remember the way they worded it was,

she's civilly dead.

Okay, let's see what the Bible says.

Romans seven two.

For the woman which hath a husband

is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth.

But if the husband be dead,

she's loose from the law of her husband.

So then if while her husband liveth,

does she be married to another man,

she shall be called an adulterous.

But if her husband be dead,

she is free from that law so that she is no adulterous.

Does she be married to another man?

Verse four is what I want to emphasize.

I was giving you context.

Wherefore, my brethren,

ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ

that ye should be married to another,

even him who is raised from the dead

that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

So you know, you hear the Bible use this illustration

about the church being the bride of Christ, right?

Just like the church is subject to Christ,

so should the wives be their own husband.

You know what the Bible literally just said?

The Bible literally just said

that we as Christians are civilly dead

because we're married to Jesus Christ.

He literally is using this illustration about marriage

to say you are become dead to the law, right?

You're dead to the law.

Verse four there,

that you should be married to another.

I mean, look,

Paul is using the illustration of marriage

to illustrate our status in Christ

precisely because it's such a good illustration.

And he says, well, you're dead.

You live in Christ now, okay?

Like think about this verse.

Colossians 3-3, for you are dead

and your life is hid with Christ in God.

So I could literally say like,

you're dead, ladies,

but you're living in your husband.

That's what they're complaining about.

But this is a metaphor that the Bible literally uses.

Galatians 2-19, the apostle Paul said,

I through the law am dead to the law

that I might live unto God.

I'm crucified with Christ.

Nevertheless, I live yet not I,

but Christ liveth in me

and the life which I now live in the flesh.

I live by the faith of the Son of God

who loved me and gave himself for me.

And so basically the wife no longer has

her own independent existence legally

because she is now connected with her husband

to have become one flesh.

They're considered legally one unit now

and the husband is the head.

And it's sort of like us believing on Jesus Christ

and being saved.

Now we don't just have the right

to just live our own independent autonomous existence

not caring what God wants,

not caring about what the will of Christ is.

No, we're dead and our life is hid with Christ and God.

What is the difference?

And look, marriage is a beautiful illustration of salvation

because just as marriage is supposed to be a permanent bond,

Jesus said, I'll never leave you nor forsake you.

And when you get married,

you're basically telling your spouse,

I'll never leave you nor forsake you.

It's still death to us part.

Now of course with Christ,

it's never gonna end

whereas marriage does end when one party dies

as we just saw in Romans seven versus two and three,

death is the end of marriage.

Whereas we have eternal life, Christ lives forever.

This union with Christ is never gonna end, right?

We have eternal life, we shall never perish.

Neither shall any man pluck us out of his hand.

But it's funny how they're complaining

about being in the eyes of the law civilly dead.

Well, Romans chapter seven says, yeah, exactly.

Yeah, just like with wives and husbands,

we're dead and Christ lives through us

and we're now living by faith of Christ.

And so our former existence

on our own independent from Christ is over

and now we just have our new life in Christ.

All right, let's move on to number six.

He has taken from her all right in property

even to the wages that she earns.

So what they're saying is that basically now

everything that the woman has is owned by the husband.

So if she goes out and makes money,

the husband could theoretically confiscate her money

and say, well, this is our money

and take the money from her.

She doesn't really own anything separate from her husband.

And of course, here's the thing about this

is that typically whether it's in the Bible

or in 2026 America,

it's actually women that are benefiting

from this arrangement more than men.

There's probably less men receiving

a positive cash flow from their wives

as women receiving a cash flow from the husband.

And in fact, God's plan is that the man be the breadwinner.

So he's the one bringing in all the money.

So it's just like, oh, I gotta work and he takes my money.

It's like, yeah, I gotta work and my wife takes the money.

That's called being married.

It's like the beginning of the Jetsons.

It's like, she takes the money.

Now if you would go back to Numbers chapter 36,

Numbers 36 · chapter mention

because you know, I wanna prove these points from the Bible

because at the end of the day,

the Bible addresses these subjects.

And these women don't care what the Bible says.

The women who came up with this document,

they are going by their own understandings,

their own philosophies,

and it's an anti-Christian, anti-biblical worldview.

So he's taken from her all right in property,

even the wages that she earns.

It's like, bro, get real

because it's women taking their husband's wages 90% of the time.

But that's the way it should be.

You know, it's like, hey, the man goes out and works.

He brings home the money and the wife spends it.

They're acting like they're bringing home all the money

and the husbands are spending it all or something.

This is a two-way street.

Most states in America are community property states

meaning that if I'm married, everything that I own,

my wife owns it too and vice versa

because we're just seen by the law as one unit.

So what's funny is that Numbers Chapter 27

Numbers 27 · chapter mention

and Numbers Chapter 36 are two passages

Numbers 36 · chapter mention

that people would try to twist to say,

oh yeah, the Bible agrees with the women's libbers on this.

You know, the women should own property.

You know, the women's lib Christianity

was already ahead on this one.

I've heard people say this.

And nothing could be further from the truth

and we're gonna go back to Numbers 36 and see

if the Bible is supporting the women's lib idea

that all these women should have their own property.

Let's see what the Bible says.

Look at verse two.

And they said, the Lord commanded my Lord

to give the land for inheritance by law

to the children of Israel

and my Lord was commanded by the Lord

to give the inheritance of Zalafah

out our brother unto his daughters.

Now what this is saying is that back in Chapter 27,

there was a guy and he died and he didn't have any sons

but he had daughters.

So they're like, what's going on here?

Do the daughters inherit the property or not?

And the pronouncement came down from the Lord.

Yes, if a man dies and he has no sons,

then his daughters will inherit his property.

But then in Chapter 36, they start to realize,

wait a minute, there's a problem here

because look what happens in verse three.

If they be married to any of the sons

of the other tribes of the children of Israel,

then shall their inheritance be taken

from the inheritance of our fathers

and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe

whether they are received,

so shall it be taken from the law of our inheritance.

Here's what they're saying.

They're saying, if these women inherit property from dad,

as soon as they get married to a guy from another tribe,

well then all of a sudden, guess what?

He's gonna own it now.

Which, oh, look, the verse is teaching

the exact opposite of what people are claiming it teaches.

They're claiming, oh, the book of numbers.

Yeah, just women have all these properties.

Here's what the book of numbers teaches.

Yeah, women, you can own property

and as soon as you get married,

it belongs to your husband now.

Because it literally is saying

that if the dude is of another tribe,

you're of tribe A, dude is of tribe B,

you own property in tribe A

and you married dude from tribe B.

They're like, well, now it's his.

So now it's going to a guy from another tribe.

We don't want that.

So then what's the answer?

How do we fix this?

Verse six, this is the thing which the Lord of command

concerning the daughters of Zalaphad sang.

Let them marry to whom they think best,

only to the family of the tribe of their father

shall they marry, so shall not the inheritance

of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe,

for every one of the children of Israel

shall keep himself to the inheritance

of the tribe of his fathers.

And the idea here is that the only way

to keep the inheritance from moving from tribe to tribe is

if a woman owns it, she has to marry a dude

from the same tribe if she wants to keep it.

That way it can stay in the tribe.

Otherwise, if she wants to marry some other dude

from outside the tribe,

then she just can't keep the inheritance.

So again, this is not the Bible just,

oh, it's just giving women all these property.

It's literally teaching that as soon as they get married

the property belongs to their husband.

That's literally the assumption in the chapter.

Very easy to see.

Another place we could turn is Ruth chapter four.

You know, go there if you would.

Ruth chapter four, verse nine,

because we're examining these claims from the Bible.

It's easy to just say,

oh, the daughters of Zalafa had

is just giving women all these rights.

Yeah, it's giving single women the right to own property.

Amen.

What in the world is wrong

with a single woman owning property?

No harm, no foul.

But when she marries her husband,

she can't be like, well, this is mine.

This is my stuff.

This belongs to me.

It's like, no, because you belong to me

and everything you own belongs to me

because I'm the husband, I'm the head of household,

I'm the man of the house.

And it's not, it's like the meme with Bugs Bunny,

like our inheritance, you know, our property, okay?

So look at Ruth four, nine,

it says in Boaz said unto the elders

and unto all the people,

year witnesses this day

that I have bought all that was a limilex

and all that was chyleons and malons

at the hand of Naomi.

Moreover, Ruth the Moabitis, the wife of Malon,

have I purchased to be my wife,

to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance

that the name of the dead be not cut off

from among his brethren.

And from the gate of his place,

year witnesses this day,

bro's getting married and it's a package deal.

He gets Ruth and he gets Ruth's property

and he's buying all of it, okay?

So like it or lump it, that's what the Bible says.

Okay, I gotta move quickly

because I wanna get through all 16 points in the sermon.

So number seven, here's grievance number seven.

He has made her morally an irresponsible being

as she can commit many crimes with impunity

provided they be done in the presence of her husband.

In the covenant of marriage,

she has compelled to promise obedience to her husband,

he becoming to all intents and purposes her master,

the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty

and to administer chastisement.

Okay, so there's kind of a lot there.

So let's unpack this, okay?

The first thing they're saying is that,

she is allowed to commit crimes

in the presence of her husband without getting in trouble.

Now this might be confusing,

like what is that talking about?

Well, this actually was a thing

that I don't wanna waste a bunch of time on this,

but back in those days,

legally if a woman committed a crime

in the presence of her husband,

the assumption is that she's doing it at his behest

or he told her to do it or he's making her do it

or he's commanding her to do it or something.

So then the husband kind of gets blamed

for whatever his wife does.

So they're complaining about the fact

that the woman gets away with stuff done

in the presence of her husband

because she should have total autonomy, total freedom,

and therefore she should be totally responsible

for her own actions.

Does everybody understand what we're saying?

So let me read for you the laws

because William Blackstone is the most famous

commentator on English common law.

Lawyers for centuries studied his work

and so this is from his commentary

on the laws of England, 1765, Book I, Chapter 15.

By marriage, so this is the way the law was back in 1848,

by marriage the husband and wife are one person in law.

That is the very being or legal existence

of the woman is suspended during marriage

or at least is incorporated and consolidated

into that of the husband.

So the husband and wife are legally like one unit.

And by the way, this is why the Fifth Amendment,

you don't have to testify against yourself

or incriminate yourself,

you also don't have to incriminate your spouse

because it's like you're kind of seen as one unit.

So it says under whose wing,

it's consolidated into that of the husband,

under whose wing protection and cover

she performs everything.

Okay, same chapter a little later he says this,

in some felonies and other inferior crimes

committed by her through constraint of her husband,

the law excuses her but this extends

not to treason or murder.

So it's basically saying that hey,

if she commits murder,

it doesn't matter if her husband is nearby

or if she commits treason, it's like no.

But let's say she writes a bad check.

She's forging a check and her husband's

standing right there,

she could claim a legal defense,

my husband made me do it and it's believable

because he's standing right there and he's the boss.

Now, obviously this is not saying

that it's morally right or morally excusable

to commit crimes or sins under duress.

If your husband tells you to sin, you should not sin.

Amen?

You know, we should be subject to the higher power,

the Bible says.

We have to obey God rather than men.

Yes, wives are commanded to obey their husbands,

but if the husband commands a sin,

no, they have to obey the higher power, which is God.

That's not the point.

The point here is just that legally

they can claim as a defense,

hey, I was with my husband and it was his idea,

he made me do it and it's a defense in court.

That's all this is saying.

So here is from Clark and Marshall's

treatise on the law of crimes

and they're commenting on Blackstone and Hale

and these other guys.

A wife is not guilty of a crime except treason or murder

if the act is done under coercion by her husband

and if an act is committed by her

in the presence of her husband,

there is a rebuttable presumption of coercion,

meaning that if the husband is there

when she does the crime,

there's an assumption that he's making her do it

or that she's doing it with his permission

or that it's his idea or whatever.

But it says it's rebuttable,

meaning that it might not be,

it might be that she's acting on her own

and he just happened to be there

and he had nothing to do with it.

So again, I'm sorry about that rabbit trail

but I'm just trying to make sure

I leave no stone unturned here.

That's what they're complaining about.

Like they're complaining about the fact

that women get away with stuff.

It's like, okay, sorry that y'all got away with stuff

by blaming your husband.

But if you would go to 1 Peter chapter two,

let's unpack the rest of point seven

because point seven is kind of a big one.

So the first part was about that.

And then it says in the covenant of marriage,

she's compelled to promise obedience to her husband.

Amen.

This is talking about in the vows,

they say to love, cherish and obey till death do us part.

I mean, that's biblical.

The Bible just flat out says wives should obey their husbands,

be obedient to their own husbands.

I mean, that's just biblical.

But then it says he becoming to all intents

and purposes her master.

So it's saying if she has to obey her husband,

that makes him her master.

And then it says the law gives him power

to deprive her of her liberty

and to administer chastisement.

Basically saying like that he could literally like

lock her in the house or punish her or whatever

because he's responsible for her

and he's gonna get blamed if she commits crimes

or whatever.

And so he is her boss.

She has to obey.

Biblically she has to obey.

And then at that time,

even legally she had to obey

and he could enforce it by locking the door

and say, oh, no, you don't go out wherever.

So like let's say some woman just said like,

hey, I'm going to the bar and I'm gonna go party

and it's just like, oh, no, you don't.

See, if I did that in 2026, right?

It'd be like, oh, you're like imprisoning,

it falls imprisonment.

If I'm just like, you're not going anywhere

until whatever, they'd be like, you're imprisoning her.

But at this time it was legal for a man

to basically enforce the fact that he's in charge.

You know, which makes sense

if you're gonna give someone authority

there has to be some enforcement

that basically you can't just be like, well, shucks.

I mean, I told her not to do it

and she just did it anyway.

What do you do?

So anyway, that's what they're complaining about here.

But let's see what the Bible says

because their biggest complaint is like,

you're making the husband the master.

Now let's see what the Bible says.

The Bible says in 1 Peter chapter number two, verse 18,

it says servants,

because remember this is what they're comparing it to,

like you're comparing it to like a master and a servant.

Servants be subject to your masters with all fear,

not only to the good and gentle, but also the forward.

So the Bible is saying, look, servants,

you gotta be subject to your masters

if they're good, if they're gentle,

and if they're just a pain in the neck

because forward is like a pain in the neck person.

Forward is somebody who's contrarian,

difficult to get along with, right?

A pain in the backside person.

So he's saying, look, if you're working for a dude

and the guy's a pain in the butt,

you still have to obey the boss at work.

And we've all been there, right?

We've all had bosses that were difficult,

especially you, Shaw, you know?

We've all had bosses that treated us like crap

and were, you know, forward, okay?

And you're supposed to just obey.

That's what the Bible says.

You know, well done.

But it says in 1 Peter chapter three, verse one,

after just finished talking about this,

it says likewise,

what does likewise mean?

In the same way, like manner.

Likewise, because you have to understand

these chapter divisions are not original.

The New Testament did not originally come in chapters.

You just have the book of 1 Peter, it's just a letter.

It's one thing that the chapter divisions are added

like literally centuries later in the Middle Ages,

these chapter divisions were entered

like a thousand years later, approximately,

I believe, don't quote me on that,

but a little over a thousand years, I wanna say.

The verse divisions didn't come around

until the 16th century.

So, you know, it started out as just one letter

and it talks about the servants

and it says likewise ye wives

be in subjection to your own husband.

So he literally said in verse chapter two, verse 18,

servants be subject to your masters

and then you literally, a few verses later,

likewise ye wives be in subjection

to your own husbands.

That if any obey not the word,

they also may without the word

be won by the conversation of the wives.

Look at verse five, for after this manner in the old time,

the holy women also, watch this, here's the key,

who trusted in God, it says adorn themselves

being in subjection under their own husbands.

Notice the word subjection keeps coming up.

Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him honey bum,

no, she called him Lord.

Okay, so it sounds to me like he's her boss, right?

It's Lord whose daughters you are

as long as you do well,

as long as you're not afraid with any amazement.

So it's literally saying that the women

who trusted in God, they're obeying their husband

and calling him Lord, even when he makes dumb decisions,

they're distrusting God.

Even if he's forward, you know,

because it's easy to submit to your husband

when he's good and gentle.

It's easy to submit to the boss at work

when he's good and gentle.

The test becomes when your boss is forward.

If you have a forward boss or a forward husband,

this is where you gotta really trust God

because your gut is gonna be like,

well, I can't just obey this guy,

I can't just submit to this guy

because he's just gonna take advantage.

But if you trust God, you'll know obeying God

is gonna bring blessings.

So the women like Sarah who trusted in God,

they were subject under their own husbands,

she called her husband Lord.

So I don't think the Bible has a problem

with comparing the husband to a master

when it literally makes that exact comparison.

But the women's livers of 1848, they didn't like that.

Okay, we gotta hurry.

Number eight, he has so framed the laws of divorce

as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce.

In case of separation,

to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given

as to be holy regardless of the happiness of women,

the law in all cases going upon the false supposition

of the supremacy of man

and giving all power into his hands.

So again, let me just boil it down for you.

They're saying, they're claiming

that there's only these certain narrow grounds for divorce.

And then when it comes to the kids,

if there is a separation,

they don't consider what's gonna make the woman happy.

And they just assume that the husband is more competent.

Now here's the thing about that.

Number one, the Bible agrees

that you can't get divorced for every cause.

And that's what they want here.

They want no fault divorce.

And they finally get it in 1969 and 1970.

But that's what they want.

They want no fault divorce.

They're like, oh, there's just these

really narrow causes of divorce.

Oh, yeah, that's biblical.

You know, and of course,

I'm not gonna repreach my sermon

on this from last Wednesday night,

but it says in Matthew 532,

but I say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife,

saving for the cause of fornication,

causes her to commit adultery.

And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced,

commit adultery, sounds like a narrowed cause there

of accept to be for fornication.

It's not on the table.

That's what they're complaining about.

Again, you know what these women

are complaining about is the Bible.

They don't wanna live in a Christian society.

They don't wanna live in a society

governed by the Bible.

They are rebelling against the Lord

in every one of these points.

And so they're saying, well, you know,

and then when it comes to, you know,

deciding who gets the kids,

they don't even think about the happiness of the mother.

Well, you know, first of all,

they're probably thinking about

who the kids are better off with

than just, well, what's gonna make the mom happy?

You know, usually when courts are carving up families,

they're probably thinking about

what's best for the kids, okay?

But here's the thing,

what God has joined together,

man shouldn't be putting us under anyway.

And then we wouldn't have to decide where the kids go.

But oh, they're just giving all the power

to the hands of men.

Well, men are the bosses according to scripture.

So that tracks.

Number nine, and remember,

in case anybody's just joining in,

I'm reading for you these 16 points of grievance

from the first big women's live meeting in America,

1848 is the first time like women's rights really took off.

This is the founding document of women's rights in America,

women's live, women's liberation, feminism,

whatever you wanna call it.

And we're going through the points,

there's 16 of them, we're on point nine.

After depriving her of all rights as a married woman,

if single and the owner of property,

he has taxed her to support a government

which recognizes her only about her property

can be made profitable too.

And so again, this is just, we're not allowed to vote again.

Did I mention we're not allowed to vote?

So points one, two, three, four, and nine

are just saying that they're not allowed to vote.

Number 10, he has monopolized nearly

all the profitable employments.

And from those she is permitted to follow,

she receives but a scanty remuneration.

So what they're saying is that basically

we don't get the good jobs.

Like the really good jobs go to dudes

and then when we do get a job, we get paid less money.

So they're like, we wanna make the big money,

we wanna get the good jobs, okay?

Well, what does the Bible say?

Where are you in the Bible right now?

Go to Titus then, since you're in the neighborhood.

And while you're going to Titus,

I'll read for you from Genesis.

You know, Genesis talks about the curse upon woman and man

as a result of sin.

It says unto the woman he said,

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception.

In sorrow shall thou bring forth children

and thy desire shall be to thy husband

and he shall rule over thee.

Do you think that there is any woman

who drafted this document or went to this meeting

that loves Genesis 3.16 and loves that Bible verse

and thinks that that is the word of God?

Of course not.

Hey, you're gonna bring up children in sorrow

and you're gonna have,

I'm gonna multiply your conception,

you're gonna be conceiving all over the place

and you're gonna be having all kinds of children

and it's gonna be a pain

and it's gonna be sorrow

and your husband's gonna rule over you, okay?

But then the man, you know, what does he do?

Well, then in the next verse he says to the man,

unto Adam he said,

because thou hast harkened unto the voice of thy wife

and has eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee

saying thou shalt not eat of it,

cursed is the ground for thy sake

and sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

Thorns also and thistles shall bring forth to thee

and thou shalt eat the herb of the field

in the sweat of thy face,

shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground

for out of it was thou taken for dust thou art

and unto dust shalt thou return.

So he says to the woman,

hey, you're gonna have difficulty

with childbearing, childrearing

and your husband's gonna rule over you

and the man, you're gonna be out there

slaving and working by the sweat of your face

all the days of your life in order to feed your family.

So what's the Bible teaching?

Is the Bible teaching that women are the primary workers

and women are the primary breadwinners?

No, the Bible's teaching that the wives

are to be taken care of the family

and the men are to be out bringing home the bacon.

Look what the Bible says in Titus chapter two verse four,

it says that they may teach the young women

to be sober, to love their husbands,

to love their children, to be discreet,

chased, watch this, keepers at home.

What does that mean?

Does that mean they never leave the house?

No, it doesn't mean, hey, you keep at home.

No, keeper at home means that they are keeping

meaning take care of the house.

Do the housework.

They're keepers at home,

meaning that they're doing housekeeping, right?

Housekeeping is keeper at home.

Elsewhere he says that they're to guide the house

which literally means to rule over the house.

So when the husband's gone, the wife is running things.

She runs the house meaning that she either

does the housework herself or else

if servants are doing it, she's dealing with them.

She's dealing with the pool man,

she's dealing with the landscaper,

she's dealing with the maid,

she's dealing with the nanny, the tutor or whoever

or she's doing it herself but either way

it's her responsibility, it's her job

to be there taking care of the house, right?

So the man's primary role is to bring home the bread

and it's the woman's primary job to keep the house,

guide the house, keeper at home.

Good, obedient to their own husbands

that the word of God be not blaspheme.

So again, it makes sense that men

are monopolizing all the profitable employment

because they're the ones who have to bring home

the bacon for their families.

You know, I mean, here's the thing, as men,

yeah, we want the good jobs to be available for us

so that we can bring home the pay

and we don't want good jobs for men to be taken by women

because we want those women barefoot

and pregnant in the kitchen.

You know, and it's so funny,

like the people, I guess the people

who leave me voicemails and send me emails about this stuff,

they just don't realize that I just don't care

and that I never have and I never will.

Point number 11.

He closes against her all the avenues

to wealth and distinction.

Turn if you would to 1 Corinthians 11, by the way.

He closes against her all the avenues

to wealth and distinction,

which he considers most honorable to himself

as a teacher of theology, medicine or law she is not known.

Well, I'm glad that women aren't known

as the gurus of theology.

Thank goodness.

But notice says he closed against her all avenues

to wealth and distinction.

So again, this kind of goes back to the last point,

like, hey, women aren't getting the best jobs.

They're not getting to be the CEO.

We need DEI hires of women.

But then they said, and distinction.

What do they mean by distinction?

They want glory, prestige,

they want to be known as the gurus

of theology, medicine and law.

They don't want it to be William Blackstone.

They want it to be Wilhelmina Blackstone

telling us all about what the Bible says

and all about Leviticus and Deuteronomy

and how the laws of the common law of England work

and everything like that.

But does the Bible teach that women should be going out

and just getting max distinction for themselves?

Well, what does the Bible say in 1 Corinthians 11-7?

It says, for a man indeed not to cover his head

for as much as he is the image and glory of God,

but the woman is the glory of the man.

You know, it sounds to me like the woman's glory

is derived from her husband.

The woman's the glory of the man.

And I've talked about this before.

The son represents the husband.

The moon represents the wife

and the stars represent the children.

Like in Joseph's dream where Joseph has a dream

and he says, I had a dream that the son and moon

and the 11 stars bowed down to me.

And it was like understood that the dad is the son,

the mom is the moon, the stars are the children.

And here's the thing.

The moon, sorry, flat earth, bozos,

the moon does not produce its own light source.

The moon is what the Bible calls a terrestrial body.

There are bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial, right?

Because if you think about like stars

are these big balls of gas.

And even some of the outer planets

are known as gas giants

versus the inner planets are terrestrial bodies.

You know, if you're looking at Mercury and Venus

and Mars, they're terrestrial.

And the moon's a terrestrial body.

You know, you see craters and mountains

and things like that.

And it reflects the light of the sun.

Okay?

And so this is the illustration

is that the moon is the glory of the sun

and the wife is the glory of the husband.

Meaning that basically if she wants distinction,

you know, she just needs to be the best wife she can be

and then let her husband reach his potential.

But guess what?

You know, going through life, it's like,

oh, I gotta be famous or whatever.

That's just pride, ego, no Christian,

male or female should be out

trying to make a name for themselves anyway.

That's not really the purpose of our lives here.

We must decrease and he must increase.

Amen?

Number 12.

See, I'm gonna get through this.

I'm doing pretty well actually.

We're gonna do this.

Number 12.

He has denied her the facilities

for obtaining a thorough education

all colleges being closed against her.

So she's complaining that basically colleges

just were not enrolling women at this time.

They're just saying, no, we don't need women

to go into college.

Well, here's the thing.

Has women going to college really made

the world a better place?

And again, why would they need to go to college

would be so that, you know,

I guess they could get these really high-end jobs

that we just finished saying

like should probably be occupied by men anyway.

And like out of all 16 of these,

this is the only one that I could kind of sympathize

with a little bit

where I don't really have like a clear scripture

on this one.

And I can kind of sympathize like,

hey, I don't think there's anything wrong

with women getting highly educated or something.

But like, but at the same time though,

look at the reality of it though.

Even if we don't have a clear Bible verse

on this particular one,

look at the reality of it.

Let's just look at some stats.

You know, white women with no college degree,

62% lean Republican, right?

White women with a college degree,

57% lean Democrat,

and 42% lean Republican.

So basically is 20 percentage points

from 62% to 42% if they go to college,

they're more likely to vote for the left wing party

in America versus the right wing party.

And I think it's just no secret

that these colleges have become

super left wing institutions.

I mean, does anybody doubt that ASU

is a liberal left wing institution?

Yeah, there are a lot of born again Christians there

and conservative people there

and conservative professors and nice people there.

But let's face it,

that is a super far left institution in general.

And you're probably gonna come out of there

more liberal than when you went in,

in general, especially as a female.

The statistics show that women especially

are impacted by this,

where they come out of college and they're more liberal.

So again, I am 100% for women being educated,

but I think the mistake being made here

is assuming that you have to go to college to be educated.

Because some of the smartest, most educated people

in our country, both male and female,

didn't go to college and are self-taught

or dropped out of college and are self-taught.

Because here's the thing,

you could learn just as much men and women,

you could just go to the library

and if you knew everything at the library,

you'd already be way beyond most college graduates.

There's just a lot of information at the library.

You can buy books, you can get free books at the library,

you can study, there's all kinds of online,

tutorials and things.

And again, some of the most successful people in America,

some of the most educated people,

some of the biggest experts are self-taught.

So again, this is assuming you have to go to college

to be smart.

So if in 1848, the colleges are like,

well, we're just trying to educate men for the workforce.

We're educating men for the workforce.

We're educating men for the ministry.

We're educating men to be pastors.

And so if they wanted to just say,

hey, Bible college is just all dudes

because we're training pastors.

Hey, this law school is all dudes

because we're training men to be lawyers.

Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I don't think this was some big problem in America

that needed to be fixed.

And in this case, I feel like the medicine's

worse than the disease, fixing this, okay?

So again, this is the only one that I could even

halfway sympathize with

because everything else so far

has been just 1,000% against the Bible every point.

This is the only one that didn't have clear scripture

but I still think they're wrong to complain about this.

Number 13, he allows her in church as well as state,

but a subordinate position,

claiming apostolic authority

for her exclusion from the ministry.

Yeah, dang right, we do

because the apostle Paul excluded y'all.

And it says exclusion from the ministry

and with some exceptions from any public participation

in the affairs of the church.

So I guess the exceptions are like,

you can play the piano.

Right?

Yeah, you can play music, you know, you can do,

but you know, you can do a cookie decorating class

but you're not gonna be up here preaching.

You're not gonna be up here making decisions,

running things and laying down the law.

It's not gonna happen.

Go to 1 Corinthians 14.

1 Corinthians 14, I'm gonna start reading it

while you get there, verse 34.

Let your women keep silence in the churches

for it is not permitted unto them to speak.

So look, they're saying like,

oh yeah, they're allowing us a church

but like, you know, we get excluded from the public stuff

and what does the Bible say?

Let your women keep silence in the churches

for it is not permitted unto them to speak.

Seems like apostolic authority is saying no to this

but they're commanded to be under obedience

as also set the law

and if they will learn anything

let them ask their husbands at home

for it's a shame for women to speak in the church.

I mean, case closed, let's pray and go home.

Actually, no, we got a couple more points.

Number 14, and if you would go to Leviticus chapter 20,

Leviticus 20:10

verse 10.

Number 14, he has created a false public sentiment

by giving the world a different code of morals

for men and women.

Okay, everybody got this?

Listen carefully.

A different code of morals for men and women,

now they're about to contradict themselves

in the next breath.

By which moral delinquencies which exclude women

from society are not only tolerated

but deemed of little account in man

and so what they're basically saying is like,

you have a double moral standard for men and women

and then they're basically saying

because when men break the moral code,

it's usually overlooked

or it's considered more minor than when women do.

Now this is self-contradictory and let me tell you why.

Because a different moral standard would say,

well this is wrong for women but it's okay for men.

But they're admitting that it's considered wrong for men

but that it just gets overlooked.

It's just not as big of a deal.

Well, I hate to break it to you

but the entire Bible does the exact same thing.

Now look, there is no different moral standard

for men and women

but the Bible does treat sexual sin in women

as worse than in men.

It is unfair.

Okay, well you go join the Mormon church

and then you can go create your own universe

where you make different rules.

You could be your own God of your own planet

and you can have your own rules

where men and women are treated the same

but look, if you believe that the Bible treats sexual sin

and men and women the same

then you are just totally ignoring the Bible.

You can think that if you want

if you just wanna be willfully ignorant and stupid

but that's not what the Bible teaches.

Now look, there is no double standard

for men and women in the Bible.

What do I mean by that?

This is the standard for every man and every woman.

You must be pure on your wedding day.

Amen?

Amen.

Fornication is wicked for men and wicked for women.

If a woman commits fornication, she's called a whore.

If a man commits fornication, he's called a whore monger.

The Bible condemns both

because people will try to twist what I'm saying

and try to say that I'm saying something different

than what I'm actually saying.

No, fornication is wrong.

Okay, not only that,

all sex outside marriage is wrong.

If a man cheats on his wife and commits adultery,

hey, that is sin, that is wrong, that is wicked,

it's a big sin, it's not a little sin, it's a big sin.

If a woman cheats on her husband, commits adultery,

that is a major sin as well.

I mean, are we all clear on this?

All sex outside of marriage is sin.

The same moral standard applies

to both men and women, you're to be a virgin,

you're to abstain, you get married,

and then you have sex with your wife or husband only,

and that's all you do until death do you part.

I mean, are we all clear?

Okay, but guess what?

If a man in the Bible has two wives,

that's not God's plan.

That's morally wrong for a man to have two wives.

At the beginning, he made the male and female

and said that a man should leave his father and mother

and those two should be one flesh

and what God has joined together,

well, then I'm gonna put this under,

polygamy is wrong, it's never been right,

never been the will of God,

it's always been a sin or a coming short.

But did God look the other way

or sometimes not come down as hard on men

who had multiple wives?

And again, if you wanna just be stupid and ignorant,

you can just pretend that the Bible

is a totally different book than what it is.

Or you can actually open the real Bible

and actually read the real Bible

and here's what you're gonna see.

Abraham, Jacob, Elkana, Gideon, David, Solomon, Joe Ash,

I mean, just down the list of these guys

that are with more than one woman.

And yet, God is still blessing these guys

and in society, nobody really cares in society

and God is not pleased with it, it's not his will,

it's not right, but here's the thing,

God extends grace to all of us.

And so God, this is something where God

tends to look the other way a little bit

in the Old Testament, am I right?

Or am I just making this up right now?

Or does Abraham not exist, Jacob doesn't exist,

Elkana, Gideon, David, on down the list.

Okay, but here's the thing about it though,

is that if a woman has a second dude, she's put to death.

Man has a second woman, it's wrong, it's a sin,

but God sometimes looks the other way

if it's a second YA for concubine or whatever.

And look, I am not even close to condoning sin

or saying, hey, this is kind of a yeah, it's wrong,

but hit, hit, wink, wink.

Because I do believe that in the New Testament,

God holds us to a stricter standard

than the Old Testament.

So if you think, oh, well these men of God

got away within the Old Testament,

I'ma try it in the New Testament,

you're also an idiot because the Bible is clear

that in the New Testament, too much is given,

much shall be required, we're indwelled by the Holy Spirit,

we're living in the New Testament,

and so obviously we should hold ourselves

to the highest standard.

And so if you think that cheating on your wife

is a small thing, no, cheating on your wife is huge,

but cheating on your husband is even a bigger deal

than cheating on your wife.

And again, you know, people are all uncomfortable

about that, you know what?

Look, I don't care who doesn't like it,

I am paid to tell the truth, okay?

That's why I exist.

That's the function that I fulfill in this world.

I am here to tell the truth,

and I don't know how to do anything else.

So I'm not gonna get up and lie to you

and just be like, oh, it's just the same,

and God just treats everybody the same,

and it's exactly the same if a husband cheats on his wife,

as if a wife cheats on her husband, yay.

That's bull crap, and it's wrong.

It's not what the Bible says.

The Bible literally says in Leviticus chapter 20, verse 10,

Leviticus 20:10

it says the man that committed adultery

with another man's wife,

even he that committed adultery with his neighbor's wife,

the adulterer and the adulterer

is just surely be put to death.

If you have sex with another man's wife,

she dies and you die.

That's God's law.

Everybody understand?

So here's the thing.

If it's a married woman involved,

it's the death penalty for both people.

If there's sex outside of marriage

and this woman was married to another dude, death.

But what about a guy who goes outside of his marriage?

Nobody's put to death in that situation.

Taking on the concubine, it's still wrong,

it's still wicked, it's still sinful.

And if you tried in the New Testament,

you're super stupid, you're not following

what the Bible teaches.

The Bible is crystal clear.

Again, the moral standard is the same

for both men and women.

There's no double moral standard.

Virginity, marriage, faithfulness to your spouse,

nothing else is on the table.

No other option.

There is no other option.

And look, I was a virgin when I got married

and I have had sex with my wife only, period.

And that's it.

And that's all it's gonna be for me.

God willing, we can grow old together

and that's all it's ever gonna be.

That is the standard.

That is the plan.

Cause some bozo will be like,

go pastor, I'm preaching this

because he's got a side piece or whatever.

Hell no, I'm not that stupid.

I'm not that wicked, my friend.

I'm be faithful to my wife.

But at the end of the day, Leviticus 20 verse 10

Leviticus 20:10

says what it says.

And again, I told you that I think 14 out of 16

of these, the old IFB pretty much agrees

with the women's livers.

Because they're complaining,

they're like, well, you know, when men,

when men do this, it's not as big,

okay, riddle me this.

Is there a test of virginity on women

in the Old Testament where if they marry the woman

and she's found not to be a maid, everybody flips out

in Deuteronomy 22, am I right?

Okay, now show me where in the Bible it's like,

I married your son and he's not a virgin.

Can somebody show me that in the Bible?

It's cause it isn't there.

So there's only a test for virginity on women.

Okay, what about when the guy suspects his wife

of cheating on him and then they take her down

and make her drink the dirty water

off the floor of the temple?

Is the wife allowed to take her husband down there

and make him drink mop water?

No.

You know what that's called?

That is called a double standard

when it comes to how the morality is applied.

So we have the same, there's no double standard

of the morality itself because God expects purity

from all of us, but the men who violate it

are not punished as severely as the women who violate it.

Female purity is held on a higher premium,

a higher standard in the Bible.

That's just what the Bible says.

And again, if you get mad at that,

you're literally getting mad at exodus.

You're getting mad at Leviticus.

You're getting mad at numbers.

Anybody who is honest and not an imbecile

can read exodus, Leviticus, Numbers of Deuteronomy

and we'll see all four books clearly have a double standard

for men and women about how things are punished

and how things are applied.

Although the same morality exists

for what's right and wrong, we should all be pure

and faithful to our spouse.

So I listed for you all those men,

but how many women in the Bible are with multiple men?

Which women in the Bible have multiple dudes

in their life?

Well, you have

Rahab the Harlot,

but she's literally called the Harlot.

She's a prostitute.

But you know, she's a positive character.

She's a, you know, not necessarily a role model.

You know, how many Rahabs do we have in the building?

Is this a popular baby name?

Oh, congratulations on the birth of Rahab Harlot.

Seven pounds, eight ounces, 20 inches long.

Okay, and then you have the woman,

you know, the woman taken in adultery.

She's a hero.

I mean, wow, okay.

So I gotta hurry, but look, again,

you have a certain grocery store security guard

who got up and preached a whole sermon against me

saying that I was wrong about Leviticus 2010,

claiming that I was privately teaching this.

But you know what I just explained to you

about Leviticus 2010?

Every single Bible commentary on the planet agrees with me.

Every Bible commentary, which I demonstrated at the time.

This is standard Christian doctrine

because it's just, it's so obvious.

But then you have these pastors in 2025

getting up and preaching whole sermons about how like,

oh no, it's the exact same punishment.

And if a husband takes on, you know, a side piece,

he's gonna be put to death according to the law of God.

That's just, it's just stupid and not what the Bible says.

And again, if you wanna, if you want, you know,

I'm sure somebody will probably try to twist things

that I said tonight and take them out of context.

But you know what, again, I don't care.

Because it's my job to teach, I'm not gonna be like,

oh, I can't teach biblical truth

because then I'm gonna get attacked on the internet.

So come at me, bro.

Come at me, sis.

Come at me, simp.

But number 15, and again, you know why, you know why?

The grocery store security guard preached that sermon

is because he agrees with point 14 of these broads

that are saying this, like, oh, it's not fair.

Oh, you know, it's like you're disagreeing with the Bible.

And Deuteronomy 22 verse 22 says the same thing.

Deuteronomy 22:22

I don't have time.

Number 15, he has usurped the prerogative

of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right

to assign for her a sphere of action

when that belongs to her conscience and her God.

Let me translate that for you.

Basically what they're saying in point 15 is,

well, he's interpreting the Bible for you

when every woman should decide what she thinks

the Bible means and basically she could look at it

and be like, well, I don't think I have

to obey my husband.

I think I'm allowed to divorce my husband.

I think that I should be voting in church.

I think I should be a pastor.

It's like, well, you're just telling her what the Bible said.

Yeah, darn right, I'm gonna tell her what the Bible says.

Hey, you know what women keep silent in the church means?

It means women keep silent in the church.

You know what learn in silence means?

Yeah, that's what it means.

Learn in silence.

You know what it means not to usurp authority?

You know what it means that the bishop

must be the husband of one wife

because we need bishops not bishops, right?

We need bishop, husband of one wife.

Number 16.

It says this, he has endeavored in every way

that he could destroy her confidence in her own powers

to lessen her self-respect

and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Now, what does abject mean?

I looked up abject in the dictionary

and it said, utterly hopeless,

miserable, humiliating or wretched.

So here's what they're saying.

If you tell a woman she can't be independent,

then she's living an abject life.

Miserable, hopeless, wretched.

Like, it's like, ah, this is so horrible.

It's just such torture to be in a biblical marriage.

Now again, out of these 16 points,

I believe that the old IFB agrees with 14 of them

because which two do they not agree with?

I believe that the only two that they disagree with

are women in ministry because they typically

will not allow women to preach

or hold positions in the church.

But I would say that the other 14,

the old IFB is totally feminist

and has been totally feminized.

And the ex-NIFB is totally feminized

in 14 out of 16 points.

And again, what's the evidence?

The evidence, they have women voting

in their business meetings.

They have women voting in the church

because look, I boiled down the 16 points into six.

Here's the Cliff's Notes version.

Right to vote, the right to be autonomous

and independent after marriage,

the right to divorce and take the kids,

the right to high level jobs,

the right to be in the ministry

and the right to decide what the Bible actually means.

Those are the six, if you could boil down the 16

to just those six, okay?

So think about it, the right to vote.

Again, IFB says yes.

Retain autonomy and independence after marriage.

De facto, yes.

I mean, based on the specific points.

They're saying no, you cannot.

I mean, if we go back to the point about like,

oh, you know, they're saying that the husband

is like the master and that he can lock the door and stuff.

They don't think the husband can lock the door

because she can leave, you know?

They think that it's wrong to lock the door.

The right to divorce and take the kids?

Of course, they're condoning of a divorce all

for all these other reasons

besides what the Bible says.

The right to high level jobs,

they're totally on board with that, you know?

The right to be in the ministry

is probably the only major point of first wave feminism

that the ex-NIFB and old IFB and evangelicals

pretty much disagree with at this point.

And then the right to just decide what the Bible means

just be like, well, I just don't think

that's what the Bible means

when it says obey your husband.

I just don't think that's what the Bible means.

I mean, it's like, no, shut up, that's what it means.

And we need a man teaching the Bible.

But then we have females getting on YouTube

and contradicting the teachings of men of God.

You know, and there's the thing, you know,

I know different people have different opinions about this.

I personally, I don't think there's anything wrong

with women having a podcast or being on YouTube.

Like I don't, I believe that women

should keep silence in the church,

but I don't think there's anything wrong

with women having a podcast.

And I know some people disagree with me on this

and that's fine, we're all entitled to our opinions.

Obviously, we all agree that in the church

it's a man preaching and teaching.

But I don't think there's anything wrong

with women having house cleaning podcasts

and you know, just other just interesting homemaking

and they're just talking about nuts and bolts

of being a wife and a mother and running the house

and homeschooling.

I'm not against that.

But you know what I would be against though

is them getting up and contradicting

Bible teaching coming from men.

The problem would be if they're like,

well, you know, yeah, sure in church

you're hearing about how you can't leave your husband

and you gotta obey.

But you know, I just see it differently

and they're just giving you all this stuff

or getting up and saying like,

well, I'm gonna talk about women's issues

and my husband, you know, he's not allowed to talk about,

he knows that he's stupid

when it comes to women's issues.

So he's not allowed to talk about women's issues

because I've never bought into this thing that said

only women can preach about women.

No, because men are allowed to preach about everything.

Because as a pastor I'm supposed to preach the whole book.

But sometimes they'll be like,

oh, well the man can't really preach on women's issues.

So we gotta have this like special service

where we take all the men out

and fill it all with women

and put a woman behind the pulpit

so that she can talk about postpartum depression

and abortion and but you know,

it's like, no, no, as a man,

I'm gonna get up and just speak truth from the Bible

about man's and women's issues, both.

You know, and when you have a woman getting on the internet

and saying, oh, well, you know,

I have to talk about this because my husband can't,

that's garbage.

And again, like I said, I'm not against women

going on the internet and talking about women's issues.

But you know what I also like is men going on the internet

and talking about women's issues.

And men getting up behind the pulpit

and preaching about everything under the sun

if it's a biblical topic.

And these women's issues are biblical topics

and they need to be taught by men from the pulpit.

And look, I'm 100% for women just talking to other women

and having a little fun, little podcast for other women.

Amen, great.

I don't have an issue with that.

Some of my friends might have an issue with it.

I don't have an issue with the podcast per se.

I have an issue with the garbage content.

That's why I have an issue with it.

And the attitude that says we need women to do this.

No, we don't need it.

It's an icing on the cake.

And here's the thing, you know, these women podcasts,

I really doubt that a bunch of hair-legged men

are just dying to sit around and listen to women

pontificate about these issues.

It's like, I'm pretty sure the audience is like women

talking to women in general.

But then it's like, oh, but you know,

my husband doesn't talk about this.

It's like, well, well, shut up because I will.

But my wife would never say that, so it doesn't matter.

So I think that's the end of my sermon.

Just make sure here, check this out.

Oh yeah, the conclusion is this.

Does say at the Lord, stand ye in the ways

and see and ask for the old paths,

wherein is the good way, and walk therein,

and ye shall find rest for your souls.

But they said, we will not walk therein.

Okay, because here's the thing,

is that at the end of the day,

these changes to society have not made society better.

The women's lib movement was birthed in 1848.

I just went through all 16 points.

It's a big pile of dung, and look,

the result of embracing this in churches and in society

has been a downgrade, not an upgrade.

It's made things worse, not better.

We need the old paths, and you know what?

Fundamental Baptist ought to be ashamed of themselves

for embracing these points,

and evangelical Christians ought to be ashamed of themselves,

and then they get mad when we call them feminist.

This is feminism defined.

First wave feminism.

This is the manifesto.

If you agree with 10 of these, 12 of these, 14 of these,

sorry, you're a feminist, I don't agree with any of them.

I halfway sympathized with one out of 16,

but in the end I'm just like,

nah, let's do it, trash it.

These guys are de facto 14 out of 16.

Let's borrow it from the board of birth.

Father, we thank you so much for your word, Lord.

Thank you for the clarity that it brings, Lord.

I pray that everyone would receive this message

in the spirit that it was given, Lord,

and that we would always stick to what your word says

and be aligned with truth on these things, Lord,

and not to be deceived, because Lord,

the brainwashing is so deep.

I know there's people that are just emotionally

reacting to the sermon right now probably,

but at the end of the day, Lord,

help us to just always embrace biblical truth

so that men and women can live

their happiest, best lives, because I, of course,

believe that your word is best for men and women,

and men and women both will be happier doing what you said,

and so bless us now as we go our separate ways,

in Jesus' name we pray, amen.