CHAPTER 8 RELIGIOUS CORRECTNESS 1. The definition, examples and agenda of Political Correctness            2. The definition and agenda of Religious Correctness 3. Examples  & Dangers of Religious Correctness 4. Defeating Religious Correctness DEFINITION, Examples & Agenda of Political Correctness: In order to understand Religious Correctness, as I am using the term, we must also understand Political Correct- ness.  Political Correctness is a group of both written and unwritten ideas, definitions of words and redefinitions of words that are used to establish a code of conduct and a way of thinking that all people in the culture must adhere to or suffer painful penalties.  However, if one does adhere to Political Correctness, the culture is quick to grant liberal rewards and great opportunity for advancement either politically or practically.  In politics and culture Political Correctness came to replace the term “party line”.  The party referred to was the Communist Party.  An important aspect of the “party line” was the proper use of words.  Even then it was important to vilify “capitalists and the rich.” Even today the liberals encourage us to use appropriate left wing terminology and discourage us from using “inappropriate” outdated and offensive language.    When I became a Christian in the Berkeley, California area in 1969 I became quite surprised that the views that I had previously held were almost totally against the Scriptures.  This was because the left wing organizations that I was involved with taught us unscriptural principles and even anti-scriptural views.  The party line that we were to adhere to hated the law of God.  Two principles that I heard many times were: 1) the ultimate goal of communism was anarchy or lawlessness and 2) religion was the opiate of the people. Their cultural and political views were almost COMPLETELY against God’s Word and Christianity.  The party line that I had learned seemed to support EVERYTHING that was against Scripture and HATE everything that was in Scripture.   Over the decades following I came to learn that this was also true of Political Correctness.  At its heart Political Correctness, like the party line is essentially Anti-Christ.  It counts as important things that Scripture either is against or does not mention and hates or perverts most of Scripture.      Later in the 1980’s or 90’s the term “party line” went out of fashion.  The term “Politically Correct” supplanted the older term.  Most of us have a fairly good idea of what is Politically Correct and politically incorrect.  For example, it is Politically Correct to call people of the Negroid race African Americans or People of Color.  It is now incorrect to call them Negroes.  It is politically incorrect to name your sports team anything to do with native American people.  For example names such as the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves or Florida State Seminoles are now politically incorrect.   It is Politically Correct to look at criminals as victims of society or even more Politically Correct to recognize criminals as victims of capitalism or the rich.  There is a Politically Correct way to respond to Christians.  There is a Politically Correct way to treat or to view women.  Because of the influence of feminism in the media and on the college campus, we no longer refer to the head of the committee as “chairman” rather they are called “chairpersons”.  Political Correctness even has a handicap system to level the playing field.  From an employer’s standpoint, it is economically advantageous to hire women and people of color. Another aspect of Political Correctness, as was earlier alluded to is the twisting and redefinition of terms and the removal of words that represented the “old” order.  It is also important if one is to be Politically Correct to use new words or use different words, which speak of different concepts to replace the words of the old order.  The impact of certain terms has been changed significantly by Political Correctness.  As was earlier mentioned, we cringe when someone is referred to as a Negro.  Terms such as the “rich” and “capitalist” have come to have a negative connotation in America.  Both the rich and capitalists are people that we cannot trust.  Much of Political Correct- ness has as its goal the over sensitization of people, and the creation of dissatisfaction with the present old fashioned male dominated puritanical capitalistic rulership that needs to be overthrown.  Women in general and many racial and national groups have become extremely sensitive about what they are called by other people and how they are to be treated.   Women are particularly sensitive regarding their role as abused servants in the marriage relationship and how motherhood has become just another shackle so they can be kept down.  In the last few years, however, many left wing Hollywood movie actresses have made it clear that Motherhood is good.  For awhile in America the term Ms. had supplanted the terms “Miss or Mrs.” by some in our culture.  At that same time many women chose to either cast off the last names they had been given by their husbands and use their maiden names or use a hyphenated name that included both their last name and their husband’s last name.  Some women expected their husbands to also use the hyphenated name.   The reason feminism is such an important issue in Political Correctness is because the Scriptures, especially the New Testament, have such a unique view regarding the place of women in the marriage relationship.  Heathen religions typically have not protected women in the marriage relationship.  Often they are just slaves of their husbands.  In some heathen religions, however, women are inordinately elevated as objects of reverence.  In the Bible we see Baal worship which denigrates women and Ashtorah worship which both elevates and perverts women.  The Christian view of women in the marriage relationship is that they are to be subject to their husbands, but the husband is commanded by God to love his wife as Christ loves the Church.   Satan’s perversion of the Christian view of the roles of men and women in the marriage relationship has greatly harmed the American family and the Church of Jesus Christ in America.  The politically correct among us have called for the wife to reject the Scriptures which say that she is to submit herself to her husband as her head.  The Scriptures teach that the husband was to be the head of the wife has been mocked and vilified by them because these notions were said to be old fashioned and the products of a male dominated culture.  Satan has successfully used these views to pervert the scriptural view of marriage and family values.  Political Correctness also has popularized terms to describe perverse sexual behavior in a positive light.  Homosexuals are called “Gay”.   Criminals are not sinners but victims.  Drunkenness is not a sin, it is a disease.  Homosexuality is not a sin; it is an alternative lifestyle.    This twisting and redefinition of terms has done great damage to our culture.  Much of what I have mentioned here tends towards a lawless attitude.  The dictum and teachings of God’s law in the Scriptures are essentially politically incorrect.  Much of Political Correctness is also against the Person of Jesus Christ.   Satan has used Political Correctness to partially eliminate the Name of Jesus Christ from our buildings, our language and our thinking.  Political correctness dictates that we give more than equal attention to all other religions.  Multiculturalism has been used as a platform to sympathetically introduce children to religions such as Hinduism, Mohammedism, Animism and Wicca.  Multiculturalism is really ultimately about multi-religions and the idea that it is unfair to only worship Jesus Christ.  We must respect and honor all other religions and their gods.   This, of course, completely ignores the fact that the overwhelmingly predominant religion of the United States for hundreds of years has been the Christianity of the Protestant Reformation.  These other religions have been used in the government schools supposedly to help explain culture.  However, these same government schools will not even allow the majority religion (Christianity) to be represented.  Even terms like “Merry Christmas” are deemed unacceptable.  As we all know, “Happy Holidays” is the appropriate Politically Correct term to use.  This term too may eventually be discarded when they discover that the original meaning of HOLIDAYS was Holy-Days.   If the Person of Jesus Christ is to be discussed on most television programs, He is discussed in terms that challenge the Scriptures and greatly weaken or destroy His divinity.  Satan has used the government schools, the educational system, the culture and the media to pervert the Person and the ministry of Jesus Christ as it is revealed and expounded in the New Testament.  By doing so, he has even created doubt in the minds of church attendees as to who He is and what He has called us to do.  If looked at closely, it is very evident that Satan is the innovator and initiator of Political Correctness in the culture of America. The ultimate agenda of Political Correctness is not merely to weaken the culture.  In the spiritual realm, Satan’s true goal is the weakening of the Church of Jesus Christ.  When the Church becomes weak and worldly, it is powerless to fight off the will of the enemy and the establishment of his kingdom in America and on this earth.   First he must break down the culture and its Christian foundation through the courts, the political process, the educational systems and the media.  In the media, while it is Politically Correct to depict witches and warlocks as being enemies of evil and friends of mankind; it is also Politically Correct to depict Christians who believe in the Scriptures as being either very stupid or very evil and by implication their God, Jesus Christ, is essentially depicted as either a false god, an evil influence or a weak influence.   After Satan has polluted and permeated the culture with attitudes and actions that break down God’s law and sully the reputation and Name of Jesus Christ, he then is ready to subvert and weaken the Church as well.  He can only do this if the Church has close ties with and desires to be acceptable to the culture and the world they live in.   The world is already in Satan’s hands but he will use the world to neutralize the power of God’s people.  He can do this the same way he has done in other countries: by the subtle altering of the Church’s doctrine and practices.  In the Old Testament Baalim knew that God’s people could only be defeated if they became a spiritually compromised people.   He knew that then God would judge them for their sins.  Because of this knowledge, he attempted to compromise them with beautiful heathen women who practiced idolatry.  He knew if the Israelites fell to their temptations, married them and worshiped the gods of their wives along with worshipping Jehovah, then God would have to judge them.  So today, Satan is tempt-ing the Church with adulterous and idolatrous imagery and verbiage through the media and educational system. Israel was eventually destroyed as a nation because she became idolatrous.  Satan has used the tolerance and acceptance of other religions to tempt religiously correct Christians.   He is tempting them to become tolerant of such cults as the Roman Catholic Church and Mormanism, two of our staunchest allies in the culture wars.  If the Church does not fall on its face and repent of its failure to stand strong against the temptations of our culture, America will eventually be destroyed as a country.  If America falls, it will be primarily because the Church has become so weak that it will not be able to stave off the attacks of Satan any longer.  The Church is the only organization that can successfully fend off and defeat the Enemy that wants to destroy America. If Satan can twist and pervert the roles of men and women in the culture, the family or the Church he will successfully weakened the culture, the family and the Church.  We must understand that even as the people of God in the Old Testament were weakened and punished severely, so the Church in America will be weakened and punished severely if it does not stand against the arguments and temptations of the enemy.  Political Correctness and Religious Correctness are Satan’s two most successful ways to weaken and destroy the United States of America and weaken and if possible destroy the Church of Jesus Christ in America.      DEFINITION & AGENDA OF RELIGIOUS CORRECTNESS: Some liberals use the term “Religious Correctness” to describe beliefs and activities of Christian Conservatives that are against the agenda of the Left.  I am NOT using the term in this way.  The Religious Correctness that I am referring to is an outgrowth of the Political Correctness of the Left, but is practiced by people who would identify themselves as Evangelicals and/or Charismatics.  This Religious Correctness however, is not spiritual and not scriptural.    In the religious culture of Evangelicals and Charismatics Religious Correctness is ultimately a more damaging influence than Political Correctness.  As Political Correctness has a political and cultural agenda in mind, so Religious Correctness has a spiritual agenda in mind. Inadvertently many in the Saul Church today have fallen into the same blind obedience that has affected the adherents of Political Correctness.   Religious Correctness is often a group of written or unwritten ideas, words, or thoughts that are used to establish a code of conduct, or party line, that all must adhere to or suffer painful penalties.  However, if one does adhere to Religious Correctness, the Church is quick to grant liberal rewards and great opportunity for advancement.  As in Political Correctness there is an attempt to change conduct and ways of thinking in the body of Christ by, among other things, redefining, renaming and using terms or words in ways not used before.   The agenda of the Religiously Correct Church is much like that of Israel during the time of Samuel and Saul.   The Israelites sincerely believed and felt it was necessary that they should have rulership that would help them to be like the nations.  They felt it was necessary to be like the nations so that they could defeat the nations.   Eventually they had their prayers answered, and God sent them a man after their own heart who did everything he could to be everything they wanted him to be.  He chose the best things of the world for the purposes of wor- ship and for the purposes of warfare.  The Religiously Correct Church is doing the same thing.  They are choosing the best of Political Correctness so they can have huge Churches with lots of people.  They compromise doctrines so that they can add to their numbers, because they are afraid that if they don’t, then people will never attend their church to hear their gospel preached or the people will leave.  The Religiously Correct Church is the modern day counterpart of Israel under Saul.  This Saul Church, like its namesake, WILL be defeated by the modern day Philistines that they looked to for these new ideas and new methodology.    EXAMPLES OF RELIGIOUS CORRECTNESS: The following are examples of words that have been introduced into the Christian vocabulary or have been redefined by those who adhere to the Religiously Correct viewpoint.   DOCTRINE: This term has fallen into disrepute by the Religiously Correct.   Particularly in the Charismatic Movement we have associated the term doctrine with tedious interpretations of the Word of God that are either unclear or unimportant because they are not basic to salvation.  I have heard men say, “I don’t teach doctrine, I just teach the Scriptures” as if doctrine was the faulty or overly complex interpretation of Scripture.  The teaching of sound doctrine is considered extremely important by the Scriptures.  Doctrine essentially means “teaching”.  I have heard other preachers or pastors say, I don’t believe doctrine is important.  I teach relationship rather than religion.  Today most Christians don’t know what Scripture says about justification, sanctification, redemption or election.  In fact, these words are fast falling out of use with most preachers and church goers alike.  Most church goers are not familiar with biblical repentance, biblical discipleship, God’s grace or even proper use of the law.  What they have been taught is the need for unity with all religions that identify themselves as Christian, the importance of balance, how to get in touch with your feminine side, the need for a healthy and high sense of self-esteem, the need to have a covering, the importance of not “touching the Lord’s anointed”, warnings of being divisive and the importance of not judging others or even others judging them.  To a large extent we have integrated the doctrines of Scripture with the philosophies of men.  Of course, there are some great Churches that cover fundamental doctrines and teach appropriate application.  I believe however, that for every Church that teaches solid doctrine there are at least five that do not do so.  Most churches feel that the teaching of doctrine should be minimal.  They are concerned that teaching too much doctrine might have a divisive effect on the congregation.   JUDGMENT: Judgment is a touchy subject with the Religiously Correct.  First of all, they have all heard about the preacher who beats his sheep up with threats of fire and brimstone.  These messages are deemed inappropriate in the enlightened 21st century Church atmosphere.  It is much more civilized to draw people to God with His love in a positive manner.  I have even heard preachers refer to the Old Testament God of wrath and the New Testament God of love—as if God changed or grew or evolved.   The term judgment now is a negative term that is used only when dealing with people outside the Church.  Final judgment and hell are usually referred to in passing but not as the major topic in a speaker’s message.  The assumption is that when someone preaches the judgment of America that we will be judged because of the influence of the liberals, the Hollywood Left and the media elite.    The Church in America according to these people may “suffer for righteousness sake” but is in no real danger of being judged or punished by God for their sin or poor doctrine.  The evangelical and charismatic Churches in America have a VERY high sense of self-esteem.  When a prophetic message comes forth that warns the Church that it will be judged by God if it does not repent of its sin, that message is typically thought to be a manifestation of “the spirit of condemnation”.   There is a frightening confidence and a blind braggadocio that is content to talk about the millions of converts, the HUGE churches, impressive outreach movements and the tremendous “growth” of charismatic and evangelical churches in America.  The Church views itself as quite wealthy.  One denomination almost casually discussed the quarter billion dollar sale they made of their radio station.  The churches in America have indeed become very wealthy and confident that it is preaching the true gospel because of the great financial blessings they have received.  In one sense, many believe that God is “confirming their message or word” by blessing them with large numbers of people and/or lots of money. However, the Scriptures say, “I know your deeds, that you neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were either cold or hot.  So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.  Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.  Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.” Rev 3:15-19. DIVISIVE: This term applies to anyone who disagrees with the leadership regarding conduct or doctrine. Even if the concern- ed person merely wants to discuss the issues in private, often it is considered inappropriate to do so.  The suggestion of leadership often takes the form of “if you don’t agree with us, perhaps you should think about joining another Church”.  There seems to be no room for discussing the issues from a biblical viewpoint in the Religiously Correct Church.  Gone are days when men would feel comfortable listening to a divergent viewpoint, and consid- ering it from the standpoint of Scripture.  The Scripture that is quoted is “mark them that cause division”.  This new application of the word is a tremendous tool of Satan to keep anyone from repenting or moving into greater light.   Every revival has been marked by men who question the conduct or the doctrine of current leadership.  Martin Luther never wanted to leave the Catholic Church.  He wanted the Catholic Church to leave the foul practices and doctrines of the Dark Ages.   George Whitfield and John Wesley never wanted to leave the Church of England in the eighteenth century.  They wanted the Anglican Church to embrace scriptural concepts such as “you must be born again.”  The view that identifies as divisive any man who disagrees with the conduct or doctrine of a Church, will keep that Church from experiencing great revival or reformation. HARSH: The Religiously Correct will apply this term to anyone in authority who raises their voice to someone under them.   Particularly in reference to family matters.  If a mother or father raises their voice in correcting their child, this is considered harsh and the prevailing attitude is that this will cause the child be be injured psychologically or spiritually.  If a preacher raises his voice in criticism to activities that his hearers have committed, he will be judged as harsh.  Jesus, of course, was harsh in His vocabulary and likely His tone, when He pronounced the 7 Woes against the Scribes and the Pharisees.  It is never appropriate to harangue or berate people especially our spouses or children, but there is a time for more volume and to speak in a tone of urgency or deep disfavor.  The Religiously Correct are highly sensitive regarding the reception of criticism and will find a way of invalidating that criticism by referring to that criticism as harsh.   VERBALLY ABUSIVE: This term is often used by men or more likely women as grounds for divorce by the Religiously Correct.  The Religiously Correct have added abuse, either verbal or physical, as grounds for divorce.  The victim of verbal abuse, either real or imaginary, tends to define any negative comment as verbal abuse.  Worse, they can stir up the potential abuse with soft spoken insults so that he or she will respond in a loud or inappropriate fashion.  The needling of a person to illicit a sinful verbal or physical response should be taken into account when evaluating the respective guilt or innocence of either party.  This has become one of Satan’s greatest tools in the dissolution of marriages and the attendant suffering of children.  It is worth noting that Scripture does not excuse divorce on the grounds of such abuse.   COVERING: Covering is a relatively latter day concept.  This term although used earlier probably became popular in the early 1970’s when Bob Mumford taught that every sheep needed a shepherd, and every shepherd needed a covering ministry to whom he was accountable.  This “covering” doctrine typically meant that one could not be ministering in obedience to the Lord except he be submitted or under another man of God or ministry.  By doing so, he was protected from the enemy and the world by this covering of authority.   This doctrine of covering ministry has now reached the status of being Religiously Correct.  In practically all of the Charismatic movement and in many Evangelical churches, this concept is accepted as Biblical.   The term covering, as it relates to our discussion, is only used once in the New Testament-- 1Cor 11:15 says, “…her hair is given to her for a covering”.  (NAS)  This Scripture may possibly have some symbolic reference to the husband’s authority over the wife, but there is no Scripture in the Bible that would defend the term “covering” to indicate that every legitimate ministry must be established under a man or a Church’s authority.  Neither are there any Scriptures that indicate that a man or a Church’s authority will protect another ministry.  1 Cor 11:3 says, “Christ is the head of every man…”  It does not suggest that every man needs a denomination or another minister to be his head or his covering if he is a man of God or a minister for the Lord.  The Religiously Correct feel very uncomfortable with ministries that are not supervised or ministries that are not “accountable” to someone (accountability will be discussed in the next section).  If the Religiously Correct are using this term to indicate Scriptural authority, accountability or protection, then that authority, accountability or protection would be in one way supplanting Christ as the Head of every man.   The covering doctrine is another example of elevating men and denigrating the authority of Jesus Christ in a man’s life.  Men in general and ministering men in particular, must learn to establish a personal relationship with Jesus Christ without ANY mediator or covering.    They must also learn to depend upon the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit on their own.  This does not go against any idea of learning from or listening to another man or ministry, but there are times when a man must go to Jesus without ANY mediator or assistance.  By establishing covering as a necessity, we insert a Mediator, and there is no other Mediator between God and man except Jesus Christ.   Covering in this sense does not need to sanction everything or ANYTHING that a man does, but Jesus Christ, His Holy Spirit and the Word of God MUST sanction everything that a man does, whether he is a husband or a minister of the Word.  This doctrine of covering is not dissimilar to the Roman Catholic doctrine which indicates that every man must be under the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope.  Jesus made it clear regarding covering.  When His disciples indicated that others were ministering using the name of Jesus Christ in healing, He did not discourage them from doing so: rather Mark 9:38-40 says,  “John said to Him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us (he did not have our covering) but Jesus said, ‘do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon after- ward to speak evil of Me.  For he who is not against us is for us.’’’   This makes it abundantly clear that we do not need a group or an individual to be over us so that we can function in obedience to our Lord.  It is true that Paul went to Jerusalem to meet with the pillar apostles.  That, however, was not so that he could get covering.  That was so he could learn from them, fellowship with them and show them what God was doing in his ministry.  Many men like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Charles Finney functioned without covering and still succeeded to bless God, His people and the world.   The covering of any man, whether he is a pastor, prophet or husband is always and only the Lord Jesus Christ.   He must be the one that directs him in his activities.  He must do what the Father says and the Son confirms by the Holy Spirit.  When he enters ministry, when he changes ministry and when he quits ministry.  Jesus Christ is the Head of every man.  As the man rules his family and ministers to his wife and children, Jesus is his Head.  No pastor, divisional superintendent, elder, board member or bishop can instruct him apart from what the Lord tells him.  He must be extremely careful not to obey any unscriptural directive that he receives from any of these people.   He is responsible to God and NOT to them to interpret, teach and obey the letter and the spirit of Scripture. ACCOUNTABILITY: The accountability doctrine has some very good points and can be useful in developing and maintaining character.   Like the covering doctrine, however, it has some problems that we need to mention.  As was said in the previous section, men must learn to be accountable to the Scriptures and to God in a highly personal way.  They must learn to look for all the answers to all their questions in the Scriptures, regarding their family, their job and every other facet of life.  They must come to know the Person of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and our heavenly Father by soaking up the Word of God and praying that God would open their eyes and asking Him through Jesus Christ to give them guidance through His Scriptures.  When they need a directive concerning a path they should take or a choice they need to make, they should always go to the Lord first.   Accountability doctrine can become a way of either lessening a man’s relationship with the Lord or expanding his relationship with the Lord.  If he learns to go to the Lord and the Scriptures first for help with any temptation or with any decision or with any need to understand His Word, then that is good.  If his first choice is usually going to his accountability partner or mentor for help, then that is bad.  A good accountability partner or mentor will always guide him to go to the Scriptures and to the Lord Himself first.  Prayer partners can be good and accountability relationships can be good, but the other individual must himself be steeped in the Scriptures and not in the wisdom of men.  He must be a man that always encour- ages greater relationship and greater understanding from the Scriptures and God Himself.  In the Scriptures God makes it clear that we are always ultimately accountable to Him and Him alone, but He also tells us our need for counselors, ministers and men to come along side us in our struggles with the world, the flesh and the devil.   Scripture also directs us to submit to those in the church that have authority over us, but NEVER if their directives or teachings go against the teachings of Scripture. MUTUAL SUBMISSION: The mutual submission doctrine was popularized in the Charismatic Movement in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  This doctrine in some of the Charismatic Churches has been around for a long time, but in the 1960’s and 1970’s this doctrine became widespread.  In simple terms, the doctrine says that even as the wife is to be subject to her husband, so the husband is to be subject to his wife.  The two Scriptures that supposedly support this argument are found first in Eph 5:21, “…and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”  The other scriptural reference is in Gal 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male or female:   for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”   This interpretation of Scripture was likely helped along by the popularity of the women’s movement in the 1920’s in America.  Women had been fighting for, among other things, equal rights in the voting booth, and had just won a significant victory with the establishment of the 19th Amendment which allowed them to vote.  There also was strong pressure by society to allow women to have a much greater voice in the household regarding family matters.   By the 1970’s the movies made it clear that men were typically both abusive and ignorant as they led their families.   There were still popular images of men as good leaders in such television shows as Little House on the Prairie.   But there were an equal number of demeaning male images in such television shows as All in the Family.  By the late 1970’s the authority of the husband in the family and the marriage relationship as depicted by television and the movies was greatly damaged.  It was Politically Correct for a woman to consider herself to be equal in authority with her husband in the marriage relationship.   The culture accepted the fact that the husband was not the head of the wife, as Christ is also the Head of the Church, as Eph 5:23 states.  The Scripture that says, “as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything” (Eph 5:24) was also ignored.   From the 1980’s on most fathers and husbands, in both television and the movies, were depicted as weak at best, and often the cause of the family’s worst problems.  Since then, men have generally been depicted as immature, having no understanding at all concerning their wives and lacking understanding of the marriage relationship.   Typically they are not to be respected because they are not worthy of respect.  They are always interested in sex, but never interested in love.  The children are held in greater esteem than they are.  The wife is much more likely to ask counsel, not from husband, but from her son or daughter regarding an important decision.  Men are often depicted as merely little boys in grown up bodies.  Even on  Christian radio, one advertisement for Mother’s Day had the woman saying about her husband, “He is really just one of my children.”   The Church remained comparatively unscathed by these views until the 1970’s.  It was at that time that the Church began to draw more and more of its teaching from secular psychology.  As was mentioned before, secular psychology for decades had held a view that marriage was a partnership, and that it was puritanical, old fashioned and harmful to the raising of children to allow the man to have such power over his wife and family.  It was at that time that the mutual submission doctrine became popular in the Charismatic Movement.  The Church chose to use the Scriptures mentioned earlier to validate the equality of the sexes with regard to authority one over the other (“be subject one to another” and “there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus”).  Looked at in their context, these two Scriptures have nothing to do with mutual submission.  The Scripture in Ephesians which says, “be subject to one another” does not indicate mutual submission but respective submission: children to parents, slaves to masters, and wives to husbands.  Slaves according to Eph 6:5 are to be obedient to th