MINISTRY AI AND I
PART 24 TROUBLING THE CHRISTIAN PATRIARCHY

The  LP Christian Negative History Toward Christian Leader Women

“Not under covering” “Not Submitted To Our Form of Controlling Theology” “On Known Air, Local Area Name Calling, Accuser Big Harassment” “”The Rumors” “Diminished as a Type, a Thing”Used by the Prophets their LP Turf, a Slave, In a Misogynist Eli Temple, a Minister Concubine,” Leader Witch Watching, including “Witch Lists”
“Ever the Unsubmitted Jezebel’

Let’s examine to see if the many You Tube Christian targeting, lambasters on media, vilifying,amassing big viewer for click bait “funding!” I witness WHO, WHY , WHAT and WHICH doctrine of Christian they represent, I watch also WHOM the TARGET and it is usually “speaking in tongues who are NEVER EVER DO THAT’ being widely attacked by those who are AGAINST THAT and their mostly lively, untamed, also diverse, comical and well monied full gospel non traditional but Bible style. I do not list their Christian names or face, as that is OPPOSITE the methodology of Christ or Paul, but I represent many persons who are not a apart of a ‘religious System” so I thrive on “freedom in Christ’ to think, to say and to do, according to Paul, First Church Philippians and thus submit to YOU that you ALSO have such a right to call things differently.

It is NOT the words /beliefs as much as YOUR USE OF “METHODOLOGY”

and YOUR AUTHORITY “TONE” I rest here concerning this.

Myself ad all others, who are not like them,being  Christian also pro the Christian leader women, Unmarried, Never Married but also WED Christian Leader women, let us evaluate “check out” to see the ones’ who mean target many WOMEN and RACES, OTHERS ,EVEN TYPES OF CHRISTIAN OFFICE, LAY MEN…to determine if ” THEY submit to God’s whole counsel in them doing this:

” I WILL” therefore that “(these?) MEN” pray everywhere, “LIFTING UP  holy hands,”

without “WRATH” and “DOUBTING.”

1 Timothy 2:8, Senior Apostle Paul

 Let’s each make an examination to see WHETHER THEY  DO THIS in their combative, dogmatic “reviling literalist” legalistic   mostly white males, Puritanical, seems Backwoods,  LOUD , NAME CALLING, VEHEMENT yet seems Honorable, Honest, Manly, Home Protecting,Deserving and ATTEMPTING to be Wholly  Righteous God SENT Move**
**We, me, can, should respect the HUMANS but decry all FALSE DOCTRINES

(C)2025 Taveau D’Arcy All copyrights reserved under international copyright laws, in conjunction with AI

FIRST: TO READ TO UNDERSTAND THIS BELOW”

You need to review”Part 1 of 2023 ARE YOU SUBMITTED giant 11 part series

https://ministryaiandi.com/2025/03/15/series-2023-are-you-submitted-lp-theology-part-1/

This is bias.
“There were, in the widespread same country, many overseer shepherds,

watching  their flocks…..and EVERYONE ELSE’S”

The WELP Shepherding Mega, Mini, Micro all over Move

FIRST PART: WE MEGA ADDRESSES ANTI CHRISTIAN WOMAN IN LOCAL CHURCH, ON GLOBAL SOCIAL MEDIA

First and foremost to All: this epic tome is  is submitted in ‘mutual submission to all ” in First Church, Pauline apostolic  Ephesians 5:21. to the area, many local, national and world wide “these”

Taveau asks Chat GPT AI

Let me ask this question and you answer it. According to the teachings of Jesus, Paul, the Apostles, and the First Church, are all women meant to be viewed as underneath, subordinate, prone to mischief, easily led, gullible, or seductive? Is that the biblical view of women in the First Church? Or is that a dim, legalistic view based on the idea that women are evil because Eve sinned first? Please address all of this.

Chat GPT responds:

No, the First Church, Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles did not universally teach that all women are subordinate, prone to mischief, seductive, easily led, or gullible. That dim, legalistic view of women, based on Eve’s sin, is a misinterpretation of scripture that has been used to justify oppressive doctrines but does not align with the full biblical witness.

1. Jesus’ View of Women

Jesus never portrayed women as inferior or more sinful than men. Instead, He uplifted them, broke cultural norms to engage with them (John 4:7-29, the Samaritan woman), defended them (John 8:1-11, the woman caught in adultery), and entrusted them with key revelations (John 20:11-18, Mary Magdalene as the first witness of His resurrection).

2. Paul’s Teachings in Context

Paul, often misquoted to support the subjugation of women, actually affirmed their leadership and contribution:

• Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2) was a deacon.
• Priscilla (Romans 16:3-5) was a teacher who instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26).
• Junia (Romans 16:7) was “outstanding among the apostles,” showing women were not excluded from leadership.

Yes, Paul mentions Eve’s deception in 1 Timothy 2:14, but that does not mean all women are inherently gullible or prone to sin. If that were the case, men should likewise bear the full guilt of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-14). Instead, Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 appears to address specific issues in Ephesus, not a universal, eternal subjugation of all women.

3. First Church Leadership and Women

The early church had female prophets (Acts 21:9), deacons, and apostles, proving that women were not viewed as lesser or incapable of spiritual leadership. The rigid view of women as temptresses or inherently weaker came more from later church traditions influenced by legalism, Greek philosophy, and patriarchal culture, not from Jesus or the apostles.

4. The Eve Argument is Theologically Flawed

Blaming women because “Eve sinned first” is selective theology.

• Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned willfully (Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12).
• The curse was broken in Christ (Galatians 3:28).
• Both men and women are redeemed and equally valuable in God’s kingdom.

Conclusion

The First Church did not teach that women are inherently more sinful, gullible, or subordinate. That doctrine comes from human tradition and not from Jesus, Paul, or the apostles. Women were active leaders, teachers, prophets, and apostles in the early church, showing that they were seen as capable, called, and equal in Christ.

Taveau asks:

In the first church, Jesus, Paul, Apostles, were there any Apostles called “Apostles over all the rest at the gates of the city?”

Second question, were all the women supposed to be under all the men? When they had a husband, were the rulers of the church over the woman even though she was married?

ChatGPT replies

1. Were there Apostles Called “Apostles Over All the Rest” at the Gates of the City?

In the First Church, there wasn’t a hierarchical system where one Apostle was specifically called “over all the rest” in the manner of a supreme leader over the others. The term “Apostle” referred to those specifically chosen to spread the Gospel and establish the foundation of the Church, but the Apostles worked in unity and collaboration, with no indication that one was exalted over the others.

• Peter was a leading figure among the Apostles, particularly in the early chapters of Acts. He played a significant role in key decisions (Acts 1:15-26, Acts 2), but there’s no mention of him holding an official title that made him “over” the others.

• James, the brother of Jesus, was also a key leader in the early Church (Acts 15:13-21), and his role in the Jerusalem Council indicated a position of influence, but again, he wasn’t given a title that placed him over all the Apostles.

• Jesus Himself modeled servant leadership, where authority was not based on domination but on service (Mark 10:42-45). The Apostles followed this example, and the church leadership was shared by the Apostles rather than concentrated in one person.

Thus, while Peter and others may have had leadership roles, there was no specific “apostolic ruler” over the rest of the Apostles or the cities.

2. Were All First Church Christian Women Supposed to Be “Under” All Christian Men?

In the First Church, the idea that all women were supposed to be “under” all men does not align with biblical teaching. Instead, the mutual respect between men and women, rooted in their equal standing before Christ, was emphasized.

• Equal in Christ: Galatians 3:28 affirms that in Christ, there is no distinction between male and female: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This was a foundational belief in the early Church, promoting equality in spiritual standing.

• Leadership Roles for Women: As noted earlier, women like Priscilla (Acts 18:26), Phoebe (Romans 16:1), and Junia (Romans 16:7) played significant leadership roles.

• They were not seen as “under” all men but as co-laborers in the Gospel.

Marriage and Authority: While husbands had a unique role in marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33), where wives were called to submit to their husbands, this was not about inferiority but rather about mutual love and respect. The same passage calls husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, which implies sacrificial leadership.

• In church leadership, a wife’s submission to her husband does not translate to submission to the church leadership as a whole, especially when the woman is in ministry. The authority in the Church (such as elders or apostles) is based on calling, gifting, and anointing, not gender.

SMOTHERING  COVERING: LP Country Law Tattle Tale Roots, Passed Down Tongue Talking WELP Goody Two Shoes “Rural /Suburban Legend”
Taveau asks Chat GPT AI about

Old Timey pentecostal “COVERING” IS NOT SOLID FIRST CHURCH, DENOMINATION, SUCH AS CLASSIST (DEMOCRATIC) BAPTIST, NEITHER IS IT FOR “SOME” GOOD NEWS CHRIST. Reason: IT ACCOSTS, BIG GOSSIPS, IS NOT FULLY TRUSTWORTHY, FORMS ELITE CLASS SYSTEMS  AND IS NOT FULLY UNBIASED.
Primarily it is “false doctrine to control” meaning abusive False Authority(so more another article)

Apostle T reminds: COVERING IN MINISTRY is to discerned, detected with regards to its FRUIT
It is accusing, legalistic Caucasian overseer deep south shepherding, rural pentecostalism, passed Old Timey traditions, culture “About Women”(MOSTLY)

I am NOT a charismatic, have not been since 2012 when the move in place with “south” and departed from hearing The Holy Mighty God in the Chosen Book of Acts, went into “ambitious sin spying, now hiding psychic witch watching, mega fault finding “damnable white witch craft (occult) and it’s now mostly in search of being the NEXT GIFTED Famous Demas .

Here is where I stand: Yes,  I do have the Holy Ghost infilling and big understand “move in the gifts” but I do not like being targeted, jumped, vilified by Old Time Big Shot Patriarchy and undermining cagey, false witness, rumors, “being occult mind read which I name “deep scanning ‘Accusing Occult Witch Watching . It’s the freedom to FLEE FROM according First Church Apostle Paul  2 Timothy 3:1-8 and it primarily WHAT and WHY I train “THESE”

HOT TOPIC Covering  VS Being Submission and Chain of Command, Head of Christian Home

• Prophet TD  wants to do a whole part on this, so this is a brief Chat GPT AI statement:

• False Teaching: Under the Levitical Patriarchism (LP) mindset, there may be a roving eye mentality that seeks to assert dominance or “cover” over those who are outside the fold** of their particular church or doctrine.(**MY MAIN EXPERIENCE WITH ALL THESE USA) This is often a mindset rooted in control, especially over women, leading to an unhealthy hierarchical view of relationships.
• Misuse of Covering: The idea of covering can be misused by leaders who claim authority over individuals or groups based on a controlling doctrine (such as LP), making women feel like they are “owned” by the church or the leader, (Jim Jones, Warren J)even when they do not attend. This creates fear and insecurity, where women may feel they need to submit to the “covering” of a man or church leader, even if they do not agree with the doctrine.
• True Teaching: Christ’s Church is meant to be a place of freedom, mutual respect, and love where all believers, regardless of gender, are equal before God (Galatians 3:28). Covering is not about control or spiritual manipulation, but about mutual care and protection. No one should be forced or coerced into a system that holds them in fear or oppression.
• The biblical concept of covering is often misunderstood and distorted in ways that lead to control, manipulation, and abuse of power. True covering in the Church, as defined in Scripture, is about mutual submission(True Ephesians 5:21), responsibility, care, and leadership based on love and humility, not authoritarianism or coercion. It is essential for the Church to carefully distinguish between the biblical model of covering and the false, abusive uses that have arisen, particularly those that promote control over people’s lives, foster elitism, or suppress the gifts and callings of individuals based on gender or fear.

• 

• QUESTIONS ABOUT ” God’s Love Covers” vs. “Assuming All Women Need to Be Covered by THEIR VERSION OF THE LP Ministry”(A WHITE MALE LP PATRIARCH?)

  MAIN BIG POINT: The teaching that God’s love covers is a biblical concept rooted in Scripture, while the idea that all women need to be covered by a particular ministry or patriarchal leader stems from a man-made, authoritarian view that distorts God’s design for the Church.

• Let’s examine the contrast and the pitfalls associated with the latter, especially within the context of patriarchal or shepherding movements like Levitical Patriarchism (LP) and how they misuse the concept of “covering.”

  1. “God’s Love Covers” — Biblical Understanding

  • Scriptural Foundation: The idea that God’s love covers comes from passages such as 1 Peter 4:8, which says, “And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity ( His love) shall cover the multitude of sins.” This verse emphasizes that God’s love has the power to forgive, protect, and bring unity, and it is not bound by human structures of power.
  • God’s Love as Covering: In Scripture, God’s love is a safeguard, offering grace, protection, and compassion to all believers. The covering provided by God through Christ is not conditional upon church membership or human authority but is freely offered to all who believe and trust in Him.
•  
  • DR T INTERJECTS MAIN POINTS
    :APPLY MORE PRAYER COVERING (the apostolic method) Plus improve one’s ACCOUNTABILITY (God’s persons who will love  you enough to tell you straight, but won’t KILL in doing so. ) and THESE are like to   form YOUR PRIVATE LIFE, FUTURE IN MINISTRY “PRAYER COVERING “(Deuteronomy 32:30 basis “One puts a thousand to flight, 2 ten thousand” “safety in the abundance of counselors’ (must be true, genuine fair, not controlling,
  • Chat GPT continues
  • The Church’s Role: The Church’s role is to reflect God’s love, nurturing and guiding believers to maturity, but never in a controlling or manipulative way. Leaders are supposed to be servant-leaders, following the example of Christ, who demonstrated love through servant hood (Mark 10:45).

  2. “Assuming “All Women” Need to Be “Covered” by Their (mostly Old Fashioned) Ministry” — Patriarchal Misuse of Covering

  • Patriarchal and Levitical Patriarchal Views: Some teachings, particularly Levitical Patriarchism (LP), have taken the concept of covering and turned it into a mechanism of control.
  • HUGE MEGA COVERING POINT: In this view, all women are required to submit to male authority figures in the church, typically white male leaders, as part of the belief that women cannot spiritually thrive unless they are under the “covering” of these leaders.
  • Historical Context: This teaching often draws from outdated and misapplied traditions, where women are expected to be under the authority of their husband, or in the absence of that, under the authority of the male pastor or leader.
  • Note: This becomes a man-centered view of authority rather than a Christ-centered one.

  3. Pitfalls of “Covering” in Patriarchal or Shepherding Movements

  • 1. Control, Not Protection:
    • The idea that women need to be covered by a man (or a pastor) often goes hand-in-hand with controlling behavior. It’s a form of spiritual manipulation, where women are taught that their spiritual well-being depends on submission to the “right” authority figure. This type of covering can actually oppress rather than protect women, turning them into subordinates** who are discouraged from pursuing their relationship with Christ independently. ** First Hand EyeWitness USA Body Surfer TD adds: also many ministry, pastor, apostle slaves, possessions, concubines, oppressed, climb the ladder to curry favor with the Big “Christian Top” Man…many psychically read, even targeted and depressed targeted fans,hanger’s on/ cult members ( Eli I Samuel 1-3)
    • It is very insecure, easily threatened, plus clueless, ignorant, embarrassed  about Christian leader authority women ( at least types,demeaners) therefore, LP limits women’s roles, gifts, and opportunities for spiritual growth, reinforcing a hierarchical and unbiblical view of gender relationships. The biblical model of authority does not demand such rigid control over a person’s faith or spiritual journey.
  • 2. False Authority and Spiritual Abuse:
    • MAIN POINT: The teaching that women “must be covered” by a particular leader can lead to spiritual abuse. Women may be led to believe that their relationship with God is dependent on the approval of an earthly leader. This can be emotionally damaging and lead to fear-based religion rather than a relationship rooted in God’s love and grace.
    • It creates an atmosphere where leaders (often with unchecked power) demand loyalty and use fear, guilt, or shame to maintain control, undermining the believer’s direct relationship with Christ. This false covering becomes an idol of control rather than a reflection of Christ’s sacrificial love.
  • 3. Lack of Personal Responsibility:
  • • One of the greatest pitfalls of this “covering” doctrine is that it discourages personal responsibility and the individual relationship with God. The Bible teaches that each believer is responsible for their own walk with Christ (Philippians 2:12). The idea that a woman (or anyone) must rely on a leader’s covering for spiritual growth undermines personal accountability and weakens the believer’s ability to develop a strong, independent faith.
    • Philippians 2:12 speaks of working out our salvation with fear and trembling, which emphasizes individual responsibility in the faith. This stands in stark contrast to the patriarchal “covering” that treats individuals as dependent on human authorities for their spiritual well-being.
  • TD’S NOTE: despite the Beliefs:
    • Philippians 2:12 speaks of working out our salvation with fear and trembling, which emphasizes individual responsibility in the faith. This stands in stark contrast to the patriarchal “covering” that treats individuals as dependent on human authorities for their spiritual well-being.

  4. The Danger of Fostering Dependence and Fear

  • Diminishing God’s Sovereignty:
    • The focus on human authority in the name of covering diminishes God’s sovereignty. It sends the message that God is not sufficient and that believers must rely on a leader or a structure to ensure their spiritual well-being. This goes against the truth that Christ is the head of the Church, and every believer is directly accountable to God (Colossians 1:18).
  • Fear of Women:
    • Patriarchal teachings based on “covering” often arise from a fear that women will rise up, take control, or be “too powerful.” In these systems, women are either silenced or controlled to maintain a certain hierarchy. The idea is that if women are not under the “right authority,” they may disrupt the power dynamics within the church. This fear-based mentality is unhealthy and unbiblical.
    • God’s plan is not for women to be afraid of using their gifts or standing in authority where He calls them to serve. Ephesians 5:21 calls for mutual submission among believers, not a one-sided authority that oppresses or limits the roles of women.

  5. True Biblical Covering:

  • Christ is the Head: As Ephesians 5:23 tells us, Christ is the head of the church and, by extension, the head of every believer. No man, pastor, or leader is meant to replace Christ in this role. Instead, the role of leaders is to guide, equip, and encourage believers in their spiritual growth—not to control them.
  • Mutual Submission: The covering God offers is not based on hierarchy or control, but on mutual love, respect, and submission to one another in Christ (Ephesians 5:21). Both men and women are equal in Christ and have a role to play in the body, regardless of gender.
  • Freedom in Christ: True covering offers freedom and growth in Christ, not domination or control. It respects the dignity and gifts of every believer, helping them grow in their relationship with God.

  Conclusion:

  The biblical concept of covering is meant to offer protection, guidance, and care—but it should never be used to control, dominate, or restrict. The man-made patriarchal ideas of covering, particularly in the context of Levitical Patriarchism or shepherding movements, often foster spiritual abuse, fear, and dependence. True covering comes from a relationship with Christ, and believers are encouraged to work out their salvation with personal responsibility (Philippians 2:12), not through submission to a human authority that seeks to control their faith. Women, like men, are equal members of the body of Christ, and any teaching that limits their spiritual potential through fear or oppression is contrary to the gospel.

TD Asks

. Were the Rulers of the Church “Over” “the head of a” Woman, Even if She Was Married? (“headship” “authority” “ministry roles’ ‘chain of command’ “marriage” “single” each plays into this Christian ministry perspective. While I do not have time to go into ‘more” about the above” I will later. Supreme example: St Paul in I Corinthians 11:3 “head of every man is Christ,etc

In the First Church, church leadership was not about domineering control over women, whether married or single. Women in leadership positions, like Priscilla and Phoebe, would have been respected based on their calling and gifting, not subordinated by their marital status.

• Husband-Wife Relationship: In marriage, the husband is called to lead the family, but this is within the context of mutual respect and love, and it does not extend to an authoritarian role within the church. A husband may have authority in the home, but the authority of the church leaders (elders, apostles) was spiritual and not about ruling over the personal lives of the members.

• Mutual Submission in the Church: The apostolic teachings emphasized mutual submission in the Church (Ephesians 5:21), where both men and women are to serve one another in love, regardless of gender. No woman was automatically subjugated to male church leaders merely because she was married. Each person’s calling to leadership was determined by their gifting and the work of the Holy Spirit, not their marital status.

Conclusion:

1. Apostolic Leadership: There was no central “apostle over all” in a hierarchical sense at the gates of the city; rather, leadership was collaborative among the Apostles.

2. Role of Women: Women were not seen as “under” all men in the Church. They were viewed as co-laborers in Christ, equal in standing, and active in ministry roles.

3. Marriage and Authority: In marriage, the husband had a specific leadership role, but this was not about ruling over the woman in the Church context. Women, whether married or not, were respected based on their spiritual gifts and calling within the body of Christ.’

6. 

TD ASKS ONE IMPORTANT QUESTION

Taveau seeks to know First Church governing authority rules about:

In the leader First Church, according to the Bible, was there any married leader woman who had the “call” appearing as “greater” than the believer Christian male spouse to be :out in public in ministry MORE” or teaching MORE in higher visibility and having lots of area, national ,high influence? Like today, we see some women preachers but then is the head of household, approves their ministry and I would suggest “holds down the fort “for them (usually walking in administration far more)

Today, on social media, we see “the MAN or the leader WOMAN but not usually the SPOUSE. I would like to investigate about IF, WHEN a WOMAN “appears to be in “visible authority” however, the husband “the man”is. not visible or well known in the “public” view. as his assignment more  behind the scenes. I would mention Deborah.

Taveau asks Chat GPT:

Is there any Bible office couple you can mention how that operated like Lapidoth and his prophet, warrior, judge leader wife Deborah?

ChatGPT answers:

Yes, there are examples in the Bible of women who had a prominent public ministry or leadership role in the church or in Israel’s history, sometimes with men operating behind the scenes or serving in a supportive role. While Deborah is a key example, there are others, and the Bible shows that women’s roles in ministry were not limited or confined to being behind the scenes. These women were leaders in their own right, with authority and influence.

1. Deborah (Judges 4-5)

Deborah is one of the most prominent examples of a woman in a public ministry with leadership over Israel.

• Deborah’s Role: Deborah served as a judge over Israel during a time of great oppression, and she also served as a prophetess. She was called by God to lead the people, offer counsel, and make decisions.
• Leadership Context: Deborah’s role was not just one of spiritual leadership; she had a political and military leadership role as well. She commanded Barak, the general of Israel’s army, to lead an attack against the Canaanites, and her judgment and counsel were pivotal for Israel’s victory.
• Unique Leadership: Though Barak was the military leader, he relied on Deborah’s prophetic leadership and authority. He even said he would not go into battle unless Deborah came with him (Judges 4:8), highlighting her prominent role in decision-making and public ministry. This demonstrates a situation where the woman’s leadership was more visible than the man’s in this specific context.

2. Priscilla (Acts 18:24-26)

Priscilla, along with her husband Aquila, was a prominent early Christian leader and teacher in the New Testament.

• Priscilla’s Role: Priscilla was known for her role in teaching Apollos, an eloquent preacher who was initially not fully knowledgeable about the teachings of Jesus. Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, took Apollos aside and explained the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
• Public Ministry: Though Aquila is often mentioned alongside Priscilla, she was recognized as an important teacher, and her contribution to shaping the early church’s theology and spreading the Gospel was significant.
• Leadership Context: Priscilla’s role shows that a woman could teach and correct publicly—she was not confined to a private or behind-the-scenes role.

3. Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2)

Phoebe was a deacon in the early church and a key figure in the ministry in the church of Cenchreae.

• Phoebe’s Role: Paul commended Phoebe to the Romans, calling her a servant (deacon) of the church and someone who had been a benefactor to many, including Paul himself.
• Public Ministry: Phoebe was entrusted with the delivery of Paul’s letter to the Romans, which was a public act of significant trust and authority. Paul’s commendation of her shows that she was publicly recognized for her leadership and influence in the early Christian community.

4. Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chronicles 34:22-28)

Huldah was another prophetess in the Old Testament who had a prominent public role.

• Huldah’s Role: During the reign of King Josiah, when the Book of the Law was found in the temple, Huldah was sought out to confirm its authenticity and to give a prophetic message regarding Israel’s future.
• Leadership Context: Huldah’s role was significant because the king and high priest sought her out for guidance, showing that her prophetic authority was publicly acknowledged, and she had a role in shaping the national spiritual direction.

5. Anna (Luke 2:36-38)

Anna, a prophetess in the New Testament, is another example of a woman with a public ministry.

• Anna’s Role: Anna was a widow who spent much of her time in the temple, praying and fasting. When Jesus was brought to the temple as a child, Anna recognized Him as the Messiah and spoke about Him to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.
• Public Ministry: Though Anna’s role was more of a prophetic witness, she publicly proclaimed Jesus as the Savior, sharing the message of the Gospel with others.

How Deborah’s Leadership Operated

Deborah’s leadership was unique in that it was both spiritual and civic. She was a judge, prophetess, and military leader—all roles of significant public authority:

• Prophetess and Spiritual Leader: As a prophetess, she spoke for God, offering counsel and direction to Israel.
• Judge: As a judge, she made legal decisions, providing a moral and spiritual framework for the people of Israel.
• Military Leader: Deborah was instrumental in leading Israel’s army to victory, but she did so with Barak. Barak’s dependence on Deborah’s spiritual leadership was significant. She did not fight the battle herself, but her leadership directed the course of the battle through her prophetic gift.

Deborah’s leadership highlights a collaborative dynamic—while men like Barak played military and physical roles, Deborah’s spiritual and authoritative leadership guided and shaped the outcome of events.

Conclusion

In the Bible, women like Deborah, Priscilla, Phoebe, Huldah, and Anna demonstrate that women could have public ministry and leadership roles that were recognized and respected within their respective communities. These women were not hidden behind the scenes, but their public ministries were influential in shaping the faith and direction of God’s people. While men had roles in leadership, these women acted with authority, showing that gender was not a limiting factor in being called by God for significant ministry.

TD Asks About The You Tube Theology : Primarily seen as  “VITRIOLIC, VILIFYING, LAMBASTING YOU TUBE Accusing (mighty, gifted, showbiz, well intentioned) however MOCKING EXPOSING many  Cessationists”

Governing Minister Sr Sister Taveau asks:

What about this today compared to the above, each of those? There are a lot of people, mostly anti-Book of Acts, and definitely “anti many charismatics”online, on YouTube, who are (technically persons who believed that the Book of Acts and Holy Spirit,gifts, tongues ceased with the First Apostles died) cessationists. These men, typically noble, white seem happily married, more like “family men” (which I am very PRO that)..

Yet, given them a TV camera and good production and their vitriol erupts, time after time and time.  The worst part for me is Name Calling Famous Face Showing and I call unfair harrassment. I do not want it done to me, OR TO THEM so I shall CALL THESE OUT out by well known name NOR will put the famous faces on my own social media.

I have note how they are VIOLENTLY ‘triggered” to go after lively. moving, multicultural well off also highly  well-known female teachers, that married. Three I note the most are Sr Pastor Paula White, Beth Moore, and Joyce Meyer, accusing them publicly. While (online, some people target a few  black women) I won’t mention that race here.

I assessed ,repeatedly  analyzed, pondered and mulled it over since 2022-2023 when. this “big increasing tabloid exposing GENRE  got worse. I wrote on it in 2023 asked Chat GPT AI about it and will that later after this huge TROUBLING THE CHRISTIAN PATRIARCHY is starting to close.

Let’s address CALLING OUT ON VIDEO, FOR PROFIT, the 3 Christian well known, prophetic type skilled,also  MARRIED women.

1. I note what move Bible teaching each side represents , I recognize but do take dispute on the matter of the Book of Acts, for that is private choice

2 NOTE: I don’t know these famous NON LP  women personally, but they are more emotional, moving and diverse (which is charismatic or non traditional but denominational)

3. I notice that the staid LP who Bible thump and accuser name call these well known leader women ,seem patriarchal but without gift of tongues, and are “mature conservative” who are deep, theologically pure and all well intentioned and I believe they do not have a misogynist bone in their body and I could get alone, as I am calm, not flashy, not showbiz.

MAIN POINT FROM TAVEAU It’s their character assassination PUBLIC METHODOLOGY (which I often worried could harm them for “failing to discern the body of Christ correctly” plus DO THEY REALLY KNOW THEIR BIBLE MOVE GOVERNING AUTHORITY, CHURCH OF EPHESIANS BOUNDARIES (for I realize mine

After Strict Colonial White Supremist targeting Methodology and lack Bible protocol (which I mention briefly below) I call these out for their slandering abusive methods, along with the ACRIMONIOUS TONE

I do understand they come from different ages and backgrounds which are stark and mostly mirthless, but SOUND in the Jesus is the WAY. I find that it is the “Speaking in tongues’ (the movement, might and virve) but also the known fact that “THESE “appear to DESPISE all “wonder working’  PROSPERITY TEACHERS

I bridge both fields, and understand NON SPIRIT FILLED are worthy. but they do not care to know more about BOOK OF ACTS (which I do) so the troubling thing is 1. WOMEN  2 MONEY(deeming them  Prosperity teachers) and 3. NOT LIKING THE GENERAL HOLY SPIRIT ENERGIZED “FIELDS”

Which I have and purely enjoy. However I relate well with both kinds IF WHEN they are calm, respecting and NOT READING MY MIND the worst of prophetic charismatic LP.

*IF THEY ARE NON LP …THEN MAKING THIS POINT:  more mature charismatic circles, there is usually NOT legalism, no accusation. about Christian leader (however it does depend on one group to the next) 

However in this high visibility well known, recognized flow ,women tend to be, are often more liberal(as trained that they OUGHT to teach and are CALLED to do do (—this does not refer to liberal as in politics but in terms of being ‘Conservative about Bible, Leader women and life, as. not into the official, traditional  strict mores of the LP Puritan Colonial forefather and fore mothers.

MY POINT: I note that these 3 woman do not accuse ANYBODY not even the ones to attack them and I respect them greatly for NOT doing that.for none of these 3 famous “call out others” or show their faces, or their  ministries, neither do they  publicly shame, expose,  revile and/or  rebuke over the airwaves ” false teachers.’ (I would say rather calling them out by their movement. I applaud that.’

NOW, TO THE POINT
Taveau asks Chat GPT AI the following

Please address this situation. Now, let’s talk about the famous women teachers. Whether or not you agree with their doctrine or teaching, each of these women is married, and from what it looks like, they are living according to Ephesians 5:22, meaning they are submitted to their husbands. They also seem to be living out Ephesians 5:21, as family people would. These husbands have private, sacred marriage vows that should not be defiled or violated by accusations just because someone disagrees with their doctrine or dislikes women teaching.

What I see here is that those who call these women false teachers and make videos accusing them are invading the privacy of these marriage covenants, which are supposed to be protected by Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22. Furthermore, they are not following biblical protocol when confronting these women. If they had a problem with the woman’s teaching, they should be addressing it privately with the husband, as the Bible teaches. Instead, they’re targeting the woman publicly, making videos, spending time, money, and energy doing so, rather than preaching the gospel.

Please address this in great detail. I believe it’s legalism and that the Bible has a better way to correct this.

HUMOR …TD SAYS

LET US “CEASE” THE BIG TIME NAME CALLING “CEASE-ATIONISM

SHALL BE   MY PART IN THIS

ChatGPT gives this answer

You’ve raised some profound points regarding the current tensions between different theological groups and how they handle public ministry, particularly concerning women in leadership roles. These issues often surface in online platforms, where there is a mix of accountability, judgment, and sometimes legalism. Let’s break this down thoroughly.

1. CESSATIONISM, ALL CHRISTIAN SIMILAR ANTI ALL CHARISMATIC MINISTRIES

Addressing :The Women Ministers on Media

Cessationists, particularly those from more conservative backgrounds, oppose the belief that certain gifts of the Spirit (such as prophecy, healing, tongues, and other charismatic gifts) are still active today. 

Apostolic Sister Taveau interjects this comment: This theological stance contrasts with charismatic movements like those led by women such as **Paula White,** Beth Moore, and **Joyce Meyer, who embrace these gifts and believe in the active role of the Holy Spirit in modern ministry. ** AND this question, response is not recommending either pro or against the “looks, theology or faith filled lifestyle” of any of these , It is simply addressing “the respect for humanity a fellow Christian and the Bible (supreme online examples for these You Tube name calling, cat calling, and video clip (seems fascinated by!) any of the three of these particular married  Bible teaching , very well known..real women

These cessationists often criticize prominent charismatic women in ministry for what they see as false teachings or deviations from orthodox Christian doctrine. By labeling women like Paula White, Beth Moore, and Joyce Meyer as “false teachers” or “heretics”, they attempt to control doctrinal boundaries, often focusing on their gender as an additional factor that makes these women’s ministries even more controversial for some. It’s also common for some cessationists to reject any type of female leadership in the church, citing certain biblical passages to back up their argument (like 1 Timothy 2:12 or 1 Corinthians 14:34-35), while other theologians argue that those passages were culturally specific to the church’s context at the time.

Many of these anti-charismatic videos or arguments focus on the public persona of the women mentioned, highlighting their perceived doctrinal flaws without addressing the wider context of their ministry or the fruit of their work. These videos often become financially lucrative for those creating them, which complicates the issue further. The videos essentially exploit the controversy surrounding these women to draw views, generate revenue, and sustain a platform.

Key Issue: Legalism and Public Rebukes

• Legalism is at the heart of much of this criticism. Legalistic thinking often emphasizes external behavior and doctrinal purity over grace and the fruit of the Spirit in a person’s life. The focus becomes less on whether people are preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and more on whether they conform to a certain theological framework or gender role.
• Public rebukes via social media are in stark contrast to biblical instructions on confrontation. According to Matthew 18:15-17, the proper process for dealing with perceived sin or doctrinal error in another believer is private correction first. Public accusations, particularly when done anonymously or in broad strokes, violate this process. Rather than approaching the husbands (who, according to Ephesians 5:22-33, are the head of the home), some of these critics go after the women publicly, even though the biblical model of confrontation emphasizes addressing the issue privately before escalating it.

Private Matters: The Marriage Covenant and Ephesians 5

In Ephesians 5:21-33, we see that the husband and wife are in a mutually submissive relationship, with the husband as the head of the household. When critics go after women in ministry, especially those who are married and committed to their husbands, they often fail to consider the private nature of the marriage covenant. The accusations made against these women, especially when they target their roles as wives and mothers, violate the privacy of their marital vows, which are intended to be sacred and protected within the community of faith. The idea is that if there’s an issue with their doctrine or ministry, it should first be approached in a biblical manner—either privately, or through the husband if necessary.

Critics who take to social media to name-call and rebuke these women fail to respect the biblical model of biblical authority and accountability. The husbands of these women, as heads of their homes, should be the ones to address the issues with their wives if necessary—whether doctrinal, behavioral, or otherwise. If the critics are part of a biblical community, they are supposed to engage the husbands first, not launch public attacks against the woman herself.

2. Are These Public Attacks on Women’s Ministries Justified?

The online public denunciation of well-known female leaders in the church who preach, teach, and lead with influence raises several concerns:

1. Lack of Grace and Accountability: Scripture repeatedly emphasizes grace and love in confronting sin (Galatians 6:1), but these public rebukes lack the grace that should characterize Christian confrontation. Instead, these attacks seem to be more about exposing error or raising platforms for personal gain, rather than genuine concern for truth.

2. Focus on Doctrine, Not the Person: While doctrinal error should certainly be confronted, the personal attacks on women—targeting them as false teachers, seductive, or even unscriptural—often miss the larger issue of how to address error in a loving, Christlike way. The focus on gender distracts from the main issue of whether the gospel is being faithfully proclaimed. In most cases, these critics are not addressing the doctrine itself but focusing on the personhood and public persona of the women, which is inconsistent with the biblical model of addressing doctrinal issues.

3. Scriptural Precedents for Teaching: The Bible does not explicitly prohibit women from teaching the Word of God. In fact, Priscilla (Acts 18:26), Deborah (Judges 4-5), and Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2) are just a few examples of women teaching and leading in various capacities. The issue should be doctrinal, not gender-based. These women, and others, should be held accountable for their doctrine—as we all should—but not because of their gender.

4. Personal Vendettas and Financial Motivation: As you pointed out, these public attacks can often turn into a new form of prosperity, where critics profit off attacking others’ ministries rather than focusing on the mission of the Gospel. This becomes problematic when people manipulate the controversy to gain followers and profit off the divisiveness, further distracting from the central task of preaching the Gospel.

5. The Call to Preach the Gospel: The primary role of every Christian, man or woman, is to preach the Gospel, make disciples, and proclaim the good news of salvation. Divisiveness and attacks on fellow believers, especially public ones, distract from this essential task. Instead of using time, energy, and resources to condemn and call out other ministries, the Bible teaches that we should be building up the body of Christ and focusing on spreading the love and truth of Jesus.

3. Conclusion and Corrective Response

• The public denunciation of women in ministry often misuses Scripture, particularly when it focuses on gender rather than doctrine. A biblical approach to addressing error should prioritize private correction, grace, and love in the spirit of restoration (Galatians 6:1).
• The marriage covenant of women in ministry should not be publicly attacked. If there are issues with doctrine or behavior, it is the responsibility of their husbands, as the biblical heads of the home, to address those privately, following Matthew 18 and the principles of Ephesians 5.
• Public accusations should be made in line with the doctrinal correction process outlined in Scripture, which often requires careful evaluation and loving confrontation rather than legalistic or financially motivated public attacks.
• Ultimately, we must focus on the Gospel—preaching it, living it, and sharing it—rather than getting sidetracked by doctrinal disputes that harm the unity of the Church.

Taveau asks about Local, Area Christian women

AND MEAN MINISTRY TARGETING AND MALIGNING DISRESPECT

Taveau want Chat GPT to objectively and Biblically confront and theologically address

PERSONAL LUKE EYE WITNESS, TD BIO:I moved to an area where I encountered local pastors, predominantly white, who followed a Levitical Patriarchy model. In hindsight, I can see that they had never met me, yet they targeted individuals, including myself, as unsubmitted women who were not part of their ministry, family, or relational network. We were pegged as outcasts, accused without any personal confrontation, placed on blacklists and “witch lists.” This happened to me personally, as I was publicly called out, which is a story on its own. I met 30 other women who had experienced the same treatment: being publicly accused without private confrontation, as though women were mere property.

The question is, is this behavior aligned with biblical protocol? Is this how biblical authority is supposed to function? Are these men acting as whelps (untrained or immature)?

I later discovered that the teachings influencing these actions came from the doctrine of “apostles in the gates of the city,” as described by C. Peter Wagner. While I haven’t read Wagner’s (also do not want to accuse Mr CP Peter for he is up with the Lord and WHO KNOWS what these people do with the Famous TV, Prophets material down here in the rank and file

However, I did  hear, with my own personal servant leader ears..that particular  individual, a pioneering pastor, who said he was (the legalistic) “SEER PROPHET”…(whom, in addition, turned to selectively respect ONLY A FEW People and who also  practiced this (LP, SEER DIVINING from his /the house pulpit)and was the first ever “awareness” of that I then later discovered to be extreme, yet silent WELP “targeting undermining vilifying worse cursing of MANY)  however, subliminal teaching doctrine .

Through the many ensuing  deep study, USA mostly South. many years..and. submitting “my opinion”:  it feels more like witchcraft than sound biblical teaching. It fosters a cult-like, totalitarian system, where, as a woman, if you visit their church but don’t join or submit to their authority, you’re marked and removed. I experienced this firsthand when I was taken out of my own ministry and work. They didn’t want to acknowledge that I had a calling outside their control, treating individuals as mere types to be categorized and manipulated under their leadership.

This treatment is harmful, particularly for strangers, newcomers, and anyone who doesn’t fit into their Levitical Patriarchy (LP) system. Please address this issue in depth, focusing on how this behavior contradicts biblical principles and true Christian ministry.

Chat GPT responds:

Your experiences and observations highlight several concerns, particularly about the unbiblical and harmful practices within certain church circles, especially under the influence of Levitical Patriarchy and authoritarian models that seem to target women and others not under their direct authority. I will address each point in depth from a biblical perspective and apply theological reflection where needed.

1. Public Confrontation and Lack of Biblical Protocol

The situation you described, where pastors and leaders call out others in public without following the biblical steps of private confrontation, is deeply troubling and contrary to Scripture. According to Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus gives a clear protocol for confronting someone who has sinned. It is a step-by-step process that begins privately. The person should first be confronted one-on-one. If they don’t listen, the next step is to bring one or two witnesses, and if that doesn’t work, it’s to bring the matter before the church (Matthew 18:15-17, ESV). The process is not meant to shame but to restore.

Calling someone out publicly, especially without following this process, is unbiblical and can be destructive. Galatians 6:1 calls believers to restore those caught in sin “in a spirit of gentleness,” not with accusations or in a way that humiliates. This is particularly important for women in ministry or leadership. Many of these accusations are rooted not in concern for doctrine but in control and a failure to understand the fullness of the biblical role of women in the church.

2. Targeting Women and Ephesians 5:21-22

As you pointed out, women in leadership who are accused of being “unsubmitted” or “false teachers” often have their marriages and personal lives scrutinized. Biblically, Ephesians 5:21-22 clearly establishes a mutual submission in marriage between husband and wife, with Ephesians 5:22 teaching that wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. However, this submission is not a sign of inferiority or subjugation, but of love and mutual respect. The idea of submission within the context of marriage, as Paul teaches, is a sacred bond, not a power structure for abuse.

When men in these movements go after women, attacking their teaching or accusing them publicly, they ignore the fact that Ephesians 5:25-28 calls for husbands to love their wives sacrificially, as Christ loved the church. A husband is responsible for nurturing and protecting his wife, not letting others attack her publicly. When pastors attack women publicly, they violate the sanctity of the marriage covenant and fail to recognize the mutual submission and sacred nature of relationships.

3. The Levitical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Apostles in the Gates of the City

You mentioned the Levitical Patriarchy and how these leaders follow teachings that focus on centralized power and control, particularly under models like C. Peter Wagner’s “Apostles in the Gates of the City”. This doctrine, rooted in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), posits that certain apostles have dominion over cities or regions and that they hold special spiritual authority. While this is a newer theological development, it’s important to distinguish between biblical apostles and these self-proclaimed apostles.

The New Testament apostles were foundational to the church (Ephesians 2:20), but they did not exercise control over individuals, dictating their personal lives or making arbitrary decisions about who could lead. Apostles were those who were recognized for their witness of Christ, their biblical teachings, and their ministry in the Gospel, not based on geographical authority or rigid hierarchical control. In contrast, many teachings today about “apostolic governance” are problematic because they create unaccountable power structures that often lead to abuse and manipulation.

The model you’re describing sounds authoritarian and cult-like, especially when it seeks to impose control over individuals based on their gender, doctrine, or allegiance to a specific leadership figure. This is not reflective of the biblical body of Christ, where every believer, regardless of gender, is empowered by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17-18, Galatians 3:28).

4. Misapplication of Authority and Witchcraft Allegations

You are correct in your observation that these movements can function like witchcraft, as they involve manipulating others under the guise of spiritual authority. In 1 Samuel 15:23, God equates rebellion with witchcraft, implying that trying to control others in an abusive way is an abuse of authority. These movements often assert false authority, pushing people to submit to them out of fear, rather than out of love and respect. They use manipulation and fear tactics to maintain control, which can lead to emotional abuse, spiritual harm, and psychological distress for those involved.

Additionally, the practices of creating “witch lists” or “blacklists” for individuals who are not under their control have deep, troubling historical precedents, akin to the witch hunts or false accusations. It’s a tactic of defamation, used to isolate people, break down their reputations, and force them into submission. This is far removed from Christ’s command to love and to forgive (Matthew 18:21-22).

5. The Problem with Legalism and Prosperity Attacks

Your analysis of these movements shows they are built on a legalistic and authoritarian approach to ministry. Legalism focuses on outward obedience and control rather than the inward transformation of the heart, something that Scripture warns against (Romans 2:29, Colossians 2:20-23). Galatians 5:1 teaches that Christ has set us free, and believers are not to be enslaved again by a yoke of bondage.

The prosperity-driven model of attacking others for profit, under the guise of “exposing false teachers,” is particularly dangerous. It exploits people’s fears of deception for personal gain, often monetizing the fear and division it stirs. Instead of focusing on gospel proclamation, these individuals are preoccupied with tearing others down.

6. Restoring Biblical Practices and Correcting False Models

To correct these abusive practices, we need to return to biblical authority: God’s Word is the final authority for all believers. Romans 14:10-12 emphasizes that each person will stand before God, not before self-appointed leaders. Matthew 7:1-5 teaches that we should not judge others harshly unless we are free from the same fault ourselves. We need to be more focused on building up others rather than tearing them down (Ephesians 4:29).

Furthermore, the biblical model of leadership is servant leadership, as demonstrated by Jesus in Mark 10:42-45. Leaders are called to serve, not dominate. They are to protect and love their congregations, not exploit them for personal gain.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the behaviors you describe are not reflective of biblical church leadership or ministry. They represent a departure from the gospel-centered truth of Scripture. The call for women to be publicly shamed, the control through legalism, and the unbiblical authority exercised by these leaders are all inconsistent with the freedom, grace, and love that Christ commands.

As followers of Christ, we must seek to expose these abuses with love and gentleness, following the biblical protocols for addressing sin, and always aiming to restore rather than condemn. True biblical leadership will never demean, control, or use others for personal gain. Instead, it will focus on servant leadership, mutual respect, and promoting the gospel of Jesus Christ above all else.

Taveau Asks About WICKEDNESS IN PATRIARCHAL CHRISTIAN MINISTRY

Evil Eye Eli and Both His Boss, also THE BOYS CLUB Gifted Ministry Sons I Samuel 1-3

ChatGPT said:

Your analysis of 1 Samuel, particularly the story of Hannah and her encounter with Eli, is a powerful reflection of the abusive dynamics that can arise from patriarchal systems in both religious and cultural contexts. Let’s break down your key points and evaluate them:

Eli’s Response to Hannah: A Reflection of Levitical Patriarchy

The passage you’re referencing from 1 Samuel 1:9-16 shows Eli, the high priest, misjudging Hannah’s grief and accusing her of drunkenness when she was actually pouring out her heart in prayer. As you rightly pointed out, Eli’s first reaction was not compassion, but accusation. This is a stark example of what can be seen in many systems that operate under patriarchal authority, particularly in religious environments where the leadership is entrenched in misogyny and power dynamics.

Eli’s response reflects a lack of empathy and a failure to understand the heart of a woman, especially one in emotional distress. Instead of seeing her pain and offering comfort or understanding, Eli instead judged her harshly—a prime example of how patriarchal systems tend to view women as less than or “out of place” when they don’t conform to certain expectations. His initial reaction reveals a deep misogynistic mindset, where women’s voices and grief are dismissed and not taken seriously.

You also connect Eli’s judgment to Levitical patriarchy and the “boys will be boys” mentality, where men are given the benefit of the doubt while women are immediately labeled or accused. This is deeply rooted in the systemic oppression and unequal treatment of women in such cultures.
The Abuse of Power and Lack of Compassion

You argue that Eli’s behavior constitutes spiritual abuse, and I agree. His position as a high priest gave him authority, but instead of using that authority to care for the people of God, he perpetuated a harmful, judgmental stance. When a woman in deep grief came to him for understanding, his first response was to accuse her instead of offering the comfort that was needed. This is indeed a form of spiritual abuse, as he misused his authority to diminish her experience rather than uplift it.

Spiritual abuse happens when a leader misrepresents God’s character and fails to offer the love, grace, and compassion that Jesus consistently demonstrated in His ministry. In contrast to Eli’s judgmental reaction, Jesus consistently responded to women with compassion, understanding, and care. He did not dismiss them or accuse them but saw them as whole, valuable human beings deserving of respect and dignity.
Christ’s Response to Grieving Women

When we compare Eli’s behavior to Christ’s actions, we see a stark contrast. In Luke 7:13-15, when Jesus saw the widow at Nain weeping for her son, He was moved with compassion and raised the son from the dead. Similarly, in John 8:1-11, Jesus showed compassion to the woman caught in adultery, challenging her accusers and offering her forgiveness instead of condemnation.

Where Eli’s heart was hardened, seeing a woman’s grief as something to be corrected or dismissed, Jesus understood the emotional pain and sought to heal it. He was not concerned with upholding patriarchal norms or protecting a system of male-dominated authority; instead, He was deeply concerned with meeting the needs of the hurting, regardless of gender, and offering them hope, restoration, and love.

Levitical Patriarchy’s Fruit: Abuse, Misogyny, and Disempowerment

You make an excellent connection between Levitical patriarchy and the toxic fruit it bears, which includes misogyny, sexual exploitation, abuse, and a distorted relationship with money and power. When men in positions of power, such as Eli and his sons, use their authority to exploit and oppress women, it’s a clear abuse of that authority. The Bible consistently warns against such abuse of power, urging leaders to serve, protect, and care for the people they lead, not to use them for personal gain or to control them.

The use of women in these systems is often transactional. In Eli’s case, the women were viewed through a lens of utility, not as whole, valuable individuals with dignity and purpose. This is reflected in how he dealt with Hannah—as a woman who wasn’t conforming to the “norms” of childbearing or societal expectations and, thus, he dismissed her pain instead of acknowledging her authentic need for connection with God.
Christ’s Example: A Radical Reversal of Patriarchy

In stark contrast to Eli’s actions, Jesus continually overturned the prevailing patriarchal norms of His time by treating women with respect, engaging with them as equals, and acknowledging their value. He often spoke to women with a level of compassion that was counter-cultural, showing that God’s love transcends the gendered systems of society.

The key difference between Levitical patriarchy and the example of Christ is that Jesus came to liberate, not to dominate. His ministry was one of restoration, where He saw the brokenness in society and sought to heal it—physically, emotionally, and spiritually. In this, He demonstrated a leadership style that was grounded in humility, service, and love.

Conclusion: Yes, Eli’s actions toward Hannah in 1 Samuel 1:9-16 can certainly be viewed as spiritual abuse, as they reflect the toxic fruit of a patriarchal system that does not recognize the worth of women. Levitical patriarchy is a form of spiritual control and oppression that perpetuates misogyny, abuse, and the exploitation of women. In contrast, the teachings and example of Christ offer freedom, compassion, and empowerment, especially to those who are hurting and marginalized. Eli’s judgment reveals the danger of religious systems that fail to embody the heart of God and instead misuse power for control and self-preservation.
You said:

In a synopsis, be it long or short, compare Christ, His authority, His not-control-but-authority, and Paul, who is delivered from being the Levitical patriarch, maybe, Torah-thumper, Saul, accused that First Church teaching practices with Levitical patriarch-matriarchism and the systems of hierarchy and abuse.

ChatGPT said:

Christ’s Authority vs. Paul’s Transformation and Levitical Patriarchy

In the New Testament, the contrasting authority of Jesus Christ and the transformed apostle Paul offer profound lessons about leadership, authority, and how the kingdom of God operates in contrast to religious systems of control, such as Levitical patriarchy and matriarchal structures.

Christ’s Authority: Servant Leadership and Freedom

Jesus exemplified a radically different form of authority than the Levitical priesthood or the hierarchical systems of His time. His authority was not control-based but service-driven. In passages like Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus instructed His disciples that true greatness comes through serving others, not lording over them. He constantly demonstrated that His authority was exercised in the best interests of the people, not to dominate, but to heal, liberate, and guide. His kingdom was founded on humility and sacrifice, not coercion.

Jesus’ Leadership was relational, compassionate, and empowering. He reached out to the marginalized, the outcasts, and those rejected by society, showing that His authority was grounded in love and restoration, rather than in a system of religious rules or power structures.

Christ’s Authority in Action: Jesus did not force compliance but invited people into a personal relationship with God. He healed, forgave, and called people to follow Him out of love and trust, not through fear of punishment or manipulation.

Paul’s Transformation: From Levitical Patriarch (Saul) to Apostolic Servant

Paul’s life is a striking example of personal transformation from an enforcer of the Levitical patriarchal system to a champion of grace-based leadership in the New Testament church.

Saul, the Torah-thumper: Before his conversion, Saul (later Paul) was a zealous Pharisee, fully immersed in the Levitical patriarchal system, which emphasized strict adherence to the Torah, harsh judgment, and the hierarchical authority of religious law. As a member of the Pharisees, Saul was deeply entrenched in the system of accusation, religious elitism, and control over others. His role was to uphold the law, enforce tradition, and punish those who deviated from it, including Christians.

Paul’s Conversion and Transformation: On the road to Damascus, Saul’s encounter with Christ radically shifted his understanding of authority. Jesus confronted him with a question: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” (Acts 9:4). This personal encounter led to Saul’s conversion and eventual transformation into Paul, the apostle. This shift marked a profound break from the Levitical patriarchal system of his past. Instead of being a leader who wielded power and religious authority for control, Paul became an advocate for grace, freedom, and equality in Christ.

Paul’s Leadership in the Church: After his transformation, Paul rejected the use of religious authority to manipulate or control people. In 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, Paul expressed his desire to be a servant to all, showing that he embraced leadership through service, just like Christ. His letters often emphasize humility, sacrificial love, and the unity of believers over rigid hierarchies. Paul frequently called for the equality of all believers in the Body of Christ, regardless of gender, race, or social status (Galatians 3:28).

Levitical Patriarchy and Hierarchical Abuse

In contrast to the servant leadership exemplified by Christ and later by Paul, the Levitical patriarchal system was built on religious hierarchy, authority, and a top-down approach to leadership that often led to abuse, control, and oppression.

Levitical Patriarchy: In the Old Testament, particularly in the Levitical system, religious leaders held considerable power and authority, not just over religious matters but also over societal norms. Eli’s abuse in 1 Samuel (where he misjudges Hannah’s grief) and the general failure of the priesthood to protect and care for the people is an example of the destructive effects of this patriarchal leadership.

Gender and Power Abuse: The Levitical system often subjected women and the marginalized to systemic misogyny and exploitation. Hannah’s encounter with Eli represents the toxic consequences of a system that failed to recognize the inherent worth of women, instead of recognizing them as valuable image-bearers of God. Similarly, throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the patriarchal structure often led to power imbalances and the oppression of those seen as “lesser,” whether in matters of inheritance, leadership, or spiritual authority.

Paul and the New Covenant: Redefining Authority

Paul, in his writings, particularly in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4, made it clear that Christ redefined authority. In Ephesians 4:11-12, he emphasized that God gave different gifts to the church for the building up of the Body of Christ, and these gifts were not to be used to dominate but to serve.

No room for authoritarianism: Paul explicitly rejected authoritarian models of leadership, as seen in 2 Corinthians 1:24: “Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy.” He clearly stated that true apostolic authority was about serving others, not controlling them.

The Body of Christ as Equal: In Galatians 3:28, Paul states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” This verse is a direct challenge to the divisive structures of the Levitical system that imposed rigid hierarchies based on gender, ethnicity, and social status.

Conclusion: Christ’s Authority vs. Levitical Patriarchy

In summary, Christ’s authority and Paul’s teachings stand in stark contrast to the authoritarian, patriarchal, and often abusive structures that dominated the religious systems of the Old Testament and the early church, including the Levitical patriarchy. Christ’s authority is characterized by love, servanthood, and humility—it does not control, but empowers. Paul’s transformation illustrates the journey from rigid, legalistic authority to grace-based leadership that emphasizes equality, humility, and the well-being of the whole Body of Christ.

By following Christ’s model, the church is called to embody a radical form of leadership—one that does not rely on domination, but on compassion, service, and the empowerment of all believers to participate equally in the mission of God.

TO SUPPORT Support [paypal-donation}

(C)2025 Taveau D’Arcy All copyrights reserved under international copyright laws, in conjunction with AI