PART 5 CHARISMATIC LEVITICAL PATRIARCHY + CHRISTIAN TOP DOWN CHURCH AUTHORITY

PART 5 CHARISMATIC LEVITICAL PATRIARCHY

“In their hearts they know they’re right!”

“Mutual submission in the fear of the Lord” Ephesians 5:21 St Paul First Church

CHRISTIAN TOP DOWN CHURCH AUTHORITY

Catholics,NAR, also NON WASP AUTHORITY

THE WELP LIST.”Western European Levitical Patriarchism”…NEW CHRISTIANS, NEW VISITORS ALERT: It’s not about the people, but the ongoing non Bible fruit when encountering a specific subculture ( noting this in NAR, “elite apostles in the gates of the city, ” Old Boy Shepherding Deep South governing movement, LP in grass roots charismatic AG, CI, WOF and Pentecostal, mostly witch watching, targeting praying against, plus always spying many Queen Jezebels, And “Certain doctrinal types: Of the now Famous Worship/ fine arts but subliminal type cults, also the Boys Club in Pioneering area widely known ministry,”I am for Apollos vs I am for Paul” clandestine, non merry spirit; Again: If you weren’t trained, not your fault, Just acknowledge it, then improve.

First Hand Share

As I presently mostly confront WELP which is mostly WASP Caucasian , I want to share this to balance

In about 2020, prior to Covid, my Starbucks female friend, who had previously been a minister in an African American Apostolic church in Indiana or Miami, recounted a disturbing eye witness experience.

One day, she entered the church sanctuary and saw the Apostle line up his staff at the front of the sanctuary_ 8 individuals. Then she watched as he strode past each of them and slapped each one on the face!

This event raises several concerns, both about the application of authority in leadership and about the physical mistreatment of people, especially in a ministry context.

(TO ME that is ABUSE!!)

But I wanted to also get Chat GPT perspective

Chat stated:

Slapping as Discipline or Authority (Matthew 5:39)
Note:
Read this very carefully not to miscontrue that Jesus would condone this. He would not!
- Matthew 5:39 (KJV): “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”Jesus’ teaching here is about non-retaliation and mercy.
- But The physical act of slapping someone in the face as a form of correction or authority contradicts the spirit of this passage.
- Christ, who embodies perfect leadership, did not use physical force to assert His authority,even when He was wronged.
- Slapping someone as a display of authority seems to be more about humiliation or control rather than genuine correction or discipline.
- Comment: The Apostle’s behavior in this situation is problematic.
- Rather than reflecting the humility and self-control demonstrated by Jesus, this physical action appears to be an abuse of authority.
- ++++ Leaders in the body of Christ are called to lead with gentleness,++++
Servant Leadership (Matthew 20:25-28)
- Matthew 20:25-28 (NIV): “Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.'”
- True authority in the church is about serving others, not exerting power over them.
- ***TD Says: “There No Bible GALATIANS 6:1 Taveau hastens to mentions Humble, face to face, in private meek confrontation Galatians 6:1) (which is unheard of these easy days,
- The Apostle in this scenario seems to be demonstrating a domineering authority, one that is far from servant leadership.
- POINT:If a leader feels the need to slap their staff in the name of leadership, it demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of what true leadership in Christ looks like.
- TD SAYS : it’s more like a slave master and his slaves, for he treats them like chattel, his property
- True leadership in the body of Christ involves service, sacrifice, and lifting others up, not using fear or physical force to control them.
The Role of Correction (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV): “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
- While correction is necessary in Christian leadership, it should always be done with respect, care, and a desire for the person to grow spiritually.
- ***Physical violence or aggression should never be part of a biblical corrective process.
- Comment: This form of correction—physical violence—appears to be an extreme and unbiblical way of trying to assert authority.
- True correction should come from a place of love and should aim to build up, not tear down or instill fear.
Violence and Authority (Romans 13:1-2)
- Romans 13:1-2 (NIV): “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
- While this passage speaks to submitting to authority, it’s important to note that God’s authority is not one of abuse or oppression. Leadership that uses violence or control is not in alignment with God’s righteous and just authority.
- (Understatement) An abuse of authority, such as slapping, is not the kind of leadership that Scripture promotes. It could be argued that such behavior does not reflect the godly authority that is meant to be exercised in the church
- THE ABOVE WAS “TOP DOWN AUTHORITY TYPE OF CHURCH”

The Pitfall of Emulation and People-Pleasing in Top-Down Church Culture

1. The Root: Idolatry of Leadership and Gifts

In 1 Corinthians 1:12–13, Paul warns:

“Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?” (KJV)

When spiritual authority becomes personality-driven, it breeds a culture of celebrity, rivalry, and division. Instead of following Christ, people subconsciously begin following brands, personalities, or platforms.

This turns worship into performance, and calling into comparison.

2. The Environment: Top-Down Structures Invite Competition

In rigid top-down systems, people strive to please “upward” rather than grow inward in Christ. This creates:

Fear of man (Proverbs 29:25)
Performance-based value
Jealousy and striving for positions or recognition
Imitation without transformation

Galatians 1:10:

“For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

3. The Warning: Wannabe-ism vs. Real Identity

Paul also says in 2 Corinthians 10:12:

“For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.”

In top-down church cultures, “wannabe-ism” becomes the norm—where people subconsciously believe that becoming someone else’s clone is the way to succeed spiritually. This produces:

Burnout
Inauthenticity
Resentment toward others who are “chosen”
And often, abandonment of one’s true calling

4. God’s True Design: Body Unity, Not Celebrity

The First Church in Acts functioned with many gifts, many leaders, no celebrity, and mutual submission (Eph. 5:21). Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 12 that every part of the body is vital, not just the “platform people.”

Jesus taught us to take the lowest seat (Luke 14:10), and the greatest among you shall be your servant (Matthew 23:11).

Kingdom Culture vs. Church Culture

Kingdom Culture	Top-Down Church Culture
Identity in Christ	Identity in position/title
Many voices, many gifts	One voice, one celebrity
Servant leadership	Platform performance
Spirit-led worship	People-pleasing worship
True unity	Tribal loyalty (“I am of Apollos…”)

Final Word to All Top Leaders

Stop letting people use your name as a weapon of false alignment, gender bias, or elitist gatekeeping. If you truly represent Christ, then represent Him in the meekness, wisdom, and purity of James 3:17:

“The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.”

Part 2 “When Government Replaces Relationship: A Warning to Modern Apostolic and Prophetic Movements”

There is a fine line between order and control, between being led by the Holy Spirit and being ruled by a spirit of domination masked as divine authority. In many prophetic and fine arts worship circles—especially those operating under an apostolic-government model—there is increasing evidence that government and hierarchy have replaced relationship, humility, and holy reverence.

This is not merely about worship style, ethnicity, or structure—it is about the fruit.

1. Jesus Did Not Build a Tyranny—He Built a Family

Jesus never created a top-down empire. He didn’t police who could follow Him or require submission to a human chain of command. In fact, He rebuked His disciples for arguing over who was the greatest (Luke 22:24–27). He said:

“The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matthew 23:11–12)

In contrast, today’s apostolic-prophetic fine arts groups often mirror an empire model—led by turf-guarding patriarchal figures, surrounded by hand-picked loyalists trained to spot, size up, and spiritually read outsiders.

This is not the First Church. It is not Christlike.

2. False Fruit: Reading People from Afar Without Relationship

Prophetic gifting is not permission to profile. Spiritual discernment is not “remote reading” or assumption without fruit inspection.

“By their fruits you shall know them.” (Matthew 7:16)

What is the fruit of a culture where new people—especially women, especially expats, especially those not raised in the patriarchal structure—are watched, judged, whispered about, and pre-labeled as rebellious, Jezebel, unsubmitted, or unsafe, without any personal relationship, hospitality, or conversation?

That is not prophetic. That is spiritual abuse.

Paul never taught to guard a movement through profiling. He taught to guard it through sound doctrine, humble example, fruit inspection, and correction in love (Galatians 6:1).

3. The Spirit of Sectarianism Is at Work

“Every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:12–13)

This kind of turf-protecting hierarchy is sectarianism cloaked in apostolic language. The ministry becomes a protected club—guarding its brand, aesthetic, and prophetic flow—rather than a house of prayer for all people (Isaiah 56:7).

The danger is this: once a community or leadership group becomes more interested in preserving its own kind and flow, it will begin to exclude the parts of Christ’s Body that don’t fit the mold. In doing so, it warps into a self-replicating system that teaches loyalty to leaders over obedience to Christ.

This opens the door to a cult-like spirit.

4. No Respecter of Persons: The Apostle Paul’s Example

Paul’s ministry was not culturally biased, turf-driven, or gender-shaming. He confronted legalism, Judaizers, and even Peter—when Peter showed partiality toward one group over another (Galatians 2:11–14).

Paul taught:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

So when you walk into a fine arts or prophetic space and you’re greeted by profiling glances, whispered accusations, and unspoken requirements to “submit” to unknown leaders, you are not encountering Pauline Christianity—you are encountering a counterfeit authority that has replaced Christ with control.

5. Hospitality Is the Test

Hebrews 13:2 says, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

Where there is no hospitality, no basic kindness, no curiosity about a person’s story or walk with Christ, there is no fear of the Lord. A ministry that trains its people to fear outsiders more than they love them has already fallen into religious captivity.

Final Warning to Leaders and Gatekeepers

If you lift up a governmental system where all must be under your brand or covering to be blessed, then those under your name will go out and abuse others in your name. And you will be held accountable—not just for your actions, but for the culture you built.

The Holy Spirit is not bound to your turf, title, race, gender, or model. God is searching for those who worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24)—not those who guard a mountain of religious performance or patriarchal tradition.

Conclusion: The Call Back to the First Church

We need to return to the Acts model—where the focus was fellowship, teaching, breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42), not dominance, hierarchy, or spiritual image-building.

If we want revival, it must start with repentance: for profiling, partiality, cultic behavior, and blocking the Lord from moving among all people.

This is not a call to rebellion. It is a call to Christlikeness.

Concerning Catholicism

Purpose as it historically emerged …during First Church evolution also it’s expansion and as Roman and Greek , more authoritarian ,system, hierarchal and an imperical culture got into the Ephesians 5:21 “servant leader” church.

TD asks Chat GPT AI

Please compare the Catholic Church to the First Church model in the New Testament, focusing on authority, leadership, and spiritual government in a clear, respectful, and biblical tone:

The First Church model was deeply relational, community-oriented, and Spirit-governed, not controlled by a centralized human authority. While the Catholic Church holds to many beautiful traditions and historical continuity, its government structure diverged over centuries from the simplicity and servant-hearted nature of the New Testament church.

Chat GPT answers

First Church vs. Catholic Government: A Biblical Look at Authority

In today’s spiritual climate, authority and government in the Church have become major talking points—especially in light of hierarchical systems that seem to mirror man-made kingdoms more than the servant-hearted model of Jesus. One historic example is the Roman Catholic Church, which has shaped much of Western Christianity.

Sister TD asks:
How does the Catholic Church ” structure” line up with the First Church of the Book of Acts and the teachings of Jesus and Paul?

Chat GPT says:

Let’s go line by line:

1. Who Is the Head of the Church?

The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ—Christ’s representative on earth—and that he holds supreme authority over all Christians. This office is rooted in a belief that Peter was the first Pope and that this authority has passed down in an unbroken line.

But the Bible teaches:

“And He [God] put all things under His [Christ’s] feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body.”
— Ephesians 1:22–23

In the First Church, Jesus was the only Head, and no human held a permanent, supreme role over all others. The apostles were servants, not monarchs. Even Peter—although respected—was rebuked publicly by Paul when he acted out of step with the gospel (Galatians 2:11–14).

2. How Was the Church Governed?

The Catholic Church has a clear hierarchy: Pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, and laity, with all spiritual authority flowing top-down from Rome.

By contrast, the First Church was Spirit-led and community-based. Authority was shared among elders, apostles, and local leadership. Decisions were made through prayer, Scripture, and group consensus, not dictated from a throne.

“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
— Acts 15:28, after the Jerusalem Council.

There was no centralized earthly headquarters, no emperor-like bishop. Leadership was relational, humble, and accountable.

3. What Role Did Tradition Play?

The Catholic Church holds that Sacred Tradition, alongside Scripture and the Magisterium, guides truth and doctrine.

But Paul warned:

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
— Colossians 2:8

The First Church relied on the Scriptures, the leading of the Holy Spirit, and apostolic teaching rooted in Christ—not man-made religious customs.

4. Was the Church Clergy-Driven or People-Filled?

Catholic liturgy is led by ordained clergy who administer sacraments and function as spiritual mediators.

But the Bible calls all believers:

“A royal priesthood, a holy nation…”
— 1 Peter 2:9

In Acts, gatherings were often participatory. Prophecy, teaching, prayer, and even correction happened in fellowship, not through strict performance or control. Everyone had a role, not just the priests.

5. How Was Correction Handled?

The Catholic model places final correction within its top structure—often behind closed doors. Historically, that has allowed abuse and doctrinal error to go unchecked.

In contrast, Paul instructed:

“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.”
— 1 Corinthians 14:29

And when Peter acted wrongly, Paul corrected him openly, out of love and alignment with the gospel (Galatians 2).

In Summary…

Category	Catholic Church	First Church (Acts + Epistles)
Head of Church	Pope	Jesus Christ
Authority	Top-down hierarchy	Servant leaders, shared
Decision-Making	Rome/Vatican	Local, Spirit-led councils
Role of Believers	Clergy vs. laity	Every believer active
Correction	Hierarchical, internal	Peer-based, relational

Final Thoughts: A Return to the Biblical Blueprint

This isn’t to bash Catholics—many love Jesus, do good works, and live lives of sincere devotion. But as we look to reform the Body of Christ today, we must hold every system—charismatic, Catholic, apostolic, denominational—up to the light of Scripture.

Jesus modeled servanthood.

Paul modeled teamwork and accountability.

The First Church modeled mutual respect, shared leadership, and community decision-making.

Let’s return to that—not hierarchy for hierarchy’s sake, but Holy Spirit-led relationship, respect, and true Kingdom fruit.

The Legalistic LP Spirit Filled Authority Moves

The Shepherding Movement, emerging in the 1970s, significantly influenced charismatic Christian circles, emphasizing authority, submission, and discipleship. This analysis explores its origins, compares its practices to biblical teachings, examines its treatment of women, and assesses its connections to other movements and historical events.

Origins and Practices of the Shepherding Movement

Initiated by five prominent leaders—Charles Simpson, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Don Basham, and Ern Baxter—the Shepherding Movement sought to address perceived shortcomings in contemporary Christian discipleship. They established Christian Growth Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and disseminated their teachings through New Wine magazine, which, at its peak, reached over 140 nations . The movement advocated for believers to submit to personal pastors or “shepherds” for spiritual guidance, aiming to foster accountability and spiritual growth.Wikipedia+1Pentecostal Theology+1Everything Explained Today+5Christianity Today+5CSM+5

Comparison with Biblical Teachings and the Early Church

In the New Testament, leadership within the church is characterized by servant leadership and mutual submission. Jesus emphasized servanthood among leaders (Matthew 23:11), and the Apostle Paul highlighted collaborative decision-making among elders and apostles (Acts 15). The Shepherding Movement’s hierarchical structure, which placed significant authority in individual leaders, contrasts with this model, potentially leading to authoritarianism and diminishing the priesthood of all believers .GotQuestions.org

Treatment of Women and Issues of Control

The Shepherding Movement’s emphasis on authority and submission often extended to strict gender roles, with women expected to submit not only to church leaders but also to male authority figures within their families. This approach has been criticized for fostering environments where women may experience spiritual abuse and marginalization, conflicting with biblical teachings that affirm the equal value and gifting of all believers, regardless of gender (Galatians 3:28).

Connections to Other Movements

The Shepherding Movement shares similarities with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), particularly in its emphasis on apostolic authority and governance. Both movements advocate for a restored five-fold ministry, including apostles and prophets, and emphasize hierarchical leadership structures . However, the NAR extends these concepts further, promoting the idea of apostles exerting authority over societal domains, a concept less emphasized in the Shepherding Movement.

Historical Parallels and Cultural Context

While direct historical links between the Shepherding Movement and events like the Salem Witch Trials or the Malleus Maleficarum are tenuous, thematic parallels exist in the use of religious authority to control and marginalize, particularly women. The Malleus Maleficarum, a 15th-century treatise, fueled witch hunts by promoting the persecution of women accused of witchcraft . Similarly, the Salem Witch Trials involved the suppression and punishment of individuals, predominantly women, based on dubious spiritual accusations.Malorie’s Adventures

In certain rural American contexts, such as the Appalachian regions, religious movements have at times exhibited authoritarian tendencies, with leaders exerting significant control over congregants and emphasizing strict adherence to particular interpretations of scripture. While not directly connected to the Shepherding Movement, these instances reflect broader patterns of hierarchical control and the marginalization of dissenting voices, especially women, within religious communities.

Conclusion

The Shepherding Movement’s focus on authority and submission, while aiming to promote spiritual growth, often led to practices that conflicted with the New Testament’s emphasis on servant leadership and mutual respect among believers. Its approach to gender roles and control has been critiqued for fostering environments susceptible to spiritual abuse. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for contemporary Christian communities to cultivate leadership models that reflect biblical principles of humility, equality, and service.

Senior Apostolic NAR

The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is a movement within certain Christian circles that emphasizes the restoration of the roles of apostles and prophets in contemporary church governance. This movement advocates for a hierarchical structure where apostles and prophets hold significant authority over church affairs and cultural domains.

Key Characteristics of the NAR Movement:

Apostolic Authority: NAR proponents believe that modern-day apostles are endowed with divine authority to lead and govern the church, a role they assert was lost and is now being restored.
Prophetic Revelation: The movement places a strong emphasis on contemporary prophets who are believed to receive new revelations from God, guiding the church’s direction and strategies.
Dominionism: NAR teaches that the church is mandated to exert influence over various societal spheres, often referred to as the “Seven Mountains,” which include government, education, media, arts and entertainment, religion, family, and business. Wikipedia
Spiritual Warfare and Mapping: Practices such as identifying and confronting territorial spirits through “spiritual mapping” are employed, aiming to reclaim regions perceived to be under demonic influence. Wikipedia

Concerns Raised:

Critics have expressed apprehensions regarding the NAR’s approach:

Hierarchical Control: The concentration of power in the hands of self-appointed apostles and prophets can lead to authoritarian leadership styles, potentially stifling individual freedoms and promoting a culture of control. GotQuestions.org
Elitism and Exclusivity: The belief in exclusive divine revelation can foster an elitist mindset, where those outside the movement or its specific teachings are viewed as inferior or lacking spiritual insight.
Psychological and Spiritual Manipulation: Emphasis on submission to leadership and the pursuit of dominion over societal spheres may lead to practices where individuals are unduly scrutinized, leading to potential spiritual abuse and psychological harm.

Apostle Paul’s Teachings on Church Leadership:

Contrasting the NAR’s hierarchical model, the Apostle Paul’s epistles advocate for a leadership style rooted in servanthood, mutual respect, and humility:

Servant Leadership: Paul emphasizes that leaders should serve others selflessly, modeling their conduct after Christ’s humility.
Equality in Christ: He underscores the unity and equality of all believers, irrespective of social or cultural distinctions.
Mutual Submission: Paul encourages believers to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, promoting a community where authority is exercised with love and respect.

In light of these teachings, it’s imperative for church communities to critically assess leadership structures and practices, ensuring they align with biblical principles that prioritize humility, mutual respect, and the collective edification of the body of Christ.

The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and teachings like “Apostles in the Gates of the City” promote a hierarchical, governmental view of Christian leadership that often conflicts with the model of servant leadership, mutual submission, and community taught by Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul, and the First Church in the New Testament.

Sister Taveau asks Chat GPT AI

Please compare all of the above to Christ, First Church, Original Apostles, St Paul

Chat GPT responds:

1. Jesus’ Model of Leadership

Matthew 23:8–12 (KJV):
“But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren… He that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased…”
John 13:14–15: Jesus washed His disciples’ feet, modeling servant leadership, not domination or control.

Contrast with NAR:

NAR promotes apostolic offices as high-ranking rulers with city-wide jurisdiction and dominion, often elevating leaders above others—opposite of Christ’s humble, relational approach.

2. Paul’s View of Apostleship and Church Leadership

1 Corinthians 3:4–9:
“For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?… We are labourers together with God…”
Paul warned against celebrity-style loyalties or hierarchical divisions.
2 Corinthians 1:24:
“Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy…”
Paul never claimed control over people’s faith but saw himself as a servant and helper.

Contrast with NAR:

NAR teachings often assert apostles over cities or territories, which risks creating elite ruling classes in the church—far from Paul’s humble co-laboring tone.

3. First Church in Acts

Acts 2:42–47: Believers had all things in common, fellowshipped daily, and shared leadership among apostles and elders—not a top-down hierarchy.
Acts 15 (Jerusalem Council): Church decisions were made by collaboration and mutual respect, not by a single apostle or dominant figure.

Contrast with NAR:

The NAR’s “apostolic government” can resemble spiritual authoritarianism, often disconnected from personal relationship or local accountability, contrary to the organic, respectful cooperation seen in Acts.

4. Biblical “Gates of the City” Concept

In Scripture, “gates” symbolized places of judgment, wisdom, and community decisions (e.g., Ruth 4:1, Proverbs 31:23).
Jesus in Matthew 16:18–19 gave all believers keys of the Kingdom—not just to apostles—to bind and loose in agreement with heaven.

NAR Misuse:

NAR teachings sometimes assign apostolic rulers as spiritual gatekeepers who dominate a city, which can spiritually intimidate or alienate others—especially those not “under” their authority.

Conclusion:

The NAR’s top-down, government-based authority model is often:

Out of step with Jesus’ servant leadership
Opposed to Paul’s emphasis on co-laboring and humility
Contrary to the shared, respectful leadership of the early church
At risk of promoting elitism, spiritual intimidation, and division

Instead, the New Testament church was relational, Spirit-led, grounded in mutual submission and equality in Christ—not dominated by a special tier of apostles.

In Closing:

It’s important to note that while the doctrine of spiritual covering is practiced in various ministries, it has been subject to debate. Critics argue that it can lead to authoritarian abuse and emphasize that, biblically, each person is ultimately accountable to God.

The practice of spiritual covering is not confined to any particular racial or ethnic group; it spans across diverse communities within the Christian faith.

And human personalities and spiritual beliefs different between Christian movements, even WELP so we make not stereotypes, rather we watch out for each and every person!

Many are true, some are false, but one never knows UNTIL they exact leader and ministry moment,

More later.

Post Views: 61

Discover more from PURPOSE OF THIS MINISTRY AI + I SITE

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.