Pastor Scott Markle

The devil hates and wants to destroy the family. Feminism, Femininization of men, masculinization of women, domination by women, open disrespect and vilification of men by society, abuse of women and children, our education system, government and our judicial system are all part of the many ploys and avenues the devil uses to destroy the family. Destroying God's order at the very basic level, in the home, I think is the most devastating. But he even works in churches; not just by the teaching of the wrong things, but failing to teach some of the right things. (1 Peter 4:17)

If she was teaching a class to other women and/children (or teens), that is okay - but not if she was teaching a class with men in it.
This is referring to a political leader specifically, but when women and children lead a country, it is a sign of judgement of God on that nation.
Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Having posted above, my ponderings on the matter continued.  Thus I present some further thoughts:
We often teach our men that some of the most important phrases for a happy home are - Yes, dear; I was wrong, dear; whatever you want, dear. Then we wonder why we have no male leadership in our homes.
We say things like - Happy wife, happy life.  But is this universally true.  What if making my wife happy makes my God unhappy?  Will that result in a happy life?  Well, it might in the short term; but it definitely will not in the long term.  Adam made his wife "happy" when he chose to eat the fruit with her.  Did it result in a "happy life?"  Not for him, nor for the rest humanity either.  Abraham made his wife "happy" when he took her advise to beget a child by Hagar.  Did it result in a "happy life?"  Not really for him, for her, or for the Middle East unto the present day.  

The picture that you imply with your comments about "a husband who chooses not to lead" seems to be that he is not moving forward at all and/or that he has no agenda of any kind whatsoever at all.  Yet these things are simply not a reality in human existence.  The husband in your scenario above may not "take" the leadership, may not administer leadership, may not show strength of leadership; but it is likely that he does have some form of personal agenda (even if he never directly communicates it) and does move forward in life in some manner.  Now, if he moves forward in life at all, then a wife can indeed follow him simply by waiting for his next step forward and then stepping in behind.
However, for many wives the husband's agenda simply does not fit with her agenda, so she dominates over his agenda with her own, until his agenda simply becomes to "keep his wife happy, to do whatever she wants." Indeed, for many wives the husband moves forward more slowly than she prefers or in a different direction than she prefers, thus she excuses her dominance over him by simply claiming that he is not leading aright; and since he is not a "strong" leader, he simply steps in behind her and follows her.
 

I would simply say -- The husband is the "head" of his wife in the same manner that Christ is the "Head" of the church.  However that might apply for Christ in relation to the church must have a similar application for the husband in relation to his wife.  So, is Christ just a "spiritual leader" for the church; or is Christ the "boss" of the church?

Paul was a missionary and a church planter - yet he still was sent out from the Antioch church, like church planters and missionaries today. Not sure why such a “great and wise Bible teacher” as yourself is so blind he cannot see or acknowledge that basic fact. Maybe you are too puffed up by your supposed knowledge.
1 Corinthians 8:1b Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

I rarely post here now, but someone who makes out that he knows everything but makes such a basic, simple mistake, warrants a post. A Single Post.
Act 11:25-26
(25)  Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
(26)  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Saul was a the church at Antioch for a full year.
From there they went to the church at Jerusalem.
Then they returned from Jerusalem 
Act 12:25
(25)  And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

They returned... to Antioch.
Where Saul (Paul) was in the church at Antioch and named as one of the preachers.
Act 13:1
(1)  Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Then Barnabas and Saul were sent out from...... Antioch.
Act 13:2-3
(2)  As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
(3)  And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
So Barnabas and Saul went out and started a whole bunch of churches, and eventually returned to..... Antioch.
Act 14:26-28
(26)  And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.
(27)  And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
(28)  And there they abode long time with the disciples.
 
After a time - actually a "long time" at Antioch, they had reason to go to the church at Jerusalem:
Act 15:2-3
(2)  When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
(3)  And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
And they were "brought on their way by the church" - would this be the church at Antioch that sent them to Jerusalem to figure out the doctrinal issues that had come to their attention? The church that Barnabas and Saul were a part of apparently?
 
After all had a good chat, the church at Jerusalem sent Barnabas and Saul - and a few new mates - back to..... Antioch! of all places....
Then, after they had been back at the church in Antioch for a while, Barnabas and Paul decided to head out and see how the churches they started before were going.
Act 15:35-40
(35)  Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
(36)  And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
(37)  And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
(38)  But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
(39)  And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
(40)  And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
Now of course, Barnabas and Saul had a disagreement, and decided to make two separate journeys, and this time Silas went with Paul - and note that they were recommended by the Brethren - which brethren are we speaking about specifically? I think that would be the brethren at the church of ANTIOCH.
Even after this, Paul dropped back in to Antioch:
Act 18:22
(22)  And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.
 
The point of this is, that for someone to say that Paul had no "home church" shows either an extraordinary ignorance of the book of Acts, or a wilful misrepresentation of the fact for their own purposes.
Of course Paul had a home church - the Church at Antioch is where he served on several occasions, it is the church from which his missionary journeys were based, and it was the church that he returned to at the end of his various missions.
To get something so obviously basic incorrect gives reason to doubt his general information.
Aside from the fact that he has misquoted verses, indicating that they are KJV when they are clearly not - this is deliberate deceit, and it shows that he knows he is required to use KJV but REFUSES to do so, showing a disrespect for both the Word of God and for this board.
And there will be no reply - I will not fuss with an argument on this board (and will likely not even check back for a week or so at best anyway. Say what you will about me - I don't care.)

I would say both.
Here's an English definition taken from https://www.etymonline.com/
 head (n.)
Old English heafod "top of the body," also "upper end of a slope," also "chief person, leader, ruler; capital city," from Proto-Germanic *haubid (source also of Old Saxon hobid, Old Norse hofuð, Old Frisian haved, Middle Dutch hovet, Dutch hoofd, Old High German houbit, German Haupt, Gothic haubiþ "head"), from PIE root *kaput- "head."   Physically, your "head" is the part which receives all information from the physical world. It takes in sights, sounds, smells etc. processes the information and makes decisions accordingly. It communicates decisions to the rest of the body and to the physical world and controls what the rest of the body does. But the head loves the rest of the body.  For example, the head loves that hand so much that if it ever, like, accidentally causes one hand to hit the thumb on the other hand with a hammer, the head is immediately going to experience the pain and go into action to assess the damage. The head, though it made a terrible mistake, still loves and cares for that hand/thumb and immediately begins to nurture that thumb/hand as best it can. So, even though the head is the "leader" and the "boss", it needs the rest of the body to survive, and it treats the rest of it's body with the utmost care and attention. The "hand", though intensely loved and appreciated by the head, is still "in subjection" to the head, goes where the head tells it, and obeys all communication from it. I mean, all parts of the body are just as important, but only one part can be "the head". I don't know...was that a good analogy? Thoughts?   Ephesians 5:
20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
   

I would simply say -- The husband is the "head" of his wife in the same manner that Christ is the "Head" of the church.  However that might apply for Christ in relation to the church must have a similar application for the husband in relation to his wife.  So, is Christ just a "spiritual leader" for the church; or is Christ the "boss" of the church?

Genesis 6 is the summary of the more specific events in Genesis 4 and 5. 
In Genesis 4 it says Cain and "Lamech" killed people and Lamech took "two wives". This zeros in on the fact that men were committing polygamy and murder. Jesus even stated that "in the days before the flood" they were "marrying and giving in marriage". Genesis 6 sums it up saying they were "taking wives of all" and the earth was filled with violence". At the end of Genesis 4 it says that when Seth's son "Enos" was born, "men began to call upon the name of the Lord". Subsequently, the men who did so became "sons of God" by faith. Those men of faith are then NAMED in Genesis 5 and these same men are also named in the lineage of Christ in the Book of Luke. All those in the lineage of Christ were believers/saved people. Genesis 6 sums it all up referring to them as "sons of God" "taking wives of all"
So, where these saved people went wrong, however, is by participating in the polygamy and marrying for beauty instead of spirituality and character.  So when they did so, and lived for hundreds of years, each "son of God" witnessed his "Seth" family lineage grow into a superpower within his own lifetime. They all would have been "mighty men" by sheer population, by wealth, by military strength, and by political alliances(the giving in marriage thing). They were conforming to the world. The "giants" were simply big warriors like the ones in the land of Canaan and nothing more. In a world without machine guns or other high-tech weapons, size was an important factor in hand to hand combat.. Hence, "giants" were to be feared. Angels are not mentioned in this story of Genesis 4. 5, or 6.

The Bible refers to them as Magi, which in it's literal form is talking about men who read the stars. The magi, as a widespread group, were often advisers of kings, linked to royalty in other ways, and oftimes were politically active. They were also considered wise men (Daniel and his three friends were wise men, added to the magi of the king...actually a commonplace occurrence in that part of the world - the east - at that time).  Point of fact that is interesting: in Esther 1:13,14, the king's wise men were called princes. (did you know that Baalam was referred to as a "magus" or wise man...this was in the first century,  not the Bible but is indicative of the common usage of the term in that area)
One thing that those of us with western minds don't realize is that "kings" in various places of the earth didn't necessarily mean the same thing as what we think of as kings. Example: the ancient kings of Ireland, Scotland were chieftains  - leaders of tribes. Some of them grew their influence, some didn't. So as to calling them kings - I can't find any evidence that the Catholic church renamed them kings (but, of course, the RCC uses it a lot). I don't know when or who gave them names, but I know Ben Hur names them.
Oftimes the wise men, magi, were men of money and influence, and this could have been where the title "king" came from.
But there were most likely many more people than just 3 men...in that day, it was dangerous to travel distances due to highwaymen. So most travel was done in large groups. (and did you also know that it was likely Arabian horses they rode rather than camels? 😁 ). It's quite likely that there were a number of magi, their servants, and their pack animals carrying the necessary rations, the gifts, etc. When they entered Jerusalem, the Bible tells us that the city was troubled along with Herod. Were they simply three men who came to see the king, it's not likely the whole city would have heard about their search for the one born king of the Jews. 
Also, most folks say that the wise men followed the star from the east to Bethlehem. But they didn't...the Bible clearly tells us they saw the star in the East...they knew a king was born (remember they studied the stars - and it is believed by many that these men knew of the prophecy of the Scetpre that would rise out of Judah - a very special king of the Jews) and they came to the place they believed the king of the Jews would be born, the common sense place: Jerusalem. The Bible then tells us that when they left Jerusalem to head to Bethlehem they saw the star again. And THEN is when it led them to Jesus.
Lots of interesting tidbits that have been re-invented about the entire birth of Christ. A study of OT prophecy of the coming Messiah and the NT verses about His birth can really clear up confusion, though. And I think it's a fascinating study.
And since the wise men were not at the birth, we don't include them in any nativity scene.

Agreed. Maybe one of those matters wherein we simply ought not be busy bodies in other church's matters.

Ha! I am a pastor, and I am willing to say that I have my own assigned parking space. The parsonage is on the church grounds, and my assigned parking space is in my garage (since I just walk to the church building).
By the way, why is it a problem for the pastor to have an assigned parking space. Consider 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 -- "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake. And be at peace among yourselves."  If the church body itself decides to grant an assigned parking space to the pastor, this does not seem from my perspective to be outside the boundaries of esteeming him very highly in love.

Ha! I am a pastor, and I am willing to say that I have my own assigned parking space. The parsonage is on the church grounds, and my assigned parking space is in my garage (since I just walk to the church building).
By the way, why is it a problem for the pastor to have an assigned parking space. Consider 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 -- "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake. And be at peace among yourselves."  If the church body itself decides to grant an assigned parking space to the pastor, this does not seem from my perspective to be outside the boundaries of esteeming him very highly in love.

Agreed. Maybe one of those matters wherein we simply ought not be busy bodies in other church's matters.

Ha! I am a pastor, and I am willing to say that I have my own assigned parking space. The parsonage is on the church grounds, and my assigned parking space is in my garage (since I just walk to the church building).
By the way, why is it a problem for the pastor to have an assigned parking space. Consider 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 -- "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake. And be at peace among yourselves."  If the church body itself decides to grant an assigned parking space to the pastor, this does not seem from my perspective to be outside the boundaries of esteeming him very highly in love.

Ha! I am a pastor, and I am willing to say that I have my own assigned parking space. The parsonage is on the church grounds, and my assigned parking space is in my garage (since I just walk to the church building).
By the way, why is it a problem for the pastor to have an assigned parking space. Consider 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 -- "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake. And be at peace among yourselves."  If the church body itself decides to grant an assigned parking space to the pastor, this does not seem from my perspective to be outside the boundaries of esteeming him very highly in love.

Spiritual fact: Disobedience to God is NEVER the right choice.

Then said Christians need to find a better church. Not stop giving. 

if churches don't manage their money well, the members ought to do something about it...not quit giving, but hold the pastor accountable for how the money is spent. There are times a new church sign is necessary (we would LOVE to have a permanent sign, but we cannot because of where we meet...bureaucratic red tape). There are times a new roof is necessary. Or a new building. Those are all necessary parts of having a local church building. I would be more concerned about other spending issues than a new sign, end times or not. We are to occupy til He comes and signage is a part of that for a church.

At the present time I am of the impression that Isaiah 28:9-13 presents BOTH the positive AND negative sides to the "precept upon precept, line upon line" teaching approach.  In verses 9-10 we find the value of this teaching approach, especially when instructing babes/beginners.  Indeed, with verse 11 the Lord announces His intention to employ this teaching approach toward Israel by means of foreign language speaking.  On the other hand, in verses 12-13 we find the drudgery of this teaching approach for those who are rebelliously resistant and wise in their own eyes.  Even so, this teaching method would result in their fall and destruction.
As such, the teaching approach of "precept upon precept, line upon line" is not so much about comparing truth to truth in order to discern the validity of the first truth, but is about building truth upon truth in order to grow in spiritual wisdom thereby.  However, for those who possess a rebellious heart, this teaching approach will be viewed as utter drudgery.  It will not be fast enough or "flashy" enough for their taste, primarily because it will be contrary to their heart's desires.

Also, it is worth noting that some modern versions change the passage to make the phrase nonsensical - ie. Isaiah playing with words to mock those he is speaking to (either by changing the wording or by including a note stating this). That obscures what the passage is actually about (studying and understanding the Word of God), and literally taking the passage and making it of none effect to those who read it).
Through the years, I have noticed that many Christians who go offtrack or who arrive at really weird conclusions on Bible issues have never taken the time to actually study out (ie. trace out) a doctrine, principle, word, etc. through the whole Bible - they have never read or included all the related passages in their conclusion; therefore, having an opinion/view/belief that actually contradicts some other parts of the Word of God. I am not saying I have arrived yet - BUT if I come across a passage or realize I have a belief or understanding of some issue or passage in the Bible that seems to contradict or not take into account other passages, I do not rest until I can figure it out, or at the least realize I do not have all the pieces of the puzzle, and file the pieces I do have in the back of my mind, while over time paying attention to what I do eventually find on that issue, then adjust my position accordingly.
Of course, James 1:5 is essential to understanding the Bible.

At the present time I am of the impression that Isaiah 28:9-13 presents BOTH the positive AND negative sides to the "precept upon precept, line upon line" teaching approach.  In verses 9-10 we find the value of this teaching approach, especially when instructing babes/beginners.  Indeed, with verse 11 the Lord announces His intention to employ this teaching approach toward Israel by means of foreign language speaking.  On the other hand, in verses 12-13 we find the drudgery of this teaching approach for those who are rebelliously resistant and wise in their own eyes.  Even so, this teaching method would result in their fall and destruction.
As such, the teaching approach of "precept upon precept, line upon line" is not so much about comparing truth to truth in order to discern the validity of the first truth, but is about building truth upon truth in order to grow in spiritual wisdom thereby.  However, for those who possess a rebellious heart, this teaching approach will be viewed as utter drudgery.  It will not be fast enough or "flashy" enough for their taste, primarily because it will be contrary to their heart's desires.

Put that old friend on the bookshelf and visit it every so often.

That was posted on facebook by a dear friend of mine.
Actually, no, it wasn't offensive at all. You're in a church setting, saying things you know most of your hearers agree with and everybody clapped at the end. But I can tell you how to make it offensive. Define the "nuclear family" with the man as the "head", like the King James does, and by all means relate his roles as "loving his wife", "giving himself" and "providing" like the King James does. Then don't stop short like you just did. Define the wife as being "subject" and her role as "submitting" and "obeying". I wonder of they would clap for you then? And just so everyone knows, I treasure my Wife and don't treat her like a "doormat".  But many pastors treat their men like "doormats" while getting lots of admiration from some of the ladies. I wonder about such men. Maybe many are just simply afraid to proclaim the whole counsel of God?
Ephesians 5[22] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
"Nuclear families" have long been and are being destroyed because everything is out of order.