so so Hey, everyone. I'm Adam Lafferty. I'm Sarah. I'm Matthew. And I'm Larry Lafferty. And this is the Firm Foundations podcast, episode six. Matthew, if you'd lead us to a word of prayer to begin. Heavenly Father, we thank you for the opportunity you've given us, Lord, to have this time together to discuss the things of your word, Lord, and on separation and the truths that that holds in your word, Lord. We ask that you Blessings that goes out on the internet, Lord, that it might find a lodging place in people's ears and their hearts, Lord. We ask that you just help us to keep focused on you, and that our discussions might be biblical and pleasing to you. And we ask these things in your name. Amen. Amen. Brother Larry's going to bring us our verse of the week. All right. First Timothy chapter 2 verses 9 and 10, And like manner also that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array, but that which becometh women, professing godliness with good works. Yeah, and based on our verse of the week, we are going to be discussing Separation but specifically today we're going to be taking a couple of different topics And the first one that is sort of discussed in our verse the week is dress We're also going to discuss hair hair length and the head covering and we're also going to discuss the The headship order of the home and we may not do it in that order or in that order But first we're going to tackle dress before we get started I do want to make mention for everybody that's listening if you can And you are subscribed to the podcast in some way and there's a way to make to write a review on the podcast If you could review the podcast, and if we can get several good reviews, we can be moved more up in the search engines. If people search for Firm Foundations, and we have several good reviews, we'll move up to the top, and we'll get more exposure, and more people will be able to hear about what we're talking about here, which, of course, is a very good thing. So, if you have an iPhone or an iDevice and you're subscribed to iTunes, you can review on there. If you're subscribed through some other way that does have a reviewing system, please go ahead and put that review in. Alright, to our topic, we're starting out with dress and the first question I really wanted to bring up is this, we need to define modesty because mostly what the Bible says as far as dress goes is that we need to dress modestly. So what in the definition what do you consider modest versus because some people can picture modesty is not necessarily what we think. Well I think first of all you have to look at it is it provocative and what provocative means is it provoked certain feelings, does it provoke a man to lust? That's what provocative means, or for that matter, does it provoke a woman to lust? And so, modesty then is the opposite of that. Alright, so what is the garment for the man and the woman? In several cultures, the garment for the man has varied over the years. the most prominent that I can think of is the Scots which a couple hundred years ago their man's garment was a pleated skirt and as far as modesty goes it wasn't an immodest garment I mean it definitely didn't provoke any feelings as far as that goes but in that light what do you think Matthew? it's always kind of it's always been kind of a delicate subject in my opinion because your first your first and almost immediate reaction to be well you know you got a you got a dress which is what is culturally acceptable acceptable for a man which i would say majority of the world now is pants but you really can't go by just cultural because and i'm sure we'll discuss it later we think it's right for a woman to wear a dress or skirt and culturally it's acceptable for them to wear So you really can't go by it culturally. I know it does mention that the priests wore britches in the scriptures. That's really the only example we have. I mean, they probably did wear a robe as you were saying. So that I really don't know. I mean, I think pants are, I think if you get into the scriptures, because it really does, there's not a whole lot of scripture clearly defining what is the right garment either way. I guess it's just, there's nothing there. It's not clear there. But the main thing that the Bible does teach is distinction between the two. And I think pants are modest for a man, and as Dad was saying, they don't invoke any kind of fleshly response from a woman most of the time. They're not too tight, I guess. So I believe that kind of sets that up as a garment for a man, and then when we go over to the woman's side, There's got to be that distinction there, and I think that's the reason a dredge is more appropriate for a woman. I agree with Matt. And you know, the verses that I read says, that which becometh a woman, that becometh meaning to be. And so there has to be, and again, it may be culturally sensitive, but even in fact, there has to be a garment that becomes a woman or displays as a woman or that wouldn't be in scripture. So there has to be a sexual difference there or certainly you wouldn't have been impressed of God to be written. I agree with both of them. And just like how the woman dresses, women should dress like women, I believe, to wear dresses and or skirts. And you know, of course some people take that and think they can wear, you know, a skirt, you know, but it's too short and you know it can provoke men to lust after you and I think you should just cover up. So y'all think that cultural acceptance does not play in that definitely it should only be pants and or skirts depending on the gender worldwide? Well that's what I was trying to say I don't think cultural the culture really has, you really can't let culture play a part into it because if you do then, I mean there's a lot of, there's things that are immodest but culturally acceptable and I mean there are pants that women wear that are looser than others that really don't reveal anything and they in some respects might be considered modest but and they're culturally acceptable so I don't think you can really take culture as, I don't know that culture can really be brought into the equation or you'll just, I mean because What is culture? Culture is just the way humans behave in a set society and people in general are sinful and they're going to go more and more in that direction. True. I will say this, that a lot of these really backwards tribes that people have come in contact with or missionaries have come in contact with, missionaries have actually been barred from some of them because when a mission group comes into an area, and these people have a certain way that they've been living, that they take away, basically the people start covering up and go away from their set culture and move toward what people would consider more Western culture, but it is more modest and more Christ-like in alignment. What the governments of these areas fear is that the Christians are robbing the culture of these tribes. When in actuality, all the tribes are doing, the people that are saved out of them, is falling in line with what the Word of God is. I think if you look at it through those eyes and that these people just naturally think, okay, well I need to cover up now because I'm a saved individual. It's pretty clearly defined what the safe soul desires to do. I agree. I think another thing, and you may be breaking this up in a little bit, Adam, but another thing that has been such a daunting issue, because almost you're seen as a ruler or a women oppressor to teach and preach these things, but people are still generally horrified at the thought of a man wearing a dress. or a man wearing a skirt. So I think the challenge is being, if one is not true, then why is the other one? And I'm not advocating men to dress like women, but why would there be a difference? And I think that that's one thing that we have to keep in mind. And when we're teaching these truths, present those things. I think it's a slip of mankind as far as what we consider Okay, because up until Rosie the Riveter, really, because I think hers is some of the first posters that actually showed a woman in a pair of breeches. Right. Up until that point, it was not really, if it wasn't just called ladylike, it was appalling for a girl to wear pants. Right. or more that has been acceptable and has become more and more acceptable. Now, the next wave of attack, as far as I think, as far as the attack of Satan, is to have people become more culturally acceptant of effeminate males. Right. And I think the first step were those skinny jeans, which I don't even get you started on those. I don't think they become a man at all and then now you have these men that dress up in female garments and we're just supposed to accept them because that's their lifestyle and that's who they want to be and I really just see it as an extension of a slip societally that we see in America. I agree totally because that's the That's the downhill directions that those decisions and those cultural norms always, always, the result is always that. What do you think wearing, and Sarah might actually be able to answer this better than some of us, what do you think that wearing pants deep down, what does it symbolize for a lady? And I have my own thoughts on it, but you may. Oh, what does it symbolize? Um, I don't really get, Like, my thought is that wearing the pants is almost like that old saying, who wears the pants in this family? I think it is a role shifter. And wearing and having the woman, even maybe not consciously, but wearing the man's garment puts a dominance role in the place of a woman. I'm not saying that women should be beat down by any any stretch of the imagination, but they are the fair sex. And God definitely, and when we get to headship, God definitely did place them in a lesser role as far as who is the leader. And I think that marrying pants may hold a more symbolism than the fact that they're just wearing a garment that's outside of their gender. Comments? Well, I mean, I agree that, uh, of course, I mean, I'm not trying to say that dress is a shady area, but almost areas that there's not clear. It's when it's not absolutely clear what is, what the Bible is teaching. Like, I mean, I know the Bible teaches separation and modest dress, but it doesn't say pants are for a man, dresses for a woman. And those kinds of areas, I think you always have to look at man because Well, if man naturally, and I'm getting, I'm going to get back around to what you were talking about in a second. But, uh, when you've got, when, uh, man is naturally going to sin if unchecked. So if you see that it's natural that men, you know, that men want to dress more effeminately or women want to dress in pants or more of a masculine role, that is obviously, I mean, I would say 90% of the time you can bet that that's sin simply because that's what man naturally wants to do. So having said that, When it comes to the woman wearing pants, I would say yes, that it probably is an expression of her wanting to leave her role as a, as the, as the, wanting to take, wanting to remove herself from her place and take the headship role in the house. And an expression of that would be the pants. And that's a natural sin decline, both in the dress and in her role in the home. And I think the pants are kind of an expression of that attempt to take over the man's role in the home. See, that's definitely what I think. I don't know how much you could read into that, but I definitely think that, I mean, usually whatever your flesh wants to rebel against, it's a pretty good idea that it's probably something that you're supposed to be doing. And man, from the beginning of time, when Adam and Eve first realized that they were naked, and they did so by eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and they realized, okay, we're naked. They did want to clothe their self, because they realized they had a shame. I mean, take it how you want to take it, but they did want to clothe their self, but their choice of clothing leave left much to be desired. I think it is in the nature of man to wear inappropriate garments. God had given them no instruction with clothes, yet they decided to make some. But even in making them, they decided to go with something that would have been hugely provocative because an apron doesn't cover up a whole lot and a fig apron probably cover even less than one made of cloth. I agree and it just shows the depravity of man and so I think that we can't rely on natural choices because our natural choices are always wrong. They're fleshly and based on the flesh most of the time. So you have to rely on spiritual examples and the example of Adam and Eve is perfect because we see from the very beginning that our choices for garments and God's choice for garments for us were completely different. Alright, any more comments about dress that anybody wants to make? All right, let's move on to our next topic. I think the next one we should go into is, since we already sort of been discussing it, is the headship order, which I believe is found in what, 1 Corinthians? 1 Corinthians 11. Yes. And that's where we learn the headship order of the home. And as Adam, you alluded to earlier, it is something that's been really under attack for about 70 years since the days of World War II anyway, and probably if not before that. And the role of the man being the head of his house is critical for a family to follow godly standards. And that's just been thrown under the bus the last few years. Alright, I did want to go ahead and read this first. If you have a Bible there with you, you can turn to 1 Corinthians chapter 11 pick up in verse three, but I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. And actually, I'm going to stop there because the next part talks about the head covering a little bit, and I don't want to step on our next topic. But it's clearly laid out there what the packing order, if you will, should be. You have God the Father at the top, you have Christ, his son below that. You have man, which I believe is a genetic male next. And then you have woman, which is a genetic female below that. And these are both humans. And the verse doesn't leave a whole lot of room for, well, it could mean this. There might be another way of looking at that. I just don't see a whole lot of that there. That being said, I don't think that women should be beat up on or put down, but the place in the home is clearly defined as a man's leader. Your word as a man is the final one. It is the one that is going to make the decision because every man is going to answer to God for his household. Your wife is not going to answer for those decisions. Your children aren't going to answer for those decisions, even though some children do run people's houses. You notice that children aren't mentioned anywhere on there, and I would give a solid guess that they're probably at the bottom of the list underneath both woman and man. children are to be subject to their parents. Well, even in the qualifications of a bishop in 1 Thessalonians, one of those qualifications is a man who ruleth his own house and having children who are obedient. And so that has to be a ruling and a contributor to that. When do y'all think that the headship order really began to fall apart as far as American society goes, because for the largest number of years as far as America goes, the headship order was held fairly intact. Well, I feel like, and we've alluded to some point that it had in the years of World War II, and probably even a little bit before that, and not to again browbeat and beat women down, Women were granted the right to vote politically in our nation in 1917, and immediately after that came the legislation that ended legal alcohol production and consumption in the United States. While that seemed like a noble effort, there was no effect because what they had hoped to do is to stop abuse of women and children and make men better providers for their household. But you can never legislate morality, and so the 17th Amendment was a complete failure because it attempted to do something that only God can do. Well, the 17th Amendment also was, I mean, like you said, they tried to legislate morality to men, and what they created was some of the most ruthless criminals to ever walk in the United States. I mean, you had Al Capone and all the gangsters of the 20s that basically came out and had the speakeasies, and all that came out of trying to legislate morality, and I don't know if Sam was, I mean, it's a valiant effort to try to do that, but I think it was Pastor Kenry that said that, he actually was talking about the Constitution, but basically, a piece of paper with writing on it is not going to hold back man's immorality and man's lusts. You can't, just because it's written somewhere, you can't tell an individual that it's going to withhold them from that, if they want it bad enough. And that's an excellent point, Adam. And carrying on with the thought of Rosie the Riveter, she went home that very same year World War I had ended, and Rosie the Riveter went home for that time. And for a mile, but you will see as the sin of the 1920s came along, we see the hemlines coming up. We see more and more women in in a bar room atmosphere and we see a continual a continued downhill run really to the 1930s with the fall of the stock market and the depression that followed and all those coming as a really a result of a woman not being in her her god-given place. Well as far as the subject of the headship order goes, I mean, as far as what the order should be, it's not a shady area of the Bible. It's very clear that man is to be leader of the home. And, you know, it's easy to jump on the women and say that they're trying to get out of their place and take over the home, which is largely true, I would say. But I think men are equally responsible because I don't know if it's so much a conscious thing as just a natural state of sin. A big part of being the head of the home, you have the responsibility of the home. Whether you guide that house right or not, you're responsible for what it does and for ultimately what is the outcome of that home. Men don't want to do that. Like I was talking about earlier, if you look at the natural process of men's sin, it's a pretty good indication of What I mean to say is, if you look at a home that's just completely falling apart, a lot of times you've got the woman going out and seeking a career which is against the scriptures, and that's what she's going to want to fleshly do, and then you've got the men wanting to sit around and do nothing, just sit around on the couch. which is completely out of their place. So, like I said, I think a lot of times women get a bad deal in this topic. Like I said, I know women get out of their place, but men equally, I think, desire to be out of their place and don't want to take responsibility for the home. Men in the 60s and the 70s really fell away from their homes too. It was basically a generation that didn't have dads. I mean, men didn't want to leave their homes or they wanted just to live riotously after fighting in the Korean Wars and then also in Vietnam. Yeah, they may have had PTSD's and of course we didn't really know what that was back then or it had a different name or something, shell shock. uh... but you know regardless uh... when they came home they they just wanted to to either live it up or not do anything at all it messes it up basically uh... soak up beer on the couch uh... at twelve hours a day while their wife went to the factory or became a business woman uh... which i think ultimately led to a lot of home breakups too because if your wife's out in the workplace and is vulnerable to different advances, you also could lead to affairs and marriages falling apart on top of all that other kind of stuff. It really doesn't work. A man's curse is to work, and by not leaving the home and not wanting to work, we're fighting every job that is assigned to males when they're born. I think that's an excellent point, and just like you said, The women were kind of left alone and what are you going to do? Watch your children starve to death or go try to find them something to eat? And not defending the women in that selection, but there's no women alive that would just intentionally walk away from their children and leave them with nothing to eat. And I think in the days following Korea and Vietnam that that was the choices the women were left with and they chose to feed their families. I agree with what all y'all said. I know there's a lot of women today that actually work and bring in all the income and like y'all said the men just sit at home and really do nothing and I think it can destroy families and destroy marriages. Is the feminist movement Is it directly aimed to bring down this ordinance that's laid out in the scriptures? I mean, I know ladies should have as many, politically, I guess, and as far as the law goes, should have as many rights as a man should, but does the feminist movement, did it specifically target basically women, quote-unquote, breaking the chains? of the man. I agree and I think that they did do that intentionally. I think that instead of, I think there was a group of women that painted the natural role of woman as oppression and it was never meant that way but when it was presented as oppression they became convinced of it and that's when they really had a formidable group to fight that. And I think that's one of the problems we have today. Susan B. Anthony, one of the first leaders of that movement. Right. Any other comments about the headship work? Alright, final topic for this podcast, and that is hair, hair length, and the head covering. Views range wildly on what the head covering should be, what it is, what it ain't. And our understanding at New Testament has even evolved, I think, a little bit because there was a time when the ladies of our church wore head coverings 24-7. And then now we believe that they're only in the church. And we're going to allow our pastor to explain a little bit of the thought there. All right. For the physical head covering, and we'll get to hair length in a minute, I hope, because I have some personal experience with that myself. But with the head covering, it is also found in 1 Corinthians 11, as Adam has mentioned, The head covering is explained as the reason in verse 10, but this calls up the woman to have power or authority on her head because of the angels. Now, if you study that word angels and the way that it's translated, it's not necessarily speaking of angelic beings, but it is speaking of ordained men, of preachers, of pastors. It's really the same word. So I feel like the external covering is out of respect for the man who's preaching. And it always typifies a woman taking on her role. And that's a lot of times why it's an unpopular doctrine, because it co-aligns and is co-joined to a woman taking her position as subject to the man. And I feel like that that is, and it's been largely overlooked as a physical covering. And again, I hope we get to the the hair in just a minute, because they're very co-joined, but the reason for external covering is because of the man that's preaching, and that's why I've come to it's just during the assembly. Now, specifically, and we can go ahead and get into the hair itself, specifically for a woman, the hair is the glory, because also in the headship order, almost back-to-back with the headship order, it says that the Glory of woman is her hair, the glory of man is the woman, the glory of Christ is the man, and the glory of God is Christ. Yes, each one below is subject, but also the glory of the person above them is themselves. and the woman's hair is her official glory. Now in covering them up during the assembly, basically she's hiding the crowning glory for full attention for the pastor? That's how I feel, exactly. They're symbolically and literally hiding their glory so the glory of the man or his shining light in the preaching will be seen and they will not rob or take in that glory for themselves so everybody can be focused on the preaching of the Word of God. And that is the teaching of an external covering for a woman. Well, one thing a lot of people say is, well, you know, we even fellowship with churches that believe like this, that the long hair is the covering for a woman. And actually, I always believed it just because that's the way I was raised. But as I got older, I started to look into it for myself and found it to be true. In 1 Corinthians 11, verse 6, it says, For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. And shorn means cut hair. So a lot of people say, well, long hair is the covering. But it doesn't say that because it says if she's not covered, let her also be shorn. So if the long hair was the covering, it wouldn't say, if she's not covered, let her also be shorn. It would say, she is uncovered because she is shorn. So there is a difference there. So that's why I think there's actually a physical covering of the hair and the hair itself is not a covering. I know that's a lot of times there's a there's a discrepancy and a disagreement there. So this begs the question to me is these ladies that come to church that have hair bobbed off very close but still wear the doily head covering what's the point? Well I mean according to scriptures it's a shame for her not to be covered But unfortunately in our day and culture, it says, you know, what it says is it's a shame for her to be uncovered as much as it's a shame for her to be shorn, but in our today's culture, it's not a shame to be shorn. So, you know, to have short hair, for a woman to have short hair, I mean, I guess there's no, in this climate, there's no repercussions to that, but it should be a shame to have short hair just as much as it should be a shame to not be covered in the assembly. I think that's an excellent point. It wasn't even considered for a woman to have close shorn hair before the 1920s. But again, in that environment after the changes that World War I brought on, you find in the early 1920s women cutting their hair off, having their hemline above their knees, and all that went with that, and they coincided. to the point that almost the long hair was a forgotten subject among most churches and that's why it became even uninventful to see a woman with her hair cut off. Now in the Jewish culture, it's the inverse. If we were Jews, the man is to be covered during an assembling and the woman is to be uncovered. Am I correct in saying that? Or both covered? They're both covered. What had changed in the culture was the man's prayer shawl was taken away. And that is the difference. And today, you can even just say at a football game, when I was in high school, just before the game started, they always had prayer and the men all over the football field would take their hat off and the players would have their helmet under their arm. And that's still seen every day and everywhere you go today, but the problem is they don't understand why they're doing it. It's became tradition. Well, and the reason that when it's for prayer and it also says for prophesying that a man is to be uncovered and the woman is to be covered because a man, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered, he is dishonoring Christ. He may be telling someone of Christ, preaching a true word, but if he does it with his head covered, he's dishonoring his head. But with a woman, of course it's just the opposite, it should be covered. But I think a lot of times, if you're accustomed to wearing a ball cap, even saying the slightest little bit about Jesus is really prophesying. And anything you say about him, if you're going to be a habitual hat wearer, to remove your hat when you're talking about it. I think that's a good point. Of course, I'm sure that, you know, there's extremists on both sides. But again, just take this as an example. Fifty years ago, when all men generally wore hats, when a lady came in the room, they would take the hat off. And again, it was a tradition thing, and they really didn't know why they were doing it, but that's the origin of that. And the origin of a man tipping his hat to a lady, taking it off and tipping... All those are grounded in the scriptures right here. But they became tradition, and no one knew why they were doing them. The hair of... We've already sort of discussed that a lady should have long hair. What is appropriately long and what is short? Some people would say collar length is short. Some people would say collar length is long, depending on what it is. foot and a half that is definitely long or six inches is definitely short. Sarah might be able to tell this better than we can. What would you consider long hair versus like basic, which I would think a bob cut would be short. That's my personal opinion. So what would you think is appropriate length for hair? Oh man. I'd say for longer hair, at least shoulder length. But that's just me as far as saying long. And that is one of those subjects that people tend to wonder why. But I'll just say this from my own life experience. In the 80s, I was one of those kids that grew my hair out shoulder length. And the reason I did that was I wanted to be cool and it was a rebellious thing. It was part of my rebellion against culture. And a lot of people will say different things about long hair, but if you really boil the water off and push the subject, that is why they did it. paint a number of pictures on it and somewhat to the ignorance of the scriptures. So I think with anything as the leader of the home and the one that God placed in headship order as the man, I think you have to look at the length of the man's hair first and then go to the woman's hair. for anybody that's listening that doesn't know, I'm a professional barber. I'm a master barber. So I have some definite ideas of what I think a man's hair should be. And I wouldn't definitely say get the haircut that I have as being the optimal haircut because I shaved my head. Which I'm not saying that's bad. If you want to go ahead and shave it, I think you've definitely got you a fine haircut there. But what I think with hair length is, and you can see this really in little boys. You bring a boy to a barbershop and you try cutting his hair. If you've never wrestled a bull, this would be a very similar experience because little boys don't want their hair cut. I think it's an innate I think it's something in the flesh that does not want to follow and because I've cut dozens of children that come in and literally I could not tell whether it was a boy or a girl because the parents had let the hair grow so long because well little Johnny doesn't want his hair cut he's gonna pitch a fit if we try to cut his hair, or he likes his hair, he wants to keep it, or whatever the reason is, they want to keep that long hair. Now, what Dad was talking about in the 80s when they had the feathered, flared, some people I guess had sort of a mullet kind of look back in the 80s, that was the long hair tradition for males in the 80s. In 2000, you now have sort of these wispy, where they've sort of grown it opposite what they did in the 80s and said it's long in the back and short in the front. It's sort of long and short in the back and long in the front like you're a shaggy dog. And I think it's just the same extension of the same rebellion. I mean, if your hair is growing down in your face and you're having to have a nervous tick So you can see where you're going. I think your hair is too long. In my opinion, a man's hair should be very close cropped. And the only men in the Bible who were ever allowed to have long hair the entirety of their lives was two men. And that was Samuel and Samson. And they were both Nazarites. They were Nazarites from birth to death. And I really don't think that men take Nazarite vows anymore. First of all, we don't have a place where we can cut our hair off and burn it before the Lord anymore, like we would have in the temple or the tabernacle. So there's no way to have an agerite bow anymore. So there's no reason that a man should have long hair at all. My kind of viewpoint on the subject of long and short hair for men and women is, it's kind of like along the same lines as dress. The Bible clearly speaks of it, but as far as giving a particular length or a particular garment, the scriptures doesn't give it. However, it does say short for the man and long for the woman. And another thing that, just like the dress, it clearly states is that there is to be a distinction between the two. And I think your hair should be short enough that if someone saw you from a distance, they could clearly tell you was a man, and if it was from a distance, you could clearly tell it was a woman. I personally think a woman's hair needs to be shorter length or longer. I think personally, longer is better. And the same thing for the man, I think their hair should be quite short. I mean, I said there's no clear distinction on the length, but I think there should be. I don't think you should ever have to question which is which on either way, the woman or the man. There should never be any kind of question in your mind, which is which. And I think that's just part of what Satan likes to do is, in our day and time, trying to blur those lines. You see men wanting to have long hair and women wanting to have short hair consistently. I agree. I agree, too. I think a good thing is the origin of long hair in our culture. If you'll study that out, it actually began in the 1960s when the Beatles made their debut in the U.S. They moved from Great Britain to the United States. They brought their long hair with them. And if you could look at their 1964 pictures, it wasn't extremely long, but it was longer than any American's. And immediately, to be like them and to be in that mindset, men began growing their hair out until the late 1960s. A lot of men had hair shoulder length. Well, look at the hair bands of the 80s. I mean, you talk about some hair. They had hair. Exactly. And that's why I think it's so connected to rebellion. And we won't get onto this podcast, but it was tied to rock music, which is a whole other aspect of cultural, of how rebellion is boiled up among people. Alright, well that's our final topic for today. We hope that you'll come again. We're going to have our separation, I guess, part two next week. We'll have another series of topics that we'll discuss over. We appreciate everybody listening. As always, you can find our church at www.NewTestamentBaptistDover.com. You can find this podcast online on your browser at www.podcastgarden.com forward slash podcast forward slash Firm Foundations. You can find us on iTunes, search keyword Firm Foundations. You can find our physical address at 805 Natcore Drive in Dover, Tennessee. We're just past the Nashville Wire plant. If you want to hear more from New Testament Baptist Church, you can listen in Northern Middle Tennessee at 9.30 on Sunday mornings to Time for Truth Radio Ministry. Once again, I'm Adam. I'm Sarah. I'm Matthew. And I'm Larry. And this has been Firm Foundation. Thank you all for listening. so so