You're a woman online. You most definitely do NOT hold to biblical patriarchy.

Yes, and some of them ask questions, not because they genuinely want to know something, but because they're looking for a "gotcha" moment, which I surmise may be the case here. That's why I asked. Nevertheless, I'm happy to answer. Because of your question, my husband and I just took a look at this passage together. We're both on the same page about it. Here's the essence of what he/we said (He would tell you himself, but he rarely gets on X): I asked him point blank if he wanted me to call him "Lord" and he said no. Here's why: We both handle Scripture correctly and in context (2 Timothy 2:15), which you, SBCSDG, have failed to do in your question. That's one of my major issues with hyper-patriarchalism. It twists and weaponizes Scripture in a variety of ways, but primarily to denigrate and subjugate women. 1 Peter 3:5-6 says: "For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being subject to their own husbands, just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You have become her children if you do good, not fearing any intimidation." (LSB) "Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord," is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. In other words, it is not a command to me or any other Christian woman to literally call her husband "lord". It is describing what *Sarah* did. κύριον (kyrios) was an appropriate term of respect for godly women in *Sarah's* time and culture to use for their husbands, but for Christians in 21st century western culture who call the Godhead "Lord," it can be awkward and potentially confusing to others. (For example, after our conversation, my husband left the room. I was looking for him, and I thought he was outside, so I went out there, and just to be funny, I called out, "Lord, are you out here? Lord, where are you?". It not only felt weird to say, but what if my unsaved next door neighbors -who know we're Christians- had heard me seemingly question God's existence/omnipresence?) It's a similar situation to Jesus addressing Mary as "woman" in John 2:4. In Jesus' time and culture, that was a term of respect. In our current culture, addressing one's mother as "woman," would be considered very DISrespectful and dishonoring. Today, an equivalent term of respect for one's mother might be "Yes, ma'am.". It's the same way with "lord" in 1 Peter 3:6. It's not fit for our current culture, but there are other ways godly wives speak respectfully and submissively to their husbands, which I strive to do. But there are a couple of other things we should all take into consideration: 1. The context of *this passage* is not about Christian wives submitting to their Christian husbands (that's Ephesians 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:18). The context here is instruction for Christian wives on the best way to be a gospel influence on their *unsaved* husbands. My husband is a Christian, as I already mentioned. 2. The point God (through Peter) is making here is not that Christian wives of unsaved husbands are to call their husbands "Lord" exactly like Sarah did. The point here is that they're to follow the example of Sarah and all the holy women who came before them by *being subject to their husbands*. All of those women, including Sarah, were subject to their husbands in a variety of ways. So am I. You'll notice it says, "You have become her *children*". Your children share your DNA. They look and sound like you. They imitate you and pick up various aspects of your personality. But they are not clones or exact copies of you. Each successive generation carries your seed, but they live and work out their own salvation in their own culture and context. Just like women who are "Sarah's children" today. 3. This one is just an interesting tidbit my husband brought up. There was a time span of roughly 2000 years between Abraham/Sarah and the writing of 1 Peter, the same, roughly, as the time span between 1 Peter and today. Considering how much language and culture have changed in the last 2000 years, it is reasonable to deduce that language and culture also changed quite a bit during that earlier 2000 year time span. Most likely, the women in Peter's time and culture weren't calling their husbands "Lord" any more (not because they were rebellious or feminist, as I'm sure most hyper-patriarchalists would assume), and Peter wasn't instructing them to. He was giving them an *example* of ONE way Sarah had demonstrated respect for her husband. So to sum up, no I don't call my husband "Lord" because he doesn't want me to. So if I were to call him "Lord," I would be disrespecting him, not being subject to him, and failing to submit to him. He doesn't want me to call him "Lord" because we both understand and handle this passage rightly and in context. But I am subject to him and I do speak respectfully and submissively to him. I hope this answers your question.

Protestia: Carl Lentz Responds To Question About Rejoining The Pastorate: ‘I’m open…I’m completely qualified’ protestia.com/2026/10/22/car…