Introduction 

How can anyone not like Sarah Palin?  How can anyone keep from admiring her as a mother of five and as a wife, for her apparent faith in Christ, her pro-life stand, her intelligence, her eloquence, her effectiveness as governor of Alaska, her love for moose hunting and her beauty, although she is not a constitutionalist.  I would take her over Obama, Biden, and McCain anytime.  She is a gifted, extraordinary Christian woman, who should not be running for Vice President of these United States anymore than she should be serving as Governor of Alaska.  I pray that God would give her a significant and Biblical role in the advance of His kingdom in her family, church and nation.

I must say, however, that I question her wisdom in giving such whole-hearted support to John McCain for president in the light of his socialistic, unconstitutional and unbiblical, hence, unworkable, answers to America’s critical problems; and in the light of his long-standing pro-abortion track record on matters of judicial appointments, stem cell research, funding for Planned Parenthood, and more.

Now, do not misunderstand me.  I am not recommending that you vote for Obama, with his socialistic, unconstitutional and unbiblical answers to America’s problems, his long-standing pro-abortion stance, and his desire, which he expressed in Berlin, Germany, that all walls be torn down between Christians, Muslims and Jews, because of the equality of all religions.

Also, I do not intend to tell you whom to vote for.  This sermon today is not political propaganda, it is the preaching of the all-sufficient word of God, and I pray God would bless it to your hearts.  Because the Bible is the inerrant word of God, whatever it asserts to be true on any subject is true.  The Bible is divinely authoritative on everything about which it speaks and it speaks about everything.  Do you believe that?  Are you willing to look seriously at what it says about women civil magistrates?  Are you willing to submit your every thought to be governed by that Word?  Are you willing to have your mind changed by that Word no matter what it will cost you?

When heard in the light of the history of Calvinism and Presbyterianism, this will not be a radical sermon.  It will be run-of-the-mill compared to Reformed preaching for generations.  But, today it is controversial, sadly, among evangelical and Reformed Christians; it will anger some and it will cause some brothers and sisters to view me as divisive and destructive to the conservative cause in America.

By far the most famous book on the Bible’s teaching regarding women civil magistrates was written by the great Scottish Reformer of the 16^th century, John Knox, whose theology had such a dominant influence on the American mind of 1776.  His book, written in 1558, was entitled, THE FIRST BLAST OF THE TRUMPET AGAINST THE MONSTROUS REGIMENT OF WOMEN.  It hit Scotland and England like a nuclear bomb.  Its target was Mary Guise, the queen regent of Scotland and later Mary, Queen of Scots, both of whom were enemies of the Protestant Reformation, and Bloody Mary Stuart, Queen of England, who was worthy of her name as a persecutor of Protestantism.  (The fourth Mary that plagued Knox, was the Roman Catholic cult of the Virgin Mary, the Queen of Heaven, that continues to have such a central place in the Roman Catholic Church today.) 

The reason for this hostility to our view is largely the pragmatism, egalitarianism, ignorance of the Bible, and unwillingness to be consistent with the Bible that pervades American churches today.  By pragmatism, I mean, the idea that the end justifies the means, that whatever works is best.  By egalitarianism I mean that fundamental belief of American society that all people are equal so that whatever avocations are open to men should be open to women, including politics and the military.  By ignorance of the Bible, I am referring to the abysmal ignorance among Christians regarding what the Bible teaches in respect to politics, civil government, church government and the social order in general.  And by unwillingness to apply consistently the Bible to the critical issues of today, I am referring to those who are not willing to challenge the status quo, or the consensus of opinion, because of fear of repercussions. 

I must add that some consistent Christians will honestly disagree with my exposition of some of our Scriptural texts today.  They want to do the right thing.  They are courageous in standing for the right; but, they disagree with our interpretation.  I pray that I can cast some light on their position that will help them to change their mind about some things.  I pray that God would give me humility, wisdom and discretion in my sermon today, and that His Spirit would lead me into His truth, protecting me, and all of us, from error.  I pray for you today that you will be open-minded to the truth of God, and that you will be willing to follow that truth wherever it leads you.

My point today is that just as the Bible does not allow women to usurp the governing headship of the home from their husbands, Ephesians 5; and just as it does not allow women to become elders and usurp the government of the church, I Tim. 3; so the Bible does not allow women to become civil magistrates and usurp the government of the state.  I would go one step farther and say that since voting is a key element of civil government, that women suffrage is also unbiblical.  And the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States is one of the few denominations that does not practice women suffrage in its congregational meetings.

There is nothing novel about this view, nor is it chauvinistic.  In the 19^th century this view was the consensus among godly and thoughtful women in this country.  This almost forgotten attitude can be beautifully illustrated in Augusta Jane Evans, a native of Columbus, Georgia, and one of the most celebrated women authors of the 19^th century, who pled for the improvement and education of women.  In his excellent book, SOUTHERN TRADITION AT BAY, (p. 273), Richard Weaver has written:  “She was the first of a long line of Southern women novelists, who…managed to capture the popular imagination and to create characters of universal appeal,” from 1833 to well into the 20^th century. Her novels, all of which are explicitly Christian, also reveal two of her most seriously held convictions:  the morality of the Bible is fixed, absolute and permanent; and “the emancipation of women [recommended by the radical feminists of her day] entailed her degradation and would lead to the dissolution of society.”- Weaver, p. 274

In her great novel, ST. ELMO, through her main character, Edna Earle, she battles to save a Christian moral and social order, “taking her stand on the principle that woman can be most influential in society as a woman.”- Weaver, p. 275

•  

  Believing that the intelligent, refined, modest Christian women were the real custodians of national purity, and the sole agents who could arrest the tide of demoralization breaking over the land, she addressed herself to the wives, mothers, and daughters of America; calling upon them to smite their false gods, and purify their shrines at which they worshipped.  Jealously she contended for every woman’s right which God and nature had decreed her sex.  The right to be learned, wise, noble, useful, in woman’s divinely limited sphere.  The right to influence and exalt the circle in which she moved.  The right to mount the sanctified beam of her own hearth-stone; the right to modify and direct her husband’s opinion, if he considered her worthy and competent to guide him; the right to make her children ornaments to their nation, and a crown of glory to their race; the right to advise, to plead, to pray;…the right to be all the phrase “noble Christian woman” means.  But not the right to vote; to harangue from the hustings; to trail her heaven-born purity through the dust and mire of political strife; to ascend the rostrum of statesmen, whither she may send a worthy husband, son, or brother, but whither she can never go, without disgracing all womanhood.- Weaver, p. 395

In her book, A SPECKLED BIRD, published in 1902, Augusta Jane Evans’ character, Eglah Allison, granddaughter of a Confederate general, sums up Miss Evans’ view of woman’s proper sphere:

•  

  Indeed, I have the most affectionate and jealous regard for every right that inheres in my dower of American womanhood.  I claim and enjoy the right to be as cultured, as learned, as useful, and—if you please—as ornamental in society and at home as my individual limitations will permit.  I have no wrongs, no grievances, no crying need to usurp lines of work that will break down the barriers God has set between men and women.  I am not in rebellion against legal statutes, nor the canons of well-established decency and refinement in feminine usage, and, finally, I am so inordinately proud of being a well-born Southern woman, with a full complement of honorable great-grandfathers and blue-blooded, stainless great-grandmothers that I have neither pretext nor inclination to revolt against mankind.- p. 119f

In her last novel, DEVOTA, published early in the 20^th century, which she wrote at seventy-two years of age, she develops the thesis “that it is treason for woman to desert her God-given sphere.” – Weaver, p. 279.  (These are descriptions of the typical Southern Christian woman one hundred years ago.  Few women have survived the ravages of the 20^th century.)

By the way, consider what Queen Victoria said in 1870—“The Queen is most anxious to enlist anyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad wicked folly of ‘women’s rights,’ with all its attendant horrors on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feeling and propriety.”

Where did this modern, and humanistic view of women in politics originate?  It arose out of the antichristian egalitarianism of the 18^th century European Enlightenment (Endarkenment), that moved Europe off its Christian foundation onto a humanistic one, and the bloody French Revolution of 1789, that sought to expunge Christianity from France with its rallying cry:  “Liberty, Fraternity, Equality.”  This revolutionary faith believes that legislation and human rights must disregard all distinctions of sex and treat both sexes with total equality in every respect.  This radical theory of human rights, which most people in our country believe, including most Christians, teaches that “every human being is naturally independent, owes no duties to civil or ecclesiastical society save those freely conceded in the ‘social contract’; is the natural equal of every other human except as he or she has forfeited liberty by crime. --  If these propositions were true, then, indeed, their application to women would be indisputable.  --  They can quote the Declaration of Independence in the sense these radicals hold it:  ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are by nature equal and inalienably entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’  It is true that this document, rationally interpreted, teaches something wholly different from the absurd equality of the radical, which demands for every member of society all the specific [privileges, liberties and rights] which any member has.  The wise men of 1776 knew that men are not naturally equal in strength, talent, virtue, or ability; and that different orders of human beings naturally inherit very different sets of rights and [privileges]…  But they meant to teach that in one very important respect all are naturally equal.  --  It is the equality embodied in the great maxim of the British Constitutions: ‘that before the law all are equal.’  --  This is the equality which is thoroughly consistent with that wide diversity of natural capacities, virtues, station, sex, inherited possessions, which inexorable fact discloses everywhere and by means of which social organization is possible.  But in place of this…our modern politician now teaches, under the same name, the equality of the Jacobin…which absurdity claims for every human the same specific powers and rights.  --  Our fathers valued liberty, but the liberty for which they contended was each person’s privilege to do those things and those only to which God’s law and providence gave him a moral right.  The liberty of nature which your modern asserts is absolute license:  the privilege of doing whatever a corrupt will craves…  The fathers of our country could have adopted the sublime words…LEX REX, the Law is king.  --  But now…the supreme law is the will or caprice of what happens to be the major mob, the suggestion of the demagogue who is most artful to seduce.”- Robert L.Dabney, DISCUSSIONS, Vol. II, p. 114-116, 5f.

I am not naïve regarding how this sermon will be received by some people, or regarding how this will effect the reputation of our church; and so, I do not preach on this subject in a light-hearted manner because I believe that the election of 2008 will be one of the most destructive elections in our history, whoever is elected.  And the enthusiastic support of Sarah Palin by evangelical and Reformed Christians is most disconcerting.  Doug Phillips is exactly correct when he says that “the widespread acceptance of a pro-life professed Christian Republican, self-proclaimed feminist mother of an infant and four children as a candidate for the highest office of the land is the singular most dangerous event for the conscience of the Christian community of the last ten years at least. --  In order to win an election they have sold the core of what is right and true about the defining issue of our generation—the family!  Once this threshold is passed, it will be virtually impossible apart from widespread repentance to recapture this ground.”

If Mrs. Palin is elected Vice President, and then perhaps President, four years from now, it will result in another blow to the family as defined in the Bible, although she would never intentionally want to do such a thing. It will split churches, and cause churches to compromise their historical stance. Her husband is “a stay-at-home Mr. Mom,” which is most certainly not the role of the husband and father according to Ephesians 5.  Regardless of what she thinks, she has placed her incredibly demanding career above her God-given calling of raising five children. She is leaving the impression that this is what young women should aspire to be, rather than aspiring to being the helpmeets of their husbands, the nurturers of their children, and the keepers of their homes.  As Titus 2:5 exhorts older women to encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored.  I guarantee you that with all the heavy demands of a national office, a mother who is vice president will not be able to raise her children faithfully and effectively.  As Bill Einwechter has written:  “By defending the propriety of  a mother of young children ruling over the nation, they have undermined the doctrine of male headship and women as keepers at home.”

Now let’s consider some Biblical passages that have to do with our subject.

Exposition

1. god’s social order for men and women is clearly revealed in the bible, and it excludes the official leadership of women in home, church and state.

1. 1. the social order revealed in i corinthians 11:1-12

•  

  Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. (2) Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.  (3) But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the a woman, and God is the head of Christ.  (4) Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head.  (5) But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved.  (6) For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.  (7) For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.  (8) For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; (9) for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.  (10) Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.  (11) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. (12) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.- I Corinthians 11:1-12

Notice the main points of this text: 

First, the apostle Paul tells us to receive this text because it is truth he received from Christ by the Holy Spirit which he transmits to us by the inspiration of that Spirit.  This is “revealed tradition” as opposed to the traditions of men.  Paul goes so far as to say in I Cor. 14:37—If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I wrote to you are the Lord’s commandment.

Second, God, who created all human beings—male and female He created them, Genesis 1:27—has an order and arrangement by which He wants human society to be structured, rejection of which spells death for that society.  He has revealed all the necessary elements of His social order in the Bible, which is His revealed will for us.  This social arrangement is representative or covenantal in nature, based on a “headship” principle.

•  

        God is the head of Christ.

•  

        Christ is the head of every man.

•  

        Man is the head of woman.

Just as Jesus is the head of every man, whether he is single or married, saved or lost, regardless of whether he is recognized as such, so man is the head of woman.  The word used for males in the first phrase—Christ is the head of every man—is the same word used in the second phrase—and the man is the head of a woman. As Wayne Mack has written:  “Christ is the head of every man, whether he is a Christian or not, whether he is a husband or not.  Likewise in the plan of God, man is to be head of woman whether that man is husband or not and whether the woman is a wife or not.  He is talking about the relationship of the sexes and he says very clearly that the head of the woman is the man.  He does not merely say that the head of the wife is the husband.”- THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH, p. 13.

So then, as God has authority over Christ, Christ has been given the authority over all men; and man has the God-given authority over woman.  Just as man is to reflect God’s image, woman is to reflect God’s image in her role as man’s counterpart, completing him. Just as the faithful life of man brings praise and honor to God, the faithful life of woman brings praise and honor to man under God. Woman is man’s glory because he is incomplete without her—However, in the Lord, neither is the woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God, I Cor. 11:11-12.

Contrary to all the radical theories of human equality swirling around us that give to human beings natural and absolute autonomy, the Bible teaches us that “there are orders of human beings naturally unequal in their inherited rights, as in their bodily and mental qualities; that God has not ordained any human being to this proud independence, but placed all in subordination under authority, the child under its mother, the mother under her husband, the husband under the ecclesiastical and civil magistrates, and these under the Law whose guardian and avenger is God Himself.”- Dabney, DISCUSSIONS, Vol. II, p. 107

This subordination of woman to man, which does not imply the inferiority of woman to man, relates to human society generally:  home, church and state.

Third, the woman gives public testimony to her glad submission to God’s social order revealed in the Bible by having a symbol of authority on her head, I Cor. 11:10. That symbol of authority is her beautiful long hair, as contrasted with man’s shorter hair—Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him; but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her?  For her hair is given to her for a covering, I Cor. 11:14.

1.  
   1. the social order implied in ephesians 5:22-25

•  

  (22) Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. (24) But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.  (25) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her…

This passage makes the point that in the home the husband is responsible for loving headship, i.e., covenantal representation, governing authority, leadership, protection and provision.  And the wife is to be in loving and respectful submission to his headship.  But this passage also has implications for the place of women in the church and state as well, for she is to be subject to her husband in everything, v. 24.  This includes what happens inside the home and outside the home, in church and in society and its institutions.  Just as it is improper for a woman to have dominion over her husband in the privacy of the family, so it is improper for her to exercise dominion over her husband in the church or state.  If she cannot be the head of one family, she cannot be the head of a number of families.  In others words, a woman may not occupy a position in the church or state which she cannot hold in her own home.  If she may not rule in the home, she may not rule in church or state.

Just as Christ is the covenant head of His church, representing, loving and being in charge of her, so the husband is the covenant head of his wife, representing her and all their children and dependents.  Douglas Wilson has written:  “Each home is to be a small republic, with a representative head who represents that family, and who in a covenantal sense is that family.  But the modern family, even when it has not disintegrated, insists upon functional parity between husband and wife.  But despite of what we think, a husband is a head and a lord—his fiefdom may be tiny, and he is frequently not worthy of it.  --  The man is an individual, a private person, but as husband he also holds a public office…   He and his wife are both individual citizens of this small republic, and they each have their individual perspectives.  But he is a public person, and is called to function in that role as the representative head of his household. --  When understood in a household, the applications of this foundation truth [of covenant headship], not surprisingly can be found everywhere.  And at every point, they will reveal how much this knowledge of headship and submission is completely out of step with the spirit of the age.”- ANGELS IN THE ARCHITECTURE, p. 113f.

We are told that “in the old days” society did not care what women thought about things, it only wanted to hear what the husbands had to say.  Now, we are more enlightened, we want to hear from both wives and husbands.  The problem with this viewpoint is that it fails to recognize the covenantal relation of husband and wife as a household.  The real question is:  what does the household, the familial republic, think?  We discover this by asking the representative spokesman, the covenant head.  “He would answer for his family, and in speaking, represented them.  In other words, the issue is not whether men vote as opposed to women.  The issue is whether families can vote.  In our modernist blindness and folly, we did not enfranchise women, we disenfranchised the household.  And consider where it has gotten us.  When husbands and wives agree, voting the same way, all we have done is multiply the entire vote tally by two.  And when they disagree, all that has happened is that their votes cancel out the voice of their household.”- Wilson, p. 116-117

Some people wrongly use Ephesians 5:21 to cancel out our interpretation--…and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.  However, this important text teaches us that the submission God requires of the wife to her husband grows out of the mutual readiness in the church generally to renounce one’s own will for the sake of others because of their common subjection to the revealed will of Christ.

1. the reason for the functional subordination of women in home, church and state is the order of creation and the nature of eve’s involvement in the fall

•  

  Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.  But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.  For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.- I Timothy 2:1-14

The New Testament is explicit on the issue of the functional subordination of women to men in church government:  women may not share in the government of the church, nor may they be placed in any authoritative role over men in the church:  they may not teach, hold office or lead in worship—Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.  And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.- I Corinthians 14:34-35.  In this text, “women” means “women,” and not simply “wives,” Matthew 27:55; 9:20; and the Greek word translated “husbands,” is, in fact, the more general word for “men.”  In other words, if women have questions they are to ask “their own men at home,” which could include their husbands, brothers, uncles, fathers, sons, or elders; but they may not ask their questions publicly when the church meets.

Why these restrictions on women in the church?  They are to quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.  They are not allowed to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.  They are to keep silent in the churches.  They are not permitted to speak.  Rather, they are to subject themselves…and if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.  Now what is the reason for these restrictions?  Is it because of the inferiority of women?  Or is it because maleness is superior to or more ultimate than femaleness?  Absolutely not.  These are not the reasons the Bible gives.

The reasons the Bible gives for this functional subordination of women to men in family, church and state are two:  the creation and the fall—For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.- I Timothy 2:13-14.

1.  
   1.  
      1. the order of creation:  adam was created then eve

God’s social order requires the subordination of woman to the leadership of men because of the order of creation:  Adam was created first, and then Eve was created.  In other words, the reason for this order of society is not because women are the weaker sex, but because of God’s sovereign ordering of creation and society according to the good pleasure of His will.  This principle specifically excludes women from holding office in the church or voting in the church, since both of these actions are key elements of governing.  And, by implication it excludes women from holding public office or voting in civil issues for to do so is to exercise authority over man, who was created first in God’s order of things.

God created man first, and then He created woman, who was taken from the body of man, Genesis 2:22.  The purpose of the woman’s creation and existence is to be a helpmeet for man, “in a sense in which the man was not originally designed as a helpmeet for the woman.  Hence, God, from the beginning of man’s existence as a sinner, put the wife under the kindly authority of the husband, making him the head and her the subordinate in domestic society.”- Dabney, DISCUSSIONS, Vol. II, p. 106

William Hendricksen has written:  “In His sovereign wisdom God made the human pair in such a manner that it is natural for him to lead, for her to follow; for him to be aggressive, for her to be receptive…  The tendency to follow was embedded in Eve’s very soul as she came forth from the hand of her Creator.  Hence, it would not be right to reverse.   Why should a woman be encouraged to do things that are contrary to her nature?  Her very body, far from preceding that of Adam in the order of creation, was taken out of  Adam’s body.  Her very name—Ish-sha—was derived from his name—Ish, Genesis 2:23.  It is when the woman recognizes this basic distinction and acts accordingly that she can be a blessing to the man, can exert a gracious yet very powerful and beneficent influence upon him, and can promote her own happiness, unto God’s glory.”- NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY:  Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, p. 109-110

Robert L. Dabney explains the implications of the phrase in Genesis 1—male and female He made them. 

•  

  In order to ground human society God saw it necessary to fashion for man’s mate, not his exact image, but his counterpart.  Identity would have utterly marred their companionship, and would have been an equal curse to both.  But out of this unlikeness in resemblance it must obviously follow that each is fitted for works and duties unsuitable for the other.  And it is no more a degradation to the woman that the man can best do some things which she cannot do so well, than to the man that woman has her natural superiority in other things.  But it will be cried:  “Your Bible doctrine makes man the ruler, woman the ruled.”  True.  --  It was essential to the welfare of both husband and wife, and of the offspring, that there must be an ultimate human head somewhere. --  …to be governed under the wise conditions of nature is often a more privileged state than to govern.  --  Now, a wise God designs no clashing between his domestic and political and his ecclesiastical arrangements. He has ordained that the man shall be head in the family and the commonwealth; it would be a confusion full of mischief to make the woman head in the ecclesiastical sphere.- DISCUSSIONS, Vo. II, p. 111-112

1.  
   1.  
      1. the nature of the fall:  Eve was deceived not adam

Eve fell because she was deceived by Satan, whereas Adam sinned without being deceived, I Timothy 2:14.  This means that whatever woman’s strength, she is not constitutionally fitted to be an official governor in church or state.  She listened to Satan and sinned before Adam, to whom she gave the forbidden fruit.  Eve was the leader and Adam was the follower.  As Hendricksen said:  “She led in the way of sin, when she should have followed in the path of righteousness.  --  Hence, let none of her daughters follow her in reversing the divinely established order.”- p. 110

Eve was deceived into leading when she should have been following.  So we see what happens with role reversal between men and women:  disaster!  Adam had the responsibility for leading, and he was equipped to deal with Satan’s temptations. He was not deceived.  He sinned deliberately against better knowledge.  Eve was not given the role of leader and was in fact unprepared to discern Satan’s lies.  She was deceived by him. 

Satan saw that the best way to seduce Adam was through Eve.  Woman represents human grace and beauty in a special degree.  That which is beautiful in creation apparently enthralls her more than it does man, Genesis 2:9; 3:6.  Her appreciation of beauty and her aesthetic sensibilities were more susceptible and alert to the impressions of the attractive.  This is not to say that woman is instinctively less holy or more sinful. 

Trent and Smalley have explained in their book, THE LANGUAGE OF LOVE, in a chapter entitled, “Are Men Really Brain Damaged?” (p. 35-36) that between the 18^th and 26^th week of pregnancy, something happens that forever separates the sexes.  Researches had observed a chemical bath of testosterone and other sex-related hormones wash over a baby boy’s brain.  This does not happen to the brain of a baby girl.  Here is what happens:

•  

  The human brain is divided into two halves, or hemispheres, connected by fibrous tissue…  The sex-related hormones and chemicals that flood a baby boy’s brain cause the right side to recede slightly, destroying some of the connecting fibers.  One result is that, in most cases, a boy starts life more left-brained oriented.

•  

  Because little girls don’t experience this chemical bath, they leave the starting blocks much more two-sided in their thinking.  And while electrical impulses and messages do travel back and forth between both sides of a baby boy’s brain, those same messages can proceed faster and be less hindered in the brain of a little girl.  – What occurs in the womb merely sets the stage for men and women to “specialize” in two different ways of thinking.  And this is the major reason men and women need each other so much.

•  

  The left brain houses more of the logical, analytical, factual and aggressive centers of thought. It is the side of the brain most men reserve for the majority of their waking hours.  It enjoys conquering five hundred miles a day for family vacation trips; favors mathematical formulas over Harlequin romances…and generally favors clinical, black-and-white thinking.  It is the side of a man’s brain that cannot wait to buy the latest copy of some how-to magazine for the latest fix-it technique; memorizes batting averages and box scores; and loves to sit for hours, watching back-to-back games and yelling at referees.

•  

  On the other hand, most women spend the majority of their days and nights camped out on the right side of the brain.  It is the side that harbors the center for feelings, as well as the primary relational, language, and communications skills; enables them to do fine-detail work; sparks imagination; and makes an afternoon devoted to art and fine music actually enjoyable. It pulls over at rest stops and historical markers on purpose; does not vaguely care about football or hockey games unless they personally know the players or their wives…and would rather read PEOPLE than POPULAR MECHANICS, because it is more relational.

What we have said in no way implies the sexual inferiority or superiority of men or of women.  Her Biblical role is not degrading, nor is it a less dignified position than that of man.  You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow-heir of the grace of life…- I Peter 3:7.

Some have tried to use Galatians 3:28 to refute our position—there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  However, this verse is not saying that these distinctions have no meaning at all; rather, it is saying that the blessings of salvation are equally enjoyed by all in Christ by grace through faith, regardless of race, social status, or sex.  While the responsibilities of the government of church and state are laid on the shoulders of men, the privileges of salvation in the church are equally shared and enjoyed by men and women.  No conflict exists between Galatians 3 and I Corinthians 14 or I Timothy 2.  Galatians 3 is concerned with the privileges of salvation all believers share in Christ; and I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2 are concerned with duties and responsibilities not all believers share.

Rather than being restrained and restricted by the requirements of God’s social order, women are actually freed from the demands of governing authority to give themselves entirely to the high calling of helpmeet.  As Susan Hunt and Peggy Hutcheson have written:  “When women insist on role interchangeability…everyone loses.”- LEADERSHIP FOR WOMEN IN THE CHURCH, p. 10,11.

It should be pointed out, to get a complete picture, that not all male members of the church are allowed to hold office or to vote in the church, and by implication in the state.

In both testaments we see the principle of maturity and godliness of leadership, Exodus 12, Isaiah 3, I Timothy 3, and I Thessalonians 5:12f.  In Isaiah 3, we learn two things about government in the hands of immature and ungodly males:  (1). It is detrimental to society; and (2). It is a sign of God’s judgment on that society.  The Lord said concerning disobedient Israel:  I will make mere lads their princes and capricious children will rule over them, and the people will be oppressed, Isaiah 3:4.  Paul said to Timothy concerning governors in the church:  He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)- I Timothy 3:4,5.

This principle of mature leadership means that only adult male heads of households and not immature males still dependent upon their fathers and still under their father’s authority, or males that are capricious and therefore ungodly, should be placed in positions of authority or allowed to vote in church or state.  The rule of the church and state must be in the hands of mature, responsible, godly leaders, not in the hands of immature or ungodly people.  As holding office, so voting is by its very nature, an expression of government, therefore it should be reserved for responsible, mature Christian men, not boys.

1. the bible sets forth the authority and ministry christian women do have in church and society.

First, a godly wife is her husband’s crown and joy—A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband, Proverbs 12:4.  She is of inexpressible value to her husband—Who can find a virtuous woman?  For her price is far above rubies.- Proverbs 31:10.

Second, covenant children are to honor their mothers just as much as they honor their fathers—Honor your father and mother.., Exodus 20:12.  They are to submit to the teaching of their mothers just as much as they do to their fathers—My son, hear the instruction of your father, and forsake not the law of your mother, Proverbs 1:8.  The eye that mocks at his father, and despises to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it, Proverbs 30:17.

Third, I Timothy 5:9-15 tells us many things that Christian women may do for Jesus Christ—Let a widow be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.  But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.  And at the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention.  Therefore, I want younger women to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.

What do we learn here about the responsibilities and ministries of Christian women:  (1). They are to have a reputation for good works.  In fact, they are to devote themselves to every good work.  (2). They are to bring up children.  In fact, she shall be saved through the bearing of children, if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self restraint, I Timothy 2:15.  (3). They are to show hospitality to people.  (4). They are to serve people, meeting the needs of others, as they are able.  (5). They are to assist those who are in distress.  (6). They are to practice self-discipline.  (7). They are not to be idle and are not to neglect their responsibilities at home. They may not go from house to house to gossip, but they may go from house to house to minister, encourage, comfort and serve.  (8). They are to keep house.  A woman’s home is “her kingdom and neither the secular nor the ecclesiastical commonwealth.  Her duties in her home are to detain her away from the public functions.  She is not to be a ruler of men, but a loving subject to her husband.”- Dabney, DISCUSSIONS, Vol. II, p. 106

Titus 2:3-5 gives us more responsibilities Christian women have at home and in church—Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored.

Notice:  (1). Older women are to be reverent and respectful in their behavior, as models for younger women.  (2). Older women should encourage and teach younger women how to be faithful Christian women, wives, daughters, mothers and home-makers.  (3). Married women should love their husbands and their children.  They should be sensible, pure, kind homemakers.  And (4). Wives should be subject to their own husbands so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

1. the qualifications for public office according to the law of god

The Law of God in the New Testament clearly requires that office-holders in the church be godly and mature men, I Timothy 3.  The New Testament forbids women to be ministers, elders or deacons.  By implication, elders in the gates, i.e., civil elders, are to be no less qualified than elders in the church.  But we are not left only with implications.

Some evangelicals today are saying that whereas qualifications are presented in the Bible for governors in the home and in the church, the Bible gives no qualifications for civil magistrates. The argument is that since the civil magistrate is a secular institution, God does not require civil office-holders to be Christian in character, worldview or political opinion.  Likewise, they say, that although the eldership in the church is to be confined to men, no such gender restriction is in the Bible regarding civil magistrates.

Nothing could be farther from the truth!  As Pastor Bill Einwechter has clearly shown in his article, “Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise:  A Response to Our Brothers Al Mohler and David Kotter:  “…the Bible does give explicit teaching on the qualifications for civil magistrates. The two primary passages are Exodus 18:21—[Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them, as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens]—and Deuteronomy 1:13—[Choose wise and discerning and experienced men from your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads].  These texts teach that if God’s people have the privilege of choosing their magistrates, they should choose wise and able men who fear God.  Significantly, both of these texts specify that civil leaders must be men.  There are a host of other passages that teach what God requires of civil magistrates (Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 17:14-20; II Samuel 2:23; II Chronicles 19:6-7; Nehemiah 7:2; Proverbs 29:2; Romans 13:1-6), and in every one of these texts men, not women, are in view.”  The teaching of the Bible is explicit and extensive regarding the qualifications for public, civil office.  Non-Christians are disqualified.  Women are disqualified, even Christian women.  Christian women, then, are not to put themselves forward as candidates for civil office.

You might ask:  in the light of all these texts spelling out the qualifications for public office, how can evangelicals claim that the Bible gives no such qualifications?  It is because of their flawed Biblical hermeneutic that says that Old Testament texts do not apply.  They say that since Mosaic Law was confined to Israel of the Old Testament dispensation, it is now abrogated for Christians today.  However, Jesus had a much different opinion.  He said in Matthew 5:17-19—Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.  For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.  Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

When we enter the voting booth, we must not do as most professed Christians do in America today—leave the Bible outside the voting booth.  Rather, as Christians, we want our every thought and action to be held captive by the Word of God, so then the question must be as we cast our votes, not is this person winnable, nor will voting for this person defeat her opponent, but does this candidate for office meet the biblical qualifications for civil magistrates?  Are you willing to be that faithful to Christ this November?

1. and then there was deborah of the old testament…

1.  
   1. the civil role of deborah in the history of israel during the time of the judges  (Judges 4:1-5:31)

1.  
   1.  
      1. the historical context

Once again Israel had degenerated into apostasy.  Once again they repented and cried out to the Lord for deliverance from their sin and from the judgment that sin brought on them, 4:3. In grace and in answer to Israel’s cries for deliverance, the Lord proves Himself once again to be a God of mercy and covenant faithfulness by providing Israel with deliverers in a great women named Deborah and her husband, General Barak, whom He would use to defeat Israel’s enemies and bring them to victory and peace.

1.  
   1.  
      1. the significance of deborah

Deborah puts any contemporary woman magistrate in the shade!  Judges 4:4 describes her as a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, [who] was judging Israel at that time.  She carried out her divinely-assigned functions under the Palm Tree of Deborah between Raham and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, i.e., in the heart of Israelite territory where life still had some tranquility in it, 4:5.  The sons of Israel came up to her for judgment, 4:5.  She also was a gifted song-writer and singer, who co-authored the song recorded in 5:1f with Barak, and who sang it along with Barak.

Although she was a “prophetess,” i.e., a Spirit-inspired mouthpiece of God with the divine gift of prophecy, and an administrator of justice, and a deliverer of Israel, at least spiritually and morally, as well as a popular personality throughout Israel, the Bible emphasizes the fact that she was a woman…the wife of Lappidoth [Barak].  She identifies herself as a mother in Israel, 5:7.  It is more than interesting to note in Deborah’s song, 5:24, that, rather than identifying herself as the most blessed woman in Israel, whom God had raised up as Israel’s judge and deliverer, she identified Jael, who held no other position than that of the wife of Heber the Kenite, as most blessed of women.

1.  
   1.  
      1. the significance of barak

Barak means “lightning bolt.”  Historically, Jewish rabbis have identified him as Lappidoth, Deborah’s husband.  Whatever the case, she would not rule without him, being always associated with him, 4:4, 6, 9; 5:1, 12.  Although she was a judge in Israel she called upon Barak to lead Israel’s armies into battle against Sisera. She refused the role of Commander-in-Chief of Israel’s armies.  However, she did agree to be present at the battle as a popular figurehead and symbol of God’s deliverance.

1.  
   1.  
      1. the meaning and function of a “judge”

“Judges” were not merely civil officials who rendered judgments in disputes; they were primarily “deliverers” or “saviors,” empowered by the Holy Spirit, whom God raised up to deliver His covenant people, spiritually and nationally, and frequently militarily in times of national disaster.  As Judges 2:18 says:  And when the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge;  for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them.  Judges had civil and spiritual functions—as adjudicators and as prophets.  They were not considered as heads of state, like kings.  In fact, at some points, Israel had more than one judge.  To simply say that a judge was chief civil magistrate is not adequate.  Israel did not have chief civil magistrates until the days of the kings.

1.  
   1. the true identity of deborah and her place in the plan of god

Why did the Lord raise up Deborah, a woman, to judge and deliver Israel? That is an appropriate question in the light of the fact that according to Mosaic legislation, God’s social order called for the rule of men in family, church and state.  How are we to explain a female judge, prophetess and savior of Israel?  There are at least two answers to these questions.

1.  
   1.  
      1. to remind israel of his judgment

When Deborah arose  to power in Israel, Israel was under divine judgment because of her apostasy.  Such passages as Isaiah 3 tell us that one of the signs of God’s judgment on an apostate nation is that their oppressors are children, and women rule over them, Isaiah 3:12.  God wanted to remind Israel that His mercy was free and undeserved but not cheap. Judgment is always there for the unrepentant.

It is most certainly true that Deborah is God’s answer to the cries of His people, 4:3, just as King Saul was God’s answer to Israel’s cries for a king, I Samuel 8:5; 9:16. In giving Deborah and Saul to Israel, God acted in total sovereignty, for Deborah was disqualified by her gender and Saul was disqualified by his character. Both cries were answered by God in such a way as to remind Israel of God’s righteous judgment upon all those who chose to trust in the state rather than in the goodness and faithfulness of God.

1.  
   1.  
      1. to humble israel

God was using this woman, Deborah, to humble Israel, especially the male leadership of Israel, and to cause Israel to look totally to Him as their Deliverer, who magnifies His strength, and who humbles human strength, by using a woman as the instrument by which He defeats His enemies and saves His people.  Deborah’s testimony to General Barak, who asked her to go into battle with him as a popular figurehead and symbol of God’s presence, was:  I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the honor shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman, Judges 4:9.  In fact, God would save His people and defeat His enemies through two godly women:  Deborah and Jael, 5:24.

1.  
   1. the use of deborah by critics of the biblical view of women civil magistrates

The first response most people give to our view that the Bible disqualifies women as civil magistrates is:  But what about Deborah?  It is most often offered not as a question but as a refutation:  how can your view be correct, since Deborah was a God-appointed civil magistrate?

1.  
   1.  
      1. the failure to apply a basic principle of biblical hermeneutics

Those are fair questions, although they usually represent a failure to apply a basic principle of Biblical hermeneutics: the legal and didactic portions of the Bible must be used to explain the historical portions and not vice versa.

The Bible contains many historical facts.  Which are to be used as examples and models for our behavior and which ones should not be so used?  We are dependent upon the commands and prohibitions of God’s Law and the instructional and doctrinal texts that interpret those historical facts for us.

We used this principle the other Sunday when we studied Psalm 30, which has as its historical context the events described in II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21.  As we saw, these two historical chapters have several numerical disagreements regarding details of the events described.  How did we deal with those disagreements? 

First, we went to the didactic portions of the Bible to show that the Bible itself teaches its inerrancy, i.e., that what it asserts to be true on any subject is true, and that what it describes as having happened, did in fact happen.

Second, when we came to the numerical disagreements between II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21, we did not interpret them so as to show that the Bible does in fact have errors; rather we tried honestly to explain and harmonize these two chapters in a way that was demanded by the Bible’s teaching on its own inerrancy.  In other words, we tried to interpret the historical in the light of the didactic.

Reversing this basic principle from allowing the legal and the didactic to interpret the historical to allowing the historical to interpret the legal and the didactic leads to many false doctrines and heresies.  For example, the reversed principle is the basis for the charismatic movement.  Its argument is:  in the book of Acts we see the historical facts that the apostolic church experienced speaking in unknown tongues and the performing of miracles, therefore these same facts should be experienced and practiced by the church today; and the legal and didactic portions must be interpreted so as to support this viewpoint.

But Biblical hermeneutics require that historical events in the Bible do not stand alone, isolated from their divinely-given interpretation.  It is God’s revealed interpretation that gives any historical fact its meaning.  That Jesus was crucified is an historical fact.  We know the meaning of His death only because of the legal and didactic portions of the Bible.  By taking that central fact by itself some have taken it to mean only that it teaches us how far love for others must go, or some other moralistic meaning.

Now, we apply this principle of interpretation to Deborah.  The legal and didactic portions of the Old Testament—the Mosaic legislation in the Pentateuch—teaches that only men, not women, should be elected to civil office.  When we come to Deborah, we must not interpret that historical event so as to contradict what we learned in the Mosaic legislation:  women should not be chosen for public office.

Hence, God’s sovereignly raising up Deborah to public office to accomplish His predestined purposes does not present her as a model for women any more than God’s predestining Judas’ actions in betraying Jesus or Pilate’s actions in crucifying Him are models for us.

God does what He pleases.  As Deuteronomy 29:29 tells us:  The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this Law.  So then, whatever God sovereignly chooses to bring to pass, our clear duty is to observe all the words of this Law.

1.  
   1.  
      1. the out of the ordinary rule of deborah and the abnorMal period of the judges in israel’s history

It is certainly true that Deborah’s role in Israel’s history was out of the ordinary.  It is equally true that the period of Judges was an abnormal and temporary time in Israel’s history. Mosaic legislation had already laid the groundwork for a more stable and mature form of civil government for Israel after the age of Judges, in Deuteronomy 16 and 17.  Although there were periods of short-lived and shallow repentance the whole period of the Judges was marked by the description set forth in the last sentence of the book of Judges 21:25—In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.  Therefore, we should not use as our model for civil government the civil government of Israel during those dark ages.

1.  
   1.  
      1. the argument that desperate times call for desperate measures

Some have tried to justify Deborah and Sarah Palin by the argument:  “desperate times call for desperate measures.”  I have several problems with this statement as it applies to Deborah and Sarah Palin.  First, this is a mere assertion without any Biblical basis.  Second, if the principle—“desperate times call for desperate measures in Deborah’s case”--justifies women holding political office today, then how does this apply to the church in desperate times? Deborah was also a prophetess. Does that mean that in desperate times women preachers, elders and deacons could be justified, when men abdicate their role?  Do desperate times justify disobedience to the Word of God?  Or are desperate times caused by disobedience to the Word of God?

My wife, Becky, answers this objection:  “What is at the root of all the controversy among Christians about a woman running for political office?  I can understand why the world would disagree with the biblical perspective that women may not hold civil office.  Those people who do not bow the knee to King Jesus have no qualms about disputing God’s order for life. But when Christians look for loopholes to prove themselves justified—“desperate times demand desperate measures” is the catch phrase—their belief in the adequacy of God’s Word comes into question.  GOD IS NOT DESPERATE!  He has a plan that is ‘no fail.’  We only contribute to the winning side when we follow the revealed instructions He has given us in His Word.  Life becomes so complicated when we invent ‘short-cuts’ to try and ‘help God’ succeed in making our lives better.  Why can’t we humble ourselves and remember what we were taught as children?  Trust and obey for there’s no other way…”

1.  
   1. the proper application of the case of deborah to the American election of 2008

So then, how do we properly apply the case of Deborah to the American Election of 2008?  Not by condoning, encouraging and supporting women to run for political office!  How then?  In two ways.

First, the candidacy of women for political office, like the holding of the office of elder and deacon by women in the church, is a sign of God’s judgment on America!  Don’t brush off lightly what God says in Isaiah 3 regarding what God does when He begins to judge a culture for its apostasy:

•  

  For behold, the LORD God of hosts, is going to remove from Jerusalem and Judah both supply and support, the whole supply of bread, and the whole supply of water; the mighty man and the warrior, the judge and the prophet, the diviner and the elder, the captain of fifty and the honorable man, the counselor and the expert artisan, and the skillful enchanter.  And I will make mere lads their princes and capricious children will rule over them, and the people will be oppressed, each one by another, and each one by his neighbor; the youth will storm against the elder, and the inferior against the honorable.  --  For Jerusalem has stumbled, and Judah has fallen, because their speech and their actions are against the LORD, to rebel against His glorious presence.  --  O my people!  Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them.  O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray, and confuse the direction of your paths.- Isaiah 3:1-12

For some people, the worst thing that can happen in 2008 is the election of Obama to the U.S. presidency. The reality of the situation is that the worst thing that could happen is God’s continuing and intensifying judgment falling on us regardless of who is elected this fall, because of our long-standing national apostasy.

I received an e-mail from Doug Phillips just this morning that not only confirms that [Sarah Palin’s] election would be a sign of divine judgment upon our nation, but that also presents another, closely related, viewpoint:

•  

  I believe the Sarah Palin issue is not only a judgment, it is a great gift from the Lord.  I don’t need to explain to any of you how it is a judgment.  Let me offer my thoughts on why it is also a gift.

•  

  In my view, this issue has forced questions that have long been lingering.  It has revealed the true loyalties of Christians in leadership to partisan politics over historic, sound, biblical exegesis. It is separating the men from the she-men, the women from the he-women…

•  

  The impoverished, illogical and ridiculous arguments of men who should know better, have opened the door for us to have a platform to make intelligent, biblical and systematic arguments in defense of orthodoxy and the biblical vision for the family.  We have never had a better opportunity to make our case and we must do so.

•  

  This is not a time to merely encourage—we must fight, articulate, defend, and take advantage of this historical opportunity.  Having read many of the arguments that were made by anti-suffragettes before the adoption of the 19^th amendment, I am saddened by the fact that there were few clearly biblical voices at that time.  This time, we can speak to the issue.  At least we leave a record for a less emotional season.

Second, the candidacy of women for public office, like women officers in the church, serve to humble American men and Christian men.  Where are the Christian men in the critical battles we are fighting today for the future of our nation?  As Gary DeMar rightly asks:  “Why did Sarah Palin run to head the PTA? Where were the worthy men?  Why did she run for mayor of Wasilla?  Where were the worthy men? How did she beat an incumbent governor in the primary and go on to win the governorship? Where were the worthy men in this long election process?  --  Sarah Palin’s candidacy is an indictment on the many men who have compromised their principles.”  Men in this congregation, where are YOU in this battle for the future of America?

Becky makes this response:  “Perhaps Satan’s ploy to divide Christians on this issue will backfire, however.  Perhaps there are some Christian men who have been so distracted in their attempts to get ahead in business or who have felt they were doing their civil duty simply by casting a vote (if they have time) who now will be stirred to action and run for local, state or national offices.  Maybe it took a courageous but misguided woman to shame them into it!  Are there men complaining about the disastrous choices facing us in this election?  I challenge them to give voters an alternative to a woman running and run themselves or at least, finance and promote uncompromising men who will run.  --  If Sarah Palin turned her back on this candidacy because of a conviction that she has been called to reign in another sphere, as queen of her home and of her husband’s heart, she would do more to rebuild our nation than anything she hopes to accomplish in public office, preferring the exceeding great riches available to her through a bold admission of God’s claim on her life as a wife and mother.  My heart sank as I watched the news and saw a little girl standing behind the reporter who was speaking.  She was holding a sign that said, ‘I want to be like Sarah Palin when I grow up.’  Multiply that times ?  and think about the future…”

Pray for Sarah Palin that she would honor God with her life. Pray for evangelical and reformed churches that they will not be swept away in the tide of popular opinion, but that they will firmly stand on the solid rock of the Bible. Pray that Christians will return to their roots.  Pray that God will raise up Christian men to places of influence in civil government.  Pray that men will no longer abdicate their governing role in the home.  Pray that churches will elect ministers, elders and deacons who are truly, thoroughly, and tenaciously Reformed by the Word of God.  Pray that American Christians will learn how to vote and to govern as Christians held captive by the word of God.  Pray that God would vastly increase our numbers.

Conclusion

In closing, if you think that our view hides a low view of women, listen to these moving words by Robert L. Dabney assigning to Christian women the highest of honor and responsibilities in the restoration of the American Republic, after the devastation of the South in the War Between the States, in his article:  “The Duty of the Hour.”  He writes:

•  

  …never before was the welfare of a people so dependent on their mothers, wives and sisters, as now and here.  I freely declare that under God my chief hope for my prostrate country is in their women.  Early in the war, when the stream of our noblest blood began to flow so liberally in battle, I said to an honored citizen of my State, that it was so uniformly our best men who were made the sacrifice there was reason to fear that the staple and pith of the people of the South would be permanently depreciated.  His reply was:  “There is no danger of this while the women of the South are what they are. Be assured the mothers will not permit the offspring of such martyr-sires to depreciate.”

•  

  But since, this river of generous blood has swelled into a flood. What is worse, the remnant of the survivors, few, subjugated, disheartened, almost despairing and, alas, dishonored, because they have not disdained life, on such terms as are left us; are subjected to every influence from without, which can be malignantly devised to sap the foundations of their manhood and degrade them into fit material for slaves.  If our women do not sustain them they will sink.  Unless the spirits which rule and cheer their homes can reanimate their self-respect, confirm their resolve, and sustain their personal honor, they will at length become the base serfs their enemies desire.  Outside their homes, everything conspires to depress, to tempt, to seduce them.  --  Only within their homes is there, beneath the skies, one ray of light or warmth to prevent their freezing into despair.

•  

  There, in your homes, is your domain.  There YOU rule with the scepter of affection, and not our conquerors. We beseech you, wield that gentle empire in behalf of the principles, the patriotism, the religion, which we inherited from our mothers.  Teach our ruder sex that only by a deathless love to these can woman’s dear love be deserved or won.  Him whom is true to these crown with your favor.  Let the wretch who betrays them be exiled forever from the paradise of your arms.  Then shall we be saved, saved from a degradation fouler than the grave.  Be it yours to nurse with more than a vestal’s watchfulness, the sacred flame of our virtue now so smothered.  Your task is unobtrusive; it is performed in the privacy of home, and by the gentle touches of daily love.  But it is the noblest work which moral can perform, for it furnishes the polished stones, with which the temple of our liberties must be repaired.  --  Such is your work; the home and fireside are the scenes of your industry.  But the materials you shape are the souls of men, which are to compose the fabric of our church and state.  The politician, the professional man, is but the cheap, rude, day laborer, who moves and lifts the finished block to its place.  You are the true artists, who endue it with fitness and beauty; and therefore yours is the nobler task.- DISCUSSIONS, Vol. IV, p. 120-122

As R.J. Rushdoony wrote in the last chapter of his book, INTELLECTUAL SCHIZOPHRENIA:  “The end of an age is always a time of turmoil, war, economic catastrophe, cynicism, lawlessness and distress.  But it is also an era of heightened challenge and creativity and of intense vitality.  And because of the intensification of issues, and their world-wide scope, never has an era faced a more demanding and exciting crisis.”

JCMIII

September 14, 2008

Cumming, Georgia

Soli Deo Gloria