For the first time in 25 years and only the second time in our nation’s history, a woman will be placed on a major party ticket for the executive office. Sen. John McCain nominated Mrs. Sarah Palin for the Vice Presidency of the United States. This appointment came on the shoulders of much talk that McCain, now 72 and having two bouts with cancer, may elect the next president after him with his vice presidential pick. Mrs. Palin is 44 years old, wife of Mr. Todd Palin and mother of five children…the youngest of which could witness his mother sworn into the office of the executive as vice president before his first birthday. Mrs. Palin is the first Female governor of Alaska, the youngest Governor to take office and of course the first Governor to give birth while in office in that State. Mrs. Palin is a long time member of the NRA and the “Feminist for Life”.
There was a time when Feminism was recognized as one of the greatest threats to the Biblical Family. Since that time Feminism has been responsible for the sexual exploitation of millions of women, for the enslavement of women for the gross national product, for the emasculation of the majority of men, and for the death of countless millions of unborn children. The American family has been abandoned in our culture for the more accommodating co-habitation. Biblical roles are abdicated for personal ambition, and children are pawned off to complete strangers for the majority of their nurture and upbringing. Feminism, pro-life or not, has been one of the greatest destroyers of Christian culture.
Take a moment to think of it, as husband to the co-executive, Mr. Palin will be commanded to obey his wife in all matters of civil ethics under pain of civil sanctions. Perhaps that will not be a great change in the Palin household; but then again every man in America, like him, will be looking to Mr. Palin’s wife for leadership, vision, and protection. The Debate of whether or not women should be in the military will be beside the point; as we may very well see a female commander in chief leading our troops into war from the executive office. How will we defend our daughters from being drafted into the military after we have happily appointed a woman to lead it. Who will keep her home while she keeps house for John McCain? Who will provide her children with motherly nurture while she wields her sword? Who will home school our grandchildren when we compel our daughters to follow her example of womanhood and abandon their homes for the public square? I could go on, but by now you should have caught a glimpse of what this means for the biblical family in America.
Howard Phillips made a comment at the Witherspoon School of Law this year that has stuck with me. When asked how we are to combat terrorism in our nation he said, we end abortion, repent and cry out for the mercy of God on our nation. So when I heard the announcement today, I sat in my office and thought deeply about whether or not the west will survive. It has nothing to do with the shock that a major political party would appoint a woman. It has nothing to do with whether or not I think women are "capable" of holding office. It is not even about the fact that she is a feminist (she would have to be). My reflections were made possible by the euphoric stupor that Christians by the droves found themselves in as they heard the announcement. I am fully convinced that a great deal of Christians will follow the Republican Party into the gates of hell as long as they can continue to convince them that it is better than being a democrat. (It reminds me of the piggish phrase in Animal Farm, "Surely you do not want Jones to come back, anything is better than Jones!")I can say this because I have witnessed the fact that what the Republican Party calls “family values” holds more sway with evangelical voters than the Scripture’s teaching on the family. The majority of Christians today stand in the shoes of the rabid liberal God haters of yesterday, under the all inclusive evangelical banner. It may be shocking to some when I say that, I believe that we are no more than 50 years out from seeing Christians elect (or at least support) the first homosexual republican for the highest office in our nation. Scoff if you like, but 50 years ago it would have been unheard of for a Christian to support a feminist. It should be clear by the present political landscape that the Judgment of God is on our nation, our churches, and our families; while Christians uncannily applaud their own execution.
My hope for the future lays in the fact that God is sovereign and will not forsake the righteous. Psalm 110 tells us that Christ is a Conquering King and in the advance of his kingdom there are only two types of men; those who conquer and those who are conquered. Don’t find yourselves on the wrong side of his sword my friends!
For an excellent article on this topic follow the link to Doug Phillip’s blog post here: http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/ or access the article directly here
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/should_christians_support_a_wo.aspx
37 comments:
Thank you for that. We seem to be in complete agreement. I was in Alaska when Sarah Palin was Mayor. Interesting times then and now.
So very true!!!!
We all need to pray for the Lord to have mercy on our nation and us.
I guess what you're saying is that men should not surrender their God-given authority to civil magistrates who are women. Where you find that in scripture, I haven't a clue. Husbands the head of households? Clearly, biblical teaching. Women can't hold civil authority? Nowhere to be found in scripture.
Friendly advice...Look to scripture for answers to these matters, not extra-biblical (incorrect) teachings.
This is one of the better commentaries I have read since McCain's announcement yesterday. Keep up the great work!
Greg,
Thank you for your comment. I accept your friendly advice with regard to looking to scripture, but I might politely ask if I might return the same advice to your bosom. Might I also add that just because you “don’t have a clue” as to where the Bible might instruct you on this issue, does not mean the evidence is not there. I find that these days while men are at ease with boldly throwing out unqualified statements such as “that is unbiblical”, “that is speculative”, or “that a false teaching”, they are very poor at handling the scriptures themselves when taken to task. It is almost an existential approach to hermeneutics as if to say, the Bible has never left that impression on me, so therefore it must be unbiblical.
Let me begin by asking the same questions posed in the original post. There are clear unequivocal duties that the bible establishes for women which Mrs. Palin must abdicate if she is to take office.
Titus 2:4-5, “That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their
own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
Is Mrs. Palin teaching the younger women to be keepers at home or keepers of the home front? What of her husband? Will she be able to be a help meet for his vision and life’s work, or will she abandon him to be a help meet for the head of state? What of the care and nurture of her children?
Eph. 5: 22 -24, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be
to their own husbands in every thing.”
Can Mrs. Palin serve two masters? Can she be subject to her husband and to the head of state at the same time? What happens when they disagree? If she is to be subject to her husband “in all things” as the scripture says should we not do better to appoint him as vice president? Or will we bat her duty to be subject to her husband to the wind as with her other God ordained duties?
1 Tim. 2:11-12, Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notice that the context is not merely speaking of ecclesiastical polity, or family life, but of the character of the godly woman in general. Furthermore, the reason is not that she is incapable, or that she is not as smart, or as strong, or any of those things. It is because from the foundation of the creation order she was not made to rule over men, but was to be in subjection. This creation order is referred to over and over when establishing the foundation for a woman’s duty to be in subjection. To somehow peal the civil sphere away from creation itself in order say that the same does not apply to Civil sphere is schizophrenic.
1 Cor. 11:7 -10, “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head
because of the angels.”
Here again is the same appeal to the creation order. This time it ends by saying, “for this cause the woman ought to have power on her head because of the angles”; angels meaning that we have an example of how bad a thing it is for those to usurp God’s authority structure. Has God given Mrs. Palin leave of submission to rebel and “liberate herself” from the power that He has set over her?
Exodus 18:21, Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
It is assumed throughout scripture that those appointed to the office of civil magistrate are able men, not mankind, or individuals.
Duet. 30: 6-8, “And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought
out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds herewith
she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.”
Think about this for just a moment. Mr. Palin could disavow her campaign promises, her oath of office, policy initiatives and international treaties. Again it would be better to appoint him Vice President, that is if the word of God will not be blasphemed.
Ex. 3:11-13, “Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his
hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.”
I do not get the impression by this verse that a women serving as a magistrate is somehow desirable, normative or permissible.
I could go on, but I think it is enough at least to show that you can huff and puff about “how the issue is nowhere found in scripture”, but the scriptures will not be broken. Besides I have already reference Bill Einwechter’s article which treats this topic more fully. The clear an unequivocal teaching of scripture is that God has not made women to rule or have authority of men. The assumption of scripture is that where this happens it is brought about by the judgment of God on effeminate and disobedient men. (This would preclude Christian men form desiring or lending their vote to such a judgment.) I have also shown that the assumption of scripture is that we select men to lead, not mankind or individuals. The burden of proof is on you to prove the scriptures affirmatively teach that women have been called to rule the nations or that the scripture are somehow made of none effect by the traditions of 20th century culture.
Be honest with yourself. Does the conviction of your position issue from scripture or does it merely issue as the default position you learned from popular culture. Have you learned your position from scripture or do you hang on so firmly as a sort of “this is the norm, why not”. What of the fruit of your conviction? Does the fruit of your position produce “Change you can believe in” or does it just produce “More of the same” in our culture? Which of our positions is more reflective of the biblical family and which to the modern abolition of the family?
Your blog mentions the purpose of calling “Christians to reconsider and rediscover the resources of Christ, by His Spirit, to change hearts, lives, and society.” I agree with this purpose with my whole heart, but I think you should be a little more epistemologically self conscious about what that actually looks like. When God changes hearts, lives and society, you will not find women abandoning their husbands, homes and families to stand in the gates as civil magistrates. Since you have encouraged me to “Look to scripture for answers to these matters, not extra-biblical (incorrect) teachings” I would also encourage that you would do well to follow your own advice.
Thank you for an articulate post on the biblical teachings of men's authority over women. It gives me more time to take care of my family that I don't have to write a blog.
Many blessings to you,
Marci Putman
I like your post, but who is the alternative candidate to vote for? Thanks, Anne~
Brown Family, and Greg,
Both interesting commentary. But who is right? Which interpretation of the bible is right? Is it the Brown's family?
Will we have to get to heaven to find out who was right and who was wrong?
Why would our savior leave us in such a state of confusion? There are over 100 different Christian denominations, who all say that their interpretation is correct.
Aisha
1 Tim. 2:11-12, Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
This section provides a bit of difficulty considering that Paul elsewhere is in strong favor of the women who have founded and led the early churches throughout his regions. I've heard many point out that he was addressing Ephesus at the time, home of the Diana cult. When female members of the Diana cult joined Christianity, they began teaching that women had been created before men and Adam had sinned, but Eve had not.
1 Cor. 11:7 -10, “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”
I have always read this to mean that because there is ample evidence that men should always be considered greater than women, it is important that women worship with "power on her head", also translated as "a sign of authority". That doesn't suggest to me that a man must always be in charge. It suggests that since we could easily believe that, it's important to show that women also have power and authority.
From those sections plus the tons of examples of women in the Old and New Testament who were leaders and judges (Deborah was not the only one) with no censure, even during Israel's Golden Ages, plus the rights and responsibilities of the Proverbs 31 woman (which include profiting from her own business conducted among men as an equal), I have always taken the overall message to be that the man has the CEO position in the home, and the woman has the XO position.
My husband has the final say in our home, but when I conduct business for my family, I do not allow any men with whom I conduct business to have authority over me. As a part-time college teacher, there are times when I have a limited authority over adult male students. I do not consider that to be breaking God's law.
Neither do I object to Sarah Palin's candidacy without any knowledge of her husband's wishes or desires in the matter. She may be subject to him, but she is not subject to every other man in the nation. Furthermore, as in my family where my husband has given me control of the finances, his decision to let her hold this position does not mean that he makes all of the decisions in her position for her.
So amazing to see that some true believers are brave enough to expose how everything pertaining to the Biblical family as well as the standards stated in Scripture for civil authority are being systematically undermined or rejected. As iniquity keeps increasing, and God's authoritative Word is being challenged and opposed by some even in (the lukewarm and dead) Church by the erosion of spiritual conscience, the devil's voice of subtlity that centers on the self being above everything and rebellious ideological attitudes are now being exonerated, or even praised, without being scrutinized by many who are misled.
Anne,
I like Baldwin/ Castle ticket, http://www.baldwin08.com/, but yet; there is more I need to know. I left a comment on C.S. Hayden’s blog a few days ago that explains my position on voting this election and I will repost it here.
With regard to voting; I am not convinced that I am violating any Biblical or civil duty by not voting. What is it worth to have a voice in the political process if we fail to use our voice in accordance with God’s commandments? I personally believe that to vote pragmatically for an unqualified individual, for what ever reason, is to blaspheme the great commission. I just can’t see how that is conducive to the command to disciple the nations. I have traditionally voted third party or wrote in my vote, but I am not going to lose sleep if I stay at home in November.
Rushdoony, tells the story of a man in a convenient store in Nevada who is losing all of his money to a slot machine. When told by a local that the machine has been rigged and that it was impossible for him to win, he said, “well I know that, but it is the only machine in town.” Republican and Democratic parties are not the only shows in town, the man did not have to gamble his money away, and I do not have to waste my vote.
I'm guessing you'd rather have Obama in office? Because that is the alternative. You can reference Animal Farm all day, but we aren't Communist. There are other factors to consider besides a woman VP...such as...oh, abortion. Who is for it and who is against it? Who wins on that issue...Palin or Biden?
And I seem to recall someone in the scriptures, a certain judge named Deborah. Surely she wasn't abandoning what God called her to be by becoming a judge and prophetess?
I'm not saying your ideas of home and family are wrong. Mrs. Palin is obviously pro-family...she has 5 children! Most liberal women leaders would have zero. Just think of the image that sets before the people...a leader who values her home and family at the end of the day.
Sometimes we need to live life by the closest to right we can get, because the world is an evil place.
Aisha,
I would point out first of all that Greg had not interpretation of Scripture, only an unqualified statement of what he believed the Bible did not teach. The absence of knowledge does not constitute an absence of evidence; it constitutes an ignorance of the evidence.
Respectfully, your comment is indicative to what those that do not read the Bible say about the Bible. We most certainly will not have to wait until we get to heaven to find out what the bible teaches. 2 Timothy 3:15 tells us that Timothy knew the scriptures from infancy “…how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” Paul goes on to say that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Romans 15:4, “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” We learn in Daniel 9:2, “[Daniel] understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.”
Language transcends human existence since God himself if a literary being. God created the world choosing to do it linguistically. Adam was created with a full command of language and by language we find that when God has communicated with man he has chosen to do so linguistically. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is called the Word. That is not to say that Christ is created from a word, but that he is the WORD that spoke the worlds into existence. Christ came as the fleshly embodiment of the Word of God. On the day of Pentecost the words of the apostles transcended the language barrier and all men understood in their own tongue. In fact there is no way that you could have made sense of Greg and I enough to qualify that we had differing opinions unless language was transcendent. To say that we cannot simply know what a phrase means is to make all language subjective and unintelligible. UHG with a expressive pointing motion would be the only way for men to communicate. Even then you could not expect anyone to understand what the UHG and point was to be associated with. The truth is that man cannot know anything intelligibly in areas of economics, science, education, relationships, government, ect, apart from what God has spoken.
It is true that we have so many reasons for that. No one can put it better that scripture itself as to why that is. 2 Peter 3:16, “He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Matt 22:29, Jesus tells us why there are so many denominations: “Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” It was not for reading of scripture that they were confused but for the lack of knowing what the scripture actually has to say. 1 Corinthians chapter 1 sets a great frame work for this problem.
Rose,
I have read that interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 also. But it falls short for many reasons. First of all it uses the conjecture of a cultural abnormality to be used in the interpretation of scripture. This is problematic since it is not specifically referenced in the test. This is the use of extra-biblical social norms, which by the way cannot be presently observed or verified, to change the meaning of scripture. This is simply not allowable. Secondly, even if this error were the think Paul was confronting specifically, the application of the text is not limited in principal. Paul refers to Creation with took place some 4000 years before Paul would have had to confront this cult, if that is indeed what he is doing. So this is a rule in scripture that provides an application to the role of men and women in every sphere of life, not just in an isolated cultural abnormality some 1900 years ago.
With regard to “Paul elsewhere is in strong favor of the women who have founded and led the early churches” I am not sure what you are referring to. We have the testimony of women that labored beside their husbands in the gospel work. In 1 Cor. 11 and in Titus 2 he explains in what capacity. It is a fundamental rule in hermeneutics that the clear test of scripture interprets the unclear. You are inferring that somehow the clear teaching of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 is muddled by seemingly irregular historical narratives. Sorry that just does not pass muster if we are striving to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Forgive me, but with regard to your interpretation of 1 Cor 11: 7-10, it is so bizarre I am almost embarrassed for it. Suffice it to say that your interpretation is impossible in light of the context. Specifically, verse three says, “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.” The context is clearly not egalitarian in nature; it is in reference to a chain of command and being under authority.
I am at a loss to think of who you are referring to when you speak of other female leaders beside Deborah in the Old Testament; surely you are not referencing examples of rebellious women like Jezebel. I am quite confident that will not help prove your case. Proverbs does not lend you its support either. It was her husband’s increase that she used to be productive and all of her products mentioned are domestic in nature. She does not stand in counsel in the gates with men, and sorry but her business is not conducted in an egalitarian manner. I agree that a virtuous woman is productive in the home, Camelia most certainly is, and I am not at all taking issue with that. However, you will be hard pressed to fit modern views of egalitarianism into the domestic productivity of proverbs 31.
Ephesians 5:22 says, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” I am not sure how where I said that Mrs. Palin is somehow to be subject to any man. My point is that she must be in subjection to her own husband and that God has not called her to stand in the gates with men. He has called her to be a keeper at home. Nor her feminism or yours can be made to fit within the biblical framework of the family and the role of women.
Miss Smarty,
As a matter of fact, although I hate the thought of it, there are benefits to having Obama in the White House. I am tired of seeing Christians abdicate their responsibility in the civil sphere. I am tired of seeing the Christian right referred to as the Republican lap dogs. Christians sat beneath the table of the civil government waiting for the crumbs to hit the ground. If we truly believe that our Lord and King, Jesus Christ, sits at the head of the table I cannot reconcile not sitting at that table making clear demands from world leaders. If the God of providence is on our side, why do we beg? Why do we settle? Why do we render unto Caesar the things that are not his? George Bush has done more to perpetuate socialism, unethical policy and globalism than Bill Clinton could have done in a dozen terms. The reason Bush is a republican and Christians would not mobilize against his agenda, because they were waiting for those crumbs to hit the floor. Christians rightly see Obama as a threat and likewise we will be more unified to fight against his unwelcome policies than we would under McCain/Palin. We had a “Christian” Republican Executive and a Republican Congress in 2000. I will end by asking….and what of abortion??? Why is it still an issue? Is it still legal? Have they de-funded Planned Parenthood? They did not do it then and based on McCains track record they will not do it now. If Obama is in the White House the church will flex its muscles and fight. If it is McCain/Palin…yawn…the same apathy that we have seen during Bush.
In light of the obvious state oversight in every sphere of the American social order it is amazing that you can say that America is not socialist, but then again the other animals at animal farm did not know the difference either. John McCain once called Christian leaders in America “agents of intolerance”. We all know John McCain as an opportunist and as with any opportunist their actions speak louder than words. He has been critical of the Iraq war (of which I must admit I am also critical) and accused President Bush with dishonesty with the American People. Is it not convenient, now that he must appeal to those that support the war effort, that he too is now a strong supporter of the war effort? In the last presidential election he ridiculed the “Swift Boat” veterans as “dishonest and dishonorable”. Yet we are to make his heroic service to our nation a center piece of his campaign. He ridiculed Bush’s tax cuts as “a tax cut for the rich”. Is it not convenient who he quickly changes his tune at saddleback? If he truly opposes abortion, than what is that Christian to do with his poor pro-life record? Who can forget McCain/Feingold and the monstrous set back that poses to Christian efforts to engage the political process? Who can forget the Gang of 14 and the statement that Justice Alito was “too conservative?” How can we take his promise to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court as anything other than lip service? What about his earlier statements about global warming, and opposing to the reversal of Roe. Wade and his amicus brief against the Wisconsin Right to Life. Who can forget his waffling stance of immigration against the desire of his constituents in this home state and across the nation? How can he undo McCain/Kennedy and his favorable vote of the Specter amendment? How are we to reconcile his support of the patient’s bill of rights with his current stance against of socialized medicine? How do we overlook the fact that he opposed drilling in ANWR, but not holds it up as a major piece of his presidential platform?
I must reject your “close to right ethics” because that is not what Gods law says and you are not at liberty to deem that standard sufficient. By what standard can you use to justify when “close to right” is close enough? We are not at liberty to decide for ourselves right and wrong as long as Christ is King of kings of all the in the universe.
With regard to Deborah, ask me after you have read Einwechter’s article where he addresses that question.
Can I just say...
HOO HAH!
"...the fact that what the Republican Party calls “family values” holds more sway with evangelical voters than the Scripture’s teaching on the family."
Preach on Brother Brown!
You said "Feminism has been responsible for the sexual exploitation of millions of women, for the enslavement of women for the gross national product, for the emasculation of the majority of men, and for the death of countless millions of unborn children."
I was directed at your blog from another forum. I do not mean to come off mean spirited in my comment and am truly sincere in my question. I hope it is taken that way.
Is feminism the real thing that is responsible, as you have said, or is it that men have freely given up their God given duties? Men have always tried to say that it is womens fault and we did it first but when you look at Genesis 3, it clearly says Adam was right there with Eve. Adam stood there, knowing what God had told him and with the wife given to him, and he did nothing to stop her and took it a step further and even partook. Until men stop blaming everyone else for what is wrong, and start being real men of God, who aren't afraid of standing up and won't let themselves be emasculated, then we will always be were we are at.
Have a blessed day!
Sallie
Sally,
The feminist movement could have never accomplished what it has accomplished if men had not abandoned their Duties as men. In this sense Feminism was fought on two fronts. First it was a movement encouraging women to abandon their God-given duties. Second it was a movement encouraging men to abandon their God-given duties. If men would have been men feminism would have failed. If women would be women feminism would have failed. Likewise if we are to defeat feminism we too must fight the battle on both fronts. We must encourage men to be men and ladies to be ladies. Dabney saw this same strategy in his article “Women’s rights Women” when he talked of feminists of both sexes.
Men embraced feminism because the feminist allowed him to abandon his role without accountability. The feminist offered the pervert free sex without commitment. He could use women as he would a whore, but he did not have to pay for it. Moreover, he could use a woman to suit his needs without having to love her, provide for and protect her. The communist loved feminism because it provided a rational to employ women to labor as men for the state. They called it the liberation of women, but in actuality she was being enslaved by the State. There is no difference in American; we just don’t put women in jail not working...yet. (Obama’s rhetoric about making labor a center piece for welfare reform and the relationship of the laborer to society at Saddleback, was the same language used by socialist states)
Biblically, I could point out a few things with regard to original sin. First, it was wrong for man not to take responsibility; Adam blamed the sin on Eve and Eve on the serpent. The creation that groans for redemption groans because it was cursed for Adams sake, not Eve’s. Likewise, in Romans 5 we find that from one Man’s sin, sin passed on all. We also see Christ as the Second Adam over against the first Adam, not the first Adam. Adam was chiefly responsible because conveniently he was the head of the women. I believe the point that 1Tim. 2:11 makes is that woman are venerable to deception and vice when ever they are not under authority. Then again so is man when he is removed from the authority of Christ and his law.
Thank you for your insights!
AWESOME POST AND FABULOUS, INTELLIGENT, ARTICULATE AND BIBLICALLY SOUND RESPONSES! Thank you for taking the time to organize this and write it up for the rest of us! I will be sending this along to many of my friends.
Brown Family,
Thank-you for respectfully answering. I'm still a little bit confused. When two brothers (or even denominations) in Christ, are in conflict over the meaning of scripture, and both believe they are correct, how do you solve the dispute? How do you know that you may have the correct interpretation?
I ask this in all humbleness, not to be mean-spirited at all. But if different denominations of Christianity have different interpretations of God's truth, are they in a destructive path? When we welcome a new believer, and we give him a bible, which church do we point him to; the Episcopal, Lutheran, Baptist, ect.?
I'm a rather new believer myself, so these are all things I think about.
Aisha
What an awesome post. It is so full of scripture to support all you have said. It is wonderful and refreshing to hear from Christians who are not afraid to speak the truth from God's Word.
Brown Family,
First, thank you for posting my earlier comment. To be honest, I didn't think it would be posted, but you show integrity in doing so.
And thank you for the very thorough response and commentary on various scripture passages. I must say that you've thought of nearly every rebuttal point, and I doubt there's anything I can say that will shake your confidence in your intepretation of scripture.
My main objection to what I've read on your post is that you mix the sphere of authority in the home with all other spheres, including civil authority. The order within families is clear in scripture. But the sphere of civil authority is distinct from the sphere of family authority. In fact, Paul (who wrote most about it) doesn't assume or expect governing authorities to be "Christian" at all. And the purposes and commands, if you will, to each are different. As individuals, we are told to turn the other cheek. A government would imperil itself and its citizens if it turned the other cheek, particulary in a nuclear age. The Christian, and the larger unit of the Christian family, are to be governed by love. The state, or magistrate, governs by the sword, and is put in place to enforce justice and punish evil. We're not, as individuals, given authority to punish evil. Lastly, government is not a personal entity, although it needs to be run by people. Government is never referred to as a "he" or "she" in scripture -- government is "gender neutral" in that regard. The spheres of individual, Christian family, and governing authority are different spheres, with different tasks, different missions, and different means to fulfill their God-given purposes.
As to other points I would make, I'd simply say "Ditto" to Gothelittle Rose's comments.
A couple of other points, or questions, though:
Your blog posts are signed "The Brown Family." Is this Mr. Brown teaching us about the role of women in society, or Mrs. Brown? If Mrs. Brown, it's ironic that you would point out that "we should suffer not a woman to teach," or however your translation phrases it, but here you're instructing us all on the role of women. If Mr. Brown is the writer, your tact is a tad misogynist given the breadth of your application of the principle of wifely submission. How about giving Mrs. Brown a chance to weigh-in?
Also, you don't know me or my background, so I can forgive your comment painting me with the brush when you say, "I find that these days while men are at ease with boldly throwing out unqualified statements such as 'that is unbiblical', 'that is speculative', or 'that a false teaching', they are very poor at handling the scriptures themselves when taken to task." I've been a Christian for over 36 years, a member of a church elder board, chairman of that board, deacon over adult education, teacher of an adult Sunday school class for more years than I can count, leader of home Bible studies, etc. and so on. I think I can handle the scriptures as well as the next person, but you don't know that, so your broad swipe is forgiven.
You related a story told by R.J. Rushdoony. I'm familiar with his Christian Reconstructionism and for a number of years subscribed to the Chalcedon newsletter. I respected him as a great thinker, a great intellect. But my assessment is that many of his disciples, since his death, have taken his perspective and turned into something of a cult. Not an actual cult, because I believe they still hold to the basic doctrines of the deity of Christ, his substitutionary death on the cross, and the imputation to us of Christ's atoning work through faith. But his followers have been "cultic" in regard to many of Rushdoony's take on scripture.
And speaking of cultic, I'm concerned with your overall approach to the topic of submission. I'm pretty convinced that Paul's main point of the Eph. 5 passage is less about roles in the family, and more about Christ's relationship with the church, as a husband who loves His bride enough to sacrifice Himself for her, and her willingness to submit to such a loving husband. The problem with falling your sword in regard to submission (women's submission, it always seems to be; especially when Paul commands all of us in Eph. 5:21 to "be subject to one another") is that you've taken one verse from scripture and made it the banner under which you slay a multitude of "enemies," and you've built an entire theology of Christian behavior based on that one principle, interpreting a variety of scripture passages from the "light" of wifely submission. It's cultic, because like any cult, your perspective takes the truth of one passage, elevates it to a status it was never intended to have, and it becomes the standard by which all other things are judged. Missing in the whole exercise is the grace, mercy, and indwelling presence of the Spirit of Christ in the life of the believer. Where in your posts or comments are we encouraged to submit ourselves to the indwelling life of Jesus? This is the hallmark of all cults -- strict adherence to a narrow perspective in Scripture, and the complete absense of Christ as our source of life and ability to live as He intends us to live.
Again, thank you for allowing this discussion, and for allowing divergent viewpoints. Living in an echochamber is guaranteed to lead to error.
Greg
Greg,
Thank you for the response. I am not mistaking or intersecting Spheres of Government at all, I agree with you that each is autonomous. However, you can’t deny that because each individual plays an intrinsic role in each sphere of governmental authority and because all power is derivative from a single source there is a unity in the social fabric of the universe. Each sphere is autonomous but each inseparable from the others. As I said to deny this is schizophrenic. God does not have the right hand undo the work that he has had the left hand build. Conservatives, have responded that she can be an executive and a mother too. True if that means motherhood is merely giving birth, sharing the last name and physical street address, while you send them to the public schools and hire a professional wet nurse. However, I will take it a step further and ask can she be an executive and a wife to her husband too? What do you do with verses such as Deut. 30? The authority of husband over his wife clearly extends into the civil sphere. My wife understands that God has called her to be a help meet for me in every sphere of life. When God made Eve she was made a help meet for Adam, not just in the family but in fulfilling the whole of the Dominion Covenant (Gen. 1;26). There is no discontinuity in our family goals and ambitions. As Calvin said, “If God has made the wife a help meet for the husband then he can have no other help greater.”
Secondly, you state that Government is “gender neutral”. Well I guess that depends on what language you are speaking. J/K That aside if you are speaking in Biblical terms Civil Government is not gender neutral. I used Exodus 18:21 as an example of this Deuteronomy 1:15 is another. Leaders in Civil Government are assumed to be male in gender.
To answer you with regard to the author, I thought it might be obvious since I mentioned I was sitting in my office at work when I heard the announcement. Mrs. Brown is free to weigh in any time she likes, but she chooses to restrict her comments to the women as you pointed out is consistent with scripture. If you would like to gage whether or not she is an intelligent and capable women with regard to forming her own opinions or if she is just some poor oppressed slave of domestic life, then look up her post called the 12 things that women should not do to their husbands. She is intelligent and free to form her own opinions, but again you will not find any discontinuity. (And surely you cannot somehow find fault with that!)
Thank you for your forgiveness. But your post came off as somewhat haughty and arrogant, as if to assume that you were dealing with a man who does not know how to handle himself. In light of you original comment I think my response was fair. Providing that you have been a Christian for over 36 years, you are obviously older that I so I be careful to show more deference and respect in the future.
I understand your comments about Rushdoony. However, his thesis is the reconstruction of every aspect of life in term of biblical revelation. You have to expect that reconstruction to look strange and counter-cultural in terms of the wide spread rejection of God in our culture.
Finally, I think your comments about my use of Ephesians 5:21 being “cultic” is somewhat disingenuous for several reasons. First of all it was by no means made the center piece of my case. Second, the scriptures were listed to make a case for the role of women in the civil sphere and was not a thesis on the nature of submission. Third, I used this verse as one among many. It was not even the first scripture reference in my response. Nor, is it relied on as purporting the whole of my case. I used a total of seven verses from both the old and new testaments. For purposes of a blog post I think you can hardly call that a narrow use of scripture. Fourth, Ephesians while laying out the relationship of Christ to the believer, Paul reflects on the biblical structure of the family. (This by the way greatly strengthens my argument for that model, not diminishing it) Fifthly, you mention “the complete absence of Christ as our source of life and ability” Forgive me, but is that not what the scriptures do? Is Christ not the embodiment of the scripture, and by the scripture all things subdued under his rule? Finally, I am an active member in good standing of a Reformed Baptist church here in Virginia and hold to the 1689 confession of faith. Really, Greg this cult thing you tried to raise was just….weird and desperate.
Thank you so much for your intelligent and thought-provoking response to this issue. I've been debating on another "Christian" blog for 3 days now, and have yet to find one other Christian who agrees with me (and the Bible) that it is unBiblical for Mrs. Palin to be running. Blessings to you!
Aisha,
We must start with the fact that man is depraved totally. Man unaided by God’s grace can know nothing. However, there are means by which God has made it possible for man to come to the knowledge of the truth. Hebrews 1:1-2, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” This ties into Jesus being called the Word as I referred to in my first response. Secondly, Christ makes a number of promises “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13). “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31-32) If we know Christ then we know the truth. We know that we know Christ if we keep his commandments 1 John 2:3-4.
The only way that we can know truth is by knowing Jesus Christ and Jesus promised that we will know him by the Spirit of God. So it is principle by the spirit of God leading us and guiding us into all truth. God has said that he works principally through the written word of God and the preaching of the Gospel. Although, you say that you are a young Christian you have probably noticed that people are more apt to have very firm and decided views about what scripture, then are to know and understand what the scriptures teach. Those disputes must be settled by what the scripture says. I am confident that if two people disagreeing and trusting in the spirit of God to lead them into all truth humble themselves and search the scriptures, they will come to agreement.
Unfortunately, men come to the scriptures with preconceived ideas about what the scriptures teach and what is right and wrong. They read the scriptures on their own terms without allowing the scriptures to reprove them or the false notions of culture around them. A somewhat humorous example of this is the fact that I have been told by Christian attorneys that I should decide whether or not I want to be a prophet or a lawyer, because I believe the Word of God holds more authority over law than the Supreme Court. John 3: 20-21 says, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” We cannot cower to follow where the word of God leas us.
If we know the truth then we will show evidence of that by obeying God first rather than man. If there are only two candidates running for president (which there are not) and God has said both are disqualified biblically, than we either obey God and do not vote for a biblically unqualified candidate, or we compromise our faith and reject Gods word.
Thank you for the sincerity of your question Aisha!
It seems only liberals are questioning how she is going to fulfill the roles of both mother of 5 and VP. It seems to me that the GOP is rationalizing their pic, only blindly following a party, rather than biblical principles.
Thank you for this. I am Catholic, I read the scriptures, and I get it.
I raised my concern at a Choir party about her ability to mother her down's baby, and one man in particular was incredulous that I would take issue with her. The conventional wisdom out there, even in Christian circles, is that women are being unfairly expected to mother their children. Wow. "We don't ask Barack Obama if he will be able to spend enough fatherly time with his girls if he's elected president, so why the double standard?" To argue back that a mother has a special role in the lives of her children that cannot be outsourced to others seems just ridiculous to people these days. And, as has been evidenced in the comments to your post, even Scripture passages that are plain as day get debated and twisted. Meanwhile Russia, Iran and N. Korea are rattling swords and making plans and the Dow dropped another 344 points today.
More than ever, we need to keep seeking the Lord, even as the light goes out in the West.
Since that time Feminism has been responsible for the sexual exploitation of millions of women, for the enslavement of women for the gross national product, for the emasculation of the majority of men, and for the death of countless millions of unborn children.
So before feminism came along, what was responsible for the sexual exploitation of women, the enslavement of women (and children, and other men), the emasculation (in the form of castration, often) and for the infanticide of countless millions of unborn children?
Read history. What you describe is not the fault of feminism. What you describe has been teh way this world has worked ever since the Fall.
The problem is not feminism. The problem is sin.
Women not wanting to be ruled over by men is hardly a historical norm. The historical norm, for century upon century upon century, IS male rule. And the blood cries up from the ground to prove it.
The answer to our problems on this planet isn't patriarchy. If you think it is, that golden calf will prove sterile when it comes time to show fruit.
The answer to our problems is Jesus.
Jeff
PS. How did Jesus treat women? Did He blame the many problems going on in His world on feminism?
Sorry, I need to correct myself. It is Numbers 30 (not Duet. 30)The text was right though.
Jeff,
I would not be so confident in my assessment of feminism if I had not read history. In particular I have also read a number of books written by feminists. I understand feminism quite well and will continue to get to know it better as I am poised to fight against it among other enemies.
Where Christianity has had a predominate influence when in history have you seen the wide spread fornication, adultery, rampant pornography, and immodesty. Perhaps, you have seen on the news that it was not a week before Mrs. Palin was photoshopped into a bikini to satisfy the curiosity weak emasculated men. Prior to modernity if a man had sexual relations with a women he was held accountable. If he was unsatisfied with his marriage he was not free to sever all ties and force her into the workplace. Under the Common law of England authorities punished adultery, fornication, and lewdness. Secondly, you did not see “career women” over against “keepers at home”. Even under biblical forms slavery women were seen existing in households under the bond father or husband. Can you point to a time when two thirds of women in a society have been the breadwinners? Can you point to a time in Christain history where infanticide has been as rampant and acceptable as it is in our nation after the feminism of Margaret Sanger? You read history, and let me know.
Jesus treated women like a Biblical Patriarch! The Hebrew people were a Patriarchal people from Abraham to Christ. If you would like to see how Christ confronted the implications of Feminism look to his dialog with the Samaritan woman at the well. He called her to repentance and true worship.
Jeff, Feminism IS sin! Emasculation IS sin! Rejecting what the bible says about men women and families IS sin. Your statement is irrational. You might just as well say. The problem is not that we worship idols men have been doing that for centuries the problem is sin. The problem is not that we bear false witness, commit adultery, lie, slander steal, or commit murder men have been doing that for centuries the problem is sin.
The answer IS Christ, but that prove my case not yours! “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (1John 3: 4-5)Christ says if you love him you will keep his commandments. (John 14: 15-21) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (1Cor. 7:19) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1John 2: 3-4)
Is it for you lack of understanding of history or scripture that you have turned your back to the true enemy to face off with me? If Christ is your King then gird up your loins like a man turn around and face off with his enemies.
Mr. Brown, Thank you for your honest answer to my previous question!
A large problem I am having with opinions on the Biblical role of women in authority that are being presented is that there seems to be this huge denial of the roles we DO see women holding within the pages of the Word of God. Just as I read Gods creation took place in 6 days, I read that Deborah was a judge, and that the Lord is who raised up judges, and that He was with the judge.
We also cannot simply say because it is only rare occasions in the Bible that God used women because that simply does not matter. If God did it once, then that was enough to say He has previously called women and so there is a possibility, and probability, that He would do so again in the future.
I also believe in and agree with 1 Peter 2:13-15 which says "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emporer as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people."
My husband and I continue to read with interest all the many things being said in regards to this election. It has been great talking with our childen around the homeschool table about such issues.
In Chrsit,
Sallie
Sallie,
Thank you for your very gracious response.
I absolutely hear what you are saying. I too believe that God is actively involved in all of the affairs of men. He sets up king’s and bring them down. (Job 36:7) I also believe that if Sarah Palin is placed in authority I will be commanded in scripture to submit to her authority as a civil magistrate. My Contention is not even that she would not serve as a better executive then Obama or McCain, I believe she very well could. However, this is not a questions of whether or not women are intelligent, and capable to serve in that capacity, I believe they are capable. That is not the point. I am capable of violating the scripture in a number of ways, but ability does not constitute the right.
Mrs. Palin may become the first female executive, but we must recognize that this according to Isaiah 3: 11-13 says,” As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.” If Mrs. Palin is to become the first female executive this is a sign of the Judgment of God, and not something that Christian should be petitioning and hoping for. I think Most Christians know this already. In fact I would bet if Hillary was running for the position and I posted the same article in opposition to her, many more Christians would have been on board. The saddening irony of this looming judgment is that it would have been bad is Hillary would have been elected (which she has not given up), but at least we could say of course the majority who voted for Hillary are liberals and don’t know the scriptures. However, if Mrs. Palin gets the spot before her it will be the Christian vote that rallied to her support that ushered in the judgment and pave the way for future female leaders like Hillary to become normative in our nation.
With regard to Deborah there has been some great commentary on that that posted by Nathaniel Darnell on his blog; also Einwechter points out in his article. Nathaniel commentates, “Deborah has been cited by some as an example of a civil magistrate approved by God in the Bible. But it is unlikely that Deborah was an actual civil official in Israel for several reasons. (1) She “judged” under a tree and not in the gates, suggesting that she was more a prophetess and counselor or mediator than a judge with authority to enforce her decisions (Judges 4:4-5). (2) She did not lead the troops into battle, but insisted Barak perform that task (Judges 5:12). (3) She recognized that there were others at the time who held civil office as “governors” in the land (Judges 5:12).
But there is yet an even more significant reason the case of Deborah cannot be looked to as a positive example of how Christians are to live. That reason is that Deborah lived in a time when Israel was plainly not obeying God. The very beginning of the chapter speaking of Deborah’s story says Israel was doing evil in the sight of the Lord at the time of her influence (Judges 4:1). Men were not being the leaders they were supposed to be (Judges 4:6-9), and the people were doing what was right in their own eyes instead of following God’s commands. (See Judges 17:6; 21:25.)”
We do not learn from Deborah that a women serving as a magistrate is normative or permissible by rule. If we suppose that Deborah is used as a case and point then one would have to accept other non-normative behavior mentioned in the book of judges, such as the keeping of concubines, giving women up to sexual abuse, and taking wives by capture. These were times when “there was not king in Israel” and “every man did what was right in his own eyes.
It brings me great joy to hear of the discipleship that is taking place at your family table. Blessings to you and your family
Mr. Brown -- Neither my husband or I agree with Mr. Einwechter (my questions on Mr. Darnells blog have not been posted in his comments for some reason of which I can not know the answer). Mr. Einwechter can not simply say Deborah was more of a prophetess because the Bible says she was both. Unfortunately, he is the only person I can find who lists his thoughts the way he does, and every current person in this debate just cites him as the full expert on the matter. Neither Henry, or Adams, or Gill (I could go on and on) deny in their commentaries what Deborah was. She was in authority over the people. It does not matter if one can point out that there was another governor above her because we still cannot deny the authority she did have over both men and women.
I fear we, as Christians, use split tongues when we decide what we wish to be against Biblically speaking and what we think in the heirarchy of our sins are allowed to be ok. . Afterall, the Bible also says do not be indebted to any man but I wonder who among us have mortgages on homes, et al. Even if we pay our plastic off at the end of the month and don't pay interest, we are still indebted for that time.
I do thank you very much for your kind remarks about my gracious response and for also being a man who is not afraid to answer my questions with your honest opinion. May God richly bless you and your family!!
In Christ,
Sallie
Sallie,
The Rev. Einwechter’s article is a resource that most of us reference because he is a well respected minister and his article is easily accessed by those not familiar with the position taken. While the commentators you mentioned refer to Deborah was a Judge, she was so in a diminished capacity since she did not perform the whole of the office herself. Further, I have to point you back to the fact that these were not times that can be taken to be normative. (Judges 4: 1-9) I must against say, “If we suppose that Deborah is used as a case and point then one would have to accept other non-normative behavior mentioned in the book of judges, such as the keeping of concubines, giving women up to sexual abuse, and taking wives by capture. These were times when “there was not king in Israel” and “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” How about polygamy? It is obviously not normative based on the creation model, but can we say, “look Jacob did it, David did it, wise Solomon did it best….therefore it is ok to take a dozen or more wives.”? You can simply not take non-normative texts and try to apply them to normative situations.
I am in total agreement with your comment about building a hierarchy of sins. Vision Forum is consistent on both of the points you mentioned by the way. Mr. Phillip’s does not have a mortgage for the reasons you mentioned. Many of his staff also rent and save based on that conviction. VF sells a lot of resources on the site to raise these issues. We must conform every aspect of our life to scripture, not only in part. It was a good point you made! Amen to that.
BTW don’t take it personally that Nathaniel did not post your comments. He is a really great guy. He has a billion projects he is taking on at once and has to be selective with the comments he responds to if at all. He is in the battle though and a very able warrior for Christ.
Again, Mr. Brown, thank you for your thoughtful explanation. I can not say I agree because I don't know how we can pick normative times and non-normative times. That seems to leave all of scripture open to much personal opinion on what is and isn't socially acceptable for the day. Besides, do we really consider today "normative"? God has used the abnormal all through scripture to prove His point... I mean, a shepherd boy who wasn't the oldest son was chosen to become the king? Or, a really old guy to build a ship to save all of Gods creation? A ship that big? Then? How normal was that? And, honestly, I can't remember that last time I heard a donkey speak :-)
I am very familiar with VF (I am an affiliate) and have purchased many of their products in the past. Many of Voddie Bauchams sermons are among my favorites and we listen regularly to the Servan clans Hymn CD's while doing our schoolwork. Our family learned much about our nations founding history through the JT400! Huzzah!!! LOL... I, of course, can't say I agree 100% with everything put out by VF just like I can't say I agree with every stance of the SBC, the denomination to which our family belongs. That would be very much like putting my trust in a "man" as many Roman Catholics do and not God.
May I ask what your opinions are on Mr. Castle, the vp pick for the Constitution Party? Do you have no problems with him being a lawyer, especially one who deals with many man made issues such as bankruptcy?
For now, though, I must bow out as we prepare for a little friend named Hanna to take a sweep by our home some time tonight or in the morning. Any prayers you may offer up on that front (or for the path of Ike as well) would be welcome!
In Christ,
Sallie
Sally,
Since I think we have both stated our cases thoroughly enough for the purpose of this blog post. I will leave it at that. However, suffice it to say that we must discern normative and non-normative to properly interpret scripture. Jesus said that for the hardness of the hearts Moses allowed letters of divorcement, but from the beginning it was not so. Here he himself was making a normative and non-normative distinction. Paul also makes several similar distinctions.
With regard to the CP ticket I am an undecided, but perhaps I will make a post in the future if I come to a conclusion. Seeing that I am on pace to become an attorney myself I hope that is not grounds for disqualification.
Our Family was at Jamestown too. What a blast!
excellent post! i linked to it on my blogs www.xanga.com/a_godly_homemaker and the one linked here
Post a Comment