Our scripture text today is the third chapter of Isaiah, Isaiah chapter three, verses one through 12. Let us stand for prayer for the Holy Spirit's enlightenment and remain standing out of reverence for the reading of the word of God. We bow before you, blessed triune God, in worship and adoration and submission and all, and we pray now that you would instruct us and teach us how to think, how to live, particularly in this anti-Christian American culture of the 21st century. For Jesus' sake, amen. Isaiah 3, 1 through 12. For behold, the Lord God of hosts is going to remove from Jerusalem and Judah both supply and support, the whole supply of bread, the whole supply of water, the mighty man and the warrior, the judge and the prophet, the diviner and the elder, the captain of 50 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. When a man lays hold of his brother in his father's house saying, you have a cloak, you shall be our ruler, and these ruins will be under your charge, on that day will he protest saying, I will not be your healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor cloak. You should not appoint me ruler of the people. For Jerusalem has stumbled, and Judah has fallen, because their speech and their actions are against the Lord, to rebel against His glorious presence. The expression of their faces bears witness against them, and they display their sin like Sodom. They do not even conceal it. Woe to them! for they have brought evil on themselves. Say to the righteous that it will go well with them for they will eat the fruit of their actions. Woe to the wicked, it will go badly with him for what he deserves will be done to him. Oh my people, their oppressors are children and women rule over them. Oh my people, those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths. You may be seated. You saw the sign out in front of the church. We're taking a little break from Psalms for today. We're going to talk about women civil magistrates, question mark. How can anybody not like Sarah Palin? How can anyone keep from admiring her? As a mother of five, as a wife, for her apparent faith in Christ, her pro-life stand, her intelligence, her eloquence, her love for moose hunting, her effectiveness as the governor of Alaska, and her beauty, although she is not a constitutionalist. I would take Sarah Palin any day over Obama, Biden, and McCain. She is a gifted, extraordinary Christian woman. who should not be running for vice president of these United States any more 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, her church, and her nation. I must say, however, that I question her wisdom in giving such wholehearted support to John McCain for president. in the light of his socialistic, unconstitutional, unbiblical, and hence unworkable answers to America's critical problems, and in the light of his longstanding pro-abortion track record on matters of judicial appointments, stem cell research, funding for Planned Parenthood, and more. Now, don't understand me. Misunderstand me. I'm not recommending that you vote for Barack Obama. with his socialistic, unconstitutional, and unbiblical answers to Americans' problems, his longstanding 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 don't intend to tell you this morning who to vote for. This sermon today is not political propaganda. It is the preaching of the all sufficient word of God, and I pray that God would bless this word to your heart. 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. I trust you believe that. Are you willing to look seriously about 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 evangelicals and Reformed Christians. It will anger some, 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 ever written on the Bible's teaching concerning women's civil magistrate was written in the 16th century by the great Scottish reformer John Knox, whose theology and worldview and politics had such a shaping influence on the mind of 1776. He wrote a book in 1558 that I recommend to you. It's red hot. It's called The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. At least I didn't name my sermon that title. And when it was published, it hit England and Scotland like a nuclear bomb. And its target was four queens. There were four queens in John Knox's life that plagued him all his days, and he opposed every day of his life. What's interesting is all four of these queens' names were Mary. There was Mary Guise, the Queen Regent of Scotland, followed by Mary Queen of Scots, both of which were enemies to the Scottish Reformation. Then there was Bloody Mary Stewart, worthy of her name because of her persecutions against Protestantism in England. Now, does anybody know the third queen named Mary? That was three. Now the fourth one. Does anybody know the fourth one? The fourth one is the cult of the Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, whom he opposed all of his life and that still has such a central role in the Roman Catholic Church today. The reason for this hostility to our view is largely the pragmatism, egalitarianism, ignorance of the word of God, and unwillingness to be consistent with the Bible that pervades American churches today. By pragmatism, I mean the idea that says the end justifies the means. Whatever works is best. By egalitarianism, I mean that fundamental belief of American society that all people are so equal that whatever avocations are open to men should also be open to women, including politics and the military. By ignorance of the Bible, I am referring to that abysmal ignorance among Christians regarding what the Bible teaches about politics, civil government, church government, and the social order in general. And by unwillingness to apply consistently the Bible to the critical issues of our day, I am referring to those who are not willing to challenge the status quo or the consensus of opinion because of fear of repercussion. I must add that some consistent Christians will honestly disagree with my exposition of some of our texts today. They do 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 this, that just as the Bible does not allow women to usurp the governing headship of the home from their husbands, and just as it does not allow women to become elders in the church and usurp the government of the church, 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, women's suffrage is also unbiblical. And our little denomination, the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States, is one of those few denominations in our country that does not allow for women's suffrage in our congregational meetings. Now, there is nothing novel about this view, nor is it chauvinistic. In the 19th century and before, 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 19th century, who also pled for the improvement and education of women. In his excellent book, Southern Tradition at Bay, that I highly recommend to you, by Richard Weaver, he has written, Augusta Jane Evans 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 20th century. Her novels, all of which are explicitly Christian, also revealed two of her most seriously held convictions. The morality of the Bible is fixed, absolute, and permanent. And, says Weaver, the emancipation of women entailed her degradation and would lead to the disillusion of society. In her great novel, St. Elmo, which a lady in our church reprinted after over a hundred years, Jennifer Simons, a few years ago, maybe you got one of those books. 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 women can be most influential in society as women. Here's what Weaver says about the book. 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, Augusta Jane Evans 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 worshiped. 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 be useful. The right to influence and exalt the circle in which she moved. The right to mount the sanctified beam of her own hearthstone. The right to modify and direct her husband's opinions if he considered her worthy and competent to guiding. 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 all that the phrase noble Christian woman means, but not the right to vote. 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. In her last novel, Devota, published early in the 20th century when she was 72 years old, she develops a thesis that, quote, it's treason. for a woman to desert her God-given sphere." By the way, consider what the great 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 that dominates the scene today originate? It originated in the anti-Christian egalitarian of 18th century Europe, which we call the European Enlightenment, which I prefer to call the Endarkenment. That was that period in Europe when it left its Christian base and became fully humanistic, believing that man is the measure of all things. And like all intellectual revolutions, it led inevitably to a bloody revolution, the French Revolution in 1789, that has at its purpose the destruction of 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, I believe, teaches, says Robert L. Dabney, 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, he said, 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 endowed with their creator, with equality, and with the various rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is true that this document, says Dabney, 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 humanists love to point out the fact that we're all created equal in the United States Constitution, but then they misinterpret it. The wise men of 1776, says Dabney, 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 one very important respect in which all human beings are naturally equal. And that is that we are all equal before the law. Whether we're kings or whether we're peasants, we are all equally answerable for our crimes. Dabney says, this is the equality which is thoroughly consistent with that wide diversity of natural capacities, virtues, station, sex, inherited possessions, which fact discloses everywhere and by means of which social organization is possible. But in place of this, our modern politicians now teach, under the same name, the equality of the Jacobin, that is, the supporter of tyranny, 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. I am not naive, by the way, regarding how this sermon will be received by some people and how this will affect the reputation of our church. And so I do not preach on this subject in a lighthearted manner. Because I believe that the election of 2008 will be one of the most destructive elections in our history, regardless of who gets 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 10 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," said Doug Phillips. If Ms. Palin is elected vice president and then perhaps president of the United States 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, I'm sure. 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 the 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 be the help meat of their husbands, the nurturer of their children, the keeper 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 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 what the Bible has to say on this subject. I want to look at several key places in the Bible. And the first text that we're going to look at this morning, and I hope you have your Bible there, teaches that 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. Turn with me, first of all, to 1 Corinthians 11, verses 1 through 12. 1 Corinthians 11, 1 through 12, and let me read those for you. written by the Apostle Paul. He says, Be imitators of me just as also I am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man. Man is the head of the woman and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one of the same with her whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. But if it is disgraceful for women to have their hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 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. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man. For indeed, man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is 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. Now let me bring out some major points from this text that relate to our subject today. First of all, the Apostle Paul tells us to receive this text because it is truth that he has revealed from God by the Holy Spirit and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit now transmits this truth that he got from God to the church. This is revealed tradition. You notice that's a very technical word that he used. This is revealed tradition that he got from God that God's Spirit enables him to transmit to us inherently as over against the traditions of men. In fact, Paul goes so far as to say in 1 Corinthians 14, 37, if anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I wrote to you are the Lord's commandments. So he's saying that what I'm saying in this passage, 1 Corinthians 11, you are to receive it as the very word of God and not the word of man. The second thing that we notice in this text is that God who created all human beings, Genesis 1 says male and female, he created them, that the God who created all human beings has an order and an arrangement by which he wants human society to be structured. Rejection of which structure spells death for that society. God 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 and based on a headship principle. And here is the core of it in our text. God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of every man. Man is the head of woman. Now, those three principles are easy to memorize, and they're right there in the text. God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of every man. Man is the head of woman. In other words, just as Jesus is the head of every man, whether he's 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, the male, is the head of the woman. Wayne Mack says this about that text. Christ is the head of every man, whether he is a Christian or not, whether he's 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's 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 the head of the wife is the husband. 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, so the faithful life of woman brings praise and honor to man under God. Woman, our text says, is man's glory because man is incomplete without her. Remember what the text said in verses 11 and 12? 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 with God. So the point it's making is that this subordination of woman to man but which does not imply inferiority of woman relates to human society in all its parts, home, church, and state. The third thing we see in this text is that the woman gives public testimony to her glad submission to God's social order revealed in the Bible by, according to verse 10, having a symbol of authority on her head. That symbol of authority is her beautiful long hair, as contrasted with man's shorter hair. Verse 14, 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. Now let's look at another text that spells out God's social order, and that's in Ephesians 5, verses 22 through 25. Ephesians 5, 22 through 25. Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord, 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. But as the church is subject to Christ, So also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her. He said, now pastor, this relates to marriage. How are you going to relate this to the state? Well, let's see. This passage makes the point that in the home, the husband is responsible for loving headship. That is covenantal representation, governing authority, leadership, protection, 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 the state as well, for she is to be subject to her husband in everything. Verse 24. This includes what happens inside the home and outside the home, in church and in society. 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 the state, in everything. If she cannot be the head of one family, She cannot be the head of a number of families. In other words, a woman, now this is an important thought, 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 the 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. Doug 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 equality of authority 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 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, the husband, 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. We're told that in the good old days, society did not care what women thought about things. It only wanted to hear what 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 family republic, think? We discover this by asking the representative spokesman, the covenant head, Doug Wilson says, 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 disenfranchise 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 the household. Now, we've shown two passages of scripture that clearly teach the role of women in God's social order. I want us to see now the reason for this functional subordination of women in home, church, and state. Why did God arrange things this way? that the man would have the role of governing in home, church, and state, and the woman would have a functionally subordinate position. And you're going to see that there's two reasons for this. One is the order of creation, and the second is the nature of the fall. Let's look at a text. Turn to 1 Timothy chapter 2. 1 Timothy 2, and I think I've written the wrong verses down here. 1 Timothy 2, and I think it's verses 14 and 15. If it's not, it's verses 13 and 14. Well, let's go on up to verse 11. 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. Four, here's the reason for this functional subordination. Four, 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. Now let's think about this for a minute. 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 men, hold office, or lead in worship. 1 Corinthians 14, verses 34 and 35 say, 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. For 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." In this text, the Greek word for women means women and not simply wives. And the Greek word translated husbands is in fact a more general word meaning men and not just husbands. In other words, if women have questions, they are to ask their own men at home, not just their husbands, which could include their husbands, brothers, uncles, fathers, sons, or elders, but they may not ask their questions publicly when the church is meeting. Now, why these restrictions on women in the church? Notice all of them. 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 men at home, for it's improper for a woman to speak in church. What's the reason for these restrictions? Well, I'll tell you some things that's not the reason. It is not because the Bible teaches the inferiority of women. which it does not. Or it doesn't make these restrictions because maleness is superior or more ultimate than femaleness. That's absolutely false. What are the reasons the Bible gives for this functional subordination of women in the social order? The first is the order of creation. We read it there. What was it in verse 13? Adam was created before Eve. God's social order requires the subordination of woman to the leadership of man 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 with the functional subordination of women 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. He could have created Eve first and then Adam. He could have created them both at the same time. He could have not created either one of them. but in his sovereign good pleasure he determined that Adam would be created first and then Eve and this would be in the order of creation one of the bases for the functional subordination of women according to Paul in first Timothy this principle specifically excludes women from holding office in the church or voting in the church that's the concern here 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. The purpose of the woman's creation and existence is to be a helpmeet for man, Dabney says, 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. William Hendrickson, a 20th century commentator of the New Testament, says, in God's sovereign wisdom, he 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 in Hebrew, Isha, was derived from his name, Ish. 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 under God's glory. Robert L. Dabney explains the implications of this phrase in Genesis 1, male and female, he created 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 and woman the ruled. True, says Daphne. 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. That's the first reason for this functional subordination, the order of creation. Second reason, the nature of the fall. To put it simply, Paul said, Eve was deceived, not Adam. Eve fell because she was deceived by Satan, whereas Adam, the greater sinner, sinned without being deceived. This means that whatever woman's strength She is not constitutionally fitted to be an official governor in church and state. She listened to Satan and sin before Adam, to whom she gave the forbidden fruit. Eve was the leader. Adam was the follower. As Hendrickson said, she led the way 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. Eve was deceived into leading when she should have been following. So we see what happens when role reversal between men and women take place. 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, or at least that can be implied in verses like Genesis 2, 9, and 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. And if you want a scientific documentation of that, I urge you to read in Trenton Smalley's book, The Language of Love, a chapter entitled, Are Men Really Brain Damaged? 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. After all, 1 Peter 3, 7 does instruct husbands. 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. One of those texts that people who are critical of our view like to set forth as something that refutes it is Galatians 3.28. Galatians 3.28 says, and I'm sure you've heard people quote it to refute our view about women civil magistrates and elders in the church, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there's neither male nor female, for you're all one in Christ Jesus. So there, you can have women preachers, women elders, and women vice presidents. and women's are the head of the home. That's the argument. However, this verse is not saying that these distinctions have no meaning at all. Rather, it is saying that the blessings that we have of salvation in Christ are equally enjoyed by all regardless of race, social status, or sex. It's not talking about governmental responsibilities here in Galatians 3. It's talking about the various privileges that are ours in salvation that Christ has accomplished for us. And whereas the government of the church rests upon the shoulders of men says such chapters as first Timothy three, nevertheless, when it comes to salvation, that there is no discrimination. Ethnically, racially, sexually, whatever. that in Christ all people enjoy, all believers enjoy the same wonderful spiritual blessings, male or female. 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 higher calling of a helpmeet. As Susan Hunt and Peggy Hutchinson have written in their book, Leadership for Women in the Church, when women insist on role interchangeability, everybody loses. 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. In places like Exodus 12, Isaiah 3, 1 Timothy 3, 1 Thessalonians 5, In Isaiah 3, we learn two things about government in the hands of immature and ungodly males. One, it's detrimental to society, and two, it's a sign of God's judgment upon that society. The Lord said in Isaiah 3 about disobedient Israel, I will make mere lads their princes and capricious children will rule over them and the people will be oppressed. Paul said to Timothy concerning governors in the church in 1 Timothy 3, 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? This principle of mature leadership means that only adult male heads of households should be placed in positions of authority. or allowed to vote in church or state. Not immature males, still dependent upon their fathers, still under their father's authority, or males that are capricious and therefore ungodly. The rule of the church and state must be in the hands of mature, responsible, godly leaders, not in the hands of immature and ungodly people. As holding office, so voting is by its very nature. and expression of government. Therefore, it should be reserved for responsible, mature Christian men, not boys. After all, I trust you do remember what the United States Constitution originally said is the qualification for voting in these United States. I trust you remember that. Go get your U.S. Constitution and you'll see that voting in the Constitution, it was changed later in the amendments, that voting was restricted to, quote, male citizens 21 years of age and older, unquote. Now let's take a little sidetrack here for a minute and talk about some of those we've talked about a great deal what women cannot do. So let's just take a minute to talk about the many things, the many responsibilities, the many ministries, the authority that God has given women to exercise in both church and society. First, a godly wife is her husband's crown and joy. Proverbs says, a virtuous woman is a crown to her husband. She is of inexpressible value to her husband. Proverbs 31, who can find a virtuous woman for her price is far above rubies. Second, covenant children are to honor their mothers just as much as they honor their fathers. After all, the commandment says, honor your father and your mother. Children are to submit to the teaching of their mothers just as much as they do to their fathers. Proverbs 1.8, my son, hear the instruction of your fathers and forsake not the law of your mother. And Proverbs 30.17, which ought to be taught to your children from their earliest days, 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. Third, 1 Timothy 5, 9-15 tells us many things that Christian women may do for Christ. It says, let a widow be put on the list only if she is not less than 60 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 women on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation because they've 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, 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? One, they are to have a reputation for good works. They're to be devoted to good works. Two, they're to bring up children. In fact, it says in verse 15 that the woman shall be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-respect. Third, women are to show hospitality to other people. They are to serve other people, meeting the needs of other people as they're able. They are to assist those who are in distress. They're to practice self-discipline. 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 and encourage and comfort and serve. And it says they are to keep house. A woman's home, says Dabney, 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. Titus, chapter 2, verses 3 through 5, give us more responsibilities and ministries of women. It says, 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, older women are to be reverent and respectful in their behavior as models to younger women. And I'll let you decide which is which. Older women should encourage and teach younger women how to be faithful Christian women, wives, daughters, mothers, and homemakers. Married women should love their husbands and their children. They should be sensible, kind, pure homemakers. And they should be subject to their own husbands so that the Word of God will not be dishonored. Now let's move to another aspect of the issue before us, and that is, what about the qualifications? Can we point to the Bible somewhere that there are specific qualifications for civil magistrates as far as God is concerned? And the answer is yes. The law of God in the New Testament clearly requires that office holders in the church be godly and mature men, 1 Timothy chapter 3. The New Testament forbids women to be ministers, elders, or deacons. By implication, elders in the gates, that is civil elders, are to be no less qualified than elders in the church. But we're 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, the Bible does give explicit teaching on the qualifications for civil magistrates. The two primary passages are Exodus 18-21 Which says, 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 them over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And Deuteronomy 1.13, which says, choose or elect 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, verses 18 through 20. Deuteronomy 17, verses 14 through 20. 2 Samuel 2, 23, 2 Chronicles 19, verses 6 and 7, Nehemiah 7, 2, Proverbs 29, 2, Romans 13, 1 through 6, and in every one of these texts, men, not women, are in view. 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 or the Old Testament dispensation, it is now abrogated for Christians today. However, Jesus had a much different opinion. He said in Matthew 5, 17 through 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 you and I enter the voting booth, we must not do as most professed Christians in America will do. And that is 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 in a winnable position, not will voting for this person defeat her opponent, but Does this candidate for office meet the biblical qualifications for civil magistrate? Are you willing to be that faithful to Christ this November? And then there was Deborah in the Old Testament. I'm sure you've heard about Deborah, the great judge of Israel. Here's her story. Once again, Israel had degenerated into apostasy. Once again, they repented and cried out to the Lord for forgiveness from their sin and from the judgment that sin brought on them. Read her story in Judges 4 and 5. In grace and in answer to Israel's cries for deliverance, the Lord proves himself once again a faithful and a merciful God. by providing deliverers for Israel in the great woman named Deborah and her husband, General Barak, whom God used to defeat Israel's enemies. Deborah puts any contemporary woman magistrate in the shade. That's because she governed from under a palm tree. Okay. Judges, that's Becky's joke, so. 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 Rahab and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim. That is, in the heart of Israelite territory where there was still some tranquility. Verse 5 of chapter 4 of Judges says, the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment. She also was a gifted songwriter and singer. She co-authored the song that you find in chapter 5 with Barak and she sang it with Barak. Although she was a prophetess, that is, a spirit-inspired mouthpiece of God, there were several in the Old Testament and apparently in the Apostolic Church as well. Although she was a prophetess, that is, 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's emphasis is that she was, quote, a woman, the wife of Lappidoth, and she identifies herself in chapter 5, verse 7, simply as, quote, a mother in Israel. It is more than interesting to note in Deborah's song, in chapter 5 of Judges, 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 J.L. as the most blessed of all women in Israel. And her only position was she was the wife of Heber the Kenite. Barak means lightning bolt. Historically, Jewish rabbis have identified Barak with Lapidoth and have assumed that he was Deborah's husband. Whatever the case, Deborah would not rule without him. She was always associated with him in the fourth and fifth chapters. Look, check that out. And although she was a judge in Israel, she called upon Barak to lead Israel's armies into battle against Sisera. Clearly, she refused the role of commander-in-chief of Israel's armies. She did agree to be present on the battlefield as a popular figurehead and symbol of God's promised deliverance. Now, who were these judges for whom the whole book was named? Judges were not merely civil officials who rendered judgments and disputes. They were primarily deliverers and saviors. That's a more accurate translation of the word judges. These saviors were empowered by the Holy Spirit, whom God raised up to deliver his covenant people spiritually and nationally and frequent militarily in times of national disaster. 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 correct. Israel didn't have chief magistrates until the days of the kings. Why did the Lord raise up Deborah, a woman, to judge and deliver Israel? Now 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, a female prophetess, a female savior of Israel? There are at least two answers to that one question. First of all, God raised her up to remind Israel of his judgment. And secondly, God raised her up to humble the men of Israel. Let's look at these. First of all, to remind Israel of God's 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, quote, verse 12 of Isaiah 3, their oppressors are children and women rule over them. 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, just as King Saul was God's answer to Israel's cries for a king. Both cries were answered by God in such a way as to remind Israel of God's righteous judgment upon all those who choose to trust in the state rather than in the goodness and faithfulness of God. God also raised her up 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 used her to go into battle with him as a popular figurehead, was in Judges 4-9, I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the honor shall not be yours on the journey that you're about to take, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman. In fact, God would save his people and defeat his enemies through two godly women, Deborah and Jael. The first response most people give to our view that the Bible disqualifies women as civil magistrates is, but what about Deborah? And it is most often asked not as a question, but as a refutation. How can your view be correct since Deborah was a God-appointed civil magistrate? Those are fair questions. although they usually represent a failure to apply a biblical principle of biblical hermeneutics. Write this down, memorize it, use it. We've already used it before. When you bring up Deborah as the refutation of our view, there's a breakdown of basic biblical principles of interpretation. What is it? Write this down. The legal and didactic portions of the Bible must be used to explain the historical portions and not vice versa. Let me say it again and we'll talk about it. The legal and didactic, that is instructional, portions of the Bible must be used to explain the historical and not vice versa. You remember we did that back when we studied Psalm 30, that had as its background things that were taking place in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. And we saw that there was some disagreement with reference to numbers, some serious disagreements between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. You remember that? What did we do? The first thing we did was to see what did the Bible teach about itself? It taught that it is incapable of error. So that when we came to these mistakes, these mistakes, these differences of opinion or differences of record in second Samuel and first chronicles, we didn't say here's historical proof of errors in the Bible. Therefore, the Bible can't be inerrant. No. We said the Bible teaches that it is inerrant. So we come to these difficult places with a disagreement of numbers and say this does not prove inerrancy, the Bible is not wrong, it's inerrant. Therefore, we must explain what's going on here in the light of what the Bible has already taught us. We try to interpret historical facts in the light of the didactic portions of the Bible. Now, I want you to listen carefully. This could be some of the most important things I'm saying today. The Bible contains many historical facts, which are to be used as examples and models for our behavior. And some of those facts should not be used. How do you tell the difference? We're dependent upon the commands and prohibitions of God's law and the instructional and doctrinal texts that interpret those historical facts for us. Reversing this basic principle from allowing the legal and the didactic to interpret the historical to allowing the historical portions to interpret the instructional and legal portions leads to many false doctrines and heresies. For example, this reverse principle is the basis for the entire charismatic movement with all of its false doctrine. Its argument is this. In the book of Acts, we see historical facts that the apostolic church experienced speaking in unknown tongues and in performing of various miracles. Therefore, since these are historical facts in the Bible, these same things should be experienced and practiced by the church today. And when we come to those instructional and legal portions of the Bible, we must interpret them so as to support our 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. The Bible doctrine is that Jesus died for our sins. We know the meaning of Christ's death only because of the legal and didactic portions of the Bible. Taking that central, important, historical event by itself, some have taken it to mean, in a purely moralistic sense, that here's an example of how far loving other people should go, or some other moralistic meaning. Now we apply the principle of interpretation to Deborah. the legal and instructional portions of the Old Testament, the Mosaic legislations in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, teaches that only men, not women, should be elected to hold 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 of Judas's actions in betraying Christ or predestining Pilate's actions in crucifying Christ are models for us. God, just because God sovereignly determined to do something doesn't mean he did it so that it would be a model. 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 in Deborah or in anybody else, whatever he chooses to bring to pass, our duty is to observe all the words of this law. It is certainly true that Deborah's role in Israel's history was out of the ordinary. It's 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 to take place after the judges during the time of the kings. Although there were periods of short-lived and shallow repentance, the whole period of the judges was marked by these words, 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." Some have tried to justify Deborah and Sarah Palin by this argument. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I have several problems with this statement as it applies to Deborah and Sarah Palin. First, it's a mere assertion. with no biblical basis. Second, the principle desperate times called for desperate measures. If that principle 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 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 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 catchphrase. Their belief in the adequacy of God's Word comes into question. But 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's given us in his word. Life becomes so complicated when we invent shortcuts 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. 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 public 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 he 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, 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, the honorable man, the counselor, the expert artisan, 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. Oh, my people, their oppressors are children and women rule over them. Oh, my people, those who guide you. lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths. Irresponsible, ungodly men and women, godly or not, in places of civil authority, are a sign of God's judgment upon that culture. For some people, the worst thing they can imagine happening is for Obama to get elected. The reality of the situation is that the worst thing that could happen Is God intensifying his judgment upon this country for our disobedience to his word? Listen to what Doug Phillips says. I just got the Becky just got this email this morning. 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 judgment. Let me offer my thoughts on why it's a gift. In my view, this issue has forced questions that have long been lingering. It has revealed the true loyalties of Christian in leadership to partisan politics over historic, sound, biblical exegesis. It is separating the men from the she-men and the women from the he-women. The impoverished, illogical, and ridiculous arguments of men who should know better has opened the door for us to have a platform to make intelligent, biblical, and systematic arguments in defense of orthodoxy and the biblical vision of 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 19th Amendment, I am saddened by the fact that there were very few clearly biblical voices at that time. This time we can speak to the issue. At the least, we leave a record for a less emotional season. Also, as we apply Deborah to our culture, the candidacy of women for public office, like women officers in the church, serves to humble American men and Christian men. Where are the Christian men in the critical battles we're 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. Where are you, men, in this battle for America? Where are you? 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 had the time, who now will be stirred to action and run for local, state, and 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 a mother. My heart sank as I watched the news and saw a little girl standing behind the reporter who was speaking. She was holding up a sign that said, I want to be like Sarah Palin when I grow up. Multiply that by X times and think about the future. Pray for Sarah Palin that she will 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 and pray that our God would vastly increase our numbers. In closing, if you think that our views hide a low view of women, listen to these moving words by Robert L. Dabney. assigning to Christian women the highest honor and responsibilities in the restoration of the American Republic just after the devastation of the South in the war between the states. 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 leftists, 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. Their sisters 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 rudder 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 mortal 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. R.J. Rushton, he says this, 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 worldwide scope, never has an era faced a more demanding and a more exciting crisis. Let us pray. We thank you, Father, for the bright direction of your word. That your word is, as we walk through this dark culture, a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. We pray that you would call Christians back to that light, that you would forgive us where we've allowed ourselves to be influenced and swayed by this culture and its philosophies and its lifestyle, its priorities, its values. We pray that you would grant to us genuine repentance in thought and life. Help us to think about the critical issues of our day biblically. from raising children to electing presidents to everything else. We pray, Lord, that you would use faithful Christians in this country. Though our number is small, it is increasing. We know, however, Lord, that you are omnipotent, and we pray that you would exert your mighty power through your faithful people and bring this nation back to its original foundation, to its original character, And make it a city of righteousness and a city of faithfulness. Once again, for Christ's sake. Amen.