September 2008 Archives

SAN ANTONIO, Texas, Sept. 30 /Christian Newswire/ — The San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival (SAICFF), host to the largest cash prize in the world awarded to a single filmmaker, is breaking new ground for independent filmmakers by facilitating downloadable media film distribution contracts to all semi-finalists and finalists competing for Jubilee Awards during their January 8-10 competition.

The opportunity is being forged through a strategic partnership between the SAICFF and a national media distribution company and sponsor of the SAICFF which has agreed to actively distribute independent Christian films accepted as SAICFF semi-finalists through the sponsor’s online download platform. All filmmakers whose submissions are accepted as semi-finalists for the SAICFF’s annual film competition will be given the opportunity to sell their video for download — regardless of whether or not the films win an award.

“For years, independent Christian filmmakers have struggled to find financially viable distribution streams for their films,” noted Doug Phillips, founder of the SAICFF. “We are pleased to announce that an important step has been taken to meet this challenge.”

“In addition to receiving a contract option to make their films available to consumers through our sponsor, those filmmakers who pursue this option will have their films available for sale the week of the festival itself at the SAICFF. Kiosks will be provided by the sponsor at the event for festival attendees to download the semi- finalist films onsite,” Phillips explained. “If a festival attendee views a film and likes it, he can purchase the film right then, right there.”

“This is another important way that independent filmmakers can begin to realize a return on their investment,” Phillips concluded. “It is a process that we are pleased to facilitate — to reward those hard-working independent Christian filmmakers who have produced a quality product that the SAICFF has recognized.”

To be eligible for this distribution opportunity, film submissions for the 2009 San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival must be entered online and postmarked by October 1, 2008 (November 1 for feature film submissions). For more details on submission guidelines visit: www.independentchristianfilms.com.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 30, 2008 | Permalink

ATTENTION ALL FILMMAKERS: Don’t miss out on the opportunity to compete for the $101,000 Best of Festival Jubilee Award at the 2009 San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival (SAICFF). The prize, which represents the largest single cash prize given by any film festival worldwide, will be awarded to one filmmaker at the Jubilee Awards Ceremony during the festival, which will be held January 8-10 in the Alamo City.

The deadline for submitting all Documentary, Film Short, Promotional Media, Commercial Advertisement, Festival Trailer, and Treatment Competition entries is October 1, 2008. The deadline for Feature Film submissions is November 1, 2008.

To submit a film for the festival, you must first complete the Online Entry Form and then postmark your DVDs by the applicable deadline. Be sure to read the Festival Objectives and Contest Guidelines as well as the Film Competition Entry Rules.

In addition to the festival, the SAICFF will be hosting the fourth annual Christian Filmmakers Academy, which will be held immediately prior to the festival on January 5-7, 2009. For more information about the festival and academy, be sure to visit the SAICFF website at www.saicff.org.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 26, 2008 | Permalink

There is a great deal of confusion in the press today. What do Christians really believe about the priority of motherhood, children, and role distinctions?

The gushing and virtually unqualified support by conservative and Christian leaders of a mother of young children and a self-identified feminist^[1] for the second highest political office in the land has caused the press, liberals, and many conservative Christians themselves to ask important questions about the intellectual integrity of the arguments being advanced by pro-Palin Christian conservatives. And rightly so, for many of the same conservative leaders who have previously distinguished themselves by opposing the very type of egalitarian feminist model of family and leadership embodied in the candidacy of Sarah Palin are now talking like full-fledged egalitarians when it comes to the 2008 presidential election. There appears to be a fundamental and historic shift in the cultural and political agenda of social conservatives and Christians.

Furthermore, the picture being sent to the world is that Christians and conservatives are placing partisan political objectives over principle. The message being conveyed is this: Our theological commitments are secondary to our partisan loyalties.

These are valid concerns. Here is why:

1. For years, conservative Christians have been outspoken in their opposition to the political vision of the radical feminist movement. Now they are supporting a woman for the second highest office in the land who is a self-identified feminist who wants to make feminist objectives a part of her political agenda.^[2]

2. Christians and conservatives have historically opposed the feminist philosophy which marginalizes the role of motherhood and home in favor of careerism and political ambition. Now these same conservative Christians are not only supporting for vice president the mother of young children who went back to work three days after the birth of her still-infant child, but they are arguing that she is a model example of Christian womanhood for the young ladies of America;^[3] that this mother of young children is perfectly qualified to serve both as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States.

3. In the past, conservative Christians have opposed the manipulative rhetoric of the feminist movement. Now they are championing the cause of a woman who uses her campaign speeches to praise the icons of the feminist movement for their role in the cause of feminism;^[4] who attempts to marginalize those who raise concerns about the propriety of her dual role as mother and governor by calling them “Neanderthals” who should be taken back to the “cave”;^[5] who agrees that her own husband is playing the role of “Mr. Mom”;^[6] and who uses the very phraseology of feminism (e.g., “shattering the glass ceiling”) to explain her personal mission.^[7]

4. Most of all, conservative Christians have opposed as unbiblical the feminist ideology of egalitarianism which formally opposes God-ordained role distinctions between men and women — role distinctions which are rooted in the creation order itself. Now some are claiming the creation order principle never applied to the role of men and women in the civil realm in the first place. Some have gone so far as to argue that biblical ethics no longer apply to the constitutional system of government under God which our Framers established.^[8]

To many liberal commentators, these conservatives and Christians now sound like liberals and feminists — at least as to their advocacy of egalitarianism in the public sphere.

One such commentator is Dr. David Gushee who, in a recent USA Today op-ed, asked five probing questions to conservatives and Christian leaders. Dr. Gushee’s point was essentially this: Christians must formally acknowledge that a historic change has occurred in their theological commitments and policy objectives, or reasonable observers must conclude that that their position lacks intellectual integrity.

Dr. Gushee is spot on.

But the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood disagrees. Now David Kotter of CBMW has offered a response. In our view, Mr. Kotter’s response fails to address the core inconsistencies with the arguments that CBMW and other Christian organizations and leaders are advancing. Readers of Doug’s Blog will remember that Pastor William Einwechter has cogently addressed the theological problem of the new semi-complementarianism/semi-egalitarianism of organizations like CBMW in his article “Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise.” Now Pastor Einwechter has responded to Dr. Gushee with a new, helpful article, “The Sarah Palin Predicament Resolved.”

I want to remind readers that Vision Forum Ministries has a deep respect for our friends at organizations like the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and we remain profoundly grateful for their many excellent efforts over the years to defend the biblical doctrine of complementarianism as applied to the church. So much of their work has been heroic and timely.

It is our view, however, that they have erred by overtly embracing an egalitarian perspective of the roles of men and women in the public arena. Furthermore, we would argue that the position they are presently advocating: (a) utilizes theological arguments in direct contradiction to arguments used by CBMW in the past to defend the complementarian worldview; (b) that the same arguments they are using to deny that the principles of complementarianism apply equally to all three of the jurisdictions (family, church and state) will soon be used to undermine complementarianism in the local church; and (c) that their legitimization of a mother of young children to serve as president of the United States undermines, if not altogether destroys, their view of complementarianism in the family because of the absurdity of the claim that a woman can lead a nation as chief executive and still properly prioritize her non-optional, biblically-required duty to serve as a helpmeet to her husband.

Over the course of the next two weeks, I will be devoting separate blog posts to each of the questions proposed by Dr. Gushee and will interact with the published response of CBMW to Dr. Gushee. I begin today with the first question.

Question One:

Is it now your view that God can call a woman to serve as president of the United States? Are you prepared to renounce publicly any further claim that God’s plan is for men rather than women to exercise leadership in society, the workplace and public life? Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?

CBMW Answers:

The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from exercising leadership in secular political fields. Therefore we must be careful to not go beyond the teaching of the Bible. A president is not held to the same moral standards as an elder of a church. While it is a blessing from God to have ethical or even Christian political leaders, the Bible places no such requirements on secular governments. Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world.

Vision Forum Ministries Responds:

1. Dr. Gushee has identified a genuine inconsistency in the position of our semi-complementarian/semi-egalitarian friends. In our view, this inconsistency cannot be justified on the grounds of Scripture, nor of sound reason.

Also, I think it is important to begin by observing that our friends at CBMW have not provided clear answers to several key points raised in the five questions by Dr. Gushee. The question was asked: “Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?”

No answer is given by CBMW. Yet it seems clear that this is exactly what has happened. At this point, there is no clearly distinguishable difference between the feminist understanding of male/female distinctions and civil leadership and the position of CBMW. As to their view of the jurisdiction of the state, both are full-blown egalitarians. If substantive differences exist between the two positions, they are not immediately apparent, and the burden of proof is on CBMW to explain to us what they are.

2. CBMW responds by making four assertions: (1) the Bible does not prohibit women from serving as civil magistrates: 2) Presidents are not held to the same moral standards as pastors; (3) The Bible does not establish any ethical standards for the leadership of “secular governments.”; and (4) the leadership distinctions between men and women which apply in the Church do not apply in “the kingdom of this world.” In this blog post, I will address the first claim.

First, the claim that the Bible does not prohibit women from serving as civil magistrates is false. In fact, the Bible has a great deal to say about the requirements for civil magistrates, which you can read about here, here, and here. It is true that there is no verse that says, “a woman may not be a civil magistrate,” but it is also true that there is no verse which says “a woman may not be an elder.” The case for the biblical requirements for elder and civil magistrate are both based on: (1) the doctrine of the creation order distinctions between men and women; (2) the positive commands about the distinctive role differences between men and women; (3) the negative commands and warnings directed against those who would violate this creation order principle; and, importantly, (4) the positive commands which specifically require that both civil magistrates and elders be male.

Second, the undefended assertion that the Bible does not prohibit women from being civil magistrates is irresponsible in light of the fact that such a perspective is inconsistent with the majority view of orthodox Christianity throughout Church history articulated by such great Reformers as John Knox and John Calvin, the former of whom write that: “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, [and] a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance. . . .”^[9]

Third, to get around the many commands of Scripture found in the Old Testament, semi-complementarians must argue that the general precepts and patterns found in the Old Testament are largely obsolete and inapplicable to modern society. (The one exception to this rule is that they want to be able to cite the Israelite prophetess Deborah as an example of a civil magistrate, an argument which: (a) shows their inconsistency, and (b) has been defeated by Reformers and present-day theologians like William Einwechter)^[10]

3. The arbitrary restriction of the doctrine of complementarianism and the creation order to the realm of church and family is not only illogical, it is a departure from CBMW’s position in the past in which they formally opposed women in combat, freely citing extensive precepts from the Old Testament, building their argument around the doctrine of the creation order itself, and showing the clear link between complementarian responsibilities in the home and those of manly civil responsibility through military service.

Below are segments from their position paper on “Women in Combat: A Resolution From CBMW,” which was adopted on November 23, 1996:

WHEREAS, God created male and female with specific and complementary characteristics (Gen. 1:27), declaring them “good” (Gen. 1:31) so that male and female in relationship constitute a complete expression of the divine order for humanity, yet without blurring or denying the meaning or significance of gender-based distinctions established by God in the created order; and

WHEREAS, The equality of male and female as to dignity and worth, following from their creation in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), is fully consistent with and is in no way contrary to gender-based distinctions as to roles and responsibilities which are also established in the created order; and

WHEREAS, God, by creating Adam first (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:8) and also by creating woman for man (Gen. 2:18,20,22; 1 Cor. 11:9), has set the gender-based role and responsibility of males in the most basic unit of society (the family) to be that of leader, provider and self-sacrificial protector (also cf. Eph. 5:25; 1 Peter 3:7), and likewise has set the gender-based role and responsibility of females to be that of help and nurture (Gen. 2:18) and life-giving (Gen. 3:20) under male leadership and protection (cf. 1 Peter 3:7); and

WHEREAS, Intentional rejection of the connection between male headship in the family and the male protective role that defines and justifies service as a soldier in military combat necessarily strikes at the complementary nature of male and female relationships established in the order of creation, and unavoidably undermines the order, structure, strength and stability of families within any society that determines to ignore, deny or erase this gender-based distinction; and

WHEREAS, The pattern established by God throughout the Bible is that men, not women, bear responsibility to serve in combat if war is necessary (Gen. 14:14; Num. 31:3,21,49; Deut. 20:5-9,13-14; Josh. 1:14-18; 6:3,7,9; 8:3; 10:7; 1 Sam. 16:18; 18:5; 2 Sam. 11:1; 17:8; 23:8-39; Ps. 45:3-5; Song of Sol. 3:7-8; Isa. 42:13); and

WHEREAS, Biblical examples that record women serving in combat (Jud. 4:4-23) are presented as contrary to proper and normal gender-based distinctions between male and female roles and responsibilities, and as caused by a failure of male leadership that is worthy of shame (Jud. 4:9-10); and . . .

Note that the 1996 statement by CBMW wisely reminds the Church that those rare and non-normative examples of role reversals in the Scripture such as Deborah (Jud. 4:4-23) are reminders of male abdication “worthy of shame.” They are not meant to be examples for emulation, CBMW argues, nor does their inclusion in Scripture justify the suspension of the duty of men, not women, to lead. Yet this is precisely what semi-complementarians such as CBMW’s Executive Director David Kotter are attempting to do in 2008 by excluding the numerous patterns and precepts found in Scripture that demonstrate the complementarian mandate for male leadership in the civil jurisdiction while attempting to justify support for Sarah Palin based upon the non-analogous and non-normative example of the Israelite prophetess Deborah.^[11] CBMW has done an about-face on Deborah by using her example to justify Sarah Palin’s bid for the vice presidency while stating in 1996 that it was a sign “worthy of shame.”

Note also that, in the 1996 Resolution, the Old Testament patterns and precepts are widely invoked to build the case that gender distinctions apply to the civil responsibility of military service. Why in 2008 are the Old Testament passages on qualifications, male responsibility, and civil jurisdiction ignored or dismissed as irrelevant? Has the Word of God changed over the last twelve years?

Furthermore, if CBMW was correct in their 1996 Resolution that these principles apply to non-elected representatives of the United States military serving the federal government, how much more should these same principles apply to an elected Commander in Chief who would preside over all of the military?^[12]

Finally, note that in 1996, CBMW was willing to reach the conclusion that it is the duty of men, not women, to lay their lives on the lines in military service because: (a) women are to be nurturers and helpers “under male leadership and protection,” but not leaders; (b) God requires men to be leaders, providers, and self-sacrificial protectors. In fact, CBMW even argued that placing women in combat “unavoidably undermines the order, structure, strength and stability of families within any society that determines to ignore, deny or erase this gender-based distinction.”

We believe that excellent organizations like CBMW cannot reasonably argue that having women serve in military combat “unavoidably undermines the order, structure, strength and stability of families within any society that determines to ignore, deny or erase this gender-based distinction,” but that promoting a mother of young children to rule over a nation (including her husband) as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the military does not. The argument strains credulity.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 25, 2008 | Permalink

By Geoffrey Botkin

The Sarah Palin “Miracle” poster is not typical campaign propaganda. For the swing voters needed by the McCain campaign, it is inspirational dynamite.

Until the Palin selection, McCain did not have the hearts of Evangelical voters. He probably had their votes, however, because he is a Republican. But the campaign wasn’t taking any chances that the “fright factor” would work in November as it has before.

Fear can go a long way to secure the loyalty of the demographic known in Washington as “the Stupid Demographic”: The other candidate is a Democrat. He is therefore scary. Be very afraid. Vote Republican.

This year McCain operatives found a new way to play on the superstitions of Evangelical men and women. The move was brilliant, and it will make political and cultural history.

Just a few months ago, the Republican Party was in danger of being seen for what it was — even by unobservant Evangelicals. A few Evangelical leaders were grumbling about McCain’s hard-left socialist record. A few others pointed out facts about Republican pragmatics, and the unconstitutional and anti-Christian policies they embrace. Instead of denying this to Evangelicals, the Republican Party found a way to portray its present policies and personnel as Christian, pro-family, and spiritual.

In the personality of Sarah Palin, the Party has contrived to occupy a new position. This is not the sentimental, God-and-Country “high ground” the Party has claimed to monopolize since 1980. The new position is a position of spiritual authority. Republican political consultants and operatives are presuming to define religion for Evangelical churches, families, and women.

Sarah Palin is key in maintaining this new authoritarianism. The Party claims to endorse the Christian example of a good Christian woman, a good Christian citizen, and a good Christian magistrate. The Party is exploiting an image for Mrs. Palin as a fellow Evangelical Christian who is, simultaneously, a good Christian wife, a political moderate, a principled conservative, a biblically-devoted mother, a pro-family egalitarian, and a biblically-sound, full-time civil magistrate. To do this, the Party must expound theology to Evangelicals. Very creative theology. Very unorthodox theology. The Party is writing a new definition of the good Christian woman as citizen leader.

The story of the year, however, is not the arrogance of the Republican strategists. It is not their dishonest theology. It is the blind credulity of Evangelical leaders and pastors. Evangelical Christians are willing to be “discipled” by a deceitful political party whose god is the state. Evangelicals have proven themselves to be willing to acknowledge the Republican Machine as a spiritual authority on matters of faith and conscience, as long as the teaching is sufficiently spiritual.

And so the Party and its followers are bringing on the spiritual. They are defining the spiritual. They are illustrating the spiritual using Sarah as their primary image. So far, this has been easy because modern Evangelicals prefer spiritual feeling to theological thinking. For the 2008 campaign, Republicans have discovered the perfect mix of religious lingo, mysticism, contemporary style, team spirit, Sunday platitude and, of course, Evangelical superstition. On this curious foundation they can now introduce any cultural concept that serves the Republican agenda.

The popular “Miracle” poster is a recent example. It is galvanizing blind loyalty to Sarah Palin. The Party will reap the benefits of this loyalty. Evangelicals love the poster at first glance. Why? Why is a woman’s head on the body of a warrior not grotesque but inspirational? Because it holds spiritual meaning. The spiritual imagery used to hype Mrs. Palin into a spiritual superstar is simply a professional merging of fantasy, celebrity, personality, with a dash of false theology.

Take a look at the creative synthesis of the five mainstays of Evangelical life or, as some observers might say, the five mainstays of Evangelical idolatry. In one simple image, Mrs. Palin is portrayed as movie celebrity, sports hero, political sophisticate, cute feminist favorite, and the very channel of the power of God.

Sarah as Movie Celebrity

American Christians were once wary of the coarse, anti-family bias of Hollywood. Today Evangelicals take in movie entertainment like it’s an entitlement. They build their evenings around Hollywood television and Hollywood movies, and many churches even build “worship” services around movie clips. Here is Sarah, not as star or co-star, but superstar, dominating a real movie poster, ready to entertain adoring fans with a story “coming soon” to Washington, D.C.

Sarah as Sports Hero

In recent years, Evangelicals have been proving their ability to winsomely associate with the man on the street by joining him in the stands, talking sports trivia at the water cooler, and sending their sons and daughters into organized combat on the football, soccer and hockey circuits. Christianity Today recently admitted the idolatrous hold of sports on the Christian life, but glamorized and justified this pop fetish as a channel of God’s grace to the Christian. The magazine glibly passed over the fact that football’s “rhythm of quick bursts and pregnant pauses, its gleaming sensuality of (safe!) violence and sex, its worship of the youthful body, its intense drive for the jolting climax — spits our way of life back at us in neat three-hour packages, Sunday after Sunday (and occasional Mondays and Thursdays).”^[1]

Now comes a poster that spits this way of life back at the Evangelical, casting a hockey mom as a hockey supermom. Here the slight Mrs. Palin takes her place in the limelight as champion, with a hint at the enthralling triumph of a certain patriotic hockey battle during which pure-hearted American underdogs once vanquished the Evil Empire.

Sarah as Political Sophisticate

The poster doesn’t go so far as to tell us Mrs. Palin is a champion of foreign policy, but she is clearly the red-white-and-blue muscle on the Pachyderm ticket. Her running mate is nowhere to be seen. For smitten Evangelicals, this political star deserves to dominate the Washington scene.

Sarah as Cute Feminist Favorite

Sarah Palin is a beautiful woman with great feminine warmth and maternal gentleness. She speaks convincingly with terminology familiar to Evangelical Christians. She also speaks proudly with terminology familiar to Marxist feminists. In this poster, Republicans merge these characteristics. Sarah smiles confidently and carries a big stick. She makes militant feminism look soft and admirable.

America’s cutest Republican has done something the enemies of the family have not been able to do for 150 years. Mrs. Palin has broken the Christian tradition and resolve that Karl Marx and his ugly, angry feminist followers could not break. In a few short days, Sarah Palin and her Republican handlers have made it conservatively fashionable to abandon home, children, husband and theological truth for the sake of careerism and the kind of glory Sarah finds in this poster, which shows her as strong, noble, and joyful as she lives the feminist dream.

Sarah as the Very Channel of the Power of God

Both John McCain and his superstar running mate are politicians. They have records of policy decisions and positions. The records hold an ugly secret: both McCain and Palin are leftist in ideology and weak of character. Governor Palin is especially weak. When pushed by lesser magistrates, Mrs. Palin has sacrificed stated convictions on the altar of political correctness.^[2] Evangelicals will never find this out as long as they are enthralled with the exalted, fantastical, superstar image of Sarah the celebrity.

This clever poster suggests that it is not Republican media mavens who have exalted Sarah, but God Almighty Who chose Sarah for such a time as this and Who will miraculously solve all America’s problems because He is clearly on the side of the Republican Party, which is wise and good enough to let Sarah serve as the channel of His redemptive power over a needy nation.

This celebrity image created by Republican operatives is powerful. In the minds of the Evangelical demographic, Sarah Palin is a saint. Evangelicals will pull the lever in November because the iconography of Sarah Palin has sanctified an impious Party.

Republican voters are happy. Pollsters at Republican headquarters are happy. But this triumph of pragmatism comes at a cost: first, to the reality that the intact family is stronger than public policy and partisan politics. Second, there is a cost to womanhood; and, third, to manhood.

Fourth, there is a steep personal cost to the happiness of the real Sarah Palin. Simly put, Mrs. Palin’s political assets have been shrewdly exploited at the expense of her most valuable personal asset: her family. In exchange for a celebrity spot in the world of political power, Sarah Palin has sacrificed the position of influence that could have had a bearing on solving America’s deepest problems: her position as an attentive wife and mother.

Evangelicals like Sarah as a national leader. They are following the theology that defines her, and they are following her example. Evangelicals are betraying their principles and their theology. In exchange they get something, too: the confidence that a sanctified Republican Party will make an unholy nation sound again. This confidence is the cheap idolatry of escapist fantasy. Will Evangelicals ever realize the extent of this careless betrayal? Now, that would be a miracle.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 24, 2008 | Permalink

Many happy returns of the day to Liberty and Anna Sophia, both born September 24, both daughters of destiny.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 24, 2008 | Permalink

Send me your suggestion for a title for this image. The person who sends the best suggestion will win a copy of our CD series How the Scots Saved Christendom: Tales of Bravehearts and Covenanters.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 24, 2008 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 23, 2008 | Permalink

One need not agree with Congressman Ron Paul on every point to recognize his remarkable commitment to principle which distinguished him from each of the other Republican presidential candidates in the primary election. Once again, Congressman Paul has played the part of a man who places principle above politics and policy over partisanship, through his rejection of liberal Republican presidential candidate John McCain, in favor of Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, for President of the United States of America. The following was placed by Congressman Paul’s Campaign for Liberty website:

“The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored....I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign. I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years....I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 22, 2008 | Permalink

(To view this video clip, you must have QuickTime 7 installed.)

In this continuation of my interview with Olympic Gold Medalist Josh Davis, he tells about his wonderful wife who gave up her own personal ambitions to become a fruitful mother in the Lord. In addition, we discuss how Christians need not grow weary in well doing because they don’t see themselves as living up to an image of the ideal Christian family.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 19, 2008 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 19, 2008 | Permalink

Worldnetdaily.com has this commentary today by homeschool mom Olivia St. John: Mrs St. John explains that “While Sarah Palin may be the darling of the pro-life movement, she is no sweetheart of the pro-family community.”

She could one day be vice president of the United States and a heartbeat away from becoming the most powerful person, man or woman, in the world. With that in mind, feminist Sarah Palin told Charlie Gibson in an ABC interview that she’s ready for the job.

So is Todd Palin ready to be “first lady”?

Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow told the Anchorage Daily News that, while Todd does not attend high-level state Cabinet meetings, he is involved in fulfilling “the ceremonial duties of a first gentleman.” In fact, he recently hosted a tea for former first ladies of the state at the governor’s mansion in Juneau. I wonder if he held his pinkie upright as he sipped from his demitasse cup.

Questions abound regarding the role Todd will play if his wife is elected. A People magazine writer asked, “So will your husband be on leave now indefinitely to be Mr. Mom?” Sarah responded, “I would say so, yes.”

The L.A. Times reports that Todd left a management job when Sarah was elected governor in 2006. He returned to a non-management job after seven months. If Sarah assumes a vice-presidential role, then by her own admission, Todd will become a stay-at-home househusband.

ABC News reported that if Todd heads off for Washington, his friends are sure “he’ll be standing behind his wife.” Todd agrees, saying that when his wife talks about government, “it’s best just to move out of the way.”

Scott Davis is Todd’s snowmobile racing partner. Davis told the L.A. Times that Todd worked on his snowmobile when he wasn’t “busy cleaning and cooking and taking the kids.”

When ABC interviewer Charles Gibson asked Sarah how she could both manage a family of “seven” along with the vice presidency, she replied that gender is not an issue and the question is irrelevant. She admitted that people have questioned how she could serve as a governor with a baby. “I replied back then as I would today. I’ll do it the same way the other governors have done it. ...Granted they’re men, but do it the same way they do it.”

Of course, the male governors Palin refers to did not do it the same way she does it. They had wives, whereas she has a househusband. And there is a profound difference between the two...

Ours is an age of gender confusion, encouraged by social engineers, feminists and various types of pansexuals. We are taught that gender roles are interchangeable, that they are neither biologically nor psychologically fixed, and that such roles are not terribly important in human relationships anyway. The Palins have clearly bought into this concept of “gender bending” and are now modeling it for our nation and the world.

Sarah and Todd Palin do not embrace pro-family values in regard to time-honored gender roles within the family structure. In essence, as much as Sarah desires that people see her as a woman who can do it all, along with a hunkish “dude” at her side, she and her husband have switched places. Todd has taken on the feminine role, while his wife has taken on the masculine...

Both man and woman are equally intelligent and worthy, yet designed with different strengths that complement one another and add stability to a family if understood within the context of marriage. And Todd is to be commended for being the kind of father who spends time with his children. But his role is not to be Mr. Mom as his wife asserts.

A man’s greatest fulfillment is achieved through his family role as the guide, protector and provider, as Aubrey Andelin states in “Man of Steel and Velvet.” Proverbs 31 says that he is “recognized at the city meetings and he makes decisions as one of the leaders of the land.”

According to Bryce J. Christensen, author of “Divided We Fall: Family Discord and the Fracturing of America,” feminist activist groups in the ’90s “called for complete integration of women into all military operations, including those of combat units.” Their goal was to put women into “macho posts” not previously held by women. This moves us closer to the feminist dream that a woman may one day be commander in chief of the armed forces of our nation.

Christensen also states, “Utopian designs for masculinizing women, marginalizing men and vaporizing family homes are far more than literary fantasies. At least two real-world political movements - Marxism and feminism - have devoted considerable effort to pursuing [such] utopian objectives.”

How ironic that Christian conservatives rightly faulting Obama as a socialist so readily applaud Palin whose feminist views, whether realized or not, share much in common with Marxism.

Praised as virtuous by desperate conservatives, Sarah and Todd Palin fit nicely into today’s modern version of Christianity where true masculinity in the form of family leadership is absent, and women abdicate feminine roles in the home.

Christensen says, “Anyone who understands American culture, anyone who understands American family life, anyone who understands the American military knows that men - masculine, manly, chivalric men - are necessary. We desperately need such men - just as we need feminine women - to restore gender sanity, family integrity and military strength.”

Click here to read the entire article

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 18, 2008 | Permalink

Every day there are thousands of sounds competing for the attention of fathers.

There is the sound of the television set. This is the intoxicating call of the ancient siren, lulling men to slumber, urging them to check their brains at the door of their homes and float into a sea of passivity until they crash upon the rocks of life. There is the sound of the city and the business world. These sounds sometimes give men the false assurance that corporate success is the true test of manhood.

Then there are the diverse sounds of the world in general — a never-ending barrage of sound coming from the hum of machines, the chatter of people, and the background music that follows modern man from elevators to his car to the local coffee shop. These sounds remind us that we are not alone. But they also train us to be incapable of sitting in silence and communing with our God. Like a drug that takes away the pain of life at the expense of the clarity of the mind, these sounds often fill our heads with unnecessary distraction, such that it is a struggle to focus on the most important things.

We live in a world of sound pollution — too much sound, all the time. We spend so much time listening to indiscriminate sounds that we often fail to hear the music of life. We need to reduce the pollution and start listening to the most important music — the sounds that make a Christian household a Christian household.

There is music in the sound of a family worshipping the Lord together. There is music in the sound of babies laughing, of children studying at the family table, of sisters preparing meals for their family, and of moms reading bedtime stories to little ones. When these sounds truly reflect hearts that long to please their Heavenly Father, they make up the aroma of a life well-lived before the Lord.

Of course, the most beautiful music to a father’s ear are any sounds which allow him to experience the blessing of watching his children walking in truth. On this point, Jesus Christ, the author of Holy Scripture, wrote, “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth” (3 John 1:4).

I am persuaded that the sounds of a household are a window into the soul of the family.

For most American families today, the sounds being projected are filled with the noise pollution of the television or even with the discordant shouts of family turmoil. In other cases, the modern household is an empty tomb — a shadow of what family life was meant to be. In these households, there is little sound because there are no children. Or perhaps the silence stems from years of family fragmentation in which mother, father, and children each have their own individualized lives largely lived out far from home.

The Christian household is meant to be different. It is a place of love and living.

And that means noise. It means houses filled with the glorious echoes of babies crying, of children playing, of mothers teaching, of fathers training, and even a few animals chirping, meowing, or woofing. It means life — with all of its glory, sadness, and joy. It means happy homes of highly eccentric families, each with their own unique vision, style, personality traits, and expressions.

These homes are not museums. That means they are rarely immaculate. Gloriously organized chaos is sometimes a more apt description. They are homes made up of grateful and forgiven sinners who recognize that there is no greater joy than to daily experience the nobility of the commonplace, from the simple disciplines of Christian life — prayer, studies, work — to the thrill of watching fathers eating the fruit of their labors, of moms who radiate the glory of being fruitful vines, and of brothers and sisters who gather around the family table like precious olive plants (Psalm 128).

Look for these households. For their number is growing. They are part of a great spiritual work where the hearts of parents are turning to their children and children to their parents (Malachi 4:6). And when you find them, listen.

Excerpted from the chapter “The Art of Home School Opera: The Blessing of Family Eccentricities,” from The Little Boy Down the Road: Short Stories and Essays on the Beauty of Family Life, by Douglas W.Phillips, to be released from Vision Forum, October, 2008.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 17, 2008 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 17, 2008 | Permalink

USA Today Columnist—The pick of Sarah Palin as Republican vice presidential nominee is both a political event and a cultural one. Politically, it energized the Republican convention, solidified the Christian right’s support for John McCain and introduced a forceful new personality into American politics. Culturally, it triggered discussions of issues ranging from special-needs children to mothers’ roles to teen pregnancy.

Actually, at the local church level many congregations would not accept Palin or any other woman even as associate pastor, or deacon, or youth minister or Sunday school teacher in a gender-mixed classroom. The most conservative would not consider it appropriate for her to stand behind a pulpit and preach a sermon, or teach from the Bible, or lead a praise chorus, or offer a prayer, unless her audience consisted entirely of women or children.

These same conservative Christians who agree with Palin’s political views and are thrilled by the idea of her serving just one heartbeat away from the presidency would argue that it would be inappropriate for her to exercise leadership in her marital relationship at home. Instead, as the CBMW says, she should “grow in willing, joyful submission to (her husband’s) leadership.” Many of the conservative Christian leaders who have so warmly endorsed the nomination of Palin, mother of five with a grandchild on the way, have spent most of their careers arguing that the primary responsibility of women is to tend to their homes and families.

• Is it now your view that God can call a woman to serve as president of the United States? Are you prepared to renounce publicly any further claim that God’s plan is for men rather than women to exercise leadership in society, the workplace and public life? Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?

• Would Palin be acceptable as vice president because she would still be under the ultimate authority of McCain as president, like the structure of authority that occurs in some of your churches? Have you fully come to grips with the fact that if after his election McCain were to die, Palin would be in authority over every male in the USA as president?

• If you agree that God can call a woman to serve as president, does this have any implications for your views on women’s leadership in church life? Would you be willing to vote for a qualified woman to serve as pastor of your church? If not, why not?

• Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?

• Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family?

Click HERE to read the full article.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 16, 2008 | Permalink

This feature with Doug Phillips and Voddie Baucham provides valuable insights into the practice of family worship. The interview with Paul Butler includes a brief history of this important family practice as well as provides helpful suggestions for fathers on how to begin it in their own home.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 15, 2008 | Permalink

Pastor Joe Morecraft preached an outstanding sermon yesterday on what the Bible says about the role of women in the civil sphere. I would strongly encourage you to click on this link to listen to Pastor Morecraft’s outstanding sermon. His sermon represents the historical perspective of Christians and Reformers on the subject, but a perspective which is largely ignored and ridiculed during election years by modern evangelicals who care little for church history, and, more importantly, when faced with choosing between partisan loyalties and scriptural requirements prefer name-calling and theology by maxim to thoughtful discussions about the Scriptures themselves.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 15, 2008 | Permalink

The first question to ask and answer is, “Who is this woman’s husband?” Next we must ask many subsidiary questions. Is she fulfilling her ministry to him? Is he her priority? Is she helping him? Is her house in order? Is he leading her in this ministry? Is her identity as a Christian woman centered around her relationship to her husband? If the answer to any of these is “no,” then her ministry is likely independent of her husband, and it is much like a separate career; but because it is “Christian,” it is somehow seen as a valid ministry. In contrast, because Scripture clearly teaches that the husband is the head of the wife, a Christian woman in ministry should clearly be seen as under her husband’s visible headship. Scripture teaches that a wife is specially created by God to be a helper to her husband. When a woman in ministry becomes successful, independent of her husband, many temptations will accompany such success.... Then comes the temptation to accept more and more speaking engagements, to like the financial independence, to work harder outside the home, get used to being successful apart from her husband, and to become more independent of him. In some cases, husbands’ careers are considered inferior because they are not as lucrative, so the husbands quit their jobs to manage their wives’ “ministries.” This is so backwards. How can we expect God to bless a ministry that is in essence run by wives and supported by husbands?

Nancy Wilson, “Women in Ministry,” Credenda/Agenda, Vol. 7, Issue 5.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 15, 2008 | Permalink

Remember to pray for the families and homes being hit hard by Ike this weekend.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 12, 2008 | Permalink

“The Republican vice presidential candidate says students should be taught about condoms. Her running mate—and the party platform—disagree.”

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself “pro-contraception” and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

“I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues,” she said during a debate in Juneau.

Such statements could raise concerns among social conservatives who have been some of Palin’s most enthusiastic supporters since she was tapped for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket last week.

Full story from LA Times here:.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 12, 2008 | Permalink

(To view this video clip, you must have QuickTime 7 installed.)

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 12, 2008 | Permalink

As I look at the cultural landscape, I’m afraid we’ve missed it again. We’re so worried about ‘winning this one’ that we haven’t stopped to think about what we’re losing in the process.

Click here to rest the rest of this great article.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 12, 2008 | Permalink

So why are we inspired by Sarah Palin? Because her example puts a stronger fire in us to answer the cry, the way we believe God intended. We are more inspired than ever to help our father, brothers, husbands and sons to fill the role we are not called to fill.

It has rightly been observed that women have already been elected to the highest position they can hold, and that any “promotion” in the civil sphere would be a step backward. Their womanly sphere is where this hurting nation needs them most.

So let us resolve to give the world what it really needs, in the way that only women can give it. We have our work cut out for us, building strength into our men; It will call out every gift and talent within us. In doing so, we’re not just answering the cry — we’re obeying God, Who holds our first allegiance.

Mrs. Palin, you have inspired us to take stronger action for our God and for our country.

As for us, we don’t aspire to become the presidents we wish we could vote for. We aspire to raise them.

Click here to read the rest of article

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 12, 2008 | Permalink

Since our previous post on Saturday, more Christians on the blogosphere have added their voices—or their keyboards—to speak out against the calamity we face in seeing a woman elected to the second highest office in the land.

Pastor Scott Brown: “Will Christian young ladies find a role model in Sarah Palin? We should beware because she does not promote the biblical vision of womanhood. She is not keeper at home (Titus 2:5). She is not a helper to her husband ( Genesis 2:18). She is building the kingdom of another man not her husband (Prov 31). Her lifestyle proclaims, “you can have it all - wife, mother, executive.” See full article.

Pastor Kevin Swanson: “We’re just not quite sure a feminist governor from Alaska with a year’s experience in governance (not to mention her 17-year-old daughter pregnant out of wedlock doing her part to contribute to the further demise of the family), working for John McCain will do any more than GWB did to salvage the economy, halt the growth of government, repair the family, and quiet the Sodomites beating down our doors. Call it a breach in confidence. Oh well. At least her daughter wasn’t a lesbian.” See full article.

Dr. Voddie Baucham: “Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted ‘moral high ground’ in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the ‘change’ argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate! Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, ‘It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.’ How pro-family is that?” See full article.

Pastor Bill Einwechter, Th.M: “To assert that God’s Word permits a woman to hold civil office and that Christians have the liberty to support a woman for the position of civil magistrate means that one has to deny the biblical teaching on the headship of man, reject the qualifications for civil rulers set down in the law of God, ignore the biblical picture of the virtuous woman, and close his or her ears to the biblical lament of women ruling over men. The example of Deborah does not give sufficient evidence to prove that she held the office of civil ruler or to overturn the biblical doctrine that men alone are called of God to the office of civil magistrate. Therefore, Christians should not support a woman for the office of civil magistrate. It is imperative that Christians labor to restore God’s order for the family, the church, and the state.” See full article.

Jennie Chancey: “Have we completely lost our ‘righteous resistance?’ I’ll grant that Sarah Palin is a die-hard pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family conservative, but why aren’t the pundits stopping to ask the obvious question? Why is a wife and mother with five children (including a newborn with Down’s syndrome) running for vice president? She has a bountiful amount of work cut out for her by the Lord sitting in her lap and around her dining room table. I can certainly respect her Christian and biblical views, but I am really amazed at Christians leaping to embrace putting a wife and mother into political office—particularly an office that will essentially make her the helpmate of the highest official in the land and practically remove her from her husband and children.” See full article.

Kim Coghlan: “So many of us agree on the complementary roles of women and men in the home and in the church, yet our own sisters and brothers in Christ are denying that this aspect of our very nature has any influence in the third sphere of God-originating authority: that of civil government. What are they thinking? But it’s not just about Palin’s gender. There are other issues that ought to dampen the enthusiasm of Palin’s Christian fans. She supports tax-payer funded contraceptives and sex-ed in schools. She vetoed pro-family legislation in Alaska, guaranteeing special rights to homosexuals. And she is a self-proclaimed feminist.” See full article.

Carmon Friedrich: “First and foremost, the Bible speaks plainly that men are to be chosen for positions of covenant headship in government, just as they are covenant leaders in home and church. Deborah, who sat under her own tree and judged as judgment from God for the apostate Israel (Judges 4:1-3), was hardly in an ideal situation nor was it typical for God’s people to have a woman in that position of leadership as we know from every other example of godly rulers in civil and ecclesiastical spheres being men (Queen Esther did not rule as one of Ahasuerus’s wives).” See full article.

Anna Sofia & Elizabeth Botkin: “In the opinion of just two of these American daughters, this picture is troubling, and brings with it promises of more trouble. Part of the tragedy, as we see it, is that it’s not just secular feminists who are excited about this future. Christians across the nation are cheering the entrance of Mrs. Palin, forgetting that, according to the biblical qualifications for a civil magistrate, she as a woman is not qualified to hold this office (Ex. 18:21, Pro. 31:23, 1 Tim. 2:12).[1] We believe that Mrs. Palin’s appointment as civil ruler, and indeed the feminist strides that made it possible, are a judgment from God (Isa. 3:12). We’re already suffering from one consequence of this judgment more severely than America realizes.” See full article.

Jasmine Baucham: “Is it odd that we Christians, commanded to take every thought captive (2 Corinthians 10:5) feel like our “hands are tied” in this election, that we are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, that the vote otherwise would be “wasting” our vote? I think it is. It boggles my mind to think that, if Christians would not, in good conscience, vote for John McCain in any other instance, would rally together and vote for a man who really espoused the values they hold dear... we may not win an election, but the numbers would certainly get people’s attention.” See full article.

Nathaniel Darnell: “For a woman to take civil authority over a man, even a man who is not her husband, would be to violate the principle stated in I Corinthians 11:3: “But I would have you to 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.” A woman assuming authority over a man in any context would be as awful as a man seeking to assume authority over Christ, or Christ assuming authority over His Heavenly Father.” See full article.

Paul Vaughn: “The most liberal translation of Scriptures clearly shows the normative pattern for women is to be their husband’s (not some other man’s) helpmate. Many seem to be willing to give Palin a free pass on this issue, because she is pro-life, or because she may help to keep a muslim out of office, or for some other “noble” reason. I’m at a loss to understand their thinking, or at least in my ability to see it as Biblical. Perhaps, we have just become so use to feminist dogma in this age of female preachers, priest, and senators that we are tainted. Perhaps, we are so influenced by the culture around us that we are simply unable to think like Christians any more.” See full article.

Caleb Hayden: “God has called women to the distinctive roles of wife and mother, plain and simple. Paul tells women to be ‘keepers at home’ in Titus 2. God has called men to stand in the gates and lead within the civil realm, as we see throughout Scripture with precious few exceptions. Many will mock this position as outdated, chauvinistic, sexist, and worse. At best, the position will strike many as ‘unfair.’ Indeed, it is unfair. God is not an egalitarian. He did not ordain men and women to function with the same roles and responsibilities. For example, in Genesis 3, God cursed the man’s responsibility of subduing the earth and taking dominion over the ground; men would have to wrestle with thorns and thistles and sweat to provide bread for their families. In turn, He cursed the woman’s role of bearing children by ordaining travail in childbirth.” See full article.

Elijah Brown: “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.” See full article.

Bret McAtee: “While Christians must continue to insist that it is against Scripture to vote for a female magistrate as our political covenant head, we must at the same time insist that Palin is right about many of the issues on which she has taken stands.” See full article.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 11, 2008 | Permalink

(To view this audio clip, you must have QuickTime 7 installed.)

Yesterday, Dr. Voddie Baucham defended the historic, orthodox faith on national television against an evangelical feminist and emergent church proponent Margaret Feinberg and CNN correspondent Kyra Phillips. At the end of the interview, the CNN anchor asked Voddie the question based on Ephesians 5: “What about the text that says the man and the woman should submit to one another?” He was then cut off, and could not answer the question. In this audio clip, taken from Dr. Voddie Baucham’s message The Centrality of the Home in Evangelism and Discipleship, Dr. Baucham answers that very question! This CD message is available in our store.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 10, 2008 | Permalink

The Mobile Register on 9/7/2008 published this obituary of The Hon. William Brevard Han—Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. He was the judge in Wallace v. Jaffree and Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County.

He died Saturday, September 6, 2008. Judge Hand, a native and life-long resident of this City, was born on Dauphin Street, attended Murphy High School, and completed his undergraduate work and legal studies at the University of Alabama. This process was interrupted by service in northern Europe where he was honored to defend his country as a combat infantry rifleman from the Battle of the Bulge through VE Day. After additional service with the Occupation Army in Czechoslovakia he completed his education and returned to Mobile where he entered the practice of law. He pursued this profession until being appointed to the Federal bench by President Richard Nixon in 1971. He was a fearless man of high moral and intellectual vigor and a soaring idealist; as such, he was never afraid to propound any opinion he felt to be intellectually sound, morally just and supported by the larger precedent. Consequently, he was compelled on two occasions to reverse the United States Supreme Court when compelling evidence had been entered that they had strayed from original intent of the Constitution. He let the chips fall where they may. Judge Hand was born and reared in the Dauphin Way Methodist Church, serving in all lay capacities that it offered, and enjoying their recognition of him as Honorary member of the Administrative Board and a lifetime Steward of the Church. A rounded man, he also participated in the mystics of this City, believing that a little foolishness, now and then, is valued by the wisest of men. Judge Hand was predeceased by his parents, Charles C. and Irma Weems Hand, and in April of this year, his wife of 60 years, Allison Denby Hand. He is survived by his daughters Jane Hand Dukes (David), of Mobile, Virginia Hand Hollis (Bill), of Germantown, and Allison Hand Peebles (John), of Mobile; grandchildren: Brevard Dukes Hinton (Thomas) of Valdosta; Ann Chandler Dukes Shuleva (Matt), of Birmingham, and David Dewitt Dukes, Jr. (Ashley) of Jacksonville; Elizabeth Alan Hollis, of Germantown, Katherine Hollis Taylor (Jack), of Dallas; John Connor H. Peebles, and William Battle Peebles, both of Mobile; and great-grand children Tom, William and Jane Hinton. He is also survived by his brother Dr. James Albert Hand (Jean), of Salem, Oregon, and many cherished nephews and nieces. A graveside service will be held at 9:00, Tuesday, September 9th, followed at 10:00 by a visitation in the McGowin Center at Dauphin Way Methodist, after which, at 12:00, a memorial service in the main sanctuary. In lieu of flowers, the family asks that memorials be sent to Dauphin Way Methodist Church, 1507 Dauphin Street, Mobile, Ala. 36604, or The Ben May Branch of the Mobile Public Library, 701 Government Street, Mobile, Ala. 36602.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 10, 2008 | Permalink

Victoria Sees Voddie’s Faithfulness to the Text vs. Feinberg’s Eisogesis

“Voddie Baucham’s clarion call to be faithful to the text was a beacon of truth that exposed Feinberg’s pragmatic eisigesis: even Kyra Phillips was compelled to go home and search the scriptures! I found it interesting that CNN has a better grasp of the inconsistency of semi-complementarianism than Christian leaders like Mohler and Kotter who gloss over the inconsistency as if it doesn’t exist. I pray that the Lord will open their eyes. In the meantime, I’m thrilled that the Lord sent Voddie Baucham to CNN to contend for the truth and am glad to hear that they plan to invite him back!”

Isabel Writes That Voddie and VF Should Prepare to Be Judged as Accomplice Murderers

”...We have a choice of putting a true Christian into power versus a supposed Christian who talks about his muslim faith and wants everyone to have the right to kill their babies. The choice is to lead this country back to Christ, or to lead it further into the Godless abyss. Your argument, if taken to heart by your followers, will condemn another 50,000,000 babies to slaughter. THAT is not Christian. Show me in the bible where THAT is okay. Maybe, if Obama is elected, you should prepare your argument for when you stand before Christ, amongst the Pharasees, to explain yourself.”

A Former Feminst and Mother of Special Needs Child Explains Why She Thanks God for Voddie

“Bravo to Dr. Baucham for preaching the Truth. God’s word still stands, despite the “political spin” people put on it, including the sickening twist on scripture that that woman put that Palin’s husband was “laying down his life” to make way for her political career. He’s laying down, but as a coward who is not man enough to be the leader. I am a wife and homeschooling mother of 5 children, one of whom has autism. All children need their parents, but especially special needs children. I have been so grieved by the Church at large’s support of her. I am proudly a keeper at home. I also have masters and doctoral degrees that are happily gathering dust because I know the most important job in the world is NOT an elected one, but one in which we are chosen by God. I pursued my higher degrees to please my feminist parents, but in my heart all I ever wanted was to be a wife and mother. Once I became saved and saw the beauty of Christ and in how totally fulfilled I could be in Him through being where He wants me to be, I knew there was no other way. There is no peace for the wicked. So even though she gives the illusion that she can “have it all” (career and family), she will never have the true peace that passes all understanding from humbling yourself before the Lord. It is already clear that she does not “have it all.” Anyone who would drag a pregnant teenager plus an infant with special needs into the limelight for their own career is neither humble nor someone I can vote for.”

Christopher Thinks the Church Fears Man More Than God

“First of all, thank you so much for speaking with boldness the truth of God’s word. You will get pummeled for it by many in the media and blogosphere, but speaking the truth as you have done is necessary. After watching the CNN segment with Dr. Baucham, I am reminded how this issue has revealed the degree to which the modern American church has embraced a fear of man over a fear of God. Never before have I seen an issue come along which so clearly exposes the heart of the church today. God will deal with this nation based on the condition of the church within it, and the actions of evangelicals in support of Mrs. Palin demonstrate the decline of the church’s reliance on the Bible as sufficient and authoritative. The scriptural norm for leadership is clear, and it seems that only a remnant can see that. I am more than ever convinced that we must raise godly families with a view towards multi-generational faithfulness and the rebuilding of our culture. We must raise our children with a dominion mindset, eager to expand throughout our culture, and ready to fill the pipelines feeding the positions of power with people who fear God more than man.”

Feminism Is Now Deeply Rooted in the Church

“I used to think that the issue of abortion was a fairly reliable indicator of the degree to which feminism was rooted in a person’s belief system. However, I now think the Palin nomination has proven to be a more powerful means of assessing how deeply rooted the feminist influences of our culture have become. As my wife and I have struggled over the years to free our thinking from the pervasive and invasive philosophy of feminism, we have always been surprised at how subtle and yet powerful its influence is. The decisions we make this election year will cut to the core of our worldview. How we vote will show who we fear.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 10, 2008 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 10, 2008 | Permalink

We really appreciate our dear friend and comrade Gary DeMar who has weighed in with an alternative perspective on our article by Bill Einwechter, Sarah Palin and the Complimentarian Compromise. We also appreciate the fact that Gary graciously allowed the following post on his site in the comment section rebutting his own article:

Mr. DeMar,

Respectfully, even if I were to accept your argument, I am at a loss as to how this serves as justification for Christian support of the candidacy of Mrs. Palin from an ethical perspective. It should be clear by the present political landscape that the Judgment of God is on our nation, our churches, and our families (Is. 3:11-13); why should Christians uncannily run into the ballot box applauding their own execution?

As for the first your two points, “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.”?

As for your third point the fact that her position was only afforded for the sinful state of the nation is evidence enough. Whether she is condemned or not, that in itself lend itself to the idea that her candidacy is somehow desirable. As for Jael, it is said that she is blessed among the women IN THE TENTS. This does not lend itself to an interpretation of women who is a civil ruler.

As for your fourth point it is answered in part by the response to the third. Notice that it was Barak that was to lead the troops in battle not Deborah as with other judges. If she was a judge she was a judge in a limited and diminished capacity in comparison to other judges. It might also be pointed out at this point that it was Barak and not Deborah who is mentioned as a hero of the faith in the book of Hebrews. With regard to Nebuchadnezzar...I would not vote for him either.

Your fifth point only begs the question. Just because God was not disappointed with the leadership of Deborah does not mean that he is not with the candidacy of Mrs. Palin; nor does it mean that Christians are free to support her. Furthermore, I might point out that if Deborah had been leading Israel into battle and not Barak there is high possibility that Israel might have lost. Finally Jael and Sisera were both keepers their homes and not civil leaders.

Why did Mrs. Palin enter politics? Men or no men, it is because she is a self-proclaimed feminist. Mr. DeMar I hold you in very high regard, but this article missed the mark in terms of holding up God’s law over a lawless culture. As a man who holds up the validity of the law of God over all civil affairs, I am listening, as you put it to what the scriptures are teaching. It is not teaching me to wink at the candidacy of Mrs. Palin.

Sincerely,

Elijah Brown

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 10, 2008 | Permalink

Watch today’s CNN broadcast then send me your concise thoughts on the arguments presented. I will post some of the more helpful and interesting email responses.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 9, 2008 | Permalink

Four precious mothers. Twenty precious children among them.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 9, 2008 | Permalink

Make sure to watch Dr. Voddie Baucham’s courageous defense of the Word of God and the biblical doctrine that women should be “keepers at home” from today’s CNN debate.

COMMENTS FROM READERS OF DOUG’S BLOG

Tonight, after I watched Dr. Baucham’s CNN interview, with my 7-year-old daughter nearby, I asked her what she would say if I said, “Honey, I love you. You are my life. But...you’re not going to see much of mommy anymore because the government needs me?” She snickered and said, “I thought you just said you loved me.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 9, 2008 | Permalink

The giddy endorsement by Evangelical leaders of a mother of young children including an infant to position herself as commander-in-chief of the United States Military is a de facto concession by these leaders that our eighteen-year-old daughters can be sent to the front lines of combat to die like men.

If it is right, just, biblical, and desirable for a mother of young children to lead the strongest military operation in the world, then by the same logic it is acceptable to send our daughters to the front lines of combat. Should a draft be acceptable and desirable to the politicians in Washington, it will also be appropriate and necessary to draft our daughters.

By abandoning biblical role distinctions and qualifications for leadership, our Christian leaders will have no biblical leg to stand on when the government comes to draft their daughters and yours for the latest internationalist effort to advance Democracy.

Those who attempt to draw flimsy distinctions between a female commander-in-chief and a female military will be laughed at into oblivion for the illogic and hypocrisy of their position.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 9, 2008 | Permalink

By Bill Einwechter

Sarah Palin’s selection by John McCain to be his running mate in his bid for the presidency of the United States is not only a surprise political move, it also carries with it implications of historic proportions. If Senator McCain is successful in his candidacy, Mrs. Palin will become the first woman to fill the office of vice president of this country and be in place to assume the presidency, if necessary. She will also be in line to take up the Republican nomination for president in the future. If John McCain becomes president and chooses to serve only one term, it is quite possible that the next presidential election (2012) will be between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. But Palin’s nomination to the vice presidency is not only an historic occasion for our country, it is also a watershed moment for evangelical Christians, particularly those who claim to be complementarian in their views of men and women (i.e., those who believe that men and women have different but complementary roles according to the revealed will of God).

The Dilemma Facing Complementarians

One would surmise that the nomination of Palin would create a dilemma for politically conservative Christians who say they believe that God has given a woman the distinct and important roles of wife, mother, and keeper at home. How so? On the one hand, Palin is a political conservative who seems to hold the right position on the issues most important to Christians; she purports to be pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-marriage, pro-family, and she herself is a professed evangelical Christian.

More to the point is the fact that Sarah Palin is a professing Christian, a wife, and a mother of five children, one of her children being a baby with Down syndrome. The inescapable dilemma for these politically conservative complementarians, it would seem, is how to reconcile their support of Palin’s candidacy with their professed support of Palin’s biblically mandated roles of wife and mother. In addition to these considerations, the complementarian must face the question of whether or not it is biblically proper for a woman to rule over men in the civil sphere; after all, in their view, women are not to serve as pastors, and women are to submit to their own husbands in the home.

But, as it turns out, there is no real dilemma here for the complementarians. Sarah Palin the vice presidential candidate and Sarah Palin the mother of five presents no necessary contradiction in their system. A wife and mother of five children who is called by God to be a keeper at home (Titus 2:5), and who, in their view, is not qualified to be the head of her home or to be the elder of a local church (simply because she is a woman), is qualified and free, they believe, to seek the vice presidency of the United States of America. How can this be? Two recent blog entries by David Kotter^[1] and Albert Mohler^[2] reveal how this all fits together in their worldview.

Their First Argument: Biblical Standards Do Not Apply to Civil Magistrates

First, David Kotter tells us that since there are no biblical standards that define the qualifications for civil magistrates today, Christians are free to support Palin’s candidacy. The state, argues Kotter, is strictly a secular institution, and God does not require civil leaders to be Christians or even to be ethical. He says that when we vote on November 4 we will not be electing a “national minister or pastor in chief.” We agree on that. But what is Kotter’s point? I am not sure, but since he follows this point with the statement that, “A president is not held to the same moral standards as an elder of a church,” he implies that there are no explicit biblical standards of ethics, faith, character, or gender that Christians are bound to follow when casting their votes for their civil leaders. In Kotter’s view of things, Christians are at liberty to follow political expediency when it comes to voting and supporting political candidates.

Their Second Argument: Egalitarianism Is Biblical in Public Life

Second, both Mohler and Kotter say that the doctrine of male headship and the existence of distinct and separate roles for men and women only apply in the home and in the church. In the sphere of politics and civil government, these complementarians argue for egalitarianism (i.e., they say that the doctrine of male headship is not relevant here, and all public roles and positions are equally open to men and women). Mohler writes: “The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility.” Kotter states: “The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from exercising leadership in secular political fields.” This means, to them, that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to be a judge, legislator, governor, vice president, or president of the United States.

Their Third Argument: Historical Examples Like Queen Victoria, and Exceptional Biblical Cases Like Deborah Are Valid Guides, Even Though Old Testament Precept Is Not

Third, they infer that both biblical and historical examples demonstrate that God is pleased when gifted women govern in the civil realm. David Kotter holds up the biblical examples of the Queen of Sheba and Queen Esther, as well as the historical example of Queen Victoria, as support for women magistrates. Al Mohler uses Queen Elizabeth I and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as his examples. According to these men, if God was pleased to raise up such women in the past, we can expect God to raise up gifted women in our day to lead us and rule over us. They both seem confident that Sarah Palin is one of these gifted women.

Their Conclusion: National Leadership for Mothers is as Pleasing to God as Faithful Service in the Home

Fourth, both Kotter and Mohler emphasize their respect for the homemaker, and they say that they are thankful for those women who fulfill the “monumental” tasks that God has given women in the home. But Mohler also notes that it is okay for wives and mothers to pursue careers outside of the home, both in business and in politics, if they fulfill their roles in the home first. Kotter concludes, based on the three points above, that a wife and mother exercising national leadership in political office is just as pleasing to God as a wife and mother faithfully serving her family in the home. Apparently Mohler agrees with him, and says he is “thrilled” with Palin’s candidacy. What is confusing here is how they can praise women who stay at home and fulfill their enormous tasks and, yet, at the same time praise a woman who leaves her home to fulfill the demanding life-style of high political office.

What shall we say to their arguments in support Palin’s bid to be vice president? Well, David Kotter rightly pointed out that we should “think biblically” about a female vice presidential candidate, and that we should “look to the Word of God” as our guide in sorting through issues like these, e.g., whether it is biblically proper for a wife and mother to pursue a career in politics. With these admonitions we fully agree. The problem is that neither Kotter nor Mohler give us any real biblical guidance for sorting through these issues. Kotter appeals to two ambiguous biblical examples, says that the Bible does not prohibit women from holding civil office, and suggests that, unlike the case of church leaders, the Bible gives no guidance to Christian voters concerning the qualifications they should look for in those they would place over them in the state. Let us consider the position and arguments of these complementarians with the Word of God as our guide.

The Sufficiency of Scripture and the Biblical Requirements for Christians Selecting Civil Magistrates

First, every Christian should recognize that the Bible does give explicit teaching on the qualifications for civil magistrates^[3]. The two primary passages are Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13. 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 in civil magistrates (Deut. 16:18-20; 17:14-20; 2 Sam. 23:3; 2 Chron. 19:6-7; Neh. 7:2; Prov. 29:2; Rom. 13:1-6), and in every one of these texts men, not women, are in view. In the light of this, it is strange that Kotter and Mohler dismiss the notion that the Bible speaks directly to the subject of qualifications for civil rulers. It would seem that if we are to “think biblically” about voting, and it is important to “look to the Word of God” for guidance in our ever-changing political situation, these texts are where we should begin. It is true that on November 4 we will not be electing “a national minister or pastor in chief,” but neither was Israel when God revealed the qualifications that they should look for in the men who would be their judges and civil leaders.

The reason why Kotter and Mohler think that the Bible does not specifically define the qualifications for civil rulers is based, most likely, on a theological construct that denies the applicability of the Old Testament with its precepts, principles, case laws, commandments, and wisdom directives to guide our vision of Christian ethics. And, so, when it comes to voting ethics, only the New Testament counts. And since Kotter believes that the New Testament has nothing specific to say on the issue, he concludes that there are no ethical requirements for secular governments.

This means that there are no ethical requirements for voters, and Christians can dismiss Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 and vote for whomever political expediency seems to dictate. The problem for those who take this approach is that the New Testament teaches (in 2 Tim. 3:16-17) that the Old Testament passages that relate to voting ethics do apply today because they are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (i.e., how to cast a righteous vote) so that the believer in Jesus Christ can do the good work of voting for those whom God approves. It is troubling that Christian teachers would set aside and/or ignore the instruction in righteousness contained in the Old Testament texts that directly speak to the qualifications of civil leaders, because Jesus Christ emphatically denied that He had come to destroy (i.e., to repeal, abolish, make invalid) the law or the prophets, and because He commanded His disciples to teach and do even the least commandments of the law (Matt. 5:17-19). If we are to be Christ’s disciples when we support candidates or vote, we must continue in His Word (John 8:31). The question then, is, “Does Sarah Palin meet the biblical standards for civil magistrates?” According to the Word of God, she does not because God’s law says that we should choose men to be our civil leaders^[4].

The record of some of our finest and most influential Reformation Bible commentators stand in opposition to Mohler, Kotter and others arguing for a semi-complementarian, semi-egalitarian position on the jurisdictional roles of men and women. These men not only believed that all of the Bible informed our view of ethics, but that there was harmony between the Old and New Testaments on the issue of the role of women and the jurisdictional governments established by God. In his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:11-13, John Calvin explains that it is improper to use the example of Deborah to argue for women holding public office given that such is against the “ordinary system of government” ordained by God and revealed in his Scriptures. The great reformer John Knox, put it this way: “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely [an insult] to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.”

Male Leadership and the Creation Order

Second, the conclusion that God’s Word instructs us to choose men to lead us in the civil sphere stands in stark contrast to the complementarian position. According to complementarians like Kotter and Mohler, the doctrine of male headship and of role distinctions between men and women only apply to the spheres of family and church. This is a curious doctrine for which there is no support in Scripture. On the contrary, everything in Scripture supports the view that the distinction between men and women in terms of headship and roles is an essential distinction that applies to every area of life. The difference between men and women in terms of their place, calling, and function is based in God’s plan for them and is expressed in the creation order (Gen. 1:27; 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:8-9; 1 Tim. 2:13). This creational difference is as essential and unchanging as the physical differences between men and women. Manhood and womanhood are facts of humanity, and the significance of each can only be interpreted in light of God’s plan for each, and that plan is revealed in Scripture. Neither human reason or human experience can define the assigned roles of men and women, nor determine the relationship they sustain to each other in terms of authority and submission; only the Creator’s Word can do that.

The Bible is clear that man’s headship over the woman is an essential and all-encompassing part of God’s plan and part of His established order of government in the world. This fact is made explicit in 1 Corinthians 11:3: “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.” By its very nature, this order must apply in all areas of life; it is an essential order that knows no exceptions. Complementarians would agree that in every area of the divine government God is the head of Christ, and in every area of life the head of man is Christ. But, incredibly, they argue that the order of male headship has only limited application, and that there are many areas of life where it does not apply, and one of them is the civil sphere. They justify this interpretation by stating that 1 Corinthians 11:3 is in the context of church order. This is true, but the place in which this text appears and the sweeping statements in the text itself show that Paul is establishing the theology that the world is governed according to a divinely given order, an order that he will presently apply to church order. The fact that Paul is not giving a principle that only applies to church order is evident from what he says about Christ and God, and Christ and men.

The Bible Does Strictly Prohibit Women From Leadership as Civil Magistrates

Furthermore, Kotter is simply wrong when he says that the Bible does not strictly prohibit women from holding the office of civil leader, and Mohler is surely mistaken when he states that women serving as officials in government is no affront to Scripture. As we have seen, the Bible strictly prohibits women from holding civil office by declaring that rulers ought to be men. What Kotter should have said is that since He believes that Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 no longer instruct us in righteousness, because these verses only applied to Israel, we can safely set these verses aside and vote as reason and experience dictate.

But do Kotter and his fellow complementarians realize what they have done to their own argument for male headship in the church? The New Testament does not explicitly forbid women from the office of elder either. Nowhere does the New Testament state: “Women may not be elders.” But, in spite of this, complementarians still maintain that women are forbidden to serve as elders; and they do so on the basis of the general role relationship of men and women established at creation and by the stated qualifications for elders given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. In other words, they build their doctrine of male elders in the same way that those who are against female civil rulers build their doctrine of male civil magistrates, i.e., by means of the biblical order of creation and the biblical qualifications for the office that require the leaders to be men. How can this procedure of interpretation and logic be correct in one case and wrong in the other? In rejecting the biblical arguments for male headship in the state, they are laying the ax to the root of their own doctrine of male headship in the church.

The problem with a complementarian position that is egalitarian in the public sphere is that it is unbiblical, illogical, and dangerously inconsistent. This inconsistent complementarianism is theologically unable to withstand the rigorous consistency of the evangelical feminism that says that complete equality exists between men and women in terms of authority and roles in every area of life. That compromised complementarianism cannot sustain itself in the battle with feminist egalitarianism is evident. Their open endorsement of egalitarianism in the public sphere, in response to the Palin nomination, can only expose the inconsistency and weakness of their semi-complementarian system. They do not seem to understand it, but, by their enthusiastic support of a wife and mother of five children (one being an infant) for vice president, they are jeopardizing their own ability to defend complementarianism in the home and in the church. How so? They have denied, at least in part, the biblical doctrine of the created order of male headship, and the biblical doctrine of the unique, non-transferable roles of men and women in God’s plan.

The Elevation of Experience Over Scripture; Fundamental Hermeneutic Principles Violated

Third, the examples used by David Kotter and Albert Mohler to support their contention that female magistrates are according to God’s will are not only an inconsistent and selective use of Scripture and an elevation of the authority of experience, but are also a fundamental violation of biblical hermeneutics. It is a curious thing that Kotter would appeal to the examples of the Queen of Sheba and Queen Esther to justify female rulers. A queen is a king’s wife, and normally the position of queen is not considered a political office. There is no indication that Esther exercised any ruling authority in Persia beyond the management of her own household and her personal influence on the king. The analogy of Esther actually applies to John McCain’s wife, Cindy, and not to Sarah Palin, his vice presidential choice. Furthermore, there appears to be an inconsistency in David Kotter’s use of the Old Testament. Apparently, it is okay to use Old Testament examples to establish the propriety of female rulers, but it is not okay to use Old Testament instruction from the law of God to disprove the propriety of female rulers. If Old Testament law is off limits in this debate, then so are Old Testament examples. Those who reject the authority of the Old Testament on this issue, should appeal only to New Testament examples of women rulers. But since there are none (unless someone wants to use Governor Pilate’s wife, King Herod’s wife, or Governor Felix’s wife), we can conclude, if we are consistent with a New Testament only hermeneutic, that Scripture does not approve of women magistrates.

Their use of examples of women rulers from history is also pointless. History is not a self-interpretive phenomenon, and the experience of history is not the final standard of faith and practice for Christians. Scripture is our only infallible standard of truth and the measure by which the facts of history must be interpreted. History presents us examples of every kind of civil leader one can think of. There have been capable female rulers and bad female rulers. What should we conclude from this in regard to the biblical doctrine of the civil magistrate and the role of women in the civil sphere? Nothing. “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20).

The method of those who use examples such as Deborah or Esther to prove the normative character of women magistrates violates the basic principle of interpretation that narratives and examples are not the basis for interpreting or overturning the meaning of didactic (direct teaching) texts, rather, the opposite is the case. The example of a woman like Deborah cannot be considered normative because it contradicts the explicit teaching of the law of God in Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13. The example of Deborah no more proves that we ought to vote for a woman for civil office, than the example of Abraham proves that a man should take his son to a mountain to sacrifice him to demonstrate his devotion to God, or the example of David proves that a man may have more than one wife.

The Devaluation of Christian Womanhood

Fourth, the praise that Kotter and Mohler give to the woman who chooses to focus all of her energies on being a wife and mother is not only blunted by their endorsement of Sarah Palin, a woman who has made a different choice, but is also subverted by the message their perspective sends to the Christian community: the choice between full-time homemaking and a full-time career is one each wife and mother is free to make in accord with her own ideas of calling and “fulfillment.” Rather than upholding the biblical role of the woman, they have undermined it; rather than exalting biblical womanhood, they have cheapened it; rather than standing for biblical complementarianism, they have compromised it. According to Scripture, the woman was created to be man’s assistant in his dominion task (Gen. 2:18), to function under his headship (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-23), to be a mother and nurturer of children (1 Tim. 2:15; 5:10, 14), and to manage her home (1 Tim. 5:14). These “monumental” tasks require married women to be “keepers at home”^[5] (Titus 2:5), i.e., they are to stay at home to give their full time and attention to the enormously important roles that God has given to them. But, according to these men, the roles of wife and mother are limited in time and scope, leaving them free to be “CEOs in the business world” and “officials in government.”

Why this Evangelical Compromise Is So Significant to the Future of the Church

The nomination of Sarah Palin to be John McCain’s vice presidential running mate has electrified social conservatives and “thrilled” the hearts of partial complementarians like Albert Mohler. But those of us who seek a biblical reformation of the family and the defeat of feminism’s vision for women look at the matter in a very different light. Sarah Palin identifies herself with the anti-Christian philosophy of feminism. She uses feminist terminology, identifies with feminist political objectives, publicly praises liberal icons of the feminist movement, and has built her lifestyle around the feminist ideal of motherhood and careerism. She represents the feminist lie that a woman can do it all, that she can be a wife and mother and pursue a full-time career outside of her home and still meet all her responsibilities in the home. She personifies the feminist image of the tough, take-charge woman who is fitted to rule and govern in any sphere she chooses. She establishes the feminist principle that if a woman can do something, and she wants to do it, she ought to do it; there should be no constraints placed on her by her family, her church, or her society. She validates the feminist notion that it is fine for a mother to leave the care and training of her children in the hands of others while she seeks her own version of success in the world. Sarah Palin has brought to light the degree to which feminist ideology has triumphed in American culture and in the American church.^[6]

In commenting on the evangelical church’s enthusiastic embrace of the candidacy of Sarah Palin, Doug Phillips wrote these very sobering words: “. . . the widespread acceptance of a pro-life professing Christian Republican, self-proclaimed feminist mother of an infant and four children as a candidate for the highest office of the land is the single most dangerous event for the conscience of the Christian community of the last ten years at least. The IQ of the Christian community has dropped 50 points. 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.”^[7]

Albert Mohler and David Kotter (and other semi-complementarians) are Christian men who have done much good for the kingdom of God and for the family. They do desire God’s order for the family and the church. But the fundamental compromise and inconsistency of their view on the role of the woman in the public sphere has led them to praise and support the feminist vision of womanhood as it is personified in Sarah Palin. This feminist vision is the arch enemy of the biblical vision of the godly woman who is the helper of her husband, the nurturer of her children, and the keeper of her home. And so, intended or not, their stance is a tragic betrayal of the cause of restoring Christian womanhood and the biblical family.

By arguing that the absence of a formal and express prohibition against female magistrates means that women can be magistrates, they have undermined the integrity of their argument for an all-male eldership because there is no formal and express prohibition against female elders. By selectively and with insufficient explanation drawing from one or two obscure examples in the Old Testament, while dismissing or simply ignoring clear examples and precepts, they have modeled an improper approach to Scripture. 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.

In addition, their theology of the state is problematic. It introduces human autonomy into Christian ethics and undermines the doctrine of the full sufficiency and authority of all Scripture to define righteousness for every aspect of life. Both this theology and its conclusions as applied to the doctrine of the female magistrate are certainly inconsistent with historical interpretation of Scripture of orthodox Christianity as articulated by men like John Calvin and John Knox, both great fathers of the faith whose considered opinions on these matters should not be lightly dismissed or ignored.

I pray that our semi-complementarian brothers will recover their biblical moorings before it is too late. Otherwise, the standard for their daughters and the next generation of Christian women may very well be the feminist Sarah Palin, not the biblical Sarah (1 Pet. 3:5-6), not the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31:10-31, not the woman of Titus 2:4-5.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 8, 2008 | Permalink

Statement from Dr. James Dobson as delivered by Laura Ingraham on “The Laura Ingraham Show” (2/5/08):

“I’m deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

“I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down. I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

“But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I’m affiliated. They do reflect, however, my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 8, 2008 | Permalink

Within twenty-four hours of the announcement that John McCain was inviting Sarah Palin to serve as his vice presidential candidate, three things happened. First, the press was inundated with a seemingly endless barrage of announcements from neo-conservative organizations offering unqualified support for the selection of Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate. Second, we met Sarah Palin and discovered not only that she is the mother of an infant, and that she returned to politics three days after giving birth, but that she is a feminist (1) who identifies with the leaders of the feminist movement and publicly praises them; (2) who uses the language of the feminist cause to rally supporters; (3) who praises some of the most vicious feminists in history as a means of rallying female voters; and (4) who has embraced the type of lifestyle regarding leadership, career, and children which has long been touted as a feminist ideal.

The third thing we saw was confusion in the ranks of both liberal feminists and neo-con Christians. Both proved their loyalties were driven more by political expediency than principle. Not knowing what to do with a feminist, pro-life Republican vice presidential candidate, feminist Democrats raised criticisms of Mrs. Palin which reflected their own hypocrisy. On the other hand, neo-con Christians performed triple back-flips to justify or overlook behavior and qualification deficiencies in their new Republican candidate that they would have found distasteful had the female candidate been a Democrat.

On the other hand, there has been a response from the pro-family movement which reflects the historical and theologically orthodox position concerning what the Bible says about the mothers of young children ruling over nations. They are willing to ask the very questions that Rudy Giuliani and Republican apologists are now declaring off-limits: “At a time when the family is in such chaos, when fatherhood is in decline and when godly models of motherhood are so disparaged, what in the world are Republicans doing advocating the mother of an infant special needs child, and other young children, to serve as Commander in Chief?”

Their voices reflect the opinion of many around the country who are asking if the emperor is dressed in the beautiful clothing that neo-cons claim are really there, or whether the emperor is as buck naked as he appears to be. Because their loyalties are not with parties, but with the Church first, foremost, and forever, the analysis of these Christians is more focused on “what sayeth the Scriptures,” rather than “what winneth elections.” Here is a selection of their voices from the blogosphere:

Dr. Voddie Baucham: “Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted ‘moral high ground’ in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the ‘change’ argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate! Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, ‘It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.’ How pro-family is that?” See full article.

Pastor Bill Einwechter, Th.M: “To assert that God’s Word permits a woman to hold civil office and that Christians have the liberty to support a woman for the position of civil magistrate means that one has to deny the biblical teaching on the headship of man, reject the qualifications for civil rulers set down in the law of God, ignore the biblical picture of the virtuous woman, and close his or her ears to the biblical lament of women ruling over men. The example of Deborah does not give sufficient evidence to prove that she held the office of civil ruler or to overturn the biblical doctrine that men alone are called of God to the office of civil magistrate. Therefore, Christians should not support a woman for the office of civil magistrate. It is imperative that Christians labor to restore God’s order for the family, the church, and the state.” See full article.

Jennie Chancey: “Have we completely lost our ‘righteous resistance?’ I’ll grant that Sarah Palin is a die-hard pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family conservative, but why aren’t the pundits stopping to ask the obvious question? Why is a wife and mother with five children (including a newborn with Down’s syndrome) running for vice president? She has a bountiful amount of work cut out for her by the Lord sitting in her lap and around her dining room table. I can certainly respect her Christian and biblical views, but I am really amazed at Christians leaping to embrace putting a wife and mother into political office—particularly an office that will essentially make her the helpmate of the highest official in the land and practically remove her from her husband and children.” See full article.

Carmon Friedrich: “First and foremost, the Bible speaks plainly that men are to be chosen for positions of covenant headship in government, just as they are covenant leaders in home and church. Deborah, who sat under her own tree and judged as judgment from God for the apostate Israel (Judges 4:1-3), was hardly in an ideal situation nor was it typical for God’s people to have a woman in that position of leadership as we know from every other example of godly rulers in civil and ecclesiastical spheres being men (Queen Esther did not rule as one of Ahasuerus’s wives).” See full article.

Jasmine Baucham: “Is it odd that we Christians, commanded to take every thought captive (2 Corinthians 10:5) feel like our “hands are tied” in this election, that we are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, that the vote otherwise would be “wasting” our vote? I think it is. It boggles my mind to think that, if Christians would not, in good conscience, vote for John McCain in any other instance, would rally together and vote for a man who really espoused the values they hold dear... we may not win an election, but the numbers would certainly get people’s attention.” See full article.

Caleb Hayden: “God has called women to the distinctive roles of wife and mother, plain and simple. Paul tells women to be ‘keepers at home’ in Titus 2. God has called men to stand in the gates and lead within the civil realm, as we see throughout Scripture with precious few exceptions. Many will mock this position as outdated, chauvinistic, sexist, and worse. At best, the position will strike many as ‘unfair.’ Indeed, it is unfair. God is not an egalitarian. He did not ordain men and women to function with the same roles and responsibilities. For example, in Genesis 3, God cursed the man’s responsibility of subduing the earth and taking dominion over the ground; men would have to wrestle with thorns and thistles and sweat to provide bread for their families. In turn, He cursed the woman’s role of bearing children by ordaining travail in childbirth.” See full article.

Elijah Brown: “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.” See full article.

Nathaniel Darnell: “Mrs. Sarah Palin is disqualified from serving as a civil magistrate, and no Christian desiring to be true to the Word of God should vote for her. This is true not because of her intelligence or abilities, not because she is married, not because she has children, not because her family may or may not be in disarray, and not because her husband has or hasn’t given her permission to serve as a civil magistrate. Mrs. Sarah Palin fails to meet the biblical qualification for a civil magistrate at the outset without need to consider her political platform because she does not meet the requirement given consistently throughout the Scriptures that a civil magistrate must be a man.” See full article.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2008 | Permalink

For centuries great Reformers and theologians like John Knox and John Calvin have explained that the Bible formally opposes women taking positions of political leadership over nations. The question is less clear to modern American Evangelicals, however, especially in an era when Christians have already capitulated to the feminist agenda by sending their daughters to die on the front lines of battle in Iraq, or simply when the historical and biblical doctrine of the family seems to them less relevant in a modern world.

At this year’s Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy, Pastor Bill Einwechter presented home educators, lawmakers, and attorneys with a message entitled The Bible and Female Magistrates. It was the best and most thorough discussion of the subject I have ever heard, surpassing in its clarity and detail even John Knox’s persuasive First Blast of the Trumpet. The message was delivered in light of the possibility of Hillary Clinton serving as chief executive officer of our country, but has become of greater interest as Christians must consider whether to encourage a mother of infant children to de-prioritize her duties and obligations as wife and mother in order to possibly become the chief executive of America. Pastor Einwechter brilliantly exegeted the Scriptures and defended the following positions with careful reasoned analysis:

(1). The biblical doctrine of male headship applies to each governing institution.

(2). The biblical qualifications for civil rulers forbids female magistrates.

(3). The biblical role of the woman is against female magistrates.

(4). The biblical lament of women ruling over men is against female magistrates.

(5). The biblical example of Deborah is not an endorsement of female magistrates.

If you have ever been tempted to say, “Yeah, but what about Deborah?” or if you simply claim to be a Christian with the Bible as your standard for life, then you owe it to yourself and your family to carefully examine the biblical evidence. The issue is not how do you feel about this election. It is not are you fearful of one candidate or another. The issue for the Christian is this: What does the Bible say about the requirements of civil magistrates, and how may Christians cast their vote? The Bible is sufficient, and it speaks authoritatively to this subject. Send a donation of any amount between now and end of September and we will happily send you two CDs: The Bible and the Female Magistrate, and Biblical Principles of the Ballot Box. Please request the CDs when you contact us.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2008 | Permalink

Click HERE to read Jasmine’s blog post.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2008 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2008 | Permalink

Here are excerpts from Lydia Lovric’s controversial but insightful commentary today about the irresponsibility of day care, and the perceived impropriety of financially stable women bragging about going back to work three days after having a baby:

Worldnetdaily.com

A popular children’s author has enraged mothers around the world after equating day care with child abuse. Mem Fox, best-selling writer of the tale “Possum Magic” came down quite hard on moms who return to work soon after giving birth during a recent interview with Australia’s Sunday Mail.

“I don’t know why some people have children at all if they know that they can only take a few weeks off work ... it’s actually child abuse....”

While her opinion has ignited a storm of controversy, one has to wonder why. Are there people out there who honestly believe that infants and toddlers are better off in the hands of day care workers than a loving mother or father?

Perhaps the brouhaha has more to do with guilt than anything else.

Ms. Fox recalls a conversation she had with someone who works in child care:

“She said that we’re going to look back on this time from the late ’90s onwards, with putting children in child care so early in their first year of life for such long hours, and wonder how we have allowed that child abuse to happen.”

The debate coincides with the announcement that Sarah Palin will be John McCain’s running mate in the U.S. presidential race. While Palin certainly seems to possess many admirable qualities, one has to wonder about a woman who would boast about returning to work three days after giving birth.

Sorry, lady. That isn’t something you should be bragging about.

Research shows that the first three years are critical to a child’s long-term development. A report by the New York-based Families and Work Institute found that the vast majority of the brain’s synapses (the connections among brain cells) are formed during the first few years of life....

“The best interactions between infant and parents for healthy brain development are continuous, consistent and back-and-forth. They help baby and carer to connect and understand each other, and the infant begins to attach meanings and associations to being touched and talked to...But when an infant is rarely noticed, touched or talked to, it lowers their ability to withstand stress, to learn, to control emotions and develop into healthy adults.”

Of course, it’s politically incorrect to question working mothers, especially those who can afford to stay at home but choose not to...Life is all about priorities. I couldn’t possibly work eight or more hours per day and pretend that my children came first. Putting our kids first meant walking away from a career that I loved in order to be there for our kids on a full-time basis.

Over and over again, I hear working moms say that they are excellent parents, even though their kids spend more than 40 hours per week in day care. It’s laughable.

I wonder, if an employee were to spend one or two hours at work each day, would the boss consider that person to be an “excellent” employee? Probably not.

I’m so tired of parents who pretend that two incomes is an absolute necessity. Kids don’t need a large home or fancy cars. They will survive without cell phones, iPods or - gasp - HD television. What children need above all is constant love and attention.

When I take my children for walks, we sometimes pass by a rather large day care facility. I often wonder about the kids inside. Are they truly happy, or would they rather be home with mom or dad? Do their parents send them to day care even when they’re sick? Are the kids in day care because mom must work - or because she chooses to?

In the early evening, the day care’s parking lot is filled with vehicles as parents stop to pick up their kids before supper and bedtime. Many of the cars look new and sleek. Surely these parents do not belong to the working poor.

For them, it seems to be a choice.

Personally, I would rather fail as a writer than fail as a mother.

Ms. Fox is right. One day, we will look back on these day care centers - these warehouses for children - and wonder how we ever could have thought it was a good idea.

Click here to read the entire article.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2008 | Permalink

FoxNews—The 34-year-old mother of two grabbed a shotgun that had been pointed at her face early Wednesday, starting a struggle that ended with one intruder killed with his own weapon and another in the hospital.

“I wasn’t going to let them get to my babies,” she said, recalling the moment when she pushed up the muzzle of the shotgun, pointing it away from her children’s rooms.

With Kellie Hoehn clinging to the weapon’s muzzle, her husband tackled the man who held the shotgun. She knocked the intruder in the head with a jar candle, giving her husband a chance to wrest the shotgun.

“I am not happy that someone is dead,” Kellie Hoehn said. “But I am glad that my family is alive.”

Click HERE to view the full article.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2008 | Permalink

As recently as last week Dr. James Dobson shared with my father, Howard Phillips, the influence Dad had in getting Dr. Dobson into politics. I thank the Lord for my dad’s influence with Dr. Dobson and I thank God for many heroic stands that Dr. Dobson has taken over the years. I do disagree with his decision to go back on his public oath that he would not support John McCain or any candidate that votes for the funding of abortions or supports abortions for any babies. I have great love for Dr. Dobson, but I do believe that this was a significant error. Now the American Right to Life Action is calling him to task for the flip flop.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Sept. 3 /Christian Newswire/ — American RTL Action, the political 527 group, is exposing Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson for violating his pledge in which he invoked the name of God by declaring that he is voting for John McCain....

On April 28, 1990 at the Washington D.C. Rally for Life Dr. Dobson stated, “I want to give a pledge to you on a political level... I have determined that for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby.” (See video at ARTLaction.com.) James Dobson is violating this pledge by voting for John McCain for president, a Republican who has recently voted to authorize funding to kill some children by surgical abortion.

“Dr. Dobson repeated his broken pledge on his radio program in March of 1995 saying, “I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby,” referring to the rape and incest ‘exceptions,’ “which are a window to the soul of a ‘pro-life’ candidate,” said ARTL Action president Steve Curtis.

“John McCain funds the killing of countless children,” said the group’s director of research, Darrell Birkey, “for example by voting to allocate monies on Oct. 27, 2005 for tax-funded surgical abortion if the baby’s father is a criminal, that is, a rapist.” The official Senate.gov website documents McCain’s Yea vote on the Health and Human Services Appropriations Public Law 109-149 and the Government Printing Office indicates that McCain’s vote authorized funding for abortion to kill an unborn child whose father is a criminal. As the law states, SEC. 507. (a) “funds are appropriated in this Act” that includes coverage of abortion, SEC. 508. (a) (1) “if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

“Dr. Dobson is openly violating the pledge he took before God,” said Birkey, “by voting for John McCain. Both the Sarah Palin distraction, and the candidate’s rhetoric to Rick Warren claiming he believes that human rights begin at conception, are belied by McCain’s long tolerance of chemical abortifacients and funding the dissection of the tiniest embryonic boys and girls.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 4, 2008 | Permalink

Feminism is unbiblical in any century (Isaiah 3:12). It is a destructive philosophy that aims to remake the Christian family, and transform the broader culture after a spirit of rebellion, which the Bible says “is like the sin of witchcraft” (1 Samuel 15:23). The rise of feminism has contributed to the emasculation of men, the death of unborn babies, and the destruction of the family unit.

The Reformers recognized this problem. They opposed male abdication and effeminacy, even as they also stood against women ruling over men in the church, the family, or the gates as civil magistrates. Their position was the historic position of Christian orthodoxy for the vast majority of the history of Christendom.

Today, Americans owe much of their freedoms to the Scotch Reformers like John Knox who defended the foundations of the faith and articulated a theology of the state that was later embraced by Reformers in America. The widespread rejection of the historic Reformation position on these issues by Evangelicals is sometimes a reflection of both their historical ignorance and their assimilation of 20th century feminist assumptions. At a time when America Christians appear to be at the forefront of establishing role models for their daughters who describe themselves as feminists and for all practical purposes appear to be setting aside the priority of being the primary caregivers for their infant children and remaining keepers at home as commanded by the Bible (Titus 2:3-5), in exchange for public office, it is helpful to remember the words of Knox:

“To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, [and] a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance. . . .”

The message of Knox, and its application to feminism and abortionism is highlighted in a film that grows more timely every day, The Monstrous Regiment of Women, which is now available and on sale. This film calls women back to a life filled with joy and beauty that can only be found by following the biblical plan for being a helpmeet, a mother, and a “keeper at home” (Titus 2).

Click here to purchase this important documentary.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 4, 2008 | Permalink

September 3, 2008

Dear Sarah,

This letter is not written with the intention to demean or insult you on any level. Rather, I have a deep appreciation for you in many ways. We have many things in common—I am a Christian wife and mother of five children (one in Heaven, lost to miscarriage) and the grandmother of seven. I attended public schools where my mother, aunt and grandfather taught and was encouraged by all of them, as well as all my teachers, to attend college which I did, graduating with a B.A. in English. My family has always taken strong public stands, especially when serious issues are at stake, even as you do. When my husband ran for U.S. Congress during President Reagan’s second bid for office, my children and I threw ourselves into the battle with all our time and energy. We have since supported several political candidates and are ready to do whatever we can to bring our nation back to its constitutional roots. We have taken a strong pro-life stand and given many women with unwanted pregnancies food and shelter in our own home.

But the primary basis for this letter is not simply superficial interests and commitments. I believe that we are sisters in Christ and, therefore, both subjects of His rule of law from Scripture. It would appear that we share the belief that, “...in Christ Himself are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” - Col. 2:2b,3. I assume the following statement of faith, taken from your church website, summarizes your personal faith:

The Centrality of Christ

By God’s grace everything in the life of this church will revolve around the reality of Jesus Christ - who He is, what He has done, what He is doing, and what He will do. In the words of the early Church “He is Lord” and will be recognized as such in this church with an absolute allegiance that lifts Him above all others in our hearts, in our homes, and in our congregation. It is His commands that we will obey, His warnings that we will heed, and His promises that we will hold. In every endeavor we will rely upon His power, cherish His presence, and honor His name. We will, in sum, love Him. (John 14:6)

Apparently, we also share the belief that God’s Word is the only solid base upon which to build our lives.

The Authority of Scripture

In order to experience and enjoy the centrality of Christ in our congregational life, we will submit to the authority of the Scriptures. They will be the foundational source of information and direction guiding our exploration of Christ’s reality. The Bible will be used to determine our doctrine, to shape our practice, and even, when needed to settle our differences with the conviction that it is the very Word of God. In all the confusion of varied opinions and above all the claims of religious authority we will hold to the scriptures as the Truth for both faith and practice. In them God has spoken and to them we will listen. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

The serious Christian is one who wants to think God’s thoughts after Him, to shape every thought, word and deed according to His Word. Is God’s Word silent about the role of the woman and how we are to shape our relationships with men? No, it’s clear in its mandate:

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. — ...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.- I Corinthians 11:3, 7, 8, 9

My friend, Susan Hunt, an Atlanta-based pastor’s wife, has written her commentary on the role of women in the church:

We write out of the realization that our personal pilgrimages for the last fifteen years have solidified our adherence to the position of male headship in the church. We are increasingly convinced of the theological rightness of this position. But the more urgent motivation is to help Christians move beyond confusion and debate over our roles toward active concern about the needs around us. We are convinced that the church provides that most appropriate context for Christian women to serve the Savior. We further contend that rather than being restrained by our exclusion from ordination, women are actually freed from the restraint of positions of authority to be exquisite expressions of the Biblical meaning of a helper-leader. When women insist on role interchangeability within the church, everyone loses. — Susan Hunt and Peggy Hutcheson, Leadership for Women in the Church, pp. 10, 11.

If these principles apply in the realm of the home and church, surely they apply more broadly in the civil realm. Because you are so gifted, Sarah, your talents are in great demand in the world at large right now. What tremendous sacrifices you, your husband and children have made over the past few years as more and bigger opportunities to serve your fellow-man have been set before you, not only in your community and state, but now nationally. I do not hesitate to recognize that you are a remarkably talented woman. But I have some serious questions I hope you will consider.

As a Christian woman, a wife and mother, surely you have wrestled with what has God called you to do. How are you to order your priorities according to Scripture? Are you over-stepping the boundaries His Word has set for you when you hold public office? I believe you are. Will you really be able to devote the time and energy necessary to raise your children as a public officer holder? What sacrifices will your husband be required to make? What message are you sending to the young women of our nation concerning their God-given role? These are difficult questions, especially since it would appear that you have already set a course that can’t be altered. The question in your mind should not be, “What am I capable of doing,” or, “What are the opportunities I have to serve;” rather, I believe only one question is a valid one: “What does God’s Word tell me I should be doing.”

One of my favorite authors was a little-known, brilliant Southern woman of the 19th century named Augusta Jane Evans. In her great novel, St. Elmo, through her main character, Edna Earle, she battles to save a Christian moral and social order, “taking her stand on the principle that woman can be most influential in society as a woman.” (italics mine) - Richard Weaver, Southern Tradition at Bay, p. 275.

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

Sarah Palin, God calls you to a higher position than the vice-presidency of the United States. He calls you to be the most influential woman in the world today, perhaps in history, by taking your stand on the Biblical principle of His divine model of womanhood. I implore you to see yourself, not as a candidate for political office, but as a cherished child of Christ, in subjection to His will. I earnestly pray that you will make every effort to “arrest the tide of demoralization breaking over our land” as you call upon the mothers and daughters of America to “smite their false gods and jealously contend for every woman’s right which God has decreed upon us: the right to be learned, wise, noble, and useful in our divinely limited sphere; the right to mount the sanctified beam of our own quiet hearth-stone; the right to modify and direct our husband’s opinion, if he considers us worthy and competent to guide him; the right to make our children ornaments to the nation and a crown of glory to our people; the right to advise, to plead, to pray;...the right to be all the phrase ‘noble Christian woman’ means.” [paraphrasing Augusta Jane’s quote above]

I pray that you will demonstrate an even greater humility and strength of character than we have seen thus far by admitting you have taken the wrong path by accepting the nomination for vice presidency and ask to be released from this commitment. I will persevere in praying for you and your family. May God richly bless you as you are faithful to Him. I would be happy to talk with you or to correspond in any way that may prove helpful. My contact information is at the bottom of this letter.

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” - Col. 2:8

Yours truly in the bonds of Christ,

Rebecca B. Morecraft

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 3, 2008 | Permalink

His name was Oliver Cromwell, and he died this day in 1658.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 3, 2008 | Permalink

Reuters— In America, where teenage pregnancy is a political issue and working moms subject to moral debate, the choice of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice-presidential pick has ignited a Mommy War. News that Palin, a conservative Christian, is running for the country’s No. 2 office while parenting both an infant son with Down Syndrome and a 17-year-old pregnant daughter has sparked both condemnation and commendation. Should a 44-year-old mother of five, including a newborn with special needs and a pregnant teenager, take on a job that will keep her away from her home for much of the next two months to eight years?

Click HERE to read the full article.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 3, 2008 | Permalink

On the set of the 2009 Vision Forum Catalog shoot. Fifteen-year-old Joshua Titus helps with the grappling hook.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 2, 2008 | Permalink

In his blog post, Dr. Voddie Baucham raises the question: Is the nomination of Sarah Palin for a Vice Presidential candidate truly a “Pro-Family” pick?” Here are excerpts from Dr. Baucham’s post:

Did McCain Make a Pro-Family VP Pick?

Conservatives are all aglow as John McCain pulled off an apparent coup d’état this week by naming Sarah Palin as his choice for Vice President. Bob Unruh, writing for the conservative Christian web magazine, Worldnet Daily may have put it best when he opened his column:

Pro-family advocates and Republicans are saying presumptive GOP nominee for president Sen. John McCain may have checkmated Democrat Sen. Barack Obama with his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate....

While I agree that from a political standpoint Mr. McCain made a brilliant political move, I am not so sure his pick can be portrayed as “pro-family.” It is true that Mrs. Palin is ardently pro-life -a distinction bolstered by the fact that she has five children, and chose not to abort a Down Syndrome baby—and she is also a fiscal conservative, a Washington outsider, and she hunts wolves from helicopters! What more could the Neocons ask for?

Unfortunately, Christians appear to be headed toward a hairpin turn at breakneck speed without the slightest clue as to the danger ahead. I don’t see this as a pro-family pick at all! Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick. I say that for at least two reasons....

NOT A PRO FAMILY JOB

First, if Mr. McCain was pro-family, he would want to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her five children, not headed to Washington to be consumed by the responsibilities of being second in command to the most powerful man in the world (or serving as the Governor of Alaska for that matter). Let me also say that I would have the same reservations about a man with five children at home seeking the VP office. It’s not exactly a pro-family job.

FRC’s piece on Mrs. Palin links to a Wallstreet Journal article outlining her political career. While many Christian conservatives are highlighting Palin’s toughness, integrity and obvious conservative credentials (more conservative than McCain, in fact), they also seem to be ignoring several red flags.

For example, the Journal article, in an effort to highlight Palin’s ‘eco-friendly’ lifestyle, uncovers a disturbing trend that plagues far too many young women with families. The article refers to Palin’s habit of “driving herself to and from work every day from the Anchorage suburb of Wasilla, about 45 miles away.” Does this bother anyone else? Lets say the Governor averages sixty miles per hour on her daily commute (which I seriously doubt). That adds seven and a half hours per week to what one would assume is already a fifty to sixty-hour workweek (at least that if she is as driven as the article implies). This is supposed to be pro-family?

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the article is Mrs. Palin’s recent decision to travel for work (against her doctor’s orders) in the final days of her pregnancy. According to the article:

“Gov. Palin’s opted to board a jet from Dallas in April while about to deliver a child. Gov. Palin, who was eight months pregnant, says she felt a few contractions shortly before she was to give a keynote speech to an energy summit of governors in Dallas. But she says she went ahead with it after her doctor in Alaska advised her to put her feet up to rest. “I was not going to miss that speech,” she says.”

She put her child at risk, not for an official, necessary, or emergency duty as the Governor of Alaska, but because she simply “was not going to miss out on that speech.” A speech! The more I learn about the choices this woman has made, the less inclined I am to see Mr. McCain’s choice as pro-family. She may be the best working mother in America, but the evidence is questionable at best.

NOT A PRO FAMILY MESSAGE

Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture’s desire to completely erase gender roles. Much of the discussion about Mrs. Palin’s candidacy centers around her opportunity to “break through the class ceiling” and be a “role model for young women.” The same was said of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in the Democratic primary. But what does this mean?

Are we really saying that we want to completely erase the distinctions between men and women. Do we really believe that it is good for our country to promote the view that women are merely men who happen to be biologically capable of having children (when it does not interfere with career advancement, of course)? I don’t think so. What do we do with the Bible’s admonition in Titus chapter two? Are Christian conservatives saying that Paul’s instructions concerning women’s duty to be “keepers of their homes” has somehow been overturned in light of recent discoveries? Or are we saying that pro-family means one thing when we’re in church, but something else when we’re trying to beat the Democrats?...

My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.

My heart breaks for her. She has been blessed beyond measure with five incredible children, but she is running hard after what the world says is ‘something more.’ I fear she will regret this some day. In fact, I believe she already does. I can’t imagine her going to sleep at night without a nagging doubt in the back of her mind as she thinks about the time with her children that she will never get back.

My heart breaks for her children. Their mother, by all reports, is an incredible, intelligent, energetic woman with a great deal to offer. Unfortunately, right now she is offering it to the people of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America when her first priority is to offer it to them. God designed them to flourish under the nurturing care of their mother, not some surrogate.

My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family.

My heart breaks for the so-called Christian right. All the usual subjects have been falling all over themselves to praise Mr. McCain and justify their blind allegiance to the Republican Party in an effort to secure more “pro-family” judges. They want to protect marriage from redefinition by the homosexual movement, and they are willing to redefine marriage (and motherhood) to do it.

Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted “moral high ground” in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the “change” argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate!

Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal flaw worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 2, 2008 | Permalink

With every passing day as we move closer to the presidential election, the collective IQ of the Christian and conservative community appears to be dropping. The more fearful Christians become, the more they are willing to praise the beautiful garments of the naked emperor. Flashback: One year ago conservative and Christian leaders were in agreement about the fact that John McCain was neither pro-life, nor pro-family, nor conservative in general. Dr. James Dobson vowed publicly to never support the man for this very reason. Question: Besides some new polish and rhetoric, has John McCain fundamentally changed over the last twelve months?

It is one thing to support John McCain, but it is another thing for Christians to claim he is something that he is not in order to soothe the collective consciences of the fear-stricken. This is precisely the type of hypocrisy that liberals rightly point out. Why not just ‘fess up and admit the truth—“John McCain has voted for liberal pro-abortion judges to sit on the highest court of the land, has voted for subsidies for abortion, once said he opposed overturning Roe V. Wade, and supports killing babies in certain cases—BUT WE ARE VOTING FOR HIM ANYWAY BECAUSE WE FEAR AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY.”

At least that would be honest.

Chuck Baldwin is being honest. Here is a sample of his commentary:

NewsWithViews.com—Once again, “pro-life” Christians are doing back flips to try and justify their compromise of the life issue by trying to convince everyone (including themselves) that John McCain is truly pro-life. However, these same people know in their hearts that John McCain shares no fidelity to the life issue in any significant or meaningful way. Like many in the Republican Party, McCain’s commitment to life is about as deep as a mud puddle...

John McCain openly embraces embryonic stem cell research. In 2000, he boldly said he did not favor the overturn of Roe v. Wade. John McCain was a member of the infamous “Gang of 14” senators from both parties whose purpose was to oppose pro-life, strict constructionist judges.

Speaking of judges, John McCain voted for the pro-abortion justice, Stephen Breyer, and the radical, pro-abortion, ACLU attorney, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So much for the argument that we need John McCain for the sake of appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court. For that matter, Republican appointments dominated the Court that gave us Roe v. Wade and the one that later gave us Doe v. Bolton. Proving, once again, that the Republican Party, as a whole, has no real commitment to the life issue.

John McCain also gave us McCain-Feingold. This is the law that keeps pro-life or pro-Second Amendment organizations from broadcasting ads that mention a candidate by name 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. This proves that John McCain believes neither in the right to life nor the right to keep and bear arms. (This is one reason why the Gun Owners of America gives McCain a grade of F.)

In a debate with George W. Bush in May of 2000, John McCain attacked Bush’s support for the pro-life plank in the Republican Party. Still today, John McCain believes that babies who are conceived via rape or incest should be murdered. I remind readers, however, that there are no “exceptions” in the womb, only babies.

Click HERE to read Chuck Baldwin’s whole article.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 2, 2008 | Permalink

“To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, [and] a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance. . . .”

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 1, 2008 | Permalink

“The world is in such pressing need of mothers, motherly women, that none can be spared for public life. . . .” J. H. Vincent

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 1, 2008 | Permalink

(To view this video clip, you must have QuickTime 7 installed.)

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 1, 2008 | Permalink