The following is an editorial introduction I have written to Bill Einwechter’s timely and thought-provoking new article: “But What About Deborah: Why the Example of Deborah Does Not Support the Candidacy of Sarah Palin.”

(Not addressed in this blog, but addressed elsewhere are Sarah Palin’s unbiblical support for radical feminism; her troubling comments in support of evolution and why it should be taught as science in government schools; her support of contraceptive education for young men and women at taxpayer expense; her gender-bending example which is in opposition to the biblical model of complementarianism, her support of feminism and the political agenda of feminism, and the endorsement she is receiving from some feminist leaders; her veto of pro-family legislation which would have prevented homosexuals from getting special rights; her comment on national television officially endorsing civil rights for homosexuals, etc.)

---

When it comes to the issue of how Christians should vote for a presidential ticket, there is only one question: By what ethical standard shall we select our civil magistrates? The answer to this question defines the entire debate.

And there are only two answers to this question: The first answer is that the Bible alone establishes the complete and authoritative ethical standards for selecting civil magistrates. This is the correct answer for all who claim the name of Jesus Christ as sovereign. It is the only answer that honors the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture and the Lordship of Christ over man, his Church, and the nations.

But there is a second answer offered by modern Evangelicals. This response can take many forms—appeals to emotion, experience, pragmatism, utilitarianism, or autonomous human reason. It may be communicated invoking partisan unity, common sense, or so-called practical realities. It can even manifest as name-calling, ad hominem, guilt manipulation, lesser-of-two-evils scenarios, or even fear-mongering. Some go so far as to admit that they do not believe that the Bible defines the standard. Others claim the Scripture is silent, inapplicable, or a combination of the two. But, at root, all of these arguments boil down to the simple proposition that American Christian voters must look to some man-divined standard other than the Bible when selecting their president.

Of course, most Christians who take answer number two do not want to admit that they have jettisoned the Scripture in favor of their own opinions. When challenged with the express commands of Holy Scripture, the biblical warnings against setting aside God’s directives for civil magistrates, and the danger of establishing any standard other than the Bible, they attempt to argue using a curious and ever-so wobbly combination of answer one and answer two. They are, in fact, double-minded about the standard of authority and are thus unstable in all their logic.

2008 was the year of the double-minded Christian. Early in the year, two things were clear: First, Christians were deeply fearful of a Barack Obama presidency. Second, many conservative Christian leaders viewed John McCain—with his left-wing, anti-family, track record—as an unacceptable candidate. Once McCain was nominated, the problem became bigger. How do Christians justify voting for this liberal Republican who supports pro-abortion judges and advocates funding procedures that snuff out the lives of little children?

To ease the conscience of Christians and conservatives, the McCain team (with the advice of key Republican Christians like Dr. Richard Land) turned to Sarah Palin, a female governor who they would attempt to package as a conservative Evangelical to the Right and a feminist innovator to the Left in order to sanctify the candidacy of McCain for conservatives and build bridges with liberal female voters.

But now there was a problem for partisan leadership within the conservative Christian Church in America. How do Christians support for the second highest elective office in America, a self-avowed feminist, mother of young children who goes back to work three days after giving birth to a Down syndrome baby, who has a child with a teenage pregnancy, who clearly leads the direction of her family, while her husband (whom she formally acknowledges plays a “Mr. Mom” role) follows her and helps to advance her leadership? How do partisan, politically-active Christian leaders do this, given the fact that this is the very type of feminist lifestyle and vision they have in the past opposed as unbiblical and unwise?

Answer: Appeal to fear; downplay the facts; and whenever biblical concerns are raised, simply mention Deborah.

It seems that all roads lead to Deborah.

Once the name of Deborah is cited, the discussion is supposed to stop. Here is how it works:

He says: “The Bible teaches that men are to lead in the church, the home, and the civil realm. This is a principle of the creation order and is found in the formal biblical requirements for civil office holders.”

But she responds: “Yes, but what about Deborah?”

Another says: “The man is not made for the woman, but the woman is made for the man,” and then adds, “A wife’s mission is to be the helpmeet to her husband, and not the other way around.”

But the response remains: “Yes, but what about Deborah?”

She argues: “A married mother of children is to be a keeper at home and to personally care for her children” so ‘that word of God be not blasphemed.’”

He simply retorts: “Yes, but what about Deborah?”

She says: “Shouldn’t we be concerned about supporting a self-identified feminist who aspires to lead the nation, but who gave birth to a child and then went back to work three days later, who agrees with calling her own husband ‘Mr. Mom,’ and who should be focusing on ministering to her young daughter as she works through an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, rather than going on the campaign trail, husband in tow, as she calls for some of the more radical feminist reforms advanced by a vice presidential candidate in history and publicly praises Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton for their work advancing the cause of feminism?”

He simply responds: “Yes, but what about Deborah?”

Here is the point: Of the sixty-six books of Holy Scripture, there is no precept, no clearly-defined principle that points to the legitimacy of nullifying the creation order doctrine of complementary, but distinct roles for men and women—a principle which is clearly manifest within the formal directives of Scripture that civil leaders be males. And there certainly is no principle that teaches that a financially secure, in-tact family should model a complete role reversal between a husband and wife as the most widely recognized example of family life for an entire nation.

But, with one simple comment—one generic reference to a female prophet—modern Evangelicals hope to minimize the overwhelming evidence of Scripture that male leadership is a creation order principle applicable to family, church and state, and to defeat the historical, orthodox view on the role relationships between mothers, children, men, and civil leadership.

Why? Because sanitizing the horrific record of John McCain and easing the conscience of Christian voters has become the priority.

The willingness by Evangelical leaders to gloss over the biblical directives for civil magistrates and to set aside long-held, hard-fought principles of motherhood and family life in order to advance the political cause of a self-professed feminist, who is leading a feminist lifestyle and who advocates feminist policies, so that Republicans can win an election, marks a fundamental compromise and an abdication of responsibility. It is a case of partisan politics over Gospel duties.

Download Bill Einwechter’s Important Treatise: “But What About Deborah?”

All roads lead to Deborah because there simply is not a precept, pattern, or precedent from Scripture that justifies the feminist model of life and leadership presented by Governor Palin. In the wake of overwhelming biblical evidence to the contrary, some “exception clause” must be found to suspend the normal biblical jurisdiction of a wife, a mother, and a helpmeet, and to justify an egalitarian vision of civil leadership. Christian partisans believe they have found such an exception clause in the story of Deborah.

So, what about Deborah?

Is she an exception to the rule? Is she even an example of a civil magistrate? We know, for example, that Deborah was not one of the elected ruling elders of Israel, but was she even a “judge” and “avenger” in the same way as Barak, Samson, and the other “judges” from the Book of Judges? Is there any sound principle of scriptural interpretation that allows us to analogize her role in Israel as a prophetess to legitimize a Sarah Palin vice presidency or presidency of the United States?

In this important treatise, “But What about Deborah?”, pastor Bill Einwechter answers each of these important questions with a resounding “no.”

In the past, Bill Einwechter has soundly addressed related issues through articles like “Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise” and “Biblical Standards for Choosing Civil Magistrates.” He joins a growing number of Evangelicals who are raising concerns about the politicization of the Gospel doctrine of family life, motherhood, and civil leadership.

But now Bill Einwechter answers the question: “But What About Deborah?” Regardless of your political inclinations, you will want to read this important and historic treatise on the doctrine of Deborah and civil magistrates. This may be the most thoroughly-researched and best-reasoned article on the subject in our lifetime.

Readers will learn: (a) about the historical context of the book of Judges; (b) the function of these judges as avengers, military leaders, and deliverers, not as judges as we think of them in a modern context; (c) Deborah’s role as a prophetess who judged, but not as a civil authority, or as one of the elected elders or “judges” who defended Israel; (d) why the example of Deborah must be harmonized with the didactic portions of the Scripture; (e) why, if Deborah’s example is used to justify female civil rulers, it can be used to justify female church rulers; and much more.

Why is it critical that fathers and mothers, pastors, and students read this article and come to grips with the structure and nuances of the debate concerning the prophetess Deborah and the present elections? It is critical because conservative Christian leaders have been willing to mortgage their entire future as defenders of the family in America for a political election. And to justify this abdication of responsibility as the representatives of Gospel truth in the nation, they have resorted to theology by maxim: “Yes, but what about Deborah?”

Long after the presidential elections of 2008 have passed, Christians will be fighting the battle for the family. But the pro-family Christians of 2008 who set aside their defense of the biblical doctrine of the family and the creation order principle to satisfy partisan political ambitions have lost something fundamental. They have lost the scriptural foundation of their cause. They have sold their birthright for a mess of politically idolatrous pottage. To win an election, they have not only embraced the ideals of feminism, but they have canonized the role models of feminism as saintly examples for the daughters of Zion to emulate.

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths” (Isaiah 3:12).