My husband wrote this paper regarding the Biblical role of women in reference to Sarah Palin. He has been working on this for about a month now. I know elections are super close, but we wanted to post it anyway! We must remember God and repent if we truly want a change in our society. Putting the "most qualified" person in office won't do us much good if that person that we put in office isn't godly, seeking God's face for guidance. What we need is God! And please, in no way think that we are saying that we are perfect or that we "have it all together." He and I both know that God has a lot of work to do still in our own lives. As Romans 3:10 says there is "none righteous, no not one"...we know that it is GOD who does the work in our lives...we must stay in constant prayer that He will work in our lives, forgive us of our daily sins, and grant us the grace we need and the courage to do what is right. Without Him it is impossible for us to do any "good". Josh has broken it up between the Old Testament and the New, so take an intermission! I know this article is long, but I think he did a very good job putting it together. Enjoy! ;-)
When you look at a position from Scripture, we all agree that you must interpret it in light of the rest of Scripture. So I don't think it is wise at all to only look at the example of one magistrate (Deborah) in the old testament and say that it is ok. I believe we all would agree that, although the old testament is very important (for telling us Who God is, and what He has done – God's nature and actions) the new testament "rules and regulations" is what we live by (what God requires of us). Of course, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…" (2 Tim. 3:16-17), but when Jesus came, he did fulfill and change the law (Matt. 5). We do not live any longer by the old testament law and sacrificial system since Jesus came. We do however still look at the old testament to see God's nature, to see things God hates and things he loves (since he does not change – Mal. 3:6, Jas. 1:17). We also look at the OT because it is history, it is promise, and it is the beginning of Jesus (prophesies and lineage). The only point I am trying to make here is that yes, we do look at the OT, but if Scripture in the NT changes or does away with OT laws or principles (i.e. a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption ) then we need to let that govern our lives… not try to make an excuse for what we want to hear, see, or feel (as do many christians).
Old Testament
I am going to look at the OT as well as the NT in reference to the role of women. One Biblical principle, OT or New, is a focus by women on their homes (not career or other passions or desires) and a submission to their husbands. When looking at this Biblical principle, we need to start by looking back to the very beginning in Genesis. We first see Adam created by God in Gen. 2:7. Then, all of the animals were created and named by Adam, but Adam did not find a suitable "helper" for him (Gen. 2:20), so God created woman out of man. The Hebrew word for "helper" used here is `ezer which is used 2 times in Genesis, and 21 times total in the old testament, 20 of which it is used in cases referring to help from a superior. Adam then asserts his authority over Eve by naming her "woman" (Gen. 2:23). Then in Gen. 3:16 when God is cursing Eve, he states," I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." Not only was the authority structure given at creation, but here God also mandates that the husband shall rule over the wife. The word "rule" here is also translated "to master" or "to dominate." Eve's job and life was designed to be focused on Adam and their family. Even during God's curse on Eve (in verses 15 and 16) he mainly speaks about the family (Adam and their children).
In looking at the complete role of women in the OT, we also see that a man could marry as often as he desired. This is a way in which the OT reveals that during that time, women were inferior to men (and I am not saying that in any way they are, just pointing out the totality of women's roles). In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
Many evangelicals today are quick to point out the story of Deborah in the OT, but I wonder how many of them remember the story of Sarah and Abraham. Sarah's focus was also Abraham (her husband) and her household. She even wanted children so bad (which was seen as a blessing, not a curse as it is today) that she encouraged Abraham and Hagar to commit adultery to have a child. Then in Genesis 18, the Lord and 2 other men come to visit Abraham in his tent. So Abraham hurried into his tent (where Sarah already was – not out working a job or being a busy body) and told her to quickly make some bread (here again, Sarah is the one preparing the meals in the tent and opening her husband's home to these men at his request). Sarah also even called Abraham her "lord" or "master" (1 Pet. 3:6, Gen. 18:12). In 1 Peter 3:5-6. We read, “For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” This passage in Peter tells us 2 things. First, Peter there is tracing out the roots of a wife’s wise submission to her husband. He says that it belongs to her very womanhood, as given by God. In the OT, God is giving tangible, concrete examples of what it means to live by faith through grace. Peter is commendating women who act as Sarah did in the OT, by being in submission to their husbands. He is also secondly saying to us that when he sets before us the call of the wife to submit to her husband, he is not setting forth a novelty. When the Scriptures call the wife to submit to her husband, this is not something of a particular culture. Peter is saying that the Christian life is the same in all ages. The Christian life is not determined by what a society will bear, what an age will accept. But it is determined by the will of God in Holy Scripture.
I would also like to point out that several verses in Gen. 21 refer to the wife and daughter being property, this as a command from the Lord. I am just referring to this (and the story of adultery between Abraham and Hagar) to point out as an example that the Jesus in the NT does change things.
In Gen. 24 we see the account of Rebekah, and in the consequent chapters, Isaac’s and Rebekah’s story of their family. The story of Rebekah is a wonderful OT story of submission. As Abraham’s servant is near at well in Mesopotamia, waiting on a sign from the Lord to provide a wife for Isaac, he sees Rebekah approach as she was retrieving water for her father’s house. Her gentle and servant heart is seen here as she gladly serves… drawing water not only for Abraham’s servant, but also for his camels. When she invites him and his men to stay at her father’s house, he accepts. Upon arrival, he meets with Laban (Rebekah’s brother) and her father (Bethuel) and informs them of his quest. Then Laban and Bethuel say this(Gen. 24: 50-51): “ Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, ‘The thing comes from the LORD; we cannot speak to you either bad or good. Here is Rebekah before you; take her and go, and let her be your master’s son’s wife, as the LORD has spoken.’” And when they ask her if she wants to go or not, she accepts, packs, and leaves with these strange men who she has never met before to marry an unknown husband (given, they were family, but very distant). She submits to her father and brother’s decision as they exercise headship over her.
Moving on to Exodus, we see that women are not qualified to be priests – Ex. 28:4 etc. ( I know this is a "church" position, but am still looking at the complete role of women). In Numbers 30, the Lord tells the Israelite people through Moses, that an oath given by a man is binding, but an oath made by a woman can be revoked by her father or husband, which is very interesting – shows the headship and authority of man over woman (this is one more passage which shows the Biblical family structure as a principle laid out all through scripture – this one pointing out that a woman needs to be under the authority of a male figurehead).
There are many other examples of how women are viewed in the OT in general, and more specifically in reference to the home and being under a man's authority (Esther, Ruth, etc.)…. But as we keep reading, we eventually come to the story of Deborah in Judges 4-5, which I have really been wanting to address. I want to first make it clear that 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 (where God instructs the people for men - 'enowsh in hebrew – to be civil leaders). 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. We already agree that when scripture seems to contradict scripture (which I don’t think that is the case here) we must look the entire Word of God to interpret and understand the paradox. The example of the prophetess Deborah, though set in a time of more severe judgment than ours, gives interesting insights. She was living in a time when “the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord” (Judges 4:1), “Village life ceased” (Judges 5:7), and the leaders had not been leading (Judges 5:2). Despite the desperation of the time, Deborah clearly did not become a civil magistrate or “judge” in the modern sense of the word, nor did she run for any kind of office, nor did she sit in the gates (Judges 4:5). She was appointed by God because men weren’t leading (Judges 2:16-18, 5:2) Even when pushed toward positions of leadership, Deborah never actually took the reins of authority, but rather extended them to Barak and stood supportively behind him (Judges 4:6, 4:14). Deborah succeeded in bringing a man into leadership, rather than take the leadership herself. I don’t understand where Gary DeMar thinks that Deborah leading is never spoken against in scripture. In Judges 4:9 she tells Barak clearly,“ I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman…” this is because he would not lead the troops to battle without her! Actually in Isaiah 3 (read whole chapter) verse 12, Isaiah is prophesying and judging Judah and states, “As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths.” It is a judgment from God when women rule and children rebel and oppress their parents. How amazing… isn’t that what is happening today?
Really though the “Deborah” issue should be null and void according to most evangelical argument for Sarah Palin today. It seems 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 (again, Ex. 18:21, Deut. 1:13) – this is a contradiction in this argument. 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.
In the Old Testament the office of priest was limited to men of the priestly line (Ex. 28:1; Num. 18:1-7), and the office to civil ruler was limited to men as well (Ex. 18:21, Deut. 1:13). No women among the Levites were involved in the priesthood. However the office of prophet in the Old Testament was not limited to men, there were a few women that were called to be “prophetesses,” God’s spokesperson, as were the prophets. Miriam (ca. 1400 B.C. Exodus 15:20) was the first prophetess to the nation Israel, then Deborah (Judges 4:4-7); Isaiah’s wife was also a prophetess (725 B.C.) (Isaiah 8:3). There were female prophets in the early New Testament times, we see this with Philip, “Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses” (Acts 21:9). The role of a prophetess was to encourage the people to obey God. Prophets and prophetess did not necessarily predict the future, although they definitely did sometimes. Their main purpose was to speak for God, proclaiming His truth and judgment. This “office” of prophetess is completely different from that which Sarah Palin is seeking (and as far as I know, the OT never states that they sought out that position) today as leader of a nation.
Moving on to Proverbs 31, which is another issue that really needs to be addressed. I have heard several people make mention of Proverbs 31 to argue for a woman having a career, but I have to disagree. In fact, I believe that, if you actually read the complete text (instead of just using verses 16 and 18), you will find the opposite to be true.
“The Proverbs 31 woman was certainly entrepreneurial. She also brought income into the home and made it more productive. However, there is nothing in this passage that even hints at a career. She didn’t punch a clock. She didn’t have a nanny. In fact, the cultural context renders such a reading implausible. Old Testament Israel was not a culture in which ‘career women’ flourished. But what about the other truths in this passage that were the norm for women in Old Testament Israel? “ - Dr. Voddie Baucham. It is interesting, that “Christians” would point to a couple verses to attempt to prove a point, but not look at the rest of the SAME passage! When you look verse to verse, you actually find the following:
· Verse 12 states that “ She does him good and not evil all the days of her life.” She could not do this, if she were another man’s (or corporation’s) help meet… again, this is established in the creation order in Gen. 2 and referred to all throughout scripture.
· Verse 15, “ She also rises while it is yet night, and provides food for her household…” Where is her focus? Her household - not a career, not making money or materialism.
· Verse 16, “She considers a field and buys it; from her profits she plants a vineyard.” She grows her own food (ie. Grapes).
· Verses 18-19, “ She perceives that her merchandise is good, and her lamp does not go out by night. She stretches out her hands to the distaff, and her hand holds the spindle.” She is very diligent, and even (to some extent) makes or repairs clothing for her family (also vs. 22). She also sells clothing that she makes to the merchants (vs. 24).
· The emphasis in verse 23 is on her husband, “ Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land.” She is not the one sitting in the gates or known by the people.
· A key verse that many overlook is verse 27, “She watches over the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness.” This verse points out that the virtuous woman’s primary focus is her household, and she is not lazy in watching over this responsibility. You cannot watch over the ways of your household (i.e. family) when you are not with your children! (i.e. children are in public schools or you are never home).
It is funny to me, why we use this passage to push for careers, but then don’t want to read the rest of it and push a woman to be a true “ virtuous woman” as listed above. “The ‘career woman’ argument is an absolute stretch. Especially when we recognize the irrefutable hermeneutical principal that Scripture interprets Scripture. Thus, we cannot use Proverbs 31 to negate Titus 2. Whatever the Proverbs 31 woman teaches us, she cannot teach that which would contradict the direct command for women to be “keepers (or workers) at home.” (Tutus 2:5, cf. 1 Timothy 5:14)” – Voddie Baucham. We will get into the NT passages next.
New Testament
If anything, when Jesus came, he changed the cultural view of women… from one of property-like subjugation to one of value and intrinsic worth (Jn. 4, Luke 7:11-15,8:26-56).
I would like to point out that at least twice in His sermons Jesus used the example of a woman to rebuke the faithless men of His generation: the widow of Zarephath to the men of Nazareth, Luke 4:25-26, and the Queen of Sheba to the Pharisees, Luke 11:31.Men have a great responsibility before God, as the leaders he has appointed them to be.
When looking at the role of women in the NT, one of the first major passages we come to, is 1 Corinthians 11. 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. This is a contradiction. Paul goes on to say in verses 7-9,“ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” We are continuing to see the OT reiterated here in the new, and the authority structure (i.e. headship) the same.
We then see in Eph. 5:22-33, “ Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” This is a continual theme throughout scripture. This passage also confirms the headship of men over women.
It is interesting, when we look at what Paul writes to Timothy in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, “ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” Here we go back to Genesis, and the story there. Paul points out that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression,” teaching us that women are more easily deceived – this is one reason for them needing to be under the authority of male headship. Paul also says that she will be “saved in childbearing.” Here, when Paul is discussing the public ministry of the church, he says that women are not to teach but be in silence. However, he quickly points them to the place of ministry God has called them to — “childbearing.” This is not indicating that women are eternally saved through having babies, which would be a clear contradiction of scripture (in which salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, Rom. 3:19-20/Eph. 2:8-9, sustained forever, Rom. 8:31-39). This verse could be referring to a few different things. 1. He could be saying that the woman will be saved through childbearing, because the Messiah was born of a woman. 2. Paul also may be saying that, even though a woman led the human race into sin (because she was deceived first), women have the privilege of leading many out of sin to Godliness (i.e. their children). And we know that children are a blessing from God (Ps. 127:3, Ps. 139:13-18). Paul says in Rom. 5:12, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…” I would like to clarify this verse in reference to what we are talking about. The word in Greek here is “anthrōpos” which is defined as mainly pointing to “a human being, whether male or female.” This is a general term used for the human race in general. 3. Paul could be saying that a woman is sanctified through childbearing (one of the three step process of salvation – justification, sanctification, and glorification – another whole study in and of itself.) Regardless of which one of these viewpoints one takes, one emphasis Paul makes here in verse 15 is on salvation coming through women having children, and continuing in “faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”
Over and over again in the OT, lineage and major events were primarily recorded through males, not females. This, and the afore mentioned verses, point to male leadership and responsibility. I would, however, argue that sin did actually enter into the world primarily through Adam, because he was head over Eve, and therefore accepted full responsibility as her husband. Not only this, but we also know that he was present while Eve was being deceived, but remained passive! - which could actually possibly be considered the first sin.
Gen. 3:6 “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.”
In 1 Tim. 5:10, Paul says that the church should not let a widow under 60 years old to be taken into the number, and not unless they are - “ reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work.” The Scripture is definite in regard to the motherly responsibilities of the woman. “When Paul speaks about the qualifications for those widows who will receive support from the church (above), he gives a list of “good works” that should be present in the report concerning her. The first good work on the list is “if she has brought up children” (1 Tim. 5:10). The Greek word translated “brought up” (tropheo) is extremely important. It means not only to raise, but also carries with it the idea of personal attendance, that of being with the child to care for and to train. Furthermore, the word “brought up” indicates that the rearing takes place in the home. The noun form of “brought up,” trophia, means “brought up in the house, reared at home.” In other words, the good work of the widow in view is that she stayed at home to raise her children!” - William Einwechter. This also shows how Paul relates having children to “every good work.” Paul actually says in verse 14 that he desire’s for younger widows to “marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully,” which implies that if these things do not occur, an opportunity will be given to the adversary to speak slanderously or reproachfully of them!
After this letter to Timothy, Paul instructs Titus to “… speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine,” and then he gives a list of these things in verses 2-8. “ That the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded, in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you.” Here again, Paul points out that a woman’s focus should be her home. There is nothing at all in the above passage that allows, or even indicates it is ok, for a woman to have a career! I am afraid, that not only are Christian women having careers today, but they are another man’s (i.e. their boss’) help meet, and not their husbands.
The word “homemakers” or “keepers at home” is oikouros in Greek, which literally means “caring for the house, working at home; the (watch or) keeper of the house; keeping at home and taking care of household affairs.” This word is derived from two Greek words. The first, oikos, means a house, a dwelling, or, by metonymy, a household or family. The second, ouros, refers to a keeper, watcher or guardian, i.e., one who has the oversight and responsibility for something. Thus, the basic significance of oikourous is that of a “housekeeper,” that is, one who watches over a household and family, seeing to it that all members are cared for, and all things maintained in good order. This term has generally been understood by the church to mean that the sphere of a married woman is her home. A simple look at history will reveal as much. One look at a Puritan commentator (Matthew Poole) shows how Christians viewed this concept, when he interpreted this phrase to mean: “housewives, not spending their time gadding abroad, but in looking to the affairs of their own families.”
Now, many in the church have rejected the earlier understanding of “homemakers.” Instead, it is interpreted to mean that a wife and mother is “to be busy at home” (NIV), i.e., she ‘should not be idle or derelict in fulfilling home duties.’ In other words, “homemakers” does not define the married woman’s calling or the sphere of her work, but is simply an admonition not to neglect her domestic duties. Therefore, a wife and mother may pursue a career outside of the home — as a lawyer, teacher, sales clerk, etc. — as long as she fulfills her responsibilities in the home.
“Oikouros is used only in the New Testament in Titus 2:5; therefore, in seeking to accurately discern its meaning we must look to the Greek literature of the New Testament era. There, the word oikouros meant watching or keeping the house. It was employed in reference to a watchdog and to a rooster, but more germane to the context of Titus 2:5, oikouros also meant keeping at home, and was employed as a substantive, 'housekeeper', to indicate the mistress of the house. Furthermore, it was specifically used in praise of a good wife. Interestingly, oikouros is utilized contemptuously of a man who refused to go out to war, designating him a 'stay-at-home' man. The verbal form, oikoureo, meant to watch or keep the house. It was used of women to indicate those who were at home to watch over the affairs of a household, and of men to designate those who stayed at home to avoid military service. Other closely related words such as 1) oikourema, meant keeping the house and staying at home, and was used to refer to women as the 'stay-at-homes'; 2) oikouria, referred to women as those employed in the work of housekeeping; 3) oikourios, meant the wages or rewards for the work of keeping the house, but also designated, significantly, keeping children within the doors of the house, i.e., keeping them at home. On the basis of this word study, it is concluded that oikouros was primarily used in the positive sense to indicate both the nature and sphere of a married woman’s work. The nature of her work is to manage the affairs of her household, and the sphere of her work is the home. It is important to note that oikouros and its cognates all included the idea of staying at home. Therefore, we can see that the 'keepers at home' or 'homemakers' are those who stay at home for the purpose of managing their households. Paul’s admonition is definite: Let the older women teach the younger women to remain within the sphere of their own households so that they might properly attend to their duties of caring for their family and managing its everyday affairs.” - William Einwechter.
“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.” – Voddie Baucham.
Women competing with men in the workplace is actually Marxist ideology. Karl Marx was a German philosopher, who lived from 1818-1883. He was an atheist who stated that his goal was to “dethrone God and destroy capitalism,” (Karl Marx cited in “Erasing Christianity” by Judson Cox). Although his ideas were largely ignored by scholars in his own lifetime, after he died in 1883, his social, economic, and political ideas gained rapid acceptance.
“ In the early 1920’s a group of his [Karl Marx’s] followers launched a project that continues to weaken and bury the last remnants of Christianity. The Frankfurt School was organized in 1923 by dedicated Marxists who were determined to win a war they called ‘The Revolution.’ By this they meant the non-violent overthrow of every nation in the name of Communism. Russia was the first nation to fall in 1917. It fell violently. The next two targeted nations were resistant, and this wasn’t expected. When communist agents met to identify the problem, they found they were in complete agreement. The problem was Christianity. They said ‘The Revolution’ would be stalled until Christianity was destroyed, not by guns, but by an alternative theology. They concluded that, once a nation was socialized with this new theology, The Revolution would proceed smoothly and without resistance. Christendom would be dead, and international Communism would be the dominant religion of all nations. The Frankfurt School was set up as a ‘think tank’ in Frankfurt Germany to develop and teach this new theology as a clever social science. They dressed it up as behavioral psychology and used ingenious methods of public relations to get the new ideas into every school, every movie studio and every university in the west. Their non-violent approach was simple. They identified each main element of Biblical Christianity, and then invented it’s opposite. They preached a strategy called ‘the Great Inversion,’ which was nothing more than the replacement of truth with error, then making error politically correct. Thus, if the Bible taught a family-based education model, they insisted on forced state schooling (with a curriculum of their own design.) If the Bible taught male leadership, they insisted on forced cultural changes to place women over men in every area of society. If the Bible instituted marriage, they insisted on it’s removal. If the Bible placed high value on children, they insisted on developing a culture of widespread abortion and birth control practices.” – Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin in So Much More.
When looking at the Marxist agenda to destroy the Bible-based family, we see what Karl Marx’s close colleague, Fredrick Engles, stated, “ The first condition of the liberation of the wife, is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.” ( The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State – Fredrick Ingles).
On one pro-Marxist website (http://www.newyouth.com), Ana Muñoz and Alan Woods write, “ The employment of women is, in itself, a progressive development. It is the prior condition to the liberation of women from the narrow confines of the home and the bourgeois family, and their full and free development as human beings and members of society.” When looking at Marxism, we see that they want to remove the woman from the traditional role she has held in the home, as a mother and wife. They want to do this because they see that, when she is in the home, she fulfills her role as a transmitter of culture… thereby effectively passing on beliefs and traditional culture to her children. The Marxist’s know that the family and socialism do not mix. We are moving towards a communistic culture, and most people don’t even realize it.
We see that, even “In Marxist terms, socialism is generally regarded as the period of transition between capitalism and communism” – (http://www.newyouth.com). Make no mistake, we are moving (even if slowly) towards communism - in this aspect, Karl Marx may be correct. He thought that it was inevitatble. This Marxist thinking has completely permeated western culture and even Christianity. This thinking is even preached from many pulpits, and Christians don’t think twice about sending the wife or mother off to work while placing their children in public schools ( which is also Marxist ideology).
In conclusion, I believe that Christians – in the world we live in today – have been extremely deceived. We have been deceived by placing our women in the workplace instead of the home. We have been deceived by placing our children in public school and letting the State disciple them, instead of the parents fulfilling their God-given responsibility. And we have been deceived by the world, thinking that children are a burden! We have already seen some consequences (USA going "down hill" in many ways- our children falling away from the Faith by college, etc.). The Bible is what dictates truth. Not culture and not feelings. If a Christian wants to come back to a Biblical view of the family, then it must be done no matter the sacrifice. There is no place, Biblically, that a woman should be other than the home, and this includes civil office.
