Sarah Palin and male leadership

September 16, 2008 by 39 Comments

A “moderate evangelical” writes in USA TODAY that few of the conservative Christians all excited about Sarah Palin as Vice President of the United States would allow her to be pastor of their church. He argues that the support of evangelicals for Palin means that they should now reject the principle male headship across the board, adopting egalitarianism in the family and allowing for women pastors in the church.

This is what happens when you have no Two Kingdoms theology and when you believe that whatever happens in the culture must be imitated in the church. All through history we have had female heads of state, including those who have ruled over intensely Christian populations (Elizabeth I, Victoria), and Christians have had no problems seeing them as lawful Romans 13 magistrates.

But how would you answer this article? Or do you think Sarah Palin will break through the last glass ceiling, turning Christians and conservatives into feminists?

Filed Under: Church, Politics 39 Comments

Media election coverage
The invention of grape juice to avoid communion wine
Liveblog the debate right here
Religion's economic impact
About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Rose

    The pastorate is a warrior profession. Just as our military front lines are sacrificially manned by men, our pastors need to be of the temperament to confront evil. Women in the pastorate (in some denominations) often lack the temperament to confront; they are drawn to the pastorate by the perceived opportunity to comfort. In addition, women pastors speed the diminished role (and attendance) of men in the church and the feminization of the church. Would we try to lead missions in foreign countries w/o learning their language? In battle, men follow men.

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer TK

    You’ve already answered it well! “This is what happens when you have no Two Kingdoms theology and when you believe that whatever happens in the culture must be imitated in the church” If Sarah Palin indeed breaks through “the last glass ceiling”, Christians and conservatives who turn into NOW-type feminists will not be very well-catechized ones. The two kingdoms will remain, as they do today, ignored by many evangelical Christians.

    On a side note, can anyone recommend a good overview of the two kingdoms and the three hierarchies, as explained by Martin Luther. Also where can I find Luther’s writings on these concepts?

  • WebMonk

    I’m calling ‘foul’ on this one, Veith. Churches that have female ordination are not ‘feminist’ necessarily. Certainly some may be, but the two do not equate.

    Obviously this depends on your definition of “feminist”. Some people have a view of feminism that would qualify anyone who is OK with having a woman in a position of authority in the church as a “feminist”, and so the two could be equated.

    But, certainly in the more socially common conception of “feminist”, female ordination does not equal feminist.

  • David

    God’s Word is clear regarding headship within the home and church. This is no such word for government leadership. However, since fathers and pastors are heads not only be command but also by design (some more so, some less so), men will generally take the leadership role in society as well. There is nothing wrong with the exceptions – Palin, Thatcher, etc. – but they are the exceptions and not the rule. Egalitarianism in this area of life is a pipe dream of the feminists.

  • Jared

    I’m glad to read some discussion on this topic. I am currently struggling with this issue. I completely give credence to two kingdom theology (left and right hand realms), but I think it’s more complicated than drawing a sharp line between the kingdoms. Certainly there needs to be a distinction so that the Gospel and the law can be protected and upheld. However, whenever St. Paul speaks of male and female issues like headship, he grounds his arguments in the order of creation. My struggle is this: if Paul roots his theology of men and women in creation, wouldn’t that mean that our Christian thinking on these matters does not only apply in the kingdom of grace, but also in the secular?

    If something is woven into the created order, doesn’t that mean it applies in both kingdoms. Where the rubber hits the road for me then, is the question of women having “authority” (1 Tim. 2:12-14) over other males in in both Church and secular offices. Does this betray a complimentarian view of men and women in Christ?

    Sidebar–one would do no better than Gustaf Wingren’s Luther on Vocation (first 120 pp.); and of course, Veith’s Spirituality of the Cross pp.91-106.

  • WebMonk

    Jared, that’s a good thought, and lots of people agree with you. However, Paul only ever applied it to church and family, so while it MIGHT be valid to apply it everywhere, it is stepping beyond the direct statements of scripture.

    Not to say it’s necessarily wrong, we do it all the time – the whole description of Jesus being “under the bread” as an example. However, realize that applying Paul’s statements to secular kingdoms it is going beyond what Paul was saying about homes and church.

    And then there’s also all the debates of how much he might have been speaking to the specific culture and/or situation, how much we might be getting things wrong in translation, and how much our cultural background (and lack of his direct audience’s background) might change the meaning of his words.

  • fw

    Sarah Palin showed true character and i am grateful that she brought her downs syndrome baby to term in such a public way. I can not praise her enough for that.

    Ok I bite…

    apart from her position on abortion, her NRA membership and her doubts that human activity has anything to do with global warming…

    is there ANYTHING in her record that establishes Governor Palin as a true conservative?

    anything at all?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    The Two Kingdom’s hits it on the head. I read a logia article dealing with this issue a few months ago where the author maintained that Luther would have applied the order of creation to the left hand kingdom, and that “Women’s Sufferage” in the LCMS was wrong and so on. I don’t think I could at all agree with him, and I would disagree with Luther where he quoted him.
    The Pastoral office is a special office, and it would have to be quite a feminist movement in a Church that chooses to ignore the clear words of scripture on that issue. But in the secular realm women can indeed hold all sorts of positions of leadership, and the world is often blessed by their efforts. The New Testament is very quiet on what should and should not be allowed in the secular realm.

  • Booklover

    Sarah Palin won’t turn me into a feminist—I already am a feminist—fighting for the rights of women to live their lives without destroying the lives of their children.

    St. Paul spoke against the headship of women in the church. I do not recall anywhere that he said she musn’t head a state. Dr. Albert Mohler said the same thing—he has pictures up on his wall of Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth (?) as heads of *state* but of course would obey the words of Paul as regards the *church.*

    For the life of me, I can’t figure out why anyone would want to disobey Scripture on this one. It is the nature of man to step aside and neglect his responsibilities when a woman takes over. When women started teaching Sunday School, many men neglected that duty, as well as the duty to catechize their children. When women joined the elder and deacon board, very few men were found there as well. Can you imagine what will happen when women start to preach? What job will men have in the church then? And on a note that will sound nasty; women in the praise teams now are up front without benefit of a heavy duty bra, leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination. If a woman preaches up front without benefit of a robe, it won’t be the Lord’s Word that the men will be ruminating upon. I know I sound old fashioned and petty about that, but then you haven’t seen our praise team. :-/

  • Nemo

    See the link below for what I have found to be the most thorough (although I believe wrong) argument why women should not hold elected office.

    http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/should_christians_support_a_wo.aspx

  • Joe

    Bror – Your post raised a point I have always wondered about. Is suffrage in a congregation a right hand or left hand function. Surely, it is not the preaching of the word, but in the current LCMS polity there are very many decisions that are made a voters assemblies that are about more than just keeping the lights on. I think about the fact that the apostles about men (not women) to handle the feeding of the widows and all the other non-preaching functions of the church. Thus, I have always believed that women’s sufferage in the church was a very different animal from women’s sufferage in our secular government.

    Btw – is logia available on-line? I would love to read the article you referenced.

  • Manxman

    Paul’s explanation of why women have a subordinate role in Creation included two parts – man was created before the woman, and the woman had a weakness toward deception. These two items are not things that are confined to a Church setting – they extend across the so-called Two Kingdoms. Overall, leadership by women in government will take a culture in a different direction than government by men. Men have their own problems, but for reasons that are known to God, He gave authority to men and not women. Isaiah 3 indicates that rule by women is not a good thing.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Joe,
    You write; “I think about the fact that the apostles about men (not women) to handle the feeding of the widows and all the other non-preaching functions of the church.” I’m not sure that is at all true as deaconesses are referenced often enough in the N.T. to make that position less than tenable. Also are cases of Priscilla and Phoebe.
    Logia is available online, I have no idea who wrote the article or what the title was or which issue. I just remember I disagreed with it.
    The problem may not be with the fact that women are voting, as much as it is what we are voting on in voters assemblies. We can be thankful that we have forgiveness for those things too though. I put every Sunday communion to my voters assembly, but that at the time I thought should be a pastors prerogative. Such things shouldn’t be voted on, they should just be done.

  • Joe

    “The problem may not be with the fact that women are voting, as much as it is what we are voting on in voters assemblies.”

    That is a statement I can agree with.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    Dr. Veith,

    Two kingdom theology doesn’t change the distinctions between women and men in one or the other kingdom. The order of creation and the fall hold true in both kingdoms. In 1 Timothy 2:12-14, Paul gives these as the reasons women are not to teach or have authority over men. These reasons don’t evaporate the minute a woman walks out of the divine service.

    Here is the traditional Lutheran position on female authority over men from Francis Pieper’s (LCMS) Christian Dogmatics (1:524-525):

    On the other hand, Scripture teaches that woman in her relation to man occupied a position of subordination even before the Fall. This fact is expressed in the term used in Gen. 2:18: “an helpmeet for him.” The same thought is voiced in the New Testament. 1 Cor. 11:9: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Hence woman is forbidden to exercise dominion over man. 1 Tim. 2:12: “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” There are two reasons for this: a) Adam was created first, then Eve (v. 13), and b) the woman introduced a disastrous innovation—sin (v. 14: “Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression”). It is the plain teaching of Scripture that in relation to the man, the woman is in a position of subordination. Both the order of creation and the order established after the Fall assign her that position.

    People in our day are becoming more and more oblivious to this divine order, and this for two reasons. In spite of its wide circulation the Bible exerts less influence on human society than formerly, and good common sense, in spite of all advances in technical science, is rapidly diminishing among men. We find in Luther two different sets of statements on the position of woman in human society. On the one hand, he says: “God did not set up womankind to rule, neither in the Church nor in secular offices” (St. L. II:687). Again: “The Holy Ghost has excluded women from the government of the Church” (St. L. XVI:2280). On the other hand, Luther requires men to show special reverence (reverentia) to woman, because the woman is the mother and educator of the human race. “Muller ut est creatura Dei, cure reverentia spectanda est; ad hoc enim, est creata, ut circa virum sit, ut filios nutriat et educet honeste et pie” (Opp. ex., Erl. XXI:170; St. L. V:1516). (“Since woman is a creature of God, she is to be regarded with reverence; for this purpose, indeed, she was created that she should be with man, that she should nurture and train children in honesty and piety.”) Luther maintains consistently that God’s creation of man and woman with a different sex appoints and fits them for a separate sphere of activity. He says: “Each one functions best as he has been created. ‘A woman with her little finger does better by a child than a man with both his fists.’ Let everyone stick to that work to which God has called and appointed him.” (St. L. V:1517.) This is the Scriptural position. Scripture makes the home the sphere of the woman; it distinguishes sharply between the forbidden public and the permitted and commanded domestic activity of woman.

    These words from the standard text of dogmatics in the LCMS are very unpopular words to quote today. They offend the modern egalitarian worldview. I expect most readers here, including my Lutheran brothers and sisters, will be appalled at Pieper and Luther’s position on this.

    For the record, I agree with Pieper (quoted above). I also agree with his belief on why it is that people are appalled by this position: “People in our day are becoming more and more oblivious to this divine order, and this for two reasons. In spite of its wide circulation the Bible exerts less influence on human society than formerly, and good common sense, in spite of all advances in technical science, is rapidly diminishing among men.”

    I thought this statement would be of interest to you, Dr. Veith.

    The USA Today article has a valid point in my opinion. If the reasons we don’t allow women’s ordination are valid, they are valid regarding other positions of authority over men as well. The two kingdoms are distinct, but the order of creation and the fall affect both kingdoms.

    I don’t intend to argue about this here. I’ve done that ad nauseum elsewhere. You asked how your readers would respond to the USA Today article. This is my answer to your question.

    PAX!

    Erich

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Erich,
    If you don’t want to debate than don’t contribute.
    However, I would point out that even in 1 Timothy 2:12 the context is worship, not the secular arena.
    This can’t be applied to every arena of life, as Paul in Acts acknowledges the leadership of women, at least in secular life. Acts 17:4 (ESV)
    And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.

    There is maybe some question as to who these women were leading, or in what manner. One thing is certain though, Paul did not allow them to be leaders over men in the church.

    I am not appalled at Luther or Pieper, I simply disagree with them on this issue.

  • fw

    all of the reformers were united, knox, luther, melancthon in thinking that the rules for women were the same in both kingdoms.

    I have always wondered how the arguments against women pastors should not also apply in the secular realm to be consistent. or maybe vica versa?

  • Bryan Lindemood

    But they sure are pretty!

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I guess the problem comes in because at the time of Paul, and long before there had always been women in power. Solomon did not chastise the Queen of Sheba for being queen when she visited. Paul never chastized women for holding positions of authority in the secular realm. Yet it is certain, that Christian women held positions of authority in the secular realm. They had slaves and servants at their disposal. They ran businesses and had men in their employ. Women at the time held political offices. But Paul never addresses these issues, he never condemns it. It very well could be, and is held to be the reason, that this is why it was a problem in the church of Corinth and elsewhere. That people failed to see the distinction between the two kingdoms. In Corinth the thought was, well these women are leaders in society, why not in the church. in the middle ages the same thinking was applied in the opposite direction. Women can’t lead in the church, so they shouldn’t lead in society either, especially if that society is Christian. So the reasoning went with Luther, Knox, and Calvin, and later even Pieper. Yet Paul only addresses the issue of leadership in the church, and the church might ought follow his example there. Remain silent where scripture is silent, speak where it speaks, and don’t tamper with God’s word to make it say things that it doesn’t. The Church and secular politics are separate issues and remain so.

  • kerner

    I guess my biggest problem with keeping women from positions of authority in the secular realm is that I know of no part of scripture in which a particular woman in authority is condemned simply for being a woman with too much authority.

    I suppose that everybody has heard of Deborah the judge. We have “leading women” in Acts, Lydia the seller of purple, the virtuous woman in Proverbs buying a real estate. Ancient societies were a lot more patriarchal than our society today, but sometimes women rose to levels of authority over men.

    Can anybody point to such a woman in scripture (who had secular authority) to whom a prophet or apostle or Christ said, “You have more authority than a woman should have; give it up.”?

  • kerner

    Bror, you got in ahead of me.

  • Kirk

    Would Deborah be relevant in this debate? I mean, she wasn’t a ruler in the traditional sense, but she did effectively lead the nation of Israel and was appointed by God to her position. Wouldn’t this suggest that God is not opposed to women in civil leadership?

    I share the viewpoint of many who have already posted. Paul’s reference to male headship was from a spiritual perspective and has no bearing outside of the Church. I’m opposed to the oordination of females into pastoral roles, but I’d hardly think twice about a woman simply because Scripture is clear on the one and ambiguous on the other.

  • Anon

    Most Protestant (and Catholic) theologies have something analogous to the Two Kingdoms. The problems today are an uneducated clergy and an even less educated (or even catechised) laity.

    Werner Nueur’s _Man and Woman in Christian Perspective_ remains the best treatment on the subject from a confessional Lutheran perspective, of which I am aware.

  • Booklover

    I’ve read the perspectives of those who feel women should stay out of secular office. I just don’t read where Paul or Jesus have said anything about women’s headship in the *secular* realm. I believe that my husband has headship over ME, not over ALL WOMEN. That would be weird. I believe my pastor has spiritual headship over me, NOT over the local city councilwoman who does not share our beliefs.

    I sincerely hope the men that hold to this anti-female-in-secular-office view as law, also hold to “Husbands, you shall love your wives as Christ loved the church” as law. Too many men interpret this women-stay-in-the-domestic-realm rule as meaning: “I go to my job, I travel for my job, I coach the football/basketball/baseball teams for three hours after my job, I golf all day Saturday, I watch as my wife readies the 10 childen for church, I observe as my wife cooks and does dishes for the 10 children; and my wife shall stay home always.”

    This whole issue of women in the secular realm wouldn’t even be widely prevalant if it weren’t for the wide use of birth control. (I believe the reformers were against that also.) Not having so many children has freed up women to be able to leave the home earlier and enter the secular realm.

    Although I have been happy not to have a full-time job, I don’t argue against the woman who has the energy to do it all. I stay home because it’s right for me. I also thought my children would have less chance of going astray if I was “always home.” Lo and behold, I’ve noticed that the children of working women and the children of stay-at-home women go astray at about the same ratio.

    Yes, the virtuous Proverbs woman did purchase real estate. And she left her domestic abode often. What I wouldn’t give to command some servants around!

  • Anon

    The Bible does say that a country that is ruled by a woman or a slave is cursed. Yet realistically we have the choice between the party of death, and a ticket that now has a strong pro-life element to it.

    Booklover and Bror, We also believe in the teachings of God that are the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. It was the heretic Marcion who rejected them.

  • Paul

    I agree with the statement: “The two kingdoms are distinct, but the order of creation and the fall affect (sic) both kingdoms.” Therefore, I also agree that to be consistent we must assert that the order of creation should apply equally in both realms.

    My struggle with that view, however, is that the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture appears to have different remedies for the two kingdoms. In the Church, the remedy is the Word of God; as in “Thus spake the Lord” because all who are Christian are to accept the Word of the Lord as definitive since their vary salvation depends upon it being so. However, in the secular kingdom the remedy seems to be the authority of the Christian as being “salt” and “light” at work through the individual Christian ruler, magistrate, soldier, or voter.

    So: in the Church we may hold people to the Word of God, for that is our source and norm for all teaching and practice. But in the state, each individual Christian (and others who see or sense the Order of Creation through general revelation) must use his vocation to influence society.

    That being said, the individual Christian must too often choose between which truth requires his influence first- the Order of Creation regarding the roles of women and men in government or the doctrine concerning the guilt of the nation over the slaughter of innocents. Do you want a ticket of two men who support abortion on demand, or a ticket of a man and a woman who oppose the wholesale slaughter? I would prefer two men of proven executive leadership (none of the four currently running at present as far as I can tell) who oppose abortion, acknowledge the sovereignty of foreign states, support a decrease in federal power, live their personal lives under the authority of the Word of God, and recognize their ultimate accountability to God for the exercise of their offices. But alas, that’s not an option this time around. Each Christian must then use his or her sanctified reason to determine the better choice and then use their vocation to work further influence whichever one is elected.

  • http://uncouthruminations.blogspot.com Carl Wicklander

    The “moderate evangelical” writer assumes an equivalence between the executive branch and the holy ministry. The assumption is that if women can be heads of state (or the vice president), then they can be pastors.

    The ministry is not only a matter of ability, but of calling. Some women might have the ability to preach the Word, but there is no mandate in the Scriptures to support it.

    Applying the world’s standards to the Church is antithetical to the Church’s calling. If it wasn’t, then there would be no difference between the Church and any man-made institution.

    And there is no injunction that states that Christians can support women in public life only if they support their ordination in Church. Doing so only increases the notion that the Church is a man-made institution no different from the postal service or food industry.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Anon,
    Who rejected the Old Testament? But perhaps we realize that there were some drastic changes that came along with the New Testament. Did I not reference Solomon and the Queen of Sheba? Did Booklover not reference the woman in Proverbs?
    But I suppose you Anon, are still looking for a place to sacrifice your passover lamb.
    A different dynamic came in with the New Testament, God no longer demands a theocracy in the way of Old Testament Israel. Paul is evidence of that. So if we want a woman president, and there is a qualified woman running for that office, we are free in Christ to elect her.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Carl Wicklander,
    You write: “The ministry is not only a matter of ability, but of calling. Some women might have the ability to preach the Word, but there is no mandate in the Scriptures to support it.”
    If the Bible was merely silent on the issue I would be in agreement with Women pastors. The Bible actually has injunctions against it.
    The rest of your answer was great.

  • http://concordiansisters.blogspot.com/ Rebekah

    Would that Logia article be “The Order of Creation, the Role of Women, and the Missouri Synod” by Rev HR Curtis? Holy Trinity 2007, vol. 16 #3

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I do believe that would be it.

  • fw

    here is a story on pálin from someone whos republican and conservative credentials are unimpeachable. he is an alaskan native by the way.

    finally. an honest voice that has no ax to grind.

    http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/528420.html

  • Don S

    Nice try FW @ 32. However, Dan Fagan is a wacko radio host who has always had an ax to grind against Palin. Peruse his prior columns in the ADN (Anchorage Daily News), dating back to her early governorship days. He has called her a “socialist” (4/6/08), biased toward the “Valley”, and labeled her supporters “Palinbots” and “Palinistas” (July ’08 column). Do some research before you post this stuff.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@33), one wonders what you would accept in this matter. A conservative/Republican who rails against Palin is a “wacko”. Unless I’m mistaken, any other media source would likely be derided as part of the “liberally biased” media.

    Are the only legitimate sources those who point out how very wonderful Palin is?

  • WebMonk

    Ditto with tODD here, Don. He’s conservative, but doesn’t like Palin. His dislike of Palin somehow disqualifies him from being a reliable source? The only reliable sources are those who like Palin? Don’t be ridiculous. Look at what he’s saying, check it with the facts, and make your decision about how valid he is. Whether or not he “likes” Palin is irrelevant to a certain extent.

    Frankly, his article doesn’t bring up anything new and is mostly excitement and hype. There are a few places in there that I think he communicates an incorrect view by cherry picking his details, but that certainly doesn’t mean we should dismiss everything he says.

    As the “troopergate scandal” continues to unfold, the less and less I see in it of concern, but ignoring someone’s concerns just because they are opposed to Palin is silly.

  • Don S

    tODD & Webmonk:

    I was objecting to Frank’s mischaracterization of the author of that article as someone “whos (sic) republican and conservative credentials are unimpeachable” and “an honest voice that has no ax to grind”. You can attribute to Fagan whatever credibility you want to, but don’t misrepresent who he is or make a statement that “he has no ax to grind” when he clearly has had it out for Palin for well over a year.

  • Booklover

    Douglas Wilson has some very interesting words on Sarah Palin over on his space “Blog and MaBlog.” He waxes poetic and long over the issue of her being a leader in the civil realm. His comments are mostly found in early September. Some of Wilson’s gems:

    “So the Genesis order establishes a pattern for all of life. Paul takes that pattern and uses it to legislate for the Church. We have no authority to legislate in such a way as to exclude Lydias and Deborahs where the Scriptures have not excluded them. . .”

    “Scripture gives us examples of extraordinary women who are used by God in extraordinary times. The woman’s seed was to crush the serpent’s head, and we see this prophecy of Christ typified throughout the Old Testament in striking ways (Judges 4:21; Judges 9:53). It seems to me that Sarah Palin, as a walking rejection of the pro-aborts more emotional arguments, will be in a position to give Roe a bowl of motherly milk and then put a stake through his head. If that happens, then the question for Christians will not be “how could a woman do that?” Rather, we will see that no one but a woman could have done that.”

  • http://uncouthruminations.blogspot.com Carl Wicklander

    Bror, I do agree with you about the biblical injunctions against women’s ordination. I know about the biblical injunctions against women pastors (i.e. 1 Timothy 2:11-12). I merely meant that a woman may possess an ability to preach the word (from the pulpit, for example), but there is nothing in Scripture to support her calling to the ministry.

    I apologize for my poor selection of word earlier.

  • Karen

    I was encouraged by the discernment God gave an editor of the Charisma magizine regarding the Lakeland (Todd Bentley delusion). He was faithful to share his concerns. I cannot help but do the same regarding Christians aligning themselves with Sarah Palin’s interpretation of her God-given role as a woman, wife and mother.

    As a sister-in-Christ who received the precious gift of salvation offered to me in 1979, I cannot keep silent. The last thing I wish to see happen in our country is for the liberals to gain the White House. However, I far more fear God and only desire to walk with Him in agreement upon His wise foundations of divine order that He clearly established from Genesis through Revelation.

    I believe that Sarah Palin’s candidacy for the Vice Presidential spot in government is a sure sign of the increasing judgment of God upon this nation. I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ has failed to honor God’s divine order in the family and in the church. Judgment begins at the house of God. Only God’s people have a clear written testimony of the will of our Creator and Sovereign Lord. We have departed from truth and allowed a feminist spirit to control our families and our churches. We have sown the wind and may even reap the whirlwind. Except we repent.

    I believe 2008 has been a year of increasing judgment upon God upon a nation that has departed from the Scriptures. I believe God is allowing the same spirit of Antichrist to try His church first before He gives permission for the full force of this spirit to try the whole world. I believe Oprah Winfrey opened a floodgate when she spewed her doctrines of devils in the form of a new age christ. Many in the church were quick to denounce her apostasy and warn of deceiving spirits that were set to seduce the simple. Yet, these same Christians could not see what was coming next.

    I believe judgment began at the house of God in a very peculiar way this past Spring, when God allowed spirits of error and blasphemy through Todd Bentley to try His faithful. Few charismatic men of God were bold enough to come to the forefront swiftly and warn the church. Dutch Sheets’ cries for repentance were what was needed to preserve the sheep from the wolves. Sadly, such a clear call came after the poison had been received.

    If Sarah Palin had had wise servants of God to counsel her as she pursued the position of Governor, I believe these counselors would have upheld the Scriptures and their testimony, precepts and statutes. If Sarah Palin had a wise, God-fearing husband, he would have seen the consequences of agreeing with her leadership pursuits that have brought her and her own family into such places of jeopardy. Truly, the word of God has been blasphemed. She has given abundant opportunity for the enemies of the Lord to reproach the word of God.

    I believe that God has been trying to chasten His daughter and bring her to her senses so that she can repent. I am praying for God to raise up His standard before her, give her grace to acknowledge how she has departed His clear call to her as a wife and mother, and give her the gift of repentance so that she can save herself from further strong delusion (2 Thess. 2:9-15). May we have grace to serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. May we continue to uphold the Biblical traditional roles of women who are wives and mothers. Unless we learn to test the spirits by the word of God, unless we turn to the law and to the testimony, unless we believe Jesus’ clear teaching that not one jot nor one tittle of the law would pass until all was fulfilled, we will proceed into greater darkness and even apostasy.

    I believe that Sarah’s greatest hour in history is ahead. If she can see how the Lord could use her public renunciation of her despising her place as wife and mother, if she could return to her family sphere and call all women to honor their husbands so that their husbands are known in the gates, I believe she could find herself indeed raised by God for such a time as this. He was able to bring Nebudchanezzar down so that he would humble himself. I pray that He will likewise give Sarah this same repentance.

    Proverbs 21:30-31 tell us that there is no wisdom, no counsel and no understanding against the Lord. The horse is prepared for the day of battle, but safety is of the Lord.

    If we do well, it shall be well with us. If we don’t, sin lies at the door. No matter who is in leadership of this country, God’s promises are still true and will be performed on behalf of those whose hands are clean and whose hearts are pure in His sight. For these see God and shall continue to see Him, no matter HOW dark the days ahead may become.

    Proverbs 11:21-22 Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished, but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered. Sarah Palin is as a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, for she is truly a fair (beautiful to look upon) woman who lacks discretion. She took the bait of political prestige that Jesus refused when Satan offered it to Him.

    Sarah Palin is not the example I want my daughters and granddaughters to emulate. She is not a daughter of Sarah, wife of Abraham. She is not a virtuous woman who opens her mouth with wisdom and who has the law of kindness in her tongue. She is not a woman who has any fear of the company she keeps. She does not believe that she is rebelling to the will of God for her life. She believes the false prophets who have “blessed her” in the name of the Lord. God forbid that she should refuse to hear the words of the Lord and fail to receive the love of all of His truth. For then she would choose to receive strong delusion. God would send it upon her and all who join hand in hand with a spirit of fear. Just as Eve was deceived, so goes it with Sarah. But her husband Todd, he shall receive a greater judgment except he repents.

    Fear God. Don’t fear man. Fear of man brings a snare. And as a snare shall it come upon the whole earth. Only fear God, honor the leaders He brings into their places. Honor them in prayer for their salvation as He exhorts us to do. But don’t rush in and cast a vote for John McCain because he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Unholy alliances never bring God’s blessing and favor. They only bring greater and swifter judgment.

    As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and honor Him in all our ways. We will not join hand in hand with the wicked who hate God and His truth and think they are in control by casting their votes for John McCain.

    I would call all those who name the name of Christ to depart from evil and keep themselves unspotted from this world. I would call all to pray for the repentance of God’s people and then the nation. For I truly believe God is allowing all of this to happen to wake up His sleeping Church and give us an opportunity to stand before Him and one another in faith and be found faithful.

    I am not afraid of the future, even if God permits Obama to rise into power. For I know that I am among those who know their God and who shall be strong and do exploits. I never seen the righteous forsaken nor their seed begging bread. God will protect us, preserve our lives and provide for us. In the days of famine, we shall be satisfied.

    And, should we have to be martyred for our faith and our heads fall to the ground, those same heads will immediately rise up to be adorned with martyrs’ crowns. For we love not our lives, even unto the death. We are ready to die for the truth that was once delivered to the saints.

    If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Please do not endorse this destruction of fiber of the Christian family. We are to be of a different spirit and separate from the spirit of this world. I stand with Caleb and Joshua who wholly followed the Lord and were of a different spirit.

    Come quickly, Lord Jesus – Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on this earth even as it is in heaven.

    In Jesus’ Name –

    Karen


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X