THE
SECOND BLAST OF THE TRUMPET!
THE REFORMATION:
The Bible is the proper stay and the only bulwark of the rights and
prerogatives of women, and the exalted and privileged status that women have
held in Christian civilization was the direct result and fruit of the great
Protestant Reformation. Roman Catholicism has traditionally exalted the nun and
degraded the position of the woman in the family as the honored wife and
mistress of the home. From the petted plaything of the Oriental harem, to the
drone-like existence of an Indian squaw, to the pathetic status of females under
Islam, women have always been degraded to an inferior and exploited status,
without hope or rights, in the absence of Scriptural Christianity.
But while the infidels of
“women’s liberation” have attacked neither “Popery” nor the
“Prophet,” they have hurled themselves against Protestantism and the culture
and social order that it has produced. Seeking to inveigle women into casting
aside the liberty wherewith Christ has made them free and return to the beggarly
elements of more pagan social orders, the pied pipers of “equality” have,
like Satan of old, tempted 20th Century Eves that they, too, “shall
be as gods.” The resultant slavery and bondage have been the same in either
case.
JOHN KNOX:
Recognizing that the place of the woman is
in the home and that “forbidding to marry” was a “doctrine of
devils” (I Tim. 4:1‑3), most of the Reformers married. But if the
Reformers sought to reestablish woman to her proper and honored place of
Proverbs 31, they wielded the doctrine as a two-edged sword and did not fail in
their duty to cast down the Athaliahs of their age from their usurped positions
and prerogatives. Although the only Queen ever to reign over the Israelites was
the murderous usurper Athaliah, in 1558 queens abounded on the thrones of
England, Scotland, and France. Arising to what he considered a scriptural if
dangerous duty, Knox published “The First Blast Of The Trumpet Against the
Monstrous Regiment (i.e., rule) of Women.” In this work, the
militancy of which embarrassed the more sedate and scholarly Calvin, Knox
rebuked “Bloody Mary” as a Jezebel that had exiled God’s preachers from
England and declared, “how abominable before God, is the Empire or Rule of
a wicked woman, yea of a traiteresse and bastard,” and “that it is
more than a monstre in nature, that a woman shall reigne and have empire above
man. And yet with us all, there is suche silence, as if God therewith were
nothing offended.” Knox’s fearlessness in this respect, which did not
fail to draw down persecution, came from utter conviction of his duty. He added,
“If any think that the empire of women, is not of such importance, that for
the suppressing of the same any man is bound to hasarde his life, I answer, that
to suppresse it, is in the hand of god alone. But to utter the impietie and
abomination of the same, I say, it is the dutie of everie true messager of God.”
That duty is still ours
today. And it still is a two‑edged sword. It is far too easy to appear to
be a champion of the oppressed sex and fail to wield the more disagreeable edge.
When Satan declared, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God…l
will be like the most high,” the Bible declares in response, “Yet
thou shalt be brought down to hell” (Isa. 14:13-15). When Adam and Eve
sought to be as gods they were banished from paradise. It is by seeking to be
more than God has ordained as their station in life that women are being
stripped of their true rights and privileges and being subjected to a
self-imposed bondage more iniquitous and deceitful than any they have
experienced before. It is a slavery forged of spiritual and mental chains by
false prophets who, “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are
the servants of corruption” (2 Pet. 2:1,19), as the evangelicals stand by
and applaud, lacking the courage and integrity “to utter the impietie and
abomination of the same.” It is at this point that the true champions of
womanhood must rise up in their defense and with the fearlessness of a John Knox
sound the second blast of the trumpet.
HISTORY:
The proper role of women cannot be found in
studying the institution of the state or the church or any other later
development of society and civilization. Rather it is to be found in the family
and thus in the initial primeval creation ordinances as they were established by
God even before the Fall. Thus we expect their corruption to be a matter of
historical record traceable all the way back to Eden. And indeed in Eden at the
Fall we see the subtilty of the serpent in that he bypasses Adam, the head, the
one in authority and invested with decision making responsibility in the home.
Satan instead approaches Eve and subverts her, inducing her to sin and act
without the consent or knowledge of her husband, and to usurp the leadership
position and to lead and tempt her husband to follow her in her sinful example.
And thus it has ever been throughout history where apostasy has reversed the
roles of the sexes and wrought havoc with the order of God’s creation. From
Nimrod’s rebellion at the tower of Babel, where he exalted his sensuous queen
Semiramis from which developed all idolatrous worship of female deities and
fertility cults, to Plato who declared in his “Republic,” “Then if we
are to use women for the same things as men, we must teach them the same
things…those same arts and matters of war too, and use them in the same
way…And what will be the biggest joke of all? Surely to see naked women in the
wrestling schools exercising with the men…let us not fear the jests of refined
people. Let them talk how they like and say what they like of SUCH AN
UPHEAVAL…and not least about wearing armor and riding on horseback”
(Great Dialogues of Plato, pp. 249-250), one of the keystones to an
anti-Christian and totalitarian social order is the destruction of godly
womanhood.
REVOLUTION:
Radicalized women have generally been in the vanguard of any violent
revolution. Liberated women who did not scruple to use their bodies to advance
their revolutionary cause were used by Adam Weishaupt in the 1780’s, by Walter
Reuther in the communist insurrection in Flint, Michigan in the 1930’s, and by
Cesar Chavez in the 1960’s. Lenin declared, “The fate of the proletarian
movement, the victory or defeat of the proletarian revolution, the victory or
defeat of proletarian power depends on whether or not the reserve of women will
be for or against the working class” (The Woman Question; International
Publishers, p. 44). The French Revolution is a good case in point and “the
role played by courtesans in the earlier stages of the Revolution has never been
properly estimated by historians; but for the cooperation of these women…it is
doubtful whether…the defection of the army could ever have been realized”
(Nesta Webster: The French Revolution, p. 52). And speaking of the revolutionary
march of the women on Versailles, which nearly ended in the murderous
destruction of the entire royal family, she writes, “One would not have
supposed writes a revolutionary chronicler of the day ‘that it is to the
vilest class of our prostitutes that we owe the happy event...The leaders of the
people sent to Versailles three hundred of the prettiest street-walkers…With
money, instructions, and the promise of being disemboweled by the people if they
did not carry out their mission faithfully” (Ibid, pp. 127-8). But not
only were the women indispensable in the revolutionary strategy but they were
also the most violent, vicious, depraved and destructive of the revolutionary
“cannon fodder” shock troops, as history testifies of the Parisian fishwives
of 1789 and the “Vengereuses” of the Paris Commune of 1871. When we consider
that the Paris Commune was led by men such as Bergeret, who denied God because
“if there were a God, He would be a tyrant...If there were such a place as
heaven, and I went there and found a God, I would immediately commence throwing
up barricades. I would hoist the red flag. I would rebel” (Paris Under The
Commune; Or The Red Rebellion Of 1871, A Second Reign Of Terror, Murder and
Madness: Brockett, pp.574-575); and when we consider that “the sudden
destruction of the Commune was all that saved Paris from becoming a mass of
ruins, for the sewers had been charged with explosive compounds, and…more than
a thousand electric wires arranged to explode these compounds in every part of
the city” (I bid, p. 563); and “when we consider that fully one third
of the beautiful city of Paris had been destroyed by the fiendish rage of these
Communists, and that the rest would have gone had they had another day for the
consummation of their horrible designs” (Ibid, p. 611), it is hard to
imagine that the fury of the women far exceeded that of the men. But we read,
“they (the Communists) seemed possessed with an insane and
uncontrollable impulse to destroy all before them. In this work of destruction
THE WOMEN WERE EVEN MORE FURIOUS THAN THE MEN; thousands of them were arrested
either setting fires to buildings or shooting down the Versailles troops from
corners, from windows, behind barricades, or from house-tops, and when arrested
they fought like tigers. Many of them, it is true, were of the abandoned
class—but others, wives and mothers, hitherto of good repute, were
nevertheless now maddened with the desire to destroy. It was sad and distressing
to see so many of these female furies marched to execution and shot down in
squads by the Versaillists—yet we cannot wonder that…the soldiers should
have had no pity” (Ibid, pp. 606‑607, emphasis mine). When the
revolutionary regime was crumbling and the men were fleeing in the final hours
of the holocaust, the cause was sustained by fanatic women alone. “General
Etudes…escaped but his wife, a young and beautiful woman of great resolution,
but a complete fanatic…was taken at…a barricade arms in hand” and
“General La Cecilia…escaped—but his wife was killed in the act of building
a barricade” (Ibid, p. 628) .
And such it always has been and is even so today. A revolution is designed to turn things upside down, to reverse the order of God’s creation, and that includes the role of the sexes. Today we have W.I.T.C.H. (Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy From Hell). Today we have Bernadette Dohrn and the Weatherman faction of the S.D.S. Today we have Angela Davis and Patty “Urban Guerilla” Hearst and her female cohorts of the S.L.A., where free love and sexual equality are revolutionary requirements. From Eve, who first rebelled and sought to be liberated from God’s law, to would be presidential assassins ‘Squeaky’ Fromme and Sarah Jane Moore, liberated women spells REVOLUTION; REVOLUTION AGAINST GOD AND HIS SOCIAL ORDER!!!
EQUALITY:
“God is no respecter of persons.” That
Biblical testimony alone is sufficient to establish that there is at least some
doctrine of equality that is both just, proper, and scriptural. We have already
seen where the “egalite” of the French Revolution led, which is also exactly
where the “equality” of the E.R.A. is leading. But what of true equality,
the kind proclaimed in The Declaration of Independence? That to our forefathers
it did not mean an absolute, total, utter, and leveling equality is abundantly
clear, as most of them were slaveholders and the republic that they established
had a severely limited franchise. Scriptural equality as Dabney defines it is
“expressed in the great words of the British Constitution, ‘Peer and
peasant are equal before the law,’ which were the guide of a Pym, a Hampden, a
Sydney, a Locke, a Chatham, and equally of Hancock, Adams, Washington, Mason and
Henry. Their theory assigned to the different classes of human
beings…different grades of privilege…but it held that the inferior is
shielded in his right to his smaller franchise, by the same relation to the
heavenly Father, by the same Golden Rule and the equitable right which shields
the superior in the enjoyment of his larger powers. The functions and privileges
of the peer. . . are very different from those of the peasant,‑ but the
same law protects them both in their several rights, and commands them both as
to their several duties…Job understood this…as he shows (Chap.
31:13,14,15): ‘If I did despise the cause of my manservant or of my
maidservant, when they contended with me, what, then, shall I do when God riseth
up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in
the womb make him?’ So Paul, two thousand years later (Eph. 6:9; Col.
4:1). Masters give to your servants those things which are just and equal.
The two teach the same doctrine” (R. L. Dabney; Anti‑Biblical
Theories of Rights, Discussions vol. IV, p. 499). Both Paul and Job recognized
the validity of different stations in life. In Ephesians 5 and 6 Paul enumerates
them, man and wife, children and parents, masters and servants, none of which
are strictly equal to each other. But Job recognizes and Paul carefully defines
the particular rights and duties of each. And each one has a right, AN EQUAL
RIGHT, to the particular rights of his or her station in life. AT THAT POINT,
AND AT THAT POINT ONLY, ALL ARE TRULY EQUAL! AT THAT POINT NEITHER GOD NOR HIS
LAW IS ANY RESPECTER OF PERSONS!!! But the slave cannot be “equal” with the
master, the child cannot wield equal authority with the parent, and no law or
doctrine of men can make the woman “equal” with the man. The woman has her
station in life, her proper sphere in the creation, as do all other classes of
God’s creatures, God made them so, the wishes of sinful men not withstanding,
and so they shall be evermore.
INFERIORITY?
But if woman is not strictly “equal” to man in the egalitarian sense of the
word, does this necessitate her status as being inferior? The question is
logical and the assumed answer in the affirmative is one of the basis of the
“women’s rights movement,” although the inference is clearly wrong. Both
man and woman were created in the image of God and are essentially equal in
their nature, the difference being not one of nature, but rather a subordination
of office as God assigned them different stations in life. As Augustus Strong
put it, “First, Woman is the equal of man in nature. She has the same
humanity‑the same divine hand formed her…The equality between them is an
equality of value but not an equality of identity. Secondly, she is subordinate
to man in office. She is to be helper, not principal…Man, superior not at all
in his essential nature, has yet a superiority of office. His it is to subdue
the world and govern it,‑and woman’s office is the subordinate one of
being man’s helper…But thirdly, this subordination to man in office works no
degradation to her, but constitutes her truest glory. For, in her office of
helper she is no servant. She stands not beneath, but side by side. Aye, she is
one with him in life and work…The two are one…The personal liberty of the
man is restrained as much as that of the woman—neither can go where they like.
The man serves the woman, as really as the woman serves the man there is no
slavery, for when was it heard of that a master worked for the support of his
slave…
There is a passage in the New Testament which throws great light upon the true character of this relation .... It is found in the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians…‘Here I would have you know,’ he says, ‘that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.’ Observe how an analogy is drawn between the relation of man to woman, and the relation of God to Christ. Between God and Christ there is perfect equality in point of nature, but, in his office of incarnate Redeemer and Savior, Christ was subordinate to the Father. Did this subordination of the Son destroy their union or the community of interest between them? Hear the Savior say: ‘I and my Father are one.’ So it is the lot of the woman, that being equal to man in point of nature, she comes, after the example of the Son of God, to hold an office of subordination. Not be ministered unto, but to minister, she comes…and in this humbling of herself finding herself most truly exalted” (Woman’s Place And Work; Philosophy And Religion, pp. 400-401).
SUBJECTION:
The Scriptures both old and new clearly teach the subordination of women. In the
Israelitish nation, as established by God, all the governmental, civil, and
priestly functions were in the hands of the men. Priests, prophets, and
patriarchs were all men. The genealogies were counted on the male side of the
line. The men only were numbered in the census and the men only were taxed in
the poll tax. Clearly, in the civil, national and sacerdotal life of the Hebrew
Republic it was a man’s world. Similarly, in the New Testament the twelve
Apostles and the seven deacons chosen were all men. The qualifications for
elders and deacons as found in 1 Tim. 3:1,2,4,5,11,12, and Titus 1:6 definitely
establish that the office is limited to the men. The subjection of the female in
church and state is a matter of Biblical record. But this is not due to any
peculiarity of either the church or the state, but rather the application of the
general subjection of the woman to the man, which is true in the home as well.
Thus an inspired Paul can declare, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own
husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as
Christ is the head of the church…Therefore as the church is subject unto
Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Eph.
5:22-24), commanding subjection in the home, and, “Let your women keep
silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they
are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will
learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women
to speak in the church” (I Cor. 14:34-35), commanding subjection in the
church.
Similarly Peter exhorts, “ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands…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” (I Pet. 3:1, 5-6). This general principle of female subjection also finds clear and consistent application in the laws of Moses. The law concerning female vows in Numbers 30 is an excellent example. The woman, because she is under subjection and accountable to male authority, is denied the independent power of making and executing vows (i.e., contracts, agreements, promises, etc.). While in her youth and in her father’s house (v. 3) her vows are invalid unless ratified by her father, after her marriage the same is true of her husband and her vows are subject to his approval and are not valid or binding without it. A clearer case of subjection on the basis of sex and independent of marital status could scarcely be found.
CULTURE?
While the Biblical testimony is clear, much of the opposition has been evasive.
Some, forgetting the Apostle’s inspiration and courage (Gal. 2:11; Acts
20:26-27; Phil. 1:17), have accused Paul of conforming to the culture of his
day. Against Paul’s weakness in acquiescing to the unjust oppression of women
they brag their infidel courage in championing the full liberation of the
species. But what of Peter, who exhorted the Gentile women of the New Testament
Church to emulate Sara and other godly women of a culture long passed away? And
what of Moses, did he, too, sinfully compromise with the pagan and heathen
surrounding cultures in spite of all God’s warnings for a holy separation from
all their practices? And what of God the Holy Spirit, who inspired them both, is
he no longer the Spirit of Truth but rather of sinful compromise? God forbid!
But not only is this whole argument unscriptural but it lacks reason. It is simply not historically true that culture or lack thereof produced the distinctions in the roles of the sexes and that advance in civilization lifts the woman to equality with the man. Strong, in refutation, declares, “It has been the fancy of some that, as civilization lifted up the female sex, the differences of character and of occupation between woman and man might wholly disappear. Aside from the objection…it may be said also that all experience shows a growing difference between the sexes, instead of a growing likeness, as civilization advances. In [less civilized nations] you may see any day hundreds of women digging and wheeling earth for railroad embankments. And while the woman digs and plows the fields, the man…cooks at home. The one is as rough and masculine as the other…So it is in all rude and early stages of society. But, in an advanced civilization, the differences of sex become more marked. Woman’s voice becomes softer, her fare and hands more delicate, her dress more elaborate…Civilization and Christianity bring her up gradually…but they will only make her more truly woman, not more nearly man” (Woman’s Place And Work; Philosophy And Religion, pp. 405-406).
CREATION:
The true cause of female subjection lies not in culture, but in the creation,
and it is to the creation ordinances that Paul appeals in defense of his
doctrine, declaring, “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the
woman for the man” (I Cor. 11:9). And again, in I Tim. 2:12, he lays down
the general mandate of female subjection not contingent on culture, state,
church or home, declaring that the woman IS NOT TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE
MAN—the reason given is God’s creation order, “For Adam was first
formed, then Eve.” Even as God created man with authority and dominion to
rule the earth and subdue it, so God created woman out of man, and for man, to
be a help‑meet to man and because God had decreed that it was not good
that man should be alone. Thus the subjection of the woman, rather than being
the sinful invention of man, was the ordinance of God in a perfect and sinless
creation before the Fall. Thus, although the Fall intensified the subjection of
women because of Eve’s sin, God decreeing, “in sorrow thou shalt bring
forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee” (Gen. 3:16), and Paul adding in 1 Tim. 2:14, “And Adam was not
deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression,” yet its
origin is in the perfect creation of God.
UNISEX:
Not only is the equality of the sexes unscriptural, but it has to be classed as
a downright perversion. It is the denial and perversion of the distinctives of
God’s creation. In the Mosaic Law God defends the distinctives of his creation
commanding, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,
neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all that do so are
abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5). Clearly this commandment
exceeds, though it includes, the mere prohibition of men in skirts and women in
slacks and pants. God is decreeing that men should be men and women be women. He
who created them, formed them, and called them into existence has decreed the
attributes and functions, the place and position of each, and He will not have
perversion in his creation. He made them male and female, and only an apostate
and anti-Christ social order that is waging war on God’s law and his creation
can declare the equality of the sexes. UNISEX is revolution against God and his
social order and yet it is a logical and inevitable corollary of “women’s
rights.” In a society that holds that the distinction of the sexes as evil and
oppressive, the cultural dregs of inferior civilizations, it is logical to
expect male and female to become indistinguishable in the drive towards unisex.
Today we see long hair on the men and short hair on the women (1 Cor. 11:14-15);
we see women in slacks, dungarees, pantsuits, and masculine jackets, and so
forth, while the clothing of the men becomes ever more effeminate. We see a
tremendous increase of homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, and the demand for
their legal recognition and the legal sanctioning of their perverted marriages,
all resting on the foundational premise that there is indeed no difference
between the sexes. All of these abominations and more are the logical result of
waging war on God’s social order. They are the perverted fruit of that corrupt
tree known as “women’s liberation.”
THEOLOGY:
Not content with waging war on God’s creation, this depraved doctrine has
raised its tentacles at Deity itself. While it might tolerate a pagan pantheon
of male and female demigods, this doctrine of radical equality could never
tolerate a totally sovereign God, much less one who reveals himself in three
masculine persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Again
the Scriptures must be rewritten to accommodate the corrupted opinions of men.
We hear that at least the Holy Spirit must be a “She,” and even as “Black
Liberation” has declared that Jesus was black so “Women’s Liberation”
has decreed that God must be feminine. Neither are such blasphemies exclusive to
the Marxist theologians of the N.C.C. but are perpetuated by so-called
evangelical scholars. For instance, Paul K. Jewett of Fuller Theological
Seminary, declares that it is not inconsistent with Scripture to speak of God
the Mother, and speaking of Christ’s incarnation as a man rather than a woman,
that though it was “historically and culturally necessary, was not
theologically necessary” (Man As Male And Female; pp. 167-168). Thus the
incarnation is seen as God conforming to a sinfully male-oriented culture in
order that Jesus might be received as the world was not ready to listen to a
woman. The Bible, however, makes the original sin of Adam, the male head of the
race, and not the sin of Eve the issue and requires Jesus Christ to come as a
second Adam. Thus Christ’s male incarnation was a theological necessity and
its denial must deny the very atonement as provided by God.
CONCLUSION:
Women’s liberation is no liberation at all. It is only a call to drudgery, the
echo of the Communist Manifesto declaring the “equal liability of ALL to
labor.” It is a call to come out of the shelter and protection of the
Christian home and into the communes and factories of the socialist state. It is
a call to strip women of their God-given rights and protection and subject them
to free-love, easy divorce, polygamy, and group marriage, and so forth. It is a
call to perversion trumpeted by the honest and apt calls of the radicals for
“Lesbian Power.” It is a call of revolution against God, blasphemy against
his Christ, warfare against his creation, and the overthrow of his Scriptures,
the greatest bulwark and depository of the true rights of the female. It is a
call to corruption, sin, spiritual slavery, temporal bondage in this life and
eternal in the next. It is the call of false prophets warned of in 2 Peter 2:19,
“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of
corruption.” May there also be a godly call for women to be women, to live
a blessed and a godly life to the honor and glory of the Creator, who created
“them male and female.” AMEN!
