The early American Republic was based, not on Greek philosophy or Roman political systems as is commonly taught in modern public schools, but on a consistent application of Reformed theology applied to the civil realm. Both the Puritans in New England, and the Presbyterians in the South self-consciously attempted to develop social systems that were compatible with Biblical revelation. Hence, America in colonial times, as well as during the Constitutional convention, was never intended to be a DEMOCRACY, but rather a REPUBLIC.

There is a profound difference between the two systems of thought. In a democracy, the fundamental presupposition is, “vox populi, vox dei” or “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” There is no ultimate standard other than the will of the people. Whoever controls that will, therefore controls the government. Democracy ignores the implications of the doctrine of total depravity, and therefore allows wicked, short-sighted, self-oriented men to abuse the political process for their own ends, unrestrained by any other factor than their own will. From the time of the Puritan Commonwealth to the Constitutional Convention, all of the founding fathers were adamant foes of democracy believing it would lead to anarchy and self-centered, foolish and suicidal social policies.

The Reformers on the other hand believed in federal representation; i.e., the people called rulers to govern them; but those rulers themselves were bound by the higher law of God’s own revealed will. Even though by the time of the Constitutional convention, Deism and Unitarianism had made significant inroads into many churches, there was still a Christian consensus on basic moral behavior. Federalism was understood and accepted, even if in some cases it had been secularized. Since the people would elect rulers to govern them, therefore, attempts were made to ensure that the franchise (i.e., the right to vote) was restricted to those who would most wisely use it for the benefit of all.

Hence, in the early Republic, not every citizen could vote; state and local laws limited the vote to certain classes of persons. For example, men above a certain age who were landowners, craftsmen, shop-owners, etc., were given the franchise because they were the ones who paid taxes (remember, the income tax is historically fairly recent) and therefore were entitled to choose the men who would determine how those taxes would be spent. Others, though good, and law-abiding citizens, did not have the right to vote just because they had a warm body and a nose to count.

During the 19th century, the new, growing religion of humanism gradually replaced reformed thinking. As covenantal presuppositions were replaced by humanistic individualism, the franchise was eventually extended to all classes of people, leading eventually to women being given the vote in the 1920’s. Some churches led the way in allowing women to vote in church elections; others simply followed the humanist pattern in culture and acquiesced to modern practices.

However, everyone recognizes that not ALL people should be allowed to vote. More than a quarter of the American population is not entitled to vote in the civil realm due to age, previous legal history, nationality, etc. (e.g., those under 18, or those convicted of a felony, etc.). In the same way, in the ecclesiastical realm, even Presbyterian churches set an arbitrary age at which communicant members can vote. Therefore, EVERY institution sets standards for who can vote; the real question is “are those standards Biblical?”

Now why spend so much time on discussing voting in the civil realm when our primary concern is voting in Presbyterian churches? Our culture has undergone an incredible transformation over the past 200 years. In the past, the church formed the culture. Today, the culture too often forms the church. Unless we understand this distinction, we can never objectively evaluate our basic presuppositions, or the values that arise from them. Whether we realize it or not, the modern church has adopted many unbiblical, and ungodly values that undermine the work of the Kingdom.

For example, to even suggest today that women should not vote in the church is to raise a firestorm of indignation and outrage. The very question cannot be asked, because the converse is ASSUMED to be true, without doubt or debate. But is there any issue that must not be subjected to the investigation by Scripture? Were not the Bereans “more noble” than others because they tested EVERYTHING by the Word of God (Acts 17:11)? And therefore, the question of “who should vote in the church” surely deserves to be asked, and answered by looking at what God Himself says about the issue.

In a previous essay in this series, we examined the concept of a two-tired membership for voting in Presbyterian churches. We saw, that there is divine precedent in Old Testament case law for restricting the right to vote to those who sincerely adopt the doctrinal standards of the church (and that there are perhaps New Testament examples in 1 Tim 3:1ff and Titus 1:5ff). In this essay, we want to look more closely at a distinct, but related concept- voting by households rather than by individuals; specifically whether the Bible authorizes women to vote in the church. To do so, we will examine four main lines of evidence: the Doctrine of Federal Representation, the Doctrine of Authority, the Practice of the Church in both the Old and New Testaments, and finally, some Pragmatic Arguments. As these arguments are developed, it will be seen that voting in Scripture, was very different than what our churches practice today, and we are the worse for it.

The Doctrine of Federal Representation

As noted previously, God is pleased to deal with men through federal representation; i.e., that one man represents others entrusted to his care. Adam, as the federal head of the human race, represented all human beings before God. Hence, when he sinned, we all sinned in him. We are held responsible not only for the sins we actually commit on a day by day basis, but also for Adam’s sin, committed at the beginning of the world, before any of us were born. God appointed Jesus as the second Adam as our new covenant head. Therefore, when Jesus perfectly obeyed God’s Law, He earned righteousness for us. When Jesus died on the cross, as our head, He paid the price for all our sins. Thus, one could live for the many, and die for the many (Rms 5:12ff).

This doctrine of representation is a part of the creation order because it reflects the nature of God. Hence, Man, who bears the image of God, reflects this principle in every area of life but most clearly, in the most intimate of human relationships, marriage. Men are the covenant “heads” of their wives, who owe their husbands respect and obedience (cf. Eph 5:21ff). This is not just a position of authority, nor may a man use his headship for selfish purposes. Christ Himself gives us the Biblical model of headship; self-sacrificial love for those entrusted under one’s care (cf. Eph 5:25, Mark 10:45).

Male headship does not make wives second-class persons; there is equality of honor (1 Ptr 3:7) while there are also distinct differences between the roles that husband and wife have. Women must respect their husbands (Eph 5:33) and submit to them (Eph 5:22). Men must love their wives as their own bodies (Eph 5:33), giving themselves up for them (Eph 5:25) and bear genuine responsibility before God for their spiritual welfare (Eph 5:26ff).

Granted, in Christian marriage, both man and woman are joint heirs of the gospel (1 Ptr 3:7, Gal 3:28, etc.); ontologically, (i.e., in the essence of their being) they are equal. But functionally (i.e., in their specific roles), they remain different and distinct. Just as the Father and the Son share equally all the divine attributes, power and glory (the ontological trinity), yet have distinct roles (the economic trinity), so in Christian marriage there is equality of being, but distinction of function. Jesus is not a “second-class” God because He submits to the Father in everything.

Furthermore, the doctrine of representation is inevitable. No human society can function without SOMEONE leading, and others following. If there is no leader, then one has anarchy, which leads to disaster for everyone. If leadership is determined purely by power, then one has tyranny, which leads to oppression. The only issue is who leads, who follows and who gets to decide? In other words, to whom has God given the authority to lead and how are they to be placed in that position?

The Doctrine of Authority

Authority and power must be distinguished. Authority is the RIGHT to lead, power is the ability to lead. All authority comes from God who created and sustains all aspects of reality by an act of His will. Since God created all things, sustains all things, and will redeem all things, He has the right govern Creation as He wills. God wills to delegate His authority to various human institutions; family, church and State (e.g., Rms 13:1ff). In each sphere, He entrusts men with different duties and responsibilities, and gives them the authority (or right) to expect those under their care to respect and obey them in those areas. To rebel against lawful authority in family, church or state, is to rebel against God Himself (Rms 13:2). Granted, because all authority comes from God, no human institution is ultimate; there are limits to what human authorities can lawfully require others to do (e.g. no human authority can lawfully order others to sin- Acts 5:29).

Power on the other hand, is the ability to compel others to follow your leadership by some means, whether by force, influence, ability to persuade, moral standing etc. Men may have the authority to lead, but not the power; for example, think of a Captain on a ship facing a mutinous crew; he has the right to demand their obedience, but has lost his power over them. Men may have the power, but not the authority; think of an armed street gang-they have the power to make people obey them out of fear and intimidation, but they have no right to do so. Mao was correct; power flows from the barrel of a gun. But simply because one has power, does not mean one has the moral legitimacy (or authority) to use it. Godly government in family, church or state is a combination of lawful authority, exercising lawful power, under God for the benefit of those entrusted into that government’s care (Mark 10:45). But to whom has God delegated this authority?

God clearly grants authority to the civil magistrate, as His avenger of evil to punish certain classes of criminals (cf. Rms 13:4). Christians are FORBIDDEN to seek personal vengeance (Rms 12:19), but the civil magistrate is REQUIRED to bring God’s vengeance against evildoers. Elders are granted genuine authority in the church, and the members must respect and obey them (1 Thess 5:12, Hebs 13:17). God gives parents genuine authority over their children (Eph 6:1) and parents have lawful sanctions they can bring against disobedient children (Hebs 12:9). Finally, God gives a husband authority in the family over both his wife and children and requires both to submit to his leadership (Eph 5:22ff, 6.1ff, etc.).

In fact, God clearly delegates authority to men to be leaders in the home, church and state. Wives must obey their husbands (Eph 5:22), remain silent in the church (1 Cor 14:34) and not teach or exercise authority over men (1 Tim 2:11ff). At the same time, we have positive commandments in 1 Timothy 3:1ff and Titus 1:5ff that elders are to be MEN.

This distinction in roles is not just a cultural oddity from a pre-enlightened age, because God bases His commands on the creation ordinances. God made all things for His own glory, and intended creation to be governed in a particular way. Paul says that women must not teach or exercise authority because God created men first, and then women (1 Tim 2:13). Women must respect and submit to their husbands because women were created for men, and not men for women (1 Cor 11:8-9). Though these Scriptures are often ignored, re-interpreted or called into question by modern humanists, God authorizes men to lead, and women are called to obey.

Sadly, since the time of Adam, men have frequently abandoned their authority and have given unlawful power to others, including women. Adam did not protect his wife from temptation, nor correct her when she sinned. Yet, please note that even though Eve was the first human being to sin, Adam was the one held responsible for bringing sin into the world! In the same way, men throughout history have given unlawful power to women, and both sexes suffer as a result.

As a legitimate extension of our discussion, most will recognize that voting is exercising authority whether in the civil or ecclesiastical realm. Those who can vote, determine who will lead them, what kind of policies are set, what kinds of laws are established, and the sanctions that can be brought against those who break the law. It is an old saying, but a true one; men get the kind of leadership they deserve. Since all authority is representative by nature, men will either vote certain people into power, or by doing nothing, allow others to do vote THEIR leaders into power who will rule accordingly. Voting is in every sense, a delegation of authority and power to someone else.

Thus, implicitly, women who vote are exercising authority over men, something specifically God forbids them to do. If one wants to argue that women can vote in church business (we will discuss a woman’s role in the civil realm another time), then one MUST find some Biblical warrant for doing so, especially in light of the clear, definite and authoritative statements above.

The only argument usually offered in defense of women having the authority to vote is from Galatians 3:28 where Paul says, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither make nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” People attempt use this verse to demonstrate that since we are all “one in Christ” therefore there ought to be no distinctions in roles. Therefore, whatever a man can do, a woman should be able to do.

But as we have seen earlier, this is a confusion of the Biblical distinction between ontological and functional equivalence. Think with me for a moment; a slave and a free man might be equal before God, but slaves STILL had to obey their masters (Eph 6:5). A Jew and Greek might ontologically be equal before God, but Jewish Christians were still circumcised and refused to eat meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:1ff, Rms 14:1ff). Men and women may share equality of honor in that both receive the blessings of the gospel, but this does not negate what Paul says in Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 11 & 14, 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1 about their different roles in marriage and in the church. God does not contradict Himself. Wicked men throughout history have attempted to pit Scripture against Scripture, and always to the perversion of the gospel, the loss of orthodoxy and the ruination of the church and culture.

Old and New Testament Precedents

If our analysis above holds up, then we ought to expect to see both federal representation and the application of male authority worked out in Scripture when we actually examine various spheres of government. A brief survey will clearly show that both covenant headship (i.e., representation), and male authority to be the accepted, unquestioned standard.

First, please not the pattern of Scripture; in Genesis 46:27ff, the number of individuals going into Egypt is counted as seventy. Yet, a more careful examination of the text reveals these seventy represented Jacob, his 12 sons, and 57 grandsons. The wives, children or servants who went into Egypt are not numbered, only the seventy male, heads of households. This number would eventually become the ruling council for Israel. They represented the 12 tribes, and the various clans within the tribes. As heads of the various clans and tribes, they represented all those under their care (cf. Exodus 24.1ff, Nums 11:11-16, etc.).

Very clearly then, ancient Israel was organized along family lines, and authority came, not by way of individuals, but by families. The heads of households represented their families’ concerns to the broader community (Nums 1:16)

Arguments from silence are always “suspect” because there may be other, ignored factors that could explain a situation differently. However, there certainly seems to be evidence in Scripture, that federal representation was assumed in Israel. In Deuteronomy 29:2ff, Moses called all the people together to speak to them. From other places in Scripture, we know that there were at least 600,000 men and two million Israelites in all. It can be (and has been) argued that Moses could not possibly (humanly speaking) physically address such a large crowd in an age before microphones and amplifiers. Unless there is some miracle here that was not recorded, (the argument from silence, again) it seems reasonable to assume that the only way Moses COULD address the entire assembly was THROUGH their chosen representatives. But by speaking to the representatives, Moses was in effect, speaking to the entire congregation.

Another example can be found in Numbers 16:2 when 250 men, led by Korah, attempt to face down Moses. Their argument was that since ALL the sons of Israel were holy, but only the sons of Aaron could offer sacrifices, that Moses was exalting himself (through his family) at the expense of the rest of the people. In effect, Moses was said to be denying the people their right to act as their own priests. Several things to note; first, the text specifically says that these men were leaders CHOSEN in the assembly. Hence, again, they represented not just themselves, but whole groups of people. It is unlikely that Moses would have been greatly concerned if 250 men out of 600,000 were challenging his authority. But if those 250 men were representatives of their family groups, then Moses was facing a real threat to his leadership.

Secondly, their argument was essentially the modern democratic one; all of Israel was holy, and therefore they insisted that all should have the right to offer sacrifices to God. Hence, these men were confusing ontological equivalence and functional difference we discussed previously. God had chosen the Levites to be priests as representatives of the rest of the people; therefore, not everyone had the RIGHT to offer sacrifices, even though they were all “holy” to the Lord. Moses then put their argument to the test, God consumed Korah (and the others) with fire showing that His principle of representation was normative and authoritative and one took offense at His method of government at risk of judgment and destruction.

A third example can be found in Exodus 18:24-25 wherein Moses chose able men and appointed them over the people as judges. But one cannot appreciate what Moses did here, without cross-referencing it with his own analysis of the situation in Deuteronomy 1:13-15. There, Moses specifically says that he told the PEOPLE to choose judges. The people chose, then Moses APPOINTED. While in other essays, I argue that this precedent very closely parallels Presbyterian polity where the people elect their elders, and a higher court ordains them, here it is enough to note again the principle of representative government. The judges were representatives of the people and exercised real authority on their behalf. Furthermore, notice that the text specifically says that these judges were to be MEN (cf. Deut 1:13).

Finally, the New Testament church follows these Old Testament examples. In Acts chapter six, the Apostles command the people to choose out seven MEN who form what is normally understood to be the first deacon board. The Apostles then ordain them for their work. I have argued that the same principle was understood and applied in electing elders; the people chose, the Presbytery examined and confirmed that choice. Both elders and deacons were chosen by the people to serve them and then confirmed or “ordained” by a higher ecclesiastical body.

But this then brings us back full circle. If in fact federal representative government is the norm in Biblical polity (both in church and state), and men were chosen and given authority to govern the people, then where do we ever find women electing their leaders? The answer of course is “nowhere.” One NEVER finds women voting in either the Old or New Testaments for elders, deacons, judges or civil magistrates. Instead we find that the even when the text mentions the entire “congregation,” it does not necessarily mean “every single individual” but men elected as the congregation’s representatives. And as we saw during our previous discussion, basic Biblical principles of authority were such that the very idea of women voting in these areas would have been unthinkable. Men have authority over their own households. Groups of men meet together and elect leaders to govern them. If women cannot even SPEAK in church (but cannot even ask questions but must wait until the can ask their husbands privately at home-1 Cor 14:35), how can one assume they ever exercised authority through voting, without some clear, Biblical precedent?

Pragmatic Arguments

Pragmatic arguments must always take position behind principle arguments. Though the Confession says that certain aspects of church affairs may be ordered according to human reason, we can never use this principle to deny something that God has specifically required in Scripture. Scripture places men as the head over their households requiring wives and children to submit to them. God specifically forbids women from teaching or having authority over men. Therefore, women cannot exercise authority over men by voting.

But many women will fear that if they do not have the “right” to vote in church elections, then somehow it will make them second-class Christians. They FEEL as if they are being denied something that is rightfully theirs; or are being told they are not smart enough, or wise enough to make good decisions. While the principle argument address both these concerns (women may be in a subordinate position, but they do share equality of honor), in practical terms, the whole voting issue is immaterial.

First, there is no practical difference between women voting in church elections if they vote the same way as their husbands, than if only their husbands voted as their covenant representative. The number of votes has simply been halved. If there are fifty couples in a church, and husband and wife vote the same way, there are either 100 potential votes, (if they vote as individuals) or 50 votes (if they vote as a household). Hence, in terms of getting business done in the church, the proportion does not change and therefore, practically, it makes no real difference.

Where voting practices DO have an effect is when husband and wife vote against each other. But think with me for a moment; if a woman votes against her husband, she is making a public statement that she believes her husband is in error. In effect, she is publicly correcting him. She is bearing witness against him to those outside of the home. Now granted, many Christian men have erred, and will err. In fact, the situation is so common, that Peter actually gives specific instructions in 1 Peter 3:1ff on how godly women are to handle it when their husbands err; they are to remain silent, not rebuke them, but allow God to work on them! If women are specifically forbidden from correcting their own husbands in PRIVATE, how much MORE are they forbidden to correct him in PUBLIC! Jesus Himself said it this way, “A house divided against itself shall not stand…” (Matt 12:25).

Let me suggest that if a woman feels conscience bound to take a public stand against her husband and correct him, she has much bigger problems to be concerned about than whatever issues are being voted on in a church business meeting. Clearly, she does not respect her husband. Clearly, she is willing to embarrass him, rebuke him, and take an active stand against him, IN PUBLIC! I cannot see ANY godly woman doing such a thing to her husband, and by clear implication, 1 Peter 3:1ff forbids such an action. Why then would a godly woman fight for the right to humiliate her husband in public? But if she would never do such a thing, why does she “need” to vote at all, other than to give herself an illusion of power?

Secondly, male, head of household voting does NOT mean that women have no say in church affairs. Many women, appalled by the lack of godliness in modern men, rightly fear that if they lose their right to vote (a “right” unknown until the early decades of the 20th century and granted not by God, but by humanistic presuppositions) that foolish men will make bad decisions. Sadly, there is reason for women to be concerned here. Men for the past 100 years or more have shown themselves to be fearful, easily intimidated, quickly mislead and abusing the power and authority given them. Hence the real problem is not so much aggressive, rebellious women striving for unlawful power, but gutless, wimpy men who have abandoned their dominion duties in the home, church or state.

However, you do not cure ONE problem, by adding ANOTHER problem to it! If the problem is ungodly men abandoning or misusing their authority, then granting women unlawful authority is not the solution. The present sad state of so much of broad evangelicalism bears vivid testimony that our end run around godless men has not worked. Ask yourself this; is the modern church that allows women to vote, holier, more committed to the Kingdom, producing godlier Christians and having a more powerful impact on the world than the church under covenant male headship?

Furthermore, male, head of household voting does not mean male tyranny in the church, even as male, head of household authority does not mean male tyranny in the home. The issue is NOT male dominance; but the doctrine of covenant representation. Again, if a woman fears her husband will not properly represent the family in church affairs, will not make wise judgments and use the family’s vote for the glory of God and the advancement of the Kingdom, church business is the least of her problems. The real concern is that she married a foolish, ignorant, selfish or irresponsible poltroon.

No godly man makes decisions affecting the spiritual health and well being of his entire family without first discussing the situation with his wife, in intimate and exhaustive detail. Every godly man recognizes that his wife is his greatest asset, and that her intelligence, life-experience, education and perspective are essential to making the best possible decisions. Thus, the wife has a say, an important say, even in some regards the crucial say in church affairs as she and her husband discuss these things together. Remember, the Bible says that Christian marriage is “two becoming one flesh” (Gen 2:24). If a woman fears her husband will not properly represent her views, priorities, values and concerns to the broader church, then in reality, she has a fundamental problem in her marriage. And therefore, rather than worry about how her husband may or may not vote, she OUGHT to be concerned with getting her marriage fixed as soon as possible.

Thirdly, the concern is raised that not only will women lose their “rights” but also adult singles. There are two quick responses here. The first is that young men who have not yet set up a household are still under the authority of their parents. Only when a man takes a wife and forms a new household is authority transferred (cf. Gen 2:24). Thus, a single man, living at home is represented by his father. And the older a son, the more that a godly father will consult him before making decisions that will affect him.

The second response is that an argument can be made that a young man who has not married, but been allowed to establish his own home away from his parents (i.e., he moved away for work, has joined the military, etc.) has in fact set up a new household. Clearly, Paul, Timothy, Titus and others were neither married, nor considered still to be under their father’s authority. They were grown men, who had legitimately left home (presumably with the permission of their parents) and were engaged in lawful callings. Yet they were granted lawful authority over the church.

The fourth pragmatic argument is that every godly woman ALREADY has voted in church affairs when she ELECTED a particular man as her covenant head. She had the right to chose the man she would marry (with her father’s permission). When she took her vows before God and Man at her wedding, she promised to “love, honor and obey” him as Scripture requires. She ought to have known the kind of man she was marrying, and if she was not willing to trust his decision-making process, and be willing to submit to his leadership, then she should never have agreed to marry him. Hence, she has had her vote, and made her decision whether she realized it or not. The fact that some women chose badly, and married less than godly men (or in some cases, unregenerate ones) ought not be an argument for overturning the clear Scriptural teaching on Biblical authority. A woman’s poor choice in one area, does not entitle her to compound the problem by unlawfully taking dominion in another.

Finally, let me ask every woman who is concerned about this issue a basic question, “Where in Scripture, does God EVER give you the right to exercise authority over men?” Granted, some church convocation may have granted this right. Perhaps your church constitution was revised fifty years ago to give you this right. But if you insist that you have a God-given RIGHT to vote on church business, where does GOD Himself give it to you? But if you cannot point to some place where God Himself reversed His own principles of authority, and the precedent and practice of representation, then will you submit to His will? You see, this is the real, underlying issue: submission to God. Like our Father Adam, we want the blessings of God, without having to obey Him.

Hence, is your desire REALLY for the glory of God and to be in conformity to His will (Rms 8:29)? Or do you want to rebel against God by rebelling against the lawful authority He exercises over you, through your husband (Rms 13:2)? Do you WANT to do business in the church, God’s way, or must it be done YOUR way? And if you struggle with this, if you resent God’s mechanism for governing His church (or your family), then my sister, the real issue is something far more sinister and serious than voting in the church.

Conclusion

The Church of Jesus Christ must be constantly aware of the dangers of the culture transforming the church, rather than the church transferring the culture (Rms 12:1-2). Godless ideas can subtly insinuate themselves into our thinking if we are not careful to test everything by the authority of the Word. Just because “we’ve always done it that way” (even if the “always” is really only the past 75 years or so) does not mean that, what we were doing is either honoring to God, or glorifying to His name.

In the case of voting, historically, from the ancient Israelites, through the early Church, recaptured during the Reformation, right up until the last century, Christians voted according to male, heads of household. This voting practice was the standard even in the civil realm until a rising humanist mindset changed our presuppositions. We lost our view of covenant representation; we abandoned the concept of male headship, and subtly altered the balance of power. Feminism in the 19th century drove out the last vestiges of Calvinism in most of the historic American churches and replaced it with an emotive and emasculated religion. By the twentieth century, the idea of women voting was inevitable, since they had been defacto leaders of the church for a century anyways.

However, if we want God’s blessing, then we need to re-order our thinking. God’s blessing is not necessarily having large facilities, or well-attended services. God’s blessing is not having a multifaceted Christian education ministry, or a wonderful choir. God’s blessing is seen in lives being changed, in sins being repented of, in Christians growing in grace, and godliness, humility, love and obedience (Jn 14:21, Jn 15:1ff, etc.). God’s blessing is seen in God’s people hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and in being willing to reform every area of life to His glory.

For the protection of godly women, for the purity of the church, for the formation of godly men, we must return to male, head of household voting. Let the men become MEN; men of courage, integrity, honor accepting and assuming the authority God entrusted to them in His creation ordinances. Let such men win power through their self-less acts of love for those under their spiritual care. Let them take dominion over their own families by serving their wives and children, demonstrating the love of Christ. And then, they will be honored, respected, and obeyed. And their wives will gain confidence in trusting them with their votes.