Like Button

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

More on Women in Charge

The most basic argument in this discussion is that "man is the head of woman" (1 Cor. 11:3). The first thing you will think is "all men rule over all women". Really? Seriously??! No, that's not right. They don't actually believe that. So they clarify (although there is no such clarification in the text itself) You have to assume that "man" and "woman" in that verse in 1 Cor. 11 refers to "husband and wife" generally, or you have to assume that "woman" is under "a man" of some sort. Women are either under their husbands, under their fathers, or under the church elders.

Let's see how that works out. A woman grows up (under her father) and then is married (under her husband). He runs a thriving restaurant business. Years later, her father dies and, shortly thereafter, her husband dies. After a period of mourning, she ... what? She has no father or husband to be under. The argument might well be that she is under the leadership of the church. Okay, fine. So ... who runs the business? Who runs her household? Can she not hire and fire? Can she not have help in her home? Does she need to turn the business and the accompanying accumulated wealth that her husband left her over to the church? Is that really the argument?

In Acts 16 we are introduced to Lydia, a "seller of purple". Apparently she was quite successful. There is no mention of someone else in charge, no reference to a husband, and no suggestion that she get right by putting her business under her husband, father, church, or any other male leadership. Then there is the famous example of Deborah. "She was a judge, not a magistrate!" Dismiss it if you will, but the biblical account isn't unclear. Deborah had a husband and children. The Bible says without apology, "Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging* Israel at that time" (Judges 4:4). No hint of negative. When she received "marching orders" from God, she summoned a man -- Barak. She told him that God had commanded him to gather an army and go against General Sisera (Judg. 4:6-7). Barak agreed ... on condition that she accompany him. She did, but it cost Barak the credit. "I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman" (Judg. 4:9). At the end of the story, Jael, the wife of Heber, killed Sisera and was the heroine of the story. Barak didn't get the glory because he didn't follow the instructions given by God to Deborah for Barak. If women are not allowed to be in civil leadership at all, that whole thing is just plain wrong ... starting with God.

Say what you will, the Bible includes more than one reference to women who operate, apparently correctly, in leadership roles. In fact, Jesus commends the Queen of Sheba for her wisdom in seeking out Solomon and says that she declares judgment on Israel for their lack of it (Matt. 12:42). It may be uncommon, but it is not unheard of. To argue that it is unbiblical when it was God who operated with Deborah as judge is really anti-biblical. To argue that Lydia was wrong when the Bible doesn't is really a stretch. To suggest that women ought never be in roles of civil authority is to suggest that Jesus was unwise in His reference to the Queen of Sheba.

Consider, then, Isaiah 3:12. "My people--infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths." "There," it is claimed, "'women rule over them', and it is not good." First, this doesn't make a command. It doesn't say, "Women should not rule." It says that whoever was leading them was misleading them. Second, it is problematic to argue that the passage is actually intended to be literal. Why would I say that? Well, we can certainly understand a literal reading of "women rule over them", but what, exactly does it mean by "infants are their oppressors"? A literal reading of this passage would demand that Israel, at the time of this writing, was ruled by women and children. There is no record anywhere of women and children ruling Israel, so what is going on? Could it possibly be that the males who were leading the country were childish and effeminate? Could it be that this was what was in mind here? I can only conclude that the language here was not intended as literal -- as often prophetic language is not -- and it would be very unwise to view this as doctrinal.

I can't seem to pull out a doctrine that requires that women must never be in a role of civil authority from the Scriptures. Others can. You decide.

__________

* Some will make an issue of "judge" here. "It doesn't mean 'magistrate'. It means 'judge' as in 'passing judgment, dispensing justice', that sort of thing." However the word is considered as a reference to "govern" as well as "judge" according to Strong's. Britannica says, "The Hebrew term shofet, which is translated into English as 'judge,' is closer in meaning to 'ruler'." Easton's Bible Dictionary says, "properly a magistrate or ruler, rather than one who judges in the sense of trying a cause." Adam Clark calls Deborah "the first instance of gynaecocrasy, or female government." Before Israel had kings, the government was a theocracy with "judges" serving as the go-between -- the magistrates. Samuel was the last of these judges ... and a prophet. Mitigate "judge" if you will, but it appears that the Hebrew word and the text call for "magistrate" as much as "dispenser of justice."

10 comments:

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Actually the basic text here, as Paul points out:
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

is Gen 2:18-25:

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


and

1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Since your brought up this blog I thot I would post this quote here:

Complementarians of the moderate squishy variety want to argue that a man is the head of his wife, and that women ought not to be ordained to the ministry, but only because we are told these things explicitly. Out in the world of business and politics, everything is up for grabs, and it is supposed that the Bible is silent on the question. Women can be CEOs and presidents, no prob, so the thinking goes. Some of them even extend this to the issue of women in combat (but see Dt. 22:5). The problem here is that it takes Paul as exercising his own apostolic authority "raw," as it were, instead of Paul authoritatively showing us one application of the universal authority of the creation order in Genesis. But the apostle does this by giving us a particular application for the Church, expecting us, mutatis mutandis, to make applications to the rest of our lives.


But I am really freaked that you make the statement:

A literal reading of this passage would demand that Israel, at the time of this writing, was ruled by women and children. There is no record anywhere of women and children ruling Israel, so what is going on? Could it possibly be that the males who were leading the country were childish and effeminate?


Doesn't it strike you that if men ruling 'as if they were women and children' was bad, it would be even worse (morally speaking) to have *actual* children and women ruling! If it is an appalling insult to say 'you rule like a woman'... wouldn't that kind of sort of imply that it would be a *bad* thing to have a woman rule?

Mystified in Moravia,
Von

Stan said...

"Doesn't it strike you that if men ruling 'as if they were women and children' was bad, it would be even worse (morally speaking) to have *actual* children and women ruling!"

Why is it that no one is discussing the evil of children ruling? (Rhetorical question)

Men ruling as something other than what they were designed to be is a problem. Frankly, men not ruling as men is a bigger problem in my mind than women ruling as women.

But ... if you are going to place your flag on "No women shall ever rule", then it is mandatory that you never voluntarily work for a company with women in leadership roles. It is mandatory that you work your hardest to eliminate any women in civil leadership (such as Congress). You would likely advise me (well, maybe not, but I'm not sure why) to move out of Arizona since it has a female governor who is likely to remain in office until she decides not to.

Again, it isn't that I think we ought to have lots of women in leadership. It's that the ABSOLUTE position of "no women ever" doesn't align with Scripture.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Again I repeat that you are missing the principle, which is not 'no women should ever rule' but 'never choose a woman as your leader'.

My wife my have a miscarriage... ie she may fail to successfully carry a pregnancy to term. But I am sure that you see the vast difference between that and induced abortion... our deliberately murdering our child.

Similarly here, God may, in His wisdom, give us femal rulers, female CEO's, etc.... but that is a far cry from a Christian deliberately setting out to choose such rulers, CEO's etc.

God tells us, when we have a choice, to be free men... but he also tells us if we are slaves, to obey willingly, cheerfully, etc.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Men ruling as something other than what they were designed to be is a problem. Frankly, men not ruling as men is a bigger problem in my mind than women ruling as women.


I could go either way with this. A man ruling 'like a woman' is a vile thing. Whether it is more vile than men choosing a woman to rule over them... or whether they are actually the same thing... I dunno.

Bottom line: Both are bad.

Stan said...

I am, of course, baffled by the notion that Deborah, a prophetess (one who speaks for God), was not appointed by God. That one really throws me. It appears that God chose her for that role at that time. You would say (have said) no.

I see the "order of creation" argument. I cannot avoid the biblical injunction that wives must submit to their husbands. I cannot find (as if I'm looking for) a way around the clear command that women are not to be leaders over men in the Church. What I cannot get to is your fundamental certainty that choosing a woman in a role of business or civil leadership is "vile". It would seem patently obvious to me, for instance, choosing to work for a company under women would be the same thing as choosing to have a woman in charge. You might be able to get around that if she got the position after you chose to work there, but if not ...

The basis on which you say that it is "vile" to choose to have a women in a role of civil or business leadership is, as far as I can see, based on 1) the Exodus 18 principle where Jethro tells Moses to spread out the judge role because he'll tire himself out and you see a "men only" mandate, followed by 2) the apparent belief from Isaiah's reference that all women in charge are judgment from God. You see this as "proper exegesis" without the slightest possibility that you might be wrong. I see it as eisegesis, a presupposition and wait for something more than that as evidence.

Well, I suppose, then, that that's that, eh?

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Stan wrote:

I am, of course, baffled by the notion that Deborah, a prophetess (one who speaks for God), was not appointed by God. That one really throws me. It appears that God chose her for that role at that time. You would say (have said) no.

My quote was:

As has been pointed out (several times) Deborah was not a leader, and not appointed by God. But even if she had been a leader appointed by God, she would still not violate the principle that we should not choose women for leaders. What God does to punish us is none of our business.


He rather misses the point. A 'prophet' (or 'prophetess') is someone who claims to speak for God or a God. A true prophet (in which class I include Deborah (prophetess obviously)) speaks truly. False prophets speak falsely, or speak for false gods.


However the question on the floor is not whether Deborah was a prophetess (ie gifted for God for that role) but whether she was a 'leader' or a civil magistrate. The text, in relevant portion says:

1And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, when Ehud was dead. 2And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles. 3And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel. 4And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. 5And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. 6And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

The text says who she was (a prophetess) what she did normally (she judged Israel at this time) and what she did specifically (she called Barak).

Of which of these two people is it written that 'God' did anything? Answer: Barak. Deborah herself said 'Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?'

In Judges 2 we read:

16Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them


and

18And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.




Does that fit Deborah? Or Barak?

Is it written of Deborah:

9And when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother.

10And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushanrishathaim.




Or is it written:

15But when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised them up a deliverer, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man lefthanded: and by him the children of Israel sent a present unto Eglon the king of Moab.

or

31And after him was Shamgar the son of Anath, which slew of the Philistines six hundred men with an ox goad: and he also delivered Israel.

Who do we say led Israel in this passage:

8That the LORD sent a prophet unto the children of Israel, which said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you forth out of the house of bondage;

9And I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all that oppressed you, and drave them out from before you, and gave you their land;

10And I said unto you, I am the LORD your God; fear not the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but ye have not obeyed my voice.

11And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites.

12And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.


Gideon, or 'the prophet'?



In conclusion, Deborah was a prophetess, called by God to the role of prophetess. She was led of God to tell (or remind) Barak that he was called to deliver Israel. According to Judges 2, that was the role of a judge of Israel. Barak did it, Deborah didn't. Thus it was Barak, and not Deborah, who was called by God to be a judge (ie leader) of Israel.

Hebrews 11:32
And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Stan wrote:

It would seem patently obvious to me, for instance, choosing to work for a company under women would be the same thing as choosing to have a woman in charge.

Those two things are fairly similar. However neither are what we are discussing. Indeed your last verb tense/grammar (choosing to have a woman) are indictative of the point. Compare:

1) Choosing to work where a woman is in charge.
2) Choosing to have a woman in charge
3) Choosing a woman to be in charge.

The middle sentence (2) is ambigously in the middle of these two.. it could mean either. But that doesn't mean that sense one is the same as sense three.

The 'choice' in sentence one has as its object 'to work'.. you choose to work. The 'choice' in sentence three is 'a woman'... you choose the woman.

One could say 'I choose to be married to my wife' and 'I chose my wife to be married to'... and these sentences are vastly different. The first is said in the middle of some crisis, an adulterous wife for example, and is a statement of the will... of determining to stay with ones wife through thick and thin. The second is an account of ones dating/engagement process.

Vastly different.

Stan said...

In your response you point out that Gideon was the leader. The Bible titles him "judge". He filled the role of "judge". That is the very same role that Deborah filled in the Bible. Now, Gideon was a farmer and Deborah was a prophetess -- they had other jobs -- but the Bible refers to both of them as "judges" -- civil magistrates at the time. You may prefer to think that "Deborah was a prophetess, called by God to the role of prophetess", but it is the Bible that says she was also the judge at the time and, in that role, God told her to give instructions to Barak (which suggests that God didn't think she had overstepped her bounds by being the civil magistrate). (What would make you think she "reminded" him of God's instructions completely eludes me in the passage.)

Look, Von, you're convinced of your view. Women must never, ever, never-ever be leaders anywhere in the world of men. Sure, they can lead women and children, but never ever men, be it home, church, or the secular realm. Having been convinced, it is incumbent on you to maintain that position, even if one or two little pieces of Scripture seem to contradict that. I know how it is. I do it myself. I believe, for instance, that the Bible teaches the Perseverance of the Saints. I interpret passages that might appear to contradict that through the lens of that perspective. I know how it is. I don't even think it's wrong in and of itself. But in this case, I think you are reading into rather than out of Scripture. That's how I see your absolute position here. You don't. Fine. We'll just have to let it be.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

You state:

is the Bible that says she was also the judge at the time and, in that role, God told her to give instructions to Barak

This is false. Twice. It is written:

4And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. 5And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. 6And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?


The Scripture does not say 'she was the judge'. It says "the children of Israel came up to her for judgment." The children of Israel used her as judge, the Scripture is silent on the point of whether God called her to that role.

Did you miss the fact that, according to Judges 2, Deborah DID NOT fulfill the requirements to be a judge of Israel?

Secondly, we are not told that 'as judge' she called Barak. It is written:
6And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam

She did her 'judging' sitting under the tree with people coming up to her. She, as a prophetess, informed (or reminded) Barak of his responsibility *to fulfill the requiremnets of judge* and deliver Israel*.

To conclude:
Deborah did not fulfill the requirements as judge, and we are not told God called her to that role.
Barak did fulfill the requirements as judge, and we are told that God called him to that role.
Barak, and not Deborah, is listed in Hebrews.

And *even if* Deborah was called by God as a prophetess, judge, and civil leader it makes *absoloutely no difference* to the issue of whehter we, as citizens, are called to elect women as our civil leaders.
We know and are told that God has called women (or men acting as women) to leadership as a punishment to a civilization. This does not mean that we should do so.