There are those who tout themselves as "biblically minded" (suggesting that if you disagree, you're not) and argue that the Bible does not allow women to be civil magistrates. (Note to anyone that visits that site and wants to comment: Expect that if you are respectful and explain from Scripture a differing opinion, you will not be allowed to comment. Opposing remarks are not allowed.) The argument comes from theonomists, Christians who argue that the civil governments of the world ought to be theocracies. Now, before you jump on it, I don't mean that they believe that the Church should run the State. They believe these should be distinct. They just believe that the government ought to be run by biblical rules.
These folks appeal to several passages to prove the point. They refer to the biblical requirement that churches have male leadership. They refer to the 1 Timothy 2 passage where Paul does not allow a woman to teach men. They point to Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth: "I would have you to know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). In Exodus 18:21, Moses's father-in-law, Jethro, told Moses that he needed to share the load of leading Israel. He told Moses, "Look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens." You see? "Able men." And, oh, how they enjoy pointing to 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." And if you bring up the biblical judge, Deborah, they brush it off as irrelevant.
I addressed this topic back in January when I first heard it about Hillary, and now it is aimed at Sarah Palin. I referenced only the 1 Timothy 2 passage. Others have addressed the other passages like Exodus 18:21 and Isaiah 3:12. There are responses to these positions. I'm not planning to address these issues here.
What I can't figure out is who it is that actually argues that the civil governments of the world ought to meet biblical standards. Consider 1 Tim. 3:1-7. These are the requirements for elders in the church. (More are found in Titus 1.) If we are going to require civil governments to meet biblical standards, then it is mandatory that every person for which we vote meets these requirements. Imagine that! That would require some interesting qualifications. They would have to be married, specifically "the husband of one wife". They would have to be able to teach. They would have to manage their households well and have submissive children. Here's an interesting one -- they could not be new converts. In other words, every qualified candidate for office would mandatorily have to be a solid, mature Christian. In Titus it says, "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). If we are to conclude that the commands to the leadership of the Church are the same commands that must be met by the leadership of governments, these are some of the requirements.
Interestingly, these same people, arguing that civil leadership must meet biblical requirements, sometimes suggest that no one actually meets the qualifications that God has placed on church leadership. Now, if it is impossible (or, at least, very nearly) to find people in the church who match up to the leadership requirements for the church, what are the possibilities that you'll find people who run for office in government that meet these qualifications? And, if they do not, on what possible basis could you vote for them? Wouldn't that be outright sin, a direct violation of God's command?
It's an interesting argument that civil government should align with God's commands for governing His people. I don't really buy it, but it is interesting. It seems to me, however, that if you actually want to make that argument, you'd have to secede from the Union.
23 comments:
Actually, I'm all for a theocracy, and look forward to living in one for eternity, but that is because I have a different definition of theocracy. When most people talk of a theocracy, they think about the Catholic Church during its height of secular rule, but that wasn't really a theocracy. It was an ecclesiocracy. A theocracy is a people ruled by a deity. An ecclesiocracy is a people ruled by the church, or by a religious entity. I would think a theocracy would be the ideal system of government, and it is, except for the problem of us sinful people. As for women in government, I agree, those people are crazy to try to apply the rules for church leadership to civil leadership. Like a theocracy, those standards are unattainable on such a large scale, at least, until sin is removed from the equation.
If they were going to make an important decision based on this verse they should do their homework and read the whole chapter 3 of Isaiah. It describes how the Lord can take away the strong and the good, and let societies (this instance Israel) reap the fruits of their own corruption. One of them, verse 12 states is that children are their oppressors; kids become tyrants who hold sway over their parents (sounds familiar). They in turn control the mother who, in this chaotic state, rules over the man.
Does this mean that women can't rule over men? Someone send Deborah and God the memo for one. #2, take away the rule of the children and you lose the context.
The theonimists, or whatever they're called, should dig a little deeper before declaring something unbiblical. If you're wrong about the bible, then what you say cannot be biblical.
Ay yay yay. I suppose King Saul, then, must have been a better leader than Deborah was, by virtue of his anatomy.
You wrote:
Note to anyone that visits that site and wants to comment: Expect that if you are respectful and explain from Scripture a differing opinion, you will not be allowed to comment. Opposing remarks are not allowed
At first I thought you were writing about my blog.. until I got to this line. Please note that while I take the position that women are not allowed to be civil magistrates, I DO allow respectful, Biblically oriented opposing positions on my blog. In fact I LIKE respectful, Biblically oriented opposition on my blog!
Now, on to the issue. Theonomists do not argue that all of the requirements for Civil leadership are exactly the same as for Church leadership or family leadership. We recognize God given distinctions between these areas.
That said, we also recognize similarities, one of which is that they must be men. As for 'must be married'... that would indeed have been the norm for Biblical cultures, where most men married before they were twenty, and most leaders were elders. Indeed the name for appropriate civil leadership in Israel was 'elder'.
As for Deborah, you pass very lightly over 'dismiss as irrelevant'... without mentioning why she is irrelevant.
In short, Deborah gives us no help in determining who should be a civil magistrate... because she was not a civil magistrate.
Then name 'judge', when translated into modern American causes some confusion. Look at what Scripture says about Deborah.
" 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. "
She was a prophetess... and the people of Israel came up to her for judgement. She was not a God appointed civil leader of Israel, the people *came to her* when they had a dispute and she *judged* them. Her position was much closer to that of arbiter.
When it came time for a leader to arise to lead the people in battle, God did not call Deborah, he called Barak.
It was said:
Ay yay yay. I suppose King Saul, then, must have been a better leader than Deborah was, by virtue of his anatomy.
One is not sure if this was meant to be serious or not, but just in case:
1) It is not a question of 'anatomy', but of God given role.
2) You will recall that the Kings of Israel were given in response to the people of Israels *disobedience*... not as a blessing.
3) You will recall that Saul was directly chosen and caused to be annointed by God Himself. Would you attack Gods annointed as even David refused to do?
4) No such annointing or blessing was ever given to Deborah,
5) Nor was she a civil magistrate or a king.
It is always better to choose those God would have... however weak or imperfect; over those God would not have... however strong or wise...
26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
... or do you suppose that our leadrs are supposed to lead in their own strength?
Hey, von, if you don't have an opinion, why bother? (Joke ... that's a joke.)
No, indeed it was not your blog I had in mind. I would consider you a "minor contributor" to the things I posted. ;)
"Theonomists do not argue that all of the requirements for Civil leadership are exactly the same as for Church leadership or family leadership."
I understand that you dismiss my dismissal of your dismissal of Deborah quite easily (and if you didn't read that and smile, you didn't catch the fun with which I intended it). I hope you also understand that many Bible-believing, God-loving, serious Christians (e.g., Dr. Albert Mohler and Doug Wilson have both recently posted on this topic) disagree with your disagreement. Wow, that was tough to do. :)
But it's really simple. Is it your understanding that all the leaders of the world, if they are to conform to "those God would have", would be mature believers in Christ? And is it a sin to vote for anyone else (especially Palin)?
I'll have to take your word for that. I haven't seen a single place that says so. On the contrary, everywhere I've seen says the opposite. Further, no one seems to offer a way of distinguishing -- "This is for the Church and this is not." (Example: If "the name for appropriate civil leadership in Israel was 'elder'" and 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 give qualifications for "elder", why would you not consider them the same?)
But it's really simple. Is it your understanding that all the leaders of the world, if they are to conform to "those God would have", would be mature believers in Christ?
I would certainly not consider anyone who was not a mature believer in Christ a candidate for Civil or Church office.
As I Cor 7 says that all men should have wives, I would hold them as eligible for the office of Patriarch, with the obvious caveat that it is their job to get themselves to the point of 'mature believer in Christ' as rapidly as possible.
Other jurisdictions include 'master' and 'employer'. I would not consider 'mature believer in Christ' as a defining criteria for either of those, altho it would be preferable.
And is it a sin to vote for anyone else (especially Palin)?
Scripture says that for anyone who knows something is wrong, for them to do it is a sin. So for someone with a theonomic understanding to deliberately vote for someone who is in violation of those principles... that would indeed (in my understanding) be a sin.
Others may vote in ignorance. That ignorance may be a result of sin... but I would not necessarily say the vote was. It depends on what is meant in Scripture by 'hidden' faults.
I'll have to take your word for that. I haven't seen a single place that says so. On the contrary, everywhere I've seen says the opposite. Further, no one seems to offer a way of distinguishing -- "This is for the Church and this is not."
I am sorry you have not seen a clear exposition of this. I will try to provide one, or at least link to one, in the near future. Much has been written...
(Example: If "the name for appropriate civil leadership in Israel was 'elder'" and 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 give qualifications for "elder", why would you not consider them the same?)
I would not consider them the same because I know more of linguistics than that. Certainly the two words, and the two concepts, are related. Planes 'fly' and birds 'fly'... but planes don't flap their wings and birds don't serve those little whisky bottles...
So the 'elders' of a city rule the city... and are older, wiser men who use their wisdom to do so... and 'elders' rule the church, and are older, wiser men who use their wisdom to do so...
But an 'elder' of a church has a teaching doctrine function that the elder of the city doesn't have, and the elder of the city may need to lead the men to battle... a circumstance more rare for the elder of the church.
"Planes 'fly' and birds 'fly'... but planes don't flap their wings and birds don't serve those little whiskey bottles..."
You haven't seen the birds here in Arizona. They may not serve whiskey, but they carry water bottles. (Joke ... of course.)
The distinction I'm looking for is exactly in the concept you cite. "An 'elder' of a church has a teaching doctrine function that the elder of the city doesn't have." You say that, but I don't see it. I mean, there isn't any suggestion of "this is for civil leadership and this is for church leadership" in the text. You seem to be pulling it from reasoning, not text. So why would your reasoning be better than, say, Doug Wilson's or Albert Mohler's who agree that the text is applicable to church leadership, but not civil leadership? Serious biblically-minded men conclude that the 1 Timothy 2 passage, for instance, is about women in leadership of the church, not civil leadership. You argue that they're wrong. Since you're arguing "some is for the civil leadership and some is not", why is your argument more sound?
Another question still remains. "I would certainly not consider anyone who was not a mature believer in Christ a candidate for Civil or Church office." Acts 4:27-28 says, "Truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." It seems obvious that they viewed "Herod" and "Pontius Pilate" as leaders God had put in place by His will so that they would accomplish what He intended. It seems as if God put people in leadership that would violate His will of what leaders should be. I'm not sure how to deal with that, either.
Serious biblically-minded men conclude that the 1 Timothy 2 passage, for instance, is about women in leadership of the church, not civil leadership.
I am afraid we have a bit of a misuderstanding. I quite agree that I Tim 2 is speaking of church elders, not civil magistrates. I believe that the misunderstanding comes in that Theonomists argue that women are not appropriate in *any* office of authority: from civil magistrate, to church elder, to patriarch (family leadership), etc. Thus the I Tim 2 passage buttresses the 'church leadership' part of that arguement, just as the Moses passage speaks to civil leaders, etc.
It seems as if God put people in leadership that would violate His will of what leaders should be.
This is certainly true, I would even leave off the word 'seems'. But this misses the point of the current discussion. Our decision right now is whether to vote for, support, etc. unqualified candidates for civil office. If God, in His wisdom, using unGodly men and women, calls Palin to VP and later president, she will hold those offices, and be subject to His will in how she does so.
A 14 year old may not be liscenced to drive, but that does not excuse him from violating the rules of the road if he does so (the first of which would be that he stop driving, but leaving that aside...). And others would have to yield to him when he had the right of way... even while they call the police on thier cell phones.
The "1 Tim. 2" passage is speaking of women not being allowed to usurp authority ... as opposed to the 1 Tim. 3 passage which is about biblical elders. I think I threw you a curve with the reference without explanation. Sorry.
On the role of women, I supposed I'll need to post more thoughts on that. Stay tuned. :)
oops. More later.
I Tim 2 and women in leadership (cross posted to my blog)
Stan and I have been having a chat about the role of women in society. I have much more to say, but for now I need to focus on one particular passage, namely I Tim 2. Does I Tim 2 mean that all women need to be silent at all times? That they are never to teach men? That they are never to be in authority over men? Or only some men, at some times... in church, for example.
The text in relevant part says:
8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 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. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Now first of all I need to point out that I make no argument against women as a civil magistrate based on this verse alone. The case is broad ranging and includes citations from practically all of Scripture. But, limiting myself to this verse alone, I believe that it is clear:
1) That this verse does speak directly to the church. Paul here speaks as a preacher and teacher, and his immediate context is the church. However...
2) The verse does not allow for the limitation of the context to merely the church. If the context was to be limited at all, it would have to be to the family, not the church:
We look at the 'because' statement (ie the part after the word 'for') and we see Pauls reasoning for his instruction: For Adam was formed first... Adam was not decieved... vs Eve was formed afterwards... Eve was decieved. The relationship then, that this instruction first applied to; its initial focus was that of the family, Adam as husband and Eve as wife.
However Paul here extends the application from the jurisdiction of family to the jurisdiction of the church... just as theonomists (correctly, IMO) extend it to the jurisdiction of the state. At the time Adam was the head of Eve: as her husband, the head of Eve: as her priest, and the head of Eve: as her king. He was the entire family, church, and civil government.
This text, as it stands, does not limit itself to any of these jurisdictions. This text, in the context of Scripture, agrees with them that the womans sphere of jurisdiction is the home, and that she is always under the jurisdiction of either her husband or her father (the issue of widows I will leave for now... Sarah Palin is not a widow.). As a civil leader a female violates both her proper sphere, and her chain of authority.
Stan points out that Albert Mohler disagrees with me here. I cannot find the exact reference he is using (perhaps he will post it) however Albert Mohler reveals his dramatic repudiation of theonomy when he states:
"Where the New Testament speaks, we are bound. Where it does not speak, believers are not bound."
This statement stands in direct contradiction to the NT itself, which says:
"16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Thus any logic which follows from this statement is of necessity flawed.
von,
You referenced Dr. Mohler and asked for the citation. It's here.
(And if you believe that Dr. Mohler rejects the Old Testament, especially based on a single, out-of-context statement, I would urge caution.)
Albert Mohlers rejection, or not, of the OT is neither here nor there. I was responding to a direct quote covering the discussion of Sarah Palin.
And I found no references to I Tim 2 in the link you posted. Did I miss something?
There are flaws both in your argument, and in your facts:
1) Your arguement does not prove what it sets out to. If the proper jurisdictional heirarchy is Man->Woman->Children, then for God to punish a people by having them ruled as Children->Women->Men is a rather dramatic irony.
2) You misread, or misstate, the context of Isaiah 3. It begins:
1For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water. 2The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, 3The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator.
IE the Lord has taken away all of those who should appropriately rule. Instead...
4And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. 5And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.
IE the Lord will replace Godly rule with all forms of perverted rule: Children as princes, babes as rulers, each oppressing each other, children proud vs ancient, base against honorable.
Then later he repeats the same theme with the verse cited:
12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
IE again children oppress, women rule, leaders cause to sin, leaders destroy the correct paths.
This is one long curse of perverted leadership, as a result of sin. Interestingly part of the sin is:
9The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
Thus there is no indication here of the child -> Women -> Men issue, but if there was, it would support the theonomic argument.
As for taking Dr Mohler out of context, I will post a larger context and the link:
Our confession of faith does not speak to the appropriateness of women serving in political office. It does speak to the priority of motherhood and responsibilities in the home, but it does not specify any public role that is closed to women. The reason for this is simple -- the New Testament does not speak to this question in any direct sense.
The distinction is perfectly clear. Where the New Testament speaks, we are bound. Where it does not speak, believers are not bound. The structure of our confession of faith simply reflects this principle.
Portraits of Elizabeth I of England and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher hang in my personal library, along with other portraits. I see no biblical injunction against their leadership in these roles.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/r_albert_mohler_jr/2008/09/a_tale_of_two_offices.html
I believe, but you are welcome to disagree, that these statements, in this context, could, indeed would, lead the unbaised observer to believe that Dr Mohler rejects the theonomic view of the use of the Old Testament example and Law in informing the NT believer in their life in the various jurisdictions.
You and I discussed the ramifications of 1 Tim. 2 earlier. I wasn't connecting Dr. Mohler to 1 Tim. 2 (which is why I said "for instance"). And the point was not to make Dr. Mohler the issue. The point was that serious Christians don't agree on the topic. It seems as if your argument, then, is that Dr. Mohler (and, I would guess, anyone else who disagrees with your view) is either not serious or, at best, not to be heard. Now, I'm pretty sure you would not make that argument, so perhaps we can leave "Dr. Mohler" alone. (If, on the other hand, that is your position, well, then, there's more to talk about, isn't there?)
Now ... what arguments did I make with which you are disagreeing? My position was "I'm not planning to address these issues here." I am guessing that you're disagreeing with the link I included, not me. That being said, the argument is in response to an argument that says, "Isaiah 3:12 proves it!" If that's not your argument, it isn't in response to you, is it? :)
I'm lost. I did think that you were linking Dr Mohler to the exegisis of I Tim 2, and thus theonomists must be disagreeing with their exegisis.
The point was that serious Christians don't agree on the topic. It seems as if your argument, then, is that Dr. Mohler (and, I would guess, anyone else who disagrees with your view) is either not serious or, at best, not to be heard.
I doubt that I have ever used the phrase 'serious christian'. At least I hope I haven't. It smacks far to much of a post-modern phrase... similar to 'sincere'.
I do not accuse those who disagree with me of not being 'serious'. I accuse (a harsh word) them of not properly exegiting Scripture, or, worse, of not looking at all of the Scripture that needs exegiting or, even worse, of dismissing some Scripture because it is "Old Testament' or 'Culturally skewed' etc.
I have a real problem with misuse of terms. But I don't have the problem you do, apparently. I try to communicate with people, to say things as clearly as I can, but I seem to fail miserably in my attempts with you.
When I say "serious Christians" I am differentiating between those who call themselves Christians and those who are, those who search the Scriptures and those who don't, those who study and those who don't, those who examine these kinds of questions and those who take their instructions from them.
It appears, even at this, that your view is that you properly exegete Scripture without fail. You are, that is, inerrant in your understanding of the Word of God. I yield to that kind of perfection, as I know that my capabilities are possibly flawed and I am sure that I have and likely will have made errors in my understanding. Be warm and fed. (Sometimes I despise this medium of communication. I'm quite sure you couldn't see the twinkle in my eye and smile that accompanied that last sentence.)
Oh, I saw the twinkle. Hopefully the others did too...
One difficulty with this kind of discussion is that we are discussing a second order interpretation. Theonomists hold one view of Scriptures relation to civil government... and from that interpretation conclude the specific that women cannot hold that office.
Anti-theonomists (for lack of a better term) hold an entirely seperate view (or several such views) of the relation between Scripture of the civil state... and thus come to a different conclusion.
But our discussion is about the conclusion... which flows naturally from the interpretation... instead of about the interpretation... which is where we *really* differ.
Post a Comment