Hello readers! As November approaches and election day gets closer, Christians will once again be faced with a plethora of choices. Do we vote Democrat, Republican, Third-party, or Independent? Do we cast our ballot for the liberals, the conservatives, the moderates or the tea-party candidates? Which proposals are we for, and which are we against? There are many questions that we must answer before we cast our vote, but one question that is seldom thought about is the issue of female rulers. When Sarah Palin burst onto the political scene a few years ago, some Christians had to ask themselves whether God's Word prohibited a woman from holding the office of a civil magistrate. Not too long after this time, I (Ben) wrote a paper for my theology class examining this issue and we'd like to share that paper with you in the hopes that it will prompt you to study the Scriptures and grow in grace. It is not our goal to condemn those that disagree with our conclusions, rather, our hope is that this paper will prompt your own study of this important (but often overlooked) question. We've broken the paper into a two part series. We'll post the first part (which deals primarily with the arguments against female rulers) today and the second part (which deals with the main objections to these arguments) next week. We ask that you prayerfully, and thoughtfully consider these arguments as you prepare to vote in November.
“To promote a woman to beare rule, superioritie, dominion or empire aboue any realme, nation, or citie, is repugnant to nature, contumelie to God, a thing most contrarious to his reueled will and approued ordinance, and finallie it is the subuersion of good order, of all equitie and iustice.” With these words, the Scottish Reformer John Knox began his 1558 treatise entitled, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. Knox used this work to argue against the legitimacy of the queens that ruled Scotland and England at that time. He maintained that allowing women in the office of the civil magistrate was a violation of Scripture and the created order. Yet exactly 450 years later, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (or CBMW) presented a very different perspective in a 2008 statement on the role of women when they said, “So a female vice president, or even a female president, doesn't necessarily pose a dilemma for complementarians. It is inevitable in God's providence that a gifted woman will lead the United States, just as women have led England, Germany, India and many other countries around the world.” At first glance one might assume that Knox and CBMW stand at opposite ends of the spectrum in their views on the role of women, but in reality both Knox and CBMW stand as firm defenders of what we now call the complementarian position. This raises the obvious question: which view is truly complementarian, and even more importantly, which view is truly biblical? This paper hopes to show that supporting a woman for the office of a civil magistrate is at odds with both a consistent application of complementarianism and a consistent application of Scripture. We will begin by examining the primary arguments raised in support of this thesis and then attempt to answer the common objections of semi-complementarians. Due to the limitations of this paper it will be assumed that the reader is already approaching this question from at least a semi-complementarian position (as espoused by CBMW.)
At the root of any discussion of complementarianism lies the issue of understanding God's created order and the biblical teaching of male headship. In the first few chapters of the creation narrative we are taught that God made man first, and then made the woman to serve as a helper and companion to the man. These foundational texts in Genesis 2:7 and 2:18-24 are later picked up by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 as he discusses the role of women both in daily godliness (vs. 8-10) and in the context of the church (vs. 11-12). It is significant that Paul appeals to Genesis for support by saying, “For Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (vs. 13-15). Paul appeals to the creation order as laid out in Genesis to underscore his commands about daily life and the operation of the church. Paul makes this connection between the role of women and the creation order even more explicit in 1 Corinthians 11:3 where he says, “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” William Einwechter draws these passages together and concludes that, “Therefore, the Apostle Paul teaches that God has decreed that the order of authority be as follows: God-Christ-Man-Woman. Each one in this 'chain of command' is under the headship (i.e., authority) of the one preceding him or her.” This hierarchy of authority is a pattern played out in the family (Ephesians 5:22-24), the church (1 Timothy 2:11-14; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35), and as we shall see, in the state (1 Corinthians 11:3; Exodus 18:21).
It is striking that, as Einwechter puts it, “Every time the Scripture speaks to the subject of the necessary qualifications for those who will bear rule in the civil sphere, it always speaks in terms of men and never in terms of women.” In accordance with the creation order outlined above, Moses commands Jethro in Exodus 18:21 saying, “Moreover, 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.” Moses repeats this command in Deuteronomy 1:13 “Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.” Masculine language is consistently used to describe rulers, with the king acting as a “brother” who was cautioned against “multiplying wives to himself.” As Einwechter says, “Importantly, the word for 'men' chosen by the Holy Spirit in both of these texts is the Hebrew, gender specific word for a man, i.e. a male as opposed to a female. [...] Likewise, in every other passage of Scripture dealing with the civil magistrate and his qualifications and duties, men are in view (2 Samuel 23:3; Nehemiah 7:2; Proverbs 16:10; 20:8, 28; 29:14; 31:4-5; Romans 13:1-6; etc.).” This language reminds us of the qualifications that Paul lays out for an elder in the New Testament, and indeed the arguments are very similar.
Yet not only does God consistently describe the civil magistrate as male, He uses the example of a female ruler as a sign of covenantal disconnect and divine curse. Isaiah 3:12 says, “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.” This truly is a remarkable passage as it is seen, not as CBMW put it, “inevitable in God's providence that a gifted woman will lead” but rather as a sign that Israel has been “mislead” and “swallowed.” Einwechter sums it up well when he says, “Whatever the exact connotations of this text are, one thing is clear: women ruling over men in the civil sphere is put in a very unfavorable light. The fact that Israel had women reigning over them is seen to be the result of sin and a part of God's retributive justice; it is certainly not considered a blessing in this text!”
The final argument hinges on the biblical depiction of womanhood found in the Bible. The classic text on biblical womanhood is, of course, Proverbs 31:10-31. As Solomon describes a godly woman we see a picture unfold of someone who is industrious, wise, kind, and virtuous. Yet of particular interest to our discussion is verse 23, “Her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land.” This verse reveals a lot about the character of a godly woman. As Einwechter says:
“The 'gates' in Old Testament times referred to the place where the leaders of the city (i.e., 'the elders of the land') would gather to discuss community affairs, administer civil law, and judge in criminal and civil cases. The 'gates,' therefore, is a reference to the 'city hall,' the 'capitol building,' the 'courthouse,' or, in short, to the seat of civil government. The key for us is to note that, in the case of the virtuous woman, it is her husband who is active in the gates; the virtuous woman is not herself seated in the gates – she is active in her home.”
This matches perfectly with Paul's exhortation for women to be “workers in the home” in Titus 2:5. Because of the faithful ministry of the godly woman in the home, her influence and power extend beyond her immediate reach through her influence on her husband and sons. Ironically, the biblical picture seems to indicate that the calling in the home provides a greater opportunity for service and power than serving in the civil sphere ever could. Far from limiting women, this passage (and others like it) elevate the role of the woman to a very high standard. As Einwechter puts it, “Let no one speak lightly or disparagingly of the woman's appointed role...and let no woman set aside the example of the virtuous woman and seek to sit in the gates with the rulers of the land. And let no Christian have any part in putting her there.”
Posts
became incarnate to redeem His people from the world. For many believers, this night marks a high point in their year. But those of you who have spent some time in the world of Reformed Presbyterianism will know that these Christmas celebrations can often bring consternation as well. Although the vast majority of Presbyterians now celebrate holy days like Christmas and Easter, it wasn't too long ago that such a thing would have been unheard of. Allow me to explain.
"Directory for Publik Worship." This Directory gave guidance and direction for churches who were seeking to worship God according to Scripture. Many of these churches were emerging from the mass of man-made traditions found in both the Roman Catholic and in the Anglican communions, and they realized the pressing need to reexamine why things were done the way they were. This reevaluation led to a far simpler, more biblical, form of worship in many of these new Puritan and Presbyterian congregations. This new document called for many changes and one of these changes concerned the celebration of holy days like Christmas and Easter. As the Directory says: 
church calender? This is a question that has been hotly debated for centuries and I doubt that any "quick fix" will emerge to solve our problem. But I do believe that the tension many Presbyterians feel is perhaps a false one. The question is often presented in rather stark terms. Either we buy into the entire Christmas package (like we see in so many churches today) or we will refuse to celebrate or recognize Christmas as some of our brothers do. However, I believe there is a third option, and that brings us (at last) to this week's link.
