Women in office

[dalecosby]

Michael,
I enjoyed your interview with the candidate for governor in Oregon last week.
She seemed to be reasonably knowledgeable and I liked her little comment about Britney Spears. ;-)
But it raised a concern to me and that is about women in office in general.

Originally women couldn't even vote because the founders understood the Biblical role of women.

Men are to be the head of the home. Only men are to be pastors, Biblically.
Why would we want a state to be governed by a woman?

As 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.
(Isaiah 3:12)

I mean no disrespect to the lady in Oregon but this is only to point out the larger problem with women in power.

Women are much more emotional than men and were not equipped by their Creator for positions of rule.


DC

[dalecosby]

Bump.......

[Centurion]

Feminism will only be reversed when Christian men take their rightful leadership roles in all spheres, including church, family, state, political parties, military, etc.

That will come about only as a matter of Holy-Spirit conviction, possibly accompanied by culture collapse, not by preference, opinion or coercion.

The gospel of Jesus Christ and His scriptural order for restored creation are essential to this promised revival and reformation, i.e., an optimistic eschatology.

Some of us had hoped that such men of conviction would be leaders in the Constitution Party, with the prayers and support of their wives. Obviously, that was a naive or premature expectation, at least for suficient numbers to make a difference.

History and scripture tell us that when men abdicate, God will use asses, women, pagans, whomever He chooses to get our attention -- maybe.

Obviously, He doesn't have it yet.

[Michael A. Peroutka]

Dear DaleCosby and others:

Thanks for bringing up this question. Frankly, I was expecting it and perhaps I should have dealt with it already. I'm just a little pressed for time right now so I hope you will accept a brief blurb and I promise to expand later.

My understanding of the Scriptural patterns and precepts regarding women in leadership roles goes like this:

The Scriptural norm is for women NOT to be in positions of authority over men and not to usurp the family, Church and civil government position of the man as the head.

But this rule allows of exception in certain circumstances. One of the circumstatnces is necessity. As an example, let's suppose that a malfeasant interloper (law school jargon) with obvious intent to do physical harm to my children, breaks into my home in the middle of the night. My role as man and as head of the home makes it my responsibility to find either the Ruger PC-9 or the Mossberg 500 and be prepared to blow him away, if necessary. My wife should expect me to carry out this duty.

However, if it just so happens that I'm in Racine, Wisconsin making a presentation on the Second Amendment to a group of good friends when the transgressor decides to transgress, then it falls to my wife to do the job. (Of course, in this case there is nothing wrong with her using her Ladysmith 38 special, if she should so prefer.)

But suppose it turns out that I'm the kind of guy that's has decided not to prepare myself in advance for this situation because I place my family's safety in the hands of my local police department. Or suppose I just don't like conflict situations and decide to pull the covers over my head untill the bleeding and screaming and sobbing finally stop.

In this situation, I think we could say that neccesity requires that my wife is justified in grabbing the Ladysmith or maybe the Ruger P89, perhaps reach for one of the Glocks or even maybe swing a four iron in defense of our children.

In this example my wife is authorized to do what her man couldn't or wouldn't do because the situaion called for the act to be done and there was no man able or willing to do it.

Though some may disagree, I believe we are living in a time in America when we need to entertain the thought that the failure of the men of America has become clear and while women serving in men's roles is not what we prefer to see, we should see it for what it is, repent of our wrongdoing and take action in keeping with that repentence.

Hope this helps,

Michael

[dalecosby]

Michael,
Thanks for the reply.
I totally agree BTW.

I might add that the point we are in now in the US is that there aren't enough men out there willing to stand up so some women have to.

I have heard preachers get self-righteous and preach at the women for not being submissive etc, but in reality, the lazy men are the ones to blame.

Women are simply incapable of usurping mans authority if man is doing is job properly.

My dad (who is a pastor and teaches US history to home schoolers) has often asked in his classes how many women voted to give women the right to vote. :-)


As far as women standing up because the men do not, we see a good example is Judges 4.

Anytime the proper authority fails to do it's job, another entity will attempt to do what it is incapable of and will always get inferior results.

A good example is Parents failing to teach there kids doctrine and so the Church does so in the form of Sunday School. Of course then on Monday, They are taught history and science from the humanist state.
This often results in Children believing doctrine that is different than what their parents believe which leads to a lack of unity in the home.

Lest someone misunderstand me, I am in no way opposed to Children going to Church WITH their parents, I ma simply opposed to them going WITHOUT their parents.


Back to the original topic, hopefully we as men will see the lady struggling with the heavy load and be convicted to take over and do our duty.

DC

[MAC]

Well Said! AMEN!!!!! :D

[dalecosby]

As I have considered this issue more, I see it as being more like a woman that takes on the role as spiritual leader in her home.
I have known women that say they must lead spiritually because their husbands won't, but they never do a good job of it.
Voting for a woman in Oregon would be voting for a woman over a man.
At best it would be voting for the lesser of two evils IMO.

As I considered your analogy further Michael, it really doesn't line up with a woman running for office in my opinion.

Let me ask you this, if your wife decided that you were not running your house the way you should be, let's say you were only going to church once a month.
Would she then be justified to "take over" and decide how often your family was going to go?
Maybe that is a bad illustration of a problem, but my point is, does a woman ever have the right to take over the leadership role in her family?
If so when?



BTW, I listen to the show every week and I agree with about 98% of what I hear on the show!
I certainly don't mean to be discouraging at all.
I keep all of you in my prayers and I hope the show will be a success.


DC

[timf]

In reference to the discussion of women in office, I have raised eyebrows in the past by making the statement, “women should not have the right to vote”. This solicits strenuous objection as you might imagine. My response has been that men were voting as representatives of their families not so much as individuals. Women’s right to vote was really the abolition of men’s right to represent their families. Instead of giving women the right to vote, we should have taken it away from single men.

One can learn a lot about an opponent by analyzing his allocation of resources. If you observe the amount of television, movie, and other media resources used to portray men in general and fathers in particular as buffoons and imbeciles you can deduce how important men are to their families and their community. The importance would be proportional to the severity of the attack.

Genesis three shows the pattern for subverting humans, get past the man and seduce the woman. The Bible mentions that women are more susceptible to deception and as they are more vulnerable, the implication is that they are in more need of protection and less qualified to lead.

This problem will not be corrected in the world until it is first corrected among Christians. So many Christians are enemies of God. Their friendship with the world has cut them off from the source of truth and wisdom. Women in leadership positions is an effect of the larger problem of Christians divorced from their Savior and seduced by Satan.

[dalecosby]

My response has been that men were voting as representatives of their families not so much as individuals.

Very good point Tim. It isn't that women should not be represented, but that they should be represented with their husbands vote.

I believe every person should be represented, but not everyone should vote.
I believe a father of 5 children should have essentially 7 votes....

Also, women voting is potential to divide the family. I have known of homes divided between candidates.
This is just one of the wicked results of womens sufferage.

The sad part of it all is how women are so downtrodden in our society and are merely sex toys to so many.

Rather than cursing the feminists, we should be standing up as men and once again assume our responsibilities.

[jgist]

Quite an interesting point to make. I think that I would have to agree from a biblical perspective; however, convincing anyone today is sure to bring fire on oneself! It's difficult to explain to people the fact that although men and women are equally valuable, they have different roles to play in life. I had this discussion with a young lady in my neighborhood recently, and we mostly went in circles. People think that as soon as you say that women aren't designed to be leaders outside the home that you look down on them as inferior. This of course is not what is meant, but the way the culture has been indoctrinated, this is what they perceive.

[angelawittman]

Praise the LORD!

You gentlemen have done my heart good with discussing this controversial topic with tact and wisdom.

I have repented from seeking/running for political office. I was convinced I was a "Deborah" and if no man was willing to stand in the civil "Gate" then I would... Well, the LORD has been so good as to point out to me that He has many men (yourselves included) who are willing to serve in political office and that my talents are best used in praying for and encouraging you men.

May the good LORD bless you, and please let me know if I can be of help.

Your sister in Christ,
Angela

[rcdavis]

Men are to be the head of the home. Only men are to be pastors, Biblically. Why would we want a state to be governed by a woman?

As 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.
(Isaiah 3:12)

I mean no disrespect to the lady in Oregon but this is only to point out the larger problem with women in power.

Women are much more emotional than men and were not equipped by their Creator for positions of rule.

Hello Dale,

While I might agree with your statement regarding the temperament of women as a general observation and by extension given the dynamics of public service not recommend such a career to women, as a matter of Biblical interpretation I cannot see a prohibition of women serving in civil government.

Since I find no direct evidence in Biblical history that verse 12 was the case in the time the Lord spoke the word, I interpret that passage as God's use of hyperbole (see also verses 4-7) to express the depths of rebellion and their bold flaunting of sins (vv. 8-9). There were three kings who ruled the southern kingdom of Judah during the ministry of Isaiah: Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Isaiah 1:1). None of these kings were under the age of 20 when they became king.

One cannot say from Biblical history that it is always a curse from the Lord when a child or a woman rules. After this word from the Lord through Isaiah that Dale references, there were two children who rose to the throne of Judah after Isaiah's death. One was Manasseh who was twelve when he became king, his grandson Josiah was eight when came to power. Manasseh was utterly wicked and his reign set the course for Judah's downfall (2 Kings 21:10-15). However, his grandson Josiah was the opposite; he was indeed a godly ruler of whom it was written "before him there was no king like him who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him (2 Kings 23:25)."

Likewise one cannot say from Biblical history when a woman rules over the people it is specifically a sign of God's judgment against that nation's sin. One might make the observation that Jezebel was the power (of wickedness) behind Ahaz's rule, but she was not the head sovereign of the kingdom like the usurper Athaliah was during her reign in Judah (see 2 Kings 11). Jezebel exerted her influence through Ahaz. In the case of Athaliah her ascension and reign clearly violated God's command (Deut. 17:15-20) and she was rightfully judged for her rebellion and treason against the Lord. However, no such claim can be made regarding the rule of Deborah (Judges 4-5). She was set apart as a prophetess and judge of His people according to His will, period. One does see in the narrative obedience to the Biblical prohibition of women engaging in combat, however. Note that Deborah honored the Lord by summoning Barak to battle against Sisera according to the word of the Lord (Judges 4:6-7) rather than take on Sisera on her own terms. As if to underscore that He will deliver by whatever means He is pleased with, though the Lord said He would give Sisera into the hand of Barak He was well pleased to give the honor of victory not to Barak but rather the Lord sold "Sisera into the hands of a woman (Jael)" (Judges 4:9, 17-22; 5:24-31).

Applying the moral law and general equity from the Scriptures is useful in addressing the issues of the day. I have done such regarding the sanctity of life issue regarding President G.W. Bush’s approval of the funding of embryonic stem cell research back in 2001. At that time I asked, “Will President Bush’s stamp of approval on the whole idea of experimenting on cells derived from human embryos end up opening the Pandora’s Box of biotech research unfettered by moral restraints?” Today we see the answer is obvious as the GOP-controlled federal legislature continues its bi-partisan push for expanded research in this area. However, we must be careful that our derived rules and generalizations do not violate the clear teaching of the Word of God. I used to hold to the idea that Deborah’s rule in Israel was an exception to the rule, because there was not a godly man available and the situation was indicative of the sinful state of the nation. But this is indicated nowhere in the text, and violates sound interpretation of the passage. For example, if from Exodus 18:13-23 we infer that only men were to rule as judges in the sphere of civil government, then when we get to Deborah we have the following choices: either her rule was illegitimate, or God is double-minded since he allowed it, or our “precept” regarding women in office is not correct. There is no indication from the Scriptural record that her judgments were defective or her rule inferior to her predecessors. We see in the Scripture in the books of the Judges, the Kings, and the Chronicles that the Spirit will not hesitate to mention defects in various administrations.

Thus the root of the problem isn't women in the office of civil government but rather whether the people will "only fear the Lord and serve Him in truth will all your heart; for consider what great things He has done for you. But if you still do wickedly, both you and your king will be swept away" (1 Samuel 12:24-25).

If I had to cast my vote between Deborah and Antonin Scalia for Georgia Supreme Court Justice, the choice would be easy … for as much as I admire Scalia for his work I have no confidence that he understands his responsibility to rule according to the law of God. My vote for Deborah would not be one between the “lesser of two evils.”

Now to get busy with my Saturday chores…


-Ricardo

[MAC]

Very interesting points, Ricardo.

Is there any man out there that would disagree with a vote for Deborah over Scalia?

Would any man vote for G.W. Bush over a godly woman which at least has some recognisable sense of the Constitution and what a righteous government should be --given of course there were no other choices?

Would any man vote for Jim Gilchrist under the CP banner over a righteous woman, knowledgeable Biblically and Constitutionally and by all expressions would hold to these renderings, though under the banner of the R's banner [or even a D's]?

[Joe_Liberty]

Very interesting points, Ricardo.

Is there any man out there that would disagree with a vote for Deborah over Scalia?

Would any man vote for G.W. Bush over a godly woman which at least has some recognisable sense of the Constitution and what a righteous government should be --given of course there were no other choices?

Would any man vote for Jim Gilchrist under the CP banner over a righteous woman, knowledgeable Biblically and Constitutionally and by all expressions would hold to these renderings, though under the banner of the R's banner [or even a D's]?

We should recognize that the issue here is not the character or ability of the woman seeking the office; nor is it her spiritual condition, her views on the issues, or even if she is the “best” available candidate. The point in question is this: does the Word of God give us the liberty to place a woman into a political office where she will in some sense bear rule over us in the civil sphere? Or, to state it more precisely: is it biblically proper for a woman to hold political office, and thus rule over men? Has God ordained women to be civil leaders, or has He reserved this authority for men only? I believe that the Bible gives a definitive answer to this question: women are not permitted by God to hold political office and rule over men in the political sphere.

[rcdavis]

We should recognize that the issue here is not the character or ability of the woman seeking the office; nor is it her spiritual condition, her views on the issues, or even if she is the “best” available candidate. The point in question is this: does the Word of God give us the liberty to place a woman into a political office where she will in some sense bear rule over us in the civil sphere? Or, to state it more precisely: is it biblically proper for a woman to hold political office, and thus rule over men? Has God ordained women to be civil leaders, or has He reserved this authority for men only?
Hello Joe,

With all due respect (and I count you as a brother in the Lord and appreciate your labors for our King in the field of statesmanship) please respond specifically to my exegesis. In particular please provide Scripture that would speak to the nature of Deborah's administration. If your assertion is true then how do you explain the legitimacy of her rule as judge over all Israel (including the men)? If her rule was improper, then Scripture would specifically confirm this and that is what I hoped for in your response. Again if you look at the judges and kings in biblical history I can’t think of a time the Lord didn’t give condemnation for wicked rulers – including women who usurpers of authority like I mentioned in the earlier post. Add to this the fact that the judges of that day were not as the “lower magistrates” appointed by vote of acclamation of the men they served (again Exodus 18), but rather appointed by the Lord Himself as it is written:

"Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them. Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they played the harlot after other gods and bowed themselves down to them. They turned aside quickly from the way in which their fathers had walked in obeying the commandments of the LORD; they did not do as their fathers. When the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them. But it came about when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their stubborn ways (Judges 2:16-19, emphasis mine)."

The nature of biblical calling with regard to leadership is such that if Deborah was not called by the Lord for the work of “chief justice” in the land, then she would not be recognized as such or would the men who were under her authority obey her as unto the Lord. Thus I was forced to reconsider my position in light of the biblical text; I look forward to your response as I continue to refine my views on the subject.

For the King,

-Ricardo

[MAC]

We should recognize that the issue here is not the character or ability of the woman seeking the office; nor is it her spiritual condition, her views on the issues, or even if she is the “best” available candidate. The point in question is this: does the Word of God give us the liberty to place a woman into a political office where she will in some sense bear rule over us in the civil sphere? Or, to state it more precisely: is it biblically proper for a woman to hold political office, and thus rule over men? Has God ordained women to be civil leaders, or has He reserved this authority for men only? I believe that the Bible gives a definitive answer to this question: women are not permitted by God to hold political office and rule over men in the political sphere.


Joe,

I realise the issue is 'does the Word of God give us the liberty to place a woman into a political office where she will in some sense bear rule over us in the civil sphere?' However, I simply asked what [CP] man would vote for G.W. Bush instead of a godly woman that had her head on straight [would not 'usurp' (lord) over the man but rule according to the Constitution and what is Biblically right for civil magistrates]? Or who vote for Jim Gilchrist over that same woman on the (R) ticket --or even the (D)?

Or, would you men allow Bush to get in or Jim Gilchrist instead of the godly woman who rule righteously? Or a godly woman over Hillary?

FYI --I really don't believe our Constitution allows a woman to be president, but I am sure in today's atmosphere that would be completely overlooked --even if brought up and battled, the SC would rule for the women. And I personally don't think women should be in such places of authority, I do believe God placed men as 'heads' --authority-- as the ultimate decision-maker [under Christ], but that is not to say that I don't believe there aren't cases for allowances. Was not Rahab in authority over the men in her family when it came time for them to be saved from death? It was she who was to tell all in her family what to do, not the men giving the orders. Women give wise counsel to their adult sons, is that not a form of 'teaching' men? It has been my understanding that a woman [wife] tells her husband her thoughts, what she may think should be done, etc. on an issue but allows her husband to make the decision [with Christ using the thoughts that He had given her to share with her husband in His guiding the husband's decision]. In this, she is [in a form] 'teaching' the man, but she is not 'usurping' his authority --taking over, forcing or demanding her way.

God's Word says His eyes run to and fro looking for a man to stand in the gap. So if there is none, yet a woman who is willing and able ...but God doesn't want her?
:confused:

[Joe_Liberty]

I really don't believe our Constitution allows a woman to be president, but I am sure in today's atmosphere that would be completely overlooked --even if brought up and battled, the SC would rule for the women. And I personally don't think women should be in such places of authority, I do believe God placed men as 'heads' --authority-- as the ultimate decision-maker [under Christ], but that is not to say that I don't believe there aren't cases for allowances. Was not Rahab in authority over the men in her family when it came time for them to be saved from death? It was she who was to tell all in her family what to do, not the men giving the orders. Women give wise counsel to their adult sons, is that not a form of 'teaching' men? It has been my understanding that a woman [wife] tells her husband her thoughts, what she may think should be done, etc. on an issue but allows her husband to make the decision [with Christ using the thoughts that He had given her to share with her husband in His guiding the husband's decision]. In this, she is [in a form] 'teaching' the man, but she is not 'usurping' his authority --taking over, forcing or demanding her way.


Mac, I certainly agree with you that biblical standards for civil magistrates are not adhered to at all today. And advocating headship of the man over the women is in no way intended to diminish the important role of women as helpmeets.


Please respond specifically to my exegesis. In particular please provide Scripture that would speak to the nature of Deborah's administration.

First, the judges during this period were more military leaders or “avenging deliverers” than they were civil magistrates (cf. Judg. 2:16-19). Because of this fact, we must ask ourselves if we can even consider Deborah to be a “judge” in the same sense as the other judges in the book. The account of Deborah is unique in that she did not lead Israel into battle herself (as did the other judges in the book), but, rather, the Lord choose Barak to be the military commander. Would it not be more accurate to say that Barak was the true “judge” here (cf. Heb. 11:32 where Barak alone is mentioned), and that Deborah’s role was that of a “prophetess” who gave divine guidance to Israel?

Second, the Song of Deborah and Barak gives some important insight into Deborah’s actual position in Israel (Judg. 5:1-31). In verse 7, she claims to be a “mother” in Israel, not a father. This is significant, given the headship of the father in Israel, and it is in line with our suggestion that her role was one of support and guidance to the leaders of Israel as a prophetess. Additionally, verse 9 indicates that there were yet “governors” (literally, lawgivers, or leaders) in Israel. This would refer to the elders of the people and the rulers of the tribes. This further supports the idea that the judge was not a civil magistrate in the usual sense, but rather a military leader and deliverer — Deborah was neither a “judge” nor a magistrate. Also, in verse 12 of the song, Deborah is exhorted to awake and sing, but Barak is exhorted to arise and “lead,” indicating that Barak is the military leader. Additionally, the “dominion over the mighty” in verse 13 is either a reference to Israel’s victory over Sisera and the Canaanites, or to the gathering of the people to go up to battle; whichever, it does not mean that God has appointed Deborah to the position of civil magistrate.

There is no question that Deborah was a great and godly woman who had considerable influence in Israel. But in the light of the evidence it is highly questionable to build a doctrine of women rulers from the case of Deborah. Deborah’s role in Israel was that of a “prophetess,” but not that of a civil ruler or military leader. The text does not support the idea that she was a civil magistrate. She “judged” Israel (Judg. 4:4) only in the sense that she was sought out by the people for advice and judgment in the settlement of disputes because of her wisdom from God. Apparently the priests and Levites were so corrupt that the people had to seek wisdom and judgment from this godly woman. But let us not seek in Deborah a doctrine of women rulers, and thereby become guilty of setting aside the definite precepts and commandments of God which forbid women magistrates. It would be unwise to cancel out the explicit biblical teaching on the headship of man, the clear statements of the law, the picture of the virtuous woman, and the lament over women ruling on the basis of what took place in Israel in one of the most confused periods in Israel’s history. We should remember the important admonition of the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” It is a serious mistake of hermeneutics to use the story of Deborah to overthrow the positive precepts and principles of other Scriptures, and to establish it as the standard biblical text for determining the propriety of women rulers.

I recently read John Knox's First Blast of the Trumpet. In making his argument that women should not rule he wrote:

"As if I should ask, "What marriage is lawful." And it should be answered, "that lawful it is to man not only to have many wives at once, but also it is lawful to marry two sisters, and to enjoy them both living at once, because David, Jacob, and Solomon, servants of God, did the same. I trust that no man would justify the vanity of this reason . . . For of examples, as is before declared, we may establish no law; but we are always bound to the written law . . . And the law written and pronounced by God forbids no less that any woman reign over man, that it forbids man to take plurality of wives, to marry two sisters living at once, to steal, to rob, to murder, or to lie. If any of these has been transgressed, and yet God has not imputed the same, it makes not the like deed or fact lawful unto us."

[angelawittman]

Please forgive the large content of text copied, but Joe Eldred has written something which bears repeating and has blessed me greatly. I pray he will give me permission to share this with others, and especially with Christian women who have been put in positions of influence and wonder if they are a "Deborah":

First, the judges during this period were more military leaders or “avenging deliverers” than they were civil magistrates (cf. Judg. 2:16-19). Because of this fact, we must ask ourselves if we can even consider Deborah to be a “judge” in the same sense as the other judges in the book. The account of Deborah is unique in that she did not lead Israel into battle herself (as did the other judges in the book), but, rather, the Lord choose Barak to be the military commander. Would it not be more accurate to say that Barak was the true “judge” here (cf. Heb. 11:32 where Barak alone is mentioned), and that Deborah’s role was that of a “prophetess” who gave divine guidance to Israel?

Second, the Song of Deborah and Barak gives some important insight into Deborah’s actual position in Israel (Judg. 5:1-31). In verse 7, she claims to be a “mother” in Israel, not a father. This is significant, given the headship of the father in Israel, and it is in line with our suggestion that her role was one of support and guidance to the leaders of Israel as a prophetess. Additionally, verse 9 indicates that there were yet “governors” (literally, lawgivers, or leaders) in Israel. This would refer to the elders of the people and the rulers of the tribes. This further supports the idea that the judge was not a civil magistrate in the usual sense, but rather a military leader and deliverer — Deborah was neither a “judge” nor a magistrate. Also, in verse 12 of the song, Deborah is exhorted to awake and sing, but Barak is exhorted to arise and “lead,” indicating that Barak is the military leader. Additionally, the “dominion over the mighty” in verse 13 is either a reference to Israel’s victory over Sisera and the Canaanites, or to the gathering of the people to go up to battle; whichever, it does not mean that God has appointed Deborah to the position of civil magistrate.

There is no question that Deborah was a great and godly woman who had considerable influence in Israel. But in the light of the evidence it is highly questionable to build a doctrine of women rulers from the case of Deborah. Deborah’s role in Israel was that of a “prophetess,” but not that of a civil ruler or military leader. The text does not support the idea that she was a civil magistrate. She “judged” Israel (Judg. 4:4) only in the sense that she was sought out by the people for advice and judgment in the settlement of disputes because of her wisdom from God. Apparently the priests and Levites were so corrupt that the people had to seek wisdom and judgment from this godly woman. But let us not seek in Deborah a doctrine of women rulers, and thereby become guilty of setting aside the definite precepts and commandments of God which forbid women magistrates. It would be unwise to cancel out the explicit biblical teaching on the headship of man, the clear statements of the law, the picture of the virtuous woman, and the lament over women ruling on the basis of what took place in Israel in one of the most confused periods in Israel’s history. We should remember the important admonition of the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” It is a serious mistake of hermeneutics to use the story of Deborah to overthrow the positive precepts and principles of other Scriptures, and to establish it as the standard biblical text for determining the propriety of women rulers.

I recently read John Knox's First Blast of the Trumpet. In making his argument that women should not rule he wrote:

"As if I should ask, "What marriage is lawful." And it should be answered, "that lawful it is to man not only to have many wives at once, but also it is lawful to marry two sisters, and to enjoy them both living at once, because David, Jacob, and Solomon, servants of God, did the same. I trust that no man would justify the vanity of this reason . . . For of examples, as is before declared, we may establish no law; but we are always bound to the written law . . . And the law written and pronounced by God forbids no less that any woman reign over man, that it forbids man to take plurality of wives, to marry two sisters living at once, to steal, to rob, to murder, or to lie. If any of these has been transgressed, and yet God has not imputed the same, it makes not the like deed or fact lawful unto us."

I have found great joy in helping godly men as they seek ( and achieve) to be an influence for Christ in our pagan culture... Plus, I am blessed as I see men like Joe handle the Word of God with great skill.

Praise the LORD and thank you to Mr. Eldred and Mr. Knox.

[wayimp]

"First Blast" is available for free download here:

John Knox - The First Blast of the Trumpet (http://www.ebookbag.biz/product_info.php?cPath=4_9&products_id=31)

It is in olde English, so it is not for the feight-of-heart.

It is especially refreshing to hear from a woman who is willing to put the truth above her own selfish ambition. If I try to speak a word about it, I am immediately maligned as a male chauvinist bigot, even by other Christian men of like mind on other matters.

[wayimp]

I would also like to submit some easier reading on this subject matter, if indeed you are able to receive it.

[rcdavis]

Hello Joe,

Thanks for your response. I have read it thoroughly and prayerfully, along with the Scripture you referenced. As I review them please make sure I did not misunderstand your intent and feel free to correct my conclusions. I also have some questions in response to your points.

Mac, I certainly agree with you that biblical standards for civil magistrates are not adhered to at all today. And advocating headship of the man over the women is in no way intended to diminish the important role of women as helpmeets.

I would agree that within family government the scripture is plain that the man and wife are equal in worth before the Lord, but he has given them different responsibilities regarding family governance.

First, the judges during this period were more military leaders or “avenging deliverers” than they were civil magistrates (cf. Judg. 2:16-19). Because of this fact, we must ask ourselves if we can even consider Deborah to be a “judge” in the same sense as the other judges in the book.

I believe the text itself, as well as the rest of the book, answers that question and most of your “second” points:

She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment. (Judges 4:5)

This is the same activity that Moses was engaged in as judge over Israel (Exodus 18:13-23) and was the same activity of judges through the years down the rule of Samuel (1 Samuel 7). And though you are correct that a major theme in book of Judges is the exploits of the judges in battle, but it cannot be said that the text indicates that the role of the judge was exclusively military in nature. After the deliverance from Canaan, Deborah continued to judge for 40 years. Why do you see after the deliverances spoken of after Deborah's rule the Word speaks of the judge ruling over the people? After Gideon's campaigns, the men of Israel pressed him to rule over them in the manner of the nations around them (Judges 8:22) - a sin that Israel repeated in calling for Saul to rule as king over them. But Gideon responded according to the authority given to him by the Lord; he said "I will not rule over you ... the Lord shall rule over you" (8:23). After the usurper Abimelech ruled Israel three years and the Lord executed justice at the hands of a woman to remove him, Tola arose to deliver Israel and afterwards judged over the nation 23 years (10:1-2). His successor, Jair, judged Israel 22 years (10:3-5). Note that unlike Tola he was not raised up by the Lord to save Israel, but rather to give continuity in civil governance. This is one of the rare times in this book where periods of rule by judges were not divided by the apostasy of the people. Another period is found in chapter 12. So we see that the judges of this period at times served as military leaders, but it cannot be substantiated from Scripture that this was their primary purpose. It can be said that their primary role was to serve at the Lord’s pleasure as rulers whose role was primarily judicial in nature, and that they served as executioners of the justice of the Lord against those who oppressed His people. As I pointed out earlier, since Deborah could not lawfully serve in combat “she sent and summoned Barak … and said to him, ‘Behold, the LORD, the God of Israel, has commanded, Go and march…’” (Judges 4:6) God didn’t send out Barak independently, he was called out to serve as deliverer under the authority of Deborah.

Second, the Song of Deborah and Barak gives some important insight into Deborah’s actual position in Israel (Judg. 5:1-31)…

In biblical exegesis, one should not place the interpretation of the plainly poetic and symbolic above that which is stated as factual and literal. That Deborah was a “mother of Israel” could be interpreted a number of ways. Yours was a valid one. Another is that the statement could simply mean that she had at least one child. Another is that being a mother her position was lowly compared to a position like judge over the nation but in His providence the Lord used “the weak things of this world.” We see this time and time again throughout Scripture: Jeremiah (who admitted his insignificance to the Lord when he told Him he was just a young guy), Amos (whom the Lord called from the lowly occupation of sheep-tending), etc.

The “leaders” referred to in Judges 5:9 are the same military leaders referred to in verse 2 and are those from the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali who served under Barak (4:6, 10). Deborah’s and Barak’s song is in part a tribute to those who were summoned and responded to the call from the Lord by Deborah to serve in battle. Judges 5:13 is indeed a reference to the people gathering to go up into battle and in verse 15 we have a statement regarding who was the overseeing the execution of justice against Canaan: “And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah; as was Issachar so was Barak…” Or do you not recall who gave Barak the command to attack Sisera in Judges 4:14?

There is no question that Deborah was a great and godly woman who had considerable influence in Israel. But in the light of the evidence it is highly questionable to build a doctrine of women rulers from the case of Deborah. Deborah’s role in Israel was that of a “prophetess,” but not that of a civil ruler or military leader. The text does not support the idea that she was a civil magistrate. She “judged” Israel (Judg. 4:4) only in the sense that she was sought out by the people for advice and judgment in the settlement of disputes because of her wisdom from God. Apparently the priests and Levites were so corrupt that the people had to seek wisdom and judgment from this godly woman. But let us not seek in Deborah a doctrine of women rulers, and thereby become guilty of setting aside the definite precepts and commandments of God which forbid women magistrates.

Pardon my dullness, my brother, but will you please define for me with Scripture quotes what the actions and duties of a judge are? I have tried to go the breadth of not only the book of Judges but the rest of the OT in doing so. You make the comment that she was not really a judge but a prophetess giving advice although the text does not make that distinction. You infer that in the apostate climate of the nation the people sought her out because of Deborah’s own wisdom and judgment, whereas the text plainly states the woman spoke the word of the Lord in judgment and in battle. I am sure you know of some specific law from the Lord that excludes women from serving in civil government, but until you start quoting chapter and verse your explanation appears to be the eisegesis of the doctrine of the headship of man into the subject of civil magistrates.

It would be unwise to cancel out the explicit biblical teaching on the headship of man, the clear statements of the law, the picture of the virtuous woman, and the lament over women ruling on the basis of what took place in Israel in one of the most confused periods in Israel’s history. We should remember the important admonition of the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” It is a serious mistake of hermeneutics to use the story of Deborah to overthrow the positive precepts and principles of other Scriptures, and to establish it as the standard biblical text for determining the propriety of women rulers.

It is not my intention to cancel or overthrow the clear precepts of Scripture, but rather to bind any doctrine within the confines of Scripture. I hope you see that I endeavor to uphold the admonition you quoted by not only setting my explanation within the context of the entire passage but also addressing the source and scope of the judge’s jurisdiction from Scripture whereby we see that the OT judge not only adjudicates the law of God but also within a limited sphere executes the judgments of the King (the Lord Almighty). God’s law regarding the nature of family government is crystal clear regarding the roles of the husband and the wife. There is nowhere in all of Scripture where a woman is called to be the head of the family; Ephesians 5:22-33 is the best summary of not only the nature of the roles in family government but also the purpose – to reflect the glory of Christ and His Church. Likewise the picture of the virtuous woman presented in Scripture, whether the pure virgin keeping herself for the Lord or her future husband, or the industrious and wise wife, is always set in the context of the family and again is to reflect the glory of Christ and His Church.

The problem as I see it is when you try to extend the principle of “the headship of man” from the context of family government to civil government. I humbly ask that you provide a list of Scripture that delineate God’s law forbidding women serving as magistrates in the context of civil government in the same manner that His law forbids a wife to lead the family instead of the husband. (Please review my analysis of Isaiah 3:12 before you add it to the list.) To claim that Deborah’s story as a part of the sad commentary of apostate Israel during the time of the judges is to charge that God used a woman living in sin by ruling as judge in Israel and a man who likewise sinned by serving under her authority (not to mention the 10,000 men who served with him) to bring deliverance to Israel. Again if you look at the book of Judges, God always brought judgment (negative sanctions) upon usurpers who tried to assume the authority as judge over the nation (Abimelech being a classic example). I noted in an earlier post that this principle is again seen in the Age of Kings in the history of Israel – and here specifically to a usurper who was a woman!

In conclusion, I do not seek to “overthrow the positive precepts and principles of other Scriptures” in order to “establish [the Deborah narrative] as the standard biblical text for determining the propriety of women rulers.” Rather I desire to discern what the Scripture says clearly regarding the nature of civil government, the roles and responsibilities of those who serve in the various offices of civil government, and the qualifications of those who serve in civil government – making sure I identify clearly from the text that the Scripture is speaking specifically to the subject of civil government. I still maintain that given what God’s Word says about the general disposition of feminine character, I would not commend service as a ruler (judicial or otherwise) to women in general and would embrace the spirit of Angela’s post (and commend her as an example to those women who have an interest in politics). I would contend that Deborah by all indications met the qualifications set forth in Scripture for those who serve in civil government. However, since I have yet to find in Scripture a universal and specific sanction against women serving in civil government, for me to create such a sanction so would be adding “the precepts of men” over and above the Word of God. Like any other doctrine or system, if the Scripture contradicts it on one point alone then it is my doctrine or system that needs to be adjusted instead of Scripture twisted or ignored to fit my dogma. I am open to adjustment on this issue, however, and look forward to you sharing additional Scripture to help me. And although John Knox was a mighty man of God whom I admire greatly, his testimony alone cannot bind my conscience – the Word of God alone has that power.

Your fellow servant for the King,

Ricardo

[catholicresistence]

Thanks Ricardo for your clarity.

A links from "our" side

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/women-covering-print.htm

[Joe_Liberty]

The problem as I see it is when you try to extend the principle of “the headship of man” from the context of family government to civil government. I humbly ask that you provide a list of Scripture that delineate God’s law forbidding women serving as magistrates in the context of civil government in the same manner that His law forbids a wife to lead the family instead of the husband.

Could it be that the man has headship only in the family and the church but not in the state? No, this could not be, lest you make God the author of confusion, and have Him violate in the state the very order He established at creation and has revealed in Holy Scripture. If one is going to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the civil sphere, then to be consistent, he or she also needs to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the family and the church. Now it is true that some attempt to do just that; but their denial of male headship for the family, church, and state is really a rejection of the Word of God and is a repudiation of God’s created order. And it is not sufficient to contend that it is acceptable to support a woman for civil ruler when she is the best candidate, unless you are also prepared to argue that it is acceptable to advocate a woman for the office of elder because she is better suited than the available men in the church; and unless you are also prepared to say that the wife should rule over her husband if she is better equipped to lead than her husband is.

[dalecosby]

unless you are also prepared to argue that it is acceptable to advocate a woman for the office of elder because she is better suited than the available men in the church; and unless you are also prepared to say that the wife should rule over her husband if she is better equipped to lead than her husband is.

Exactly!!

[ScottEash]

Mr. Peroutka,

Thank you for informing us of the campaign of Mary E. Starrett for Governor of Oregon. I have been supporting you since I heard about your campaign for President. I voted for you in 2004 and financially supported you because I believe in the principles for which you stand. I’m sure that Ms. Starrett is an outstanding, principled candidate because I know that you wouldn’t promote her if she was anything less than the best. However, I must respectfully decline your request that I support her financially and prayerfully. I have a firm, biblical conviction that she is not qualified for public office.

As I’m sure you know, Scripture gives various minimum qualifications that must be met by civil magistrates. The Bible does not require perfect candidates, for there are no perfect candidates. However, in order to be qualified for office, public officials must meet the minimum threshold requirements given in Scripture. I am a firm believer that Christians must not support candidates who fail to meet the minimum biblical requirements.

I'm sure you know the specific biblical requirements to which I refer. They are found in these verses:

Exodus 18, “...thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:

2 Samuel 23:3, “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.”

I know you are familiar with these verses because you have quoted them in the past. You also know that these verses identify the male gender as a requirement for civil magistrates. The implication is unmistakable: women are not qualified to hold public office. Period.

Just as God requires male leadership in the institutions of the family and the church, he also requires male leadership in the state. Just consider this verse from Isaiah:

Isaiah 3:12, “As 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.”

Notice how God identifies female leadership as an error to be equated with children as oppressors!

Why should we allow any exceptions to God’s requirements for male leadership? If we can allow an exception there, why not allow exceptions in other places? If there is a great lack in “men of truth”, are we going to vote for habitual liars “out of necessity?”

I urge you, Mr. Peroutka, to carefully consider what I have briefly presented to you. I also encourage you to read this essay (http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/should_christians_support_a_wo.aspx) by William Einwechter. It is a well reasoned article from a solidly biblical perspective.

[dalecosby]

Scott, thanks for posting and you listed things I had not previously thought of.

[Urteil]

Michael Peroutka wrote: But this rule allows of exception in certain circumstances. One of the circumstatnces is necessity. ... In this example my wife is authorized to do what her man couldn't or wouldn't do because the situaion called for the act to be done and there was no man able or willing to do it. Though some may disagree, I believe we are living in a time in America when we need to entertain the thought that the failure of the men of America has become clear and while women serving in men's roles is not what we prefer to see, we should see it for what it is, repent of our wrongdoing and take action in keeping with that repentence.

It would be benificial in determining if this women is acting in God's interst or her own if you could tell us what "necessity" forced this women to run for governor in Oregon? Were no men willing? Were no men able? Not one in all of Oregon?

As to the failure of men being an excuse for women to go into politics, consider that Saul said he had to, out of "necessity", offer the burnt offering after waiting 7 days because Samuel didn't show up. Burnt offerings were not something that God authorized kings to do.

As soon as Saul did this, Samuel did show up and said "Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, ... now thy kingdom shall not continue." [I Samuel 13]

If we follow secular society and find excuses to elect women to office, something God has not authorized us to do, arn't we are acting foolishly, disobeying the commandment of God and won't our kingdom be taken from us?

The bible tells us that women are to be "keepers" at home, and it also tells us why: "that the word of God be not blasphemed." [Titus 2:5]

All the excuses people can dream up for why it is ok for women to be in politics are not only self serving in the case of women who run for office, and a mark of "friendship with the world" for the men and women who support the women who run and the cause of women in politics in general, but in the end only give God's ememies cause to blaspeme his word.

Rather than try to get as close to sin as we can to satisfy our own desires or falsely think that by compromising on this subject we can keep the world from getting angry with us, we should, as Daniel and his friends did, try to make ouselves as separate from sin as possible so the world can actually see that their is a difference between them and those who follow God.

There are many temptations that are difficult to refrain from. But any women who calls herself a christian should find NOT running for office one of the easiest temptations in the world to avoid.

For "failing men" chirstians, it may be more difficult in this politically correct age, to stand for God and say it is wrong for women to be in authority over men and to be out of the home, but it still has to be done if you do not wish to sin against god.

[Centurion]

Why is it that Christian men choose to major on exceptions to God's desires, to His revealed will, based on "necessity" (Deborah, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Hillary, Condi, presiding Episcopal bishop Katharine Jeffers Schori, General Janis Karpinski at Abu Ghraib .... whomever, whatever)?

Is it any wonder that we live in a thoroughly feminized culture?

And arrogant, blind men continue to blame women for this insane disorder.

The Bible is clear, from Genesis to Revelation: Choose good men to lead, to protect, to provide, to teach, to judge, to discipline, to serve, to love, to cherish, etc.

And God created women to respect, to help and to LOVE such men.

In the spirit of our first parents, however, we have chosen to do it our way, and we see the abominable consequences all around us.

[Michael A. Peroutka]

Dear Friends:

I greatly appreciate the points and the issues that you raise here. Perhaps I have not thought through this as thoroughly as I previously believed.

Many times in the past, upon offering an opinion I have jokingly ended by saying "...but, I reserve the right to be wrong." Perhaps I have been wrong in this case. I hope you will give me some time to consult and review my position on this issue.

Gratefully,

Michael

[dalecosby]

Michael, thanks for your humility and willingness to admit you MAY be wrong.

The main reason I like your show is because you are right most of the time.
The other reason I like your show is you aren't an arrogant jerk like Rush Limbaugh on the occasions where you might not be.

Take all the time you need.

DC

[ScottEash]

Thanks, guys, for your great comments on this topic.

Mr. Peroutka, like dalecosby said, I also am pleased to see your humble attitude. You stand as an example for all of us (myself included).

Dalecosby, you said..."The other reason I like your show is you aren't an arrogant jerk like Rush Limbaugh..." I heartily agree. I can't stand to listen to Mr. Limbaugh anymore, partly because of his arrogance, and partly because he is a socialist Republican cheerleader. Thanks for bringing this up.

[wayimp]

The actual situation here in Oregon was not one of necessity, but of political opportunity. Mary Starrett is not only a brilliant constitutionalist, she is also a media celebrity in Oregon. Her public recognition, spirited wit, and media savvy have boosted her campaign beyond that of any other candidate run by the Constitution Party of Oregon. Those few of us who dissented on moral grounds were not of significant influence in the nominating process. Those who did support her nomination did so out of an apparently sincere belief that while the Bible has much to say regarding the role of women in the church and home, somehow this does not apply to the civil sphere.

[dalecosby]

Interesting point, Wayimp.
That does shed new light on it.