Tags
christian, christianity, culture, doctrine, election, evangelical, government, John Piper, politics, religion, Sarah Palin, sovereignty, theology, women
This is the first of two related posts.
Back in August, about a week after I started blogging, I wrote what I thought would be a highly controversial post, entitled At the risk of sounding like a neanderthal… At the time, Sarah Palin had just been nominated for VP, and was supported by the vast majority of evangelical leaders. (Let me interject at this point that I like Sarah Palin, and I voted for her early this morning.)
I only received a couple of comments on that original post, but both commenters disagreed with the view that I had somewhat tentatively proposed. I don’t expect that bringing it up again will change that or win me any new friends.
Questioning the evangelical consensus, I asked whether or not it was proper for a woman to serve as the head of a nation. What I proposed was (and still is) a minority view, and an unpopular one at that. I myself am not 100% convinced that my view is correct, so don’t stone me just yet. I was (and still am) sincerely trying to wrestle with the implications of a few passages of Scripture. My questions were primarily focused on the exegesis and application of 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, and 1 Timothy 2:12-14.
I wrote,
Taken together, those [two] passages seem to teach that the order and the purpose and the events of both Creation and The Fall demonstrate that a woman should not exercise authority over a man.
Interacting at the same time with another blogger, I said,
It seems to me that Paul bases his teaching about woman being under man’s authority in 1 Corinthians 11 on the order and purpose of creation, before The Fall. Would that not then make it a principle that would apply to all human rule and government, rather than merely church government?
Now I see that John Piper has written a brief article that gets to the heart of my concerns, and articulates the issues far better than I did; which isn’t surprising, since he has a much sharper mind and pen than I do.
I’d like for you to read the article, and then come back and comment on it here when you’re finished. Please check back for Part 2 of this post later today; it will begin where this post ends, and then veer off in a completely different direction.
The verses refer to teaching spiritual things in the church. I do not believe that they extend outside of the body of Christ.
Also, we have the example of Deborah in Judges chapters 4 and 5.
Russ,
Thanks for commenting. I’m very familiar with those arguments and examples, of course, but I don’t think they settle the question. Just curious–did you read John Piper’s article? If so, I’d like to hear your thoughts about it.
I read the article and I do not agree with Piper. I think the leadership issue in Paul is a spiritual in the context of home and church leadership.
But if God has gifted a women with leadership qualities, I do not see the issue with her in that role outside of the spiritual leadership role.
Saying a good woman is better than a bad man seems to be a poor way to say a woman may be more gifted to governmental leadership than a man.
Comparing Israel to America is not a good way to go either. Israel was to be a nation of priests to the unbelieving world, making them the spiritual light for all of us to follow. The spiritual leadership was entwined in the civil and military issues Israel faced as a result of God choosing them. To say America is on a spiritual leadership par with Israel would be arrogant, God never picked us for that role.
I agree that those references refer specifically to the church. I do not think it preferable to have women rulers, though it is clear that in civil government God at times raises them up. The story of Deborah has already been referenced. You may add Huldah, the prophetess, to your references, in 1 Kings 22:14. The good king Josiah and the high priest went to this woman, who at that time was God’s spokesperson to them.
Andy and Laurie,
Thanks for weighing in. I’ve thought about this quite a bit in the last few months. I think I’m in complete agreement with Piper, point for point, on this one, even though I had no idea what his position was before today.
Did you know that Piper’s interpretation isn’t unique, historically? John Knox, and to a lesser extent John Calvin, both opposed women holding positions of authority in civil government. You can explore that topic here, if you’d like.
Piper’s position is actually more nuanced and less rigid toward women in government than that of some of the Reformers. There are other contemporary writers, too, like Mark Chanski, who seem to hold a view similar to Piper’s.
I would urge you to continue to think and pray and read more on the subject. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Thanks for the links. I do hold pretty much to Calvin’s perspective on this matter. And to clarify, when I say “it is clear that in civil government God at times raises them up”, I mean that primarily from the standpoint of providence, understanding that all government is established by God, even if it happens to come in the form a woman. I do not mean that to be an endorsement. It would seem, from Scripture that, female leadership, is a judgement of sorts upon men, a shame upon them. When God raises up a woman ruler, it’s time for men to take a good long look in the mirror.
Thanks for the clarification, Laurie. In his providence, God does indeed place women in positions of leadership at times; but I agree that it is a shame upon the men who have abdicated their responsibility to lead.
Leave John Piper at the door and check out Christians for Biblical Equality. http://www.cbeinternational.org
Dani, thanks again for reading and commenting. I’m familiar with the arguments on both sides of this debate, but believe that the approach of the CBMW is much more biblical. Grace and peace to you.