Lux Lucet

To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation or city is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, a thin most contrarious to His revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.

– John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women

Carly Fiorina

Last week we looked a World Magazine
survey of “evangelical insiders” conducted to determine their views on the Republican presidential candidates for the upcoming 2016 election. Of the 91 respondents, the first place winner was Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Carly Fiorina polled well, coming in, “as the most popular second-choice candidate.” Given the ecumenical world-view that has come to dominate much of the American Evangelical church, it is unsurprising, but still disappointing, to see so many Evangelicals approve candidates no Christian should support

In the case of Marco Rubio, the issue is his Roman Catholicism. Because the Constitution requires a that president swear to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and because this oath conflicts with the obligation a Roman Catholic has to obey the pope, it is improper for an Evangelical – for that matter, it is improper for anyone who holds dear the Constitution – to support a Romanist for president. And yet steeped as they are in several decades of neo-evangelicalism, these “evangelical insiders” see no problem with promoting a son of Rome, who openly admits, “I craved, literally, the Most Blessed Sacrament, Holy Communion, the sacramental point of contact between the Catholic and the liturgy of heaven.” Rubio, as have many Roman Catholic candidates over the years, has stated that he follows the pope on matters of faith and morals but not on political or economic issues. He may well be sincere in what he says, but Rome offers its teaching as a packaged deal. Roman Catholics are not free to follow the Church’s teaching on faith and morals while rejecting what it says on economics and politics. That the popes currently allow Roman Catholic politicians the freedom to stray from the Church’s teaching should be seen as the Church’s concession to the fact that its power is not at this time absolute as is was in the middle ages. Should Rome again attain to the position of power it held prior to the Reformation – and this is, in fact, its long-term goal – you can be assured that when the pope says “jump,” Roman Catholic magistrates will have but one response: how high?

Carly Fiorina

As if supporting an admitted Roman Catholic idolater for president weren’t bad enough, these same “evangelical insiders” managed to display their feminist stripes as well, giving high approval ratings to Carly Fiorina. Please note, in criticizing the “evangelical insiders,” we are not taking issue with their stance due to this or that policy position espoused by Fiorina. The problem here is that, contrary to the teaching of Scripture, Evangelicals are promoting a woman for president. There was a time, and not all that long ago either, when the only people who talked up the notion of a woman president were hard-core social revolutionaries. Even atheist Ayn Rand had the good sense to oppose the idea of a woman president, writing, “A woman cannot reasonably want to be a commander-in-chief.” As a guest on the Phil Donahue show, Rand was asked about the prospect of a female president and shocked the audience by stating, “I wouldn’t vote for her.” When pressed for a reason, Rand replied, “It is not to a woman’s personal interest to rule man. It puts her in a very unhappy position. I don’t believe that any good woman would want that position.”

How is it that an atheist can be closer to the mind of God on the issue of a woman president than a group of highly placed individuals who claim to believe the Bible? How is it that these “evangelical insiders” can be so obtuse?

The Monstrous Regiment – Logical Reasoning from Scripture

The classic Christian statement in opposition to female heads of state was made

John Knox, Scottish Reformer.

by John Knox in his 1558 essay The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (hereafter MRW).
It bears mentioning that Knox’s use of the term “regiment” is in the sense of “governmental rule.” Writing in MRW, Knox makes an argument that is similar to Rand’s,

First, I say that woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As St. Paul doth reason in these words: ‘Man is not of the woman but the woman of the man. And man was not created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of the man, and therefore ought the woman to have power upon her head’ (that is a coverture in sign of subjection). Of the which words it is plain that the Apostle meaneth that woman in her greatest perfection should have known that man was lord above her; and therefore that she should never have pretended any kind of superiority above him, no more than do the angels above God the creator or above Christ Jesus their head. So I say that in her greatest perfection woman was created to be subject to man…

Against God can nothing be more manifest than that a woman shall be exalted to reign above man.

Drawing support from the Scriptures, Knox reasons from several passages, especially I Corinthians and I Timothy, to buttress his case against female political rule.

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (I Corinthians 14: 34, 35).

And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression (I Timothy 2:12, 13).

Knox argues from the from the lesser to the greater. His line of thinking is that, if these passages, as they do, forbid women from speaking in church and exercising authority over men, then by logical implication women also are forbidden from governing a nation.

The Apostle taketh power from all woman to speak in the assembly; ergo, he permitteth no woman to rule above man. The former part is evident, whereupon doth the conclusion of necessity follow. For he that taketh from woman the least part of authority [teaching in the church], dominion or rule will not permit unto her that which is greatest. But greater it is to reign above realms and nations, to publish and to make laws and to command men of all estates, and finally to appoint judges and ministers, than to speak in the congregation. For her judgment, sentence or opinion proposed in the congregation may be judged by all, may be corrected by the learned and reformed by the godly. But woman being promoted in sovereign authority, her laws must be obeyed, her opinion followed and her tyranny maintained, supposing that it be expressly against God and the profit of the commonwealth, as to manifest experience doth this day witness. And therefore yet again I repeat that which before I have affirmed: to with, that a woman promoted to sit in the seat of God, that is, to teach, to judge or to reign above man, is a monster in nature, contumely to God, and a thing most repugnant to His will and ordinance.

As a further extension of Knox’s argument, the same prohibition against women as heads of state also applies to their holding offices of lesser authority. As such, it is unbiblical to support female candidates for city council, mayor, governor, representative or senator. It also implies that women’s suffrage, the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, is unbiblical.

The Monstrous Regiment of Women, title page.

All this may shock and offend some readers, but these prohibitions against women in positions of political authority are the logical implication of Paul’s clear teaching about their position in the church. And until very recently, they were common opinion as well. If all this seems new or strange, just ask yourself this: Is the US better or worse governed since the 1920 passage of the Nineteenth Amendment granting the franchise to women? During the past 95 years, the US has gone from being a constitutional republic bent on minding its own business to a bloated, semi-fascist empire with a gigantic tax-sucking welfare system, a rotten fiat currency, an Orwellian surveillance system and the largest debt load in the history of the world. While all the blame for America’s current mess cannot be laid at the feet of women voters, is it not possible that woman’s suffrage has at least helped to push the process of decline further and faster than otherwise would have been possible?

Additional Support from Scripture

Isaiah 3 provides further arguments against women in positions of political authority. Writing as he did in the latter part of the 8th century B.C., Isaiah was a prophet at a time in Judah’s history that was not unlike our own time. The nation had long enjoyed the fruits of its godly heritage, but societal decay had set in as the people had turned their backs on the law of God, doing instead what was right in their own eyes. As punishment for their sins, the Lord removed good governance from the land, giving them as rulers children and women. “As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them” (Isaiah 3:12). According to the Bible, female leadership is not something to be celebrated. Rather, it is a national disgrace and sign of God’s judgment.

Conclusion

For decades, if not longer, American Evangelicals have turned their backs on the Bible and rational thought, so it is unsurprising to find that “evangelical insiders” hold political opinions that, not only are uninformed by Scripture, but actually contrary to it. The failure of these “evangelical insiders” to exercise good judgment is simply one instance of a larger trend toward irrationalism, medievalism and Romanism within the nominally Protestant church. The inability to think rationally, the inability to exercise discernment, are not only themselves sins, but also punishments for sin. Unless the Lord in his mercy sends us a second Reformation, it is almost certain that the US will elect its second Roman Catholic, and first woman, president sometime soon, whether this election cycle or one in the near future. And no doubt, useful idiot “evangelical insiders” will be there smiling and ready to influence the new Commander-in-chief for the cause of Christ. But for all their pretense, these insiders truly will be outside the will of God.