Lux Lucet

The specific purpose of this series has been to look at what the Bible has to say about the now popular idea that , not only is it improper for voters to reject a presidential candidate because she’s a woman, but that having a female head of state is itself actually a positive development, demonstrating progressive thinking on the part of any nation whose electorate votes for such a thing.

More broadly speaking, it has been my intention to make people aware that what Martin Luther called the Schriftprinzip – Schriftprinzip is German for “Scripture principle” – applies not just in matters that Christians normally think of as “spiritual”, but to all facets of life, politics included. A typical formulation of the Schriftprinzip is this: Scripture is, “in itself most certain, most easily understood, most plain, is its own interpreter, approving, judging, and illuminating all the statements of all men…Therefore nothing except the divine words are to be the first principles for Christians; all human words are conclusions drawn from them and must be brought back to them and approved by them” (emphasis added).

Note well Luther’s use of the words “all” and “nothing”. All statements of all men must be judged by nothing other than the words of the 66 books of the Bible. For some, the idea that the Bible has anything to say about politics may be a new thought, let alone that what it has to say is authoritative. God is not the God of 11 am on Sunday mornings only. He is God 24/7, and his Word is authoritative in all things 24/7.

This means, among other things, that when Christians think about politics, they must not take their cues on what is right and what is wrong from secular thinkers, but they are required to bring the statements of the political pundits and philosophers back to the Bible to see if their opinions square with the Word of God.

The Schriftprinzip, Evangelicals, and Female Presidents

In its original use, the word “Evangelical” described someone who believed in 1) Luther’s Scripture principle and 2) justification by faith alone. But the meaning has shifted to the point where today and Evangelical is pretty much anyone who goes to church and is not either a Roman Catholic or a liberal Protestant. As a result, there are many self-proclaimed Evangelicals in American churches who do not believe that the Bible is authoritative in all matters. Probably there are many who haven’t even heard the word “justification” from the pulpit, let alone understand that it refers to God’s pronouncing a sinner not guilty on the basis of his faith in Christ alone.

And if Evangelicals today struggle with basic Christian ideas, what the author of Hebrews called “milk”, they can hardly be expected to understand how to apply the Scriptures to matters of politics.

In his article Deborah & Esther: Are They Precedents for a Female President?, Dr. Paul Elliott relates his experience on Christian discussion forums concerning the possible presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin. Elliott argued that, “it is foreign to God’s ordained authority structure for a woman to rule a nation. Therefore, to advocate or work for the election of a woman as leader of the nation is un-Biblical – even someone whose political views we may agree with, and are at least somewhat informed by Scripture.”

And what sort of reaction did Elliot receive from the Evangelicals on the discussion forums? In his words, it was “a firestrom of pure emotion,” with some accusing him of not caring whether the country “goes to Hell,” or that he believed, “women should be kept barefoot and uneducated,” or that he was, “a closet Muslim.”

On the other hand, there still are Evangelicals who understand that the Bible prohibits Christians from voting for or working to elect a female president. In an article in the DesMoines Register, Jennifer Jacobs, reporting on the failure of Michele’ Bachmann’s 2012 presidential bid, set forth seven reason Bachmann failed to with the Iowa Caucues that year in spite of a strong early showing in the state. Reason number 5, according to Jacobs, was “Sexism among some conservatives.” As Jacobs explains it, “[I]n the final weeks of the campaign, as Bachmann’s poll numbers hovered in single digits, her national aides and evangelical organization team privately complained that sexism coursed through Iowa’s religious conservative community, even as the aides publicly rebuffed questions on the topic.”

Using the pejorative “sexism” to describe Christians’ adherence to Biblical principles of government as opposed to their swallowing the “wisdom” of the world, in this case its ungodly feminist “wisdom,” is a textbook example of calling good evil and, by implication, evil good. Those who do such things bring themselves under the condemnation of God. As Isaiah puts it, “woe to them.”

Female Heads of State, What Say the Scriptures?

In his First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, John Knox made the case that since the Bible prohibits women to rule in the churches and, for that matter, even so much as speak in church assemblies, by logical implication it follows that the Scriptures also prohibit women from ruling nations. In Knox’s memorable turn of phrase,

To promote a woman [note well, Knox is talking here, not about female heads of state, but those who promote female heads of state, while it is sinful for a woman to seek to be head of state, those who promote her in her quest share in her guilt] to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumelious to God, a think most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally it is the subversion of good order, and of all equity and justice…

…The revealed will and perfect ordinance of God…do manifestly oppose that any woman shall reign or bear dominion over man. For God first by order of his creation, and after by the curse and malediction pronounced against the woman by the reason of her rebellion, has pronounced the contrary….

The Apostle [Paul] takes power from all women to speak in the assembly [see I Corinthians 14:34-35 “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also 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,” the obvious meaning of which modern day feminist interpreters strain to explain away] Ergo, he permits no woman to rule above man. The former part is evident, whereupon does the conclusion of necessity follow. For he that takes from woman the least port of authority, 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 make laws, and to commend men of all estates, and finally to appoint judges and ministers, than to speak in the congregation…

Note well that Knox is not afraid of logical implication. Writing to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul is specifically discussing the behavior of women in church services and enjoins them to be silent “for they [women] are not permitted to speak.” Historically, Christians have recognized three spheres of government: the home, the church and the state. And since God is not the author of confusion, we can logically infer that what he says about one sphere also applies to the others. By establishing male only rule in the church, by implication this principle applies to the other spheres as well.

But as powerful as Knox’s argument by implication is, the Bible has more to say on the subject of female heads of state. Not only does the Bible condemn the idea of female government, but it actually indicates that nations so ruled are under the judgment of God. Going back to Paul Elliott’s comments, “God has ordained male headship in [civil] government, and it is a shame upon a nation and an indication of a ruined state to have a woman rule over it, even though God may bring it about as a judgment.” As support for this Elliott cites Isaiah 3:1-12, which in part reads, “As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths.”

Some will say that here the prophet is speaking figuratively and that he is not condemning rule by women in itself, but only saying that the rulers of Judah were acting like women. But as arguments for female heads of state go, this isn’t much of one. For even if it were true that Isaiah is speaking figuratively, and it is not at all clear that this is the case, condemning the male rulers of Judah for acting like women is certainly no argument in favor of female government, but rather a refutation of it.

Counter Arguments

It is not uncommon for proponents of matriarchy to argue, suing the examples of Deborah and Hulda, that the Bible does too condone female government. To this argument, Knox said,

[P]articular examples do establish no common law…

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 that David, Jacob, and Solomon, servants of God, did the same. I trust that no man would justify the vanity of this reason.

Another way of putting this is to say that events do not explain themselves, but must themselves be explained. The didactic or teaching passages of Scripture make clear that government is the exclusive province of men, and examples to the contrary must be seen in the context of this teaching. As Knox goes on to explain,

For of examples, as is before declared, we may establish no law, but we are always bound to the law written and to the commandment expressed in the same. And the law written and pronounced by God forbids no less that any woman reign over man than it forbids man to take plurality of wives, to marry two sisters living at once…

Even Deborah herself did not think it proper that she as a woman lead Israel into battle, but rather called on Barak to do the job, rebuking him for his refusal to fight Sisera without her. “I will surely go out with you, nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”

Application for 2016

The immediate occasion of my writing this series is the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Form the time she announced she was running right up to the present day, her supporters have harangued Americans that to support Hillary is to support women and their shattering of the last, the final, and the greatest of glass ceilings. This is an historic opportunity we are told. The comments from the Denver Post are typical of the sort of breathless writing that accompanied Clinton’s nomination, “Last week, it was impossible to ignore the crunching shards underfoot after Hillary Clinton smashed one of the highest and hardest glass ceiling to break: becoming the first female presidential nominee of a major political party.”

What shall we say to this? In the first place, irrespective of her politics, it is unbiblical to promote the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, for the simple reason that she is a woman.

The typical reaction from nearly everyone is to say that this is sexist and to heap great masses of opprobrium upon the head of anyone so hopelessly out of date as to suggest it. But above all people, Christians have the obligation to reject language and the strident howling of the feminist Social Justice Warriors, basing their voting stance on the explicit statements and necessary inferences found in the 66 books of the Bible alone.

Second, don’t expect much support for this position, not from political conservatives, not even from conservative Evangelicals. According to a 2014 Gallup poll regarding a potential Hillary Clinton presidency, only 4 percent of Americans stated they did not want a woman president. And one can see this in the way conservative pundits criticize her. They may take issue with her politics or the many and serious legal scandals that follow her everywhere she goes. But this author has yet to hear a single serious criticism from conservatives that lays the axe to the root and reject her candidacy because she’s a woman. Practically speaking, that argument is nonexistent.

Conservative Evangelicals are no better. For example, Albert Mohler, when he was asked whether it was Biblical for a woman to be a political or military leader, hemmed, hawed, qualified, and finally punted on  the question, giving the weak non-answer, “I’m not sure we can give a definitive answer in terms of women serving in economic leadership, in cultural leadership or in political leadership…But the answer is not necessarily ‘no.’ ” It is absolutely shocking to this observer that this intelligent and educated man, one who posits himself as a Christian leader, can give such a lame answer to such an easy question. Apparently, he believes that the Bible, while normative in some areas, has nothing to say about the very practical question of whether a woman can legitimately serve as Madam President.

Third, Evangelicals must be understand that whatever the result of the 2016 elections, it will reflect the will of God. This is true even if Hillary is wins.

Why is this? For the simple reason that God is sovereign and that nothing, not one single event, occurs apart from his will. It is not enough to say, as some do, that God merely permits evil. But rather we must say, as do the Scriptures, that he actively decrees it. The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines the decrees of God thus: “The decrees of God are his eternal purpose according to the council of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass.” Whatsoever includes all things, even those things that are contrary to his preceptive [preceptive meaning, “of , relating to, or expressing a rule or principle that prescribes a particular course of action or conduct,” The Free Dictionary] will expressed in the Scriptures.

Some struggle with this concept thinking that it impugns the integrity of God and makes him responsible for evil. But God is not responsible for evil for the simple reason that responsible means “liable to give an answer.” So ask yourself, to whom does God owe an answer? As the Bible teaches us, the answer to this question is “no one.” Therefore, God is not responsible for evil, even the evil that a Hillary Clinton administration or any other woman president would represent.

Conclusion

Given the current state of affairs in America and in the West generally, writing a series criticizing the propriety of female government is to run the risk of alienating many people, even those with whom I am in agreement on a wide range of other issues. So successful has been the feminist indoctrination of our culture, so great is the level of Biblical ignorance and so lacking in courage are God’s people, that the axioms of logical inferences of the ungodly women’s movement have become common sense to almost everyone, including those who should know better.

It is not an easy thing to go against received opinion. You might become unpopular. You might, so to speak, find yourself put out of the synagogue. Depending on where you live, you might be arrested or killed. But even so, as Christians it is our duty to declare the whole counsel of God, however unpopular this or that teaching may be at the moment. In fact, the more unpopular the particular point of doctrine, the more it is incumbent upon Christians to declare it boldly.

Doing so has its costs, but it also has its rewards. Yes, some may speak evil of us falsely, but that is to the Christians credit, not his shame. The feminists and the Social Justice Warriors may hate us for our words, but as Jesus said, “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

To summarize this thrust of this four-part series, Contrary to current popular opinion, the Bible clearly teaches that woman are not to serve as heads of state.  The orthodoxy of the present day is the result feminist teaching that goes back to the 19th century.  The women’s movement, rejecting what the Bible teaches about the roles of men and women, upended politics, first by demanding the vote.  The success of the suffragette movement in the late 19th and early 20th century implied female government, which has taken about one hundred years to become commonplace.  But while feminists, and even many who would not consider themselves feminists, view a woman president as a sign of progress, it is actually a sign of God’s judgment.