Early Church Fathers and John Calvin on women in civil and military realms...

(Tim) With the release of Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, there is increasing talk of her presidential aspirations. As I have said before, I could vote for a woman for office. But it would be due to other considerations that, in my view, relegated her sex to a tertiary place in matters of consequence--the most obvious being her commitment to opposing the wholesale slaughter of the unborn across our land when her opponent was a proponent of that slaughter. Casting such a vote, though, I'd be under no delusion that her sex didn't matter. It would matter, but other things would matter even more.

Here are a few short statements--one from Marvin Olasky, several from Early Church Fathers, and several from John Calvin--explaining why sex does matter outside the home. First, an excerpt from an interview we did with World's editor-in-chief, Marvin Olasky, when I served as the Exec. Dir. of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and edited...

CBMW's journal:

CBMW (David Wegener): How has feminism influenced the church?
                
Marvin Olasky: Feminism has influenced our understanding of compassion. We need to return to the older understanding of that term. It has also impacted our practice of church discipline--or lack of practice, as the case may be.
                     
The whole question of society and the church comes in here. God does not forbid women to be leaders in society, generally speaking, but when that occurs it's usually because of the abdication of men. As in the situation of Deborah and Barak, there's a certain shame attached to it. I would vote for a woman for the presidency, in some situations, but again, there's a certain shame attached. Why don't you have a man who's able to step forward? God's Word says very plainly that an elder is to be a man; he is to be the husband of one wife. It's harder when there are women who are CEO's of companies and so forth. Still, it comes down to the question of "Do we trust God and do we believe that He has wisdom that we don't have?"

Marvin doesn't quite get at the nub of Scripture's doctrine of sexuality, here, but he summarizes Scripture's teaching quite well in declaring "there's a certain shame attached to" women leaders in society, declaring it all to be a matter of faith. Better the Early Church Fathers and John Calvin:

Chrysostom: Woman was not made for this, O man, to be prostituted as common. O ye subverters of all decency, who use men, as if they were women, and lead out women to war, as if they were men! This is the work of the devil, to subvert and confound all things, to overleap the boundaries that have been appointed from the beginning, and remove those which God has set to nature. For God assigned to woman the care of the house only, to man the conduct of public affairs. But you reduce the head to the feet, and raise the feet to the head. You suffer women to bear arms, and are not ashamed. (Chrysostom, Homily on Titus 2:14).
   
Clement of Alexandria: We do not say that woman's nature is the same as man's, as she is woman. For undoubtedly it stands to reason that some difference should exist between each of them, in virtue of which one is male and the other female. Pregnancy and parturition, accordingly, we say belong to woman, as she is woman, and not as she is a human being. But if there were no difference between man and woman, both would do and suffer the same things. As then there is sameness, as far as respects the soul, she will attain to the same virtue; but as there is difference as respects the peculiar construction of the body, she is destined for child-bearing and housekeeping.... For we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war (although) I hear that the Sarmatian women practice war no less than the men; and the women of the Sacae besides, who shoot backwards, feigning fight as well as the men. (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, book 4, chapter 8).

John Calvin: This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency's sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet (Juvenal) are very true: "What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?" (John Calvin, exposition of the Seventh Commandment; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, tr. Charles Bingham, 22 vols., (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, repr. 1996), 3:110).

John Calvin: Two years ago, John Knox in a private conversation, asked my opinion respecting female government. I frankly answered that because it was a deviation from the primitive and established order of nature, it ought to be held as a judgment on man for his dereliction of his rights just like slavery-that nevertheless certain women had sometimes been so gifted that the singular blessing of God was conspicuous in them, and made it manifest that they had been raised up by the providence of God, either because He willed by such examples to condemn the supineness of men, or thus show more distinctly His own glory. I here instanced Huldah and Deborah." John Calvin, "Letter DXXXVIII to William Cecil" in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, ed. Henry Beveridge & Jules Bonnet, vol. 7, (Philadelphia, 1860), p. 46.

Finally, this from the Word of God:

Say to the righteous that it will go well with them, For they will eat the fruit of their actions. Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him. O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. (Isaiah 3:10-12)

Comments

[Michael McMillan]

> Casting such a vote, though, I'd be under no delusion that her sex didn't matter. It would matter, but other things would matter even more.

Her likeability, faith and conservatism aside, I have a hard time imagining Sarah Palin saving us from anything, including abortion, sodomy, Islamic jihad, enviornmental panic-mongers, traitors in high places, persecution of Christians by government, etc. She has more obvious problems than merely her sex. Besides, I really doubt she's electable, because there are not enough Republicans or Independents who share her values, despite the long-awaited historical novelty of having a First Lady who would be running the show.

> I would vote for a woman for the presidency, in some situations, but again, there's a certain shame attached.

Yeah, that's probably what Adam thought -- "there's a certain shame attached to letting my wife lead and taking the fruit from her, but let's be practical, here. Isn't having the big picture -- knowing the difference between good and evil -- a plus in the long term?"

It gets back to the Americanist notion that if we get the right person in there, we will be able to wave our flags with more gusto and a clearer conscience. No real repentance necessary, just successful politics. If female leadership is a judgment, then why would we vote for it? We will only end up being disappointed by our female savior whom we had such high hopes for. This isn't a matter of just making sure the ship of state continues to sail smoothly, the helm of which we might decide to turn over to a woman for awhile. We are needing to be rescued from certain destruction. Sarah just doesn't have that super-hero aura to me. She's become an instant conservative political celebrity, but will that suffice? How much of it is empty hype?

The Palin-mystique could actually prevent us from getting a good man in office. Mike Huckabee, for example. And so the judgment would continue, if primary election voters decide to chase a skirt instead.

[Michael McMillan]

> [Olasky:] ...it's usually because of the abdication of men.

> [Calvin:] ...He willed by such examples to condemn the supineness of men...

Note in both cases the idea of the abdication of men. What if the men haven't abdicated?

Should a conservative Christian woman even run against a conservative Christian man? [Say, in the case of Palin and Huckabee both seeking the party nomination.] How conservative is a conservative woman who would do this? How conservative is a Christian who would vote for the Christian woman opposing the Christian man?

[Joel Linton]

I would vote for Palin over Huckabee, at this point, since I do not trust Huckabee. Perhaps that is from something missed / ignorance, but I carefully studied the candidates in the last election. There is too much of a "Trust me, it will all work out; he really is on your side." going around. People did it with Obama (I did not.). And they set their loyalty on whatever candidate and so many will actually end of deceiving themselves and others. I would need to see concrete, definitive evidence that a person would not compromise on principles, and what principles that person stands for.

Not sure if this blog post was related to advancing the names of candidates and giving an apologetic for them or if it was related to the role of women in leadership on the national scene.

I wonder who is the holder of the "Americanist notion" that Michael mentions. None of my family or friends, folks I know, hold to that. We all have the notion that for the sake of a nation and a society, it is our responsibility to do what we can to get the best leaders elected while not neglected our other responsibilities to work, families, etc. We do not think of the leader as a savior figure, but do see how quickly can a bad leader become destructive to a society: case in point -- Obama, Pelosi, Reid.

While we acknowledge all things are under God's sovereign hand, we do not pretend to an absolute understanding of God's purpose in events, cause and effect, etc. We do not conclude as Jesus' disciples in their question: "Who sinned -- this man or his parents?" God's purpose of ordering history for His glory may come outside of any of those sin/judgment consequence causes. Yes, there are in general, general principles, but in matters of assessing judgment of a nation and people (e.g. as some theonomists do), or assessing the march of history (as some dispensationalists do re: what is happening in Israel), I think we have to consider ourselves very finite and limited in our knowledge and understanding of those events and God's full and multiple purposes in them. There are so many evils perpetrated in the United States, but so also, and often to a greater extent, in other nations of the world. Will God judge American with discipline while judging the other nations by giving them over to their evil ways so that they do not experience anything that would halt their descent?

We also acknowledge secondary causes through which God often works: e.g. the personal responsibility of individual citizens in their voting. We also see the responsibility and failure of the church, especially the vast majority of her elders - teaching and ruling - who have failed to be a consistent and clear witness to the truth and salt and light to the society.

Was Margaret Thatcher a judgement on the United Kingdom? Was Deborah a judgment on Israel? It was God's grace that they were where they were, and they helped protect and preserve those two nations from a further decline.

Use me as an example: I am a pastor and a missionary. Would I do better than Sarah Palin at ruling a nation? Who knows? Does because I am not running for office and she may indicate that I am abdicating my role as a man? No. I am taking responsibility to the best of my imperfect-sinful-natured-yet-redeemed ability.

There is one area I can see for my own improvement: I can pray for my nation and its people more as the prophet Daniel did.

I'm just saying that we should be careful on presuming to understand God's full purpose and major priority goals in events that transpire in history.

Even in the things God has revealed, I do not understand them all. Why in the world at one point in time did God actually have mercy on Assyria and bring a temporary repentance to the capital city of its empire? Was His main reason to teach the lesson in the book of Jonah? Were there secondary geopolitical reasons in that time that required the Assyrians not to decline so fast as an empire? Was it related to the fullness of time that was needed for things to lead of to Jesus coming in the Roman empire? Possibly.