Just a few things right out of the starting blocks. First, I agree with Tim Bayly’s argument on the creation order and women in civil leadership. Second, I don’t really agree with Geoffrey Botkin’s argument that the Sarah Palin move on the part of the GOP is the mother of all sucker plays. I agree with Botkin that it could be that, but I don’t believe that it is by any means self-evident yet.
While I don’t differ with anything in Tim’s post, there might be a possible quibble down the road — picking up on a comment made by someone else on his post. The fact that civil leadership by a woman is not part of the general creation order (which it is not), and rule by women generally is treated by Scripture as a curse, which it is (Is. 3:12), does not mean that any given instance of a woman ruling has to mean that the woman is disobedient, and/or that the men around her are wusses. The Bible never says that.
In other words, outside the Church, a woman in a position of authority over men ought to be treated as an anomaly, not as a sin or a disgrace. A woman pastor is not an anomaly; it is disobedience. But a woman who runs the household of her quadrapalegic husband would be in disobedience if she refused to do that. But such a virtuous action on her part does not keep it from being anomalous. That is not the way it usually goes, but it has to go this way in this instance — and not because her husband is abdicating either. In short, the oddball situations here and there that result in a woman holding political office or occupying the position of leadership in a family don’t bother me at all, not even a little bit. And to use the kind of example I have used before (and which no one in this debate has answered yet, incidentally), can a father or husband leave an inheritance to a daughter or wife if that inheritance includes the laboring jobs of males? Can a Christian woman inherit a factory that employs fifty men? The answer is of course. That’s not feminism. It is not egalitarianism. It is not common, but life is funny sometimes (Num. 27:7), and we should all of us just loosen our shoelaces. This kind of thing can happen without anybody being disobedient.
And this brings us to that poor warrior Barak, just one of many giants of the faith who ran afoul of modern sentimental pieties. The Bible describes as righteous a number of men and women who are dismissed by us in the most cavalier way — Jacob is the premier example, but this also applies to Tamar, and Jepthah, and Barak. And in the one place where Barak missteps, it is not because he was subservient to a woman. His problem was that he refused to do what a woman required of him — just like some people on the Internet stoutly insist they would also do. But even so, the Bible describes him as a man of faith (Heb. 11:32), and not as some kind of pencil neck.
At the same time, if women are being thrust into positions of leadership generally because everybody is in the grip of egalitarianism, and the assumption is made that men and women should all be doing the corporate and political thing fifty/fifty, what’s wrong with you people?, then that is a clear sign of the Isaiah 3 curse.
Just a couple of comments about Botkin’s article. First, I was genuinely surprised at his attitude toward football — not just objecting, as every Christian gentleman should, to the travesty of putting girls in pads and out on the field. He also plainly objecting to putting our sons into “organized combat on the football, soccer and hockey circuits.” At Logos, the contact sport is lacrosse, what the Iroquois appropriately “the little brother of war.” This objection to contact sports for everyone was more than a little revealing, in my view.
And second, Botkin summarized the Plan that usually keeps evangelicals voting Republican. His summary: “The other candidate is a Democrat. He is therefore scary. Be very afraid. Vote Republican.” I actually think that this is a very good summary . . . but we should also note that it is a compelling argument. The Democrats are really scary — that is not a bugbear, but is rather kind of like the truth. While it is customary to say that we have two parties in Washington — the Evil Party and the Stupid Party — the reality is not quite so simple. Twain once said the music of Wagner was better than it sounds, and we have to realize the Republicans are not as stupid as they behave.
I recently read a better summary of the way things are from a friend who detests McCain, but who is planning on voting for him anyway. Why? Because he would rather live under a crime syndicate than under the utopians, a sentiment that I fully share. That is certainly my preference, and that is also what I believe our choices to actually be — the Republican Mafioso or the Democrats of the Shining Dawn. Give me the former every time — far less blood.
And so the issue is not what I would personally prefer — no question, the Republicans. The issue is what is legitimate for me to vote for. The thing I am working through is whether the Palin choice represents a blundering crime syndicate or a very tricksy crime syndicate. I am leaning strongly toward the former.