Palin and Complimentarianism

I found this interesting article today. What do you think?

Wow!! Kind of hard to argue with him. He seems to backed by scripture in his arguments. Maybe I will just vote for Ron Paul this election and see what happens. Either God will judge us with a good woman ruler (like Deborah) or a really wicked man.
My first response was rather sceptical but I could find no holes in his reasoning.

Here is a followup article by Gary DeMar taking the different position. I find it unconvincing, yet interesting. I think the main flaw in his argument is that he lets the historical portions of Scripture control the didactic, which hermeneutically speaking is unsound.

I actually like what Gary DeMar said after thinking some more about it. God raised up Deborah. It seems as though God has raised up Sarah in my mind. From what I have heard she has been received with overwhelming approval from ever since she entered the political scene. To me this seems to be a sign that God is raising her up.
Whether I will vote for her though is another matter. To be sure I think she is a great lady from what I've heard. However I can't stand McCain! I don't know how much Vice President can do, but I don't think it's much. It's sick when we've got a two liberals running against each other.

God raised up Deborah as a "prophet" too. Would that mean you could vote for a woman elder if the times were bad enough. After all, desperate times call for desperate measures.

A prophet is much different then an elder. A prophet was raised up by God to speak His Word to the people before the Bible was completed. An elder is a governor and leader of the church. He has a very different role then a prophet.

God never raised up women elders to govern His church. He did raise up women rulers in the civil realm though.
No matter how many human means we can trace our leaders' ascent to power I believe that all our leaders have been appointed by God. Therefore, even though Palin was voted into office as governor of Alaska I believe (and I think Paul would agree) that God placed her in that office. Even though McCain picked her to be his vice president I believe God appointed her to that office. In my mind if God has appointed her this high, that would give me cause to think of her as appointed by God as Deborah.
Deborah in the Bible seems to just appear on the scene. We don't how God appointed her to her office but He did. Sarah Palin in a similar way suddenly appeared on the scene to many of us. It was a very unexpected event in which this woman suddenly appears in power. I would say this should give us cause to at least reconsider if she may indeed be raised up by God for this task.

I haven't decided on voting for her because of the horrible man who is running as president. But I believe I can vote for her alone in good conscience.

Legolas Greenleaf wrote:A prophet is much different then an elder. A prophet was raised up by God to speak His Word to the people before the Bible was completed. An elder is a governor and leader of the church. He has a very different role then a prophet.

True . . . but she still exercised authority over a man . . . taught, led, exhorted the people to repentance etc. Why not today? While not bringing new revelation, why not proclaiming received revelation?

Legolas Greenleaf wrote:God never raised up women elders to govern His church.

But He did raise up women leaders for His church (ie prophets).

Legolas Greenleaf wrote:He did raise up women rulers in the civil realm though.

. . . just as God appointed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc, etc, etc.

Legolas Greenleaf wrote:No matter how many human means we can trace our leaders' ascent to power I believe that all our leaders have been appointed by God. Therefore, even though Palin was voted into office as governor of Alaska I believe (and I think Paul would agree) that God placed her in that office. Even though McCain picked her to be his vice president I believe God appointed her to that office. In my mind if God has appointed her this high, that would give me cause to think of her as appointed by God as Deborah.
Deborah in the Bible seems to just appear on the scene. We don't how God appointed her to her office but He did. Sarah Palin in a similar way suddenly appeared on the scene to many of us. It was a very unexpected event in which this woman suddenly appears in power. I would say this should give us cause to at least reconsider if she may indeed be raised up by God for this task.

I haven't decided on voting for her because of the horrible man who is running as president. But I believe I can vote for her alone in good conscience.

Excellent points! Thanks for the response.

Let us though take your hermeneutic to its logical conclusion. First, here is the line of argumentation set forth for voting for a godly woman. We see that the Bible clearly sets forth the qualifications of a godly ruler. If God has blessed a people with the privilege of voting, they are to follow these principles. In these instructive portions of scripture women are clearly excluded (just as they are in the ecclesiastical realm). However we see that God raised up Deborah to be a judge (and prophet) in Israel and she was godly. Hence we can safely conclude that as long as a woman is better than the men, we can vote for her with a clear conscience before God. Historical examples are now allowed to govern how we view the clear teachings of Scripture. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I would need to ask now though, how does this manner of applying scripture rightly preclude the election of godly women into the office of elder? The church is in a sad state in this country right now . . . there are many godly, knowledgeable, theologically astute women . . . the men are few and far between. Plus we have historical examples of women being pastors in the church and as we know, God appoints the leaders.

Why is it easier to see Deborah as a commendation to vote for women rulers as opposed to a condemnation of the culture and men of that day, especially in the light of Isaiah 3, Ex. 18, Deut. 1, 17, 1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 3, etc? Remember also that she became judge in Israel during a time that was marked by this description, "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (17:6, 21:25). Just because God ordains something does not mean that we should support it. Did He not also ordain the corruption of the church throughout the middle ages? Should Martin Luther have supported the pope? After all, God appointed him. Further reflection on portions of Scripture will bring you to the example of Assyria who was raised up to judge Israel (by God) and then punished for doing it. God's ordaining can be a judgment or a blessing. Could it be that God caused the people to elect Deborah and then judged them for it? The more you look into it, the harder it becomes to base decisions upon historical examples or the narrative portions of scripture. Sarah Palin certainly has been raised up by God, and maybe even to bring about reform, but it does not necessarily follow that Christians should vote for her.

The application of scripture in this manner becomes too arbitrary. You loose a fixed reference point. You may even find yourself doing what seems right in your own eyes. In my humble opinion, it seems better and safer to take what God has clearly commanded and follow it lest we become too fanciful in our application of His holy Word. As a side note, did you ever noticed that Barak was mentioned in Hebrews 11 and not Deborah?

Lastly, I agree. McCain is a baby killer and should not be supported.

All right, I'll concede that Deborah was a judgment on the people of Israel. After studying things more closely I believe you're right, that even though Deborah did some good things it was a commentary and judgment rather than a blessing. I found another interesting parallel between her and Sarah Palin though. The peasantry ceased, they ceased in Israel,
Until I, Deborah, arose,
Until I arose, a mother in Israel.
New gods were chosen;
Then war was in the gates.
Not a shield or a spear was seen
Among forty thousand in Israel.

The thing about not being able, as a Christian, to vote for Palin raises some questions. Would you be able to vote for Romney, a professed Mormon? I don't know if Ron Paul professes to be a Christian. Could you vote for him?

We must take into consideration that, while we are seeking to bring this nation back to the Bible, we must sometimes take what we can get. We need to fight like the Liberals. The homosexuals would love for everyone to be persecuted if they say the least bad thing about them. While wanting that extreme they realize that they have to take steps and pursue their goal relentlessly. We need to pursue this ultimate goal while realizing that it will not happen all at once.

Evolution in schools is another example. The Liberals fought and fought and gradually bit by bit they eased their way in and have now kicked creation out. We aren't going to get creation in the schools all at once—unless we get all our men in congress, house, presidency, and judicial branches and pass laws to that effect.

I don't think as a Christian you should sit out every election, not voting for anyone because they don't quite fit all the criteria in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

P.S. The prophetesses never wrote any books and there is not even much recorded that they said. I don't think they were really leaders in the church. Yes, God spoke through them but I don't think they had the same influence or even quite the same role as the prophets.

BrianEschen wrote:Let us though take your hermeneutic to its logical conclusion. First, here is the line of argumentation set forth for voting for a godly woman. We see that the Bible clearly sets forth the qualifications of a godly ruler. If God has blessed a people with the privilege of voting, they are to follow these principles. In these instructive portions of scripture women are clearly excluded (just as they are in the ecclesiastical realm). However we see that God raised up Deborah to be a judge (and prophet) in Israel and she was godly. Hence we can safely conclude that as long as a woman is better than the men, we can vote for her with a clear conscience before God. Historical examples are now allowed to govern how we view the clear teachings of Scripture. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I would need to ask now though, how does this manner of applying scripture rightly preclude the election of godly women into the office of elder? The church is in a sad state in this country right now . . . there are many godly, knowledgeable, theologically astute women . . . the men are few and far between. Plus we have historical examples of women being pastors in the church and as we know, God appoints the leaders.

Part of the problem I see here is that you seem to be putting the church and civil government on the same level. The church was appointed by God at the beginning of the world. She is His bride and will remain for all eternity. The civil government while created by God does not have the same special appointment, care, and protection that the church does. The civil government will pass away, as will the family. The church is special and so something that goes for the state doesn't always go for the church. I would say that those churches that have women leaders are in fact not part of the true church. I my mind bringing those women rullers up is like saying Athalia is an example in favor of women rulers. If there are no good men in your church then I would say get out of that church! If you have women leaders (even in the office of "deaconess") then your congregation or denomination is at the very least in serious error. So the reason it rightly precludes the election of women as elders is the very nature of the church. God has promised, and has sustained His church throughout all the ages. He has not promised the same about the state.

Legolas Greenleaf wrote:Part of the problem I see here is that you seem to be putting the church and civil government on the same level. The church was appointed by God at the beginning of the world. She is His bride and will remain for all eternity. The civil government while created by God does not have the same special appointment, care, and protection that the church does. The civil government will pass away, as will the family. The church is special and so something that goes for the state doesn't always go for the church. I would say that those churches that have women leaders are in fact not part of the true church. I my mind bringing those women rullers up is like saying Athalia is an example in favor of women rulers. If there are no good men in your church then I would say get out of that church! If you have women leaders (even in the office of "deaconess") then your congregation or denomination is at the very least in serious error. So the reason it rightly precludes the election of women as elders is the very nature of the church. God has promised, and has sustained His church throughout all the ages. He has not promised the same about the state.

While you are correct about the special place that the church has in God's plan . . . it is an unwarranted logical leap to assert that the rules regarding the civil sphere are less binding than those regarding the church.

Remember also that the argument against woman leaders is not tied to the nature of the church but is based on two facts, 1) Man was created first and then Adam and 2) Man was not deceived (he knowingly rebelled) but Eve was deceived. The argument against woman rulers has to do with God's order. That is why historically this view has been held in the church, namely that if woman cannot rule in the church or the family, they could and should not rule in the civil sphere. It is a perversion of God's order.

Good point on Athalia. That is why it is dangerous to use historical narrative as a basis for our actions.

While God has not promised to sustain the state throughout the ages, He has called it a blessing and set the limits of it. To say that the nature of the church and state are different is merely to assert just that . . . their natures are different. It does not follow that God's laws and creation order are not applicable to it.

Thanks for the input.

Legolas Greenleaf wrote:I don't think as a Christian you should sit out every election, not voting for anyone because they don't quite fit all the criteria in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Thank you very much for the input.

I do not mean to imply that a Christian should sit out an election. I am sorry I was not clear on that. God has given us a great blessing in this country and we need to use it faithfully. My only contention has been that God not only ordains ends but also the means. It is presumptuous on our part to think God will bless us (in this case in the civil realm) while disregarding His law. Focusing on results tends to muddy the waters and cloud our judgment. I do not think the battle is going to be won using the enemies weapons.

Also, I would say elections are not the only time to be active. Can you imagine what would happen in the corridors of power if Christians informed themselves of what was going on and picked up the phone each time a wicked law was passed or an ungodly policy was being implemented?

I agree that we can't just throw out and compromise God's law in regard to civil magistrates. Very good argumentation on your part and keeping your head no matter what I threw at you.
It's just as you said in your latest post, there is a degree of wisdom that must be exercised in voting. Do you vote for the most godly one even if there's no chance of him winning? Or do you vote for the one that is not as good, but has a better chance of winning?

Legolas Greenleaf wrote: It's just as you said in your latest post, there is a degree of wisdom that must be exercised in voting. Do you vote for the most godly one even if there's no chance of him winning? Or do you vote for the one that is not as good, but has a better chance of winning?

Good point That is where the use of wisdom comes in. Let every one be convinced by their own conscience held captive by the word of God. I don't believe there is a "perfect" candidate . . . but there are certain issues I won't budge on.

That's how it should be. We need set standards and vote for no one who does not meet our standards.

CheeseKing wrote:That's how it should be. We need set standards and vote for no one who does not meet our standards.

What if that means not voting at all?

You could always write in candidates. For instance, most of everyone I know is writing in Chuck Baldwin and it is my hope that we push these next 4 years to give the Constitution party more popularity. Why does it seem like a two-party system? Because people don't think outside the box and when they see that Democrats and Republicans are failing them and we can show evidence of something that can work, they might be won to our side. For a state like CA, it is a waste of your vote to vote for McCain (besides I disagree with him on too much) so I wrote in Chuck Baldwin. If you aren't able to write in candidates in NC, then you might as well not vote in the areas that don't provide good godly men.

I have a hard time with your last sentence. I would rather vote for the best option than to just sit out voting.

tuubaaku wrote:I have a hard time with your last sentence. I would rather vote for the best option than to just sit out voting.

What if they both were for the murder of unborn children? Do you vote for the one who opposes partial birth abortion (McCain), but is for other forms of abortion (McCain)? It seems like the line needs to be drawn somewhere. What we may differ on is where it is drawn.

We don't only have McCain and Obama on the ticket though. Bob Barr is on for the libertarian party so we could vote for him.

Can't vote Libertarian in most cases if you care about abortion, marriage, ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Barr very much pro-choice?

Brian, note that I'm not talking about elect-ability here. I'm talking about choosing the best candidate available and voting for them, even if you don't completely agree with them. If Baldwin weren't an option, would most people here not vote at all? Does that do more good than voting for the best candidate?

Aye . . . there's the rub. Very good question. That is why I would ask the question . . . Where should the line be drawn? Should it be different for everyone depending on what their preference is? Is the line movable if your options are limited and both candidates stink . . . only one is less smelly than the other?

Personally, if I were limited in my options (as it seems those in NC are), then I would not vote against my set standards. I would abstain from voting for a particular office and then hound my representative once he got into office to remind him what his duty is. I am aware that not all people view it the same way, but I have yet to hear a good argument as to why one law of God needs to be violated for the "greater good."

I've actually heard some bad things about Bob Barr. Apparently he isn't as good in his "private" life as he is in his public figure and speech. So don't vote for him!

As for the not voting part question; I can see not wanting to vote for anybody bad. It just seems wrong though not to vote at all. It seems as though we're throwing away a great privilege that men and women died to give us.

Legolas Greenleaf wrote:As for the not voting part question; I can see not wanting to vote for anybody bad. It just seems wrong though not to vote at all. It seems as though we're throwing away a great privilege that men and women died to give us.

I agree. I can see not wanting to vote at all, but I would personally would prefer voting for the lesser of two evils than not voting at all. For the record, I think Obama is many, many times more evil than McCain, even if I do not like or agree with him on some of his stands. I would much rather vote for McCain where I know what I'm getting - he has a history that I can judge him by - than vote for someone who does not have a record and where I can only expect the very worst.

I guess I don't see a vote as condoning everything the candidate stands for, but more of trying to choose the best person available (maybe more pragmatic than idealistic?). Why is that view of voting wrong?