Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Female magistrates

In the context of Sarah Palin’s nomination to be McCain’s Veep, one objection I’ve run across in some conservative circles is that a woman shouldn’t be a civil magistrate. While the dominant culture would decry this objection as unbearably sexist, it raises a valid question which Bible-believing Christians must address.

1.One objection I’ve seen is that a female magistrate runs counter to the creation-order in 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2. There are, however, some complications with that appeal:

i) The Greek words aner/gyne can either mean “man/woman” or “husband/wife.” Which sense is appropriate must be determined by context.

For example, one standard monograph on the subject argues that the social context has reference to wives (or widows) in particular rather than women in general. Cf. B. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans 2003).

ii) Since Adam and Eve are the prototypal husband and wife as well as the prototypal man and woman, appeal to the creation order doesn’t settle the question of whether the referent is generic or marital.

iii) Beyond the semantic question, taking the usage generically would mean that every woman is under the authority of every man (1 Cor 11:3). But that would undercut the authority of a husband in relation to his wife.

iv) Because the US doesn’t have a monarchy or aristocracy, it’s easy for us to forget that, in the ancient world, authority was a question of social class rather than gender. Queens, queen-mothers, and noblewomen had authority over men lower down the social scale.

v) To some extent, this was bound up with their relation to the role of a man. If you were the wife or mother or daughter of a king, then you had a derivative, but genuine, authority. This is true in any hierarchical system. Except at the uppermost and lowermost ends of the scale, authority and subordination are not antithetical principles. A hierarchy both empowers and subordinates its members.

2.Another objection I’ve run across is that it would be inconsistent for a woman to wield authority outside the home, but be in submission in relation to her husband.

One can think of situations where these might be in tension. However, it’s quite common for people to have authority in one sphere, but not another. A four-star admiral has a lot of authority within the naval chain-of-command, but that isn’t transferable to the army, air force or Marines—much less the civilian sector.

3.In our system of gov’t, elected official have authority over the electorate, but in another respect the electorate has authority over its elected officials—since it confers authority on them by electing them, reelecting them, not electing them, not reelecting them, recalling them, or impeaching them, as the case may be. So the authority is bilateral, but ultimately vested in the electorate.

10 comments:

  1. I'm really glad someone commented on this issue. The spheres of church and family are separate from the spheres of the state and the workplace. The Bible speaks to the roles of men and women in the Church and the home. But those roles are not transferable to the other spheres. The Proverbs 31 woman is active in the community and runs her own business. There is no conflict. Men who get upset at the thought of having a female supervisor at work, and use the Bible to back it up, misuse Scripture. Same for a female President. The latter two are nothing but disguised sexism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I'm really glad someone commented on this issue. The spheres of church and family are separate from the spheres of the state and the workplace. The Bible speaks to the roles of men and women in the Church and the home. But those roles are not transferable to the other spheres."

    I would point out that the concept of headship transcends church. A married woman is under the headship of her husband, in all things. You can't put a dichotomy between family and anything else since the priority of the mother is family in all things she does.

    This isn't to say that Palin can't be a civil leader. Hays is right to point out that the electorate has the ultimate authority here. She is a civil servant, not a lord, and her authority is delegated to her.

    Of course, her priority is the home. As Hays pointed out previously, it would surely be advantageous to her home for her to be VP, since you can bet she'll receive top medical care, etc. for her child, as well as a better salary. The Proverbs 31 woman is a great example of a woman whose priority is the home.

    I understand 1 Corinthians 11 to be an application of the general principle of headship. Paul establishes that by giving this as the governing principle at the start of the pericope. Thus, woman and men should do that which communicates and honours the truth of the God-ordained principle of male headship, which itself is a picture of Christ and the Father.

    I would caution against calling the application of the principle of headship "disguised sexism," which I hope is just me overreading what you've said. I don't think you can consistently sustain the dichotomy between family and other spheres. As Hays pointed out, there are areas of tension. Do we think that Sarah won't be talking with her husband about governmental affairs? I'm pretty sure that you get them as a package.

    Again, I say this having no problem with Palin being VP (I'm Canadian too, mind you - so its not my call). Maybe its time for a Deborah. After all, male incompetence was the problem then...

    Whatever happens, she should do that which is in line with submission to her husband and family priority. But that may not be something that we can judge as outsiders anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Mike,

    I agree with most of what you say. However, a problem with construing a verse like 1 Cor 11:3 generically is that it would make every man the head of every woman. I doubt you think every man is the head of your wife, or that every man is the head of your underage daughter (if you have/had one). So the force of 11:3 has to be qualified to some degree beyond the generic principle of male headship.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think I understand, then, your biblical position concerning Sarah Palin's presumptive nomination as the Republican Party's VP candidate:

    The actual VP will be Todd Palin, who, by biblical decree, is Sarah's earthly superior in all things.

    Is her nomination symbolic, then?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think I understand, then, your secular position regarding literacy is:

    Why bother reading what is said when I can just pretend it was something else completely?

    Is your reading comprehension symbolic, then?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, Peter! What amazing and brilliant debate tactics! It's as though you took my tongue-in-cheek critique, changed a few words, and said something profound, without having said anything at all!

    I bet you're the coolest guy in the church.

    When you're done patting yourself on the back for your perception of a witty reply, feel free to illustrate just where I've erred. Since you'll no doubt pull out Steve's third item, I'll save you a step:

    Is it biblically acceptable for an electorate to place a woman in a position of authority, and does that authority extend to being over her husband?

    As a hypothetical example, would Todd Palin have the household authority to extract information regarding national security from Sarah, were she the V.P.?

    Is Todd Palin's biblically decreed authority over Sarah somehow suspended if she is elected?

    Come now, Peter, I know you can come up with something clever. Just because I have twice your wit doesn't mean you should give up...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow Stan, tough question.

    There are four "spheres" of social order in play here: work (labor), government (state), home (family), and church.

    Please re-read my first post in the combox for this thread.

    The answer is, that Sarah Palin does not have to share diddly-squat about her job with Todd unless, and only to the extent that, it affects her husband's authority in the home. I doubt that will come up very much. Also, given that she's currently the Chief Executive of Alaska, they've probably already worked that stuff out.

    Todd's authority isn't "suspended". It simply does not apply in Sarah's workplace. As a personal example, I don't go down to the local university and tell my wife how to teach her classes, or what grades to give. She asks my advice occasionally, and I give it. Sometimes she follows it, sometimes she doesn't. Such does not constitute a usurpation of my authority.

    I realize we are talking about a high government office here, but please realize that the Vice President does not wield "authority" in the Biblical "lordship" sense over people in our system of government (Steve has mentioned this line of argument twice now). But even if she did, all she would have over Todd is "civil magistrate authority". Not family authority. You really need to watch how you define your terms (or how you fail to do so).

    ReplyDelete
  8. STAN, THE HALF-TRUTH TELLER SAID:

    “As a hypothetical example, would Todd Palin have the household authority to extract information regarding national security from Sarah, were she the V.P.?”

    Only if they have a marriage like Morticia and Gomez:

    Gomez: Leather straps, red-hot pokers!
    Morticia: Later, my dearest.

    But I think the Palins live by Biblical values rather than Adams Family Values.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stan said:
    ---
    It's as though you took my tongue-in-cheek critique, changed a few words, and said something profound, without having said anything at all!
    ---

    Thank you for acknowledging your post said nothing at all.

    For the record, I said nothing profound. I pointed out your idiacy, which worked perfectly well.

    Your question was stupid, not based on anything Steve actually wrote, and entirely irrelevant. It deserved no response.

    Stan said:
    ---
    When you're done patting yourself on the back for your perception of a witty reply, feel free to illustrate just where I've erred.
    ---

    My repetition of your question WAS just such an illustration. I can't help if you're dense enough to bend light and cannot grasp this.

    ::YAWN!!::

    Snizz.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1 Timothy 2:11-12:

    A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

    So Jonah, you have allowed your wife to violate the teaching aspect here, yes? Would Palin, as Vice President, hold authority over a man, or would she not?

    Is she remaining silent?

    It's your bible. If you don't like what it says, re-write it, re-interpret it, or remove it. With your magical interpretation abilities, I suppose also then that in Titus 2 the requirement of slaves to "be subject to their masters in everything" is referring to something other than involuntary servitude, and ownership of a fellow human.

    If you don't agree with these sorts of passages, say so. There is nothing wrong with a woman running for President (as with Hillary), nor is there anything wrong with a woman running for Vice President (as with Geraldine Ferraro and, now, Sarah Palin). Nobody cares that the bible says a woman should shut the hell up in church. Nobody cares that the bible attempts to regulate the slave trade.

    Nobody cares, that is, except you and your ilk.

    If you don't like aspects of biblical teaching, then (at least) reject those aspects -- but at least admit it. Don't just wave your magic wand and say, "But it doesn't apply to [whatever current situation is at hand]!" Nobody is buying that line of crap any more.

    As to Peter, I'm not sure what "idiacy" is, but as far as wit goes, I have twice your allotment.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete