Who’s Afraid of a Woman President?
— Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 —
In 2008, Christians were faced with the real prospect of a woman president (Hillary Clinton) or vice president (Sarah Palin). Some (though very few) complementarian Christians wondered whether this could be right, while critics of traditionalist interpretations wondered how consistent it was for Christians to elect a woman to national office when they wouldn’t vote for her to serve as pastor of a local church.
In light of Michele Bachmann’s candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, I found myself asked that question again in recent days in an interview with Christianity Today’s women’s blog “Her.Meneutics.” I think the question is a good one, and is more complicated than it first appears, to both sides.
Take the particular personalities off the table, whether Clinton, Palin, or Bachmann (who are all relatively polarizing for reasons, I think, other than gender). On the face of it, there is no contradiction since Scripture teaches that the church, not the world, is presently the outpost of the new creation. The state in this age doesn’t—and can’t—reflect God’s kingdom purposes in the way that the church or a family can.
I would gladly vote for someone to be my president who disagrees with me on whether or not infants can be baptized. I wouldn’t want that same person to be my pastor, because we will have to decide together who and how to baptize. The Kuyperian principle of “sphere sovereignty” is helpful here.
The best articulation of sphere sovereignty I’ve ever seen is in Richard Mouw’s new book on Abraham Kuyper. Mouw uses the example of a woman who is a college dean and an elder at her local church (I know, I know, but it’s his illustration, not mine). Her son works for her, and misuses college property for nefarious ends. Mouw shows how she must deal with him in different ways. As dean, she fires him. As elder, she seeks to restore him. As mother, she loves him unconditionally and gives him a place to stay.
There are other issues afoot here though. Although critics are wrong to say that Christians are inconsistent in applying different standards to church and public square, they are right to say that there’s something odd in Christian people celebrating the political warrior-princess motif.
Unfortunately, American evangelicals have too often longed for a secular authority to serve as a spiritual leader, and political professionals have been all too willing to exploit this by teaching candidates to parrot evangelical-sounding phrases and “testimonies.” In such cases, political leaders become totem-like for evangelicals. An attack on a candidate who identifies with “us” is an attack on “us” or, worse, on Jesus. That’s unhealthy, regardless of whether the politician is male or female.
In the case of evangelical over-identification with political partisanship, though, there can be a subtle shifting in what it means to define a woman’s life, or a man’s, as a “success.” There is quite a bit of inconsistency in evangelical complementarians talking about a “gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3) while cheering Ann Coulter’s latest sarcastic barbs.
I’m not all that worried about the gender of our political candidates, precisely because, relatively speaking, the political arena just isn’t all that important when compared to the church. What is important is the way our political passions often shift the way we view the mission of the church, and even what we expect in our homes.
Just do not believe it is going to happen. That is a woman president.
@Tom Parker, you are in denial!
If you go to the directions concerning any organization, you’ll who it is that qualifies for leadership, and what their duties would be. And how the membership of that organization should respond to their leadership.
Rotary International, for instance, has attendance requirements … and others as well … written into their standard constitution. They’re different from the attendance requirements for Sunday family dinners at our house.
So .. using my twisted logic .. I’m thinking that the Constitution and Bill of Rights, etc, govern the election process; and on the other hand, the Bible (plus a few other feeble stabs at rules to establish order within the church) govern church and Spiritual activities.
If somebody can’t separate the two, they’re going to have real problems in both.
Whoops .. meant to say in the first sentence “..you’ll see who it is…”.
Gender can never be a hindrance to office under any ethical standard. We should however, always be careful to keep an earthly office secular, as it is the people, not God, who elects a person to that office.
Since when are the requirements for pastor and president the same? Is the state a church? Next question: What if God calls a woman to be a pastor, will you say to Him . . . “No, you can’t do that; it’s against my grid!”
@Laurel,
“What if God calls a woman to be a pastor”
Since He hasn’t in His Word, I think your point is moot.
1) Laurel, the belief that women can’t be elders or pastors has nothing to do with “our grid”. It has to with with God’s created order. Men lead in the church and marriage/family because God created us for that role. Women can absolutely minister, be deacons, and other roles that Scripture isn’t clearly against. However, the Bible is clear that men are to be elders and pastors. As such, I don’t believe that God would call a woman to pastoral ministry (at least not as a lead pastor) as it would contradict what He has communicated in Scripture.
2) Dr. Moore, this statement bothers me: “…the political arena just isn’t all that important when compared to the church.”
I will admit, and contend even, that Christians are to be loyal to Christ and support His body above any political affiliations. And should America’s government become overrun by a dictatorship which actively persecutes Christians, then we should absolutely follow the many examples history has for us, and continue preaching the gospel.
However, it is because an environment of freedom makes advancing the gospel easier, the arena of politics is vital. If all of the Christians just said “well, politics isn’t important, I’m just going to focus on the church”, then we would have a completely liberal government, and would lose the freedoms we have to advance the gospel without persecution.
It is because the gospel and church takes priority over everything else that some arenas, like politics, actually become MORE important, not less.
Granted, even the elevated gospel-driven importance of politics doesn’t negate women’s ability to lead our secular government, but that doesn’t mean we don’t care or value politics less. It means we give the gospel and politics the appropriate value, and realize the limitations of Biblical instruction as directed toward the Church, not the secular government.
@Don Sartain,
We must be careful thinking freedom makes it easier for the gospel to spread. Scripture speaks most of the gospel being spread amidst persecution and oppression. Then the current situations of the believers around the world who are growing rapidly despite heavy opposition and persecution. We know God’s plan to reach the world is through the church. He was successful pre-USA and I believe he will be successful post-USA. (Maybe Dr. Moore will return to politics and we can vote for him.)
My wife says she could never vote for a woman as President because she thinks woman would make decisions based on emotion, rather than logical reasoning. I think there are probably some women that could stifle their emotions, but they are probably few and far between.
@Brian,
I read you as saying, “Woman are emotional creatures and are void of logical reasoning.”
Wow. I hope I misread your meaning.
@Brian, well, you don’t have to “misread the meaning” since he wrote what he wrote - just read it. Your comment is essentially, “Your comment means _____ to me” - well, it doesn’t really matter what it means to you because that’s not what he wrote. Respond to his comment, not to your own meaning of his comment.
@Brian, @Rick,
He didn’t say that women are void of logical reasoning. He said that his WIFE said that women would make decisions based off of emotions rather than logic.
If a woman says that about women, I’m not going to argue much. I will say this though, I believe women have both logic and emotion, and that many times they move according to emotion rather than logic. Just as men have both emotion and logic, and many times move according to logic rather than emotion.
Russell,
Do you think Isaiah 3:12 has any bearing on this issue? It seems to condemn (and therefore repudiate) women + the young as leaders?
Kip’ Chelashaw
Yes it will happen. Just like we got Obama now we will get a woman. It is long overdue and it is a moot point. What it may mean is that the constituency is dissatisfied with what they have gotten from white men as presidents. The palpable anger now expressed throughout the United States will manifest itself in a sociological swing to the extreme opposite of the current president and that will be a white woman. Like Daniel we must know that our sovereign God sets each up and puts each down. And that we reap what we sow and get what we deserve.
I would assume this same principle then ought to apply to the battle against gay marriage?
I think many of our comments here exemplify Dr. Moore’s point. We blur our mission and theology as believers, as the Church. We say the Church is more important than the political arena, but we don’t always live like it.
“I’m not all that worried about the gender of our political candidates, precisely because, relatively speaking, the political arena just isn’t all that important when compared to the church.” Best line in the entire article.
I tread very lightly when it comes to how much I throw myself into the political sphere.
It is statements like this:
“There is quite a bit of inconsistency in evangelical complementarians talking about a “gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3) while cheering Ann Coulter’s latest sarcastic barbs.”
And there are other scriptures that refer to how we are to be gentle, loving, not gossips, slanderers and the like as well as how the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome that keep me in check.
Somehow, all the virtues that are precious to God go right out the window when we indulge too much into worldly politics.
I prefer to keep focused on the most important issues and serve God by doing anything I can to help with issues of injustice, poverty and abortion, rather than get entrenched in political banter, when in all reality, this is not the kingdom we are to tirelessly fight to preserve.
Here is what scares me in the future political arena. We now have the ultra Christian views coming into politics. Didn’t we already talk about separation of Church and State years ago. The current new “Tea Party” scares me. They are all about forcing their religious views on everyone. I do think that a President has the right to share his religious beliefs. What I don’t want to see is the current “religious view” taking over the political front. It honestly scares me. I think I am more scared of the “Tea Party” views then I was ever scared about “Muslim” views. I am a Catholic from birth, however I began to see a different view when I realized that Catholics preach loving everyone as God Loves all… Yet, the Catholics do not love gays, peeople who have divorced, etc.. I am honestly scared about the Republican Presidential candidates for 2012. They seem to want to push their religious beliefs on the country.