America’s Monstrous Regiment, Part I

When Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal.

-          2 Kings 11:1

As of this writing in early September 2020, Americans find themselves faced with another presidential election in just two short months.  As is the American custom, much ink has been spilled over the past year concerning the November election.  In reality, the spilling of ink began much earlier.  With so much election commentary out there, surely, it would seem, there’s nothing more this author could add to the mix that hasn’t already been discussed thousands of times and by people much better qualified.

But this would be a mistake.

There is one topic, and a significant one to be sure, that, on the one hand, is a prominent feature of the 2020 presidential election but, on the other hand, has received hardly any commentary at all. 

Joe Biden’s March 15th promise, and the fulfillment of that promise, to choose a woman running mate. 

On second thought, my statement that little commentary has been directed to Biden’s promise to choose a female running mate needs refinement.  For there has been quite a lot of commentary on this topic.  Before Biden made his choice, there was endless speculation about who she would be.  Would it be Michelle Obama?  Stacey Abrams?  Someone else?  Before the riots in Minneapolis earlier this year, many speculated that Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar was under consideration.  Others thought it might be Elizabeth Warren. 

Since Biden made the announcement that he had selected Kamala Harris, there has been no end to the discussion about his pick.  Democrats and liberal commentators have, predictably, praised her selection.  Republicans along with the conservative media have, predictably, criticized her for her policies.

So it’s not correct to say there has been no commentary on Biden’s promise to choose a woman for his running mate. 

But the problem is not that there has been no commentary on Biden’s running mate. 

The problem is that the commentary, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, has missed the mark.  Martin Luther talked about an idea he called the Schriftprinzip, German for writing principle.  According to Luther, the Schriftprinzip was the notion that, “nothing except the divine words are to be the first principles for Christians; all human words are conclusions drawn from them and must be brought back to them and approved by them.”  

The correct focus of the commentary on Joe Biden’s promise to pick a woman for his running mate is not who she is.  Neither is it her supposed qualifications for office, nor it is her voting record, nor is it her public policy stances.  The proper question to be asked, both for Christians and non-Christians, is whether it is appropriate to have a woman vice presidential candidate at all?

The short answer to this question, the answer we get if we use, not common sense, not feminist philosophy, not secular conservative thought, but the Schriftprinzip is, no, it is not.    

Taking this a step further, it is unchristian for a woman to hold any public office.  It is unchristian for a woman to vote. 

In this feminist day and age, this is not an easy or popular stance to take.  In fact, a more unpopular stance would be hard to imagine.  Secular liberal feminists obviously hate the thought at anyone saying there are pursuits inappropriate for women.  The very idea that a woman, just because she is a woman, is unqualified for a task strikes at the very heart of feminism, which sees men and women as fully interchangeable.  Secular conservatives, always trailing their liberal counterparts by twenty of thirty years, are in no position to object to a woman vice president or president.  Based on current conservative thinking, it’s just obvious that women are as qualified as men for public office.  It’s simply a matter of finding the right woman, one of conservative principles.

It’s doubtful that conservative Evangelicals are much better.  Several years ago, Paul Elliott reported that he attempted to sound out Evangelical opinion on the question “Would it be Biblical to elect a woman as President of the United States?”  When he took the position that it was, “foreign to God’s ordained authority structure for a woman to rule a nation,” he reports that he was met with a firestorm of pure emotional rejection. 

Secular liberals, secular conservatives and Evangelicals all agree, there’s nothing amiss with having a woman govern a nation.  It’s just a matter of finding a qualified woman.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is a very bad person, one whose views are beyond the pale of polite, acceptable discussion, one who deserves to be cast into the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.      

Certainly, modern feminism accounts for much of the hostility to anyone who opposes women holding pubic office.  But it appears there is something else at work.

John Knox, who in 1558 penned the ultimate refutation of women in politics, “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women” – the Trinity Foundation published an edition of Knox’s masterwork in 1984 under the title “The Place of Women” -  noted in the introduction to his essay the sinful reticence of the clergy to speak out against the government of women. 

Knox suggested three reasons for the silence of those who ought to have known better.  First, they might be suspected of sedition.  Second, opposition to female government could well prove dangerous to the author, publisher and readers.  And third, even if they did speak out and hazard persecution, no one would pay them heed.

Knox dismissed these arguments by saying that if they were true, then the prophets themselves were very fools, for they did not cease to admonish Israel despite charges of treason, dangers to themselves, or mocking from those who heard them.  Likewise, continued Knox, if these objections were true, then Jesus Christ harmed his apostles by charging them to preach his teachings throughout the world.

The watchmen, charged Knox, were failing to do their job.

Knox’s charge was right about the Christian men of his day.  And the same can be said of Christian men in our time.  We are failing in our calling as watchmen. 

Why do Christians today not speak out against the monstrous regiment of women – “regiment” in Knox’s usage means “government” - as they ought?  Perhaps it has less to do with 20th and 21st century feminism and more to do with their lack of understanding of what the Bible teaches, their failure to realize that the Bible has a monopoly on truth such that all statements of all men must be brought back to it and approved by it, and a lack of courage born of disbelief in the promises of God.     

(to be continued)