America's Monstrous Regiment, Part II
When Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal.
- 2 Kings 11:1
“I wouldn’t vote for her.” That was Ayn Rand’s curt response to a question from a woman in the audience of the Phil Donohue show. She had asked Rand, “Do you believe that there is going to be a day when there is going to be a female in the White House as President and how do you feel about that?”
From the questioner’s reaction and from that of the audience, Rand’s answer was not expected, neither was it appreciated. You can see the 1979 clip for yourself here, https://youtu.be/cL8g7zy6qxw.
Worth noting is how shocking and controversial Rand’s statement was as far back as 41 years ago. Now this was the Phil Donohue Show, and Donohue himself was a feminist, and his audience, most likely, tended to skew liberal. But that said, it is not clear that the audience reaction from a conservative Republican audience would have been much different. Certainly in 2020, any Republican expressing anything remotely approaching Rand’s statement would quickly find himself making an apology tour.
Donald Trump has expressed his support for a female president on more than one occasion. In late August, Business Insider ran the headline “Donald Trump plugs Ivanka as the first female president claiming Kamala Harris is ‘not competent’ enough for the top job.” Note, Trump’s objection to Kamala Harris was not that she was a woman, but that she was not the right woman. Further, he promoted his daughter as the right person to be the first female president.
There have been rumors for some time that Trump has wanted to see his daughter in the Oval Office, and the prominent role she had at last month’s Republican Convention and the statement reported in Business Insider certainly support those rumors. It would not shock this author to see Ivanka declare herself as a presidential candidate in 2024 with the full blessing of her father. Of course, she will have other female rivals to the throne, quite possibly including former UN Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
In fact, it would not surprise this author at all if the 2024 election doesn’t bring us the choice between a Republican woman and a Democratic woman presidential candidate. It’ll be pick your poison. Of course, the conservatives and liberals will tear one another apart with each side passionately denouncing the choice of the other party, while both parties miss the fundamental error they are committing. That is to say, both sides will be equally ignorant that, in the words of John Knox, “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumelious to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally it is the subversion of good order, and of all equity and justice….”
Yes, way back in 1558 John Knox dropped the mic, so to speak, on the matter of government by women in his devastating treatise “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.” In it, Knox did not argue, as so many feminized men are prone to argue today, that this or that woman was unfit to hold public office because of her position on this or that issue. No, Knox’s argument was more fundamental and more Biblical than that. Knox argued that the Bible prohibited women from severing in civil government altogether.
Knox was right.
After reading it, I want to stand, applaud and praise the Lord for the insight and courage that he gave the Scotsman.
So impressive is “The Monstrous Regiment” that had Knox done nothing else in his life except to write that treatise, it would be enough to qualify him for Christian hero status. Without a doubt, “The Monstrous Regiment” is one of the greatest political treatises ever written by a Christian and a serves as a model for how Christian scholars ought to use the Scriptures when dealing with political questions.
Let’s take a closer look at Knox’s work to see if we can identify what makes it so devastating.
For our walk through, I’ll be using the Trinity Foundation’s edition of “The Monstrous Regiment” titled “The Place of Women.”
Worth noting is that “The Place of Women” was first published by the Trinity Foundation in August 1984, most likely as a response to Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale’s choice of Geraldine Ferraro as his vice-presidential running mate in that year’s election.
Since that time, other women have followed in her footsteps, most notably Sarah Palin, who served as John McCain’s running mate in 2008, Hillary Clinton who headed the Democratic ticket in 2016, and now Kamala Harris who’s Democrat Joe Biden’s pick for vice-president.
The Scripturalism of John Knox
Wonder it is that among so many pregnant wits as the Isle of Great Brittany has produced, so many godly and zealous preachers as England did sometime nourish, and so many learned men of grave judgment as this day by Jezebel are exiled, none is found so stout of courage, so faithful to God, nor loving to their native country, that they dare not admonish the inhabitants of that Isle how abominable before God is the Empire or Rule of a wicked woman, yea of a traitoress and bastard....
What an opener!
Here, Knox shows two traits that are lacking in most Christians today: discernment and courage. In his Trinity Review “Why Heretics Win Battles,” John Robbins noted that, “Their [Christians] lack of discernment stems from a lack of knowledge of Scripture, and their lack of courage comes from a lack of belief in the promises of Scripture.”
The Prophet Hosea declared, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” And just as it was true in Hosea’s day, so it is also in ours. The level of ignorance of Scripture, even among today’s Bible-believing Protestants, is shocking. As a result, many have found themselves blown this way and that by the winds of popular culture, including feminism.
One sees this principle at work in many areas. We are trained to see the Bible as applying only to learning how to be saved and only between the hours of 11am and 12pm on Sunday mornings, and let secular thinking guide us the rest of the time.
Now it is certainly not my intention to say that the Bible is not about learning about how to be saved from one’s sins or that it is wrong to study the Bible between 11am and 12pm on Sunday’s. Not at all. The point is that the Bible, while furnishing us with the information we need to be saved, is not, as the fundamentalists would have use believe, limited to that. The Bible is an entire system of thought that covers and authoritatively governs, not just soteriology, but every field of knowledge. The Bible, in short, has a systematic monopoly on truth. Not some truth. All truth. God’s truth is all truth.
This includes the truth about politics. This may seem strange to some, that the Bible has anything, let alone anything decisive, to say about politics. “Separation of church and state,” some Americans may cry. Well, yes, separation of church and state is a Christian idea. But it’s one thing to say that the New Covenant prohibits theocracy (it does) and quite another to say that God’s Word is not authoritative in settling political matters.
If there be any who doubt that the Bible speaks authoritatively on matters of politics, consider the question of the origin of civil government. Where does it come from? Very clearly, it comes from God himself, the first example being found in Genesis 3 where God placed two Cherubim “at the east of the garden of Eden” and a “flaming sword.” The purpose of this was “to keep the way of the tree of life.” Put another way, God did this to prevent sinful Adam and Eve from stealing his property.
In the New Testament we see that the civil magistrate is called “God’s minister” and is charged with punishing those who practice evil and with rewarding the good.
Government is not a secular invention of man, but a divine institution created by God as punishment for, and as a partial cure of, sin.
And because civil government is a creation of God, if governors are to understand how to rightly govern, they must appeal, not to secular philosophy, but to the Word of God.
Unfortunately, the pregnant wits of the Isle of Great Brittany lacked the discernment to understand what God had said in his Word about proper civil government. Had they possessed Knox’s insight, perhaps they would have taken a stand with him.
But lack of discernment was not the only issue with the clergy of Knox’s day. Another was lack of courage.
Knox complained that among the men of Great Brittany, “none is found so stout of courage, so faithful to God, nor loving to their native country,” to speak out against the Monstrous Regiment.
Lack of courage is also a problem in our own day. In the Preface to his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John Robbins noted that, “The world of American scholarship seems to have partitioned itself, at least with regard to the study of the Roman Church-State, so that the study of the Roman Church-Sate has been reserved for Roman Catholics” (page 10). Robbins posits that one reason for this may be fear of being labeled “anti-Catholic.” He goes on to write that this fear, “undermines all scholarship.”
Indeed, it does.
Fear is debilitating. It causes Christians to self-censor, so that they dare not speak publicly, perhaps so that they dare not even admit to themselves privately, concerns that they may have with this or that issue out of fear of the consequences that may follow.
Now admittedly in our feminist ruled age, talking about God’s prohibition on women rulers is a scary topic. As a friend said to me in an email about last week’s post, some “Christians” would consider it to be “fighting words.” No doubt he’s right. Therefore, when dealing with sensitive topics, it’s not wrong for Christians to use prudence. As Jesus himself enjoined his hearers, “Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.” You don’t have to go up to your feminist colleague at work on Monday and begin defending “The Monstrous Regiment.” If you do, you may find out what Jesus meant by his warning, “lest they turn again and rend you.”
But if we Christians never discuss the tenants of their faith, and the political statements of Scripture are just as binding as the Gospel of Justification by Belief Alone, is that not a failure on our part to do our job of being “salt and light” to a dying world.
Just stop and look around you. What do you see? You see an entire civilization going mad, quite literally perishing for the lack of knowledge. As Christians, we are called to speak truth at all times, but now the need for truth is desperate. We live in a time when men think then can become women, and women think they can become men…or some other previously unknown category such as “nonbinary.” Rioters, looters and felons are the good guys who peacefully demonstrate, but the cops are evil and must be defunded. Racking up massive, unpayable debts is now the American way, while financial prudence is considered foolishness. One commentator I follow calls these Satanic inversions. He’s right. This is what Isaiah meant when he condemned those who called good evil and evil good.
Speaking God’s truth, that, “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city is repugnant to nature, contumelious to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance,” is to risk accusations of hate speech and court cancellation. But to say this is simply to present God’s truth to the world, without which it will perish. Though the world would call it hate speech, standing on the Word of God and declaring it to the nations is an act of mercy, for how will they hear without a preacher?
As Christians, we can take courage from the many verses in Scripture that promise God will reward the faithful. In Psalm 28 David wrote, “The LORD is my strength and my shield,” and one can find many other such verses in the Psalms and elsewhere in Scripture.
Toward the end of his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul wrote that believers wrestled not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickedness in high places. In light of this, what were the Ephesians to do? Run and hide? No! Paul told them to put on the whole armor of God, their one offensive weapon being “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
As Christians, we need to learn to apply the Word of God to all areas of life as did John Knox in matter of politics. Knox was able to take the stand he did, not on his own, but because he both understood the Scriptures and believed the promises of God to those who are faithful. May we be his imitators.
(To be continued…)