Posts tagged Feminism
America’s Monstrous Regiment, Part III

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

-          2 Kings 11:1

“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.”

To modern ears could a more offensive sentence be found in all of literature?  Not having read all of literature, this author does not pretend to be able to answer that question definitively.  Yet with that said, it is hard to imagine an idea more repugnant to 21st century readers than this quote from John Knox’s essay “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women” (hereafter, TMR).

We have, all of us living in the West in the early 21st century, been steeped in feminist theory from our youth up to the point where, for most of us, Knox’s words are little more than noise from a bygone era with no relevance for us today, except perhaps as a cautionary tale to warn us about how bad the bad old days really were.

Liberal Democrats, were they to read Knox, would quickly be triggered, alternating between outrage, ridicule and calls to have his ideas removed from social media.  Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, would attempt explain away what Knox wrote by saying that he was a product of his age, that what he was really writing against was 16th century liberal women and that if he were alive today he would gladly support a female presidential candidate so long as she was pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and promised to fight against the Green New Deal. 

Contemporary Protestants, even supposed Bible believing ones, would be embarrassed by Knox’s words.  Most likely, they would hope that no one would notice what he wrote.  Were someone to bring up TMR with them, they would find some way to explain it away and quickly change the subject.  Some Protestants can’t seem to gush enough about the prospects of a woman president.  In 2012, Republican Michelle Bachmann was considered something of a favorite among Evangelicals. According to one article, Evangelical pastors could not gush enough about her candidacy, with one Presbyterian minister saying of her that, “She was speaking the language of the heart of the people in this room.” 

Commenting on Bachmann’s presidential run in the Washington Post, D. Michael Lindsay observed that many outsiders were surprised to see Bachmann, who posited herself as a Christian conservative, both running as a presidential candidate and receiving widespread support from Evangelicals.  Lindsay went on to write, “The reality is that evangelicals today have crafted a notion of what feminist scholar Marie Griffith calls ‘practical Christian womanhood,’ whereby adherents hold seemingly contradictory notions regarding authority and gender ideals.”

But contrary to Marie Griffith, there is nothing “seemingly contradictory” about Evangelicals, on the one hand, supporting what Lindsay called “traditional gender roles at home” and, on the other hand, supporting a woman for president.  This is an actual contradiction, one of many compromises that Protestants have made with the world.  Is it possible that the weakness and ineffectiveness of the Protestant church in the 21st century is somehow related to its refusal to think, speak and act logically in accord with the teaching of the Scriptures? 

The idea that Knox was serious about what he wrote and may actually have been right, that is simply unacceptable to modern men and they will not hear it.  And this includes a great number of 21st century conservative Christians. 

But Knox was right.

There, I said it.  And I’ll say it again.

Knox was right.

It has long been this author’s view that feminism is not only one of the most ungodly ideas ever advanced in philosophy, but also one of the most destructive in practice.  Ideas Have Consequences is the title of a well-known work of philosophy by American Richard Weaver.  He understood that it was ideas that were primary, actions followed from them.  This was also the position of Gordon Clark and John Robbins.  As Robbins noted in one of his lectures on philosophy, our practice – the actions we take in life - is always based upon some prior theory.

Feminism is based upon the idea that man and women are in all respects equal and, therefore, the feminists logically conclude that there is nothing at all inappropriate about  promoting “a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation or city.”  Further, not only is doing so not inappropriate, but it is a positive good, for it liberates women from the oppression of the patriarchy.

Another implication of this idea, that men and women are in all respect equal, is that anyone who opposes promoting a woman to a position of political authority is not merely wrong, but a very bad person with questionable motives.

In a 1980 presidential debate with then president Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan famously asked the viewers, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”  Many think this was one of the decisive moments of the 1980 presidential election that saw Reagan unseat Carter. 

With all the turmoil we’ve seen in 2020, with our civilization apparently collapsing about us on a daily basis, perhaps it’s worth asking a similar question today.  Is society better off today that it was before feminism?  Does our government function better now that feminist philosophy and practice dominates both parties and all branches of government?  How about our schools and universities?  How are they doing?  Are they better off now that Women’s Studies has become standard fare on campuses everywhere? Or let’s look at families.  Are they better off now that women have won the right to sit in a cubicle eight or more hours a day working for some corporation that couldn’t care less about them rather than being keepers at home, working for their husband and children who love them?  What about churches?  Do feminist churches preach the Gospel more faithfully in the 21st century then they did in the non-feminist 18th century?

The answer to all these questions is not merely no, but a hard no.  But it’s worse than that.  Not only are the institutions of civil government, the church and the family not better off now than before feminism, they all are markedly worse off.  Within fifteen years of women winning the right to vote, America and other Western nations found themselves with a bloated, unbiblical and socially destructive welfare state.  Schools and universities today are little more than Marxist indoctrination centers that teach students not only to hate and despise their parents and their entire civilization, but also leave their students saddled with unpayable debt for the privilege of learning anti-Christian nonsense.  The practical effects of our ungodly educational system – a system in which feminism plays a major philosophical role – was on full display last summer in the Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots.  Many of the “peaceful protestors” didn’t even know whether they were male of female.  And families, they’re a mess too.  Marriage rates for Westerners are plummeting as are birth rates.  This should come as no surprise.  Feminist philosophy makes it impossible for men and women to relate to one another in the way God intended.  If the home becomes a battlefield where a husband and wife have to fight for dominance every day over everything, isn’t it just easier and more sensible to avoid marriage and children altogether?

Sometimes one will hear conservatives and Christians defend feminism by saying that it was a needed corrective back in the day but it just went too far.  We can’t reject feminism in toto as the reactionary Knox did.  No, we must be reasonable and hold fast what is good in feminism while avoiding the extremes.  This sounds reasonable, but it is foolishness.

Feminism was always an ungodly idea.  From the very beginning it was rebellion against God and his Word.  As proof of this, take the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments that came out of the famous Seneca Falls Conference held that year.  That conference, considered by historians as marking the start of First Wave Feminism, issued the Declaration which contained sixteen resolutions.  Time does not permit a discussion of all of them, but let’s take two as representative.

  • He [man] allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

  • He [man] has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.

Both these propositions are easily refuted from the Scriptures.  “Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak…Let a woman learn in silence with all submission, And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence…A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife….”  These are not suggestions, neither are they culturally conditioned, neither is the language obscure.  It takes willful ignorance to construe these statements in any other way than to say that they forbid women from holding church office and serving as ministers. 

The same principle applies to civil government, which is the focus of Knox’s TMR. In TMR, Knox argues from the lessor to the greater when he writes,

The Apostle takes power from all women to speak in the assembly [church].  Ergo, he permits no woman to rule above man.  The former part is evident, whereupon does the conclusion of necessity follow.  For he that takes from woman the least part of authority, dominion, or rule will not permit unto her that which is greatest.  But greater it is to reign above realms and nations, to publish and make laws, and to command men of all estates, and finally to appoint judges and ministers, than to speak in the congregation….

If anyone objects to Knox’s logic here, let him ask himself who created church and civil government?  According to Scripture, the civil magistrate is as much a minister of God as is the preacher, for both derive their authority from him.  See Romans 13, for example, where Paul calls the civil magistrate God’s minister. If civil and church government are both created by God, then we can infer the principles that apply to one also apply to the other.  Going back to the quote above from the Washington Post, for Protestants to, one the one hand, hold to what the author called “traditional gender roles at home” [they are not traditional, they are God ordained] and, on the other hand, to promote a woman for president so long as she’s a conservative woman, is not “seemingly contradictory” but rather actually contradictory. 

The second resolution represents a direct attack of Scripture, for it says that men have usurped “the prerogative of Jehovah himself in claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.”  This is wildly off the mark.  For it is not man who assigned a particular sphere to woman, but Jehovah himself: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church”…“[let the] older women…admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands”…”as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”      

None of this is difficult theology.  The language of the Scriptures is clear and unambiguous.  Indeed, it would be hard to see how it could be clearer.  The problem is not the clarity of the Bible.  The problem is that sinful men have willfully rejected God’s counsel.  The feminist wind sown in the 19th century has become a whirlwind in the 21st, one that threatens to blow away what remains of Western Civilization. 

It was noted above that it takes willful ignorance to not see what the Scriptures plainly teach about men, women and their roles in the government of the family, the church and the state.  Certainly, those who claim to be teachers of Israel bear the greater sin, for they fail to teach their congregations what the Word of God so clearly states.  And if the preachers fail to preach the truth, it should come as no surprise that ordinary Christians fail to understand and believe it.  They perish for lack of knowledge.  And not Christians only, but their civilization as well.

Closing Thoughts

America has been building its Monstrous Regiment now for over 150 years. If we use the 1848 Seneca Falls Conference as a starting point, it's been at work on this project for a full 172 years. In truth, the ideas expressed at the Seneca Falls Conference originated much earlier.

It remains to be seen whether we will get our first woman president in the person of Kamala Harris. Technically, she's Joe Biden's running mate and is slated to take office as Vice-President should Biden win. Practically, many people think she will be more in charge than Biden will be, even if he remains in office for a time.

It likely was not a slip of the tongue when last week when Harris made reference to the "Harris Administration" and the next day Biden talked about "the Harris/Biden administration." Some thought this was a gaffe. A more likely explanation was that it was an attempt to signal to the feminist base that a vote for Biden would result in the first woman president.

But even if Donald Trump retakes the White House in 2020, the issue of a female president will not go away. It will merely be delayed. Trump himself has promoted the idea of a woman president and seems to be preparing his daughter Ivanka for this role.

In the opinion of this author, barring a new Reformation or the near-term return of Christ, America will succeed in completing it Monstrous Regiment in an upcoming election cycle, perhaps as early as 2024. The guiding feminist philosophy of the schools and churches of America requires it as does the political spirit of the age.

As Christians, this is an opportunity for us to speak out. Let us take it.

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…)

              

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)