Whoa … suddenly the train went off the track with a post by David Bayly over at Bayly Blog. I have some issues to take up with David Bayly here.
DB
Those who seek to undermine rules delight in their exceptions. Exceptions are the camel’s nose. But the fact that cars are to stay in their lanes doesn’t mean we should never, ever leave our lanes (to dodge a dog, for instance), despite the fact that lane-agnostics will jump on such departures as evidence that lane systems never work.
BLM
Ok, what this sounds like if I am to put the metaphor into the concrete is that the fact that women are not to serve as civil magistrates doesn’t mean we should never, ever vote for women magistrates. If that is part of what this analogy is trying to suggest I don’t think it works.
First of all creation order is the universal principle that we are to be sustaining. Violations to the creation order taken by way of exception should be taken by way of clearly articulated scriptural principles. Does God give us clear parameters when it is proper to disobey the creation order? Clarity is important here. I don’t think clarity is achieved when we appeal to historical descriptions in Biblical texts (i.e.– Deborah). By that clarity I can make the case that casting lots by pulpit committees is a Biblical way to choose potential Pastors.
Second, if exceptions can be legitimately pursued in the civil realm without clear didactic teaching from Scripture then why can not exceptions be legitimately pursued without clear didactic teaching from Scripture in the Church or family realm? Maybe Mary would be a better leader in the home than Fred. Maybe Matilda would be a better pastor than all of her male Seminary classmates.
Now I agree that exceptions occur. But I don’t agree that we are the ones who get to determine, apart from prescriptive portions of Scripture, when to make those exceptions. Certainly we may leave our lane but only with Biblical authorization to do so. God can leave the lanes anytime He pleases as He owns the highway. Indeed, He left the lane by installing Deborah, but we should never violate God’s revealed Word in Scripture (creation order) in order to support what we think God might be doing according to His eternal counsels.
DB
It’s not routinely good for Deborah to rule. Her rule is doubly due to effects of the fall. But rule she did–and with blessing.
BLM
Yes, she did rule but the fact that God interrupted His order is no license for His people to interrupt His order by doing something that violates His revealed will as articulated so well by Tim Bayly in his appeal to creation order. If God wants, according to His eternal counsels, a female magistrate (Deborah) or pastor or head of the home (Lydia) let Him do it. All because God raised up Deborah doesn’t mean that we can now vote for female magistrates. There are a good number of dots that have to be connected before we can find some kind of parallel between God violating His creation order and God’s people violating God’s creation order.
DB
Beyond the issue of such clear exceptions to the biblical standard of male authority, there are areas where we might need to discuss whether a position entails the kind of authority Scripture reserves for men. Does every female university professor rule over men? Does every female crossing guard rule over male drivers?
BLM
I haven’t seen any clear exceptions except the exceptions that God makes for Himself.
These problems we are having with this issue finds themselves being reduced if we put this in a biblical setting. In the times of Moses or the times of Christ where were women normatively ruling over men in ways that were not exceptions as created and granted by God? Where we find those exceptions is where we should place our exceptions.
DB
The only kind of logic that has a ready answer for every conceivable situation is the logic: 1) of the Pharisee, or; 2) of the rebel.
BLM
I don’t have a “ready answer” for every conceivable situation but I believe that there is an reasonable answer that can be eventually found for every conceivable situation.
To the law and to the testimony.
Am I a Pharisee or a Rebel?
I’ve noticed that whether it’s Wilson or Bayly or whoever, the main argument presented for female magistrates is usually presented in the form of weird metaphor or false analogy.
And what’s so bad about having some kind of answer for each situation? It’s not like Bayly doesn’t have an answer in this case anyway. Aren’t we supposed to take every thought captive and engage in sound reasoning informed by biblical presuppositions? Isn’t this a Christian worldview?
The point that continues to be neglected is that rule of women signals God’s curse on a society. Yes, God produces blessing from curse sometimes, but how and when are His prerogative. This is an issue of Creator/creature distinction.
What continues to disturb me is the fact that in all of this, McCain is still his same old anti-conservative self.
You’re a Zealot. 😉
Dear Bret,
Actually,I meant pretty much the reverse of what you took me to mean. My fault, I’m the author…
But my point was that feminists–and all levelers–seek to use the existence of exceptions as reductio ad absurdium arguments against the underlying principle. I had not the slightest thought in my mind of addressing whether it could be right to vote for McCain/Palin as an exception…
My point is that the existence of Deborah–and potentially VP Palin doesn’t undo the creation principle, just as David’s taking the show bread didn’t undo God’s commands for the temple.
We must not put ourselves in the box of defending particulars rather than establishing basic principles.
Your brother in Christ,
David
David,
No, I’m sure it was my fault … I guess I was thrown a little by your brothers admission that he still might vote for Palin, which I think is an action that violates the creation order that he so well articulated.
It is true that a potentially VP Palin doesn’t undo the creation principle but neither does a potentially VP Palin allow us to conclude that this may be a proper time to “swerve in the lane.” I just can’t understand how somebody who owns the idea of the creation order for the civil realm can still say they might vote against the creation order. Nobody is putting a gun to their head to make that vote.
The issue between us, if there remains an issue, is how we determine when it is proper to swerve in our lanes and when it is not proper to swerve in our lanes. I would say that, in this case, it will be proper to swerve in our lanes if God puts Palin in the office of VP, because at that time since God has swerved by putting a woman in the office of magistrate (to our shame) we must bear his judgment and so give her the honor that is due to the magistrate.
David, I think this is a watershed issue that we may not have another opportunity for a long time to get right if we get it wrong now. After years of being opposed to feminism many evangelicals are now about to embrace it since it is one of our people (Palin) that is bringing it to us. That realization is why I am so disturbed.
I need friends but I can not collect them by compromising. I’m glad we agree so I don’t have to spoil another potential friendship.