Over at Doug Wilson site he holds court on the voting for McCain in 2008 issue. If you want to see his latest argument supporting a vote for McCain in this election cycle you can go to Mablog and read his “Epistemological Pileup” entry.
What follows is how I respond to Wilson’s argument that voting for McCain / Palin may be a Biblical option.
Doug,
All you’ve proven is that in Scripture there are times, when confusion reigns, that exceptions occur. You have not proven
1.) That Deborah is prescription as opposed to description.
2.) That Sarah Palin is a prophetess the way that Deborah was a prophetess and so worthy of a Christian’s vote to judge in the civil realm in this exception time.
3.) That this is an exception time where Christians can disregard God’s normativity for social order.
4.) Also, I think we need to ask the question that if a woman can be the countries Commander in chief then how could we argue that women can’t be soldiers under the chief commander? Sarah Palin as a potential commander in chief paves the way for any feminist argument supporting women in the military. If Christians say a woman is qualified to command the troops its hard to see how we could argue that a woman isn’t qualified to be a troop.
5.) Finally, McCain’s speech last night made it clear he intends to be bipartisan. Now, given this reality, one can only believe that any voter trust of the Republican party would be a case of willful blindness that is suppressing the truth.
In short Doug, you’ve not made the case that it is Biblical to vote for wicked men — even if they lure us with putatively conservative women.
Your point #1 pokes at the assumptions being made over at DW’s site. If Deborah is the only available example, we better look real good and hard at it before making a general rule from one example in a book about a chaotic political period.
Yeah, I would agree – you have to stop at Point 1 before anything else can be “discussed”. There are lots of things in the Bible that I’m happy to claim as Descriptive!!
Hmm… I found #2 to be the most convincing.
But #2 does depend on #1. Sarah can’t be a Prophetess like Deborah if Deborah is only descriptive.
God has ordained a lot of things in his providence that are contrary to his preceptive will (law). But one cannot soundly argue from the way things are or have been to the way things ought to be.
God ordained and providentially brought to pass the murder of our Lord Christ, but it does not follow that such was a morally legitimate act on the part of the Jews and Romans. Just the same, the simple fact that God raised up a female judge at one point in time does not lead us to conclude that it is a morally legitimate thing for us to willfully seek, especially when the proper pattern is clearly laid out in God’s law. It seems we have clear teaching in this matter.
I agree with the points made here, however, Deborah and the crucifixion are not exact analogies. Deborah was commended for her actions, the Jews weren’t.
In addition to Bret’s points above, Judges narrates a particularly unstable and transitional period in Israel’s history, so even when actions do not expressly contradict God’s word, we should be cautious in seeing them as normative or ideal.
I see your point Joshua. I wasn’t however trying to make an exact analogy but rather suggesting that we cannot argue from shear providence to moral requirement or acceptability. A better analogy might have been the Israelites being raised up to execute the Canaanites. They were commended for their work (when they actually obeyed), but we cannot reason from that that such aggressive warfare is typically legitimate, especially against clear precept in passages like Deut. 20.
Bret, if this is the post you directed me to read, I don’t see how it’s germane. My question is what biblical mandate is there for a woman to have no authority over any man in any situation? Or what biblical mandate is there that precludes women from public office in the civil realm? These are serious questions and I don’t mean them flippantly. You’re arguing as if the Bible’s clear as a bell in it’s support for your position, but I don’t see it… not at all.
Not the right post Tim. I am e-mailing you the proper post.
Bret,
Would email me the same post please?
Thanks
Jerry
#4 doesn’t work. Most people do not object to women in the military specifically – but rather to women in combat. And having a woman as Commander-in-Chief does not give any strength to arguments in favor of letting women lead troops. The CIC does not lead troops. That’s the job of generals – and more directly it’s the job of lieutenants and sergeants.