There is a great deal of confusion in the press today. What do Christians really believe about the priority of motherhood, children, and role distinctions?

The gushing and virtually unqualified support by conservative and Christian leaders of a mother of young children and a self-identified feminist^[1] for the second highest political office in the land has caused the press, liberals, and many conservative Christians themselves to ask important questions about the intellectual integrity of the arguments being advanced by pro-Palin Christian conservatives. And rightly so, for many of the same conservative leaders who have previously distinguished themselves by opposing the very type of egalitarian feminist model of family and leadership embodied in the candidacy of Sarah Palin are now talking like full-fledged egalitarians when it comes to the 2008 presidential election. There appears to be a fundamental and historic shift in the cultural and political agenda of social conservatives and Christians.

Furthermore, the picture being sent to the world is that Christians and conservatives are placing partisan political objectives over principle. The message being conveyed is this: Our theological commitments are secondary to our partisan loyalties.

These are valid concerns. Here is why:

1. For years, conservative Christians have been outspoken in their opposition to the political vision of the radical feminist movement. Now they are supporting a woman for the second highest office in the land who is a self-identified feminist who wants to make feminist objectives a part of her political agenda.^[2]

2. Christians and conservatives have historically opposed the feminist philosophy which marginalizes the role of motherhood and home in favor of careerism and political ambition. Now these same conservative Christians are not only supporting for vice president the mother of young children who went back to work three days after the birth of her still-infant child, but they are arguing that she is a model example of Christian womanhood for the young ladies of America;^[3] that this mother of young children is perfectly qualified to serve both as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States.

3. In the past, conservative Christians have opposed the manipulative rhetoric of the feminist movement. Now they are championing the cause of a woman who uses her campaign speeches to praise the icons of the feminist movement for their role in the cause of feminism;^[4] who attempts to marginalize those who raise concerns about the propriety of her dual role as mother and governor by calling them “Neanderthals” who should be taken back to the “cave”;^[5] who agrees that her own husband is playing the role of “Mr. Mom”;^[6] and who uses the very phraseology of feminism (e.g., “shattering the glass ceiling”) to explain her personal mission.^[7]

4. Most of all, conservative Christians have opposed as unbiblical the feminist ideology of egalitarianism which formally opposes God-ordained role distinctions between men and women — role distinctions which are rooted in the creation order itself. Now some are claiming the creation order principle never applied to the role of men and women in the civil realm in the first place. Some have gone so far as to argue that biblical ethics no longer apply to the constitutional system of government under God which our Framers established.^[8]

To many liberal commentators, these conservatives and Christians now sound like liberals and feminists — at least as to their advocacy of egalitarianism in the public sphere.

One such commentator is Dr. David Gushee who, in a recent USA Today op-ed, asked five probing questions to conservatives and Christian leaders. Dr. Gushee’s point was essentially this: Christians must formally acknowledge that a historic change has occurred in their theological commitments and policy objectives, or reasonable observers must conclude that that their position lacks intellectual integrity.

Dr. Gushee is spot on.

But the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood disagrees. Now David Kotter of CBMW has offered a response. In our view, Mr. Kotter’s response fails to address the core inconsistencies with the arguments that CBMW and other Christian organizations and leaders are advancing. Readers of Doug’s Blog will remember that Pastor William Einwechter has cogently addressed the theological problem of the new semi-complementarianism/semi-egalitarianism of organizations like CBMW in his article “Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise.” Now Pastor Einwechter has responded to Dr. Gushee with a new, helpful article, “The Sarah Palin Predicament Resolved.”

I want to remind readers that Vision Forum Ministries has a deep respect for our friends at organizations like the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and we remain profoundly grateful for their many excellent efforts over the years to defend the biblical doctrine of complementarianism as applied to the church. So much of their work has been heroic and timely.

It is our view, however, that they have erred by overtly embracing an egalitarian perspective of the roles of men and women in the public arena. Furthermore, we would argue that the position they are presently advocating: (a) utilizes theological arguments in direct contradiction to arguments used by CBMW in the past to defend the complementarian worldview; (b) that the same arguments they are using to deny that the principles of complementarianism apply equally to all three of the jurisdictions (family, church and state) will soon be used to undermine complementarianism in the local church; and (c) that their legitimization of a mother of young children to serve as president of the United States undermines, if not altogether destroys, their view of complementarianism in the family because of the absurdity of the claim that a woman can lead a nation as chief executive and still properly prioritize her non-optional, biblically-required duty to serve as a helpmeet to her husband.

Over the course of the next two weeks, I will be devoting separate blog posts to each of the questions proposed by Dr. Gushee and will interact with the published response of CBMW to Dr. Gushee. I begin today with the first question.

Question One:

Is it now your view that God can call a woman to serve as president of the United States? Are you prepared to renounce publicly any further claim that God’s plan is for men rather than women to exercise leadership in society, the workplace and public life? Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?

CBMW Answers:

The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from exercising leadership in secular political fields. Therefore we must be careful to not go beyond the teaching of the Bible. A president is not held to the same moral standards as an elder of a church. While it is a blessing from God to have ethical or even Christian political leaders, the Bible places no such requirements on secular governments. Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world.

Vision Forum Ministries Responds:

1. Dr. Gushee has identified a genuine inconsistency in the position of our semi-complementarian/semi-egalitarian friends. In our view, this inconsistency cannot be justified on the grounds of Scripture, nor of sound reason.

Also, I think it is important to begin by observing that our friends at CBMW have not provided clear answers to several key points raised in the five questions by Dr. Gushee. The question was asked: “Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?”

No answer is given by CBMW. Yet it seems clear that this is exactly what has happened. At this point, there is no clearly distinguishable difference between the feminist understanding of male/female distinctions and civil leadership and the position of CBMW. As to their view of the jurisdiction of the state, both are full-blown egalitarians. If substantive differences exist between the two positions, they are not immediately apparent, and the burden of proof is on CBMW to explain to us what they are.

2. CBMW responds by making four assertions: (1) the Bible does not prohibit women from serving as civil magistrates: 2) Presidents are not held to the same moral standards as pastors; (3) The Bible does not establish any ethical standards for the leadership of “secular governments.”; and (4) the leadership distinctions between men and women which apply in the Church do not apply in “the kingdom of this world.” In this blog post, I will address the first claim.

First, the claim that the Bible does not prohibit women from serving as civil magistrates is false. In fact, the Bible has a great deal to say about the requirements for civil magistrates, which you can read about here, here, and here. It is true that there is no verse that says, “a woman may not be a civil magistrate,” but it is also true that there is no verse which says “a woman may not be an elder.” The case for the biblical requirements for elder and civil magistrate are both based on: (1) the doctrine of the creation order distinctions between men and women; (2) the positive commands about the distinctive role differences between men and women; (3) the negative commands and warnings directed against those who would violate this creation order principle; and, importantly, (4) the positive commands which specifically require that both civil magistrates and elders be male.

Second, the undefended assertion that the Bible does not prohibit women from being civil magistrates is irresponsible in light of the fact that such a perspective is inconsistent with the majority view of orthodox Christianity throughout Church history articulated by such great Reformers as John Knox and John Calvin, the former of whom write that: “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, [and] a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance. . . .”^[9]

Third, to get around the many commands of Scripture found in the Old Testament, semi-complementarians must argue that the general precepts and patterns found in the Old Testament are largely obsolete and inapplicable to modern society. (The one exception to this rule is that they want to be able to cite the Israelite prophetess Deborah as an example of a civil magistrate, an argument which: (a) shows their inconsistency, and (b) has been defeated by Reformers and present-day theologians like William Einwechter)^[10]

3. The arbitrary restriction of the doctrine of complementarianism and the creation order to the realm of church and family is not only illogical, it is a departure from CBMW’s position in the past in which they formally opposed women in combat, freely citing extensive precepts from the Old Testament, building their argument around the doctrine of the creation order itself, and showing the clear link between complementarian responsibilities in the home and those of manly civil responsibility through military service.

Below are segments from their position paper on “Women in Combat: A Resolution From CBMW,” which was adopted on November 23, 1996:

WHEREAS, God created male and female with specific and complementary characteristics (Gen. 1:27), declaring them “good” (Gen. 1:31) so that male and female in relationship constitute a complete expression of the divine order for humanity, yet without blurring or denying the meaning or significance of gender-based distinctions established by God in the created order; and

WHEREAS, The equality of male and female as to dignity and worth, following from their creation in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), is fully consistent with and is in no way contrary to gender-based distinctions as to roles and responsibilities which are also established in the created order; and

WHEREAS, God, by creating Adam first (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:8) and also by creating woman for man (Gen. 2:18,20,22; 1 Cor. 11:9), has set the gender-based role and responsibility of males in the most basic unit of society (the family) to be that of leader, provider and self-sacrificial protector (also cf. Eph. 5:25; 1 Peter 3:7), and likewise has set the gender-based role and responsibility of females to be that of help and nurture (Gen. 2:18) and life-giving (Gen. 3:20) under male leadership and protection (cf. 1 Peter 3:7); and

WHEREAS, Intentional rejection of the connection between male headship in the family and the male protective role that defines and justifies service as a soldier in military combat necessarily strikes at the complementary nature of male and female relationships established in the order of creation, and unavoidably undermines the order, structure, strength and stability of families within any society that determines to ignore, deny or erase this gender-based distinction; and

WHEREAS, The pattern established by God throughout the Bible is that men, not women, bear responsibility to serve in combat if war is necessary (Gen. 14:14; Num. 31:3,21,49; Deut. 20:5-9,13-14; Josh. 1:14-18; 6:3,7,9; 8:3; 10:7; 1 Sam. 16:18; 18:5; 2 Sam. 11:1; 17:8; 23:8-39; Ps. 45:3-5; Song of Sol. 3:7-8; Isa. 42:13); and

WHEREAS, Biblical examples that record women serving in combat (Jud. 4:4-23) are presented as contrary to proper and normal gender-based distinctions between male and female roles and responsibilities, and as caused by a failure of male leadership that is worthy of shame (Jud. 4:9-10); and . . .

Note that the 1996 statement by CBMW wisely reminds the Church that those rare and non-normative examples of role reversals in the Scripture such as Deborah (Jud. 4:4-23) are reminders of male abdication “worthy of shame.” They are not meant to be examples for emulation, CBMW argues, nor does their inclusion in Scripture justify the suspension of the duty of men, not women, to lead. Yet this is precisely what semi-complementarians such as CBMW’s Executive Director David Kotter are attempting to do in 2008 by excluding the numerous patterns and precepts found in Scripture that demonstrate the complementarian mandate for male leadership in the civil jurisdiction while attempting to justify support for Sarah Palin based upon the non-analogous and non-normative example of the Israelite prophetess Deborah.^[11] CBMW has done an about-face on Deborah by using her example to justify Sarah Palin’s bid for the vice presidency while stating in 1996 that it was a sign “worthy of shame.”

Note also that, in the 1996 Resolution, the Old Testament patterns and precepts are widely invoked to build the case that gender distinctions apply to the civil responsibility of military service. Why in 2008 are the Old Testament passages on qualifications, male responsibility, and civil jurisdiction ignored or dismissed as irrelevant? Has the Word of God changed over the last twelve years?

Furthermore, if CBMW was correct in their 1996 Resolution that these principles apply to non-elected representatives of the United States military serving the federal government, how much more should these same principles apply to an elected Commander in Chief who would preside over all of the military?^[12]

Finally, note that in 1996, CBMW was willing to reach the conclusion that it is the duty of men, not women, to lay their lives on the lines in military service because: (a) women are to be nurturers and helpers “under male leadership and protection,” but not leaders; (b) God requires men to be leaders, providers, and self-sacrificial protectors. In fact, CBMW even argued that placing women in combat “unavoidably undermines the order, structure, strength and stability of families within any society that determines to ignore, deny or erase this gender-based distinction.”

We believe that excellent organizations like CBMW cannot reasonably argue that having women serve in military combat “unavoidably undermines the order, structure, strength and stability of families within any society that determines to ignore, deny or erase this gender-based distinction,” but that promoting a mother of young children to rule over a nation (including her husband) as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the military does not. The argument strains credulity.