Thursday, September 25, 2008

Biblical Patriarchy from Creation?

Now that I’m done defending Deborah the big question is whether the Bible teaches anything like “Biblical Patriarchy” at all. I’ll come right out and say that I don’t believe such a teaching can be found anywhere in scripture, at least in the form in which it is presented by Vision Forum. As with my last post, I will mostly be citing verses and arguments as posed by William Einwechter in his article “Should Christians Support a Woman for the Office of Civil Magistrate?” found on Vision Forum’s website.

The Biblical Patriarchist begins his case by going all the way back to the beginning of the Bible. The creation of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis 2 is the Old Testament backbone of the doctrine. In this chapter’s account Adam is created first and spends some length of time with the animals in the garden before God observes that, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him," at which point God places Adam into a deep sleep and removes the rib from which He fashions Eve.

In writing about this story, Mr. Einwechter says,
“The text of Genesis 2:7 and 2:18-24 teaches us that man was made first, and then the woman was made to be man’s helper and companion. The Bible instructs us that this order of creation was by God’s design, and that it establishes the positional authority of the man over the woman in regards to authority and leadership.”

Einwechter and others of this point of view make much of two elements of this chapter: 1) that Adam was created first, and 2) that the text reports that God said, “…I will make a helper suitable for him.” They say that the creation of Adam chronologically prior to the creation of Eve illustrates a natural order of positional authority of the man over the woman. Furthermore, God’s statement in Genesis 2:18 that Eve was created for Adam reinforces this illustration from the natural order of creation. It seems to me that one needs to come to the text of Genesis 2 with this presupposition already in place to get this message from the story.

If we consider the whole creation text of Genesis I think that we find an authority message dramatically different than that in Biblical Patriarchy. There are only two passages which relate the creation of Adam and Eve themselves: Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:7, 18-22. In Chapter 1 of Genesis God states His intention for mankind to exercise dominion over all creation:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. – Genesis 1:26-27

Einwechter ignores this passage, however, I think it’s interesting to note that here, the first time human authority is presented in the Bible, both the man and the woman share equally in it. The word ‘man’ that appears in this passage is the Hebrew word ‘adam’ (transliterated), which is a generic word for mankind. God states His intention that man, or mankind, should rule over all creation. To make it perfectly clear that God includes all people in this sweeping declaration of authority and not just males the passage ends with the description, “God created man [mankind] in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them.” While it may not contain an explicit teaching on male and female authority, I would say that, if anything, it communicates the equality of the man and the woman, not the authority of the man over the woman.

According to Einwechter, the fact that Adam was created first is indicative of an implicit patriarchy, that it “establishes the positional authority of the man over the woman in regards to authority and leadership.” I beg to differ. The wording chosen by the author of Genesis himself in describing God’s sentiments on Adam’s lonely state in Genesis 2:18 communicates exactly the opposite. God asserts that,
“It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Mr. Einwechter places the emphasis of this passage on the “for him,” there is a sense of ownership laid over the statement. However, God’s expressed purpose for creating a helper for Adam was so that he wouldn’t be lonely; that he should have someone else with him to share in his work.

Additionally, many Bibles include a footnote next to the word ‘suitable’ which reads “Lit. Corresponding to.” All the Jewish scholarship that I could find agree that the literal rendering of the text using the words ‘corresponding to’ instead of ‘suitable for,’ communicates God’s intention to create a helper for Adam who is completely his equal (see here for example). Eve was not merely Adam’s assistant in the garden, she complimented him and was his companion, and shared equally in the authority God gave all mankind over His creation.

While I do believe that the Bible teaches that male headship in families and in the Church is desirable and normal, Einwechter’s claims that the creation order in Genesis establishes a universal positional authority of man over the woman reads too much into the passage. The words of God Himself communicate the equality of His male and female creations.

Friday, September 12, 2008

In Defense of Deborah

Until recently I have never realized that Deborah, judge of Israel, needed defending. In my mind she has been, like Daniel, one of very few people that the Bible reports only positively about. Silly me.

In the wake of the Republican Vice Presidential Nomination of Sarah Palin, I have discovered a small but vocal subset of Christianity that stands very firmly on what Vision Forum refers to as “Biblical Patriarchy.” This doctrine teaches that there are basically three spheres of influence in the world: The Family (or the home), the (local) church, and civil government. It’s supporters say that in each of these arenas the Bible clearly teaches that female leadership or authority is contrary to God’s order. Given that, they believe that God is better pleased with bad, ineffectual male leadership than even the most capable woman in a position of authority. As a result, some Christians have claimed that they are no longer able to vote for Sen. McCain now that he has selected the female Governor of Alaska to be his VP.

What does this have to do with Deborah? I have serious concerns about the claims of proponents of Biblical Patriarchy both biblically and philosophically. They teach that female leadership is completely unacceptable to God; however, in the fourth chapter of Judges we find an explicit example of female leadership over the Nation of Israel (Judges 2:16) and in a role that God Himself assigned no less. In order to explain this apparent contradiction between Biblical Patriarchy and the leadership of Deborah, the patriarchists teach that her period as judge over Israel was a shame to the men of Israel; they claim that female leadership is a sign of the judgment of God, based on Isaiah 3:12.

Vision Forum published the article Should Christians Support a Woman for the Office of Civil Magistrate? in which William Einwechter presents the doctrine of Biblical Patriarchy. Einwechter attempts to show that Deborah is not a good example of female leadership in the Bible; in fact, he claims she should not be considered a leader at all. I disagree. For the rest of this post, I will be responding directly to the arguments and assertions made in this article.

Einwechter writes:“First, in regard to Deborah, recognize that it would be unwise to cancel out the explicit biblical teaching on the headship of man, the clear statements of the law, the picture of the virtuous woman, and the lament over women ruling on the basis of what took place in Israel in one of the most confused periods in Israel’s history.”

I agree. It can be dangerous and problematic to look at examples of individuals for doctrine, particularly in the Old Testament, as the Bible frequently records peoples’ actions without supplying a judgment as to the righteousness of their actions. The good and the bad are reported together and often judgment is withheld. We should never cancel out Biblical teaching because of a conflicting example. However, if we are careful, we can allow Biblical examples to inform our understanding of Biblical teaching. We can learn things if we examine the text carefully.

What is God doing in this story? God uses Deborah as both an influential judge in Israel and as a prophetess. He speaks to her directly as His agent for freeing Israel from Jabin, king of the Canaanites. Is it appropriate for her to serve in such a leadership position? Biblical patriarchists would say no, her apparent position as a leader only signifies the extent of God’s judgment on Israel. However, Israel was already experiencing God’s judgment – they were captives of their enemies the Canaanites because they had forgotten the one true God and worshipped other gods. Rather than Deborah as evidence of God’s judgment, Deborah is presented as the agent God used to release Israel from judgment.

Is her example a special case? Does it stand out in any way from the other accounts of the judges in this book? No. In every account related in Judges, Israel does “evil in the eyes of the Lord,” thus they are handed over to their enemies for a period of years, after which God raises up a judge to lead Israel back to Him and free them from their captors. This is precisely the pattern followed by Deborah as well.

Einwechter writes: “The judges during this period were more military leaders or ‘avenging deliverers’ than they were civil magistrates (Judges 2:16-19)”

Mr. Einwechter makes this point because Deborah did not personally lead the troops into battle against King Jabin. He uses this detail to question whether we should rightly refer to Deborah as the judge or if it’s more appropriate to conclude that the actual judge of Israel in this story is Barak. This could be a compelling argument if the role of judge is truly said to be a militaristic position. Let’s read the passage:

Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered [Israel] from the hands of those who plundered them. Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they played the harlot after other gods and bowed themselves down to them. They turned aside quickly from the way in which their fathers had walked in obeying the commandments of the LORD; they did not do as their fathers. When the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them. But it came about when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their stubborn ways. – Judges 2:16-19 (NASB)

Does it appear from this passage that the judges were always military leaders, as Mr. Einwechter claimed in his statement above? I certainly don’t find any mention of military leadership or avenging deliverers in this passage. I see nothing in this passage to cause me to ignore the statement in Judges 4:4 – “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time,” and conclude that Barak was actual the judge if Israel in view here. What I see is a person, the judge, whom God raises up and through whom God affects repentance in the hearts of the people, which leads directly to physical freedom from and victory over their oppressors.

Einwechter writes: “The Song of Deborah and Barak gives some important insight into Deborah’s actual position in Israel.”

Under this statement Mr. Einwechter points out that in Judges 5:7 Deborah claims to be a “mother” in Israel, not a father. He says, “This is significant, given the headship of the father in Israel.” I have to wonder, what else could Deborah have claimed to be? Would it really have been appropriate for her to claim to be a “father” in Israel? Also, the author reads a great deal into a verse that appears to do nothing more than describe Deborah’s simple origins in order to give the glory to God – in essence she’s saying, “Who am I to be used by God to redeem the land and the people of Israel, I’m simply a mother.” She removes the credit anyone might try to give her for the work that was done in Israel and rightfully attributes it to God.

Looking at Judges 5:9, the observation is made that “there were yet governors in Israel,” i.e. the rulers of the tribes, and that this fact invalidates any claim to leadership that could be attributed to Deborah. This is a very strange assertion, as I don’t believe the author would make it about any of the other judges, yet whether these governors were referenced explicitly or not, they were there during the service of every other judge over Israel. The fact that each tribe had its own leadership does not disqualify the judge from being rightfully considered a leader as well.

Another claim that is made about “Deborah’s actual position in Israel” is that in Judges 5:12 “Deborah is exhorted to awake and sing, but Barak is exhorted to arise and ‘lead’.” I’m sorry, but this one is playing a little fast and loose with the text. Mr. Einwechter fails to mention what Barak arises to lead:

Awake, awake, Deborah;
Awake, awake, sing a song!
Arise, Barak, and take away your captives, O son of Abinoam.- Judges 5:12 (NASB)

It can hardly be said that Barak is seen here as the civil leader of the people, but simply as a successful military leader who has taken his enemies captive.

Finally, Mr. Einwechter points out that verse 13 of this chapter “is either a reference to Israel’s victory over Sisera and the Canaanites, or to the gathering of the people to go up to battle; whichever, it does not mean that God has appointed Deborah to the position of civil magistrate.” I might have to give him this one as I can’t say that I disagree. The verse is somewhat ambiguous in each of the Bible translations I looked at, so he could very well be right about this specific verse. However, that really does nothing for or against his case that Deborah was not a civil leader of Israel.


The biggest problem I see with this argument is this: Let’s assume for the moment that everything he says about Deborah is completely true. He still acknowledges that “She judged Israel only in the sense that she was sought out by the people for advice and judgment in the settlement of disputes because of her wisdom from God.” Even if that’s all she was, does it sound like she conformed herself to Mr. Einwechter’s image a Godly woman:

“According to Scripture, the woman was created to be man’s assistant in his dominion task, to function under his headship, to be a mother and nurturer of children, and to manage her home. These “monumental” tasks require married women to be “keepers at home,” i.e., they are to stay at home to give their full time and attention to the enormously important roles that God has given to them”(quote from a post by William Einwechter titled Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise: A Response to Our Brothers Al Mohler and David Kotter on Doug Philips’ blog at Vision Forum, September 8, 2008).

Even if everything Bill Einwechter says about Deborah is true, was she acting as “man’s assistant in his dominion task?” Possibly she fulfilled this role to Barak, but he was not her husband or her child, which Einwechter would find very problematic. Does she “function under [man’s] headship?” Not at all! She goes to Barak and tells him what to do (beyond the pale according to Mr. Einwecter’s beliefs)! Does she act as “a mother and nurturer of children and manage her home.” She does not! Her children and her home are never even mentioned in the account. Did she act as a “keeper at home,” as he would put it? No. She was out in public, serving people who were not in her family, handing out judgments in disputes that undoubtedly involved men as well as women (completely inappropriate by Einwechter’s standards). Did she “stay at home to give her full time and attention to the enormously important role that God gave her?” As I have already answered: NO! She is out judging among the people, she is telling the military leaders what to do, and traveling with them into battle; certainly nothing those who hold to “Biblical Patriarchy” would condone.

Is it normal for woman to hold a civil leadership position? It is not normal even today, but it was exceedingly rare in the days of the judges. Yet despite its rarity and the passages that Mr. Einwechter uses against such a possibility (which I will address on this blog soon), female leadership certainly has been (on occasion) set up by God in order to accomplish good things, and not simply as a sign of God’s anger and judgment against a people. Deborah is still a prime example of that.