McCain and Palin

I want to begin by saying that, from all appearances, Palin is a solid candidate for political office. As far as her platform goes, at least on the issue of abortion, a Christian couldn't ask for better. And in this post, I don't want to even hint at the suggestion that she is not capable or would not do a fantastic job as VP, or even President were it to come to that through some unfortunate event during McCain's tenure (assuming he is the one elected). I'm not opposed to Palin based on the fact she's a woman, per say. I also agree with DW's latest that the fact that she's a mother and wife does not necessarily disqualify her. No, this article's not really about Palin at all - or only insofar as she provides a "platform" for me to discuss an issue that is not even on the most conservative Christians' radar screens. And it's somewhat related to the issue of women in the military.

Three times in Romans 13:4-6, Paul calls civil authorities "God's ministers." This implies, of course, that they are appointed by God to "ad-minister" His will in society - particularly, the ministry of the "sword" (v4). The "sword," here, is a metaphor for any physical punishment of those who break the law. God places this sword in the hands of civil magistrates and they are responsible to administer it according to His will. But now that Jesus has become the King of kings and Lord of lords and is presently "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15), and is "reign[ing] till He has put all enemies under His feet" (1 Cor. 15:15), this means that every ruler (or lord) is directly accountable to Christ Himself, Who is the abiding Ruler of the nations. This is why the Psalmist prophetically warns kings and judges of the earth to "kiss the Son lest He become angry with you and you perish in the way" (Psa. 2:10-12). This Scriptural framework is the essence of my postmillenial views. There are lots of places I could go from here. But I want to focus on the ministry of the "sword."

The fact that it is a sword that is being administered is one of the reasons a woman should not ordinarily hold political office. I.e., a sword doesn't ordinarily belong in a woman's hands. It belongs in a man's hands. But, again, I don't want to be negative about women in politics, or about Palin as a VP candidate, because the fact that a woman holds political office is by no means a reflection upon her! Rather, it is a reflection on all the men who should have stepped up to the plate to do their swordly-service to the King of kings, but either through abdication or cowardice (which amounts to the same thing) have not. So, I don't mean to imply (and don't think) that Ms. Palin is under-qualified or not adequate for her prospective office (or for that matter, any woman holding any political office). I simply think that it means - or possibly means - that God couldn't find a man good enough. And that's the shame. But, more, I think such a situation just might be a sign of God's judgment upon a nation.

Here's a Scriptural example of what I mean: We all know how Deborah and Barak were co-judges in Israel (Judges 4) in a time when "every man did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6). She was judging in the midst of God's judgment upon the children of Israel. They had done evil in the sight of the Lord and were being oppressed by a foreign people because of their evil (Judges 4.1-3). There is an aspect of Deborah's own rule that is a part of God's judgment in this setting. And it is not merely that she is reigning in a time when God's judgment was obviously upon the people, but there's also a hint of it when she calls Barak to use the sword, but he declines the duty and therefore forfeits the glory of victory. We have the shamefulness of this explicitly stated by Deborah herself (Judges 4.9). Even God's delivery of them by the "sword" of a woman suggests that Barak has shame, or at least, that he doesn't have the glory that he might have had as a man. He's not the hero he might have been.

But God is even more explicit in Isa. 3:12. Here, we see that God establishing women to rule over the children of Israel is an element of His judgment and curse upon Israel's disobedience.

There are other examples of this paradigm. God visited His fear upon the Egyptians and made them "like women" (Isa. 19:16). The same thing happened to Babylon (Jer. 50:37). The point in these passages is certainly not that it's shameful for women to be women, nor even that it's shameful for men to act like women - although that's what happens to the men of these nations. They are simply saying what's going to happen when God's fear comes upon these nations. But I think these passages assume that it will be men that comprise the Egyptian and Babylonian armies, not women. Otherwise, the text loses its force when it predicts they will become like women (women are already women and it is appropriate for them to fear like they fear).

All this to say, women are not warriors, though they certainly can be. It's just that, ordinarily (there's that word again), God doesn't make them this way. They are nurturers. Of course, there are some outstanding women warriors in history (Deborah is just one of many). But, ordinarily, they don't belong on the battlefield. Furthermore, if they end up wielding the sword, it could mean that either the nation is short on men, or, worse, the men of that nation won't do their duty, or even worse, God is judging that nation for its disobedience.

We all know McCain is seventy-two years of age. He appears to be pretty healthy, but because he's older, there's more of a possibility that he could die in office and pass the sword on to Palin. She would then be our "Commander in Chief," the highest ranking military officer of our land. That's the situation we must consider. But the precedent is worse than the possibility - that of heedlessly having a woman as the commander of our nation's army, not considering what that means for us, and not considering how out of whack such a situation really is, historically.

So, if women are ordinarily nuturers, what has the potential to happen when they assume political office? Well, they just might nurture rather than "judge." Then, the ministry of the sword begins to look like the administration of the home. In the home, a woman takes care of everyone. She cares for the children. She's usually the one most concerned about keeping everyone "safe." This is good and right and absolutely necessary. But such a mentality doesn't belong in the ministry of the sword. Because the sword is not about keeping people safe. A man can't be victorious in battle if his first concern is safety. His agenda must be to accomplish the mission, not to stay safe. And this means deliberately and knowingly placing his life in jeopardy for the sake of the mission. This is what a man is called to do. Of course, a woman is also called to live sacrificially, but if this means her taking up arms, then - generally speaking - things have probably already come to their end and the battle, by this point, is most likely lost.

We've already got an overweening concern for the safety of our soldiers in battle. Of course we should want them to stay safe and we should pray for this. But, when once a man goes to war, along with a request to God for his safety, we should be asking that God enable him to fight with courage and to obtain victory - even if it means he must die. If we don't want victory in spite of danger, then we shouldn't fight in the first place.

So, the thought I'm contemplating is whether or not women belong in the ministry of the sword. What does it mean for our nation when we thoughtlessly pursue such a course? Where are our men who have the sense enough to defend our women rather than putting them in the way of danger?

I certainly don't think such questioning suggests that Palin is wrong or that God is not leading her to assume such a leadership role. I just think we ought not follow the herd simply because we hear Evangeline the bell cow somewhere up ahead.