Should Christians Support a Woman for a Public Office?

Should Christians Support a Woman For a Public Office? Part 2
I. Male and Female Created He them – The Role of Women and Men in Authority
   A. Men and women are created equal in standing before God and in value
   B. Men and women were given distinct roles to function as a team together
   C. The male was given the leadership responsibility for them both and was consequently made to be the one who would answer for both
   D. Man was to lead and his teammate was to help him conduct the activities of their team so that they may be done within the parameters which God had set, and be fruitful (in many ways)
   E. Male leadership was not about qualification or superiority, but about God-required responsibility
   F. Sin in the life of the man and woman made this aspect of teamwork more difficult and a point of contention, with the woman always contending to rule and the man contending to be passive or to rule forcefully and domineeringly.
   G. Consequently when God established rules for the new kingdom of Israel in the promised land God required that qualified men were to be the judges that Moses would appoint in the kingdom. No specific rule was given that women could not rule, but the implication or inference made from the rule that “men” were to be sought and appointed led to the conclusion that women were not to assume these offices in Israel.
   H. After Israel’s unbelieving failure, the church was given extensive guidelines regarding male and female roles in the church and home. No mention was made of women in the public servant role of the state, but then neither are there guidelines for men given in such a role! The New Testament places great and primary emphasis on the family and the church which are the foundations of any community, society and state. Better families produce better people; better people means better churches; better churches mean better communities, etc. Among these NT guidelines given to the church are:
      1. Wives are to be in submission to their husbands
      2. Women are not to “speak” or ask questions in the church (service). If questions exist, the inquiry is to be made of the husband at home.
      3. Women are not permitted to teach men
      4. Women are not to usurp the authority or leadership role of the man
      5. Women could not assume the role of elder or pastor by implication of the qualifications of an elder laid out in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
      6. Men are to lead both the home and the church…different from “equality”
      7. No guidelines are laid down for public office (of the state) - for either gender as no nation-building plans for the church were laid down for a kingdom on earth
      8. However, in regards to the home, management was almost solely in the field/role of the wife. In fact, the biblical word describing her role and responsibility is the word for “despot”.
         a. The man’s “leadership” was to make sure she had all she needed to manage a prosperous home
         b. The wife’s “submission” was to make sure he was able to conduct his roles for the family without obstacles. This would also clear the way for his “leadership” in the church and by extension, the community

II. Regardless of Touts Purporting Moral/Biblical Superiority Regarding a Position on Public Office, We are Still Left with Logic and Reason Based on Scriptural Implications When it Comes to the Matter of Public Officials!
   A. Israel is still the only theocratic state God ever created. In it there is no governmental system equivocal to a republic such as we have in the USA. In a theocratic system, there is no “civil” office since all of life is judged from the “religious” or “ecclesiastical” realm. Therefore, there can be no “secular” priests or judges or “civil servants”. To equivocate leadership requirements for “civil servants” in this country with guidelines for priests and judges is NOT Scriptural; it can only be "logical and reasonable".
      1. Guidelines set down for the gender of priests and judges in Israel give us great insight into God’s expectation for societal governance: He holds males responsible for the society’s well-being in righteousness and justice.
      2. When God described the despicable state of Judah prior to His judgment upon them regarding its leadership, He did so thusly: Isa 3:12…As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them, O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths. (NKJV). This condition is one which followed his removal of the men, adequate food and living supplies, leaving them with a dearth of both…Isa. 3:1-9
      3. In Israel’s economy the masculine gender was not the sole qualifier for leadership. Consider Ex. 18:21…Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness: and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
      4. Deut 1:13 Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you. 2 Sam 23:3. The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: He who rules over men must be just, Ruling in the fear of God. See also Deut 17:14-20
      5. Given these guidelines for male leadership we must say from what we know of our public candidates, none of them qualify for leadership if indeed we are the “Christian nation” some of our covenantal brothers believe in!
      6. The principle of male leadership and responsibility can be established from creation and is only reiterated by the implications or inferences from qualifications of judges and priests to Israel. The law does not address the conditions or requirements found in the world of the Gentile outside of Israel. For instance, the queen of Sheba is not addressed as having been a moral failure due to her gender. No statement regarding her position and/or lack of lawful requisite is made. Even Queen Jezebel is not castigated for her gender but for her wickedness, misleading Israel and for idolatry.
   B. The New Testament does not address public office holding, how to cast a good vote, qualifications for a good office holder as the church is not about building an earthly nation, Christian or otherwise! Conclusions we reach about gender on this issue will come from reason and logic derived from Scripture, not directly from specific Scriptural admonition.
      1. The New Testament does address the Christian’s attitude and responsibility toward those who are in authority over them regardless of how they came to office. Here it does not address gender but office regardless of gender.
         a. The Christian is to understand that all authority is from God. Once again the gender question is not approached
         b. The Christian is to honor authority (Rom 13) or the “king” and submit to him. Obviously since it is the “king” and not the “queen” who is addressed one may only assume that male leadership is what is addressed. But can one reason from this that if it is a female (queen) who is the authority that the Christian does not have to submit because she is the wrong gender? Of course not!
         c. The Christian is called upon to pray for all men. Does this mean not “all women”? The Christian is especially to pray for kings and all who are in authority. “Kings” obviously addresses male leadership and the “all who” can be masculine or neuter but not feminine. Once again this leads to an assumption of expected male leadership.

III. Conclusions
   A. The Bible speaks of male leadership from Creation, not culture, and not LAW.
   B. The Bible has very specific terms for what makes a good leader for nations: godly, wise, God-fearing, faithful, etc.
   C. The New Testament does not address “civil leadership” directly, and neither the OT or NT address civil leadership specifically in terms of gender for gentile nations.
   D. The believer will have to make a God-fearing decision before he supports a woman in a public office. But more may be at stake! If it is okay for civil rule, is it okay for some kinds of church rule too?


One prominent evangelical has publicly said before the Palin nomination that he would not go to the polling booth. Now he has changed his mind. There has been and will be an impact for Christians to consider. The Bible is the Christian's lifeline for decision-making, and must be foremost in their evaluation. Yet, it is not a platform for political advantage, as some would use it. That is why good rules of interpretation are essential. The “Manifest Destiny” of some founding fathers affected the native Americans tremendously, and without biblical justification. Applying such reasoning to the current political scene may well cause greater division within Christendom, to the advantage of those who would hasten the day of Marxist socialism and its attendant evils. You cannot have equality without true freedom. And you cannot have a consolidated church/state operation under the guise of OT law without violating the guidelines of differentiation between Israel and gentile nations. The NT deals with individuals/homes and the body of Christ in terms of the local church. Be discerning when a legalist emphatically claims that a “woman should stay in the home”. Be equally discerning when an activist claims intolerance for your view in the name of tolerance. The Bible contains godly principles for all decisions to be made...in the home,...in the church,...in society,...and in the voting booth. Be discerning.