Introduction
“A woman promoted to sit in the seat of God, that is, to teach, to judge or to reign above man, is monstrous in nature, contumelious to God, and a thing most repugnant to his will and ordinance.” John Knox
Perhaps forty years ago, one may have heard the words of Knox and giggled…even if it was a nervous giggle, it was a giggle nonetheless, probably coupled by a polite smile that said, “we don’t really believe that any more,” and “wow, we’ve really come a long way and all.” We know now, that woman can do everything that men can in the workplace, especially if she dresses like a man with a dike-doo, lady pants and shoulder pads.
Such were the femmies of old. But todays femmies are of a totally different nature. If one were to conjure up images of the demoniac man (but now who self-identifies as a woman) who lived among the tombs cutting themselves with stones and crying out to Jesus, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.”…yeah, imagine all of that but with purple hair – you get a much closer picture of where we are at today.
One can see how far we’ve fallen from grace, from allowing and even promoting woman ruling over us as long as they dressed like dudes, to actually having dudes (with the accompanying anatomy), ruling over us because they pretend to be woman and because they dress like women. What began as a violation of nature, has picked up steam like too many chimichangas and is now blessing the world with the aftermath.
In decades past, Knox’s words would have been condescendingly ignored, but now they must be stopped from even being spoken…If one were to speak such words in public today, I suppose, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth would be an understatement to say the least. To say that a woman ought not sit in a seat of authority over man in any capacity…whether in the home, church or civil sphere could get one crucified today…perhaps even in the church, not because it’s unbiblical, but rather because effeminate men prefer to have women in positions of authority because it makes them look less gay, while still feeling like the adult in the room.
But Knox wasn’t making a subjective statement, this wasn’t simply his opinion regarding woman rulers. He was saying that a woman put into a place, a position of authority over a man, that enables her to rule over him, individually or collectively is monstrous in nature. This presupposes that both men and women were given distinct roles in creation that this violates, and given that it is a violation of nature, it is a thing most repugnant to God’s will and ordinance.
Therefore, to simply dismiss Knox as a firebrand from a bygone era, or a chauvinist pig reflective of a male dominated patriarchal culture, is neither wise nor prudent. To say that Knox was a furious firebrand or that he was a patriarchal prick is to say nothing about Knox’s statement regarding whether or not a woman ruler is against nature, or whether or not it is pleasing to God. In fact, it says nothing about Knox at all, but rather says a whole lot about the one responding to Knox.
The question, is not, whether or not women can rule. The question is whether women should rule. This is a moral question, the answer of which, then, must be determined by the word of God.
Therefore, our embarrassment or repugnance regarding the words of Knox really means diddley squat. What matters most is whether or not it is consistent with God’s revealed will. Either woman rulers are normal or abnormal, either prescribed or confused, either it’s allowed or disallowed, either it’s right or wrong, or if you will – it’s either beautiful or an abomination. Either way, whatever it is, God gets to say.
A Monstrous Regiment
Why would Knox say that a woman in a position of authority over a man, “is monstrous in
nature” and “contumelious to God?” Because of the way God created them – male and female He created them, after His image and His likeness.
It’s not just that men and women reflect God’s image – they are God’s image. It’s not just that men and women are God’s image in form and capacity in his nature – like having a will, intellect, emotion, and unique individual personality and so on. It’s also that men and women are God’s image in function, that is, equal in value but different in function.
There is unity and diversity within the image just as there is in the Trinity. All this to say, that our roles are baked into the cake because our roles and function are reflective of our distinct natures. Equal in value, but different in function – same, but different.
That is, we don’t just complement each other regarding our plumbing, but rather the plumbing is designed the way that it is because of the diversity of our natures, which when the two become one flesh in covenant for life – it is more revealing of the nature of the Godhead…especially through procreation, dominion and loving obedience, and sacrifice.
This is pretty awesome, but also, pretty basic stuff. Men and women are different and this
difference is baked into the caked. To rebel against this is to rebel against nature…which is neither wise nor prudent, nor can it be done for any length of time before going completely nuts, or which, the recent string of Tranny rampage murders attests (so we should ban all the guns).
I would hope that anyone who calls themselves a Christian would agree with everything I said thus far. I would go even farther, and say that if one calls themselves a Christian, they would have to believe what I’ve said thus far…even the demons believe that and shutter.
Man was created as the head and his wife is to be his helper. They are to complement each other in every way. They are to have one name, one home, one dominion – you can’t functionally have two heads, nor two helpers – it doesn’t work that way. Most complementarians, should say, at least by definition – that men and women were created in a complimentary way and are, too, well, complement each other. But then they get all squishy and gay on the details and the scope.
You can claim to be the head of your home but if your wife makes all of the decision just in a passive aggressive way, than not’s not really being a the head and taking responsibility. But the same is true in the opposite direction as well. A guy can claim to be the head of his home but uses this as an excuse to be an outright prick that no one wants to be around him, even his wife. This person is not exercising biblical dominion because those under his care are not flourishing. He is exercising domination because he is a self-righteous jerk.
So then, assuming that some complementarians still hold to a biblical view of complementarity, where do they go squishy in scope? They go squishy in scope in that they only apply this to their homes and the church and not to the civil sphere – why not? Don’t know. I would imagine it has to do with being unpopular, which most evangelicals have an absolute aversion too – which means they are perpetually unpopular, because no one likes the dork that’s trying too hard to be cool.
But if men and women are different in nature, than they are different all the way down and all the way through, and the way they exercise dominion will be seen in their functional complementarity. Men are outward in focus, that is, on mission. They are to be the protectors and providers. This is going to blow everyone’s mind, but a chick doesn’t stop being a chick just because she starts acting like a dude, and vice versa. When those roles get all mixed up, not only is it ugly, its contumelious to God, because it misrepresents His nature.
Therefore, men don’t stop being men, and women don’t stop being women just because they enter the work force. Zachary Garris writes,
“A woman is still a woman when running for political office. The same nature that prohibits her from having authority in the home and church is the same nature that she carries into public life. A woman does not have authority over her husband, and she cannot be a leader of Christ’s church. But according to modern Christian thinking, she can have civil authority over men in her city and neighborhood.”
The three primary forms of government designed by God are: family, church and state. Family being the most foundational, from which the others derive their structure because authority and submission begins in the home (Eph. 5:23; 6:1-2, and the fifth commandment and stuff). Again, Zachary Garris writes,
“The attempt to limit gender roles to the home and church is dualistic in that it pits the religious against the secular. But God has designed men to be men in all of life, and He has designed women to be women in all of life – in the home, church, and society. Women do not get to act like men just because they have stepped outside the home into broader society. A woman takes her womanly nature with her wherever she goes, and a man takes his manly nature with him wherever he goes.”
This brings us to the most obvious of questions, why would anyone not want too, and what good could actually be accomplished by not acting in accord with God’s good design? The fact of the matter is, if you rebel against nature in role with no distinction, let’s call this functional androgyny, then eventually this rebellion won’t stay there. Why do women think they can become men and men think they can become women just because they “will it” to be so?
Well, lots of reasons, but one of them, certainly is that they have already been acting like it for years. Androgyny is a sick bastardization of God’s good design not because it removes diversity from the equation (which would be impossible), but rather because it grossly perverts the glory of both masculinity and femininity…with men acting like women and women acting like men. This is a misrepresentation of reality which is a misrepresentation of the Godhead.
This is something that cannot change from one sphere to the next without becoming completely schizophrenic, which is pretty much where we’re at now, culturally. In the name of equally we’ve blurred any distinction between men and women, but this guarantees inequality, because men and women we created different in form and function. Therefore, the only way to treat men and women equally is to treat them differently. If you treat them the same way in every respect you neither value women nor honor men.
This is true in every aspect of our lives. Men and women have different natures, and these
natures are seen in their function within the home, the church and the civil sphere. Men don’t cease to be men within the civil realm and women don’t cease to be women within the civil realm. Therefore, what is determinative of that nature somewhere, is determinative of that nature everywhere.
Men were made to rule and not women, and when women do, it is a sign of judgment upon a people, thus guaranteeing societal decline and ultimately, death.
Conclusion
There is an old story about Abraham Lincoln. When he was giving a speech had asked the audience how many legs a dog has if you call its tail a leg. The audience shouted back, five. Lincoln said, “wrong” – the answer is four…if you call its tail a leg it doesn’t make it a leg.
Not to be out done by one of the most dearly beloved presidents of all time, I too would like to use a dog question, but this time regarding function instead of naming. If my 100 pound Olde English Bulldogge begins taking dumps in a litterbox, is he now a cat? Now, before you yell out, “yes” think it through. Just because he is not acting like a dog doesn’t mean his nature is changed. So you know what that means, that’s right, he is still a dog even if he acts like a cat.
If you put a woman in a position of leadership that requires her to rule over men does that make her a man? No, of course not – if fact, femi-Nazis and evangelicals love celebrating the fact that a women everywhere are now equal to men because a woman holds such an office – glass ceilings and such. However, this has not changed her nature, which does not equip her for that function, and pretending like it does – that is, making what is abnormal normal – is a monstrosity, most repugnant.
_edited_edited.png)
Comentários