A Monstrous Regiment (Part 2)

Introduction

Given that this is part two, I’m just going to assume that everyone listening to this has already listened to part one…perhaps a few times over, just to commit it to memory…after all, this is the fastest growing podcast in the history of podcasting. Okay, I maybe I’m exaggerating a little, or a little more than a little, but my point being, that all the necessary introductory foreplay isn’t really necessary here…so like any good couple that’s been married for over a decade, we’re just going to get right into it.

We began last time with a quote from the least controversial of the Reformers, John Knox.

“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

If that quote makes you sad, that makes me happy. The primary thrust of the last episode was that, “prepare to have your mind blown,” men and women are different. This difference is baked into the cake which means it runs all the way and all the through which includes not only form but also function. That is, that God designed men and women differently. In order to have any form of complementarity, it means, well, that men

and women are to complement each other, which common sense tells you – functionally they ought not perform the same roles nor do the same things.

It's no coincidence that we have trannies everywhere today popping up like a bad case of genital warts in our culture. The reason for this is that we had feminists popping up generations ago and celebrated everywhere today. It’s really not hard to see that if you have chicks pretending like they have dicks, then pretty soon you will actually have chicks with actual dicks. And yes, all the soft complementarians in your church have passively contributed to this mess. If that hurts, perhaps now would be a good time to get your therapy hamster because we’re not even through the introduction yet.

All this to say, that feminists were the first trannies, because they were acting like men, and assuming the role of a man – some may be even tempted to call that monstrous and repugnant. Today’s trannies, have just taken that to it’s logical conclusions. Now you may not approve of the use of my language – like my use of the word hamster…however, the connection is unavoidable, which evangelicals ignore at their own risk.

This brings us to the inevitable collision that evangelicals also ignore at their own risk – that is that a man is a man wherever he goes and a woman is a woman wherever she goes. Which means their nature and roles don’t change just because they are in public, or rather in the civil sphere.

If God created man to be the head – the mission setter, and the protector and provider, than man sits in the seat of authority – in the home, in the church, and in the civil sphere. Most conservative evangelicals agree with this statement all the way up to the civil sphere. But men and women aren’t like Mr. Potato Head parts…nothing changes in God’s design, just because the civil office is a public one – which you would think that would be all the more reason to uphold said creational distinctions, and if they are not upheld, it won’t end well. Okay, too much foreplay already…let’s just get after it.

Trumpets Blasting & Stuff

Given that we are living in unprecedented times, (or so we’re told and have been told for times – times and half of times), where glass ceiling aren’t just being approached but shattered, my statements regarding women rulers being a monstrosity and all, probably sounds even more archaic and barbaric than ever. Especially with the profound intellect and ability of our V.P. on full display everyday.

Like Winston Churchill comforting the Brits during World War Two, Kamala provided the

American people with great comfort and hope during the worst Pandemic the world has even known with words such as these, “It is time for us to do what we have been doing. And that time is every day. Every day it is time for us to agree that there are things and tools that are available to us to slow this thing down”

With such inspiring words, how could I possibly say that women should not rule over us? Easy, it’s UNBIBLICAL. Now, that should be the end of the argument, but as soon as that assertion is asserted, someone will assert, or cry – or cryingly assert, “but what about Deborah?”

Notice, no one appeals to Jezebel or Athaliah – murderous, treacherous, idolatrous women they were – which I suppose, is proof that our times are not as unprecedented as we think. However, Deborah was legitimately a godly woman and was a judge-ish in Israel. This is seen as the nail in the coffin for all of those mansplaning patriarchs out there – “oh yeah, Deborah” Boom end of argument – mushroom cloud and maybe some doves flying in the background.

However, far from being an argument for women rulers, the example of Deborah is the exact opposite. In fact, Deborah is not described in the same way as any of the other Judges in Israel. As Zachary Garris points out,

“Deborah is not described as ‘saving’ Israel like some of the other male judges…, and the phrase Yahweh raised up’ is not used for Deborah as in the case of some of the other male judges. The author of Judges does not mention the “Spirit of the Lord’ working in Deborah as with several of the male judges…In fact, Deborah is only described as ‘judging Israel at that time’…which was a time when Israel ‘did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.’ Therefore, the context suggests that Israel having a women judge like Deborah was not the ideal situation.”

Not to mention the fact that using any of the Judges as normative examples for leaders today is probably not a good idea, and almost everyone is aware that the book of Judges is descriptive and not prescriptive until it comes to Deborah, which tells us much. That is, we’re not dealing with a consistent hermeneutic, but rather someone who wants to look like the adult in the room by appealing to the cool kids…which isn’t very cool, and just makes them look like a tool.

Also, Deborah was not a military leader. If a Hollywood movie was made about her today, she would be played by a 100 pound, 22 year-old super model who kicks everyone’s ass, and looks good doing it. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this is why she enlists Barak, because even in the time of the Judges…as messed up as they were – even they knew it was abominable to make women warriors (more on that in a bit).

When the judges are mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, it’s Barak that is mentioned not Deborah. She is simply not described in the same way as the other judges in Israel because she was not a military leader nor a civil ruler, but rather she is described a “mother” in Israel. This was because of the absence of a strong patriarchy, which led to Israel’s decline into sin. This is to take nothing away from Deborah, but it to point out the obvious, as Calvin said, she was raised up, “to spite men, as is He [God] wished to shame them.”

The fact that there is only one example to pull from in all of Scripture, and that is not even a good one should tell you everything you need to know. Not only that, but just on an operational level, when you have to make that which is abnormal normal in order to support your argument, that is something that will have principle leakage into the rest of society – the fruit of which we are all being force fed.

While we’re on the topic of lady warriors let’s just go there, shall we. Our culture is absolutely obsessed with putting women in male roles to show that women can be just as fierce and badass as men. However, they forget that this is all make believe, that these are just a bunch of grown adults playing pretend.

Which most will tolerate to a degree, but Hollywood’s obsession with the female warrior has just become comical. No man watching the Avengers really thinks Scarlett JoHansen could really take them in a fight, and no man watching Wonder Woman (which presents far too many other questions to explore at present) starring Gal Gadot, who is probably 100 pounds fully clothed in a snowmobile suit with boots on while being soaking wet, is really going to beat anybody up.

Culturally, we may think it’s cool seeing women do all of these things, even if it’s completely ridiculous, and make-believe. However, the idea of a female warrior is an abomination to the Lord, and is the exact opposite of what God created women for. Again, Garris writes,

“A woman soldier is even more abominable than a woman in civil government. This is because a woman subverts her nature to an even greater extent when acting as a soldier. Instead of assuming authority as in civil government, a woman soldier assumes the role of protector. Yet protection is a task that God has explicitly given to men. This is doubly bad when women rise to positions of authority in the military, such as a general. A woman soldier defies her nature and physical makeup. A woman does not have a body made for strenuous manual labor, let alone physical combat. Women are not only much weaker than men on average, but women’s bodies are built for bearing children. This is not to insult women. Rather, it is a call to honor women. God has made woman a life-giver, not a life-taker.”

How stupid is this, as a strategy for developing a strong military which will create a deterrent to other nations that may seek to do us harm. We are declaring and telegraphing to the rest of the world that our military is weaker, at least physically because we have women in it, but hey, we feel pretty enlightened about it. I wonder if our enemies feel the same way, or will feel the same way with a women captured in combat. What do you think will be done to that woman? But we can feel good about it as a nation, putting a woman into a situation where she will be repeatedly raped and tortured – you know, because of feminism and stuff.

Not to mention the fact that putting women in the military removes the beauty and the glory and the virtue of why men would fight in the first place. Men are hardwired to protect and provide, and that begins in the home. It is virtuous for men to want to protect that which is distinctively feminine.

“And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, ‘Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.’” Nehemiah 4:14

If there is a wolf in your yard you protect your wife and children, not just because you love them and not just because they are the weaker vessels, but perhaps on a more primitive level, you know that there is a gentleness, and softness, and innocence there that makes life livable and enjoyable. The godly hardness of men is to protect that. By lowering standards and throwing women into combat just to say how enlightened you are, craps all over that masculine impulse. With this, men may still fight, but it will be devoid of virtue, because what they defend is now devoid of virtue.

Women in combat is not only demoralizing to men, but even worse, God mocks it. Every

example of a soldier in Scripture is a man, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, even God Himself is referred to as a “man of war.” Exodus 15:3, “The LORD is a man of war; the LORD is his name.” and Isaiah 42:13, “The LORD goes out like a mighty man, like a man of war he stirs up his zeal; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against his foes.”

And it used to be universally known, up until the last twenty years or so, that if you wanted to mock an opposing army you would say they were like women. And every little boy learned on the playground that if you want to insult someone you say, they hit like a girl.

“Behold, your troops are women in your midst.” Nahum 3:13

Not only that, but God also, explicitly condemns lady soldiers.

“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” Deuteronomy 22:5

Many see this as a condemnation of any man that would dress like a women – like the effeminate turd, Harry Styles, or a condemnation of trannies like Dylan Mulvaney. This is true, but doesn’t go far enough. The used word that’s used here for man in Deuteronomy 22:5 is not the typical word for man, but rather uses a word more typically used for warrior. A woman is not to dress as a warrior…she is not to play the part of a man in any respect. If she does and men allow it, it’s an abomination. Only a weak and effeminate people look to women to rule over them. Only a weak and effeminate people look to women to fight for them. Men are to be intercessors standing in-between their women and harm, not visa-versa. If/when this happens you’re looking at the end of a nation phenomenon.

Conclusion

We may be embarrassed by John Knox today. The polite among us just internally giggle, while everyone else weeps and wails and gnashes their teeth at comments like Knox’s. However, what he said,

“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.”

Is clearly attested to in the Scriptures and history bears witness against a nation that

does not obey.