RBS Tabletalk

Womanly Dominion: More than a Gentle and Quiet Spirit by Mark Chanski

with 8 comments

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

1. [...] Here is Pastor Mark Chanski, author of Manly Dominion and (soon to be available) Womanly Dominion on a woman in the White House. Thanks to Professor Robert Gonzales for his editorial comments. [...]

   - » Womanly Dominion: A Woman in the White House?

   September 1, 2008 at 2:10 pm

   Reply
2. We had been praying and fasting for this country. The book of Isaiah compelling us to do so.

   And its ironic, how this woman is suddenly, unexpectantly thrust into the limelight – and of all people – by McCain.

   I would agree to the summary opinion.

   Also, I married an Idaho girl. And I do know what courageous western girls are capable of for special, difficult times.

   

   Todd Wood

   September 1, 2008 at 2:20 pm

   Reply
3. [...] vote for a ticket that has a woman in the second highest office? One Reformed Baptist pastor has weighted in on the negative. I disagree. Here’s my [...]

   Of Queens, Vessels and Alaska | By Farther Steps

   September 1, 2008 at 5:39 pm

   Reply
4. Bob, thank you for your gentle correction. I have modified my blog post to hopefully better reflect Mark’s intent.

   I am sorry for not taking better care with my words.

   

   Tim Etherington

   September 2, 2008 at 1:07 pm

   Reply
5. Tim Etherington, author of the blog, By Farther Steps, has expressed overall disagreement with the excerpt of Chanski’s book cited above. In a blog entitled “Of Queens, Vessels and Alaska,” Tim offers some suggestions on how the passages cited by Pastor Chanski might yield other conclusions. He begins his post, however, by apparently ignoring Chanski’s own conclusion. Chanski queries, “Setting aside for the moment specific personalities and liberal vs. conservative ideology, would this be a good thing in general, for a woman to become our President?” Although he does not believe it’s God’s general norm for women to serve as political sovereigns, Chanski concludes, “Though I would never vote for a woman as my pastor, I could, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to vote for a woman as my president.” Similarly, Tim asks, “Can we American, Bible believing Christians vote for a ticket that has a woman in the second highest office?” Then he assert, “One Reformed Baptist pastor has weighted [sic] in on the negative. I disagree.” Tim concludes, “Women may not lead in the home or the church but the nation is an entirely different matter.” Apart from some differences in exegetical conclusions and perhaps in emphasis, both writers seem to arrive at similar conclusions. Thus, for Tim to assert that Pastor Chanski has “weighed in on the negative” despite the fact that he concludes his article with the statement, “I could, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to vote for a woman as my president,” does not appear, at least to me, entirely accurate.

   

   deangonzales

   September 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm

   Reply
6. Bob,

   I may just need to read the entire book (feel free to say so if that’s the case), but I don’t see how Chanski’s 5 points would result in his summary conclusion? I can see why Tim Etherington would misunderstand the conclusion.

   I’m just not connecting the dots there. Particularly based on #5, I’m having a hard time understanding the conclusion he comes to.

   Jeremiah

   

   Jeremiah Mattingly

   September 2, 2008 at 3:50 pm

   Reply
7. Jeremiah,

   I think you’ve raised a good question. It’s true that Pastor Chanski’s five points would seem to incline the reader toward a negative conclusion. Perhaps, what Pastor Chanski intends to say is that as a general rule the Scriptures would encourage male leadership and discourage female leadership. Nevertheless, the Scriptures don’t seem to draw a sharp line here as they do when we think of ecclesiastical leadership. Hence, there may be exceptions or “right circumstances” that would render female leadership in the political sphere permissible and appropriate. As you suggest, we may have to wait till the book is published to gain a fuller picture. I’ll invite Pastor Chanski to offer a response if he has the time.

   

   deangonzales

   September 2, 2008 at 5:49 pm

   Reply
8. In light of some of the questions related to the excerpt from Pastor Chanski’s upcoming book Womanly Dominion, I’m posting two more excerpts from the book with Pastor Chanski’s permission. These should help situate the excerpt above in its proper context:

   The first excerpt provides an overview of the book’s theme:

   The false stereotype of a Christian woman being a helpless and frail mouse, who passively shades herself under the parasol of her soft femininity, and adoringly waits for her husband to do all the heavy lifting, is shattered by the Scriptures.

   Yes, the godly Christian woman wears beautiful ornaments that are “precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 3:4b). But her jewelry is not only the necklace of “a gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Peter 3:4a), but also the bracelets of “strength and dignity” (Proverbs 31:17, 25).

   Women, just like men, are called to the grand and challenging mission of subduing and ruling in their God-assigned spheres of life — in personal godliness, in emotional resilience, in marital life, in motherhood, in the church, in the public square. That’s what we explore in Womanly Dominion.

   The second excerpt comes from the introduction to chapter 13, “Womanly Dominion in the Public Square”:

   If one day you saw a woman riding a motorcycle from Lincoln, Nebraska, to Des Moines, Iowa, on Interstate 80, you might notice a bit of curious behavior as she crosses the Missouri River, the border between the states. You might well observe her removing her helmet and releasing her long locks to flutter freely in the wind! You see, in our country, different states have different laws regarding helmet requirements. Nebraska is a Mandatory Helmet Law State. Every rider, regardless of age, must wear a helmet. But Iowa boasts itself as a No Helmet Law State. No rider is required to wear a helmet. Each state has its own laws. In this case, Iowa allows more liberty than Nebraska.

   Life is much like this according to the Bible. Each sphere of life has its own set of restrictions regarding gender roles. In the previous chapter, we saw that the Bible provides certain restrictions for female saints in the sphere of the church. Earlier we saw that the Bible gives principles for women in the sphere of the family as wives and mothers. But as we move into the sphere of the public square, we notice that the Bible is much less precise in regulating the roles and activities of women.

   As we cross the river into this final chapter, I believe the Scriptures speak less dogmatically and provide more liberty to women in their decisions about their roles in the public square (politics, military service, recreation, employment, etc.). Therefore, I will write this chapter in a more flexible tone. Instead of saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” I’ll be saying, “Come, let us reason together.” Notice how each category comes in the form of a question instead of a declaration. You may enjoy the feel of your hair fluttering freely in the wind.

   But remember, just because a cyclist has the liberty to ride without a helmet, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wise to do so. The same is true regarding Christian liberties for women in the public square. Liberty doesn’t necessarily mean advisability. Simply because I may, doesn’t mean I should.

   All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable (1 Corinthians 6:12).

   Hopefully, these extra excerpts will provide a fuller picture of the thrust of Chanski’s thesis.

   Your servant,
   Bob Gonzales

   

   deangonzales

   September 2, 2008 at 8:20 pm

   Reply