Deborah
A continued look at complementarian and egalitarian views
In our journey to understand and navigate the complexities of headship and authority, our goal is simple: to gain clarity on these issues so that we can provide a clear and meaningful target for our boys to aim for and train towards. We believe that many challenges of the past lies not in the existence of headship but in how that authority has been poorly wielded. It is not the WHAT it is the HOW. We personally aim to do this with the utmost humility as we try and figure this out and with the utmost love to our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who interpret this differently.
The story of Deborah is often cited in discussions about women in spiritual leadership, particularly in the context of the ongoing debate between egalitarian and complementarian views. While some see Deborah's leadership as a case for egalitarianism, we propose that her story supports a complementarian perspective.
Through this continued exploration, we seek to train our boys to handle future authority with wisdom, integrity, and respect, ensuring they are well-prepared for their roles in a world that values both order and equality. By being clear about our stance on headship and authority, we aim to provide a solid foundation for their growth and development, fostering a generation of men who can lead with strength, humility, and SACRIFICIALLY.
Complementarian and Egalitarian
There is a spectrum of beliefs on woman in ministry from one end which is egalitarian and the other which is complementarian. A google search on “What is an egalitarian view of women in ministry” reads:
Egalitarianism is a Christian belief that the Bible teaches that gender does not limit a believer's calling to ministry in the church or home. Egalitarians believe that God created men and women equally, and that their shared authority, responsibility, and purpose in creation stories was disrupted by the Fall, leading to women's oppression. They reject hierarchies based on sexual difference, and believe that women should be able to have positions of leadership and authority over men, including being ordained as pastors and elders.
A google search on “What is a complimentary view of woman in ministry reads:
The complementarian view of women in ministry, based on a literal interpretation of certain Bible scriptures, is that women have limited roles in ministry, especially in church settings. Complementarians believe that God has ordained distinct roles for men and women in the church, and that women should not hold leadership roles that involve teaching or exercising authority over men. However, they also believe that women can have authorized ways to minister to God's people. For example, some say that complementarian women who go to seminary can pursue careers in church ministry to women or children, missions, or parachurch organizations.
I recently heard a podcast with Jon Tyson, who speaks on the issue of boys and manhood, who said, he’s a complementarian who rejects hierarchies. I suppose that would be somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. To me, hierarchies are perfectly suited to all things spiritual starting with the Trinity and reflected in all of creation, even to the lobsters in Jordan Peterson’s book, “Twelve Rules for Life” They are also reflected in the spiritual realm as both angels and fallen angels (demons) operate in hierarchies.
Deborah has often been set up as an example to support the egalitarian view. I would like to make the case that she does just the opposite.
The Judge
The time of the judges was an interesting period in the history of Israel. Moses and Joshua, appointed by God, have fulfilled their mission of leading the people into the promised land and delivering the covenant laws they would follow as a monotheistic nation. God does not identify a leader after Joshua because there is no need for one. God is their leader. This is made abundantly clear when Israel begins to demand a king near the end of the period of judges. When they demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, God told Samuel they were rejecting Him as their King. That was the plan.
They were going to be tribal communities, established in the lands God had given them and administered by ‘chiefs’ of each tribe or clan. God would be their king. It was a good idea. But, it didn’t work. All too soon, the people of Israel were in trouble and they would cry out to God for help. That’s where the judges were introduced.
The word for judges is ‘shophet’. While judge is a literalistic translation of the Hebrew term shophet, the position as described is more one of unelected non-hereditary leadership than that of legal pronouncement. There are twelve judges listed in the Bible during this period. All of them were called to lead military exercises against Israel’s enemies. All of them were men except for Deborah.
Deborah was not called to lead a military exercise against Israel’s enemies. Let’s just begin with her introduction:
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. (Judges 4:4).
The writer goes out of his way to prepare us for what is happening: Deborah. Prophetess. Wife. (And still listed under the spiritual authority of her husband, we can presume.) She.
Going on….
We’re not even sure about her ‘calling’ here. There is a difference between God choosing and God using. There is no argument that Deborah is mightily used by God in this story. However, we have no direct indication that she was ‘chosen’ or ‘anointed’ for the role of a judge as understood here. She was a prophetess who judged disputes among and between tribes.
She ‘judged’ from a private place and not a public place. While popular with the people, she handed out judgements under the ‘Palm of Deborah”. She even called herself the “Mother of Israel” and there is no doubt she inspired people. But, she wasn’t dictating spiritual doctrine or teaching men the scriptures. She was judging disputes. Even in her song that follows in Judges 5, after the conquest of Jabin, King of Canaan, she laments that no man would stand up and lead Israel into battle. In verse six of chapter 4, she calls for Barak (by God’s calling, not her own) to lead the charge against Israel’s oppressors for twenty years. God had called a man to lead the battle and he refused to go unless a woman went with him. THAT should tell us everything we need to know about this situation. It’s not PRESCRIPTIVE. It’s DESCRIPTIVE. Deborah WAS used by God in a powerful way. Deborah was a good leader. BUT that is not the point. You can not use this story to support the case that woman should be in spiritual leadership because Deborah was.
Deborah wouldn’t even make that case.
She would make the case that “I’m here because the men are weak.” And as a way to shame Barak, God’s chosen vessel to lead Israel, she correctly prophesied that the credit would not be his for the victory but would go instead to a woman, which would either have been Deborah or Jael. It was a point of shame in Israel’s history.
Church polity must be consistent with scripture as it is God breathed. Like God, it defies time and transcends cultures. It does not contradict itself and only compliments itself. If God has something to say on this matter it’s consistent throughout scripture and a complimentarian view of woman in spiritual authority is the only way to consistently interpret what the Bible says about this matter from Genesis to Revelation. Deborah’s story is just another in the long line of writings that confirm this.
Isaiah laments this very thing in chapter three,
Youths oppress my people,
women rule over them.
My people, your guides lead you astray;
they turn you from the path.
Young, inexperienced leaders and women ruling over men. It’s not a good thing according to the Bible. You should not make policy over a clear exception to the rule and especially if that ‘exception’ is meant to teach the exact opposite of what you’re trying to accomplish. If there’s a point to be made it is that God can use anyone. Once, he used a donkey to lead a man in the right direction. We don’t use that to set policy, do we?
Conclusion
In the same interview with Jon Tyson (who we are big fans of) he said the following:
“But I don’t think you have to rule over women to be able to produce the kind of men that are called to live like that.”
There are no complementarians that believe headship means ‘ruling over’ or ‘domineering’ their wives or the church. It is quite the opposite.
We love women.
They are equal in value to us. Often times more capable than we as men are in many ways. They are necessary in the home. In the church. Their perspectives and ideas matter. All of this so much so, that we want to look our boys in the eyes, and train them to believe this in such a deep way that they are willing to lay their lives down and sacrifice daily for them. That is true leadership and that is what we want to train and unleash our boys to do.