Apparently in some of the back streets of the internet, there’s a fight about whether movies should star “strong female characters.” The whole question makes me nearly sprain something rolling my eyes, so I don’t actually know much about it.
I did read a post on the subject, though. The author, a woman, wrote it in response to a man who objected to “strong females” in stories. He claimed that they usurped a man’s rightful, God-given place as the protector of the weak.
Among other points in her post, the author of the rebuttal mentioned the Biblical example of Deborah. And I thought, “You think you won a point. But you really lost it.”
The thing about Christian patriarchalists is that they know their Bible. They know it like Westley and Inigo knew their fencing forms. It’s kind of like a game, sparring with them. First they lay down the rules—you must argue from the Bible. Nothing else is authoritative. Then they show up with all their Bible knowledge and interpretation and demolish you. They know what you’ll say, and they’ve developed a reflexive response for it. Maybe, if you’re really good at holding your own, they might acknowledge—as Westley did to Inigo—that you’re an artist of stained glass window caliber.
But how is bringing up Deborah in a debate about female leadership an automatic loss?
Yes, we’re talking about the same Deborah, the Old Testament judge, whose story is found in Judges 4-5. She lived during the time before Israel had kings. The people listened to her for God’s words and judgements, especially during this time when a nearby king oppressed them.
Deborah sent for Barak, obviously a warrior of renown. She informed him that God wanted him to gather troops and go against the enemy general, Sisera, in battle. Barak kind of blanched at the thought and said, “I’ll go if you go with me.”
“Fine, I’ll go,” Deborah said. “But just so you know—you’re not going to get any glory from this. Sisera will die by a woman.”
So they went up together and Barak mustered his troops. They met Sisera in battle; it didn’t go well for Sisera. God routed his army, and he himself escaped on foot. He found the tent of an ally, whose wife—Jael—invited him in to rest.
(Jael is the stuff of nightmares to patriarchal men. She pretended to be friendly, waited till Sisera collapsed from exhaustion, and then drove a tent peg through his head.)
Israel won a definitive victory, and the entire next chapter is “the Song of Deborah and Barak.”
If you read the account straight through, you might not see where Deborah went wrong. That’s because you’re probably forgetting the most important principle for interpreting a Bible story about a woman: authority.
Who was in authority? It’s hard to get around the fact that it’s Deborah. She was even married but still looked to as the judge. But women aren’t ever supposed to be in authority over men, therefore Deborah’s judgeship was somehow not God’s best. Even though God doesn’t seem to have realized that.
The teachers I sat under pointed to the fact that Barak was so reluctant. If this warrior was too uncertain to go into battle without Deborah, what did that say about the men of the time? Exactly. They were all weak. That’s why there was a woman in charge—because there weren’t any good men to step up and do it.
So the story isn’t about Deborah’s strength, but Barak’s weakness. It’s not Deborah’s honor, but Barak’s shame. It’s not about a woman, it’s about a man.
And there’s obviously an element of that, since it’s such a point that the victory went to “a woman.” But without the Authority filter over it, the story in general kind of shrugs at the fact that Deborah’s in charge. The point is not woman or man, but God.
But if you find yourself locked in combat with a patriachalist over female empowerment, and the twisty logic, leaps to conclusions, and sheer vigor of his arguments have forced you to the wall—don’t bring up Deborah. He’s already got her properly boxed up and out of the way. All you will do is reinforce his point (to himself) that a strong woman is merely compensating for a weak man. A woman who is trying to be “strong” is therefore trying to “weaken” a man.
It’s right there in the Bible. Remember Deborah?
Sara Roberts Jones 
A man made weak by an ally’s strength was already weak to start with. A man of strength benefits from a woman of strength.
LikeLike
This way of thinking can’t conceive of a strong man who can let a woman be equal to him, outrank him, or operate independently from him. That’s an automatic sign of weakness.
LikeLike
In alot of ways I think it signifies something interesting: you must have a strong, capable man in charge, otherwise God himself will allow a woman to take charge, and it is entirely to the shame of men of that generation. I would be hard pressed to believe that it would’ve been better for a wicked man to be in charge than a strong woman like Deborah in that generation, but it’s still a stop-gap for the missing leadership. If they had a King David in Deborah’s time, I’m sure everyone would have deferred to that generation’s David instead.
What this means in my estimation is that men must become worthy of the role of leadership and authority. It’s not automatically granted to them just because they are a man. Alot of issues here that map with modernity today simply come from the fact that men have allowed themselves to become weak, and undeserving of respect, with no sense of moral backbone about their duties.
I do not refer to chauvinistic treatment of women either. I believe anyone that cannot treat women with respect (especially given their role in society), is not worthy of authority over them either. I do not believe men get to act entitled around women like they are chattel property.
If a man treats his wife with disdain and contempt, it reflects the foul creature that he is, and to the degree he insults his wife as an idiot, really reflects how much of a fool he was for choosing her (using his own logic against him). I will never agree that such a man ought to have authority over a woman, for he is undeserving of it.
Respect in leadership is earned by those who earnestly seek for other’s well being.
LikeLike
That was a lot of words to say that a woman is only as good as a weak man. Do you expect me to think you have a good point? Did you even read my post?
LikeLike
I did read the post the first time I commented, and here’s my summation of what I understand of the text:
The post itself described why using Deborah as a rebuttal to a typical patriarchal stance of men always having authority is a bad idea, namely in that it leads to an opening where men could come back and say “You’re using an example of where men are weak, and therefore a woman was the only option to take charge.”
If I made an error in the above understanding, please let me know.
As for your summary of woman=weak men, that was not my intent. I was commenting on what I was also noticing in that example as you brought it up. If I said woman was only as good as a weak man, I would have said so about Deborah, but that is not the case. God used her in a great way, and I stand by that.
The fact is Deborah was stronger than the men in her generation. That is a separate from the fact that the men were weak in that time. I don’t equate the two at all. If Barak had shown courage in what he had to do, Deborah would have had no issue, and things would have carried on as normal. Barak showing weakness had nothing to do with Deborah, as she did everything required of her at the time.
What I was observing is that _even if_ I were to go with the stance of patriarchy being the de-facto truth of the bible, the story of Deborah shows to me that not all men are worthy of that authority. Even if we were to accept the premise of men being the holders of authority, it’s not a blank check to “rule over women”. I suppose the saying “with great power comes great responsibility” is apt here. So the people that try to peddle that stance are often themselves disqualified of doing so.
LikeLike
I don’t know why you chose to frame your response the way you did.
If my train of thought was in error in a crucial way, then by all means please correct me. Harshly if need be, but please teach me where I am going wrong. I am open to being corrected in these areas, and I certainly expect to be.
But that’s not what happened here. You threw out more than half of what I actually said in order to put me in a bad light. Even if my words are incorrect, this is not conversation in good faith.
I’ve been enjoying a lot of your articles about bad marriage advice, and I agree with basically everything you’ve said about husbands being dismissive of their wives concerns. I’m learning more about how to be better when interacting in these scenarios, because I’m trying to unlearn what I used to be like.
That’s why I must confess this response wounded me a lot more than I expected it to. It surprised me, because the dismissive attitude you speak against, I felt like you did it to me in dismissing almost everything I had to say. I hope and believe this was not your intention, but I felt it was necessary to speak.
There was a reason I spoke against the mistreatment of the opposite gender the way I did in the latter half of my original comment. I was sincerely trying to get across that I am not looking at women in any inferior way. But I am trying to understand scripture more, and what it has to say in these regards.
LikeLike
I suppose my response was because I read your comment quickly (we’re getting ready for Thanksgiving around here, which means we’re busy), and also because in the many years since I wrote this post, I’ve become even less tolerant of how people justify the idea that women are always secondary to men.
So I read “you must have a strong, capable man in charge, otherwise God himself will allow a woman to take charge, and it is entirely to the shame of men of that generation” and “but it’s still a stop-gap for the missing leadership.” It sounded to me as if you were explaining to me why Deborah was allowed to be in charge — because there were only weak men in her time. That’s when my patience snapped. I didn’t feel as if I needed to engage with the same tired ideas.
From your response, I seem to have misunderstood your intentions. Are you saying that men shouldn’t be in charge by default, but should earn that role? I agree with that. Only, I’d say that a person needs to earn a role of authority, no matter the gender. Also, it is important that a man treats a woman well, but treating her well doesn’t justify believing that she is still subordinate to him.
Regardless of opinions, I am sorry that I snapped like I did. Thank you for reading and engaging.
LikeLike