One of my favorite pastors is Voddie Baucham. He recently posted the linked article below on his blog. Please read and give careful consideration of what he has written. Then we must ask ourselves as Christians, "Are we really biblical in all of our thinking?"
Please feel free to comment.
Posts
13 comments:
I agree that the Palin choice was almost entirely about the campaign, and not about choosing the best potential successor to the presidency. But, at least in this article, the writer is being a nit-picking fuddy-duddy. The VP isn't a "pro-family" enough job? Dissecting "pro-family" vs "pro-life"? Kudos to Baucham for separating the fly poop from the pepper! If Palin--obviously an experienced mother--giving a speech while having labor pains is cause for complaint, we truly are becoming a "nation of whiners."
Couldn't disagree more with what that pastor has said. Was Deborah out of place while God was using her as judge & prophetess in Israel? Did Lappidoth get the short end of the stick, so to speak, as his beloved Deborah judging the nation?
As a result of Deborah's rule in Israel, the nation enjoyed a few decades of peace.
What could be more pro-family than peace?
I posted the same thing. Great article from Voddie.
Rick, If we're going to overrule clear teachings from the rest of Scripture, to get a doctrine from a historical account in the Book of Judges, then do we say child sacrifice is also okay, which was also happening in Judges? What about fornification?
When a woman rules a nation, a state or whatever, it is a judgement from God.
Isa 3:12 "My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths."
puritan: Was Deborah sinning? Why did God never, ever, not in the least mention it?
I've yet to see any "clear teachings" which would prevent a woman from taking an office such as, well, Judge of Israel or Vice President of America.
I see clear teachings that would prevent a woman from being head of her household, sure. I see clear teachings that would prevent a woman from holding authority within a church, definitely.
But I would be very cautious to extend those teachings to a governmental (or even business) role, especially when we have the example of Deborah (whose example we are to learn from, as is the case with the rest of the OT).
Rick, to answer your question with a question, if Jephthah was sinning by sacrificing his daughter in Judges Why did God never, ever, not in the least mention it?
Titus 2:5 woman are "to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed."
That verse is pretty straight forward if you just let the text mean what it says.
Also Isaiah 3:12 is clear that when a woman is in office, it is a judgement from God against that nation.
Hey Chris,
"Dissecting "pro-family" vs "pro-life"?
To quote Voddie from his follow-up article: "What pro-family values? Sarah Palin is a member of “Feminists for Life.” Since when is Feminism pro-family? Is not having an abortion all that is required to qualify as pro-family? Is that how far we have fallen? Are Evangelicals thinking on this one, or just following in lockstep behind their fearless Republican leaders?"
Puritan,
You infer things I do not think, and most certainly did not say. Let me start by being honest right of the bat, and telling you that I do not share your fundamentalist views. Actually, I am not much more than an agnostic deist. And, my OPINION is that if that's what the Bible says about women, the Bible is wrong.
But, my original comment was just from a practical standpoint, not an ideological one. I think Baucham...and now you also...have unrealistic expectations of the political process, and political candidates. Think what you will about women with careers and women in leadership positions, the fact is that horse left the barn in our culture 50 years ago, and it's not going back in. Nit-picking and condemning a candidate for not fitting your own fundamentalist view of what women should be like is pointless.
I think there is actually a triangle of extremes when it comes to Christian involvement in politics. There is the one extreme you refer to of overcommitment to a particular political party or political view, especially when Christians start to equate their politics with their faith in a syncretic way. Another unhealthy extreme, I hope we would both agree, is complete complacency and un-involvement in political things. But the third extreme is to run off into one's own little religious ideological corner, call it a political party, and throw stones at everything in secular politics that doesn't measure up. Put a "Don't blame me, I wrote in Reform Constitutional Calvinist Baptism By Immersion Party" bumper sticker on your car, and retreat in a self-righteous huff to one's own little blogosphere.
I think you and Baucham are reaching for the corner of that third extreme by being critical of Palin on the basis of unfulfillable and impracticable criteria. One might do better to criticize her selection as a pandering gesture to the right wing by a candidate who has demonstrated little past interest in the views of Christian conservatives. But then, that criticism probably wouldn't be unique enough to allow Baucham to feel he has stated something profound.
I've been out of town, so I'm just now getting around to commenting on my own blog. :)
First off, I appreciate Baucham's position. It at least demonstrates his concern that Christians may not be analyzing politics through the lens of scripture. We believers should view EVERY issue through God's word. Period. However, I must admit that I disagree with Baucham's main point.
The reason is that the Bible is silent on the woman's role outside the home and the church. Scripture is quite clear on her primary duties as a wife and mother, and I think that as a wife and mother a woman should not let anything else interfere with those duties. That does not, however, preclude her from pursuing -- with the blessing of her husband, of course -- work outside the home. If that work became detrimental to the family in any way, then it would be wrong. But the same could be said of the man's occupation. If his capacity as "bread-winner" takes away from his role as husband and father, then he would need to reevaluate his priorities.
All that being said, I think there are even more practical and immediate reasons for rejecting Sarah Palin. I won't go into all those here, but one of the biggest problems is her hypocritical stance on claiming to be pro-life while also being pro-preemptive war. Perhaps I'll address some of these issues in a later post.
Are our Neanderthal knuckles dragging the ground as we criticize a woman participating in government because she is a woman? I do not see in the biblical texts mentioned a "clear" teaching that women cannot participate in government.
This attitude is less than completely biblical and a sure way to trivialize our opinions as we debate those in the world around us. If you want to lose the debate before it even begins, then this is the proper approach.
Bill T.
St. Louis, MO
I am a fan of Voddie's preaching. However, I think he has stepped off into the legalism pit on this one. God raises up the people He wants in a position for a reason whether a woman or a man. In the case of Deborah for instance. Men would not come forward so He raised a woman to judge the people. Same case here...there was not a man that could energize this race, speak truthfully about the life of an unborn child, and do something about the "good old boy" system in Washington like Sarah Palin. This is God's indictment on us men for failing to stand up and be men. Instead, all I hear is wimpy little men setting around complaining that a woman's place is at home raising her family. I don't think the case can be made here that she is wrong for the job anymore than God was wrong for raising up Deborah in the OT times. This is really a case against the wimpy Christian men that need become men again instead of the feminized whiners they have become...step up and speak the truth of God's word and stop the legalistic vomenting that causes people to run for our Lord in the first place. Go vote for McCain & Palin in November! It is your duty to do so.
I, too, like Baucham's preaching, and I agree that he ventured off into legalistic territory here. But isn't it just as legalistic to say it's our "duty" to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket?
It may be...however, if your knew me personally you would understand the humor in that :o) I cannot stand legalism or the thought of it and that is where I was going with that.
Gotcha. But I've heard that exact argument too many times to just assume it's sarcasm. :)
Post a Comment