I have read with interest the reception that Sarah Palin has received in the media and particularly in the Christian media and blogs. I’ve seen a few bloggers frustrated because they believe her ambition may supercede her responsibility to her family. But interestingly, most of the backlash has come from liberal bloggers who seem frustrated that all conservatives aren’t so easily pigeon-holed as “women should stay home and stay out of leadership” types.
It does present a dilemma. I definitely think a woman’s first priority should be a family (if she has one) but I also know many women capable of running circles around me in managing both their homes and families and having outside interests and obligations. The Proverbs 31 woman had a whole lot going on and comes off sounding like quite an ambitious woman if you ask me.
Sarah’s unique situation probably affords her a housekeeper and probably a nanny that can help with her youngest son Tryg. And before getting all judgmental about leaving a baby with Down’s Syndrome, she probably was able to have him at arm’s length in her work in the Governor’s Office. I imagine it will get trickier in the Old Executive Office Building (the VPs offices), but my guess is her son will have more access to her than the majority of working moms who have to drop a child off at daycare for 9-10 hours a day.
As for her daughter Bristol, who can judge? I know many a child of two upstanding committed parents (and stay-at-home moms) who has become pregnant out of wedlock. Teenagers typically have minds of their own. Her parents can be commended for not shuffling her off to a confidential abortion (at least their second demonstration of a commitment to life) in order to protect her mother’s career.
It will be hard for a 17-year old senior to raise a baby in Wasilla, Alaska with her mom clear across the country in Washington D.C. But many a young woman has had the same challenge, though for different reasons. Could it be that Sarah Palin has released her daughter to live with the adult consequences of the decision she has made? Or is she simply putting her ambition first? Or, like other great Americans male and female, is she putting her country first?
Thoughts?
September 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Before the comments begin, I thought I would just throw this out there…..
People with Down syndrome should always be referred to as people first. Instead of “a Down syndrome child,” it should be “a child with Down syndrome.” Also avoid “Down’s child” and describing the condition as “Down’s,” as in, “He has Down’s
September 3, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Good catch Val. I have a family member with Down’s syndrome and one of the problems we face as a nation is making them less than people. Thank you for your correction.
September 3, 2008 at 8:04 pm
The young man who Bristol will be marrying was homeschooled.
Just thought that was interesting.
September 3, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I don’t think a woman’s first priority should be family whereas a man’s first priority should NOT be family.
Meaning, if Sarah Palin was a man, very few (if any) would be talking about the improperness of the man running for VP while having a newborn.
This concerns me. What, do we think fatherhood is less important than motherhood? Kids will be negatively impacted if mom works, but it’s no big deal that dad’s gone all day at work? Mom’s are the better parent? Dad’s don’t really matter much?
Palin’s husband has said he’s going to be a stay-home Dad. The Palin kids will have a parent with them, full-time.
Meaning, why is being a full-time parent only the woman’s job?
Personally, I think that the industrial revolution impacted our views on family life (ie, dad goes off to work in the factory, mom stays home [if you can afford it, that is]) vs. what’s actually been normative for centuries upon centuries: families living and working TOGETHER.
Let’s be careful not to take our industrial revolution “values” and call them Scriptural. I think it’s good for young children to have a full-time parent to care for them. But, while mom is good, so is dad. Moms aren’t better than dads.
September 3, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Well said, Molls.
And I’m sure the Palin family (and the Obama family and many who have gone before) have weighed carefully the sacrifices the family — as a whole — will be required to make.
Others questioned us and how moving to Ukraine would impact our children, our family. We did make sacrifices, including the children. But we also gained much, and viewed the sacrifices as worthwhile. Now what we did had a lot less prominence or national implications, but we made the decisions we made based on the direction the Lord was leading us, each step along the way.
I’ve got to trust the same is true for the Palin and Obama families.
September 3, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I know many a child of two upstanding committed parents (and stay-at-home moms) who has become pregnant out of wedlock. Teenagers typically have minds of their own. Her parents can be commended for not shuffling her off to a confidential abortion (at least their second demonstration of a commitment to life) in order to protect her mother’s career.
I would like to speak to this comment. I have a niece who became pregnant and had a baby at 15. Her parents (my sister and brother-in-law) were parents who were very involved in their girls’ lives, always knowing what was going on, coaching their sports teams, being involved as room parents at school, knowing who their kids were with and what they were up to. The entire family are devout Catholics. And yet, my niece made a mistake. It happens.
I firmly believe it is not the mistakes or errors in judgment we make (resulting in sin) that reveal our character; it is how we handle those mistakes. In my niece’s case, she never hesitated for a moment – she chose adoptive parents for her baby. Her family supported her every step of the way. Today, my niece is in her last year of college at a major university in one of their top leadership programs with a bright future ahead of her. She is also active in the pro-life movement.
My niece’s momentary lapse in judgment was not reflective of her fine upbringing nor was it a smear on her parents’ character. How she handled the consequences of her sin, however, were a testimony to her own character and the upbringing she got from her parents.
September 4, 2008 at 9:21 am
Carol has some great photos and even better commentary about Sarah Palin on her blog this week.
http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-mother-and-first-female-vice-president-pictures-children-parenting/
Note that Sarah doesn’t have a full-time housekeeper or babysitter.
September 4, 2008 at 10:11 am
“Personally, I think that the industrial revolution impacted our views on family life (ie, dad goes off to work in the factory, mom stays home [if you can afford it, that is]) vs. what’s actually been normative for centuries upon centuries: families living and working TOGETHER.”
This is exactly right. What we call family values is relatively new thing in terms of ‘roles’. As a matter of fact, I notice they rarely mention that most Victorians who could afford it sent their kids away very young to school.
September 4, 2008 at 10:12 am
My favorite part of the speech was Piper’s slick down job of Trig’s hair. That was a serious lick. Is there a mom around who could not relate to that?
)
September 4, 2008 at 11:42 am
I have to admit I was seriously concerned when I hear about her being picked for the VP candidate. I was afraid that McCain was only bringing her in as a ploy and I was concerned with her “inexpierience”.
After watching her last night and reading more about her, my mind has completely changed. This is the first time since this whole election thing began that I have felt excited. I didn’t even vote in the primary because I was so upset at my choices, but now I’m all in and I can’t wait to vote in November.
September 4, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“The Palin kids will have a parent with them, full-time.”
Unlike the Obama kids who have both parents working full-time. Who is questioning them?
“what’s actually been normative for centuries upon centuries: families living and working TOGETHER.”
Exactly. Adults SHOULD work – in the home or outside the home, with the ideal (IMO) being where the children can be around them.
(P.S. Thanks for linking to me, thatmom)
September 4, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I wish babies weren’t thought of as mistakes or consequences of bad decisions. Babies are wonderful and welcome, regardless of the situation surrounding their conception. I support responsible sexuality, but I really wish that people would stop condemning unwed pregnancy or look on teen pregnancy as the result of a mistake. Maybe the choice to engage in sex was a poor decision based on life situations or religious beliefs, but that baby is not a consequence or a mistake itself.
September 4, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Molleth,
#4 is excellent. I had many of the same thoughts concerning the back-handed slaps at the importance of a father in a child’s life.
Also, the point about the industrial revolution is interesting. I wonder why the feminists are constantly blamed for women working outside of the home when it goes back way before that.
September 4, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Sarah Palin rocks. That’s all I have to say!
Well that and I wish she was running for PRESIDENT, really.
September 4, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I am hoping to find a sign for my front yard that says “Palin for President.”
September 4, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Light – I heard on the radio today that there is a company selling t-shirts that read “Sarah Palin – President 2012″
I’ll see if I can locate them.
September 4, 2008 at 9:31 pm
You can get the bumper sticker here:
http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/item/sarah-palin-2012-sticker-bumper/300478448
September 4, 2008 at 9:32 pm
And a nice mug here:
http://www.zazzle.com/sarah_palin_for_president_2012_mug-168365877979628664
September 4, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Agreeing with Sarah’s comment, here is a good post on the difference between Palin and Obama’s views on babies: http://www.redcounty.com/washington/2008/09/contrasting-views-on-life/. (Full disclosure: yes, that’s my husband.) How about that “…punished with a baby”? Very clearly not a prolife bone in his body.
September 5, 2008 at 5:34 am
It’s disturbing to read what is coming out of the (lunatic) fringes of the Christian right about Palin’s placement on the ticket, or about women in leadership at all. Prime example: The Vision Forum blog. Most recent post quotes Knox:
“To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, [and] a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance. . . .”
I applaud the woman for utilizing the talents she was given, to the fullest potential!
September 5, 2008 at 7:39 am
About Vision Forum and Palin, here’s a good blog entry by Barbara Curtis:
http://mommylife.net/archives/2008/09/more_vision_for.html
This should come as no surprise. Palin is the consummate “whitewashed feminist” if ever there was one. She’s Christian, conservative, pro-life, very attractive, and is a feminist to boot!
September 5, 2008 at 8:28 am
Richard, thanks for the link to the bumper sticker. I would like to design one of my own:
Palin/Schock in 2012. Did any of you catch the brief speech given by our local GOP candidate for Congress, Aaron Schock t the conventon last night? He is a born again Christian, a member of my church, and he is someone to watch as the years go by. He began his political career by running for school board in the Peoria school district while he was in college and won as a write-in candidate. He then took on a truly radical feminist who had attempted to shut down homeschooling by bringing bad legislation in through the back door of the Illinois house. He beat her by less than 300 votes the first time and easily won again in reelection. He is now running for the Congressional seat that is open because Ray LaHood is retiring. We are all cheering for him and supporting him, though, sadly, we cannot vote for him because we live outside his district. But he is definately someone to watch……and pray for, along with Sarah.
September 5, 2008 at 9:24 am
Richard, why wait til 2012? McCain is 72 … has had health problems …
September 5, 2008 at 9:45 am
I’ve discussed McCain’s age and health with my wife. I agree. I think it just might be a little bit too obvious if we say McCain NO … PALIN!!! 2008. Or, “Vote for McCain, he’s likely to die in office anyway.”
September 5, 2008 at 9:47 am
Hey – check out this poll by US magazine. I think a few of the readers here might want to be included in this one. It’s asking if the readers think taht Palin would make a good VP. At this point it’s running 80% in favor.
http://www.usmagazine.com/
You’ll have to scroll down toward the bottom of the page and look for the poll under Palin’s photo.
September 5, 2008 at 9:48 am
Hey – check out this poll by US magazine. I think a few of the readers here might want to be included in this one. It’s asking if the readers think taht Palin would make a good VP. At this point it’s running 80% in favor.
It’s at usmagazine dot com
You’ll have to scroll down toward the bottom of the page and look for the poll under Palin’s photo.
September 5, 2008 at 9:49 am
Karen – who is Schock?
September 5, 2008 at 10:01 am
Has anyone noticed something that I keep picking up on the news coverage repeatedly?
Nobody seems to be comparing Palin to Biden. Instead, they are comparing her to Obama. I caught an interview with a democrat, I forget who, who had a little slip of the tongue and referred to her qualifications for president, even though contextually it was about the VP slot, and they had just referred to Biden’s qualifications for VP. During her speech, Palin made the quip comparing herself to Obama saying a mayor was kind of like a community organizer, only with actual responsibilities. She keeps positioning herself, and is positioned by the media, in opposition to Obama, not Biden. I find that verrrry interesting.
September 5, 2008 at 10:06 am
I have to say, I found the dig at community organising rather inappropriate. Community work is a worthwhile and important endeavour. Guiliani’s snickering as he referred to it was extremely unattractive. Palin’s mockery of it was almost as bad – this is a job Obama did straight out of college, and he did it very well. Noone from Obama’s team has openly mocked Palin’s beauty queen crown, or her sportscasting days. I thought her other criticisms of him were ok, but this one just wasn’t classy. I hope they drop this line of attack quickly.
September 5, 2008 at 10:27 am
Carol has more great photos:
http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/05/bristol-and-levi-parents-in-training/
September 5, 2008 at 10:27 am
Richard, go back and check out my second paragraph.
September 5, 2008 at 11:26 am
Kamilla Lugwig wrote an email to Al Mohler on account of his endorsement of Palin. The email doesn’t make sense. Why state that the very nature of the female automatically makes her unsuitable to the office of leadership, and then speak of Deborah? Was Deborah unsuitable to the office? She reveled in her calling as a mother in Israel. That calling was her glory, and she had no qualms about telling that as a mother she rose in leadership in Israel.
There is no unsuitability factor in Deborah. She didn’t say, “Even though I was a lowly mother, yet I still arose to save my people.” No, her motherhood and her leadership were not viewed by her as incompatible.
I have a hunch. I think there is the prototype of a “Hail Mary” in the gospels, and Jesus said it was more crucial to know that blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it, instead of calling His mother blessed.
Likewise, I also think Deborah is God’s monkey wrench for hyperpatriarchal types. They find very odd ways of ignoring her or explaining her away. Here is the email:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CCC-Forum/message/27916
September 5, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Thanks, Karen. My RSS feeder didn’t include anything after the first few words in that second paragraph.
September 5, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Claire – Obama’s campaign virulently attacked her position as mayor of a “small town.” The Republicans’ mention of his community organization is a natural direct comparison to what the Obama camp was saying about Palin. Except that her experience is much more significant and important, no matter how important his community organization was. The point being that she was answering the Obama campaigns attacks.
September 5, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Whew–posts are fast and furious here and at WWF, so please forgive me for replying without being fully caught up. This is too much fun, I have work to do!
#29 Light–I think the reason for the Palin-Obama close comparison is they both fall in the category of little public experience, particularly as deemed worthy by the radar out of Washington, DC. I don’t think she necessarily has ambitions to be President (unless something happens to JM), but BO surely does, and it would be good to find out what qualifies him to run the country. (Merely jumping into the Senate and voting Present several times while campaigning for higher office is not learning to administer.) Hope we find out soon.
#30 Claire–Considering all that has been thrown at Sarah Palin and her family by the elitist press in the last week, I don’t begrudge her the right to answer back with somewhat of a “tone in her voice”. I think she was very gracious, considering all the muckraking and slander: affairs, son really a grandson, etc. All this is right up the National Enquirer’s alley, and it is mainstream media talking.
I don’t listen to talk radio much or read “rightwing” news only, but Michelle Malkin is one of several who have publicized why Obama’s “community organizing” stint was not just some idealistic young Americorps worker honestly laboring to help the downtrodden. It’s great to have ideals, but what is the means to the end, and what is the end actually? He has a lot of connections to shady people and organizations in Chicago which won’t get researched nearly as much as Trig Palin’s birth records.
http:// townhall.com/ columnists/ MichelleMalkin/2008/09/05/why_obamas_community_organizer_days_are_a_joke
More good posts on Sarah Palin, this one from a Canadian blogger I respect, Tim Challies. He quotes Al Mohler and David Kotter from the CBMW, who surprisingly don’t condemn her (although other CBMW folk might do so), and links to Amy’s Humble Musings. Challies also points out Voddie Baucham’s ultra-conservative stand:
“Those who know of Baucham will know that he is very conservative when it comes to the role of women (going so far in The Return of the Daughters to suggest that women should probably not go to college).”
Challies takes some flack for this post, and says this:
“I think Christians are right to think about this one. Whether or not it’s a dilemma…well, perhaps it is. I think if you read the article by Mohler and the one by CBMW you’ll get a sense of good thinking on the subject. Essentially, the Bible does not dictate that a woman may not be a political leader and it does not dictate that a woman must remain in the home with her family. Hence we can term this a disputable matter. Maybe the majority of Christians would determine that they could not do what Palin is doing, but it is not a matter where we need to be dogmatic. I can say “If you want to be faithful you must believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead” but I cannot say, “If you want to be faithful you must believe that a mother of five should not be Vice President.””
http:// www. challies.com/ archives/articles/good-saint-sarah.php
(take out the blank spaces in my links to make them work)
September 5, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Palin/Schock in 2012. Did any of you catch the brief speech given by our local GOP candidate for Congress, Aaron Schock t the conventon last night? He is a born again Christian, a member of my church, and he is someone to watch as the years go by. He began his political career by running for school board in the Peoria school district while he was in college and won as a write-in candidate. He then took on a truly radical feminist who had attempted to shut down homeschooling by bringing bad legislation in through the back door of the Illinois house. He beat her by less than 300 votes the first time and easily won again in reelection. He is now running for the Congressional seat that is open because Ray LaHood is retiring. We are all cheering for him and supporting him, though, sadly, we cannot vote for him because we live outside his district. But he is definitely someone to watch……and pray for, along with Sarah.
September 5, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Interesting…
http://www.net( )broadcasting.tv/sarah_palin.html
Remove ( )
September 5, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Karen, This one’s for you
September 5, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Richard, on man do I love it!
September 5, 2008 at 5:54 pm
If you’d like to send it to any friends, the full sized version is here. If you know any way of getting it to him, you ought to. I think he’d get a chuckle out of it.
September 5, 2008 at 7:56 pm
“Richard, why wait til 2012? McCain is 72 … has had health problems …”
His mom is…what…97? Even her twin is alive and in great health. She looks formidable. I would not want to cross ‘Nana’.
)
September 5, 2008 at 7:58 pm
“I have to say, I found the dig at community organising rather inappropriate. Community work is a worthwhile and important endeavour. Guiliani’s snickering as he referred to it was extremely unattractive.”
Do you know what it means in Chicago on the South side to be a Community Organizer? And he did this for quite a while.
September 5, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Knox is almost code for “Patriarchy” for me anymore. Funny how they overlook some important facts about Knox who was involved in several murder plots and the plotters succeeded in murdering Lord Darnley. He even composed a sermon aquitting the murder. He also married a 16 year old when he was 50. Even back then, that caused quite a stir. Great role model…NOT.
September 5, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I think Palin made the community organizer statement because of the Obama camp’s attacks on her mayoral service.
Being a “community organizer” often means registering people to vote fraudulently or questionably. I am not saying that applies to all community organizers, but it’s certainly a reputation some community organizer groups have developed.
Further, Saul Alinsky was the person who developed the community organizer program still used by many (including Barack Obama in his youth). His life, methods, and beliefs are not without controversy. Community organizing is generally associated with radical leftism.
I think it was a legit criticism. When you ask people what Barack Obama has personally achieved, any achievement, usually people say, “Community Organizer.” I have no idea if his efforts in that arena were even deemed successful. But I have heard this answer in person and on TV several times. Guess what? It’s not all that hard to register people to vote and get them out to polls and meetings on an issue. Believe me, I’ve done it a lot but without giving myself some fancy-pants title. And no one every had to question if the methods I use were honest and legal.
Palin, unlike Obama, has many identifiable specific achievements as mayor and governor. If his people want to mock her for being a small town mayor, he better be able to take the heat on “community organizing” and quit bragging about it.
September 5, 2008 at 8:28 pm
PS. For the record, I am NOT Sarah Palin.
Just clarifying.
September 5, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Well, for me the thing is this.
Here is exactly what Obama said when criticising Palin’s experience:
“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years”.
A really, really, weak attack, right? And the McCain/Palin campaign responded eloquently with this:
“For Barack Obama to argue that he’s experienced enough to be president because he’s running for president is desperate circular logic and its laughable. It is a testament to Barack Obama’s inexperience and failing qualifications that he would stoop to passing off his candidacy as comparable to Governor Sarah Palin’s executive experience managing a budget of over $10 billion and more than 24,000 employees”.
Excellent rebuttal. Quite right. So far so good? But then they follow it up with THIS:
[From Carly Fiorina - who I usually think is very, very good]
“I am appalled by the Obama campaign’s attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience. The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a mayor and governor than Barack Obama has made in his life. Because of Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.”
Arrgh! Obama’s statement was ridiculous. They demolished his argument. But, it wasn’t sexist. Why wreck such a great response?
I am just shaking my head at the way they throw away good opportunities – opportunities to take the high ground. And they continued it into the speeches. Obama hasn’t used the three years he spent on community work to suggest he has executive experience. He uses it (he used it the other day, after Palin’s speech – and he came off well) to say that that’s how he got involved in politics, to cement the ‘grass-roots, bottom-up politics’ image he works so hard on.
Now, by all means those three years should be up for question. I hesitate, though, because Obama has been in the spotlight for a long time now. His record on the South Side is (to my knowledge – if anyone has links to the contrary, please do share. I don’t doubt the corruption there for a minute) quite exemplary.
However, he doesn’t use those years to suggest executive experience. He has provided the Republicans with a readily-dismissed alternative. To go after him on this makes them look petty. People who coach a soccer team and or work with the homeless think ‘Sarah Palin doesn’t think I have responsibilities? I do to the people I help’ or ‘Rudy Guiliani is sniggering at the 6 hours a week I volunteer? What?’
As I said before, it’s tremendously unattractive. Giuliani’s giggle makes me squirm yet. Obama shot back with “They haven’t talked about the fact that I was a civil rights lawyer; they haven’t talked about the fact that I taught constitutional law; they haven’t talked about my work in the state legislature, in the United States Senate. They’re talking about the three years of work that I did right out of college as if… I’m making the leap from two or three years out of college into the presidency. I would argue that doing work in the community to try and create jobs, to bring people together, to rejuvenate communities that have fallen on hard times, to set up job-training programs in areas that have been hard hit when the steel plants closed, that that’s relevant only in understanding where I’m coming from, who I believe in, who I’m fighting for and why I’m in this race. And the question I have for them is? Why would that kind of work be ridiculous? Who are they fighting for? Who are they advocating for? Maybe that’s the problem. Maybe that’s part of why they are out of touch and don’t get it because they haven’t spent much time working for those kind of folks.”
So… that’s why I think it’s a bad tack. Obama has an open flank on experience – but it’s not the community stuff. He’s already shot himself in the foot with the ridiculous idea that his campaign to make himself President, would make him a good President. But Palin’s campaign threw that away saying it was ‘sexist’, and then decided to go down this route.
Now, if the community work has a questionable legal element, THAT is a good route of attack. But pretending he’s said it was executive experience, when he didn’t, and sneering at it, just makes them look bad. I’d be interested in knowing more about allegations of corruption, if anyone has any links?
It would be an excellent way of exposing the hype and the smoke and mirrors. THAT is a good road for the Republicans to go down. But not this.
September 5, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I’m so excited about Palin for a number of reasons, but the YouTube clip of her speaking at the Master’s graduation (we know some people who went to Bible School there) admittedly made me nervous.
I’m not a Rep or a Dem, and hearing someone talking (or at least appearing to talk) about the war in Iraq being of God made me nervous. I’m inclined to think that the war has a lot more to do with money and empire building than it did with God. But that’s just me.
I subscribe more to the Michael Frost and Shane Claiborne views on America and Christianity: that America is an empire no less than Rome was an empire, and that we are called to live in it but not be of it.
As a Christ-follower, that means I’m going to be involved in my community and that includes politics, but it does NOT mean that I put any measure of trust in the vast rich empire that we find ourselves in. We are in a war, yes. But whether it’s pleasing to God and/or beneficial to the cause of Christ that we are in this war, that’s a whole ‘nother question, one that I tend to answer differently than perhaps Palin might.
I’m a huge fan of Palins and so excited about the shattered glass that fell all around her as she spoke a few days ago at the convention. I’m absolutely DELIGHTED about her pro-life stance (and thought Holly made a fantastic observation about that in the comments of http://humblemusings.com discussion on Palin and women’s roles.
But I’m not excited about the war rhetoric.
September 5, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Holly (from http://seekingfaithfulness.wordpress.com blog) made this comment on Amy’s blog and it was so good, I want to cut and paste it here:
I went to bed last night after posting, then thought of this question. It’s really the same one Elizabeth asked. (Our children are betrothed, you know.) I almost got back up to post…but refrained until this morning.
Question: So, in the theoretical presupposition that Chuck Baldwin *might* someday, somehow, someway be elected and *might* save the babies who result from rape or incest (Does anyone know the percentage of all abortions that fall into this category?), you will not vote for a woman who has the opportunity to change the demographics of the Down Syndrome population NOW?
I continue to think that this is one of those “out of the box” circumstances where the Lord sent a remarkable situation to our specific time in history.
Let’s see: A WOMAN, who is 44 years old, uniquely positioned as a Governor. She was not seeking higher office. He sends her a baby. He knew she would not abort the child as many high powered women might, but would welcome it.
The baby is extra special. Down Syndrome.
The nation is currently sacrificing almost all Down Syndrome children to Molech. But not this little one. He is spared from the fiery pit of destruction. Instead, he is loved, and clothed, and cuddled…indeed by a large family who adores him and spit styles his hair.
God could have launched the father. He could have launched another man with a large, beautiful family…a MAN to rule as is customary.
God, instead, stepped out of our usual way of operating (How LIKE HIM!) and launched this tiny boy!!! His mama came with him. And because she is a Mama Bear, she will fight fiercely for him and for those like him. Immediately…not in some ethereal and supposed future of our republic. Because, frankly, the republic might not be around by then.
And, you know…so many God lovers missed the entire point. They were so busy destroying the mama and swatting her back into her kitchen that they could. not. see. the. potential. They discounted HOW God might choose to work, because, they said, “the canon was closed and God does not CALL anyone today.” (loosely translated from Buried Treasure Books.)
Sisters, friends…I DO love you all, and I do NOT speak with anger or any malice. But I am in LOVE with the Lord who has mercy upon us all, and I am eager to see Him move on our sad nation as we have so often implored Him to do. I refuse to turn away a woman, a mother…one that I believe will give not 100 percent of herself but 300 percent so that all of her responsibilities will be covered…in the event that perhaps it is the Lord who has sent her.
September 5, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Haha, “Palin’s campaign”! Freudian slip! If only!
Lin, on Knox – these are the guys who overlooked the sins of Dabney. It doesn’t surprise me at all that Knox is canonised.
Actually, I have been thinking a lot recently about this straightforward dichotomy of men of God (who are ALL GOOD) and men of Satan (who are feminists… so women of Satan?!). Anyone remember that documentary the Botkins are planning to bring out – it’s about ‘seven godly battles for civilisation’ or something like that. I saw it and groaned. The idea being that the history of men divides itself neatly into Good and Evil. It seems that the patrios have forgotten that we Christians are sinners saved by grace – we are all of us capable of great sin, AND of accomplishing great things for the Lord. It’s so disingenuous to imagine that some of us are wholly good, and others wholly evil. So childishly simplistic. Dare I say, so suggestive of the underlying patrio desire to make themselves little gods? Anyway, I’m still thinking it all through. I’ll post more on the patriocentricity thread if I still think it’s worthwhile in a few days!
September 5, 2008 at 9:34 pm
“God, instead, stepped out of our usual way of operating (How LIKE HIM!)”
I know, I know! Molly, what a great quote! Thanks for sharing it with us.
This is what I’ve been thinking all along. Barbara Curtis said something similar – our God is a God of surprises.
Since when has He worked with the powerful and mighty? “Of course, God will choose a man with great wealth, political experience and an Ivy League degree. That’s what power looks like!” These same people seem to have forgotten the Son of God came to us in a stable. He wasn’t given to a kind. He chose an unlikely girl.
I’m not saying Palin is Jesus! (I’ll leave those analogies to Obama supporters!) But the ‘Biblical’ arguments against her are nonsense. She is the most Christian leader we’ve seen. She’s a blessing.
September 5, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“He wasn’t given to a KING” Apologies!
September 5, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Claire, it’s not just what Obama himself said – and his statement does belittle her mayoral experience and completely ignores the fact that she’s a state governor.
You also have to look at what his surrogates are saying, what his advocates are saying. I’ve seen a few belittle Palin’s experience as mayor of Wasilla, just like I’ve seen many of them point to Obama’s community organizer experience as a major accomplishment in his life. Obama and his surrogates do belittle her mayoral experiences. It doesn’t take a genius to see it.
I like both Palin and Obama. But I also think Palin’s comparison of being a mayor versus being a community organizer is valid.
September 6, 2008 at 1:11 am
I’m voting for Wade Burleson! Palin can be his VP
Here’s the video:
http://www.inews3.com/topstory.php?id=576164657c4275726c65736f6e
Here’s his website!
September 6, 2008 at 1:12 am
woops!
http://www.wadeburleson.com
September 6, 2008 at 1:25 am
An outsider here. I think it’s kinda’ funny that all eyes were on Hillary since forever and now surprise, surprise, here comes Sarah. Never mind the usurping of men. What Hillary must be writing in her diary.
Just hope too, if Palin gets in, she fares better than previous leaders with the stress. They seem to go in young and virile and come out looking like old men.
September 6, 2008 at 1:37 am
OK, I feel really stupid for asking this, but is my comment #36 from 12 hours ago still awaiting moderation? I see it on the screen, but the italics telling me this make me think no one else can see it.
Could someone please rescue it (if needed) after you all have a chuckle at my expense? It’s not earthshaking, but I did work really hard on it!
And yes, I am blonde…
September 6, 2008 at 2:04 am
Kathy, most posts with a link go into moderation, so that’s probably it.
September 6, 2008 at 2:09 am
Knox bases his sentiments on the monstrous regiment of women on a woman’s very nature. I cannot believe that Phillips and Co. is promoting this misogynistic attitude towards women. It is completely false and it is a slap in the face of God who created woman and then pronounced it “Good”.
Does James McDonald view women as Knox does? I hope he has fun dressing up as Knox in his tights and purple satin frills and fluff but what I really want to know is if this is the sentiment that is in his heart towards women? Have men really espied these traits in all women? Is a woman’s nature this monstrous compared to a man’s? This is PURE unadulterated idolatry in that it worships the male.
Why does anyone take these guys seriously any more?
Patriocentricity fuels disdain for women and it speaks utter lies about a woman’s nature.
“[The Empire of Women is
Repugnant to Nature]
And first, where I affirm the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I mean not only that God, by the order of his creation, has spoiled [deprived] woman of authority and dominion, but also that man has seen, proved, and pronounced just causes why it should be. Man, I say, in many other cases, does in this behalf see very clearly. [14]For the causes are so manifest, that they cannot be hid. For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong? And finally, that the foolish, mad, and frenetic shall govern the discreet, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared unto man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness; their strength, weakness; their counsel, foolishness; and judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered.
I except such as God, by singular privilege, and for certain causes known only to himself, has exempted from the common rank of women, and do speak of women as nature and experience do this day declare them. Nature, I say, does paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of public office. [16]For thus writes Aristotle, in the second of his Politics. What difference shall we put, says he, whether that women bear authority, or the husbands that obey the empire of their wives, be appointed to be magistrates? For what ensues the one, must needs follow the other: to wit, injustice, confusion, and disorder. The same author further reasons, that the policy or regiment of the Lacedemonians (who other ways amongst the Greeks were most excellent) was not worthy to be reputed nor accounted amongst the number of commonwealths that were well governed, because the magistrates and rulers of the same were too much given to please and obey their wives. What would this writer (I pray you) have said to that realm or nation, where a woman sits crowned in Parliament amongst the midst of men?
“Oh fearful and terrible are thy judgments, O Lord, which thus hast abased man for his iniquity!”
I am assuredly persuaded that if any of those men, which, illuminated only by the light of nature, did see and pronounce the causes sufficient why women ought not to bear rule nor authority, should this day live and see a woman sitting in judgment, or riding from Parliament in the midst of men, having the royal crown upon her head, the sword and the scepter borne before her, in sign that the administration of justice was in her power: I am assuredly persuaded, I say, that such a sight should so astonish them, that they should judge the whole world to be transformed into the Amazons,[17] and that such a metamorphosis and change was made of all the men of that country, as poets do feign was made of the companions of Ulysses; or at least, that albeit the outward form of men remained, yet should they judge their hearts were changed from the wisdom, understanding, and courage of men, to the foolish fondness and cowardice of women. Yea, they further should pronounce, that where women reign or be in authority, that there must needs vanity be preferred to virtue, ambition and pride to temperance and modesty; and finally, that avarice, the mother of all mischief, must needs devour equity and justice.[18] [19]”
http://www.swrb.ab.ca/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm
September 6, 2008 at 2:16 am
John Knox quotes extensively from Aristotle concerning women. I wonder if James will read this tripe for his congregation?
Yes, women are so filled with greed, lust for power and lust for sex whereas men are temperate and self-controlled! ROFLOL!
They believe their own lies! They are so deceived that they cannot see their sin for what it is. Maybe taking the plank out will help them see the speck in their sister’s eye?
“In the first book of the Digests, it is pronounced that the condition of the woman, in many cases, is worse than of the man: as in jurisdiction (says the Law), in receiving of cure and tuition, in adoption, in public accusation, in delation, in all popular action, and in motherly power which she has not upon her own sons. The Law further will not permit that the woman give anything to her husband, because it is against the nature of her kind, being the inferior member, to presume to give anything to her head.[28] The Law does moreover pronounce womankind to be most avaricious (which is a vice intolerable in those that should rule or minister justice).[29] And Aristotle, as before is touched, does plainly affirm, that wheresoever women bear dominion, there the people must needs be disordered, living and abounding in all intemperance, given to pride, excess, and vanity; and finally, in the end, they must needs come to confusion and ruin.[30]
[31]Would to God the examples were not so manifest to the further declaration of the imperfections of women, of their natural weakness and inordinate appetites! I might adduce histories, proving some women to have died for sudden joy; some for impatience to have murdered themselves; some to have burned with such inordinate lust, that for the quenching of the same, they have betrayed to strangers their country and city;[32] and some to have been so desirous of dominion, that for the obtaining of the same, they have murdered the children of their own sons, yea, and some have killed with cruelty their own husbands and children.[33] [34] [35] But to me it is sufficient (because this part of nature is not my most sure foundation) to have proved, that men illuminated only by the light of nature have seen and have determined that it is a thing most repugnant to nature, that women rule and govern over men. [36]For those that will not permit a woman to have power over her own sons, will not permit her (I am assured) to have rule over a realm; and those that will not suffer her to speak in defence of those that be accused (neither that will admit her accusation intended against man) will not approve her that she shall sit in judgment, crowned with the royal crown, usurping authority in the midst of men.”
September 6, 2008 at 2:23 am
#58 Sarah, thanks for your reply. I knew that was why it was in moderation, just didn’t know how long to expect it to be in “purgatory”.
Sigh…so like my life to be outdated and so far from the cutting edge.
September 6, 2008 at 2:24 am
More patriocentric lies in Knox’s paper.
The one that should glare out at us is that Adam was NOT deceived, Eve was and the Bible clearly states this. But, these men, in their want to denigrate and subjugate and keep women in a perpetual state of slavery and servitude, twists the word of God and lies about the truth. Eve did not deceive Adam. It was Satan who deceived Eve. Adam was NOT deceived but sinned willfully and with full knowledge.
Again, why should we take anything these guys have to say as serious when they so willfully cover up the truth for their own gain? I would be embarrassed to promote such material and then turn around and tell women how valued they are. They are speaking with a forked tongue. You cannot value someone AND think such wicked thoughts and untruths towards that person.
“And therefore yet again I repeat, that which before I have affirmed: to wit, that a woman promoted to sit in the seat of God (that is, to teach, to judge, or to reign above man) is a monster in nature, contumely to God, and a thing most repugnant to his will and ordinance. For he has deprived them, as before is proved, of speaking in the congregation, and has expressly forbidden them to usurp any kind of authority above man. How then will he suffer them to reign and have empire above realms and nations? He will never, I say, approve it, because it is a thing most repugnant to his perfect ordinance, as after shall be declared, and as the former scriptures have plainly given testimony. To the which to add anything were superfluous, were it not that the world is almost now come to that blindness, that whatsoever pleases not the princes and the multitude, the same is rejected as doctrine newly forged, and is condemned for heresy. I have therefore thought good to recite the minds of some ancient writers in the same matter, to the end that such as altogether be not blinded by the devil, may consider and understand this my judgment to be no new interpretation of God’s scriptures, but to be the uniform consent of the most part of godly writers since the time of the apostles.
[48]Tertullian, in his book of Women’s Apparel, after he has shown many causes why gorgeous apparel is abominable and odious in a woman, adds these words, speaking as it were to every woman by name: [49]“Do you not know,” says he, “that you are Eve. The sentence of God lives and is effectual against this kind; and in this world, of necessity it is, that the punishment also live. You are the port and gate of the devil. You are the first transgressor of God’s law. You did persuade and easily deceive him whom the devil durst not assault. For your merit (that is, for your death), it behooved the Son of God to suffer the death; and does it yet abide in your mind to deck you above your skin coats?”"
September 6, 2008 at 10:40 am
Well, I for one am completely convinced by Knox’s words. There is just one teeny problem I have. Why on earth would God make women so deficient and utterly sinful and then saddle the wonderful men with such beastly wives? Why the cruel joke on men about Eve being a “suitable helper” to Adam? What sort of helper was she? Why do poor men have to endure being married to “the port and gate of the devil”, to someone who will “persuade and easily deceive” them, to someone who does not even deserve to dress as nicely as a man?
And God called this good?
Obviously we have misunderstood Scripture all these years…until Knox came along and explained the hidden meaning — that only men are good, that Eve was a horrible deceiver, that Paul meant to say that Adam was deceived, that women are a most unsuitable helper, and that the man who finds a wife really finds what is bad and receives disfavor in the eyes of the Lord.
I’m such a literalist that, yet again, I failed to see the hidden meanings that only patriarchalists can see! I just don’t realize that all of these Scripture passages actually meant the direct opposite of what they say!
Thanks for enlightening us, Corrie. I am now off to tell my sons that they no longer need obey me, and that they need to ignore all those Proverbs we just finished reading about how sons are to heed their mother’s instruction. And, while I’m at it, I’m going to be be “weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish;” and “inconstant, variable, cruel”. And the next time my husband asks my advice on anything, I’m going to read Knox to him instead. It’s high time I started acting like the woman God created me to be…according to Knox!
Sarcasm mode off.
This is truth: I thank God for His Word, that tells me the direct opposite of the lies of Satan and of hateful men.
September 6, 2008 at 11:49 am
Boy Corrie,
John Knox and Diet Coke either don’t mix or they mix too well! Look out world! (I first wrote “Knox” without “John” and an image of gelatinized diet soda popped into my head.)
What’s so interesting is how we (as human beings in general) will deify the words of men when they suit our opinions. Like the old Bob saying: “People will pay to know what they think.”
But the question that we so often fail to ask is “Is this what is written?” Jesus answered Satan with “It is written…” And so many of us love to have our ears tickled, that we forget to ask or search to find whether or not it has been written.
So this has been really cool to watch here over the past couple of days. Thinking women in the new millenium asking the vital question that we forget to ask when we get caught up in what we already think.
Corrie points it out simply as does Rebecca. A good example of this: “God said it was good.” He said marriage was good. He said man was good. He said woman was good. And He does not lie or change his mind. Where is the verse that declares that marriage became “not good” and if God had, why did he not wipe out all mankind in Noah’s flood and recreate man again? Because it was good.
I’ll put that up against 8 paragraphs of John Knox any day.
September 6, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Thank you, TW, for rescuing my post #36 above. Just thought I would add one more link on Doug Wilson’s take on Sarah Palin, Isaiah 3:12 and Deborah. I had pretty much sworn off reading this guy (still do) out of disrespect for his character, but another blogger linked to this and I was surprised that, amidst his expected thoughts, he didn’t condemn her, either. Interesting how the chips are falling on different sides of the table than one might expect in this issue.
Here is most of his post, for context:
“A curse is pronounced on a people in Isaiah 3:12 that is relevant to this discussion. It is possible that this is not referring to actual women, but to girly men, to effeminate men. To men of arrested development, and a junior high approach to sex. Bill Clinton comes to mind. In other words, the men who rule are being called womanish, or childish. Like calling Ralph Nader matronly.
“Like I said, that is possible. But I take it in the more straightforward sense — that a society is under a weight of judgment when it has a dearth of men capable of exercising godly rule. This could happen because the men are all dead, or gone, or they are abdicating wimps. In any case, I believe this really would be a judgment on a society. But it has nothing to do with — for example — Elizabethan England, one of the most masculine societies our civilization has ever produced. Whatever was going on in that day, Isaiah 3:12 wasn’t in the mix.
“Because a husband is the head of his wife, for a wife to rule in the household inverts God’s order. But this does not mean that a wife cannot ever rule a household. In Acts 16, Lydia is very clearly the head of her household. This means that she had no husband, but without a husband, the household was her household. Given her status as a wealthy merchant, and the average size of that kind of household back in the day, she probably had a couple hundred people serving in that household.
“But Scripture is silent on the numbers, so let me use a contemporary example. Suppose we have a husband and wife who are very wealthy. They have expansive grounds, and several lucrative businesses. He passes away, and she inherits all of it. After life gets back to normal, does she have the authority to tell the male gardener what to do? Can she tell the factory foreman, who is also male, what he should do? Can she exercise authority over full-grown men? You bet she can. There is nothing in the least disordered about it. Bring it down to a smaller scale. She owns a restaurant that she inherited from her husband. She is the manager. Can she tell the twenty-one-year-old dishwasher to step it up a bit, paco? Can she tell the hashslinger to sling hash a little faster? Of course. To argue otherwise is to fall into the fatal trap that feminists fall into all the time — they insist on getting into arguments with reality. They love arguing with the way things are.
“Because men don’t usually all die at the same time, and because they are the heads of their homes, most businesses will be run by men. Most corporations will be run by men. Most societies will be run by men. This is as it should be, and I find nothing to complain about. Who is complaining? Not me, said the little black duck. But when the weird circumstance comes along and a male senator dies, and the party installs his widow in his place, I find nothing to complain about there either. Here and there this kind of thing happens, and I don’t care.
“Of course I do care when a woman has been running for president since kindergarten. That is unseemly, but let us not mention names. But it is hardly better when a guy does it.
“This kind of normal anomaly is exactly what we find in Scripture in the case of Deborah. This is obviously an unusual circumstance, but there is nothing in the text to suggest that it was unusual because of all the wimpy men. Deborah was a mother in Israel (Judg. 5:7), and she was married to Lapidoth (Judg. 4:4). She authoritatively summoned Barak and told him what he needed to do with his armies (Judg. 4:6). He refused to go unless she went with him. She responded that because of his conditions, the glory of killing Sisera would go to a woman, not a man. And that was fulfilled in the heroic actions of Jael the wife of Heber.
“But notice what this means. Barak lost glory that was coming to him because he did not just simply obey the word of the Lord that came to him. Talking back to a prophet, and setting conditions on your obedience, is not the way to go. That was the problem. Barak forfeited honor because he did not obey a woman.
“Deborah did not say that the glory of Sisera’s death would go to a woman because Barak had (not?–sic)obeyed her first summons. She did not say that there was any problem whatever with him functioning as a general under a female leader in Israel. She did not say, nor does the text say, that there was anything wrong with what she was doing. The text does not breathe a hint of disapproval, and I would suggest that it is dangerous for us to treat this as anything other than what it appears to be in the text — a curious but lawful exception to the way things usually go.
“St. Paul bars women from rule in the church. So should we. Paul teaches that men are head over their wives. So should we. Luke teaches that a woman can function in a household without a head over her. So should we. The writer of Judges, without blinking, tells us of the faithful rule of Deborah, a mother in Israel. We shouldn’t blink either, not if we begin and end, where we should, with the Bible.
“The third issue is the number of Sarah Palin’s kids, and their ages. This is the one that has the most compelling weight, at least in my thinking. How can she possibly discharge her responsibilities in the home and in the office of vice-presidency simultaneously? It is a very good question and, were I her pastor, it is one that I would have pressed on Palins in all sincerity. It is not an irrational question, but I don’t really think I would have had to press it. In fact, it is so obvious that I have trouble believing that Todd and Sarah Palin didn’t spend long hours talking about what they would do if this, and if that. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know how well or how poorly they are going to arrange it. We shall see. I honestly don’t know how they will do, although the signs appear to me to be at least somewhat hopeful. Despite their problems, the family appears to be tightly-knit. Their oldest son is now in the army, and off on his own. Their second is going to be married soon. That leaves three.
“In that context, I need to say that I am not quite sure how to bring up the next point. Americans are uncomfortable with “aristocracy,” with those who can afford servants. But if she is elected, like it or not, Sarah Palin will then be in that class. As she made apparent in her speech last night, when she told us how she let the cook go so that she, the governor, could cook the meals instead, she probably won’t like having servants around any more than a bunch of her critics like her having them around. But she will still have them, and if she organizes her life with her priorities remaining with her family, as she ought to, then it is not necessary to hold dogmatically that the family has to turn out a train wreck because of this. Could be, but we don’t know yet, and we can’t know without a good more information.”
http://www.@@@dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5837 (take out @ for link)
September 6, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Why the rush to national political office at this time for Palin? Surely, her priorities should to be continue to dedicate herself to her “beloved” state of Alaska to complete her term and do as much damage as she can there. Her priority to her family is vital while they are still young, waiting several more years before she ambititiously takes on the huge responsibility of VP(or whatever) and increasing her experience and knowledge of foreign policy, etc. is a better and healthier strategy. Voting for a woman just because she is a woman is ludicrous. This woman chose to have a child late in life who has a disability, that is just fine for her, but she does not have the right to eliminate that choice for anyone else. What if her daughter wanted to terminate her pregancy, would they force her to have the baby, anyway? How could you do that to a child that you have loved for 17 years?
I think that Sarah Palin is so caught up in the hype and glory being cast upon her that she is not thinking clearly. And, children need their moms in different ways than they need their dads, no matter how well the parents do, there is still that specific need and they do miss it if not available.
These younger kids will not see that “Mommy is VP and that is more important than me”, they will only see that Mom was not available.
September 6, 2008 at 4:41 pm
So Barb, do you think Palin would be okay to run if she wasn’t a mother and was a childless wife, or perhaps a single woman all together? At which age does it become “acceptable” to take on any job? A high powered job?
Perhaps we should pass laws barring women from the presidency altogether, and give out burqua’s to all our American women so that nobody dare aspire to anything beyond motherhood and marriage. If we lock the woman in the home, she can’t do anything beyond motherhood and everyone will be good and our social problems will be solved. Right?
There are some countries that do that, aren’t there?
September 6, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Part four of militant fecundity vs children as a blessing from the Lord is now uploaded.
September 6, 2008 at 5:23 pm
oops, here is the link:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/september-5-podcast-formerly-august-29-podcast/
September 6, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Barb – the word “beloved” being in quotes and the backhanded slap of the phrase “complete her term and do as much damage as she can there” reveals your bias before you even enter the meat of your non-biblical view of political office and women’s roles.
My wife pointed something out that I had not considered. Were Sarah Palin not currently on the campaign trail, her family would not be together 24 hours a day as they are now. Had she not accepted the nomination, her husband would not be able to be with the family most of the time as he would still be working his normal job. Were she still the Governor, she would be doing her standard 8-10 hour plus work day and the minimum 2-hour per day commute to the office and back. So her acceptance of this nomination has allowed her family the luxury that most families never come close to – being able to spend every moment of every day together as a family. That sounds like a pretty good move on her part to me.
And when she moves into the VP position this coming January, she will have a 10 minute commute max and her family will be welcome in her office any time, day or night. And they’ll be about three blocks from my office, so I may get to go over and meet them sometime.
September 6, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I take it that Barb is voting for Obama.
September 6, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Ok, look, I was trying to be kind and tactful and give Saint Sarah a break…..
I think she is a sarcastic, condescending, disrespectful neocon who wants government to restrict other women in their choices, dictate what books are allowed in libraries, and panders to the oil industry.
I think it would actually be a better world if women would be in power, just not that woman. Richard,your reference to non-biblical view of political roles (theocracy) and women’s roles (servant)shows the meat of your politics. BTW, her family will not be spending every moment of every day with her, for you to say so is ridiculous. Hope you have a lovely visit, try not to stare……
September 6, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Yes, word girl, I am voting for Obama because to not do so is to damn this country to Bush’s 3rd term and we cannot take anymore. Isn’t is curious that someone who voted 90% of the time with Bush didn’t even mention him in his acceptance speech but once. Hmmm…..
September 6, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Barb:
Surely, her priorities should to be continue to dedicate herself to her “beloved” state of Alaska to complete her term and do as much damage as she can there.
I think she is a sarcastic, condescending, disrespectful neocon
If she is, you’ve certainly been taking lessons from her, Barb.
It is usual, customary, and reasonable for the presidential candidates to be . . . presidential, and for the VP candidates to go for the jugular a bit more. There is nothing Sarah Palin said that was out of the ordinary. She is an excellent speaker.
This woman chose to have a child late in life who has a disability, that is just fine for her, but she does not have the right to eliminate that choice for anyone else. What if her daughter wanted to terminate her pregancy, would they force her to have the baby, anyway?
Here, we disagree. You might just as well have said she shouldn’t eliminate the right to commit murder for anyone else.
I am very glad she is pro-life. I am supporting her, not because she is a woman, but because of what she stands for.
And have you read anything about how she has dealt with corruption, waste, and special interests in Alaska? From your comments about Sarah and oil, I would think not.
September 6, 2008 at 7:46 pm
So, let’s see, I have been taking lessons from Sarah. As I said before, I was trying to be nice.
As far as presidential candidates being presidential, they usually show a lot more gratitude and loyalty to the preceding executive instead of doing everything in their power to distance themself from him, which is what McC and co. have been doing for months….
Her husband works for the oil industry.
She does not have the right to judge or speak for other women in regards to keeping a pregnancy, that is between the woman and God.
And, you know, Hitler and Mussolini were known for being excellent speakers.
September 6, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Hmmm… Just here wonderin’ what Barb’s “non-nice” looks like?
September 6, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I am not sure you would want to cross that bridge…….why so curious, anyway?
September 6, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Barb, that statistic about voting with Bush 90 percent of the time?
You might want to investigate just who else that is true of…
September 6, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Ah, Barb, you’re such a card. hehehehhe
September 6, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I was trying to be nice.
Try harder.
You come on making these sarcastic comments against her, and then accuse her of being disrespectful and sarcastic. I just thought it was funny, that’s all, hence my comment. And the other smile that I put there.
September 6, 2008 at 8:48 pm
And, you know, Hitler and Mussolini were known for being excellent speakers.
That they were, Barb, that they were.
September 6, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Regarding my comments about Sarah defeating special interests — that was primarily opening up the placement of pipelines to competition, and not the monopolies, or whatever you would call them. Also eliminating waste, such as her jet, her personal cook, for getting spending under control so Alaska has a surplus.
September 6, 2008 at 8:57 pm
She was disrespectful and sarcastic about the value of community organizers, the great majority who work for nothing to better the lives of American citizens. She would not even be standing there if it weren’t for the heroes of the women’s suffrage movement, who were community organizers.
And, Connie, to whom are you referring?
September 6, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Barb, when you said As I said before, I was trying to be nice you were lying. So it really doesn’t make sense to continue to spew your venom. We aren’t listening anymore.
September 6, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Barb, her comment about Obama and community organizers was a response to those who said she had no experience.
She’s done a lot with the time she has had in office. That was her point. It was not meant to put down community organizers, but to point out that she was one, in spades, as a mayor of a city in Alaska.
Man, if that was sarcastic, then what do you think of Hillary, when she was campaigning against Obama, to come right out and say that she and McCain have experience and what does Obama have — a speech he made in 2002.
McCain used that in a campaign commercial during the Olympics. I was floored that Hillary would have included McCain in that comment, and the McCain campaign definitely used it, once Obama became the candidate.
September 6, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I was curious because I had the impression you were an Obama supporter after I read your first post, but then I was confused by Normal Middle and Richard’s responses, as they seem to have read your comment another way.
September 6, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Lynn, I disagree, her reference was a gaffe to Obama, who did community organizing early in his career. And surely, you cannot believe that being mayor of a town with 7,025 residents generates so much work with experience qualifying her to be VP. My high school had 2,300 students.
Richard, shut up, how dare you call me a liar–you do not know me, thank goodness.
The venom belongs to you, not me.
September 6, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Wow, in the year that I have been reading this blog not once has anyone been told to ‘shut up’.Venom??
September 7, 2008 at 1:13 am
Mary, Barb is a little confused and in the wrong place. She doesn’t belong here.
Most of us understand that if you have decent arguments, you don’t need to resort to name-calling. That’s all Barb’s got, apparently. Poor gal. I doubt she’ll stay around long, any matter.
September 7, 2008 at 2:57 am
Yo, I’m an Alaskan, and, yes, Palin’s husband works in the oil fields (as did my dad, my brothers, and about half of the other men here), and I can tell you that Palin is NOT vested in oil interests by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, if anything, she made herself pretty unpopular wtih them when she booted their bought-and-paid-for cronies out of office.
I’m not saying she’s perfect, I’m not saying I’m voting for the Rep. ticket (I’m not a Republican and I’m not pro-war), but I am saying that those who say she’s “owned by big oil” are speaking from assumption only, because it’s just not true.
September 7, 2008 at 6:50 am
Surely, her priorities should to be continue to dedicate herself to her “beloved” state of Alaska to complete her term and do as much damage as she can there.
The above was your first statement, Barb. You later referred to that very statement by saying: Ok, look, I was trying to be kind and tactful and give Saint Sarah a break…..
You’re introductory statement was not kind or tactful. In fact, it was so the opposite of those things that you could not possibly (beyond reasonable doubt) have been “trying to be kind and tactful.” Therefor, you were telling a lie when you said that you were trying to be kind and tactful. Those who tell lies are called liars.
So it was actually you, and not me, who proclaimed yourself a liar.
September 7, 2008 at 1:28 pm
This morning sitting in church I noticed a verse I had circled a long time ago:
Isaiah 43:19 Behold, I am doing a NEW thing!
I like it. It makes sense for me right now with all this Palin discussion, my return into the “feminist world” of working, and my stubmling OUT of patriarchy in the past 2 years.
God is up to something folks. What I know not, but can’t you FEEL it????
September 7, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Normalmiddle,
I’m right there with you!
“God is up to something folks. What I know not, but can’t you FEEL it????”
What I’m feeling is that God is opening blind eyes to the truth of His Word. He’s restoring what has been lost. He’s pointing His children back to Him (Christ) and allowing us to see the dark works of man in order to know the life-giving Fruit of His Spirit. The things we (those of us who were being smothered by idolatry/patriarchy) once thought we had to “return to” in order to be obedient, were actually used to help us see that those teaching cannot save us or endear us more to our Savior.
The old paths lead to a dry and barren land. The new Way is Jesus and He walks with us, speaking in that still, small voice saying, “Go this way”.
September 7, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Normal and Kathleen – Amen. God is always working. But I do believe that a new trail is being blazed by God in our nation. Change is always scary and it’s always exciting. But God is always good and righteous.
September 7, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Lynn, I disagree, her reference was a gaffe to Obama, who did community organizing early in his career. And surely, you cannot believe that being mayor of a town with 7,025 residents generates so much work with experience qualifying her to be VP.
Yes, Barb, I would agree that if McCain had picked a mayor of a town of 7,000 to be his running mate, I would have been shocked and quite upset.
But we all know he didn’t do that, now don’t we? He picked a state governor to be his running mate, who has accomplished quite a bit in two years, who also happened to have mayoral experience.
I heard the speech and heard her reference to community organizers. It was political sparring, and I took it as such. The reason I brought up Hillary is she’s said worse about Obama when she was campaigning against him for the Democratic ticket.
I don’t fault Hillary for saying what she did about her and McCain’s experience compared to Obama’s. She was right.
September 7, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Would good readers out here please look at this blog and consider joining me in flagging this blog for hate speech against the disabled?
http://downspalin.blogspot.com/
There are some entries where people have left comments. I won’t do something like that, but I did flag it. I first tried defamation, but it went through with the “hate/violence” category.
Thanks for your consideration. I rarely get on a crusade, but this about has me frosted!
September 7, 2008 at 9:09 pm
http://www.whitbyforum.com/2008/09/flip-flopping.html
Carolyn James on Palin.
September 7, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I flagged it, Lynn. Someone has WAY too much time on their hands…
September 7, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Hi all… It seems that some new info has come to light regarding Sarah Palin’s political past. Some years ago, the Palins were involved with an Alaskan secessionist group, the Alaskan Independence Party”.
According to Wikipedia, the AIP is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska that advocates a state vote which includes several options, including increased state autonomy, territorial status, becoming a separate nation or commonwealth state, and, failing that, for increased Alaskan control of Alaskan land, gun rights, privatization, home schooling, and reduction of governmental intrusion in the private lives of its citizens with adherence to the founding documents of the United States.
Sound familiar? It should…In the past three Presidential elevtions, the AIP has backed Howard Phillips, Michael Peroutka, and chuck Baldwin.
I knew Palin sounded too good to be true.
September 8, 2008 at 12:07 am
Comment in moderation regarding Sarah Palin’s connection to Howard Philips, Peroutka, and Chuck Baldwin…
September 8, 2008 at 1:28 am
That website is the most disgusting thing I’ve seen someone do for their own entertainment in a long time. I am appalled & flagged it as hate toward people with disabilities.
September 8, 2008 at 7:05 am
Warning: NEWBIE Alert! How exactly do you flag a site? That site is disgusting.
September 8, 2008 at 8:56 am
Cynthia – I may draw the ire of many other readers with this comment, but….
This addresses something that has come up over and over in the United States. Our Constitution protects the individual states from Federal control. In the 1800s this was known as States Rights. The basic concept is that local governments are better able to handle local issues than a government that is located far away. The concept sprang from the taxation without representation aspect of the United States’ original fight for independence.
Over the years, the Federal Government has often tried to enforce the will of people outside a state on the people of that state. This is forbidden by the US Constitution, but it happens often. The concept is no longer called States Rights because that phrase eventually was linked to the issue of African slavery. It is phrased as “large centralized government” as against “smaller government.” In essence, the same fight that was brought to a head during the War Between the States is still being fought. It is a war to hold the federal government to the docuemnts established by our founding fathers to limit the evil that can be perpetrated by a centralized federal government. That means that Sarah Palin is in the right party. The Republican Party currently stands for smaller federal government that holds itself to the restrictions of the US Constitution. The Democratic Party wants to increase the size and scope of the federal government in opposition to the constraints of our governing documents.
This news, if it turns out to be true, would not bother me at all, but would actually put me more firmly in the Palin camp.
September 8, 2008 at 9:39 am
Richard, I respect your opinion, but at this point I wouldn’t touch Palin with a ten-foot pole.
Palin and her husband have both been associated with the AIP, and her husband actually registered to vote as an AIP member. The AIP is closely associated with the Constitution Party, and has officialy backed their League-of-the-South member militia-loving VF-connected presidential cantidates in the last three elections.
To me, anyone associated with such a party is about one step short of being a full blown seditionist. There’s no WAY I would cast a vote for somebody like that.
And, it seems that Palin is not as sweet as she’d have us believe — apparently she’s a racist and a foul-mouthed one to boot. She has been heard to refer to Eskimos as “Artic Arabs”, f—ing Eskimos, and “mukluks”, and has publicly called Obama a “sambo.”
Sarah Palin was eating in a restaurant with some of her friends when it was announced that Obama had won the Democratic nomination, and she said, “So Sambo beat the b*tch!”
And, it gets worse.
According to The Anchorage Daily News, Palin used her political clout to try to persuade Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire her ex-brother-in-law Mike Wooten from his job as a state trooper, and when Monegan refused to be “persuaded”, Palin fired him.
Palin previously stated that her administration didn’t harass or pressure anyone to fire Wooten, but audio tapes which show Sarah’s staff members making a couple of dozen calls to public safety officials about the trooper prove otherwise.
What a nice “lady”… but of course the media who support Palin are saying that it’s all gossip.
September 8, 2008 at 9:41 am
Big comment full of links in moderation…
September 8, 2008 at 10:29 am
The Republican Party currently stands for smaller federal government that holds itself to the restrictions of the US Constitution.
Where is the evidence of that? Not in Bush’s administration; he grew the government and gave it more power than any president in recent history. It doesn’t seem to be the case that the Republican party stands for smaller government that holds itself to the restrictions of the US Constitution anymore either, given that they dismissed and marginalized the only candidate who ran for the Republican party who actually took that stand. You called him a moron and a nutcase yourself.
September 8, 2008 at 10:52 am
Richard,
There is a flag button right at the top of the blog.
To everyone:
“Here is a quote from Frank Richard Cowell, Cicero and the Roman Republic: Cato complained that “all other men rule over women; but we Romans, who rule all men, are ruled by our women.” ”
Here is a quote from the CCC-forum who are rabid patriocentrists. A couple of them keep on asserting that feminism cause the demise of Rome.
What in the world are they talking about?
And what does Cato’s complaint prove about anything? All it is, to me, is a show of pagan power of people who had a thirst and lust for power.
Rome’s laws were most certainly NOT in favor of women at all. And I have yet to find where women were ruling the men of Rome.
From my study of history, the men did a fine job of taking Rome down all by their own selves.
September 8, 2008 at 10:55 am
Richard, to elaborate on what Corrie said — go to the blog, look at the top of the page, hit the “flag” link, which will take you to a TOS page.
On that page, check “hate/violence”, then hit “continue” at the bottom of the page.
It will eventually give you the blog name you want to flag, and hit finish, or whatever, and you are done.
September 8, 2008 at 11:21 am
Todd Palin was formerly a member of the AIP, but Sarah was not.
September 8, 2008 at 11:26 am
Cynthia,
The report that she was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party was false. The New York Times even published a correction on it. Here’s a link (scroll down for the correction):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1220670066-wkb7nHW45nkYifW0qwzwLA&oref=slogin
Here’s a link to a site listing and debunking (or confirming, as the case may be)various Sarah Palin rumors:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/separating-palin-fact-from-palin-fiction/
September 8, 2008 at 11:47 am
Yes, that’s true. Both were apparently associated with the AIP, but Sarah stayed registered as a Republican, while Todd actually joined the party. But it is worrisome that someone who might someday be my president even gave a second look at something like the AIP.
I have a big comment stuck in moderation that says,
“Palin and her husband have both been associated with the AIP, and her husband actually registered to vote as an AIP member. The AIP is closely associated with the Constitution Party, and has officialy backed their League-of-the-South member militia-loving VF-connected presidential cantidates in the last three elections.
To me, anyone associated with such a party is about one step short of being a full blown seditionist. There’s no WAY I would cast a vote for somebody like that.”
Here is my missing comment in its entirety, minus the embedded links that are throwing it into the moderation queue:
Richard, I respect your opinion, but at this point I wouldn’t touch Palin with a ten-foot pole.
Palin and her husband have both been associated with the AIP, and her husband actually registered to vote as an AIP member. The AIP is closely associated with the Constitution Party, and has officialy backed their League-of-the-South member militia-loving VF-connected presidential cantidates in the last three elections.
To me, anyone associated with such a party is about one step short of being a full blown seditionist. There’s no WAY I would cast a vote for somebody like that.
And, it seems that Palin is not as sweet as she’d have us believe — apparently she’s a racist and a foul-mouthed one to boot. She has been heard to refer to Eskimos as “Artic Arabs”, f—ing Eskimos, and “mukluks”, and has publicly called Obama a “sambo.”
Sarah Palin was eating in a restaurant with some of her friends when it was announced that Obama had won the Democratic nomination, and she said, “So Sambo beat the b*tch!”
And, it gets worse.
According to The Anchorage Daily News, Palin used her political clout to try to persuade Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire her ex-brother-in-law Mike Wooten from his job as a state trooper, and when Monegan refused to be “persuaded”, Palin fired him.
Palin previously stated that her administration didn’t harass or pressure anyone to fire Wooten, but audio tapes which show Sarah’s staff members making a couple of dozen calls to public safety officials about the trooper prove otherwise.
What a nice “lady”… but of course the media who support Palin are saying that it’s all gossip.
September 8, 2008 at 11:55 am
More on Palin and possible abuse of guberatorial power:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/us/politics/06trooper.html?em
September 8, 2008 at 11:56 am
More on Palin and possible abuse of gubernatorial power:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/us/politics/06trooper.html?em
September 8, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Cynthia – I’m sure that if these outrageous and non-credited accusations turn out to be correct, they will be brought out by the media. The fact that they have not been at this point indicates to me that they are false. I will keep watching.
I agree with your assessment of the Bush years. In fact, I have not been happy with either of the Bushes and voted, believe it or not, Constitution Party against George H. W. Bush. I wrote a few articles for the League of the South about a decade ago in support of a state’s right to leave the Union when the federal government has illegally broken its contract with the citizens of that state.
So there are viewpoints from all around. I abhor racism and would have to reconsider where Palin stands in comparison to the blatant racism and sexism shown by the Democrats should that charge be proven to be true. In the interim, I’m going to stick with the things I hear directly from Sarah Palin rather than the rampant accusations that drip like slime from the walls of the blogosphere.
September 8, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Thanks, all, for the flag information. I’d never noticed that button before. I have joined the reporting faction now, as has my wife. That really is a sick site, but some of the comments on the site are pretty good. Although those comments probably just encourage the sick author of that blog.
September 8, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I abhor racism too, but the abuse of power thing is even more worrisome, and the charges are not unfounded. If my comment with the links would just come out of moderation, you could see my documentation.
Or, go here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/us/politics/06trooper.html?em
September 8, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I abhor racism too, but the abuse of power thing is even more worrisome, and the charges are not unfounded. If my comment with the links would just come out of moderation, you could see my documentation.
Or, go here:
http://wwwDOTnytimesDOTcom/2008/09/06/us/politics/06trooperDOThtml?em
September 8, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Well, finally something posted. Just remove the dots..
September 8, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Cynthia, I agree with Richard. I’m not believing any of those comments unless they are reported by venues that would in turn have their pants sued off of them for defamation if they are not true.
Keep in mind what the Kos did — they tried to get people to think Palin was covering up for her daughter when she said Trig was her own baby, and they put out a case that he was actually her daughter’s baby.
This is an election season. Lies and half-truths abound. The purpose of such is to get something to “stick” in the minds of the masses so they will vote a certain way. Which means they care more about someone winning than they do about truth, and that is disgusting to me.
I pray to God that we all base our votes on truth, and pray for His mercy on our country.
September 8, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Lynn, Richard, I wouldn’t want you to believe anything without decent documentation. If comment 104 had come through, you’d have seen my links.
But, here’s another one, regarding the abuse of gubernatorial power, from the Anchorage Daily News, remove the DOTs:
http://www DOT adn DOT com/monegan/story/492964 DOT html
September 8, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Hey, I don’t think Palin is perfect, but I’d be interested to hear her slam Eskimo’s, considering her husband and her children HAVE Eskimo blood in them…
Meaning, don’t believe everything you here. I’m sure Palin has dirt under her rug, but just because someone *says* she did something doesn’t mean it’s true.
Btw, on the Alaska Independance Party, it’s really a WHOLLY different thing than the Phillips clan. Seriously. If and/or when the AIP supported the Constitution Party, it truly was NOT to support a Phillips-esque return back to the Old South. (If anything, it was the opposite).
We’re fiercely independant souls up here in the Far North, and we don’t like anyone telling us what to do. Our independant party is more akin to the Libertarian group, just more conservative (read, anti-abortion). Again, mixing up the AIP with the Phillips clan is SERIOUSLY mixing things up.
[This is not coming from a woman who is likely to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. so I'm not saying the above in order to garner votes for Palin, etc, but more out of a desire to see truth promoted].
Please check this site out (the REAL Alaska Independance Party website). It refutes some of the lies being spread:
http://www.akip.org/
September 8, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Corrie said: Here is a quote from the CCC-forum who are rabid patriocentrists. A couple of them keep on asserting that feminism cause the demise of Rome.
The foolish assertions these men make are quite amusing. Over on the Bayly blog, someone named David Wegener has pronounced “You can’t be a feminist and be pro-life” and “You can’t be a feminist and be a Christian.” He said it, that settles it, we must believe it it … yah. Right.
Actually, feminists have more reason than patriarchalists to be pro-life, since more female babies are aborted all over the world than male babies. Under patriarchal systems in India and China, it is the males who are seen to have value and females so callously killed in the womb.
Is this Wegener person trying to claim Palin is not pro-life? The evidence before our very eyes proves that she is pro-life, no matter how much the hyper-p’s proclaim it not. He claims that abortion-on-demand is one of the pillars of feminism. He needs to study his history a little more closely.
And as for not being able to be a feminist and a Christian, perhaps Wegener is confused about the gospel. It doesn’t matter what else we do or do not believe – if we confess Jesus as our savior, we are Christian. Period.
The female subordinationists like to make all kinds of pronouncements like these and expect us to just fall in line. Tell a lie often enough and loudly enough …
September 8, 2008 at 2:04 pm
CJ, regarding that link you gave to the investigations over the firings.
What if it turned out the state trooper was drunk on the job? What if it turns out Palin had other reasons for firing that next guy up?
So far, all I see in that article is a lot of dust kicked up to try to cast her in a bad light, but it’s all smoke blowing, so far. They haven’t brought out a smoking gun. If they do, I will be concerned.
And for the record, I can’t stand McCain’s personal history as to how he treated his first wife, although she has stood by and supported his political career all this time, and he has supported her well, financially. They say they are friends, and I believe them, and he publicly admits he was a heel for what he did, and has no excuses.
Light said, regarding latest Bayly blog post:
He claims that abortion-on-demand is one of the pillars of feminism. He needs to study his history a little more closely.
I’ll say. That was a pretty ignorant thing to say.
September 8, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I thought there was a teaching that it was homosexuality that was the ominous sign that heralded the end of the Roman empire? It was the last, inevitable sign of cultural decline of the death of the culture. (I don’t remember what the others are. I suppose egalitarian feminism and women voting are higher up on the chain. (Rolls eyes).
September 8, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“I have a big comment stuck in moderation that says,
“Palin and her husband have both been associated with the AIP, and her husband actually registered to vote as an AIP member. The AIP is closely associated with the Constitution Party, and has officialy backed their League-of-the-South member militia-loving VF-connected presidential cantidates in the last three elections.
To me, anyone associated with such a party is about one step short of being a full blown seditionist. There’s no WAY I would cast a vote for somebody like that.””
Ironically, Palin is hated by these groups that are connected to VF, etc.
I am not a league of the south person but I am all for states rights. We are out of balance. I am also a Federalist. I know, I know. There are some things the Feds MUST do but all other things should be sent to the states like education, abortion, etc. The problem is, if we do that , Congress has little to do and we all know they cannot have that.
)
When it comes to voting in any election, I look at my choices as being between evil or more evil. After all, we are voting for humans.
)
September 8, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“And for the record, I can’t stand McCain’s personal history as to how he treated his first wife, although she has stood by and supported his political career all this time, and he has supported her well, financially. They say they are friends, and I believe them, and he publicly admits he was a heel for what he did, and has no excuses.”
I feel the same way even though I will vote for him as I believe he is the best person to deal with terrorism which is my biggest concern.
What if the first century Christians had the vote and their choices were Nero and Caligula? Should they vote?
September 8, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Well, now my comment that was listed as “awaiting moderation” has disappeared. I wonder where it went.
September 8, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Spam and moderation filters have been emptied…it should all be visible now.
September 8, 2008 at 8:37 pm
And, it seems that Palin is not as sweet as she’d have us believe — apparently she’s a racist and a foul-mouthed one to boot. She has been heard to refer to Eskimos as “Artic Arabs”, f—ing Eskimos, and “mukluks”, and has publicly called Obama a “sambo.”
Sarah Palin was eating in a restaurant with some of her friends when it was announced that Obama had won the Democratic nomination, and she said, “So Sambo beat the b*tch!”
Even other liberal bloggers have been questioning the validity of that rumor, which appeared on The LA Progressive site and was based on a telephone conversation with an anonymous source. This is what passes for news these days?
September 8, 2008 at 10:30 pm
That’s why I’m less concerned about the racial comments than I am about Palin’s alleged misuse of authority against her ex-brother in law. Only one person has come forward claiming to have heard Palin make racial slurs, and of all the rumors this one is the least documentable.
But the allegations of misuse of power are more worrisome, and the investigation into those charges began well before McCain announced his choice of Palin as his running mate.
And, from CNN, here’s Mike Wooten’s side of the whole affair:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/palin.trooper/
September 8, 2008 at 10:47 pm
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/
Fox news deals with some of these party affiliation rumors. There is also a blog out there somewhere that is collecting these rumors and dealing with them. The guy was on fox news but I did not catch his name.
September 8, 2008 at 10:50 pm
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/separating-palin-fact-from-palin-fiction/
Here is the guy keeping a list of myths and facts about Palin
September 8, 2008 at 10:59 pm
It looks like the PDF article by Michael Pearl has the patriocentrists (especially the women) in a tiz.
When will they learn to take a bit of the constructive criticism that they are so fond of dishing out? Why is it that the patrios always seem to see themselves as the ones in the right and everyone else in the wrong?
It is really telling since it comes from their own camp. Can’t accuse Michael Pearl of being a whitewashed feminist or Marxist, can they? At least they haven’t tried yet.
September 9, 2008 at 12:57 am
Corrie, where specifically have you seen the responses to the Pearl article? I have been waiting with bated breath for the patrios’ reaction, but don’t know all the places to look.
September 9, 2008 at 7:18 am
Lin – thanks for the link to pajamasmedia. I saw him on Fox News too and tried to find this page but didn’t have enough time to search for it well.
CG – I have found a way to cut through most of the false reports that circulate through the news media and blogs. First: if it’s on a blog I assume its false until I hear otherwise. Second: if it’s on NBC I assume it’s false. Third: if it’s printed in the New York Times, The Washington Post, the L.A. Times or a host of other left-leaning rags, I assume it’s false.
Then I take the rest of the news media with a grain of salt, knowing that they are likely to (and have in the past) jumped at completely false stories becuase they support the liberal over the conservative or because they make the conservative look bad.
I trust Fox News more than most news sources. I don’t trust anything I hear from European press and media sources until I have heard it corraborated by a trustworthy U.S. news source.
The anger and vitriol directed at Sarah Palin should make us all particularly cautious when we hear rumors flying during this election cycle. It will continue and discernment would be a very good thing for us all to develop.
September 9, 2008 at 7:31 am
Here’s another main stream news article about the proliferation of Sarah Palin rumors.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986
September 9, 2008 at 9:02 am
You know, the Sarah Palin rumors shouldn’t be any more palatable, or credible or repeatable, to thinking people than the “Obama is a Muslim” smears that are still circulating on the net. Christians especially have no business passing along rumors they don’t know to be true, even about politicians they loathe.
September 9, 2008 at 9:20 am
Ok, who the heck is Chuck Baldwin? I mean, I googled him and found some information, but WHY oh why are so many of the patrios supporting him? Argh. He’s a nutjob!
September 9, 2008 at 9:27 am
“CG – I have found a way to cut through most of the false reports that circulate through the news media and blogs. First: if it’s on a blog I assume its false until I hear otherwise. Second: if it’s on NBC I assume it’s false. Third: if it’s printed in the New York Times, The Washington Post, the L.A. Times or a host of other left-leaning rags, I assume it’s false.”
Gee, Richard, are there any news sources we CAN trust? I agree with you about the LA Times, but the NY Times has always seemed to be pretty straightforward to me, and that Anchorage paper to which I linked in my prior comment seems pretty neutral too.
Now, Fox News I DO NOT trust. They are obviously biased to the far right, which is just as bad as a bias to the far left, and their newscasters or anchorpeople or whatever you want to call them are rude and “talk over” and interrupt anyone who disagrees with them — in fact, they are even rude to each other. When I tune in and watch them interview someone, I get the same feeling from Fox News as I do from the Bayly Blog.
Civilized adult professionals shouldn’t behave that way, and news programs and papers ought to be NEUTRAL.
September 9, 2008 at 9:31 am
Psalmist – very true. I especially don’t like it when people pass along rumors they know to be false, as has been the case quite a bit with the Obama=Muslim thing. I even saw Sean Hannity mention Obama’s honest mistake in an interview when he said that folks were denying his “Muslim faith.” The interviewer then corrected him with “you mean ‘Christian faith.’” and Obama said, “yes, my Christian faith.”
It was obvious that Obama had not meant to say “Muslim,” but was talking about these unfounded rumors of him being a Muslim and he just experienced some verbal dyslexia, which happens to all of us at times. I was very disappointed in Sean Hannity for bringing that up. It reduces the credibility of other things that we say if we proclaim things that we know to be false or suspect.
Amanda – Chuck Baldwin has been around for a long time. He’s a pastor in Florida (Baptist). I think his attraction for the Vision Forum crew & co. is the fact that he’s one of the “America’s Christian Heritage” culture warriors. That’s big with them. He is a bit wacko on a lot of things but when I rubbed shoulders with him (about a decade ago) he was not in the patriarchy camp. I don’t know how much he has changed since then.
September 9, 2008 at 10:04 am
In case anyone is interested, Voddie Baucham is scheduled to be on CNN at 1:30 EST discussing his views on Sarah Palin
September 9, 2008 at 10:29 am
“You know, the Sarah Palin rumors shouldn’t be any more palatable, or credible or repeatable, to thinking people than the “Obama is a Muslim” smears that are still circulating on the net. Christians especially have no business passing along rumors they don’t know to be true, even about politicians they loathe.”
That’s true, Psalmist, but news stories with decent documentation are not mere rumors, and it’s funny how so many people who were willing to buy into the Obama internet and UTube smears without bothering to see where they originated** are willing to dismiss actual news articles in major newspapers as mere rumor when those stories are about Palin, on the grounds that the papers are biased.
**the Muslim rumors started with Hilary Clinton in Insight magazine, and the UTube video where Obama stood at parade rest and
failed to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegience turned out instead to have been filmed during the playing of National Anthem. A lot of folks, myself included, simply stand at attention or at “parade rest” during the Anthem.
Honestly….I think I could just sit this election out. IMO, Obama sounds great politically and economically, but unfortunately he’s not pro-life, and Palin sounded like a dream come true at her acceptance speech, but when I dug deeper she began to look like just another small-town politician who likes to throw her weight around and bully people, rather like certain Arkansas politicians a while back; if she gets a chance to play on a larger scale, I predict she’ll become a right-wing pro-life version of Hilary Clinton.
I’m sick of it.
September 9, 2008 at 10:29 am
Cynthia – Remember to separate Fox News news programs from their talk and opinion programs. Their news programs are respectful and seem to be very balanced to me. In fact, even the political parties have said that Fox News has had the most balanced coverage of the election cycle of any of the news outlets. Both Democrats and Republicans have said that.
In answer to your question – No, I don’t think we should blindly trust any of our news outlets. And the NY Times was far left leaning as long ago as the early 80s. The Anchorage paper you linked to did seem decent, so it goes into the mix with the other things I have heard.
The only thing you’ve brought up about Palin so far that deserves consideration is the situation that is being called “Trooper Gate,” and the investigative reports are now coming out about that and it is looking like Palin did exactly the right thing in that case.
The other things you have listed were highly suspect and some outrageously and obviously false. The fact that you’re passing those along means that you’re either falling for the liberal attack machinery or that you are yourself blatantly biased. I’m not saying this to be mean. I have found your comments here (outside of this topic) to be well thought out and reaonable. I say the above only to encourage you to be as discerning as possible because when you pass along rumor that is highly suspect, you yourself lose credibility. In a forum that often moves to debate, loss of credibility is not a good thing.
September 9, 2008 at 11:12 am
“The other things you have listed were highly suspect and some outrageously and obviously false.”
Such as? In comment 104, I wrote,
Palin and her husband have both been associated with the AIP, and her husband actually registered to vote as an AIP member. The AIP is closely associated with the Constitution Party, and has officialy backed their League-of-the-South member militia-loving VF-connected presidential cantidates in the last three elections.
Please note that I NEVER said that Sarah Palin was a member of the AIP, only that she has been associated with it, which she has, and what I said about the AIP is true — the AIP is closely associated with the Constitution Party, and has backs the CP cantidates in the last three presidential elections.
I also said in comment 104 that Palin
“has been heard to refer to Eskimos as “Artic Arabs”, f—ing Eskimos, and “mukluks”, and has publicly called Obama a “sambo.” Sarah Palin was eating in a restaurant with some of her friends when it was announced that Obama had won the Democratic nomination, and she said, “So Sambo beat the b*tch!”
…and I later pointed out in comment 130 that “I’m less concerned about the racial comments than I am about Palin’s alleged misuse of authority against her ex-brother in law. Only one person has come forward claiming to have heard Palin make racial slurs, and of all the rumors this one is the least documentable.”
I went on to say, as you yourself just pointed out, that “the allegations of misuse of power are more worrisome, and the investigation into those charges began well before McCain announced his choice of Palin as his running mate.”
But I disagree with your statement that “Palin did exactly the right thing in that case.”
Wooten sounds like a jerk — I’ll not argue that — but he had already been disciplined for his infractions via proper departmental procedure BY HIS OWN SUPERIORS, before the Palins started pressuring Monegan to fire him.
It is also very significant that Todd Palin was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten. This, more than anything else, tells me that this was a family matter that spilled over into the political arena, and that Sarah Palin used her influence as governor to tend to “family business.”
September 9, 2008 at 11:20 am
Cynthia said: Palin and her husband have both been associated with the AIP
This statement is false. Sarah Palin has never had associations with the AIP.
Your further commentary against the AIP has been refuted by others in this thread.
I also said in comment 104 that Palin
“has been heard to refer to Eskimos as “Artic Arabs”, f—ing Eskimos, and “mukluks”, and has publicly called Obama a “sambo.”
This is false. She never said it. And it is so obviously false that anyone spreading the rumor is not only sinning according to biblical guidelines regarding bearing false witness but is shown to be highly partisan and disengenuous in a forum that is discussing pros and cons of Palin’s nomination.
Wooten sounds like a jerk — I’ll not argue that — but he had already been disciplined for his infractions via proper departmental procedure BY HIS OWN SUPERIORS, before the Palins started pressuring Monegan to fire him.
Apprently, since he was still employed, he was not properly disciplined by his superiors. Police officers cannot taze innnocent children without losing their jobs. They cannot drive their squad cars drunk. And they cannot threaten to “murder” people if they hire an attorney.
This moron did all of these things, for which he should have been fired, and was once Palin stepped up and did the right thing.
If you add to the above the fact that he was threatening the life of a political office holder in our nation, he’s lucky that he didn’t end up in the Federal Pen.
It is also very significant that Todd Palin was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten. This, more than anything else, tells me that this was a family matter that spilled over into the political arena, and that Sarah Palin used her influence as governor to tend to “family business.”
September 9, 2008 at 11:25 am
Sorry – about the cut-off on the above.
Of course this was a family matter. Wootens threat to murder Todd Palin and Sarah Palin was threatened only if they were to pay for the lawyer for the divorce case. Yes, Wooten was attacking the whole family and threatening the whole family. And Sarah used her influence as governor to make sure that the law was upheld. That sounds to me like something a governor should do, whether it involves family members or not.
September 9, 2008 at 11:44 am
It sounds to me like you like Palin. There’s nothing wrong with that, unless you like her so much that you become willing to immediately dismiss anything said against her as false.
Sarah Palin certainly WAS associated with the AIP, though she never formally joined the Party. She attended their 1994 convention, though she now claims otherwise, and she addressed their convention in 2006, AND her husband was an AIP member for seven years.
What would you say if Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama had been a member of the League of the South for seven years, and their husbands had addressed the Constitution Party Convention? Wouldn’t that be worrisome to you?
And, do you know that Wooten threatened the Palins, or that the waitress who heard Palin make racist statement was lying?
Sarah Palin might be lying about the threats, and the waitress might be lying about the comments — the point is, you can’t be sure in either case, but you are quite willing to believe the person you like, and immediately disbelieve any other viewpoint. Not very credible.
September 9, 2008 at 11:49 am
And, it seems that Palin is not as sweet as she’d have us believe — apparently she’s a racist and a foul-mouthed one to boot.</i?
This choice of words indicates you were reporting the rumors about Palin’s racism as fact. I’m glad you clarified your position in the follow-up comment, but this is what you originally stated.
September 9, 2008 at 11:59 am
Here’s the thing, Cynthia. Yes, I like Sarah Palin. But it is not that I dismiss anything against her and accept anything for her. I believe what she says first until she is proven a liar. That’s how I handle ALL politicians. Then I look at their associations to see if they hang with liars.
Your question about the League of the South shows that in your efforst to discredit Sarah Palin in this forum, you have failed to read what others are saying. No, it would not concern me were Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama members of the League of the South. They are not running for president or vice president. And I’m pretty certain that no one here on this forum would support a presidential candidate telling his wife (or husband) what associations she can and cannot have. They are independent people who may make their own decisions.
It also would not bother me had Barack or John or Joe been members of the League of the South. In fact, I might have known them when I was writing for and attending rallies put on by the League of the South. That is, in fact, how I first met Chuck Baldwin. He was at a pro-life rally that I attended while under contract with a local Southern Party grass-roots group.
I don’t sense in Sarah Palin someone who would use the “F” word. So that was the first tip off to me that it was false. The second was the fact that people usually don’t use racial slurs against the races that are included in their immediate family. Todd is an Eskimo and Sarah is not likely to use racial epithets against his race. The media is scrutinizing Sarah Palin in the same way (if not more than) they do with all politcal candidates and they have not uncovered this as fact. That makes it extremely clear to me that it did not happen.
The news of what Wooten did was reported on multiple news networks this morning. I heard the news of his threat to murder from ABC, Sky News, and Fox (local affiliate). That makes me think that it’s probably true in spite of the fact that an unknown, faceless person on a blog doesn’t think it is. It’s all a matter of setting priorities and discerning the weight and value of the various sources of information available to me.
September 9, 2008 at 12:02 pm
And, here is a statement by Riley Wooten, father of Mike Wooten and step-grandfather of Peyton Wooten, the kid who was tasered It seems that there is another side to the taser story too:
http://www.kspr.com/news/local/27983399.html
September 9, 2008 at 12:30 pm
“The taser was activated for less than a second,” said Mike Wooten in a recent CNN interview.
“Michael will tell you from the beginning that it was a mistake,” says Riley. “He shouldn’t have done that, but Peyton kept insisting, insisting, insisting, that he wanted to feel what it felt like.”
Yes – it does make Sarah look bad that this father only tasered his son because his son begged him to do it. In fact, I’d suggest that the son ask his father what it feels like to be stoned or drunk. Maybe even what it would feel like to be disemboweled. I’m sure those would be good reasons for giving his son marijuana or for gutting him.
Riley says Mike has had some black eyes on his record, but according to him, he’s had more good marks.
Another very solid defensive stance. In fact, I think this same defense was made of Osama Bin Laden because before he murdered 3,000+ American citizens he had helped build some educational facilities for Islamic boys and had funded orphanages. I didn’t buy this defense in that case either.
September 9, 2008 at 12:34 pm
And Cynthia – exactly what search strings are you using to come up with these stories? The fact that you are able to produce so much anti-Palin drivel indicates more of a bias than I would have suspected earlier.
September 9, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Hey Corrie – can you post the website where the patrios are in a tiz about the Michael Pearl article?
September 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm
” also said in comment 104 that Palin
“has been heard to refer to Eskimos as “Artic Arabs”, f—ing Eskimos, and “mukluks”, and has publicly called Obama a “sambo.” ”
This one does not ring true as it is reported that her husband has Eskimo roots which would make her own children to have Eskimo blood.
Cynthia, Do you have problems with Obama’s relationship with Rob Ayers?
September 9, 2008 at 12:50 pm
BTW – Has anyone really used the term “Sambo” in the past 30 years – other than folks who are my parents’ age (mid 70s)? That’s another one I seriously doubt from someone who is in her mid-40s. I am almost 50 and when I was very young they were removing the book Little Black Sambo from schools because of its racist overtones. I never read the book and I don’t know anyone my age or below who read the book in school. A friend of mine read it in a college course that was dealing with racism and how much things have changed since the early 60s when that book was regular reading in the public schools.
September 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“And Cynthia – exactly what search strings are you using to come up with these stories? The fact that you are able to produce so much anti-Palin drivel indicates more of a bias than I would have suspected earlier.”
I found the drivel in question on Google, using these clearly biased keywords:
“mike wooten” peyton taser
September 9, 2008 at 1:01 pm
CG – the point is that you are running searches on the internet to find dirt. My mother used to tell me, “if you go looking for dirt, don’t expect to find gold.”
If you’re trying to refute the things that are said in Palin’s defense against the many attacks, you’re sure to find articles that support that biased view.
If you run searches on Obama experience questionable alliances you’ll come up with both positive and negative and you can pick and choose in order to make him look good or bad. Same thing if you look for “mike wooten” peyton taser. But if you’re looking for truth and would like to share that with others, you’ll present a balanced view. So far I have not seen balance but I’ve seen quite a bit of questionable things that you’ve presented in a direct effort to discredit a fellow Christian.
The less than balanced responses are an effort to balance your attacks on someone who I believe is innocent until proven guilty. And so far – there has been no proof of her guilt but quite a bit of proof of the guilt of the liberal attack machinery.
September 9, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Lin, concerning Palin and Eskimos, I do have some insight there – I’m part Indian, and some of the most anti-Indian folks I’ve had the displeasure of meeting are part Indian themselves. Todd Palin’s Eskimo blood is no guarantee that Sarah or even Todd aren’t prejudiced against full-blood Inuit people.
As for Obama and Ayers, I wasn’t aware that they had anything that could be called a relationship.
And Richard, I am 50, and “Little Black Sambo” was still in our elementary school library in 1969.
September 9, 2008 at 1:03 pm
The ‘Sambo’ story really reminds me of the equally ridiculous rumour of a video of Michelle Obama railing against ‘whitey’. I mean, come on, ‘whitey’?? What is this, 1970? Michelle Obama is a lawyer with a degree from Princeton. Why would she speak like a Black Panther? The Palin story seems similarly designed to pander to people’s prejudices – in this case, that she’s an ignorant redneck. What nonsense.
All that said – Palin remains very much an unknown entity. There are several issues (including Troopergate – I want to see what the tribunal investigating it decides) that I’m going to withhold judgement on for a few weeks, until the rumour mill calms down and we can get a clearer picture of the truth.
And finally – on ‘neutral’ news media – there’s no such thing! Fox, CNN, the NY Times – they’ve all got their biases and in my opinion one limits oneself to a single or even chief source at one’s peril. For news, I watch a mix of Fox and CNN, and papers are the NY Times and Washington Post (I wouldn’t touch the LA Times and I live in LA). But really, they’re all as bad as each other. It’s painful. I no longer watch the cable opinion shows – all hot air and people arguing for the sake of arguing.
September 9, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Cynthia – Obama’s campaign was launched at Bill Ayres house. That looks kinda relational.
September 9, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Ah, Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist who votes 5 times every Chicago election and Sarah Palin is racist against her own husband (not to mention she’s the grandmother of her “son” Trig, right?). All of those rumors are stupid and ridiculous in my opinion.
If this is what voters care about, no wonder the country is a mess.
September 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm
“CG – the point is that you are running searches on the internet to find dirt. My mother used to tell me, “if you go looking for dirt, don’t expect to find gold.”
No, Richard… I’m trying to find BOTH sides of the story. Like everyone else here, when I heard Palin’s acceptance speech, I thought that she was the BOMB. I even said that it’s a pity that she’s not running for president.
Then it occurred to me that I was accepting her blindly, based on a first impression, and decided to do some research, and what I’v found has convinced me that she’s not all sweetness and light.
September 9, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ‘digging’ for more information Cynthia. I would agree that there are question marks above some of Palin’s actions. I just think that at the moment, when a new ‘story’ breaks every day and we’re bombarded with information, it might be best to hold off on pronouncing judgement for a couple of weeks, until more facts become known.
September 9, 2008 at 1:18 pm
“Cynthia – Obama’s campaign was launched at Bill Ayres house. That looks kinda relational.”
Lin asked about Rob Ayers, Richard, not Bill Ayres, and for some reason, I didn’t associate the two. But now that you mention it, if I knew for a fact that Obama launched his campaign at Ayres’ house, it would concern me. Could you point me to a credible source where I can read the details?
September 9, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Sorry, I got the name wrong. I was e-mailing a ‘Rob’ and it stuck in my mind.
Cynthia, Anyone who climbs the political ladder is not going to be all sweetness and light. I would NEVER describe her that way nor would I want a VP who is described that way. I want the Prez of Iran to quake in his boots at the thought of her.
I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop any day now. I am simply amazed that this is all some can come up with: Some waitress said….
There are plenty of mass e-mails going around from her political enemies in Alaska. Surprise!
What the difference is in the case of the Clintons is that the media was trying to squealch the reams of facts about their shenanigans in Ark while the media is trying awfully hard to nail Palin with everything from a faked pregnancy to sambo comments.
“Lin, concerning Palin and Eskimos, I do have some insight there – I’m part Indian, and some of the most anti-Indian folks I’ve had the displeasure of meeting are part Indian themselves. Todd Palin’s Eskimo blood is no guarantee that Sarah or even Todd aren’t prejudiced against full-blood Inuit people.”
This is simply projection. On a purely logical level why would a Governor say that publicly about many of her voters?
“As for Obama and Ayers, I wasn’t aware that they had anything that could be called a relationship.”
Google. It ain’t pretty. Ayers was one of the Weathermen.
September 9, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Lin, I think the ‘sit and wait’ approach should be taken to these rumours about Obama also.
Fox News says that Obama was chairman of an educational trust that Ayers was involved in founding. A National Review writer suggests “The fact that Obama and Ayers were working together stems from the pretty sharp left-leaning ideology that both of them shared to some extent”. This is a stretch. The only evidence (thus far) they were ever together was one time Ayers delivered a report.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/newly-released-documents-highlight-obamas-relationship-with-ayers/
Plus, the fellow putting up $3 million for this ad is Harold Simmons. He was a major sponsor of the ‘Swift Boaters’ in ’04. Talk about smears.
I’m not saying Obama isn’t connected to Ayers. I’m just saying, it’s best to wait a few weeks and see what actual facts emerge. That’s true of Palin and Obama.
September 9, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Hmm, I think the Fox article wasn’t clear – it appears they met on more than one occasion. I’m trying to find more evidence they knew each other more than tangentially. But if sitting on an educational development committee together means you share the same political values, I am on the same page as Richard Dawkins!
September 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“This is simply projection. On a purely logical level why would a Governor say that publicly about many of her voters?”
Who knows? It’s possible that Palin didn’t say that. But my point was that her husband’s Eskimo blood is certainly no guarantee that she didn’t.
And, Bill Ayers was one of the Weathermen, way back when. After Richard set me straight on the name, I googled Bill Ayers and Obama, and I found out that although Ayres’ views are still as detestable as ever, he’s now a law-abiding citizen and a university professor. Obama and Ayers were once neighbors. Ayers once contributed $200 to Obama’s campaign, and he and Obama happened to serve on a community board together, along with seven of other people; Ayers and the rest of the group once hosted an informal fundraiser and campaign meeting for Obama at their house.
I found this at Wikipedia:
“The Obama–Ayers controversy arose during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign regarding Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s contact with his constituent Bill Ayers, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a former leader of the Weather Underground.
His position as a professor led to him serving on two nonprofit boards with Barack Obama, who lived in the same neighborhood. Both Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, hosted a small campaign meeting for Obama at their home in 1995. The matter was covered by news organizations and brought up by the campaign of competing candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton in February 2008, revisited during a debate between Clinton and Obama in April 2008, then subsequently picked up by Republican presidential candidate John McCain as an issue in the general election campaign.
Obama condemned Ayers’ past through a spokesman, and stated he does not have a close association with Ayers.”
And I found this at Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/ayers-and-obama-what-is-t_n_97204.html
For a time, Mr. Obama was on the board with Mr. Ayers, though he no longer has a formal association with the group. At the debate, he described Mr. Ayers as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” but “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” Mr. Obama said he was being unjustly linked to “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old.”
That isn’t such a cause for concern. I am on cordial terms with several neighbors whose ideologies and past activities I detest, and occasionally we do things together for the good of our neighborhood. If I were running for office, they might host a fundraiser for me too.
If anyone has something plausible about an actual meeting of minds between Obama and Ayers, please let me know.
September 9, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Cynthia – are you actually citing the Huffington Post. I’m sorry. I thought you were serious about this. I didn’t realize it was a joke.
September 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hey…. how did this discussion get turned around to Obama, anyway?
It looks as though everyone is assuming that just because I’m questioning Palin, I must be pro-Obama…. LOL!
Funny about that word, ass-ume…
September 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm
“Both Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, hosted a small campaign meeting for Obama at their home in 1995″
This is the link that does concern me. Hmmm. I still don’t think it means Obama shares the values of the Weathermen, but going to someone like that’s house shows at the best very poor judgement and at worst terrible opportunism. As I said, I’m not rushing to decisions, but it is concerning.
I’ve read many Republican politicians have a similar level of connection to Ayers. If that’s true, it might explain things better. At the moment, I have to wonder about the wisdom of the U of Illinois and all the community groups who work with Ayers, as much as I do about Obama.
Hmmm hmmm hmmm!
September 9, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Folks can we just discuss things without all the unpleasant insinuations about people’s motivations, intelligence, etc? The civility of TW is one of its greatest assets, and all this assuming the worst of people doesn’t foster debate or understanding.
September 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm
No, I’m citing an actual quote from Obama concerning Ayers, which just happened to be cited in the Huffington Post, as turned up in a google search. Because HP prints it, does that mean that Obama didn’t say it?
The quote was also carried by the NY Times — but wait, they’re not credible either, LOL….
September 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Frankly, Richard, I’m getting irritated to the point where I’m losing my objectivity, and returning sarcasm with sarcasm.
I apologise for that, it isn’t nice, and with that, I retire from this discussion.
September 9, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Does anyone know anything about Voddie Baucham being on CNN this afternoon? Supposedly he was asked for an interview because of his position on voting for a woman for civil magistrate.
Now the nuttiness has spilled over into the secular media. YIKES.
September 9, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Claire – I agree. Thanks.
Cynthia – I’m sorry for the sarcasm as well. My issues are not nearly as much with your thoughts on this or with either one of the major political parties, but rather with the media, which I think has really let us all down.
September 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Karen – this is the only thing I’ve found that seems to be truly aware of this interview. I was not able to follow the link at 1:00 though.
http://raylwade.blogspot.com/2008/09/voddie-baucham-on-cnn-today.html
September 9, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Peaches, I can’t speak for Corrie and I don’t know where there may be blogs or other sources where the patriocentrists are discussing Michael Pearl’s article, but Stacy Mcdonald’s Patriarch’s Wives List is going to town with it. Some people believe that he certainly could’t have been talking about THEM because they don’t resemble a cult whatsoever! Others know he is talking about them and are they ever offended. Here is one example:
“So sorry ….. This was just one of those articles that had my dh and I
really aggravated. It is just plain dangerous since they have such a
huge following. And we found it, basically, slanderous toward those of us
who have lived this generational vision for so long and seen the blessings
of it for very many years. It gets you a little riled to be called
dysfunctional, cultish, abusive, self centered, making your children be
servants etc., etc. ad nauseum. And then to think that many will listen and
change their “convictions” because of it. It lowered our estimation of the
Pearls-that’s for sure. Well. Enough-actually- way too much probably- said.”
Don’t know Stacy’s take on it. She hasn’t been around her own list for weeks.
September 9, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Hear hear on the media!
Has anyone seen the VF latest? Bill Einwechter (he of ‘why you can’t vote for a woman for civil magistrate’) has published a new article about Palin.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2008/09/4322.aspx
There’s so much to go through! Highlights (or lowlights) include:
According to Scripture, the woman was created to be man’s assistant in his dominion task (Gen. 2:18)
Assistant. Like a secretary, or a maid. Ezer kenegdo!
And he quotes this from a ‘private email’ Doug Phillips sent him:
“. . . the widespread acceptance of a pro-life professing Christian Republican, self-proclaimed feminist mother of an infant and four children as a candidate for the highest office of the land is the single most dangerous event for the conscience of the Christian community of the last ten years at least. The IQ of the Christian community has dropped 50 points. In order to win an election they have sold the core of what is right and true about the defining issue of our generation—the family!
Charming.
There’s so much – that’s just a taste, and I’m being lazy and not going for the much more serious Scriptural flaws. I would highly recommend everyone read it.
September 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Here is what concerns me. Obama had Jeremiah Wright as a pastor/mentor for 20 years and now is distancing himself from him because he IS a liability. If you have not heard his sermons (before the campaign) you ought to hear what Obama was hearing for 20 years. If that does not concern people, then there is nothing I can say to convince anyone this guy is serious trouble. I question his loyalty to the US. It is that serious.
Ayers has supported Obama since he ran for congress and they have been neighbors in Hyde Park a ritzy section of Chicago. We all know that the only thing that kept Ayers out of prison is Daddy who was the CEO of Edison. (Others in the group went to prison) and even his wife was one of the bombers! Ayers even said within the last 8 years that he does not think he bombed enough of the US!
Sorry, but I am not going to get upset over rumors about Palin. All elections are the choice between bad and disaster. I will choose bad because Obama will be a disaster.
)
Claire wrote:
“I’ve read many Republican politicians have a similar level of connection to Ayers.”
Can you provide a link? I would like to see that as we all need to know these things. It would not surprise me.
(
September 9, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Still looking, haven’t found anything yet beyond this:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810338,00.html
Will let you know!
September 9, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I think CNN is having Baucham on to show how crazy us Christians really are. I doubt they are really interested in his troglodyte views of women.
That’s what upsets me about VF, the patriarchs, and the crazy people. I am guessing some of these “rumors” about Palin are based in the fact she is evangelical Christian. Honestly, I do believe the media generally fails to comprehend evangelicals (there are some exceptions), they think we are all nuts and extremists because of people like Phillips, Baucham, etc.
The media rarely bothers to look at the other 99% of evangelicals who represent a wide range of political and religious views. Honestly, they think we are all conservative Republicans, which I know we can all confirm isn’t true.
“Normal” evangelicals, we’re just too vanilla to be newsworthy, and I suppose that’s understandable. The media wants to sell papers, sell ads, etc. They are not on some noble call to get us good information. It’s a business, keep that in mind. If as story or idea sells, they will keep covering it. No one wants to read about Ms. Normal Middle Evangelical Mom in the NY Times. But I am guessing putting a regressive anti-woman Neanderthal like Voddie Bauham on CNN gets the ratings.
September 9, 2008 at 3:31 pm
My wife drew my attention to this article today. In the final paragraph it seems to me that this writer is saying that women are biblically required to rebel against any male authority other than their husbands. Although I am hoping that this was just an example of poor communication, I’d like to get everyone’s opinion on this. They don’t really believe that a woman who is pulled over by the COPs must rebel against a male officer’s authority, do they?
September 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Folks can we just discuss things without all the unpleasant insinuations about people’s motivations, intelligence, etc?
In my experience, many people approach political discussions as if those who aren’t in their camp (be it Republican, Democrat, minor party, or independent) are motivated by evil, stupidity, hatred, insanity, or some other vice, whereas their own choices are motivated only by knowledge, rationality, fairness, and reason. I get tired of all the juvenile put-downs and name calling on all sides but can get caught up in it myself quickly unless I stop myself in my tracks when my tendency is to dismiss someone’s views as idiotic or kooky just because they’re different from my own.
September 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I’m not finding the paragraph you are talking about Richard.
September 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Word Girl, Claire, etc. – I truly did not mean to question anyone’s intelligence, and I did not think that I was making any insinuations about people’s motivations. If I have done that, please point out what indicated that. I do suspect the motivations of the media outlets and mentioned that frequently. But I don’t think that I was making insinuations against anyone here or questioning their intelligence or name calling or putting anyone down.
September 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Mara (and everyone) – Somehow I posted the wrong link.
Try this one:
http://www.scottbrownonline.com/ScottBrownOnline/Welcome_to_Scott_Brown_Online/Entries/2008/9/5_A_Vote_for_a_Curse.html
September 9, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I was speaking more of political discussions in general.
September 9, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I got over there, Richard
And it was just kinda weird.
Here’s what jumped out at me.
“for women to rebel against the authority structure of the universe”
I just get kinda tired of these people thinking that the earth will roll off it’s axis and God could be knocked off His throne if a woman were to ever appear to exercise any kind of authority over a man.
These people are so insecure. And so rigid in their false doctrine. They show such zeal. But for the wrong things.
September 9, 2008 at 5:36 pm
If you go to You Tube and type in “Palin and the Pulpit” in the search box, you can watch today’s CNN interview with Voddie Baucham.
September 9, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Peaches,
I went to watch the youtube thing with Voddie on it.
Whether Palin is right for America or not, I’ll let Richard and Cynthia duke it out. (In a friendly non-sarcastic tone.)
But clearly a woman as VP is one of the most frightening things to these Patios.
I heard Voddie say just that. He thought these were very frightening times because of Palin and I’ve come to a conclusion.
Patrio men are some of the most insecure, frightened men in America.
Don’t they know that God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind.
They need to start meditating on the scripture above and others like it.
If they don’t, they are all going to die of a collective heart attack.
September 9, 2008 at 6:12 pm
“I think CNN is having Baucham on to show how crazy us Christians really are. I doubt they are really interested in his troglodyte views of women.”
ARRGGGG! He uses a horrible translation of Isaiah 3:12 to try to make us believe that Palin as VP is a judgement on America. Check out this verse in the Septuagint for the correct translation. It is translated as bad or worse in our bibles than Psalms 68:11 is translated. And that is pretty bad. It is rather shocking to find out how biased translators were against women.
September 9, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Notice that Voddie also gives the same tired explanation for Deborah, too. Notice how he keeps repeating that ‘he’ is standing on the gospel against the culture. This is the big mantra.
What he needs to say is: This is MY translation of these scriptures. There are others who have a different translation and they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Instead, he has to make everyone else out to be those who hate the scriptures. Only HE is following scripture. That other woman should have asked him if Eph 5:21 applied to husbands if they are believers in the Body. Sheesh.
September 9, 2008 at 6:31 pm
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2008/09/isaiah-312-and-women-in-government.html
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2008/09/baucham-brown-twist-isaiah-312-like-wax.html
I have some things to say on my blog about Isaiah 3:12 that I’ve already shared here, but seeing as Scott Brown and Voddie Baucham both have misused it in this campaign, I think we ought to take a look at some of the verses they are using, to try to get people to see reason — which is — they are grossly misinterpreting the verse to make it say what they want it to say.
September 9, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Barb
Cynthia Gee
This might not be appropriate here, and if it’s not I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to contact you. Please e-mail me at annie490@yahoo.com
Sorry to interrupt everyone,
Thanks.
September 9, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Btw, I feel like FOX is no less biased. They’re just biased in a different direction than CNN.
I like to get my news from dual extreme sources, both Right and Left.
I listen to podcasts from Democracy Now, my fav. liberal source, on my ipod, and I turn on Rush Limbaugh for 15-20 minutes most mornings when I go pick up my kindergartener at lunch. HA!
Hey, on the whole rumer thing, here’s a great place to go for non-partisan info on what is rumor vs. what is actual fact about people in politics, etc:
http://www.factcheck.org/
But, if I may, I do think the whole slamming Palin thing is only fair, much as I don’t care for it. After all, what have conservatives done to Hillary for years and years and YEARS. We have hated her with what has felt, to most of us, like “righteous” hatred, saying all manner of things about her and not thinking another thing of it…
I think it’s good for us to feel a little bit of what that feels like when it’s coming at someone we like. Maybe it will help us shut our traps next time we want to hate someone, you know… At least, my trap can always use encouragement to shut itself. *grins and shrugs*
September 9, 2008 at 7:52 pm
More shocking TV news reporting on Sarah Palin, which was reported to me by my (Democratic) parents: “She used to go to a church where they SPOKE IN TONGUES!!”
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist–can’t wait to see what they will drag out next…)
September 9, 2008 at 8:03 pm
“We have hated her with what has felt, to most of us, like “righteous” hatred, saying all manner of things about her and not thinking another thing of it…”
I have never hated Hillary. But facts about their unethical behavior before and during the WH years is just that: FACTS. Example: FBI files in her office was a FACT. There are tons of such facts. That is not rumor but FACT. There is plenty of proof. It is just that few cared about ethics because they ‘liked’ them.
Let’s not rewrite history.
September 9, 2008 at 8:06 pm
‘More patriocentric lies in Knox’s paper.
The one that should glare out at us is that Adam was NOT deceived, Eve was and the Bible clearly states this. But, these men, in their want to denigrate and subjugate and keep women in a perpetual state of slavery and servitude, twists the word of God and lies about the truth. Eve did not deceive Adam. It was Satan who deceived Eve. Adam was NOT deceived but sinned willfully and with full knowledge.’
A bit off topic but I have to comment. Not only was Adam NOT deceived but Eve was, the woman also came out of her deception, but Adam? He stayed a rebel by blaiming God and the woman for his action.
September 9, 2008 at 8:19 pm
I share my thoughts about Isaiah 3:12 here:
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2008/09/isaiah-312-and-women-in-government.html
September 9, 2008 at 8:19 pm
And here:
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2008/09/baucham-brown-twist-isaiah-312-like-wax.html
September 9, 2008 at 8:28 pm
‘God is up to something folks. What I know not, but can’t you FEEL it????’
Just a little FYI, a bit ago I heard a prophecy and the jist said that who were once on top are going to be on bottom, who was once poor, shall receive from those who were rich. Basicaly, everything is going to go upsidown. That’s good news for the down trodden! (Those who are going to lose their top places did not do what is right)
Amen!
September 9, 2008 at 8:37 pm
http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/2008/09/kotter-and-mohler-in-trouble-with.html
I linked back to you folks by way of a hat tip.
September 9, 2008 at 8:47 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/republicans/2694630/Sarah-Palin-brings-the-Hillary-Clinton-era-to-an-end.html
Except for in the conservative church world, I find this fairly true:
Unlike Hillary and her contemporaries, the women of Palin’s generation are not feminists, but rather post-feminist. Born at the very tail end of the baby boom or after it had ended, the post-feminists grew up in a world in which the revolutions of the Sixties – sexual as well as political – were already taken for granted. These were women who came of age already knowing that professional success was at least theoretically possible. No one told them they couldn’t go to college, or shunted them off to secretarial school, or advised them to be nurses instead of doctors. Though not numerous, there were female role models to be found, mentors to be sought out.
September 9, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Sarah said:
“No one wants to read about Ms. Normal Middle Evangelical Mom in the NY Times”
Oh I LIKE you so much Sarah
September 9, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Forgot to add, most of the mainstream media think Pat Robertson is mad (700 Club). Wonder what they’ll all do with Voddie Baucham?
I am with Sarah. I think they put him on to make all of us Christian folks look like starkraving mad lunatics with nothing better to do than constantly criticize women, gays, and anyone else outside of their box.
September 9, 2008 at 9:51 pm
While we’re linking to blogs — this man has some great insights, and has written several blog entries on what the Patriarchalists are doing here:
http://ematthaei.blogspot.com/2008/09/justifiable-means.html
September 9, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I find all the talk about Sarah Palin a little disturbing, not the negative or positive about it, but the fact that there is SO much. I personally don’t think her experience is either here nor there.
I find it disturbing because both republicans and democrats have used the “sex” card, saying that any negative talk about women is sexist. But isn’t high praise of a woman like this (because she’s a woman) also sexist? We are looking at her through one lens, the lens of her female-ness. We cannot realistically look at any female politician, Sarah Palin or Hilary Clinton, in any light other than the fact that they are women and politicians? Really? Men have been in the political circles for so long that their “male-ness” has effectively become a moot point, but all of a sudden, a woman from practically nowhere comes along and we’re all talking about her as if she’s this savior of America!
I am trying hard to be unbiased here, but my point is that discussing her in the context of being a woman, whether positively or negatively, is inherently sexist. If we are to discuss who Sarah Palin is and why we think she’d make a great VP (or not?), then let’s keep her feminine qualities out of the discussion. We don’t talk about men being masculine enough when we talk about their political qualifications, let’s not do so with a woman.
September 10, 2008 at 9:13 am
Abby – I understand your concern and I believe much of the political debate in the major media has been centered around her sex just as much of the political debate surrounding Barack has been centered around his race, even though he himself has seldom raised this issue.
But I don’t think that most of the regular folks (like us) care one way or the other about either of those things. This blog discusses women’s issues a lot, so it is more prevalent here than elsewhere.
If I may share an anecdote of sort to help illustrate why I think there is so much discussion of Palin these days.
I work in Washington, D.C., where the primary talk radio station is WMAL AM radio 630. The morning drive time team has been discussing whether or not Sarah Palin is the heir apparent to Ronald Reagan. Maybe she is and maybe she’s not. But the possibility IS there and that is what is making people talk. Traditional Conservatives have not been happy about any candidate since Ronald Reagan left office. I held my nose and voted for George H.W. the first time. I voted third party in the next election (when Clinton beat Geo. H.W.). Bob Dole was the ultimate forgettable candidate and I voted for him only because I thought (and think) that Bill Clinton was an awful president who disgraced the office. George W. did not excite the base, but seemed marginally better than his father had been and significantly better than what the Democrats were putting forward.
John McCain has at times been so far out of step with the Conservative base that he was not doing well with the Republican base either. But Sarah Palin seems like Ronald Reagan did to us Conservatives. Her stand on the issues seems to match ours, her spirit seems to be very positive and she seems to truly believe in America.
I believe that this is the reason for all the talk. The true news story is not that she is a woman but that she has reenergized the heart and soul of the Republican Party after a very long dry spell of less-than-desirable candidates.
September 10, 2008 at 9:36 am
“The true news story is not that she is a woman but that she has re-energized the heart and soul of the Republican Party after a very long dry spell of less-than-desirable candidates.”
Richard, I agree. As my husband keeps saying in response to the naysayers “Is that all they’ve got?” She does remind us of Ronald Reagan.
September 10, 2008 at 9:45 am
Richard, that is exactly the main idea. McCain got the conservative base behind him when he picked her. He’s a very smart man.
Danny Carlton, over on the Jack Lewis blog, said that so many falsehoods about Palin have been floated out there that have proven to be wrong, that Sarah is starting to look like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
It’s an apt description. At this point in time the attempted put-downs of her sex, the claims that she uttered vile racial slurs against blacks and the Native American groups of thst area only outraging the conservative base and causing them to rally round her even more, and even more so as the more outrageous claims (such as what the Kos said about who had which baby) are shown to be completely false.
We’ll have to see how she does in the debates, and how the next several weeks go.
Doug Phillips, Voddie Baucham, Scott Brown, the CCC forum and company, are just a blip on this whole screen.
The discussions of whether she should be in office on account of having 5 children are automatically set to backfire if a liberal should bring them up, because it is obviously hypocritical to the max that a liberal would do such a thing.
I don’t know how this election will turn out, but it is kind of funny watching the media scrambling like this to try to destroy her, and only helping her out, at least for the time being.
September 10, 2008 at 10:12 am
[...] (rather than race and gender), and interpret white women’s embrace of Palin as a symbol of “true womanhood,” even feminism, what such analyses leave out is the racism of white women. The racism of white [...]
September 10, 2008 at 10:37 am
I totally agree with what Richard wrote. My big question though is how much influence will Palin have with McCain? But it does seem that Palin can be his ‘reason’ to change his mind about drilling and some other issues.
) She will walk a fine line as VP keeping her independence and supporting her boss.
Without Palin, I do not think McCain could win. He did NOT have the conservative base at all except to say that some would hold their nose and vote for him to vote against Obama. Now, they are excited to see a candidate like themselves.
September 10, 2008 at 11:43 am
My series of articles on family integrated churches begins today. Please feel free to add your two bits.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/should-my-family-attend-a-family-integrated-church/
September 10, 2008 at 11:44 am
I just learned this morning that the “white women” who are supporting Palin are now called “Wal-Mart Moms” or “Wal-Mart Grandmas.” I can wear that.
September 10, 2008 at 12:46 pm
“Wal-Mart Moms”
Figures.
September 10, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Well, this may come as a shock, but I’m not a conservative. About anything except abortion, that is.
If we’re talking about Sarah Palin in GENERAL and not as a political figure, then it’s certainly okay to talk about her womanhood and how her faith affects her decisions as a woman and leader, but there’s a difference between discussing her being a female leader and a “good” politician.
Not to start on another topic, but even if Palin is pegged as the “next Ronald Reagan,” I’m not sure how the younger generation (my age and younger) are going to feel about that. We tend to be a lot more critical of our leaders, and there’s been a lot of controversy surrounding whether or not Reagan really did this country much good 28-20 years ago.
McCain may have clinched the conservative vote, but is it enough? Unfortunately, pro-choice Republicans are probably re-thinking their support of his campaign as we speak because of Sarah Palin. And if he wants to win, he certainly can’t afford to lose too many votes.
On the subject of the original post, I do think that Sarah’s role in Alaska has had some high points, particularly her staunch opposition to abortion, but when it comes to her ideas about conservation vs. oil drilling, I come down on the other side than she does.
September 10, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Abby – My response to your earlier comment was not meant to imply that you are a conservative or that Palin will win votes among those who disagree with her views. It was just my analysis of why there is so much talk about Palin. I mainly dealt with the positive side: Palin = Reagan. There is a negative side that is causing a lot of chatter as well and it is the exact same thing: Palin = Reagan.
Reagan was amazing. Whether or not those who are too young to remember have a full understanding of the great president that he was, whether you stand on the Republican side or the Democrat side, you agree that Reagan had a huge, huge impact on our nation and on the world, and on the political parties. Those who like Reagan are talking about this comparison because they are excited about where it may go from here. Those who disliked Reagan or don’t have a clue about history are discussing Palin because it scares them to the depths of their soul that Palin may be another Reagan.
So both sides of the political fence are discussing her deeply because of her political acumen and her stand on the issues.
And every once in a while someone comes along who says something disengenuous like, “I really liked her and was very excited until…” or “I’m concerned that too much attention is being paid to her being a woman.” It would probably help the conversation overall of those who oppose Palin just say, “I don’t like this woman and here’s why….”
September 10, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Drop the “o,” add an “i,” and the above word becomes “if” instead of “of.” Why hasn’t anyone come up with a way to spell check comments yet? Sheesh! (BTW – it’s my keyboard’s fault.)
September 10, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Very interesting from someone who knows Palin
http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html
September 10, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Wow, Lin, that was a pretty good article from someone who’s worked closely with her.
September 10, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Lynn,
Exellent blog article at your blog about Voddie Baucham and his sloppy scholarship. I found it HIGHLY amusing that he accused the woman on CNN of “sleight of hand” and “playing fast and loose with Scripture”. Hello? This is the pot calling the kettle black.
As far as the Church for Men article, slap me! Who would have thought? I really don’t have much to say about the whining and blame-shifting in the Church for Men mantra but it was interesting to read his take on Palin.
As far as the Church for Men mantra that there is too many women in the church….why is that a bad thing? If God is truly sovereign (He is) then He is the reason why there is too many women in the Church. Let them complain to God, which they are just like their father Adam who tried to blame God and Eve for his own willful sin. Their focus shouldn’t be on making men feel good in order to get them into church. That is not THE Gospel.
September 10, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I thought I would share a recent question posed on a popular patriarch’s wives list…….
A woman wanted to know if it was okay if her daughter used tampons and whether the use of tampons would introduce “marital” thoughts while inserting them.
Oh the depth and breadth of such thinking!!!!!
Yes, everyone knows that using tampons causing one to think of intercourse……………….NOT! Please.
The patrios are so used to others doing their thinking for them and that is why they have to ask these questions. When you come out from under the delusive patrio-fog and start actually thinking for your self, these questions are unnecessary.
Oh, another concern about tampon usage on the list is whether or not it will break the hymen. Who cares? Who cares if the hymen is broken? What difference will it make? It is a piece of skin…big deal!
Unless they are now bringing back the patriarchal custom of the bloody sheet?
What next? A new home business where the Patriarch of the family makes custom made shadow boxes where the bloody sheet may be displayed on the wall all the while being protected by UV resistant glass?
This is what happens when one makes purity their god. God looks at the heart and purity is an issue between a person and their God.
A woman no longer needs proof that she is a virgin since God causes us to be new creatures where all old things have passed away.
I want my daughters AND sons to be virgins on their wedding night, too. But a hymen does not a virgin make.
September 10, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Corrie, Murro’s book wore me out, too. I mean, how does he deal with references in scripture to the ‘BRIDE’ of Christ.
How does he get ‘masculine’ out of men being part of the BRIDE of Christ?
September 10, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Ack! Don’t give them any ideas, Corrie!
September 10, 2008 at 6:37 pm
ok, i live in ukraine so this post and all the links are my intro to sarah palin as i am so out-of-the-loop with american politics.
i’d like to go back to rachelle’s initial post and the questions she posed, basically sarah having both a hugely demanding career and hugely demanding family responsibilities and how that fits with her fulfilling all her roles since biblically, her wife/mom role is to be first.
personally find sarah appealing to me as a woman. I don’t have dreams about a career per se, but i have dreams about ministry and social change stuff i want to accomplish here in ukraine. like big policitally systemic changes regarding certain issues. i also have two very small kids.
recently, i took on the job of being director of a soon-to-be-shelter for girls/women in crisis pg, providing a place to live (and more) for them so they won’t be “forced” to abort. this is my dream job.
i look at my two little kids, and i think i am crazy for doing this. but i look at the (i’m assuming) God-given desires of my heart, and i am in ecstacy. i am “having it all.” my husband also totally loves all of this, goes to meetings with me, etc. and my kids are just with a babysitter for a few hours a week, if that, at this point.
so i look at sarah’s pics, and i’m thinking, maybe i should be taking one or both my kids to meetings with me
sarah palin appeals to me because she is devoted to something greater than her own family and it seems to be enriching her family life. She is devoted to God. She is devoted to life. she is serving her state and country. and her family appears to be thriving.
sure, it’s maybe a bit non-traditional and calls for adjustments in roles.
but i like this example because, while i don’t think that it will become the norm, i think that the idea of a woman being able to serve society or the church in a great capacity while having a strong family life at the same time can/should(?) become more normal to many christians.
i like her because she seems to be living out a lifestyle that i want to emulate regarding the integration of my faith and my family. there are specific burdens God has given me. these things are “outside” my family unit. do i need to wait until my kids are grown? can i work on these things now? how does God want me to integrate ministry and family? these are burning questions for me that often don’t get answered (at all or at least satisfactorily) by fundamental christians. so while i know she’s not perfect and sure, there are probably kinks in family life, she intrigues me in that she does seem to be actually living out what she deems important in life. she seems to be finding the balance in the tension of these roles and obligations.
very interesting person and family.
September 10, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Corrie,
What do tampons have to do with Sarah Palin?
September 10, 2008 at 7:49 pm
You know, Sarah Palin really is combining work and family life biblically. Back in biblical times, people’s work and home life were pretty much integrated. They lived where they worked, whether it was in the fields, behind the pottery shop, with the weaving looms in their living space, etc. The sharp separation between work and home (and apportioned by gender is a modern and artificial distinction. Palin is a wonderful role model in this regard, because she shows us that not only can it be done, but it can be done well.
September 10, 2008 at 9:02 pm
You know, Light, that is such an excellent point. The patrios keep trying to make some kind of really stretched distinction with a “woman stays at home”. Sarah Palin has shown how she’s brought her children into her life.
The patrios (especially those in the FIC movement I’ve been in) place a lot of emphasis on having a home business, where The Papa (sung like on Fiddler on the Roof) owns and runs his Corporation, er, I mean family business, incorporating his children into it to run it someday. Why do the patrios strain at the gnat and swallow the camel? If Sarah and Todd Palin owned their own Big Time Corporation (or homeschool publishing company) and made oodles of money, the patrios wouldn’t have a problem with her working the time, loading the orders right alongside her hubby.
But since she has considered a field (the nation) like the Proverbs 31 woman, she still is not accepted by the patrios. Why’s that? Because they esteem their opinion better than they esteem another Christian, who holds the qualifications that they themselves don’t even have.
I’m a little steamed because I just watched a youtube video Lynn linked to that shows just how Voddie Baucham has twisted Scripture to suit his own purposes.
September 10, 2008 at 9:18 pm
And I just had another thought. The fields are white unto harvest. What if Sarah Palin IS using the talent that God gave her (leadership, governing, political power to affect positive change for the culture)? Who can decide whether she’s allowed to pursue that other than her and Todd Palin and God? I’m grieved how the Scriptures are being abused to fit a particular lifestyle of male-dominence instead of Christ-like servanthood to the Body of Christ.
Unlike some of the male “Christian” role models we’ve had for presidential candidates, Sarah Palin isn’t hiding how real her family is. Remember Huckabee? He had a son that did some really bad things, too, and no own seemed to mind that he wasn’t spending enough time with his family, training them up right. He also had many troubling associations like being closely aligned (receiving campain money and a photo shoot) with Gothard; was ATI; signed some agreement with CBMW’s view on “biblical” womanhood of some sort, etc. Oh, he was going to change our nation (with his corny wit), but Sarah Palin is a Jezebel? (my interpretation of their rants). Actually, there was a youtube video of some preacher/pastor who DID believe McCain is the son of Cain and Palin has the spirit of Jezebel. It was sick, and I couldn’t watch any more of it.
September 10, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Who is Margaret Feinberg that was with Dr. Baucham on CNN? She did a good job, he was getting a little hot under the collar. She really stressed the husband loving and giving his life for the wife as Christ loved the church, while he zeroed in on a womans place. I found that interesting.
Lisa
September 10, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I want to understand the twist in the thread here. What do tampons have to do with Saran Palin being VP? I’m trying to understand how these two things tie together.
September 10, 2008 at 10:59 pm
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/political-teams-battle-to-define-palin-in-alaska/
I think we will be hearing more rumors about Palin.
September 10, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Cynthia wrote, “I want to understand the twist in the thread here. What do tampons have to do with Saran Palin being VP? I’m trying to understand how these two things tie together.”
Absolutely nothing, Cynthia. Zero.
It’s just another example of someone trying to stir up trouble for no good reason, taking a post from another group and putting it here, with the express purpose of criticizing others.
That kind of thing makes this site a lot less credible.
I remember coming out of legalism. I remember the feeling of being free in Christ, finally! I left behind the “Gothard/ATI” thinking and began to study the Scriptures. NO more rules. No more lists of things I must do. I began to understand the incredible, amazing grace of God. I began to understand the depth of His love towards us.
So, I do understand how many of the women on this site feel passionate about denouncing legalism. Tyrannical fathers “ruling the roost” are not the godly servants that God requires men to be. Door-mat wives with little or no say about how the children should be raised or the home run are not the model portrayed to us in the Bible.
I have met families like these. If these are the kinds of families you are dead set against, then keep on with your work. Families like these destroy the lives of the children, the wives, and even the husbands.
My caution to you passionate women is that you ought not to paint every family that calls itself “Patriarchal” as one of THOSE. Your sometimes caustic comments serve no purpose. Those who are in the Patriarchal camp won’t listen to you. Those who are not will simply get more of a false view of how a PW family operates. What good is that?
I am part of the group Corrie takes her information from. I am definitely different from the picture painted on this site. I don’t associate only with “like-minded” women…in fact, I love having my thoughts and ideas challenged by people who don’t necessarily think the way I do. Although I believe that women should be modest, for me modesty does not mean the wearing of dresses. Some of my daughters (gasp!) have gone to college. I respect and love my husband, but I do not worship him. We worship God together! We make decisions together. I am rather feisty and out-spoken, and he tends to be quiet and introspective. We do homeschool, but have lots of friends and relatives who don’t. We do not attend a FIC, but we have had our children with us in the service most of the time for many years. That’s because one of the Sunday School teachers spent most of her time talking about the whales and the environment!
What I have found in reading your site is that you have a stereotypical view of what a “Patriarchal Family” looks like, and you have decided that it must be bad. All PFs must be bad.
The truth is, like you, we struggle to pay the bills and to teach the kids and to mend broken relationships and to keep up with politics and to remember to take the dog to the vet. We live out our days with our hearts turned toward God, trying to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
We’re not all bad.
And if we talk about whether or not we would recommend tampons to our young daughters, why make it a subject of derision? It’s a valid question.
And it has nothing to do with Sarah Palin.
September 11, 2008 at 12:30 am
Just a guess here, but there’s also a recent blog entry here concerning patriocentrism. Corrie can speak for herself, but when I read her comment about groups that seem to want ridiculous levels of decisions made for them (the comment that included the documented example of a mother wanting someone to tell her if it is wrong for a girl to use tampons), it seemed to belong to the patriocentrism blog entry, not the Sarah Palin entry. It can be very easy to inadvertently post a comment to another entry instead of its intended one. I once even posted a comment to the wrong BLOG when three were discussing the same issue at the same time! But maybe I’m just scatter-brained.
ISTM that many people right now are super-sensitive about even an imagined criticism of Sarah Palin, perhaps expecting to find one where it’s simply not intended. Maybe even in a comment that would make perfect sense posted to a different entry? (gentle smile)
September 11, 2008 at 6:38 am
FYI: undermuchgrace is Cindy K
I would like to add that, like John Donne states in his famous discourse from “Upon Emergent Devotions” that when we read things on the Patriarch’s Wives list and find them absurd and mention them here, the motivation is not hatred — it is because we hear the toll of the BELL. Donne said that we are not islands unto ourselves but that we are a part of mankind. When one suffers, we all suffer. And we should not send to know for whom the bell tolls when we hear of oppression or confusion or absurdity. We should understand that the bell is not tolling for someone else from whom we are alien and unlike, it is because it tolls for us. We hear the toll, and if we are wise, we understand that we are in many ways that we’d like to acknowledge, completely like the for whom the bell tolls.
So when we hear these things, part of the process which does not readily convey is the deep, disturbing reckoning that this is who we all once were in times past. We know the pain, confusion and embarrassment of what it is like to contend for things that are absurd or false or that amount to spiritual adultery sometimes. That we once worshipped the thoughts of men over the wisdom of God. That we were ignorant of the truth but now more fully recognize that we are accountable.
So it is not hatred for Patriarchal families that motivates us. Far from it. It is grief and deep identification. And if we’ve developed enough self-forgiveness and realized enough self-love in the process, there’s more motivation to speak the truth than there is frustration and deep regret.
September 11, 2008 at 7:34 am
Alright…
In defense of questions about tampons, I heard my own mother on the phone ask a girlfriend this same question when I hit menarche. I recalled her phone conversation when I took maternal health in nursing school, as for some young women, it might not be possible for them to use a tampon, though this is not the norm. Some hymens apparently look much like a sieve, per the various depictions offered in that text. In these more rare cases of an atypical anatomy, it would induce hymen breakage, but it is my professional understanding that young women with the typical anatomy can effectively use tampons without hymen breakage.
As most physicians recommend GYN exams at age 18 for young women, the GYN exam would result in hymen breakage. It would be at the discretion of the physician and the young women if upon an external exam if a full pelvic exam was necessary, inducing hymen breakage if a young woman had an obviously intact hymen that is “more unique” and occlusive. And that brings up another topic as to whether many of these young women ever get physical exams for general health. I know that many mothers do not even take their infants for well-baby exams, as they see them unnecessary if one refuses immunizations (something that I personally find prudent, at least until the immune system has had an opportunity to develop).
So, I think that the question itself is legitimate — whether this product does interfere with the whole process, one that is associated with the rite of passage into sexual activity. What does not surprise me is that this hygiene product is still considered sexual.
Consider also that if one has not been taught much of anything about sexuality, or just the minimum, that this is an issue. And I know that this is a problem, even among Christian school students 25 years ago. I graduated two years after a young man and worked at Pizza Hut with him a few years later. He came to me — he would have been about 22 years old, embarrassed as he could be, and asked where he could learn the first thing about sex. (Alright, it was innocent! No jokes — it was not a pick-up line. The guy was mortified and actually expressed greater associated concerns about feeling like a child under his domineering parents.) My manager asked me soon afterward why I was distressed (apparently dazed and holding my head in my hands). She parented two boys (and I had a great deal of respect for her), so I asked her advice. The three of us all agreed that she could intervene for this young man — a young man well into his adulthood. (What disturbs me about his experience was that he came to me later and expressed how disgusted he was by the female anatomy as he had never even speculated about the “landscape.” I was 17 at the time, and I told him that I could not discuss these matters because of our different genders (etc…). He was really repulsed by the whole idea at that point. I saw him years later and avoided him like the plague — while out with his parents on a Saturday morning and wearing no ring (by then about age 35).
I can’t imagine that things are much different for many young people within homeschooling. My best friend confided in me that she taught nothing to her 20 year-old daughter and her then 18 year old daughter, save that cessation of one’s monthly cycle generally indicated pregnancy as I guess came up in conversation when had many pregnancies. This matter came up when Mom learned that one of them had “discovered” herself by reading what her daughter wrote in her private diary about the experience. These older girls had been given NO information about reproduction at all and were legal adults but still under their parents’ roof. My question to my friend was whether she felt comfortable with her daughters obtaining the simple mechanics at the very least from movies and friends or whether she wanted to explain things in the home under her guidance. She said that she believed that they had no business having that knowledge until marriage. But they had no information at all beyond how to use feminine hygiene. I don’t know that this is so wise either. Any thoughts?
Now that we have our first generation of homeschooled adults who are old enough to parent older children, I’m not surprised that these kinds of things are being questioned. I mean, what frame of reference would people like the young man I went to school with have and any like him who had absolutely no training in anything — even the BASICS of their own anatomy, let alone the nuances of someone else’s?
In that respect, I don’t find these questions to be all that provocative. And given the virtues of childbearing in this camp and having no emotional feelings towards one’s intended under the extremes of courtship, I guess I’m not shocked that a matter of hygiene is considered somewhat sexual. (I have a skewed frame of reference, having been violated as a child.) Also considering the manner in which all things gender related are bestowed with some holy, virtuous modifier and banal things are raised to a level of sacrament in patriarchy, I’m not surprised at this thinking.
I find it absurd, but I am not surprised that people would ask these questions or draw some strange conclusions. It’s just another fruit of the mindset.
September 11, 2008 at 7:58 am
Looking at the Church for Men blog article, I’m even more firmly convinced that John McCain picked Palin for 2 reasons:
1. She’s a lot like him, taking the unpopular stance against corruption.
2. Her views on campaign finance.
Frankly, and I’ve said this elsewhere, this whole campaign has been different because of the laws and the 2 top candidates’ commitments to honorable campaign finance. I think that’s why it keeps wavering back and forth so much between the two, honestly.
We finally have two more fiscally responsible candidates (at least for the campaign aspect), and people like that.
Sarah Palin may or may not be like Reagan, or even like Esther, but I’ve been for the other candidate for a while now, and I’m not likely to change my views until I’m sure that God wants me to do so.
If it’s about republicans vs. democrats, Republicans have run this country for 20 of the last 28 years, and our public relations with the rest of the world have gone down the toilet in that time as well. I don’t know if a democrat can fix that, but I’d sure like to see someone in office who has a better foreign policy than our current president.
Being someone who cares about what happens in the whole world (not to say that others here aren’t), I’m aware of the fact that OUR president plays a major role in the rest of the world, whether for good or for bad. People should be thinking, is McCain/Palin good for the WORLD, not just for America. We are so self-centered as Americans, we forget that there are other people in the world who are just as interested in who our next president is, except they don’t have a say. If we asked the rest of the world who they think we should vote for, I think we’d all be quite shocked at their responses.
That’s my soapbox for the day.
September 11, 2008 at 8:26 am
I have seen the exchange about the tampon usage and had a similar reaction to what Corrie did when she said this:
“The patrios are so used to others doing their thinking for them and that is why they have to ask these questions. When you come out from under the delusive patrio-fog and start actually thinking for your self, these questions are unnecessary.”
My overall impression of the group who was discussing this topic is that, for the most part, the women who post are not thinking for themselves and are encouraged not to do so. In fact, the oft repeated mantra, when information new to them is introduced, is “I will ask my husband” or “you must ask your husband.”
It reminds me of a situation I once experienced in a highly authoritarian church. I was the secretary of the woman’s group and as such often had to be the one to contact the church session via e-mail for permission to do this or that. We had been given specific areas of responsibility, such as planning and executing potlucks. But the pastor’s wife, who was very manipulative, knew she could get anything she wanted from any of us by stating “we need session approval for that.” So I would dutifully write a request to the elders asking for permission to serve sandwiches instead of a hot meal etc. Finally, one of the elders stopped me at church and said “Karen, why do you continually bother the session with approval for all these things? We have given this area of responsibility to you ladies and are fully confident that you can handle it. Please don’t keep taking up our time asking for permission to serve sandwiches etc.” I could have been humiliated but responded “I apologize for taking up your time, but I was instructed by the pastor’s wife that all of these things needed to meet your approval.”
My husband would have the same response as this elder had if I took 90% of the patriarch wives’ issues to him. He purposefully married a woman who can think for herself and who has the discernment to know whether or not something needs to be brought to him or if it doesn’t. I can’t imagine what kind of marriage relationship you would have to have to run to a husband with questions that even an older child wouldn’t need to ask.
The point isn’t about tampons. It is about what patriocentricity looks like in practical terms.
More than anything, what really breaks my heart is when women come to that list and are really struggling and the answers to help them, as a Christian, are so obvious but the responses have to be given within the framework of the paradigm.
Remember the chapter from Passionate Housewives, Desperate for God that talked about moms having personal quiet time? Stacy basically gave moms permission to not see Bible reading or Bible study as a priority. And combined with the notion that the husband is the prophet, priest, and king of the home, the one who has or should find all the Scriptural answers for his wife, a woman basically doesn’t need to study theology, think through Spiritual issues, or even just read the Word of God for herself.
A few months ago Stacy posted pictures from their churches’ presbytery meeting, showing how all the women and children spent their time either cooking or at the park and then she showed a picture of all the men sitting around discussing theology, even stating something to the effect that she loves to see all these men, who are the real thinkers or whatever phrase she used. The message was sent loud and clear that theology is for men and serving is for women.
But Jesus taught something else. He told Mary that she had chosen the better path than Martha had. She had chosen to sit at Jesus’ feet and to learn from him. That “hospitatlity” ie cooking food in that household wasn’t important to Jesus. What was important, for all believers, is to be in God’s Word. But the patriocentrists teach that just the opposite is what is truly biblical for women. It really is a perfect plan because then a woman can be “taught” by people with a skewed view of what family life really ought to entail and if they aren’t to think for t
In 2 John, we see the apostle warning the elect woman that discernment is crucial, not only for herself but for her children and that that discernment only comes through reading the Word of God. The only conclusion I can draw is that they discourage women from studying theology so they won’t become discerning Bereans.
Recently some woman on that list poured her heart out to everyone, talking about her struggles and as she did, she stated that she didn’t have time to read the Bible. That is what jumped off the page to me. Being in the Word is first priority and no one even picked up on that and told her so. And why is that? I think it is because Stacy gave everyone permission to not make it a priority.
The tampon discussion isn’t the issue. The spiritual immaturity and lack of discernment that it represents are, whether it applies to tampons for daughters or voting in this upcoming election.
September 11, 2008 at 8:33 am
Cindy K, have you ever read “Knowing God” by J.I.Packer? I recommend it. Perhaps just because I have recommended it, you’ll avoid it like the plague, because you have assumed I am in some sort of bondage and out to deceive the world.
But, I think if you take the time to read “Knowing God”, you’ll comprehend more deeply the freedom we Christians have.
It’s funny. I have never fasted for days in an attempt to be a better Christian. There’s no such thing, anyway. It’s all of grace.
I do remember, many years ago, feeling the kind of pressure you have felt. There was a Standard Sheet to sign in the church I was attending, and it included no smoking, no drinking, no wearing of pants (for the women!), no missing any of the church meetings, etc. I signed it willingly, because even though it screwed up our family life (we were at church meetings Sunday morning, Sunday afternoon (choir practice), Sunday evening, Tuesday evening(prayer meeting), Thursday evening(choir practice and door to door visitation), and Saturday morning (bus ministry)) I thought that I was “serving the Lord”.
We were never in ATI, but it pained me that my husband would not consider it, because in my naivety I thought it was the ONLY good curriculum and that my children would turn out all wrong. I am thankful now that my hubby stood his ground.
When we came out of that narrow-minded outward focused type of church, a weight lifted. We went to other churches, growing in grace as we learned more of what the Lord was teaching through His word. But it was only in the past ten years that I understood the magnitude of the grace of God.
Sorry to disappoint you, Cindy, but I am still a member of PW, and I find that many of the women there are lovely ladies who desire to follow God, even as you do. They are on a journey, learning as they go. They don’t profess to be perfect, and they are, for the most part, “real” about their failures and trials. They extend grace to one another, pray for one another, and love God, their husbands and their families. They don’t all agree with one another on every jot and tittle, but neither do the ladies on this forum. You’d have to be Stepford Wives to do that.
I do hope you’ll get yourself a copy of “Knowing God” by J.I.Packer. It’ll lift your spirits and encourage you tremendously.
September 11, 2008 at 8:36 am
I’m not sure when Vision Forum posted their latest on Palin, but the “fearful of contamination” Kevin Swanson says of Palin’s daughter that at least we know that she’s not a lesbian.
I shudder to think what he will be faced with in 20 years. God often shoves what we desire most down into our bellies until it comes out of our nostrils. Why not pray something like this? “Lord, but for grace, my daughters could very well go the way of Palin’s young daughter. Praise You that both mother and daughter chose life for their little ones even though we may disagree on so many other things. Though I don’t agree that a woman should hold any office other than that of wife and mother, I praise You that we at least have fellowship under the Blood of the Lamb, in the fellowship of Your Dear Son.”
But no. Sarah Palin is repugnant trash, and they are so much holier by the works of their own and “God’s providence.” God forbid they contaminate themselves.
The black and white thinking that they demonstrate should not amaze me, but the idealist and the love in me that believes all things never fully comprehends the depths of their pious cold heartedness. We are altogether antinomians that they esteem as those who have no regard for the Word of God, while they continue to have no regard for the fellowship that is in Christ among believers.
And people like us get accused of painting patriarchal families with broad brushes? The fact is that on the outside of things and by most functional observances, we don’t differ a much from the patriarchalists.
At the bottom of the list, they note this:
Bret McAtee: “While Christians must continue to insist that it is against Scripture to vote for a female magistrate as our political covenant head, we must at the same time insist that Palin is right about many of the issues on which she has taken stands.”
Our “political covenant head”???????
When did America become a theocracy? I missed that on the news. This is a republic that operates using a democratic process. Our founding fathers provided that our country was not and would not be a theocracy but would provide religious freedom for all.
This perversion of “federal headship” is sick and obscene. All it defined was that Adam represented all men when sin entered the world. That’s all the doctrine meant. But I wonder how many of these supposed experts would get up to tell me that I was an antinomian for rejecting twisted Calvinism over what is clearly taught in the Word? By one man, sin entered the world. And by my relationship to that man, all I get is sin and death. So Christ provided a better way through the New Covenant wherein I become a new creation in Christ with no more forensic relationship to Adam as I am set free from the law of the sin and death. I am made alive through the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
Let them have Adam. Let them choose sin and death. I choose the life in the liberty of Christ Jesus who abolished my relationship to my old and former pedagogue, the law.
September 11, 2008 at 8:38 am
Actually, Abby, earlier this week I read an article that talked about that very thing and it stated that over 80% of people who weren’t American citizens who were polled believe Obama is better for the world. To me, that is a huge warning against Obama.
I think one truth we tend to overlook in election year is that presidential policies often aren’t able to be properly evaluated until decades into the future. I am old enough to remember Nixon and Kissinger and their foreign policy in regard to China. At the time, there were many people who were not happy about Nixon going to China and it looked to them like he was “courting” them rather than being tough with them. Now, in restrospect, I can see why he approached them in the way that he did. He was trying to introduce Western culture to them, trying to entice them with our ways and in many regards it has been quite effective. The more the Chinese people learn of the West, the more they want of it.
I believe that we have yet to see all of the good that came out of the years that Reagan was in office and I still think that George W. may go down in history as a great president. It is too early to tell.
September 11, 2008 at 8:49 am
Here is the stunning quote from Kevin Swanson:
“Cool the Euphoria a Bit, James Dobson! Gary Bauer! Matt Staver!
Conservatives wasted no time rushing to endorse the McCain-Palin ticket on the veep announcement last week.
But those of us in the Western Civ. Decline Observation Room out on the eastern plains of Colorado are still having a hard time whipping up enthusiasm over who gets to preside over the demise of the nation.
And here’s why. . .
We’re just not quite sure a feminist governor from Alaska with a year’s experience in governance (not to mention her 17-year-old daughter pregnant out of wedlock doing her part to contribute to the further demise of the family), working for John McCain will do any more than GWB did to salvage the economy, halt the growth of government, repair the family, and quiet the Sodomites beating down our doors. Call it a breach in confidence. Oh well. At least her daughter wasn’t a lesbian.” from his blog on September 2, 2008.
Where is the mercy and grace in that statement? It is rhetoric like this that makes me shudder at the thought of any of those men ever holding public office or even being the pastor of a church anywhere. Can you imagine?
September 11, 2008 at 8:51 am
I do hope you’ll get yourself a copy of “Knowing God” by J.I.Packer. It’ll lift your spirits and encourage you tremendously.
This is amazing.
I have read Packer. What I don’t understand is why the simplicity of the Word of God is not sufficient? If I read it again, I’ll understand the mysteries of patriarchy that I could not comprehend before? I seriously doubt it. Why Packer over the Westminster Confession or someone else? Because I would hate him? I would understand the freedom “we Christians have.” Does that mean that I am not a Christian, once packing Packer myself? I must truly be a lost cause, having once has knowledge of the truth and turning from it? Is that your point?
What I did do was study the original Greek of the Old Testament. That I highly recommend over anyone’s writings. It was in so doing that I found the liberty to throw off the traditions of men. The better starting point is the New Testament — just you and Jesus alone under the instruction of the Holy Spirit. NO books of men. Just the simplicity of the Gospel.
As I’ve said many times in many forums, I do not question the earnest of those who follow patriarchy, and I’m sorry if you hear that in what I’ve written.
September 11, 2008 at 8:53 am
Also, Doug is quoting Scott Brown who is claiming that Sarah Palin is “building the kingdom of another man not her husband.”
Again, I would like to know how the women who work for Doug Phillips, whether it is the women who take phone orders, the ones who work in the warehouse at VF, or Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald who write and promote books for him, are any different when their feet do not abide in their own homes and they increase Doug’s wealth?
We will listen to their arguments when they stop the hypocrisy.
September 11, 2008 at 8:55 am
Cindy, I have shared this many times before, but the one thing that really opened my eyes to the abuses of the patriocentric movement was reading the Gospels and the book of Acts and comparing how Jesus lived and loved in comparison to those within the paradigm. It was stunning.
September 11, 2008 at 9:03 am
“What I have found in reading your site is that you have a stereotypical view of what a “Patriarchal Family” looks like, and you have decided that it must be bad. All PFs must be bad.”
Frankly, I study what they teach. It is not of Christ.
“Cindy K, have you ever read “Knowing God” by J.I.Packer? I recommend it. Perhaps just because I have recommended it, you’ll avoid it like the plague, because you have assumed I am in some sort of bondage and out to deceive the world.”
I know someone who has known the Packers for years and even attended church with them for a while. Did you know that Packer’s wife no longer attends church with him? Reason? She is an egalitarian. Packer isn’t.
I agree with you on the book. It was very good. But the Bible is better.
)
September 11, 2008 at 9:08 am
2 Cor 11:
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
>>>
Who am I to put more trust in? The Word of God (the only pure, trustworthy source and cornerstone that we have in our faith) under the guidance, direction and conviction of the Holy Spirit with the counsel of sound hermeneutics or the writings of men?
September 11, 2008 at 9:18 am
Actually, Cynthia, I think that the whole tampon issue is nothing new. Like Cindy K’s mother, my Mom was worried that tampons might “hurt me inside”, but a quick read-up on female anatomy assuaged her concerns.
Also, as I believe Cindy K pointed out, the HPs tend to sexualize a lot of things that ought not be sexualized at all.
They have chosen to ignore 2000 years of Christian tradition and have devised their own alternate religion, one which sexualizes a whole lot of things that genuine, orthodox Christianity does not.
This, coupled with an distrust of biology and most things scientific, just naturally predisposes them to all sorts of aberrant thinking, as reflected in views which display a sometimes breathtaking degree of sheer, willful ignorance.
September 11, 2008 at 9:20 am
“I agree with you on the book. It was very good. But the Bible is better.”
Yep. For sure. No doubt about that.
Why do you think I said that I put more trust in the writings of men than I do in the Word of God?
I only recommended the book to encourage Cindy in her fleeing legalism and running to Christ.
You see, you’ve proved my point. You don’t see me as a fellow pilgrim on a journey to our heavenly home, but as an enemy that needs to be corrected.
And Cindy, the “we” as in “we Christians” was inclusive.
September 11, 2008 at 9:26 am
The only enemy is the traditions of men. I have not called anyone an enemy. I asked if I was being called one since I apparently am esteemed as one who lacks understanding, hence the recommendation of the book. I asked a question because I did not know.
I didn’t know that there was a point to be proven. I asked if I was being excluded from the “we Christians” classification.
So I should not even ask if I don’t understand? That proves me guilty of making assumtions, after folks like Doug Phillips have called people like me a Canaanite?
September 11, 2008 at 9:27 am
Cindy, I agree with you totally. You know we have had this conversation before here but just to reiterate: Books are fine if we have really immersed ourselves into scripture first. We cannot discern the deception that may lurk in many christian books unless we know the real thing. Even one paragraph of false teaching can lead someone astray horribly. (A little leaven) But what concerned me even more was that I was in a position to meet some of the authors in my work and I eventually saw that this was a ‘business’ to them. Selling books. I also saw other things that made me think twice on getting advice or teaching only from humans. So, it may not be the teaching that is wrong but the author may not practice what they teach as well. We would do well not to promote such things.
Christians have become a very profitable ‘market’. We read everything BUT the Bible! I used to be very guilty of this until I became convicted over it and realized I was following the teachings of men not to mention making them richer. I packed up 20 crates of such books and never looked back. Now, I am very selective on what I read in the way of teaching books. But my main concern is that I know scripture and even then I check every single thing that is taught to me by books and sermons. We must be Bereans.
(Can anyone imagine Paul selling his teaching on papyrus for profit?)
September 11, 2008 at 9:32 am
We cannot discern the deception that may lurk in many christian books unless we know the real thing.
Lin, this is such a crucial point, and it is a failing of which I myself am guilty.
Did you know that when they are teaching U.S. Treasury agents how to spot counterfeit bills, they do not start by showing them conterfeit bills. Instead, they study real currency for a very long time and learn everything they can about the real thing. Then, and only then, do they move on to looking at counterfeit bills and with that foundation, it is much easier to spot the fakes.
September 11, 2008 at 9:35 am
“I only recommended the book to encourage Cindy in her fleeing legalism and running to Christ.”
You probably have not read here long and did not read her comment as in past tense? Cindy was talking about long ago. I can assure you she is not longer under that bondage.
“You see, you’ve proved my point. You don’t see me as a fellow pilgrim on a journey to our heavenly home, but as an enemy that needs to be corrected.”
What do you call this that you originally wrote about Cindy:
“Perhaps just because I have recommended it, you’ll avoid it like the plague, because you have assumed I am in some sort of bondage and out to deceive the world.”
Kind of hard to think of you as a fellow pilgrim after that. Why would you think this about her without even knowing her?
BTW: If you are in Patriarchy, you are in bondage. You may not realize that, but that is ok. Many here did not either.
September 11, 2008 at 9:35 am
I’m still confused here. How is that I weep in writing a prayer that I am content to glean crumbs like a dog under the table, yet I am calling the same whom I have blessed an enemy?
Who here seeks antagonism? Who came here saying “us and them” while I am saying we are all part of one another and not vastly different at all? But in that same post talk of the traditions of men getting woven into the Word. Yet I respond with the same message again, and I am drawing lines between enemies?
I still pray that all will be trees of righteousness that the Lord may be glorified and that those who disagree with me on interpretations of things would still be given a double portion of God’s goodness and bounty. And if that makes me an enemy, so be it.
September 11, 2008 at 9:43 am
“Also, Doug is quoting Scott Brown who is claiming that Sarah Palin is “building the kingdom of another man not her husband.””
Sarah Palin aside, aren’t we ALL supposed to be building the same Kingdom? What does it matter if a woman builds “the kingdom of another man not her husband” as long as both her husband and her boss are working for the same King?
Husbands and bosses and earthly kings all have spheres of authority under God, and it is right to render appropriate service to all three.
The problem arises when you begin view ANY earthly authority as an EXCLUSIVE “king” (by saying, for example, that you cannot “serve” both a husband and a boss), or that a woman should recognise no other authority but her husband, because when you make any earthly authority exclusive you have placed it in direct competition with Jesus, Who alone has claim to exclusivity.
The person who does this had better “serve” neither husband nor boss nor civil magistrate, because God has will not tolerate competition — there is no exclusive King but Jesus, and the realms of influence of all Christian authorities, including Christian husbands and bosses, are divisions of HIS Kingdom.
September 11, 2008 at 9:50 am
Light,
Walter Martin mentions that very thing in this really beautiful audio where he also says that if we focus on these intramural doctrines, we will never have the love for one another in Christ. And we wont be effective evangelists.
http://www.spiritwatch.org/cultrise79.ram
Ah, but there’s the rub. Those in this patriarchy movement have said we are not Christ’s own for rejecting the man-centered focus of the movement. It’s not the study of the Word or love for family but the centrality and idolatry of men (something that differs profoundly from the worship of women). And actually, I never got caught up in the outward expressions in my group but was wrestling with the teachings themselves.
So I guess that people in the patriarchy movement can cry that we are the “those” and the “fringe” that people like me are accused of steriotyping them with (who use the same language, preach the same doctrines and follow many of the same practices??). I reject the basic premises and tenets far more than I do the actual outward expression of the lifestyle. It seems to me much like children crying “nah, nah, nah” on the playground. There really is no response to that as it is not really an argument. You cannot disprove a universal negative. I guess I lack the intellectual sophistication to identify ducks from that which walks, looks like and sounds like a duck. And they are an active participant on the duck list, run by the duck who is published by a duck who called us all Canaanites and some sort of bovine something or other, sacred cows that should be roasted or whatever it was that was just plain outrageous. Sorry if I got that all confused. Someone’s going to have to come up with some different terminology and identifiers then, so that we can tell the ducks from the other creatures that look, sound and act like ducks. Because its all too sophisticated for me to discern.
September 11, 2008 at 10:01 am
Oh, I did not mention…
gpmm,
I am blessed to know that we do agree that the Bible is central and ranks above all others, as you responded with “Yep and “sure do.” From there will flow our unity — from that agreement.
It’s also hard to discern just what one means when a panacea book is recommended other than the Word of God, after one is given a big, red Gothard book and told that all the solutions that are found in the Word of God are more clearly explained therin for simple minds who cannot comprehend and cannot handle Christian liberty. You come from a group that is well-known to pound people over the head with such extra-Biblical writings, so I am pretty sensitive to that kind of thing. How can one know, from one who has claimed that my group has looked from afar and made personal judgements about others as the ducks have, whether the person who comes along and presents a book as a panacea that will clear away the cobwebs is not also behaving in the same manner as those who preceded them?
It’s tough to discern. So I asked. And if I tromped on your compassion for me by responding to the familiar and the duck-ness, I apologize.
September 11, 2008 at 10:03 am
“You see, you’ve proved my point. You don’t see me as a fellow pilgrim on a journey to our heavenly home, but as an enemy that needs to be corrected.”
Gpmm, certainly most here would see Patrios as needing “correction” (or more gently put, guidance out of error), but that ought to show you that no one here views them as an “enemy”. The only enemy is Satan, and the things he promotes.
People are fellow human beings deserving of love and help, though sometimes that help takes the form of refuting unBiblical viewpoints, correcting wrong thinking, and, in the case of some of the Patrio movement’s leaders, hearty condemnation of outright lies and hypocrisy.
September 11, 2008 at 10:10 am
““Also, Doug is quoting Scott Brown who is claiming that Sarah Palin is “building the kingdom of another man not her husband.””
Sarah Palin aside, aren’t we ALL supposed to be building the same Kingdom? What does it matter if a woman builds “the kingdom of another man not her husband” as long as both her husband and her boss are working for the same King?”
Cynthia,
Exactly. I am convinced that these people do not read their Bibles. I am studying my way through the book of John and doing so in depth and inductively and this assertion by Scott Brown cannot be farther from the truth.
Where, in Scripture, are women called to build the kingdom of their husbands? And where, in Scripture, does it tell husbands that they are to be building their own individual kingdoms?
It is all about Jesus. To live is Christ and to die is gain.
September 11, 2008 at 10:22 am
“Here is the stunning quote from Kevin Swanson:
“Cool the Euphoria a Bit, James Dobson! Gary Bauer! Matt Staver!”
Karen,
Swanson is telling someone else to “cool the ephoria”???? ROFLOL
Now that is funny!
I mean, this is the man who said that all working women wear pin striped suits and sell their flesh cheaply to their male co-workers in seedy hotel rooms.
Come on. Cool it is right!
You are correct that the man lacks grace. He blusters about and makes the most ridiculous assertions and no one calls him on it.
He reminds me, still, of Martin Short’s “Jiminy Glick” character. Honestly, listening to Swanson is like listening to a caricature.
GPMM,
“Cynthia wrote, “I want to understand the twist in the thread here. What do tampons have to do with Saran Palin being VP? I’m trying to understand how these two things tie together.”
Absolutely nothing, Cynthia. Zero.
It’s just another example of someone trying to stir up trouble for no good reason, taking a post from another group and putting it here, with the express purpose of criticizing others.
That kind of thing makes this site a lot less credible.”
Oh, give me a break. Talk about losing credibility. I posted it on the wrong thread. It should have gone on the other thread.
It perfectly illustrates how patriocentricity removes the ability to think rationally and to be reasonable and it shows their obsession with sexuality.
September 11, 2008 at 10:28 am
Psalmist,
re #235
Thank you! This was what happened and Karen or one of the other mods are free to move my post to where I thought I was putting it.
September 11, 2008 at 10:32 am
GPMM,
“What I have found in reading your site is that you have a stereotypical view of what a “Patriarchal Family” looks like, and you have decided that it must be bad. All PFs must be bad.
The truth is, like you, we struggle to pay the bills and to teach the kids and to mend broken relationships and to keep up with politics and to remember to take the dog to the vet.”
Some of the patrios struggle with paying the bills while some other patrios are happily taking your money for the products they cleverly market so that they can go live a very comfortable lifestyle and go on extended trips with their large families (it is EXPENSIVE to travel with a bunch of kids).
When it all boils down, I believe that most of this is based on money and keeping the flow of cash flowing.
September 11, 2008 at 10:34 am
Cynthia (not “K” or “Gee”),
To answer your question, tampons has nothing to do with Palin.
September 11, 2008 at 10:51 am
“To answer your question, tampons has nothing to do with Palin. ”
It might. We just don’t know.
)
September 11, 2008 at 10:56 am
“Exactly. I am convinced that these people do not read their Bibles. I am studying my way through the book of John and doing so in depth and inductively and this assertion by Scott Brown cannot be farther from the truth.”
So very very true. As a matter of fact, scripture teaches us we are to seek FIRST the Kingdom of God and then other things are given to us….such as wisdom, dealing with family issues, etc. And this passage includes all genders. There is not asterisk telling us it does not apply to married women.
Seeking HIM is first. Not pleasing the husband. That should be an outcome of seeking the Kingdom of God first!
They actually teach the opposite of what scripture teaches. That is why I find them so very scary.
September 11, 2008 at 10:57 am
Lipstick and tampons have a lot in common. Women use them, they carry them in their bags (the ones like the kinists speculate that Cynthia Gee and I carry), and they are exclusively feminine items unless you play a sport that causes nosebleeds.
ROFLOL!
September 11, 2008 at 11:00 am
Lipstick is good for a nosebleed?
September 11, 2008 at 11:08 am
LOL.
No silly, only the tampons. Maybe you could shove lipstick up your nose in a pinch?
Actually, you should put pressure between your nose and upper lip in the center, or roll up a small wad of tissue and tuck against the web between your upper gum and lip to achieve a similar effect.
September 11, 2008 at 11:09 am
You know, Cindy, we seem to be getting a lot of Cynthias around here.
There’s you, there’s me, there’s the other Cynthia, and I think there was another “Cindy” who posted on TW a couple of times.
(And BTW, the “CJ” who was posting last week over at the Bayly Blog wasn’t me, as much as I’d like to be able to take credit for some of her comments there.)
September 11, 2008 at 11:12 am
Tampons up your nose? Now that IS an odd idea, but if a boxer or a football player got a nosebleed, I see how it might work. I wonder if they prefer slender, regular, or supermax size…
September 11, 2008 at 11:13 am
I decided to look up that thread on the PW board, as I am a member.
Cindy K wrote:
I find it absurd, but I am not surprised that people would ask these questions or draw some strange conclusions. It’s just another fruit of the mindset.
Cindy this particular question on that particular board did not draw any strange conclusions at all. There was one woman who said she wouldn’t use them and didn’t want her girls using them, but it wasn’t in a judgmental way, or an agreement with the first questioner’s friend. As far as I read, which was a few of the digests, there was nothing amiss or weird in the responses.
Karen wrote:
My overall impression of the group who was discussing this topic is that, for the most part, the women who post are not thinking for themselves and are encouraged not to do so. In fact, the oft repeated mantra, when information new to them is introduced, is “I will ask my husband” or “you must ask your husband.”
I have seen this response, too, but not w/respect to this subject raised.
A lady who apparently had a friend not part of the PW group said her friend told her these things about tampons, and all she asked was this:
What are the thoughts on this? (Not an actual quote, but identical meaning to what she did say.)
The following quotes are slightly altered to delete words or correct misspellings or to replace nouns with pronouns or synonyms, so these are not true quotations from the PW list, but it is an accurate representation of the content of the overwhelming majority opinion who responded. I am not placing quotation marks, because these aren’t quotes, but they are extremely close to it, and match the main idea being said by each responder:
Well, I never thought of it . . .. . . . I don’t see how wearing them is going to cause you to desire [word].
I don’t think it would introduce any ideas like that unless you brought them
up to them.
My thought is that is silly.
I don’t get the way your friend thinks.
How would this introduce interest in [words]? I
used them as a teen . . .
Since she asked this, if I were there I’d ask her on what basis she’s
thinking this might happen.
Other activities can actually break it such as bike riding, horseback riding, or gymnastics.
I liked them and used them . . ..
I have just allowed my [number] yr old to wear them this past summer while [activity]. I was allowed to wear them when I was a younger, and I remember how much [they] helped me.
So what I gathered was a woman on the PW board had a friend who said these things to her, and she just wanted a sanity check, and she got it.
That, and other opinions that cloth protection is healthier, but the general reaction was the person’s friend was being a little weird.
September 11, 2008 at 11:14 am
Well, considering how concerned about their masculinity they all are, take a guess.
September 11, 2008 at 11:14 am
GPMM,
What does “Knowing God” by JI Packer have to do with Sarah Palin? What does counseling Cindy K have to do with Sarah Palin? I won’t assume you are just here to stir up trouble for no good reason or just here to criticize Cindy and others.
The fact is, I have discussed Sarah Palin and you haven’t bothered to give feedback about the Sarah Palin issue and you are on the Sarah Palin thread.
What I hope is that patriocentrists start actually reading their Bibles and stop reading what other people say the Bible says. It is high time we start giving God the glory that He deserves and stop worshipping men.
September 11, 2008 at 11:16 am
And, to be honest, Lynn, there were a couple people who WERE concerned about arousing the sexual nature of daughters and for that reason had chosen to not use them.
My first thought, as I read, is as I said before. There is a lacking of discernment that makes someone ask that sort of question because they are trained to NOT study Scripture for themselves.
September 11, 2008 at 11:18 am
So…are you who are regulars on TW also lurkers on PW? What is your purpose in hanging out there?
September 11, 2008 at 11:25 am
Lynn,
Whoever the people are who forward me the PW list from time to time did not send this one on to me. I thought that I was offering examples from my own life that demonstrated that these questions are not all that odd, using examples of people that could not be more close to me. I saw what I wrote as actually supporting if not defending those who asked the questions. How do we know things if we don’t ask questions?
I’m was responding to what was written here, though I have heard this topic discussed many times in Christian circles, and people have drawn odd conclusions.
So am I now guilty of accusing this particular group of drawing odd conclusions?
If I were going to do that and had that purpose in mind, I would have exploited those who photograph their placentas, noting that the grandfather wanted to know how robust it was, so they photograph it to satisfy his curiosity and concern.
September 11, 2008 at 11:27 am
So am I now guilty of accusing this particular group of drawing odd conclusions?
I meant to put “LOL” after that!
September 11, 2008 at 11:30 am
Karen, my point is this woman had never heard of the idea, some woman not on the PW put this idea in her mind, she asked the question, and the majority of the patriarchal women thought and responded for themselves on the subject and thought it was weird.
Like CJ,I don’t get why this was brought up in this thread about Sarah Palin as an example of patriachal group thinking, especially when most of the patriarchal women thought the idea was weird and had their own ideas on the matter.
I saw Corrie’s comment, and said, “Well that’s coming out of left field, did Sarah say anything about tampons?”
We don’t even know if the PW list person’s friend was a in a patriarchal setting where she got those ideas she passed on to her friend, but most of the PW ladies thought the idea, and the teaching, was weird, and said so.
Also, it wasn’t really a concern that the membrane would break if they used them — it was just acknowledged as such — by the vast majority of the responders, some of whom said there are other activities which could to the same thing. There may have been some exceptions, as I only read three of the digests which contained this thread, and the thread was dying out, so I didn’t hunt for all the replies. What I caught was when the thread was active, and one later response.
September 11, 2008 at 11:34 am
So am I now guilty of accusing this particular group of drawing odd conclusions?
What?
Oh, you forgot the smiley.
September 11, 2008 at 11:40 am
About lurking on the PW list.
I have an old Yahoo ID that I signed up on there years ago, and also joined with the Yahoo ID I regularly use.
I quit my regular ID on that group (I have three active Yahoo IDs), but never got around to unsubbing with the other one.
This is probably the first time I’d looked at the digest in months.
I will say something about it, though.
Any patriarchal person who complains about thread lengths on this forum is like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. If I followed that forum faithfully, I would not be able to do much else on the internet because it’s so active. There are often many, many digests coming through in just one day.
But I usually just delete them from time to time.
September 11, 2008 at 11:56 am
“So…are you who are regulars on TW also lurkers on PW? What is your purpose in hanging out there?”
Cynthia,
You go first, what is your purpose of hanging out here?
September 11, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“I saw Corrie’s comment, and said, “Well that’s coming out of left field, did Sarah say anything about tampons?””
Lynn,
I already explained this. I posted on the wrong thread. It happens all the time. I have been extremely busy plus I believe that anyone can understand what it is like trying to get things straight when you have a lot of kids underfoot all the time. I haven’t been posting much, either, but judging from this thread, people have been talking about a lot of things that have nothing to do with Sarah Palin.
It was a mistake. I am not sure why this is so hard to understand?
I am glad that you highlighted the comments from the PW list.
As for your comments, my concern was about the trend of young patrio women not to think for themselves and to think there is a special patrio-think for every question in life. I remember putting thinking for myself on the back burner.
It is like the woman on the PW list who once asked what she should think about during sex. Huh?
To me, the question was illustrative of how following this paradigm causes one to ponder some of the oddest things that one would never ponder if they were out from under the toxic smog of “group think”.
I could go on and on. The face slapping discussion where I was told I can’t judge what tools other parents use on their children. The discussion about how a woman can’t be aroused by the sight of a sexy man because that is a feminist invention and they want women to think they are just like men so they make them believe that a woman can be aroused by the sight of a man. I guess women, like me, who have seen a good looking man and liked what we saw are just freaks of nature or the inventions of the feminist machine.
We can be aroused by everything but the obvious. Weird.
September 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Hi Karen, your comment #243 I think left me a little confused. I know this post was supposed to be about Sarah Palin, and I’m going off a rabbit trail–one that is closer to the subject than the tampon discussion, I might add, but still a rabbit trail.
Could you possibly expound on how Obama’s being good for the world is actually a bad thing?
You could come over to my blog and comment if you’d prefer. I’m not trying to be argumentative, just asking how that works, exactly?
September 11, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Corrie, since the question was posed to TW readers first, the logical thing for you to do is answer it. I sincerely wonder why people on this group lurk in another group and then bring the information here to disseminate. It’s just a question…can anyone answer?
September 11, 2008 at 12:19 pm
#284–what are you supposed to think about during sex? Baking cookies? Baseball? How about your husband?
Do people really need someone to hold their hand through every small detail in their lives? This terrifies me!
September 11, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Cynthia, It is perfectly fine to to talk about ideas going on on another email list.
Nobody took direct quotes. I admit I came very close, but that was to show the nature of responses.
September 11, 2008 at 12:28 pm
It may be fine to talk about ideas going on in other lists, but my question is why do TW members lurk on other sites? Do you participate on those sites or just read/watch?
September 11, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Additionally, in thinking further about this, I’m wondering why you would join a group like PW. If you’re against their teachings and have come out of that lifestyle and those beliefs, why did you join?
September 11, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Additionally, in thinking further about this, I’m wondering why you would join a group like PW. If you’re against their teachings and have come out of that lifestyle and those beliefs, why did you join?
For the exact, same reason you are over here right now, Cynthia. And that is about all the more you will get from me.
September 11, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Abby, the point I was trying to make is that sometimes, what those outside of the US think is good for them or for the entire world actually isn’t and especially isn’t for the US. I would imagine that, for example, those who are supportive of terrorist activity, for example, might really be alarmed at someone like McCain who would take a hard stand against terrorism. Those who want to see us pull out of Iraq may think that this is a good thing but at this point it might not be. (for the record, I think we should have had a better exit strategy than we did when we went in.) Those who think we shouldn’t explore drilling for oil in Alaska or off shore because they think it will damage the world environment might not see the importance for the US for doing so. (Just an aside here, but many people don’t realize the efforts power companies are making to develop ways to clean US coal so it can be burned for electricity. The envrrnemental extremists have made it nearly impossible to burn the majority of coal that is mined in the US and have imposed standards that haven’t necessarily been proven to be legitimate concerns.) And,most importantly, Obama’s outrageous anti-life beliefs have far-reaching effects on world population and thus both the physical and emotional make-up of world population in future decades. Just a few things off the top of my head.
September 11, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Cynthia, the reason that many of us discuss these things here is that most of us would be or are banned from even asking legitimate questions or making comments on the patrio blogs.
September 11, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Thatmom, you’re kidding? They actually told you that you can’t post there (on Stacy’s PW list?) Did she write and tell you that you can’t post?
September 11, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Lynn,
I’m sorry, but this is a bit unclear. Do you know the exact reason I am at TW right now?
September 11, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Cynthia,
I don’t lurk on the Pat Wives list. Sometimes, I get the list from two anonymous people whom I don’t know. Sometimes I get why they’re sending it to me, and sometimes I don’t.
I know that every few months since I started participating here about a year ago, Stacy will make some nasty reference to Karen online on her blog, or James on his. A few months ago, Stacy just outright lied about Karen, and the evidence to the contrary was on the Patriarchs Wives list. Then we were accused of lying about her activities concerning the Sisters in Christ Yahoo list and deleted the archives. The testimony of the person who she deceived and the owner of that list posted here in testimony of the event. So in those instances, information was provided from that list to demonstrate Stacy’s own lies online. Had those old archives not been corrupted, there would have been plenty more to post and more lies revealed. But those archives are gone, though some had private communications that they kept about this matter.
I think what people forward to me is meant as examples of the patriocentric mindset, such as Corrie describes above in her latest comment. There is a profound lack of discernment in many cases — in many but not all. Often, it isn’t a matter of asking questions for information but of the whole idea that people within this rigid system must get information about what they are permitted to think. Many of these examples demonstrate how flat people’s critical thinking skills become as a result of being treated like someone who cannot discern anything for themselves.
I don’t know why this example popped into my head, but I thought of the talk around my church concerning Christmas trees. When we started attending our Gothard-influenced church, this was the big, off-topic question. There was this weird mystique about it. But years ago there were those there who taught against the celebration, particularly decorating. People found my response to be very provocative because I said that I didn’t really care about what they thought. The celebration was a part of my own tradition and I glorified God in it and expressed my joy for the birth of Jesus. And that was shocking to some people who were trained to do only what they saw key others who modelled correct behavior or elders or the pastor do and would never dream of doing otherwise.
So some of these things speak of how culturally irrelevant some of the aspects of the patriarchy movement really are. Sometimes it demonstrates the complete and total lack of boundaries within the movement. Or imprecatory prayers or whatever other questionable things come up.
I received one digest the other week that talked about how some were against women’s Bible studies because it competed with the leadership of one’s husband. That kind of thing is very telling about this group.
September 11, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“Do you know the exact reason I am at TW right now?”
Cynthia, I don’t know why you are here but I am quite happy to have you! Seriously, I would love honest dialogue and discussion with you. I KNOW that you and I have more in common than we don’t have. I know I have more in common with Stacy and most of the women on the PW list than I don’t have. But my problem is that I was labeled as a white washed feminist as were others for those very few differences we do have. If you came into my home, I am certain that you would feel welcome and we would have a great time of fellowship. I think we probably share many of the same interests and even books that we read. What is the most troubling,honestly it is, is that the very things that have made me a white washed feminist are overlooked and ignored by the PW ladies in their favorite role models and icons of femininity. Could you explain that to me? When I see that, it is hard to take them seriously and to not be offended by it.
September 11, 2008 at 12:54 pm
oops, that is me, Karen, posting in #297.
September 11, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“No silly, only the tampons. Maybe you could shove lipstick up your nose in a pinch?”
Oh my goodness gracious!
I’ve been running around with sick in-laws and able to pop in just a bit.
What HAVE I been missing Here!?
Better than Carlin, Cindy.
September 11, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Karen, you said you “would be or are banned” from posting on certain lists, but then you explained it as though it happened once and you are presuming you can’t post again. It seems quite a leap to me to say such a thing based on one experience.
I am not trying to be argumentative. Truly, I am not. But it’s baffling how this site makes broad and sweeping claims that they want to free those in bondage, seek God’s kingdom first, and share the true biblical message with women. If that’s the goal, I am scratching my head how it’s going to be achieved by your gossipy image and your lack of love for your brethren.
September 11, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I’m sorry, but this is a bit unclear. Do you know the exact reason I am at TW right now?
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
I meant to clearly imply these questions are none of your business; I have the freedom to join in and participate in on whatever groups will allow me, and I’m not going to answer your DA style interrogation any more.
Is that clearer?
September 11, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Lynn,
Very clear. Obviously the question struck a nerve with you and perhaps exposed something?
September 11, 2008 at 1:18 pm
“I understand that you feel strongly against patriarchy but to engage in ad hominem attack against those who live that life style is very unbecoming.”
name one
September 11, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“I’m utterly shocked at all of the gossip being disseminated here.”
This is code speak. It means, don’t tell the truth about our leaders. And please stay away from facts.
September 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm
>>cynthia Says: So…are you who are regulars on TW also lurkers on PW? What is your purpose in hanging out there?<<
Some of us are basically lurkers on the PW list because we have family members who are on the edge of patriarchy and we want to have a better understanding of where they are coming from. While I disagree with the majority of what is said on that group and I am not a Patriarchial Wife I have learned some things from them. It is also a good place to pick up interesting information you won’t find elsewhere.
September 11, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Very clear. Obviously the question struck a nerve with you and perhaps exposed something?
Very clear. Obviously the question struck a nerve with you and perhaps exposed something?
Oh, yes. I definitely feel a new and deep tingly feeling that I’ve never felt before.
It’s hard to describe.
I’m listening to Rush Limbaugh, too, now, though, so I can’t determine if the feelings are due to hearing him talk about Obama, or from your profound and incisive questions, “Cynthia.”
September 11, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Mom of 4,
I can validate Corrie’s claim that someone did, indeed, ask the PWives what she should think about during sex.
As far as believing that we are making these things up or that discussing false doctrine is gossip, I would like to refer you to this blog article where I have previously addressed this.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/slander-libel-and-gossip-oh-my-understanding-the-difference-between-matthew-1815-and-galatians-2/
By the way, do I know you personally or are you aware that you are my “neighbor” according to your IP address? Maybe you and I ought to get together in person and chat about your concerns. I am quite open to that.
September 11, 2008 at 1:30 pm
You see, you are having such an effect on me, “Cynthia,” that I posted your quote twice.
WOW!
September 11, 2008 at 1:30 pm
RE: message #307
Yes, it was demonstrated that Corrie misrepresented the tampon thing.
She respresented it as a woman on TPW asking if her own daughter could use tampons or would it spark sexual thoughts.
Not what happened! She said that a friend had asked the question and asked the thoughts of the ladies on the list.
She then went on to make sick comments about a bloody sheet as if that is what the conclusion should be: Women who don’t want their daughters to use tampons want their daughters to provide a bloody sheet on their wedding night.
That is so ridiculous!
As was demonstrated, the responses, in fact, stated just the opposite as to what was inferred by Corrie. The ladies clearly said that tampons would do no such thing and that they would not prohibit their own daughters from using them based on such erroneous thought.
September 11, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Corrie, your remarks about the hymen are from some other discussions you had – I saw NOTHING on that thread remotely like what you just re quoted.
It was not clear why they brought that up, but it was also deadpan, either. It was just mentioned that it could happen.
And yes, it is a concern that it could happen suddenly, if it causes tissue tear and bleeding. Some women can bleed profusely, but most don’t. It could have been a legitimate concern about proper care for their daughters should this happen. Which is a valid thing to discuss, IMO.
But nothing was said about sheets, starting businesses, etc. — just, yeah that can happen, but it can happen doing lots of other activities, too. One woman said that happened to her, but made no other remark about it, positive, or negative.
One woman said she, personally did not like the idea of tampons, but it was couched as her personal preference, and was not preachy. But that was only one comment among many not like that at all.
Personally, I think that was a very small discussion among a much more interesting one on that group — that particular thread was overshadowed by discussion of Michael Pearl and his remarks about Patriarchy.
That was a very interesting discussion, but I saw nothing amiss in the discussion you brought up. I went there to see hysteria over a perceived loss of virginity, and didn’t find anything like that at all.
September 11, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Lynn, you yourself admitted that you didn’t read all those posts. The discussion of the hymen was there.
September 11, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Lynn, where did you get the idea that anyone said anything about sheets. Can’t you read Corrie’s initial thread with any discernment?
September 11, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Lynn, I have read and reread your concerns and I still don’t think you get it. In fact, I wrote a long thread above (#240) where I went on to discuss the point Corrie was making, that this is one example of the lack of discernment that is exhibited in these camps. No one responded to a single thing I wrote, which was exactly what Corrie was talking about. Instead this has become a tampon marathon. Wow!
September 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Lynn, where did you get the idea that anyone said anything about sheets. Can’t you read Corrie’s initial thread with any discernment?
Here is what Corrie said:
Unless they are now bringing back the patriarchal custom of the bloody sheet?
She posed as a question. So I went to find out.
The discussion of the hymen was there.
I’ve read all the comments at this writing, and see comment #321 for my explanation.
I don’t think raising the issue of hymen breakage requires a “so what?” response, followed by a question of whether they are going to start instituting bloody sheets.
There are minor medical concerns, as I said.
And yes, I did read her thread with discernment, and found it to be a pretty straight forward discussion.
September 11, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Karen, Corrie misrepresented that particular conversation.
Although I think momof4, some of her remarks were extreme, she did point out some of the misrepresentations in her previous comment.
#317
Furthermore, the very fact that someone asks a question like this — I am just giving an opinion — I don’t think that is an occasion for sarcasm. And I didn’t see it over there, but I am seeing plenty over here.
The subject was dispatched with grace on that forum, with the most forceful remark was the original commenter’s friend’s idea was “ridiculous,” was her term.
September 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm
#287
“Do people really need someone to hold their hand through every small detail in their lives? This terrifies me!”
Yes, Abby, they do.
My experience was yes.
There was always someone looking over the shoulder, to assess if we were doing the “biblical” thing. One became terrified or ticked off (depending on your personality) to make a misstep. The smallest of small thing became an overwhelming, now what would the elders do or Mrs. Uber-Patriarch do? One could fall in line, or be paralyzed or become angrier with the craziness of it. All that and more happened to me and my family.
And everything is up for public discussion. Boundaries shifted or were erased. No relationship was deemed more important than that of the elders rooting around in yours and publically building up their own esteem by publically knocking you down because of some misstep real or imagined. Any out of the box thinking real or imagined made one suspect.
It essentially turned one into a robotic dull child. People appeared to need constant approval from elders and “more godly” peers. Nobody apparently thought for themselves. We became parrots continually directed to the latest elder recommendations about X “available on the table in the lobby.”
The question about marital thoughts and tampons reflect this. I heard women discussing white vs. brown bread. Which was more biblical? Common sense just flew out the window.
September 11, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Corrie,
Say what? In #308 you say, “Cynthia and GPMM know exactly that these women talk about others on that list but I guess it is not okay to discuss what they talk about? It seems like hypocrisy to me.”
Really? You’re sure that I know that? Where do you get such information?
September 11, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“.. followed by a question of whether they are going to start instituting bloody sheets.”
Now this was a reference to a discussion a while back on another thread.
Lin, yeah, but Corrie was talking about THAT conversation. That one, and none other, at that point in time. I am very well aware of conversations like this all over the place, but the overwhelming majority of the responses on that board were that it wasn’t something of major concern, and that thoughts like that were silly.
So THAT conversation was misrepresented. And it is THAT conversation I am talking about.
I am NOT talking about patriarchal mindsets, cultic mindsets.
I went there to find an extremely weird conversation, and bad advice, and fear, and I found none of that.
I’m sure other conversations like that exist, though
September 11, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Momof4, I don’t think Corrie distorted what was actually said. She didn’t misrepresent anything, she just made it into satire and humor for those who see that such questions are actually ridiculous.
I take the things discussed here seriously unless there is an obvious joke, mainly because I’m rather naive, but also because this isn’t a joke site. The women here (and some men) are actually discussing things that pertain to women and Christians as a whole, and that’s why I stop by from time to time.
September 11, 2008 at 2:19 pm
When I say “THAT conversation,” I am referring to the thread Corrie referred to on the PW blog. As of a couple hours ago, I have read every response to it.
The women assured this woman, who wanted to know what they thought about such an idea (she said it was new to her, too), that her friend was overreacting.
So the question of “what now, are they going to re-institute bloody sheets?” was just not appropriate, in light of the vast majority of responses to this woman.
I am referring ONLY to THAT conversation, please keep in mind.
Corrie said are they now going to reinstitute bloody sheets, so I went over there and found just the opposite kind of response.
September 11, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Just out of curiosity, wasn’t this post about Sarah Palin?
September 11, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“Lin, yeah, but Corrie was talking about THAT conversation. That one, and none other, at that point in time. I am very well aware of conversations like this all over the place, but the overwhelming majority of the responses on that board were that it wasn’t something of major concern, and that thoughts like that were silly.”
I think you are taking this too far, Lynn. I have been talking to and reading Corrie for a while now and she was referencing another conversation by that remark. Sorta like…what next…the bloody sheets? Now that may have been confusing to read for those who don’t know but I do not think it was intended to as insidious as you are making it out to be.
“I am NOT talking about patriarchal mindsets, cultic mindsets”.
There is the rub. Corrie was. She lived it and knows where this stuff leads.
September 11, 2008 at 2:22 pm
So THAT conversation was misrepresented. And it is THAT conversation I am talking about.
It does sound that way, and I regret my sarcastic response.
September 11, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Could we all just agree to disagree on the tampon thing, the patriarchial wife thing, and stop hairsplitting, start extending grace and mercy to each other and get back to the topic of Sara Palin?
September 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“Corrie, by her statements, misrepresented where that particular conversation was headed.”
You have known Corrie for a long time? She may not have your standards for ‘logic’ in all communications but she is not deceitful. She is one who seeks truth and knows where patriarchal thinking leads. She thought the tampon thing was silly and so do I. I think you have made a mountain out of a molehill in the name of ‘fair represetation’. And it grieves me.
September 11, 2008 at 2:51 pm
You have known Corrie for a long time? She may not have your standards for ‘logic’ in all communications but she is not deceitful.
Misrepresentation does not automatically mean a person was intending to deceive.
September 11, 2008 at 3:02 pm
“You have known Corrie for a long time? She may not have your standards for ‘logic’ in all communications but she is not deceitful.
Misrepresentation does not automatically mean a person was intending to deceive.”
Then what does it mean? Corrie has explained so what is your point now? What is it you want?
September 11, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Corrie has an opinion that is shared by Karen who also attested that from her reading, the discussion included sexual arousal.
Yes. A woman we have no clue about, who is not on the PW list, told a friend who was on the PW list, that she was thinking about tampons, but was worried about this aspect of it.
The woman then went and told the PW list that this idea was new to her, and what did they all think of it.
All but one seemed to dismiss the idea as ridiculous.
And I really can’t judge why the woman asked the question in the first place. It could have been to find out if everybody else was as weird as her friend was, or she might not have had the mindset to be able to decide for herself.
Because I have no clue as to what motivated her question, I’m not going to dismiss it as evidence of groupthink-can’t-think-for- myself.
Many times, when people are startled by these weird ideas, they want to ask about them, and how prevelant they are.
She might have been trying to size up the PW group. Or she might have really been a little too dependent on what other people think.
I just don’t know.
September 11, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Karen, actually, no, I am not a long-time reader of this blog.
I have never heard of the “popular teaching” you mention about sitting down to a meal with someone. That’s interesting.
Karen, information floats here and there. I cannot pinpoint where I heard this information (about you meeting w/ Stacy or anyone from her camp). That’s why I asked you, to see if you could verify it.
It does seem odd that you want someone to answer questions online, but you aren’t willing to meet with her in person. Is she under some sort of obligation, yet you are not?
Weird stuff going on here.
FYI — there is simply no way I would have time to go back and read previous threads. I could kick myself for already spending time here when I need to be working (yes, I work outside the home). You gals give cyberspace plenty of activity. I just hope it’s kingdom work, and not the devil’s playground.
I’ll let you get back to your evil work, couched in the name of the Lord. Shame, shame.
September 11, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Lin, if you really want me to keep talking, keep asking me questions, but like Lisa, I would just like to bow out now.
Thank you for understanding.
September 11, 2008 at 3:25 pm
“Lin, if you really want me to keep talking, keep asking me questions, but like Lisa, I would just like to bow out now”
I don’t blame you for not wanting to answer my questions.
September 11, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Cynthia, just so you will know the answer when it “floats here and there,” we don’t accept dinner invitations to the homes of known kinists, either.
September 11, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“Is she under some sort of obligation, yet you are not? ”
Cynthia, if I were a well-known author and teacher(in homeschooling circles anyway, I would certainly want to be as transparent as possible and would be more than willing to answer any questions put to me. If you have questions for me, feel free to ask them. I have very few secrets, if any. However, I think that teachers and writers, especially if they are making a living from their work, ought to be willing to “clear up any misunderstandings” one might have.
September 11, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Here’s some stereotyping:
Why did the blonde put lipstick on her forehead? She wanted to make up her mind.
Why did the blonde put on green lipstick?
Because red means “stop”!
A Jr. High School in Oregon reportedly had problems with teens putting on lipstick and blotting it by kissing the mirrors in the restroom. The custodian was pretty upset about how difficult it was to clean. So they called all the girls in to show them how difficult it was. They had the custodian show them…
He dipped the squeegie in the toilet and then proceeded to clean the mirrors with the water from the commode bowl. They had no problems thereafter!
September 11, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I resemble those remarks! :O)
September 11, 2008 at 3:47 pm
http://www.beenthinking.org/2008/09/04/whos-in-charge-or-who-cares/
This is interesting and sorta kinda fits in with the Palin topic in reference to headship.
One of my questions is this: Why is it we never think in terms of wanting to be in charge of another as sin?
September 11, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I’m still laughing over how lipstick stops a nosebleed!
ROFLOL! I’m grateful for the humor after the rest of the conversation and the second time I’ve prayed and wept as I’ve written to someone here from the PW list to get lam blasted for my efforts. And I honestly don’t get what I did to solicit the comments in response. What did I miss. I’ve have been commenting here infrequently lately, but really prayed and believed that I should respond.
I guess I’m just an idiot! But at least I can laugh.
September 11, 2008 at 4:42 pm
“She respresented it as a woman on TPW asking if her own daughter could use tampons or would it spark sexual thoughts.”
This was the big misrepresentation?
I quickly relayed the gist of the question. I was in a hurry and I shouldn’t have put more effort forth to make sure I had every detail in place. My main gist was still right on.
You are right, Momof4, that the woman was asking on behalf of her friend but she was still asking, nonetheless.
When I was in the patriocentric movement, this was actually believed by some of the women. I had heard women relay this exact same sentiment and say that using tampons would “awaken desire before its time”.
Not only that but I have been witness to online conversations of women talking about how they won’t let their husbands change the diapers of their daughters because it might arouse their husbands and tempt them.
I have been witness to online conversations concerning many things where I saw no one step in with rational thought on the issue. When I was in the movement, I used to hang on the words of the leading patrio women just like I see on these various lists.
How about the cabbage patch teaching that says it causes malnutrition? If I was thinking and not swallowing things just because they were taught as authoritative, I wouldn’t have thrown away our dolls.
I can step back in hindsight and see how many times I didn’t think for myself and how irrational it all seems now.
September 11, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Lin,
Only read the first couple paragraphs, but I’ve been thinking the same thing lately. Honestly, it’s not just in marriage, but in situations where there must be a leader, I’d much prefer a reluctant leader, one who wants change, but doesn’t like the limelight. Neither presidential candidate right now fits that bill.
I like C.S. Lewis’s attitude toward leadership in the Chronicles of Narnia. Leaders were often young, very reluctant, and didn’t know if they could do very well. But he preferred those types of leaders, because they weren’t pretentious or political.
It’s unlikely that anyone running for office would actually fit this description, as they would inherently be seeking leadership, but there’s a way to go about it that doesn’t make you seem arrogant or uncaring.
But here’s my dilemma:
Barack Obama is extremely confident to the point of arrogant sometimes, yet I read about Sarah Palin, and she seems to steamroll people. It make look good that she got rid of corruption, but I didn’t think Christians were supposed to look like a bull in a china shop, unafraid to hurt others to get what we want (even if what we want is “good”).
I’m trying to be a conscientious voter here, but I’m afraid I’m not doing a very good job.
September 11, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Cindy – thanks for the lipstick jokes. They will be on my blog with a hat-tip to you on Saturday. And I just noticed that somehow your blog got dropped off my blogroll. You’re back there again. I’m sorry about that. It was not intentional.
September 11, 2008 at 4:46 pm
So is this a misunderstanding on my part, or does the Patriarch movement focus a lot on sex and sex organs?
I mean, sex and gender go hand in hand, and all these topics seem to center around sexuality, so maybe, oh, I don’t know, the patriarch wives aren’t giving their husbands enough?
September 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Abby,
It just clicked with me a little bit ago that you’re Abby with your little one who was very pregnant Abby a few short months ago. (Well, they were short for me!)
It sounds like you’re doing a fine job as a conscientious voter.
I like the idea that Douglas Adams introduced in the “Hitchhiker’s Guide”: Anyone who actually wants to be president of the universe is automatically disqualified. So we get guys like Zaphod who are goofy, but they often do less damage.
September 11, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Abby – there are many examples in the bible of folks acting in a powerful and “steamrolling” way in order to see that righteousness is done and that evil is defeated. Moses dealing with Pharaoh springs to mind. And Jesus cleansing the temple of the money changers.
September 11, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Jesus was God and Moses was reluctant… Just to reiterate what I said before.
September 11, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Cindy – my handle/nick from the early Internet days (on the BBSs – bulletin board systems for those of you who are a bit younger than I) was Zaphod Beeblebrox. My sister’s Pinto was called Ford Prefect. I love those books.
September 11, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I think I like the president from Cory in the House. He’s a total goof-off, and he spends a lot of time with his daughter–although not his wife, which is kind of weird.
September 11, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Sarah Palin was reluctant. I think you just solved your dilemma.
September 11, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Yep, Cindy K, that’s me. It’s been a while since I stopped by here. I guess I picked a strange time to re-enter the comments!
September 11, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Richard, this is weird, but I’ve been backing off blogs but noticed that list last week. And oddly, I did notice that I disappeared. Though maybe I’d gotten into trouble.
Or should I say “more trouble!”
And here I am, talking big about not responding on blogs… But today, I get all engaged? Weird. So much for the plans of mice, men and WWFs! Maybe I’m soon in the need of some of the items discussed today. Not the lipstick!!!
Actually, I’ve also heard that lipstick joke of Palin’s said of women with PMS. What’s the difference between a woman with PMS and a bulldog? But if you really have it bad, you don’t care about lipstick!
This has been hysterical. I needed a lot of laughs today.
September 11, 2008 at 5:00 pm
And Paul is no cream puff in these matters either… Need I get graphic?
September 11, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Abby, we should very much want reluctant leaders in the spiritual realm. I am of the belief that godly elders are evident to us. They are ‘obvious’ because they are godly. They may not even have the ‘title’ or the position but they exude Christ from all their pores. And they are rare, indeed.
As to the civil realm, it would be almost impossible to find such a person because it really does take a huge ego and thick skin to deal with all that comes from the media and others. I think that is one thing people really liked about Reagan. He did not take himself so seriously but he took the principles of governing seriously. He did not have specfic policies but large principles that guided him. He was confident but not arrogant. yet his confidence infuriated people and they thought it was arrogance. He simply did not let it all keep him up at night. He had failings as they all do. But he could even make Tip O’Neal laugh, who was his ardent enemy and who said cruel things about him.
Sarah kind of reminds some of us of Reagan, so far. That may change. Who knows.
September 11, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“Abby – there are many examples in the bible of folks acting in a powerful and “steamrolling” way in order to see that righteousness is done and that evil is defeated. Moses dealing with Pharaoh springs to mind. And Jesus cleansing the temple of the money changers.”
That’s true, but neither Jesus nor Moses were kings or in leadership positions (well OK, Jesus WAS, but He was kind of acting undercover) when they did what they did.
They were “little men” who were risking a lot by standing up to evil in high places, not governors already IN high places, safely using (and perhaps abusing) the power already inherent in their office.
September 11, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Cindy – I tried a new widget on my blog to do the RSS feeds of the headings to each blog. Since I added that I’ve seen some weird things happen. I might have to remove that widget. But I really like the automatic updates and I think it helps draw folks to those blogs a little better.
September 11, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Lynn,
You are misrepresenting me, even after I have tried to explain this to you.
“I went there to see hysteria over a perceived loss of virginity, and didn’t find anything like that at all.”
Then you misread what I wrote and you read into it what you wanted to see.
My post was mostly satire and hyperbole based on many years of ridiculous navel-gazing discussions about these very things.
I didn’t say that this was going on, I basically said “what next”?
And if hymen breaking can lead to major blood loss, why have I not heard anything about it? I have never heard that before. All the patrio discussions I have been involved in concerning the hymen never even brought up this danger of profuse bleeding. It was always about keeping it intact (meaning she is pure) and that is why I said “so what”. I believe a woman and her purity is much greater than an intact piece of skin.
If anything, I apologize for using that question as a springboard and stringing together all the ridiculous discussions I have heard over the last 20 years concerning this issue. I was being silly and I thought that was evident. I did not absorb the bigger picture at the time I posted. My comment was solely about the question posted, knowing that I have heard that very thing taught before when I was in the movement. I didn’t stick around to read the responses except for the one about the breaking of the hymen which never ran through my mind when talking to my daughters about using tampons.
I never even saw you acknowledge my simple mistake of posting this on the wrong thread even after I explained myself. Obviously it had nothing to do with Palin.
And then, I think of all the years I have known you and the contact we have had via phone and I am having a hard time why you, of all people, are not appearing to want to even hear where I was coming from.
I apologize for my satire and hyperbole and that I gave you the impression that I was speaking about the responses and not the original question.
September 11, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Holy Mother of Zarquan, Zarkin Freud!
September 11, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Abby – Take Cynthia Gee’s comments with a highly partisan grain of salt (along with mine).
September 11, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Cindy – have you seen the most recent Hitchhiker’s movie? My son loves it. (So do I)
September 11, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“Abby – Take Cynthia Gee’s comments with a highly partisan grain of salt (along with mine).”
Good advice, Abby…
For the record, I am NOT a Republican, and I’m not usually a Democrat either, I am an Independent. I did register as a Democrat this spring prior to the primary elections,though, in order to vote against Hilary Clinton.
September 11, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I am only remotely disappointed. I wanted to hear the “Heart of Gold” sing “When you walk through a storm, hold your head up high…”
And when you set the DVD to play it over and over, the improbability drive function on the DVD doesn’t let it play straight through. “Repeat” makes it go into random mode.
And Steven Fry was perfect as the book.
But on a serious note, I think I would vote for Zaphod if he ran. Palin for pres and Zaphod for VP. And with a Democratic Congress, we should have Vogon poetry read at low volume in chambers so that maybe Pelosi will fall asleep just like Tip O’Neal used to do!
September 11, 2008 at 5:40 pm
” Pelosi will fall asleep just like Tip O’Neal used to do!”
This is the ONLY thing I have understood in this entire exchange. You all could be speaking pig latin for all I know.
BTW: Some of us even remember Tip’s nose which was a dead give away.
)
September 11, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Alright Lin…
The series of books by Douglas Adams were very thought provoking, though I understand that Adams was an atheist. What was nice about his version of atheism is that he was a standard, skeptical modernist who had much knowledge of and appreciation of philosophy and philosophical works of theology.
Right before Earth gets destroyed, an hitchhiker through the universe named Ford Prefect rescues an earthling named Arthur Dent. They then go on adventures, using the information in a talking book called the “hitchhiker’s guide to the universe.” If you have a towel and the talking book, you can get around the universe, hitching rides on spaceships. Zaphod is the President of the Universe who did not want the job and shares several mothers with Ford (as reproduction is apparently more interesting elsewhere, outside of our galaxy).
The Vogons were a race of creatures who recited boring poetry that apparently kills you as a result of the boredom it induces.
Zarquon is a God on another planet… My husband and I started saying “holy mother of Zarquon as a joke.
And honestly, I’m not really sure what Zarkin Freud really means, but it is a term of endearment and is used in an approving context.
And interwoven into all this is British, tongue in cheek humor about really complex philosophical, thought provoking concepts that demonstrate that Adams, the author, really did wrestle with his ideas about God and philosophy and modernism. Most of it is very complex and makes references to all sorts of people and concepts.
What I wonder about is how much of what Adams also pokes fun at that I miss, as it is so deep, in it’s back-handed and irreverent way.
September 11, 2008 at 6:03 pm
http://visionarydaughters.com/2008/09/why-sarah-palin-inspires-us
“In the opinion of just two of these American daughters, this picture is troubling, and brings with it promises of more trouble. Part of the tragedy, as we see it, is that it’s not just secular feminists who are excited about this future. Christians across the nation are cheering the entrance of Mrs. Palin, forgetting that, according to the biblical qualifications for a civil magistrate, she as a woman is not qualified to hold this office (Ex. 18:21, Pro. 31:23, 1 Tim. 2:12).[1] We believe that Mrs. Palin’s appointment as civil ruler, and indeed the feminist strides that made it possible, are a judgment from God (Isa. 3:12). We’re already suffering from one consequence of this judgment more severely than America realizes.
An exultant Ann Coulter scored a bulls eye in (unwittingly) identifying this judgment in the title of her first piece on Palin:
“The Best Man Turned Out To Be A Woman.”
To be honest, we’re impressed with Sarah Palin. She is a remarkably talented, well-spoken woman. She has many fine policies. And we like her practical, moose-hunting style of femininity. But it is not a day to rejoice when the best man in the room happens to be a woman — nor is it a cause for cheer when men can’t compete with women in doing their own job. During this year’s unprecedented election, the key players have been strong women and flaky men. This is a sign of judgment. The scenario is reminiscent of Gloria Steinem’s boast, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” Men have been stepping into the background — women are trying to become the men they wish existed. We challenge any young woman to see this as a happy prospect. It’s hard to be inspired by the abdication of real men and the subsequent rise of pseudo-men.”
September 11, 2008 at 6:05 pm
we should have Vogon poetry read at low volume in chambers so that maybe Pelosi will fall asleep just like Tip O’Neal used to do!
Oh freddled gruntbuggly
Thy micturations are to me
As purdled glabberblodgets on a lurgid bee
There just can’t be any better poetry than that.
September 11, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Lin – so as to not throw you into the galaxy without proper protection, in additon to the Hitchhikers book and the towel you will need a Babblefish. This fish feeds on audible sound and excretes brain waves that enter the brain of the person who has the Babblefish stuffed in his ear – but the brainwaves enter the person’s brain in his own language. This means that the person with the Babblefish in his ear will hear all language from anywhere in the galaxy in his own tongue.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy explains that the immense usefulness of this creature proves the nonexistence of God in this manner: God refuses to prove that he exists because one must believe in God by faith and not by proof. The Babblefish is so incredily useful that it could not possibly have evolved on its own but must have been created by an all-powerful superior being. Therefore God must not exist because he refuses to prove his existence and the Babblefish proves it – so it cannot be.
Got it?
September 11, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Prov 31:23
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land.
Does this mean that the Botkin girls believe that a woman is in sin if her husband is NOT known in the gates and is NOT sitting in the gates with the elders of the land ( a reference to being in governing authority over the land)?
How do they understand this verse to be saying that women can’t be VP?
What is the verse really saying? Since it was written to King Lemuel by his mother, it seems she understands she is writing to a future leader of the nation. Maybe that is all she was referring to. It certainly isn’t teaching what the Botkins say it does nor does it mean that a woman’s name can’t be known in the gates or Esther (a whole feast is dedicated to her not her husband) would have been a bad wife along with Abigail whose husband’s name was most certainly known in the gates but it wasn’t a good thing.
I know plenty of men who are not known in the gates and who are not sitting with the elders of the land.
September 11, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Uh…did I ever tell you guys that I hate science fiction? you guys don’t dress up and go to conventions, do you?
September 11, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“I know plenty of men who are not known in the gates and who are not sitting with the elders of the land.”
maybe they mean it metaphorically. As in their dad sits around with the other Pat leaders and waits for the royalties to come flowing in from his daughters books and speaking engagements.
September 11, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Lin – you and my wife would get along very well. She doesn’t let me put on any science fiction when she’s home. My son and I have special “boys nights” when she goes to women’s events at church or to friends’ houses to conspire against her God ordained male authority. We take advantage of those conspiracy sessions to put on Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Star Gate, Ultra Violet, Final Fantasy, The Island, Minority Report, Planet of the Apes, Galaxy Quest (one of my personal favs), or Resident Evil. My wife allows Star Wars or Independence Day as long as it’s not more than once every few years.
As a strong man, I assert my right to comply with her wishes in the interest of peacefulness and a lack of movies such as Legally Blonde, Emma, and anything with Matthew McConahey (or however you spell it).
September 11, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Lin,
I only dress up for renaissance festivals. I do have my dignity.
Oh, I dared to omit the babelfish! I should be punished with 10 simultaneous pangalactic garlgleblaster hang overs as a punishment!
September 11, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“Men have been stepping into the background — women are trying to become the men they wish existed. ”
The above could be a science fiction episode but is this reality? Is this what Palin is doing? Is this what motivates her?
Or is she simply the best PERSON for the job? Is this any more of a sign of judgment than Bill Clinton ruling over us for 8 years?
September 11, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Cindy- thanks for the spelling of Babel – which completely left my perforated and leaky brain. And, Lin, for your edification, the Pangalactic Gargleblaster’s hangover is described by the book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy as similar to having your brains bashed out with a gold brick wrapped in a lemon peel.
September 11, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Corrie – I believe there was an episode of Star Trek that had a very similar storyline.
However, I don’t think Palin is doing this. She is quite feminine and I sense that her husband is quite manly (these may be from my own definitions and may not communicate with you – I’m not familiar with all the terminology surrounding these things). I think she is simply very intelligent, has a solid Evangelical Christian and Conservative grasp on the issues, and is strikingly competent. Those things are not uniquely male or female.
September 11, 2008 at 8:17 pm
” I only dress up for renaissance festivals. I do have my dignity”
(Whew..relief)
Richard, YOur wife must be disciplined for usurping your authority.
)
My idea of a great movie is Where Eagles Dare or the Longest Day. I do war/spy/political thriller stuff. Does that make me unfeminine?
)
September 11, 2008 at 8:25 pm
“Oh freddled gruntbuggly
Thy micturations are to me
As purdled glabberblodgets on a lurgid bee
There just can’t be any better poetry than that.”
Richard, are you familiar with “Jabberwocky”? I think you’d
like it…
“`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe. …”
September 11, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Cynthia – It’s one of my favorites. I think it was the first poem I ever memorized. This is what I remember of it:
Beware the Jabberwock, my son
The jaws that bite – the claws that catch.
Beware the Jubjub bird and shun
the frumious Bandersnatch!”
He took his vorpal sword in hand,
Long time the manxome foe he sought
Then rested by the Tumtum tree
And stood a while and thought
Something, something that I can’t remember
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumfing back.
And have you slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!
He chortled in his joy.
September 11, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Well, you both have me beat. My first poem was “Trees” and then I moved on to “Paul Revere’s Ride.” I only got as weird as Poe who I think is my favorite.
And I don’t know any Klingon opera, either.
September 11, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Corrie said:
“If anything, I apologize for using that question as a springboard and stringing together all the ridiculous discussions I have heard over the last 20 years concerning this issue. I was being silly and I thought that was evident. I did not absorb the bigger picture at the time I posted. My comment was solely about the question posted, knowing that I have heard that very thing taught before when I was in the movement. I didn’t stick around to read the responses except for the one about the breaking of the hymen which never ran through my mind when talking to my daughters about using tampons.”
I’ll make this one last comment since I was addressed a few times today and I was gone the entire day and could not respond.
I’m a little confused. Corrie, you said you are not on PW but that someone else sent you the question? Then you say you didn’t stick around to read the responses except the one about the hymen? How could you have stuck around to read the responses if you’re not on the list?
Next, you did grossly misrepresent the question. Now, that could very well be because you didn’t actually read it on TPW. But, that’s disturbing. Why would you pass on a quote to a question that you didn’t acutally read (and that was communicated to you incorrectly) and then draw some crazy conclusion regarding it (whether it was intended to be satirical or hyberbolic is beside the point)?
Either way, it was gossip.
The original question was posed by a lady who happened to be talking to a friend who is *not* a PW and there was no indication that she is “patriarchal” in thought. The friend was asking counsel on whether or not the use of tampons would cause the young daughter to think of things reserved for marriage.
Having been asked for counsel, the poster came to a group of women she trusts admitting that she never thought about it before and asked for input. Incidentally, that is not that strange. The original poster does not have a daughter of the age to be menstruating so she had truly never thought of it.
Everyone said, “Your friend is off base. Tell her there is nothing to her concern.”
That’s it!! There was no weird “patriarchal” stuff about fathers keeping track of anything. There was no confirmation that there was anything sinister about using tampons.
So, you posted a question (assuming you did not actually read it yourself) that was out of context and misrepresented. Then, you went on to some strange satire or hyperbole about it. The whole thing was based on a false premise.
It’s obvious that it was posted to be another dig against “patriarchy.” Why else would it be posted. Seriously, if you want to take a dig there are certainly much more valid concerns you could point out besides misrepresented hearsay from an unknown source.
September 11, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Joy – I never watched Star Trek after it got serious about itself. Only the original with William Shatner playing the most moronic captain ever. The original Star Trek made fun of itself a lot and I always thought that was hilarious. I also had a huge crush on Uhura (or whatever her name was – I never read her nametag, I was too busy looking at her legs).
September 11, 2008 at 10:36 pm
OK, so quoting a question from a “public” forum that was passed on to you from an un-named source (which is what was done here) is not a rumor?
A rumor cannot come from a public source, it has to come from a private source?
I guess the “gossip rags” on the news stands are not gossip then. Huh…
BTW, is the *biblical* definition of gossip (or tale bearing) the same as the one from the American Heritage Dictionary?
September 11, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Yes – you are right. A rumor must begin as a private thing and then made public by the gossiper. That rumor may be perpetuated by a public source, but it may not definitionally spring from a public source but must be a betrayal of privacy.
The gossip rags put things into the public forum that are of a private nature. So they would be gossip.
Tale-bearing is an entirely different thing as is “mis-direction,” which you have attempted here to no avail.
September 11, 2008 at 10:44 pm
And I guess I should comment on your accusation against my friend Corrie. As I know her and trust her, I believe her account. I do not know you and you have shown yourself here to be rather confrontational and accusatory. That makes me less than trusting of you. So I would have to reject your characterization of what Corrie has done.
You are also aligning yourself with people whom I know are liars and abusers. Corrie is a victim of that sort of abuse and I will fight for the victim every time. You’re not on solid ground so far. But you’re welcome to keep on trying if you’d like to do so.
September 11, 2008 at 10:44 pm
“Tale-bearing is an entirely different thing as is “mis-direction,” which you have attempted here to no avail.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I pointed out that a quote was mis-represented and taken out of context. How is that “mis-direction”?
September 11, 2008 at 10:48 pm
BTW,
Rumor:A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth.
Unverified information received from another; hearsay.
(From the American Heritage Dictionary)
That is *exactly* what was perpetrated here. Unverified information receive from another.
September 11, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Richard, are you saying that you don’t believe that the question Corrie quoted from TPW was inaccurate and that I am being dishonest about what the question actually was?
If she’s not on TPW and got the question from another source and not only I but another person here (Lynn) stated that the question was not quoted correctly and that Corrie did not portray what the answers to that question were, then why would she be more trustworthy on this particular occasion?
I did not align myself with anyone who was a liar. I said I am on TPW. That doesn’t mean I’m aligned with anyone.
I also find it very funny that I am confrontational and accusatory. I just stumbled upon this site yesterday and have found those here to be very much as you describe me.
September 11, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Talebearer: One who spreads malicious stories or gossip (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000)
That is *exactly* what you have done against Corrie here, Momof4. I call on you to apologize to Corrie and to cease from this sin here in this forum. By the way, in the natural order God has rolled out for us, as shown to us by those who proclaim the patriarchalist doctrine, as a man, I am your superior, and I expect you to comply.
September 11, 2008 at 11:08 pm
are you saying that you don’t believe that the question Corrie quoted from TPW was inaccurate
Yes.
I am saying that I trust the truthfulness of my friend Corrie. That is exactly what I’m saying. I think you’ve got it.
I just stumbled upon this site yesterday
Let me further say that you are lying in the above statement. You absolutely did not “just stumble upon this site.” You were directed here and came with your friend Lynn to make malicious accusations against Corrie. Sorry. It didn’t work.
September 11, 2008 at 11:12 pm
No, I’m not lying. I don’t even know Lynn…at least I don’t think I do. I certainly don’t recognize her. I was not directed here and I did not know about this site before yesterday.
Well, now, you are the one who has sinned against me by calling me a liar…most ungracious since you already mentioned you don’t know me.
BTW, I’ll go back and look but I believe Corrie already conceded that the original question may have been misquoted by her source.
September 11, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I didn’t actually accuse you of gossip, did I? I accused you, accurately, of talebearing – which is exactly what you’ve done here. Your “stumbling” into this site was with malicious intent. That is not Christian, it is not honest, it is not welcome. That was your sin. The ball is now in your court.
And I’m glad to hear that you reject the arguments that have been leveled against Sarah Palin by the Patriarchy crowd. Since Sarah Palin is running for VP with the approval of her husband, obviously you agree with me that what she is doing is perfectly acceptable biblically and that she has no reason to bow to the manic discontent of the Patricarchalist men who aren’t satisfied to simply subjugate their own wives but wish to do it to other’s wives as well. You are to be applauded for your correct stance on that.
September 11, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Yes, you did accuse me of gossip.
You called me a tale-bearer and the definition you posted of that said: Talebearer: One who spreads malicious stories or gossip (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000)
So, you called me someone who spreads gossip.
BTW, I didn’t say anything about Sarah Palin. I actually have not drawn any conclusion about her one way or the other. I will say that I am *not* in the camp who would say that women cannot hold any political office and I have not read anything that any of the patriachal camp has said regarding the matter. (I expect to be called a liar for that even though it’s true.)
Whether or not you believe I stumbled upon this site? Well, I guess there’s nothing I can do about that. I’ts true and I’ll leave it at that.
I had no malicious intent and actually found myself agreeing with lots of what has been written here (the little I’ve had time to read in the last 24 hours).
The fact remains that the only reason I piped in was because a recent discussion from another forum was being inaccurately related.
I’ll leave it at that because being called names will obviously not be fruitful.
September 11, 2008 at 11:49 pm
“Either way, it was gossip.”
Ha ha. Gossip is talking about something posted on the world wide web!
September 11, 2008 at 11:53 pm
“TPW is not a public forum; it is private. In addition, what was discussed here *was not* what was discussed on TPW.”
You have to be kidding me. 12 year old hacks with a computer can read your ‘private’ forum. Sheesh.
September 11, 2008 at 11:55 pm
“By the way, in the natural order God has rolled out for us, as shown to us by those who proclaim the patriarchalist doctrine, as a man, I am your superior, and I expect you to comply.”
Gee thanks, Richard. I just spewed my Earl Grey.
)
(Let me know if that ever works)
September 11, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Mom4, you are doing what Lynn did. You are making a mtn out of a molehill. Corrie explained herself but you cannot let it go.
It is not like you are going to cure cancer by stomping Corrie into the ground. What is your end game?
September 12, 2008 at 12:06 am
No end game at all. I was hoping that Corrie would acknowledge that the quote she posted was inaccurate and the following things she said (the satire and hyperbole) were in bad taste.
I see that’s not going to happen.
I’ll take leave. I don’t remember ever seeing quite such hostility towards other beleivers on a Christian forum. (I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that I’ve never experienced it.) I certainly don’t ever remember being mocked or called a liar and I pray that this would not happen if you were meeting a sister in Christ in person.
I do hope that the good points you all advocate (and there are many) can be propogated in spite of everything else.
Corrie, if you felt “stomped into the ground,” I certainly apologize and ask for forgiveness. I still think what you did was wrong but I would never want you to feel like that
God’s blessings to all of you!
September 12, 2008 at 1:01 am
“No end game at all. I was hoping that Corrie would acknowledge that the quote she posted was inaccurate and the following things she said (the satire and hyperbole) were in bad taste.”
Well, too bad I wasn’t even given a chance?
You came on here swinging and didn’t even ask me one question about what I said. It was all accusation.
I will admit that the satire and hyperbole was in bad taste. I apologize for that. I sometimes have to laugh and satirize this stuff or else it will make me nuts. The horrific teachings I have seen fly under the patriocentric banner literally sicken me.
You quoted my original apology, in which I said about the same thing. I also stated that it was correct that it was a woman asking for her friend but that it doesn’t change what I was saying, imho.
I do not think that my original wording of the basic gist of the question distorted the general message, though. I didn’t post a quote like you said I did. It was my own summation of the general gist of the question. I will not say that you misrepresented me, either.
“I certainly don’t ever remember being mocked or called a liar and I pray that this would not happen if you were meeting a sister in Christ in person.”
This is EXACTLY what you did to me. You not only called me a liar but then you claimed that I was lying about the previous question on that same list where a woman asked what she should think about during sex. You went even further by saying that I cannot be trusted in anything I say because of my opinion concerning the question about tampons.
Richard,
Thank you for your kind words. I would never purposefully misrepresent something. It isn’t something I do. But, I do sometimes misread things because I am either in a hurry or I am constantly distracted by all the things swirling about my head. I will readily admit and acknowledge when I have misstated something. But, imho, I did not grossly misrepresent anything. I do not think I am being stubborn in saying this, either. I also feel very misrepresented and that people are refusing to hear my explanation of what I meant by the satire. They misunderstood it and now they are holding me to their misunderstanding which is unfair.
I am going to post the original question so it can be compared to my original description of what was asked:
“Hi Ladies,
I am full of questions today! For those of you with older daughters, do you permit them to wear tampons? I have recently been speaking with a friend who does not allow her unmarried daughters to use them, which was a new concept to me. She was seeking counsel, wondering if it would be okay for one of her daughters who was having some issues. She wondered if it would introduce unwanted interest in things of married women. What are your thoughts on this?”
Now, here is what I said:
““I thought I would share a recent question posed on a popular patriarch’s wives list…….
A woman wanted to know if it was okay if her daughter used tampons and whether the use of tampons would introduce “marital” thoughts while inserting them.””
Gross misrepresentation? I think not. It is true that a woman was wondering whether tampon usage would introduce marital thoughts and it is true that it was posted on the list. What I summarized did not change at all the general gist of the question.
I have seen grosser ones where the evidence was removed in the middle of the night so the person can assert that someone was a “liar” and wrong even though they know that this person was telling the truth.
September 12, 2008 at 1:13 am
“This is EXACTLY what you did to me. You not only called me a liar but then you claimed that I was lying about the previous question on that same list where a woman asked what she should think about during sex. You went even further by saying that I cannot be trusted in anything I say because of my opinion concerning the question about tampons.”
I didn’t call you a liar. I was cautioning one person to be careful about taking your “summaries” of other things written about on TPW as the gospel truth since I believed you twisted the one currently being talked about. I didn’t say you couldn’t be trusted in anything you say. I said not to take your interpretation of TPW discussions as fact.
Again, if what I said hurt you in anyway, I apologize for that and ask for forgiveness.
I was actually very directly accused of lying by Richard.
Corrie, I’m trying to make amends here. I don’t want such division between two believers. Yes, I disagree with your interpretation of what was discussed on TPW but that doesn’t make us enemies.
September 12, 2008 at 1:16 am
“I don’t agree. It is not gossip to relay a question asked on a list of 800 plus.”
ACK! OK, sorry again! I obviously am so far from “getting you” that it’s impossible for me to have a conversation.
September 12, 2008 at 1:20 am
This is the post, it was a simple question.
PW Hi Ladies,
I am full of questions today! For those of you with older daughters, do you permit them to wear tampons? I have recently been speaking with a friend who does not allow her unmarried daughters to use them, which was a new concept to me. She was seeking counsel, wondering if it would be okay for one of her daughters who was having some issues. She wondered if it would introduce unwanted interest in things of married women. What are your thoughts on this?
Corrie Says:
September 10, 2008 at 5:07 pm
A woman wanted to know if it was okay if her daughter used tampons and whether the use of tampons would introduce “marital” thoughts while inserting them.
Corrie misrepresented nothing. She simply stated what was said or asked. Obviously the original person who asked the friend was concerned, the friend and the others on the PW list were not concerned and thought the question rather bizaare.
Sorry for the crosspost, it is not something I normally do but….I did this time for the sake of accurracy.
One other simple question. How many of those responding on this whole tampon issue took time to pray before hitting the send button, remembering Colossians 4:2-6
2Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving;
3praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned;
4that I may make it clear in the way I ought to speak.
5Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity.
6Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
September 12, 2008 at 1:26 am
By the way post 423 is simply stating facts as they occured with no malice intended. Gossip is malice inspired.
September 12, 2008 at 1:29 am
I remember a discussion where the women were talking about how they wouldn’t allow their daughters to go to the bathroom any time they felt they needed to go because it gave them an independent spirit. They spoke of how they would require their daughters (not sons) to ask for permission to use the bathroom first so that they wouldn’t become independent.
I remember thinking that this was ridiculous and that I think being independent in toileting one’s self to be a GOOD thing.
How does this relate to Palin? I don’t know. Maybe her mother didn’t make her ask for permission before she went to the bathroom and that is why she thinks she can be VP?
September 12, 2008 at 1:57 am
“Abby, please don’t take what Corrie said about what to think about during sex seriously. It’s already been pointed out in this thread that she greatly, greatly distorted the tampon discussion on TPW. If she twisted that so badly (and didn’t even come out and apologize for butchering that discussion from TPW), there is no reason to believe that anything other topic she has represented here has been twisted any less.”
Hi Momof4,
You said that I “greatly, greatly distorted the tampon discussion” and that I “twisted it so badly” and that I “butchered” that discussion and that there is no reason to believe that any other topic has been twisted any less.
Where I come from, this would most definitely be accusing someone of being a liar.
“Corrie, I’m trying to make amends here. I don’t want such division between two believers. Yes, I disagree with your interpretation of what was discussed on TPW but that doesn’t make us enemies.”
What interpretation? I didn’t interpret anything concerning the tampon discussion. I cannot understand why this assertion keeps on being made even after the lengths I have gone to explain to you the facts?
All I did was relay the question as it was posed on the PW list. That is all. A woman wanted to know whether her daughter would think about marital relations if she used tampons. It doesn’t change the question at all that it was asked via a friend of this particular woman. I said that there was a question posed on a list where A woman wanted to know blah, blah, blah. Is it true that A woman wanted to know the answer to the tampon question concerning her daughter? Was the question asked on the PW list?
As far as interpreting anything, I didn’t. I used the question as a springboard for satire. That is all.
If you want to make amends, I would think you would see that my original statement was not at all “greatly greatly” twisting, distorting or butchering anything.
I guess this is about all I can say because this has become circular. There is nothing more I can do to convince you that you are wrong in your claims that I grossly, greatly or whatever other adj. you want to put before distorted something.
I apologized for what I could. I learned a big lesson and I will take every step needed so that this will not happen again.
September 12, 2008 at 2:10 am
Corrie,
I’m trying. I really am…
The “distortion” and “misinterpretation” (imo) was in what followed the question.
You attributed it to a PW lady and then went on to characterize:
“Oh the depth and breadth of such thinking!!!!!
Yes, everyone knows that using tampons causing one to think of intercourse……………….NOT! Please.
The patrios are so used to others doing their thinking for them and that is why they have to ask these questions. When you come out from under the delusive patrio-fog and start actually thinking for your self, these questions are unnecessary.”
So, it seemed to me that you were attributing the question to a PW and then going off about how the “patrios” are used to everyone doing their thinking for them and that if they would just come out from under the fog they would realize that the question was unnecessary.
Problem is, it wasn’t a PW who asked the question on her own behalf and no one responded in an odd way. There was no evidence that person originally asking the question (the friend) was a “patrios” at all but that’s the group that was characterized.
Because you did not represent the answers given to the question which would clearly refute that the ladies on the list do not think for themselves, I felt it was distorted and did not accurately portray the flavor of the conversation.
I’m really sorry that I offended you…really I am! Looking back, my words seemed exagerrated (using “greatly, greatly” and other adjectives thta were stronger than necessary for what I was tryign to suggest) and I apologize for that.
I’ve asked for forgiveness in several posts now and don’t feel like I’ve received it but I’ll keep trying.
I’m not trying to nit pick. I’m trying to explain why I took things the way I did. It’s become obvious the longer this has gone on that I don’t connect with the way you communicate. That’s why I’m trying to apologize.
It’s entirely possible that I misunderstood you. I apologize that it seems that I called you a liar (although that’s not at all what I meant). I apologize for my words seeming harsh and not seasoned with grace.
Will you forgive me?
September 12, 2008 at 2:17 am
HIJACKING
i know no one here intends to hijack this thread, but that is what has happened. why am i wasting my time reading this stuff when i want to learn more about sarah palin?
can we either close this thread or get back on track, please?
every post on truewomanhood doesn’t have to come back around to patrios, though in this palin discussion there will be some comment on how they are receiving her as well.
if there is unfinished/unsaid business between some of you, can it be decided elsewhere?
i am looking forward to some awesome, intelligent talk about palin
September 12, 2008 at 4:08 am
Lin, if it helps any, I’m with you on the Sci-Fi stuff.
September 12, 2008 at 6:59 am
Momof4: Yes, you did accuse me of gossip. You called me a tale-bearer and the definition you posted of that said: Talebearer: One who spreads malicious stories or gossip (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000)
So, you called me someone who spreads gossip.
See – here is why it is so frustrating for me to try to talk to people who don’t have a grasp of the English language. I’m not going to leave the definition this time, but you may want to look up the word “or.” It means that I did not call you a gossip.
BTW, I didn’t say anything about Sarah Palin.
Nor did I say you had. I simply applauded you for exposing the error of the Patriarchal crowd in this matter.
Whether or not you believe I stumbled upon this site? Well, I guess there’s nothing I can do about that. I’ts true and I’ll leave it at that.
If you arrived here free of malicious intent and simply “stumbled” into this site, I apologize for my accusation. The fact that two people from the PW forum showed up here at the same time seems highly suspect, but I’ll accept your explanation in this case.
September 12, 2008 at 7:01 am
Lin said: Gee thanks, Richard. I just spewed my Earl Grey.
)
(Let me know if that ever works)
It works all the time when I use it on my wife. (Please don’t visit her blog to find out if this is true.)
September 12, 2008 at 8:06 am
Did anyone see the interview last night with Sarah and Charlie Gibson? I saw a clip on You Tube and it looks like he was as intense with her as he has been in the past. Any thoughts?
September 12, 2008 at 8:43 am
Richard wrote, “The fact that two people from the PW forum showed up here at the same time seems highly suspect, but I’ll accept your explanation in this case.”
Richard, I don’t know who “Mom of 4″ is, so I assure you that we weren’t in cahoots to come on and stir things up.
I personally came on to see the infamous tampon post, because it was almost unbelievable to me that anyone would want to take that and post it on another forum. I was told that it had been posted here, and I thought I’d check it out. That’s all. No conspiracy; no desire to stir things up.
But, although Corrie posted it on the wrong thread (and when I wrote my original post here I didn’t know that) I think she WAS trying to stir the pot. You’ve all had an explanation regarding the responses on PW. None of them were saying, “Of course tampons make you think about marital pleasures”.
Just so you know, TWs, I have some dear friends and some much loved relatives who spend quite a bit of time here. They have been stretched in their thinking – which is the purpose of the group, I assume.
I view you as my sisters (and brothers, Richard!) in Christ, so my intention was not to attack Cindy or to belittle anybody. I recommended “Knowing God” not for any ulterior motive, but because I thought it would resonate with those who have left legalism in any form.
I also view the PWs as my sisters in Christ. Because I have been a member there for quite a few years, I “know” them (in cyberspace) more than I “know” you. It bothers me when I see an attack on anyone. How good it is when the brethren dwell in unity. Please don’t jump all over me about that statement. I do believe that error should be corrected. I believe that if anyone is living a life of legalism, following man’s philosophy, he or she should be pointed to the Word of God.
I was just reading a review on a book by Jonathan Edwards, who makes the point that increasing affection for God comes from knowing Him more. That’s why I agreed above that the Bible is the most important book. You’d be surprised to know that many, many of the women on PW would make a similar statement. (The reason I say that is that I have read comments that seem to indicate th at if you are a PW you don’t actually study your Bible…but rely solely on your husband to teach you. Ugh.)
Here’s a quote from Jonathan Edwards:
Holy affections arise from the Christians’ increasing understanding of God and His ways. “The child of God is graciously affected because he sees and understands something more of divine things than he did before, more of God or Christ, and of the glorious things exhibited in the gospel; he has some clearer and better view than he had before, when he was not affected. Either he receives some understanding of divine things that is new to him, or has his former knowledge renewed after the view was decayed.” So knowledge is the key that opens the heart and enlarges the affections.”
If knowledge is the key that opens the heart and enlarges the affections, then we ought to study the Word of God and live by it.
I know you believe that. So do I.
September 12, 2008 at 9:09 am
“I personally came on to see the infamous tampon post, because it was almost unbelievable to me that anyone would want to take that and post it on another forum. I was told that it had been posted here, and I thought I’d check it out. That’s all. No conspiracy; no desire to stir things up.”
So, Richard was right? Someone on the PW list emailed a bunch of people, privately, on the PW list and told them to check out the “infamous tampon post”? But, you are not here to stir up trouble but I am?
I find it interesting that you can ascribe bad motives to me but assert that your motives are pure as the freshly fallen snow. You are just here because you have everyone’s best interests at heart. I do not. Nice, but it isn’t in line with 1 Cor. 13 where you are to believe all things. I already told you that this wasn’t they “why” but you REFUSE to accept it. So be it.
“But, although Corrie posted it on the wrong thread (and when I wrote my original post here I didn’t know that) I think she WAS trying to stir the pot.”
You know nothing. You can think what you want. But, if you want to know what my motives were for posting that, you will have to give me the common courtesy of ASKING me instead of ASSUMING.
I wasn’t trying to stir the pot but it seems that GPMM knows more about why I posted than I do.
I have been here for a couple of years. She just shows up and starts telling people how to get right. Who is trying to stir the pot?
September 12, 2008 at 9:29 am
gpmm,
Here is the purpose statement for the TW blog:
“The true woman of the new millennium seeks to honor the Lord Jesus Christ with her heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love her neighbor as herself. She is gifted by God with amazing and unique gifts and she is empowered by the Holy Spirit to use those gifts for His glory alone. As this true woman commits herself to the Word of God, she eschews the man-made stereotypes given to her in the past and delights in God’s distinctive calling on her life in her home, in the church, and in the world.”
I appreciate your saying that many of the women on the PW list are committed to many of the same things in the above statement. I know that to be true because I personally know some of them as well. In fact, one of the women on the PW list was an original contributor on the “Got Me A College Girl” blog, which was the original name of this blog until we changed it in order to broaden the discussion. My daughter and I first started the blog to promote the idea that a college education for a young woman can be a good thing. This was 4 1/2 years ago, before the publication of So Much More. We were repeatedly hearing that a college education is a waste of time for girls (and for boys in most cases) and we wanted to refute it and I think we have done a great job of doing so.
One thing that I have noticed about the discussion on the PW list, and this is the point I think Corrie was trying to make and that I was trying to make in comment #240, that some of the women in this group lack discernment. Or maybe even a better way to put it is that they lack confidence in their own abilities to discern truth. They ask questions that would never even enter into the minds of of most women I know.
You didn’t respond to my concerns about the woman who said she didn’t have time to read her Bible. Not having time to read your Bible has been excused by Stacy and Jennie in their book. This notion is terribly flawed and, as Corrie has pointed out in past discussion, the priorities seem to be flawed; women are to set aside time for bubble baths and scented soaps and candles in the bedroom but reading God’s Word, the only true source of comfort and joy, is optional? Why weren’t all the PW ladies jumping at the chance to encourage this woman to be in the Word, that not making that a priority is certainly a main source of her discouragement?
This entire tampon tangent is not the point. The PW asking the question of the group is symptomatic of what I have read on that blog. Sure, there are many lovely Christian women there and there are many words of encouragement spoken. But how often I have shaken my head at the questions like that one that would only be discussed in a group that sees everything through the lens of gender. Andy why wouldn’t they? They have been “encouraged” to never read any dissenting views and have been warned to stay away from places like this blog. They have been told that anyone who doesn’t see only view of mens and womens’ roles as being “white-washed feminists.” They have been instructed by women who speak out of both sides of their mouths, yet I don’t see any of the PW’s holding them accountable. In the past year and a half there have been thousands of comments and questions asked here about the obvious hypocrisy and yet, when it is suggested that you go back and read through the archives, yo don’t have time? Can you understand why regular posters here become weary of the drop-ins who only want to single out what they think is one inconsistency and shoot with both barrels and move on?
I agree that we need unity and that we need peace. But we cannot have peace without righteousness and when I see the PW and patrio defenders holding the feet of their own gurus to the fire then I will know we are going to be able to sit down together and reasonably talk.
Someone in the past couple of days asked why we read the PW, why we care. All of us have been touched by or have loved ones who have been touched by the abuses of this movement. When we know what is at stake and we see the tremendous influence these folks have on the homeschooling community at large, we are compelled to speak out against it. I have no issue with a PW who wants to live her life the way she believes the Lord is calling her to do so. I have huge issue with those who teach that their way is “the biblcal way” and those of us outside of that paradigm are white washed feminists, unbiblical, or what have you. That is where I take my stand against patriocentricity.
September 12, 2008 at 10:38 am
“So, Richard was right? Someone on the PW list emailed a bunch of people, privately, on the PW list and told them to check out the “infamous tampon post”? But, you are not here to stir up trouble but I am?”
Just for the record, I was not e-mailed anything about an “infamous tampon thread” and that is not how I arrived at this site.
gpmm said that she came to see what the tampon thread was all about. I don’t think she said that someone e-mailed her about it or that she was part of a bigger distribution list that someone sent out about the subject here.
Richard, I appreciate the apology for calling me a liar. I truly did not lie about how I got here.
September 12, 2008 at 10:41 am
Karen, it wasn’t my intention to shoot with both barrels and move on.
I agree that the tampon question was a bit disconcerting, but I believe that it was answered well. As has been explained, the one who posted the question did so on behalf of someone else who had a legitimate reason for asking. Let’s leave it at that, because I cannot explain further.
Sometimes, college is a waste of time, unfortunately. I know a few people who regret the money spent on a college education, which left them in debt and not even working in the field for which they studied. But, sometimes college is a great idea. I see both sides of that issue.
I don’t know for sure, but I think the point that Stacy and Jennie were trying to make regarding Bible study for mothers of young children was that they didn’t need to beat themselves up for not getting their devotions done that day. Sometimes (and you know this, as the mother of many) there simply is no time in a day to sit and read the Word. Of course it should be a priority, and everyone needs spiritual food to grow on, but it’s a means of grace. God doesn’t condemn us for our failures. He loves us.
Karen, maybe I shouldn’t have bothered to drop in and say anything. I am not in a movement of any sort, nor do I wish to be. I believe in the Sovereignty of God, who is able to teach His children and work all things for good to those who love Him. He is the One I would rather focus on. So now I will go back to my children, my homeschool, my garden and my animals, and say farewell to you.
September 12, 2008 at 11:58 am
“I remember a discussion where the women were talking about how they wouldn’t allow their daughters to go to the bathroom any time they felt they needed to go because it gave them an independent spirit. They spoke of how they would require their daughters (not sons) to ask for permission to use the bathroom first so that they wouldn’t become independent.’
You know, if the Patrios are that dead set on completely dehumanizing their daughters, they might as well lobotomize all their females at birth, raise their girls for breeding stock and have men raise and educate the boys. That way, they wouldn’t have to bother with sentient women at all, and the women would probably suffer less in the long run.
September 12, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I know this has little to do with Palin directly, though one of the leaders in the FIC movement has become the most well-known anti-Palin conervative in the last week, but I am posting it here since this is the most active thread at present.
The first three parts in the series I am doing on the family integreated church model are up.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/
September 12, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Corrie said:
I remember a discussion where the women were talking about how they wouldn’t allow their daughters to go to the bathroom any time they felt they needed to go because it gave them an independent spirit. They spoke of how they would require their daughters (not sons) to ask for permission to use the bathroom first so that they wouldn’t become independent.
I remember thinking that this was ridiculous and that I think being independent in toileting one’s self to be a GOOD thing.
—
Liz adds:
Not allowing a daughter to go to the bathroom when they believe they need to go can also lead to potential bladder infections! Mom’s (or Dad’s) idea of the appropriate time may be too long of a wait for some kids.
September 12, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“I don’t know for sure, but I think the point that Stacy and Jennie were trying to make regarding Bible study for mothers of young children was that they didn’t need to beat themselves up for not getting their devotions done that day. Sometimes (and you know this, as the mother of many) there simply is no time in a day to sit and read the Word. Of course it should be a priority, and everyone needs spiritual food to grow on, but it’s a means of grace. God doesn’t condemn us for our failures. He loves us.
You know, this is something I had to get through my big fat head and God used some unusual connect the dots to teach me that God time is all the time. I really think this topic is one of the most important of our lives. Without Abiding in Him, being fed by the Vine, we are worthless mothers, wives and friends.
I blogged about this here if anyone is interested:
http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2008/02/god-time.html
September 12, 2008 at 1:27 pm
thatmom frmo #432
i got on and watched the palin/gibson interviews.
couple things:
she’s working hard at being assertive about her real or perceived weaknesses, like the inexperience criticism.
she’s working very hard at sayng things the exact right/acceptable way now that her audience is HUGE.
she’s open about God, though not direct in a very personal way, at least not that i heard, and this is not a criticism, just an observation.
she’s becoming more professional in her image.
people are much more nervous about a woman having to face foreign conflict/war decisions than having a man leader. i feel like many people do not know how to take that.
about feminists. i find it so interesting that some don’t want to accept her–and it’s because she’s not a feminist the way they want–free from family, husband, etc. she publicly promotes and embraces her family life–i think this rubs feminists the wrong way and is such an interesting expose of what they REALLY believe and promote.
i feel like a lot is riding on her for women and christianity. if she falls somehow (i mean characterwise, not the political race), it will be a big fall. but if she “succeeds” (and how can one outline criteria for her success at family/career?), it will be so interesting to see how this effects the church in america and it’s women.
September 12, 2008 at 2:00 pm
people are much more nervous about a woman having to face foreign conflict/war decisions than having a man leader. i feel like many people do not know how to take that.
How quickly they forget about Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, who was National Security Advisor before she became Secretary of State.
September 12, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Also, Nancy Pelosi is currently second in the presidential line of succession, just behind Dick Cheney, so it’s not as if there have not already been women in positions of power in the US.
September 12, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I can’t help but think about Margaret Thatcher the influence she had in bringing the Wall down, along with Reagan.
I once heard this great story about her. Thatcher was known for two fashion accessories, the lovely brooches she wore on her feminine, tailored suits, and her large leather handbag.
One day, she arrived at a meeting in her executive chamber before anyone else and had to step out of the room, leaving her handbag on the table. When she returned, all the men were in their proper seats but you could have heard a pin drop. Later, they admitted that they were so intimidated by this woman that even her handbag alone brought them to utter silence.
Isn’t that a great story?
This gender issue can become so foolish.
I agree with comment $442. There is much riding on Sarah Palin’s candidacy. I am really getting a kick out of all the pundits who don’t know exactly what to do with her. She is just too girl to fit the image of the raving feminazi and too intense to fit into the typical “meek and gentle” sterotypes they have constructed for themselves.
By the way, I didn’t know until I was at a Toastmaster’s meeting last night and we were discussing her speech at the RNC, but her monitor failed during that speech so it wasn’t all as scripted as they want us to believe. We all agreed that she is a great speaker and that her down home approach and her conversational manner suit her well and endear her to her audience.
September 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“Since Sarah Palin is running for VP with the approval of her husband, obviously you agree with me that what she is doing is perfectly acceptable biblically and that she has no reason to bow to the manic discontent of the Patricarchalist men who aren’t satisfied to simply subjugate their own wives but wish to do it to other’s wives as well. ”
This is what Richard said concerning Sarah Palin a few posts ago.
I agree with him on many levels.
Her husband not only approves but supports her in this. This should be the END of the discussion.
As far as the claim that she is not “biblically qualified”, that is just not true.
How is one biblically qualified to be a public servant to the US? Chapter and verse, anyone??????
The verses they have used to “prove” that she is not to be in leadership are proof-texted and misrepresented (greatly, in some cases).
re #442
Ukraine,
I really like this post.
It is sad that Palin will be judged more strictly BECAUSE she is a woman. If she falls, she is in good company with MANY male rulers throughout history. I pray that she doesn’t and that God keeps her strong. It would be shameful for someone to say “Aha! See, we told you so! This is exactly why a woman can’t rule!” when there are so many, many , many examples of men doing the exact same things and no one says that men can’t rule because they fall.
I missed the interview but I will try and look for it on youtube.
September 12, 2008 at 2:34 pm
On the morning news, they announced that McCain was going to be on “The View” today. I’m glad that I made a point to tune it while doing some mending.
1. The Charlie Gibson interviews will appear in entirety on 20/20 tonight. Whoppie complained that the interview seemed confusing because it was done in segments. Apparently they conducted the interview in segments, and not all of them were completed when parts of them aired last night. But all of it will reportedly be on tonight. (I watched my husband watch “Wild Wild West” on DVD last night which was more entertaining than the show itself. “He had his own train!” It was like watching him through a time machine lens — at about age 8. It was the coolest thing.)
2. They invited Sarah to be on. It seemed like that redheaded woman really dislikes Palin. She interrupted McCain before he could complete a statement. They grilled him about his fears that Palin does not recognize a separation of church and state, but McCain does. It was a pretty good discussion, actually. Whoopie does not seem half as vitriolic as she did 16 years ago when Clinton ran for the first time…
3. Barbara was really disrespectful to McCain in the beginning. She would also not allow him to complete a sentence before she ran over him with another question. I found it to be embarrassing. He handled it well however.
4. And Barbara Walters made me think of what has gone on here in this forum over the past two days…. She was not as gracious of a host as Karen has been here on TW.
I’m going to a wedding tomorrow. It’s in a Catholic church, and I intend to wear a dress and I plan to follow their order of worship, not do my own thing. I developed a migraine last night, and I would love to just roll out of bed tomorrow and put on a nice pair of slacks instead of wearing a dress and fixing my hair. But I am going to fix my hair tonight and make sure that I have my dress ready to go in the morning. Why? Because I have respect for not only the bride’s day but also for the house of worship where I am an invited guest.
What I would not dream of doing is going to this wedding, raising my hands in worship to God at a whim, as this is what I am accustomed to do in the church where I was raised. I’m not going to shout “Amen” if I hear something that rings true, as is something that I do in a church that I visit from time to time. I’m not going to clap to the beat of music if some upbeat music is played, just as I might do when I visit a Pentecostal church. (Where I currently attend, all these things are inconsistent with their worship style, just as I know that they will be tomorrow in an RCC.) I will follow their order of worship, even though I don’t necessarily agree with their particular preferences. I am a guest, both in God’s house and at this wedding. If the topic of the order of worship comes up at the reception or in the foyer, I might state that I enjoy all different types of Christian churches, but that I was raised in something that often resembled the church scene out of the Blues Brothers. But I don’t still behave that way, though I find nothing wrong with any of these orders of worship.
I noticed that near the beginning of Sarah Palin’s address before the RNC, there were men that led an individual out of the auditorium. This person interrupted Sarah, so they were escorted out, I noticed with their arm held high and their hand clenched in a fist. It was not the time or place to protest or voice a dissenting opinion. This person was in Sarah’s territory that night, interrupting her speech. I don’t care what their issue was with her, it was inappropriate.
This forum is a different one. It’s not a wedding. It’s not a church. And it’s not a convention meant to take care of business for a certain, restricted group. It’s an open forum where people can voice their concerns. And people have certainly done that here.
Unlike Barbara, Karen has not interrupted anyone that I know of here the past two days. Everyone has had an opportunity to speak their minds and state their differing opinions. But what I don’t understand the scruples behind those who interpret Scripture differently, who knowingly come into this forum and then stage a coup. Everyone’s had a chance to speak. Everyone has clearly established that they hold to different opinions and different interpretations of words and Scripture. Karen who holds to a different view of some of those here has graciously allowed people to speak their minds. But this is still her forum.
Just like the church I will attend tomorrow for a wedding, I am not required to be a different person and adopt their religious values. But I will not use that as an opportunity to scream to all who are there that I believe that many essentials of Roman Catholic Theology violate Ephesians 2:8-9 (even though I do believe that Eph 2:8-9 do prove doctrinal inconsistencies in RCT). Why? Because it’s inappropriate.
This isn’t the floor of Congress and people do not have a filibuster. This is still a blog that is hosted by a gracious person that holds to a certain set of beliefs and opinions. Many of us agree with her which is why we post here and not elsewhere on a blog where the host holds to beliefs that are contrary to our own.
You’ve been given an opportunity to say many times that you disagree with Karen’s opinions and Corrie’s and my own at times. We hear you. We get the point. But I would then ask that you have some respect for Karen and some gratitude for the fact that you were permitted an opportunity to offer a contrary opinion, right in the midst of those who hold a different one. And in respect for the Word of God, unless you have something more to offer here beyond that which has already been discussed in Prairie Muffin thread 2 and Visionary Daughters threads 4 and 5 and this whole ridiculous discussion of tampons, demanding some retraction or apology that you will not get (I don’t think Corrie is going to repent of her opinion), please drop it and go.
We did not break into your cyber living room or kitchen to voice opinions that are contrary to your own down your throat. You came into ours. And you were not escorted out the door but were indulged. Point taken. All apologies to Karen if this is not productive, but as another guest here in Karen’s cyber space, I politely ask that you cease and desist on these topics.
You disagree with Corrie’s interpretation.
You think we’re all guilty of gossip and malicious intent.
You think that it’s a sin and suspicious that those who are not on the Pat Wives list have received the emails, and you are not satisfied with the fact that we’ve posted information from them online.
You’re angry.
I think we all appreciate where you’re coming from.
Point taken. We disagree. Let us agree to disagree and bless one another in the Lord. And be done. Please.
ONE POINT I would like to make:
By claiming that we have violated some trust by posting information from this supposedly private email list, you are arguing that this virtue of privacy supersedes the Word of God’s requirement that ministers of the Gospel meet a high standard of integrity. You are comparing private matters shared in a forum that is very not private and based only on trust, saying that a Christian has a higher duty to that then they do to the Word of God’s standard for ministers and sound doctrine.
If you think that’s okay, well, more power to you. Point taken. But you are in a forum that holds to different beliefs. And you’ve worn out your welcome. Please be respectful and stop commenting in an adversarial spirit.
September 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm
gpmm,
Thank you for responding again and doing so with graciousness. I appreciate it. Thank you.
September 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“By the way, I didn’t know until I was at a “Toastmaster’s meeting last night and we were discussing her speech at the RNC, but her monitor failed during that speech so it wasn’t all as scripted as they want us to believe. We all agreed that she is a great speaker and that her down home approach and her conversational manner suit her well and endear her to her audience.”
It was broke for Rudy’s speech, too, and some of it was added in on the fly. I was impressed when I heard this.
This is a technical point and has nothing to do with character but I was very impressed with Palin’s ‘timing’ in her speech. She has a Reaganesque quality in her delivery. I think she may have read Roger Ailes’ book: You are the Message.
September 12, 2008 at 2:58 pm
You’re welcome, Cindy. Someone I love very much thinks you’re all right. She told me she likes your posts. So, any friend of hers is a friend of mine, even if we disagree on some points.
I still don’t think it’s necessary for you (not you personally, but someone here) to go and take posts from the other group. It’s like you go into their living room and take the candy dish, or some other little thing.
However, your point is well taken about THIS place being YOUR living room, and I agree that others ought to be polite when they visit. They don’t have to agree, of course, but treating each other with kindness is always in order.
Thanks for your kind words.
September 12, 2008 at 4:20 pm
#446, yes, if she falls off the horse, it will be all because she’s a woman, and wasn’t in her wife/mom sphere, etc. And the double standard for men is extremely frustrating.
what i love and think was a really smart move, is that i think palin has enough mystery/excitement as a choice to keep her in the front for two months, and this whole thing is giving obama a back seat in the media. what’s the saying? even bad press is still press
she is an intriguing figure and people will not tire of her for a long time, i think. and if elected, she will probaly have a much more front-lines job than most VPs. i mean, i had totally forgotten dick cheaney (sp?) was vp. but no one will forget that palin is vp. know what i mean?
ok, about the teleprompter issue, i read both sides’ take on that, and the Reps say she was a hero impromtu speaker, and the Dems say that it really wasn’t that broken. What they described was that during the applause pauses, the machine would keep running or speed a bit, so her first lines would be cut.
it’s so queasy reading how one side paints something then how the other side paints it.
OK, here’s my question to you all, do you think the mccain/palin camp is quilty of mudslinging? Like the commercials insinuating Obama’s sex ed for kindergartners. the dems say that in reality the sex ed program is to teach kids to stay away from people would want to take advantage of them, like touch them inappropriately.
does anyone have access to the actual program obama instituted/promoted? in order to know the truth?
does anyone have any qualms about palin?
i think she’s going to have to change the mom-image some, to be more professional and confrontational in some spheres, but in other places, like visiting soldiers, the mom image will be awesome. i am also interested to hear more from todd, about who he is. i love that he’s so masculine-looking, yet is breaking thru the role barriers
reminds me of my husband . . . . 
September 12, 2008 at 4:28 pm
“If you think that’s okay, well, more power to you. Point taken. But you are in a forum that holds to different beliefs. And you’ve worn out your welcome. Please be respectful and stop commenting in an adversarial spirit.”
Understood. I wasn’t trying to be adversarial. (I’m assuming you were referring to me since I’m the one who mentioned that PW is private.)
I mentioned last night that I’d be happy to leave and didn’t feel welcome here. Corrie answered that I was not unwelcome. Here, you’ve said that I’ve worn out my welcome.
Karen (btw, I *am* sorry if you’ve been subjected to any gossip at any time. I’ve never read it myself and, to be perfectly honest, I had no idea who you even were until my googling brought me here a couple of days ago. There is no excuse for any Christian ever gossiping about another!), I appreciate the opportunity for dialogue and I’m terribly sorry for causing any problem.
I tried to apologize. I tried to explain why I reacted the way I did (an apparent misunderstanding of Corrie’s point). I asked for Corrie’s forgiveness (still not sure if that’s been granted as I’ve had no response on that). I’m not sure what else I can do but I do appreciate the request go by Cindy.
September 12, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Momof4,
You are most certainly welcome here! All I require is a valid e-mail address and civility! WE do not, however, welcome those who are drive-by shooters and it is easy to assume that some of the new posters might be here for those sorts of purposes since it has happened before.
Maybe what would be a great idea is we could begin over again with a real dialogue. You mentioned that you have friends who read here. What brought them to this spot on the internet? And is there any topic here that has interest to you particularly? We really can be a gracious bunch and, has been stated many times, we no not censor thought.
September 12, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Ok, this is totally a girl thing to say and certainly not very intellectual, but Todd Palin IS a manly kind of guy. Sort of reminds me of Tim McGraw in some ways. I really love his interaction with his children!
September 12, 2008 at 5:38 pm
My wife thinks Todd’s quite a hunk too. You’re not alone.
September 12, 2008 at 5:49 pm
“Maybe what would be a great idea is we could begin over again with a real dialogue. You mentioned that you have friends who read here. What brought them to this spot on the internet? And is there any topic here that has interest to you particularly? We really can be a gracious bunch and, has been stated many times, we no not censor thought.”
I appreciate your graciousness, Karen.
I don’t have any friends who read here. I think gpmm said that she has friends and family who read here. Maybe I do have friends who read and I just don’t know it. I’ve found the internet to be an incredibly small world!
I’m still reading some of the threads here so I’m not sure if anything is of particular interest. It takes a lot to get caught up.
You know, I would not classify myself as a “patrios” as seems to be described here. I do live out some of the things they would espouse but definitely not all of it by any stretch of the imagination.
I’ll continue to read as I have found some degree of likemindedness with the things posted here.
September 12, 2008 at 6:36 pm
You know, I would not classify myself as a “patrios” as seems to be described here. I do live out some of the things they would espouse
Momof4 – The interesting thing with the folks here is that none of us have any problem with you living in the way that you are convinced is right. The issue that has cause much of the discussion here is when folks demand that others live in the way that they prescribe, but without biblical foundation for it. It’s the legalism that is opposed here, not the differences of opinion.
September 12, 2008 at 7:02 pm
That’s
“as Not private” instead of “was not private”
Sorry.
Hey, anyone living up near Alaska with Palin, we’re about to get hit with some good solar wind, so there should be really great northern lights along with a big Harvest Moon. It should be really pretty.
Spaceweather.com has some info if anyone wants to make it a homeschool research project.
September 12, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Also,
About 20/20 tonight. I looked online at ABC, and the Palin interview is only a small portion of the show, though that isn’t what Barbara Walters said. She indicated that instead of the segments that appeared on TV last night, they would show everything. The ABC 20/20 page says that they will only show segments of the interview.
????
September 12, 2008 at 8:11 pm
“My wife thinks Todd’s quite a hunk too. You’re not alone”
As my mom used to say, “Well, I am not dead, I can very well see just how handsome a man he is”.
)
It is going to be real hard for some to try and paint him as a wimp because of his wife’s position. I mean, how many of the Pat/comp men do deep sea fishing for profit, 2000 mile snowmobile races and think nothing of skinning a caribou? Todd could twirl Doug Phillips around with his little finger.
)
At the same time, he is not adverse to holding and nurturing his baby boy for hours in front of a million people. I kept looking to see if it seemed forced but he did it with such ease like he does it all the time.
It is a brave new world and some are going to fight it tooth and nail.
September 12, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Todd could twirl Doug Phillips around with his little finger
Of course, so could Pee Wee Herman. Maybe even Richard Simmons.
September 12, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Richard,
This just induced a sustained laugh from my husband (about 30 seconds). Then he did a Pee Wee impersonation and a Pee Wee laugh. Then we both cracked up.
September 12, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I’m glad the conversation has returned to tempered tones.
I read an article tonight that really struck me as something we MUST consider, if we really think that Sarah Palin may run our country someday. Here’s a quote (read it before running off to read the article, please)
“Palin has a right to her religious beliefs, as do fundamentalist Muslims who agree with her on so many issues of social policy. None of them has a right, however, to impose their beliefs on others by capturing and deploying the executive power of the state. The most noxious belief that Palin shares with Muslim fundamentalists is her conviction that faith is not a private affair of individuals but rather a moral imperative that believers should import into statecraft wherever they have the opportunity to do so. That is the point of her pledge to shape the judiciary. Such a theocratic impulse is incompatible with the Founding Fathers’ commitment to tolerance and democracy, which is why they forbade the government to “establish” or officially support any particular religion or denomination.”
Basically, the article is pointing out the fact (and I’ve actually heard this in several places today) that Sarah Palin does NOT recognize a separation of church and State. She believes that as she is a Christian, she should impose her Christian beliefs on the government that she is running.
Now, I’m all for having a Christian running this country, but honestly, I’m not for having someone run it as a “Christian country.” There’s a big difference. My main reason is that it can quickly devolve into any number of bad theologies, and this is a government, not a church. We have enough problems with people running churches with bad theology.
Oh, and here’s a link to the article. (you’ll have to take out the spaces)
http:/ /www.salon .com/opinion/feature/2008/09 /09/palin_fundamentalist/
*Disclaimer: I don’t fully agree with what the person who wrote this article is saying, just as I don’t agree with everyone here. I’ve said before where I stand on abortion, but I just wanted to make it clear that this article does not represent my opinions, I just thought this aspect was intriguing, so I thought I’d share. So, how about that Sarah Palin?
September 12, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I for one have never thought for a second that Sarah Palin is out to run a theocracy.
That’s actually why I like her. She seems very normal and not fundie. Just because someone is devout pro-life, does not an ultra fundie make.
The fact she is a WORKING MOTHER with a high powered job sort of kind of disqualifies her from the ultra fundie-let me make this world a theocracy camp, if you ask me.
And what does Obama guarantee us? Social theocracy via laissez-faire policy when it comes to anything moral?
I don’t think he’s much better, except he’s just a different slant.
Sarah Palin is not a theocratic candidate. Or at least I’ve never seen that side of her. And I’m very much anti-fundie myself.
September 12, 2008 at 9:20 pm
“Now, I’m all for having a Christian running this country, but honestly, I’m not for having someone run it as a “Christian country.” There’s a big difference. My main reason is that it can quickly devolve into any number of bad theologies, and this is a government, not a church. We have enough problems with people running churches with bad theology.”
Abby, here is some food for thought on this issue. EVERYONE has a religion. Even athiests. A religion is simply a belief system. So you could have that problem with anyone who runs. Would an athiest not value life? Would a muslim not value women? Would a Christian not value our just laws? What could they do about those beliefs as President without the consent of congress? (There is some damage they can do by Exec order but not much)
So what do we do with all this? Jimmy Carter was a Christian prez and quite an incompetent leader which had nothing to do with his being a Christian. (no offense just basing it on fact) He taught SS and was a deacon and was quite involved in Baptist life.
We are a country that is supposed to be run by laws not the whims of people who are leading.
The media will see everything through her Christian lens. They would probably not do the same with an athiest or a muslim. They would not consider it to be an issue.
September 12, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Abby – Our founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that the sort of scenario that you have painted could happen. So they set up the checks and balances of a government split between the judiciary, legistlative, and executive branches. It is almost impossible for a true fringe person to enforce his (or her) will on the people of the United States.
Of course, I don’t see any of this in Sarah Palin at all. She seems quite solid on the concept of the Separation of Church and State.
September 12, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I think at times there are things we choose to ignore about a person because the truth would be catastrophic. I’ll be honest that I am probably missing the truth about our democratic candidate, but the more I hear about Sarah Palin, the more I personally dislike the idea that she might be second in command to run our country.
But we seem to be forgetting that she is NOT running for president right now. John McCain is. It’s HIS policies that would be in place if he won the election, and I can’t see how the stagnant policies of the GW era are going to change if John McCain becomes president.
Maybe I’m one of those idealist young people who thinks that change can actually happen in Washington, who knows. But the more I read about SP, from BOTH sides of the media–conservative and liberal, the more I’m troubled about her.
For now, I’m going to have to leave this place, because there are many more things I’m thinking than saying and I’m afraid if I stayed too long, I’ll say something I’ll regret later.
Toodles.(I’ll be reading occasionally, just not commenting)
September 12, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“John McCain is. It’s HIS policies that would be in place if he won the election, and I can’t see how the stagnant policies of the GW era are going to change if John McCain becomes president.”
Well, just in case you come back, please know that McCain and Bush are arch enemies in politics. The LAST thing he wants to be is thought of as continuing like Bush. And that could be a bad thing, too. The conservative base was not happy about McCain at all. Palin may have saved him.
September 12, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Corrie,
Thanks for your most recent comments to me and for accepting my apology.
As for Palin, I’ll refrain from comment. I don’t feel like I know anywhere near enough about her to be qualified to comment. I will be watching the 20/20 interview tonight.
Just an interesting tidbit (maybe?) for those who are wondering about my degree of patriowhatever…my husband is fully planning on voting for the McCain/Palin ticket. I have contemplated not voting this election (just for Pres) and he and I have had some great discussions on why he thinks I should vote and why I don’t know if I can.
He would *never* presume to exert some sort of authority over me and tell me what to do with my vote. Just wanted to offer that as a glimpse into in my.:-)
September 13, 2008 at 7:10 am
Abby,here are a couple things to consider when you look at someone who is running for office, whether it be for dog catcher, public school board, or president.
Each person has a worldview that he brings to whatever job he has. Your worldview can be based on many things, including our own life experiences and the influences of others at crucial times while you were growing up. I have observed that many worldviews change drastically once you are older and even as you have children.
One sometimes assumes that a Christian necessarily has a Christian worldview and I know this isn’t always the case, though it should be. As Christians, we ought to “do all things as unto the Lord” and we should seek out our wisdom from Scripture as we make life decisions. This not only includes the things we do on a personal level but also the things we do for our employers and even as we participate in public life as an elected official.
At one time, it was taught in the church that there were two arenas, the secular and the sacred and that the sacred was for the priests within the church while everyone else resided in the secular. One of the basic tenets of the Reformation was that all of life and all believers are to dwell within the sacred, that everything we do, whether we wipe little bottoms, mow grass,drive a big rig, or execute the office of president of the US, is to be done for God’s glory if we are a Christian. Our very lives as Christians, in all we do,k ought to be a reflection of Jesus.
This truth was understood by John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice in the US and also a Bible-believing Christian. He said that whatever makes a man a good Christian also makes him a good public official. When you really think about that, it is very true. And just think about if that truth were also applied to all employees and employers. There would never be a need for unions or union mediators.
But, understanding that all men are sinners, even after they become Christians, our founders put into place a system of checks and balances, as Richard stated, that protect all of us.
Then lets consider laws. We must remember that ALLS LAWS are based on someone’s worldview, whether it is a Christian one or not. There is no such thing as secular and neutral when it comes to making rules or judgments. Barack Obama has a worldview and, for the most part, I do not see it as coming from any deep seated Christian beliefs. I live in Illinois and well-remember when he would not support legislation that would require that babies who were born alive during an abortion receive medical intervention. At that time, the practice was to let them die alone in a linen closet or in a bucket in a storage room. Can you imagine Jesus doing that? He professes to be a Christian but his life and actions are not a reflection of that.
I think the real issue that would concern me regarding whether or not someone was a theocrat is not that she has a Biblical worldview and would seek to base decisions and support for laws on those convictions. Rather, I think a true theocrat doesn’t understand God’s mercy and grace and is more apt to base laws and judgments on Old Testament civil law, which is another completely different perspective. Do you see the difference?
September 13, 2008 at 7:12 am
Momof4,
You know, I imagine that many of us here share the same lifestyles as many women who call themselves PW’s. But, for starters, I think the use of the word “patriarch” is a put off because there is no place in Scripture that uses that word to describe any man except for the OT patriarchs who were called for a particular purpose.
Have you read Phil Lancaster’s book where he labels the father the prophet, priest, and king of his home? What do you make of this?
September 13, 2008 at 9:02 am
I’ve been asking a number of critical questions about Gov. Palin, and finding a number of troubling issues with her. But I’ve started a separate blog rather than bring that much contention here.
I will bring here that she cut in half a one-time request to support adoption services. For someone who is pro-life and who claims to not consider children a punishment, I find that extremely troubling. I would think she would be encouraging adoption as an alternative.
September 13, 2008 at 9:17 am
Annie, please give us your blog address. We all need to be as informed as possible.
September 13, 2008 at 10:13 am
Palin cut $268 million from Alaska’s proposed spending budget earlier this year. I fully support asking critical questions about Sarah Palin and am not personally a McCain/Palin supporter, but I don’t view this news item as “extremely troubling,” nor do I believe it indicates Palin discourages adoption or shows a “punishment mentality.”
Palin also halved funding for counseling and adoption services at Catholic Community Resources. But Camille Connelly-Terhune, the group’s executive director, said the group was “thrilled” with the $150,000 it did get.
“It gives us the option to continue our services,” she said.
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/may/23/palin-vetoes-millions-state-budget/
September 13, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“You know, I imagine that many of us here share the same lifestyles as many women who call themselves PW’s. But, for starters, I think the use of the word “patriarch” is a put off because there is no place in Scripture that uses that word to describe any man except for the OT patriarchs who were called for a particular purpose.”
OK. I can accept the uncomfortability with the word. I can say that I don’t use that word in any sort of regular conversation or in any sort of description on myself.
“Have you read Phil Lancaster’s book where he labels the father the prophet, priest, and king of his home? What do you make of this?”
No, I haven’t. I haven’t read or heard anything by him in at least 5 years. I think I’ve heard a couple of talks by him in some series of tapes I listened to a long time ago and I’m sure I’ve read some articles by him but, like I said, it’s been a really long time. So, I couldn’t begin to comment on his position.
I will say that I talked to my husband about this after I read your question just to get his take on it. I’d already mulled it over in my own mind and wanted to see if we were on the same page. We were but I certainly would of told him if we weren’t. LOL!!
So, here’s my own personal take which is subject to revision if I find it incorrect based on further teaching.
Of course Christ is our Prophet, Priest and King and he holds these positions in the life of every believer.
I do believe that the structure of the Christian family lends itself to the husband fulfilling the roles of prohet, priest and king (all lower case and not to be confused with the perfection of Christ) to some extent.
The role of the prophet would be to bring the Word of God to the people. I do, in fact, believe that it is the job of the Christian husband to be in the Word, to study things theological in nature and to bring that to his family in the form of instruction, encouragement and edification.
The role of priest is one in which the priest intercedes on behalf of others. In the case of the family, the Christian husband absolutely has the duty to intercede for his family in prayer and to ask that God would forgive them of their sins. I think of Job in this respect. Now, the Scriptures speak to the fact that believers are a royal priesthood but I believe that the husband has a special, God ordained role as covenant head of his family to act as a “priest” not superceding the work of Christ.
The role of king is rule, protect and preserve. I do see that as part of a husband’s role in the family. He is to be a servant ruler; one who loves those under his authority but does not lord it over them. He is definitely obligated to protect and preserve those in his care.
I’m sure that this concept has been distorted by certain circles. Honestly, I haven’t heard any specific teaching on the subject that I can remember so these are just some thoughts I had as I thought about it this morning.
September 13, 2008 at 2:27 pm
http://progressivehomemakers.blogspot.com/
I am trying to keep it polite and as non-snarky as possible. I may not always be successful, but I am trying.
September 13, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“Now, the Scriptures speak to the fact that believers are a royal priesthood but I believe that the husband has a special, God ordained role as covenant head of his family to act as a “priest” not superceding the work of Christ.”
So there are ‘levels’ of adult believers in the royal priesthood? What is a ‘covenant head’? Where are these concepts in scritpure?
September 13, 2008 at 4:50 pm
momof4 said: “I do believe that the structure of the Christian family lends itself to the husband fulfilling the roles of prohet, priest and king (all lower case and not to be confused with the perfection of Christ) to some extent.”
not sure i will succeed in “revising” your thoughts, but i’m glad you’re open to it.
The ways you outlined for a father to be prophet, priest, and king, those are all things a mother ought to be doing too. and just because she is a christian. christian parents should pray for/intercede for their family (not ask forgiveness for, though, becuase that’s only btwn the person and God); they both are spiritual instructors, and the mom hears from God juast as the dad because she is also a christian with direct access to God, His Spirit and His Word. She also is to provide–she might not bring in the pay salary, but she has a big say in how it’s spent and in what she does with her time to provide clothing, etc. for her family.
i’m not so sure God wants us to see the family through the lens of gender to that extent. I think it can be crippling to put pressure on a guy to do and be and accomplish what only God does, and these views tend to make a woman spiritually dependent on her husband in ways she should be looking to God.
OT, but that’s a few things i’ve noticed. Grace and peace.
September 13, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“So there are ‘levels’ of adult believers in the royal priesthood? What is a ‘covenant head’? Where are these concepts in scritpure?”
Nope. Not what I said at all.
By “covenant head” I mean the representative of the covenant community (in this case the family) who represents that community to the covenant maker (in this case God).
birthinukraine
Of course a mother teaches her chiildren, manages the home, prays for family, etc. But, she is not the head of the home; she is not the covenant head.
The father is that covenant head and, in so far as he is, I don’t have a problem classifying his roles as prophet, priest and king. I don’t think those are “official” or “ordained” titles for him found anywhere in the Word but I do see how the principles are worked out.
I’m not “spiritually dependent” on my husband in the way you seem to mean it. I am very grateful that the Lord has given me a “head” in my husband but I am only spiritually dependent on Christ.
My husband encourages me in my spiritual growth, instructs our family, etc. That’s all I mean as far as “prophet” goes. I don’t have a problem dropping that term at all.
I was asked what my thoughts were on the Phil Lancaster’s view of prophet, priest and king. I said I had no idea and hadn’t thought about it but as I contemplated it this morning, and thought about the roles that a prophet, priest and king would fulfill that I came to my own conclusions.
Since I’ve never even contemplated it in the past, we are not at all committed (in our family) to calling my husband by those titles.
(BTW, Job 1:5 is my reference for the “covenant head” offering prayers for the the forgiveness of sins for his family.)
September 13, 2008 at 5:31 pm
A point of clarification on the forgiveness of sins…
Yes, I *absolutely* believe that each individual person is responsible for their own sin and must seek forgiveness of their sins from God.
But, I also believe that the head of the home should be interceding for the family as their representative before God and asking for forgiveness on their behalf.
September 13, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Momof4 – the head of the home should be interceding for the family as their representative before God
The head of the home should certainly be interceding for the family, as should the wife being interceding for the family, as should the children be interceding for the family. And we should all be interceding for one another. This is not a point of disagreement between the Patriarchy and those of us who reject their teaching.
The problem is not intercessory prayer, but rather the fact that the Patriarchy seems to be saying (and in some cases, explicitly) that the husband/father is to mediate for his wife and daughters. This is a direct violation of scripture as is seen here:
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus -1 Timothy 2:5
September 13, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I don’t think I was quite direct enough on that last comment.
Momof4 said: the head of the home should be interceding for the family as their representative before God and asking for forgiveness on their behalf.
The father is absolutely NOT the family’s “respresentative before God.” Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and men. The father is usurping God’s positiion if he attempts to be the family’s representative before God.
Before a man attempts to do this, I would recommend that he look into why Lucifer was thrown out of heaven.
September 13, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I’m not sure what the reference to Lucifer is about? Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you mean or give me the Scripture reference you’re talking about.
I never called the head of the home a mediator.
I’m trying to find common ground here.
September 13, 2008 at 9:21 pm
“By “covenant head” I mean the representative of the covenant community (in this case the family) who represents that community to the covenant maker (in this case God).”
Momof4, the Bible says nothing about a family being a covenant community.
In any case, the traditional view of marriage is that the husband and wife make a covenant with each other, not with God. God WITNESSES the covenant between the man and woman, but He is not the one making the covenant — rather, the man and woman are.
September 13, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Momof4 – I didn’t mean for that to be an attack against you but rather an attack against the teaching that the father/husband is a mediator.
Perhaps I should have asked you first where in the bible you find that the father/husband is the representative to God for the family. I don’t find that anywhere in scripture and it sounds to me like this means that the father is mediating between God and the family.
Each believer has direct access to God through the blood of Christ and none of us needs a mediator other than Christ. Because Christ has been named our only mediator, anyone who presumes to represent us before God the Father, when each of us has been given access to go boldly before the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16) is trying to be like God.
This is the reference to Lucifer that I mentioned in my previous comment. Trying to be like God is what caused Lucifer to be thrown out of heaven. That is not a precedent that I would want to mess with. God says many times in scripture that he will not condone this sort of thing. He is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5) and will not give his glory to another.
September 13, 2008 at 10:19 pm
OK, before I go any farther, I’m going to ask a question:
Is there a fundamental disagreement here with Covenant Theology? If there is, there’s no point in me going on. My husband and I have studied that subject in depth and we are Covenantal.
So, I’ll anticipate an answer on that.
September 13, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I can’t speak for anyone else – I’m sure we have a variety of theological systems represented here.
But I am Reformed with a historic pre-milennialist eschatology. So I do not fully subscribe to Covenant theology but would be in strong agreement with the vast majority of what Covenant theologians teach. I hold to the London Baptist Confession, which parallels closely the Westminster Confession but holds to believers’ baptism and takes a few small Eschatological departures.
Based on the time I have spent here, I think that the Westminster Divines’ version of covenant theology would not find much disagreement in this forum.
September 13, 2008 at 10:43 pm
OK. I’m Reformed and post-millenial subscribing to the Westminster Confession.
So, maybe our differences are just in semantics and I’m not expressing myself well. As you suggested before, I don’t even know the meaning of the word “or.” LOL!!
Of course, I actually do know the meaning but am obviously just failing at communicating. I think (just maybe) that some of what I’m saying is just being filtered through a presupposition of what people think I mean because I’m on a list called The Patriarchs’ Wives.
Would it help if I was just clear that I don’t classify myself as “Patriarchal” but do classify myself as “Covenantal”? Maybe looking at me through that lens would help in understanding what I’m saying.
September 13, 2008 at 10:47 pm
“Is there a fundamental disagreement here with Covenant Theology?”
I believe there are two covenants. In this one we do not have earthly priests as all believers are ‘priests’, Jesus being our High Priest. All true believers have anointing (1 John) and are gifted by the Holy Spirit. The law in the NC is Love. Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. And mutual submission of all believers with all the ‘one anothers’ that are taught in the NC.
‘Family’ is not the focus in the NC as it was in the Theocracy of the OC. We see examples of this all through the NC. Just because I say that does not mean I do not think parents have complete responsiblity for raising their children in the LORD. But family in some Covenant groups has become an idol not even allowing grown children to leave home and making the dad into an earthly priest even over his wife. This is idolatry and usurps Christ’s role as each individual believers High Priest. No human can be the Holy Spirit for another human and Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to each true believer.
The change in focus in the NC is ‘go and make disciples instead of ‘be fruitful and multiply’. In the OC, the Jews were building the Theocracy. They were not called to go out and witness to other nations.
September 13, 2008 at 11:20 pm
So, Lin, are you dispensational, then? I’m not writing that as a challenge in any way. I’m just trying to get some perspective on who I’m talking with.
September 13, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Richard: “But I am Reformed with a historic pre-milennialist eschatology. So I do not fully subscribe to Covenant theology but would be in strong agreement with the vast majority of what Covenant theologians teach. I hold to the London Baptist Confession, which parallels closely the Westminster Confession but holds to believers’ baptism and takes a few small Eschatological departures.”
Momof4: “OK. I’m Reformed and post-millenial subscribing to the Westminster Confession.”
Mara: Wow. You people are so educated.
All I really know is, “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.”
I know what Eschatology is. But I’m not sure about reformed, post-millenial, or Westminster Confession. Are those things I need to know?
I recently watched the History Channel’s documentary on the banned books of the Bible (I & II)and learn of the origin of the Niacian (sp?) Creed. And watching that documentary made me realize that the early church was just as much at odds with each other as we are. It was a flat out miracle that God was able to work through men to bring about the Bible that we have today.
I know that some would contort the Bible to make it say what they want it say.
But I also know that there are truth seekers out to find the heart of God through pray and prayful study of His word.
I pray that God will continue His work in us and open our eyes further so that we can be true worshipers who worship Him in spirit and truth, each and everyone of us.
I’m still awed by the big words you people use around here.
September 14, 2008 at 12:03 am
(BTW, Job 1:5 is my reference for the “covenant head” offering prayers for the the forgiveness of sins for his family.)
I love that passage. It really provides some food for thought about the power our prayers have over the lives of others. However, and it’s a big however, if we assume it’s Job’s *gender* or familial *status* that caused his prayers to be sufficient, I think we are adding to Scripture what Scripture does not say.
For example, we have a clear word in 1 Corinthians that a believing man AND/OR a believing woman’s presence in an otherwise unbelieving home cause some measure of santification upon the unbelieving members of that family.
We also have a clear word (throughout the Bible) about those who pray for others—-that we, as believers, can “stand in the gap,” as it were, for others and beg for them…and that God hears our prayers on others behalf.
So Job’s intercession for his children is awesome, but to use it as an example that a father is a “covenental head” and is a prophet, priest, and king in a way that is higher than a believing mother…? That would be adding to Scripture, big time.
Which is not a problem, as long as the one teaching and/or believing the above belief admits that it comes from their *opinion* instead of from Scripture itself.
Warmly,
Molly
September 14, 2008 at 12:39 am
“So Job’s intercession for his children is awesome, but to use it as an example that a father is a “covenental head” and is a prophet, priest, and king in a way that is higher than a believing mother…? That would be adding to Scripture, big time.”
Molly, I didn’t use the reference as a “proof text” that the father is a covenantal head fo that he is prophet, priest and king. I only used it as an example of a father praying for God to forgive the sins of his children. (in post #477)
I appreciate your input but you read way more into what I wrote than what was there.
To all~can I just say, again (!), that I *don’t* believe that there is some official office of prophet, priest or king that is held by the head of the home.
I *do* maintain that the father is the covenant head of the home; Ephesians 5 being one obvious passage. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. Would you say that Christ is not a “covenant head” of the church? If so, then what is the nature of His relationship with His bride?
September 14, 2008 at 2:28 am
http://jonalynfincher.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-integrating-work-and-home.html
Off topic, or, rather, ON topic (lol) for a rare moment, did you all see this FANTASTIC article by Jonalyn Fincher on Palin and motherhood, etc? REALLY good food for thought there, highly recommended.
Momof4,
I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear (my bad), but when I was responding, I was doing so more to patriarchalists in general. I’ve heard Voddie Baucham, Doug Philips, and others use the Job reference as a proof for covenental headship, etc, so I was just providing my “in general” musings back at that argument.
Btw, I believe that the husband is the head of the wife. But, if we’re going to be Scriptural, when someone says that a father is the head of the home, they’re NOT being Scriptural. He’s not the head of the home (well, at least the Bible doesn’t teacht hat), but is the head of the wife.
And it’s up to us to decide how that should best be interpreted. We see “head” as a synonym for leader today, sure. But did kephale mean authority or leader, to the Jews and Greeks who read Paul’s words to Ephesus? And if leader, then a leader of what? A leader of love, or a leader in power? Etc, etc, etc…
Christ is a lot of things to the church. What particular aspect of Christ’s relationship to the Church was Paul bringing out in Ephesians 5? Christ’s authority over the church? Or what? Let’s let the letter to the Ephesians do the talking.
Warmly,
Molly
(I love a good study of Scripture!)…
September 14, 2008 at 10:12 am
Excellent article Molly, thank you for sharing it.
I put a reply on my blog. I was going to put it here, but I can be rather long winded once I get going.
September 14, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Mom of 4,
You wrote above:
The role of priest is one in which the priest intercedes on behalf of others. In the case of the family, the Christian husband absolutely has the duty to intercede for his family in prayer and to ask that God would forgive them of their sins. I think of Job in this respect. Now, the Scriptures speak to the fact that believers are a royal priesthood but I believe that the husband has a special, God ordained role as covenant head of his family to act as a “priest” not superceding the work of Christ.
I think maybe many here do not like the way your phrasing sounds when you describe the role of the family priest. I don’t know if what you believe is or is not consistent with one or many individuals within the larger patriarchy movement. I can imagine that Lancaster might say just this same exact thing that you’ve stated here, though you may both be describing different understandings. Your phrasing echoes some of those descriptions.
I think that what people fear is something that your phrasing suggests that the prayers of the ordained or specially anointed household priest is not a sufficient petition or intercession on behalf of his family, but it suggests that it is a NECESSARY condition for the forgiveness of the sins of his family. The language that you use here does not make that clear. The idea of the special ordained role of the father adds potency to the idea that it is a necessary condition. Scripture does not say that in a spiritual sense that this is necessary.
Of all the things that a father intercedes for on behalf of his family, you singled out the forgiveness of sins, something that the Word (under the New Covenant) has well-provided for. I think if you had said something like “he intercedes on behalf of his family, asking and trusting God to provide for his family’s highest and best possible spiritual growth and edification, than you wouldn’t have been met with the response that you were.
The phrase “not superceding the work of Christ” becomes very open to much interpretation as well. You mentioned federal headship. What exactly does that mean? It does suggest mediation, in combination with the fact of all the things that a father could possibly interecede for, you chose the forgiveness of sins. Under the Old Covenant, the father went to the tabernacle or the temple and offered the family sacrifice. On the Day of Atonement, the Levitical priest went into the Holy of Holies and poured the blood onto the mercy seat in order to intercede for the nation of Isreal. But under the New Covenant, as I think we would both agree, both of these steps of approaching God became unnecessary. Each and every believer who is washed in the Blood of the Lamb who washes away our sin makes us holy in Christ’s righteousness so that we can boldy walk right up to God’s throne and find grace there.
So I think in Covenant Theology in particular, there is an affection for this idea of the father going to offer the family sacrifice. His intercession is no longer a necessary step in covering sin as each person can go right to Christ directly. That is a completely separate role from praying to God to give his children wisdom, to make their hearts and minds sensitive and obedient to the Word and the Spirit and to lead them into paths of righteousness. But as others have stated, that is a responsibility of all believers for one another.
As I understand the New Covenant, fathers have responsibilities for their families, but it is more of a responsibility than it is “a special anointed office” like it was under the Old Covenant. That is a criticism of Covenant Theology — that it prefers a strong identification with the nation of Israel that competes with New Testament ecclesiology.
When did the church begin? With Abraham or with the Book of Acts at Pentecost? The answers to these questions have some bearing on how you interpret whether a father is an anointed priest over his family. I reject the idea that the Old Testament was “The Church” under what generally conforms to “New Covenant Theology.” It shares some ideas with Covenant Theology but rejects this strong identification with Israel and the Old Covenant — and the law. New Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism both emphasize the doing away with the Old Covenant and the law as a means of reconciliation with God. It comes only through faith. It rejects the legalism that places a father in the representative role that is defined in the OT.
All federal headship defined was the fact that Adam represented all mankind. That is unrelated to male headship that is economic or functional. Man does not hold a higher status before God or a special anointing. He gets stuck with a lot more responsibility, but it is not a place of ordering ruling like a king rules his subjects, and he is not a “gatekeeper” in terms of how a woman receives ministry or how a woman ministers outside of their relationship. Husband and wife mutually submit to one another (as the same flesh), but because there are two individuals together, there must be structure. The functional role of leader falls to men, though this is not a position that is based upon his essence, his spiritual or his physical “stuff.” It’s forensic or functional. It’s not an “anointing” with special or unique powers, and neither his gender nor his marriage/parenthood confers a special power on him. The only anointing that he has is that which was given to all through the Holy Spirit, something that did not happen before Pentecost.
And I don’t think that most people give much thought to some of these things. We hear the language and the lingo, and it “sounds” right. But it may be sloppy or inaccurate. (If it is, then we need only go back to clarify. I think that’s what Richard and Lin were trying to do here, trying to get around the very vague statements of “does not supercede Christ” which could mean a host of things, not all of them orthodox. And again, of all the paternal responsibilities to specify, the fact that “forgiveness of sins” was chosen has a flavor of Old Testament Day of Atonement family intercession to it, something that passed away with the New Covenant but hangs on in spirit in some pockets of Covenant Theology.
September 14, 2008 at 5:10 pm
You know, I’m feeling like no one even wants to give me a chance here. Every word I write is automatically suspect and, by the repsonses I’m receiving, automatically assumed to patriarchal *unless* I can somehow convince everyone that that is not my stand. I don’t feel like I’m getting even a shred of the benefit of the doubt.
Cindy K said, ” think that what people fear is something that your phrasing suggests that the prayers of the ordained or specially anointed household priest is not a sufficient petition or intercession on behalf of his family, but it suggests that it is a NECESSARY condition for the forgiveness of the sins of his family.”
I didn’t say any such thing. I said that the father is the ordained covenant head of the home. I went on to explain that he can act as a sort of “priest” (which I *intentionally* put in quotation marks in hopes of making it clear that I do not believe that is any sort of official office which I also went on to state emphatically in several other posts).
“Of all the things that a father intercedes for on behalf of his family, you singled out the forgiveness of sins, something that the Word (under the New Covenant) has well-provided for.”
I stated what I meant by “priest” when I said that a priest intercedes for others. I then described “the Christian husband absolutely has the duty to intercede for his family in prayer **and** to ask that God would forgive them of their sins.” I did not single out the forgiveness of sins. I also **do not** think it is necessary for the covenant head to ask for forgiveness for those under his care for them to, indeed, be forgiven.
“I think maybe many here do not like the way your phrasing sounds when you describe the role of the family priest. I don’t know if what you believe is or is not consistent with one or many individuals within the larger patriarchy movement. I can imagine that Lancaster might say just this same exact thing that you’ve stated here, though you may both be describing different understandings. Your phrasing echoes some of those descriptions.”
See? This is why I can’t win. It’s being assumed that I have a patriarchal leaning and everything I say is being measured against that. I’m not really being heard. I did not say that the father is the “family priest.”
I guess I can accept that but I don’t have the energy to try and prove that I’m not patriarchal to be taken seriously.
You know, at this point, I’m really wishing that I would have just answered Karen’s question directed to me about Phil Lancaster like this: “No, I haven’t read his book. I can’t comment on what he has to say about prophet, priest and king.” and left it at that.:-)
September 14, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“Is there a fundamental disagreement here with Covenant Theology?”
Only insofar as it departs from the the Bible. Marriage is not described as a covenant between man and God in the Bible; rather, it is a covenant between man and woman, or between God and Israel, or between Christ and the Church.
September 14, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Mom of 4–I don’t believe anyone here is trying to attack you personally; I hope you don’t feel that way. We just want to challenge you to examine some of the ideas you’ve been fed. Just by spending time on this blog, you’ve shown openness of the mind, which is healthy and good for you and for everyone.
Momof4 said: “I said that the father is the ordained covenant head of the home. I went on to explain that he can act as a sort of “priest” (which I *intentionally* put in quotation marks in hopes of making it clear that I do not believe that is any sort of official office which I also went on to state emphatically in several other posts)”
But I guess I’m wondering why anybody would use a word like “priest” in the context of the family at all, even in quotes. Why go there in the first place, especially if you don’t fully mean it in the manner the word suggests? And then follow it with phrases like “ordained covenant head”?
“Ordained” and “Priest” together? Wow.
“Covenantal” and “Federal Head” are also fully-loaded, but more ambiguous, as Cindy K. said.
Mara in comment #493 has some excellent points about the overuse of jargon, which seeks to impress but nearly always confuses. Effective writing turns complicated concepts into understandable ideas. The Gospel message itself is beautiful in its clarity.
But somehow I think the patrios don’t want to be so clear. They want to make their words sound pretty, even if the truths behind them are anything but.
September 14, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Mara, I thought of you in church this morning. My pastor told the story of the famous theologian Karl Barth, a man who was known for using large theological phrases and words. Toward the end of his life he was asked what the most profound truth about God was and he said “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” May it ever be so.
September 14, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Momof4, I guess this discussion makes me wonder this…do you believe that the mom is also a priest in the home?
September 14, 2008 at 6:59 pm
oops, the last two were me, Karen. I didn’t log off and back on when I should have!
September 14, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“We just want to challenge you to examine some of the ideas you’ve been fed.”
Fed by who? (that’s not rhetorical…I actually would like to know who it is perceived I have been fed by.
) I haven’t been fed anything. Covenantal Theology is something my husband and I have studied deeply over the course of about 8-10 years now.
““Ordained” and “Priest” together? Wow.”
I didn’t use ordained and priest together.
“But I guess I’m wondering why anybody would use a word like “priest” in the context of the family at all, even in quotes. Why go there in the first place, especially if you don’t fully mean it in the manner the word suggests? And then follow it with phrases like “ordained covenant head”?”
I only “went there” because I was asked a question about it. I said that I’d never really thought about. I said that it wasn’t a concept that I “hold” to. I said that we don’t use prophet, priest and king in our home and ascribe them to my husband. I said these are not official offices.
I don’t know what else to say about it except that I wish I’d never said it in the first place.
“But somehow I think the patrios don’t want to be so clear. They want to make their words sound pretty, even if the truths behind them are anything but.”
We all do realize that I’m not aligned with the “patrios,” right?
September 14, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Momof4 said: “I didn’t use ordained and priest together.”
Momof4 said: “I said that the father is the ORDAINED covenant head of the home. I went on to explain that he can act as a sort of “PRIEST” (which I *intentionally* put in quotation marks in hopes of making it clear that I do not believe that is any sort of official office which I also went on to state emphatically in several other posts)”
September 14, 2008 at 7:20 pm
The point is that I did not use ordained to modify priest. Just because they were used in close proximity doesn’t mean they were related. That’s what I mean about not being heard.
I really would like to know, though, who has “fed me.” I think if I knew that, I might have a better shot at knowing what I was up against.
September 14, 2008 at 8:35 pm
“Momof4, I guess this discussion makes me wonder this…do you believe that the mom is also a priest in the home?”
Hadn’t thought of that but, since my definition was one who intercedes and asks for the forgiveness for the sins of their family, then, yes, I guess I would say that the mom can act as a type of “priest” as well.
Looking forward to see if that reponse clarifies things or gets me further into hot water.:) Maybe it will confirm that I don’t believe priest is any sort of official title held by the father?
September 14, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“So, Lin, are you dispensational, then? I’m not writing that as a challenge in any way. I’m just trying to get some perspective on who I’m talking with”
No. I am not in a movement or ‘group’ at all. At my church you will find quite a mix. But all agree on the primary basics that are important. Love is the binder for it all.
September 14, 2008 at 10:02 pm
“Molly, I didn’t use the reference as a “proof text” that the father is a covenantal head fo that he is prophet, priest and king. I only used it as an example of a father praying for God to forgive the sins of his children. (in post #477)”
Question:
Will God forgive the sins of the children if the father of those children prays to God for the forgiveness of their sins?
Answer:
No.
That is a personal thing that only the penitent can do on their own.
Is it biblical for a father to think he can pray to God and ask God to forgive his children’s sins? I don’t think so.
I think it is biblical for either parent to pray to God that the child will come to faith in God through Christ and that the child will see his/her need for the forgiveness of their sins.
The prophet, priest and king status conferred upon mere man is an invention of mere man. There is no such status in Scripture. We are all priests. We have one King. We no longer need a prophet since we have the word of God and each believer, male or female, is given the same portion of the HS and ability to discern Scripture while reyling on the HS to supply wisdom. And no where does Scripture tell husbands to be kings of their homes. It tells them to be bondslaves in their homes. Big difference between being a bondslave and being a king.
I have heard people claim that a father’s prayers have power that a mother’s prayers do not. That is not biblical. I don’t see the Bible teaching that at all. In fact, it teaches the OPPOSITE when it says that there is no need for an earthly priesthood and that there is NO male or female in Christ. The Father hears our prayers through CHRIST not our gender.
Molly, that was an excellent post concerning this issue. You are right to refer to 1 Cor. 7 as one example where Scripture sees the wife also effecting a sanctifying influence. The husband is NEVER singled out for extra sanctifying power/influence.
I am reading backwards so I don’t know what has gone on before in this discussion. Forgive me if I am repeating what has already been said.
September 14, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Momof4,
I guess I don’t like the phrase “priest of the home” as is often used in reference to the father within the patriocentric model because it just isn’t Biblical. 1Peter 2 says that we, men and women, boys and girls, all who are regenerate, are a royal priesthood.
Then, Revelation 1 lists three things that Jesus did for us: He loved us (and this is present progressive), He washed away our sins in His blood, and He made us priests and kings.
While we were in the patriocentric world, so many things I heard I just assumed were true and biblical and once we got out, I read my Bible without the theological influence we had been so saturated in. These passages of Scripture, among others, really opened my eyes to the difference between what is being passed off as Biblical and what the Bible really says.
I believe that the husband is the head of his wife because the Bible teaches it. I also believe that we are both part of a royal priesthood. I guess I just don’t understand why these truths are never mentioned within patriocentric circles or if they are, it is not taught as central when I believe they ARE central, especially when you look at the Rev. 1 context.
September 14, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Momof4,
Not to put you on the spot any further, but I am curious if you read Passionate Housewives and what you thought of it.
September 14, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Hi Momof4,
I just want to clarify that I was using your quote to further explain teachings that are prevalent in the patriarchalist doctrine that teach this prophet, priest and king status (interesting to note how lofty those titles are compared to the actual ONE that the Bible has conferred on them- bondslave) and how people actually teach that a father has more praying power than a mother does.
As I understand it, from reading your posts on this issue, you do not believe that.
I happen to believe that my children’s prayers for me are just as effective as my or my husband’s prayers for them are. We are all the same in God’s eyes when we have the Holy Spirit indwelling.
September 14, 2008 at 10:12 pm
“Why leave it out?”
Karen,
Fear would be my educated guess.
There is NOTHING in Wilson’s comment that was derogatory to Phillips. And big boys wouldn’t get offended by such an innocuous statement. They would be able to laugh about it.
Phillips and Co. have been having a tizzy over Palin because she is a woman. They misinterpret the Scriptures in order to bolster their narrow-minded man-made doctrine. They know what God would have for Sarah Palin, He made a mistake with Deborah and other female leaders, so they are not going to allow Him out of their man-constructed box. And all else be damned as heretical feminists.
September 14, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“Momof4,
Not to put you on the spot any further, but I am curious if you read Passionate Housewives and what you thought of it.”
Nope. I have not read the book so I can safely refrain from comment and I’ll leave it at that. LOL!!
September 14, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Mara,
If you have the Holy Spirit and you rely on His wisdom for guiding and teaching you, you are just as educated as anyone else on this forum.
One doesn’t have to know the intimate details of all the thoughts on endtimes. There is amillenial, premillenial, postmillenial, partial preterest, full preterist, progressive dispensationalism, covenenant theology and new convenant theology.
Jesus stated that the Pharisees diligently studeed Scriptures and knew them well but didn’t know Him. We can study Scripture and sound very educated but miss the One that they are about.
I am constantly struck with how often the patriarchalists miss Christ in all of their teachings.
We have life in Him, not in their culturally-derived manmade teachings.
I, personally, have not picked what I believe about the endtimes. I do know what I don’t believe but there are things from each camp that I appreciate. I guess that makes me a muttmillenialist?
The only thing we need to know is that we belong to Christ and the rest we entrust to Him to work out in His time.
September 14, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Please forgive my bad grammar and wrong verb choices.
I will blame it on being the first night of AWANA!
September 14, 2008 at 10:39 pm
“I believe that the husband is the head of his wife because the Bible teaches it. I also believe that we are both part of a royal priesthood. I guess I just don’t understand why these truths are never mentioned within patriocentric circles or if they are, it is not taught as central when I believe they ARE central, especially when you look at the Rev. 1 context.”
I can totally see why you wouldn’t like the phrase “priest of the home” and, like I said, we don’t use it or believe it applies in the way I am gathering you all have seen it used in patriarchy.
From #516, Corrie said, “As I understand it, from reading your posts on this issue, you do not believe that.
I happen to believe that my children’s prayers for me are just as effective as my or my husband’s prayers for them are. We are all the same in God’s eyes when we have the Holy Spirit indwelling.”
I appreciate you saying that you understand that’s not what I believe. I kind of feel a big relief in that.
I also believe that my prayers on behalf of my children are just as effective as my husband’s. After all, “the prayer of a rigteous man is powerful and effective.” (James 5:16)
I think (I hope) I’m finally starting to get somewhere?
I guess I don’t understand it, either, Karen; especially since I’m not involved in any patriocentric circles so I don’t really know where they are coming from.
Yes, I have read things by some in those circles. I did hear Kevin Swanson speak recently at our homeschooling convention although I didn’t know that he was considered part of this “movement” since that was my first exposure to him. (I can also say that, while I found a few of his points valid, I was not excited about him at all.)
September 14, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“Would it help if I was just clear that I don’t classify myself as “Patriarchal” but do classify myself as “Covenantal”? Maybe looking at me through that lens would help in understanding what I’m saying.”
Hi Momof4,
I would consider myself to be closest to the New Covenant theology.
As far as a “covenant head”….it is Christ and Christ alone. Through His body is the NC instated. I do not enter into this covenant through any man. I enter it solely because of the blood of Christ and it is Christ, alone, that represents me to the Father. My husband does not represent me nor will he give a special account on my behalf. I will stand before Christ as an individual. The only thing my husband will give an account for concerning me is if he was not the husband he was supposed to be. But, he will not be standing in judgment on my behalf for my sins. On the converse, I will also give an account for what kind of wife I was to my husband. I see no special status conferred on the husband when it comes to standing before Christ and giving an account. I know people claim that this is what the Scriptures teach but I can’t find it in the Scriptures at all, nor can I find it even hinted at.
Col. 3:25 says that anyone who has doen wrong will be repaid for the wrong and there is no favoritism.
I am not sure what “covenant head” means in covenant theology? Why is the husband referred to as this when there is only one Covenant that was cut in Christ’s blood?
September 14, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Hi Momof4,
I know this discussion is helping me to understand what I believe Scripture actually teaches. I know there is a lot of baggage with certain phrases, especially having been in the patriarchalist movement and being immersed in it.
I appreciate that you are hanging in there.
September 14, 2008 at 10:52 pm
#487
Richard,
Excellent post! I think I am going to copy this for future reference. I will give you credit!
Your point about Lucifer is right on. We have, imho, a whole movement predicated on a mere human being trying to be Christ to another human being when the Bible only instructs them to love LIKE Christ. They are not to BE Him but to be LIKE Him in the way that He loved sacrificially and put our needs (atonement for sin) ahead of His own.
The place I see this illustrated the most is the teaching from Matthew 6 concerning serving two masters. The pats use this to teach that a woman cannot work outside of the home because then she will be serving two master. That is ridiculous because Mt. 6 is about serving God or serving mammon.
So, basically, the pats believe that the husband is God and mammon is the boss. Which is unbelievable how people can mangle scripture like this and then get on their high horse and condemn all others who do not see it their way as feminists and Marxists and “Christians” and liberals.
Also, a man would have multiple masters under that same reading. He has a boss, he has elders, he has government officials and the like. How can he have all those authorities and not be guilty of serving two masters? It is nonsense.
The patriarchalists add to Scripture more often then some of these other groups do. Not only do they add but they also take away.
September 14, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Mom of 4– I appreciate you hanging in there, too. You are doing a good job of explaining your thinking and causing us to further examine our own thinking on certain concepts, like the whole “priesthood” ball of wax. This is what this site is all about, IMO.
September 15, 2008 at 12:07 am
Momof4,
Thanks for clarifying where you are coming from.
I “third” the hanging in there appreciation…
September 15, 2008 at 8:21 am
part 4 on the family-integrated church model is now online.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/part-4-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-family-integrated-church-model/
September 15, 2008 at 8:22 am
Momof4, thanks for your willingness to dialog. This is a good thing.
September 15, 2008 at 10:51 am
“So, basically, the pats believe that the husband is God and mammon is the boss. Which is unbelievable how people can mangle scripture like this and then get on their high horse and condemn all others who do not see it their way as feminists and Marxists and “Christians” and liberals.”
They mangle scripture this way because mammon is THEIR boss — if, by working, a wife is helping to build another man’s kingdom instead of her husband’s, it stands to reason that bioth the boss and the husband are building thier own petty kingdoms, rather than serving God.
The Pat’s theology is so carnal that they automatically assume that every man must be working for himself, and is in competition with every other man. This is the heart and soul of serving Mammon.
September 15, 2008 at 10:53 am
“bioss”.. “thier”…. OH, how I wish WordPress had a “preview” option!
September 15, 2008 at 10:55 am
Mom of 4,
When I wrote my comment yesterday, I copied what you had written and did not attribute things to you which you did not say. But I did explain why others would have perceived them as problematic. I did so explicitly and with as much detail as I could so that you might understand. I did not have a bit of “us versus them” in my heart. I did not feel any animosity or division or anything. I merely explained what I perceived and why.
If I intended to exploit what you had said or stuff words and meanings in your mouth, I certainly would not have copied your statement.
So, again, I am confused. What I wrote were my impressions and I explained to the best of my ability (and as concisely as possible for a blog post) just why I had the emotional responses that I did. I offered examples of what I suspect your meaning was but given the words that you chose, I could not determine that.
I meant to clarify and to help all of us understand in the interests of acceptance and love so that we can better communicate. I explained where I depart from certain beliefs in Covenant Theology, a term offered by you in a previous comment. I thought that this would also elucidate why people did not accurately and precisely discern what you meant by certain phrases. I certainly meant to cause no division, just point out where we may differ and why it is significant.
I just don’t understand it then when you write as though I have attributed things to you that you did not say. Based on my understanding, this is what I thought. I opened up myself and made myself vulnerable to you in the process. What if you think my understanding of Scripture is trash? What if you think all people who are Dispensationalists or whose understanding of Scripture best conforms to New Covenant theology are heretics? I took a risk by explaining the whys and the whats of my own understanding. I put myself at risk and opened myself up for criticism. What I wrote was anything but an attack but more like an opening of my own vulnerability so that we might better understand one another.
Corrie stated it well above — there is baggage with certain phrases. I explained what that baggage was, where I understand that it comes from and how I respond when I hear it. It was no accusation, and I don’t understand why anyone would consider it to be so. How can an explanation of my own thoughts and internal responses to a particular phrase not be giving someone a chance or seeing them as suspect?
What am I saying or not saying that makes you think and feel this? I didn’t say “You are wrong and couldn’t be more wrong and I think all Covenant Theology aught to be kicked to the curb.” If that’s the case, I’m in trouble. Some of my best friends follow Covenant Theology to the nth degree. I didn’t demean you or accuse you. I explained how I put what you said into perspective based on my own study, understanding and experience.
I don’t know what else to say and if someone could point out to me where I was offensive, I would really appreciate it. It is my earnest desire to avoid offense, striving to learn exactly how to give an account of the hope within me in a spirit of both meekness and patience. I certainly have not arrived, but I am very confused as to how my comment yesterday communicated intolerance, pride, anger or strife. I thought it was pretty academic, for the most part. Where did I go wrong?
September 15, 2008 at 11:38 am
#498
Cindy,
I read your comment and I saw nothing in it that was attacking at all. I thought you explained it quite well and were very understanding and compassionate. It really helped clarify the issue, imho.
September 15, 2008 at 11:41 am
Cindy, I would agree with Corrie’s assessment. As always, spoken with grace and compassion.
September 15, 2008 at 11:59 am
Cynthia,
I do agree that basic greed and a love of mammon are at the root of a lot of this. That is why there is corruption within the patriocentric businesses. They can’t stand up to each other because they know that they must tow the line in order for their bread to be buttered. That is why they can’t be honest and forthright because their monthly cash flow is directly related to staying in good graces. Certainly NOT what the Apostle Paul taught at all.
You are right to say that a husband is not to be about building his own little kingdom but the patriarchalists do teach this as gospel truth. We are all to be about the work of building God’s kingdom.
September 15, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Momof4 – you said: I guess I would say that the mom can act as a type of “priest” as well
I don’t think you would have run into any trouble or disagreement here at all if you had originally said that the father “can act as a type of ‘priest’.” Your statement here shows that you see the father as having a unique priestly role that would be different than the mother’s. I don’t see any biblical basis for that, either in Covenant or Dispensational theology.
The Old Covenant with its priest who had direct access to God and who had to go before God with a sacrifice intended to atone for the sins of the people was overthrown by Christ’s “once for all” death on the cross. Under the New Covenant, we are all priests with direct access to the throne of grace.
So I think the issue here is that you seem to be saying that the father has a unique priestly role that differs from anyone else in the family. I would disagree with that.
Although it may seem like this is somewhat nit-picky, theological error is like a bullet: it goes in small but comes out huge. So if we allow for a father who has a unique priestly role in the family even though that is not shown to be the case in scripture, where might we end up? And the answer to where we might end up is what the radical patrios are teaching. Some claim that women can not be sanctified outside of the headship of their father or their spouse. So a women is less-than because without the man, she can’t even get into heaven, no matter what she does. It is my belief that the only thing required to get into heaven is a belief in the shed blood of Jesus Christ as the atonement for our sins.
September 15, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Mara – I use the big theological terms to make it seems like I’m smart even though I’m a moron.
I pull out my Tobin’s Guide to Adavanced Theological Terminology and sprinkle the phrases liberally in an attempt to distract people from the fact that I’m just like them.
Corrie was right – if you’re in the Word and are being guided by the Holy Spirit, you’re right where you need to be. And we all need to continue learning, we just don’t all take the same path.
September 15, 2008 at 12:26 pm
muttmillenialist – Priceless! That’s me too, Corrie. Historical pre-mil, but not sure about pre-trib, or post-trib. Pretty sure it’s not mid-trib, but wouldn’t be surprised if I’m wrong.
September 15, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Excellent post! I think I am going to copy this for future reference. I will give you credit!
LOL – You’re welcome to quote me. You may do so at your own peril.
September 15, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Cynthia Gee said: They mangle scripture this way because mammon is THEIR boss
Thanks, Cynthia. I had not considered it from this angle and I think you are onto something with this.
September 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Richard wrote: So a women is less-than because without the man, she can’t even get into heaven, no matter what she does.
I don’t know that it means that a woman will not get into heaven, but many speak as though a woman will suffer in her life and her sanctification will be impeded. Initial salvation is safe and women will get into heaven, but because of the lack of the right process and working of the law through the efforts of “federal head of the family” in the person of patriarch, a woman will not progress through the process of sanctification. And this is where the opus operatum comes into play within patriarchy, for it is not through works that we are made more and more like Jesus and therefore sanctified. It is an inside-out process only.
(And I know you know all this, Richard, but I’m on a roll…)
What results is not necessarily that women will be denied entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven or the fellowship of the saints, but women will be lesser Christians. This is why I say and many agree that this is in fact very gnostic. By following a certain course, one can be a HIGHER LEVEL of Christian. All Christians are equal, but some are more equal than others. Much of that comes through conforming to patriarchy or through works of the law.
People don’t often stop and think of it in those terms, but I believe that this is what is effectively taking place. It is the very same dynamic that Gothard preaches, just like the Word of Faith movement does. There are things that you can do that can enhance your progress and to make you more spiritual — partaking of the higher life, as though the process of sanctification is participative rather than just the work of the Holy Spirit. (That which is unholy cannot be made holy through works — it can only be 100% the work of the Holy Spirit.)
September 15, 2008 at 2:49 pm
re: #536
I hardly think that is true, Richard!
Concerning the endtimes, I know enough to make me dangerous or sound extremely incompetent. I am probably like Richard, historical pre-mill (not the “Left Behind” variety)but I also see a lot of truth in amill.
In fact, it seems I can read the word in every other place and get a pretty firm grasp on it but when it comes to the various different interpretations (and that is just what they are- man’s interpretation) concerning the second coming of Christ, they all blur together and make my eyes cross.
It is the preterism and partial preterism that I have a HUGE problem with. Basically, these teach that Christ came back when the temple was destroyed during John’s lifetime.
How is it that preterists still celebrate the Lord’s Supper if He has already come again? Jesus, Himself, tells us that this memorial is not necessary after He comes again.
And what does all this have to do with Sarah Palin? I promise, I am not trying to stir up trouble by posting it here!
Just one of many rabbit trails that many of us enjoy taking since all trails lead back to the point.
September 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Ah, Corrie,
Sarah Palin is just another sign of the end times! LOL!
…whether that is the end times before the tribulation or the end times that must come before we usher in the new millennium with our dominion efforts. I’m waiting around to see what happens, determined that I will not be manipulated by fear from any of the camps.
Maybe Sarah Palin marks the end times like a herald or another mile marker, not in the decline of Western Civilization, but the decline of the feudalism of the patriocentrics?
Either way Corrie, you are way just too impertinent!
September 15, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Cindy, you said,
“I opened up myself and made myself vulnerable to you in the process. What if you think my understanding of Scripture is trash? What if you think all people who are Dispensationalists or whose understanding of Scripture best conforms to New Covenant theology are heretics?”
Oh, friend, let me assure you that I do not think your understanding of Scripture is trash nor do I think all dispensationalist or New Covenant theologians are heretics. Not a bit.
I’m sorry I made you feel the way I did to elicit your latest response. I think you misunderstood me and took it more personally than I had any intention of communicating.
I’m thinking I should just read.
I feel like I’ve had my foot in my mouth ever since I got here. It seems to take me 5 posts to undo whatever I did in just one.
Sorry, again, Cindy.
September 15, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“So I think the issue here is that you seem to be saying that the father has a unique priestly role that differs from anyone else in the family. I would disagree with that.”
No, I’m *not* saying that at all. I understand that that is what everyone thinks I’m saying but all I can say is it’s not.
September 15, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“It is the preterism and partial preterism that I have a HUGE problem with. Basically, these teach that Christ came back when the temple was destroyed during John’s lifetime. ”
I know full preterists do think that, Corrie, but partial-preterists do not. Just want to clear that up.
September 15, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Mom of 4,
You wrote: I’m sorry I made you feel the way I did to elicit your latest response. I think you misunderstood me and took it more personally than I had any intention of communicating.
I’m thinking I should just read.
I feel like I’ve had my foot in my mouth ever since I got here. It seems to take me 5 posts to undo whatever I did in just one.
I don’t think we’re all that different, Mom of 4. Sometimes I end up writing 5 posts to clarify, too. But I do want to clarify and I want to learn how to be meek and patient in the process. I don’t intend to be otherwise but am trying to learn. And sometimes that may take some messages back and forth to be clear and get at the stuff down under the surface.
About different theologies — I’ve spent years reading Covenant Theology and for a time professed it. I’ve done the same, acting as a zealous evangelist because that was what I was given, when raised as a dispensationalist. My beliefs best conform to what is consistent with New Covenant Theology, though I do not read like their textbook either (if there is one). The seminary I graduated from refused to teach systematics because they wanted us to discern the Word over a predetermined theology, and I am grateful for that. So I don’t know that I really match anything. I offered that example to demonstrate that I wasn’t being hard or brash or antagonistic but actually vulnerable. That example was not an accusation that you felt that way. (But it’s nice to know that you aren’t at odds with others over these differences just the same.
).
We’re not talking about simple things here, either. I would think that the finer points of theology should take five or so comments to address all of the complexities, particularly when language used is or can be subtle. Consider that all of us were in and participating with some variant of patriarchy at some point because these things are subtle. There are aspects of it that you don’t realize until you are in the thick of something unpleasant. Some people might not have this problem. Some personalities have more of a problem with these things as well based on the different studies of different religious groups. If you have a personality style that does not match the group, at least 25% of people will have conflict with certain hierarchical groups.
So I am just trying to understand, but I hope along the way that people will consider whether they have thought everything through. I still ask myself questions about my beliefs, and there are still cobwebs to clean out of my brain, particularly related to those things that I learned as a child but did not put to the test like a Berean as an adult. I also believed many things and did not question them because of the strong witness of the good and trustworthy authority figures in my life believed them.
My desire to understand the nitty-gritty of what’s being said about these things is also a duty that I have to the truth. If I am making false statements that are painted with “too broad of a brush” (a phrase often used in these discussions), I have a responsibility to learn how to handle a smaller one, learning how to properly paint the finer picture that the topic deserves. If there are variations of patriocentricity, then they deserve to be noted and discussed.
So statements like “I believe that the sky is blue” becomes a list of more specific questions, not out of some spirit of cross-examination or with a spirit of proving something. I just want to understand, but I also hope that everyone takes a second look at their own beliefs, particularly when we don’t understand one another or feel defensive. There’s a message there that, if we are respectful enough of one another, we should be able to discern.
Granted, that message might end up being “I completely disagree and this is why,” but that is much more productive than labeling or misinterpreting things.
It’s funny because I’ve had the experience of talking with a couple of reporters this spring and summer. One in particular really was thrown by my response, because others had characterized me as an angry, hard, rebellious person. But when they did get me on the phone, they seemed pretty shocked that I didn’t talk like an angry, recalcitrant person with a big axe to grind. I’m just a person who has strong opinions, many of which I can defend and articulate well. That demeanor isn’t always something that communicates well via type. And I really don’t like emotocons all that much.
Sometimes they seem disingenuous to me, or grossly inadequate.
Like Karen has written here, this dialogue is good. It’s just a bit of work, but I’m willing to work at it.
September 15, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Lin, in Comment 441 referenced her blog. I am sorry I am so late in commenting, but just wanted to say I appreciate the blog post, Lin.
You wrote: ““God Time” is not just our study and prayer time. Our study and prayer time is what makes every minute ‘God Time’. We must have His Word stored in our hearts. May our lives eventually become walking prayers because all our time is ‘God Time’.
This is what makes us look so different from the world. And, it is the only way we will can be prepared for eternal Glory.”
And I agree completely.
In Christian love, gpmm
September 16, 2008 at 12:51 am
Thank you for taking the time to eloquently explain where you are coming from, Cindy. I have not been understanding the constant mention of patriarchy (or such fierce opposition to it) as I really have no experience with it similar to what the others have mentioned.
Yes, I belong to The Patriarchs’ Wives but I never just take what someone tells me and treat is as truth. I examine everything through Scriture over and over. It drives some people I know crazy because I talk through things that think I should have had settled long ago.
I take studying theology (even systematically) very seriously. But, when all is said and done, my prayer is to live in unity in the Savior with all those who believe in His name in spite of any theological differences we may have.
With love in Him…
September 16, 2008 at 12:16 pm
This will be interesting to you: USA Today had an opinion yesterday by David Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta, a moderate evangelical. He posed 5 questions to the conservative evangelical community regarding Sarah Palin’s suitability as a leader over men, and the CBMW responded.
Gushee closed with this:
“The nomination of Palin offers conservative Christian leaders the chance to rethink an archaic theological vision that wounds millions of devout Christian women and restricts the full exercise of their gifts. This is an unexpected gift from presidential candidate John McCain to evangelical Christianity. May Sarah Palin flourish in her new role, and may she open many new doors for evangelical women in America.”
http://@@@blogs dot usatoday dot com/oped/2008/09/the-palin-predi.html#uslPageReturn
http://www dot cbmw dot org/Blog/Posts/A-Welcome-Dialogue-on-the-Sarah-Palin-Predicament
(remove @’s)
September 16, 2008 at 2:53 pm
part five of the pros and cons of family integrated church model is online.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/part-5-of-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-family-integrated-church-model/
September 16, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I have a comment #549 in moderation with links to a USA Today editorial and the CBMW; can someone rescue it, please? Thanks.
September 16, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Just some thoughts on the thinking that the husband is a priest or a sort of priest, however it is presented.
When Jesus did away with the priest system, He also did away with the ‘temple’. We are now the
‘temple’ where God dwells if we are true believers. So even using the analogy of a priest for an adult believer in relation to another adult believer is negating the work of the Cross. I personally find it dangerous for both in the scenerio.
I don’t think people really think about the consequences of such seemingly ‘innocent’ descriptions.
September 17, 2008 at 10:17 am
part 6 on the family integrated church model is now online.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/part-6-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-family-integrated-church-model/
September 18, 2008 at 9:04 am
Had to chuckle at Doug Phillip’s strike back at Doug Wilson on his blog.
“Before There Was a Sarah Palin, Credenda Agenda Asked This Insightful Question About the Role of Women as Helpmeets to Their Husbands
The first question to ask and answer is, “Who is this woman’s husband?” Next we must ask many subsidiary questions. Is she fulfilling her ministry to him? Is he her priority? Is she helping him? Is her house in order? Is he leading her in this ministry? Is her identity as a Christian woman centered around her relationship to her husband? If the answer to any of these is “no,” then her ministry is likely independent of her husband, and it is much like a separate career; but because it is “Christian,” it is somehow seen as a valid ministry. In contrast, because Scripture clearly teaches that the husband is the head of the wife, a Christian woman in ministry should clearly be seen as under her husband’s visible headship. Scripture teaches that a wife is specially created by God to be a helper to her husband. When a woman in ministry becomes successful, independent of her husband, many temptations will accompany such success…. Then comes the temptation to accept more and more speaking engagements, to like the financial independence, to work harder outside the home, get used to being successful apart from her husband, and to become more independent of him. In some cases, husbands’ careers are considered inferior because they are not as lucrative, so the husbands quit their jobs to manage their wives’ “ministries.” This is so backwards. How can we expect God to bless a ministry that is in essence run by wives and supported by husbands?
Nancy Wilson, “Women in Ministry,” Credenda/Agenda, Vol. 7, Issue 5. ”
Using his wife’s words against him…..you have to kind of sit back and enjoy the show.
September 19, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Not like this is breaking news, but has anybody seen In A Shoe’s post on Palin?
http@@@://inashoe.com/2008/09/08/on-palin/
The part about how she’d prefer Obama in office to Palin is particularly interesting.
September 20, 2008 at 12:11 am
Actually, that’s not what she said. This is the quote in context:
“I would rather have Obama in office while Christians pray fervently for national repentance than have McCain and Palin in office with the full approval of the general Christian community.”
September 20, 2008 at 3:37 am
My schedule does not allow me to spend much time on-line but I do read here from time to time and have commented here in the past.
Just wanted to say my 2-cents’ worth (as an outsider/non-US citizen):
I hope that what I write is taken as the writer (me) intended. I’m not trying to stir up trouble, just thought this would be a good place to ask as you encourage dialogue and free thought and don’t beat up those who disagree with you.
As a European, I have trouble understanding the political values of the Christian right in the US.
I am writing generally here and not specifically about the views of any one particular person writing here.
In fact, my opinions are based on material I have read on the Christian right and by the Christian right over many years from a wide variety of sources.
We often hear classifications such as
such as the ‘god and guns crowd’ used to describe the religious right (by US authors).
I’ve always wandered why the two (religion and guns – and all they represent)are linked.
One of the things that disturb me about Palin is that she is yet one more conservative candidate who is pro-gun.
But my comment is not particularly about Palin, more on the Christian right in general.
Another value that seem to be inherently aceptable/unquestoned by many in the Christian right include a stance that environmental concerns are highly exagerrated.
Then there seems to be a strong distrust
welfare systems in general. In fact, of anything ‘left’ish (excuse the construction) at all. There almost seems to be an unstated understanding that capitalism (and all that goes with it) is the most godly system.
A while ago (okay quite a long time ago) there was a discussion here on GNAP (Generic North American Protestantism)and on how sometimes the lines between our cultural assumptions and what is really taught in Scripture can become a bit blurry.
I wanted to bring up the issue of capitalism there but thought it might be viewed as some kind of attack.Hope it’s not perceived in that way here.
Then there’s foreign policy. And I guess this is really the big one – the one I have most difficulty understanding.
I fully agree with Christian voters in the US who are concerned with Obama’s stance on abortion. Were I a US citizen, this is the one thing that would definitely stop me from voting for him.
But I am concerned that the Christian right does not sem to pay equal attention to how human life – and its sanctity – is affected by a pro-war governmental policy.I haven’t come across sites/blogs where people are deeply analyzing and questioning whether or not all the lives lost and affected by war can really be justified from a christian point of view.
I’m not saying that these discussions don’t exist, merely that I don’t believe they enjoy a comparable measure of attention.
Personally, I would find myself concerned about voting for a candidate that seemed pro-war (the impression McCain creates in many people’s eyes). This is a moral issue too. As the US is the most powerful country in the world, the votes of US citizens affect not only them, but also the lives of millions throughout the world.
September 20, 2008 at 3:55 am
I had another question too, this time on S Palin.
Let me say for the record that I am definitely not patriarchal in the sense that is promoted by Vision Forum.
And when I vote in an election, I don’t restrict myself to trying to find a ‘Christian’ candidate who lives out his/her life according to my interpretation of what the Scriptures teach.
I have never come across a candidate like that* and I still participate in elections.
(*I have lived in 2 different EU countries for a total of 4 years and have not come across a professing Evangelical Christian candidate yet).
Generally I just try to vote on the candidate I think most likely to promote the values that are importantto me as a Christian.
If I were American, I’m not sure that issues surrounding whether or not S Palin can be a good mom and VP of the world’s most powerful country simultaneously would stop me from voting for her; I mean that’s up to her conscience, isn’t it?(at least, that’s my understanding).
But because many here seem to be writing on her family life and it seems to be an important part of her assessment, I’d like to offer my 2 cents’ worth again.
September 20, 2008 at 4:15 am
Continued from above.
A lot of those wriing here seem to be writing that Palin would be able to sucessfully combine motherhod with being VP (at least, that’s the impresion I got, I’m open to correction).
The idea seems to be that she will have ample time to devote to her kids (the ideas of a very short commute and kids having access to her office at any time have been put forward t support this view, as well as numerous photos of the kids accompanying her while she is involved in her duties etc).
Personally I find this very hard to believe. I have had a high-power job (although nothing remotely like being the VP of a country, therefore no comparison in the amount and level of responsibility).
I found it (my high-power job)pretty much all-encompassing. My experience of a high-power job is that it requires great sacrifice of time, not requiring only a normal working day (9 to 5?) but also often invading your evenings and weekends.
It also required much (almost all) of my energy (mental and physical). Oh, and perhaps I should mention that this experience was with me bing a sINGLE WOMAN.
Okay, I’ll stop describing my experiences here as everybody is different and S Palin is probably way more organized etc than I am.
However, I would be really interested in hearing if any of those writing that it would be perfectly feasible for Palin to combine motherhood with being a VP have actually had the experience of combining a high-power job with being a wife and mom?
Please don’t read this as a challenge in any sort of negative way. I think i’s often easy to describe something as possible/doable/feasible when we’ve never tried it ourselves. But perhaps some of you have? I’d be interested in hearing.
September 20, 2008 at 6:12 am
Irene, I think you have presented your case well and in a non-confrontational manner.
Can’t answer all of your questions for the sake of time and other constraints.
Our constitution has an amendment that protects our right to bear arms. It is meant for the responsible citizen to protect family and home. It is part of our history.
Our government was set up with checks and balances to protect from oppression and tyranny. And hopefully, within the system, that will be enough.
But the philosophy of some of our founding fathers was the idea that a people had the right to rebel if the government no longer protected the rights of its citizens and became an instrument of a privileged few to oppress the rest.
Hard to do that if the government has all the guns and the citizens have none.
Things may be a little different now than they were in the 1700s. But I still believe that I have a right to own a gun. (I don’t yet. But I do have a the federal card needed in order to have one.) I believe it is my responsibility to have one if I feel my family is threatened. I (along with my husband) am their first line of defense. The police may not be able to get to my house before someone tries to hurt my children.
I don’t say this flippantly. I have no desire to hurt anyone. I’d never use a gun against another human being unless that human being was a serious threat. He can have my stuff. But he better leave my kids alone.
The Quakers and the Amish who live among us have a less agressive view of this. And they may be more “Christian” in that regard.
But I keep getting this nagging feeling that the scripture that states, “He who does not take care of his own family is worse than an unbeliever” means to protect them as well as provide for them.
September 20, 2008 at 6:49 am
Irene – Thank you for being careful in your wording of your questions. I believe you to be sincere in your questions.
The “Christian Right” is a term that was dreamed up by the opponents of that demographic and its values. So essentially anything you have read about the “Christian Right” is written from biased, us versus them standpoint and should therefore be rejected.
The issues you have brought up for question relate to more than just our stand on the Bible. They also involve our nations fight for independence from tyranny.
Gun ownership is a basic right guaranteed to all U.S. citizens in our Constitution. The issue of gun ownership is not as much one of whether or not guns are good to own but of a defense of our Republican form of government. Our nation is a nation based on the standard of our Constitution. Our presidents must swear to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America” when they take their oath of office. Our Constitution states that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So anyone who seeks to impose restrictions on gun ownership is seeking the violation of our Constitution unless they try to do it through a Constitutional ammendment.
A secondary reason deals directly with the value of gun ownership. An armed citizenry has been proven to reduce crime. The cities in our nation that have the highest crime rates are the one that have the tightest gun regulations. So a concern about the sanctity of life is likely to push someone into the camp that will reduce violent crime. That camp is the pro-gun ownership camp.
Regarding the environment, this is another area where the liberals have cast conservative Christians in a less-than-truthful light. Conservative Christians believe that each individual has been given a mandate by God to oversee and subdue nature. This command was given to Adam in the Garden of Eden and extends to us today. We must look to the protection and nurture of the environment. I don’t know any Christian in the Conservative camp who thinks that environmental issues are overblown.
What the Conservatives reject is the Liberal mindset that attempts to place restrictions on others rather than on themselves in the guise of protecting the environment. There are differences of opinion about what should be done to protect the environment and forcing your own views on others is not a Christian way of doing things, so the Conservative Christians don’t do that.
Christians also see man as the prime creature on earth. Humans are the only species for whom Christ died. So they deserve greatery protection than the spotted owl or the swamp rat. So if urban sprawl is interfering in the natural habitat of the swamp rat, Conservative Christians will look for ways to relocate the swamp rat or to put the swamp rat in a man-made habitat rather than proclaiming hundreds of thousands of acres of land off-limits to development for the humans who need that land to live on.
Christians reject welfare because churches have been given the mandate to take care of the downtrodden first for the household of faith and second for everyone else. When this is done, it allows the congregation and the church leaders to get involved in the downtrodden person’s life in a way that may bring that person to the place where they are no longer downtrodden.
Welfare is forced income redistribution by the government. It promotes distrust and anger both ways between the downtrodden and the well-off. It is forced by folks who have no interest in helping the downtrodden get back on their feet and become self-supporting. This is an act much better handled by a local congregation. So most forms of welfare are opposed by those who see the detrimental dynamics involved in stealing money from one group to give to another group.
No one is pro-war. Bush is not pro-war. McCain is certainly not pro-war, he has been through war and what it can propogate and he is not, not, not pro-war. In any way.
The Conservative Christians understand that humans are inherently wicked (as taught clearly in scripture) and therefore need to be reigned in as their wickedness is displayed. That is the reason for our nation’s form of government with its three branches of executive power providing checks and balances against abuse and with a legal and judicial document holding sway over every person in the nation, including the leaders, and with a democratic vote giving the people of the nation a way to press their leaders to the good.
When someone’s evil extends to their neighbor, it must be stopped and that person’s freedom may be taken away or their life may be taken in the process of trying to protect the community from their evil. This is not pleasant, but it is biblical.
Our nation does not have control over the evil that occurs in other nations and does not seek to control such things. But when that evil spills over onto our shores or when it spills over onto another one of their neighbors and that neighbor seeks our help, we step in with our military force to try to reduce the affects of that evil.
War is terribly unpleasant and destructive. But it is necessary at times when the citizens of the United States are in danger. When determining what must be done to protect our people, the innocent people of the attacking nation are important but secondary to our own people.
I understand how this may be of concern to other nations. We live pretty comfortably here in the U.S. with very few fears for our personal lives. And we want to keep it that way. And it has been kept that way for the past seven years, for example. But the individuals in other nations should seek to keep their nation from perpetrating evil against the United States in order to stay out of the crosshairs of our military. It should also encourage them to put into place a government that will do the same things for them. If all nations sought to protect their own citizenry and to violence perpetrated against others in the same way that the “Christian Right” seeks to do it, the world would be completely war-free. The United States has never been involved in kingdom building or expansion of our nation through force. There are few nations in history that can say that. The views of McCain and Palin are more anti-war that the “peaceniks” because they understand the nature of the threat and what is required to potect the world from that threat.
I must admit that I am surprised at your comments about Palin’s ability to be a mom and a VP. Unless you have questioned every man who has ever run for office who has children in the same way, this is sexist and unbiblical thinking to do it with Palin. This is a decision for Sarah and Todd Palin alone and if they think it can be done, there is no reason whatsoever for others to question it.
September 20, 2008 at 9:30 am
BRAVO, RICHARD.
I think you summed up everything I wanted to say but I wasn’t intelligent enough to do it the way you did!
I get so hoppin’ mad everytime I hear something about her being a mom and a VP. I guess Obama is chopped liver. I mean, isn’t he a DAD to TWO VERY YOUNG girls?
I’m sure Michelle Obama will be staying home at the whitehouse full time with her girls when and if he wins the presidency. Ahem.
September 20, 2008 at 10:29 am
Hi Irene,
I think you make some very good points and I agree with you.
I am one that believes that Sarah Palin will be having to make some pretty big sacrifices as well as her family. But, families do that all the time, don’t they? In my own family, my husband was out of town for a week and home on weekends for over a year. I sold our home and did all the packing and homeschooling and childcare and upkeep and home repairs and what not for over a year all by my lonesome. I know many other women like me who have had to make huge sacrifices for the future and greater good of their families. There are many men right now who have been away from their families for months while they are overseas fighting a war. I read accounts of the beginning of our country when women would hold down the fort in the middle of the wilderness while their husbands were gone for months trying to make money in some trade.
Sarah Palin may be called “for such a time as this”. Her husband is willing to step in for this season while his wife serves her country. I see no problem with this at all. It is the norm? Absolutely not. This is a decision they have to make and I do not even begin to presume that I know better or that this isn’t part of God’s plan for her life. How does Phillips and Baucham know that this isn’t God’s will for her life? They would probably be the same ones appearing on CNN back in the days of the Judges and lambasting Deborah for leading her country. They misinterpret the Bible to shore up their shoddy reading of Scripture. Is. 3:12 doesn’t even begin to support their assertion that women shouldn’t rule. And they use Knox’s hateful and mendacious words about the “nature of women” to “prove” that women are unfit to rule.
September 20, 2008 at 10:33 am
“However, I would be really interested in hearing if any of those writing that it would be perfectly feasible for Palin to combine motherhood with being a VP have actually had the experience of combining a high-power job with being a wife and mom?”
Irene,
I didn’t have a “high-powered job” such as VP or CEO but I was a single parent, on my own, with a child and I had a job as a purchaser for a large data processing corporation. I worked right below the controller of the company.
I will say that it was MUCH easier than being a homeschooling, stay at home mother of 10.
What I do NOW is much more of a juggling act than what I did then.
September 20, 2008 at 10:34 am
“We often hear classifications such as
such as the ‘god and guns crowd’ used to describe the religious right (by US authors).I’ve always wandered why the two (religion and guns – and all they represent)are linked.”
“….I am concerned that the Christian right does not sem to pay equal attention to how human life – and its sanctity – is affected by a pro-war governmental policy.I haven’t come across sites/blogs where people are deeply analyzing and questioning whether or not all the lives lost and affected by war can really be justified from a christian point of view.”
“Then there seems to be a strong distrust
welfare systems in general. In fact, of anything ‘left’ish (excuse the construction) at all. There almost seems to be an unstated understanding that capitalism (and all that goes with it) is the most godly system.”
Irene, IMO, that’s because the Christianity of the Religious Right is laced through and through with idolatry.
To begin with, the Religious Right seems to see American Christianity as the only genuine sort, or at the very least sees American Christians as being somehow divided from their brethren in other countries, to the point where they place the concerns of their American brethren well ahead of the needs of Christians in other places, because they are, well, American Christians. I guess they have never read Galatians 3:28 –“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Within the Body of Christ, national boundaries should not exist.
But, “God and Country” is a big catch phrase with the RR, as is “God and Guns.” With the RR, it seems to be always God “and” something, and never God alone.
C. S. Lewis called this problem “Being a “Christian and” Syndrome”. Lewis
said that this is what happens “when we link our faith to some other cause to which we are partial and say “this is the center of our faith.” And so we hear from our pulpits that the main focus for us must be Christianity and Marxism, or Christianity and Capitalism, or Christianity and Social Action, or Christianity and Gun Control, or Christianity and the Republican Platform, or Christianity and the Pro-life Movement or Christianity and the Twelve Step program or Christianity and Homosexual Rights movement or anything else you might want to insert there.
And the fact is, that as soon as you add an “And” to Christianity you have lost your focus. A Christian worldview speaks to all of those important issues; but every one of them is peripheral to who we are. We are not Christians AND something else; we are Christians, and we let our faith guide us in all other decisions of life.”
Wise man, that Lewis… and I think that were he alive today, he would see right through the posturing of the Religious Right.
I think that Jesus sees through it too, and through the Left as well (though at least most folks on the Left aren’t making hypocrites of themselves by claiming to be “the Christian party”) — not that many in the Religious Right or Left would accept Jesus if He came among them anyway. In fact, neither the Right nor the Left would have much use for Jesus Christ if He came among them today, incognito.
The Right would have trouble with His saying that we should not lay up treasure for ourselves on earth, but should instead lay up treasure in Heaven, and sell what we have and give to the poor; they would also have trouble with His advice to turn the other cheek and give a man your shirt as well, should he demand your cloak, and they would have BIG problems with His advice in Matthew 6:25, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on…; and the fact that He and His followers held their goods in common would be viewed with deep suspicion.
The Left would appreciate Jesus’s take on feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, but they would likely reject Jesus’s teachings on marriage and divorce: and in the eyes of the Left, Jesus’s statement in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me would brand Him as hopelessly narrow-minded and intolerant, if not an out and out religious bigot.
Today in America, as in 1st century Judea, foxes have holes, and birds of the air nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head.
Some things just never seem to change.
September 20, 2008 at 10:48 am
Alisa: “The part about how she’d prefer Obama in office to Palin is particularly interesting.”
Word Girl Says:
“Actually, that’s not what she said. This is the quote in context:
“I would rather have Obama in office while Christians pray fervently for national repentance than have McCain and Palin in office with the full approval of the general Christian community.”
So, she would rather have Obama in office than Palin?
How about this?
Why not have McCain and Palin in office while Christians pray fervently for national repentance? Why is this an either or proposition?
At least less babies would die! And considering LifeinaShoe’s stance on ectopic pregnancies, one would think she would be consistent. I am beginning to think that these people are not really concerned about saving lives and that this whole thing is about something else.
Why would she think that Christians are going to stop praying for national repentance just because McCain gets elected? This says more about her arrogant viewpoint regarding most Christians than it does about anything else.
Believe it or not, there is a remnant of Christians in this nation who care about the nation and have never stopped praying for this nation and who disagree with VF’s (and her) weird theology on women. I, for one, don’t believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is the answer to our problems in this country. There is only one way to change the hearts of the people in any given nation and it isn’t through legislation. It is through individuals being born again in the Holy Spirit. It isn’t by following VF’s patriarchal paradigm, either.
I know many Christians who are not giving their “full approval” to the McCain/Palin ticket as if they are going to save us from all that ails us. That is silly.
I think most believers know that it is God, alone, who is worthy of our “full approval”.
Maybe she will get her wish and Obama will be elected President.
September 20, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I would strongly recommend everyone check out the link that Alisa gave to Mominashoe’s blog and read the comments.
Read the whole article, it is very interesting, too.
Most of her problem has to do with Palin being a “feminist candidate” which is a complete misrepresentation of Palin. She belongs to “feminists for life”. The true feminists snarl their lip at her and claim that she doesn’t represent women.
“Please take the time to read Bill Einwechter’s article, Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise. It’s long, but worth the time. Can you use Scripture to defend a vote for Palin? Never mind how you feel about it or “what your heart tells you”; what does God tell you in His perfect Word? It’s trite but true: a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.”
As if Einwechter’s article uses Scripture to prove that women shouldn’t be a VP of the US.
And as far as prayer for our nation, check out Kay Arthur’s Precepts Ministries site and listen to her series on “America in Crisis”.
You see, there are believers who are fervently praying for our nation and are not putting their trust in any candidate.
The McCain/Palin ticket represents the best choice we have but it doesn’t mean that we endorse every little personal belief a person has.
It seems the war on gender is more important than the war on Marxist/Socialist agendas or the killing of live-born babies? God forbid that Obama gets into the office. Talk about JUDGMENT.
I don’t believe in this “lesser of two evil” because I can’t find it in Scripture. It says to OBEY and HONOR those who have secular authority. No ifs, ands or buts. We are not in a theocracy and perish the thought of America ever being one. We live in the world but we are not of it. These people are confused. They do not understand that this kingdom is not the one being talked about as God’s kingdom.
And for all their talk about honor and obedience, I see none in their demeanor towards their own governing authorities.
Also, the severe judgments of Palin’s own Christianity on that blog is nauseating.
September 20, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Wordgirl,
I don’t think it was my intention to distort her words, rather to draw attention to the reason why she says she would prefer Obama to Palin. I was short on time, so I thought I’d let you guys look it up for yourselves.
Corrie,
I’m so with you!
I don’t think the McCain/Palin ticket is a cure-all by any means (as if any party or person could be!), but as one who has been praying for this election since they first started talking about nominees, I do feel that perhaps Palin’s introduction into the race is God’s way of reminding us that He is still in charge and can do what we never could have dreamed or seen coming.
Shoot, if nothing else, just the thought that she is able to do what she does has inspired me to approach my household duties with a fresh outlook. If she can be even be running for Vice President, I certainly must be capable of tackling my mound of laundry! ;-D
September 21, 2008 at 4:39 am
Thanks to those of you who wrote back – it has been interesing to read your comments.
Corrie, thanks for your very gracious reply.
I am SURE that being a homeshooling mom of 10 is much more difficult than holding a high-power job. I never questioned that.
I was just wandering – and still am – if anyone here had combined a high-power job with being a mom?
My memories of my time in a high-power job are that all other aspects of my life suffered by the excessive demands that this particular job made on my time.
This included church and Bible study attendance, friendships and family relationships. I had to make a decision regarding my priorities. Particularly, regarding my understanding of what the Scriptures taught my priorities should be.
My understanding was that if my job did not allow me enough time to attend church faithfully and to be actively involved in church acivities, the job had to change. If my job did not allow me enough time to serve and minister to others, it had had to change. There were also health considerations: having to work extremely long hours was taking its toll on my health.
Oh, by the way, I think these same principles apply to men. Men also are commanded to meet with other believers, serve others scrificially etc.
September 21, 2008 at 4:51 am
Now let me come to the issue of being a woman, and where that fits in with my thinking.
Corrie, I am sure that being a
mom of 10 is all-encompassing. But all your efforts (or the majority) centre around your family and home. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE I BELIEVE BETWEEN THE JUGGLING ACT THAT YOU DO AND THE FAMILY_HIGH POWER JOB JUGGLE.
My understanding of the Bible is that it teaches that for a wife and mom her family and home should be her priorities.
This is not to say (in my understanding)that she cannot work, or even work outside the home. In my life in total I have worked from home (as a ESL teacher) for 2.5 years; I have worked outside the home for about 6.
But I do believe that in the case of a christian woman, her work should be of such a nature that would still allow her to put her family first.
I do think though that there are vast differences between different kinds of jobs and the demands that they make on you. I have had several different kinds of jobs and I have seen a huge difference.
Some jobs – by their very nature – demand to be your priority. The importance of the job is such that if extra hours are called for, you have to put them in. The need to take work home to continue ‘working’on it is constant. The need to sacrifice your evenings and weekends is continual. Your job requires you to travel.
YOUR RELATIONSHIPS HAVE TO FIT IN AROUND YOUR WORK, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
And I guess, for me, this is where the issue of being a woman comes in.
As I said before, my understanding of the Bible is that it teaches that for a wife and mom her family and home should be her priorities, her job should not have the nmber one claim in her life.
The job I had would not have allowed me to do that, I was guessing that being VP of the world’s most powerful nation would be a far more demanding and all-encompassing job than mine was (understatement).
September 21, 2008 at 5:00 am
In my own thinking the considerations are something like this:
Please note, these are MY OWN CONSIDERATIONS, NOT A LIST OF RULES FOR OTHERS TO FOLLOW.
- If my child is sick, would it be feasible take time off to give the child my exclusive attention?
Or is the nature of the job such that its duties are urgent and cannot be postponed to be picked up again at a time that would be better for my family?
- If my child is in a piano concert (etc), is it going to always be possible for me to attend? Will my working hours always be set (except in very exceptional circumstances), ensuring that I can still give my best energy and time to my family?
Or is family time going to depend on the requirements of the job at the moment. For eg. propsal needs to be rewritten, scrap leaving at 3, you stay until its finished. Deadline looming, work through the weekend.
Coming into work on Sat, during holiday periods, nothing unusual.
In other words, does my family only get the ‘leftovers’of my time and energy, while my job has the number one claim.
_ Does this job allow me flexibility in choosing my work environment, or does it compel me to be in certain places at certain times?
- Does this job allow me to work more or less hours according to the needs of my family at certain times?
- Could I easily be replaced if I couldn’t go in for a week (due to family circumstances)? or if I decided to drop out altogether? Or, is my work commitment so great that it would generally cause chaos if I did that.
_ How old are my children and what do they need from me now? How can I best support their development right now?
As I said earlier, my opinion is that the high-power job I had would never have allowed me to live out what I believe the Scriptures teach should be my priorities.
September 21, 2008 at 5:26 am
NormalMiddle,
Concerning Obama being a dad and having 2 young daughters, perhaps this would shed led on where I’m coming from(if you’re interested in hearing):
I do think that husbands/fathers should also be wise in chosing their work and thinking about its impact on family life.
BUT my understanding of Scripture is that it teaches that the family and home is more particularly the responsibility of the wife, not the husband. This is my understanding of the younger women being taught to love their husbands, children and homes.
I realize that you – and others writing here – may not share my understanding of Scripture on this issue. And that’s okay, I definitely do not want to argue the point.
I guess I kind of assumed that that was the viewpoint of many writing here because so many of you are stay-at-home moms by choice.
And, btw, I know that Scripture tells husbands to love their wives, train their children etc. However, my understanding of Scripture is still that a woman should make her husband, children an home her first priority.
I don’t think I am expressing this particularly well. Prhaps it’s a matter of us (men and women) having different responsibilities, imo? We nurse our kids, men don’t etc.
As I said, you may not agree with my understanding of Scripture, which is that the roles of mom and dad are not interchangeable in the family. And that’s okay. I think as Christians we will all disagree on many things – until we get to heaven nd find out the truth.
September 21, 2008 at 5:48 am
Richard,
Thanks or taking the trouble to answer my questions.
I am sorry you see my thinking as ‘sexist and unBiblical’.
If you’ll read my comment above, directed to NormalMiddle, you may see my understanding of the Biblical basis for my thoughts on simultaneously being mom and VP.
My views on Scripture (Titus) are clearly different to yours; I don’t think that that is sufficient grounds for you to classify my thinking as unBiblical.
Above, I have written a lot on the relationship btw Christians and work, particularly between Christian women and work. Obviously, you don’t have to agree with anything I believe or write. I think difference of opinion between chritians is fine.
We are still Christian brothers and sisters and should treat each other accordingly.
I don’t view my thinking as sexist. My understanding is that the Bible gives different roles to men and women, within the church and within the family.
If you think that makes me a ‘sexist’ thinker, I guess I’ll have to put up with the lable being thrown at me, as I really do think that this is what the Bible teaches.
I must say, though, that I don’t appreciate this sort of labelling or – could I call it – name-calling?
I expected more grace.
Although I obviously disagree with a lot of your positions (such as America’s policy regarding war etc), I tried to be very casreful in the way I expressed myself and not throw any labels around.
NormalMiddle,
You said that my comments made you hopping mad. If that was because I expressed myself in a demeaning, insulting or otherwise sinful way, I ask your forgiveness. I was trying to be careful in the way I expressed myself but I am human. The same apology is extnded to anyone else who might have thought I was rude etc.
I am not going to apologise for having a different opinion though.
I was under the impression that this site was open to dissenting views, as long as they were expressed respectfully.
The site has often claimed that it does not censor thought. That’s why I came here – and not elsewhere to ask my questions.
September 21, 2008 at 8:49 am
Corrie,
I just wanted to write that I think I missed the boat on one issue when I was writing to you earlier.
Obviously, you are a woman who has combined motherhood with a high-power job (the one you had sounds pretty high-power although not VP, smiley face, I don’ know how to insert)!
And that was while you were a SINGLE parent too! I think that’s admirable.
And, as I said earlier, I’m sure that being the homeschooling mom of 10 is far more challenging than a igh power job.
I guess my question is this, though:
Now that you’re no longer a single parent, and have a choice whether or not to work,
- If you now chose to go back to your high-power job do you think it would affect the quantity and quality of the time and attention/energy you could give your kids?
September 21, 2008 at 9:06 am
Richard,
I wanted to say thanks for your detailed replies to my questions about American political values.
Thank you for believing the best regarding my intentions in asking.
I’ve listened to your explanations for the views you hold. I am also a Christian but my views differ dramatically. Would you be willing to consider my questions on these issues?
– Is there any empirical evidence that shows that increased gun ownership leads to a decrease in violent crime?
Concerning, environmental issues, I don’t think that Christians anywhere doubt that salvation is only for humans, not animals.
And I’m sre too that Christians everywhere – even here in Europe – support the idea that humans are more important than animals.
However, I don’t believe that human beings are put in danger by attempts to protect the environment. Quite the opposite – the relationship is symbiotic.
We increase our own (human) quality of life by protecting the environment.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. And loads of evidence that links pollution to disease etc.
We have subdued the earth to the extent that we are effectively poisoning ourselves.
It might be interesting for you to look up statistics concerning which nations contribute to pollution/ environmental destruction the most (no subjective bias here, just facts and statistics)
It might also be interesting to look into whether or not these nations are able to dispose of all the poison/waste within their own borders or whether it is dumped elsewhere?
Concerning welfare, are you sure that the poor/disabled also believe its a bad idea, ? I have worked with such groups for years and my impression is otherwise.
As for the church taking over all welfare work, I think it would be great. If you’re sure that the Church has both the resources and the WILLINGNESS to help ALL those in need, please step up and deliver the goods.
I am involved in loads of volunteer work and we’re perpetually under-staffed and under-resourced.
I lived in the 3rd world for the first 27 years of my life; the needs there are so great that there is no way that they can be met by the local congregation, who have so many needs themselves.
_ Are you sure that aid offered by he church is sufficient to do away with the need for welfare totally?
- Are you sure that all the wars the US have been involved in are purely and solely for the purpose of self-defense?
- Are you sure that financial gain and control over oil sources have never played a motivating role? If they have, that would clearly be a form of empire building wouldn’t it?
_ Are you sure that the US has no desire to control the internal affairs of any other nation for its own advantage, and not only to protect itself? Controlling the governments of other countries is also a way to build an empire, you know.
_ To the best of my knowledge, the US has only been attacked twice (Pearl Harbour, 9/11). I could be wrong about this, please feel free to correct me.
_ If this is the case, why has the US been involved in so many wars while having been attacked only twice?
_ Why were wars being fought even during your 7 years of safety?
_ How, for example, is the issue of US security linked to its involvement in the war in Kosovo?
‘Our nation does not have control over the evil that occurs in other nations and does not seek to control such things. But when that evil spills over onto our shores or when it spills over onto another one of their neighbors and that neighbor seeks our help, we step in with our military force to try to reduce the affects of that evil. ‘
That’s very noble but what about the countless human rights’ crises that have happened where the US did NOT intervene?
Is it mere coincidence that US intervention only takes place where the US has the potential to gain either economically or politically?
_ Are you sure that the US has done all within its power to resolve issues before resorting to war?
_ We are still waiting for evidence of the weapons of mass destruction.
‘But the individuals in other nations should seek to keep their nation from perpetrating evil against the United States in order to stay out of the crosshairs of our military.’
‘It should also encourage them to put into place a government that will do the same things for them. If all nations sought to protect their own citizenry and to violence perpetrated against others in the same way that the “Christian Right” seeks to do it, the world would be completely war-free.’
Richard, are you saying that all the civillian deaths are justified because the individuals in those nations did not take steps to set up a government that resembles that of the US?
_ Are you sure that these wars have secured long-term security for your country?
_ What will Are you sure that these wars have secured long-term security for your country?
_ Are you sure that these wars have secured long-term security for your country?
September 21, 2008 at 9:18 am
Cyhthia, I just wanted to say that I agree with what you said on both the Right and the Left.
I agree totally that neither really resonates with true Christianity.
I guess that’s because as sinful humans, we can only come up with imperfect, sinful systems.
September 21, 2008 at 10:45 am
Irene –
Excellent questions in comment #575.
Richard -
I think I have to refer you to the writings of USMC General Smedley Butler, two time Medal of Honor winner
http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Specifically his book “War is a Racket”
http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”[21]
——-
I also have to ask after a point in your comment at #561. You said that forcing your own views on others is not a Christian way of doing things. Does that only apply to environmental issues?
September 22, 2008 at 9:34 am
Annie C: You said that forcing your own views on others is not a Christian way of doing things. Does that only apply to environmental issues?
No.
September 22, 2008 at 9:56 am
Irene:
I’ve listened to your explanations for the views you hold. I am also a Christian but my views differ dramatically.
Actually – I was trying to answer your question about why the so-called “Christian Right” holds to the positions they hold. I did not say those were necessarily my views, although many of them are. I was just giving you the reason that so many Christians in the U.S. take the stands that they do.
- Is there any empirical evidence that shows that increased gun ownership leads to a decrease in violent crime?
Yes. I don’t have to time to dredge it all up. But two off the top of my head are a township in Florida that was deried for instituting a policy requiring every home owner to own a gun. The violent crime in that town screeched to a halt after the legislation was passed and instituted.
The other evidence is Washington, D.C., which had the longest running violation of the U.S. Consitution in their legislation by outlawing gun ownership in the District until it was overturned on the grounds of being a violation of the Constitution. Shortly after enacting the ban on weapons, D.C.’s murder rate increased to the point that it was the city with the most murders per capita of any U.S. city for decades. The D.C. non-murder violent crimes were unusually high as well.
That’s just two of the many.
However, I don’t believe that human beings are put in danger by attempts to protect the environment. Quite the opposite – the relationship is symbiotic.
We are in complete agreement there. I just think it should be done by individuals and not forced on others.
We increase our own (human) quality of life by protecting the environment.
Agreed.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. And loads of evidence that links pollution to disease etc.
Agreed.
It might be interesting for you to look up statistics concerning which nations contribute to pollution/ environmental destruction the most (no subjective bias here, just facts and statistics)
Not interested in your obvious “subjective bias,” but should I become so, I’ll make sure I look up the reams of evidence that the most populated nation on earth contributes the most to the pollution of the earth. I just somehow would not be surprised that that would be the case.
It might also be interesting to look into whether or not these nations are able to dispose of all the poison/waste within their own borders or whether it is dumped elsewhere?
If you have evidence that my nation is doing this, please present it. That’s evidence – not theory. Making veiled suggestive statements is not particularly ethical, if you’re really concerned about ethics.
Concerning welfare, are you sure that the poor/disabled also believe its a bad idea?
No – I’m sure they don’t think it’s a bad idea. But it is.
As for the church taking over all welfare work, I think it would be great. If you’re sure that the Church has both the resources and the WILLINGNESS to help ALL those in need, please step up and deliver the goods.
You are a very nasty person and I don’t appreciate your assumptions about me. My family has always done this and will always do it.
Are you sure that aid offered by he church is sufficient to do away with the need for welfare totally?
No. In fact, I’m sure it is not. – the Church is not doing what it should. But the government doing the Church’s job poorly contributes to the Church not doing its job with excellence.
- Are you sure that all the wars the US have been involved in are purely and solely for the purpose of self-defense?
No. As I stated before. Some of them have been for self-defense and others have been to defend our allies.
- Are you sure that financial gain and control over oil sources have never played a motivating role?
Absolutely sure.
_ Are you sure that the US has no desire to control the internal affairs of any other nation for its own advantage, and not only to protect itself?
No – I’m certain that this is done. But not through warfare.
Controlling the governments of other countries is also a way to build an empire, you know.
And your point is…?
_ Why were wars being fought even during your 7 years of safety?
In order to make sure that we would have 7 years of safety.
_ How, for example, is the issue of US security linked to its involvement in the war in Kosovo?
Not sure. Maybe you could ask President Bush. Try http://www.whitehouse.gov.
what about the countless human rights’ crises that have happened where the US did NOT intervene?
It’s called “priorities.”
Is it mere coincidence that US intervention only takes place where the US has the potential to gain either economically or politically?
Not coincidence at all. That’s how we determine our priorities.
_ Are you sure that the US has done all within its power to resolve issues before resorting to war?
No. But then I’m not privy to that level of the discussion. Nor are you.
_ We are still waiting for evidence of the weapons of mass destruction.
The entire world community had evidence of Iraq’s WMD prior to the war. And there have been at least two evidences of it found since Hussein rule was ended.
Richard, are you saying that all the civillian deaths are justified because the individuals in those nations did not take steps to set up a government that resembles that of the US?
No. War is ugly. And civilian casualties happen. So it would behoove the citizens of those countries to attempt to keep their government on a good path. I think that’s what I said before.
_ Are you sure that these wars have secured long-term security for your country?
No.
_ What will Are you sure that these wars have secured long-term security for your country?
No.
_ Are you sure that these wars have secured long-term security for your country?
Still no.
September 22, 2008 at 10:21 am
Richard, is there still a ‘Christian right’? If there is, can you take me to their leader?
)
September 22, 2008 at 12:06 pm
RichardD -
So Christians never force their views on anyone? Is that an ideal based on what a true Christian should do, or is that what real Christians are really doing?
September 22, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Yes, Lin. I can take you to their leader. He’s in heaven now – with God (probably no guns though). However, I have been asked to stand in for him in his absence and as part of my compaign I would like to explain that just because I’m religious (which I am) and I’m right (which I also am) doesn’t mean that I define or typify the Religious Right. I’m much too young too good looking to be part of that crowd that has been defunct for more than two decades.
September 22, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Irene raised some good questions. Similar questions, if not almost identical ones, were presented to me years ago as an argument against having more than one or two children.
- If my child is sick, would it be feasible take time off to give the child my exclusive attention?
Impossible. The only time one of my sick children ever had my exclusive attention was when my third child almost died at birth. My extended family, thank God, was able to step in and provide for my older children. Even then, the “exclusive attention” was not constant. I did feel it necessary to make my older children (only 2 and 4 years old at the time) feel that I had not completely abandoned them.
Once you have a child, it is always a juggling act. What if your husband and child are both sick at the same time? Neither gets exclusive attention. What if the whole family gets sick?
- If my child is in a piano concert (etc), is it going to always be possible for me to attend?
No. Again, speaking from experience, another child may be sick. Your husband may be sick. You may have a tiny newborn that shouldn’t be taken out in public yet. You may be on complete bedrest during a difficult pregnancy. Yes, I’ve missed things like piano recitals. Once you have more than one or two children, that’s just the way life is. All you can do is yoru best. But no one can be in two places at the same time.
Or is family time going to depend on the requirements of the job at the moment. For eg. propsal needs to be rewritten, scrap leaving at 3, you stay until its finished. Deadline looming, work through the weekend.
Coming into work on Sat, during holiday periods, nothing unusual.
Family time has to be juggled around the husband’s career, the never-ending and overwhelming household chores and responsibilities, the needs of the babies and toddlers, the schedules of the older children, schooling, doctor’s appointments, etc., etc., etc.
_ Does this job allow me flexibility in choosing my work environment, or does it compel me to be in certain places at certain times?
Unfortunately, most housework isn’t something that you can pick up and take with you. The nature of being a stay-at-home mother means that your primary work environment is the home, and there is little flexibility about that. (OK, I know some women who used to schlep their ironing over to one home, so they could do it all together while their children played, and I know a group that gets together each week to cook that week’s dinners together, but most of us have to spend most of our time in the home environment, just to get all the work done.) And we have to be certain places at certain times, especially as our children get older. Juggling all that with 6 children was sometimes almost nightmarish. I remember how sorry I felt for the little ones having to be dragged in and out of carseats for hours — and we kept our children’s outside-the-home activities to a minimum! But there was also shopping, errands, appointments, etc., etc.
- Does this job allow me to work more or less hours according to the needs of my family at certain times?
Often it’s sheer exhaustion that has kept me from working more. There’s always more work to be done, at least in my home. Work less? Only if I cut corners and leave a lot of work undone.
- Could I easily be replaced if I couldn’t go in for a week (due to family circumstances)? or if I decided to drop out altogether? Or, is my work commitment so great that it would generally cause chaos if I did that.
Some years back, I had a cancer scare. And the worst part of it, except for the fear that I would leave my children motherless, was the knowledge that my being sick and sidelined would bring unbelievable chaos on my family. There is no replacement for me. We couldn’t afford to hire a full-time nanny/housekeeper/cook/driver/laundress/tutor.
_ How old are my children and what do they need from me now? How can I best support their development right now?
This has been the hardest part of having more than one child. Friends of mine, stay at home moms of only two, tell me that they agonize over this as well. Someone’s needs always have to take priority, it seems, and the constant motherly worry is that they might be prioritizing incorrectly. When the toddler screams just as the newborn begins wailing, who do you pick up first? Why? Are you making the right choice? How do you know?
One of the most valuable lessons I learned from a mom of many is that God does not intend for mothers to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. She pointed out that, even if we tried to spend our every waking moment at our children’s sides, never taking a moment’s break, someone would still get the short end of the stick, so to speak. Plus, she questioned whether this would be healthy for our children. If God intended for this type of caretaking, wouldn’t He have designed us so that we would only be capable of having one child, and our husbands would become completely self-sufficient, without any needs, one that child was born?
But the world goes on…husbands get sick…we get sick…parents need surgery…children need surgery…grandparents have heart attacks…uncles die…the nature of our job as atay-at-home moms sometimes gives us flexibility to attend to those crises, but that doesn’t mean that our children don’t suffer some small (or not-so-small) measure of neglect during that time.
A working mom that I know, who stayed at home for a number of years, says that it is now much easier for her to deal with family crises. She has available childcare and a support system that she didn’t have as a stay-at-home mom. She has emergency leave from work, which means that traveling to be at the bedside of an ailing parent isn’t the financial hardship it used to be. Her family’s basic routine remains unchanged during an extended family crisis — meals are still served on time, everyone gets everywhere that they need to go, the most necessary household work gets done — rather than everyone being plunged into chaos.
Each family is different…
September 22, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Annie – I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to set up here. Why don’t you come out with it?
Christians are not supposed to use coercion to spread Christianity. I believe that would apply to the outworkings of Christianity too, so we should not use coercion to force our viewpoints on issues on others.
Now government is an entirely different thing. It is proper for a government to enact laws that force people into certain modes of behavior. The Bible says that governments are given for our protection, both from within and from without. So coercion is proper for a government.
And in a democratic form of government, such as ours, we are able to vote in a way that will place government officials who will seek coercive restraing and motivation over certain issues. Our involvement in the election process is proper for this purpose as well.
September 22, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Richard,
I am a really nasty person?
When I have I made ANY personal comments directed at you specifically?
PLEASE quote me.
Have I insulted you? Called you names?
Being sarcastic? Implied that you were not ethical? Implied that you were naive enough to have been brainwashed?
Richard, I have done NONE of the above – and YOU have done ALL to me!
So now I’m nasty as well as sexist and unBiblical.
Richard, the question I asked was:
‘As for the church taking over all welfare work, I think it would be great. If you’re sure that the Church has both the resources and the WILLINGNESS to help ALL those in need, please step up and deliver the goods.’
And you replied:
‘You are a very nasty person and I don’t appreciate your assumptions about me. My family has always done this and will always do it.’
1) Where exactly do I say something regarding you specifically? I wrote :’the church.
You do NOT represent the entire body of Christ. I am also a member. And so are countless others.
2) I think my question was perfectly legitimate. Do you note the word ‘all’ which appears twice in my question – the second time in capitals?
My question was about the church taking over ALL welfare work. Worldwide – as shown by my follow-up remarks on the Third World.
I asked whether the church had the resources and the willingness to help ALL those in need.
And you replied that your family had always done so, and would continue to do so.So, your family has helped ALL those in need? ALL in your nation? ALL in the world?
Richard, I don’t think you read my question fully before started hurling insults at me.
September 22, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Richard, you insulted me by calling me ‘sexist’, ‘unBiblical’ and ‘a very nasty person’.
Richard, I am extremely offended by your tone and comments. I see nothing of Christ-like humility or love in them.
I don’t mind – AT ALL – that you disagree with what I write. I think debate is healthy.
But you have insulted me and made personal (derogatory) comments several times.
Why? Because I don’t share you opinions?
Having a difference of opinion is not sin. If you regard me as having sinned by asking the questions I did, please explain how.
And, if you do so, PLEASE don’t make assumptions about what was going on in my head – but stick to what I have actually WRITTEN.
Love believes the best.
Even if you regard my questions as sinful, there is a WAY PRESCRIBED BY THE WAY TO CORRECT SOMEONE.
It is with GENTLENESS, LOOKING TO YOURSELF TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALSO DON’T FALL.
Richard, you insulted me by calling me ‘sexist’, ‘unBiblical’ and ‘a very nasty person’.
I have NEVER made any personal comments about you at all. At least, not that I’m aware of. I am however human so if I did it without realizing it, PLEASE point it out and quote me.
You said that I was ‘ very nasty person’ because I had made assumptions about you and your family. Please show me where I have mentioned you specifically or your family specifically.
September 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm
You also implied that I was unethical.
‘If you have evidence that my nation is doing this, please present it. That’s evidence – not theory. Making veiled suggestive statements is not particularly ethical, if you’re really concerned about ethics.’
Richard, if stating something (although I asked a question, I didn’t state) without providing evidence is unethical, tHEN WHY HAVE YOU PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR ANY OF THE ASSERTIONS YOU HAVE MADE.
But, I’ll get to this in a minute.
I can provide material to substantiate that I had grounds to ask a QUESTION. That’s all I did. It was a QUESTION hoping to stimulate THINKING at a website for THINKING women. I NEVER claimed to have all the answers.
I wrote:
‘It might be interesting for you to look up statistics concerning which nations contribute to pollution/ environmental destruction the most (no subjective bias here, just facts and statistics)’
Did you note I said ‘nations’ and not just ‘nation’? Actually, as I have dual citizenhip I am also a citizen of a highly developped nation. That also contributes to many envir. problems. That I continually ask questions about – to my govt – through the legal means that are in place to allow citizens to do so.
I then wrote:
‘It might also be interesting to look into whether or not these nations are able to dispose of all the poison/waste within their own borders or whether it is dumped elsewhere?’
September 22, 2008 at 3:19 pm
But now for the material I promised:
You might be interested in reading the article
‘ GAO report torches US for dumping electronic waste in foreign countries’. You can find it at http://www.network.com
In order to prove that I’m not unethical, I’ll also mention the article
‘Digital Dumps Heap Hazards at Foreign Sites’ in the WAshington Post Archives (www.washingtonpost.com).
I’ll also try to defend myself from the enethical lable by mentioning:
‘US dumps computer waste on third world’
at the inquirer.net
Also, ‘US dumps eWaste Abroad’ at http://www.goodcleantech.com
The washington post article states that
‘The United States also remains the only developed country that has not ratified the Basel Convention, a treaty designed to control international trade in hazardous waste. “This makes the U.S. a haven for a renegade scrap trade,” Lynch said.’(end of my quote)
It also states:
‘The United States, unlike the European Union and Japan, has no government-mandated system for recycling used electronics — and no regulations to prevent the export of high-tech equipment for environmentally unsound recycling.’
Please note that I NEVER claimed the above was ‘evidence’: that was a term you used.
I have given these references – at your request – as material to stimulate thinking.
I thought my questions might be interesting to some reading here after I had read YOUR previous comment stating that conservative US Christians did nOT think that envir issues were overblown and were interested in taking care of the earth that God had created. That being the case, I thought that these questions were interesting to consider.
September 22, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Irene – I will leave your questions for the others to ponder. Perhaps they will receive them differently than I did.
The questions one chooses to ask say a lot about the person’s assumptions and even world view. If you think you were only asking questions and not making statements, you are mistaken. That’s not an attack.
please step up and deliver the goods is a statement to the affect that I am not delivering the goods, when, in fact, I am.
The problem here stems from my belief that each of us is personally responsible before God so when *I* see a need, *I* take care of it to the degree that I am able. I try to encourage others to do the same, but in now way will I force them to do so. Doing something because I am compelled to do it is loveless and is not truly a good deed. “Whatever is not of faith is sin.” So in fact if we protect the environment because we are compelled to do so and are not doing it for the glory of God we are sinning by protecting the environment.
Your view seems to be that you recongize that the environment is in need of help. So you ask others what *they* are doing to address the need *you* see.
I’m not attacking you in any way on this. I am simply stating that this is an unbiblical mindset and is the reason that most Conservative Christians in the U.S. view the issues the way we do. We are *personally* responsible. We are *not* responsible to force others to do what we think needs to be done. It’s a basic difference in paradigm.
September 22, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Richard -
I’, thinking of a few very hot topics in the world lately where Christians have been trying to impose their views on others. Which, of course, it’s perfectly within their rights to try. It just bothers me when they say they don’t, and then they do.
Now, if I’m understanding what you just said correctly, it’s not acceptable for Christians to try to directly impose their views on others, or to coerce others in to acting in accordance with their views. But it’s perfectly acceptable for them to vote for politicians who will use the government to do exactly that if the result is for the protection of Christians, or Christianity. Do I have that right?
September 22, 2008 at 4:59 pm
AnnieC – I think you’ve pretty much got the gist of my thought on the matter. There are more nuances and exceptions (such as personal defense) than what you’ve written. But I think you’ve restated my beliefs pretty well.
The one exception I would take to what you wrote is this statement:
if the result is for the protection of Christians, or Christianity.
I do think that we should vote for things that will protect Christianity, but I don’t really think that is a primary concern. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world and we should not be, in my opinion, trying to establish Augustine’s City on a Hill.
I think that our voting should be with our families, ourselves, our nation, and our world in view based on the things we see in scripture. I do think that our own nation’s concerns should win out over world concerns as long as there is not a moral imperative overriding the final decision. I think that patriotism is part of “rendering unto Caesar.”
What are your thoughts on the matter. I know that you and I have some strong disagreements, and am interested in what has prompted you to question me about these things. I am wondering if it is in general or if somewhere I have shown myself to be duplicitous. Frankly, I would not be surprised if it is the latter. I have many faults that are probably more evident even in a forum such as this than I would like to think.
September 22, 2008 at 5:13 pm
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/Biblical_Womanhood_and_Christian_Living_14/Come_on_gals_we_have_a_lot_of_work_to_do1003428.shtml
What am I missing? Doesn’t this article seem a bit ironic? I can say the same things and get called a “whitewashed feminist”.
So, are women leaders or not?
“Yes, women, the responsibility to build the men in our lives up into the cure for our nation’s woes rests squarely on our shoulders.”
Whoa! That is a HUGE responsibility! How can we have that much responsibility when we aren’t allowed to have any authority or power to do such a monumental task?
And, where is this sentiment found in the Scripture? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a verse that makes this sort of claim.
I would say, if I wanted to be in line with sound doctrine, that the cure for our nation’s woes rests squarely on Christ Jesus’ shoulders.
“She can choose to nurture her family and give each member, including herself, what they need to flourish, or she can neglect them and lead each one of them into the big, lonely world of despair and the inability to give and receive love. ”
Will the real “head” please stand up!? I must have missed where the Apostle Paul told wives that it is their responsibility to make sure that their husbands are able to give and receive love and that she is to lead her husband in the way he is supposed to give and receive love.
Only Jesus can give each member what they need to truly flourish. We can do our part, that is for sure, but this article seems a bit extreme and overstating its case.
Yes, leaders are made not born but where does it say that it is women who make the leaders?
“”Great leaders aren’t born, they’re made.” This famous quote sums up our pressing job as Christian women here in America. Ladies, we’ve got leaders to make of our husbands and sons.”
Sounds great but it is contradictory to the whole patriarchal paradigm that tells us that it is the husband who is the prophet, priest and king of the home and it is him who is responsible for making his wife spotless and without blemish.
Not that I don’t disagree with the sentiment but the whole “women as leaders in their homes and responsible for the spiritual condition of the men and country” seems anathema to the patriarchal doctrine.
September 22, 2008 at 5:15 pm
http://www.stuffofheroes.com/Great%20Leaders%20are%20Made,%20Not%20Born.htm
Here is an article that tells us what makes a great leader and that great leaders aren’t born with some innate trait that makes them great leaders but are dependent on specific principles that person follows.
September 22, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Vince Lombardi might just disagree with the woman who wrote the article based on his words.
““Leaders aren’t born, they are made. And they are made just like anything else, through hard work. And that’s the price we’ll have to pay to achieve that goal, or any goal.””
Is it true that women have leaders to make out of their husbands? Is this even consistent with the patriarchy that we are so familiar with? Who makes a good follower out of the follower who is so busy being a leader? And who is following whom?
September 22, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Annie C wrote But it’s perfectly acceptable for them to vote for politicians who will use the government to do exactly that if the result is for the protection of Christians, or Christianity. Do I have that right?
I think that it’s fine to protect Christians and Christianity, as long as we’re offering that same protection to every other religion, as this is what the Constitution says. And then there’s the flip side of prohibiting other religions which is different than protecting Christianity.
Now the freedom from religion guys are a problem because their religion is that they should be able to live and not hear about anyone else’s religion, save that the only religion that they get wound up about is Christianity, the Bible and YHWH. But I haven’t heard much about them in recent years (which may mean nothing).
September 22, 2008 at 5:49 pm
In reference to the exchange between Irene and Richard, specifically regarding Christianity and politics in America, I just wanted to point out that the constitution of the united states intends to protect ALL religious freedom, not just that of Christians.
As Christians living in America, we (those who live here) enjoy a freedom of religion that is almost unprecedented in most of the rest of the world. Many countries are run by the official religion of their country, others simply tolerate religions, but OUR constitution guarantees our right to practice ANY religion of our choosing. I don’t know if other countries have this in their constitution, I’m sure some do, but we should be THANKFUL for our “rights” to practice our religion.
Christians should elect people who will not only protect OUR rights to worship as we please, but the rights of ALL to worship as they please. Don’t like what I’m saying? Well, then spend some time in a country like, say, Saudi Arabia, where even having a church meeting is forbidden. Sure, people do it, but we are fully blessed to have the right to congregate in public, where Saudi citizens would be taken into back alleys or arrested (if they ever made it that far) and most likely killed for the “crime” of being Christians.
Sorry to go on the rampage, but I’m absolutely SICK of Americans being so self-centered that all they are concerned about is “our right” to do thus-and-so. What about the rights of Iraqi citizens? What about the rights of the people living in shelters in the Darfur? What about all the people around the world who have been HURT by American policies? Get off your computer and go help them deal with the fact that America’s government is run by political BULLIES, that WE the Christian people elected.
American Christians, it’s really time to stop thinking about AMERICA first, and think about what JESUS taught. He told us to go to the ends of the earth to spread the gospel. Not sit on our cushy office chairs and bicker about what the Bible says or Politics or whatever else. The world is LOST and we have the resources, so let’s go do something about it.
September 22, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Corrie,
There is a short section in the “So Much More” book that says the same kind of thing about women being essential to men. It sent a sick chill through me, because it sounded really like some kind of pagan power dynamic. It said that women were needed to help their mates (be that their father or spouse to whom they were helpmeet), and that men could not really be all that they could be unless the women in his life lifted him up. I just had this picture in my head of those two sisters sitting at a table, grabbing up the desperately needed credit and personal power that each person should find in themselves as an individual. In a healthy family, a person should have that internal locus of self-satisfaction naturally, but because this is so demeaned, I just imagined this image of them grabbing for acknowledgement.
But it is confusing, because they spend so much time stripping women of autonomy, this idea of a woman’s integral contribution is a vital work needed for a man to succeed. And I don’t argue with the concept in general, because we do benefit our families and should seek to want to do that, blessing and ministering to them out of love. We do help our family members succeed and do better. I found the same thing in the Botkin book to be equally odd. Why make a point of telling women they are really quite powerful — it sounded like politics of guilt and pity rather than something that we should derive from the Lord.
September 22, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Abby – I agree with you overall. However, you are mixing personal evangelism with governmental politics. As citizens of the United States, we must place America first. But as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, we must view each person as equally created by God and equally in need of Jesus Christ.
That works its way out differently for different people. But for me, I believe I should vote in a way so as to strengthen the United States and protect its citizens. And I believe I should take the gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone in need of Jesus Christ, which would be everyone. I am involved heavily in both of those things, although my involvement is much heavier in the latter.
September 22, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Abby,
Wow! I do agree and it is a kick in the pants that is well needed. There are good rampages and there are bad ones and I believe this was a fruitful one!
September 22, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Looks like I always get to be the lone voice of dissention.
)
Abby, Do you have any idea how much money, resources, etc we send to other nations? I have family in 3rd world countries as missionaries that complain all the time about American goods that our government gives to that country in the way of medical items and food for the starving that are hijacked by warlords and never make it to their target. There are tons of similar things happening all over the third world. What do you suggest we do about it short of war taking out the evil warlords that prey upon their own people? We saw what happened in Somalia when we tried once and did not have the guts to carry through. This is a serious problem not just for the US but for the UN, too. Even official government bureaucrats in these countries are many times not honest and resell these things.
We send more missionaries out into the world than any other country, too.
Keep in mind that I do NOT think America is a Christian country. Far from it. I believe we have religious liberty and that extends as far not infringing on individual rights. I am thinking about Sharia law which many muslims are demanding in European countries that would infringe on a person’s civil liberties here in this country. yet, for the Muslim, Sharia law is part of practicing their religion.
September 22, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Richard,
The comment ‘please stand up and deliver’ was NOT addressed to you personally. It was addressed to the church in general.
And it was about welfare, not about the environmnt at all.
In terms of, if the church can and is willing to help ALL those in need, let it do so (stand up and deliver).
(My implication being that then welfare would automatically fall away, as there would be no need of it.
But as currently – imo at least – the church is either unable or unwilling to help to such an extent that all welfare worldwide could safely disappear.)
If that’s what offended you, please believe me, IT WAS 100% NOT INTENDED AS A COMMENT ABOUT WHAT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY DO IN TERMS OF YOUR PERSONAL GIVING.
Not at all. I think in this case at least the offence is because of a misunderstanding.
In re-reading what I wrote, I realize NOW that what I wrote could be read in that way. Perhaps my construction was wrong; English is not my mother-tongue.
‘As for the church taking over all welfare work, I think it would be great. If you’re sure that the Church has both the resources and the WILLINGNESS to help ALL those in need, please step up and deliver the goods.’
But please believe me that it was not about what you as a person give personally.
September 22, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Abby, Abby, Abby — AMEN! I’ve been reading this thread but hesitant to get involved in the discussion until your post. It reminded me of a recent essay by Dr. Dave Black that he posted back on August 24th in regard to this year’s elections. Here are a few excerpts:
“What pathetic imbeciles we are to think politics is the solution to what ails us as a people or as a nation. The whole election is a cosmic joke, made more so by the media frenzy surrounding it…
“Folks, I’m not a quietist. But God’s will hic et nunc [here and now] is not to improve the American Way of Life. Politics is a false god if ever there was one. God or Mammon. Jesus or Julius. We must simply decide.
“Jesus tells us, “Make disciples of all nations.” I don’t know about you, but I’ll stick with the transforming power of the cross, which alone can lay the foundation for “real change,” a “new beginning,” or whatever other slogans the candidates and their parties will hype this election year.”
The complete post can be found here:
Jesus Or Julius? http://www.daveblackonline.com/jesus_or_julius.htm
In regard to Sarah Palin’s nomination, I am nauseated at the fact that we must always drag God into it. I most definitely believe that God is Sovereign over all but I most certainly do not believe that He is a Republican or even an American! I agree with this quote that I stumbled upon recently:
“Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes.”
And isn’t it the truth? Why,and on what, do we base the fact that a professing Christian woman is God’s answer for America? Some of the same leaders of the Religious Right who said they would never vote for John McCain suddenly do a turn around just because he panders to them and chooses Palin. Suddenly the conservatives are ready to pull the lever for the very same McCain they loathed only days before, forgetting that John McCain is still John McCain and he is the presidential candidate, not Sarah Palin. And I can’t help thinking of that verse, “How can two walk together unless they be agreed?” How does such a so-called ‘staunch conservative’ like Sarah Palin sing the praises of John McCain? As a Mr. Vance stated on another blog, “As his VP, Palin is McCain’s number one public supporter. That alone makes her worthy of condemnation…”
The Religious Right has shown the establishment once again that all they have to do is toss them a bone once in awhile and they’ve provide the votes.
This eighteen year old figured it out right from the start: http://elisabethscorner.blogspot.com/2008/09/successful-campaign-tactics.html
September 22, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Richard,
You wrote to me that
‘Your view seems to be that you recongize that the environment is in need of help. So you ask others what *they* are doing to address the need *you* see.
I’m not attacking you in any way on this. I am simply stating that this is an unbiblical mindset and is the reason that most Conservative Christians in the U.S. view the issues the way we do. We are *personally* responsible. We are *not* responsible to force others to do what we think needs to be done. It’s a basic difference in paradigm.’
I’m a bit confused. Where did I say that I believed that Christians should force others to do what they believed was correct wrt the environment.
Are you referring to the quote I pasted from the Washington Post about the US being the only nation to not have signed certain treaties regarding the protection of the environment?
I guess my opinion on that would be that yes, it’s definitely up to each nation to decide what to do about pollution/ waste within its own borders.
But I think there is a lot to suggest that US policies on pollution DO in fact affect those in other countries – in terms of waste dumping etc). Btw, in addition to the articles I listed above – at your request – on the topic of waste dumping- there is more at @Reporting without borders’ (my best translation of a programme I viewed while I was still living in Greece).
None of the above is intended as an attack either. I’m just explaining where I’m coming from: why I don’t think environmental issues are only a matter of personal choice.
not just on a national level but also on a personal level: the way I deal with rubbish in my home and garden can directly influence the health of my neighbour and his family.
September 22, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Btw, ‘Reporting without borders’ is not a Greek programme, just in case anyone was wandering. That’s just where I saw it. It has an international focus, and is usually broadcast either in English or French (with subtitles for other languages).
September 22, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Richard –
Oh, I don’t think you’re being duplicitous. I think it’s just us seeing things from different points of view.
I think it comes down to how you define “protecting Christians” or Christianity.
Honestly, the first thing that came to mind when I read what you said about imposing a Christian view on people was the question of Gay marriage. As I understand it the Christian view is that it’s unacceptable (or wrong, or sinful or something along those lines) but I don’t see how what two other adults do attacks Christians or Christianity.
I’ve heard the argument that gay marriage attacks the institution of marriage, which affects Christians, but I don’t understand that. I still don’t see how what two other people do in their lives affects my marriage. I have a number of married gay friends. No matter how much time I spend with them my marriage remains sound.
I’ve also heard the defense of the children argument. Honestly, I have a number of gay friends in couples, most with children, all of whom are happy and healthy and well-adjusted. Far more so than a number of heterosexual families I know. If anything, in my experience, homosexual parenting is something to be emulated, in the way they plan for and cherish each and every child.
The only reason I can see, then, for all the ballot initiatives in the past few years, is to force the Christian view that gay marriage is wrong and sinful and must not be on the rest of us. And that’s not electing politicians either, that’s deliberately using the political process to coerce others to have to live by the Christian viewpoint. Which is your (as in Christians, not you specifically) right to try to do, that’s what the mechanism is in place for, but then I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Christians don’t try to force their views on others.
I could continue with sex-education in the schools, questions about contraception, and more than likely a few others, but I’ll stop. I tent to write a lot once I get started, and that takes up a lot of board space.
September 22, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I have been reading and re-reading my comments to see how I succeeded in giving so much offence. One thing that came to mind was this: possibly my use of the term ‘Christian right’.
Please let me clarify that I did NOT use the term to offend anyone. Actually I had no idea that some Conservative Christians found it offensive.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I NEVER USED THE TERM AGAIN IN ANY OF MY COMMENTS ONCE RICHARD HAD POINTED OUT THAT HE CONSIDERED IT
IN APPROPRIATE AS IT WAS A TERM THAT HAD BEEN COINED BY THOSE OPPOSING CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES.
Richard, Lin and anyone else who might have felt offended by my use of the term ‘Christian right’,
if I inadvertently offended you regarding this, it was done through ignorance and not through intent.
And I do apologise for using the \term if it offended anyone.
I thought the term was commonly used to describe the ‘demographic’ of Conservative Christian voters, and that it was used by both conservatives and Liberals. Actually I thought the terms Christian Right/ Conservative Christians were synonymous.
As I said at the outset, I am writing as an outsider so please show me grace on inintentional errors, like this and ‘please stand up and deliver’.
Actually, I used the term primarily because I have come across it many times, in publications which TIME Newsmagazine – yes, even in the last month – which I often read as it’s the only US publication which is widely available and cheap where I live (except on the Internet, of course).
Oh, and I didn’t realize that TIME magazine was a ‘leftist’ publication. Nor did I realize that it was trying to misrepresent Republicans. I’ve always had the impression that it presented both sides. But I realize that you all might view this differently; as I said at the beginning I’m an outsider.
As I clearly said in my first comment on this topic, I HAVE read both sides.
I wrote
‘material I have read on the Christian right and by the Christian right over many years from a wide variety of sources’.
Sure, the conservative Christians I read may not have called themselves the Christian right’; actually, I can’t remember what thy called themselves.
I just picked up the term somewhere and used it as I thought it was a commonly used and commonly accepted term, by both Conservatives and Liberals.
I am guessing that it may have caused offence because – in re-reading some comments I realize that my use of the term was alluded to several times.
September 22, 2008 at 8:59 pm
About it being unBiblical to force people to do things if they personally don’t see the need, isn’t that what the laws of any nation do regarding its citizens?
What about laws regarding speed limits? We all have to obey those, regardless of whether or not we agree that the specific limit is the safest speed at which to travel.
just curious. My understanding was that some form of enforcement was necesssary in terms of preserving general wellbeing/protecting others.
September 22, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Just for the record, Richard, I DIDN’T FEEL ATTACKED by ANYTHING you said in your last comment.
And I wouldn’t have felt attacked by anything in your other comments, if you had expressed yourself differently.
September 22, 2008 at 9:08 pm
AnnieC – Your example is a good one to use to illustrate my view on coercion being the responsibility of the government and not of individual citizens.
In my view scripture says that marriage is between one woman and one man until they are parted by death. Anything outside of that is not God ordained marriage. Because it was God’s idea, he gets to set the rules. So I am opposed to gay weddings (there is definitionally no such things as gay marriage) and I am opposed to pre-marital sex and adultery and divorce and polygamy. I recognize that all of these sins happen in some cases, but I believe the Bible sets those things out as being sin.
As an individual Christian I should show love to those who are involved in sin. I should express Christ’s love to them. If they are unbelievers, I should share with them the gospel message. If they are believers we may rejoice together in the gospel message while at the same time recognizing that we are sinners and identifying the sins that each of us needs to repent of in order to honor Christ.
At the voting booth, I should vote for candidates that discourage sin rather than encourage sin. So I would vote for those who are opposed to gay “marraige,” unless, of course, the overall balance of their positions on the issues fits scriptural guidelines. If, for example, someone opposes gay “marriage” but supports late term abortion, I would not be likely to vote for them. It would be the totality of their positions and the overall balance of whether or not the scales fall down on the side of a biblical worldview.
The reason I vote for someone with a biblical worldview is not to promote or defend Christianity as opposed to any other religion, but rather to promote civility and morality in our nation. Immorality of all types is a danger to each of us and to our families.
September 22, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Irene – Thank you for your concern about how you wrote things.
Don’t worry – I don’t think anyone was really offended by your use of the term Religious Right. What happened is that it tipped us off to the fact that you have been influenced by left-wing news sources. You cited the Washington Post. I live in Washington and wouldn’t use the Washington Post to plug a leaky faucet. I view Time magazine in much the same way.
What I assumed about you may have been wrong, and I apologize for the strong terminology I used in later comments when I thought you were referring directly to me. I thought that because the subject of that sentence was “you,” which was referring to me. That may have been a language barrier thing.
Thinking initially that you were pushing a leftwing agenda, which I still think you are – although not with the fervor that I originally thought – your questions seemed laden with innuendo and accusation. Thank you for correcting me in my assumptions about your intentions here.
Regarding the Religious Right. I probably have a greater reaction to that than many because I live in the hometown of the man who was the figurehead of the so-called Religious Right – Lynchburg, Virginia. Jerry Fallwell was not a personal friend of mine, but I greatly respected the man and was saddened by his death. My wife met him of the first time in a restaurant two weeks before he died. She was very impressed by him and by his apparent humility.
Regarding coercion. You said: About it being unBiblical to force people to do things if they personally don’t see the need, isn’t that what the laws of any nation do regarding its citizens?
If you’ll read back through my comments on those things you’ll see that I believe that governments are the God-established coercive agents and that we individuals must not coerce others into ways of behaving that we think are right. I see a great difference between what individuals are suppposed to do and what governments are supposed to do.
September 22, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Concerning my being ‘sexist’ and ‘unBiblical’ because I said that it was difficult for a woman to combine a high-power job with motherhood and I wandered whether or not her family could still be her first priority in such a case.
I thought that this website was open to Christians having different opinions, WITHOUT demeaning each other.
For example, I know (although I’m always open to correction) that many women are egalitarian while others are complementarian. Do the 2 groups go around accusing each other of being unBiblical? Do the egalitarians accuse the complementarians of being ‘sexist’? I have never read such statements here.
I was also under the impression that the women who write here represent many different denominations. Hence, they hold different beliefs on certain issues.
I thought the whole point of THIS website was that we showed grace to those sisters and brothers who have DIFFERENT opinions.
It’s easy to be gracious to those who agree with us. Even unbelievers do that (in my experience).
I thought that harsh and absolute condemnation of those who don’t agree was a characteristic of those in patriarchal circles.
THis is my understanding on difference of opinion amongst Christians:
There are issues where Christians disagree on what they think the Bible teaches on a specific topic: for example, believer’s baptism vs infant baptism, complementarian vs egalitarian, God’s sovereignty over man’s salvation vs man’s free will playing a role in salvation. I think the differences of opinion in this category are because both ‘sides’ find Bible verses to support their position.
Of course, I don’t believe that the Bible contradicts itself, merely that in our imperfect human understanding we can’t make sense of exactly what it teaches us on the issue in question.
I thought the attitude of TrueWomanhood was to NOT judge other Christians on issues where Christians disagree (due to some verses that might seem to be presenting conflicting viewpoints).
I myself have views on all the above-mentioned issues (baptism, the role of free will and sovereignty etc) but it would NEVER occur to me to call those who thought differently on these issues UNBiblical. Sure they have a different INTERPRETATION of some issues in the Bible.
But I guess I would reserve the term unbiblical for those teaching heresy, for those taking extra-Biblical ideas and teaching them as commands.
I’d like to take a look at where my statements fit in: unBiblical heresy or a different opinion on what the Bible teaches.
I said that my understanding of what the Bible teaches was that a woman(specifically) was to make her husband, children and home a priority. I also wrote that my understanding was that God gave different roles to the mom and the dad within the family structure.
Sure, not everyone might agree with my views and that’s fine – as I said repeatedly.
But to classify my views as unBiblical? Why? Does the Bible clearly and explicitly teach that the roles of mom and dad are interchangeable in the family, that no questions may even be asked about the issue?
I guess I expected more grace. No – I’m not saying that I expected everyone to agree with me. But I did expect that my difference of opinion to be classed as ‘unBiblical’.
‘The questions one chooses to ask say a lot about the person’s assumptions and even world view.’
I agree. I never said that I was ‘neutral’; I don’t even think that neutrality is possible.
But if you think that you can guess all my assumptions and opinions by reading those questions, you’re wrong. I think you’ve read a lot into what I wrote that was never intended.
I still stick to what I wrote earlier:
I DON’T BELIEVE THAT I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.
I do believe though that some questions are worth asking. And that they are worth thinking through over and over again. Because the responsibility is so huge.
Believe me, millions of people throughout the world are asking similar questions.
‘If you think you were only asking questions and not making statements, you are mistaken. That’s not an attack. ‘
Richard, with all due respect, I think YOU are mistaken.
You don’t live in my head and don’t know all the intentions etc of my mind/heart.
The statement I was making was that I thought these issues are worth thinking through, over and over again.
I was open to hearing whether conservative christians themselves- ordinary people, not politicians -maintained the views that the media (on both sides) says they do. I must confess that I was surprised to find that the only person who answered does in fact hold these views, almost to a letter.
September 22, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Richard –
Immorality of all types is a danger to each of us and to our families.
Ah, see, that’s where we disagree. I don’t consider two people swearing to be faithful to each other, set up joint housekeeping, and raise children together to be immoral. Regardless of the gender of the two people involved. So you would (Christians) be imposing your views on morality on me (non-Christians).
September 22, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I was also open to hearing through the reasonings behind these viewpoints. And thanks again for replying – regardless of whether you were writing about conservative views in general or your own in particular.
The discussions on the role that guns played in US history and the constitution were interesting, (both Mara and Richard)esp as I’d never heard it before.
Regarding the other issues, particularly that of foreign policy, I stil maintain that I don’t have all the answers. But I also will say that I don’t personally believe that the answers are as straightforward as they were presented in Richard’s reply.
I don’t accept unquestioningly that the war is Biblical or that US policies (on war, environment etc) are necessarily based fully on Biblical principles.
I guess it’s more of a grey area for me: one that Christians have to work out on the principles of the Bible and on which there may well be disagreement.
I don’t think that the issues shouldn’t be discussed though, just because people will probably disagree:personal convictions will affect the lives of so many others, that I think discussion is a good thing.
September 22, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“Richard, Lin and anyone else who might have felt offended by my use of the term ‘Christian right’,
if I inadvertently offended you regarding this, it was done through ignorance and not through intent. ”
No offense here because I have NO idea who the Christian ‘right’ are anymore. Neither do the polls. They are not the voting block they used to be and carry a lot less weight than they used to in endorsing candidates. They do not have a ‘national spokesperson’ anymore. The RNC yawns when Dobson talks anymore. The days of the evangelical voting block are over. It started when 30% of them voted for Clinton.
)
September 22, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Richard,
I think we are commenting past each other. meaning I hadn’t read your reply to me in
609, when I wrote my other comments.
Thank you for your apology and our willingness to believe the best of my intentions.
Your apology ended all my hurt at the strong comments, and now I NEED TO APOLOGISE AGAIN for having brought up those comments in 610.
Obviously it’s not acceptable for a Christian to bring up anything of the past after an apology has beenmade.
I wouldn’t have pursued the issue if I had read what you wrote.
Please forgive me.
September 22, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Irene – I sense your anger level ebbing and flowing.
I thought that this website was open to Christians having different opinions, WITHOUT demeaning each other.
I did not demean you by saying that what you had said was sexist and unbiblical. I, in fact, said that what you said was sexist and unbiblical, not that you were sexist and unbiblical. Again, that could be a language difference, in which case – since you have already noticed that you’re having trouble with that particular barrier – you might want to not get your feathers ruffled too much.
I thought we were having a discussion without demeaning until you accused me of not following through with my beliefs. I understand that this was not what you meant, but it was what you said. So try not to get too upset. I don’t think there is cause at this point.
September 22, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Ah, see, that’s where we disagree. I don’t consider two people swearing to be faithful to each other, set up joint housekeeping, and raise children together to be immoral.
Ah … but God does.
September 22, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Irene – LOL – once again, writing past each other. I’m going to bed now – so I’ll be able to plug back into the conversation tomorrow. Sorry about my chronological deficiency.
G’night all.
September 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Richard,
I admit that I probably did not use the wisest or best way of expressing myself when I asked the questions.
It is a pretty emotive issue for me. And I’m sure I got carried away.
My questions were NOT however carrying the innuendo of: the US is wrong about everything/to blame for everything.
I aplogise to all who were offended. Also to Karen as the moderator of the blog.
believe me all this was not my intention when I commented on Sun morning.
September 22, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Richard –
And that’s the other place where we disagree. I don’t believe in god, so that argument carries no weight.
Care to try another? *g*
September 22, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Just read your reply in 617: I agree there is no cause at this point for us to be upset with each other.
I have put my foot into it SO MUCH in this whole discussion, that I’m going to opt out of SPEAKING/commenting for a while and will just listen to others.
I feel that I’ve made a mess of what I was trying to express and then just made things worse when I tried to explain.
so I’m going to keep my mouth shut for a while. I think that the verse regarding being slow t speak and quick to listen is very apt for me right now.
Thanks to all for your patience.
September 22, 2008 at 11:21 pm
“And that’s the other place where we disagree. I don’t believe in god, so that argument carries no weight.”
Interesting — you are, then, an athiest? Have you always been one, and is there any particular reason behind your choice?
September 22, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Lin,
I’m sorry, and I’m not trying to be mean, but I didn’t see how your reply to my comment really had anything to do with what I said.
But, I’ll try to respond to at least the part about sending things to the third world. My father-in-law is an Egyptian and runs a mission to Egyptians and Sudanese refugees in Cairo. He is a famous speaker and preacher in Egypt, known by practically every christian in the country. Yet his support from the U.S. is less than 1/2 of what my church gives in offerings in 1 year, and he’s supported by several churches (at least a dozen). Sure, I go to a really big church, but he’s serving at least 2-3 times more people in Egypt than our church is in membership.
If you don’t want to GO out in the world and spread the gospel, you should consider DIRECTLY supporting someone who does. They have a medical mission, as well, and even a home for mentally handicapped and an orphanage, just to give you a feel for what he’s doing. They also plant churches in villages–using pre-existing church buildings and meeting places, because they would never be allowed to actually build churches.
No one is taking their money, supplies or anything else and using them for evil, because, frankly, they get sent directly. Don’t use the government to send help/aid to other countries, send it yourself through a missionary.
I hope that answers part of what you were concerned about.
I don’t believe war is the answer to all of the world’s problems. I believe it creates greater problems for the poor than for the rich, and the fact of the matter is that war is pretty much the LAST THING we should ever consider doing.
I was telling my husband tonight (after he read my rant) that we need to be constantly reminded that EVERY PERSON WE SEE, whether on the street, the news, or in pictures online–and every person we talk to–is our NEIGHBOR. Jesus told us to love our neighbor. Even if we disagreed with them. War is not loving. War creates hatred among other things. No, I’m not saying we should give evil or corrupt leaders a free pass in the name of “love,” but if there are people we can help, we should do it.
I like the fact that Irene has mentioned churches stepping in and doing the welfare. I am so thankful to be part of a church that does this for its members and community. I would like to see it happening more, but at the moment I honestly see a lot of cultural barriers to Christians in America doing so. I didn’t think what she said about stepping up was offensive, in fact, I think that those who are doing it are doing right, but that there are more who could be. Could I? Probably. Though at the moment it would be more like the poor widow giving her copper coins, but I guess Jesus singled her out above others.
Richard, I really don’t think we see eye to eye on the issue of who comes first, and though it may not have been intentional, the fact that you put America first in your response illustrated a point to me that a lot of Christians here still put country above God. NOWHERE in the Bible does it mention allegiance to country being so important that our country and countrymen come first above those of other nations. Americans may have the right to consider America first, but right doesn’t equal duty, and a right certainly doesn’t mean that it IS right. Christians should put OTHERS first. Not a specific country or anything.
Believe me, we aren’t the first people to get it wrong. Peter got it wrong over and over again. Paul had it wrong before he met Jesus. The Galatians had it ALL wrong. Jewish Christians didn’t come first before Gentile Christians, and American Christians shouldn’t come before “other” Christians. Just follow Jesus. Don’t worry about nationality. Pray about it, but remember that everyone is your neighbor, and I think we’ll do all right.
September 23, 2008 at 12:13 am
Cynthia Gee –
I actually consider myself an Agnostic Theist. I do believe there’s a deity out there, and an afterlife, but I don’t believe he’s knowable or has been known. Or perhaps can be known.
While I think the bible is fascinating as a document, I don’t think it’s the word of god, in any sense of the concept.
How did I come here? A combination of watching the news, bible study, and all ten seasons of Stargate SG-1 on DVD.
I’m not trying to be facetious, that’s really what did it.
September 23, 2008 at 7:12 am
I am wwwwaaaayyyyy behind reading this thread but just wanted to say how much I appreciate the humility I am seeing as you all are discussing some pretty touchy issues. I am always amazed at the intelligent and gracious people who frequent this group. Thanks, ladies, er, and gentleman.
September 23, 2008 at 7:14 am
Annie,
Just wanted you to know that I so appreciate your candor and willingness to interact with us here in spite of our different worldviews!
September 23, 2008 at 7:16 am
Lin, I agree that it is so hard to define “Christian right” anymore. As I have watched the various responses to Palin just within the patrocentric camp, it has been intriguing and I hardly know who is who. If anything, this Palin issue has reminded everyone that the pro-life issue is not going away and it is even a bigger deal than some people think it is.
September 23, 2008 at 9:18 am
I won’t be writing on the other discussion at all but wanted to reply to Rebecca’s comment.
Rebecca, I think you make some excellent points.
Thank you for reminding me that we really cannot do it all – not in any season of our lives. I tend to be very pefectionistic and in this way to place a huge burden on myself- and those in my life!
I think that juggling your priorities between work and family, and juggling your priorities between different family members are two completely different things.
Obviously, you have to make decisions regarding who takes priority at the moment within your family circle. And it’s rare to be able to give anyone exclusive attention for a sustained period of time.
BUT ALL OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GOING TO GET LESS OF YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION IF YOU THROW A HIGH_POWER JOB INTO THE EQUATION.
Seeing that family life is already so multi-faceted and demanding, it becomes even more so when to its demands are added the demands of a high-power job.
And I guess that’s the point I was trying to make – however imperfectly!
- ‘Someone’s needs always have to take priority, it seems, and the constant motherly worry is that they might be prioritizing incorrectly. When the toddler screams just as the newborn begins wailing, who do you pick up first?’
I know we have to constantly make these decisions and that we’re never going to decide perfectly.
But I’d rather be guilty of making the ‘wrong’ decision regarding exactly how I should engage with my family at a given momnt(who to pick up first) than to not be able to engage with them at all at the given moment because I’m tied up at the office.
- ‘Once you have a child, it is always a juggling act. What if your husband and child are both sick at the same time? Neither gets exclusive attention. What if the whole family gets sick?’
I agree that my use of the word ‘exclusive’ was not really appropriate in this context as it’s hardly ever possible to give one family member your exclusive attention for an extended length of time.
However, you can usually take care of an ill child at home, while still giving attention to the others. You can walk in and out of various rooms in the house, have your child lying on the couch in the living room while the others play on ther floor, etc.
Sure my kids are getting my divided – and not my exclusive attention. But if I was at the office they would not be getting any of my attention at all at that particular moment.
Missing a piano recital because one needs to care for another child is prioritizing one family activity over another. Missing a piano recital because you’re needed at the office, seems to me to be prioritizing work over family. I guess I don’t want to be in a situation where that sort of prioritizing is forced on me.
- ‘Family time has to be juggled around the husband’s career, the never-ending and overwhelming household chores and responsibilities, the needs of the babies and toddlers, the schedules of the older children, schooling, doctor’s appointments…’.
I think for me the difference here is that you have more control over the affairs of your own home than over the affairs of an external organization.
You can decide to postpone the laundry for 20 min to have a talk with your daughter first. Or you can talk while you do the laundry together. You might not have 20 min free at the office to call her and talk when her dog has died.
You can get a takeaway ‘for once’ instead of cooking in order to free up some time for another family activity. Even a dentist’s appointment can be rescheduled more easily than a work meeting which involves ‘outside’ people.
At work you can’t nec chose to postpone or substitute the meeting/report.
I know that being a mom/ looking after a home does NOT mean that you’re flexible to do what you want when you want. Obviously.
But these constraints are tied to your family. I was thinking more in terms of being compelled to be at the office meeting at 4 instead of being compelled to take your daughter to ballet at 4.
– ‘But the world goes on…husbands get sick…we get sick…parents need surgery…children need surgery…grandparents have heart attacks…uncles die…the nature of our job as atay-at-home moms sometimes gives us flexibility to attend to those crises, but that doesn’t mean that our children don’t suffer some small (or not-so-small) measure of neglect during that time.’
I agree that attention to kids sometimes has to take a back-seat as one deals with crises within my extended family (ailing parent etc).
I believe that’s different though, as its a temporary situation. And having a high-power job would mean – imo anyway – that THE NEEDS OF MY KIDS WOULD CONSTANTLY (NOT TEMPORARILY) BE IN COMPETITION WITH MY VERY DEMANDING JOB.
Sure, you might spend less time with your kids while your mom is in hospital for a while, but if you’re at the office, you will have less time for BOTH – your mom and your kids.
Also, I believe that responsibilities to ageing parents and the other crises you mentoned are all still part of family life. Which is where I want my focus to be.
My family is from Greece originally although I have lived in diffeent places all over the world.
It is common in Greece for ageing parents to begin living with their kids’ families. That’s what I would hope to do. I know from Karen’s blog that her mom also lived with her family for many years.
- ‘A working mom that I know, who stayed at home for a number of years, says that it is now much easier for her to deal with family crises. She has available childcare and a support system that she didn’t have as a stay-at-home mom. She has emergency leave from work, which means that traveling to be at the bedside of an ailing parent isn’t the financial hardship it used to be. Her family’s basic routine remains unchanged during an extended family crisis — meals are still served on time, everyone gets everywhere that they need to go, the most necessary household work gets done — rather than everyone being plunged into chaos.’
My personal choice here is that I would rather have my kids be able to spend more time with me on a daily basis even if their basic routines have to change for a few days a year, while I deal with a crisis.
That’s my personal choice. As you said, every family is different.
-’One of the most valuable lessons I learned from a mom of many is that God does not intend for mothers to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. She pointed out that, even if we tried to spend our every waking moment at our children’s sides, never taking a moment’s break, someone would still get the short end of the stick, so to speak. Plus, she questioned whether this would be healthy for our children.’
I agree totally.I DON’T believe that in order for kids to flourish, they need mom’s undivided attention every second of every day at every point in their lives. They need time to become independent, have their own interests, invest in peer friendships. I believe all the above very strongly.
‘All you can do is your best. But no one can be in two places at the same time.’
Once again, I agree totally. I just want to try as far as possible, that the 1 place where I’m standing, is the best place for me to be at the particular moment in my life.
And I agree after all that’s been said and written, that that’s a personal choice.
Personally, I won’t be going back to my high-power job if I can possibly help it.
I hope that I won’t be compelled by financial need etc to combine family life with a job that requires me to spend the majority of my day – if not my life (5/7 days is a majority)- outside the home.
But I won’t be judging others who don’t chose as I do anymore.
Thanks for the very stimulating discussion!
September 23, 2008 at 9:43 am
Oops, I didn’t realize that comment was quite THAT long.
I have been pretty unwise in how much time I’ve spent writing here the past few days. Obviously, this is 100% my own fault. I’ve let myself get carried away to a large degree. Hence, the very long comments too.
I’ve decided that I need to take a complete break for a while – reading here AND writing here (because I’ve come to realize that if I’m reading it’s hard for me not to comment as this morning proves)!
So, I’ll say all the best to everyone.
I hope I’m forgiven by al those I offended. Thanks for patience and graciousness (thanks for your gracious comment in 624 that mom).
Goodbye for now.
September 23, 2008 at 9:50 am
Irene,
My latest two podcasts address the topic of seasons in a woman’s life and so many times I have questioned what I was doing and if I was in the right season for doing whatever it was. As someone who is in the “sweater years” as I call them, the fall season, I have looked back many times and wished that I could go back and have some of those days of spring and summer back with my kids. I think the Proverbs 31 woman is the perfect example of a woman who did all that she did over the course of many seasons, not just one season. In fact, I don’t think anyone could do all she did all at once and do it well. Clay and I made the choice years ago to choose the path we chose and neither of us regret it, though it has often been difficult to live on one income, especially with a large family.
So my first reaction to Sarah Palin’s running was put through my own life and I cringed at the thought of her not being home full time with that baby. And I also know teenagers need you more during those years than they ever need you any other time. BUT, I also believe that Sarah is not prohibited in Scripture from making this decision, she appears to have a husband who is willing to take turns being their full time, and I given her pro-life views, I don’t think I can vote for anyone else!
You are correct, every family is different!!!
September 23, 2008 at 9:57 am
Abby, How do you know that people on this blog are not helping others or supporting missions?
September 23, 2008 at 10:03 am
During the Ike storm I lost electricity for 7 days. So, we went to live with Grandpa who has a tv in every room.
( We are not big tv watchers and do not have cable. It is a good thing because I caught myself surfing channels quite a bit. All this to say, I ran across a show called the Nanny. Oh my. If what I saw on that show is the state of the average stay at home mom in America, we are in BIG trouble. 
)
September 23, 2008 at 10:07 am
2 Corinthians 3:11 – Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace
September 23, 2008 at 10:16 am
Irene – I hope you read here enough just to read that I have enjoyed sparring with you, which I think is a good thing. And although sometimes things were heated because we both see these issues as very important, we are not holding anything against each other.
This is the essence of Christianity and gets to the point of what I said about non-coercion. Although we disagree or at least come at these issues from different angles, neither of us is forcing our way of thinking on the other.
I had to take a break for a while a few months ago because this forum can be a major time eater. We will miss you here for a while (short while, hopefully) and will welcome you back when you return.
September 23, 2008 at 10:19 am
Lin,
Isn’t that show something else? Wow!
September 23, 2008 at 10:30 am
“I actually consider myself an Agnostic Theist. I do believe there’s a deity out there, and an afterlife, but I don’t believe he’s knowable or has been known. Or perhaps can be known.”
Annie, if you’d like to explore that further, you might want to read “Mere Christianity”, by C.S.Lewis.
Lewis (who was a lifelong friend of J.R.R. Tolkein)was an athiest who eventually became an agnostic theist and finally a Christian, via the process of logical deduction. In “Mere Christianity”, Lewis relates how he arrived at his conclusion. That’s not to say that you will arrive at the same conclusion, but either way, it’s a fascinating read.
September 23, 2008 at 11:16 am
Annie,
I second Thatmom’s appreciation for your participation in this discussion.
September 23, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Lin, I absolutely did NOT say that people weren’t supporting missionaries. I was giving an example of being world-minded instead of being “American minded” Christians. I hope that everyone here is giving money directly to a missionary, or at least giving money through their church that is specifically directed to missions.
September 23, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Sorry about the choppy comment a minute ago, I meant to say more but was interrupted.
Lin, I wanted to add that you addressed me with the problem of America’s international welfare supplies (forgive me, I can’t seem to find the right words for this) being looted by the “warlords” of other nations and never reaching the poor. I was addressing you back on that issue, because I thought I had made it plain that what the problem is has nothing to do with whether our government gives money.
Let’s consider Christian churches as one entity and the American government as another, because, well, they are two different things.
In my rant earlier, I was addressing people who are Christians in America who think that the job of sending “help” to third world countries is a government thing. I’m glad no one here thinks this way.
Irene or Richard had addressed the issue that our government should not be responsible for welfare handouts, but the churches should. I agree with this, but in such an imperfect world, the churches are not doing this, and the government is doing what it can, but the government, in MY opinion, is an amoral entity, and doesn’t really address what’s going on to CAUSE the need for welfare.
I honestly think that I’m getting more confused as I write, and I’m still not sure what your first comment had to do with what I said in the first place.
I’m going to back off now, and ask that you possibly explain your meaning before I try to respond.
Maybe someday I’ll gather my own thoughts about how I read the Bible and how I see that Christians ought to live and put them on a blog so people can come and tell me what they think. But right now I have to go take care of the kids who just woke up.
September 23, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Abby, I was responding originally to this that you wrote:
“Sorry to go on the rampage, but I’m absolutely SICK of Americans being so self-centered that all they are concerned about is “our right” to do thus-and-so. What about the rights of Iraqi citizens? What about the rights of the people living in shelters in the Darfur? What about all the people around the world who have been HURT by American policies? Get off your computer and go help them deal with the fact that America’s government is run by political BULLIES, that WE the Christian people elected.
American Christians, it’s really time to stop thinking about AMERICA first, and think about what JESUS taught. He told us to go to the ends of the earth to spread the gospel. Not sit on our cushy office chairs and bicker about what the Bible says or Politics or whatever else. The world is LOST and we have the resources, so let’s go do something about it.”
In the first paragraph, you mention ‘Americans’ and the ‘bullies’ we elected as Christians. I take great offense to that statement and find it uninformed if you are only talking about the current administration. That comment is even more confusing when you write this later:
“Let’s consider Christian churches as one entity and the American government as another, because, well, they are two different things”
But, that is what you seem to be doing in your original comment. Making them one and the same.
And I did respond that ‘Americans’ (which includes both Christian and Athiest) send quite a bit of money to 3rd world countries. We have for a long time tried to help. And yes, we have made decisions that have hurt other countries. But, I also hold leaders of those countries responsible for their actions that hurt their own people. If America took your view 60 years ago then we would never have fought Hilter. There was really no reason to when you think about it. He was no threat to us at all. But he foolishly declared war on us! We could have ignored that and only fought the Japenese. But England was NOT winning and had we not intervened, those few Jews remaining would have been killed, too. We should have intevened long before we did.
Your second paragraph implies that American Christians are doing very little to spread the gospel. I also disagree with this. There are two kinds of people in missions: Those who go and those who support those who go.
We can always do more which is what I think you were really trying to say. Right?
September 23, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Lin, maybe you read it wrong, but I certainly don’t want anyone to think that I believe the church and government are one and the same. In fact, my intended meaning was quite the opposite.
The view I am tired of hearing, and actually, I’ll just spell it out, is what Richard said (sorry to pick on you, Richard): “As citizens of the United States, we must place America first.” Yes, this was written after my post, but it sums up an attitude that Christians simply shouldn’t have, in my opinion.
I’m not directly referring to the current administration, although a lot of allusions can be made. I’m referring to ALL government leaders who do not care about the poor in their city or around the country or around the world. To you, I may seem uninformed, but maybe, just maybe, you and I are informed about different things. (Talking to Lin)
Richard, I have to say that when I read what you said about where our government decides to help out being “priorities”–I can’t remember where, I immediately thought, well, we’ve really got our priorities wrong, then.
I am not opposed to war when war is absolutely necessary, or when someone declares war on us. In the Darfur, I agree that military action is the mostly likely course to be successful. But I don’t think we should use force to coerce democracy any more than I think we should use force to coerce Christianity.
I’m going to try to unpack what I said in the first paragraph you quoted here.
“I’m absolutely SICK of Americans being so self-centered that all they are concerned about is “our right” to do thus-and-so.”
I was referring to the conversation between Richard and Irene about gun control. That is probably something that I should have clarified. I was also referring in general to American rights that we take for granted until someone tries to take them away, while forgetting that most of the world doesn’t have those same rights. I was also feeling some things unrelated to this blog, namely our “safety” in America from terrorists and other forces that we cannot control. To get into the political scene, John McCain seems to me to be overly concerned with America’s safety, but not much else. I agree that it’s important to keep America safe, but not at the expense of relationships with the rest of the world or at the expense of important programs that we need in America.
I do think that our government bullies the rest of the world. I think people who live in the rest of the world would agree with me, even if those who live here might want to turn a blind eye. If you’ve ever watched the movie Love Actually, you would see what the British think of America’s government. And they USE the word Bully. So if you have a problem with my wording, I’m sorry you feel that way, but the fact is, we do choose who our leaders are, and our leaders are currently really messing up our foreign affairs for the next president or 10.
I have family that is FROM third world countries, and most people there have a pretty low opinion of Americans and our moral values, not to mention our government’s foreign policies.
Foreign Policy issues are actually the #1 reason I am not voting for John McCain. I don’t like his.
I am really not trying to imply that I think Americans aren’t spreading the gospel. I’m saying that the majority have no clue what the rest of the world really is about, and would rather not deal with it. There certainly are levels of this everywhere. And yes, I really was just trying to say that we could always do more. If there are people doing a lot, then maybe other people who aren’t doing much should kick it in gear.
I have a lot more to say, but I think I’ve dealt with what you had a problem with. Hopefully that clarified and didn’t make things worse.
September 23, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Abby – The simple and plain fact is that national governments secure the “rights” of their citizens. It is not up to the US to guarantee the rights of anyone in Iraq or Darfur or anywhere else other than the United States. Also, our nation has a system of rights and our founding documents directly address some of them. These rights are foundational to our nation, our culture, and our worldview. Trying to equal the playing field is naive.
I don’t believe in coercing other nations into democracy either and our nation has never done that. We do try to encourage them in that direction through other political means, but we have never done this through warfare. The current war in Iraq is unique and will take the lens of history to determine what all the facts were. At this point, I don’t think any of us knows enough about it to make blanket statements.
If my explanation of the historicity of gun ownership caused you to respond in the way you did, naivete is the least of the things impacting your side of this conversation. I was not promoting or opposing gun ownership, but was rather answering Irene’s question about why a particular voting block in our nation holds the views that they do on certain issues.
I do think that our government bullies the rest of the world. I think people who live in the rest of the world would agree with me.
I think one of the most disasterous things we could possibly do would be to worry about what the rest of the world thinks about us when trying to determine what we should do. Most importantly because of what you said here: I agree that it’s important to keep America safe, but not at the expense of relationships with the rest of the world or at the expense of important programs that we need in America.
It seems that what you are saying is that we should sacrifice the safety of our nation and its people in order to placate the rest of the world.
I think you’ve summed up exactly why I will be voting for John McCain this year. I think maintaining my life is more important than being a dead friend to some Europeans.
September 23, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I can see that on this issue we are at an impasse.
On the issue of guns, I wasn’t referring to your riveting history lesson (being sarcastic is okay, still, isn’t it?), but the idea that many of the “religious right” (okay, I know we’re not supposed to use that term either) still make such an issue of it, and how it got lumped in with religious groups is beyond me still. So on that issue, I wasn’t taking issue with you, but with how people behave about guns.
But anyway, It IS my belief that if America had a better relationship with the rest of the world, they wouldn’t all be trying to kill us. And we wouldn’t need so much “security” from outsiders. When you hedge yourself in, you become the only threat to yourself.
September 24, 2008 at 8:51 am
Hi…
I think I’ve read through just about every discussion on this site, though I almost never comment. I had to come out of lurkerdom to say that this particular thread about Palin has been especially fascinating.
From the beginning, I’ve thought the selection of Sarah Palin exposed huge inconsistencies among both camps – those who are really die-hard liberals, AND those who are really die-hard conservatives.
The Palin pick caused the die-hard liberals to actually come out and utter the truth about women who attempt to juggle family and career – that it’s often difficult to do both things well at the same time. A typical (although we all know there’s no such thing as “typical”) liberal feminist would NEVER usually even “go there” in her thinking. Yet when the working woman in question happens to be a conservative woman, liberals are willing to throw one of their most basic tenets (“We cannot discriminate against gender”) under the bus.
Fascinating!
Likewise, though, conservatives have also revealed some intellectual dishonesty (or inconsistency) when discussing Sarah Palin. I think if we were all being truthful, most of us who classify ourselves as politically conservative would have to admit that if Palin were on the Democratic ticket, we’d be at least somewhat disapproving of the way it appears she might be handling her family life. Yet because we agree with Palin’s political views, we suddenly cut her a lot of slack that we wouldn’t give her otherwise.
I’m not directing this remark toward anyone in particular in this discussion…it’s just that as I read the back-and-forth here, I find myself vigorously agreeing with lots of the points that people bring up – and many of these points contradict each other. I think that politics can cause even the most cut-and-dried thinkers among us to be double-minded sometimes.
September 24, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Joanie–interesting observations, and very well said!
September 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Joanie wrote:
I think if we were all being truthful, most of us who classify ourselves as politically conservative would have to admit that if Palin were on the Democratic ticket, we’d be at least somewhat disapproving of the way it appears she might be handling her family life.
—-
I don’t know about most political conservatives, but my husband and I have no problem supporting Sarah Palin, and would likely not disapprove of how she was handling her family life if she was a Democrat, either. Why? Because while we believe that it is typically best for young children to have their mom home with them, we both recognize that there are situations where that doesn’t happen for one reason or another – and in those cases, the “next best” is a mom with flexibility in her job and a commitment to her family (which Sarah Palin has in both cases, and likely will continue to have as VP)…and a dad who has flexibility in HIS job and a commitment to his family (which Todd Palin has as well).
September 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Palin’s Troopergate Moves Getting Bad Reviews in Alaska:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843678,00.html?imw=Y
September 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“But anyway, It IS my belief that if America had a better relationship with the rest of the world, they wouldn’t all be trying to kill us. And we wouldn’t need so much “security” from outsiders. When you hedge yourself in, you become the only threat to yourself.”
Abby, why would people we have given billions to and protected hate us? The French are a perfect example of this attitude to the point that when the Americans, Canadians and the British freed Paris, De Gaulle insisted that he and the French ‘army’ (what there was of it..including some who were found to be Vichey) be able to march in as if they freed it. We were happy to oblige him that and yet, they still hated us and complained about everything while to blood of our young men seeped into French soil. Even after our Marshall Plan rebuilt France they still hated us. Can you explain that?
Who is trying to kill us? Islamic terrorists. Perhaps you can explain to me how we can make them like us. For one, you are ignoring bin Laden’s own words that they attacked us because they did not think we would fight back. They thought we had gone soft. He said that. Did you not see the video on Al Jezera after 9/11?
This is the exact same thinking that ignored Arafats words and the charter of the PLO where it is spelled out in black and white: We will not stop until we drive all Jews into the sea. And people still say: We can negotitate with such thinking.
I think it is instructive to see how they reacted to the last settlement Israel abandoned for them in the name of ‘peace’. Instead of taking over the homes and businesses that were left intact for them, they burned them to the ground and waited for the government to feed and build new houses for them.
How DO you get people like that actually ‘like’ us? Die?
“I do think that our government bullies the rest of the world. I think people who live in the rest of the world would agree with me.’
Can you give an example of this that can be verified? I ask because I am curious.
September 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“I think if we were all being truthful, most of us who classify ourselves as politically conservative would have to admit that if Palin were on the Democratic ticket, we’d be at least somewhat disapproving of the way it appears she might be handling her family life.”
Not me. I would be looking at her political and policy beliefs. My problem with Hillary was not that she had a nanny for Chelsea most of her young life. My problem was her thinking she was an unelected co-gov and co prez and could push her liberal policies.
September 24, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Lin, I think you’re just being disagreeable. Yeah, there are people who are going to hate us no matter what, but as far as the question of why Muslim countries hate America is one you’ve already answered. Israel. Plain and simple. I don’t think we need to bring that discussion here, because it is FULL of a lot of things that make most Christians very uncomfortable. But I will say this. I have a pastor who is Conservatively Jewish (We’re talking about the kind of Jews who still have the curls, go to Hebrew school from preschool age, etc.) from birth, converted to Christianity, and even HE doesn’t agree with America’s Israel policy.
My husband is a Christian from the Middle East, and even most Christians over there don’t like Israel. In fact, it took him several years to get over a prejudice against my CHRISTIAN pastor before being comfortable coming to the same church. All because of his (the pastor’s) Jewish background.
Do I think that turning on Israel would help America? No. It’s gotten way beyond that. But I’m talking about a country that has dug a hole so deep that we have to decide between foreign policy and protecting ourselves from foreign terrorists. And that’s a really sad thing, frankly.
September 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Unfortunately, government really comes down to who’s got the bigger (or more) guns–figuratively and literally. Every country in the world is either trying to build up an Empire, or save itself from becoming part of an Empire. If we think of foreign policy in that light, we might get somewhere–and I’m not saying I think America should become some great Empire–some already say that it is–I’m saying that how we should deal with other countries. Take the Russia/Georgia thing, for example. Russia is the big strong country, and they want to take Georgia. How do we deal with that, or do we? Are we the world’s teacher? Does our track record give us any right to tell the rest of the world what we think they should do?
You can ignore the negatives of the American government’s dealings with other nations if you want to, but they are there. They are all over, you have to look in the right place, though. The media isn’t going to cover it, because the media is owned by the right people to keep it hidden. If I find a good website, I’ll share it with you. Honestly, I think you probably think I’m just making this stuff up, because most of my information is coming from someone who lived there, not from the news. It may not be as reliable, but at times, it’s MUCH more reliable.
I think I’ve worn myself out on this, and I need to take a break for another week or two. But if I come across information that you’re asking about, I’ll gladly post it up here.
September 24, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Here is a site that at least discusses Israel–it’s a sermon, and I think you can read a transcript instead if you don’t have time to listen to the whole thing (45 minutes). He actually got a lot of flack for teaching on this, so I’m pretty sure that quite a few people here would also disagree.
September 24, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Sorry, I forgot about the site:
http: //vineyardcolumbus .org/resources/sermons/2007_sermons.asp?id=196
September 24, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Abby,
How many Arabs are in the Knesset right now?
How many Jews are in the Shoura?
How many Jews are in the Majles?
How many Jews are in the Jordanian government?
The Syrian? Etc.
Those are very important questions because they tell us something. There have been Arab members of the Knesset since the first Knesset elections in 1949.
September 24, 2008 at 9:46 pm
““I think if we were all being truthful, most of us who classify ourselves as politically conservative would have to admit that if Palin were on the Democratic ticket, we’d be at least somewhat disapproving of the way it appears she might be handling her family life.”
Not me. I would be looking at her political and policy beliefs. My problem with Hillary was not that she had a nanny for Chelsea most of her young life. My problem was her thinking she was an unelected co-gov and co prez and could push her liberal policies.”
Given the way she’s handled Troopergate, I wouldn’t vote for Palin no matter what party she belonged to. She bills herself as the All-American Christian Mom, and as a “Washington outsider.” She may be a Washington outsider, but from the way she’s thrown her weight around in Alaska and acted as though she’s above the law there, I’d say that she is only an outsider in DC because she lives too far away to be an insider — behaviour-wise, she’s just another bullying, spin-talking bigshot politician.
As for her being an All-American Christian Mom, I won’t second guess her faith — that’s between her and God — but I will second guess her witness. In faith, as in everything else, you can talk “policy” all day long, but in the end, it all comes down to behavior….and from what I’ve seen of Sarah Palin’s behaviour, I am not impressed.
September 25, 2008 at 9:27 am
I agree Cynthia Gee. I think evangelical conservatives got carried away with the Palin nominatin before acting like Bereans and searching out the whole truth.
I’m certainly not an Obama supporter, but neither am I a McCain supporter, Palin or no Palin on the ticket. I don’t line up with all this writer stands for but I have to admit that this article raises a lot of questions for anyone seeking to know more about John McCain’s VP nomination. Has anybody seen this?
The Twelve Lies of Sarah Palin
(Take out the @@@@ first.)
http:@@@@//andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-twelve-odd.html
September 25, 2008 at 9:33 am
CynthiaGee, I agree with you. I think you’ve said it far better than I tried to.
September 25, 2008 at 9:36 am
Lin, just to let you know, I’m going to look up the information you are asking me about, just so I can be on the same page with you. That doesn’t mean that I will ever agree with America’s stance on Israel or that it will suddenly change my mind. I’m not uninformed. I just don’t have the time to argue this right now.
September 25, 2008 at 10:20 am
I don’t support McCain or Obama either. I regularly peruse FactCheck.org and similar sites to sort out the truth from all the claims that leave out significant details, exaggerations, and lies that are so prevalent in political campaigning on all sides.
FWIW, Andrew Sullivan is one of the bloggers who questioned whether Trig was actually Bristol’s baby. He has lost all credibility with me, and I won’t give his site any more traffic.
September 25, 2008 at 10:32 am
Cynthia Gee said:
“As for her being an All-American Christian Mom, I won’t second guess her faith — that’s between her and God — but I will second guess her witness. In faith, as in everything else, you can talk “policy” all day long, but in the end, it all comes down to behavior….and from what I’ve seen of Sarah Palin’s behaviour, I am not impressed.”
Exactly. Good point. Since she is running for Vice President, we have a responsiblity to question her wisdom on issues and the fact that so much has been made about her being the mother of five, then we should of course consider that. From the beginning, putting all other arguments aside, I questioned the wisdom of a parent, and a Christian parent at that (male of female for that matter, so gender isn’t the issue)of accepting such a high profile (to say the very least) position at a time when her unwed pregnant teenage daughter would be exposed to an unbelievable amount of media scrutiny. Like it or not we all know that we live in a media saturated culture. For any family, a teen pregnancy is hard enough to have to face and deal with, but to subject your own child to such media scrutiny and even mockery, on a national and even international level shows either a complete lack of judgment or a driving political ambition no matter the cost. I even question the wisdom of John McCain in choosing a VP in this kind of family situation. Was any thought given to that young lady at all? Their campaing slogan is “Country First” but I come away with the feeling that it’s really “Me First” and “Win at any cost”.
Also, considering that Palin professes Christianity, I read this the other day and I thought it quite apropos:
“Palin’s answer to her daughter’s pregnancy is that she’s going to marry the baby’s father. But would you want your daughter to vow before God to be married until death to a boy who on his own MY SPACE page says “I’m a [expletive] redneck” and “I don’t want kids”?
And before anyone cries “judge not lest ye be judged”, remember, in John it says “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement.” The McCain campaign has tactfully portrayed Palin in a way that would appeal to evangelical conservatives and they bit the bait without doing their homework.
While I do not agree with everything this author writes in his article, he makes some good points about the hypocrisy of the religious right in regard to Palin’s nomination:
The Palin Paradox: Does Her Candidacy Mark the Death of the Christian Right?
(Take out the @@@@ first.)
http:@@@@//www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/the-palin-paradox-does-he_b_124118.html
September 25, 2008 at 10:40 am
Word Girl wrote:
“FWIW, Andrew Sullivan is one of the bloggers who questioned whether Trig was actually Bristol’s baby. He has lost all credibility with me, and I won’t give his site any more traffic.”
The very first time I read about the possibility of Trig being Bristol’s was at Barbara Curtis’s Mommy Life blog. So I don’t think you can rule out reading someone based on what was a very wide-spread story/speculation. For the record, though, I’m not a regular reader of Andrew Sullivan by any means. But I have found that no matter which way you lean – to the right or the left – you can’t depend on unbiased reporting on either side. Whether you like The Drudge Report or The Huffington Post, it’s all through the filter of right or left. One really has to dig deep for the truth no matter where it is.
September 25, 2008 at 10:43 am
Okay, how about Karen Campbell for V.P??? Her kids are pretty much grown and no major crisis in her life that I know of…….
I am about to stick my head in the sand until after the elections. Or better yet, I am going to get on my face before God and beg for His mercy and wisdom to reign down on His children.
September 25, 2008 at 11:24 am
Amen Corrie!
Sometimes I think that old saying ‘Ignorance is bliss’ has a lot going for it.
But I think hitting our knees and begging for God’s mercy is a better alternative.
September 25, 2008 at 11:29 am
So I don’t think you can rule out reading someone based on what was a very wide-spread story/speculation.
Actually, I can! There are so many political blogs, sites, and news sources that I can’t possibly read them all, and I have no qualms about limiting my reading for any reason. I’ve also read Sullivan off and on over the years enough to know I’m not missing anything.
But I have found that no matter which way you lean – to the right or the left – you can’t depend on unbiased reporting on either side. Whether you like The Drudge Report or The Huffington Post, it’s all through the filter of right or left. One really has to dig deep for the truth no matter where it is.
I completely agree.
September 25, 2008 at 11:37 am
Innocent said: ” Like it or not we all know that we live in a media saturated culture. For any family, a teen pregnancy is hard enough to have to face and deal with, but to subject your own child to such media scrutiny and even mockery, on a national and even international level shows either a complete lack of judgment or a driving political ambition no matter the cost. I even question the wisdom of John McCain in choosing a VP in this kind of family situation. Was any thought given to that young lady at all?”
But something very interesting happened after the media threw out that early baby bomb about Bristol. They tossed the grenade so close and so fast that it exploded back onto themselves. The media got more hate than Palin in the fallout.
The media and blogger ugliness had the effect of immunizing Bristol. Hardly anyone dares touch that story anymore. Have you noticed it’s all but disappeared off the charts?
The media and bloggers are left with boring and dry issues like defining “the Bush doctrine” and “troopergate” about a cop who laser-tased a kid. They’ve left Brisol and her baby alone, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
September 25, 2008 at 11:53 am
Word Girl wrote:
FWIW, Andrew Sullivan is one of the bloggers who questioned whether Trig was actually Bristol’s baby. He has lost all credibility with me, and I won’t give his site any more traffic.
—
IMO, any blogger, news reporter, pundit, etc. who tried to pass off that particular rumor as credible has lost all credibility with me as well. It’s bad enough to spread a vile rumor about an adult, but this vile rumor involved her infant son and her teenage daughter.
September 25, 2008 at 11:56 am
Can anyone point me to some info on “troopergate”?
Thanks!
September 25, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Pulling it up, I’ll have it in a few minutes. In the meantime, here’s something else to consider:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&format=text
September 25, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Corrie, I just did a quick search and came up with this article that explains it pretty easily.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838208,00.html
September 25, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“The media and blogger ugliness had the effect of immunizing Bristol. Hardly anyone dares touch that story anymore. Have you noticed it’s all but disappeared off the charts?”
I hardly think it can be said that Bristol has been ‘immunized’. The topic of her pregnancy and teen pregnancy itself is still out there, if not presently at the top of the charts. In any case, anywhere that young lady goes now she’s recognized as the pregnant daughter of Sarah Palin. And there’s still the birth of the baby to come too. Also, it’s my understanding that there have been some pretty nasty skits on SNL. There’s no way of knowing how this has impacted that girl and young man on a personal level.
September 25, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Everyone here should watch this interview:
http: //www.youtube. com/watch?v=73Yx-RhHb4g&eurl=http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/palin-meets-couric/
I won’t say anything else + or – about it, but just consider it.
September 25, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Hello… Corrie asked for info on Troopergate, but for some reason, my comment isn’t showing up….
September 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm
OK, this makes the fourth time I’ve tried to post it:
Concerning Troopergate:
To begin with, Palin wanted her ex-brother in law Mike Wooten fired, complaining that he had abused her sister, threatened their family, drank beer in his patrol car, tasered his own kid, and shot a moose out of season.
First, the charges. I researched all this myself awhile back, but I could have saved myself the trouble — most of this is now neatly summed up in an article at Wikipedia, and I have quoted from that article extensively here
Domestic violence/abuse:
On April 11, 2005, the day Molly McCann filed for divorce, a judge granted a Domestic Violence Protection Order against Wooten, although McCann told the police on that date that “he [Wooten] has never physically abused her.”
The DVPO was quashed because McCann’s counsel was unable to produce evidence of any acts of physical or implied violence.
Death threats:
In May 2005, Palin told police that she had witnessed the death threat against her father (Heath) but had not called the police because she did not want to put Wooten’s career in jeopardy, and the situation had not progressed to physical violence.
But, that wasn’t quite true, as Palin herself revealed.
From Wikipedia: On August 10, 2005, Palin sent an email to Col. Julia Grimes, chief of the Alaska state police, urging that Wooten be dismissed and giving more details about the alleged death threat. The email said that, in February 2005, Wooten had threatened to shoot Heath after McCann had accused Wooten of attending an event with another woman.
Palin said, “I heard this death threat, my 16-year-old son (Track Palin) heard it, Molly heard it, as did their small children. Wooten spoke with his Trooper gun on his hip in an extremely intimidating fashion, leaving no doubt he is serious about taking someone’s life who disagrees with him….Wooten’s words were, “I will kill him. He’ll eat a [expletive] lead bullet, I’ll shoot him,” if our father got the attorney to help Molly.”
In a police interview discussing this event Palin stated that she was not in the same location as Wooten and McCann, but was in fact listening over the telephone in order to determine whether Wooten was having an extramarital affair.
Sarah Palin went on to say that after hearing the threat,
“ I jumped in my truck to drive over to Molly’s house because I was sure Mike was gonna he was, like a ticking time bomb and I thought he was gonna blow and physically harm Molly or the kids or my dad. ”
BUT, after making observations through a window, Palin asked a neighbor to monitor the situation on her behalf, AND LEFT THE SCENE BECAUSE SHE HAD A MEETING TO ATTEND!!!!:
“ I had to head on into Chugiak, I had ah a meeting that I couldn’t miss. I told the neighbor … “could you stand by … cause it it’s looking dangerous” … after standing there watching Mike freaking out for however long probably, 15 minutes umm, I had to leave. I took off.”
Now, that’s sisterly concern, for you — I mean, Palin was so concerned about “death threats” and the danger of domestic abuse to her sister that she passed the situation off to a neighbor and left for a MEETING??? And, she claims that “Wooten spoke with his Trooper gun on his hip in an extremely intimidating fashion, leaving no doubt he is serious about taking someone’s life who disagrees with him”, BUT SHE WASN’T EVEN THERE to see Wooten or the gun — she was listening on the phone!
SHEESH!!!!
Beer in the patrol car:
The investigation initially cleared Wooten on all of the alcohol-related charges, but Grimes overturned that result and found that Wooten did “take open beer with him when he drove away in his trooper vehicle” on one occasion in the summer of 2004, violating both the law and internal trooper policy. Wooten was not on duty; he was wearing “civilian attire.” And he “drove approximately one mile to his residence.”Because Wooten “was a member of the SERT [SWAT] team … he was allowed to use his State vehicle for personal use.” The only witnesses to this event were close friends of Sarah Palin’s father: “Adrian Lane was a student of Chuck Heath’s in Idaho when he was a child and they have been close friends ever since.” This is apparently why the original Memo of Findings treated this allegation as “Not Sustained.” Wooten denied this allegation.
And, though this charge was investigated by an independent investigator who found the charge to be “unsustained”, Colonel Julia Grimes, who reviewed the investigation, decided to change the finding of the report to “sustained”. She changed the
report on her own and gave no reason. When John Cyr, who, in 30 years,
had never seen a member of the command staff change the report asked
her why she did it, she replied, “Are you willing to call Sarah Palin
a liar?” He said, “yes”. She didn’t respond, and the report stayed
changed.
Tasering his son:
Wooten was also found to have violated department policy in using a Taser on his then 11-year old stepson in 2003. He told investigators that he did so “in a training capacity” after the child had asked to be tased in order to show his cousin, Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol, that he “wasn’t a mama’s boy”.
In a statement to the police, the boy said “that he wanted to be tased to show that he’s not a mommy’s boy in front of Bristol. Following being tased he went upstairs to tell his mother that he was fine.” In a statement to the police, Molly McCann said “she was up stairs giving a bath to the kids … Mike was going to show Payton what it feels like and she told Mike that he better not.” According to Molly’s account, she remained upstairs during the incident.
Although the Taser incident happened in 2003, it was not reported to police until on or after April 11, 2005, the day that Molly McCann filed for divorce. On June 6, 2005, a police investigator asked Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol why they “waited so long and brought the incident up after two years.” Bristol said “because of the divorce.”
Dumb on Wooten’s part, blatantly opportunistic and hypocritical on the Palin/McCann families’ part.
The Great Moose Hunt:
This one is really good:
The internal investigation found that Wooten had committed a hunting violation in shooting a moose without a permit: he had been out hunting with McCann in September 2003 and had shot the animal himself even though their permit was in McCann’s name only. According to subsequent news reports, McCann had obtained the permit but balked at killing the moose herself, so she handed the gun to her then-husband, who shot the animal.
Funny how that moose wasn’t an issue until after the divorce… and what the Wikipedia article doesn’t say is what happened afterwards — Mr and Mrs. Wooten took the meat to Molly’s (and Sarah’s) dad’s house, told him what happened, and Mr. Heath dressed the moose, which was divided three ways: between the Heath family, the Wooten family, and the PALIN FAMILY!!! Sarah and Todd Palin ATE that moose, and two years later, they decided to complain about it? But get a load of this letter, where, at the end, Palin bewails Wooten’s “illegal hunting”:
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/07/23/10/palin-email.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
Creamed Chipped Sheesh on Toast, with a side of mooseburgers — you can’t have your moose as evidence, and eat it too, unless your name is Palin!
This is the kind of stuff that Palin was using to try to get her ex brother in law fired, and half of it wasn’t even an issue until the divorce caused it to become one –turning past incidents into ammunition in a vendetta.
Then there’s the fact that Palin herself was cooperating fully with the Republican led investigation, and even ordered an investigation on herself, in the interest of “transparency” … until she got the nod from McCain, at which time the whole thing supposedly morphed into a Democratic–initiated plot to keep her out of office — nevermind that it was initiated mostly by Alaska REPUBLICANS, well before anyone even thought of asking Palin to become McCain’s running mate!
And, there’s more, lots more, but I’m out of time.
Til later……….
September 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm
OK, this makes the fourth time I’ve tried to post the troopergate comment, it looks like WordPress isn’t going to allow it.
Here’s some more interesting stuff:
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/witch-hunter-that-prayed-palin-into-office-is-coming-back-to-wasilla/
September 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm
And here’s the prayer service itself:
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/palin-and-the-witch-hunter-chapter-ii/
I didn’t see much wrong with the service, but given what witch-hunting is doing in central Africa, it’s scary.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver
September 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm
More comments in moderation.
September 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Corrie, I saved the Troopergate comment that I have tried unsuccessfully to post here. If it doesn’t show up soon I will mail it to you…. and maybe I’ll post it as an article on my blog.
September 25, 2008 at 3:19 pm
September 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm
And here’s the prayer service itself, remove the @@@:
http @@@ ://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/palin-and-the-witch-hunter-chapter-ii/
I didn’t see much wrong with the prayer service, but given what witch-hunting is doing in central Africa, it’s scary.
http @@@://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver
September 25, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Trying this again:
September 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm
And here’s the prayer service itself, remove the @@@:
http @@@ : //mudflats DOT wordpress DOT com/2008/09/25/palin-and-the-witch-hunter-chapter-ii/
I didn’t see much wrong with the prayer service, but given what witch-hunting is doing in central Africa, it’s scary.
http @@@ : //www DOT guardian DOT co DOT uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh DOT theobserver
September 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Trying for the third time to get this past the wordpress censors:
And here’s the prayer service itself, add an h t t p and a semicolon at the beginning of these, remove the dots:
//mudflats DOT wordpress DOT com/2008/09/25/palin-and-the-witch-hunter-chapter-ii/
I didn’t see much wrong with the prayer service, but given what witch-hunting is doing in central Africa, it’s scary.
//www DOT guardian DOT co DOT uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh DOT theobserver
September 25, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Corrie, all of my posts containing anything that even resembles a link are now being disallowed. I’ll mail them to you privately, and to anyone else who wants them as well.
September 25, 2008 at 3:59 pm
FYI…when I referenced a “vile rumor” it was regarding the rumor that was spread (via some very high profile political blog sites) about Bristol being Trig’s mother, not “TrooperGate.” I don’t yet know enough undisputed facts to come to a conclusion regarding that situation.
September 25, 2008 at 6:03 pm
While you guys are at it, do some deep checking on Obama, too.
Every election is about choosing between evil or worse evil.
Of course, Obama has only voted ‘present’ most of his congressional career so it is hard to tell if he can actually make a real decision or not.
) We do know that he supported killing born alive babies when he was a congressman in Ill. We also know he lied about the neutrality clause in that bill. That is a simple fact.
but maybe he can performs miracles with his ‘believe’ and ‘hope’ messages. Believe what? Hope for what? We are all still waiting to know. He is charismatic and nice looking but what else it there?
September 25, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I don’t like Obama’s stance on abortion, but if he is elected, all that that means is that things will go on as usual, concerning abortion, since it’s already legal.
If Mccain gets elected, he may or may not get rid of abortion — frankly, I doubt that he will — and he will get us deeper into war in the Mideast, and continue to ruin our economy by continuing the policies of Bush. Still, I was ready to vote for McCain, until all this came out about Palin. But no more — if McCain gets elected and dies in office, which is a very real possibility, given his age — we will have Sarah Rodham Millhouse Palin as president, and heaven help us all!
September 25, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Did anyone see that Ron Paul is backing the Constitution Party candidate? I’m not ALL that shocked, but I’m disappointed. I don’t like Bob Barr at all and would not have really classified him as a libertarian, myself.
But I will not vote for the Constitution Party. We’ll have Doug Phillips appointed as the director of the ministry of information of the non-normative or something…
September 25, 2008 at 6:40 pm
spam, moderation folders have been emptied. You may want to go back and read sources and comments posted within the last 24 hours.
J
September 25, 2008 at 6:57 pm
There’s a new article about Palin up on “Doug’s Blog,” written by Geoff Botkin.
There’s a great graphic of her sporting the phrase “Do You Believe in Miracles?”
“The slight Mrs. Palin” is the new high priestess of the Republican Party religion who is leading millions down the primrose path to dance around the golden calf of godless government, I guess.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2008/09/4390.aspx
In the personality of Sarah Palin, the Party has contrived to occupy a new position. This is not the sentimental, God-and-Country “high ground” the Party has claimed to monopolize since 1980. The new position is a position of spiritual authority.
Sarah Palin is key in maintaining this new authoritarianism.
Evangelicals have proven themselves to be willing to acknowledge the Republican Machine as a spiritual authority on matters of faith and conscience, as long as the teaching is sufficiently spiritual.
The spiritual imagery used to hype Mrs. Palin into a spiritual superstar is simply a professional merging of fantasy, celebrity, personality, with a dash of false theology. Well, Vision Forum would know since they are authorities on those subjects.
She also speaks proudly with terminology familiar to Marxist feminists. In this poster, Republicans merge these characteristics. Sarah smiles confidently and carries a big stick. She makes militant feminism look soft and admirable…Mrs. Palin has broken the Christian tradition and resolve that Karl Marx and his ugly, angry feminist followers could not break.
This clever poster suggests that it is not Republican media mavens who have exalted Sarah, but God Almighty Who chose Sarah for such a time as this and Who will miraculously solve all America’s problems because He is clearly on the side of the Republican Party, which is wise and good enough to let Sarah serve as the channel of His redemptive power over a needy nation. Well, VF would know all about this, too. Isn’t that what they would like to do, removing Republican Party and replacing “Biblical patriarchy”?
Surprisingly, I do agree with Botkin on one thing:
In exchange they get something, too: the confidence that a sanctified Republican Party will make an unholy nation sound again. This confidence is the cheap idolatry of escapist fantasy.
But there again, I think their only beef is that they only really take issue with the “sanctified Republican Party” as the agent of redemption. I believe they think it would work if their representatives were chosen to hold that power.
September 25, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“The slight Mrs. Palin” is the new high priestess of the Republican Party religion who is leading millions down the primrose path to dance around the golden calf of godless government, I guess.
Oh, my goodness…..
(With apologies to Tennyson)
Fruitcakes to Right of us,
Fruitcakes to Left of us,
Politicos in front of us
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d with rhetoric, to win:
Boldly we rode, straight in,
Into Election ’08,
Into the mouth of Spin
Rode the American public.
September 25, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I am making a judgment call as a contributor to this blog…
Personal attacks from either side will not be tolerated.
Comments will go into moderation until everyone has had a chance to take a breath and calm down or Karen deems otherwise.
To remind everyone of TW’s intent:
It is True Womanhood’s express position that all view points are welcome. As the purpose of the blog is to discuss what a thinking Christian woman looks like in the 21st Century, we realize that the discussion will only profit if many women from many walks of life can discuss the topics at hand in a place that will not be censored. We have however, blocked posts when they are not related to the topic at hand; when they have devolved into personal attacks; or when malice is clearly sought by the commenter. We have not deleted posts by commenters who have disagreed with the main view point held by the majority. You can read through the many threads where there has been honest, respectful discussion on differing viewpoints. We at True Womanhood endeavor to operate in an atmosphere of grace, understanding, and mercy. Sometimes we get angry, sometimes we are misunderstood, but we never, ever intentionally wish malice or harm to any man or woman that may come our way in the blogosphere. We politely agree to disagree sometimes- and that is possible. As “iron sharpens iron” we seek to be Bereans, and search out the teachings of earthly fallible teachers against the plumb line of the whole and infallible Word of God.
There are many of the faith present here on True Womanhood, from diverse backgrounds such as Roman Catholic, Reformed, Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican – the list goes on and on, and changes by the day. It is to this end that we request commenters to be mindful and respectful of the diversity at hand, and seek not to tear down our brothers and sisters.
J
September 25, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Richard,
In the interest of fairness, I think you should go back and read LizJ’s comment. She was referring to the Troopergate story regarding not having enough indisputable facts, not the baby rumor.
She referred to the Bristol/Tryg story as a rumor. No one else has in anyway tried to assert that it wasn’t a rumor. Everyone is in agreement with that. The discussion revolved around whether one should stop reading at certain sites because they had read about the rumor there – not whether the rumor was true. LizJ was just pointing out the fact that she knew the rumor to be a falsehood, but she doesn’t have enough facts in regard to Troopergate to state the same thing.
If I’m wrong about this, LizJ please correct us.
September 25, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Lin said:
“Every election is about choosing between evil or worse evil.”
Evil is evil period. A liar is a liar, not a worse liar or a better liar. How ’bout considering that voting can actually be a matter of conscience and some of us have come to the point that enough is enough? We’re not going to violate our consciences any longer and support the establishment candidates anymore. Paul Proctor has rightly said:
“Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another, they both march in the same direction.”
That’s where the two party system has – and continues – to take us. We can go back and forth all day on Obama versus McCain. Because someone points out inconsistencies with, or doesn’t jump on the Palin bandwagon, does not in anyway mean they are an Obama supporter nor does it mean they’re apathetic, uninformed or naive if they aren’t a McCain supporter either.
I also think as Christians we’re really putting our focus in the wrong place. For too long the religious right has sought a place at the table, happy to have any crumbs dropped their way. Why don’t we wake up and realize that God is not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat, or for that matter – an American. I agree with Dr. Dave Black when he wrote:
“What pathetic imbeciles we are to think politics is the solution to what ails us as a people or as a nation. The whole election is a cosmic joke, made more so by the media frenzy surrounding it…
“Folks, I’m not a quietist. But God’s will hic et nunc [here and now] is not to improve the American Way of Life. Politics is a false god if ever there was one. God or Mammon. Jesus or Julius. We must simply decide.
“Jesus tells us, “Make disciples of all nations.” I don’t know about you, but I’ll stick with the transforming power of the cross, which alone can lay the foundation for “real change,” a “new beginning,” or whatever other slogans the candidates and their parties will hype this election year.”
September 25, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I don’t yet know enough undisputed facts to come to a conclusion regarding that situation.
Richard, “that situation” refers to Troopergate. See comment #666.
September 26, 2008 at 6:27 am
Thank you, Denise. And, Liz, I see what Denise is saying. I think I may have misread what you were saying. If so, I apologize.
And to everyone else (Karen especially), I’m sorry for getting a little crazy. I was ending a marathon session of photo shoots and I think the lack of sleep caught up to me. I will awkwardly bow out of the political conversation now. Maybe after about six weeks of sleep it will all be over.
September 26, 2008 at 8:45 am
Denise…you are correct. Sounds like I muddled things more by trying to explain!
September 26, 2008 at 9:45 am
I hope many of you saw the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s take on this whole Palin thing…even if you don’t agree with their conclusions, it was a well-written and interesting article.
Inashoe is at it again, though:
http://inashoe.com/2008/09/25/vision-forum-ministries-responds-to-the-cbmws-double-standard/
September 26, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Despite what your original opinion of Sarah Palin was when she was first nominated, I think it’s fair to say that questions regarding her qualifications for VP or even President are fair. I was not one to ever have jumped on the Palin bandwagon, but even I have felt an embarassment for her when watching her recent interviews. Now before anyone jumps on me and attempts to blame the press or the interviewers please take the time to read the article I’ve linked to below. It’s written by a Palin supporter – a conservative one at that – and even more – a conservative woman. I think she makes some fair and important points.
With our nation on the verge of financial collapse, the Constitution about to be scrapped by selling out to the Federal Reserve, and the Russian Bear apparently rising again, these are serious times and serious, fair and open-minded consideration should really be given to this issue.
Take out the *** first.
http:***//article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=
Palin Problem
She’s out of her league.
A few excerpts:
“Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.
“As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion…”
“Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
“No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
“Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there…”
“If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.”
September 26, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Richard said:
“Maybe after about six weeks of sleep it will all be over.”
Ha, ha! Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all go to sleep and wake to find that the election of ’08 was really just a bad dream after all?
September 26, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Karen and I are going to keep this thread in moderation for a little while longer…
We both regret doing this. I would respectfully ask all of you to consider that you are talking to your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and while we all feel passionately about this subject, we need to consider first the bind of faith that ties us all together as believers. This election will be over soon, but hopefully not our friendships formed here on TW. Please be respectful. Personal attacks, calling someone an idiot, using language meant to deride and ‘get a rise’ out of the opposing side will not be tolerated.
I am thankful for Richard’s apology…
In the interest of moving the discussion forward and away from incendiary language, we are removing comments 688-693. (They will renumber, I imagine, but we wish to be transparent as possible).
Thank you all for being willing to discuss such difficult topics in a grace-filled way. These discussions are important…they have changed many lives. Let us continue in a spirit of grace and mercy and avoid strife.
J
September 26, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Denise said,
“Why don’t we wake up and realize that God is not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat, or for that matter – an American.”
I’ve had a family crisis of late and am not on the computer much, but I read this and wanted to stand up and cheer. This is right where I’m at. Politics matter. I’m not saying they don’t. But God isn’t an American.
September 26, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Moderation is now off…
Thanks.
J
September 26, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Molly,
After reading that you’re in the midst of a family crisis I just wanted to pass this along to you. I just received it from a friend in an email this week.
“The will of God will never take you where the Grace of God will not protect you.”
Molly, I’m praying your trial, in spite of any pain, will draw you closer to our Lord and increase your knowledge of Him and His great love in a special way.
Blessings!
As to the politics, I’m right where you’re at too. As fascinating as I sometimes find politics, in the whole scheme of things it doesn’t amount to much in light of our Great God. And here in America we tend to want to drag Him into it in a way that I believe dishonors Him and puts Him in our own little philosophical box. I think this quote is so true:
“Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes.”
September 27, 2008 at 11:11 pm
In the midst of a very contentious presidential election year (and in light of the comment I made earlier – that God is not an American) I would recommend that if anyone here happens to find some free time this very thought provoking article I just stumbled upon is well worth the read.
http://www.soundofgrace.com/
Click on current issue and then this title.
AM I TOO MUCH AMERICAN AND NOT ENOUGH CHRISTIAN?
“…I am beginning to believe that the most important thing in my life is not to preserve the America that I once knew but to seek God’s will and to understand what it is that I can do to further His Kingdom. After all, isn’t that what all of life is about?…”
September 28, 2008 at 7:53 am
Just a summation of some of the things I’ve been trying to say here, but much more nicely put:
http://www.vineyardcolumbus.org/news/letter/index.asp