Jiu-Jitsu (柔術 ), literally meaning the “art of softness” or “way of yielding,” is a collective name for Japanese martial art styles. It promotes the principle that a smaller, weaker person using leverage and proper technique can successfully defend against a bigger, stronger assailant.
The angry (and scared) left unleashed a full assault against Governor Sarah Palin with their biggest weapons such as CNN, MSNBC, leftist blogs, gossip magazines and partisan talking heads. What happened? A hockey mom schooled them all with the greatest political jiu-jitsu that American has ever seen.
Governor Palin used their strengths against them, and as she gave her VP acceptance speech the left-wingers felt the oxygen leaving their campaign. Blacked-out! The left-wing hate-mongers were on top of her pounding away… and the next thing they know they are waking up from unconsciousness.
I’m no longer mad. Now I’m resolved, impressed and hopeful.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Just for the record, none of the lefty political blogs gave any credence whatsoever to the “Bristol is Trig’s real mom” rumours.
They were in the comments, and in places like Reddit and Digg, but the lefty blogs steered away from it. This inlcudes Daily Kos, Americablog, Think Progress and The Huffington Post.
You should read Fide-o and its comments more than those blogs. Your eyes would not be so blood-shot.
…he lefty blogs steered away from it. This inlcudes Daily Kos, Americablog, Think Progress and The Huffington Post.
Well, I guess that settles it.
I found one link Daily Kos hasn’t taken down yet. There were others that have been removed.
Palin’s faked “pregnancy”? Covering for teen daughter? UPDATE #2!
by Inky99
Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:19:42 PM PDT
Okay, I just have to diary about this, although in many ways this falls into the “none of our business category”.
But it appears that Pallin’s last child, a baby with Down’s syndrome, may not be hers. It may be that of her teenage daughter.
Jason, I’m wondering how a complimetarian reconciles asking a woman to lead the nation in light of Isaiah 3:12 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and still be able to say that Scripture is the basis their worldview?
jonny c,
Between Two Worlds posted today on a book titled: Womanly Dominion: More Than a Gentle and Quiet Spirit.
The post is worth a read. It includes several endorsements that you may find interesting.
Thanks Stan…I read that review and am interested to read the book as well. I know that challies.com has a similar discussion going on and it seems that many Republican Christians are very eager to lay aside these texts in order to achieve political victory. The article points out that many within the CBMW seem to disagree on this issue which in all honesty is somewhat troubling for me. It smacks of pragmatism and utilitarianism in my opinion. I’ll reserve judgment on the new book until I get to read it…but I think that one has to do some serious trajectory hermeneutics in order to deny that God’s intention for women is somehow different in the public square than it is in the home or the Church…both of which are supposed to point the world to God’s glory in creation.
One thought on the topic of women in public office. Well, maybe a couple.
If someone votes against McCain-Palin because a woman is on the ticket and votes for Obama-Biden I think to call that hypocrisy would be an understatement.
I could not comprehend how someone could support the wholesale murder of infants yet hold up their noses at a woman in public office.
Scripture tells us that murderers will not inherit eternal life (apart from faith and repentance). In the list of sinners included in those lists, not once is mentioned those who vote for women to serve in public office.
Stan, we agree that the murder of the unborn as well as the murder of those who are outside of the womb violates the moral law of God. No argument from me. That said…neither the vice president nor the president will pass a constitutional amendment banning or legalizing abortion. The courts will decide this issue as they are the ones who created the abortion issue (politically speaking). All that the president can do is nominate the justices…but even then they are subject to the approval by the senate. None of the current candidates are in a position to do anything more on this issue and the vice president is particularly meaningless in this discussion.
I believe that we probably disagree on what it is to be conservative (politically). That term when applied to American politics in general and to Republicans in specific is about as clear as the term "christian" in our country today. Most republicans that I have met were not thrilled with candidate McCain prior to his picking Gov. Palin as his running mate as he does not embody traditional republican or conservative values. He supports pre-emptive war(perhaps a discussion on the just war theory might be interesting), empire building, his McCain-Finegold act abridged freedom of political speech, the patriot act effectively shredded large portions the Bill of Rights and it suspended the writs of Hebeas Corpus. His stance on illegal immigration is also suspect in my opinion.
In the debates McCain admitted that he knows very little about economics (and demonstrated this when asked about the presidents working group on financial markets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqGWTh_NZ-0&feature=related) which is evident by his desire to continue the prosecution of the (undeclared in a constitutional sense) war on terror which requires more borrowing from China, Saudi Arabia and Japan which in conjunction with our central bank's over printing of federal reserve notes, devaluates our currency which is one of the prime reason why gas is at 3.79/gallon and oil is at 140.00/barrel, the cost of groceries are rising and investors are jumping out of US dollar based stocks. McCain certainly doesn't meet my definition of conservative and to change my mind based on his pick for VP is not likely…and the abortion issue alone is not the litmus test for being conservative in my opinion.
Just for the record, I will not be voting for either Obama or McCain…and since this isn't a forum on politics I'd rather not get away from the issue at hand…which is…regardless of one's view on the morality of abortion…can one who affirms female subordination within the marriage and the Church consistently argue from the Scriptures for female authority over men in the public square?
The question still stands in my mind…how can those who affirm the complimentarian view of God's intention in creation consistently believe that a woman's roll in society somehow is to not be informed by the order of creation, God's explicit directions for the Church and His decree from creation for male headship in the family?
So as with other issues I think that we have to limit the conversation to understanding and embracing the Scriptural principle before we worry about how practical/pragmatic we are supposed to be.
jonny c,
can one who affirms female subordination within the marriage and the Church consistently argue from the Scriptures for female authority over men in the public square?
Yes.
Scripture is very clear (beyond rational argument) that a wife is to submit to her husband. It is also very clear that women are not to teach men in the church.
No where are women forbidden to be political leaders. The burden of proof is on those who would argue for such a ban. Actually, to be more precise the burden is on them to submit to Scripture and to stop adding to the requirements.
It seems like this may be another example of a 21st Century Pharisee attempt to take one’s personal preference and hold others to it.
Stan, so if your view is that the Scriptures are very clear why then do you not offer any Scripture to support your assertion.
If your argument is that “since the Bible doesn’t say that women cannot serve as governor or vice president then they are free to do so” then this is an argument from silence. Arguments from silence prove silence.
It’s clear that the Bible has no concept of constitutional republics where citizens vote to elect their rulers. So to say that the Bible doesn’t speak to this issue directly and so we are free to do what we want seems a bit of a stretch to me. The Bible doesn’t speak specifically to a whole multitude of modern issues such as speeding, stem cell research or internet hacking…but we can and must apply the principles that God has revealed to us in the Scriptures in order to form our views and opinions in these areas.
Paul begins the discussion on male headship with this idea; “I desire then that in EVERY PLACE the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness–with good works.”
So Paul says that what he is talking about for men and women is not limited to marriage or the Church…but in EVERY PLACE means every place beyond marriage and the Church and I believe into the public forum. Men are to be holy men of prayer living in good standing avoiding anger and quarreling and women are to project their inward beauty as members of the covenant and to not find satisfaction and meaning through worldly standards.
So it seems to me that if Paul is saying that this is the pattern for godly living for men and women everywhere when does his prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority over a man become limited in context to marriage and the church? Your assertion that “It is also very clear that women are not to teach men in the Church” implies that 1 Timothy 2:12 is limited to the Church. I don’t believe that the immediate context demands this interpretation.
Interestingly, Paul then argues from the created order in the sinless world of Genesis 2. In Genesis 3 God pronounces a curse on the woman…”Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” I believe that most scholars understand this to mean that as a result of sin entering the world that women will desire to usurp male leadership…and fallen slothful men will be happy to let them do it, which is equally sinful.
For a woman to either feel the need to do what men were created to do or to do what men are unwilling and yet responsible to do is a result of the curse…and to encourage Christian women to find their value, purpose and satisfaction by pursuing fallen worldly standards seems unloving to me. Walter Chantry wrote a helpful article on this topic. Here is the link http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/chantry/motherhood.htm
The Bible has spoken plainly on the role of women. Please make a positive argument from the Scriptures to show me how I am wrong in applying Isaiah 3:12 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15 to the issue of female political leadership.
I am willing to be convinced from the Scriptures that my view is untenable and unbiblical…but simply making assertions and not dealing with the texts isn’t going to persuade me to your position. Please don’t imply that I or my view is pharisaical.
jonny c,
Are you seriously telling me you need me to provide you with Scripture references to support what I’ve said?
Please don’t patronize me.
In your previous post you stated:
…since this isn’t a forum on politics I’d rather not get away from the issue at hand…
Perhaps you should look at the title of Jason’s post: Political Jiu-Jitsu.
You give what appears to be a wishy-washy pro-life statement.
You went on a semi-rant against McCain. You quote the price of oil at $140/barrel.
FYI: Oil prices sank below $106 a barrel Friday. Looks like you’re in need of some new talking points.
Then you say you don’t want to discuss politics because you do not want to get away from the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is what Jason says it is. Take another look at the title of the post.
In the second paragraph Jason states how the left unleashed a full assault against Governor Sarah Palin. You seem to be continuing the assault and mis-using Scripture to do it.
Ok Stan…you got me. I am wrong to think that this discussion is not about politics. Clearly it is. I’m also sorry for getting my price of oil incorrect. Please forgive me. I’ll readjust my talking points.
That said…I guess that I shouldn’t expect a Scriptural reply from you concerning woman and government?
You said, “Are you seriously telling me you need me to provide you with Scripture references to support what I’ve said?” My response is “Yes please!”
Patronize– to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly
I don’t think that asking you to support your assertions from Scripture is patronizing. Especially since you believe that I am playing willy-nilly with the Scriptures.
So far you have characterized me as a 21st century pharisee, wishy- washy in my pro-life stand, and as one who is continuing the assault against Governor Palin. I’m not sure how you get that from what I’ve said…but you seem to be comfortable with making assertions and leaving it at that. Also you have been very good at telling me what my burden is in making the case for male leadership in the public sector. Which I’ve attempted to do but apparently not to your satisfaction.
I’ve asked you politely to show me where I’m wrong in my understanding of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 but all I know is that you believe that I am “mis-using Scripture” So to use your language, the burden to prove that 1 Timothy 2:8-15, Isaiah 3:12, Genesis 2-3 and a whole slew of other texts apply only to women in marriage and the church, is now yours.
If you want to forgo the theology and just talk politics then I guess you can answer my questions about McCain’s conservative credentials on any of the issues that I mentioned some of which came from his own mouth. Also, please tell me where I am wishy-washy on my pro-life stand.
I’ll read what you send on politics…but that is of far less interest to me. If you choose to interact with the theology behind the political discussion then I look forward to some good discourse.
jonny c,
I think you have an agenda to push and that you are not seriously interested in discussion.
I could be wrong.
Stan…I’m at a loss for words. A discussion requires two people exchanging ideas and interacting with each other. I’ve put my cards on the table…I’ve shared my understanding of the texts and invited your thoughtful responses. I’ve endured your unsupported assertions and character assassinations and and I have not responded in kind. How can you possibly say that I am not seriously interested in discussion? I am waiting for you to give your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and Isaiah 3:12 and to lay out your Scriptural basis for your beliefs on the roll of women in government; or to define and defend your understanding of what a conservative is and how Senator McCain embodies political conservatism.
You are wrong. My sole agenda is for you to politely interact with me without defaming my character. You seem passionate about what you are writing so please support your views and check your venom. Last chance.
Jonny, after reading your comments I must say that I am confused. I am not sure if you misunderstand complimentarianism, the purpose of the presidency, politics, or just women in general. I am not tying to get into your little back-and-forth above, but I do think that the discussion above could use the wisdom of a godly woman.
I say that because of your statement above: I think that one has to do some serious trajectory hermeneutics in order to deny that God’s intention for women is somehow different in the public square than it is in the home or the Church.
And when you said: can one who affirms female subordination within the marriage and the Church consistently argue from the Scriptures for female authority over men in the public square?
Jonny, I honestly think you don’t understand what the Bible teaches about women. Your logic is illogical if you were basing it on biblical complimentarianism. And your view that women are subservient to men in the home, church or anywhere else is so foreign to the biblical teaching about women that I don’t think we should have this conversation here.
Rather, if you would be so gentlemanly, you would allow me to address this subject in an orderly manner in a new Fide-O post. What say you?
Pastor Robertson…thanks for responding. I’m not quite sure how to respond to your charges that my logic is illogical. I guess that I have to wait for your future posts.
I suspect that you are having difficulty with my use of the word subordinate as I apply it to women. As a point of fact…you represented me as considering women as subservient…something that I never said. All that I did was speak of women as subordinate. My intention in saying this was to show that God’s intention in creation was for male headship…and that I am not convinced from the Scriptures that male headship is limited to marriage or the Church. I in no way believe that women are inferior to men or less image bearers than men. If I conveyed this please accept my sincere apologies…I do not believe this…and I don’t believe that I stated this in any way.
You seem to believe that I don’t understand what the Bible teaches about women…or what the role of the president is or politics in general. Perhaps my view are different than yours and Stan’s but I have made my opinions known and have also given the basis for my beliefs on the subjects. While I’ve heard many objections…I haven’t heard much substance in the refutation. Perhaps this will come in the future post…but why it cannot be addressed here seems puzzling to me.
I’m wondering if you have read Rev. Chantry’s view on the subject for which I provided a link? I also have a link to a paper written by Dr. Sam Waldron that also uses the language of subordination in regards to women in the created order that I can provide you with if you are interested in his opinion. I do not pretend that my view is unassailable or that my position is the identical view or even a fair representation of either of these godly men…but since I offered my view on my understanding of specific texts and asked repeatedly for interaction on those texts but did not receive any…I think that it’s hard to believe that a new thread will solve this issue more effectively than simply proving my understanding to be less than Biblical from the Scriptures that I’ve provided here. It doesn’t seem to me like anyone beyond Stan, you and I are really interested in discussing this. I guess we can do that here or anywhere. I will certainly consider any light that you can shed on this subject for me.
jonny c,
Last chance.
Scary. Almost like “Get out of town by sundown.”
I see no reason to jump at the chance.
Happy trails!
If what I have written above is by your standards “character assassination”, I don’t think it will be possible for the two of us to currently discuss anything.
To be quite honest, I don’t think you have the skin for it.
If you want a country where women are not permitted to do anything, there are plenty to choose from. Perhaps you should consider moving to one.
Jason, I look forward to seeing what you have to say on this issue.
Stan…simply unbelievable. Obtuse is what immediately comes to mind.
“If you want a country where women are not permitted to do anything, there are plenty to choose from. Perhaps you should consider moving to one.”
Perhaps we might better bond if I helped you set up your straw man arguments against me and we could knock them down together.
Stan we cannot have a conversation because you have nothing meaningful to say. I’ve given you every opportunity for you to drop the hammer on me but you just continue to tap out. All bark and no bite. Your friends must be so proud.
“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”
I’ve attempted to answer you lest you be wise in your own eyes and to continue to answer you would simply be foolish on my part. Goodbye fool.
I want to remind both of you guys to remember that FIDE-O aims to stimulate a helpful conversation among Christians about life and doctrine. Please practice godly communication or your comments will be deleted.
I’m not sure if it has been addressed and I missed it but i think Deborah seems to put a nail in the argument that Women cant be in a place of political power. (Judges 4)
…maybe im wrong…
True, Kyle. God has providentially used both men and women throughout history in both civics and government. I really think some comments above reveal a misunderstanding of both complimentarianism and the institution of government. Complimentarianism is a biblical philosophy that is revealed in the home and local church not in government or in the work place. One must remember things like: the church is eternal not the government, marriage is designed to reveal the nature of the covenant of the God-head, and the Pres. and VP of the US are not elected offices that are designed to serve the electorate not lord over them.
I always thought about Deborah being in place as the judge of Israel. I don’t know if it matters, but she was the judge of Israel when Israel was at a an especially low point in its history. Not the only low point and arguably not the lowest point either. I just thought that was interesting. But I’m open to any thoughts or correction!
Deborah is one Judge who served when there was “no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25) These are perhaps the darkest days in the history of Israel…Isaiah 3:12 teaches that female rulers are God’s judgment of evil upon Jerusalem and Judah…not that the women are evil…but that the nation is.
The Judges were military leaders raised up by God to deliver Israel from the various oppressors…in the case of Deborah the enemy was the Canaanites and the coalition that they led. Deborah herself told Barak the son of Abinoam, “Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded YOU (Barak), ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people and the people of Zebulun. And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand’?” Barak said to her, “if you will go with me, I will go.” And she said, “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera INTO THE HAND OF A WOMAN.” Deborah…who may have been one of the most morally upstanding judges in the history of Israel…was placed there by God as a testimony against the weakness and evilness of the nation. She did what men would not do and this was not to their glory.
I think that we have to be careful to not build our theology or worldview around the exceptions and not the rule? If we believe that God’s decrees of providence are best carried out by female authority over men from the story of Deborah then we should also believe that God is most glorified through human sacrifice as in the case of Jephthah in Judges 11.
Jonny, thanks for your comments, but I respectfully disagree.
On what basis? Put your stuff out there and let me understand where you are coming from. It’s all one way. I post…you disagree…no refutation. Sure makes it hard to understand where you are coming from or to see where my thinking is off.
I disagree with you that all women politicians are God’s judgment upon nations. And thus pretty much everything you said after that was basis on a faulty theology in my opinion.
But thanks again for sharing your views. Grace and peace.
Amazing. It’s so much easier to just make assertions without giving any substance. So I guess the only guy in our conversation who is even attempting to work through the Scriptures is the only guy with faulty theology. So I am wrong because you say that I am and that’s it. Beautiful.
Cheers!
If you are looking for advocates of your position that a woman’s dominion is limited to the home then I would send you to Doug Phillips Blog of Vision Forum. You might like that stuff… or you might be able to see where such hyper-patriarchal views lead.
Thanks Jason…I hope that you had a great Lord’s Day. Not that this has anything to do with the conversation at hand…but are you a sabbatarian? Also…I couldn’t find your exegesis of you understanding of the texts in question on Fide-o. I guess I’m not that savvy in blog searches…will you please provide a link so I can see where you are coming from?
I’ve got a few articles for you as well…but mine are from the CBMW. I’d enjoy hearing your perspective on them.
It seems as though not all at the council share Dr. Mohler’s or Kotter’s position. And these articles provide detailed exegesis of the Bible. Suffice it to say that these authors support their assertions and make their case from Scripture.
http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Able-to-Teach-and-Complementarian
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-2/The-Womanliness-of-Deborah
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-9-No-2/Profiling-Christian-Masculinity
Jason, again I must ask you not to impose your conclusions of my position on me. I can represent my own view just fine. I have not said that woman are limited to the home. The question at hand is “Is their a Biblical mandate for women to lead the nation?” I’ve argued from the Scriptures that there is not example, inference or command for this to occur and that the opposite is true from the order of creation, the shame that accompanies a nation when it is led by a woman (Isaiah 3:12) and Paul’s prohibition of female authority over men as it violates God’s revealed will for male responsibility and headship.
So many of the questions that you asked me on the other thread go to knock down an argument that I have not made.
Jonny, I read the first article and found that it completely affirms my position. Thanks.
Here is its conclusion: Conclusion: So we clearly see that from Genesis to Revelation God has established a pattern of male headship in the home and the church and as that pattern was transcendent through the various historical periods and cultures in which the books of the Bible were written, so I believe it transcends all of human history here on earth and is therefore a pattern for conduct that God still expects us to follow today.
Notice that it concludes that all the texts about the roles of women are defined according to her responsibilities in the marriage and church. So, if Todd and Sarah Palin are in unity with their decision before God, then Sarah is a living example that women of God can be used in ways that far exceed many hyper-patriarchal views that are out there.
Jonny, the second article is written by Barbara Mouser. Are you studying the theological teachings of women now? Interesting.
Barbara believes that if a woman joins the military then she is in sin. Do you agree?
Of course, the Commander in Chief doesn’t actually kill anyone. They makes judgments that direct military campaigns. If anyone denys that Deborah did that, then they are simply practicing poor hermeneutics.
The third article that you provided doesn’t seem to be helpful to our conversation at all in my opinion. The article is about “masculinity.” We are discussing biblical “femininity.”
Maybe you are referring to the paragraph that says: Later in Scripture, husbands are clearly instructed to be the head in the marriage relationship, and women are commanded to submit to the husband’s leadership and respect his God-given position (Eph 5:22-33). It was to men that God gave leadership positions in the nation of Israel.14 Furthermore, it is to men that God gave the position of leadership in the church (1 Tim 2:11-12). It is obvious that God has given man the role of ultimate leadership.
The main point you may be agreeing with is the one about male leadership in Israel. Yet, this article ignores the topic of your second article about Deborah.
Nevertheless, the ultimate problem you seem to be facing is the extent of authority that a woman may have outside the home. Am I right?