Christians who have sound theology have a high-view of the family. Thus the prospect of Sarah Palin becoming VP and possibly even the President of the United States has caused some Christians to ask if that is such a job a mother should want. It is a valid question.
I believe that the Scripture is clear when it teaches that men and women are created equal by our Creator. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that even while men and women are created equal they were created to compliment each other and together glorify God. Thus their roles in the home and church are different though equal in value. Go here to read more about the affirmations of complimentarianism and notice that complementarians simultaneously hold a high view of Scripture, a high view of women, and a high view of the church.
One must remember that the Church, the Bride of Christ, is eternal and the governments of this world are temporal. In fact, one can qualified to be President of the United States and not be qualified to be an elder in a church.
But what about their roles in civil duties and in government and in the work place? I believe that it is obvious in Scripture that women and men should work together in these areas to labor unto God’s glory. Neither men nor women should sacrifice their roles in the home or church so they can pursuit their careers. Instead, godly homes and churches should strive to produce such disciplined people that they can fulfill all of their responsibilities in their homes, churches, and jobs unto God’s glory.
David Kotter agrees saying, “Therefore we must be careful to not go beyond the teaching of the Bible. The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from exercising leadership in secular political fields. Rather, the Queen of Sheba is presented in 1 Kings 10:1-13 in a positive light in her interaction with King Solomon. Queen Esther offers an even better example of a woman who appropriately exerted influence for the good of her people without holding the highest position of national authority (Esther 2:17). In this light, we cannot categorically say that it was sinful for Queen Victoria to lead England as a single woman strictly because of her gender, nor can we condemn Governor Palin or any other woman for seeking the office of Vice President.”
Many families are taking advantage of the advancements in communication via the internet to build family businesses that can be run from the home. It is almost like the way families ran large farms and home-based trades from previous centuries. My mom and dad, in fact, worked out of our home in Louisiana and reared three children at the same time.
Sarah Palin is actually running for the highest Work-From-Home job in the world. If the McCain/Palin ticket wins it is very likely that Palin will become President after their first term. She and her husband will move into the White House and work from home running this country and rearing their children!
Al Mohler agrees saying, “Do I believe that a woman can serve well in the office of Vice President of the United States? Yes. As a matter of fact, I believe that a woman could serve well as President — and one day will. Portraits of significant men of history hang on the walls of my library –but so do portraits of Queen Elizabeth I of England and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility. I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture. Then again, that presupposes that women — and men — have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.
Is this kind of public role what most women want? Clearly not, and for that I am honestly thankful. The tasks assigned to women within the home are monumental. The maternal role is crucial, and the vast majority of women find their greatest fulfillment in this role — and for good reason. In the roles of wives and mothers women do what no one else can do so naturally and so well.”
I praise God for the extraordinary women of the Bible like Eve, Sarah, Rahab, Ruth, Hannah, Mary, Anna, the Samaritan woman, Martha and Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Lydia. May God be glorified in the women of our generation!
And let me humbly quote David Kotter one more time: “Complementarians hold a consistent view of the role of women in the church, home, and political office by keeping in mind the priority of the church with respect to civil governments. For the same reason, we encourage you to thank the pastor of your own local church for his humble service. Even if he did not give a rousing speech in front of a national convention this week, he does labor week after week to preach the gospel and to care for your soul.”
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.
Well said. I do have to say if it was Hillary, I would argue that women are not biblically qualified to run for magistrate.:) The point is we can find no prohibition in scripture concerning women serving their country. One great fallacy is that the president of the US is somehow the supreme authority. Even if one could argue a woman should not exercise authority in such a capacity, the reality is that no such authority is vested in the president. They are elected servants. They can be removed if they break oath. The authority still resides in the electorate.
-D.Crane
Jason…thanks for this post. I would like to ask you a couple of questions and then make a couple of observations from what you have posted. Please believe that my desire is to learn.
Do you believe that the pattern established in creation of male headship is only appropriate in the context of marriage and the Church? If so, please help me to see this from the Scriptures.
We can agree that the NT is clear that male leadership in these areas is taught…but why do we assume that this headship does not translate into the public square?
If marriage reflects the glory of God by illustrating the union between Christ and the Church…and if “The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all”, doesn’t the hierarchy within the church established by God in creation and reaffirmed in the NT demonstrate God’s ideal for how all of life is to be and to operate? Isn’t the Church the redemption of what was lost in the fall? So why would we ignore that?
It seems to me…and please forgive me if I am misrepresenting your logic…your view is that what is ordained and defined by God in the Scriptures as good and holy and pleasing to Him in marriage and in the Church is not His ultimate design for all of life. This seems compartmentalized to me rather than holistic.
I’d like you to please interact with 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and show how in your opinion this text is limited to the governance of the Church.
How do you reconcile Isaiah 3:12 where God seems to say that because of the evilness of Israel infants and women rule over them, with the idea that women should aspire to lead the nation?
It’s good to look to godly men and women for support on our views. But Sola Scriptura is the best way.
Now some observations. With all humility I think that some of your statements miss the point, mischaracterize the issue or over simplify it to the point of being irrelevant.
You said, “I believe that it is obvious in Scripture that women and men should work together in these areas to labor unto God’s glory.” Please provide specific Scriptural support for this statement as it pertains to national leadership.
You quote David Kotter as saying, “The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from exercising leadership in secular political fields. Rather, the Queen of Sheba is presented in 1 Kings 10:1-13 in a positive light in her interaction with King Solomon.” So do we in the Church of the redeemed look to pagans to set our norms for Christian living?
Kotter continues, “Queen Esther offers an even better example of a woman who appropriately exerted influence for the good of her people without holding the highest position of national authority (Esther 2:17).” This is not an apples to apples comparison. Esther was not like the vice president…she was like the first lady. She obviously had influence with the King but she wielded no authority whatsoever.
Kotter’s conclusion logically follows his arguments…but I believe that his arguments are sufficiently flawed.
Working out of the home on a family personal business is not even close to the same thing as leading the nation out of the White House. The decisions that we make in our small businesses at home do not exert authority over millions or billions of people across the globe.
You said, “I praise God for the extraordinary women of the Bible like Eve, Sarah, Rahab, Ruth, Hannah, Mary, Anna, the Samaritan woman, Martha and Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Lydia. May God be glorified in the women of our generation!” I agree…and interestingly enough, not one of these godly women served Israel as its national leader or exerted authority over the men in their lives.
I think Proverbs 31 gives us an excellent example of Biblical womanhood…perhaps the most explicit passage concerning what typifies most a woman who glorifies God. Should this not be the goal to strive for?
Jonny, thanks for your questions and comments. I will try my best to answer your questions.
Trouble may arise in this discussion because I can already tell from your comments in this post and others that we may not be operating with the same definitions of certain biblical concepts (ie male headship, complementarianism, submission, etc).
Please keep your comments short and questions limited per comment so that we don’t end up talking past each other.
THANKS.
Now, let me start with the following:
Do you agree that man and woman are equal in the sense that they bear God’s image equally?
And do you agree that in the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction?
And do you agree that a husband who is bearing the responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction can be the husband of a politician?
Jonny, you said, It seems to me…and please forgive me if I am misrepresenting your logic…your view is that what is ordained and defined by God in the Scriptures as good and holy and pleasing to Him in marriage and in the Church is not His ultimate design for all of life.
Yes, you misrepresented me, and yes I forgive you.
Jonny, you state above that you do not believe that a woman should lead a nation. Why? Are you saying that it is ungodly? Why? I need to know exactly why before I can answer you.
Short answers are welcomed.
By the way, wasn’t it refreshing to hear McCain remind us that government (including the West Wing) is not designed by our Constitution to rule over us or have dominion over us but to help us!
jonny, eventually you will also need to clarify why you are asking me this question: I’d like you to please interact with 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and show how in your opinion this text is limited to the governance of the Church.
Are you saying that only men are permitted to raise their hands?
Are only women to dress modestly?
Are you saying men can never learn anything from women, anywhere at anytime?
Are you saying that women can never be in positions of authority over men, anywhere at anytime?
jonny, you asked if we in the Church of the redeemed look to pagans to set our norms for Christian living?
The answer is “no.”
Jason, are you going to answer my questions directly or must we dance? When you say that I have misrepresented your logic it seems appropriate and would be immensely helpful to me if you could please demonstrate how rather than simply saying that I did.
To your questions. Concisely.
1. Yes affirmed in a previous post on the other thread…that’s why we should have stayed there
2. Yes
3. can be the husband of a politician? Can he be…yes this is a fallen world and sin abounds. Does God’s intention for marriage from creation include divorce? No. Can people divorce? Yes because they are evil.
The better question is SHOULD he be? Based on creation I don’t think that this was God’s intention
and I still believe that Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 2:12 is universal and not limited to the Church by the context.
I’ve given my Scriptural support for my position on multiple occasions, again on the other thread.
Jonny, you said, “Working out of the home on a family personal business is not even close to the same thing as leading the nation out of the White House. The decisions that we make in our small businesses at home do not exert authority over millions or billions of people across the globe.”
I simply say, “So what.” How do these facts effect anything we are talking about? They don’t. The only thing such a statement concludes is that you think the job is TOO BIG for Palin.
jonny, do you now have an extra-biblical rule against dancing too? (just joking, please don’t lose your cool, brother.)
I would warn you against assuming that you know what God’s “intentions” or will is for Mr. Palin and his wife and family. You may not be comfortable with your wife having the same jobs that Sarah has held but don’t make your personal preferences a universal rule… and please don’t try to make them into a religious rule.
It is not profitable for you to presume that you know what that family SHOULD do. It is probably not very wise to act like you know what God’s will is for everybody and what job they should or should not take.
Or maybe you think you have that kind of omniscience? No, surely not.
“I simply say, “So what.” How do these facts effect anything we are talking about? They don’t. The only thing such a statement concludes is that you think the job is TOO BIG for Palin.”
If your analogy is wrong your premise is probably wrong. Why make erroneous comparrisons if ultimately you believe that they have no bearing on the discussion?
Jason, please don’t misrepresent what I am saying. I never said anything about the size of the job…this has nothing to do with that and I believe that you know that.
Can you answer my objections from Scripture? Will you? If I am as wrong as you obviously believe me to be do more than make assertions…show me chapter and verse. I’ve made some great points that you have not even dealt with. Take my whole argument and deal with it all. That’s fair and that’s loving. Anything less is not helpful neither is it iron. sharpening iron.
jonny, I found one statement that you said that I affirm: I think Proverbs 31 gives us an excellent example of Biblical womanhood.
Yes, brother, I agree. I is wonderful to see how this woman glorified God in all things… INCLUDING her activities in the workplace, in civil and economic transactions and so forth.
jonny, I hate to see that you are getting impatient. You seem to think that you have made some “great points” and are frustrated that I no one has agree with you. I’m sorry you feel that way. My post and comments have sufficiently stated my biblical arguments and I have also give links for further explanations. I don’t need to repeat them her in the comments box. It is unnecessary and unhelpful to our readers.
Rather, I have simply tried to graciously answer you comments the best I can according to my ability to comprehend what you are trying to say.
As far as I can tell, you don’t think women can hold any positions of authority in society. I disagree. You want biblical references that explicitly say such. Sorry friend, apparently the Holy Spirit found that to be unnecessary. Why would such need to be explained unless someone believed what you believe and such a belief, as we have shown, doesn’t come from Scripture.
I hope that when you have thought through these issues for a while you will return to this discussion. I would be glad to continue it with you.
In the meantime, keep this in mind. In marriage we have the only relationship that positions us in a relationship comparable to the nature of the Trinity. We are covenantly related to someone who is our equal. One has authority over an equal. One submits to an equal. One loves an equal unconditionally. Such characteristics and roles do not exists in any other relationship. An employee submits to one who is his unequal. An employer has authority over those who are his unequals. Friendship loves are based on friendship conditions.
How beautiful is the marriage covenant! And how unique! Indeed it nothing like the relationship politicians and the electorate have.
I found your rub: not one of these godly women served Israel as its national leader or exerted authority over the men in their lives.
Am I right, jonny?
It seems your view of 1 Tim chapter 2 has given you a definition of the role of women in society, not just the church and home. Right? You don’t think that it is God’s will that a woman ever teaches a man anything. (Were all of your teachers men?) You don’t think that it is God’s will that a woman ever exerts any authority over a man. Right? (I hope you don’t know any female police officers. Maybe if you ever happened to get pulled over for speeding you could just tell that woman police officer that she is out of God’s will! Let me know how that works for you.)
Just a little humor, jonny. You seemed to be getting tense. But am I right? Is this your rub?
“Yes, brother, I agree. I is wonderful to see how this woman glorified God in all things… INCLUDING her activities in the workplace, in civil and economic transactions and so forth.”
Where does Proverbs 31 teach that the woman holds or exercises civil authority? I agree that she is economically involved in the community…it seems that she only employs women…”She rises while it is yet night and provided food for her household and portions for her MAIDENS.” Clearly she is industrious and takes excellent care of her household…and as a result…”Her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land”, and “Her children rise up and call her blessed.”
“As far as I can tell, you don’t think women can hold any positions of authority in society. I disagree. You want biblical references that explicitly say such. Sorry friend, apparently the Holy Spirit found that to be unnecessary. Why would such need to be explained unless someone believed what you believe and such a belief, as we have shown, doesn’t come from Scripture.” This is a convenient argument. So I’m the only guy with a view derived from specific texts…but you’re right and I’m wrong?
“My post and comments have sufficiently stated my biblical arguments and I have also give links for further explanations. I don’t need to repeat them her in the comments box. It is unnecessary and unhelpful to our readers.” I must have missed where you provided exegeses of the pertinent texts. I’ll look again.
I agree that you have dealt with me graciously if by gracious you mean civilly. I think that dealing graciously also involves dealing truthfully and I am not sure that you have done that. I do thank you for your civility towards me.
“t seems your view of 1 Tim chapter 2 has given you a definition of the role of women in society, not just the church and home. Right?”
What does Paul offer as the basis of his apostolic command in 1 Timothy 2:12? Answer…the created order (1 Timothy 2:13-14). So Paul causes me to look back to God’s perpetual decree in creation and then clarifies for me that “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet.” because apparently to Paul, this was God’s revealed will for male/female interaction.
I think that the fundamental difference that I see between our positions is that it seems that you see the fallen world and seem to say that this is how it is so the Scriptures can’t mean this…whereas I see God’s revealed will in creation and say this is how it is supposed to be.
I have no reason from scripture to believe that male headship is limited to the marriage covenant or to the Church. If you could help me to see specifically where I am wrong in making this assumption from the Word that would be very helpful and would relieve more of the tension than either of our attempts at humor.
Thanks again for your civility towards me.
jonny, To be clear,
1) Are you saying that only men are permitted to raise their hands?
2)Are only women to dress modestly?
3)Are you saying men can never learn anything from women, anywhere at anytime?
4)Are you saying that women can never be in positions of authority over men, anywhere at anytime?
5)You don’t think that it is God’s will that a woman ever teaches a man anything?
6)You think Eve knew less than Adam?
7)You think that all women who are in authority in society today are in thus in sin?
8)You believe that all women professors in college are in sin?
jonny, are you married?
Jason,
It’s too funny that you posted those eight questions. While shopping a while ago, several of those questions went through my mind.
Great minds think alike.
Sorry I’m such a redneck sometimes.
I suggest reading this:
http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99735.qna/category/pt/page/questions/site/
Jason, against the counsel of my beautiful bride of 13 years I will answer you. Yes I am married. I’m pretty sure that she is happy too…even though I got the better end of the deal.
jonny, thank your wife for me. You are a blessed man. And since you have a wife, please answer one more question: we will call it #9 and add it to the list above for clarity sake in our discussion.
9)Has your wife ever taught you anything?
If you are going to answer “No” then I suggest you just don’t answer at all in case your wife reads this thread.
If you are going to answer “yes” then you need to think through how you understand the creative role of women. Do you really think that it means that women cannot ever teach men?
By the way, #10- Do you think it is actually impossible for you by God’s design to learn something theological or spiritual from a woman?
Kyle thanks for the link to the article…that’s what I have been looking for. I’ll read it in depth and study the passages in question.
Jason…I’ll work on answering those questions for you. I think that we can agree that women are capable of teaching things to men…men are capable of learning things from women and husbands learn from their wives. I think the issue for me rests in authority…and this is going to take more time for me to work through.
Thanks for the link, Kyle. Would that fewer men ignored the counsel of their wives? May our marriages reflect the unity of the counsel of the Trinity! And may godly men and women rise up to lead in our society!
I have no idea if Sarah Palin is godly. But I do know that her gender does not preclude her from public service. Who knows, her gender may by God’s design cause her to be a more helpful public servant.
The bigger question for me is the timing. Granted I think Palin is a great choice but with a high needs child , I question the timing . That being said , that is a decision she has to make with her husband .
Plus to be frank , I firmly hold to headship in house and church. But I do not like the phrase complementarian , compared to just the simple teaching of headship .I agree to what MacArthur said one time answering a panel question concerning headship . He said the word doesn’t really convey the clear idea of headship . Plus regardless how you slice it , there is some form of submission involved and leadership , grounded in Christ with humility for sure.Plus it takes a Godly woman to run corporation or country and then go home or attend a church and submit to a pastor or husband.Possible , but I have some doubts .But as long as one can keep the mindset of the reformed teaching of the two kingdoms , it can be done.
I just have a few comments after reading this post and the previous one, along with all of the comments. I think much of the back and forth is coming from the fact that the two of you (Jon and Jason) are looking at Scripture differently.
From the previous post:
“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.” -Jason
If I may read between the lines, what I hear you arguing for is a secular/sacred distinction. From your perspective, the Bible is written to guide us in sacred or spiritual matters. Government is a secular, earthly institution that is not eternal, therefore biblical philosophy does not apply to it. Am I correct in my assumptions regarding your views so far? If so, then the back and forth between you and Jon can be better understood because: you don’t believe biblical philosophy is applicable here while Jon believes biblical philosophy is applicable everywhere. Thus a call for you to provide support for your position rings hollow precisely because you don’t believe the Bible is intended to speak to the issue.
Part of your reasoning here seems to be that the church and marriage are eternal matters whereas government is not. If I am correct in my assumptions regarding your view, then:
1) The church is eternal, but it’s earthly ecclesiology is not. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we will have no use for elders to lead the church through eternity because we will be at the feet of our Shepherd.
2) Neither is marriage eternal (not that you argued it was). As Jesus taught, marriage is an “earthly” institution (though it symbolizes an eternal relationship). It is a matter of this world, not the next.
3) Therefore, to say that we cannot apply biblical principles to political philosophy because governments are not eternal, is incorrect.
4) “Marriage reveals the nature of the covenant.” What I draw from that statement is that you therefore believe biblical philosophy applies to it? If so, does not earthly government reveal or help us understand the notion of justice, making it worthy of biblical philosophy as well?
“As far as I can tell, you don’t think women can hold any positions of authority in society. I disagree. You want biblical references that explicitly say such. Sorry friend, apparently the Holy Spirit found that to be unnecessary. Why would such need to be explained unless someone believed what you believe and such a belief, as we have shown, doesn’t come from Scripture.”
I think a lot of the back and forth here has been very distracting, but I must insist that nothing has been shown to suggest that what Jon is arguing does not come from Scripture. I would really love for someone to interact with the text because I lean more towards Jon’s view, but I would still consider myself on the fence.
What I hear you saying Jason, and again, please correct me if I’m wrong (by clarifying, not just saying, “yes, you’re wrong”), is that because the Bible specifically mentions the role of men and women in regards to the church and the home, we can therefore apply what it says to those situations. However, since the Bible does not give us similar instructions for how to run governments, we may not apply biblical principles to it.
If this is your position, then I disagree. The bible was written to the church. It’s primary purpose is to make one wise unto salvation. It was not written as a practical handbook for every issue in life, including politics. However, that does not mean it does not apply to everything in life. Paul spent all of his effort as a minister of the Gospel. As such, he did not waste time writing political treatises. He wrote specifically to the church regarding issues concerning the church.
When we look at his specific instructions in Timothy regarding the role of women in the church, we can learn something from his method. He does not say that he is teaching something new and unique when he says that he does not permit a woman to have authority over a man. What he says is that the foundation of prohibiting women from exercising authority in the church is the created order. He says that he does not permit women to exercise authority over men because God created men and women differently and he created women to be a help meet to man, not to have authority over him.
Paul then gives a practical example of a violation of this created order. Eve was deceived, not Adam. Why does Paul point this out? In my opinion, it is because men and women exercise discernment differently. This is why women should not have authority in the church, because they are not as discerning and they are more easily deceived. If this view sounds sexist, then please help me understand how I am misunderstanding v14.
Now, since Paul’s argument for the role of women in the church is the created order, then we may also apply a biblical understanding of the created order to areas of life that Scripture does not specifically address. The bible does not address every detail of our lives, yet we are commanded to take every thought captive to Christ and to do everything to the glory of God, including eating and drinking.
Therefore, it is proper to say that a biblical philosophy should influence all of our thoughts and should apply to every aspect of our lives. Paul has demonstrated how to apply the biblical understanding of the created order to the church (as well as the home). We should follow his example by applying it to the question we have before us regarding the role of women in state government.
Sorry for not writing a shorter comment, but I don’t see the value in breaking my comment up into 10 smaller comments. I hope that’s ok.
Brandon, thanks for commenting. And I hope you guys are having a great day in the Lord this morning. But you said: What I hear you saying Jason, and again, please correct me if I’m wrong (by clarifying, not just saying, “yes, you’re wrong”), is that because the Bible specifically mentions the role of men and women in regards to the church and the home, we can therefore apply what it says to those situations. However, since the Bible does not give us similar instructions for how to run governments, we may not apply biblical principles to it.
The answer is “no, that is not what I have said, nor it is my position.” I believe everything that principle in the Bible is applicable to teach us how to live in every area of our lives.
What I think you guys are doing with those principles are poor hermeneutics and poor application. For example, it is clear that Paul’s first letter to Timothy said that he did not affirm that women hold positions of spiritual authority over men in the church in light of Creation. He explained his position from a positive standpoint in his second letter when he said that elders should be “husbands.”
Thus Paul has established a doctrine for the church that the church should have only male pastors — and he based this in light of Creation. In other passages he dealt with the spiritual leadership of homes.
I believe you guys are taking these clear biblical teachings and trying to say that they teach that women have NO authority, can NEVER lead in any situation, etc., etc. I believe that is proven by the fact that the opinion is being pushed by some in comments above that a woman cannot hold political office.
I disagree with that position on biblical grounds. I have exegeted the above texts on FIDE-O and do not plan on doing it again here in a comment box. But my position is fully explained, sufficiently supported with exegesis, and has been public for years.
Here’s the bottom line:
Brandon, we aren’t voting for Sarah to be our husband or our pastor. We are voting for Sarah to be our public servant, a politician.
You said: We should follow his example by applying it to the question we have before us regarding the role of women in state government.
And I say no; if you do so you are abusing the teachings of Paul.
And if a woman is obeying God in her submissive role in her home and church, I actually believe she is even more qualified to be a public leader. Who knows, maybe my daughter will be president one day! I pray that first she will fall in love with a godly man and be members of a biblical church.
Hey, Jason — This is Christian from down in Chula Vista ( met you at Hoagies and Stoogies and when you preached at Covenant Baptist )
The argument is it biblical to have a women Vice President isn’t very interesting ( to me anyway; although, all of the posts generated would suggest otherwise ).
Here is the question (maybe it should be separate blog post ) I want your side on.
Sarah Palin is a member of MVC. Is it biblical for her to run for Vice President?
As one of the pastors at MVC, I would rather seek to determine if there was anything principally in her life that would preclude her from assuming such an occupation.
Assuming she was a member in good standing, I would expect her to have the approbation and full support of her husband; the encouragement of her family, to seek the counsel many godly friends- especially her 10% friends, and seek the wisdom of the pastoral council.
Only after such due diligence ensued could a council recommendation be made one way or the other as to whether she particularly was biblically qualified, or rather, it was biblical for her to run for the office.
LPB
@LPB
Ok, I will give some of the “due-diligence” here.
The member has 5 children ( 3 in secondary school, 1 in diapers ).
The job the female member is interested in applying/running for is massively time-consuming (8 plus hours).
Are you insinuating that the Palin family will not be good parents? I know father’s who are required to work 10 to 12 hours a day and are excellent fathers. I know mother’s who have to work such hours and are excellent mothers. I know some mothers who do not work outside of the home and are terrible mothers.
So, I believe that the questions are merely based on unknowable factors and lead people to make statements about families that they really have no business making.
I have counseled marriages for over ten years and I haven’t found two that are exactly alike. In other words, not all biblical marriages look alike. And not all people are alike. Some are extraordinary. So I would advise people not to assume the limitations of people based on one’s personal limitations.
christian,
I believe the question should rather be asked is, is such a pursuit an engagement of neglect, infliction of harm, or otherwise sinful behavior.
If the answer is yes, then it would be a violation of biblical principle, thus unbiblical to pursue such vocation. But that should be the guiding principle in every consideration, no matter the subject, no matter the gender.
Unfortunately, with the focus on mothers/women in this discussion, oftentimes husbands/men are given a pass on their responsibilities/roles.
I have asked the same question to fathers seeking counsel concerning employment, investments, etc.
More often than not, I discover that men use work or whatever other interests they may have to avoid engagement with their families.
I know that firsthand. I built and ran a large business for many years and found many excuses and justifications for burdening my wife unnecessarily.
Ultimately, however, I believe the question must be broadened to every realm of discussion, whether it is job pursuit, financial decisions, educational pursuits, whatever.
In other words, I think it becomes easy to target others and focus on what they may or may not do that fits our mold rather than be a diligent self-examiner. So while the questions can be helpful, they can only be helpful to the end they cause us to examine ourselves thoroughly and make the necessary changes in our lives.
Blessings,
LPB
@LPB and @Jason
I put a email in for Gene for a Narrow Mind show on this on this Palin question. I think it is a great topic! Therefore, maybe it can continue there.
Here is my take:
I believe it is the biblical ideal for a mother to be characterized by — but not limited to — some of the verses I am copying and pasting below.
I realize for you guys on the front lines that this topic is full of nuances. However, the ideal must be encouraged. For a wife or mother spending huge amounts of time away from the home just doesn't align it itself with scripture. A part-time outside job or maybe a full time job ( for a temporary amount time ) would allow a Godly women to also achieve the scriptural definitions for a wife and mother. I am sure there are many edge-cases that I can't think of at the moment that the wife/mother has to work outside the home.
In this hypothetical case the wife/mother of MVC is willful seeking a job that puts her at odds with scripture. I would advise her to not pursue the time-consuming endeavor on biblical grounds.
1 Timothy 5:14 (ESV)
14So I would have(A) younger widows marry, bear children,(B) manage their households, and(C) give the adversary no occasion for slander.
CP comment
"manage their household" -> Requires a lot of time.
1 Timothy 5:10 (ESV)
10and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has(A) shown hospitality,(B) has washed the feet of the saints, has(C) cared for the afflicted, and has(D) devoted herself to every good work.
CP comment
"Brought up children" -> Implies that the Mother is there a lot.
Titus 2:5 (ESV)
5to be self-controlled,(A) pure,(B) working at home, kind, and(C) submissive to their own husbands,(D) that the word of God may not be reviled.
CP comment
"working at home" -> self explanatory
Proverbs 28
Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
CP comment
Does her husband and children praise her because she has just got back from a two week peace summit between Georgia and Russia
Christian P, we at FIDE-O have asked in the side-bar (top left) that you provide your full name and church affiliation. Please provide us that information. Thank you. And by the way, since you are now hypothetically pastoring the people of MVC, can you at least tell us if you are really a pastor, and why or why not? Thanks. And thanks for sharing your convictions with us. We hope that your input is helpful to our discussions and to the edification of our readers.
And keep me informed about the next Hoagies and Stogies. Thanks.
I didn’t see that top left thing. My full name is Christian Pelczarski. I used to be a member at Covenant Baptist and Great Oak (still an associate member ). Had to resign because it was to far and we just had a baby. Not a pastor — a web developer [ I like your new background but don't like your Flash-based header
]. I am currently attending –not a member — Covenant Reformed Church in Chula Vista,CA a RCUS church — I am still a good Baptist however!
What else … Oh Hoagies and Stoogies is on Oct. 4th.
http://ruberad.wordpress.com/hoagies-stogies/
Moreover, sorry about the arm chair counseling — I appreciate this pastoral service and don’t want to make light of it.