Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Palin not a “keeper at home,” some evangelicals say
The Los Angeles Times this morning explores the view of some evangelicals that Sarah and Todd Palin — she the gov, he the househusband — have their roles unbiblically reversed:
“The Palin selection is the single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years at least,” said Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum, a Texas-based ministry. “The unabashed, unquestioning support of Sarah Palin and all she represents marks a fundamental departure from our historic position of family priorities — of moms being at home with young children, of moms being helpers to their husbands, the priority of being keepers of the home.”
The Times article presents the views of other evangelicals who say the biblical teaching on submission/headship/keeping the home does not apply in the secular world. Check it out here.
back to top35 Comments to “Palin not a “keeper at home,” some evangelicals say”
Doug Phillips is correct here. The idea that God’s creation order is confined within the four walls of the church is unbiblical.
For a very biblical exploration of the Palin issue, please read this blog post:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/09/governor-palin.html
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for the excellent post David L.
Report comment to moderator
How far is that taken, then? Women can never own a business? Women can never teach a class where a man might attend? Women cannot ever hold public office?
Report comment to moderator
Moms not staying at home.
Christians not staying out of politics.
Which is the more “dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community”?
Report comment to moderator
I saw a lot of talk about a biblical perspective but no actual Bible verses. Where does it say woman can’t work outside the house?
Report comment to moderator
“The unabashed, unquestioning support of Sarah Palin and all she represents marks a fundamental departure…”
I think he’s creating a straw man here. How many people have unquestioned support for Palin and all that she represents??? I know that I don’t, even though I will be voting for that ticket.
I think Palin has some mighty fine qualities, but by no means is she the perfect candidate.
Report comment to moderator
David,
I’m eager to hear your response to DesignerGirl. How consistent are you with your position? I’m a little surprised you even come to this blog when there are men on staff who work under female editors.
Report comment to moderator
KBells,
If you’re referring to the blog post I linked to above, you’re completely misreading and misunderstanding the point.
The antagonism of so-called Biblical Christians to the divinely ordained creation order spelled out in Scripture is very depressing.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland,
I didn’t write that blog post, just to be clear. My pastor did. Did you read what he wrote? He said he’d probably be voting for McCain/Palin in November.
The point is not to hide away from any place where a woman is in authority over a man, and it’s certainly not to dictate what women are capable of doing. Will believers ever accept the greater principle at stake here? What will you urge your daughters to become? How will you raise your daughters?
Report comment to moderator
This is how feminism becomes accepted. It’s called something else and embodied by a conservative anti-abortion woman.
The Wife of Bath by any other name.
Report comment to moderator
Is Patriarchy Just a Private Christian Thing?
Report comment to moderator
From the blog referenced by David L, #1: “Not to cause our good readers to froth at the mouth and gnash their teeth, but I may very well vote for the McCain/Palin ticket come election day. If so, however, it will not be due to my denying the essential conflict between women as civil authorities and God’s Creation Order. Rather, it will be due to my recognition that the Creation Order is not the only consideration in my stewardship of the one man, one vote principle at the heart of our democracy.”
That sums up my thoughts pretty well, too. I think Palin has been chosen “for such a time as this”, and I also think the fact that a woman is needed to step into this leadership position is another evidence that God is judging this country.
I’m thankful for Palin, but sad that we’ve come to this.
Report comment to moderator
If nothing else, you’ve got to hand it to these evangelicals. They’re putting principle above politics.
Personally, I feel Sarah Palin is wholly unqualified for the office of StuBob’s Wife. But that isn’t what she’s running for. Am I excusing a certain type of bad wifing while I’d excoriate her for another type (adultery, say)? I dunno.
Report comment to moderator
Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines feminism as; the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.
I see nothing unbiblical about that. It is radical feminism that most conservatives object to.
Report comment to moderator
KBells,
I would wager that it (as Musing would say) depends on how you define “economic” and “social” equality.
Report comment to moderator
The issue usually becomes that when a wife comes home, will she respect the leadership of her husband in family? Its hard to give up “power” so to speak. Its hard to be vice president all day and yet come home to a husband that doesnt “work” and still respect the leadership role of her husband.
Its certainly possible.
Report comment to moderator
What will you urge your daughters to become? How will you raise your daughters?
Whatever she has the talent and desire to become.
This week, it’s an artist.
Last week, a fisheries biologist, like Mom.
I am hoping for engineering or physics.
I also tell her that a Mom is a great thing to decide to be as well.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells I have written an article on what the Bible says about working Moms. You can find it on the front page of http://www.christianworkingmom.com. The Proverbs 31 woman was definitely a working woman. I do think it is frustrating that evangelical leaders want to have it both ways. They want women to not work outside the home, yet they are strongly supporting Sarah Palin.
Report comment to moderator
McCain didn’t want his own keeper, why should it surprise us that he chose to take another out of her most natural habitat (at this stage of the game–and not against her will–but nonetheless)??
Report comment to moderator
What was the point of the blog recommended by David L. in #1? I thought it was well reasoned and Scriptually sound. And then I came to the end and the author says he “may well vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.” ???? Is he willing to sacrifice principle for political gain, namely the White House?.
What was the point of refuting the other arguments if you’re going to cast the same vote they are in the end?
I recommend visionforumministries.org for some insightful articles by men willing to put their vote where their principle is.
Report comment to moderator
I’m familiar with Vision Forum. In many ways, I find Doug Phillips to be quite admirable. But I do think he errs on the side of legalism.
The point of the blog recommended by David L is that we must weigh our stewardship by more than one consideration. Having a woman VP isn’t ideal, but we aren’t dealing in ideals. We’re dealing in reality. We either get a female VP or a pro-abortion Pres & VP.
Voting against McCain because Palin is a woman hands the victory to Obama, who is dedicated to many anti-Biblical ideals, one of which is radical feminism. Palin isn’t a radical. She is feminine. She is pro-life, rather than advocating aborting children to chase a career.
That’s the point, as I see it.
(This is like debating my brother!!)
Report comment to moderator
#14
That’s a good point. Can we get everyone around here to start making that distinction?
Report comment to moderator
Is it a contradiction for a woman to ‘submit’ to her husband as wife and hold a public office that puts her ‘over’ her husband, at least at the civic level, at the same time? Are the two roles inseparable? Why or why not?
Report comment to moderator
no, it is not a contradiction
it is mutual submission that works in a marriage, anyway
Report comment to moderator
In the Bible, Deborah (a woman) judged Israel for a while, and even went along with their army when the male leader was too cowardly to go by himself. While I realize this is an exception in the Biblical account of godly leadership, it’s still there.
Report comment to moderator
Palin is a woman who wanders from house to house, as the Bible describes. She’s an ungodly woman.
Report comment to moderator
And before ya’ll gimme smack, a lot of Christian folk are calling her the W word. I’m one of the nicer ones, so I didn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone else find those Vision Forum ads in WORLD magazine a bit… creepy? Just wondering.
Report comment to moderator
The examples of Debroah and Esther are exceptions and can’t be pulled out of context and made the rule for all.
Fist of all, the Book of Judges is a tragic sequel to the book of Joshua. In Judges, the people were disobedient, idolatrous and often defeated. “Isarel did evil in the sight of the Lord” is oft repeated.
Prior to Deborah coming on the scene, the Lord sold the children of Isarel into the hand of the King of Canaan and they were “harshly oppressed (Chapter 4).
Barak’s failed to show courage and lead thus Deborah was raised up and God further rebuked Barak’s cowardice by pledging that a woman would kill Sisera(Jael drove a tent stake through his head.)
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes just reading a thread here indicates to me the vast cultural divide that is part of the North American continent. There are many reasons not to vote for Palin but the headship principle appears to me to be culturally archaic. However, it does provide further understanding to me how American society cannot accept deviations from the so-called norm if they are still troubled by women in the public realm having authority over men.
Report comment to moderator
Well, HRW, your post proves that you don’t understand what it is to be an American. You see Americans as members of one society. You want them to think the same way “culturally.” This is just not so. There are regions and subregions of the US that have their own “culture.” Americans accept that. I have never met the foreigner who can even comprehend how big the country is physically, let alone how different people are. You fit right in with that.
Moreover, you are also failing to comprehend that Christian beliefs can be — and are here — very very strong. Now, I personally have no problem with Palin becoming VP, but I understand those who do are trying to be true to their faith and honor God’s word, that they have not fallen prey — as you have — to worshipping the government. There is more to life than the civil government. Government, for many of us, is a tool, not a master.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t feel I ever got my question answered. I came up with another one. Should women be allowed to vote? If we are to have no authority over a man, voting should not be allowed, correct?
I just find it hard to believe that God gave women gifts and talents that cannot be used for the good of the country and His kingdom.
Report comment to moderator
Designer Girl,
“I just find it hard to believe” is a bad place to start when trying to get to what is true. Perhaps God gave women gifts that are good for their families and smaller communities, and that is good for the larger community.
I personally think that we’d be better off without women voting. (Quick, practical “reason”: we’d have had better presidents the last several decades if women weren’t voting!!) Men are more likely to vote for the good of the community, women for who they like. Vast stereotype, but there’s also a vast difference in how men and women vote. Women will vote for the Democrat, men for the Repulbican, to a large enough degree to be decisive in an election.
Women as a rule have neither the time, nor the interest, and often not the skill, to delve deeply into politics and understand all the ins and outs of a position or a politician’s record. That’s not an insult to women; we’re more relational and less analytical (on average–I’m more analytical than the average man…but I too skip Jon Rowe and that sort of “tedious analysis” on most issues). In today’s culture there’s no “shame” in being an uneducated voter, but there should be. Women mostly are uneducated voters, that’s just reality. (Most men are too, of course, but I’d say a smaller percentage.)
Women have higher priorities than voting, or becoming educated about voting, which goes hand-in-hand with God creating men to seek leadership but creating women to come alongside others and nurture them. Some women seek leadership too, and some of those in an ungodly, selfish way; but far more women shrink from leadership, because it isn’t how God generally gifted us. So, if women are to be educated voters, they may be shirking some greater responsibilities to do so. And if they vote without being educated, their vote hurts society.
The old idea was that a man’s vote represents his family. In a nation of individuals, that’s hard to accept, that the family is bigger than the individual–but biblically it is. We had better leaders when we had that understanding. I don’t think we can go back to the idea of only men voting. I vote. I keep up with the process some. (I don’t keep up with “lesser” races, which basically means I’m an “uneducated voter” about all but the top people on the ticket. I never know judges, for instance, though I think that they’re probably about the most significant names on the ballot, in a day when judges are making law.)
I think what I’d say is this: The Bible doesn’t talk about voting. In a day where citizenship has extended the vote to women, in the absence of a biblical command that women not vote, we are authorized to vote. But I’d say voting really is almost a duty of a godly man…and it really isn’t a duty of a woman. To counteract the votes of ungodly women, she may choose to vote, and I’d encourage that. But if a woman were to tell me she has been so busy raising children (or otherwise investing in people’s lives) that she hasn’t had time to research the issues, but she’d feel guilty not voting, I’ll try to remove that guilt. Society has handed that largely male responsibility to women too…but it’s a gift of questionable benefit, and I do think it’s biblically OK for women to choose not to accept the gift. Men, on the other hand, really do have a responsibility to be informed and to vote…and perhaps a responsibility to help inform their wives too, if that is what is best for a particular couple.
And as far as running for office, I’d rather see a man, but I’ll vote for a qualified woman, as I don’t see any biblical prohibition. (I hope I never have to decide whether to vote for Palin for president though–that thought does make me uneasy.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.,
I like the way you think. My wife always says that she casts her “anti-suffrage” vote by voting exactly as I do. She’s been intrigued by the (sadly ignored) group of women in the early 20th century who felt much like you do and agitated against women’s suffrage. I’m going to have her read your comment here.
DesignerGirl,
Those are complicated questions. A lot has been written about them over at the blog I linked to–just do a search or look in the “Feminism” category. Your questions are about the practical applications of a broader general principle spelled out in God’s Word. I think there’s a lot of leeway as to how the principle is applied, but I also gather from observation that most “Biblical” Christians reject that principle out of hand. What do you do with the Bible’s evidence, though?
“Scripture reveals that God did not create Eve first, but rather Adam. God did not create Eve from the dust, but rather from Adam’s rib. God did not name Eve, nor did Eve name herself. Rather, Adam named Eve. God did not create Adam for Eve, but Eve for Adam. Adam was not made to be Eve’s helpmate, but Eve was made to be Adam’s helpmate.
“God did not demand an explanation of the Fall from Eve, but rather from Adam; and the Fall is not the result of Eve’s sin, but only Adam’s. Further, Adam was not the one deceived, but rather it was Eve who was deceived. Across the Old Testament, God did not name the human race ‘Eve,’ ‘Eveadam,’ or even ‘Adameve,’ but simply ‘Adam’. The Holy Spirit explicitly states that man is not woman’s glory, but God’s glory. Yet oppositely, Eve is not God’s glory, but man’s glory.
“We are told to pray to God “Our Father Who art in Heaven,” not “Our parent” or “Our mother who art in Heaven.” Our Savior came as a man, not a woman; He is God’s Son, not God’s daughter or child; He is the son of David, not David’s daughter or child. Jesus is not the spouse of His spouse, but the Bridegroom of His Bride.” (Imagine there’s no father…)
Do you and I love what God says, or do we hate it?
Report comment to moderator
You want them to think the same way “culturally.” This is just not so. There are regions and subregions of the US that have their own “culture.” Americans accept that. I have never met the foreigner who can even comprehend how big the country is physically, let alone how different people are. You fit right in with that.
I know all that — its exactly my point — there is a cultural divide and in fact there are many. And yes I know how big and diverse America is – I live in Ontario and my brother lives in western Iowa, its a long drive, landforms change, people’s accents change etc. If you haven’t met a foreigner who understands this, how much time have spent north of the border. Canada is larger and just as diverse, if not more so, so yes we understand.
Although rereading my post I see I should have been more specific — I was referring to conservative Christian America or the CCR as Anlir calls them.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!