Great article by Doug Wilson Re: Palin

[Tracy in Ky]

Very thought provoking:

 

 

 

http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5837

[LisaKinVA]

I have to admit, I was nervous about potentially reading yet another article claiming that a woman has no business running for office... It was nice to be pleasantly surprised.

 

Deborah isn't the only example of a strong female leader in the Bible, but she is the most glossed over, or dismissed female by many ultra conservative "Bible" teachers (I put the "Bible" in quotes, because many times it is their interpretation of the Bible they are teaching, or parts of the Bible NOT the Bible itself... you hear Titus 3 all the time -- but rarely in context... you hear Prov. 31 all the time, but selectively...)

 

Israel was one of the first nations (before it was even a nation) to allow women to inherit property. The driving force behind this effort was Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother. Maybe she should be considered the first person to fight for women's rights. :D

 

But Christians have a long history of ignoring parts of the Bible that do not suit them. The Puritans come to mind, here... women couldn't own anything, which was anti-Biblical and were treated as chattel -- little more than slaves. However, we have many ultra conservatives leading people this direction.

 

And, I say this as a Reformed Baptist leaning woman.

 

The whole issue of Palin in office has sent me back to my Bible more in the past week, searching for answers, references and guidelines.

 

The Bible is a collection of writings, and has to be interpreted as a whole -- not brought down to bits and pieces. When I hear bits and pieces being used to support a huge theological position, warning bells go off in my head.

 

It's kind of like hearing the term "Biblical grounds for divorce." If you read in the NT about divorce, there is only one reason -- "because of the harndess of man's heart." Yet, we are led to believe that "Biblical Divorce" is only because of adultery (according to the law, adulterers were to be killed, so Moses probably didn't have THAT in mind as justification for divorce.) Other things have been 'added" to that list (at times) by some -- but this is man's list -- not God's.

 

Thank you for posting a well reasoned conservative Biblically-based article. Here's hoping my brother reads it...:tongue_smilie:

[laughing lioness]

good food for thought. Thanks for posting this Tracy. I sent it along to several friends.

[anissarobert]

Thanks for posting Tracy. I was nervous to read it, being somewhat familiar with Wilson's books on marriage. It was nice to see that he has come to a similar conclusion as I have about this issue.

[rowan-tree]

Very thought provoking:

 

 

 

http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5837

 

 

Very good article. Thanks.

[mommaduck]

There is also a difference between a Spiritual leader and a Secular (governmental) leader. I've found Scriptural evidence that rejects women for one role (or rather specific positions) and none to reject women for the other role.

[Laura K (NC)]

nt

[Kimber]

Is it just me, or does anyone else this whole conversation by Christian men about the role of women to be absolutely revolting. I can't help but feel as if they're objectifying women. I have read over and over about women's roles in the church. And I admit I often times find it hard to swallow. But I can understand that with God there is order in everything, and just as there is order in business organizations where one person is elected the CEO, I can see the same in the church, and in the home. It makes sense because God is a God of order.

 

But to define a woman and put her in a box because of one scripture and yet ignore the others because it's convenient is revolting.

 

ETA I liked his article, it's the comments at the end that I had difficulty stomaching.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Is it just me, or does anyone else this whole conversation by Christian men about the role of women to be absolutely revolting. I can't help but feel as if they're objectifying women. I have read over and over about women's roles in the church. And I admit I often times find it hard to swallow. But I can understand that with God there is order in everything, and just as there is order in business organizations where one person is elected the CEO, I can see the same in the church, and in the home. It makes sense because God is a God of order.

 

But to define a woman and put her in a box because of one scripture and yet ignore the others because it's convenient is revolting.

 

You are not alone. :iagree:

[Kathleen in VA]

Great article. I like the fact that he pointed out, in reality, she will only have three children at home. Very balanced viewpoint. Thanks for posting.

[sdWTMer]

Very thought provoking:

http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5837

 

Thanks for posting this article.

[sdWTMer]

I have to admit, I was nervous about potentially reading yet another article claiming that a woman has no business running for office... It was nice to be pleasantly surprised.

 

Deborah isn't the only example of a strong female leader in the Bible, but she is the most glossed over, or dismissed female by many ultra conservative "Bible" teachers (I put the "Bible" in quotes, because many times it is their interpretation of the Bible they are teaching, or parts of the Bible NOT the Bible itself... you hear Titus 3 all the time -- but rarely in context... you hear Prov. 31 all the time, but selectively...)

 

Israel was one of the first nations (before it was even a nation) to allow women to inherit property. The driving force behind this effort was Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother. Maybe she should be considered the first person to fight for women's rights. :D

 

But Christians have a long history of ignoring parts of the Bible that do not suit them. The Puritans come to mind, here... women couldn't own anything, which was anti-Biblical and were treated as chattel -- little more than slaves. However, we have many ultra conservatives leading people this direction.

 

And, I say this as a Reformed Baptist leaning woman.

 

The whole issue of Palin in office has sent me back to my Bible more in the past week, searching for answers, references and guidelines.

 

The Bible is a collection of writings, and has to be interpreted as a whole -- not brought down to bits and pieces. When I hear bits and pieces being used to support a huge theological position, warning bells go off in my head.

 

It's kind of like hearing the term "Biblical grounds for divorce." If you read in the NT about divorce, there is only one reason -- "because of the harndess of man's heart." Yet, we are led to believe that "Biblical Divorce" is only because of adultery (according to the law, adulterers were to be killed, so Moses probably didn't have THAT in mind as justification for divorce.) Other things have been 'added" to that list (at times) by some -- but this is man's list -- not God's.

 

Thank you for posting a well reasoned conservative Biblically-based article. Here's hoping my brother reads it...:tongue_smilie:

 

Kudos to your post.

[CAMom]

Thank you for posting the article, Tracy.

 

This is an issue that I've been debating in my own mind since the VP announcement. I've really tried to remain teachable on it and this article gave me lots to think about!:)

[Remudamom]

Great article, I check his blog all the time, and his wife's too.