Sarah “Serpico” Palin And The Christian’s Quandry Part III

Now comes the “Quandry” part. In many respects Sarah Palin looks to be a an attractive candidate. Who could not admire and energetically cheer her decision to have a downs syndrome child? Just thinking of her decision to have this child brings tears to my eyes. Who could not want to support her and so stick their thumb in the eye of those in the liberal mainstream establishment who hate any thing that smacks ever so slightly of something remotely Christian? Sarah Palin seemingly has many of the right convictions but according to God’s word she is not the man for the job of Vice President and Christians who take Scripture seriously would be hard pressed to justify a vote for her.

First, Scripture teaches that God’s created order disallows a woman as civil magistrate. Though most American citizens and most American Christians hate it, the reality is that God’s word teaches that Man was to be the covenant head, and that woman was made to be man’s companion and help-meet. Scripture teaches (I Tim. 2:13, I Cor. 11:13, I Cor. 11:8-9) that the creation order was by design and that the teleological end of that creation order, in regard to male female relationships was that man should have positional, authority and leadership priority. The position of men and women in this regard is not something that is cultural, nor is it something that came about because of the fall, but rather the position of men and women is anchored in the creation order. People are welcome to defy that order but someone has to be the one who tells them that the snap-back of reality is painful.

Some will argue here that I am applying something that is perhaps true of the church and the family but is in no way true of the civil realm. This is not solid reasoning. First, Scripture clearly teaches that men are to be leaders in each of these authoritative realms that God has ordained. The man is to servant-rule in the home (Eph. 5:22-24), the church (I Tim. 2:11-14, I Cor. 14:34-35) and the civil realm (I Cor. 11:3, Ex. 18:21). It would be passing strange were God to ordain men to rule in realm of the Church and Family but allow Women to rule in the civil realm. Indeed, such an arrangement would make God the author of confusion. The fact remains, as our climate indicates, that if it is ever argued that women should be allowed to be leaders in any one realm only a matter of time will separate that argument from the argument that allows women to lead in all spheres.

To round off this first point we should answer a ready objection. Some will contend that even though it is not God’s ideal that women lead as civil magistrates that Christians still ought to vote for a female candidate if she is better qualified than her opposing male candidate. The problem with this argument is that such reasoning would lead us to similarly reason that a wife that is better qualified to lead her home than her husband should be allowed to do so on that basis. The problem in such reasoning is apparent.

Second, Scripture explicitly teaches that one qualification for civil magistrate is maleness. Whenever Scripture speaks to the issue of qualifications for those in the civil realm it universally speaks to men. Now, we may wish that wasn’t the case till the cows come home but our wishing doesn’t change what the Scriptures teach. The constant premise of Scripture is that men will be the civil magistrates. A look at Ex. 18:21 and Deut. 1:13 reveals that the call for magistrates begins with maleness. The Hebrew word for ‘men’ in those passages is the gender specific word for individuals of the male persuasion. Further the guidelines in Deut. 17:14-20 for a future King assumes maleness since that future King is to be a “brother” and is forbidden to multiply wives. Further references that reinforce this observation are II Sam. 23:3, Neh. 7:2, Prov. 16:10, 20:8, 28, 29:14, 31:4-5, Rom. 13:1-6.

Now, there will be those who disregard such an argument by saying that “that was just their culture, so naturally they wrote that way.” Such an approach fails to take into account the creation order argument made above. Further such an objection evacuates the idea that Scripture is Holy Spirit inspired. The Holy Spirit chose the very words of Scripture and the words He chose for civil magistrate leadership are words that are rightly translated ‘male.’ We may not like it and so we may develop all kinds of gymnastic hermeneutics to escape it but the Scriptures teach what they teach. The explicit teaching of Scripture is that God follows His created order by requiring that civil magistrates, like Elders and Fathers be male.

Thirdly, the teaching of Proverbs on what constitutes a virtuous woman implies a rejection of women being civil magistrates. In Proverbs 31 we find the teaching that the center of a woman’s interest should be her home. This observation cuts deeply on the Sarah Palin nomination because Governor Palin is in a position where she needs to be giving all of her attention to her home. Now, the idea that women should find the center of their reality in the home is passé in our times. This is clearly seen in the Palin nomination, as it seems to be subtly suggested that because Palin has been nominated as Vice President women have now arrived where the really important action is unlike that crummy work of being a wife and mother. Proverbs 31 also teaches that it is the virtuous woman’s husband who sits in the gate (serves as civil magistrate) and not the virtuous woman herself. Now, Prov. 31 does teach that the importance of the virtuous woman is lauded in the city gate, no doubt by her husband, as her works are praised in the city gate. I fully recognize that it is difficult to hear but Christians do women a godly favor by not voting for them in as civil magistrates.

Fourthly, Scripture indicates that female leadership is a judgment against a people. In Isaiah 3:12, the prophet, as God’s spokesman, wails over the state of the covenant community proclaiming, “As for my people, children rule over them and women are their oppressors…” Sarah Palin’s nominee to be Vice President is yet one more indication of God’s judgment against both the nation and the Christians in the nation. It indicates that the Church has lost its saltiness and its light bearing capacity to repel darkness. Further, the fact that so many Evangelical Christian are wetting their pants in glee over this nomination reveals, once again, how Evangelicals are leading the way in applauding God’s judgment against them.

Fifthly, the example of Deborah proves at best that God will use female leadership as a reproach to men to accomplish his ends. Many will appeal to Deborah as an example of God using women as civil magistrates. The problem with this is that the account of Deborah clearly indicates the weakness of men. Also from Scripture we learn that God directly raised up Deborah to do his work, in light of the weakness of men. I seriously doubt that anyone would make the argument that God has directly raised up, in a revelatory sense, Sarah Palin in light of the weakness of men to be a civil magistrate.

Also on this score we must be careful that we don’t take an instance from one of Israel’s lowest and most confused points to overturn the clear and explicit teaching of Scripture on male leadership in the civil realm. God can speak through Donkeys but we would be wrong to set out in the pastures waiting for God’s Word from an Ass. Even so God can lead through women in the civil magistrate but it is sin for us to vote for women against God’s explicit Word in hope that God will give us another Deborah.

Finally, some will argue that as America is not a covenanted nation then Christians shouldn’t have to worry about God’s standards on voting. It is true that America is not a covenanted nation but it is not true that God’s standards therefore do not apply to the Christians dwelling in the non-covenanted nation. Christians for their part must continue to apply God’s standards and that means not voting in favor of God’s judgment.

Everything I’ve read suggests that Sarah Palin is a fine woman. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, though she seems to be ideologically in the right place, she remains the wrong man for the Vice Presidency. Still, because of this Nomination I see John McCain winning convincingly in November. Would that Christians wouldn’t join themselves with this judgment.

Sarah “Serpico” Palin And The Christian’s Quandry Part II

Now, Sarah Palin does not come without her weaknesses to the McCain campaign.

First, certainly the McCain campaign believes that Palin will be able to thrive in atmosphere that they have placed her, but it remains an open question whether or not Palin will be able to move from the greenhouse of Alaska where she has been growing to the harsh national environment to which she has now been transplanted. Juneau isn’t Washington D.C. and the Fairbanks media isn’t the New York media. This woman, because of her pro-life, pro-Jesus, pro-America, anti-buggery, anti-global warming positions is in for a crap-storm the likes she has never known. Can she withstand it? I believe that the media and the left establishment will seek to do to Palin what they did to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, because I believe that she is just that kind of threat to the establishment. Sarah Palin strikes me as an American every woman, who caught a lightning bolt to the Alaska Governor’s chair. Is this American every woman who loves Jesus, looks after her children, satisfies her husband, and hunts and fishes on the side tough enough and clever enough to mix it up with the smarmy Ivy League serpent bastards who own the court that surrounds the Presidency? I honestly fear for this woman.

Second, while Palin helps McCain ideologically speaking she does almost nothing for him regionally speaking. Alaska has three electoral votes and while every electoral vote in this campaign is going to count, one has to wonder whether or not McCain would have been better served to choose someone with better regional and electoral heft.

Third, Palin’s inexperience is a wild card in this whole campaign. Certainly, she has more experience than Obama but will voters still voter for her realizing that 72-year-old men drop dead all the time? The idea of being one heartbeat from the presidency takes on deeper meaning when the guy at the top of the ticket is comparatively close to the average life expectancy of an American male. It is true that Palin has more experience than Obama but that is not saying much and one has to wonder if the average voter is ready to put someone whose resume swells at being mayor of a city of 9000 who has been Governor of a small state for less than two years a heartbeat from the presidency. I press this issue because I think it is more likely that Palin will be President upon the death of John McCain then it is that Barack Hussein Obama will ever become President.

Fourth, on the inexperience subject again, one wonders how she is going to fare in the Vice Presidential debates. People, should realize that politics, like any other profession, is not for novices. If Sarah Palin cannot hold her own against Biden on national television that will severely hurt John McCain. Palin is in the position where she must become expert enough in a whole number of national and international issues to be able to speak on convincingly and intelligently. As Governor of Alaska has she thought about Georgia and Russia? As Governor of Alaska has she pondered the ins and outs of the strength of the dollar in foreign markets? As Governor of Alaska what does she think about Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac? There will be no hiding any ignorance of these subjects and a similar host of them while on public television in a nationally broadcast debate.

The final section will seek to lay out an argument on why Biblical Christians can never vote for women civil magistrates – not even female civil magistrates that might otherwise serve our agenda

Sarah “Serpico” Palin And The Christian’s Quandry Part I

Republican Presidential nominee John McCain has tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential running mater for campaign 2008. Considered from the non-Christian view of political pragmatism McCain’s choice, strategically and tactically speaking is brilliant. Now, no Biblical Christian should be able to vote for McCain solely on the basis of his choosing Palin as his VP but nonetheless from a purely politically pragmatic perspective McCain did himself a favor by choosing Palin.

In this article I am going to examine, from the non-Christian view of pure pragmatism, why McCain’s choice is exceptional. Second, I am going to examine the weaknesses that Palin brings to the ticket. Lastly, I am going to probe as to why it is that Biblical Christians cannot cast their vote against Christ by voting for female civil magistrates.

McCain’s choice of Palin is politically incisive for several reasons. First, it energizes McCain’s base which is something the man has sorely need to do since he won the Republican primaries. Because of Palin’s presence on the ticket many Evangelicals will follow James Dobson’s instant conversion and forget McCain’s weak pro-life stance, and McCain’s essentially liberal (neo-con) persona and positions and pull the lever for McCain in November. By choosing Palin McCain has gone a long way towards repairing the destruction that has been done to the Reagan Coalition by the Bush’s. Now, McCain will not treat that coalition constituency any better than the Bush’s have but at this point, with this choice, he has successfully fooled them into thinking that he will. With this choice enough Reagan Democrats will again vote Republican to convincingly give McCain the election.

Second McCain’s choice of Palin is stellar, pragmatically speaking, because it sets up the Republican future. If McCain wins (and I think he will with this choice unless Palin experiences some kind of Eagleton moment) McCain has bequeathed the Republican party a heir apparent that is Reaganesque in her convictions. Republicans have been looking for the second coming of Reagan since he left office and Palin might be the one who fills that desire. Indeed, Palin is such a good choice that her presence on the ticket could have coatails for the Republican party.

Third, McCain’s choice of Palin undercuts the ability of Democrats to tie McCain to George Bush which has clearly been a large part of Democrat strategy to date. Palin has a persona of fighting corruption within the Republican establishment. She is cast as a Rebel who has never fit into the “good old boy” network. By choosing Palin, McCain underscores his “Maverick” reputation and makes Democrat allegations that McCain will be the continuation of the Bush presidency lose all traction.

Fourthly, on a point I never will get, Palin will gain McCain female votes that he would not have otherwise received. For reasons that I will never comprehend people will vote for people who are like them even if those people they are voting for positions that stand in ideological contrast to them. Why a former Hillary supporter would vote for Palin just because both Hillary, and Palin, as well as the voter have the same genitalia will always baffle me.

Fifthly, Palin’s executive experience stands in contrast to the executive experience at the top of the Democratic ticket. Were I the Republican campaign managers I would put subtly inject this into the campaign as well as the contrast between Palin’s “Serpico” persona vis a vis Obama’s connections with some very unsavory and unethical people.

Sixthly, it is already obvious that Palin can give a speech. This ability is overwhelmingly under-rated today. It’s importance not only lies in the perspicuous attractiveness that it brings to a candidate but it also communicates mega-volumes about a persons thinking ability. People who can speak are usually intelligent people. This ability to speak adds to Palin’s telegenic presence. Already it is easy to see that Palin is one of those politicians that has a charm about her that draws people. This helps McCain because McCain doesn’t have that in any degree.

Part II, the weaknesses of Palin.

Part III, why Christians can’t vote for female magistrates.

DNC — Night # 4 — Obama Nation

I couldn’t help but think of those magnificent outdoor rallies held by the National Socialist Party in 1930’s Germany as I watched the Black nationalist, terrorist connected, Marxist embracing Barack Hussein Obama. In Berlin those many years ago, at those mass outdoor Nazi rallies, the choreography was precision, the rhetoric was magnificent, and the mindless were mesmerized. In Denver last night, the choreograph was precision, the rhetoric was teleprompter perfect, and the mindless were mesmerized.

In order to get to the point of standing before tens of thousands of Germans Hitler had his Goebbels, Himmler, and Rohm that brought him to that point. Likewise, Obama has had his henchman. Men like Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Tony Rezko and William Ayers brought Obama to his moment in the limelight. If a man is known by the company he keeps then Obama is a bad man.

In Obama’s speech, he made it clear at the beginning that the role of the Government is to be the provider for the struggling American. This idea has been a theme throughout the convention. The Democrats believe this to be compassion when in point of fact the idea that the government is responsible to look out after struggling people is an invasion of spheres that belong to family and Church. The issue really boils down to security provided by the government vs. freedom of men from the suffocating hug of a Nanny state.

Obama promised tax cuts for 95% of the population. But the problem with this promise is that there is no way that Obama can create socialized Health Care, provide affordable college education for all who desire it, invest in renewable energy and its research and development, pay teachers higher salaries, and provide for free preschool while at the same time cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. Obama is going to do this by going after corporations and by streamlining American government. Somehow Democrats don’t ever understand that people who have lots of money (corporations) are smart enough to either pass on the costs of taxes or to avoid them all together.

Obama promised to eliminate oil dependence in ten years. He did not say how it he would pursue this ambitious goal. At this point it almost seems as if Obama is smoking crack. In my mind there is no way these United States can be energy independent in ten years while at the same time maintaining a cohesive social order. People just don’t realize the mammoth undertaking it will be to get this country energy independent, and to promise to do so in ten years, starting almost from scratch, is just delusional. It is not only that alternate energy sources have to be discovered and developed its also that those sources have to be manufactured, distributed, and marketed, on a continental scale. This ambition makes Kennedy’s promise of going to the moon look like child’s play. Indeed, this promise of Obama sounds more like Mao’s promise of “a great leap forward,” then it does the rational of a reasonable politician. Obama can get away with this kind of rhetoric because the average person has no idea what it would take to become energy independent. This promise of Obama’s may be the most disconcerting of all because if he is serious the implications for our social order would be devastating.

The inexperienced Obama made the case that he would be a better commander in chief than the former POW Republican nominee. At this point of the speech Obama became almost combative. Obama made it clear that he is not going to be timid in this election. If McCain is willing to mix it up this is good news for McCain. An aggressive Obama is only going to reinforce some stereotypes that some people have. I don’t say this as a partisan for McCain. It matters very little to me whether McCain or Obama wins. The result is going to be the same.

In short the speech was the same thing we have heard from the Democrats since forever. Since 1972 and the McGovernizing of the Democratic party the Democratic party is leftist, Marxist and believers in centralized big government. Whether the candidate is McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or, now Obama, it’s all the same rhetoric and all the same policy. Bigger Government. Increased taxation. More spending. Different year…different face…same verse.

Obama promised that he would never question McCain’s patriotism, believing that the country needed to get beyond that kind of partisan childishness. I believe the reason that Obama did this is not because of his nobility in desiring to raise the tone of political campaigns but rather it is because the issue of patriotism is potentially Obama’s achilles heel. If Obama’s past catches up to him before the first Tuesday in November the issue of his patriotism as it pertains to his connections to William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright is going to be front and center of this campaign. Obama by his high tone on patriotism is trying to do a preemptive strike on this potential problem.

Obama tried to cut his losses on issues like abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and second amendment concerns, by using extreme examples to suggest that even though we disagree we can come together as a people by admitting that abortions should be fewer, homosexuals ought to be able to visit their dying spouse in the hospital, an illegal immigrant mother should never be separated from her child, or that gun owners in rural Iowa can’t object to declining guns to gang bangers in inner city Cleveland. This makes great rhetoric but there really is nothing substantive in Obama’s observation.

Personally, I’ve never been impressed by Obama’s ability to speak. I know I am in the minority in that observation. I’ve spent a good amount of time reading great speeches. I have spent my whole life listening to great speakers whenever possible. I don’t believe Obama is even a good speaker, though I willingly concede that many Americans are mesmerized by the man’s speaking ability.

Overall the speech was sold as one that would give specifics to the change that Obama has advocated for so long. The specifics that were given were concrete enough to satisfy those who are demanding specifics but still nebulous enough to avoid the necessary details.

Obama was not Martin Luther King tonight. Imagine him instead as a political version of Nat Turner closing in on the political kill. He was the resolute Virgil Tibbs in the Hollywood film “Heat of the Night,” battling against all those who would deny him his place. He was, to paraphrase Joe Biden, a clean, articulate, bright version of Malcolm X.

DNC — Night # 3 — Old Democratic Guard Hurl Haymakers

Tonight at the Democratic National Convention the Democrats trotted out Loser Swift Boat Kerry, Adulterer and Perjurer Clinton, and The Mouth Biden.

The themes that united their speeches was the attack of John McCain and the contention that America’s domestic (economy) and foreign (war in Iraq) policy is tattered and in ruins. People need to understand that the way party out of power replaces the party in power is by convincing people of economic downturn or of a major foreign policy blunder. The Democrats, by arguing that everything is coming unraveled are only pursuing a course that they would pursue even if the nation were in the middle of Utopian renewal.

It is interesting that many of the Democrats have emphasized family themes in their speeches. The Democrats have to do this because they are the party of weirdo wiccans, hate-mongering homosexuals, and militant minorities. As such they need to give a botox treatment to their family credentials in order to work out the ugly weirdo wrinkles.

Now, everyone here knows I carry no brief for the Republican party but the idea that Democrats can fix the domestic and foreign blunders of the Republican party that the Democrats are complicit in is like saying that a Bulimic can provide healthy counseling for the problems of an anorexic.

All of the speeches tonight tipped their hats to John McCain in terms of personal friendship or real respect for all the he went through in Vietnam, but after that tip of the hat all the speakers tore into McCain as being out of touch with suffering Americans and hard times. The solution for all the speakers was Government coming to people’s rescue. One speaker after another insisted that Government would fix the various problems of expensive health care, expensive college, and lack of jobs.

In his speech Perjurer Clinton couldn’t resist talking about himself. In his speech Kerry was still working to expunge the damage that the Swift Boat truths did to his credibility from four years ago. In his speech Biden politicized his first wife’s and daughter’s death after he was first elected to Senate. This politicization of personal tragedy, (which most politicians do) in my opinion is not a great deal different than flashers exposing themselves in public. There is something inherently diseased about how politicians emotionally expose themselves.

As a side note — If McCain chooses a US Senator as his Vice President this campaign is going to look like a Senate cat-fight.