Bayly Throws A Rod — More Women In Office Conversation

Whoa … suddenly the train went off the track with a post by David Bayly over at Bayly Blog. I have some issues to take up with David Bayly here.

DB

Those who seek to undermine rules delight in their exceptions. Exceptions are the camel’s nose. But the fact that cars are to stay in their lanes doesn’t mean we should never, ever leave our lanes (to dodge a dog, for instance), despite the fact that lane-agnostics will jump on such departures as evidence that lane systems never work.

BLM

Ok, what this sounds like if I am to put the metaphor into the concrete is that the fact that women are not to serve as civil magistrates doesn’t mean we should never, ever vote for women magistrates. If that is part of what this analogy is trying to suggest I don’t think it works.

First of all creation order is the universal principle that we are to be sustaining. Violations to the creation order taken by way of exception should be taken by way of clearly articulated scriptural principles. Does God give us clear parameters when it is proper to disobey the creation order? Clarity is important here. I don’t think clarity is achieved when we appeal to historical descriptions in Biblical texts (i.e.– Deborah). By that clarity I can make the case that casting lots by pulpit committees is a Biblical way to choose potential Pastors.

Second, if exceptions can be legitimately pursued in the civil realm without clear didactic teaching from Scripture then why can not exceptions be legitimately pursued without clear didactic teaching from Scripture in the Church or family realm? Maybe Mary would be a better leader in the home than Fred. Maybe Matilda would be a better pastor than all of her male Seminary classmates.

Now I agree that exceptions occur. But I don’t agree that we are the ones who get to determine, apart from prescriptive portions of Scripture, when to make those exceptions. Certainly we may leave our lane but only with Biblical authorization to do so. God can leave the lanes anytime He pleases as He owns the highway. Indeed, He left the lane by installing Deborah, but we should never violate God’s revealed Word in Scripture (creation order) in order to support what we think God might be doing according to His eternal counsels.

DB

It’s not routinely good for Deborah to rule. Her rule is doubly due to effects of the fall. But rule she did–and with blessing.

BLM

Yes, she did rule but the fact that God interrupted His order is no license for His people to interrupt His order by doing something that violates His revealed will as articulated so well by Tim Bayly in his appeal to creation order. If God wants, according to His eternal counsels, a female magistrate (Deborah) or pastor or head of the home (Lydia) let Him do it. All because God raised up Deborah doesn’t mean that we can now vote for female magistrates. There are a good number of dots that have to be connected before we can find some kind of parallel between God violating His creation order and God’s people violating God’s creation order.

DB

Beyond the issue of such clear exceptions to the biblical standard of male authority, there are areas where we might need to discuss whether a position entails the kind of authority Scripture reserves for men. Does every female university professor rule over men? Does every female crossing guard rule over male drivers?

BLM

I haven’t seen any clear exceptions except the exceptions that God makes for Himself.

These problems we are having with this issue finds themselves being reduced if we put this in a biblical setting. In the times of Moses or the times of Christ where were women normatively ruling over men in ways that were not exceptions as created and granted by God? Where we find those exceptions is where we should place our exceptions.

DB

The only kind of logic that has a ready answer for every conceivable situation is the logic: 1) of the Pharisee, or; 2) of the rebel.

BLM

I don’t have a “ready answer” for every conceivable situation but I believe that there is an reasonable answer that can be eventually found for every conceivable situation.

To the law and to the testimony.

Am I a Pharisee or a Rebel?

Naturally

Recently at Green Baggins there was a dust up surrounding a book recommendation that Lane made. The book is by J. Ligon Duncan and it is an attempt to deconstructing Theonomy and Reconstructionism. Now recently I critiqued a paper by Duncan that he wrote on this very subject. You can find that critique here,

https://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&cat=18

I may decide to analyze some of the relativism that showed up in the thread at Green Baggins as many of the respondents there gnashed their teeth, threw dust into the air, and took a vow not to eat until all the theonomists were killed. (Would that they would keep their vows.)

The idiocy reached it’s high point when one gentleman said that

I don’t consider the theonomist challenges for us to objectively prove, without the Mosaic Law, that X is wrong and Y is the equitable punishment for X to be effective arguments. I may not know how to prove such things …

This is called apologetics by intuition. “I can’t prove how the theonomists are wrong on their desire to keep God’s law as the standard but I don’t need to prove it because I know they just must be wrong.”

Then this paragon of brilliance goes on to say,

Now the matter of *demonstrating* or proving the contents of innate knowledge like natural law in the manner of philosophers is notoriously difficult – and the theonomists want to make much hay out of this. It is certainly a lot nicer to have a black and white text to appeal to.

By all means, God wouldn’t want us to appeal to his inspired black and white text.

Second, when the natural law theorists finally do agree I am quite sure we will be going to their black and white texts to appeal to.

Third, it is notoriously difficult because it is impossible outside of a Christian Worldview. However if you have a Christian Worldview you don’t need to do it because then you will appeal to the black and white bible text which will correspond perfectly with the natural law you have “discovered” beginning with Christian presuppositions.

The above blockquoted statement is nothing but willful stupidity. Pagan philosophers will never prove the contents of innate knowledge because they are suppressing the truth of innate knowledge in unrighteousness. This is why Natural law will never ever work outside of a Christian environment. Natural law, like general revelation, most certainly exists, but those who keep appealing to Natural law as the standard by which the laws of nations or by which international law is made refuse to take into account the effect of the fall. Natural man as an axe to grind when he approaches Natural law. He will never conclude, starting from himself, how to govern himself in ways that are equitable and just.

All I know is that the Bible says that everyone knows natural law and is therefore culpable for it, whether or not I can do a good job of constructive arguments to prove those laws or not. The theonomist’s challenge cannot undo Romans 1.

What theonomist is trying to undo Romans 1?

What theonomist would deny that everyone knows natural law?

What the theonomist denies is that knowing natural law and admitting to knowing natural law are two different propositions. You see we read all of Romans 1 where we learn that the natural law that the natural man knows is being suppressed in unrighteousness. Since natural law is being suppressed by natural man Theonomist are not so stupid as to keep appealing to Natural law, as “discovered” and articulated by the natural man as the standard for being governed. Theonomy realizes that the natural man knows natural law but we also realize how natural the conclusion is that natural man will never admit to reading natural law right because he hates the author of natural law.

Two weeks of restoring my sanity on vacation, and somebody has to point out that thread on Green Baggins securing my restoration to edginess.

What Palin Told Us — Analysis of Gibson Interview

Because of the recently aired ABC interview Americans have their first beginning insight into Governor Sarah Palin. Below is a brief review of the interview.

Abortion question – Palin is not pro-life. Her position is that abortion is an issue that should be turned over to the States. Given this answer her position indicates that she would be satisfied on the abortion issue if all fifty states had the most liberal abortion laws as long as each of the states had determined the law for their state. Abortion is one issue where “States rights” as a theory isn’t acceptable. The Constitution gives the Federal Government the responsibility and role to protect life. Palin may be pro States-rights on this issue but she isn’t pro-life.

Also on the abortion issue it was interesting that Palin kept saying that “pro life was her personal opinion.” She didn’t explicitly contrast her personal opinion with what she would do in the way of public policy although the way she kept insisting that pro-life was her personal opinion one wondered what Palin public policy on abortion would be. Remember in 2004 John Kerry likewise said his personal opinion was that he didn’t like abortion although he couldn’t translate that into public policy. So the question is, will Sarah Palin translate her personal opposition to abortion into public policy. If Palin’s record as Governor of Alaska is any indication we should be slow about concluding that she would be willing to take abortion on in the public square.

Earmarks question – While Palin may be a Reformer in some sense, she clearly isn’t a Reformer on the earmarks question. She lobbied for earmarks while a Mayor. She accepted the earmark money for the Bridge to Nowhere, even if she didn’t build the bridge. Now, I understand the way Government works. I understand that politicians have a twisted responsibility to bring home the pork. I don’t like that but I understand it is the governing reality of the way things work. Therefore I am not surprised to learn that Palin tried to get her fair share (and maybe more) of the booty that was stolen from taxpayers through confiscatory taxation. What I am insulted by is the cynical attempt to try and sell to the nation that Palin is a reform politician when it comes to the pork and earmarks question. On this issue she is just another politician who operates just the same as Ted Stevens, Frank Murkowski, and all the rest.

National Security Credentials question – Would someone please tell me what the ability to see Russian territory from the State you Govern has anything to do with National security. It’s embarrassing to hear someone seriously put that forth has some kind of answer to how one is qualified on National Security questions. Also, with respect to National security issues, I am less than impressed with someone being in charge of the Alaska National guard. To be fair though, Obama doesn’t have any National security experience, and I can think of quite a number of other Vice Presidents that didn’t have National Security experience when they were tapped to be Vice President so I don’t think the lack of experience on this issue is that debilitating as it pertains to be qualified to be Vice President.

Homosexual Question — Palin was evasive on this issue and it seemed clear that she didn’t want to address the issue. Gibson tried to get her views on whether homosexuality is genetic or whether it is something that someone chooses. Palin dodged the question.

Sexist question – Charles Gibson asked whether or not it was sexist to ask a woman candidate about her ability to be Vice President given the reality that she has small children and a large family to care for. The very asking of this question indicates that there remains some sort of residue in the American psyche that a woman with a family should be spending the preponderance of her time nurturing her family. The reason that the same question is never asked of a man in the position Palin is in is because there is no residual belief that a man is supposed to be the nurturer to the family the way a mother is. The fact that Charlie Gibson can ask this question, albeit in an embarrassing and apologetic manner reveals the hypocrisy of many Christians who are flying right past this issue barely pausing to consider it. It seems that Charlie Gibson is more Christian then many Christians. At least he asked the question.

An alternative and more cynical explanation for Gibson’s “sexist question” is that by asking the question Gibson is not revealing some Christian worldview residual hangover but rather he is attempting to subtly expose the contradiction in the worldview of Palin’s social conservative Christian base. On one hand this base has long been opposed to the feminist agenda while on the other hand they are rallying around somebody who embraces substantial elements of the feminist agenda.

This reality is seen in what Palin had to say about Title IX. In answering Gibson’s “sexist question,” Palin said she was a product of Title IX. Social conservatives have consistently (and rightly) gnashed their teeth about Title IX legislation. Most have noted that Title IX legislation was an attack on the family and that its reason for being was feminist philosophy. Social conservatives have hated title IX legislation and now they are cheering and rallying behind someone who proudly proclaims that she is a product of Title IX.

Finally, on this whole feminism issue, Palin went out of her way again to praise Hillary Clinton. I understand that a great deal of what Palin is saying on this issue may possibly be for public consumption in order to pick off some feminist votes and may be contrived in such a way to make it difficult for the Marxist media establishment to oppose her but when Palin starts praising Hillary Clinton, as some kind of feminist role model I just feel ill to my stomach.

God Question – Here Gibson played a YouTube segment where Palin invokes God and His plan in Iraq. I am sure Palin had been briefed and coached on how to answer this question by the McCain campaign. On this question Palin went into full spin mode and somehow tried to offer Abraham Lincoln’s comments about needing to be on God’s side as an explanation for what she was saying on the YouTube comment. The answer made no sense whatsoever but given the possible explosiveness of this issue, Gibson left her incoherent answer alone. It should also be noted that Gibson didn’t give the whole context of the Palin quote. The way that Gibson framed the quote was significantly misleading.

Leaving Wasilla In Debt Question – Gibson pointed out that when Palin became Mayor, Wasilla was fiscally healthy while when she left office Wasilla was in debt. Gibson implied that such a reality hardly gave credence to the persona around Governor Palin that she is a fiscal conservative. Palin countered that the debt was due to the new sports facility for which Wasilla voters had opted in referendum. Palin thus suggested that the debt was legitimate since the voters had voted for it. Though, I understand that this is largely accepted reasoning I fail to understand how it is fiscally conservative for an elected official to allow 65% of the community which supports a sports arena (or whatever the vote was in Wasilla for the sports arena) to pick the pocket of 35% who voted against the sports arena. Why should a majority be allowed to vote to force a minority to join them in debt? Shouldn’t elected officials protect the interest of the minority in these matters?

There is one more thing that interests me about Palin given this interview. Several times Palin interjected some phrase like, “that’s my worldview.” I wish Gibson had picked up on that and had asked her to tease out what she meant by the idea of “worldview.” That might have been interesting.

As far as Gibson is concerned he was walking a tightrope in this interview. He can’t be perceived as going directly after her, or nothing he turns up in the way of negative information about Palin will be taken seriously because people will dismiss new revelations exposed by Gibson by saying that as a member of the elite media he was just trying to destroy her. On the other hand as a member of the Marxist media he clearly wants to destroy Palin. The whole God, Guns, and Life had to drive Gibson nuts. I would also say that Gibson came across in the interview as condescending and patronizing.

Given the way that the major media treats Palin I don’t know why the campaign just doesn’t boycott them and take their message to alternative media outlets. Such a move would be a blow against the major media outlets while at the same time giving legitimacy to the alternative outlets. I believe that the alternative outlets are strong enough now that such a move could be successful.

Another note of concern about Palin has come up in light of the continued unraveling of American financial institutions. Palin has said that we need to overhaul the nations oversight and regulatory apparatus since their inadequacy has led to the recent financial meltdown. The error with Palin’s position is that she is recommending a socialist solution (more and better government financial regulation) to a problem that was created by the very thing she is offering as a solution. The reason that financial institutions are melting down is that, because of Government involvement, those running the financial institutions that are melting down never had to worry about the shady investments being made because they knew that the Government would bail them out if those questionable investments went bad. In fairness Palin did say that letting Lehman brothers go down without a bailout was solid.

Meandering Thoughts On Election

Overall, I think we have reached the nadir of identity politics. Those of us with half a brain in our head realize that neither Obama nor Palin are qualified to be on their respective tickets but in the spirit of affirmative action we have nominated two unqualified people simply because of the amount of their melanin and because they have a uterus.

Also, I’ve been mulling the whole celebrity thing. First Obama reaches celebrity status and then Palin turns around and goes celebrity. It’s as if the mentality that created and attracts viewers to “The American Idol” has infused the Presidential campaign. I just don’t get it. Qualifications are irrelevant. All that is important is glitz.

This may be the strangest campaign cycle that I’ve ever studied and I’ve studied most of them. A black guy with a Muslim name who boasts about being a community organizer and who has lifelong ties to racists (Jeremiah Wright), terrorists (William Ayers), and Marxists (Saul Alinsky). A Pentecostal woman at the bottom of the ticket getting far more attention than the guy at the top of the ticket. Christians violating their historic convictions on God’s created order that teaches that men are to men lead in order to vote for a Pentecostal woman, who, for all we know may get a “word from the Lord” to bomb Iran.

Lewis Carroll couldn’t have created all this strangeness on his best day.

Sanity is hard to come by.