For sheer entertainment value, I think American politics in general, and Presidential campaigns in particular, are about the best bang for my buck, even as a non-American. For little more than the cost of an internet connection I can spend endless hours being amused. This 2008 campaign may be the most entertaining yet. While I rarely use this blog to discuss politics (and especially when I’m as ignorant of a topic as I am with U.S. politics), today I’ll make the rare exception. Over the past few days I’ve bookmarked a whole lot of links and today will try to tie a few of them together.
Sarah Palin is undoubtedly the most electrifying and polarizing figure we’ve seen in U.S. politics for a long, long time. She has completely changed the face of election. A week ago the media could not break away from Barack Obama. Today Sarah Palin is dominating the discussion. She was the perfect foil; if anyone doubts McCain’s smarts, I’d say he has proven himself the wily veteran with this pick. This has become an Obama vs. Palin election. At least for now, McCain is taking a back seat in his own Presidential election campaign. It’s all about Sarah. Chuck Colson’s article on clashing worldviews is interesting reading. “In the life of Sarah Palin, we see the clash of worldviews playing out before our own eyes. Consider every major controversial issue in American politics and culture right now … and somehow, they touch her personally.” Everyone can either love or hate Palin; few are ambivalent.
It’s little wonder that many evangelicals are quickly learning to love her. The little boy Piper Palin spit-shined in front of the nation is living, breathing proof of Palin’s commitment to life—probably the single most important issue to a vast number of Christians. In an age when 90 or 95 out of every 100 children with Down Syndrome are destroyed, Trig is, well, alive. That, in and of itself, is almost miraculous today. Asked about her brother’s Syndrome, Palin’s daughter Willow said, “I don’t care - he’s my brother and I love him.” Trig is exactly who God made him to be and he is a gift to that family.
But the greatest source of Palin’s appeal must be her sheer normalcy. She is exactly the kind of pit bull hockey mom you’d meet anywhere in Alaska (or Canada). She’s so unlike the majority of the politicians who strive for the White House. It seems almost a mistake that she is up on that platform.
People on the Loony Left know they hate Palin but they are struggling with how to hate her. They turned first on her children, insisting that her infant son could not possibly be her own. They smeared her for having a baby in her “old age” (as if they all had their families in their prime child-bearing years) and determined that the baby must be her daughters’. The stupendous stupidity of leveling and believing such a charge showed just how far people would stoop to attempt to discredit her. Of course the controversy was quickly resolved when the McCain campaign announced that Palin’s daughter was pregnant with a child of her own. Perhaps worst of all, she was going to keep the baby and will marry the father. While I read many articles assuring the American public that Palin was lying about being the mother of Trig, I don’t recall reading nearly so many retractions or apologies.
Things got even weirder than this. Liberal feminists (is that redundant?) began to turn on Palin. You would think women would be thrilled to see a woman who is poised to rise higher in government than any woman before her, but this was not the case. While these feminists would have cheered Hillary Clinton as President or Vice President, Palin was not exactly the woman they had in mind. Not the hockey mom, church-going mother of five who is undoubtedly a better shot than Dick Cheney! And not the woman who is a powerful figure while remaining feminine and attractive. Stand to Reason says “One of the things that bugs me about the Feminist movement is it seems to tell women that they have to act like men to be equal to them. And in the process women are no longer feminine and instead take on some of the worst aspects of masculine nature… Gov. Palin seems to have a feminine appeal while displaying her capability and strength.”
And so feminists wondered if she could possibly take care of her family while dealing with her responsibilities as Vice President. The feminists said this! Eventually there was something of a backlash and prominent feminists were forced to speak out. But the damage had already been done—we had seen another example of how far the left is willing to go to discredit this McCain/Palin ticket. They’ll gladly violate their own principles to keep McCain out of the White House. It truly was a shameful week for the press.
Interestingly, while feminists have been asking whether Palin can care for her nation and her family, Christians have been wondering the same. Is it right for a woman to take on a position of such responsibility? Is it right for her to assume a position of leadership? No sooner had Palin been announced than Voddie Baucham wrote a much-publicized article in which he said this: “My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition [in Titus 2] should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.” Baucham believes that the pro-life party is using Palin as a pawn in a move that is distinctly anti-family. Those who know of Baucham will know that he is very conservative when it comes to the role of women (going so far in The Return of the Daughters to suggest that women should probably not go to college).
Other more moderate conservative Christians spoke up. Writing for the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, David Kotter asked, “Does Sarah Palin Present a Dilemma for Complementarians?” He answered very well, saying, “From the outset we must remember that on November 4 the voters will not elect a national minister or pastor in chief. A president is not held to the same moral standards as an elder of a church. While it is a blessing from God to have ethical or even Christian political leaders, the Bible places no such requirements on secular governments. Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world.” Al Mohler agrees, saying “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.”
One blog I appreciated was Amy’s (which has 173 comments and counting). Amy takes issue with the automatic assumption that a woman’s highest calling is to be a wife and mother. “Being a wife and mother is a good and noble thing, but it is not the highest thing.”
And I firmly agree with Amy and Mohler and Kotter. While Christians do want to maintain the focus on the family we have to be careful about stating categorically that a woman has no business running for Vice President. Palin’s decision is one to be made with her family and with counsel from her local church. Beyond that we, as Christians, have to trust her judgment in this kind of disputable matter. Far be it from us to declare that she cannot do both and that she cannot do both with excellence.
The timing of this campaign is interesting since we are likely to be facing an election here in Canada in the weeks to come. Palin is an unique figure and for so many reasons. Her husband is a snowmobile racer, for goodness sake. I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets a few write-in votes in our election.




Comments (60) »
1. diablaazul
September 5, 2008
10:10 AM
I don’t know which liberal or feminist blogs you’re reading, but your characterization of the “loonly [sic] left” and their reaction to Palin is just dead wrong. I could provide you with multiple links from liberal and/or feminist blogs defending Palin’s right to raise her family and work as she sees fit, lambasting the original internet rumors as crass and sexist, and defending Briston Palin’s right to privacy. And lots of liberals and feminists know the difference between hating a politician and hating their policy stances. This post is full of ad hominem stereotyping of a huge group of people just because you happen to disagree with their political worldview, and that’s a real shame.
I will say that I am amused but not surprised to see a defense of Palin from the same Tim Challies who implied just a few months ago that a real Prov. 31 woman finds ways to supplement her family’s income from the home rather than working outside the home - because that means putting her family first. It’s interesting to see how complementarians finagle the Palin candidacy in their minds (and on their blogs) to make it ok to vote for her despite the fact that they would have serious reservations about her life choices if they went to church with her. For the record, I am not a complementarian, and I am mostly liberal in my politics and a feminist (yes, one of the loony left!). I don’t think it’s anyone’s business what Sarah and Todd Palin decide is best for their family, or what Bristol Palin or any one of their kids is up to.
2. Nick Mitchell
September 5, 2008
10:26 AM
Being Canadian I have never really been interested in U.S. politics. However, Palin does intrigue me. This was a great post Tim. Thanks!
3. Tim Challies
September 5, 2008
10:33 AM
I will say that I am amused but not surprised to see a defense of Palin
I’m pretty sure I’m not defending her; nor am I endorsing her (as if that would mean anything). I’m just offering my perspective as something of an outsider to U.S. politics. Love her or hate her, she’s an awfully interesting character.
4. Chris Roberts
September 5, 2008
10:56 AM
I had not heard of Baucham’s article but am glad you shared it. I’m among those that are a bit hesitant to see a woman in the role of VP. One of my bigger sources of dismay is that so many conservative Christians are completely ignoring the dilemma. Your article had good info but even here you don’t really address the biggest question we should be asking: why is it that the role of women is one thing in the home and church but something else in society and politics? The CBMW article was good but even it failed to address the question. No, the president is not a religious leader. But why should the principles by which we choose the leader of the nation be so very different? What is it that makes the role of a secular leader so different that Christians should not apply the same principles when choosing who to support?
Many Palin supporters - even very conservative complementarians - are angry that anyone would question whether a woman should be VP. On the other hand I am amazed that people aren’t at least willing to recognize why this is a real dilemma.
5. Flora
September 5, 2008
11:04 AM
I’ve been reading through 2 Samuel and there’s no doubt that the Lord raises up extra-ordinary women for extra-ordinary times. ” I am among the peaceable and faithful in Israel. You seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why would you swallow up the inheritance of the Lord?” Chapter 20:19
It takes an extra-ordinary woman to juggle a “Blackberry” and a breast-pump and to be willing to take on this role in the same year in which she has coped with the pregnancy and birth of of a handicapped child and the pregnancy of a teenage daughter. The Lord is Sovereign and it seems that He has raised her up “for a time such as this”. Whatever our views, she needs the prayers of all faithful Christians.
I am so thankful that our Canadian election will be over in about a month!
6. Tim Challies
September 5, 2008
11:06 AM
On the other hand I am amazed that people aren’t at least willing to recognize why this is a real dilemma.
I think Christians are right to think about this one. Whether or not it’s a dilemma…well, perhaps it is. I think if you read the article by Mohler and the one by CBMW you’ll get a sense of good thinking on the subject. Essentially, the Bible does not dictate that a woman may not be a political leader and it does not dictate that a woman must remain in the home with her family. Hence we can term this a disputable matter. Maybe the majority of Christians would determine that they could not do what Palin is doing, but it is not a matter where we need to be dogmatic. I can say “If you want to be faithful you must believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead” but I cannot say, “If you want to be faithful you must believe that a mother of five should not be Vice President.”
7. Chuck
September 5, 2008
11:26 AM
ahhh…Tim got political.
8. Marge S.
September 5, 2008
11:30 AM
You say, “Far be it from us to declare that she cannot do both and that she cannot do both with excellence.” I think that the fact that she has a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter might indicate that she can’t do both with excellence. I understand that the daughter is ultimately responsible for her actions, but perhaps more parental involvement, especially on the part of her mother, might have prevented the daughter from making such unwise choices.
9. Tyler Giles
September 5, 2008
11:33 AM
Gov. Palin is the very same kind of fiscally irresponsible Bush-conservative that McCain condemned last night. Theatrical stunts like ebaying the governor’s jet don’t amount to anything next to the $223M Bridge to Nowhere she supported (against the protests of the bush community that would host it); or that as mayor of Wasilla she took her town of 6700 millions of dollars into the red, so that they had to hire a city manager to bail them out; or the $200M of projects she requested personally from Sen. Stevens last February.
This feminism-family-love-hate business is just smoke and mirrors. The truth will out, and when people realize she’s just another big-government Bush social conservative, they’ll realize that they never really wanted “reform” in the first place.
10. Rick
September 5, 2008
11:45 AM
Hi Tim,
Thank you for sharing your article on Palin, and for including a link to the Newsweek article on Palin’s church upbringing. Prior to encountering that Newsweek link, I wasn’t really sure what to make of Palin’s church background. I had come across several press releases that featured Palin’s own statements on her church background (or sometimes statements from her staffers). And Palin was presented as someone who had once led her high school FCA chapter, but seemed to not be as involved in the life of the visible church therafter into her adult years; and she would generally describe herself as “Protestant” without going into any real detail.
At the time of encountering those press releases, I didn’t know what to make of them, whether they were valid or not, or whether they truly quoted Palin or just paraphrased her wrongly. If these press releases were valid, and Palin did at one time show vagueness in her church background, there are a couple of things that would come to mind for me. In one sense, I could understand Palin’s reason for not giving much detail; she might have had concern that she would be putting across a particular local church or denomination as the establishment of religion (or rather, her language could suggest that, and critics would roll with it).
But in another sense, as someone who grew up in the Washington DC area, I am very familiar with people who work in think tanks and public policy centers and who often give vague insights into church backgrounds. Many of them came from a Christian upbringing, but left that behind heading into their adult years, and now they’ve replaced the Gospel with a functional messiah, like social ethics or public policy. And typically the line I hear from them is that they hail from some other part of the country, but made the move to DC to get involved in public service or to “make a difference” - which, if I’m reading between the lines, I take that to mean that they’re running away from some sort of self-perceived “backwards” life of their childhood and their church upbringing, and ultimately running away from God. And so when they say, “Oh, I’m just Protestant,” or something along that line of vagueness, they actually really mean it; there’s a disconnection of their lives from that term.
So when I saw press releases of Palin offering that same line, and her FCA involvement being portrayed as her most extensive involvement in the visible church, a red flag went off in my mind. I was thinking, “It’s not uncommon for many folks in public policy in DC to say that.” And I was concerned that Palin, even though she was presented as someone favorable to conservatives and evangelicals, really did not have a fellowship connection in a local church. (That’s actually not uncommon at all among evangelical Christians in American culture, even among Reformed evangelicals; many of them do not get plugged in to a home church.) But the Newsweek article did clear up some fears for me. Palin does seem to have an interest in being involved in the visible church, and that it wasn’t a passing fancy from her teen years. I was very relieved to see that.
I would probably still say that we should offer prayer to the Lord on behalf of Palin, based on the Biblical instruction to offer prayer on behalf of civil authorities in 1 Timothy. 1 Timothy quotes Paul’s saying to Timothy that the Christians are to offer prayer and intercessions and thanksgiving to God on behalf of governing authorities, for this is pleasing to God, who wants men everywhere to repent. I would say with the Lord that this prayer concern of 1 Timothy is particularly important in two areas for Palin: her pursuit of spirituality while pursuing and upholding civil office, and also regarding her own family’s situation of the unmarried pregnancy. Regarding Palin’s pursuit of the vice presidential office: it’s often difficult to seek relationship with God while being distracted by the ebb and flow of politics, and Palin needs the Gospel just as much as anyone else. It’s good to pray to the Lord on that matter.
But also, regarding Palin’s family and the pregnancy: a lot of evangelicals see unmarried pregnancy as a growing norm for their lives now that sexual liberation has transited from postmodern secular culture into the visible church. Evangelicals have grown to just accept unmarried sex as a normal thing and passively offer forgiveness for the consequences of unmarried sex, rather than understand the brokenness of their sexual attitudes by God’s Word. I don’t know if the pastor quoted about the pregnancy in the Newsweek article would agree with such relaxed standards; but a lot of evangelicals would read that quote and more readily conform to such standards.
And in Palin’s case, the pregnancy may indicate that her daughter has a real struggle with the concept of having a new identity before God based solely on the justifying work of Jesus at the cross, and the gift of new birth from the Holy Spirit. And it may not be just the daughter; the Palin family and their church may have a real struggle to that end as well. So it would be good to offer prayer to the Lord on behalf of the Palin family and their handling of the pregnancy and their overall lives under the new birth and justifying grace of the Gospel. This would bring the church and its evangelical tradition to good reputation before Palin and other governing authorities for the advancement of the Gospel, in secular American culture and elsewhere.
11. David Kjos
September 5, 2008
11:46 AM
I’m quite sure that Palin “cannot do both with excellence.” However, the fact that her daughter is pregnant is not proof of that. These things happen even in homes where everything is done right (if such a place exists). Bristol Palin’s pregnancy may be the result of many factors, but it really proves only one thing: that she is a sinner, just like the rest of us.
12. Ed G.
September 5, 2008
11:48 AM
Sarah Palin is a committed Christian. She’s “one of us.” If she’s elected Vice President, however, she’ll sooned be immersed in the secular and (socially, even among Republicans) ultraliberal culture that is Washington.
Will she remember her roots and bring middle-American values to Washington? That’s the $64,000 question. See Vice President Sarah Palin: Will She Remember Her Middle Class Roots?
13. Tim Challies
September 5, 2008
11:50 AM
However, the fact that her daughter is pregnant is not proof of that.
I quite agree with this. Even the best and most attentive of parents may be disappointed by the actions and decisions of their children.
14. Ochuk
September 5, 2008
11:53 AM
Tim,
I am not sure that CBMW is so unanimous. Looking at their archived articles I found some divergent views on women’s leadership on the national stage.
For example, Barbara K. Mouser in The Womanliness of Deborah asks, “Does Deborah provide an historical precedent that overturns the principle of male leadership in the home and nation?” Obviously, she presupposes that there IS a principle of male leadership in the nation and seems to infer it from Isaiah 3:12, “Isaiah tells us that the rule of women is a sign of degeneracy, not liberation.” She even goes so far to say that Deborah is only “judging” but is not a “judge” (!) as the book of Judges understands the role. Her desire, according to Mouser, was to strengthen men and not replace them, and therefore she should not be seen as a head of state.
Kim Pennington, in her article Able to Teach and Complementarian?, observes that the Old Testament shows a pattern of male leadership for the nation of Israel, and that Isaiah 3:12 demonstrates that national female leadership is “unnatural and grievous to God.” She also sticks to the line of reasoning that Deborah really wasn’t a judge since she did all of her governing privately.
Stuart W. Scott in Profiling Christian Masculinity concludes that because God gave men headship in marriage and the church and gave leadership positions to men in Israel, “It is obvious that God has given man the role of ultimate leadership.”
Finally, in an interview with John Piper, he answers a question about political leadership saying, “When a man and a woman have similar qualifications, I’m inclined to think that we should vote for the man. I would probably say it even stronger than that in light of Isaiah 3:12, where part of the judgment of God upon His people is to subject them to being ruled by women.”
In light of these previous statements, it seems to me that there is a large concession happening when Kotter says, “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.” It looks like there needs to be a discussion among complementarians as to what the Bible teaches about women in society, because it does not seem clear to them what exactly it is.
15. Chris Roberts
September 5, 2008
11:53 AM
Tim,
Mohler, CBMW and others have offered some good thoughts but have not actually addressed the dilemma. No, Scripture doesn’t address the role of women in politics - it doesn’t really address the role of _ANYONE_ in politics! Such societies were not organized in a way that such discussions were even necessary. Nonetheless, it does talk about the roles of men and women. Why can’t we apply to politics what the Bible DOES say about men and women?
Marge,
I don’t think much can be made from a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter. Very good and faithful parents have been through the same situation. I am bothered that so few (Palin included) have said anything about the pregnancy coming about through sin. All the focus is on the joy of not aborting the baby.
That said, it will be terribly difficult for a mother to raise her children while serving as VP. And contrary to what Rudy Giuliani said in his speech, I do believe that is a fair question to ask of women even if it is never asked of men. It should be asked of men but not to equal degree - I do believe the primary work of child rearing is for the mother. Palin will have a hard time of that.
Tyler,
If the matter were just her politics and policies I’d be thrilled. Like many others I love her views and I’m a strong supporter of McCain. From that angle, the ticket looks great.
16. Tim Challies
September 5, 2008
12:36 PM
It looks like there needs to be a discussion among complementarians as to what the Bible teaches about women in society, because it does not seem clear to them what exactly it is.
This much is undoubtedly true.
17. Heather
September 5, 2008
12:53 PM
Just a quick note to say that Piper Palin is her daughter. Trig is her baby boy. Third paragraph has it backwards.
18. Brendt Waters
September 5, 2008
12:59 PM
Actually, “lberal feminist” is not redundant, though the liberal feminists would have you believe so.
And it’s not even necessary to contrast their hypocritical/flip-flop treatment of Hillary with that of Sarah. You can confine the whole argument to Hillary. Had the Clintons been Republicans, Hillary would’ve been vilified by liberal feminists for not disabusing Bill of certain anatomical features over his numerous “indiscretions”. However, the same woman who was acting in anathema to the liberal feminist view (though they never pointed it out) was then championed when she ran for office.
19. Elizabeth Esther
September 5, 2008
1:35 PM
Piper Palin is a girl, by the way.
What has been most amazing to me (and I wrote about this on my blog), is how the far left & the far right are guilty of the same vitriolic attacks. Their blind idealism is akin to idolatry.
The worst is coming from women. Women attacking women in classic girl fight fashion. On the right they call Sarah an abomination for even daring to take civil office and on the left, they are trying to destroy her with vicious gossip.
The bigger picture here is that at long last someone is standing up and saying ENOUGH to the holocaust that is abortion, including the abortion of “imperfect” children.
I’m a mother of 5 myself and yes, I wonder how Sarah will juggle it all. I also know that some women have waaaay more energy and discipline than I do. And if her husband is supportive, then who are we to question her?
I’m a total anomaly out here in liberal Southern California, but I couldn’t be prouder! GO JOHN MCCAIN!
20. Charity Starchenko
September 5, 2008
1:50 PM
MArge S,
I take issue with your comments that Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is a result of a woman who has somehow not paid enough attention to her children (thats what I thought you suggested anyways). There are many parents who are amazing parents and make sacrifices to care for the children to the best of their ability. But despite their carful attention children will make their own decisions. If Sarah Palin taught her daughter well, and Bristol in turn made an unwise choice, Palin is not to blame for this choice. Its unfair to assume that somehow she is. I did appreciate Palin’s loving and supportive response to the pregnancy though. It showed that no matter what she is determined to see that her daughter becomes a successful mother. That is in reality her only choice. Its the choice I would make if my daughter came to me with news such as that.
As for the issue of the feminists, their main problem is that if Palin is elected, their goal for a woman to have it all (husband family kids, influential career) will have succeeded. They wont be as powerful anymore. This sudden recognition has made them realize that a Palin VP win will not be in their best interests. Where would they direct their cause? Who will listen to their persnikety whining? Thats why they turn on their own kind: it’s a pitiful act of political self preservation.
FInally, if people still have an issue with Palin running, look at proverbs 31. That woman had it all (considering a field and bouying it…. ), and did it well to the glory of God. If Sarah Plain, dubious christianity experience and all, believes that she is pursuing poltics to the Glory of God, then let her have at it, and let us swallow our stay at home mom pride and cheer her on. Thats what I am doing.
21. Tim Challies
September 5, 2008
2:04 PM
I think people are reading this sentence wrong. I don’t mean to say that Piper is a little boy—rather, that she spit-shined the little boy. Read it again! “The little boy [that] Piper Palin spit-shined in front of the nation is living, breathing proof of Palin’s commitment to life—probably the single most important issue to a vast number of Christians.”
22. Chris Roberts
September 5, 2008
2:30 PM
Elizabeth,
“And if her husband is supportive, then who are we to question her?”
Biblically minded Christians, I hope. The rightness of one’s actions is not determined by their own conscience or the support they receive from others. Do her actions line up with Scripture? That’s what I want to know. I am being asked not just to allow her to be VP but to also give her my support. I have to know that her role does not cross lines she should not cross and I’m not yet convinced of that.
23. mike garner
September 5, 2008
2:41 PM
I am litterally amazed at the people who continue to suggest that a 17(!) year old woman’s sin is a reflection of bad parenting, or at least not enough parenting. I continue to hope that if any of them are parents or become parents, that nobody would ever dare point the finger at them should any of their children choose to sin.
Finally, I for one am glad to see this debate going on in complementarian circles because I think it highlights an inconsistency in the modern complementarian movement. CBMW and company can keep putting out resources that say that the Bible does not directly limit a woman’s role in the publc sphere. True as that is, all one has to do is read their other resources and we will see that their view towards women in the home/church comes from a difference in the “order of creation” where God created men and women ontologically different so that one should do the leading and one do the submitting. If this is the case, then it is not a far stretch at all to say that this should be equally as true in the public sphere as it is in the home or chruch.
24. WES
September 5, 2008
2:45 PM
Good post, Tim.
There is another very interesting discussion on Palin over at Doug Wilson’s blog:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5837
25. John
September 5, 2008
2:47 PM
Good article Tim. The one thing that many people seem to be forgetting in all the hoopla about Palin is this - We aren’t electing HER. This isn’t Palin vs Obama,it’s McCain vs Obama.
I’m truly saddened that so many christians who were opposed to McCain and what he stood for are now jumping on his bandwagon because he chose Palin as his VP.
26. Curtis
September 5, 2008
3:06 PM
diablaazul said…
“I don’t know which liberal or feminist blogs you’re reading, but your characterization of the “loonly [sic] left” and their reaction to Palin is just dead wrong. I could provide you with multiple links from liberal and/or feminist blogs defending Palin’s right …”
——————
That’s probably why there’s a distinction of, “loonly [sic] left”.
Just because you don’t agree with the roles of men and women set forth in the bible doesn’t mean it’s wrong, you just don’t like it, maybe you’d rather have it your own way?
27. Elizabeth Esther
September 5, 2008
3:06 PM
Chris:
I understand your concerns. But like John #25 said, this isn’t really about Palin. It’s about Obama vs. McCain. If you’re looking for the candidate whose actions “line up with Scripture”—then the choice is pretty clear.
That man is JOHN S. MCCAIN! :-D
28. mike garner
September 5, 2008
3:10 PM
“I’m truly saddened that so many christians who were opposed to McCain and what he stood for are now jumping on his bandwagon because he chose Palin as his VP. “
Until Jesus returns, every decision for leadership is going to be a question of the lesser of two evils. Even those who didn’t like McCain were likely still going to vote for him because an Obama/Biden ticket would be horrible. With Palin, it just makes the choice that much easier.
29. Curtis
September 5, 2008
3:13 PM
Also, anyone willing to stand up against the slaughter of babies gets my vote, irregardless of the majority of their other possitions or personal lifestyle, Christian or not. Life and death issues stand above in importance to these other backseat issues.
30. Alberto
September 5, 2008
3:25 PM
I think some people, especially Christians, are way to enthusiastic about Palin. I think there are some troubling things that come along with Palin being vice president or even governor of Alaska. My mind keeps going back to all the children she is raising. All those supporters of her who are praising her, especially Christians, for being able to do it all need to calm down. We are going to have to wait and see until her children grow up and are able to speak about it; and even then, we still won’t have a good handle on her performance as a mother.
I read some of what Al Mohler had to say as well. I wasn’t particurlarly impressed. How does he know that the Palin family is able to manage it all well? Does he know them personally? I have serious doubts as to whether a woman can be a mother sufficiently involved in family life and have such a demanding job. I’m only being rational when I say that it is more probable than not, that a woman will not be able to be as good a mother if she decides to pursue a full-time career. That is not to say that some single mothers are bad mothers because they have to work extensive hours; life is not always the ideal we desire.
All this is not to say that a person cannot vote for her at all. A person must weigh all options and decide who is the lesser of evils.
And one more thing. I hope it’s not Reformed or Calvinistic people jumping for joy over Palin because she’s “Christian”. I read that she is associates with the Assemblies of God and a “non-denominational” church. Since she does seem to be whithin the Pentecostal tradition, it doesn’ t surprise me that she is running for office; Pentecostals have a history of being a bit feminist and egalitarian. And if she is being a bit quiet about her beliefs, thats probably a smart thing; Pentecostals have a history of ridiculous teaching and people. I should know, I was raised with them. Watch TBN if you don’t believe me. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be grouped with her by the media when they reveal her beliefs.
31. Alberto
September 5, 2008
3:37 PM
I would love to ask some professors at Westminster Seminary CA about this whole issue. Perhaps Drs. Horton, VanDrunen and Riddlebarger would have some interesting comments. I especially would like to ask Dr. VanDrunen since he was once interested in entering politics.
32. Jesse Taylor
September 5, 2008
3:38 PM
Mike G. and I had a few comments on another blog, so it continues. Politically, I am thrilled with Sarah Palin. As a pro-life father of six , uncle of a downs syndrome nephew, FCA sponsor, runner, straight-speaker, right-wing conservative- Mrs. Palin is a hero to me.
However, I don’t want to ever excuse my lack of attention in raising my children as “an unwise choice by an adult child.” God has given me a responsibility and I want to fulfill it, by His grace, to the best of my ability. Likewise, I do not think that we should excuse Mrs. Palin just because we like her politics.
33. Tim Challies
September 5, 2008
3:39 PM
How does he know that the Palin family is able to manage it all well? Does he know them personally?
I don’t think he does know. But I think he realizes that, because Palin isn’t explicitly disobeying a Scriptural command, he cannot concern himself with it.
34. Kim Shay
September 5, 2008
3:43 PM
I would be hesitant to say that Mrs. Palin can do both with excellence. The fact of the matter is that no one can have it all. And I don’t think this is restricted to female politicians. The children of public officials and celebrities do live with the choices their parents make, and often the consequences and affects are not seen until later life. To live in the public eye cannot leave anyone unaffected.
As others have said, I don’t think that her daughter’s pregnancy is the result of her parenting. What I do think is that the young lady needs a mother more than ever now. Becoming a parent as a more mature woman is daunting enough; she will need the support.
The thing that has me unsettled is that the views are so extreme. She’s either a hero or a demon. I am not prepared to say she’s a bad or a good parent just because she has all her ducks in a row while in the public eye. Neither am I willing to condemn her. If she was a single, divorced woman as Kim Campbell was when she came to office, would people be so intrigued by her?
35. Chris Roberts
September 5, 2008
3:53 PM
Tim,
Embryonic stem cell research is not explicitly against a Scriptural command but it is still wrong for biblical reasons. Many other examples could easily be cited.
36. mike garner
September 5, 2008
3:58 PM
Jesse T.,
I was going to say, I think we talked about this on another blog.
I agree with you when you say,
God has given me a responsibility and I want to fulfill it
Definitely.
But your responsibility is to raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Your responsibility is not to somehow find a way to make them immune to sin.
Therefore, it is DEFINITELY a possibility to be sucessful in fulfilling your responsibility as a parent and still have a child who falls into grave sin.
I’m not here to defend Sarah Palin as a great parent. I don’t really know. I’m simply responding to the knee-jerk reaction that because her daughter has sinned, that she might not be ready to be VP and that she needs to focus more on her family.
37. Liz
September 5, 2008
4:54 PM
Although I can’t stand political arguments/discussions and avoid getting worked up about stuff going on at the federal level, I have to ask: when did conservative Republicans become proud of their teenage children having sex outside of marriage? Did I miss some major change in values??
And I’m surprised the someone suggests that parenting has no connection to children’s sinful behavior. Wow, there’s another change that I missed!! I’ve really got to get out more!
38. mike garner
September 5, 2008
5:05 PM
” when did conservative Republicans become proud of their teenage children having sex outside of marriage?”
Who exactly is proud of that? Some people, myself included, are proud that she didn’t compound the sin with another sin.
“And I’m surprised the someone suggests that parenting has no connection to children’s sinful behavior”
I must have missed that one also. Obviously good parenting and bad parenting are often going to be connected with the behavior of children. The point that I made, and the point that others have made, is that simply because a child has fallen into sin does not mean that a parent has failed his or her job of raising them. The hidden implication that because Sarah Palin’s child is pregnant that she must not have been a good enough mother or must have been away from the home too long is outrageous.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I genuinely hope that no parents ever have to be told that they didn’t go a good enough job or weren’t around enough simply because one of their children sinned in a very visible way.
39. David Kjos
September 5, 2008
6:36 PM
I’m surprised the someone suggests that parenting has no connection to children’s sinful behavior.
I’m pretty sure no one here thinks that. The Palins may be excellent parents, or very poor parents; but no one here knows enough about the Palin home — nor is it their business to know — to make that judgment. Either way, good parenting or not, people sin. Only when that sin is visible do observers cry, “Bad parenting!”
40. Kim Shay
September 5, 2008
6:43 PM
And I’m surprised the someone suggests that parenting has no connection to children’s sinful behavior. Wow, there’s another change that I missed!! I’ve really got to get out more!
I would like to avoid making this sound like a diatribe, and I don’t want to turn this response into a book, so I’ll try to keep it short. Let me just say that I have a 19 year old daughter who was brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. She attended church, sunday school, was baptized, obeyed her parents, respected authorities, read God’s Word, prayed and served the Lord. We taught her God’s Word faithfully. In the last year and a half, she has made choices that were sinful. Anyone who knows our family will tell you that we strive to parent our children biblically. The fact of the matter is that we sin because we are sinners. Certainly, our parenting is a factor, but I am not responsible for my daughter’s choices when she knows the difference between right and wrong. We taught her right from wrong; it is up to her to obey.
If the Palins brought up their daughter in biblical manner, and she knows what is right or wrong, then it is her responsibility to obey. There are plenty of young women with mothers who are full-time stay at home mothers who find themselves in similar situations.
41. Joe Scoggins
September 5, 2008
8:09 PM
Uh. When Hillary was First Lady, did anybody squeal about her abandoning Chelsey whilst trying to get a national healthcare program installed?
Did anybody raise the wife-mother issue when she was possibly going to be elected as the PRESIDENTIAL nominee?
McCain made a brilliant political manuver.
Some idiots have wondered whether BO is black enough, but there can be no doubt that Palin is a woman.
42. Blake
September 5, 2008
9:42 PM
Beyond that we, as Christians, have to trust her judgment in this kind of disputable matter.
I think you meant to say her husband’s judgment. Let’s not let him off the hook. His responsibility to his wife and to his family is to come to a decision about his wife’s political career.
43. Blake
September 5, 2008
9:44 PM
… That is to say, a decision that is in the best interest of his family, wife included.
44. Chris Ashton
September 5, 2008
10:10 PM
Marge S. - normally I treat anonymous and semi-anonymous comments with contempt, and ignore them completely, but yours is so wildly ridiculous that I cannot be restrained.
You say, “I think that the fact that she has a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter might indicate that she can’t do both [hold high public office and be an attentive wife and mother] with excellence….perhaps more parental involvement, especially on the part of her mother, might have prevented the daughter from making such unwise choices.”
I would suggest that a child’s sin says more about the inherently sinful nature of all of us, and the particular sin of the child, then it does about the mother. I presume from your comments and from the fact that you’re reading Challies.com that you’re a Christian, in which case you will note that the apostle, Paul places sexual immorality alongside sins such as gossip, murder, theft and greed (e.g. 1 Cor 6.9-10), all of which is offensive to God and indeed deserves the punishment of eternal separation from Him.
On the other hand, sexual sin is unique (1 Cor 6.12-20) and has worldly, visible, humiliating consequences, as Sarah Palin and her family are now keenly aware of. King David too, was keenly aware of the human (2 Samuel 11, 12.14-21) and spiritual (Psalm 51) consequences of his sexual sin which, in his case, led to murder and the death of the son born of that sin. However David was also aware of God’s forgiveness and restoration; and Christians should be praying that the Palin family will too know that forgiveness (if they don’t already) because of what Jesus has done for them.
Not that it applies to women in positions of political leadership, but I would even argue that an unmarried, pregnant, teenage daughter does not disqualify a man from being an elder (Titus 1.6). Surely “the charge of debauchery” indicates a gratuitous, unrepentant lifestyle of sinful, excessive sexual conduct rather than becoming pregnant to the man you intend to marry. In the same sentence, Paul writes that an elder’s children must not be accused of insubordination. Do you think this disqualifies a father whose child has ever been disobedient? Do you think the Palin children have ever been disobedient? Have your children ever been disobedient? Do you think that reflects on your abilities as a parent?
Not being privy to the Palin’s family life, nor an Alaskan or even U.S. citizen, I can’t speak to the excellence with which Sarah Palin might carry out her parental or Vice-Presidential duties. However, for you to infer a correlation between an teenage pregnancy and a failing as a parent shows both an ignorance of Scripture, and a naivety in the areas of family and relationships.
45. Elizabeth Esther
September 5, 2008
10:27 PM
Tim: upon re-reading your sentence, I understand it better. I guess I got tripped up by the fact that Piper Palin’s name was highlighted right after the word “boy.” My bad. :-D
And wow, if so many folks know God’s will for the Palin family, I sure wish they’d come by my house and offer me some of their divine insight. I wish I was so 100% certain about everything.
Oh wait. Then I wouldn’t need grace. Or faith. So, nevermind.
46. Kim Shay
September 5, 2008
11:23 PM
The Palins may be excellent parents, or very poor parents; but no one here knows enough about the Palin home — nor is it their business to know — to make that judgment
Very well said!
47. KathleenM
September 6, 2008
2:02 AM
Tim seems to be rather long on hysteria and short on facts.
Can he name any of these “leftists” who were allegedly such big bad meanies to Palin — or do they all remain these shadowy anonymous figments?
And it doesn’t stop there. Tim writes: “And so feminists wondered if she could possibly take care of her family while dealing with her responsibilities as Vice President.” Um, no. (The tip-off is that, once again, Tim can’t provide any names, just shadowy insinuations and unnamed bogeymen). It’s not feminists who spout this anti-feminist rhetoric — it’s the same Christian conservatives who believe women are required to confine themselves to church, children, husband. That is, until they meet an ambitious politically powerful woman who toes the Christian fundie line. Then — voila — watch how quickly the fundies drop their condemnation of women who have careers. Funny, dat.
One more: “Trig is exactly who God made him to be.” Really? So God deliberately targeted this infant for affliction and that’s why he has Downs Syndrome? Most doctors attribute the chromosomal abnormality, not to a supernatural interference, but to a protein imbalance in the embryo that adversely affects cell division.
48. mike garner
September 6, 2008
2:12 AM
“Most doctors attribute the chromosomal abnormality, not to a supernatural interference, but to a protein imbalance in the embryo that adversely affects cell division. “
Right. And most meteorologists can explain to you how it is that we get rain, but God is sitll said to control when and on whom the rain falls.
Simply because God uses natural means to bring about something does not mean that he is not in control of it.
Since God forms babies in the mother’s womb, and not even a sparrow falls without God’s control, I think that we can very confidently say that God is in control of Trig’s down syndrome.
49. L
September 6, 2008
5:57 AM
Tim Tim Tim, why so quick to buy the rhetoric?
You like Feminist for life Sarah Palin? Uh-huh, yeah, does anyone else feel a little more than uncomfortable? Just how important is the family to Christians anyway? Sure seems like a subtle assault, who is good at being subtle in temptations? Oh, yes, Satan.
The GOP is going to screw Christians over anyway, just like last time, don’t believe her and John for a second. Did you believe Bush and Cheney? Did you believe them a second time?
Shame on you.
Yeah, Republican controlled senate, congress, and white house for how many years?
Oh sorry Christians, we can’t overturn Roe versus Wade or stop Gay Marriage, but we can preemptively invade a middle-eastern country for no reason whatsoever! Yee-haw!
I’m a 19 years old, reformed, and a Christian conservative watching the same old song and dance sucker us over and over again into giving them power.
Why Tim?
Why should I vote for backstabbing traitors. They are the same people with different names. The only way it can get more depressing than this is if they draft me to go to Iran so we can invade another freaking country for no bloody reason, that might be just a few months out if McCain gets in.
Woohoo.
Someone give me a reason to be excited about this election, I don’t understand why I should care, the choice is between two evils and I happen to hate evil.
50. Jared
September 6, 2008
8:36 AM
There is no where in the Scriptures that states that a Christian must vote, especially if the choices laid before him are evil. This “we must vote for the lesser of two evils” idea is completely foreign to the Bible. When we do this, we are still voting for evil and essentially, we are giving a thumbs up to the Republicans and their choices for president. Can you imagine what would occur if Christians in the U.S. refrained from voting in the upcoming election? It would be a tremendous sign to the Republicans that we are no longer their blind, deaf, and dumb lapdogs. I really do not understand why Christians in America are so afraid of an Obama presidency. Do we not think God is sovereign? I cannot stand Obama as much as anyone. He is a leftist-liberal to the core and his policies are anti-constitution, anti-family, and ultimately, anti-God.
Again, the whole lesser-of-two-evils nonsense is exactly that. Do we honestly believe that if Christians were given the ability to vote between Nero and Diocletian, they would be required to vote for the lesser of the two? Or, if we were given the choice of Hitler and Stalin, we would have to make some sort of determination as to which one is a lesser evil? Obviously these are exaggerations, however, McCain is not pro-life. He holds to exceptions which again, regardless of how you spin it, means you are ultimately not pro-life. Yeah, McCain not be as evil as Obama, but he is still evil.
In any event, I also cannot see why Christians support such a pro-war individual such as McCain, especially when that war was started unconstitutionally. Why are we of the opinion that our country can do no wrong? Where does our allegiance lie? To our sovereign God, or to America? Republicans are out for the interests of their own party alone. They do not care about Christians and only pander to us when it is convenient for them. They make a lot of empty promises that continue to be unfulfilled. Pro-life? Who, where, when? Small government? Are you kidding me?
Finally, I am of the belief that women should not hold roles in public leadership. Our roles as men and women are clearly spelled out in Scripture, and while we are absolutely equal before God, we have been given certain roles in the home and in the church. Logically, I believe this spills out into all areas of public life. I cannot comprehend how we can act one way in one arena and completely opposite in another.
Personally, I believe Mohler’s comments are based on this lesser-of-two-evils belief of which no biblical support can be found. Thus, he is basing his statements on this presupposition which causes him to reevaluate the lesser evil as being biblically acceptable. Since he is quite the public Christian figure, I believe part of it is pressure. I really appreciate Al Mohler, but I think he is wrong on this point and I’m pretty disappointed.
51. Wills
September 6, 2008
10:01 AM
Ah, Mr. Challies, you couldn’t be more correct. I’ve watched Mrs. Palin on the news and have been blown out of the water on how she’s on the same page as my family. I mean…REALLY on the same page. And what’s more, she’s a Christian! At time’s she’s seemed better than McCain, but i like ‘em both. Still…i fear that either one of them could become target practice by some crazed anarchist or protester. What are your thoughts on that?
52. LM
September 6, 2008
11:20 AM
Kathleen M asked, “Can he name any of these ‘leftists’ who were allegedly such big bad meanies to Palin — or do they all remain these shadowy anonymous figments?” Just google “Sarah Palin” under “news” and, voila! You might want to start with the Toronto Star.
53. Renee Ann
September 6, 2008
11:26 AM
I have done a little study on the reformed Two-Kingdoms doctrine. I’d love to see you dive into this doctrine and blog about it. Here are the links I’ve bookmarked
http://delicious.com/annaddison/two-kingdoms
54. KathleenM
September 6, 2008
11:43 AM
LM writes: “Kathleen M asked, “Can he name any of these ‘leftists’ who were allegedly such big bad meanies to Palin — or do they all remain these shadowy anonymous figments?” Just google “Sarah Palin” under “news” and, voila!”
——————
Still no names? Let us know when you’ve got something other than shadows and strawmen……
55. Justin Keller
September 6, 2008
2:27 PM
KathleenM… I believe LM’s comment (#52) was meant not only to point you toward those names/sources, but also to point out that if you’re not aware of the smear tactics, then you haven’t been paying attention. Suggesting (without a shred of evidence) that Trig was Bristol’s daughter, and that the Palin’s were trying to cover it up? Dragging the teenage pregnancy back and forth through the mud? Calling the Palins hypocrites for deciding not to abort?
My guess as to the reason Tim didn’t list any names is because (if I may be so bold) he didn’t think he needed to.
Alright, let me give you a few names to get you started: Rahul Parikh at Salon.com and Andrew Sullivan’s blog at TheAtlantic.com. After that feel free to head to HuffingtonPost.com or TheNation.com and peruse some of the writings there from earlier in the week. Read the New York Times early coverage in which they erroneously claimed that McCain’s team never vetted Palin. And pick up that issue of US Weekly that has already been mentioned.
56. Flora
September 6, 2008
5:32 PM
Kathleen M,
Barbara Amiel’s article in the Wall Street Journal highlights some of what has been said by feminists this week and shows that Tim was speaking of more than ‘shadows and straw-men”
“Sarah Palin has put the flim-flam nature of America feminism sharply into focus, revealing the not-so-secret hypocrisy of its code and, whatever her future, this alone is an accomplishment. As she emerged into the nation’s consciousness, a shudder went through the feminist left—a political movement not restricted to females. She is a mother refusing to stay at home (good) who had made a success out in the workplace (excellent) whose marriage nevertheless is a rip-roaring success and whose views are unspeakable—those of a red-blooded, right-wing principled pragmatist.
The metaphorical hair stood up on the back of every licensed member of the feminist movement who could immediately see she was a monster out of a nightmare landscape by Hieronymus Bosch. Pro-life. Pro-oil exploration in Alaska, home of the nation’s polar bears for heaven’s sake. Smaller government. Lower taxes. And that family of hers: Next to the Clintons with their dysfunctional marriage, her fertility and sexually robust life could only emphasize the shriveled nature of the one-child family of the former Queen Bee of political female accomplishment.
Mrs. Palin’s emergence caused a spasm in American feminism. Caste and class have always been ammunition in the very Eastern seaboard women’s movement, and now they were (so to speak) loading for bear. Sally Quinn felt a mother of five had no business being vice president. Andrea Mitchell remarked that “only the uneducated” would vote for Mrs. Palin. “Choose a woman but this woman?” wrote Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer, accusing Sen. McCain of using a Down’s syndrome child as qualification for the VP spot.
The hypocrisy was breathtaking. Only nanoseconds before the choice of Mrs. Palin as VP put her a geriatric heartbeat away from the presidency, a woman’s right to have a career and children was a shibboleth of feminism. One always knew that women with views that opposed those of official feminism were to be treated as nonwomen. To see it now out in the open was the real shocker.
The fact that this mom had been governor of a state was dismissed because it was a “small state,” as was the city of which she had been mayor. Her acceptance speech, which knowledgeable left-wing critics feared would be effective, was dismissed before being delivered. She would be reading from a teleprompter. The speech would be good, no doubt, but written for her.
Had she been a man with similar political views, the left’s opposition would have been strong but less personally vicious: It would have focused neither on a daughter’s pregnancy, nor on the candidate’s inability to be a good parent if the job was landed. In its panic, the left was indicating that to be a female running for office these days is no hindrance but an advantage, and admitting that there is indeed a difference between mothers and fathers that cannot necessarily be resolved by having daddy doing the diaper run.
All the shrapnel has so far been counterproductive. The mudslinging tabloid journalism—is Mrs. Palin the mother or grandmother of her Down’s baby?—only raised her profile to a point where viewers who would never dream of watching a Republican vice-presidential acceptance speech tuned in.
Watching the frenzied reaction was déjà vu from my years as a political columnist in Margaret Thatcher’s Britain. Modern history’s titan of female political life suffered a similar hatred, fuelled to a large extent by her gender. Mrs. Thatcher overcame it magnificently, but in the end, the fact was that she was female and not one of “them”—a member of the old boys’ club of the Tory establishment—played a significant role in bringing her down.”
57. Deb
September 6, 2008
5:37 PM
While it is awesome to have a decisively pro-life, pro-family Christian candidate on the Republican ticket, does anyone else worry about the continuation of the Hagee influence? And the Neo-Con influence?
With Sarah’s faith background in pentecostalism, it is highly likely that she will be lock step with neo-cons, just like Bush, Ashcroft, Huckabee, McCain, and the rest. This also concerns me a great deal.
Is there anything that Reformed Christians can do to get a non-Rapture, non-dispensationalist view out to the mainstream to counteract Hagee/Lahaye/Copeland? To combat this sense of calling that the RNC has adopted to usher in the apocalypse? To put the government back on Christ’s shoulders, while at the same time being the True Isreal that the Bible has called US to be. I mean, we ARE dealing with an entirely antithetical worldview here (with the exception of abortion an gay marriage - which they seem to hook us with every time, don’t they?). I think we make it way too easy for them.
58. Nancy
September 6, 2008
6:05 PM
I think that Palin’s youngest daughter is a beautiful testimony to their family and their parenting skills. Did you happen to notice that whenever the camera picked up the family, she was always well behaved and cute as a button (when she was holding her little brother and spit-washing his face). Definitely not a terror who had been neglected by her parents.
59. Piper McGee
September 7, 2008
6:53 PM
“I don’t know which liberal or feminist blogs you’re reading, but your characterization of the “loonly [sic] left” and their reaction to Palin is just dead wrong.”
Tim was correct and the liberal left is looney!
60. Matt Mc
September 8, 2008
7:38 AM
While I share all of the same reservations about Palin’s having to balance motherhood with the vice presidency, I am strongly encouraged by her addition to the McCain ticket. I was not all that impressed with McCain alone, and while I’m sure that his decision to choose her was calculated (her being a woman, when Hillary voters have recently been displaced; her being an uber-conservative, when McCain is not), I still think it was pretty brilliant on his part.
And it is quite humorous to me that the first woman with a true shot at higher office is not a feminist in any sense, and she is staunchly pro-life. I have never understood the implied “truth” that a woman in politics must be pro-choice. If anything, that belief seems to go against what it means to be a woman.