When it was announced that John McCain selected Sarah P. for vice president and it was made known who she was I was surprised and pleased. I don't know that I agree with all of her decisions, but I believe a good deal of what she is all of us would like to have the charactristics she displayed.
I don't know if I'd make the selection of being vice president, but I'm glad she did.
I'm aware that some men in some churches have the idea that women have no business speaking out in church and they should not teach men. I don't agree. I believe a woman's place is to let men be spiritual leaders, but I don't think women should be surpressed. If they have a God- given talent and God leads them to use it, then they should.

Moreover, the Fathers and Aquinas understand "submission" in the legal sense (i.e., the wife is obligated to submit; the husband is not) and apply that sense to the Scriptures they are interpreting.

I'm a Southern Baptist. I'm training to be a pastor in seminary.

I made a decent attempt to answer some of these false assertions about what Southern Baptists believe (including quoting straight from the horses mouth...Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and contributor on the on faith panel).

But of course, it got skipped over. The arguments ignored. Continue on thinking as you want to think.

Sorry, one other note:

The woman who chooses to marry, however, takes on the duty of obedience. The reason for this is that sacramental marriage is a symbol of Christ's union with the Church, and in that most sacred union, the partners are not equal in authority any more than they are equal in the amounts of love they can and do give.

They are not equal in the amounts of authority or love they can give. This is really strange stuff.

I find it strange that so many are willing to accept the notion that "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" on the one hand; on the other hand, "Wives submit yourselves to your husbands".

Augustine and others have much to say:

St. Augustine writes on 1 Cor 11:3: "For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man" (Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16). As it is stated clearly in Ephesians 5:22-33, Augustine uses Christ's headship over the Church as the model for the husband's headship over the wife. He makes no reference to "mutual submission" or anything of the sort, either here or in his other writings. In another place he writes:

Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, 'The head of the woman is the man;' and, 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.' So also the Apostle Peter writes: 'Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord'"

St. Clement of Alexandria expresses the same sentiments regarding 1 Cor 11:3:

The ruling power is therefore the head. And if 'the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,' the man, 'being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.' Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, 'Subjecting, ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.' And in that to the Colossians it is said, 'Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord' (Stromata, Bk 4, Ch 8).

The Greek exegete, Severian of Gabala writes on 1 Cor 11:3:

Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only submission. (Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, 15:260).

St. Thomas Aquinas says the same on 1 Cor 11:3, even using Augustine as further witness to this truth:

For though the wife be her husband's equal in the marriage act, yet in matters of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the man, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:3). (Summa Theologica, Treatise on the Theological Virtues, Question 32, Article 8).

For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trinitate xii,3,7,12). (Summa Theologica, Treatise on Gratuitous Grace, Question 128, Article 4).

Not only are these witnesses straightforward about the wife's obligation to submit to her husband, notice again that none of them refer to "mutual submission" (or any similar term) in interpreting the wife's responsibility to her husband or in the understanding of the spousal relationship in general. Moreover, the Fathers and Aquinas understand "submission" in the legal sense (i.e., the wife is obligated to submit; the husband is not) and apply that sense to the Scriptures they are interpreting.

I have made at explicit at my blog what I think is a more significant area of exploration in re the Palin/McCain ticket than the one Parham explores here.
While he has done an admirable job showing the hypocrisy of SBC leaders and their BFM 2000 in light of Palin, Parham's resentments have been overwhelmed by the outrage of the Day, the brouhaha over lipstick and Pigs.
At my blog foxofbama.blogspot.com I have laid out what I hope Newsweek and other major media will pursue, the story of how the Politics of the Council for National Policy that McCain has embraced with his Palin choice, how the CNP and its operatives in the SBC defeated in 1988 Richard Jackson, the man who baptized Cindy McCain.
Jackson was defeated in his bid to stand in the face of the the Dobson CNP faction messing with the SBC and he lost.
In discussions at baptistlife.com/forums and elsewhere, the topography is laid out.
I hope Newsweek pursues it.

You're reading way too much in the SBC statement in Utah. You'd have to go back *quite* a few years to find a time when SBC held that *all* women must be homemakers.

I've known some Southern Baptists and none were trying to restrict my rights. They also were not haters. Very loving people actually. I was sincerly impressed with their hospitality. I doubt they have tried to restrict your freedoms either.

They are simply working through the doctrine of their faith that they are responsible for. The doctrine applies only to their members. Kind of makes sense that they should have control of their own organization.

Remember this country was founded first on religious freedom and also on freedom of speech. Both things they are freely using here. I see many rights being used and protected. That's the way America should work.

I try not to be too critical of people I am not really close to. That is why I call for humility. I don't want people scouring comments I made for inconsistansies so they can write articles pointing them out. I don't you would want that either. I'm just encouraging tact.

"I think that maybe this article is a little hard on Southern Baptists. I'm not one, but I respect their doctrine. I think they are trying their best."

Oh! Well. Why didn't you say so. Next time someone acts out the hate they preach against me or comes gunning for my civil rights, I'll just 'turn the other cheek' and say, 'Oh, well, you're 'trying your best, who am I to criticize. Perish the thought I ever considered you might not have the absolute right to rule... I mean, hey, you're *trying.*

I mean.

What?

Thanks for your article, Robert. We met a number of years ago. I teach at Wayland Baptist U. in Plainview Texas. Paul Sadler is our Division Chair.

I do not have much to add. I will say, though, that, as you point out the SBC fundamentalist are showing their true colors and, especially their ineptitude as interpreters of Scripture.

It is ironic that, probably, the last thing the SBC fundamentalists should really want is for Palin to become Vice-President, or, perhaps, President, someday. For, then, a great many people likely will have grave difficulty understanding how a woman can be fit to be pehaps to be President of the United States but unfit to be the "Senior" Pastor of a local Baptist church.

I think that maybe this article is a little hard on Southern Baptists. I'm not one, but I respect their doctrine. I think they are trying their best. The only person I have a real problem with, is someone who is unwilling to change.

It is a hard job to maintain doctrine, with forces from every direction trying to sway you. Many time the forces are simply and agenda and don't really care about you. I'm sure if Southern Baptists took a different approach and rejected Palin they would get other critisism.

While there are some valid points made in the article, I don't know if they need to be shared. The Southern Baptists are a denomination and they don't force their doctrine on people outside the church. They are working out their faith within the organization as they should.

Remember that no denomination has a monopoly on biblical truth and I believe many are trying their best. Let's respect everyone and try to portray humility when we disagree.

When Sarah Palin was selected VP canidate my first thought was what are the Baptist going to do with this? Baptist or any other denomination that teaches women are to be in the home and not leaders or teachers over men. I was sure the claim would then be they meant in the church. WOW! It is amazing to me how God would be ok with a woman leading a country but not want her to spread His word, at least to men. I believe in scripture when a woman was used by God to lead, example: Deborah, Judge, it was because the man wouldn't do the job. Is it true that Billy Graham's daughter spoke at a convention and the ministers turned their chairs around facing their backs to her? Hummmmm

"Contrary to what others might say or do, I am not instructed in any way to forcibly convince you to give your life to Christ. In other words, I can warn you that the train is coming, but I cannot push you off the tracks."

But apparently you're OK with letting someone else who believes in replacing the US government with one that would publicly stone me find some tracks and throw me under them?

"However, we are all Christians. And while I might disagree with a Presbyterian over infant baptism, we firmly agree on what really matters."

So, if it means supporting an unqualified theocratic extremist selected to pander to you to cover up a ticket's intention to continue and exacerbate the policies of a disastrous administration, then 'what really matters' is if they stick a cross on it?

"Finally, perhaps you can tell me how voting for Joe Biden represents change?"

Biden is a solid and principled performer in the business of government, and one of the best hands we have at foreign policies that don't involve bankrupting the country by overextending the military.

'Change' doesn't happen if rubber doesn't meet the road. He definitely reinforces the 'actually getting it done' part of all this.

" Or how good is "change" when it means I'll now have to wait six months instead of six days to have my non-emergency medical procedure performed?"

I'm sure if you can pay out of pocket to get it done faster, there'll always be someone in America willing to take your money, whatever scenario you're worried about here.

Some folks don't get health care at *all.* Even six months would be better than 'never.' Or better than waiting sixteen months till it gets bad enough for the ER.

Al,

Let me clue you in to something. The Bible is both remarkably simple and inherently complex at the same time. It is not one or the other as you seem to assume.

Whether you believe it to be true or not is for you to decide. My role is to share the love of Christ with you. Period. Contrary to what others might say or do, I am not instructed in any way to forcibly convince you to give your life to Christ. In other words, I can warn you that the train is coming, but I cannot push you off the tracks.

Regarding the number of denominations you pointed out, that is obviously to be expected as each individual interprets various Scriptures differently. However, we are all Christians. And while I might disagree with a Presbyterian over infant baptism, we firmly agree on what really matters.

Finally, perhaps you can tell me how voting for Joe Biden represents change? Or how good is "change" when it means I'll now have to wait six months instead of six days to have my non-emergency medical procedure performed?

The Audacity of Hype. Beware the Warren Harding Effect.

There seems to be two arguments coming together in this article. The first is that Southern Baptists have revised their position concerning women and are no longer concerned for their responsibilities and roles in their family. This seems to be the primary argument. The secondary argument is over whether Southern Baptists believe there is a distinction between female roles in the family and church and roles in secular society.

I'll try to help provide a response to both questions in order.

I wonder if you have even taken the time to read Al Mohler's position?

Most likely not.

He CLEARLY states that he IS troubled for what this means for Palin's family.

However, he also CLEARLY states that this does not disqualify her from public office.

For those of you who won't just go read it straight from the horses mouth, here is a good section from Dr. Mohler's response.

"Portraits of Elizabeth I of England and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher hang in my personal library, along with other portraits. I see no biblical injunction against their leadership in these roles.

Is that all there is to this issue? No. Feminists are bewildered and frustrated by the fact that the vast majority of women find their greatest joy and fulfillment in the roles of wife and mother. Most women do not want to be Vice President of the United States, nor to make the sacrifices necessary in order to succeed in the public arena.

This is not a question of intelligence, ability, toughness, or talent. I would love to see Margaret Thatcher at the top of her game take on any public figure. Just ask the leaders of the Labour Party in her day -- or the Argentinian generals who invaded the Falkland Islands during her tenure.

This is a question of calling. I believe that God has placed in the hearts of most women a deep desire for the fulfillment of marriage and the raising of children as life priority. Furthermore, I believe that women are given unique abilities and gifts for these callings -- affirmed by common grace and common sense.

When Gov. Palin was announced as Sen. John McCain's choice as running mate I was elated about her pro-life commitments and political philosophy, and I remain so. I also told The Wall Street Journal that, if I were her pastor, I would be concerned about how she could balance these responsibilities and what this would mean for her family and her roles as wife and mother. The news that broke over the weekend would make me only more concerned. But my concern would be for her and for her family -- not for the nation."

There is CLEARLY concern for Gov. Palin and her family. Note the pastoral concern for whether or not taking such a leadership role in the government will affect her responsibilities as a wife and mother. This concern is completely in line with the Baptist Faith and Message (2000).

Second, this concern, however, is not for the nation. This concern does not make any reference to Palin's qualifications and capabilities necessary for such a leadership role in the government. This is also in line with the Baptist Faith and Message (2000). There is absolutely nothing in that section denying the capabilities of a woman from fulfilling leadership roles in the secular society.

(Side note... Dr. Mohler and other Southern Baptists can turn directly to the Old Testament judge Deborah as an example of affirming the capabilities of a woman fulfilling the role of leading a nation (including leading the military.)

You are executing a major logical jump when you are interpreting the statement "to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation" to mean "The wife had no other role, no other divine appointment, no other responsibility. No exceptions were made for women." This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what is to be communicated by that statement. It is one of degrees of responsibility! And the FIRST/PRIMARY responsibility for the wife/mother is her family. There is NOTHING here saying that this is the only responsiblity as you have so read. Southern Baptists affirm women being able to fulfill other roles and responsibilities as long as they are fulfilling the primary responsibility.

Interestingly, finally we are on board with the same question. Liberals this week have been concerned about Palin's ability to fulfill her role as wife and mother of five children while being Vice President. Seems to me that they believe a woman cannot shirk off that responsibility too. So Dr. Mohler expresses concern for her family and liberals express concern for her family. Hmmmm seems to me that both are communicated the same idea that the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) is addressing.

Now after this first primary question there is a second undertone question concerning whether there is a biblical distinction between female roles in the family and church and roles in secular society. Though portions of this question have already been addressed in referencing such biblical woman as Deborah, more needs to be said.

The biggest issue is over what specifically is the New Testament referring to when discussing roles of men and women. Its pretty easy to see that in every instance in NT that these issues are discussed the concern is with the family and the church. Never once in the NT are male/female roles discussed in regards to the secular society. Furthermore, what concerns are actually discussed. The idea that men and women perform different but complimenting roles in both the family and the church. These roles when fitted together benefit both the family and the church. both roles are highly esteemed and neither position is given more honor than the other.

(Side note... sounds a lot different than the way these things have been construed huh? Its because you don't actually ever listen to the people who wrote the thing. You want to stop after you heard a 2 minute sound bite and then put words into their mouth about why and what they believe... as evidenced by my earlier showing of the major logical leap made in this article.)

Anyways, it is completely in keeping with the OT and the NT to affirm that women and men have different responsibilities in the home and church and that one of the distinctions here is over leadership. Likewise, it is completely keeping with the OT and the NT to affirm that women and men can both fulfill roles of leadership in the secular society.

Yep. Not only are they contradicting themselves at political convenience, they're trying to say, 'Hands off looking at her scary extremist religion' after trying to Swiftboat Obama for all those months just on *suspicion* he was influenced by some scary *non-White conservative* Christianity.

Of course, their absolutist rules were always just meant for 'the little people.'

If they can get a woman to sneer at 'community' and be the poster child for abridging *other* womens' rights and liberties, ...even have her throw out the first stone at the pre-game executions of people they don't like, of course they're all for *that.*

This is about the power they want. They've never been above rewarding a woman for pushing their agendas at the expense of others.

Isn't it ironic that to be able to support the Republican ticket that all of these "men of God" are revising what they have said? Tells me that these folks are basically dishonest. Or that their faith in what their stated beliefs are is very, very low, indeed. I think it is probably more the former...basically dishonest.

Mr. Mohler and other evagelicals may actually be a bit hypocritical on this. If Mr. Obama had chosen a Mother of a pre-teen, an elementary aged child, a pregnant teen-aged child, and an infant with Down syndrome, the right wing and the evangelicals would have been dogging that poor woman out and dogging out Senator Obama for his poor choice. They would have been preaching and screeching about motherhood and declaring her unfit and unable to be VP without neglecting her 1st and foremost duty-- her family. I did a simple web search and turned up oodles of articles and audio from the likes of Dobson, LaHaye and CWA, et al that absolutely contradict their convenient positions (or flip-flop) on this subject now.

The diddy was an article by none other than Mr. Mohler's own wife. In a 2006 article by Mary K. Mohler the following statement was one of many used to support the importance and value of stay at home mothers, “We firmly believe that the finest daycare, the sharpest nanny, or even my mom or his mom would not pass our qualifications for one reason: they are not me. Do we have an inflated opinion here? No, not at all. We believe there is no one on this earth who can love, nurture, and care for our children like I can. God made me the mother of Katie and Christopher. No one else has that distinction.” Has her sentiment changed now that a supposed Christian has a chance at VP. (BTW, I say supposed because of a very disturbing piece about Mrs. Palin's pentecostal/AG church--see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K_1Eit0pxM. Seriously scary stuff.)

Another hilarious piece from Mrs. Mohler's article is this: "Karen Hughes entered the venerable oval office one day and told the president, "I have to go home." She didn't mean that she needed the rest of the day off. She meant she needed to go home and stay there for a season. What a bold but wise move for the sake of her son." Why is this hilarious? Because this same Karen Hughes was on TV last weekend scolding the media for raising the issue of whether or not Mrs. Palin could handle both motherhood and the vice-presidency! I mean really.

See Mrs. Mohler's article here:
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-2/Motherhood-Matters

Christians, True Christians, need to examine our priorities. Why are we so obsessed with political power that we are now engaging in situational ethics? If it is one of "us"--we take this position and if it is one of those ungodly libruls (spelling it like I hear so often mispronounced) we'll take another position. McCain's adultery for instance--nada word on that from the religious right. If a Democratic candidate had an ex-wife on which he had cheated, left her and married the mistress, oh the horror and shame, and shouts of unfit and ungodly we would have heard from the Christian right. Don't even get me started on how a certain unwed 17 year old is heralded for keeping her baby (no mention of fornication, and lack of supervision, just kudos). Meanwhile, seventeen (17) year old inner city girls who do the same thing are derided as indocile, sexually unrestrained, statistics.

Some so-called Christians have gotten things very twisted and have somehow confused Christian piety with highly partisan politics. I still cringe when I recall the crosses donned by some members of the Christian Coalition during the 2004 presidential campaign--they were embossed with the Bush-Cheney logo. Sickening. And, the "W" stickers--the "W" stickers. I was hard pressed to find an ichthus sticker on the cars in my church parking lot but the "W"--loud and proud on every other car.

Charles Marsh in his book "Wayward Christian Soldier", says it well, "the politicization of Christianity in recent years--using the good name and moral commandments of the church to "serve national ambitions, strengthen middle-class values, and justify war"--has been spiritually disastrous for evangelicalism in the United States. Conservative American Christians, he claims, have forgotten the difference between "discipleship and partisanship." They have "seized the language of the faith and made it captive to our partisan agendas--and done so with contempt for Scripture..." The result has been a collapse into spiritual unseriousness, as Christians have "recast" their faith "according to our cultural preferences and baptized our prejudices, along with our will to power, in the shallow waters of civic piety." David Kuo's book says more about this from someone who was up front and personal.

I think we should repent for this ungodly hunger and thirst for political power and recognize that America is not a theocracy, and that republican does not mean righteous, and democratic does not mean demonic. George "the Christian" Bush and all of the evangelicals that have been in power the past 8 years did not put a stop to sin and immorality in the US of A. And, after 8 years of Christian rule in America, guess what, babies are being aborted as I type, my taxes didn't change, and I have yet to receive my school-choice voucher, and I recently attended a high school commencement and there was no school sanctioned Christian prayer...egad! Come on people, if your kid is in public school, pray for and with him or her before, after, and while s/he is at school and teach your child to pray without ceasing too. And, stop with the pious protests-- disrupting commencement exercises and reciting the Lord's Prayer is just,well, out of order and uncalled for. And, please Christian right stop demonizing public schools. Some people can not afford to home-school or private school. And, trust me sex, weed, meth, abortions (yep), etc. is going on at the private parochial schools too. I work with suburban evangelical teens and you would be surprised.

The bottom line is this, McCain and sister Palin won't stop all the bad stuff and implement all the right-wing stuff either and it's not going to get anymore or less worse in an Obama-Biden administration.

I'm not suggesting that Christians sit out and let our Sovereign God play this thing out-- that's going to happen anyway. I do think we should participate...reasonably and reverently. For instance, since we are so concerned about abortion, let's do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I've been doing seminars for years, without government or NFP monies, simply talking to young girls about delaying sex until marriage. We don't have to wait on the gov't for the faith-based money, if you serve pizza they will come. I reach about 50 girls a year. It's not a lot, just my own little community service. And, they don't all heed the message but hey, I'm doing my part on the front end--not just railing against abortion after the fact. Fornication is a problem too, Christian, and I rarely hear the religious right addressing that. Perhaps it is because many a Christian are having pre-marital sex and they don't want to go there and risk being called-out. Again, the hypocrisy and double standard.

Oh, and btw, when a republican was touting the virtues of community work, the 1000 Points of Light, it was an esteemed thing--now when a democratic candidate forgoes Wall Street for community service it's joke??? Again, the hypocrisy...flipping the script for political expediency.

I just hope we will kill this ravenous hunger and thirst for political power and humbly hunger and thirst after His righteousness.
Some of us are getting it.I have noticed quite of few of those "W" stickers have been scraped off the vehicles in the church parking lot.

But there is still too much stupidity like this:

Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the party’s presumed presidential nominee has a lot in common with Jesus Christ. ”John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross,” Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. “He never denounced God, either.” Everhart was praising McCain for never denouncing the United States while he was being tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. ”I’m not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ, I’m looking at the pain that was there,” she said.

And this:

"I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person (Kerry), I question your salvation. I'm sorry." Statement made from the pulpit by the pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God during the '04 presidential campaign.

And this:

Sean Allen, pastor at First Baptist Church in DeLand, Florida has been receiving hostile notes and death threats ever since he removed the U.S. flag from the church's sanctuary. The threats from the so-called Christians were so bad, fearing his safety, the pastor and his family took a leave from the church. Nice. Christians. Real nice. Threatening the pastor over a United. States. Flag.

Personally, I am more disturbed by this quote from the statement of faith and message.

"It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations."

I assume that "all nations" includes the USA.

AL,

Right you are, Man is not a 'rational' animal, he is a 'rationalizing' animal. The Southern Baptists proved this totally, with a complete flip-flop from their 2000 proclamation of 'The Little Woman, Bless her Heart, must be at home...' to 'Go Forth, Oh Empowered Women, and take the White House! (but meanwhile cook and take care of the kids)'.

It gets worse. Dobson, an ultra-right wing religious dominionist, dedicated to remaking our Constitution into a perverted version of his twisted beliefs, previously condemned McCain for being an adulterer and anything else that crossed his mind. But when St Sarah the Moose Slayer entered the race... oh, my goodness! Suddenly Dobson proclaimed the sanctimony of the republican ticket!

The hypocrisy of Dobson, and many others on the right, makes me want to puke, and fear for our freedom.

Ah, the mind's ability to rationalize anything is once again on display, as the Baptist's reinterpret their policies and positions on what the Bible says. Great article.

To any thinking person the Bible is a book of metaphors, fables and allegories....with little or any of it to be taken literally.

Does it point to sublime principles, yes. But if taken literally it points to endless verses that contradict one another.

The Southern Baptists pick and interpret the ones they wish to elevate. But it is all human interpretation. God has no part in the rationalizations of the human mind.

The heart should confirm intuitively the conclusions of the intellect, especially in spiritual matters. To me, something doesn't feel quite right about the dogma most any organized religion promotes.

Further, if everything is black and white, as so many are fond of saying, why are there over 1200 different Christian sects in the US alone and over 30,000 in the world (per religioustolerance.org).

Most all of it is the product of ego, and human judgments and opinions, and worth very little next to your own conscience about what is right and wrong.

Vote for real change this November!

The careers and candidacies of both Senator Clinton and Governor Palin will alter the future role of women in theology and society, but it could never have been predicted.

Just as no one could have predicted that the tragedy of World War 1 would lead to women winning the right to vote in America and England.

I'd like to share a women's history learning opportunity...

"The Privilege of Voting" is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

Powerful suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with TWO gorgeous presidential mistresses, First Lady Edith Wilson, Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan and Alice Roosevelt.

There are tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!

Thanks to the suffragettes, women have voices and choices!

Exciting, sequential episodes are great to read on coffeebreaks, or anytime.

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html

The evangelical right is blood thirsty. They never see a war that they don’t like. They will vote for McCain who is an admitted serial adulterer. I haven’t heard them condemn the pregnancy of unmarried, 17 year old Bristol Palin.

How they distort the Christian message! Jesus was a peace maker and cautioned repeatedly about the sins of fornication and adultery.

And the “faith”based initiative--giving our taxes to preachers--isn’t that unconstitutional?

It just goes to show you- the church is Christian, even if the leaders are not. They lie about matters of faith to help their political buddies.

Shame on them, and shame on the Baptist Church for allowing such evil leaders to distort their faith and mislead their congregations!

why are SBC fundamentalists rushing towards theological revisionism?

----

Rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway; the "Liars for Jesus!" has engaged in situational ethics for years. Why change now?

It does appear crystal clear that the SBC and other Christian Right organizations are primarily interested in their own political power.

As Christisans we are called to high standard of integrity, and we are called to avoid hypocrisy as this leads to doubt about our integrity. Pointing out that the Southern Baptists have favored women as homemakers prior to Palin is constructive criticism.

If a women can have a super career like governor or VP then it would seem that So.Baptist wives can certainly be CPAs or car wash attendants too. And in some cases where Baptist wives have greater pay or benefits it would seem they could be the "official" breadwinner, and the father may take the lead in household and childrearing duty in support of the breadwinner. Is it not hypocritical to say that wives should be homemakers in one case, but not in Palin's case?

This criticism leades many of us Christians into churches that welcome female leaders at all levels, and do not assign roles to gender. May God continue to bless the Southern Baptists as they wrestle with these subjects.

Thanks Robert. You can find my take on Al Mohler's piece at: http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/the-devil-in-the-armor/

Alan Bean
Friends of Justice

The southern baptists have historically believed a woman's place is in the home. Isn't it strange they could so suddenly, and conveniently, change their views for political reasons and "modernize" an antiquated thought system.

It should be no surprise. After all, it wasn't until 1995 the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery. Wow, let's see, thats 113 years since the Emancipation Proclamation (1882-1883) which most Southern Baptists refused to endorse at the time. An antebellum religion trying to catch up to the modern world? Can we really respect these political opportunists who just happen to be intense advocates of State's Rights?

It's outrageous our Nation has given these whacky hypocritical wing nuts of Christian right fundamentalism any semblance of credibility in our national political debate.

Didn't the Southern Baptist Church split from the main Baptist church back in the 1840s because it wanted to use the Bible to justify slavery?

"The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is a United States-based, mostly conservative[1] Christian denomination. The name "Southern" stems from its having been founded and rooted in the South. The SBC became a separate denomination in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, following a regional split with northern Baptists over the issue of slavery in the US South."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Church

"The SBC did not officially renounce using the Bible as a justification for slavery and white supremacy until June 20, 1995 when they issued a formal 'Resolution on Racial Reconciliation.'" Ibid.

In other words, these people are long-time racists in America. What validity and credibility could they possibly have on any issue at all, much less anything to do with morality? You've got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These people reflect the devil's work more than Jesus Christ's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would you give credence to any word they have to say???????????

Joshua,

I'm not resorting to "unfounded accusations of prejudice and bias." I actually think Mr. Parham makes some semi-reasonable points in calling out Southern Baptist warlords for their, as he sees it, revisions of their opinion on the role of women outside the home. I dismiss Mr. Parham's points and see them for what they are - means to attack the SBC and slam the 2000 version of its Faith and Message - but they are semi-reasonable.

Mr. Parham exhibits no prejudice or bias, per se.

He does; however, seem to savor having a means to grind another ax with the SBC. Mr. Parham's group is a propaganda front for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

Unless one has a remote clue as to the dynamic between the CBF and the SBC...opining about my comment would be misguided and irrelevant.

The Fundamentalists smell power looming and will happily change their mind if it gains them some political pull. But this is not new. Fundamentalists (of every stripe) have always only and ever been interested in power- which is why they deserve the same condemnation as the ‘Theologians of Glory’ Luther so mightily excoriated and why they are anything but ‘Theologians of the Cross’.

Religion is always taking credit for the kinds of social progress they once stymied. And our history books are the worse off for it.

But when you criticize religion, or call out its hypocrisy, there is always at least one faithful commenter (like Keith) who, because they have no other defense, resort to unfounded accusations of prejudice and bias. Of course, these are the same people who believe religion is above reproach. Or is just their religion that is so? God's on their side, right?

Mr. Parham,

I'm glad that Sen. McCain selected Gov. Palin as his running mate. I am a member of the proverbial base she has energized.

I'm also glad because the CBF (and its many de facto propaganda fronts like the Baptist Center for Ethics) needed another reason to speak out against the SBC's 2000 Faith and Message. After more than eight years, opportunities to slam the SBC and its statement of faith had been coming a little less frequently.

Can you please stick to the issues of the 2000 election and what Palin stands for rather than going all retrospective on everybody and boring the dozens who actually read this with your anti-SBC rhetoric? It's almost as if you started licking your chops once you realized McCain's VP pick would somehow afford you an opportunity to slam your sworn SBC enemies.

You've hit on the 2000 Faith and Message...what's next...Palin's love of coffee caused that fateful meeting at New Orleans' Cafe du Monde in 1979 leading to the SBC's conservative revolution?

Palin's former pastor, Tim McGraw, says that like many Pentecostal churches, some members speak in tongues, although he says he's never seen Palin do so. Church member Caroline Spangler told CNN, "When the spirit comes on you, you utter things that nobody else can understand ... only God can understand what is coming out of our mouths."
-----
What is Pentecostal Church?

Do we really want Sara Palin in VP chair, heartbeat away to be President of United States of America if she speaks in tongues or gets carried away by spirits?

Great essay. Thanks for calling these "leaders" on their revisionism.

Joe,

Welcome home.

I read your story somewhere else and was deeply touched. Thank you for sharing the reality of God's love in your life. You are making an eternal difference in people's lives now.

I guess it's amazing for you to see how our society and culture view those that have accepted the Grace that is in Christ Jesus. May their eyes be opened, may they hear with their ears.

I leave you with words from the Apostle Paul:

"I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."

Phil 1:3-6