God Save Sarah Palin!

"God is neither male nor female, but in the Incarnation God became a man."

Then why is he referred to as the Father???

Simply put, because the Bible was written by men for men! When that peace of fiction was composed women were the underdog, not worthy of serious thought, unschooled, relegated to "obey your head" (husband). And for centuries thereafter, men used the bible to put women (and others) in their place.

Note: If YE are Minus ANY one of Thses TERTA-NEEDS below, then Houston Ye Have a Problem!

^ .^. ^
FOOD
http://{J}
http://.{O}
http://...{Z}
http://......{E}
http://.........{V}
http://............{Z} @Us
HOME
http://................{J}
http://..................{O}
http://......................{Z}
http://.........................{E}
http://...........................{V}
http://..............................{Z} @Us
L♥VE
http://.................................{J}
http://....................................{O}
http://.......................................{Z}
http://..........................................{E}
http://.............................................{V}
http://................................................{Z} @Us
CLOTH
http://.....................................................{J}
http://.......................................................{O}
http://..........................................................{Z}
http://.............................................................{E}
http://................................................................{V}
http://...................................................................{Z} dot
us

1:F♣♣D To keep from disappearing;
2:H♦ME Abode to sleep/enjoy/protect;
3:L♥VE, someone to or have companion;
4:CL♠TH, something to wear!

IMPORTANT: Rich, Middle-class or Poor, Besides Keeping Busy that, If YE hath All these “4-Tetra-Needs“ then Ye hath No Worry’s , in the World, on this Blesseth Holy Cosmic Miraculous, & zero biblical Sin, Holy Cosmic NEBULAS-built S.paceS.hip Planet EARTH, aka S.S. GAiA, S.S. GEOiD, S.S. TELLUSng something!

"Our pastor acts as a Christ-figure in the weekly Eucharistic. That is a job best fulfilled by men. Appearance matters in a drama--whether we want to acknowledge it or not."

Okay, is it just me, or is this not the stupidest defense against female pastors ever uttered?

Yeah, and on this:

" Mickey O'Neill:

"Good Queen Bess? or rather to us "Bloody Bess" who persecuted Catholics and whos armies laid waste to Ireland and of course Victoria the Imperial Famine Queen whos subjects straved with green juice of grass running from from their mouths. Easy enough to see where the WASPS get their hubris from."

I couldn't say that any better, Mickey.

Among other things, this Mrs. Palin is... *nasty.* She has what passes for a 'sharp wit' among those who don't repudiate Ann Coulter, but... dag.

This is a *Christian* candidate?

And they wonder why conservative Christianity has an image problem among those who don't like to play 'Bash Yer Neighbor.'

Blessed are the pit bulls in lipstick, for they can say the bigoted things male conservatives can't get away with....

Pathetic. This whole thing is an exercise in doublespeak.

*Mocking* 'community organizers?'

Come on.

Just cause someone gave you a license to be an Alpha Hotel doesn't mean you're free... Or for women.

JESUS WAS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER

"The question was not about attacking (with full voice) the weird sexism that assumes men and women are interchangeable (hence must play all roles and denigrating the importance of each sex) . . . but whether those who defend the importance of sex in some roles are being inconsistent in voting for Palin."

Mr. Reynolds. There is a difference between a woman who can afford five kids being rich enough to also run for office, and even clean up her kids' abstinence-only mistakes, somehow finding the time to govern and stand in for a likely-ailing Presidential candidate...

And assuming that everyone in the world can live up to her artificially-created and religiously-demanded circumstances.

How many nannies must a 'barefoot and pregnant' woman be able to afford before she can enjoy this 'equality' you Christians seem to have suddenly (conditionally) found?

One 'wave' of feminism had to prove that women could do more than 'women's work.' What there needs to be is an acknowledgment of a growing understanding that modern feminism (not just the previous kind the Right likes to caricature and pose ignorance about) ...that 'women's work' is also *real work.* Particularly when it comes to motherhood.

As a real person, even all her theocratic positions aside, she doesn't seem to live in a world where it's *real* for a woman to be taking on two much-more-than-full-time jobs *at once.*

She's insulated, perhaps by money that the people she seeks to put in the situation she's a poster child for *don't have.*

Maybe she's rich enough to gloss that over, or the Roveian machine can try to spin it as 'Democratic hypocrisy' to point it out, but, if a Democratic candidate were in her situation, you know the conservative machines would viciously-disqualify her on 'moral' and implied 'character' issues alone.

I don't much care what Christian churches do liturgically. In my religion, we often have male and female clergy with distinct roles, often a notion you need *both,* so sometimes I wonder what all the fuss is about with you guys. Oh, right, monolithic models. Mind you, I think denominations justifying a hangup about having women clergy are really *missing out,* but that's your choice.

You know, choices like this woman seeks to take away from pretty much everyone else in the country.

Not everyone has to breed, but if you do that, that's a big responsibility. And, as full and equal humans, women shouldn't be treated as if 'work outside the home' is what brings equality, when still having to do a whole *other* job some see fit to try and impose on all women, rich, poor, gay, straight, inclined or suited to motherhood or not... before even enjoying the privilege of working harder for lesser pay than men.

Trying to get women preggers and married before they're even out of high school isn't a move for *equality,* it's a move for subjugation, with a Roveian counterexample constructed out of a lifestyle few in this country actually enjoy.

At our nation's peril.

As for if she thinks that's good for her kids, well...

She knows what the job entails, ....

Right?

I hope?

She is actually on stage on video for the world to see yet we haven't seen it on tv. This her statement (and I repeat there is video) IN CHURCH (speaking of the troops)
“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said.
Sarah Palin

Well I want to know if she believes this is a Holy War. This was not a task from God. I know a little about God too. I also know that God doesn't lie. So if He told our "national leaders" (Pres. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others) that there were weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq than there would have been Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. That is why we went to war. It is on video. Colen Powell, who because he was embarrassed by this and is no where to be found, made this case before the United Nations. Now the Bible says that satan is the father of all lies. That means that lies orginated from satan.
Now who lied, God or man. In the Bible it says in Titus 1:2 in the NIV version "a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time," The fact is people, including Mrs. Palin would rather believe a lie, believe man, rather than believe God. That's why I advocate keeping politics out of the pulpit. You see, the so-called religious right and religious wrong, and journalist might not read their bible, but I read my Bible and you just can't walk up on stage and tell me anything and think that I would believe it.

Pam writes:

"Ever since his keynote address, I have found him (Obama) profoundly inspiring - and to me, that's a large part of what leadership is about."

Yes.

Think of the inspiring football coach who takes his team into the locker room at halftime, trailing their opponents. The coach displays his leadership by inspiring his players to do the best that they can. He doesn't promise to go out and play quarterback, but he inspires the quarterback to perform to the best of his abilities. Along with the inspiration, the coach shows leadership by analyzing what isn't working in the game plan and adjusting the plan into a strategy that has a better chance of winning.

Obama is that coach, inspiring his team to do their best and doing HIS job by adjusting the playbook. McCain/Palin blame the players - the nation of whiners - and aver that there's nothing wrong with the game plan. That, in fact, the game plan is "basically sound," and that the "winning plan" is to pay the coach a higher salary.

I don't think Palin will last much longer. there's too much dirt just itching to get out - adultery, abuse of power, nutty Christian dominionist stuff, etc. By the election, she may be a footnote.

If I was McCain, I wouldn't resign my Senate seat.

Gotta agree with DZ.

The thing is, the Bible was written by men who lived in a patriarchal society, so of course they called their magician "He", made women subservient to men, blamed "the fall" on the woman, and gave their god a son, not a daughter.

This is no reason to look to them for guidance (on *anything*, really) in the 21st century. When are we going to grow up and get over this hocus-pocus nonsense??

Sarah Palin? Not qualified in any way.

I'm a woman, and I support women's causes. I would love to see a woman president in my lifetime, but not just *any* woman. I would have been happy with Hillary Clinton, and she was my candidate until Barack Obama entered the race.

Ever since his keynote address, I have found him profoundly inspiring - and to me, that's a large part of what leadership is about. I hear all the campaign promises (on both sides) and know that we aren't electing a king - they don't get to dictate what will happen after their election. But they *do* get to *lead*. If they can inspire the rest of us to participate in their causes, they end up with actual accomplishments. Obama's speeches are inspiring. Speeches like Sarah Palin's - nasty, sarcastic, full of zingers - are emphatically *NOT*.

This is the most Orwellian rationalization of inequality and gender discrimination that I've read in a while. It is a classic example of 'All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others'. What is it about equality that you right-wingers can't seem to grasp. It does not mean separate but equal, quasi-equal, mostly equal or anything else, it means equal as in having the same rights and privileges. The same. You could have written a two sentence essay saying you don't believe in gender equality - same effect but a lot less tortured BS to wade through.

Oh, you're a Christian but you're going to vote for the worst warmonger in the country along with his book-burning bridezilla. Pathetic Mr. Reynolds, truly pathetic.

Maybe God the Creator didn't cause Jesus to be born male because male is "better" or "more fit" in some manner, but because God Incarnate had to be one sex or the other and might as well be the sex that would be respected and listened to at the time. Had Jesus been a woman, who in that ancient, patriarchal world would have respected her authority or intelligence.

Or

maybe it's foolish of me to try to judge God's thought-processes, because I'm nowhere near as omniscient.

I don't know why Jesus was a male, and frankly I don't think it holds any real significance. There's no evidence that Jesus was a male because males are somehow spiritually better, more God-like. I don't think anyone here is qualified to draw any conclusions based on Jesus' sex.

As for priest needing to be male to represent Jesus in Communion,... I don't get it. I mean I can see Reynold's point of view, I just think insisting on priests being men for that solitary reason is a prime example of not seeing the forest for the trees.

This is, quite possibly, the weakest argument for why women should not be clergy I have ever ever had the misfortune to read.

To use as reasoning the mere fact that this is a liturgical stage show where gender should match gender is ridiculous. Shouldn't the church be about more than pomp and spectacle? Symbols matter, in a sense, but actions matter more - and the fact is that in many cases, a woman can perform "the acts" as good as (if not better) than her male counterpart.

Also, most of the women you cite as examples of female leadership (Queen Elizabeth, Joan of Arc) were in many circles considered an abomination or at the very least an anomaly. And many of their shortcomings were seen as related to their gender. Don't tell me they weren't treated different as female leaders than their male counterparts.

How about a relevant argument of our time? We still have a minority of female leaders in this country and we still have blatant sexism alive and well in an institution that is supposed to be about good (read: the church).

And to be honest, I don't care one whit what the bible says about women; if Sarah Palin were a viable and decent candidate, I would vote for her. The truth, and what these sorts of meaningless dialogues obscure, is that she is not. She does not have the experience, the polish, the wisdom or the credibility to be in line for the presidency of the United States. She is a slap in the face choice to women everywhere. We should not be having (weak) debates about whether it's okay to vote for her because she's a woman - we should be having debates over whether we should vote for her as a person running on the platform she is running on. We should not vote for her, not by a long shot, and that has nothing to do with her gender.

Just a typo... you wrote «Saint Catherine of Sienna». Her name is Santa Caterina da Siena. Siena is a town in Tuscany. So, if you wish to translate in English you should write «Saint Catherine of Siena». Just one "n".

God bless America? Ok, but... which God?

http://lindipendente.splinder.com/post/18279511/God+bless+America

Also: matters of religion and sex roles aside, it appears Dr. Reynolds has fallen into a weird trap many, many other pundits and ordinary citizens have in this dialogue: comparing. Gov. Palin to Sen. Obama. It's a false comparison. You should be comparing Palin to Sen. Biden and Obama to Sen. McCain. "But Palin could be President" is a dangerous theoretical. Sure, McCain's a senior citizen and has battled cancer, but he's not dead yet. That also described Ronald Reagan, who lived to 93. The GOP has speculated for 28 years now about a President who "would almost certainly" appoint a Supreme Court justice to replace John Paul Stevens, and he's still kicking.

Please compare apples to apples.

I do NOT want anyone NEAR the White House who threatened to fire the town librarian because the librarian refused to censor books.

That's just one of palin's doings, and she is so WOEFULLY underqualified for anything except dog catcher.

Dr. Reynolds, I must take umbrage with your characterization of the "Christianity," of John Knox as horrid and the faith of Elizabeth the I as magnificent.
You sir, are rightly called a "Far Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian," and purveying this brand of Christianity is most absurd, for the start of the Church of England was born of the sin of disobedience and rebellion.
King Henry VIII, rebelled against the Holy Father for refusing to allow King Henry, to remarry against his Christian vows and vows before G-d, to love honor and cherish his first wife.
This led to his daughter, Elizabeth the I, to persecute Roman Catholic Christians at an amazing rate, with horrible results that led to a long period of darkness in the English land.
The intolerance of the Church of England towards the Roman Catholic Christians, led many fine and upstanding men and women to their deaths, by torture and dismemberment, beheading and other very nasty forms of death too numerous to mention.
In the Testament, it says, "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft," explain sir, why, then I should vote for a women, Sarah Palin, that follows a tradition of rebellion and sin?
This is absolutely the most obscene reason for voting for someone as faith should remain separate from the public arena and a private matter between G-d and oneself.
I find no comfort in your reasoning, and furthermore find your reasoning unacceptable and irrational. This is by far, the most egregious and otherwise slanted view that has been posted by the WAPO for a very long time.
My one comfort is that you only have a limited amount of postings in the Faith column and that I will be watching for the defeat of the McCain-Palin ticket, for reasons other than what you are definitely voting for them.
Please be assured that I will be watching for all you postings and looking for your postings on Scriptoriumdaily to refute and discuss your viewpoints with accurate and sound reasoning from now on.

You start by saying you will vote for Palin for VP, yet you never say why. Other than the fact that she is a woman and a Christian, you don't say why she is qualified to be VP let alone step in as President if the need arise.
I can only conclude you believe any Christian woman would fill the bill. Opinions like that certainly don't carry any weight with me and I hope few others.

No problem. Why would a woman, or anybody, want to represent the humanity of an imaginary person? There is no reliable, contemporary, non-Christian documentation of Jesus Christ's supposed life.

Harold, we have our own Bibles. We don't need you to quote them for us.

It has been my observation that the only things men can do that women can't are produce sperm and urinate standing up. In a pinch, this woman can do the latter. I can't write my name in the snow, but we don't get snow very often in my neck of the woods anyway.

The only things women can do that men can't are get pregnant, give birth, and lactate.

None of these abilities are necessary in order to effectively lead a church or a country, nor are any of them a hindrance to effective leadership.

I could never be part of a religious organization that refused to ordain women. Fortunately, I found Paganism and Unitarianism, both of which see women as every bit as capable as men in ALL facets of leadership.

This is one of the feeblest attempts to justify mysogeny that I have ever encountered.

So, only if Christ were a woman should woman be allowed to conduct the liturgy?

Does the word antedeluvean mean anything to you?
How about male chauvinist pig?

Seems to me that the presidency should be an older persons job regardless of sex. WE AMERICANS always preach that parents should be given enough time to raise our kids, well...seems to me as though only Biden and McCain have enough time to run the country. No kids to raise, no kids to screw up by being absent parents. This woman has a 4 month old with down syndrome, seems that her priorities are a little TOO with the time. We consistently blame parents when children have children out of wedlock, but we cheer her for being a regular woman with regular problems. I guess we should cheer her for opening up a bunch of previously closed minded bigots whom covered themselves under the auspices of evangelism. Well congrats to the Republican Party and all Evangelicals nationwide for soundly becoming accepting liberals.

One Christian mother blessing the gun that will kill another mother's son. How Christian !

How about 'God Bless the World'?

For evangelicals, this would not be patriotic and maybe, uh, to Christ-like.

Well written and very rewarding reading.

“my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept”
“And the Lord turned the captivity of Job”
“when he prayed for his friends”
“So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning”
“Turn you at my reproof”
“I will pour out my spirit unto you”
“I will make known my words unto you”
“But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.”

My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger,
Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.
Do this now, my son, and deliver thyself, when thou art come into the hand of thy friend; go, humble thyself, and make sure thy friend.
Give not sleep to thine eyes, nor slumber to thine eyelids.
Deliver thyself as a roe from the hand of the hunter, and as a bird from the hand of the fowler.

The poor is hated even of his own neighbour: but the rich hath many friends.
He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he.
Do they not err that devise evil? but mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good.

He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends.
A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.
An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.
Let a bear robbed of her whelps meet a man, rather than a fool in his folly.
Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house.
The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.
He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.
Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?
A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.

Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.
Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.
The poor useth intreaties; but the rich answereth roughly.
A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool.
Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.
The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the Lord.
Wealth maketh many friends; but the poor is separated from his neighbour.
A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
Many will intreat the favour of the prince: and every man is a friend to him that giveth gifts.
All the brethren of the poor do hate him: how much more do his friends go far from him? he pursueth them with words, yet they are wanting to him.
He that getteth wisdom loveth his own soul: he that keepeth understanding shall find good.
A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.

He that loveth pureness of heart, for the grace of his lips the king shall be his friend.
The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.
The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets.
The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the Lord shall fall therein.

Open rebuke is better than secret love.
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.

You said that men and women are not interchangealbe in all things. Of course there is some truth to this. But it is ocmpletely irrelevant to this topic.

I do not want to mean, and I am trying not to be mean. However...

...you seem so breath-takingly limited in your concepts of the world, so circumscribed and unknowing.

I am no one special, but just an old Appalachian boy, with no family name, nor education, no money, nor anyway to influence anything, but by my few comments on these threads.

Sometimes, when I post on these threads, I get rude replies calling me a lefty liberal elitest. This is funny. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am telling you this, just to let you know, that I feel funny that I, a complete and utter nobody, seem to be more aware, and more broadly thinking, than you, who are some kind of academic.

I wish there were some way that your narrow experience could someway be broadened. I am not sure how, though.

the latter end of Job

Now when Job's three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came every one from his own place; Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite: for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him.
And when they lifted up their eyes afar off, and knew him not, they lifted up their voice, and wept; and they rent every one his mantle, and sprinkled dust upon their heads toward heaven.
So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great.

“Now when Job's three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him”
“sprinkled dust upon their heads toward heaven.”
“So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights”
“none spake a word unto him”
“for they saw that his grief was very great”

Then Job answered the Lord, and said,
I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.
Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.
So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did according as the Lord commanded them: the Lord also accepted Job.
And the Lord turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.
Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.
So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

“And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job”
“the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite,”
“My wrath is kindled against thee”
“and against thy two friends”
“for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right”
“as my servant Job hath”
“my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept”
“And the Lord turned the captivity of Job”
“when he prayed for his friends”
“So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning”

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

I know I have made it very clear everything God created is rejected of the LORD. This is the end of the world. The sinner creatures reject the Ten Commandments

And he declared unto you his covenant,
which he commanded you to perform,
even ten commandments;
and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

“And it shall come to pass in the last days”
“And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit”
“I will shew wonders in heaven above”
“signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke”
“The sun shall be turned into darkness”
” and the moon into blood,”
“before that great and notable day of the Lord come”
“And it shall come to pass”
“that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord:
They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

“Turn you at my reproof”
“I will pour out my spirit unto you”
“I will make known my words unto you”
“But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.”

“LEST YE CORRUPT YOURSELVES”
“AND LEST THOU LIFT UP THINE EYES UNTO HEAVEN”
“EVEN ALL THE HOST OF HEAVEN”

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

“WHEN THOU SEEST THE SUN”
“THE MOON”

“God made two great lights”
“the greater light to rule the day”
“the lesser light to rule the night”

God called the light Day
the darkness he called Night
“When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”
“The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.”
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

“THE LIKENESS OF ANY FISH THAT IS IN THE WATERS BENEATH THE EARTH”

“Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life”
“God created great whales”
“and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind”

“THE LIKENESS OF ANY THING THAT CREEPETH ON THE GROUND”

“God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing”

“THE LIKENESS OF ANY WINGED FOWL THAT FLIETH IN THE AIR”

“and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven”
“every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

““THE LIKENESS OF ANY BEAST THAT IS ON THE EARTH”

“and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

“THE LIKENESS OF MALE OR FEMALE”

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

“MAKE YOU A GRAVEN IMAGE”
“THE SIMILITUDE OF ANY FIGURE”

“God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

“LEST YE CORRUPT YOURSELVES”
“AND LEST THOU LIFT UP THINE EYES UNTO HEAVEN”
“EVEN ALL THE HOST OF HEAVEN”

“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”

“LEST YE CORRUPT YOURSELVES”

“And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it”

And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

“Lest ye corrupt yourselves”
“make you a graven image”
“the similitude of any figure”
“the likeness of male or female”
“The likeness of any beast that is on the earth”
“the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air”
“The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground”
“the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth”
“And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven”
“when thou seest the sun”
“the moon”
“even all the host of heaven”

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

As a result, Christians have never had trouble praying, "God save the Queen,"

Unless you were a Catholic in N Ireland.

Blessings from an expat-Belfast.

I also love Sarch Palin - God is at work.

Blessings,

Anne

How is religion at all relevant in this discussion? Separation of church and state; the U.S.must cease it's focus on religiousity as a reflection of some moral or ethical standard.

if we are all God's children then we should all be capable of being clergy...being a priest does not require a gender...it requires a soul...casting out women from the role doesn't seem very christian...I don't think God cares

John,

I know the theological arguments but instead of answering my questions and points about logic you have pulled in tangents or have have missed my reasoning. I never said that you cannot read scripture in light of its genre. Again you missed the point. You even admitted that the Bible must be read as whole. But, alas you have not engaged the heart of my arrangements. Rather, you have engaged off top issues. Again, your first post's logic does not stand. If you do not want to engage in theological arguments, then don't be a panelist on an issue that is inevitably theological (i.e. Palin being a VP but could not be a pastor/priesthood for men in light of Christ's maleness). This issue is dripping with theology... but you insist to avoid it! Maybe you should be a panelist concerning Human Psychology and not theological or ecclesiastical issues.

"Christianity favors justice to all without denying proper roles for the masculine and the feminine."

That's a complete load of contradictory Bullcrap!

How can you even say that with a straight face much less believe it yourself much less expect any reasonable person to buy such load of absolute bunk.

Your version of Christianity is riddled with chauvenistic sexism and your quote above is undeniable proof.

Why don't you tell us which roles of a Pastor/Priest are exclusively masculine by necessity and cannot be performed by a woman? That Jesus was a man is a rather lame excuse. Women have aptly portrayed men in dramatic productions for all of time.

Or just "be a man" and own up to your denomination's blatent discrimination against women without the transparent charade.

"You missed the point completely. Obama's campaign boasts as part of his 'qualifications' that he was a "Community Organizer" In Chicago.
Palin's comments were attacking the notion that 'community organizer' is relevent presidential experience. She said nothing bad about the organizations themselves."

From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
YORK, Pa. -- Obama said Republicans' criticism of his work as a community organizer was more proof they were out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans, an argument that has become a major theme of his campaign in recent weeks.

On the community organizer criticism: "They haven't talked about the fact that I was a civil rights lawyer; they haven't talked about the fact that I taught constitutional law; they haven't talked about my work in the state legislature, in the United States Senate," he said. "They're talking about the three years of work that I did right out of college as if that's-- I'm making the leap from two or three years out of college into the presidency."

Obama added though that his work as a community organizer was relevant to who he is and the kind of people he's "fighting for."

"Why would that kind of work be ridiculous?" Obama said. "Who are they fighting for? What are they advocating for? They think that the lives of those folks who are struggling each and every day, that working with them to try to improve their lives is somehow not relevant to the presidency? I think maybe that's the problem -- that's part of why they're out of touch and they don't get it 'cause they haven't spent much time working on behalf of those folks."

On the accusations of sexist treatment of Palin: "If they want to work the refs they are free to do so, and I think the public can make their judgments about this," he said. "The notion that any questions about her work in Alaska is somehow not relevant to her potentially being vice president of the United States, doesn’t make too much sense to me. I think she’s got a compelling story, but I assume that she wants to be treated the same way that guys want to be treated, which means that their records are under scrutiny. I’ve been through this for 19 months. She’s been through it, what four days so far?"

Obama and his surrogates have repeatedly argued that McCain does not understand the economy in general and that the Republican convention this week was ignoring economic issues. The senator has been saying for weeks that he is best-suited to tackle the problems hardworking families are facing.

"I believe that the American people need change, they want change, and I’m in the best position to bring it and on a whole host of issues from energy to health care to education," he said. "If at some point Sen. McCain is-- actually addresses those issues, then I think that’s gonna be a useful debate for the American people to listen to."

JMR: "Failing to recognize this also undercuts the great value of the woman's voice and the man's voice as equally important but different inputs in making up the full Image of God."
'equally important but different' = 'separate but equal'
Yeah that's much better. That's a policy we can all buy into.

Gladerunner-

It would appear that the presence of a member is the necessary attribute to be a member of the Presence.

Anonymous, if that really is your name...
"Aren't the vaunted sacred cows of the Republicans whish are called "faith-based initiatives" community organizations by definition"

You missed the point completely. Obama's campaign boasts as part of his 'qualifications' that he was a "Community Organizer" In Chicago.
Palin's comments were attacking the notion that 'community organizer' is relevent presidential experience. She said nothing bad about the organizations themselves.

I suppose this means that if the Redeemer of the world had been a woman, then priests could only be women. Since we must be born of one sex or the other (unless our genes get confused, as they do sometimes), then half the human population must be put to one side. The apostles were also all Jewish and all circumcised; this was deemed irrelevant theologically? In the early church, before it became an institution of power rather than a target, women served as leaders. Services were in private homes, and women were in charge in the home. Once the church had political and social power, the women were fenced out.

Funny how Palin and Guiliani bashed community organizers last night. Aren't the vaunted sacred cows of the Republicans whish are called "faith-based initiatives" community organizations by definition?

Perhaps Palin's message is that extreme right-wing, fundamentalist Christian community organizations are not only A-OK, but worthy of government funding, while community organizations that do not fit her Christian dominionist model are worthy only of racist ridicule and school-yard taunts?

"Appearance matters in a drama--whether we want to acknowledge it or not"
So it's best that a man play a man in a drama...
But Sir, unless there's photographic trickery at work, you unlike Christ, are really, really white. Do you darken you skin and hair and eyes? shed a score or so pounds, brown your teeth to appear more christ-like? or is gender itself the only physical attribute that really matters to portray a christ-like character in a drama? If appearance matters enough to keep women from portraying this part,how exactly does your appearance in this little play present christ? A blonde/red head (can't tell) , well fed green-eyed european with shiney teeth and manicured nails?

God save us from crazy Chrisians and even crazier and mean-spirited Republicans.

Palin criticized for mocking community organizing
Submitted by Dennis Coday on Thu, 09/04/2008 - 15:44.

By National Catholic Reporter Staff

Published: September 4, 2008

The group Catholic Democrats today issued a strong rebuke of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s sarcastic mocking of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s work as a community organizer during the 1980s.

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities,” Palin, former mayor of a small town in Alaska, said during her speech to the Republican National Convention Sept. 3 in St. Paul, Minn.

The speech by Palin, currently governor of Alaska, followed one by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also belittled Obama’s work as a community organizer, drawing laughs from the assembled Republicans.

“It is shocking that a vice presidential candidate would disparage an essential component of the Catholic social tradition with her condescending attack on urban community organizing,” said Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats, an association of state-based groups advancing understanding of Catholic social teaching.

The group criticized Palin for mocking Obama’s work “in the 1980s for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.” The Catholic Campaign for Human Development is an arm of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and it partially funded Obama’s activities in Catholic parishes on the South Side of Chicago. At the time it was known simply as the Campaign for Human Development.

Community organizing was work Obama undertook “instead of pursuing a lucrative career on Wall Street,” according to a statement from Catholic Democrats.

Referring to Palin’s speech, the statement said: “Her divisive rhetoric, repeatedly pitting small towns against urban communities, demonstrates not only a lack of charity toward the needs of some of the least among us but a fundamental disrespect for those who dedicate their lives to overcoming poverty across our country.”

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/1766

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

http://www.servingbread.net/2008/04/24/ten-reasons-why-men-should-not-be-ordained-for-ministry

I should add that I do find it hard (given my vision) to edit in this comment box. Pardon my hasty errors as I shall pardon yours!

Class is starting soon so this is my last post on this thread.

I should respond that the error in some comments (and of Bishop Spong) regarding Christ's selection of male apostles. Many equate being a "fisherman" (as an apostle) is at the same symbolical level as being a man or woman.

We don't pick only fishermen (and the other jobs the apostles held) so we need not follow Christ's example in terms of sex.

That is supremely foolish . . . as any quick reflection would show. I would be quite content if Hope (the lady wife of the house) became a fisherman, but quite unhappy (in a very deep way) if she suddenly became a man. She reports that she too is content if I switch careers, but is hoping I will not switch my sex!

Sexual natures cut deeper and are more important to people.

Failing to recognize this also undercuts the great value of the woman's voice and the man's voice as equally important but different inputs in making up the full Image of God.

Roxy,

Some things change, but I doubt men and women will much. Every generation thinks that basic relationships have changed forever . . . but they go right on being the same.

Children will come from a man and a woman who make love and love each other.

Men and women will not be interchangeable in every role. This is not like race, because "race" does not really exist at the deepest level of what makes a particular person that person.

I think it almost wholly artificial as a category. (Of course great harm can be done through the use of this artificial category!) The sex of a man or woman is different, I think, than talk of race. It is more important. We should value both the man's and the woman's voice and not treat them as interchangeable in all ways.

This is a reason I strongly support diversity in my department for faculty. We need all the voices at the table . . .

There are good textual reasons to support a male priesthood. There are good theological reasons. My job was to show briefly that one need not be inconsistent in supporting women in political leadership while not supporting their playing a particular role in the liturgy.

To show I am NOT inconsistent I need not give every reason or even a reason persuasive to you, but just that it is a thought out position.

To say that one aspect of the role of priest, in my church a very important one, is like theater does not trivialize it. Our story making and performance arts are very, very powerful forces in our lives. Some symbols work (bread and wine) and others would work less well (Diet coke and pizza) as icons of different reality.

I think the sex of a "performer" matters . . . and that seems common sense.

As for other roles in the church (non-sacramental) I cannot think of many that some woman has not held so well she has been canonized for it. (Nina is just one example!)

As for history, I was once young and now am older (!) and have lived long enough not to be impressed by it. We are, all of us, pretty bad at guessing where history is going.

My guess is that history will confirm some roles are best played by men and some best played by women. Maybe I am wrong . . . in the meantime this is not about political power.

I see no reason to think our present sexual morality (for example) is any more likely to continue than that we will return to a more Victorian formulation of sex. I am not in favor of either . . . but know that nothing lasts forever.

As a teacher of mine was fond of saying, "Nothing is so dated as the up to date."

In the meantime we do the best we can. . .

Back to Timaeus!

"So it has been and so it always shall be. God bless America for it!"
Dangerous words, and when the church comes out of its absurd dogma (see, church is like a theater, and in good theater men play men, and...) and into the light of what JESUS taught (not priests and church lackeys and countless would-be leaders from Jesus' death on, all ranging from sensible to downright insane), this author will be eating them. I think it just deleted my last post complimenting the semi-progressivism of acknowledging womens' and mothers' abilities to lead, but ultimately this argument from mens' personal preferences and interpretations and analogies regarding theater is weak and increasingly out of touch with american values.. Arguments from text, however backward they seem to our politics, are respectable, but arguments from dogma based on nothing are illegit. If there is one rule of church dogma, it is that rules change--for better or worse, and with the times.

Dr. Reynolds,

It seems to me that you are distilling the role of men in the church down only to their physical representation of Christ in the most basic way. In some cases, men don't look much like men, and there are not a few rather masculine-looking women out there. Are you saying that as long as the congregation is fooled, that the priest LOOKS like a man for the drama, then all is well? I can't see a basis for this in the Bible. Rather, in the Bible, I find this:

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." (1 Tim. 2:11-15)

It seems to me, from this passage and others, that the roles of men and women in the church are based on a little more than the ability to grow a beard. Personally, I don't have a problem with this passage, and I accept the roles the Bible lays out for us. But it seems like you're disregarding the perhaps distasteful aspects of the Bible's take on gender roles in order to make it all more palatable to today's audience.

And the disparity in a woman allegedly being 'fit' to lead in the state yet unfit to lead in the church is yet to be satisfactorily explained.

I'm glad to hear a Christian perspective in support of female political leaders, and an acknowledgement that mothers can lead, but... can someone please clarify as to how being a priest is akin to "playing" Christ and thus requires being male? Arguments from the text I'd understand, but this seems a little far-fetched: less logic or scripture than dogma, church-made assumptions and interpretations and preferences made church doctrine on par with biblical commands.. irritating.

Alan,

Methinks you are asking a blog post to be a theological treatise.

Go read a theological argument. A good place to start is the Vatican web site. A good ecumenical site with my view is Touchstone Magazine.

Scripture may be scripture, but to treat all Scripture as being the same genre or of equally applicability is to fail to read a book as a book.

Back to Timaeus,

JMNR

John

Still, you have not addressed my concern about the logic behind your argument. I see that you are mixing theology, logic, liturgy, and doctrine in a nebulous way.

Comparing Deborah to Christ points to the unifying message of God's work among his people. It proves that God's word through scripture is true and trustworthy. It proves that God used women to lead the people. Was not Christ called to lead God's people? Clearly, the personhood of Christ is truly different, but the account of Christ's leading speaks to the messiahship that the OT points towards (from Genesis to Zechariah, including Deborah!) If we ignore OT people like Deborah, then we have no Christian theology because the Christian theology is built on the account of God's people in the OT pointing towards the work of Christ. The history of Israel has everything to do with Christian theology! It is how we became Christians.

When did God tell us to put liturgy above theology? Is the liturgy church doctrine? I can read all the Thomas Cranmer I want, but are we to place liturgy over scripture? You are placing the OT account of Deborah as be subservient to the NT account Christ? Scripture is scripture. You cannot place one part of scripture has being sublime to another. As for liturgy, I serve as a pastor in a liturgical setting and I know the liturgy is the work of the people.

Once again, I am uncomprehending.

For me, this is a non-issue. Why would a person be bothered enough to worry about such a silly thing? There is plenty of real stuff to worry about.

You could say that only a white man can be a pastor or a priest, because that seems better, and is more acceptable. But if you say that, you would be excluding the feelings, even the existence of all those people who are not white.

To me, this uncounscious and thoughtless exclusion is what is wrong with much of Conservative Christianity, and the Republican Party.

To conserve that which is good in the world is not a bad thing. But to be unconsciously and exclusively egocentric is alternatively, not a good thing.

Alan,

To compare Deborah to the Son of God in importance to Christian theology is not sound. The liturgy does not symbolize rule or Deborah could easily be a priest! Instead the liturgy images Christ to the people (read some Cranmer!).

I think the sex of a person is a deep part of who that person is. I don't think men image women (generally) as well as they image men.

The liturgical role is very important, but it is not all important. As Saint Nina shows there are other roles that men cannot fulfill (because they are men) but that are equal in importance.

As to theological argument, there are supporting theological arguments (I referred you to the Vatican web site), but this is not the time to make them. This thread is about something else.

Ross,

We live in a fallen world.

Weird things happen.

My job is not to base my life on the weird things, but to find the Aristotelian middle way.

Just as a life insurance company does not base its models on the very real exceptions (or it would lose money) so great institutions should not do so.

What to do with the exceptions?

The church has long practiced a kind of oeconomia in hard cases. We have general ruls and then there are weird exceptions. Priests do this all the time.

I have two 3 hour Timaeus seminars today so my lack of follow up on this thread is not a sign of disregard.

Agree symbols are important, but what does the symbol of "maleness" of pastors/priests say about God? That God can only use males for the work of pastors? Just because God came in the form of a male does not mean that the office of pastor has to be preformed by a male. Where is scripture is that said? To say only males can be pastors because Jesus was male is a weak reason. The absence of a doctrine or directive by God does not mean that the doctrine must be fulfilled on simple logic. The logic of:

1. Jesus was male
2. Jesus is our high priest
3. We need priests (pastors)
Therefore, priests need to be male.

That logic does not work because theological and biblical considerations are not taken into account.

My whole point is, you cannot base the doctrine of male priesthood (pastors) just because Christ was male. What about Deborah? The female judge of Israel, which was an office of theocracy (a religious office ordained by God, not a political office) Because she was a female, does that mean that all the judges after her had to be female? No. That logic fails. So does the reasoning presented by the panelist.

Mark you wrote: The question was not about attacking (with full voice) the weird sexism that assumes men and women are interchangeable (hence must play all roles and denigrating the importance of each sex)
-----
Recently a case came to light where a man is showing off carrying an child in his womb.

Bear with me. I am not crapping out here.

The details of the case showed that the man carrig the child in his womb was a woman to begin with who underwent a sex change to becaome a man- the doctors conveniently used the womb left in him during sex change operation, to bear his girlfriend's child.

How wierd is that?

John Mark reynold, how do you explain this behviour from god's children. I am trying to understand how God in all his wisdom could have created a set of people (doctor, surgeon, woman-to-man bearing a child, a grilfriend) to create such miracle.

Does religion as defined by church legitimize such practices?

If not how do you explain bringing such child born out of womb of maninto this world?

Does the above not override the function of sex as intended by God?

God is neither male nor female, but in the Incarnation God became a man. Symbols do matter. My church uses bread and wine because bread and wine (symbolically) trigger certain associations. They work dramatically.

To denigrate the importance of symbols is to miss the dramatic element of the liturgy.

There are other theological reasons that almost no traditional Christians outside of fading Protestant groups (like my former Episcopal affiliation) or spirit-of-the-age seminarians favor ordination of women, but I am not a theologian so I will leave those more theological ones to people in that discipline. Though I am not a Roman, a quick tour of the Vatican web site will help you find those. The fact that I am disadvantaged in being a Mother Superior is compensated for in my advantage in playing the role of Father!

As to my focus . . .

The question was not about attacking (with full voice) the weird sexism that assumes men and women are interchangeable (hence must play all roles and denigrating the importance of each sex) . . . but whether those who defend the importance of sex in some roles are being inconsistent in voting for Palin.

There are not since there is a decent distinction to be made between a liturgical role and a role in government.

A church can limit the liturgical role without limiting opportunities for other kinds of ministry.

"Appearance matters in a drama--whether we want to acknowledge it or not."

Clearly, in speaking of communion, Reynolds has no theological basis in his argument. Most of his reasoning uses analogies which do not point him closer to making his point. To say that the pastor must be male because Christ was male (to get the communion "right") is rather weak. Does he do this with all of his dogma? I hope not. Using a lot of reason, which almost comes across as winy, just does not work. His basic idea is men can only be pastors because Christ was male. What does this say about God? God is neither male nor female. I would expect a better argument from a professor from Biola.

Oh *now* women are equal to men. Republicans have fought evey bill that would have made women equal to men, in the workplace, in the military, salaries, etc. The only reason Ms. Palin has had the opportunity to be a mayor and govenor is the hard work of the democrats, their belief in equality for all, their work to push back the republican culture of women at home barefoot and pregnant that republicans hold in their core, and the passage of laws outlawing discrimination against women in the workplace.

So vote for Palin Mr. Reynolds but don't think by doing so your vote is making women equal in the political sphere. That was done by the democrats decades ago through laws they passed and their own female VP 24 years ago. It is the democrats and their hard work to make women equal to whom Ms. Palin owes her current position.

Now, maybe if we could get people of color into the republican party that might help equality don't you think. I liked what Andy Kindler said while reporting from the republican convention. He said "I thought I was white but these people take white to a higher level". I can see, in about 25 years, a republican black VP choice, and you will think it was all the doing of the republican party and relish in the credit for bring equality to blacks. How easily you ignore the history of the sexist and racist republican party though I'm glad to see you enjoying it finally moving into the 20th century (yes, I knows it is currently the 21st century).

Good Queen Bess? or rather to us "Bloody Bess" who persecuted Catholics and whos armies laid waste to Ireland and of course Victoria the Imperial Famine Queen whos subjects straved with green juice of grass running from from their mouths. Easy enough to see where the WASPS get their hubris from.

Mark you are truly brave.