Friday, October 31, 2008

Mud Slinging

We're down to the home stretch. That's why I'm on a posting marathon here and I'm not out of topics yet. But this headline caught my attention and I couldn't let it slide. I guess file it in the "what the?" drawer.

The North Carolina Senate race is a tight one, and like most races this season no one wants to talk issues but everyone wants to sling mud. In this case it's Liz Dole, who I just lost all respect for, putting out an ad against her opponent, Kay Hagan, accusing her of being "godless." This article includes the videos and hers is definitely over the line. If I didn't know better (and most voters don't) I'd think the voice that says repeatedly "there is no God" was hers. But then I read the article and find out that she's an elder in her church and teaches Sunday school. Hagan responds with an add of her own calling out Dole for "bearing false witness" and follows that up with a lawsuit against Dole.

Have we sunk so low that this is the substance of our political debates? Do you base your vote on who is most religious, has the most faith, is the most righteous? If so, you might as well stay home because we are all sinners and Jesus reminds us that "no one is good but God alone." (Mk 10:18) That's not all we need to be reminded of.

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. (1 Cor 6:1-8)

"Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs..." (2 Tim 2:3-4)



They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the same way political power corrupts politically and drives out whatever spirituality was there to begin with.

Gay Marriage

There are a few measures on state ballots regarding same-sex marriage and there’s still a desire by the Religious Right to pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. This is a touchy subject that I’ve so far avoided. But in light of these initiatives, I want to offer some thoughts.

I’m not going to judge the morality of homosexuality here. I think citing Leviticus is a tenuous argument in light of the New Covenant and also that eating shellfish is also an “abomination.” There’s plenty in the New Testament however, that one can refer to if so inclined. Instead I want to focus on the marriage issue itself, and rely on history, the Bible and reason to make my case.

First, this is not a Civil Rights issue. I understand the “Separate But Not Equal” case being made relative to Civil Unions, but I disagree with that premise. There’s a difference between being afforded the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but under a different name, and having separate bathrooms, restaurants, schools, and buses. The only “separation” is in name only. There is no physical separation as was the case in the Civil Rights Movement. And that physical separation resulted in a risk to welfare and safety, which is also not the case with this issue. There’s nothing stopping a City Hall from officiating a “civil union” and even calling it a marriage. Just as there’s nothing stopping churches from having “marriage ceremonies” for civil unions. Both of these have happened and will likely continue to happen. The only “separation” in this issue is being able to get a “marriage” license and to be able to check a box that says “married” on official forms. Where civil unions are present, that’s it. That’s what this fight is over. There is no Separate But Not Equal.

Second, even if you assume that homosexuality is ok according to the Bible (based on condemnations against homosexuality being motivated by pagan practices), allowing divine marriage calls into question the very nature of God. (Note, despite this being argued by the religious community, marriage is not a religious institution. It is a civil recognition of being able to share property, name, and responsibility. If this was all there is to it, I wouldn’t oppose gay marriage so long as churches were protected from having to recognize them.) Even if you don’t take Adam and Eve as literal, few argue the fundamental point from those passages that we’re created, man and woman, in God’s image. Marriage is then later defined as, “for this reason…they will become one flesh”. (Gen 2:24) Feminine qualities of God unite with the masculine qualities of God (refer to the books Captivating and Wild at Heart, respectively) to create a complete reflection of God’s character. “This is a profound mystery.” (Eph 5:32) This is impossible in same-sex marriage. Also, the metaphors of God and the nation of Israel and of Jesus and the Church break down if same-sex marriage can be “blessed” by God via a religious ceremony. In that case, you might as well throw out the whole book of Hosea.

Now, you could argue from that point that churches don’t have to recognize gay marriage. Fine, but my third point is a legal one. Many on the Religious Right like to point to the “slippery slope” allowing same-sex marriage could create. This is based on the motivation for gay marriage being able to marry who you want and that preventing two people in love from marrying is denying them fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. But where do you draw the line? The Mormon Church outlawed the practice of polygamy in order for Utah to be admitted to the Union over a hundred years ago. To this day, polygamy is still illegal despite offshoots of the Mormon Church openly practicing it. Such a blatant violation of the law opens up the possibility of legal action, as was the case in Texas and the trial and conviction or Warren Jeffs earlier this year. Aren’t their rights being infringed upon by not allowing them to marry who they choose? The legal argument however, is to protect the welfare of minors, but the age of consent varies state by state and the present definition of “adult” is relatively modern, coming about in the last century in response to child labor and the industrial revolution. The definition is also very inconsistent when you consider the ages of being able to drive, vote, enlist/be drafted into the military, smoke, work full time, drink alcohol, and even graduate college (the youngest person to earn a Ph.D. was 14). Isn’t preventing one from marrying a minor, even if older than the age of consent, infringing on these same rights? You can see where this is going.

Taking it even further, some commentators have even made the leap in logic to apply this to being able to marry animals, as if such hyperbole would strengthen their point. While this sounds ridiculous, it’s not too far off. Spain’s parliament granted the human rights of “life and freedom” to apes last June. Note the absence of “pursuit of happiness” as stated by the Declaration of Independence, but with this legal precedence, can that be too far behind? After all, apes can learn language, use tools, problem solve, and build so with legal rights, there’s nothing preventing them from positively contributing to society. And if they have the legal rights to life and liberty, can they be legally prevented from marrying? And if not, what would legally prevent cross-species marriages? Again, the argument for same-sex marriage is that being able to marry the person you love falls under the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The catch is you can’t marry an ape if you limit this to “persons”. But that legally requires you to define “person” and that then gets you back to the issue of minors but now also wades into the abortion debate. So where does it end?

Semantics. That’s what this is really over, the definition of a word. A word, not defined by religion, but by cultures over the course of thousands of years. I hate that we even have to consider this on the ballot, it is so stupid to me. I’m not opposed to civil unions despite being opposed to the lifestyle. I am opposed to what legally and culturally approving gay marriage could lead to. I am sickened that we live in a world where this is even an issue. And I’m angered by the foolish debate comparing this to Civil Rights Movement and calling opponents “homophobes” as if opposition is equal to racism or anti-Semitism. You can then guess which way I’m going to vote.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Choose Life Pt 2

This is for the many who define their politics from forwarded emails. And I know you're out there, because you send these emails to me!

One hot topic recently in the presidential race has been Barack Obama's opposition to "Born Alive" legislation while in the Illinois legislature. I remember this issue coming up in the primaries but didn't pay it much attention. Support or opposition of abortion legislation is a tricky thing to weigh considering all the fine print that usually is needed for such legislation to pass. This case is no different.

If you want to look at it in black and white, supporters of Sen McCain (not officially the McCain Campaign) put out this ad. As usual, there's more to the story, so I checked out politifact.com and the had a very comprehensive article on this. The truth of course, is grey, with both sides misrepresenting the issue. This shouldn't come as any surprise.

But what is interesting in this article is the bureaucratic red tape that's necessary in abortion legislation. You usually hear about "health of the mother" clauses which are tricky because what is "health"? It is usually left undefined, opening up mental anguish or physical pain (the promise of painful labor from Genesis) as legal reasons to allow for abortions.

But this article introduced me to the "neutrality clause" where the legislation essentially promises that passage won't change the legal status of a fetus. It's like a disclaimer that preserves Roe v Wade. The reason these clauses are necessary is because the Pro Choice side insists that any restriction on abortion will lead to an outright ban. Not an unreasonable position, in fact this is the position the Gun Ownership side of the Right to Bear Arms debate take. Any restriction to gun ownership opens up the possibility to outright prohibit any ownership at all.

But these word games are silly. Do you think anyone really believes a baby born from a failed abortion would be refused medical care because they're not supposed to be alive? Or that there's really a "health" reason (to the mother) to abort a child 8 months into a pregnancy that wasn't there in the first three months?

Regardless of how you feel about either of these issues, the truth is Roe v Wade won't be overturned via legislation. There will never be the votes to make it happen, no matter who is president. Even hoping to load the Supreme Court in the hopes to overturn the ruling is a stretch with Justices serving life terms. So to me as a Christian, the only way to stop the disgusting act of abortion is to face the issues that lead to abortion in the first place: a casual view of sex, rampant single parenthood tied to poverty, and the cycle of teenage pregnancy that runs generation to generation. And these can only be addressed through supporting, not condemning, those in these plights, living our convictions, and applying the word of God.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Choose Life

I'm going to go a bit off topic and get personal here. Right now my wife is with one of our good friends about to welcome a new life into this world. From the world's perspective, our friend is (about to be) a single mom, with no job, and health issues. A perfect candidate for an abortion right? To quote Lee Corso, "not so fast, my friend!" Or better yet, to quote Paul, "By no means!" (Rom 6:1) It wasn't a "Christian value" issue for her, or even a question about convenience. She wants to be a mom, and I think she'll do great at it. She didn't let the fact that the father (this will be the last time I mention him) bailed on her dissuade her from valuing life over convenience. For that she should be commended.

At the same time, another friend's niece just passed away at less than two weeks of age. She was born with heart problems and they did everything they could to save her. Again, life was more important than convenience.

I'm reminded of the flack John Kerry took for being pro-life, but voting pro-choice. Personally I understand it, but couldn't understand why the Catholic Church would not serve him the Eucharist while I know there were multiple adulterers in the parish I grew up in. His wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry related their own personal story of a baby doctors feared wasn't going to make it, but she chose not to abort, trusting that God was in control. When she miscarried, she knew it was meant to be. Politically, she's grateful she had the choice to make, even though she chose life.

Similarly, a couple from our church was having a baby ultrasounds showed would be born with deformities and tests showed would have serious issues. Doctors encouraged an abortion, but they too, chose to trust in God. And God knew what he was doing when the pregnancy ended in miscarriage.

These are painful experiences, to be sure. But I also know of other families who would give anything just to be able to get pregnant. The brother who officiated my wedding and his wife just welcomed twins into this world. They were trying to get pregnant for years. Finally, they chose to adopt embryos. What? That was my reaction too. But this is becoming increasingly popular. Just as First Century Christians rescued babies from infanticide in Rome, many Christians today are rescuing embryoes that would otherwise be discarded. Our friends adopted embryos, leftovers if you will, from a couple who did in-vitro fertilization. These are the same types of embryos at the center of the stem-cell debate.

Another family at my church returned a month ago from China after adopting their second child from there. In China, you're limited in the number of children you can have. So if one is born with a defect, or God-forbid is a girl, the baby is usually discarded like an old pair of shoes. Their first child was born with a clubbed foot. This child, with a cleft palate. Both now can overcome these "hardships" with first-world medical care. And a family who couldn't bear children are blessed with two beautiful girls.

Meanwhile yet another family at church has adopted two black children with family histories of drug abuse. Unfortunately, no one wants a black baby, especially one with that kind of history. They can't wait until they have enough saved to adopt again.

And one of the biggest things that's keeping me from supporting Obama is this clip where he states he doesn't want his children "punished" with having a child if they make an irresponsible decision. Now, I get where he was going with this, but as a recovering addict I understand the difference between a punishment and a consequence. And as a Christian I understand the difference between justice and mercy. But those words from the likely future President of the United States burn me bad.

I write all of this because this is a very personal issue for me. I am the product of an unwed, teenage mother that probably got pregnant on spring break, based on my birthday. I'll never know the circumstances because I was adopted at two weeks. But I remember debating abortion in my high school civics class when one girl said that men shouldn't have any say in the abortion debate because it doesn't effect them. I beg to differ as living proof of "choice". In a different era, under different circumstances, would I have been aborted? Probably. And that thought sends chills down my spine and brings me to my knees to thank God for my very breath.

After seeing my own children develop in their mother's womb and being there as they drew their first breaths, I could never, ever, support "choice" for the sake of convenience. Is that the only "political" issue important to me? Of course not, but no other is as personal.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Jesus is my Campaign Manager

I made the mistake last night at church talking politics with one of my friends. Actually, she brought up how she can't wait for it all to be over; she's tired of hearing the same arguments over and over. Then she said something that totally boggled me. She commented on how Jesus never talked about abortion or homosexuality. Now I understand where she was coming from. The Religious Right is too narrowly focused on these issues above all else. But the case she makes doesn't apply to her point. She commented on how the world was more "jacked up" in Jesus' day, yet he didn't bring up these issues. The Romans practiced infanticide, but Jesus didn't say anything against it. Homosexuality was common in pagan worship and temple prostitution, but Jesus didn't say anything against it. Well first of all, Jesus ministered to the Jews who lived in and around Jerusalem. He never went to Rome or Corinth or associated with Greek prostitutes. So why would he bring these subjects up? But here's a twist on the argument. Slaves were present all around Jesus' ministry. In fact, the Old Testament gives instructions regarding slavery. And Jesus never said a word about the practice. Should that mean that slavery is not a religious issue of concern to Christians? Someone should've told that to William Wilberforce.

I mentioned that and she side-stepped it by then saying that Jesus never preached politics anyway. Well yes, and no. He comment on "giv[ing] to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" was both a theological and political statement since Caesar claimed divinity. At the same time, he didn't take any side to the dismay of the religious leaders. The same was true when Jesus instructed his disciples how to pray by saying "Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name." The first comment personalized the God of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, which would've upset the religious leaders, but followed that up by praising his name which usurped the divinity of Caesar. If anything, his politics were indirect. But because he wasn't the political leader many thought the Messiah should've been, it was easy to entice Judas to betray him.

The extension of my friend's argument, that she didn't mention, was that Jesus preached about the poor more than anything else, so that should be a political priority. I don't disagree, except for the political aspect of it. Jim Wallis, in his book God's Politics, dedicates a section in his first chapter titled, "The Political Problem of Jesus" and then goes on to turn Jesus' teaching into a political argument. This is where I disagree with him. I don't believe that because Jesus said to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" that that should apply to foreign policy. That is a personal command. Not a political one. And there's a difference between being under attack and persecuted. But he argues that if a political leader claims to be a Christian, then they should apply that to their politics. I agree that faith should guide morality applied through politics. But to apply faith directly to politics turns this pluralistic country into a theocracy, which I believe Jesus would've opposed. A political leader needs to consider the big picture and the good of the country and balance that not against, but rather on, their faith. In other words, their faith should be the fulcrum of their lever, not one side of the balancing act.

Back to the personal aspect of Jesus' teachings. His commentaries on the poor, lack of explicit political stances, and teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven are personal, not national. So we can't apply "love your enemies" or "blessed are the peacemakers" to policy. That's not to say I'm pro-war. But whether or not to go and participate in war is a personal decision that would have to be informed by a personal faith. Whereas the decision to engage in war on the national level must be policy driven. At the same time, I believe our Freedom of Speech also obligates us to speak out against war if our conscience leads us to.

This would then imply that a Christian politician cannot effectively hold an office and still keep Jesus first and God above all. And I think there's truth to that. That's why I'm suspicious of any politician who says I should vote for him or her because of their faith. And that's also why I don't expect our moral problems to be "fixed" via politics, but instead through individual Christians actively living out their convictions.

As for abortion and homosexuality, I told my friend that sin is still sin. That doesn't mean that morality at that level should be legislated. But if my vote gives me a voice, I want to cast it to make a statement of my faith. And that is what I will continue to wrestle with up to, and beyond, November 4.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

God's Politics

With the general election only a couple of weeks away, I’m finally getting around to reading “God’s Politics” by Jim Wallis, requisite reading for the topics I cover on this blog. Reading it is like I wrote it myself, if only I was a better writer and could expand the depth of my thoughts enough to fill a book. I agree with much of what I’ve read so far; in fact, his motivation for writing that book is the same as my motivation for this blog. But I do disagree with him in some areas, most notably with regards to the war in Iraq and his faith in Christian values shaping our political system.

I was hoping to share more of my thoughts as I go through the book and relate to the current election. But not only have I run out of time, but that book is packed! With small font, margins that run nearly to the edge of the page, and pretty dense prose I’m only a dozen or so pages in after a week. At this rate, I might finish the book this year. So don’t hold your breath for any reviews.

In the meantime however, I do recommend you click over to his website, Sojourners (also linked over on the right). The God’s Politics Blog has a rotation of writers and consistently offers pretty strong insight. In the spirit of remaining “fair and balanced” I also suggest checking out Breakpoint, the ministry started by Chuck Colson. The articles there are more in-depth, so there aren’t as many and are updated less frequently. Regardless, these articles are very insightful. I feel that the two frame a strong Christian socio-political worldview.

We’re in the home stretch and there are too many topics to try and squeeze in before the election. But I’m going to try. I mentioned before that I don’t want to make this blog politics-only, but in this case the calendar takes precedent. I’m going to try and hit on some hot topics and continue to post regarding headlines as I see them. As we head towards the General Election remember what country you’re a citizen of and put your faith in its ruler. Referencing the "Faith Hall of Fame" in Hebrews 11, “If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them." (Heb 11:15-16)

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

The End of an Era?

There’s an article in last week’s Newsweek on America’s Branding in light of the recent financial crisis that I read in a doctor’s waiting room yesterday. The article itself isn’t necessarily relevant to this blog, but a statement caught my attention that I want to spend some time on.

“Many commentators have noted that the Wall Street meltdown marks the end of the Reagan era. In this they are doubtless right, even if McCain manages to get elected president in November. Big ideas are born in the context of a particular historical era. Few survive when the context changes dramatically, which is why politics tends to shift from left to right and back again in generation-long cycles.” (emphasis mine)


The article then goes on to describe how the Reagan era came about in response to ballooning governments and economies that grew out of Roosevelt’s New Deal and were beginning to collapse under their own weight, as evidenced by the fall of the Soviet Union and the widespread economic failures in Latin America in the 80’s.

I’m not an economist or a political scientist, but the idea of political and social paradigms being shaped by historical context that endures over a generation gets my wheels turning. As a Christian who is only old enough to have voted in the last three presidential elections, it seems to me that we’re at a unique point in our history that I believe could result in a new Christian political movement or at least a revitalization of the Church.

First, some historical perspective. The permeation of nationalism and patriotism in our churches dates back to the Second World War. At that time, faith-based politics were in the middle of the political spectrum, leaning left supporting the social programs that rose out of the New Deal as well as right supporting post-war patriotism and nationalism. Faith-based politics took a left turn in the era of the Kennedys and the Civil Rights Movement, steered more sharply left with the Jesus Movement and Vietnam, but then took a sharp right turn with the rise of the Moral Majority in the Reagan years. I think it’s interesting that this cycle follows the economic-policy cycle noted in the Newsweek article. Faith-based politics then took another sharp right turn with the election of George W Bush and the poorly coined “value voter”.

But backlash from the 2000 and 2004 elections saw a different faith-based politics forming on the Left in the form of Campolos and Wallises to counter the Dobsons and Robertsons on the Right. Over the last couple of years, even before the release of “An Inconvenient Truth”, Evangelicalism began to embrace a form of environmentalism based on being good stewards to God’s creation (Barna has an update on this movement here) . Political and religious headlines were dominated a year ago by the issue of illegal immigration, bringing the so-called Social Gospel to the fore. The “homosexual agenda” is also forcing a political fight in our churches with marriage on the front line. All of this puts faith again in a front-row seat in our presidential debate. And now, we’re seeing the collapse of our greed-driven, debt-based economy that is responsible for much of the worldliness we see in our churches today. (See this post from OnFaith that breaks down this false deity.)

Combine all these factors, and I see an end to the Religious Right, just as Newsweek notes this is the end of Reaganomics. Honestly, I could care less about the political consequence of all the above, but I care deeply about the state of the Church. While all these social, economic, and political issues collide, the American Christian Church ™ suffers from lukewarm conviction and commitment as heretical teachings such as the Prosperity Gospel and Black Liberation Theology rise in strength. So I see all of this converging to a paradigm shift in our churches. I only pray that it leads to a revitalization of the Church, de-emphasizing politics and instead “fixing [our] eyes on Jesus”. If so, this could lead to another Great Awakening of sorts, where God will truly be glorified in our churches and in our culture. And prayerfully this influence will last past a generation.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

The Palin Paradox

It’s been a few weeks and I’m still not sold on Governor Palin. Nothing personal, but she hasn’t given me anything substantive enough to support her. I’m still dismayed at her ascendancy in light of her infant with special needs. If she wants to see the consequence of pursuing a high-profile/high-demand career with a special needs child, she should look no further than Sharon Stone. But I digress.

What she has given us, is an odd paradox as a conservative Christian woman, in a position of authority, who by the opinion of many is pretty hot. What, you were expecting me to break down her policies? Nah, you give me too much credit. But I’m not going to analyze her physical features either. Why this interests me is because it exposes a paradox (or hypocrisy in some cases) in the conservative christian (intentional little-c) church.

On the one hand, you have the stance of the Southern Baptist Convention (and many others) that a woman can’t hold a position of authority in a church. This stance made headlines recently when the cover of Gospel Today featured several woman pastors and as a result was pulled from the shelves of Christian bookstores across the Bible-belt. A couple weekends ago, I watched a feature on ABC news that called attention to this while noting the irony that the same Christians who oppose women in ministry support Gov. Palin as Vice President, one heartbeat away from being the Leader of the Free World.

On the other hand, you have Gov. Palin’s feminine, ahem, assets being praised. An article in Slate goes so far as to say her publicity shatters the stereotype of the prudish Christian woman. (Consider a preemptive warning if you click the link, the language and imagery is pretty crude.) The media had the opposite response to the mothers involved in the Texas polygamy case. I guess the expectation continues to be that a devoted Christian woman should look like Maude Flanders.

Meanwhile, there are many caught the middle who wonder how the same conservative christians (little-c) that back Palin were the same who loudly criticized the portrayal of Murphy Brown as a professional single mother.

Both extremes unfortunately fail to capture the Biblical view of femininity. I’m not going to try and stir up a doctrinal debate on perceived misogyny throughout the Bible. Rather I want to point out that women of Godly character are praised by having their own books (Ruth and Esther), chapters (Judges 4), and sections (Proverbs 31) in the Bible. A lot of people focus solely on a single statement from the Apostle Paul and call him sexist, yet forget that women deaconesses (regrettably often translated as “servant” even though the original Greek is the feminine form of what elsewhere is translated as Deacon) are the first to be praised by Paul in Romans and Corinthians for their ministry. In fact I know a few people who opposed getting married in a church based entirely on Paul’s teaching that a wife should be submissive to her husband. Never mind that the context is an analogy to the Church’s relationship with Jesus and is preceded with the command for the husband to love his wife (and elsewhere is instructed specifically not to “lord over” her).

Not to say sexism in the Church doesn’t exist. It certainly does. The praise of the “Proverbs 31 woman” has evolved into an expectation no woman can meet, but wives and mothers are expected to slave over their homes to achieve that perfect standard.

At the same time, many churches elevate the “trophy wife” as standards of beauty and femininity. In the name of being “sharp”, young men pursuing ministry are encouraged to date the prettiest (and most chaste) sisters. At one point at a church I used to attend, the wives of the ministry staff all looked alike—above average height, thin, blonde, and bubbly. All the while the demands of women’s ministry drove women across my denomination to the ground. I can’t count how many Women’s Ministry leaders I know are now burdened with chronic illnesses. All in the name of being that perfect picture of a Biblical woman.

I don’t want to go as far as the feminist movement has in America, but there needs to be a culture change in the American Church with regard to the role of women in the Church and the value (and measure) of beauty and femininity. John Eldriege, in his book Wild at Heart, puts this well.

Walk into most churches in America, have a look around, and ask yourself
this question: What is a Christian woman? Again, don't listen to
what is said, look at what you find there. There is no doubt about
it. You'd have to admit a Christian woman is. . . tired. All we've
offered the feminine soul is pressure to "be a good servant."

In fact his wife spun off her own book aiming to change the status quo and together they have built up an entire ministry with the goal of redefining masculinity and femininity in the church. Amen for that!

While I may have a hard time backing Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidential candidate, I can at least hope that the publicity she’s receiving sheds light on these issues and empowers women in the Church. After all, women too are made in God’s image and in the Church there is “neither… male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)