Number 9 “this story:” Very powerful and moving story of one man’s conversion.

Random Acts of Linkage #77 : Subversive Influence

[...] I don’t recall that I’ve been called “crisp” ever before, but I think it’s good, judging by the other adjectives employed. [...]

We are visitng the Bible Belt this weekend and we have been asking people how they feel about the election and candidates. Many here were relieved with the selection of Sarah Palin–very relieved. They like specifically: her conservative view, that she has a voice of her own and isn’t sucked into Washington-think. Asked if they cared about VP being a woman? NOPE. Didn’t care. It’s high time. Like that she has a mind of her own. If they were to compare the selection of Biden to Palin? They say Palin is a slam dunk. Interesting.

Regarding Al Mohler:
I find this very interesting and inconsistent. The complementarians use an argument based on the order of creation for their justification of male headship (since the man was created first, he is the leader). However, they say, this only pertains to in the home and church since these are the only references in the Bible we can find. I find this very inconsistent mainly because if it is built into creation, then should it not extend into all areas of life? Aren’t they basically picking and choosing what they want based upon what they want and not on what is truly “biblical”? This is kind of troubling to me, for on the one hand a woman doesn’t really have a voice in a 5-member family or a 500-member congregation, but yet she can lead one of the most powerful nations on earth?
What? Are you kidding me?
Let’s be consistent here if we’re going to come out with books, doctrinal statements, and ministries promoting male headship.
If Hilary Clinton were the democratic nominee and McCain picked a male VP, then I bet my bottom dollar that Mr. Mohler et al would be using complementarian arguments. However, because they want to come off as 100% opposed to Obama and 100% pro-McCain, then they can’t waver or question their candidate. It’s honestly kind of sickening and makes them even less respectful in my eyes. Mohler has become entirely too political in the last few years anyways and it makes me want to vomit (it seems like every blog or radio show he does is about politicians, homosexuality, abortion, judges, and courts. Isn’t he the president of a seminary and aren’t Americans extremely illiterate when it comes to the Bible? Who ever gave him the authority to speak for evangelicalism anyways? Because that’s exactly what he thinks he has).

Wow, Luke. I hope you feel better now! I know I do, just reading your post. However, there’s inconsitency on both sides. I heard a pro-Democrat media voice saying the roles of mothers and fathers ARE different and a mother of a special needs child needs to rein in her career for a season. Seems the roles of women are whatever suits your political agenda, in the nation, the church or in the home. It’s all politics, no matter how you spin it.

Sorry for being so harsh in comment #4. I shouldn’t have said some of those things. I just feel like the “creation argument” is the backbone to their doctrine, and if they’re consistent it should extend into all areas of life and not just “home and church” (and I think it did extend into all areas of life for most of them prior to Palin becoming the Republican VP nominee). Just because the only explicit proof-texts they find pertain to the home and church, the creation argument itself should pertain to all areas of life since it is a creation argument and God never said at creation that it was just for “home and church.” I’ve never heard this from them before until Palin was the Republican VP nominee, so I just see it as kind of a conveniency thing for them I guess. Basically it just kind of rubs me the wrong way, but I should handle things that rub me the wrong way with more maturity. I shouldn’t have been so harsh to Mohler and the complementarians and will try to remain more civil in my comments from now on. My apologies.

Regarding the Mohler article – I am with you Luke on the Comps inconsistency. But as Kathy points out, there is a whole lot of spinning going on from many. I prefer a consistent and holistic belief, argument, and praxis for gender equality.

Should pastors discuss people under their care?
I haven’t heard much from Palin’s pastor except generalities and the pastor clarifying the church’s beliefs. However, I did hear that Rick Warren shared on a local CA radio station that Palin called him to ask for his advice on the mean-spirited attacks aimed at her.
(AUDIO LINK: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/warren.mp3.)
The truth is, Warren called Palin first and she was returning his phone call, although he never mentioned that fact.
(LINK (see 3d Update): http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/09/11/palin-called-rick-warren-for-guidance/
This is a clear violation of privacy and no pastor should be doing this, let alone someone like Warren who just held a Presidential forum at his church. Warren knew he would generate media attention with his “revelation.” Warren never offered a disclaimer that “Palin said I could share this information.” In the same way, Palin’s pastor, as other pastors, chaplains, spiritual leaders, should only be sharing information that Palin has authorized him to share and even then with discretion. Warren’s actions sets a bad precedent and is a slippery slope. If anything, it’s more revelatory of Warren.

Audio Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/rick-warren-sarah-palin-c_n_125420.html
Below 2d Paragraph, click “Listen here.”
Clarification on #8: Pastors, spiritual leaders, chaplains, et.al. should only be sharing information with others that the parishioner or person has authorized to share (not just Palin) and then with discretion. The obvious exception would be when the pastor (et.al.) should report something to law officials.

It’s good to be back. I’ve been reading and also writing other stuff, but mostly just taking some time off.
Thanks for the welcome back and the link!!

Thanks, Scot for the link. I’m enjoying going through that book daily from John of the Cross’ writings.
And I was excited to get my advance copy of The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible. I didn’t know I made it under the wire on the offer here. And for me it’s a page turner and more interesting even than the college football games today. Of course I love the subject and the clear, engaging way in which the book is written.

Scot, thanks for the link. I’ll let you know about the relative success of the French plan when I get back. : ) (Or should I wait about 40 years?)

Sheryl, I am with you. I am sick “up to here” with pastors who think that name dropping is the way to promote The Kingdom. “I’m with Paul; I’m with Appollos!” Guess it’s not new at all.
I agree with Luke, if your cornerstone doctrine is creation and male and female roles, you’d better play it out all the way. Otherwise, IMHO, you are saying culture does matter.
I think Mohler et al are so far out of touch…that is why I gave the comments I did about the the “Bible belt”. People there are not hung up on women’s roles. They’ve moved on. It’s not their broken record.

WOOHOO Zambrano! And up here in Milwaukee, too!

There’s no need to build a new stadium for the Cubbies. I just got back from the game up here at “Wrigley Field North” where the Astros were held to only one hit today. We could move the Cubs here and the Brewers could relocate to the Philippines and change their name to the “Manila Folders.”

Mike #14 – #15: UM, the Magic Number today is 6!!! It’s high time the blog reflected that info!