Skip to main content

Isaiah 3:12

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths."

    So, I'm posting this here where no one really reads anything I say because I know no one would like to hear what I say.  Here goes.  If, by some miracle, you're actually reading this, I warn you, I'm not a chauvinist.  I don't think women are worth less than men and therefore don't have the right to lead.  Instead, I believe the Bible outlines different roles for men and women.  Men shouldn't take over women's roles.  Women, in turn, shouldn't take over men's roles.  I'm not talking so much about cooking and clean versus lifting stuff.  I'm talking about leading and following.  I'm talking about earning the keep and keeping the home. 

    Without going into a lengthy discourse as to the Bible's view of roles in marriage and in government, I want to discuss just one passage that applies very much today.  Michelle Bachman is seemingly a frontrunner in the Republican race for the President.  While she's far from a sure bet, she definitely has a chance.  She's new.  She's different.  Heck, she's not bad looking!  What's not to like?!  Surely this is progress.  Well, Isaiah didn't think so.  Isaiah saw oppressive children (as we all have experienced at the grocery store) and women ruling as a sign of evil times.  When men refuse to rule, women and children will.  They shouldn't.  They're built to follow.  When they lead, it messes up the way our particular roles interact.  It messes everything up.  Remember, the problem begins with men who will not govern themselves or their homes. 

    Satan tries to get us to see opposite from God.  God says women ruling is a bad sign.  "Evolution" and "progress" tell us it is a sign that we are finally past stereotypes.  A black man is president, and next, maybe a woman will be!  What progress!  Race should not matter one bit when we choose a leader, but gender should.  The Bible lays out pretty clear gender roles.  Is it merely coincidence that men have led for thousands of years?  Or, perhaps, is it purely natural?  Is it maybe a "Garden of Eden" thing?  Why do women love to be protected and provided for?  It's the way God designed it. 

    Once again, in a world that is led by depravity, we are told the opposite.  "We need strong, confident, independent women!" we're told.  Tell me, why must they be independent to be strong and confident?  What's wrong with accepting a role and operating diligently inside of it?  I'm never going to have a baby because I wasn't built for it.  Eve wasn't build to lead Adam.  When she did, she was deceived and the race fell into sin. 

    So, that's my two cents.  I hope it's worth at least that much. 

   

Comments

  1. Hi, Josiah! But what if it is my lifelong dream to be the President? Juuuuuuust kidding.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.   Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed .   My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly  An Apology of the Church...

Some Thoughts on the 2024 Election

So, we had an election earlier this week.  Perhaps you heard about it. I have done my best to remain mostly silent on political issues this time around because I have found that fixating on such matters does little for my mental or spiritual health.  Also, no one cares what I think.  Nevertheless, here are a few thoughts on our recent election. 1) I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not glad he won.  To be clear, that says more about Kamala Harris than about Donald Trump. 2) This election seemed much cleaner--much less suspicious--than the sordid affair we had in 2020.  This election didn't feature any poll workers tallying (discovering? conjuring?) votes behind closed doors in the wee hours of the night, messy mail-in voting, or voter turnout beyond plausible expectations.  The 2020 election had me convinced that we would never see another peaceful, uncontested election, but, as contentious as things were this year, it seems like...