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. OliviaAugust 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM

    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

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more