This has by far been the most exciting election season ever. It was like the super bowl last night at my house with fist pumping, deep sighs, agony of defeat and nervous anticipation. Ron Paul had a dismal showing, at least as far as I could tell since his name was only mentioned once in the hours of coverage that I watched. Unless he runs as an independant it is obvious that his day in the sun is over. We were barely paying attention to the GOP race as the Democratic race was the one with all the excitement. Nothing has been lost on me in their race, the fact that a women has a good shot at the presidency, and our first black man may hold the highest office in the free world. (A side note for all you Pearlites out there) Michael Pearl says a women can lead the country as long as she is not leading her home or church. (wink!)
I am pretty sure that a Dem will take the White house unless something lights a fire under the Republicans across the nation. Did you notice that every time they showed the winner of a state the numbers under the percentages (votes registered) was so much higher under the Dems side then the republican side. At one time during the night when they called GA there were several hundred thousand more votes cast in the Democratic nomination than on the GOP ticket. That means Dems are coming out in droves to vote.
At one point in the coverage when Nate was cheering an Obama landslide I leaned over and said "You know he may be the antichrist." to which Nate replied, "I don't care because if Obama is the antichrist then Hilary is satan." (heehee!)
Relax people we jest.
16 comments:
Does anyone know why my spellcheck won't activate when I click it?
You guys are so funny! But really, christians always think the democrats could be the antichrist—so I think God’s going to change it up on us and make the antichrist a republican. :)
Wow, I am really impressed that Michael Pearl believes a woman can lead the country. Yeah I noticed that democrats came out in droves. It's looking dicey for republicans, but you never know.
Whether you love or hate Obama and Clinton, it is pretty amazing that they are serious contenders for the highest office in the land when not even 100 years ago women couldn’t vote and blacks were treated like animals.
dude, your republicans WILL come out in droves on election day if Hillary takes the nomination. Count on it, sista friend.
When has Michael Pearl ever advocated a woman in leadership? Woman’s sole reason for creation is to be a helpmeet TO A MAN, and then the man is to lead home, family, and country. I don’t believe the pearls ever said such a thing and if they did, they must have misspoken.
Dear Anon,
Here is Michaels quote off their website under an article about women in leadership in the church. I can assure you he did not misquote. They aren't as patriachial as some think.
"It is not a man’s responsibility to police women who would be teachers or church leaders. It is a free country and we allow most anything, but it is the responsibility of Christian men to never sit and listen to a woman minister in the church. Women can speak on a variety of subjects outside the church service; they can run a business, be president of a company or a country. They can teach on health, child training, or any other subject, but God does not permit them to take spiritual authority over men or to teach the Bible to men. That is God’s view. There are other views. Take your pick."
You are misinterpreting his words. Michael Pearl is not giving his blessing for women in leadership positions. He is saying that THE WORLD allows women to take those positions and we christians can't police that. We have no control over it, so there is no point in trying to get lost jezebels to take their true place. I am certain and know for a fact that the pearls would never advocate a CHRISTIAN woman to have any authority over a man in any setting. A woman's entire purpose is to support man, so HE CAN LEAD. You misread his words.
Anon, I still don't think you are understanding or reading him correctly. I have read loads of their material and have seen them encourage women to be creative and bring in money to their homes just like the proverbs 31 women who did a lot of work outside her home. This article is specifically telling men not to be SPIRITUALLY led by a women, nothing else. I believe that the Pearls have men and women that have worked for them and Debbie is over them. That is how I see the Pearls and scripture. I like the Pearls but I am not a idolizer of them so I don't want to argue about them. What would you have all the single women and widowed women do with their lives? Are they to sit on their hands and wait for a man in order to fulfill the calling? It is another story though with women who have children still in the home. Thanks for weighing in.
My spell check is not working either and I've had a hard time uploading photos.
I think you're both right, but I might have to lean a little toward Anon on this one. I certainly don't think the Pearls would ever endorse Hilary for many reasons, but it's not like all the Christian men and their families should go live in a different country if she (or any other woman) became president. She would be there by election and therefore be the Commander in Chief whether we like it or not. I don't think it's a good idea to have a woman as President, but God was specifically talking about women's leadership in the home and in the church and most Americans twist that all up when it's completely laid out for them. Just keep praying that whoever is in the White House is supposed to be there, and if it's her, then it's for some reason that only God knows. We have to trust Him and keep working on ourselves and spreading the truth so that we might know what to do if our nation goes down the toilet.
Please excuse my ramblings if they don't make sense...I just had a baby the other day. I don't even remember what the subject was by now.
Deeann, they were in no way endorsing Hilary or any woman for that matter. The article was written some time ago. They were simply stating that a women should not have spiritual headship over a man, but obviously outside of church matters you are free to do so. Men have women bosses all the time and scripture does not say for a man to never work for a woman. Again I am stating what I believe they were talking about. This isn't the only time I've heard them address this. Their daughters traveled and pursued dangerous things like translating the Bible for cannibalistic natives of South America, plus one at least went for higher education. They weren't just "waiting" for life to begin when they got married.
Uh not that I think higher education is dangerous. lol I wrote that out of context. Who knew that my post on the election would get controvesial, and not even over the politics. Hmm!
I have to agree, with you Catrina. As much as it pains me, I am beginning to make peace with the fact that the next POTUS will be a Democrat. If it has to be a Democrat, I'd rather it be Obama rather than Hillary. On the up side maybe they will be like Jummiy Carter, whose dismal liberal policies made the country ripe for the likes of Ronald Reagan. We'll see.
Biblically speaking, single mothers and widows should return to the authority of their fathers, uncles, or brothers. If there are none, their church should be supporting them so they can fulfill their calling in the home and to their children, if they have any. Widows are told to remarry in scripture, so that should be a top priority for them. Our culture is OVERRUN with women who want to be men, holding positions in their home and workplace which was never intended. Under no circumstances should any God-fearing woman in any position that removes her from the authority of a man (father/husband/uncle/pastor) or severs her ties to the home. It’s not easy, but that is biblical truth.
Anon, we obviously disagree on to many things to make it worthwhile to engage much further on this particular topic. I do agree with you that far to many women abandon their home and children for selfish gain, but my personal conviction is that a woman can pursue anything she wants to while she is single, childless, or children are out of the home. I wonder what you think Paul meant when he said that it is better NOT to marry because then you are not divided between home and service to the lord. Also what the gift of celibacy is. There are to many other factors to make what you suggest possible for ALL women. Plus just a silly side note but women or men outnumber each other in the world population so even if all women wanted to marry or remarry it won't happen for some. I can't imagine my older single friends sitting at home with their mothers cleaning their small houses waiting for Mr. Right to come along, sounds idle and slothful, not to mention the older women that have to men left in their families, are they to also only be allowed to sit at home and wait for the check from the church to come. I do believe the church should take care of women raising children alone, and I am all about male headship in my home, in fact my favorite phrase to say to the children is "daddy's the boss." lol
Jesus was the first man of his time to not see people as men or women, you might even call him the first feminist.
I honestly believe from the core of my being that the walk that God has asked one person to walk may not look the same for everyone. The important thing is to be obedient to the knowledge that God has given you, because if you or I have any wisdom at all it has been given to us, so I can trust that you are being led by the spirit. We could argue till the cows came home over modest dress, head coverings, women speaking in church, drinking, predestination, etc, etc, but it would be fruitless and vain, plus the lord has asked us not to.
Hey Catrina,
What do you think about widows with children remarrying? Do you think that they are all "supposed to"?
Ang,
I would think that most women with children at some point would want to remarry, but I don't believe it is a biblical mandate. (is there?) Did I say something to suggest that I thought all widowed women were supposed to remarry? I know a women that was widowed when her children were in their teens, she wanted to find somene to share her life with, but did not until 14 yrs after the death of her husband. I certainly don't believe someone should just go "get a man" in order to have a replacement for their childrens father.
It's funny how these comment sections can take on a life of their own.
LOL. I don't think there is a Biblical mandate. :) I was just curious because when you said this: "but my personal conviction is that a woman can pursue anything she wants to while she is single, childless, or children are out of the home." I thought you were still talking about remarriage. I reread it and it's very clear now that's not what you were talking about. Acutally, I did some research on Anon's opinion about going back to father/brother/uncle when you become a widow.
Anon if you are still reading this please point me to chapter and verse. :) I can't seem to find it.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
In another place he tells YOUNGER widows to marry but that has to do with being overcome with lust and desire for marriage, not because "everyone needs to do it."
Good discussion Cat, even though it's not the one you set out to lead. LOL
Post a Comment