In other news, Peter Waldron thinks Rick Santorum ran a sexist campaign in Iowa and owes Bachmann an apology.
Santorum Owes Michele Bachmann an Apology
“…children’s lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president” Jamie Johnson, Senior Santorum Advisor
Contact: Dr. Peter E Waldron, 727-415-7189, [email protected]
OPINION, Jan. 14, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — Presidential candidate Senator Rick Santorum deployed a sexist strategy in IA. His IA Evangelical surrogates promoted the idea that a female cannot be an elected official or a commander-in-chief. The same Evangelical surrogates repeatedly called upon Rep. Michele Bachmann to withdraw from the race although she led the Senator and other male candidates in the polls. Bob Vander Plaats, CEO Family Leader and Santorum endorser, also, rejected two consensus votes in favor of Rep. Bachmann polled among Evangelical pastors at a meeting hosted by an organization close to the Family Leader. Home school parents circulated a treatise written in 2004 titled, “Should Christians support a female civil magistrate.”
Further, the Des Moines Register ran a story on Friday, January 13, 2011 written by Jennifer Jacobs that published excerpts from an email written by the Senator’s senior advisor, Jamie Johnson. Mr. Johnson sent out an email saying that “children’s lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president”. He continues, “The question then comes, ‘Is it God’s highest desire, that is, His biblically expressed will, … to have a woman rule the institutions of the Family, the Church, and the State?'”
If the issue were “racism” or “anti-Semitics” I believe that Senator Santorum would terminate the staffer and apologize to Michele Bachmann. Sexism and misogyny require no less of an expeditious response.
The longer that the Senator takes to step up and apologize to Michele Bachmann, the guiltier he looks.
(Peter Waldron is the former National Faith Outreach Coordinator for Bachmann for President. He is based in Florida.)
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says
But 1 Timothy 2:12 is more general:
Read the whole of 1 Timothy 2. It’s clear it applies generally.
I can agree with 9, 10, and 15 – though childbearing was, much to my regret, biologically impossible for me. I count my blessings in that I was able to bend the rules and have a child anyway.
11-14, not so much. Just one of the reasons I’m not Christian. The Bible says what it says, take it or leave it.
I left it.
Others are able to convince themselves that it must really mean something else, and who knows, maybe they’re right. I wasn’t able to do that though. Neither was Mr Johnson – if he even tried. Many men are quite happy with this verse.
We differ in that I chose Caritas; he chose the Bible.
And I agree with you, Zoe, that any interpretation of the Bible ultimately has to be consistent with the central purpose of the law, which is caritas, or agape love.
Kyle says:-
“The Bible is not a series of ahistorical, timeless “factoids” that give simple truths that are applicable at all times and in all circumstances. It is historically contingent in many ways, and contingent upon the situation on the ground. There *is* an objective, unchanging ethic taught in the Bible, to be sure, but it takes theological work to get there, and cannot be lifted out of individual texts as if the Bible were a set of simple ethical factoids. Indeed, most Christians in the history of interpretation have recognized this on some level, at least with Old Testament law.”
I think that is very well put. I might go further and say that the ‘objective, unchanging ethic’ is not actually ultimately to be found on the pages of the Bible, but in the life – and, more particularly, the Passion – of the Word Himself.
One of the shortest Gospel readings is that for the Vigil Mass for the Assumption of Our Lady. A woman calls out as Jesus is speaking. Does he tell her to be quiet? No. Rather he takes what she says and develops it further. Luke 11 : 27 – 28.
Krissy = “I guess she didn’t get the memo.”
StraightGrandmother = LOL Krissy, you gave me a chuckle. You know all this oppression of sexual minorities gets me depressed sometimes. I need a little chuckle now and then.
What I am waiting for every day is the Decision in the Federal 9th District Court of Appeals in the Prop 8 and two other related cases to Prop 8. The oral arguments were over a year ago last December 12th, as in 2010 December 12, and we wasted a whole year waiting for the California Supreme Court to weigh in. The last oral arguments on two separate but related cases, releasing the trial tape and should Judge Walker have disclosed that he was gay were on December 8th of 2011. It has been over a month since the last oral arguments and I keep telling myself now any day, any day we will have a decision.
Then the loosing side can ask for the same Appeal to be heard all over again, by ALL the Appellate Judges for the 9th Circuit, a hearing “en banc,” The Appellate Judges in the 9th Circuit all vote on if they want to hear the case en banc or not, majority rules, and if they vote yes that is another prolly 9 months, and then after that it would go to the Supreme Court.
I have to say I am sick and tired of all the politics around civil rights for American Citizens who are sexual minorities. Once the Supreme Court rules that sexual minorities are to be afforded all rights as heterosexuals all of these fake “values” issues played out in our body politic and letters from the Catholics etc. will cease and desist. In the meantime we all have to put up with all the political BS while we wait, and wait, and wait.
Zoe and Kyle,
Scriptural understanding can be complicated. Fortunately we have a source of clarity. Christ said that all Law and all Prophets (and surely all Epistles) hang on one principle: love God and (as naturally flows) love your neighbor.
And lest we go for the abusive relationship form of “love”, Jesus clarified that the kind of love he’s talking about is the kind that “THEY will know you are my disciples”.
Using that perspective it becomes easy. Do those around me have difficultly seeing love in my theology? Then it isn’t loving my neighbor. And without loving my neighbor, I can’t love God.
I might go further and say that the ‘objective, unchanging ethic’ is not actually ultimately to be found on the pages of the Bible, but in the life – and, more particularly, the Passion – of the Word Himself.
It’s okay. I’m sure that you’ll get to wherever God wants you on the subject. All the Holy Spirit needs is an open heart.
One of the revolutionary books that contributed to my thinking was Peter Gomes’ The Good Book. He reminded me that we do not worship pressed wood pulp and stamped pigment. We don’t even worship the words printed. Those are not God, they are tools to help us know God.
Kyle says:-
“The Bible is not a series of ahistorical, timeless “factoids” that give simple truths that are applicable at all times and in all circumstances. It is historically contingent in many ways, and contingent upon the situation on the ground. There *is* an objective, unchanging ethic taught in the Bible, to be sure, but it takes theological work to get there, and cannot be lifted out of individual texts as if the Bible were a set of simple ethical factoids. Indeed, most Christians in the history of interpretation have recognized this on some level, at least with Old Testament law.”
I think that is very well put. I might go further and say that the ‘objective, unchanging ethic’ is not actually ultimately to be found on the pages of the Bible, but in the life – and, more particularly, the Passion – of the Word Himself.
One of the shortest Gospel readings is that for the Vigil Mass for the Assumption of Our Lady. A woman calls out as Jesus is speaking. Does he tell her to be quiet? No. Rather he takes what she says and develops it further. Luke 11 : 27 – 28.
Krissy = “I guess she didn’t get the memo.”
StraightGrandmother = LOL Krissy, you gave me a chuckle. You know all this oppression of sexual minorities gets me depressed sometimes. I need a little chuckle now and then.
What I am waiting for every day is the Decision in the Federal 9th District Court of Appeals in the Prop 8 and two other related cases to Prop 8. The oral arguments were over a year ago last December 12th, as in 2010 December 12, and we wasted a whole year waiting for the California Supreme Court to weigh in. The last oral arguments on two separate but related cases, releasing the trial tape and should Judge Walker have disclosed that he was gay were on December 8th of 2011. It has been over a month since the last oral arguments and I keep telling myself now any day, any day we will have a decision.
Then the loosing side can ask for the same Appeal to be heard all over again, by ALL the Appellate Judges for the 9th Circuit, a hearing “en banc,” The Appellate Judges in the 9th Circuit all vote on if they want to hear the case en banc or not, majority rules, and if they vote yes that is another prolly 9 months, and then after that it would go to the Supreme Court.
I have to say I am sick and tired of all the politics around civil rights for American Citizens who are sexual minorities. Once the Supreme Court rules that sexual minorities are to be afforded all rights as heterosexuals all of these fake “values” issues played out in our body politic and letters from the Catholics etc. will cease and desist. In the meantime we all have to put up with all the political BS while we wait, and wait, and wait.
Zoe and Kyle,
Scriptural understanding can be complicated. Fortunately we have a source of clarity. Christ said that all Law and all Prophets (and surely all Epistles) hang on one principle: love God and (as naturally flows) love your neighbor.
And lest we go for the abusive relationship form of “love”, Jesus clarified that the kind of love he’s talking about is the kind that “THEY will know you are my disciples”.
Using that perspective it becomes easy. Do those around me have difficultly seeing love in my theology? Then it isn’t loving my neighbor. And without loving my neighbor, I can’t love God.
I might go further and say that the ‘objective, unchanging ethic’ is not actually ultimately to be found on the pages of the Bible, but in the life – and, more particularly, the Passion – of the Word Himself.
It’s okay. I’m sure that you’ll get to wherever God wants you on the subject. All the Holy Spirit needs is an open heart.
One of the revolutionary books that contributed to my thinking was Peter Gomes’ The Good Book. He reminded me that we do not worship pressed wood pulp and stamped pigment. We don’t even worship the words printed. Those are not God, they are tools to help us know God.
Michelle Bachmann is seriously in denial. She was just a conservative place holder until a strong conservative male candidate showed up to do what fundamentalists consider to be a man’s job. I guess she didn’t get the memo.
And I agree with you, Zoe, that any interpretation of the Bible ultimately has to be consistent with the central purpose of the law, which is caritas, or agape love.
I would argue that all of the passages about female subordination/submission in the New Testament refer to the husband and wife relationship. Even 1 Timothy 2, if you take the Greek into account, is more likely referring to the husband/wife relationship, just in relation to life in the church.
Now with that in mind, we then have to ask ourselves if the overall trajectory of Scripture with respect to the spiritual equality of the sexes (e.g. Galatians 3:28) points in the direction of egalitarianism with respect to the sexes – in home, church, and/or society. Biblical interpretation cannot stop at individual, concrete expressions of ethics. It may very well be that the ethic that the Bible ultimately teaches was not fully worked out in the first century. This is why we have a canonical tension between a book like Philemon and the concrete injunctions with respect to slavery in passages like Eph 5. On the one hand, God condescends by providing concrete improvements of the ethics that were already “on they ground.” On the other hand, the spirit and trajectory of the text often points beyond its concrete expression in the Bible. This is true with slavery. None of the biblical authors are full-blooded abolitionists, but the inner logic of the theology in the Bible ultimately implies it.
And, I would argue that a similar trajectory is found with the subordination of women in any sphere, including the home, based solely on their sex. I personally don’t see a parallel theological trajectory in the Bible when it comes to homosexuality, but I’m open to it.
I don’t think this mode of interpretation is at all implausible or self-deceptive with respect to what the bible “actually” teaches, because what the Bible “actually” teaches involves more than individual, isolated texts, out of canonical context and the progressive flow of revelation. The Bible is not a series of ahistorical, timeless “factoids” that give simple truths that are applicable at all times and in all circumstances. It is historically contingent in many ways, and contingent upon the situation on the ground. There *is* an objective, unchanging ethic taught in the Bible, to be sure, but it takes theological work to get there, and cannot be lifted out of individual texts as if the Bible were a set of simple ethical factoids. Indeed, most Christians in the history of interpretation have recognized this on some level, at least with Old Testament law.
Michelle Bachmann is seriously in denial. She was just a conservative place holder until a strong conservative male candidate showed up to do what fundamentalists consider to be a man’s job. I guess she didn’t get the memo.
I would argue that all of the passages about female subordination/submission in the New Testament refer to the husband and wife relationship. Even 1 Timothy 2, if you take the Greek into account, is more likely referring to the husband/wife relationship, just in relation to life in the church.
Now with that in mind, we then have to ask ourselves if the overall trajectory of Scripture with respect to the spiritual equality of the sexes (e.g. Galatians 3:28) points in the direction of egalitarianism with respect to the sexes – in home, church, and/or society. Biblical interpretation cannot stop at individual, concrete expressions of ethics. It may very well be that the ethic that the Bible ultimately teaches was not fully worked out in the first century. This is why we have a canonical tension between a book like Philemon and the concrete injunctions with respect to slavery in passages like Eph 5. On the one hand, God condescends by providing concrete improvements of the ethics that were already “on they ground.” On the other hand, the spirit and trajectory of the text often points beyond its concrete expression in the Bible. This is true with slavery. None of the biblical authors are full-blooded abolitionists, but the inner logic of the theology in the Bible ultimately implies it.
And, I would argue that a similar trajectory is found with the subordination of women in any sphere, including the home, based solely on their sex. I personally don’t see a parallel theological trajectory in the Bible when it comes to homosexuality, but I’m open to it.
I don’t think this mode of interpretation is at all implausible or self-deceptive with respect to what the bible “actually” teaches, because what the Bible “actually” teaches involves more than individual, isolated texts, out of canonical context and the progressive flow of revelation. The Bible is not a series of ahistorical, timeless “factoids” that give simple truths that are applicable at all times and in all circumstances. It is historically contingent in many ways, and contingent upon the situation on the ground. There *is* an objective, unchanging ethic taught in the Bible, to be sure, but it takes theological work to get there, and cannot be lifted out of individual texts as if the Bible were a set of simple ethical factoids. Indeed, most Christians in the history of interpretation have recognized this on some level, at least with Old Testament law.
As is said of all the passages you cite, Zoe, “the ink is still wet on them” (none are reputably attributed to Saul/Paul of Tarsus).
No matter. I take the Bible seriously, not literally.
[But Michele “I hag to my..I mean, I.submit to my husband” Bachmann to get all out of sorts over sexism? Too much!]
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says
But 1 Timothy 2:12 is more general:
Read the whole of 1 Timothy 2. It’s clear it applies generally.
I can agree with 9, 10, and 15 – though childbearing was, much to my regret, biologically impossible for me. I count my blessings in that I was able to bend the rules and have a child anyway.
11-14, not so much. Just one of the reasons I’m not Christian. The Bible says what it says, take it or leave it.
I left it.
Others are able to convince themselves that it must really mean something else, and who knows, maybe they’re right. I wasn’t able to do that though. Neither was Mr Johnson – if he even tried. Many men are quite happy with this verse.
We differ in that I chose Caritas; he chose the Bible.
Ignorance of the Scriptures is no excuse. Deborah was a judge in Israel. Please investigate the implications of her position and responsibilities. Where in the Bible does it say that a woman cannot be a political leader? Women are to be silent in church government, not in civil government. The presidency does not require control over religious affiliations. A female president would not preside over any religious institution. She would not “govern” or provide “leadership” of anyone’s spirituality. Perhaps a deeper understanding of the role of women in the Church and outside of the church would clarify the differences between state (civil) government and church government. They are not one in the same. Because of Santorum’s lack of moral sophistication, he has lost a supporter, until he publically apologizes to her. It is absolutely disgraceful to make such claims without any documentation to backup that claim. If you claim that the sky is purple, back it up with scientific facts, not adolescent accusations.
As is said of all the passages you cite, Zoe, “the ink is still wet on them” (none are reputably attributed to Saul/Paul of Tarsus).
No matter. I take the Bible seriously, not literally.
[But Michele “I hag to my..I mean, I.submit to my husband” Bachmann to get all out of sorts over sexism? Too much!]
Well maybe Michelle Bachman has learned a lesson about discrimination that she should take to heart.
Ignorance of the Scriptures is no excuse. Deborah was a judge in Israel. Please investigate the implications of her position and responsibilities. Where in the Bible does it say that a woman cannot be a political leader? Women are to be silent in church government, not in civil government. The presidency does not require control over religious affiliations. A female president would not preside over any religious institution. She would not “govern” or provide “leadership” of anyone’s spirituality. Perhaps a deeper understanding of the role of women in the Church and outside of the church would clarify the differences between state (civil) government and church government. They are not one in the same. Because of Santorum’s lack of moral sophistication, he has lost a supporter, until he publically apologizes to her. It is absolutely disgraceful to make such claims without any documentation to backup that claim. If you claim that the sky is purple, back it up with scientific facts, not adolescent accusations.
Well maybe Michelle Bachman has learned a lesson about discrimination that she should take to heart.