Let me first say that my comments are in no way meant to disparage those women who do work; I understand completely at the pull to work outside the home and mother; I recognize the challenges and sympathize with these women. My thoughts are merely my own convictions based on much prayer, biblical study, and wise counsel of those whom I trust.
My beef with Palin as McCain’s VP choice has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a woman…exactly. And for the record, McCain wasn't my choice, either. I like that she's pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, etc. She's a woman of convictions and convictions don't mean anything if you don't live by them.
I usually don’t get into debating politics and the who, the what, and the where; it's a waste of time. I’m more concerned with issues that either reflect my biblical beliefs or malign the Word of God. But, the choice of Palin as a V.P. choice has got me to thinking deeply and reflectively about these biblical views.
In order to get to my beef, you’re going to have to put up with a history lesson, a biblical history lesson, that is, especially since Jeff and I are teaching a Spiritual Development of Preschoolers class at church and this stuff is floating about in my head ready to burst.
The way God designed the family is as follows: Hebrew society was a theocracy - - God –centered and the family was patricentric in nature - - meaning “father centered.” The family was like a wheel, the father the hub. Each spoke represented something the father was responsible for: the welfare, physical needs, and spiritual well-being of his family (among other things) and he was delegated as head of the household.
The mother was responsible for providing food, clothing, and shelter for her children as well as providing wisdom and instruction to them (until the boys were 12 and moved under the immediate tutelage and vocational instruction of their father) and for providing wisdom to her husband. It was (AND STILL IS) the highest calling for a woman: motherhood. She was in no way subservient to her husband, but her role was functionally subordinate to her husband.
These roles didn't change in the New Testament too much, and what wasn't ordered as null and void in the New Testament (like food laws, etc.) should still be followed.Now, the more I read about developing emotionally, mentally, physically, and spiritually healthy children, the more I realize that it is the mother’s immediate charge and the father’s ultimate responsibility. (Side note: that’s why choosing a mate is the second most important decision you’ll ever make).
By the age of 4, the stage has been set for a child’s future success, AND, even more importantly to me, “they can think of God in a personal way and trust him with simple faith.” (Spiritual Growth of Children). My philosophy as a Christian parent is this: To develop God-honoring, God-serving, emotionally healthy, well-adjusted children who are beacons of light in a searching, lost, and lonely world. Everything I do as a parent should be aimed toward this goal.
Basically, God’s design for the family was perfect. A father to provide safety, shelter, nourishment, and spiritual instruction, as an umbrella around the whole family, and a mother to hold the handle of the umbrella around her children, guarding and guiding from the elements until it was time for them to move to their next authority.
We, in our selfish, greedy natures, have confused that fact. I’m being quite honest when I say that I truly believe a mother’s place is at home with her children, if she has been blessed with them. That’s why I’m at home with mine; that’s why Jeff works around 60 hours a week to provide for us in a job that is not his ultimate calling. That’s why we have one small car, new clothes only when our moms send them to us, and a strict budget that is only altered when pregnant Audrea really needs a snack. We have sacrificed physical desires and material wants to invest in the lives of our precious children.
1.) When a mother (of children still at home) works outside the home, her allegiance is divided. She is no longer just under the authority of her husband, but under the authority of her boss. I’m not saying that women can’t and shouldn’t work (you all know that I have worked and I still do consulting work from home from time to time); I’m merely showing that a mother who is so concentrated on her success at her job creates a divide in the home; she can’t give her full and complete self to her small children who need her. And it is essential for children to emotionally connect with their mother’s as babies if they are to grow up well-adjusted and emotionally healthy. When children are small, they especially need their mothers.
2.) If Palin had all teenagers or grown children out of the house, it wouldn’t bother me as much. But, in addition to her nearly grown children, she has a little girl who can’t be more than 8 AND a baby, an almost 5 month old. And this baby is an extra special baby with Down’s Syndrome. He needs his mother more than any of the rest of them. Babies need lots of love and personal attention from their mothers; they need more than what a day care or a daddy-every-day can offer. And a baby with special needs needs it even more. As V.P., Palin is taking on more than just a job. She is taking on a whole new life that will completely consume her. She will be tasked with secrets she can’t share with her husband (and as for me, I don’t have secrets from my husband), she will be gone more than at home, and she will be appearing by the side of the President more often than her own husband, and who takes over the responsibility for the baby? Her daughters? Where will her allegiance ultimately lie? She seems to be a woman of good sense, but my fear is for her children, especially the younger ones who will reap the negative impact of her absence.
3.) Her experience. She has very little. A little over a year in the governor’s office, two years as mayor, and some school PTA. If something should happen to John McCain, could she step in as Chief and lead our country? I honestly don’t think she’s ready.
7 comments:
audrea,
although i haven't thought about it as deeply as you, i do agree with your thoughts. even just last night i told brian it was strange that she elected to have a baby even though he was a downs baby, and now she's just going to leave him! he will be essentially without a mother. i also mentioned the whole age thing- with mccain being so old, what would happen if something were to happen to him... all these things are of concern to me, but sometimes of greater concern, is what will happen to our country if obama is the leader. let me know what you think of that. then i am reminded of what the bible says- that all authority is appointed by God, or something to that effect. it is all in his hands, we just have to trust that He is working. my final thoughts? palin and her husband are responsible for their lives and decisions regarding the family. i feel that mccain/palin are a better fit for our country. (i still wish huckabee could come back!!)
ok, so when i read my comment the part about electing to have her baby sounds bad. of course i support her in that decision... i don't even have that particular test when i'm pregnant because it doesn't matter what is wrong with the baby (if anything)- i will love him and take care of him. thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents!
I certainly don't think Obama is the best choice, and of course, like you, I feel that my hands are tied as to who I must vote for. Though I don't like it, and I'm not one who thinks the greater good excuses individual responsibility to honor God's word! God cares more about our individual response to him and our personal lives that the "greater" ness of life. He's coming back no matter who is in charge.
ok, so I can see where your coming from and understand the Hebrew worldview as preferable for Christians, but I may have some challenges for you...thewill soon follow..
Scott Shiffer
Just because you spend all the time in the world with your children does not make you a better mother than one that works and may spend a little less time. Quality not quantity. Perhaps she is following God's will for her life.
I'm certainly not saying that I am a better mother than anyone. Goodness knows I'm just in the beginning stages of mothering myself and have much wisdom to glean still. And I have lots of friends who work and wish they could stay at home with their kids. All I know is that God's will for mother's is to be just that, a mother, and if a job interferes with that, dividing time and attention away from her family, then the children are the ones who suffer. God's word is clear and my husband and I base our convictions and our lives upon scriptural truths which will glorify God the most and benefit our family, too. And quality, for children, is made up in the quantity of time spent with them. I urge everyone to honestly and deeply study God's word for themselves.
Ok, finally the questions.
"she's pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, etc. She's a woman of convictions and convictions don't mean anything if you don't live by them."
This being said, would it not make sense that her conviction is to accept the VP nomination. Do convictions for Christians come from the Holy Spirit or from ourselves? if from ourselves, do not additional convictions come if our own contradict God's will?
True Statements: "Hebrew society was a theocracy - - God –centered and the family was patricentric in nature - - meaning “father centered.” The family was like a wheel, the father the hub. Each spoke represented something the father was responsible for: the welfare, physical needs, and spiritual well-being of his family (among other things) and he was delegated as head of the household.
The mother was responsible for providing food, clothing, and shelter for her children as well as providing wisdom and instruction to them (until the boys were 12 and moved under the immediate tutelage and vocational instruction of their father) and for providing wisdom to her husband. ...She was in no way subservient to her husband, but her role was functionally subordinate to her husband."
Statements with possible flaws: "These roles didn't change in the New Testament too much, and what wasn't ordered as null and void in the New Testament (like food laws, etc.) should still be followed." and "It was (AND STILL IS) the highest calling for a woman: motherhood."
Christ fulfilled the whole law, Christians are not under any of the Law. They are under Christ. Roles of the Law are irrelevant in relation to obedience to the Lord in all areas of life (including the things we eat/put into our body--if he convicts one not to eat certain things, that person should not partake of them). Thus, in a sense, the role of the Christian is much more stringent than the Law, because Christians have been bought with the blood of Christ and are required to obey Him in ALL things. As cultures change, it can be argued, ways in which believers must obey Christ also change. I am not saying that if culture accepts lying Christians can take up the practice. But, as society and culture has given more rights to women, more doors have opened up for them to do new things. I agree that men and women are equal, but that each sex has certain functional roles both in church and in family. However, calling is more autonomous. So the highest calling for every woman is not necessarily to be a mother. It cannot be. Some women are never called to even marry (nuns for example). So we must either say that these women never achieve their highest calling, or we must believe that their calling could be different. Here is where absolute statements cause difficulty. Audrea, your calling may very well be motherhood. In fact, that calling is quite high on my wife's list as well, however, God has different plans for different people. Because Palin is a mother does not mean that motherhood is her highest calling (though I am sure she considers it as equally important with any other high calling she may have).
"Now, the more I read about developing emotionally, mentally, physically, and spiritually healthy children, the more I realize that it is the mother’s immediate charge and the father’s ultimate responsibility."
Could not the Father and mother reverse roles here? What about having a nanny who has been trained in childhood development, who might in fact raise the children for more success than the mother could have if she had done it on her own?
"By the age of 4, the stage has been set for a child’s future success, AND, even more importantly to me, “they can think of God in a personal way and trust him with simple faith.” (Spiritual Growth of Children)."
So is a child unable to make that decision before the age of four? What about the issue of infant baptism?
"My philosophy as a Christian parent is this: To develop God-honoring, God-serving, emotionally healthy, well-adjusted children who are beacons of light in a searching, lost, and lonely world. Everything I do as a parent should be aimed toward this goal."
When a child is baptized, as an infant, the entire church makes the commitment to help the parent achieve this goal. The church recognizes the responsibility of the community to aid in this kind of developmental process. If the whole church is involved (which is the New Testament idea of community of believers, then the mother might reach this goal even if she does have a job.
"Basically, God’s design for the family was perfect. A father to provide safety, shelter, nourishment, and spiritual instruction, as an umbrella around the whole family, and a mother to hold the handle of the umbrella around her children, guarding and guiding from the elements until it was time for them to move to their next authority."
God's design is perfect, but God's callings and designs are not static, they can change with culture, because He always knows what is best for His people in every situation.
We, in our selfish, greedy natures, have confused that fact. I’m being quite honest when I say that I truly believe a mother’s place is at home with her children, if she has been blessed with them. That’s why I’m at home with mine; that’s why Jeff works around 60 hours a week to provide for us in a job that is not his ultimate calling. That’s why we have one small car, new clothes only when our moms send them to us, and a strict budget that is only altered when pregnant Audrea really needs a snack. We have sacrificed physical desires and material wants to invest in the lives of our precious children.
The purpose of marriage according to Genesis 1 and 2 is first for the man and wife to be together as one. Augustine thought sex was for procreation alone, but the Bible suggests that it is first meant to be a bond between husband and wife. I agree that people are too greedy, selfish, and that many other terms could be added to this list. In our culture, sometimes investing in children means buying new things (one could argue) so as to feel in place with other friends their age (especially at school). I would also argue that a lack of fatherly presence (not charging you and Jeff with this BTW), also has deep implications for the child's development. When fathers are never home and involved in their kids lives, the young boys do not know how to act like godly men, the girls look for masculine love elsewhere. If both parents working allows the children to see more of one parent, is this not better than having a father who is never home? Again that is not directed at you and Jeff, but rather a general observation I am making in reference to several other families and their children.
"Now, to my beef with Palin, if elected."
1.) When a mother (of children still at home) works outside the home, her allegiance is divided. She is no longer just under the authority of her husband, but under the authority of her boss. I’m not saying that women can’t and shouldn’t work (you all know that I have worked and I still do consulting work from home from time to time); I’m merely showing that a mother who is so concentrated on her success at her job creates a divide in the home; she can’t give her full and complete self to her small children who need her. And it is essential for children to emotionally connect with their mother’s as babies if they are to grow up well-adjusted and emotionally healthy. When children are small, they especially need their mothers.
(True that the attention is divided, but it can still remain balanced, and if she is working, who is to say that the father (her husband) is not bonding with the children during that time?
2.) If Palin had all teenagers or grown children out of the house, it wouldn’t bother me as much. But, in addition to her nearly grown children, she has a little girl who can’t be more than 8 AND a baby, an almost 5 month old. And this baby is an extra special baby with Down’s Syndrome. He needs his mother more than any of the rest of them. Babies need lots of love and personal attention from their mothers; they need more than what a day care or a daddy-every-day can offer. And a baby with special needs needs it even more. As V.P., Palin is taking on more than just a job. She is taking on a whole new life that will completely consume her. She will be tasked with secrets she can’t share with her husband (and as for me, I don’t have secrets from my husband), she will be gone more than at home, and she will be appearing by the side of the President more often than her own husband, and who takes over the responsibility for the baby? Her daughters? Where will her allegiance ultimately lie? She seems to be a woman of good sense, but my fear is for her children, especially the younger ones who will reap the negative impact of her absence.
(What about hiring a live in nanny who is trained to work with down's syndrom babies? Who is to say she has no plan in place to see her child more? And is it wrong for people to see her with the president? Who is to say that she will not still be seen often with her husband? The paparazzi might help us make sure that many of those pictures will still be publically seen.)
3.) Her experience. She has very little. A little over a year in the governor’s office, two years as mayor, and some school PTA. If something should happen to John McCain, could she step in as Chief and lead our country? I honestly don’t think she’s ready.
(Is experience more important than knowledge, especially when that knowledge is grounded on the Christian worldview? Great thinkers are generally great doers, and I am certain at this point that she is a great thinker--more so than Obama and McCain.)
I’m not out for repressing women or taking away our right to vote, and I’m sure you each have your own strong opinions about what I wrote. That’s your right. I’m just sharing why I don’t feel 100% behind her and that I don’t see a biblical basis for choosing her, especially in light of those at home who need her. I’m a mother who has studied God’s word and my perspective has altered incredibly since that day Gideon emerged from my body.
(I think her views line up more with the Bible than anyone else's, that does seem to be a sufficient reason from an ethical Christian perspective. On a side-note, I am all about taking away the right for stupid people to vote. I think all people (men and women of all nationalities and faiths) who want to vote must pass a test on political knowledge before being allowed into the booth. I am tired of stupid people making uneducated votes. One of these days we will vote for evil unknowingly.)
The home is where Satan attacks; he wants to destroy families, marriages, and homes. The building block of our society is crumbling and I’m not willing to give him any more edge.
(This reminds me of an Alice Cooper song called "Run Down the Devil.")
I hope you know that all my questions are asked in love and that I am trying to have a dialogue. I am not trying just to be argumentative. Have a great day.
Scott Shiffer
Post a Comment