Wednesday, 17 September 2008
-
The man who will next lead the free world . . .
The man who will next rule America . . .
It’s not Obama.
It’s not McCain.
It’s this
manguydude.
After President McCain passes away in the summer of 2009, Sarah Palin will become the next leader of the free world. Christian conservatives will rejoice, proclaiming God’s will has been done. The left-wing Democrats and liberal media will pronounce the beginning of the end of America. The name Sarah Palin will become the most divisive four syllables in the nation.
But here’s a little secret that most evangelicals in the know are staying very hush-hush about. Even after she becomes President, Sarah Palin will not rule the nation. Todd Palin will. The First Dude.
Sarah Palin, ever the Bible-believing, literalist Christian that she is, subscribes to the widely-held teaching that wives must submit to their husbands in everything. That teaching, found in Ephesians 5:22-24, is remarkably absolute and virtually unconditional. Certainly, there are no this-submission-mandate-does-not-apply-if-you-are-leader-of-the-free-world exemptions in the passage. The submission is total. It is complete. As the church submits to Christ (unconditionally, radically, sacrificially, absolutely), so wives must submit to their husband in everything (unconditionally, radically, sacrificially, absolutely). In short: Sarah Palin must submit to Todd in everything. Even in matters affecting this nation.
If, for example, Todd wants to pull troops from Iraq immediately (he’s worried about his son), then she has to submit to his wish, even if she personally believes that it’s not in America’s best interest. She must submit, totally and absolutely. When she steps behind the mike to announce her decision, it’s the dude riding his snow mobile somewhere whose hands are really running this country.
So the question is not if McCain vetted Sarah Palin sufficiently, it’s if he vetted Todd sufficiently.
Moose in America, your days are numbered.
Editor’s note: taking my tongue out of my cheek now, I’m wondering how conservatives can justify (on a biblical basis) – much less be elated by – the selection of Palin as VP. James Dobson, for example, was ecstatic. This flies in the face of Dobson-conservatives who believe the Bible teaches that women cannot lead a church or a home. In giving their endorsement to Palin, they are essentially making the illogical conclusion that while God has not permitted women to lead a home of, say, 3 people, or a church of, say, 300 people, he has permitted a woman to lead a nation of over 300 million people. I don’t get it, notwithstanding (the usually brilliant) Al Mohler’s circular argument.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to thecuttingtruth's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in thecuttingtruth's local time zone: GMT -08:00 (Pacific Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (2)
is there not a difference between cult and culture when speaking of offices of the church and the offices of the civil institution? i think that these two categories (though people overlap into both) should be separated. sarah palin is not a minister of the gospel, she is not ordained, hence i think it's a moot point to try to "justify" how a woman can lead a nation, but not the church.
if anything, the church is ever more important than a nation because it holds the keys to the kingdom of God, not man. salvation is found in Christ, not in the president... this is why old testament theocracy failed time and again. it's not about an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly kingdom which will come down upon the earth.
the image of leadership in the household is to reflect the created order that paul also had in mind when writing on the issues. ultimately, it is the redemptive historical reflection of Christ and his people, his church. hence, gal. 3:20 talks about us not being identified by boundaries in Christ himself... for we are his bride (collectively). however, that is also why paul can say that the marriages of people should reflect the created order (eph. 5) and it is also why he can also say that a leader in the church should be husband to one wife, etc (1 tim. 3). the created order itself is seen as having men over the kingdom of man, but in reality it is merely a reflection of Christ in relationship with his church. hence, now that we have the new kingdom, our bridegroom revealed, and the work of regeneration is now done through the spiritual circumcision God had promised (deut. 30:6), we are free to have women reign in the civil institution.
in regards to the issue at hand (women's ordination), i think everyone should just start reading if they want to go into that debate. much ink has been spilled over this issue and academic honesty should be considered here. from ben witherington to gordon fee to john piper and others, there is enough to take a while to digest...
Whoever said that the political endorsements of conservative evangelicals (especially those of James Dobson) ever made sense? I mean...we've had george w for two terms. =)
I'm not too worried about the first dude. We are lucky to have something better than scripture -- the constitution and a functioning government!