Holier than Who?

27 06 2009

Charles Blow’s op-ed in the NY Times titled, The Prurient Trap, is the latest feeble attempt by liberals to broad-stroke conservatives because of Gov. Mark Sanford’s extra marital affair. Blow’s point can be surmised in this single paragraph:

There are Democratic (sic)* sex scandals to be sure, but Democrats didn’t build a franchise on holier-than-thou moral rectitude. The Republicans did. They used sexual morality as a weapon and now it’s shooting them in the foot. They could avoid this hypocrisy by focusing more on what happens in their own bedrooms and avoiding the trap of judging what goes on in everyone else’s.

He goes on to bolster his argument by illustrating how divorce, teenage birth rates, and  subscriptions to online pornography sites are higher in mostly red states. Perhaps Mr. Blow would do well do research his own party’s hypocrisy first: the most polluted states, states with the most uninsured, and states with the highest crime rates are mostly blue states, even though global warming, nationalized healthcare, and social justice are largely liberal issues. Mr. Blow’s obviously never heard of taking the plank out of his own eye before looking at the speck in his neighbor’s.

But I have a couple of questions.

First, since when does a political position on a moral issue become “holier-than-thou”? If liberals weren’t trying to dismantle the foundations of our society, such moral positions by conservatives wouldn’t be necessary in the first place. Liberals have driven the Democrat party to the far left by twisting moral issues into political ones, and vice versa. In doing so, liberals have designated themselves the judge and the jury. Poisoned the Well, as the logical fallacy is known. Tipped the playing field in their favor. Holier than who, exactly, I ask? There is right and there is wrong. And those standards apply to everyone. A moral slip-up, by a conservative is not hypocrisy. It’s simply sin. But Mr. Blow and his liberal friends are attempting to apply one standard to conservatives while giving themselves a pass on their own shortcomings.

That leads to my second question. Since when does moral failure by a conservative denote political collapse for the Republican party? Why do results only apply to the Republican party? They obviously never apply to liberals. No, with the Democrat party, it’s only about their good intentions. Take education for example. Liberals have had a stranglehold on the public education system for past 70 years with nothing short of a dismal record. And it’s getting worse. What answer do liberals have? Throw more money at the problem. Result: more failure. Any accountability for this colossal disaster? Of course not, because liberals meant it for good. Alrighty then, have a nice day.

I am not making excuses for any moral failure. Gov. Sanford was wrong. He admitted his mistake and he will probably continue to pay for his sin with his political career. But I have a feeling that we may see more of this liberal “stoning” of conservatives running for office in the future, namely, if Newt Gingrich decides to make a run for president. For now, I’d remind Mr. Blow that his party’s failures are no different that Gov. Sanford’s. Life could be easier for all of us if liberals could manage to compete on a level playing field. Then again, liberals aren’t about making life easier for anyone other than themselves…

* Sex scandals are hardly “Democratic.”


A Christian Response to President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama

5 11 2008

Well, it’s the weekend after Barack Obama won the election. I have compiled a collection of responses from a Christian standpoint to his election with some of my own comments sprinkled in. 

After John McCain’s concession speech, several Christian supporters of Obama immediately began quoting Romans 13:1-7. 

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

My first thought was to wonder if they would have had the same response if Obama had lost. If not, then the verse probably isn’t in correct context. I certainly did not have this particular verse locked and loaded to fire at Obama supporters had he lost. I assumed most knew that in American, power belongs to the people. The people temporarily loan it to elected leaders who do not rule over them. They are in place to interpret the Constitution in two areas: condone good and punish evil. Government has overstepped in bounds in the last 200+ years, but presidents who focus on these two aforementioned biblical roles are the most successful. For Americans, these authorities referenced in Romans is not a person, but the Constitution, which is amendable, by the way, by the people. It can also represent an employer or another entity but is not applicable in situations when the authority tramples on the Word of God, which Obama does. 

Also, as a bonus to my precious friends who fired Romans 13 across my bow, I respond with Psalms 2:1-4:

1 Why do the nations conspire  
       and the peoples plot in vain?

 2 The kings of the earth take their stand 
       and the rulers gather together 
       against the LORD 
       and against his Anointed One. 

 3 “Let us break their chains,” they say, 
       “and throw off their fetters.”

 4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; 
       the Lord scoffs at them.

Some said this verse in Psalms was out of context. It’s hard to take a Psalms out of context. Both verses are fully applicable. But I don’t think you can pluck one verse out and quote it to a group of people with whom you have moral agreements with, but variance on a list of political issues. 

And it was clear in this past election which candidate was mocking God: the one who couldn’t define life. 

James White — pastor, apologist, debater, author, and blogger — is on the same page in this video he made the day after the election:

For those wondering what conservatives do next, Michelle Malkin has some good advice:

We stand up for our principles, as we always have — through Democrat administrations and Republican administrations, in bear markets or bull markets, in peacetime and wartime.

We keep the faith.

We do not apologize for our beliefs. We do not re-brand them, re-form them, or relinquish them. We defend them.

We pay respect to the office of the presidency. We count our blessings and recommit ourselves to our constitutional republic.

Several Christians expressed disappointment with “hate speech” and “racism” they had supposedly seen from fellow Christians on social networking sites and in emails. Now, certainly some Christians calling Obama the anti-christ or islamic is a hit below the belt and does not measure up to the standard of perfection placed on Christians. But Obama’s election just helps to show how easy it will be for the anti-christ to deceive the masses and gain such a large unwavering allegiance. Besides, if Christians would bother to study their bible a little, they would realize the anti-christ is not a person. 

Here is the real racism and hate speech. And it’s coming from Obama supporters:

There is a new national slogan/anthem catching on among America’s youth. It’s a popular rap song, a t-shirt, and a taunting chant: “MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK.”

Go ahead and Google it. They’re blasting it on the streets of Chicago, saying it like a prayer in Durham, singing it on campus, and putting it on their kids’clothes in Harlem.


A sampling of news from around the country after Election Day:

Outside, cars drove across campus, honking triumphal horns as passengers leaned out windows heralding the news of Obama’s unprecedented win. Students giddily repeated the refrain, “My president is black.”


You couldn’t find a single copy of the Chicago Tribune or Chicago Sun-Times on newsstands or in boxes anywhere in the city, from Hyde Park up to Evanston. And at least two tricked-out cars on shiny rims that rolled slowly down Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in the historic Bronzeville neighborhood on the city’s gritty South Side were blasting what appeared to be the city’s new unofficial hip-hop presidential anthem: Young Jeezy’s “My President Is Black.”


The energy around Benedict’s campus was palpable Wednesday, as students walking to and from classes excitedly discussed the election, some shouting “President Obama!” and singing lyrics to a popular song about Obama by the rapper Young Jeezy, “My President is Black.” 

La Shawn Barber exposes the new racism:

It’s a proud moment for many blacks, to be sure, but having a black man in the White House will not motivate black Americans to wait until marriage to have babies, to stop killing their babies (and at three times the rate of white women), or to stop uttering the word racism whenever they don’t get their way.

Of course, Obama never promised that his presidency would have any effect on these things.

As long as families (the foundation of society) are in shambles, conditions won’t improve much. But with Obama in office, white liberals can feel good about themselves and blacks can feel proud, fatherless children and dead babies be damned.

I don’t want to hear any more complaining from any black Americans about how they can’t succeed, but if La Shawn is right, this election only takes it to a new level.

Barack Obama: Supporter of Infanticide

20 10 2008

Consider this post a fairly comprehensive tally of Barack Obama’s pro-murder record.

1.) In last Wednesday’s final debate with John McCain, Barack Obama answered a question regarding his opposition as an Illinois State Senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. His ace is that Illinois law already protected babies born alive during abortions. This is simply not true. Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins explains:

“He ignores a letter dated July 17, 2000 in which Illinois Attorney General Ryan reported that the Illinois Department of Public Health found there was ‘no basis for legal action’ to protect babies that survive abortion.

“On March 30, 2001, Obama spoke from the floor of the Illinois legislature, saying that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act placed an undue burden on doctors to keep a child alive. The fact remains that those who opposed the bill were unwilling to prevent infanticide.

“Senator Obama took the opportunity last night to continue to blur his radical abortion views. He has a long record of opposing any legislation that protects innocent life – opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion and voting four times against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The senator, in 2003, even voted against an identical version that passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate and on which the pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality.

“Additionally, in a speech last year to Planned Parenthood, he promised to sign as his ‘first act’ as President a law that would overturn nationwide bans on partial-birth abortion as well as require the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. The speech is much more revealing about how far he will go to push his extreme views.”

2.) This video, with Jill Stanek, describes the horrific act of infanticide, known as induced labor abortions and is supported by Barack Obama. If you aren’t moved at the end, there is something wrong with you. Hint: There IS something wrong with Barack Obama.

3.) Jill Stanek’s website is loaded with all kinds of documentation and information proving Obama not only supports abortion and infanticide, but lied about it in this election’s debates. Here is a sampling:

Article by Jill Stanek: Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama

Obama stated pro-life proposals must be “amenable to reason.”

OK, Sen. Obama, let’s reason. Explain why you support abortion for whatever rationale, at whatever gestation, by whatever means. Explain why you support infanticide, if banning it might interfere with abortion.

Then, since you brought it up, explain how, despite all that, you think Jesus should vote for you, either now or in the hereafter, particularly given His statement, “It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones.”

Links to Obama’s votes on IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Audio of Obama arguing against giving medical care to abortion survivors

Video of Obama promising FOCA to Planned Parenthood

I doubt Christian supporters of Obama will actually take the time the investigate his actual record on abortion as if holding their hands over their ears and claiming ignorance will count when God holds them accountable one day. There are two primary lies being promoted by liberals to justify a vote for Barack Obama.

  1. “No results.” As the argument goes, no Republican president has succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade and I refuse to be a one-issue voter. So, since I agree with Obama the other 99% of the time, I can vote for Obama.
  2. “Decrease abortions.” Obama has more plans to decrease abortions.

The first is a peculiar argument to be making for voting FOR a pro-murder candidate. As if two wrongs make a right. Biblical fallacy? Absolutely. This is deceiving because it takes cooperation from the courts, namely SCOTUS, to overturn an unconstitutional ruling like Roe, not simply a pro-life president. Several Christians I know admit that, despite the life issue, being a big one, they can justify it because of agreement on other issues. That still doesn’t explain this issue and why they think it’s ok to vote for someone with a record and promises like Obama. If Obama himself, refuses to take God’s view of life stating it’s “above his pay grade,” then Christians who vote for Obama are endorsing this view. And every Christian knows when life begins. Support for Obama is thus either hypercritical or ignorance. Either way, it’s wrong. And Obama’s lack of ability to judge on this issue should reveal more about his character to his Christian supporters so that they’re not merely “single-issue” voters, but “values voters.”

The second is equally puzzling because it throws reason to the wind and embraces a liberal spin that is so easy to detect, it makes Lucifer in the Garden of Eden look like Bozo the Clown. Here is the basis from which this reason comes:

  • Protecting a Women’s Right to Choose: Obama will make safeguarding women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.
  • Reducing Unintended Pregnancy: Obama will work to reduce unintended pregnancy by guaranteeing equity in contraceptive coverage, providing sex education, and offering rape victims accurate information about emergency contraception.
All women should have a right to choose; They can choose to have sex or not. Once a woman becomes pregnant, it’s no longer just her. She has a living person growing in her womb. Now, in cases of rape or incest, obviously there are few situations where this argument applies so, initially, I would trade abortion in these cases for abortion-on-demand. But the fact that there no pro-choice candidates who support this view, means liberals care more about killing unwanted babies than actually preventing abortions.
Obama’s support for comprehensive sex education ignores the most effective method of preventing pregnancies and thus abortions: abstinence. Instead, he takes the party’s position. I can’t help but wonder if he thinks encouraging abstinence is above his pay grade too.

When Black and White Fade to Grey

6 10 2008

This song is from Casting Crowns and is called Slow Fade. It’s about marital faithfulness but the principle can be applied to all of life: “It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray.” 

Christianity is not a religion that is practiced. But it’s more than a relationship with Jesus Christ too. It’s a worldview that believes there is no area to which God has not spoken. Some areas, He speaks directly (life, marriage, etc) and are black and white. Other areas (education, healthcare, etc) are gray and require biblical application of principles to discern what God’s view is.

To simplify things, believers don’t get to decide what is black and white. That is what the bible is for. But many liberals Christians today, just like the Pharisees did, are challenging the very principles we should be agreeing and standing on. In essence, all believers should read the same bible, agree on black and white issues and debate on the best method to take a stand while showing love. Instead, Christians are forced to regress by modern-day Pharisees to discuss what sin is and by what standard we arrive at the decision.

During His time on earth, Jesus was hardest on the Pharisees, the group of “liberal believers” that challenged his principles while the disciples and other believers were discussing the best methods with Him. Now, it may appear to some that Jesus didn’t love the Pharisees because of how harshly He dealt with them. But He loved them just as much. He just couldn’t tolerate them leading His flock astray. But that is what liberal Christians have done to the body of Christ today. So when Christians take a stand on an issue, it shouldn’t be misconstrued as “hate.” It’s love in action. A different love than… say, with orphans, but love nonetheless. A love that is needed from Christians in a time when our fellow brethren are turning against us. 

Here are the lyrics:

Be careful little eyes what you see
It’s the second glance that ties your hands as darkness pulls the strings
Be careful little feet where you go
For it’s the little feet behind you that are sure to follow

It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away
It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray 
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day
It’s a slow fade, it’s a slow fade

Be careful little ears what you hear
When flattery leads to compromise, the end is always near
Be careful little lips what you say
For empty words and promises lead broken hearts astray

It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away
It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray 
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day

The journey from your mind to your hands
Is shorter than you’re thinking
Be careful if you think you stand
You just might be sinking

It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away
It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day
Daddies never crumble in a day
Families never crumble in a day

Oh be careful little eyes what see
Oh be careful little eyes what you see
For the Father up above is looking down in love
Oh be careful little eyes what you see

May we have the courage to accept principles and debate methods, even when it’s unpopular.

Finger-Pointing in the Mortgage Crisis

17 09 2008

The mortgage crisis is fully upon us. And there is plenty of finger-pointing going on in Washington. But no one is addressing the core issue here: greed. Some are greedy for power, others money, or even both. But any way you slice it, it’s greed. 

First, a bit of history so we know how we got here. Nancy Pelosi is insisting that Democrats are faultless in the mortgage crisis. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.

“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC.


Barack Obama is towing the party line ignoring facts as well. 

When the White House is hostile to any kind of oversight, corporations cut corners and consumers pay the price.

But the truth is that the Bush administration foresaw the bubble bursting and proposed tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac government-subsidized “companies.” Side note: isn’t that an oxymoron? As the NY Times reported in 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Gasp! How could all this blame be placed on the Bush administration then? Who was blocking this legislation? We read:

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The Bush administration’s mistake was they didn’t treat the problem with enough urgency. If Bush applied the same amount of pressure as he did the War on Terror, he could have gotten more cooperation from Democrats. And he didn’t have any “false intelligence” to worry about. These numbers weren’t lying. 

The Democrats biggest mistake was ignorance for the sake of blame in order to preserve power. 

But the American consumer is not exempt either. Even though the government was willing to loan money to people who had no business borrowing it, we should have exercised better wisdom than simply jumping on the greed train. Especially Christians. 

Christians should know better than to store of treasures on earth. Certainly we need to have a home and God want us to have a nice, clean place to live. But when the average home has increased from 1,600 square feet to 2,200 square feet in the last several years while the average family size has decreased, why do we need more room for less people? This is called greed. Greed is not only unbiblical, but it also effects non-believers as well. When people put their own desires above others, society loses. 

Greed by American consumers. And greed by politicians. A sure fire way to shoot a hole in the housing bubble. This is not solely a financial crisis, it is a moral crisis. I believe that Jesus is Lord over all of life and that His followers, Christians, need to speak biblical truth to the all issues, but most importantly these pressing situations. There is no biblical-secular divide with some areas off limits to Scripture. The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it. The Church needs to speak up here and point a way out of this situation, at least in an emotional, spiritual, and moral sense, if not a financial sense. People are scared in God’s eyes and their jobs are on the line. We’re starting to reap from the greed we’ve sown. We need to call people to put their hope in God.

Hats for Hypocrites

15 09 2008

The Obama campaign has announced the release of a new line of faith merchandise:

Dear friends,Great news! We now have faith merchandise available for you to show your support for Barack Obama as a person of faith.

Check out the Believers for Barack, Pro-Family Pro-Obama, and Catholics for Obama buttons, bumper stickers and signs….

Take good care,

Paul Monteiro
Deputy Director of Religous Affairs
Obama for America

Ah, yes. The perfect compliment to your bible, which clearly says, Intentionally. Killing. Innocent. People. Is. Sin. There simply isn’t a biblical justification for an openly pro-murder candidate. Now, it’s true that four Republican presidents have been unsuccessful in overturning Roe. But is that an excuse to vote for a pro-murder candidate that has supported legislation to make abortions easier to have? Absolutely not. It’s hypocritical. 

Abortion is not something any president is going to handle on his own. It’s a moral issue that needs two treatments, in this order: 1. prayer. And 2. political support. Past presidents have done all they could. George W. Bush managed to get Partial-birth abortion banned and made it more difficult for minors to get abortions with parental notifications laws. Those are key accomplishments that often get lost in the fray because Roe has not been overturned yet. But even if he didn’t achieve those things, that’s not a reason to vote for a candidate who has supported and will continue to support legislation that will make abortions easier to obtain in the name of “change.” 

So order your faith merchandise from Barack Obama, if it makes you feel better. Just know that you are a hypocrite and leading others astray. As Christians, our faith is in the Messiah of the bible, not the messiah of the Democrats.

UPDATE: Commenter, birdfan, notes an interview Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun Times did with Obama that is worth posting (Falsani goes by GG in the transcript):

GG: What do you believe?
OBAMA: I am a Christian…I believe that there are many paths to the same place.

GG: Do you believe in heaven?
OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them…that’s a little piece of heaven.

GG: Do you believe in sin?

GG: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

GG: What happens if you have sin in your life?
OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.

GG: Who’s Jesus to you?
(He laughs nervously)

OBAMA: Right. 
Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

GG: Do you ever have people who know you’re a Christian question a particular stance you take on an issue, how can you be a Christian and …
OBAMA: Like the right to choose.

I’m always stuck by how much common sense the American people have. They get confused sometimes, watch FoxNews or listen to talk radio. That’s dangerous sometimes. But generally, Americans are tolerant and I think recognize that faith is a personal thing, and they may feel very strongly about an issue like abortion or gay marriage, but if they discuss it with me as an elected official they will discuss it with me in those terms and not, say, as ‘you call yourself a Christian.’

WOW! So, we’ve got getting to heaven on your own deeds, sin is out of line with his values, Jesus as a dead, historical figure, and only discussing moral issues on political playing fields. I’m not calling his salvation into question, but I am questioning his judgment. And it’s not a select few disagreements Christians have with his worldview. It’s everything. I’d have to stretch to find common ground here.

Just Discuss It, Please

9 09 2008

We at least need to go there. That’s all. Please read on and see what I mean.

Sarah Palin, Republican nominee for VP. Woman. Mother of 5. And much more. 

This is written primarily to anyone who believes the bible is the primary source of truth. Those of other beliefs may tend to misinterpret the context of what I am saying. But, as a conservative, you must give me credit for not being “married to the GOP.” Just so you know up front. 

The best thing about faith in politics is that the bible is always there as a moral benchmark. Christians should never become so inordinately focused on politics that it becomes the solution to solve our moral dilemmas. Christians are called to be prophetic. And when it comes to politics, that role means speaking biblical truth to all situations and issues, including the focus of this post, the sensitive issue of the role of women. This doesn’t mean I am opposed to Christians being politically active or running for office. It simply means we should participate on the premise of truth, not a party affiliation. 

I am a true conservative in every sense. Most already know how I’ll vote in the upcoming election. And I realize that discussing this issue before the elections runs the risk of alienating a segment of conservatives that may not apply the bible to this specific situation. This issue has never been brought up because we’ve never had a mother of young children nominated for the second highest office in the land. But as Christians, it’s important to promote the good in our candidates while we cling unswervingly to our biblical convictions on important issues. 

Do I think Sarah Palin is unfit to serve because she is a mother of 5? No. Is it wrong for a mother to work? No. Were those on the left wrong to criticize Sarah Palin for running for VP while being a mother of young children? Yes, absolutely, there is a double standard there. Rarely, if ever, do we see this same standard of parenthood applied to mothers in the Democrat party. But conservatives, especially Christians, need to be careful not to create our own double standard. 

What does that mean? It’s easy for Christians to defend Sarah Palin’s candidacy because she is running on the Republican ticket. But what if Sarah Palin, mother of 5, was a Democrat? Would she be receiving the same level of support? Doubtfully. Dr. Albert Mohler, one of only a handful of evangelical leaders to take the lead on this discussion, correctly points out the biblical context for this discussion:

The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility.  I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture.  Then again, that presupposes that women — and men — have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.

(another good commentary on the subject here).

Bottom line: consistency, not condemnation. 

The whole country is talking about this. McCain/Palin received a huge convention-bounce and now lead in some polls. Palin’s speech garnered as many viewers as The One himself did in Denver. It would be easy for Christians to miss the boat and allow a double standard to apply to us here. But, since no one is perfect, we can disagree with a candidate on an issue and still accept their candidacy. In order for Christians to help America understand the biblical worldview in politics, we must apply the standards to everyone regardless of party affiliation.

I don’t doubt that Sarah Palin is an outstanding wife and mother, second only to my wife 🙂  I’ve heard she sleeps maybe four hours per night. It’s not up to us to judge her and criticize her candidacy because she has young children. I believe that she understands her biblical role of wife and mother comes first and her career comes second. She seems to have the blessing of God upon her life and career as evidenced in her life’s journey and convictions. But when those on the outside looking in see Christians fully supporting a mother of 5 who has a newborn with Down’s Syndrome and has a 17 year old daughter who is 5 months pregnant, that message can get cloudy, fast. As they say down south, “That dog won’t hunt!” 

In speaking truth to this situation, there is no right or wrong answer. It’s up to each individual to come to their own conclusion on what God is speaking to them. But we do need to at least address this issue in our minds so we can help others work through it before we just accept it on a universal level. A balance can be found here. I am simply saying we need to look for it instead of assuming it automatically exists. If we compromise the view that we have held for a long time, then the manifestation is hypocrites who seek power more than truth. This could ultimately damage our witness and result in a worse position than when we started.