AV Bible Believers Fellowship

As we have recently seen in the media, the Tea Party Movement is having quite an impact on the different Primaries. But, there are a great deal of women running for these GOP offices. Here is the dilemna: Should we vote for these very conservative women when the Bible tells us the following:

Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Titus 2:5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers AT home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

The aged Christian sisters are to teach the younger sisters to be several things, but one in specific, to be keepers at home. AT is a place, not an attitude. I've even heard ladies on Christian talk radio that were "Evangelical," and not as "Fundamentally," conservative as we would be, teaching this very same principle.

Christian wives are to be keepers at home where they are needed. In a society where the family is attacked on everyside, the wife/mother is needed like never before. Her "office" is homemaker/housewife. This is not an office to be taken lightly. Many a great man in America owe alot to there faithful wives and mothers who stand in the gap...AT home.

So, should she be running for office? Many, if not most of these ladies running for these conservative Tea Party endorsed positions are Christian of one type or another. Even if they are NOT, should we, by our vote, enable them to disobey the command of scritpure to Christian women?

I could not just select out the good verses, the whole chapter is good and apropo

Isaiah 3:1 ¶ For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water,

Isa 3:2 The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient,

Isa 3:3 The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator.

Isa 3:4 And I will give children [to be] their princes, and babes shall rule over them.

Isa 3:5 And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.

Isa 3:6 When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, [saying], Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and [let] this ruin [be] under thy hand:

Isa 3:7 In that day shall he swear, saying, I will not be an healer; for in my house [is] neither bread nor clothing: make me not a ruler of the people.

Isa 3:8 For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings [are] against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory.

Isa 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide [it] not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

Isa 3:10 ¶ Say ye to the righteous, that [it shall be] well [with him]: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.

Isa 3:11 Woe unto the wicked! [it shall be] ill [with him]: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.

Isa 3:12 [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Isa 3:13 ¶ The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.

Isa 3:14 The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor [is] in your houses.

Isa 3:15 What mean ye [that] ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

Isa 3:16 ¶ Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing [as] they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

Isa 3:17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

Isa 3:18 ¶ In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of [their] tinkling ornaments [about their feet], and [their] cauls, and [their] round tires like the moon,

Isa 3:19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,

Isa 3:20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,

Isa 3:21 The rings, and nose jewels,

Isa 3:22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,

Isa 3:23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

Isa 3:24 ¶ And it shall come to pass, [that] instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; [and] burning instead of beauty.

Isa 3:25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

Isa 3:26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she [being] desolate shall sit upon the ground.

We are being ruled by children. The hippy children of the 1960's who smoked pot, dodged the draft, never matured, and grew up to be our rulers.

We are also going about to continually put alot of women into places of leadership when we need mighty men.

Where are the men?

But! We should seriously consider, should we vote for women when the Bible clearly tells us to let them be keepers AT home?

Good post, brother, and valid points to consider!

Brother, I don't totally disagree with you; in fact, I've not yet decided what I will do.

If I do vote, it will be after prayer, and who I vote for will be between me and the Lord.

If we are dealing with a secular society (which it is) should we not individually decide who to vote for, based upon prayer?

Should I NOT vote for someone because their religion is not the same as mine? Mitt Romney (a Mormon) would have probably been better equipped to be POTUS than Obama.

Or should I vote for someone based upon their ability to do the best job in our secular government? What if they don't follow all the Christian tenets? What if they're divorced? What about being a good ruler of their own house?

I am moving this to the Current News forum, since it discusses political issues. That seems to be the place for political discussion now.

I am though considering what has been presented. Good posts.

A can of worms? Just what does that mean? According to Answers.com:

Quote:It means that you are getting into an area that you might not want to go... that it is not just a simple subject, and that there are deeper implications. I'm not sure where the phrase came from, but it is fairly well-known.

The scripture is clear and plain. The principle is both Christian and Universal. It is Christian because the Epistle to Titus is directed to believers specifically. It is universal, because the principle will work for secularists, hindus, mormons, etc.

In our case, this is a matter "for believers" regarding those who "claim to be believers." I have heard these women, they speak very plainly and openly about their Biblical faith. Whether they have the real thing or not is not up to me. I am to make me decision based on what I know, namely, the wife is to be keeper AT home.

No, this is not a discussion about single mothers. They have no choice. But, the Christian wife is to be AT home. How then, can she be a senator, congresswoman, etc. when her calling from God in scripture, (which IS the final authority,) is to be a wife/mother.

I can duck my head in the sand, and just go pull the lever and vote for the sister in faith, but am I going to enable her to disobey scripture?

Recently, the Defense bill was stopped that was going to give our men in uniforn a raise in pay. Why? Liberal God-hating Dem's also added to the bill the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gays in the military. though our good conservative lawmakers wanted to pass the bill giving them more funds, and pay raises, they had to vote against it. Praise God is was struck down.

What did they do? Avoid the can of worms? No, they dealt according to principle. My pastor back home said, "Always make your decisions according to principle, you will never regret standing WITH God and the Word of God."

I voted against a sister who went to our church. She was a wife and mother to several small children. They needed their Momma, not a congresswoman.

Ezr 10:5 Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

When it comes to obedience, it is not a matter of good, better, and best. Obedience only has two choices...obedience, and disobedience.

We live in a culture that has been duped into thinking we are undone because of "gray" areas. Did you ever notice the Lord doesn't have gray areas. Like O.T. kings, they either did "evil" in the sight of the Lord, or they did "that which was right" in the sight of the Lord. Never, eh, or so-so. God either gave them thumbs up, or a 10-1/2 size boot out.

Decisions are coming our way that will make this look like small stuff. We need to begin making the harder choices.

Just some of my ranting and raving, (why I posted there, but I respect you topic move, Bro. Gary.)

Ben

I don't like most politicians. I don't like most women politicians although I'm very proud of my governor, but that's just because I strongly agree with her on one particular high profile issue. Actually, there is only one politician in the whole world I trust and he happens to be a guy and there's probably something wrong with him, I just don't know about it. I don't like working for women. I don't think women are well suited for worldly power. These are all opinions I've formed simply by living in the world.

Now in terms of Biblical mandate, do you have anything from the NT? Because if we were still going by OT, I should have called a priest in when my pipe burst and I got a moldy wall, instead of a drywall contractor.

And, does this mean we are not to hire any woman for any job, even though that's illegal by secular law? And her kids will starve?

Oops, I just looked back and saw Titus.

Ben,

By mentioning 'opening a can of worms', I was referring to topics that often cause hard feelings. I've had plenty of experience on other forums/list serves where such topics turn into shouting matches. I don't think we'd have that happen here, but would suggest, before any of us post on this topic, that we choose our words carefully.

I'm open to discussion.

To clarify, as a generalization, I like working with women, just not for them. I've noticed when a woman has to fight to establish or maintain power, things usually go wonky.

Brother Ben's original post raises several issues, which I'll probably deal with separately, in different posts. First, the matter of women in politics.

I'm familiar with Is. 3:12, already quoted: As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. I agree that it is a prophecy which, though not made about America, is certainly applicable to America.

It would be a mistake, of course, to say that the phenomenon is limited to politics and government: since "Women's Lib," women have flooded into all the professions. I have personally profited from the assistance of female doctors and lawyers; and I see nothing unscriptural about these women pursuing these occupations, so long as it does not detract from their family life.

(Somebody says, "It always does!" Not in the cases I'm talking about, it didn't: the women didn't have minor children, and not all were married.)

Nobody in this forum is likely to vote for Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. But instead of keeping the microscope on Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell, let's talk about a fictional candidate.

Mrs. James is a born-again, Bible-believing woman who, after her children entered high school, got involved in political work. She advanced quickly, was elected to the School Board, then the State Legislature, then the House of Representatives. Now she's running for the U.S. Senate; her children are married and moved away. She is 50 years old, and a Republican.

She shares the political beliefs of most of us in this forum, and she's running against a liberal Democrat who happens to be a Sodomite male. (Think Barney Frank.) Is she violating the "keepers at home" standard? Should Christians vote for her?

Now, granted, we'd prefer to have a Christian conservative male running, instead. But that's not an option. We have four choices: vote for the Democrat; vote for Mrs. James; vote for a 3rd party candidate, or don't vote.

I don't think any of us would vote for the Democrat. Many would choose the second or third alternative; some wouldn't vote at all.

I have respect for everyone's conscience, even if I disagree with their conclusions. I would respect someone who voted 3rd party, and wished that Mrs. James were male. I respect someone who simply refrains from voting at all. (Given the choices that we regularly face, I do not believe that voting is a Christian obligation.) But to vote against Mrs. James simply because she's female?

I can't see it. The Bible does not forbid a woman to become a judge, or a doctor, or an architect. It forbids her to be a pastor or elder or deacon, and it forbids her to teach in most cases. Does anyone truly believe that women simply shouldn't work outside the home? That all nurses and schoolteachers should be male? Really?

I await further comment.