Things God Hates

It definitely is true that our God is a God of love (1 John 4:8), but His word also tells us there are some things He hates. Although many times what is translated as hate really means to love less, if one does a word search on things the Bible says God hates or finds to be an abomination, one will come up with about 45 different items: homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:22); bestiality (Leviticus 18:23); idols, and the materials used to make idols (Deuteronomy 7:25); setting up pillars (for idolatrous worship) (Deuteronomy 16:22); blemished sacrifices (Deuteronomy 17:1); worshipping the sun, moon or stars (Deuteronomy 17:3-4); divination (Deuteronomy 18:10); astrology (Deuteronomy 18:10); enchanters (Deuteronomy 18:10); witches (Deuteronomy 18:10); charmers (Deuteronomy 18:11); wizards (Deuteronomy 18:11); necromancers (Deuteronomy 18:11); transvestitism (Deuteronomy 22:5); the hiring of a prostitute (Deuteronomy 23:18); marrying a former wife after she has been married to another man (Deuteronomy 24:4); dishonest scales (Deuteronomy 25:13-16); workers of iniquity (Psalm 5:5); the wicked (Psalm 11:5); those who love violence (Psalm 11:5); the perverse man (Proverbs 3:32); a proud look (Proverbs 6:16-17); a lying tongue (Proverbs 6:17); hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17); a heart that devises wicked imaginations (Proverbs 6:18); feet that are swift in running to mischief (Proverbs 6:18); a false witness who speaks lies (Proverbs 6:19); anyone who sows discord among brethren (Proverbs 6:19); lying lips (Proverbs 12:22); the sacrifices of the wicked (Proverbs 15:8); the ways of the wicked (Proverbs 15:9); the thoughts of the wicked (Proverbs 15:26); the proud in heart (Proverbs 16:5); those who justify the wicked (Proverbs 17:15); those who condemn the just (Proverbs 17:15); vain sacrifices (Isaiah 1:13); new moons and feast days as Israel celebrated them (Isaiah 1:14); robbery for burnt offering (Isaiah 61:8); idolatry (Jeremiah 44:2-4); feast days and assemblies done with a wrong heart (Amos 5:21); evil plans against neighbors (Zechariah 8:17); false oaths (Zechariah 8:17); Esau (Malachi 1:1-3; Romans 9:13); putting away one’s wife (Malachi 2:14-16); and the deeds of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:6, 15).

Many of the items listed above reference a specific type or group of people that God says He either hates or finds to be an abomination, which is one of the strongest words of condemnation found in the Bible. To me, this only illustrates further just how strong the love of God is for His creation, for in spite of the fact that God hates certain things and even groups of people who engage in abhorrent behavior, His love for them, nonetheless, is stronger than His hatred, for as we are told clearly in His word by His Son, Jesus Christ, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) This statement is given across the board, and applies equally to all who come to Him in obedient faith. And for further confirmation that God’s love is extended to and is more powerful than His hatred, consider what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 5:8: “But God commends His own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” May our God of love bless you!

Sarah Palin: Definitely NOT Qualified!

I have no idea who wrote this, but I agree with what they have written. Sarah Palin is definitely not qualified to be in Washington!

No trees were killed in the sending of this message but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Palin is completely inexperienced and utterly incapable.

You heard me. The initial euphoria over the idea of a naughty librarian on the TV news each night for the next 4 to 8 years has worn off. Now, it is back to hard, pragmatic reality and the reality is that she has no place in Washington , DC.

Want proof? Consider the following:

Only an amateur would speak off the cuff, as she usually does. Experienced politicians avoid speaking extemporaneously whenever possible. Otherwise, the electorate might find out what they really think.

If Palin had meaningful experience, she would have known that the job of Ethics Commissioner is SUPPOSED to be corrupt, thus saving her the troubleof resigning in protest and then running for the highest office in the state.

Only an amateur would attain political office by actually defeatingopposing candidates at the ballot box. An experienced politician would have eliminated opposition candidates by protesting technical glitches in their nominating petitions or petitioning to change the party rules on how votes are counted in primary elections or hiring groups like ACORN to register 14 people who all, coincidentally, have the same names and reside at the same abandoned and boarded-up restaurant. Did she not once consider taking lessons from the Chicago political machine that got Obama elected? Sheesh.

Any experienced politician knows that upon assuming high office, you are supposed to demand a larger plane; not sell the useless behemoth that was recently purchased by your predecessor.

Only an amateur would implement a comprehensive energy and conservation policy shortly after taking office. A more experienced politician wouldhave avoided the issue outright for at least 30 years while demonizing oil companies, then banning any voting on the topic followed by a recess vacation through the next election.

Any experienced politician knows that once elected, you are not supposed to spend your first 20 months in office actually doing the job you were elected to do. You should be campaigning for another office - as Obama could have told her.

Sarah Palin was only supposed to TALK about government reform and utter platitudes about exiling corrupt, entrenched politicians - not actually do anything about it. She demonstrated her naivete by creating a smooth running government that included representatives of other political parties, thereby making it impossible for her to find a scapegoat if anything goes wrong.

Only a political greenhorn would thumb their nose at the environmental lobby by hunting and actually shooting moose and caribou. Worse yet, she foolishly told the truth: the proposed oil drilling site in ANWR is NOT the secret location of Eden but is, in fact, a barren wasteland.

What Sarah Palin does not seem to understand is that here in the 21stcentury, chief executives do not negotiate beneficial business deals fortheir states with foreign nations or take time to actually hang out with soldiers in Iraq. That time is better spent preening for the cameras in Berlin - something else a more seasoned and experienced politician such as Obama could have told her.

Holding oil companies accountable and successfully negotiating mutually productive agreements with them proves she does not understand their true purpose: if you work with them to the benefit of your state, you will no longer have a faceless villain to scare people into voting for you.

By creating new jobs instead of demonizing capitalism, Sarah foolishly enabled people to become more reliant on themselves and less reliant on government, hereby diminishing the dependant voter base - a classic newbie mistake. After all, if people have jobs, they will not have much need for the government and will be too busy enjoying their lives to protest the U.S. , its corporations and, of course, opposing candidates.

Worse yet, Palin created a budget surplus and mailed it back to the taxpayers. Doesn't she know that if the government generates a surplus, it's doing something wrong? An experienced leader like Obama or Biden knows that taxpayer money belongs to the government - not to the people.

In another rankly amateurish move, she cooperated completely with government officials investigating accusations made against her. Experienced politicians know that you are supposed to stonewall, obfuscate, pressure libraries to expunge any record of unsavory political associations and ship potential witnesses off to Caribbean islands - another good reason not to sell the executive jet. Yup, she is hopelessly inexperienced.

God's Love Is Both Individual and Corporate

Have you ever found yourself feeling that God loves people as a group, but not yourself as an individual? Have you ever found yourself at some low point in your life saying, "God doesn't really love me!" Unfortunately, this type of human love in which a love for the group is proclaimed but no love for the individual actually exists is actually quite prevalent, particularly among those in the entertainment industry. Many musical performers and actors and actresses from Hollywood preach love, peace, harmony and why can’t we all just get along for humanity as a whole, and yet they have the highest rates of divorce and broken relationships. John Lennon wrote and sang All You Need Is Love and Give Peace a Chance, and yet he left his first wife, Cynthia; he was estranged from his oldest son, Julian; and his long time business partner, song collaborator and former best friend and best man at his first wedding, Paul McCartney, were hardly on speaking terms as they were engaged in an ongoing lawsuit at the time of John Lennon’s untimely death. A philanthropist may give his money and/or time to help humanity but then turn around and treat individual men and women as if they were dirt. He supposedly loves all of mankind, yet not a single man can be found whom he likes.

Charles Dickens, one of my all time personal favorite authors, paints a marvelous and humorous picture of such a person in the character of a woman and mother called Mrs. Jellyby, one of his memorable characters in his wonderful novel Bleak House. Mrs. Jellyby is found working on starting a new philanthropic project at "Borrioboola-Gha, on the left bank of the Niger," as it is described by Dickens. This project in which Mrs. Jellyby finds herself embroiled engages her attention to the extent that in the very first scene in which she is brought to life by Dickens, one of her children is found getting his head stuck tightly within a railing while another one of her children tumbles down the stairs. But in spite of the chaos revolving around her in which her own children are in dire need of her assistance, she never notices what is taking place and she is totally oblivious to her surroundings. Dickens tells us her eyes seem "to look a long way off. As if . . . they could see nothing nearer than Africa!" Mrs. Jellyby loves the idea of serving mankind corporately, but she fails to serve even her own, dear children individually who are right under her feet with their own problems.

When circumstances seem to conspire against us, when we cannot understand what God is doing, when we do not feel His presence as we pass through the fiery trial, we have a tendency to question God's love for us, and we have a tendency to feel self-pity. We even begin to doubt whether or not the Apostle Paul knew what he was saying when he wrote in Romans 8:28, “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.” The next time you start feeling down, please remember that we have been told by God in His word several times, “I will never fail you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5).

Season of Renewal

David wrote in Psalm 104:27-30,

27 These all wait for You, that You may give them their food in due season.
28 What You give them they gather in; You open Your hand, they are filled with good.
29 You hide Your face, and they are terrified; when You take away their breath, they die and return to the dust.
30 When You send forth Your Spirit, they are created, and You renew the face of the Earth.

The scientific community among us tells us that our world is governed by what they call "natural law." Most of them forget or choose to ignore, however, that behind the law is the Lawgiver. Behind creation is a Creator, the God of the universe Who cares immensely for His creation and His people. Who is it, anyway, who unifies the universe and makes it work so intricately well together in all its varied and gloried splendor? It is none other than the God Who made it all in the first place. Paul stated in Romans 1:20, “Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” All of creation waits upon Him and trusts Him to supply what is needed, just as we read in this psalm. As the psalmist wrote, "These all wait for You, that You may give them their food in due season. What You give them they gather in; You open Your hand, they are filled with good" (verses 27-28 above).

God gives and we gather. He clothes the fields with flowers (Matthew 6:30) and He feeds the sparrows as He marks their fall (Matthew 10:29). He provides and we take. He is dependable and He takes care of His own. "I have been young, and now am old," David says in Psalm 37:25. "Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his descendants begging bread." God is also generous. As Jesus said in John 10:10, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” He does not give carelessly or selfishly. He opens His hand, and all of creation is filled with good. As the Apostle Paul said regarding the generosity of the Lord in Romans 10:12 and Ephesians 1:7-8, “ . . . the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows His riches upon all who call upon Him. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished upon us.”

Our God is sovereign, and He is in control, even to the changing of the seasons and life and death. "You hide Your face, and they are terrified; when You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the Earth" (verses 29-30 above). Spring is so beautiful and so full of promise, summer is so delightful and full of dreams, and autumn is so fruitful and full of God’s bounty. Then winter follows, and it seems so dismal and abysmal. But the same God of spring, summer and autumn is also still the same God of winter. He brings the refreshing, renewing springtime again and again, and He longs to do the same for you. As Paul writes in Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

God can renew your life this very day. He can bring you seasons of fruitfulness and seasons of sunshine, for He causes the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45). Do not worry about the seasons of life. Do not fret when the Devil afflicts you. Remember, our God is faithful. The Sovereign Lord Who is in charge of this universe can manage the changing seasons of your life, and He will not place you in any situation beyond what you can bear (1 Corinthians 10:13). If you are in a season of winter, then wait on the Lord with patience. When He is ready, God will send you a spring of opulent joy and unspeakable and unfathomable riches!

Our Faithful God

Faithfulness is a necessary characteristic in the life of one who is preparing to go to Heaven. Writing through the Apostle John to the persecuted disciples in Smyrna, the Lord said, "Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.” (Revelation 2:10) Paul also stated shortly before his own martyrdom how he had led a life of faithfulness, saying, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the Righteous Judge, shall give to me at that day; and not to me only, but also to all them that have loved His appearing.” (2 Timothy 4:7-8) One who does not remain faithful does not have the Lord's promise of the crown of life. Thus, it is extremely important for us to understand as much as humanly possible what is involved in the biblical doctrine of faithfulness to God.

The best and most important examples we have of faithfulness is that of God Himself, for God is faithful, and His Son, Jesus Christ. At least eleven New Testament verses declare the fact of God's faithfulness. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:9, “God is faithful, by Whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1 Corinthians 1:9) He also states in Romans 3:3, “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?” We could provide many, many more passages, but these should suffice to demonstrate that God is undeniably faithful Himself. After all, He did fulfill His promise first given in the Garden of Eden to provide a Savior for mankind by sending us Jesus Christ when He said in Genesis 3:15, “ . . . and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” Yes, we have the assurance that God is always dependable and He acts consistently and faithfully within His nature.

He is faithful in that He is always holy. Peter writes in 1 Peter 1:15-16, “ . . . but like as He Who called you is holy, be yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, ‘You shall be holy; for I am holy.’”

He is faithful in that He is always a loving God. The Apostle John says in 1 John 4:8-11, “He that does not love does not know God; for God is love. Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.”

God is faithful in that His word is always truthful. Jesus prayed to the Father in John 17:17, saying, “Sanctify them in the truth: Your word is truth.” We can depend on God to do what He has said He would do.

He is faithful in that He has promised to help us overcome temptation. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:13, “There has no temptation taken you but such as man can bear: but God is faithful, Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able; but will with the temptation make also the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

God is also faithful in that He has promised to cleanse us and forgive us [of all of our sins. John writes in 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” God has never given a promise that He failed to honor. His word is completely trustworthy. But do we truly believe it?

1 Timothy 2

If you read the submission by dear sister Christina Dozier called Plain Talk About Sarah Palin then you know that she has taken a different view regarding the selection by John McCain of Sarah Palin to be his running mate than what many have.

In a nutshell, sister Dozier is of the opinion that women are never to hold positions of authority over men. I believe I am also correct in that 1 Timothy 2:12 is the basis or foundation for her beliefs.

Here is the entirety of 1 Timothy 2:

1. I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men;

2. for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity.

3. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4. Who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

5. For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, Himself man, Christ Jesus,

6. Who gave Himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times;

7. whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

8. I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing.

9. In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment;

10. but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works.

11. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.

12. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve;

14. and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:

15. but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

I am of the belief that to use verse 12 to teach that women cannot be in positions of authority over men at any time is to take this verse out of context. I am persuaded that Paul wrote to Timothy with the express purpose of addressing issues having to do with the church and when it is assembled together, and husbands and wives.

Now some will key in on verse 9 and ask, "So if this is discussing the church and issues it was facing, then a woman is not supposed to be dressed modestly except when she is in the assembly?" This is not an either/or situation. Just because Paul is discussing issues with the church and specifically says here that a woman must be adorned modestly does not mean that God's eternal moral laws are to be thrown out the window when one is no longer gathered within the assembly. One must study the Bible properly and study it in its historical context. Why should we be surprised to see Paul writing to Timothy about the church and have to state that women should be dressed modestly? Remember, the apostles were having to battle Gnostic thought at this time in the infancy of the church, and that Gnostic thought had permeated much of the church to the point that great immorality had infiltrated the church at Corinth to the degree that the congregation was proud of one of their members who had taken his own father's wife! "Well," you might say, "that is only one isolated case! Corinth was a unique phenomenon! You can't say this was a widespread problem in the church because of what happened at Corinth!" Oh, is that so? Let's see what Jesus had to say about that in the Book of Revelation:

6. Yet this you have, you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. (Revelation 2:6)

12. "And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: 'The words of Him Who has the sharp two-edged sword.
13. "'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is; you hold fast My name and you did not deny My faith even in the days of Antipas My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

14. But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. 15. So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. (Revelation 2:12-15)

18. "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: 'The words of the Son of God, Who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze.

19. "'I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.
20. But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.
21. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality.

22. Behold, I will throw her on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings;

23. and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am He Who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve. (Revelation 2:18-23)

So we can see here that even the practice of immorality had entered into the very church. It came from the Gnostics whose beliefs taught that only flesh was evil, and spirit was good, so that which was done in the flesh had no effect on the spirit. This is why they claimed that Jesus did not come in the flesh, and we have many teaching this same heresy to this day, denying the Deity of Christ. The Nicolaitans were a branch of Gnosticism, they practiced immorality and it is very possible they directly led to the creation of the distinction between "clergy" and "laity" that has plagued many denominations for centuries. Paul was reminding Timothy to make sure that he taught the principles of modesty for women, particularly when the church was assembled together, so as to avoid the immorality that was being practiced in much of the church at that time.

Faithful believers who have put on Christ Jesus are all God's "clergy," for as the Apostle Peter writes to all Christians, "you also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. But you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may show forth the excellencies of Him Who called you out of darkness into His marvellous light: who in time past were no people, but now are the people of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (1 Peter 2:5; 9-10) Additionally, the Apostle John writes, saying, "and He made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto His God and Father" (Revelation 1:6).

Peter exhorted the elders among us to, "Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory." (1 Peter 5:2-4)

Shepherds serve the sheep but the wolves that clothe themselves with so-called leadership and spiritual authority serve themselves, thinking that they serve God. In essence, this makes them false christs. Early church leaders were established as overseers, not a ruling hierarchy. The Early church father Iranaeus identified the Nicolaitans in his treatise Against Heresies in the Second Century as they who are an "offshoot of the knowledge [Gnosticism, my addition] which is falsely so-called," mentioning that they "lead lives of unrestrained indulgence." The reference to Balaam and Balak should be recognizable for anyone even remotely familiar with the history of the children of Israel to know that they engaged in immorality in their assembly as well.

Some will also turn to verse 15 of 1 Timothy 2 and ask, "But how does child-bearing come into this? That seems like it's not in the church."

This is a good question, but once again, we must remember to study passages and keep them in their proper context. What is the context of 1 Timothy 2:15? What was Paul just saying prior to verse 15? Let's take a look at it again:

12. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve;
14. and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:
15. but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

Paul was talking about how sin entered into the world. He is referring his reader, Timothy, and those he instructed, to Genesis 3. Verse 15 of 1 Timothy 2 has absolutely nothing to do with women having babies today. If it did, then Paul would be teaching salvation by works. Additionally, he would be teaching in contradiction to the Apostle Peter who said that God is not a respecter of persons, meaning that all people are subject to the same Gospel plan of salvation, in Acts 10:34.

Men cannot give birth. Therefore, to understand that this passage is teaching that women giving birth to babies today saves them is completely off base. What Paul is referring to, once again, is Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." Paul was referencing the very first prophecy uttered by God Himself in which He predicted that the Seed of woman, Jesus Christ, would be the defeat of Satan. And that is what is meant by Paul saying in verse 1 Timothy 2:15, "but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety."

Paul points out that Eve (he gune in the Greek) brought herself into transgression by abandoning her role and taking on that of the man in the Garden of Eden. God does not wish for women to do this in His church today. But by fulfilling her role, difficult as it may be as a result of sin ("To the woman He said, `I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children; yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you'", Genesis 3:16), she gives birth to the Messiah, and thereby, "she" (he gune, fulfilled, of course, in Mary, the mother of Jesus. Paul elaborates on this further in Galatians 4:4: "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman," (genomenon ek gunaikos in the Greek) brings salvation into the world.

It would be Eve's Seed that would save men, by crushing the head of the deceiving serpent. Paul was showing how Eve had been instrumental in bringing about the fall of mankind into sin, but he did not stop there. He further showed how indispensable she will be in the history of redemption of fallen mankind. For from the fruit of her body will come the Messiah, Who will be able to save both her and all of mankind. In fact, this is how every woman in particular is saved, for Paul switches to the plural in the last half of verse 15 and makes application to women in general. There is then a definite transition from Eve ("The woman": the singular he gune of Galatians 4:4) back to women in general ("women": the plural meinosin, "if they continue"). They will be saved "if they continue in faith and love and sanctification (holiness) with sobriety (submission)." Women in general are not saved through bearing children, they are saved through faith in the fruit of the Childbirth, that being Jesus Christ.

If this redemptive historical interpretation is correct, and I believe it is, then First Timothy chapter two has nothing to do with the essential mothering role of women in general. Neither does it apply to some general prohibition against having women being leaders or "usurping authority" by taking on leadership roles in the "secular" world. Rather, this chapter assures us of the central place of "the woman" in God's redemptive plan and reminds us that women in general are saved from eternal death through faith in the promised Child, His blessed Son, Jesus Christ, if they persevere in holding onto their faith in Him unto death.

So I hope you see why I believe the passage in 1 Timothy 2 is not a universal prohibition against women being in positions of authority, but it is reserved for their role while gathered in the congregation of the Lord's people and with their husbands. 1 Timothy 2 is addressing issues in the church and home, just as the rest of both 1 and 2 Timothy are. There is no break in it where Paul goes from addressing the issue of the church and home to life in general.

From Dirt to Glory

Psalm 103:13-18 says, 13 As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him; 14 for He knows how we are formed, He remembers that we are dust. 15 As for man, his days are like grass, he flourishes like a flower of the field; 16 the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more. 17 But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord's love is with those who fear Him, and His righteousness with their children's children – 18 with those who keep His covenant and remember to obey His precepts.

The psalmist here had no problem believing in the Genesis account of creation, for he readily admits that God created man from the dust of the ground. Have you remembered lately what you are made of? "As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him; for He knows how we are formed; He remembers that we are dust" (verses 13-14 above). God took the dust of the ground and formed Adam. Then He breathed into Adam the breath of life, and he became a living soul. Physically, we are made from the dust of the ground, but we are also made in the image of God.

When we think of dust, we think of something common and ordinary. You can walk out the back door and find dust, and not even that far to find it my own house based upon the evidence I see in front of me on my desk and computer screen! We may see dust as something dirty, but to God it also speaks of tremendous potential. God made us from the dust of the ground. He took the dust and made clay, and then He took the clay and made a man. Where we see dirt, God envisioned potential. As Isaiah tells us in Isaiah 64:8, He is the Potter, and we are the clay.

The vastness of God’s universe is mind-boggling, and it further illustrates our insignificance in many ways. And yet, because we are so small and tiny compared to the vastness of the cosmos our Lord created, it also shows just how much our Lord really did love us in that He did come to the Earth as a man, He lived that perfect, sinless life and He voluntarily took upon Himself our sins and suffered a cruel death on the cross. So maybe you are important to the God of this universe after all! Maybe you are not so insignificant! You may be weak in yourself but you can be strong in the Lord. Seek to have the Potter make you want He wants you to be, and remember what the Apostle Paul said in Philippians 4:13: "I can do all things through Christ, Who strengthens me." He also reminded the congregation of the Lord’s people in Corinth, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us" (2 Corinthians 4:7). Remember that what we might view as dirt and unworthy is something that God views with great and wonderful promise!

May the Lord bless you as you seek to have Him mold you to His will!

Plain Talk About Sarah Palin

The following article takes a different look at the nomination of Sarah Palin to be Vice President of the United States. It was written by Christina Dozier, a woman in whom I hold much respect and admiration. Here is a direct link to the article on her web site:

http://www.mykentuckybooks.com/moonbeamsmeanderings.htm

Plain Talk About Sarah Palin

or

Sarah Palin's Skirt Tails

The Republican Party has chosen a woman to run for the second highest office in the land. What have we come to that no man in this country is qualified to do the job and we had to pick a woman? Sodom and Gomorrha couldn't produce ten righteous souls, and the Republican Party can't offer up one man that is more fit than this woman to run for Vice-President of the United States.

Isaiah 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.

How are we feeling about this shameful condition in our country? Surprisingly, some are excited. They are happy. In fact, they are downright jubilant. They are fascinated by Sarah Palin. Yes, men who aren't fit to run the country are pleased that a woman is seeking to be second highest in command of them. These are men who think they are in authority over their own women and wouldn't allow their women to be over them in any way in the church. But for some reason they like the idea of a woman's having power in other ways over them. A funny thing happened on the way to the White House. Women flung off their role in the home. They flung off their femininity. For all intents and purposes, they flung off motherhood. They flung off their submission to their husbands. So why would it surprise us to see a woman pursue a high office in the country, and why wouldn't we accept it and even be excited about it?Maybe it is not surprising at all, but I am confounded. I just don't comprehend how a woman may not be over a man in the home and she may not be over a man in the church but suddenly God is pleased if she rules over a man in the rest of her (and his) life. I have to wonder how Sarah Palin learned how to rule a man. She couldn't do it in the home. She couldn't do it in the church. Where did she get the talent, ability, and experience to rule a country of men unless her boots have been walking where they shouldn't have been walking?

I don't know whether many people have considered it or not, but when Sarah Palin became a public official, she began ruling over her husband. And, if I were so bold, I'd like to ask the men who are excited about her nomination to the Vice-Presidency: Would you allow your own wife to be Vice-President and usurp authority over you? Would you be honored or humiliated to have your wife a heartbeat away from your commander-in-chief if you were a soldier?

I guess roshen ears aren't corn. It reminds me of our worship/Bible study situation. Ten o'clock Sunday morning comes and we flip a switch in our head and it's just Bible study and women may talk. Eleven o'clock comes and we flip another switch in our head and it's worship time and women may not talk. We're doing the same things--or some of them (praying, studying, and singing)--but somehow God likes it when women talk at 10:00 but He gets hopping mad when they talk at 11:00. That is, except, of course, that a woman may confess Christ. However, confession of sin should be whispered to the preacher, as it is a shame for a woman to speak in church. That is, of course, with the other exception of singing, which a woman must do. Don't ask me to explain all this; I can't.But I reckon that's also how it has to be when Sarah Palin rules over her husband. If she is elected, when she and her husband walk out of their house and into official government buildings, we all just have to flip a switch and make it okay for her to rule over men.1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.Obviously, when it comes to usurping authority over a man, some take this to be only in the church and the home. But to be consistent, they would have to say that all of this scripture applies only in the church and the home. And in that case a woman may dress immodestly as long as she isn't in church or at home. And she doesn't have to do any good works except in church or at home. When a woman leaves her home or the church building, she may fling off her shamefacedness and sobriety. More than that, she may usurp authority over a man if she's not in church or in the home. This must be what some think; otherwise, they wouldn't be excited that Sarah Palin is hoping to usurp authority over her husband as well as every man in the country--except John McCain.

Maybe the argument is that this scripture applies only in the spiritual realm. If so, then a woman may usurp authority over her husband at home in any matter that is not spiritual. She may tell her husband what house or car to buy. She may tell him what groceries to pick up and when to fix supper. She may tell him to bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan--and never ever let him think he's a man.

If this scripture indeed applies only in the spiritual realm, we have no basis for applying any of it across the board, and women must dress modestly in the church and at home, but when they go out into the world they can let it all hang out. Who can believe it? Not I. And one thing I know: We can't take part of this scripture and apply it to the spiritual realm and then take the other part and apply it to the secular realm. That is taking scripture out of context and making it fit with our preconceived notions.We are worried, I know, about homosexuality and abortion, so we don't want Barack Obama in the White House. I recognize that danger. In fact, the thought of that man being President makes me cringe. But will homosexuality be abolished if McCain is elected? Will abortions cease or even be diminished? I don't think so. And we need to understand that God is concerned about authority and who rules whom. The line of authority is important to God. A man might as well usurp authority over Christ as a woman is to usurp authority over a man. Maybe we want to pick a lesser of two evils. But, frankly, I don't know which evil is worse, and I cannot vote for a woman.If a woman is elected as Vice-President of the United States, she will lead our country to the shame and humiliation of every grown man. I hope men learn to be men and women learn to be women before it is too late. God has other ways of bringing us down if we don't learn quickly. Having a woman ruling over men may be only the beginning.

I haven't even spoken about how a vote for Sarah Palin is a vote for a woman to leave her God-ordained role at home and take on the ruling of a country instead. Let's not even try to fool ourselves into thinking she can do both, and we might want to consider whether we want to support her abandonment of her children, including her nursing baby.

Mr. Palin has agreed to be Mr. Mom. He will try to be a helper meet for Sarah. And clearly she will be known in the gates, when she sits among the elders of the land. So Mr. Palin might be what many of us women aspire to be: a Proverbs 31 woman. Will women look to him then as a role model for being a good housewife? Or will we look to his wife as a role model for being a good leader? Will men look to Mr. Palin as a role model for being a good househusband? Or will they look to his wife as a role model for being a good leader? I don't know; but I know that God is not the author of confusion, and we are one confused nation. And we shake our heads and wonder why homosexuality and unwed mothers seeking abortions continue to flourish in the land. I wish Sarah Palin would go home to her children. We need her there! Had she, and all other mothers, been home instead of out seeking political office and the glory and honor due our men, maybe Barack Obama would have learned at his mother's knee not to support homosexuality and abortions. And maybe men, including Mr. Palin, would have learned how to be leaders and wouldn't be hiding behind Sarah Palin's skirt tails.

Christina Elizabeth Dozier

September 7, 2008

Sarah Palin Hits Home Run!

It will be interesting to see the results once the daily tracking polls come out, but I have no doubt that Sarah Palin laid to rest any doubts that she is ready for the big time as she hit a home run (or maybe in her case as a self-proclaimed hockey mom it would be better phrased to say she scored a hat trick) in her VP acceptance speech given earlier tonight at the 2008 Republican Convention in St. Paul, MN. If the left thought they were going to knock this woman out of the race with the garbage and personal attacks they have levied against Palin and her family this week since McCain announced her to be his choice as VP in one of the best rope-a-dopes of all time, they are sorely mistaken. If they were frightened at the mere nomination of Sarah Palin to be Senator McCain's running mate, I can only imagine the angst and anguish they must be feeling now after seeing and hearing her deliver and land punch after punch tonight. What was amazing was that afterwards the pundits seemed to be all in agreement that she gave a great speech with little time in which to prepare for it (and this was compounded by the endless charges and personal attacks being levied against her by the mainstream media and the left), but then they still wondered if she would be prepared for the Presidency. Well, what more evidence do they need that this woman can walk through fire (in heels, I might add) and still come out no worse for the undertaking wearing a beaming, infectious smile upon her face, short of her actually serving and being the President?

As I wrote earlier this week, Sarah Palin is the left's biggest nightmare, and it has only gotten worse after seeing this woman who has been nicknamed "the Barracuda" in action. She is a mother with a lovely family who embodies the Conservative Republican message of God, family and country. She is what the feminists have always said they wanted, but because she is a Conservative woman who is pretty and has a winning smile, but more than that, she has brains and a good track record of personal and professional success to boot who got where she is without their assistance, they despise her. Add to that the fact that she is a Conservative woman who is passionate about the right to life (isn't it ironic how those who claim they are for a woman's right to choose only support that right to choose if it means taking the life of a baby from its mother's womb, and decry the choice made by mothers who choose to be pro-life?), their despising of her turns to hatred as has been demonstrated by so many on the left who have done their utmost to destroy this woman and her family, particularly her 17 year old daughter, Bristol, these last few days. And accompany this with the fact that she is member of the NRA and a proud and unashamed supporter of the Second Amendment, which is in the Constitution, by the way, then the vitriolic from the left is manifested fully. This woman just must be stopped!

Palin had to have scored major points this evening with women voters as she stated she would be the voice in the White House for families with special needs children. What better spokesperson would there be than the mother of a Downs Syndrome baby herself?

John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, and his willingness to stand by her in the face of the media frenzy and maelstrom that followed, are galvanizing the Republican Conservative base behind him as nothing I have seen or imagined could do. He may have had his initial doubts in wanting to select her, but I do not care. The bottom line is when push came to shove, he made the right choice. As far as I am concerned, Sarah Palin was not the only candidate scoring a hat trick. John McCain did with his selection of Sarah Palin.

Obama Wrong Again . . . But Will Anyone Know It?

Senator Barack Obama contends that he is more experienced in executive matters than Alaska Governor Sarah Palin because he has managed his Presidential campaign for the past 18 months. This in and of itself is not true, but let's go ahead and concede the point that Barack Obama is managing his own political campaign. Senator Obama claimed this experience running his campaign makes him more qualified to be President. (Did Obama forget, however, that the Presidential nominee from the Republican Party is not Sarah Palin, but John McCain? But I digress.) Obama stated, “Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.” (So what have you been doing as a Senator paid by tax payer dollars during this time, Senator Obama?)

So why is Obama comparing what Palin was doing as mayor, instead of what she has been doing as governor? Did he miss that she is the governor now? Apparently not, since he does refer to her as "Governor" in the quote above. Why would Barack Obama compare his current job with her former job? Why not make an apples to apples comparison, instead of an apples to oranges comparison? Could it be he is engaging in a little chicanery to throw off people, and hope that we will all be so stupid that we will not catch his trickery and sleight of hand? Lets's do a little number crunching to see just how Obama, the Democrat Presidential nominee, compares to Sarah Palin, Republican VP nominee and current Chief Executive from the State of Alaska.

Barack Obama has raised about $21 million a month during his campaign. That is a great sum of money with a large organization undeniably, but when you compare it to Governor Palin it becomes miniscule. Sarah Palin is handling revenues 47 times larger than Obama, which translates into a billion dollars per month.

Additionally, Obama is engaging in circular logic. This would be laughable except it just goes to show how inexperienced this man is, and how much he lacks in good judgment. Barack Obama arguing that he is experienced enough to be President because he is running for President is a fallacious use of logic. It is circular reasoning, and it seems to me to highlight the desperateness his campaign is facing with the choice of Palin, a Conservative woman with traditional family values, to be the VP running mate with John McCain.

Barack Obama says he has 2,500 people working for his campaign. Governor Palin, however, has 77,000 employees in the State of Alaska.

Republican National Committee Victory 2008 Chairwoman Carly Fiorina spoke for many when she said, “I am appalled by the Obama campaign’s attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience. The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a mayor and governor than Barack Obama has made in his life.” Fiorina added that the Obama camp’s attacks raise the question of sexism. “Because of Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin,” she said. I certainly hope this is true, but my experience has taught me that all those people who are so quick to shout "sexism" at the drop of a hat, even where it is not warranted, are suspiciously silent when true sexism rears its ugly head when it comes to horrific treatment being given to a Conservative woman.

So if it is true that running an organization the size of his campaign is a sign he is qualified to be President, then just what does it say about Sarah Palin's qualifications to be Vice President? She is much more qualified than Barack Hussein Obama!

A Question of Judgment?

During the last few days it has become quite clear, for any with eyes to see and ears to hear, that the "mainstream media" has lost any semblance of credibility . . . that is, if it even had any credibility left to lose in the first place. There is absolutely no attempt being made to be unbiased reporters or journalists. Instead, the "mainstream media" is nothing more than a lap dog for the Democrat Party and the leftist groups it is beholden to. Since the announcement last Friday by Republican Presidential nominee John McCain that he was choosing Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, to be his running mate in this Presidential sweepstakes, the "mainstream media" has done everything in its power to destroy this woman and her family. Three, yes, three, front page, above-the-fold stories about the pregnancy of 17 year old Bristol Palin were ran yesterday in the New York Times, and we are now supposed to believe that the Boston Globe suddenly is worried about and cares about teenage pregnancies. Bristol Palin, 17 year old daughter of Sarah and Todd Palin, is expecting a child and the left wing "mainstream media" is "concerned" that Palin is not spending enough time with her family. I see no concern on the part of the "mainstream media" that Barack and Michelle Obama are not spending enough time with their young daughters, however. Why are the women of NOW silent and not voicing their outrage and disdain at the treatment of Sarah Palin compared to that of Obama? Why the double standard? Could it be that the women of NOW do not care one iota about how Conservative women are treated, and that sexism is only a problem if it is happening to a leftist such as themselves? But wait, we already know the answer to that. Just ask Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones.
Chelsea Clinton and her life was always off limits, and rightfully so, but when it comes to a Conservative woman ahd her family the "mainstream media" has declared open season. Bristol Palin is taking responsibility for her actions and planning on marrying the father and keeping her baby instead of having it murdered in her womb, and her family is supporting her in her right decision. But according to the "mainstream media" the responsible thing would have been for her to have had it aborted, which is their nice little word they use to mislead what is actually happening: An innocent child is being murdered.

We are now supposed to believe, however, that because John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, a woman who has a 17 year old unmarried, pregnant daughter whose family is standing by her with lover and support, that his "judgment" is now brought into question. So let's take and llok at teh judgment (or lack thereof) of Barack Obama since the "mainstream media" has no inclination to do so.

Barack Obama's judgment was that he should have as his mentor and spiritual adviser the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright, a racist who refers to the country that Obama wants to be President of as "the U. S. of KKK America!" This "spiritual man" also shouted from the pulpit as the raucous crowd cheered its approval, "God d - - - America! God d - - - America!" And we are supposed to believe Barack Obama that after spending 20 years as a member of this man's congregation that he never heard the "Reverend" speak such outrageous remarks, although he removed Wright from being a speaker when Obama announced his intention to run for President.

Barack Obama's judgment was that he should associate himself with unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohm.

Barack Obama's judgment is that a child who survives an attempted abortion is not entitled to medical attention.

Barack Obama's judgment is that he can make no judgment as to when a child is entitled to human rights because it is above his pay grade, and yet his judgment is that a woman should be entitled to have her unborn child killed. Wouldn't it be prudent and wise and exercising good judgment NOT to support abortion if one is NOT sure when a child is entitled to human rights because the answer to that question is above one's pay grade? Maybe this might help Senator Obama: "As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything." (Ecclesiastes 11:5) Or this: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. . . ." (Jeremiah 1:5) Obama might be advised to have better judgment and consider these passages the next time he quotes this his favorite passage: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:40)

John McCain's judgment was to support the surge in Iraq, something that Obama judged to be unworthy of support, and the increase in troops has brought success, something the "mainstream media" is failing to report in spite of the fact that just two days ago the United States military transferred control of Anbar providence directly to the Iraqi security forces. (Have YOU heard any news reports on the "mainstream media" about this great victory?) But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to believe that Iraq was an unwinnable quagmire!

John McCain's judgment was to pick a Conservative woman with a family whom she loves and supports, and for that we are supposed to disdain his wisdom. I can hardly wait to hear Sarah Palin speak at the Republican convention later on this evening!

Palin: The Dem's Latest Nightmare!

Last week, Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain tabbed Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who rose to national prominence on the back of her less than faithful husband, Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin has gotten where she is on her own. That is not to say she does not have a supportive husband. It means that she did not rise in the political world due to her husband being in the political world. He is not.

Sarah Palin is the ultimate nightmare for the left, particularly the members of NOW, because Palin, the ultimate feminist, is not one of them. In fact, it is not hyperbole to describe her as being the antithesis of the left's definition of feminism: She is a conservative wife and mother who loves God and her family, she is a self-described hockey mom, she owns and shoots guns as an unapologetic member of the NRA and supporter of the Second Amendment, she eats moose burgers, and she treasures traditional marriage and values innocent human life. She did not abort her Down's Syndrome baby, even though it was her "choice," but gave birth to her son, Trig, this past April 18, the anniversary of Paul Revere's famous ride. She did not push her 17 year old daughter, Bristol, to go out and have an abortion, either, something that could have been performed secretly in order to have spared Palin the political fallout this revelation created, since Governor Palin is a staunch supporter of abstinence education. Instead, Governor Palin has this to say about her daughter: "Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates." Contrast this to what Barack Obama said in a town meeting in Johnstown, PA: "I’ve got two daughters; 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby." In the eyes of Barack Obama a baby is a punishment, even though the word of God tells us they are a blessing. Yes, Sarah Palin is the left's worst nightmare, and her biggest "sin" is that she is attractive and articulate to boot!

The left is attempting to make political hay out of the pregnancy of Bristol Palin. How sad a commentary is this on the state of affairs in America today that the private life of a 17 year old girl becomes political fodder for the left. But it is my prediction that this will backfire resoundingly on the left, and I certainly hope it does. I believe they are in for quite a surprise because they have no idea what it means to face the beautiful hockey mom Sarah Palin. As she was quoted saying recently, "Do you want to know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? The hockey mom wears lipstick!"