Lynn brought this up in a comment and I wanted to show the entire context of this statement on the Vision Forum website that “God does not allow women to vote.”
Until the twentieth century, Americans almost universally held to this doctrine of representation in some form or the other. The reason why women were not allowed to vote had nothing to do with women being considered “inferior” or “too emotional” (these values arose during the Victorian era and were themselves theologically and socially deviant) but rather because the husband and father was ASSUMED to represent the family to the broader community. By definition, there could only be ONE representative of the family just as there could only be ONE representative of the Human Race to God!
However, by the end of the 19th century, American Christians had largely stopped thinking in theological terms. Instead, an emotive, subjective religious “experience” (called Pietism”) emphasizing individual conversion replaced the comprehensive Christian worldview of the Reformation. As Christians failed to think biblically about all of life, they were unable to withstand either the new philosophies gaining ground in the universities or deal effectively with the changing social conditions of the Industrial Revolution. By the 20th century, American Christians saw the “height” of Christian activism as banning alcohol while at the same time affirming a woman’s right to vote. Both ideas were unmitigated disasters; God has not allowed the civil magistrate to outlaw wine and God does not allow women to vote (cf. 1 Tim 2:11ff). But by ignoring God’s law, American Christians both destroyed their own credibility (the Prohibition era is STILL a matter of public ridicule and repealing prohibition set the legal precedence for pornography, sodomy and the acceptance of other moral failures) and the integrity of own families.
In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.
November 5, 2007 at 10:27 am
Jen,
I know this is an old thread, but it happens to be a very timely issue considering the political season springing to life. I was doing a little homework today, researching candidates (specifically how they stand on issues related to homeschooling) and I stumbled on this:
“October 29th, 2007
Jennie Chancey- homeschooling mom of 7 and co-author of Passionate Housewives Desperate for God
“Unlike other candidates for President who claim to be pro-homeschooling, Ron Paul understands that the greatest thing the federal government can do to help home schooling is to get out of the way. He is the only candidate campaigning for the complete abolishment of the federal Department of Education and all other unconstitutional education spending.”"
Interesting to me for no other reason than she is very publicly endorsing a particular candidate when much of the teaching swirling about her would actually discourage women from voting. I thought this to be quite hypocritical and wanted to point it out.
Should you desire to go check it out for yourself, here’s the link. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/homeschoolers/endorsements/
And now for the disclaimer…this post and it’s content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the poster, the blog-owner, or the good folks at WordPress. HA!
Have a pleasant day,
Jean
November 5, 2007 at 10:52 am
Hi Jean! Thanks for pointing that out. I wonder why Jennie Chancey is allowed to have public opinions about politics, but other women are not? Do you think she’ll actually VOTE this election?
Now this is interesting to me because Ron Paul is running as a Republican and Doug Phillips is a Constitution Party-only advocate. What happens if Ron Paul gets the Republican nod and runs against the CP nominee? (Hillary wins.)
One of the things I’ve noticed in the patriarchy camp regarding politics is their desire to make gigantic changes all at once. What would really happen if we abolished the Department of Education all at once? Where would all those government employees and public school teachers go? What would happen to the children? Is there a transition plan in place? Of course not, or it would just be another government program. I think these people sometimes have their heads so high in the sky, they can’t see reality.
What’s the best way to do away with the Dept. of Education? How about a little competition? (OK. I’ll get off my soapbox on this issue now.)
I agree that a candidate’s stand on education is important, but let’s look at a much bigger picture other than just homeschooling. Most of America will NOT be voting based upon that issue.
November 5, 2007 at 11:17 am
Jen:
Not at BCA. That was often sung by the men only.
Morgan; SERIOUSLY???????
November 5, 2007 at 11:44 am
We have supported the Constitution Party since 1995, in 2004 I voted for Shrub -er – Dubya, simply because I could not bear the thought of President Kerry. I will do the same in 2008, whoever the GOP candidate is (even if it’s McCain – yikes!) I have come to realize that we should work hard to reform the GOP and not abandon it. What if Ronald Reagan had formed a third party in 1976?
Ron Paul is a good man, but he has no clue on foreign policy. My ideal candidate this go-round is Duncan Hunter. Huckabee is a liberal (ask Phyllis Schlafly), so is Romney, and Thompson has no pulse. My ideal 2008 ticket would be Giuliani-Hunter. As liberal as Rudy is, he appeals across the board, and I hope he’s serious about appointing strict constructionists to the judiciary. Any step that doesn’t elect the Republican but results in electing the Democrat will ultimately (permanently?) set back any gains made in the fight against Roe v. Wade, US sovereignty, individual Second Amendment rights, etc., etc.
Gotta think long term!
November 5, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Jen,
I certainly don’t want to stir the political pot here on your blog, so I won’t go there. I do think that Jennie’s endorsement raises some legitimate questions in light of this whole hyper-patriarchy focus, though.
You were chastised for voicing your political opinion. Is Jennie?
Men (according to Doug et al) are supposed to direct the political leanings of their households, wives are to follow. Where’s Matt Chancey?
Women (according to Doug et al) are not to vote. Will Jennie?
And Jen, I would agree with you about vast sweeping changes. We didn’t get into this mess all at once, and we won’t get out of it that way either. Seems like incrementalism got us here and could serve to get us back on track, too.
I will be looking to see if Jennie’s endorsement mysteriously disappears like so many other pesky hypocrisies that rear up for DP. Can’t have any of the soldiers talking out of turn now. There are appearances to maintain don’t you know.
Have a pleasant day,
Jean
November 5, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Morgan, yes, “Rise Up O Men of God” was often sung just by the men at BCA.
Bryan, Doug would say that you are basing your decision on pragmatism and pragmatism is a sin!
Jean, good question about why isn’t Matt Chancey endorsing Ron Paul rather than Jennie. It’s probably because Matt has been a political campaign manager and he doesn’t want to jeopardize his chances at future campaigns. Or maybe it’s because they would have to describe him as “Matt Chancey, author and independent investigator of Mrs. Binoculars.”
November 6, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Well, Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s VP candidate in 2004, is on the stump for Ron Paul! He sent out this missive today:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071106.html
Evidently, my take on Ron Paul’s foreign policy is different than Chuck’s … but I think the “War and Foreign Policy” blurb on Ron’s website is horrible! It comes across to me as simplistic and naïve in a post 9-11 world.
If Chuck’s view of Ron Paul’s plan to deal with terrorism and foreign policy is accurate, Ron could do himself a lot of good if he articulated it better! I might even be persuaded to take a serious look at him!
And if the Constitution Party’s own VP candidate is stumping for a GOP candidate, has pragmatism invaded the Party? (Not to mention all the fuss about Howard Phillips’ alleged “shenanigans” regarding the CP’s abortion plank, but alas, I digress. I guess bringing that up is about as relevant as discussing Brad Phillips and his alleged theft of a Sudan video. If the topic is Doug Phillips’ ecclesiatical tyranny, I suppose I should not be lumping his family members’ alleged transgressions in with him simply because they are all related! The next thing you know, people might start lumping RC Sr. in with RC Jr., and so on, etc. Highly unfair.)
Anyway Jen, sorry for “hijacking the thread”!
November 6, 2007 at 6:45 pm
A CP guy stumping for a Republican? I smell something! Kind of reminds me of the voting letter I wrote to Doug, when I suggested that his candidates should work from within the Republican party instead. Hmm. This makes me even more leery of Ron Paul.
But I digress from this blog’s aim. I voted today, and I hope that everyone here who has the PRIVILEGE of voting took the opportunity to be heard and voice their OPINION. I thanked God for a brain to make wise decisions and as I read through the 17 proposed amendments we were voting on today, I didn’t see one attempting to change who has the God-given right to vote in America. (Did God give the men the right to vote? Just wondering, if He doesn’t allow women to vote.)
As for Howard, I think the case is stronger than just “alleged.”