The Los Angeles Times seems to have taken a sudden new interest in biblical study. No, they haven't become religious or anything close to that. Instead, they are microanalyzing the Bible for passages that they think they can use to slam Sarah Palin for running for vice-president. They are also searching the countryside to dig up the very few strongly religious Christians they can find who think Palin is wrong to run for public office. Let us now join Times reporter, Teresa Watanabe, as she begins her biblical studies in her story with an ulterior motive (emphasis mine):
In a white-steepled church along a stretch in picturesque canyon country, the preacher laid out the basic blueprint of a godly marriage: Husbands lead, wives submit.
See where this is going right from the get-go? The reporter is going to use the Bible to suggest to believers that Sarah Palin is violating the "basic blueprint of a godly marriage."
Speaking recently before hundreds of worshipers at Placerita Baptist Church in Newhall, guest preacher Chris Mueller affirmed the view that loving male headship and gracious wifely submission are God's plan for spouses.
Placerita, like many conservative Christian churches, teaches that a wife's role is to be her husband's helpmate (Genesis), "workers at home" (Titus) and submissive to her husband in everything (Ephesians).
Sheesh! Don't they ever let up? I can just picture a Los Angeles Times research team poring over the Bible for the first time to find passages they can cite about how Palin is supposedly a hypocrite for running for office. Watanabe then gives a brief nod about how there are no biblical restrictions on a woman running for public office...but then quickly returns to the basic theme of this hit piece:
Many say that biblical restrictions on women's leadership apply to church and home, not the secular world -- clearing the way for a woman to run the nation but not a congregation. And so long as Palin's husband, Todd, approves, they say, her career conforms with teachings on wifely duties.
But to others, this view contradicts biblical teaching.
And don't worry. You can absolutely count on the L.A. Times to find those "others" no matter how few they may be.
"The Palin selection is the single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years at least," said Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum, a Texas-based ministry. "The unabashed, unquestioning support of Sarah Palin and all she represents marks a fundamental departure from our historic position of family priorities -- of moms being at home with young children, of moms being helpers to their husbands, the priority of being keepers of the home."
Could you find just one more person out there who disapproves of Palin running for office due to a supposedly biblical perspective? Please! Pretty please!
Voddie Baucham, a Texas pastor who has criticized the Palin selection as anti-family in a series of blogs, said that the overwhelming evangelical support demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice biblical principles for politics. "Evangelicalism has lost its biblical perspective and its prophetic voice," Baucham wrote. "Men who should be standing guard as the conscience of the country are instead falling in line with the feminist agenda and calling a family tragedy . . . a shining example of family values."
Yup. The L.A. Times came through by finding one more of those rare kooks who thinks that Palin shouldn't be a candidate because of a "biblical perspective" that almost no one else sees. Watanabe then makes it seem like there is some sort of big debate out there among Christians over whether Palin should run for office:
Most of the debate on Palin, however, centers on whether a mother with young children is violating Scripture by running for such a demanding office as vice president. The key biblical verse at issue is Titus 2:5, which many evangelical Christians believe lays out God's command to younger women to be workers at home subject to their husbands.
Yeah, a big raging debate that almost no one, except the liberal Los Angeles Times, knows even exists. File this under conjuring up a non-existent controversy for strictly political purposes.
Watanabe finally did get around to contradicting the previous cherry-picked biblical misinterpretations by citing certain strong women in the Bible but only in the last paragraph of her story:
Barbara Barrick, the women's ministry coordinator, said she looks to Deborah, a prophetess and judge, as a biblical example of a female leader. Ennis cited Abraham's wife, Sarah, and Queen Esther as other women called by God for special missions.