CNN reported today that Fred's support is wavering. He came out with a bang and now polls show a drop of 10% or so.
Fred fans need to get busy if he is going to make it. He needs to get on television soon.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Should Fred Thompson disassociate from the churches of Christ?
All the speculation I have been reading about Fred Thompson and his association with the Church of Christ is disturbing to me. What they are saying is that Fred Thompson may have to disassociate with the Church of Christ because their views about women and the church. It was also stated that if Fred Thompson becomes a threat to Hillary Clinton she may try to use this against him.
Churches of Christ during the 40’s, and 50’s basically the older generation churches I believe could be some of the cause of confusion in the roles of women in the church today. It’s about how people in general felt about women’s role in any part of society.
If women worked outside of the home they couldn’t take care of their children properly.
Other things women weren’t allowed to do? How about going on a date after a divorce? A woman going to a bar alone? A woman CEO wasn’t even heard of in 1950.
As far as the church of Christ and leadership roles of women you have a lot of older generation types as well advocating the bare foot and pregnant mentality. Thank God there has been more research done or women would be in the dog house.
Churches of Christ do not say they can’t be presidents, CEO’s, Managers or any other leadership roles. However the Bible does restrict a woman’s role in the church. A good article I read today really explains it well and it is posted below.
GOD ASSIGNED A SPECIAL ROLE FOR WOMEN IN THE CHURCH
By James O. Baird
There is a great deal of confusion today as to woman's role both in the home and in the church. This uncertainty provides a good opportunity to study afresh what the Bible teaches on the subject. As the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), it is most important that the church reflect Biblical truth about woman's role.
HOW JESUS DEALT WITH WOMEN
A good place to begin a study of woman's role in the church is with the earthly ministry of Jesus. We understand, of course, the church did not begin while Jesus was on earth (Matthew 16:18), but after he ascended into Heaven (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-4). Nevertheless, we can learn something about women's role in the church by studying how Jesus considered them during his earthly ministry.
We know that none of the apostles were women (Matt. 10:2-4). However, some of Jesus' closest disciples were women. Luke 8:2-3 mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and "many others" who helped provide financial support for Jesus and the apostles as they went about preaching. Later, when the apostles fled the crucifixion scene in fear, certain faithful and sorrowing women remained to watch his death on the cross (Matt. 27:55-56).
From these and other references in the Gospels we learn that Jesus in no way dealt with women as being inferior to men as far as being his disciples was concerned. In selecting men rather than women to be his apostles, he did make some distinction in the roles men and women should fill.
These two basic principles, i.e.,
(1) equality of worth in Christ's sight
(2) difference in role assignments for men and women, were clearly taught in the early church, and should, or course, be reflected in the church today.
WOMAN'S ROLE IN THE CHURCH
When the church began on the Day of Pentecost, women, as well as men, came into it in great numbers (Acts 5:14). There were no distinctions made in conditions of membership between the sexes. Furthermore, the importance of women to the whole church is reflected by the concern which the early church had for widows who needed care and help (Acts 6:1-6).
The good works of women are frequently mentioned in Scripture. Dorcas is cited as an example of faithful, loving service (Acts 9:36-39). Lydia is revealed as being a woman of great hospitality, "constraining" Paul and his company to abide in her house (Acts 16:1-15). Phoebe is described as a "servant of the church that is in Cenchreae" (Romans 16:10). The many good works of women in the church is further reflected as Paul describes the qualifications for women who were to devote full time to Christian work and to be supported by the church. In 1 Timothy 5:9-10 these qualifications included widowhood, being sixty or more years of age, having no kin of their own to support them, and being "well reported of for good works." These good works were then stated as
(1) bringing up children
(2) showing hospitality to strangers,
(3) washing the saints' feet,
(4) relieving the afflicted, and
(5) diligently following every good work.
Woman's role in the private teaching of God's Word is also referenced in Scripture. In Acts 18:26 Priscilla, with her husband, Aquila, privately taught a good, but misinformed preacher (Apollos) "the way of God more accurately." Titus 2:4 commands older women to train younger women in Christian living.
A key verse in understanding the importance of women in the eyes of God is Galatians 3:28, "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female, for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus." In the world of Jesus' day, there were sharp distinctions among people by which they looked upon each other as inferior or superior and, because of these differences, separated themselves from each other. These differences included religious background (Jew and Greek), special status (slave or slave owner), or sex (male and female). Paul wrote that none of these distinctions was valid as far as worth is concerned. He did not mean, certainly, that when one became a Christian he or she ceased to be a man or a woman, a slave or a free man, a Jew or a Gentile. None of these, however, should cause separation , because all are of equal preciousness in Christ Jesus.
DIFFERING ROLES FOR MEN AND WOMEN
Although the church is to hold unswervingly to the view that women and men are equally valuable in the eyes of God, it must also reflect the New Testament teaching that men and women are to fill different roles in the church.
For instance, in the Lord's plan for church government each congregation is to be led by elders and deacons (Philippians 1:1). In listing the qualifications for elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) and for deacons (1 Tim. 3:12) being the "husband of one wife" is mentioned. This obviously excludes women from these roles; only men are to be elders and deacons.
Although women can teach privately, as we learned from the example of Priscilla, women are forbidden to teach men publicly (1 Tim. 2:12). The common practice today of women being accepted as preachers is not a practice approved in the New Testament and should not be practiced in the church (1 Cor. 14: 34).
The great emphasis today on the rights of women should not cause Christians to question the Lord's forbidding women to assume certain roles in the church. Even if no reasons for this action were given we should accept by faith what God has revealed. Some reasons, however, were given. Consider the following:
1. Woman's role in the church reflects the original act of creation in which man was first created (1 Tim. 2:13).
2. Woman's role in the church reflects that it was the woman who was first deceived by Satan and fell into sin (1 Tim. 2:13).
3. Woman's role in the church is closely connected to her unique role in the home. Woman alone can give birth to children (1 Tim. 2:15). The man must care for and provide for his wife and love her as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). The woman's willing submission to her husband is most likely to call forth the best of his care (Eph. 5:22,33). In order for there to be the greatest amount of happiness in the home, God has established different roles for men and women in the home. This difference is likewise to be reflected in the church.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In summary, we have found:
(1) The church should teach what the Bible states about the role of women, regardless of what others are teaching and practicing.
(2) Christ accepted women as his followers on the same basis as men, although he appointed no women apostles.
(3) Women were among the earliest members of the church and an important part of its life. They were outstanding in their abilities to extend hospitality, to help provide for the needy and to express serving love which is to characterize the church as the family of God.
(4) In God's sight men and women are to accept each other as being of equal value because God respects both equally.
(5) God has ordained there are certain roles in the church which a woman cannot fill, and has given reasons why he made this distinction.
I am not really sure if Fred Thompson is still in fact a member of the church but anyone who understands the Bible clearly will come to the same conclusion as this article and there should be no argument of leadership roles of women outside of the church.
More articles can be found at http://cafescoop.blogspot.com
Churches of Christ during the 40’s, and 50’s basically the older generation churches I believe could be some of the cause of confusion in the roles of women in the church today. It’s about how people in general felt about women’s role in any part of society.
If women worked outside of the home they couldn’t take care of their children properly.
Other things women weren’t allowed to do? How about going on a date after a divorce? A woman going to a bar alone? A woman CEO wasn’t even heard of in 1950.
As far as the church of Christ and leadership roles of women you have a lot of older generation types as well advocating the bare foot and pregnant mentality. Thank God there has been more research done or women would be in the dog house.
Churches of Christ do not say they can’t be presidents, CEO’s, Managers or any other leadership roles. However the Bible does restrict a woman’s role in the church. A good article I read today really explains it well and it is posted below.
GOD ASSIGNED A SPECIAL ROLE FOR WOMEN IN THE CHURCH
By James O. Baird
There is a great deal of confusion today as to woman's role both in the home and in the church. This uncertainty provides a good opportunity to study afresh what the Bible teaches on the subject. As the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), it is most important that the church reflect Biblical truth about woman's role.
HOW JESUS DEALT WITH WOMEN
A good place to begin a study of woman's role in the church is with the earthly ministry of Jesus. We understand, of course, the church did not begin while Jesus was on earth (Matthew 16:18), but after he ascended into Heaven (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-4). Nevertheless, we can learn something about women's role in the church by studying how Jesus considered them during his earthly ministry.
We know that none of the apostles were women (Matt. 10:2-4). However, some of Jesus' closest disciples were women. Luke 8:2-3 mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and "many others" who helped provide financial support for Jesus and the apostles as they went about preaching. Later, when the apostles fled the crucifixion scene in fear, certain faithful and sorrowing women remained to watch his death on the cross (Matt. 27:55-56).
From these and other references in the Gospels we learn that Jesus in no way dealt with women as being inferior to men as far as being his disciples was concerned. In selecting men rather than women to be his apostles, he did make some distinction in the roles men and women should fill.
These two basic principles, i.e.,
(1) equality of worth in Christ's sight
(2) difference in role assignments for men and women, were clearly taught in the early church, and should, or course, be reflected in the church today.
WOMAN'S ROLE IN THE CHURCH
When the church began on the Day of Pentecost, women, as well as men, came into it in great numbers (Acts 5:14). There were no distinctions made in conditions of membership between the sexes. Furthermore, the importance of women to the whole church is reflected by the concern which the early church had for widows who needed care and help (Acts 6:1-6).
The good works of women are frequently mentioned in Scripture. Dorcas is cited as an example of faithful, loving service (Acts 9:36-39). Lydia is revealed as being a woman of great hospitality, "constraining" Paul and his company to abide in her house (Acts 16:1-15). Phoebe is described as a "servant of the church that is in Cenchreae" (Romans 16:10). The many good works of women in the church is further reflected as Paul describes the qualifications for women who were to devote full time to Christian work and to be supported by the church. In 1 Timothy 5:9-10 these qualifications included widowhood, being sixty or more years of age, having no kin of their own to support them, and being "well reported of for good works." These good works were then stated as
(1) bringing up children
(2) showing hospitality to strangers,
(3) washing the saints' feet,
(4) relieving the afflicted, and
(5) diligently following every good work.
Woman's role in the private teaching of God's Word is also referenced in Scripture. In Acts 18:26 Priscilla, with her husband, Aquila, privately taught a good, but misinformed preacher (Apollos) "the way of God more accurately." Titus 2:4 commands older women to train younger women in Christian living.
A key verse in understanding the importance of women in the eyes of God is Galatians 3:28, "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female, for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus." In the world of Jesus' day, there were sharp distinctions among people by which they looked upon each other as inferior or superior and, because of these differences, separated themselves from each other. These differences included religious background (Jew and Greek), special status (slave or slave owner), or sex (male and female). Paul wrote that none of these distinctions was valid as far as worth is concerned. He did not mean, certainly, that when one became a Christian he or she ceased to be a man or a woman, a slave or a free man, a Jew or a Gentile. None of these, however, should cause separation , because all are of equal preciousness in Christ Jesus.
DIFFERING ROLES FOR MEN AND WOMEN
Although the church is to hold unswervingly to the view that women and men are equally valuable in the eyes of God, it must also reflect the New Testament teaching that men and women are to fill different roles in the church.
For instance, in the Lord's plan for church government each congregation is to be led by elders and deacons (Philippians 1:1). In listing the qualifications for elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) and for deacons (1 Tim. 3:12) being the "husband of one wife" is mentioned. This obviously excludes women from these roles; only men are to be elders and deacons.
Although women can teach privately, as we learned from the example of Priscilla, women are forbidden to teach men publicly (1 Tim. 2:12). The common practice today of women being accepted as preachers is not a practice approved in the New Testament and should not be practiced in the church (1 Cor. 14: 34).
The great emphasis today on the rights of women should not cause Christians to question the Lord's forbidding women to assume certain roles in the church. Even if no reasons for this action were given we should accept by faith what God has revealed. Some reasons, however, were given. Consider the following:
1. Woman's role in the church reflects the original act of creation in which man was first created (1 Tim. 2:13).
2. Woman's role in the church reflects that it was the woman who was first deceived by Satan and fell into sin (1 Tim. 2:13).
3. Woman's role in the church is closely connected to her unique role in the home. Woman alone can give birth to children (1 Tim. 2:15). The man must care for and provide for his wife and love her as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). The woman's willing submission to her husband is most likely to call forth the best of his care (Eph. 5:22,33). In order for there to be the greatest amount of happiness in the home, God has established different roles for men and women in the home. This difference is likewise to be reflected in the church.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In summary, we have found:
(1) The church should teach what the Bible states about the role of women, regardless of what others are teaching and practicing.
(2) Christ accepted women as his followers on the same basis as men, although he appointed no women apostles.
(3) Women were among the earliest members of the church and an important part of its life. They were outstanding in their abilities to extend hospitality, to help provide for the needy and to express serving love which is to characterize the church as the family of God.
(4) In God's sight men and women are to accept each other as being of equal value because God respects both equally.
(5) God has ordained there are certain roles in the church which a woman cannot fill, and has given reasons why he made this distinction.
I am not really sure if Fred Thompson is still in fact a member of the church but anyone who understands the Bible clearly will come to the same conclusion as this article and there should be no argument of leadership roles of women outside of the church.
More articles can be found at http://cafescoop.blogspot.com
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Wind in his sails?
Is Fred Thompson losing the wind in his sails? It has been rumored that he may not make the bid for the presidential race. We'll be keeping an eye on stories like this.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Fred Thompson called out for his remarks
Fred Thompson is officially not even in the race for President yet, and he’s already being called out for political statements.
This began when Thompson said the following Wednesday at a South Carolina fundraiser.
When that clip started to circulate, Thompson responded with a lengthy blog entry on his official website.
Anybody who knows my track record or has read some of the things I’ve written about the Cuban-American community knows where I stand. While the communist dictatorship has been a tragedy for Cuba, America has been in some ways, at least, the beneficiary. …
And no one knows better than that community that the Castro regime remains dedicated to infiltrating American institutions to spread his ideology of tyranny. Castro admitted it himself in an interview with CNN in 1998.
This is why the Cuban government rightfully remains on the State Department’s terrorist list for its continued support of terrorism. It’s also why we must oppose the illegal immigration of Castro’s agents into the United States while welcoming the vast majority who immigrate legally and with legal intentions.
It seems to me that few Americans understand the threat that the illegal entry by Cuban spies represents to our country, though Cuban-Americans have never forgotten or stopped pointing it out. Ambassador Otto Reich, the former Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere has called Castro’s efforts to penetrate U.S. intelligence networks “relentless.”
The best-known incident involving Cuban espionage, which many believe may have provided U.S. secrets to hostile Middle Eastern regimes, is probably that of former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Ana Belen Montes — convicted of espionage in 2002. Now, our intelligence picture has been further complicated by the emergence of oil-funded Hugo Chavez and his anti-American, pro-Castro regime. We know that Cuban intelligence officers, for instance, are in South America — presumably training Venezuelans and others in the intelligence arts.
Our national security is too important an issue to let folks twist words around for a one-day headline. Cuban-Americans are among the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, and especially so when it’s sponsored by the Castro regime. We know we have a porous southern border in which they can currently slip through easily. Our enemies know it too.
All of us should be rightfully concerned about Castro and his ideological pal Chavez sending agents and provocateurs into the United States through Mexico. I’m sure that Cuban-Americans share this concern as well.
Hillary Clinton weighed in on the comment today at the NALEO forum saying:
“I was appalled when one of the people running for or about to run for the Republican nomination talked about Cuban refugees as potential terrorists,” Clinton told Hispanic elected officials. “Apparently he doesn’t have a lot of experience in Florida or anywhere else, and doesn’t know a lot of Cuban-Americans.”
As others have written, in Presidential politics perception is reality; what people perceive and think of a candidate is far more important than what the candidates would think of themselves. And if the perception of Fred Thompson among Cuban-Americans is hurt by something that was meant to be an innocent line, he will have to work hard to repair that; not just in the primaries, with Florida having a very early primary scheduled, but in the event Thompson wins the nomination the Cuban-American vote could be the key in Florida.
In the bigger picture, this is really unlikely to reverberate that much. The bigger takeaway is that of Fred Thompson the candidate. He is clearly someone who shoots from the hip and says what he thinks. The problem with that type of candidate, as we have seen numerous times from Bill Richardson in the debates, is that it can lead to meandering thoughts and accidental responses. When Fred Thompson can write a 5, 6, 7, 8 paragraph blog entry to clear up misconceptions, he will be fine.
The problem is avoiding the misconceptions in the first place. When Thompson has to start debating other candidates and the awe and mystery of his campaign goes away, will he rely on blogging himself out of his mistakes or will he be disciplined enough to prevent them?
Of course, this on top of criticism from some that he’s not a candidate with any depth. This particular issue aside, blogging has uses, but also limits, for Presidential campaigns.
Source:
http://2008central.net/?p=996#more-996
This began when Thompson said the following Wednesday at a South Carolina fundraiser.
When that clip started to circulate, Thompson responded with a lengthy blog entry on his official website.
Anybody who knows my track record or has read some of the things I’ve written about the Cuban-American community knows where I stand. While the communist dictatorship has been a tragedy for Cuba, America has been in some ways, at least, the beneficiary. …
And no one knows better than that community that the Castro regime remains dedicated to infiltrating American institutions to spread his ideology of tyranny. Castro admitted it himself in an interview with CNN in 1998.
This is why the Cuban government rightfully remains on the State Department’s terrorist list for its continued support of terrorism. It’s also why we must oppose the illegal immigration of Castro’s agents into the United States while welcoming the vast majority who immigrate legally and with legal intentions.
It seems to me that few Americans understand the threat that the illegal entry by Cuban spies represents to our country, though Cuban-Americans have never forgotten or stopped pointing it out. Ambassador Otto Reich, the former Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere has called Castro’s efforts to penetrate U.S. intelligence networks “relentless.”
The best-known incident involving Cuban espionage, which many believe may have provided U.S. secrets to hostile Middle Eastern regimes, is probably that of former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Ana Belen Montes — convicted of espionage in 2002. Now, our intelligence picture has been further complicated by the emergence of oil-funded Hugo Chavez and his anti-American, pro-Castro regime. We know that Cuban intelligence officers, for instance, are in South America — presumably training Venezuelans and others in the intelligence arts.
Our national security is too important an issue to let folks twist words around for a one-day headline. Cuban-Americans are among the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, and especially so when it’s sponsored by the Castro regime. We know we have a porous southern border in which they can currently slip through easily. Our enemies know it too.
All of us should be rightfully concerned about Castro and his ideological pal Chavez sending agents and provocateurs into the United States through Mexico. I’m sure that Cuban-Americans share this concern as well.
Hillary Clinton weighed in on the comment today at the NALEO forum saying:
“I was appalled when one of the people running for or about to run for the Republican nomination talked about Cuban refugees as potential terrorists,” Clinton told Hispanic elected officials. “Apparently he doesn’t have a lot of experience in Florida or anywhere else, and doesn’t know a lot of Cuban-Americans.”
As others have written, in Presidential politics perception is reality; what people perceive and think of a candidate is far more important than what the candidates would think of themselves. And if the perception of Fred Thompson among Cuban-Americans is hurt by something that was meant to be an innocent line, he will have to work hard to repair that; not just in the primaries, with Florida having a very early primary scheduled, but in the event Thompson wins the nomination the Cuban-American vote could be the key in Florida.
In the bigger picture, this is really unlikely to reverberate that much. The bigger takeaway is that of Fred Thompson the candidate. He is clearly someone who shoots from the hip and says what he thinks. The problem with that type of candidate, as we have seen numerous times from Bill Richardson in the debates, is that it can lead to meandering thoughts and accidental responses. When Fred Thompson can write a 5, 6, 7, 8 paragraph blog entry to clear up misconceptions, he will be fine.
The problem is avoiding the misconceptions in the first place. When Thompson has to start debating other candidates and the awe and mystery of his campaign goes away, will he rely on blogging himself out of his mistakes or will he be disciplined enough to prevent them?
Of course, this on top of criticism from some that he’s not a candidate with any depth. This particular issue aside, blogging has uses, but also limits, for Presidential campaigns.
Source:
http://2008central.net/?p=996#more-996
Monday, June 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
