I think a person's home life is key in any leadership position, be it political or faith-based (i.e. pastor).
For example, if someone running for office claims to have great financial plans to get the national debt under control, but has personally filed for bankruptcy 3 times in ten years, I would have to wonder if they were going to be able to follow through on their claims.
That concept seems to make a lot more sense when considered through the political issue of the economy and nations debt...but if things that will affect your family is important to you from a political law-and-policy standpoint, how a politician operates his/her household should be as important too.
P.S. If you or your hubby ever run for office you'd most likely have my vote based on what I know of you from your blog! 
jodi
My apologies to anyone who has left a comment, Haloscan comments is not cooperating this morning.
Jodi, would you have a hard time working with/for a man who believes that you are blaspheming the word of God by your very presence in the workplace?
Spunky, what was hard for me to understand is why Matt's opponent, Twinkle Cavanaugh, who won by the way, would be someone he wanted to contest. From what I read about her, she is a conservative Christian candidate who is solidly pro-life and pro-family, hardly the "mainstream Republican" the McDonalds and others made her out to be.
She is a Christian sister and deserved to be represented with integrity.
My own guess is that is has more to do with the fact that she is a woman. Given Jennie Chancey's role in the Vision Forum film The Monstrous Regiment of Women, where women's suffrage is equated with Planned Parenthood and equal pay for equal work as some of the greatest threats to our country, I imagine that Matt wanted to take the opportunity to prevent another woman from being in public office.
Good question, Karen. I'm not sure. Making sure that a woman is not holding office would definitely fit their pardigm, but it could also be his own political ambition. Chancey's got to start somewhere to get his name out there.
Chancey might have also run against her to give a voice to the nonestablishment Republican voter who has not quite abandoned the Republican party but is disenchanted with the current situation.
Whatever the reason he ran, I can't say I'm disappointed he lost.
I would have a hard time working with a man that believes women shouldn't work. While I am against working mothers and I totally support stay-at-home mothers and believe that women should support their husbands, I also believe that women do have minds of their own. I can't get on this bandwagon. I also know that there are women who will never marry. Should they live with their parents forever? At what point is it okay for them to stop being dependent?
I agree that he probably ran BECAUSE she's a woman.
She may not believe in women working outside the home but she certainly runs a successful home-based business, even if she has to farm a lot of the work out currently due to time constraints. Not every woman can do home-based. I wish I could. It would help since I don't work outside the home.
Voters should also take liabilities into consideration. It is illegal to discriminate against women in the workplace; if Mr. Chancey were to do so, the taxpayers could be on the hook to pay out large settlements.
I think another thing to consider is how much these same beliefs have made there way into homeschooling circles as well. Chancey's website shows endorsements from both Michael Farris and Chris Klicka of HSLDA. Which makes sense since Chancey was an employee there (If I'm not mistaken, I think that's where he met Jennie.)
I'm a Christian who homeschools, but I do so out of obedience to the Word of God for his glory. The motivation for many who homeschool is for that reason, but also to return the world to its proper biblical order in order to usher in the return of Christ (premillenialism and the Dominion Mandate). The home is one sphere, the government is another. For many in the Vision Forum cirlce that also includes the "southern patriarchy" economy as well. That's why Dabney is a favorite theologian to many in the Vision Forum circle of homeschoolers.
*** Spunky asked: Jodi, would you have a hard time working with/for a man who believes that you are blaspheming the word of God by your very presence in the workplace? ***
Spunky,
Being a single mom, I have struggled with this personally, because my hearts desire is to be home with my kids, so I have felt at times like I personally felt like my presence in the workplace was against what I myself believe. Talk about having a hard time working with someone!
I have a friend who struggles with this from a church point of view...she works because her husband is in ministry and isn't paid. He is home leading the kids in homeschool while preparing various things for ministry, having meetings, etc. Her income is such a foundational part of his leadership and the direction for their family.
I suppose I could see it being a problem in some ways, but ultimately it would depend on how it played out in daily practice. It would be political suicide to get elected then fire all the women working for you, so he must have some idea of how he would work with them.
If I am in the will of God, it is Him I stand before, and what my boss thinks doesn't really matter. It may be a learning experience about how to be wise and gentle, but unless he demoted me, fired me, or was somehow discriminatory because of it, I wouldn't need his approval to work unto the Lord and not unto man.
"I think another thing to consider is how much these same beliefs have made there way into homeschooling circles as well. Chancey's website shows endorsements from both Michael Farris and Chris Klicka of HSLDA. Which makes sense since Chancey was an employee there (If I'm not mistaken, I think that's where he met Jennie.)"
Spunky, this is very true. The fact that Mike Farris' wife has endorsed the Passionate Housewives book was alarming to me since Jennie and Stacy seem to be moving further and further down the patriocentric paradigm path. (How's that for homeschooling mom alliteration!?)
"She may not believe in women working outside the home but she certainly runs a successful home-based business, even if she has to farm a lot of the work out currently due to time constraints. Not every woman can do home-based. "
What I find most interesting is that some of the most strident proponents of these sort of things are those that make their money by telling the rest of us how to live and the fruit of their own words isn't even available to examine in their own lives to see if what they say rings true with them. I've read more than one author/speaker who regretted some of the things they've written later in their life. Sort of like Jennie Chancey's stance on voting, it was easy to be against women voting until her husband was running for office. Now she can, and it's just a "historical perspective." The book So Much More, book by the "visionary daughters" Elizabeth and Sophia Botkin girls is another example.
Just to clarify, there's nothing wrong with changing a position as a person matures and grows in their walk with Christ, that would be expected actually. But when an author or speaker sets down their thoughts and later changes their position, those that read the first position and are still attemtping to live up to that ideal are may not be aware that the author has since renounced their own writing. I've read that Stacey McDonald (co-author of Passionate Housewives with Jennie) has changed her position from earlier in her life, but what were those changes? We don't know.
The Botkin girls also said that the use of the word helpmeet when describing the daughter's role in their book was probably not the best choice. But yet I know young ladies who believe that their role is as a helpmeet to their father until they marry. Jennie Chancey helped the girls in some capacity with the writing of the book and endorsed it, but for some reason didn't seem to catch the wording when she endorsed it. But there's another example of a book that's only been around a short time that is causing a lot of needless frustration in young ladies as they attempt to apply the principles in this book to their lives.
We, also, have distanced ourselves from the Vision Forum type as we have watched them "dig in their heels" on certain issues. I think the main problem is that they have a one-fit-for-all mentality. Then their ideas change... I feel for the Phillips, Chancey, Botkin families, particularly the children, as they tend to live in a fish bowl. On the other hand, when you choose to be a public servant or a public pastor, you must know that you will be scrutinized. Vision Forum and their leaders make caveats that they would like to see followed by many. The only problem is these ideal change with their changing lives. When Jeannie Chancey was unmarried and needed to work that was O.K. Now, she is a homemaker and their philosophy shifts. This is fine. However, they shouldn't mandate it for the masses. After all, if a husband needed his wife to work wouldn't the concept of submission promote her doing so? I hope she does vote for her husband.
Kathy, I don't look at it as these people living in a fish bowel. Quite the contrary, I have referred to them as "Christian exhibitionists" because they so willingly place their families out in the limelight as examples, telling us the intimate details of their moral purity father/daughter rituals, their courtships, their first kiss, etc. Ever read those websites where they tell their courtship stories?
I also believe it creates an entire culture of "Christian voyeurs" who have to go to so and so's blogs or conferences etc. to learn how to do everything the same way. When the patriocentrists place their families out there and then are challenged, the first thing they do is cry "how dare they gossip about us."
It is so easy to get caught up in the hype of your own lifestye and miss the reason for living at all. Christ is the reason we have a breath in us. Our life and purpose is to glorify Him. When the focus is on ourselves or a particular lifestyle, it is idolatry, both for the teacher and the follower. Neither has their eyes fixed on Jesus. How do you know? Watch how a person handles criticism and scrutiny. When an idol worshiper is scrutinized they become defensive and angry. Neither is a fruit of the spirit of Christ. A worshipper of the one True God and his Truth does not fear scrutiny, they welcome it.
When Vision Forum and its employees are scrutinized they close in ranks and condemn the one asking questions. That tells me more about them than any teaching or conference seminar.
As a homeschooling mother, I am not very comfortable with the close friendship that apparently exists between HSLDA and Vision Forum.
I don't know enough of the history. I don't know what an alliance with VF might mean for the future of HSLDA families.
I think I might have accidentally fallen in with the wrong crowd, here, by joining HSLDA.
"I think I might have accidentally fallen in with the wrong crowd, here, by joining HSLDA.
Amy, All alliances have an up side and a down side. It's up to you and your husband to decide if the alliances that HSLDA might have would be an up or a down for you personally based on your beliefs as a family.
In regard to the association between HSLDA and Vision Forum, Doug Phillips was an employee of HSLDA as an attorney for about 6 years before starting Vision Forum in the late '90's.
Spunky,
I agree that it is perfectly normal for a person to change their views on issues as they grow and experience more of life and get a fuller understanding about the various facets of each issue.
I think you said it very well when you said that Jennie is now claiming that her perspective is historical when, in fact, she used to preach that women should not vote. Unless they were widowed landowners, that is. She should just admit that she has changed her mind about that, instead she is making it look like another animal.
Also, we have been talking about this very issue for over a year and she has yet to make a public statement in answer to our statements. Why now? Why not before?
It seems to me that this is all about what is expedient and will benefit them. This is all about business and not about feeding or protecting the flock.
But, James 3:1 tells us that a teacher will incur stricter judgment. I would think that when a teacher changes a stance on a certain issue, that they would do everything in their power to let others know about it, especially when they know their former stance is being talked about.
I would think it would be hard for Chancey to hire women if he believes that working women are BLASPHEMING God by working outside of the home. Also, he believes that women in leadership positions in the government are MONSTROUS and going against nature. His wife promoted the documentary she appeared in.
If he doesn't believe any of this, he should make it very clear he is opposed to such thinking.
I long ago quit trying to make sense about all that is said by some of these teachers and proponents of Christian Reconstructionism. I'm content to just let people know about it and let them draw the obvious conclusions.
I'm all for people saying what they believe. If Chancey believes that women in leadership is wrong then he ought to have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to say so, but to say he's fine with when that is obviously so untrue is ridiculous. All one has to do is listen to Doug Phillips Sermon Audio on Southern Patriarchy to understand exactly the root problem they believe is blamed on an industrialized "north" that trampled on the Hebrew/biblical model so prevalent in the south prior to the war. Once you understand their perspective on the "hierarchy" that God ordained in the Dominion Mandate, you will see that any denial of this order perpetuates the problem their trying to fix. I hope that makes sense.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
