Richard Land is the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Notice that again --- Ethics.
Here's what the Good Ol' Boy said about Palin:
"Governor Palin is a vice-presidential selection which shows that John McCain at the age of 72 today is still able to think outside the box. Governor Palin will delight the Republican base. She is pro-life. It appears that Senator Obama played it safe in picking Senator Biden and Senator McCain made the bold and unconventional choice in picking Governor Palin."
Now that's funny, right there. According to Richard Land, Palin is qualified to serve as the leader of the Free World & have command of forces that could destroy our entire planet with a nuclear arsenal at a moment's notice.
But this is the same guy that says no woman is qualified to serve in any pastoral capacity of any church no matter how small.
Just a wee bit inconsistent, wouldn't you say?
In Land's position, women shouldn't serve in any capacity of leadership. Since the text doesn't make the distinction about where women are allowed or excluded, is his position consistent?
I'm calling for a review of Land's posing a literal interpretation of the passages dealing with women in the ministry, =NOT= about women in a political office. In light of today's culture & acceptance of women in our cultural roles, how should we then interpret those passages in light of =their= culture where women were not allowed =any= positions of authority, religious or otherwise?
So let's be clear: the point is about women in =ministry= & NOTHING about his endorsement of a woman for VP. But in light of that, is our interpretation of the text in need of review?
Oh, & Mr. Land: I don't like you using your religious position as the SBC Ethics leader to endorse political candidates, but that is another topic.