While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created.
Dude. What? I understand there is a difference between "functional" equality (i.e. equality of role or function) and "essential" equality (i.e. equality of personhood or essence), but are we seriously going to say that it's not OK for a woman -- not even a single woman -- to be a partner in a law firm or the head of a hospital department? And am I as a single woman to be granted only an "exceptional" calling? Insulting and condescending, not to mention burdensome.
Or how about this:
God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” still applies to married couples, and He “seeks godly offspring.” He is sovereign over the opening and closing of the womb. Children are a gift of God and it is a blessing to have many of them, if He so ordains. Christian parents are bound to look to Scripture as their authoritative guide concerning issues of procreation. They should welcome with thanksgiving the children God gives them. The failure of believers to reject the anti-life mindset of the age has resulted in the murder of possibly millions of unborn babies through the use of abortifacient birth control.
This one makes me want to cuss, people. I'm tracking right with them -- yes, fruitful, good. OK, godly offspring (tiny quibble here, but moving along). Yes, sovereign over procreation. Absolutely, children are gifts. Yes, Scripture is the authority. And then -- SCREEEEECH! Rapid application of mental brakes. Let's break down the logical fallacies here. Appeal to emotion: "murder... of unborn babies." Straw man: "anti-life mindset of the age." Appeal to probability and argument from ignorance: "possibly millions." False premise, oversimplification: "Failure of believers to reject... has resulted." Special pleading, undistributed middle: "abortifacient birth control."
Christians, as people who at least claim to be informed by a Biblical worldview need to think long and hard about how birth control fits in with our family lives. Have we simply absorbed the societal view of birth control willy-nilly, allowing secular culture to tell us what to think about children? Do we view children as inconveniences to be postponed as long as possible so we can accomplish our goals, or do we view them as Scripture tells us to: as blessings from the Lord to be received with open arms? These are issues we must wrestle with! The fact that we are even discussing this -- and the fact that many of my recently married friends have elected not to use birth control -- shows that we are addressing the issues. But to imply that (1) believers have embraced an "anti-life mindset," that (2) this mindset has "resulted" in "murder" -- which, seriously, look up the word murder; it necessarily implies intentionality, and that (3) a vague, undefined "abortifacient birth control" is to blame for the deaths of millions is patently absurd and illogical.
Furthermore, this sort of statement practically defines legalism: making a conviction binding where Scripture does not speak. I am NOT saying that Scripture doesn't speak to issues of fertility. I am NOT saying that we cannot draw personal conclusions or derive personal convictions from Biblical principles. But I AM saying that we must not prescribe beliefs or actions that bind others' consciences apart from a specific command or principle in Scripture.
And finally, before I run out of steam:
Education is not a neutral enterprise. Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education, one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world. Christians should not send their children to public schools since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government and since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst.
OK, first, I am usually very pro-homeschooling. Parents know their kids' needs better than anyone else (ideally), and those who are equipped to teach well and feel compelled to educate their children at home should do so. My sister-in-law is doing a fantastic job of homeschooling my nephew, who is very bright but also sometimes slightly unfocused, and so would probably not thrive in a traditional classroom as much as he is in a one-on-one setting. If the Lord grants me a husband and children, I will consider homeschooling and would probably not send them to public school.
All that being said, however... more logical fallacies are popping up here. The implication seems to be that you either give your children comprehensive Christian worldview training or you send them to public school. That's a false dichotomy. It's not impossible to train your children in life and godliness while also sending them to public school. This is an issue to be decided by parents after much prayer and consideration. Simple geography also plays a role: the public school in my hometown was just fine for my brother and me, full of Christian teachers and administrators, and careful not to restrict the rights of Christian students.
Moreover, see the above argument about binding people's consciences! You can't say (or imply) that it's un-Christian to send your kids to public school. You can argue that it's unwise in certain, or even many or all, cases (and I have). You can lay out the facts about the quality and content of public education. You can form an argument from Scripture about the duty of parents to educate their children and not abdicate or "outsource" that responsibility to school or church. But you simply cannot point to Scripture and say, "this says Christians shouldn't send their children to public school."
Overall I'm pretty disappointed with the inflammatory, "no true Scotsman"-type rhetoric and (il)logic that colors this whole document.
Any other thoughts?