Western province women advocate for TSM to increase Female representation in Parliament


WARD 15 President for West New Georgia and Vonavona Laheni Sasabule is saying Government should consider and implement the Temporary Special Measures to allow women in decision-making.

Mrs Sasabule said in a society where cultural norms and attitudes often hinder women’s political participation TSM is a way forward for women.

She said women in Western province supported the idea for TSM.

“We are hoping that TSM be implemented in this year’s election unfortunately no, so we are calling on the new government to consider and implement the idea”, Mrs Sasabule said.

She said for women to enter into parliament like the male candidates it is difficult as there were too many challenges, including cultural norms and pressure from husbands and community leaders on women to support men.

However, she remains determined to create opportunities for women in politics.

Sasabule emphasizes the importance of the Temporary Special Measures (TSM) as a means to empower women and increase their representation in parliament. Through TSM, women candidates are provided with dedicated spaces in the National General Election, offering them a fair chance to compete for parliamentary seats.

She firmly believes that the implementation of TSM will pave the way for a brighter future, where women have equal opportunities to participate in decision-making processes at the highest levels of governance.

With Sasabule’s support for TSM and her commitment to promoting women’s rights, she symbolizes the potential for positive change in advancing gender equality in politics.

One comment

    6 Oct 2008
    Karen’s email:
    Can you expand on 1st Timothy 2:12 that talks about women having authority over men. How does that relate to areas outside of the church? How does that fit with society and politics, if we have a female President or Vice President someday. Wouldn’t that be considered women having authority. Or female doctors or lawyers in our households. And last, young men have female Sunday School teachers, is there an age where this would come into play? I understand the concept when speaking of my own household–my husband has authority over me, but only if he is under authority to God, but I always wonder how it relates outside of the church.

    Don’s Answer:

    This is a great question, as well as a very challenging one to answer.

    Let’s begin with the verse that you have noted. The Book of 1 Timothy is one of two letters Paul wrote to the young minister Timothy. These two letters, along with Paul’s letter to another minister named Titus, makeup what is known as the Pastoral Epistles. Paul wrote these particular epistles to these two young pastors in order to instruct them in their pastoral oversight of the church.

    In light of the above, we must conclude that the verse you have referred to is speaking of women in the church. It is not speaking of women in politics or government. Further evidence of this fact is Paul’s words, “But I suffer not [do not permit] a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man.” Paul had no authority to prohibit anyone from serving in Jewish civil affairs or in the government of the Roman Empire, but as an apostle of Jesus Christ, he did have such say-so over the churches he pioneered and founded.

    Although the Bible does not specifically address your question regarding women in politics and government, many will argue that the Bible clearly answers your question by what it infers from other specific teachings. For instance, they will understandably argue that the Bible’s instructing of wives to submit to their husbands and forbidding of women to exercise authority over men in the church is presumptively prohibitive of women serving as civic authorities (Ephesians 5:22; 1 Timothy 2:12).

    If the above is true, then how do we explain the conspicuous absence from the inspired Scriptures of a clear prohibition against women serving in positions of government power? One plausible explanation is that the Bible had no need of addressing the obvious. Why should the Bible address an issue that was no issue in the patriarchal societies of biblical times?

    An additional argument in favor of the Bible’s frowning upon women in positions of civic authority is found in the words of the Prophet Isaiah. In Isaiah 3:12, the prophet laments, “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.” The inference is clear enough; Isaiah viewed women rulers as part of God’s judgment upon disobedient Judah. We may conclude from this that a lack of male leadership is a sign of impending disaster upon a nation.

    For decades in America, the radical feminist movement has attempted to persuade our nation that there is no difference between the sexes. We’ve been told that the roles of men and women in the home, in the church, and in society are interchangeable. Women have been taught to “roar” and men have been forced to “meow,” under the constant threat of being condemned for chauvinism. As femininity has been extolled, masculinity has been emasculated.

    As a result of the fib of Women’s Lib, America has become a nation of headless (fatherless) homes, milquetoast ministers, and gridlocked government, all of which serve as sure signs of impending disaster. We ignore the scripturally prescribed roles of men and women in the home, in the church, and in society at our own peril. No nation, America included, can ignore God’s Word without incurring His wrath.

    Now, I could conclude my answer to your question with these brief comments, but to do so would be a horrible injustice to you, as well as to the subject you’ve raised. There is definitely a great deal more that needs to be said. In view of this, I hope you’ll indulge some further elaboration necessitated by my introducing of some corresponding issues.

    Let’s begin with a clarification between submission and equality. Contrary to the protest of today’s radical feminists, submission is neither incompatible with equality nor equivalent to inferiority. Take for example our Lord’s submission to the Father. Although the Son is submissive to the Father, He is still equal with the Father. Likewise, women may submit to husbands in the home and to men in the church without jeopardizing their equality with men in the eyes of God. As the Scripture teaches us, “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

    Rather than being incompatible with equality, submission is indispensable to order, as well as a safeguard against anarchy. Our God is a God of order (1 Corinthians 14:40, 33). Order requires submission.

    The Greek word used in the New Testament for “submit” was a military term. Perhaps, there is no better place to see the necessity of submission than in the military. What happens if soldiers refuse to submit to their commanding officers? The military immediately becomes disorderly and dysfunctional. No wonder the military has zero tolerance for anyone refusing to obey orders.

    Like the military, God’s three divinely ordained institutions—the home, the government and the church—have a chain of command. Unlike the military, however, the three divinely ordained institutions have a biblically prescribed chain of command. In the home, wives are to submit to their husbands and children are to submit to their parents (Ephesians 5:22; 6:1). In the country, citizens are to submit to their government (Romans 13:1). And in the church, church members are to submit to each other and to their pastors (Ephesians 5:21; 1 Peter 5:5; Hebrews 13:7).

    If wives refuse to submit to their husbands and children refuse to submit to their parents, there will be anarchy in the home. If citizens refuse to submit to their government, there will be anarchy in the country. And if Christians refuse to submit to each other and to their pastors, there will be anarchy in the church.

    Now, notice that the Bible teaches us to submit to the government, regardless of the sex of those seated in power (Romans 13:1-7). The only time the Bible permits civil disobedience is in obedience to the higher law of God (Acts 4:18-20; 5:27-29). In other words, if the government outlaws the preaching of the Gospel, we are not to stop preaching the gospel in obedience to our government, but to continue preaching the gospel in obedience to God.

    Regardless of one’s view on women’s role in government, women serving in government positions does not nullify Christ’s command to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21). The fact that the laws of our land are past by a Nancy Pelosi led House of Representatives, interpreted by a Supreme Court that includes Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and possibly executed someday by a female Chief Executive of the United States, makes the laws of our land no less binding on a Christian or Christians any less obligated to obey them.

    The final issue raised by your email is that of women teachers in the church. Answering this question thoroughly would require the exegesis of several passages of Scripture. As it is often said, the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible. A great mistake often made by Christians today is to rashly form an opinion based a single verse of Scripture. All Scripture must be interpreted in context and in the light of other Scripture, lest we reach an erroneous conclusion.

    The first thing I would have you to notice when it comes to women teachers in the church is Paul’s explicit comment that he did not permit women to teach in those churches over which he had oversight. Paul was pioneering churches in places where the gospel had never been heard. Many of these places had orgiastic cults in which women played prominent roles. In these orgiastic cults, pagan worship centered around temple prostitutes, who wore short hair and immodest apparel to advertise their trade.

    When people were converted to Christ from these pagan cults, they brought all of their pagan baggage into the church. As a result, women were constantly disrupting the services with unauthorized utterances, not to mention being an impediment to men’s worship with their suggestive short hair and seductive dress. To counter these problems in the churches he pioneered, the Apostle Paul forbid women from speaking in church (1 Timothy 2:11-12), from flaunting short hair (1 Corinthians 11:3-16), and from dressing immodestly (1 Timothy 2:9-10).

    Interestingly, in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, Paul actually provides instructions for women praying and prophesying in church. From this we may safely conclude that Paul never intended a blanket application of his prohibition against women speaking in churches that he had personally pioneered.

    According to Paul, it is permissible for women in church to speak—pray, prophesy and teach—providing they are properly covered. Many have misinterpreted this passage to mean that women must wear prayer shawls or particular hairstyles in church. The real meaning, however, as Paul points out in verse 10, is that women who speak in church must be properly covered by spiritual authority; that is, they must be given permission to do so by the church’s male leadership. Hence, any woman who has been given pastoral permission to teach is not guilty of usurping authority over men in the church, but actually teaching in submission to the church’s male leadership.


Comments are closed.

Discover more from Theislandsun

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading