The pick of Sarah Palin as Republican vice presidential nominee is both a political event and a cultural one. Politically, it energized the Republican convention, solidified the Christian right’s support for John McCain and introduced a forceful new personality into American politics. Culturally, it triggered discussions of issues ranging from special-needs children to mothers’ roles to teen pregnancy.
I want to focus on the cultural rather than the political here, and turn attention to the potential impact of the Palin pick on the internal life of the conservative Christian community that seems to support her so ardently. I write as a moderate evangelical Christian.
It is an uncomfortable fact that many of the theologically conservative Christians who have endorsed Palin’s nomination would not be willing to endorse her or any other woman for service as pastor of their church. Women cannot serve as pastors in groups such as the Churches of Christ, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, most non-denominational Bible churches, and an influential advocacy group called the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).
I think many would draw a distinction between a woman’s role based on gender in the secular world and in the Church. I think the article misses the point.
What #1 said. Apples and oranges.
It is an interesting and thought provoking essay. I agree with Br. Michael in #1, that there is a distinction between the Church and the rest of the world. C.S. Lewis argued that there was a “supra-rational” argument for preserving the male-only priesthood.* While I disagree with this position, I think we do need to respect one another’s positions and not attribute them to mere “sexism.”
However, Gushee goes beyond that and notes the different roles some believe men and women should have in their interpersonal relationships. I think he is right to use this Sarah Palin moment to require the believer to examine his philosophy. Does you really believe what you thought you believed? Does your support for Sarah Palin reflect a sincere change in your political and social philosophy or is it mere political expedience?
Personally, as a person who has leaned to the political left, I am more troubled that so many in the media and on the political left are now preaching women [i]qua[/i] women should stay home and take care of their babies. I see no basis in the political philosophy for this and believe this is pure expediency and hypocrisy.
——————-
* From the collection of essays titled “God in the Dock;”
[blockquote] This is what common sense will call “mystical”. Exactly. The Church claims to be the bearer of a revelation. If that claim is false then we want not to make priestesses but to abolish priests. If it is true, then we should expect to find in the Church an element which unbelievers will call irrational and which believers will call supra-rational. There ought to be something in it opaque to our reason though not contrary to it – as the facts of sex and sense on the natural level are opaque. And that is the real issue. The Church of England can remain a church only if she retains this opaque element. If we abandon that, if we retain only what can be justified by standards of prudence and convenience at the bar of enlightened common sense, then we exchange revelation for that old wraith Natural Religion. [/blockquote]
RE: “It is an uncomfortable fact that many of the theologically conservative Christians who have endorsed Palin’s nomination would not be willing to endorse her or any other woman for service as pastor of their church.”
Why is this an “uncomfortable” fact?
Sez who?
Me.
I was uncomfortable when visiting a Church of Christ. The pastor’s daughter was a college graduate and had been called by God to become a pastor. In order to do that, she was leaving the Church of Christ. It was a sad day.
I say when women are called by God to do anything, get out of their way, at a minimum — help them if you are so called.
— Stan
One can be an Anglican who is against Women being “ordained” to the priesthood while having NO problem with a woman being the “head of the church.” (Her Majesty, Elizabeth, Defender of the Faith, Head of the church in England.)
Gushee seems unable to understand a view with which he disagrees–a sad thing to see in an academic. I have an extended response to this piece (in particular, responses to each of the questions that he poses at the end of the column) here.
Sarah et al.: perhaps it is “uncomfortable”, and hard to understand, if you are a “moderate evangelical Christian”, and thus forever in grammatically induced confusion about the meaning of that opening adjective and which of the two following words it qualifies.
I mean, have we thought through the contradictions posed by the fact that we can cheer as LeBron James is selected for the men’s Olympic basketball team and yet is not even mentioned to ride in the Kentucky Derby? Hypocrisy, America, hypocrisy.
Why does this have to be a predicament? Everyone that I have ever heard argue for women’s ordination does so from a civil rights side. What right does a woman have to be ordained? NONE. What right does a man have to be ordained? NONE. Christ made his choice with the Apostles. What “right” do we have to overturn that? NONE. By his actions Christ ordained that men should be the ordained leaders of the Church. Nowhere did he ordain a woman. This has nothing to do with so called “rights” but with being true to Christ and His Church. If everyone wants to argue from a “rights” standpoint, how can abortion be allowed. Roe V Wade is alledgedly about rights, but is it? No. The basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are taken away by selfish people who do not want to be bothered by a child, and we call that “rights”. Argue against abortion more and less about Christ’s choice for ordained ministers. He didn’t get it wrong.
RE: “Me.”
Thanks for responding, CanaAnglican. So it “is an uncomfortable fact” for those who don’t see a difference between the role of women in the church and the role of women in secular society.
That’s cool — I just wish that the article writer had said that, rather than assumed that it was an “uncomfortable fact” for anyone other than members of the Churches of Christ, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, and most non-denominational Bible churches.
Please tell me since when has a woman not been the leader in any TEC parish. This writer does not understand our polity, and never met and altar guild directress.
Does anybody here agree with Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s position on Palin? (Which is, roughly, that while she will vote for the ticket, she’s appalled that a mother with a family in crisis would run for VP.)
As a previous commenter noted, the “confusion” is in the mind of the writer. I note he refers to himself as a “moderate evangelical Christian” without bothering to define what that term actually means. I gathered from his column that for him it means that the Bible must be forever challenged by the culture and not the other way around. But I digress. Back to the topic.
It seems patently obvious, to me at least, that women’s roles in the workplace and women’s roles in the Church are two different things and are governed by two different standards. This muddling of secular concerns with Chirstian praxis is extremely disturbing. The Church is Christ’s Body and He is the Head. Since that is so, I would not expect the Church to be governed by the laws of the United States of America. By the way, the First Amendment guarantees that it should not be so.
However, I have found in experience that those who scream loudest about “Separation of Church and State” when referring to abortion are the first to try to impose secular imperatives on the Church when it suits their purpose. Now[em][strong]there[/strong][/em] is some irony for you!
I would also like to point out that Dr(?) Gushee must not be too familiar with the Old Testament. There are plenty of examples there of women in secular leadership – the Queen of Sheba, the Judge Deborah, etc., etc.. It is only on spiritual matters where role reversal seems to become a problem.
Re #13
What exactly is the “crisis”? A special needs child? A pregnant daughter? That she has five children? This is the stuff of real life. And let’s get real–being vice-president is not near as labor-intensive as being governor of a state. I like Laura Schlesinger, but all the talk about a “family in crisis” that should prevent Palin (but presumably not a father of two small children) from running strikes me as simple, even if unconscious, sexism.
#10. Drummie,
Sorry, but Jesus chose only Jews to be apostles and disciples. Gentiles are not eligible?
Paul commended Phoebe as an outstanding deacon with some special work to do, and told the Christians to support her.
Please get an interlinear Greek/NIV New Testament and take a close look at some of the things Paul actually wrote. Then note how the male translators have in some instances “shaded” their translations into English.
David #16,
Well, yes, I’d say a pregnant teen and a special needs child is a crisis, and 5 children is a massive responsibility. So what if it’s ‘real life’? Does being ‘real life’ mean that these events weren’t caused in part by any of Palin’s choices in life, and she shouldn’t make any changes to deal with them?
The idea that the mother has greater child-rearing responsibilities than the father -especially at an early age – is indeed Dr. Laura’s position. I thought it was the position of many – though certainly not all – religious conservatives. Many would argue that if a woman is interested in raising children – especially so many – it’s appropriate for her to scale back her career plans in ways that a man would not. Apparently you don’t hold to these positions, so maybe my question isn’t directed at you.
The right question is not whether it’s appropriate for her to handle the VP position – it is whether she can be president and mother to 5 kids simultaneously.
Btw, I am voting for McCain-Palin.
My real question, CanaAnglican, is how that Church of Christ preacher’s daughter knows it’s God calling her to preach and not her own desires? Or, perhaps, an unhealthy need for attention? Or just rebelliousness against her father? Or, God forbid, satan leading her astray (which some Church of Christ folks would believe since she is planning to leave the true church)?
Why is her internal, private feeling the final word on what God is saying?
#11. Sarah,
I was trying to point out my discomfort not about a secular issue nor from a secular viewpoint. I think I did a poor job. I will try again, but I will not press other orthodox Christians to accept my views on WO.
I am an Anglican and have never been a member of the Church of Christ. I have examined the Scriptures for about 50 years on the subject and can see plenty of evidence to support a positive view. What I get uncomfortable about is anyone standing in the way of a woman who has been called by God to do something.
I know some women who have been called and who have produced wonderful fruit for the kingdom. I seriously doubt that KJS was called to anything in ministry and see evidence that TEC has erred in ordaining many women (and men) who were not called.
Best wishes, — Stan
#19. Words,
Sometimes the Holy Spirit comes with such a mighty force, He cannot be resisted. For the young woman He brought something positive, for TEC at the moment He is bring destruction. — Stan
CanaAnglican, you don’t really answer the question of how one knows that it is God calling one. Is it based upon feelings, or other intagibles? To simply assume God is calling someone and then to be angry that others dispute that and “stand in the way” is rather arrogant. Are you the only one to be able to discern whom God calls? Is the wider church’s decision that women are notyou see fit, regardless of how the church has seen it for centuries. One wonders really what you think the Spirit was doing all this time.
#18 has my vote to in this matter. She has a big family to attend to, a damily with serious problems. The Downs child alone is a nearly full time job, especially if it is not a high operating Down’s child. ANd the two problems – the pregnant unmarried daughter and the Down’s child – set a hard set of conflicts at work in the family. Even if the VP’s job is largely ceremonial (and it is), I do not see how she can be in Washington all the time and give her family the attention which it needs. Will h er husband simply stop working outside the home to replace her? Yes, I will vote for McC and P, but her family will pay for this – though we will never see it probably – and she will have established the cause for the damage. She really needs to stay home for a few years. Is this sexist? I hardly care. But from now on, she will have little time and energy to invest in her family and they surely need it right now. Larry
#22. Chris,
I had a bit of trouble following your comment. I was not the one who got the call, and I did not examine her for ordination. If I get the gist of what you are saying, Christians should seek the wisdom of the church at large with regard to any call to ministry. That certainly seems good advice. Do you accept any church outside the Roman Catholic as being Christian? If you do, it may amaze you that the majority of the non-Roman realm of Christanity accepts WO.
— Stan
The role of women in the church makes a difference in the secular world. It’s interesting to imagine a woman who would be President, deciding to ignore her pastor when it came to policy. If the pastor were to start analyzing politics from the pulpit, would the president be permitted to say something in church?
Perhaps not. IT is a sure way to make the church irrelevant.
very little amazes me Stan. But I se little reason in refering to the non-Roman realm of Christianity. How about appealing to the entire realm of Christianity, including the Roman Catholics? You will then find that the majority of Christianity is against WO now, and always has been. Does that make any difference, or do you only look to those who agree with you?
By the way, if you didn’t examine her calling, shouldn’t you refrain from making a declaration that God had called her (since you can’t know that) rather than the neutral observation that her church had discerned a call in her? You seem to too easily assume that someone is called and then use that assumption as an argument against others questioning whether God does call such people.
[blockquote] it may amaze you that the majority of the non-Roman realm of Christanity accepts WO. [/blockquote]
Do you have a reference for that? I would have said that the majority of the non-liberal protestant realm don’t accept WO.
The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches do not accept WO. Several Anglican provinces do not ordain women. Do any of the continuing church groups not in communion with Canterbury? The REC? APA? Some Lutheran groups (Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod come to mind) don’t ordain women. I suspect that most of the “seven sisters” of mainline/oldline/sideline protestantism have significant splinter groups that reject WO, among other modern innovations. Of course, many (not all) evangelical and pentecostal groups reject WO. The Assemblies of God do ordain women to ministry, although I don’t know of them being pastors of congregations. The largest Baptist group, the Southern Baptists, do not ordain women, although some individual congregations do (and some have “openly gay” members. I have never seen a black woman minister, although I am sure there are some.
But at the end of the day, it’s not a majority rule sort of thing. It’s a theological matter, which, heaven knows, I’m not going to stir up here. My point is in response to this:
[blockquote] Sometimes the Holy Spirit comes with such a mighty force, He cannot be resisted.[/blockquote]
Sorry, I’ve been on this earth long enough to know that many spirits (mostly our own fallen human spirits) come with a mightly force. I have met many people utterly convinced they were speaking the Word of God. I’ve met one of them in mirror, actually.
Thursday, I drove through a small town where, 30+ years ago, I attended a funeral of a friend convinced his glory in the kingdom of God was to jump from the University of Texas tower in Austin. He knew that was God’s word to him. Today, I know he was mentally ill, and even back then, we knew that his belief contradicted the scriptures. But if we are going to arrogate to ourselves the final judgment of truth based on our subjective feelings, then we put ourselves into the same place as my friend. Of course, sometimes our feelings really do reveal the word of God in a specific situation. Sometimes even my own. Pften, they do not.
Which I why, apart from theological issues around WO, I cannot accept the simple proposition that anyone saying they are called to anything means they are.
Those who believe that the Holy Spirit always comes as a still small voice are invited to reread Acts 2.
I have just been studying the Azusa Street Revival of 1906-1914. For those who have never heard of a black woman pastor, William Seymour’s wife and he were both black and were ordained as ministers of the word. They were not ordained as priests — no such ordination is provided for in the NT. The revival provided the roots of the churches, in many denominations, of between 500 and 600 million believers today. The bulk of those ordain women.
They are also ordained in Baptist (though not most Southern), Methodist, Presbyterian, and many other mainline churches including Anglican. They are ordained in GAFCON churches such as the highly orthodox Uganda Anglican Church of ++Henry Luke Orombi. Many Christians see a basis in Scripture for doing it. None should insist that others agree with us, or ++Orombi, but that is the way it is.
Hello,
I had intended to lead a traditional family life. I was a nurse, married at age 23, and expecting my first child, when my husband died. I decided after my son was born to go to medical school, but this required that I get nannies to help me with my son. When I remarried at age 38, it was to a man, who while accomplished, had less earning potential as a carpenter than I did as an anesthesiologist. We decided that if we were blessed with children, he would stay home to be the primary parent and the household manager; we did not want to do what I had to do with my first child. In almost every way he has the wife’s role, and I the husband. However, while I earn the money, he budgets it and runs the household. He is the head of the household. My young children clearly know who is their mother, and who is their father. While an outsider might think we don’t have a traditional family, I think if it were investigated, opinions would change.
In Sarah Palin I see a role model the I can identify with for the first time. Someone has to earn the money, someone has to run the household. If for whatever circumstance the roles are changed, who are we to judge (not question, judge).
I am gone overnight, on call, and work many many hours, sometimes up to 80 per week. I can do this because I know I can rely on my husband to take care of us all! I would guess that Sarah Palin can do that too.
As far as her oldest daughter, I have understood she is planning to get married. If she does, she will be an emancipated adult, not be the responsibility of her parents.
As far as the role in the church, there *are* certain things that men and women cannot do. My husband can’t breastfeed our child, I can’t be the head of the household. I do admit that submitting to him is one of the hardest things that I do, but I do it.
Diana Wood