The Sarah Palin Predicament for Evangelicals

David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta, wrote an opinion piece for USA Today (Sept. 15, 2008) about the status of women leaders among evangelicals and Palin's potential as the vice-President and later as President of America. Her most rigorous supporters are evangelicals, but Gushee asks whether they have thought through their own theology when supporting her? He asks the following questions. Evangelical, want to give them a go?:
• Is it now your view that God can call a woman to serve as president of the United States? Are you prepared to renounce publicly any further claim that God's plan is for men rather than women to exercise leadership in society, the workplace and public life? Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?

• Would Palin be acceptable as vice president because she would still be under the ultimate authority of McCain as president, like the structure of authority that occurs in some of your churches? Have you fully come to grips with the fact that if after his election McCain were to die, Palin would be in authority over every male in the USA as president?

• If you agree that God can call a woman to serve as president, does this have any implications for your views on women's leadership in church life? Would you be willing to vote for a qualified woman to serve as pastor of your church? If not, why not?

• Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?

• Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family?

37 comments:

david said...

Well I'm about as apathetic as it gets politically, but I'll give a shot:

Is it now your view that God can call a woman to serve as president of the United States? Are you prepared to renounce publicly any further claim that God's plan is for men rather than women to exercise leadership in society, the workplace and public life? Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?

God called Deborah to be the prophetess and judge of Israel (equivalent to a king, see Judges 4). I see no explicit Biblical mandate for gender roles outside of the family/church, so I don’t think this necessarily precludes a complementarian perspective.


Would Palin be acceptable as vice president because she would still be under the ultimate authority of McCain as president, like the structure of authority that occurs in some of your churches? Have you fully come to grips with the fact that if after his election McCain were to die, Palin would be in authority over every male in the USA as president?

I think he's arbitrarily transferring instruction for the church for rhetorical purposes.

If you agree that God can call a woman to serve as president, does this have any implications for your views on women's leadership in church life? Would you be willing to vote for a qualified woman to serve as pastor of your church? If not, why not?

No, because the Bible explicitly ordinates roles for women in family and church settings. If this is a cultural thing no one has convinced me of it yet, but I am aware of the arguments for culturally interpreting 1 Cor 11, etc.

Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?

Yes. No.

Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family?

Not sure in what sense “primary responsibility” is being used, but in general I think they are better suited for this role. Doesn’t affect my opinion towards Palin (notice he assumes I support her). Don’t understand the needs of the family part, someone could perhaps explain this better and I'll try to answer.

Jeff Carter said...

Well, I probably don't qualify as an evangelical (what exactly does that mean to you?) but I'll give it a go anyway:

1.a)I doubt whether most men who have been president were "called". As far as I can remember, I have always believed that a woman could serve as President. b) I can't renounce a view I never held. c) I don't know. Can you become something you've always been?

2. a) "Because"? No, I think if she felt herself submissive to McCain simply because he is a man it would be a sign of weakness. b) Yeah, like Bush is in authority over us now? Get real.

3. a)No. The world is the world and the church is the church. They do not and need not operate under the same modes. b) Yes, if the Holy Spirit convinces me that that's what He wants. The main thing is to listen for the Spirit and not be dogmatic about it.

4. a) Authority as in, "I'm a man and what I say goes"? No. Authority as in "The greatest among you must be the servant of all"? Yes. b) No. Two different worlds. See above.

5. a) No. I have four children and my wife works. We share responsibilities as it best suits our temperments and abilities. She cooks because she's a better cook. I do the finances because I'm better at it. b) No. c) As I said, The greatest among you is servant of all. When my wife needs help, I help. When I need help, she helps me.

Charlie said...

Please, John. I'm not an Evangelical, and even I know that there are many different views among Evangelicals about the role of the sexes inside and out of the church; there are many Christian feminists. Focusing on one splinter within the whole, however right or wrong it happens to be, is not really relevant to "debunking" Christianity, now, is it?

Learn.

http://christianfeminist.blogspot.com/

http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/xpxx/

http://achristianfeministjourney.blogspot.com/

http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/

Evan said...

Charlie, come on. I think you are well aware that the SBC fired all its women professors due to their inability to have authority over men in the church.

It is possible that you don't see this as a problem for YOU, but you must admit that the SBC (as the largest protestant denomination in the US) is certainly not some fringe Christian group and is representative of the main strands of American Christian thought. So spare me your "splinter" descriptions. The SBC isn't a splinter. It's a trunk.

david said...

evan,

Your link description implies more than necessary, namely, that more than one professor was removed.

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. said...

For a consistent view of God, men, women, gender, and leadership, please see the most recent post at:
www.menandwomenleaderstogether.blogspot.com. it is by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, who has written two books on this topic and co-edited another.

Charlie said...

Evan,

Your hyperlink is pathetically misleading. What gives?

As the article explicitly states, but which you wholeheartedly ignore, conservative evangelicals are seriously at odds over issues like this -- which was precisely my point. SBC does not "represent the main strands" of American Christian thought. There are no "trunks". Picking one denomination and saying "ah, this one represents true Christianity" is about as careless as me pointing to a group of hardcore Randian/libertarian atheists and claiming that they represent mainline atheist thought.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Groothuis, thanks for visiting and commenting. As a fan of your writings, and of you, maybe if you care to comment further you could inform us why there is such a wide divergency of opinion among people who claim to be evangelicals, fundamentalists and/or Biblical Christians on these issues.

I think I have a good answer. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Some are already starting to revolt against Palin: here

Anthony said...

Interesting article John. And contrary to Charlie the majority of professing evangelicals are complementarian. Several years ago when I was still an evangelical I did embrace egalitarianism and still have quite a few of their books in my library including the ones by Rebecca Grootuis. I'm sure I was an odd fellow being a high Calvinist and an egalitarian.

Charlie said...

Anthony,

I didn't suggest otherwise. But focusing on one particular group is not relevant to to debunking "christianity" nor is it a "predicament" for "evangelicals".

Anthony said...

Charlie writes,

focusing on one particular group is not relevant to to debunking "christianity" nor is it a "predicament" for "evangelicals"

Well actually it is. It shows the inconsistencies within Christianity when they all claim to have the witness of the spirit and the same basic hermeneutics for interpreting the Bible yet have so many differences. Believe me, I was for the most of my life a complementarian and then became an egalitarian because I became convinced that this is what the Bible taught. In reality the problem is with the source of both views (complementarianism and egalitarianism) - the Bible, it's inconsistent in its teaching due to its errant nature. But I'm sure you'll dispute this.

Charlie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charlie said...

No Anthony. Actually it isn't. There are many worldview inconsistencies within Christianity as a religion, just as there are in atheism. Highlighting this fact about some belief system does not count as "debunking" that belief system.

I know of no Christian who thinks that the holy spirit's role is to make everybody think the same thoughts relative to which all theological differences can be settled with ease. And I have never met a Christian who thinks that they'll all have the "same basic" interpretive methodology for understanding bible verses. Christianity contains a plurality of differing and sometimes mutually exclusive perspectives, with wide agreement on central truth claims (e.g. the resurrection).

Why you think it should all be lumped together in order for there to be such thing as a witness of the holy spirit is a mystery.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Charlie,

The claim about the Holy Spirit guiding one to correct interpretation of scripture is right out of Paul's epistles. It's in the Bible, so as a Christian it's your prerogative to take it seriously.

Charlie said...

Hey Philip,

The bible says you're full of shit. Really. It's right out of Paul's epistles. Look it up.




(Yay. See how fun it is to play the 'but the bible says-so' game while ignoring any linguistic, historical, and cultural context?)

Philip R Kreyche said...

Charlie,

You're a very rude and childish person, and because of your behavior I will not continue any discourse with you any longer.

The verse anyway is 1 Corinthians 2:14: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." The inference is that the revelations from God can only be understood by someone who has received the Holy Spirit. But obviously there are and have been widely differing understandings of what God's revelations mean. That's where the argument comes from, and this doctrine is held by both Catholics and mainstream Protestants.

Anyway, have fun being insulting and unprofessional, both to your religion's disgrace, and to your own disgrace as well.

(And if you knew the meaning of "context," especially in regards to the Bible and its history, you'd probably be one of us by now).

Philip R Kreyche said...

* and by "this doctrine," I of course mean the doctrine of receiving the Holy Spirit being necessary for correct interpretation of Scripture.

Anthony said...

Charlie,

Like Philip said, be careful with the "linguistic, historical, and cultural context" that is part of what led me away from the faith. That in conjunction with realizing how overwhelming the evidence is for evolution. Very few professing Christians are truly honest with the evidence of science and historical criticism.

Jeff Carter said...

As long as we're playing quote the Bible (which I would never allow to take primacy over the witness of the Spirit), here's a few verses:

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal and walk as men?" 1 Cor 3:1-3

As Paul was writing to Christians, these verses demonstrate 1)divisions were known, understood and expected among early Christians 2) the principle of growth and maturity of a Christian, which accounts for divisions and differences in hearing

Unknown said...

I'd love to see Gushee try and argue in favor of his implied interpretation of scripture. He's assuming things I think he'd be hard pressed to support.

Charlie said...

Philip,

First, stop assuming I'm a christian. I'm agnostic.

Second, I am no longer continuing discourse with you. By making lofty claims and lazily throwing out random verses from your bible to try to support them, you have acted childish and, moreover, you have given me bad memories of my fundie grandma -- which is rude.

Third, the verse you quoted doesn't come anywhere near supporting what you said. If you want to critique a religion by finding problems in its 'holy book', read the book in its context first. Your critique will fail otherwise.

T said...

Charlie,

Though you claim agnosticism, it has sounded to me like you are a theist by some of your writings. Was I misinterpreting that?

I, too, have noticed that you come across as sharp, both intellectually and tongued. Sometimes I think that sharpness is easy to misinterpret as being mean. Which is why it is always best to discuss theology with an alcoholic beverage in hand.

david said...

damn straight Toby!

Charlie said...

Never think about my tongue again please. Thx.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Jeff,

The claim that there is a Holy Spirit to begin with and that it has any power or authority comes from the Bible.

Do you have any examples of anyone who converted to Christianity without a Bible having been involved at all? Or any examples of someone having a revelation that convinced them that Christianity is true without having any prior knowledge of it from any worldly source?

It just seems strange to me how you constantly disavow the Bible's importance for Christianity's case. The problem is that you claim that the Holy Spirit alone is necessary to convict one of Christianity's truth is itself dependent on the Bible's authority, and by throwing out the Bible's authority you would be hard pressed to provide any reasoning as to why you're right.

Jeff Carter said...

Philip,
Knowledge of the Holy Spirit is experiential, not from a book. Ivory tower biblical scholars might argue that the Bible is necessary, but the common salvation experience, especially within "the Bible Belt" is an encounter with Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I have said several times that the fact that 1 Thessalonians (which even most Bibliophiles will confirm was written before any other New Testament book) was written to Christians. How could there be Christians without a New Testament. No, they didn't believe in the Old Testament, either. These were gentiles who had either never heard of the Tanakh, and even if they had would have considered it backwater religion. Do you disagree with that?

Philip R Kreyche said...

Jeff,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, yes. But you'll have a hard time proving what each convert's individual reason was for converting.

Charlie said...

Ah haha. Right. Nevermind all those people in China and other parts of the world who became Christians without ever seeing a bible. Let's give Philip a round of applause for speaking as if he's an expert on these matters even though he lacks the education and logic to treat them carefully.

Unknown said...

Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter

*The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells.

At a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid.
Webmaster's Commentary:

For the RNC to have picked a woman VP candidate who speaks so gushingly of someone who, at this point in the 21st century believes in the reality of witches, demonic spells and influences, rather then the realities of human irresponsibility and greed, should make thinking voters sit up and take notice this election.* (from whatreallyhappened.com)

Charlie said...

^Stupid argument.

Just about every politician can be linked to somebody else with a lot of dirt on them. Obama was linked to the Weather Underground. As a simple point of logic, you can't discredit a thesis (or person) based merely on the fact that it can be contingently linked to some other thesis (or person) which is dubious. There's no valid argument structure that would permit such an inference.

(In informal logic, this is known as the fallacy of "guilt by association".)

Either way, though, Palin is nuts.

T said...

Charlie & Robert,

Yes, guilt by association is a stupid and manipulative tactic, but it has been working for the Republicans to smear Obama. Pisses me off.

T said...

Charlie wrote,

Never think about my tongue again please. Thx.

You'll get no argument from me.

Charlie said...

Thx.

Lippard said...

The folks at Covenant News have different perspective on the original post.

Lippard said...

Here's a story on Todd Palin's unelected role in the Alaskan government, to add some actual evidence to the picture.

Scott said...

Article by Sam Harris on Palin VP nomination.