Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

What the Bible Tells Us About Sarah Palin

By Lynda Waddington, RH Reality Check. Posted November 27, 2008.


Evangelical Palin supporters ignore politically inconvenient Bible passages that say only men should be rulers.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Since the Republican Party suffered widespread defeat on Election Day, the GOP faithful have been debating whether the party should move to the proverbial political center or embrace the conservatism of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. What has gone unnoticed is that support for Palin is a repudiation of the Bible.

Palin, while lauded as a draw for conservative evangelical voters, actually fits uneasily into the theological worldview of the Christian Right. To be sure, Palin's politics are a close, if not exact match for social conservatives. She is strongly against a woman's right to choose abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. She is against same-sex marriage and for an expansive reading of the Second Amendment. She is a perfect candidate -- so long as evangelicals are able to look past her gender.

But supporting Palin's vice-presidential bid -- and her possible ambitions for 2012 -- requires evangelical voters to overlook the "complementarian" conception of the roles of men and women that holds sway among Southern Baptists and other evangelicals. Based on their reading of Scripture, they believe that men and women have distinctly different roles assigned to them by God. Women, in this perspective, are divinely mandated to serve as wives, mothers and keepers of the home. They are not allowed to serve as pastors, and they are obliged to submit to their husband in their own homes and in public.

The power of the belief that women are not eligible to lead came crashing into religious living rooms in September when more than 100 Christian bookstores, run by the Southern Baptist Convention, refused to publicly display an edition of Gospel Today magazine that featured five female pastors on the cover. The magazine had to be withdrawn from public display, said a spokesman, because the story "clearly advocates a position contrary to our denomination's statement of faith." Christians could only get the magazine by asking for it from behind the counter, a la Penthouse or Playboy.

How could it be that a female in the White House was acceptable at the same time that females at the pulpit posed a problem?

Albert Mohler, president of the Baptist Convention, offered an answer on his blog: Scripture is vague on the question of whether women can have public responsibilities and besides, Palin has fulfilled her wifely and motherly duties, he argued.

The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church," he wrote, "but not in roles of public responsibility. I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture. Then again, that presupposes that women -- and men -- have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood argued that:

The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from exercising leadership in secular political fields. Rather, the Queen of Sheba is presented in 1 Kings 10:1-13 in a positive light in her interaction with King Solomon. Queen Esther offers an even better example of a woman who appropriately exerted influence for the good of her people without holding the highest position of national authority (Esther 2:17).  In this light, we cannot categorically say that it was sinful for Queen Victoria to lead England as a single woman strictly because of her gender, nor can we condemn Governor Palin or any other woman for seeking the office of Vice President.

But, as any reader of the Bible knows, these are selective readings. Mohler and the council ignore politically inconvenient passages from the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy that make clear that men, not women, should rule.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: religious right, bible, palin, social conservatives

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Fundamentally Way Off Base
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Nov 27, 2008 12:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gender issues are only one aspect of the conflict between biblical literalism and modern ethical sensibilities. The Bible heartily approves of slavery, genocide, offering up women for rape to protect men, the death penalty for adultery, homosexuality, adolescent unruliness, and a host of other trivial offenses.

More important, and more assiduously ignored by conservative Christians, is Jesus' emphasis on pacifism, social justice, rejection of materialism, compassion and forgiveness, and his unconventional practice of dialogue with women. Any politician or other secular figure who paraphrases Jesus' teachings on these matters will immediately be attacked by the religious right as un-American, anti-family, subversive and radical.

Nobody can truly be a biblical literalist because the Bible is so riven with contradictions. However, if Jesus' teachings are taken as canonical, the fundamentalists are fundamentally way off base.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fundamentally Way Off Base Posted by: Obi_DonKenobi
Give it a rest already!
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 27, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't bear to read another Palin article. Two on a slow Thanksgiving day???

I'm just amazed how Palin has stirred such hatred in the far left - or is that to be considered fear? What ever it is, give it a rest. We have bigger problems, such a Clinton as secretary of state..THAT is a real threat!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kakistocracy and Palin's Religulousness
Posted by: peacelf on Nov 27, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious fundamentalism is the bane of american intellectual growth and progressive maturity. It's contradictions are being exposed daily, and women in power is only one minor issue.

Yet, the power of the religious right in past elections cannot be underestimated, even after eight years of Bush. Sarah Palin is the next challenge for progressives.

Fortunately, that's changing thanks to Evangelical Christians like Jim Wallis and others who are using Biblical exegesis for more progressive ends, like tackling issues of poverty and the environment.

Wallis points out that there are 3400 passages in the Bible about ending poverty and many clear laws about earth stewardship. Previously, the Christian right has used wedge issues like abortion and Gay marriage as a way to sway Christian voters. That is changing, as more than 30% of "evangelicals" voted for Obama.

Prop 8 in California is another example of change coming. Even though Prop 8 passed in California, the margin was only 4%, much narrower than in previous elections in other states. The protests of Prop 8 have created a dialogue that will soon open the door for Gay marriages.

My point is this: that we are seeing the end of this Kakistocracy. The american people are wising up day by day, and what few fundamentalist detractors are left to challenge progressivism will become powerless to stop the change. Sarah Palin included. As long as people hit the streets and show support for progressive causes, change will come.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Bristol Palin Pregnant Now?
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Nov 27, 2008 9:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Auk, one wonders when Bristol Palin is going to tie the golden knot. She's pretty far along now, if the accounts we've heard are to be believed. Will the wedding be held in the labor ward, or postpartum? Have they identified the putative father yet?

I'm still not totally convinced that she is even pregnant now. The account of Sarah's prolonged in-transit labor doesn't add up for a fifth delivery, and there may yet be something to the speculation that Trig is actually Bristol's son.

The story of Sarah's pregnancy could well have been contrived to account for Trig's appearance in the family, and that of Bristol's current pregnancy to cover up her prolonged absence from school and the rumors circulating that she was with child, since claims of immaculate conception wouldn't wash.

If this turns out to be true, there are questions of fraud involving the birth certificate, insurance claims, hospital records and income tax deductions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is Bristol Palin Pregnant Now? Posted by: Red State Gal
Trig W Palin, Family Genius
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Nov 28, 2008 8:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing's for sure about Trig, who has Down Syndrome: he still has a better than even chance of being the smartest one in the family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It tells us that she should be quiet, and is not supposed to be in a position of authority over men.
Posted by: fanny666 on Nov 29, 2008 3:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1 Timothy 2:12

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, they get it alright
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Nov 30, 2008 10:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know where the media narrative about Palin "energizing the base" -- presumably far-right religious fundamentalist types -- originated, because it wasn't difficult to find websites by groups of such people during the campaign where exactly the issues being discussed in this article were raised.

And, yes, they did describe her as a feminist, and as a "socialist feminist" at one place I recall going by. The media just never covered this because it contradicted the spin they were trying to drill into everyone.

Maybe people would have liked her even more if they knew lots of the fundie crowd disliked what she stood for almost as much as the rabid D's suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome -- like the author here repeating the smear machine's make-believe about expensive spending sprees she never went on.

Of course all such things that "everyone knows" (because the MSM tells them to us over and over again) are subject to extreme skepticism when they just seem to sprout out of thin air and clearly have a political motivation about them.

Since McCain was a red state candidate nominated by the blue states, and had never gotten along very well with the Southern Baptist types, and because Palin wasn't really one of them, it's pretty easy to see why so many on the religious right stayed home on election day since the Republican ticket didn't much appeal to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gender roles and slavery in the Bible
Posted by: Jasonix on Dec 1, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just for the record, the New Testament doesn't lay out any kind of grand social order in regards to gender roles or slavery, other than to acknowledge the existing conventions of the time in which it was written. The statements quoted in this article were never intended as timeless absolutes (and I suspect that most early Christians didn't think that the world would be around for another 2,000 years when they wrote it). The passages cited here were written to very specific audiences that were struggling with the issue of how to conduct themselves in the midst of a society that they basically felt was evil and doomed. It's rather like advice on how one should conduct oneself while in India or Iran.

The fundamentalist take on these verses assumes an "imitationist" view of the Bible where one is supposed to take every statement as a literal command applicable in all times and places. That's a very shaky way to handle the Bible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

women's rights and animal rights
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 2, 2008 7:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A 1980 United Nations report states that women constitute half the world’s population, perform nearly two-thirds of its work hours, yet receive one-tenth of the world’s income and own less than one-hundredth of the world’s property. The impact of the women’s movement upon the church is being heralded as a Second Reformation. Women are now being ordained as priests, pastors and ministers, while patriarchal references to the Almighty as "Father" are replaced with the gender-neutral "Parent." Jesus Christ is designated the "Child of God." The words of Scripture—perhaps, more accurately, the words of the apostle Paul—on this subject are seen today not as a divine revelation, but rather as an embarrassment from centuries past:

"Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak. Instead, they must, as the Law says, be in subordination. If they wish to learn something, let them inquire of their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church...let a woman learn quietly with complete submission. I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man; instead she is to keep still. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, since she was deceived, experienced the transgression. She will, however, be kept safe through the child-bearing, if with self-control she continues in faith and love and consecration." (I Corinthians 14:34-35; I Timothy 2:11-15)

Many churches now claim these instructions were merely temporary frameworks used to build churches in the first century pagan world—they are not to be taken as universal absolutes for all eternity. If churches, Scripture and Christianity can adapt and be redefined or reinterpreted in a changing world to end injustices towards women, they can certainly do the same towards animals.

The International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) was founded in 1985 by Virginia Bouraquardez. Its educational and religious programs are meant to "bring religious principles to bear upon humanity’s attitude towards the treatment of our animal kin...and, through leadership, materials, and programs, to successfully interact with clergy and laity from many religious traditions."

According to the INRA:

"Religion counsels the powerful to be merciful and kind to those weaker than themselves, and most of humankind is at least nominally religious. But there is a ghastly paradox. Far from showing mercy, humanity uses its dominion over other animal species to pen them in cruel close confinement; to trap, club, and harpoon them; to poison, mutilate, and shock them in the name of science; to kill them by the billions; and even to blind them in excruciating pain to test cosmetics.

"Some of these abuses are due to mistaken understandings of religious principles; others, to a failure to apply those principles. Scriptures need to be fully researched concerning the relationship of humans to nonhuman animals, and to the entire ecological structure of Nature. Misinterpretations of scripture taken out of context, or based upon questionable theological assumptions need to be re-examined."

A growing number of Christian theologians, clergy and activists are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights. In a pamphlet entitled "Christian Considerations on Laboratory Animals," Reverend Marc Wessels notes that in laboratories animals cease to be persons and become "tools of research." He cites William French of Loyala University as having made the same observation at a gathering of Christian ethicists at Duke University—a conference entitled "Good News for Animals?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Bible approved of slavery (part 1)
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 2, 2008 8:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to see organized religion take up the struggle for animal rights. Religion has been wrong before. It has often been said that on issues such as women's rights and human slavery, religion has impeded social and moral progress. It was a Spanish Catholic priest, Bartolome de las Casas, who first proposed enslaving black Africans in place of the Native Americans who were dying off in great numbers.

The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil. The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern states here in the U.S. actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.

Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a moral relation," "God's institution," "not immoral," but "founded in right." The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."

New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of slaves (Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; I Peter 2:18-25) and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2; Ephesians 6:5-9) were often cited in order to justify human slavery. Many of Jesus' parables refer to human slaves. Paul's epistle to Philemon concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.

The Quakers were one of the earliest religious denominations to condemn human slavery. "Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word of God," says contemporary Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik. "Without a doubt, the American slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to substantiate their right to hold slaves.

"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-Biblical sources to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle Paul. Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his efforts to free the slaves. 'You shall not surrender to his master a slave who has taken refuge with you.' (Deuteronomy 23:15) What a pittance of material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of God."

In 1852, Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in 1867: "the tempter in the Garden of Eden...was a beast, a talking beast...the negro." Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah's family, he must have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast, and "consequently, he has no soul to be saved."

The status of animals in contemporary human society is not unlike that of human slaves in centuries past. Quoting Luke 4:18, Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28 or any other biblical passages in favor of liberty, equality and an end to human slavery in the 18th or 19th century would have been met with the same kind of response animal rights activists receive today if they quote Bible verses in favor of ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Bible approved of slavery (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 2, 2008 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the worst crimes in history have also been committed in the name of religion. There's a great song along these lines from the early 1990s by Rage Against the Machine, entitled "Killing in the Name Of".

Someone once pointed out that while Hitler may have claimed to be a Christian, he imprisoned Christian clergy who opposed the Nazi regime, and even Christian churches were subject to the terror of the Nazis. Thinking along these lines, I realize that while I would like to see organized religion support animal liberation (e.g., as was the case with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the American civil rights movement) rather than simply remain an obstacle to social and moral progress (e.g., 19th century southern churches in the U.S. upheld human slavery on biblical grounds), this support must come freely and voluntarily (e.g., "The Liberation of All Life" resolution issued by the World Council of Churches in 1988).

Religious institutions can't be coerced into rewriting their holy books or teaching a convoluted doctrine to suit the whims or the secular political ideology of a particular demagogue. American liberals argue that principle of the separation of church and state (upon which the United States was founded) gives us freedom FROM religious tyranny and theocracy. Conservatives argue (the other side of the coin!) that one of the reasons America's founding fathers established the separation of church and state was to prevent government intrusion into religious affairs.

I agree with Reverend Marc Wessels, Executive Director of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA), who said on Earth Day 1990:

"It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country (the United States) without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women's suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

remedial thinker
Posted by: zgregz on Dec 3, 2008 2:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I respect other living things, and if in fact you believe God created all of everything, it must be incumbent on you to respect all living things, including me, as I am a creation of your God, no matter how imperfectly I have come to be. The mere idea that you think you have the right to tell any one what God thinks, shows your lack of faith that God will take care of my final disposition. I can only conclude that if YOU know the mind of GOD -- you must in fact BE GOD. Maybe it is best -- if you just let the guy do his job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

politics is crooked, follks
Posted by: luzmejor on Dec 3, 2008 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a lying game played for privilege and money. When they tell you they have any morality beliefs, that's when you know they are lying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement