Thursday, October 02, 2008

"A woman can run the White House, just not her own house."

Even though I grew up as a Lutheran, I spent a couple of my teenage years at a Southern Baptist church and heard the sermons about a woman should not rule over a man, women should be taking care of the home and family, leaving the larger issues to the men, and all that medieval baloney. And I heard this stuff recently when “evil liberal” Hillary was campaigning from female Southern Baptists I know that women should absolutely not be in positions of power. But now that a “god-fearing” religious Republican woman has come to be the nominee for VP of the U.S. they change their minds. All they know is that Palin loves Jeeezus. She talks the pretty talk they are used to hearing from their pulpits and that’s all they care about. They don’t care if she can or cannot protect them from terrorists. They do not care if she is inexperienced in national and international affairs. They do care only that she loves Jesus, is pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay and a hockey-mom with a great personality.

It’s all well and good that they finally approve of a woman to lead the nation and have power over male citizens, but too bad their beliefs are contradictory since Baptists believe women still must be subservient to their husbands. Palin’s religion, while allowing a woman to preach in the church and be pastors, they also believe like the Baptists that according to I Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”(NIV) and Eph. 5:23-32 “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” How do they reconcile these things when it comes to women being in powerful positions and their literal Biblical beliefs? How much influence do the husbands of these fundamentalist women have who reach high elected positions within our government?


From AP:
RALEIGH, N.C. - Within the nation's largest Protestant denomination, a woman may not lead a church or a home. But prominent Southern Baptists see nothing wrong with Sarah Palin serving as vice president — or perhaps even commander-in-chief someday.

In other words: A woman can run the White House, just not her own house.

Republican presidential nominee
John McCain's selection of the Alaska governor as his running mate — the first female on the party's ticket in history — has thrilled conservative Christians. It also has led Southern Baptist congregations and seminary students to confront their beliefs about the role of women in leadership.

Interpreted from Scripture, the teachings on women are held close in thousands of Southern Baptist Convention churches where millions worship. Among them: "The office of pastor is limited to men," and a wife should "submit herself graciously" to her husband. Earlier this month, more than 100 Lifeway Christian Bookstores — a retail chain affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention — pulled from the shelves a magazine featuring five female pastors on the cover.

But when their wants and desires change, they change their interpretation, as usual.

Yet many in the denomination say the nation's second-highest leadership post is an apple to the pulpit's orange. Palin's potential work in a McCain administration — or even as president in the event of McCain's death — would be separate from her family life with her husband, Todd, and their children.

But there is no separating them since her husband and children are citizens of this country and Palin will be working for all Americans, male, female, young and old, and even her family members. She indeed has power over even her own husband. There is no way of separating that oath of office. One cannot say I am second commander-in-chief, or Commander-in-Chief over everyone but my husband. It doesn't work that way.

"There's no disconnect or inconsistency whatsoever," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. "We don't go beyond where the New Testament goes. Public office is neither a church nor a marriage."

How convenient. That's not what they say when Hillary Clinton was running. When Hillary was running in the primaries and doing well, Baptists in my own family have said that they don't think a woman should be running for office. And now they condone it because the woman running happens to be a conservative fundamentalist Republican Christian? That is so typically hypocritical and inconsistent of them. There is indeed "disconnect and inconsistency" when you take an ancient mythology book and bend and shape it, change it's meaning to however you want like Christians of all denominations do all the time.

It's good to see more and more denominations re-interpreting their religious text and ending discrimination and oppression of women, but in this case I suspect it is merely a matter of changing those interpretations and rules to suit themselves in the political arena to get a conservative god believer in a position of power. And this goes to prove once again that god believers make up their "God's plan" according to their own agendas. They want it both ways, to control a woman in her home and church, but say it's okay for her to be in positions of great power over all men nationwide. Doesn't make sense.

It will be greater progress if they go even further and admit that their entire religious text is outdated and incompatible in these modern times, AND admit that a woman is in charge of her home, her family and is on equal status as her husband.

2 comments:

Jason H. Bowden said...

If Sarah Palin is a hypocrite, more power to her. That would mean she really doesn't take the Apocalypse stuff seriously either. Aren't you trying to have it both ways here? Is she a true believer who will destroy us all, or a phony hypocrite? Logic suggests we cannot hold both propositions.

We're still feeling the fallout from Romanticism-- people think a person who is true to their convictions, even if they have rotten convictions, is a better person than a person with good convictions who does not hold them consistently. With this mentality, given the choice between an alcoholic scumbag like Churchhill and a moral vegetarian with homosexual friends like Hitler, people will choose Hitler, just because he is not a hypocrite.

My roommate is an evangelical; I'm told only a tiny percentage of their ranks today in 2008, including the Pentacostals, believe that women should be subservient to men, shouldn't work etc., and this is also the case with any Christian denomination -- Catholics, etc. There is substantial debate whether women should be ordained, and most Evangelicals do oppose this. This is a separate issue though.

Stardust said...

Jason, my post was mainly towards Baptists and those who state they believe the Bible is the infallible word of god and how they change those beliefs according to what they want them to be. Pentecostals have always had women who are pastors and active in their church while still remaining obedient to their husbands, having lots and lots of offspring, etc...so no, I am not saying that Palin is a hypocrite...and you didn't read everything because you missed the point about maybe her husband has a lot more input into her politics than we all realize. This would be consistent with her "true beliefs"...

The article is concerning the Southern Baptist Convention which has been a long-time supporter of keeping women at home,barefoot and pregnant, silent in the church and other matters. They still believe this as many fundamentalists do.
However, it seems that with Palin now as the VP candidate, the Southern Baptist church feels the need to change the interpretation of their Bible in order to allow a free conscience for those believers to vote for Palin. That is what this post is about. Not to say that Palin is inconsistent.

Palin is living every bit as a Pentecostal woman. Which made me stop and wonder what she says when her husband offers political "suggestions". Is she a subservient wife who obeys her husband, or is she her own woman?