A week ago I posted on Sarah Palin and Complementarism, and whether it is compatible to support them both (particularly in America!). This appears to be a hot topic in the Christian blogosphere and beyond.
The basic question is this: can Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that women may not have authority over a man (in church) support a female Vice-President?
On the blogs I’ve been reading the level of discussion has generally been pretty high, with lots of interesting points being raised. The issue is provocative on so many levels: the complementarian / egalitarian debate itself, the sacred / secular divide, created order, male headship inside/outside the church, types of authority, Biblical hermeneutics, ethics…
So what’s going on here?
On one end of the spectrum you have those who believe that the Bible teaches a male-female order in creation and this extends beyond the walls of the church, into every sphere of life. Many Reformed leaders, like John Piper, fall into this group.
For example, Voddie Baucham, a prominent Southern Baptist pastor, concludes on his blog:
In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?
In the middle you have a variety of positions. Firstly, you have those who say that the Bible is only explicit on gender roles in the church and there is no specific teaching against women leading in the secular sphere. For example, Albert Mohler (president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) makes these comments on his blog:
The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, 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.
There also appear to be those for whom the abortion issue trumps the gender principle, however widely it applies. For example, read this comment by Darius:
“…as I’ve already said a couple times, I would prefer a man in political leadership since that is how we were created. HOWEVER, if it were Palin vs. Obama for President, the pro-life issue (among others) would trump the gender issue every single time. And it’s not necessarily a matter of ability; I think some women are supremely capable of leading companies or states, just like some women can beat almost every man alive in a 100 meter dash. Same is true of church leadership; I know plenty of men who are not gifted teachers, orators, or leaders, and plenty of women who are. But that doesn’t mean that the latter should be a pastor over the former.”
At the other end of the spectrum you have the Egalitarians, who can’t see what all the fuss is about – and are probably voting for Obama anyway!
This is a difficult debate and Christians of all varieties are clearly wrestling with the questions involved. For myself, I’m struggling to understand the views of those holding a ‘middle’ position in this debate. Is there an inconsistency in believing that there is a male-female created order, insisting on male leadership in the church, and yet voting for a woman to govern? Tom Wright doesn’t seem to think so, but I’m not convinced it’s as easy as that. One pastor certainly doesn’t agree that these positions could be compatible:
“Could it be that the man has headship only in the family and the church but not in the state? No, this could not be, lest you make God the author of confusion, and have Him violate in the state the very order He established at creation and has revealed in Holy Scripture! If one is going to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the civil sphere, then to be consistent, he or she also needs to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the family and the church.”
Blogger Wesley makes some interesting comments on Denny’s blog about the hermeneutics of the discussion, arguing that the CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) sees the Bible as a ‘law book’ and therefore adopts “nominalistic ethics, where something is reality because it is “called” such, not because it “is” such”. I’m not sure whether I fully agree, but interesting:
“So I think that CBMW is being entirely consistent with their (more extreme “reformed”) theological tradition. But are wrong because they use Paul’s letters as a law code, and so base their argument more on legal issues of what God didn’t allow versus deriving theological principles from scripture and applying them consistently. If they did, they would have to take the headship from creation argument (a good theological reason, even if someone disagrees with it) and also apply it to the vice-presidency, without any “the bible is unclear”, because their main reasons against it woulnd’t be “the Bible says so” but “our theology derived from theology interpreted though the common mind of the Church has these principles, and this action violates these principles…
I believe that God’s moral values are based on some ontological reality. I may know what is right and wrong based on what God says is, but something “is” right or wrong because it “is” right or wrong, not because God called it such(nominalism).
Yes, but surely God is the ontological reality? What God says is good, is good. This is the definitely the weakest point of his argument, although I see what he’s getting at.
So I go from scripture->theology-> morality, not scripture->morality.
In this case, if Paul really intended women to not be elders, and it was intended to be universal and absolute, then the next step is to make a general theology out of is, and when we have the ethical philosophy, then we can apply it to elders and vice presidents. This is opposed to women can be presidents and but not elders because law code section 3c said so. It may be that they can’t be either, or they can be one and not another. But the reason for this is something theological, not specific commands or statements, which would make the rule arbitrary.
So the “creation principle” may be ok (I was making a point more about the use of scripture then taking a side for now) But then it should apply to everything, or have a theological/philosophical reason not to. Not a reason based on the fact that “New Testament addresses rather narrowly the church and the home.
volfan007 replies to this using the standard ‘God’s ways are higher that your ways’ response, which does seem like a bit of a cheat somehow (and also a conversation stopper, perhaps rightly!):
But, what some of yall fail to understand in here is that just because the Bible doesnt fit into your logic, doesnt mean that we complementarians are being inconsistent. You seem to think that the Bible has to fit with your logic, ie, if you cant understand it, then it has to be inconsistent. Have you ever thought that maybe it’s not the Bible, nor the complementarians views, that makes it look inconsistent? That maybe, just maybe, the Bible is higher than your philosophy? That maybe, just maybe, the Bible goes beyond your logic to something much higher?
God’s ways are not our ways, and His truth goes beyond our little, finite minds. Thus, when He says that a woman should not be teaching doctrine to a man, and she should not be a Deacon, or an Elder, and that the man should be the leader of his family; then it’s the truth. No debate. That’s how it is. And, on the flip side, Deborah led the nation of Israel in OT times, because there was no man to lead them, then that’s right, too. That’s the way it is, because God wants it to be that way.
Commenter Molly, makes these refreshing comments in her response to the ‘risks’ of egalitarianism:
“I think the risks associated with Christian egalitarianism are the same risks associated with walking in the Spirit.
Point being, there is no clear black and white list of rules when your rule is Love.
As I’ve said before, I’m not sure I fit neatly into any category in this debate, although of all of them I guess I’d be happiest living in an egalitarian setting. I am actually sympathetic to some aspects of complementarianism (hopefully I’ll return to these in a later post) but I’m not sure there’s much else about my theology that would fit happily in a conservative setting (being a woman with leadership gifts, an Open Theist, a charismatic and a Greg Boyd fan, I don’t think I’d last long!). I’m definitely relieved to be viewing this debate from a distance…
Apologies for a longer-than-normal post. Thoughts?
Hi Clare,
Really great post! I think that Sarah Palin somehow manages to embody and provoke an incredible number of theological issues that challenge both the American conservatives and liberals, both the secularists and the Christians!
There’s the question of should pro-life credentials be the pre-eminent issue (and trump concerns for some complementarians about a women VP and indeed President, in time). Can you imagine abortion being the most significant issue in our elections? I think not, and that troubles me – perhaps we are not as shrill but do we just sweep the issue under the carpet?
Then there’s the issues that liberal feminists have been raising (now this was a huge surprise to me!) is whether she can be a good mother to her large and growing family and hold a position of power. What a reversal!
To my mind and to the American media at least Piper seems more consistent. The challenge is put to Albert Mohler and others of inconsistency. One of the things I heard him talk about on his radio show was the way in which people see the church as just another organisation and so think the same rules must apply. Yet, the church is not simply another type of organisation (I think Boyd has written about this) but one instituted by God which puts itself under God’s word.
[…] The Sarah Palin and Complementarianism debate continues Clare at Mustard Seed Kingdom reflects on the issues and takes in a massive round-up of different blog posts raised by Sarah Palin and asks what the implications of complementarianism is for women and public office. […]