Monday, September 08, 2008

The Troublesome Choice of Sarah Palin


Imagine it’s the beginning of August. You're hanging out with a group of friends following service and talking about the usual stuff. Someone brings up an issue for which he would like some advice. A friend of his is considering taking a very demanding position at a major Fortune 50 company. The promotion would make her the vice-president of the company. Initially the group has few reservations about this although there’s slight concern with the general trend of women holding positions of authority over men. However no one has any real objections since this isn’t a ministry setting. 

Having established that for the most part it’s alright to have a female v.p. in a high powered, demanding position you then get into a few details of your friend’s life. You reveal that she’s in her mid forties and is already the head of the one of the companies smaller divisions. She also recently had a child who is now about five months old. Along with that she has a thirteen and seven year old. After a pause someone asks for more information about the new position. You respond by saying that it is a very demanding position which involves a good deal of travel. Now your friends begin to question why she would accept a position that would take her way from her young children so much. A couple of them grab bibles and after turning to the second chapter of Titus remind you (as if you didn’t know) that the scriptures command mothers of small children to remain at home to raise their children and support their husbands. While this doesn’t mean that a mother can’t work outside the home her priority should be to remain their to raise her children if at all possible. Some even begin wondering why she stayed on as head of the small division following the birth of her last child especially in light of the fact that she has a child entering teen-age years and one in the first years of elementary school. 

Finally, you drop the bomb. Your friend also has a teenager who has become pregnant out of wedlock. Blank looks accompanied by incredulous gasps tell the tale of the group reaction. After assuring you that they don’t condemn this sister for her child’s choice nor question her parenting skills they do wonder out loud why she would in any way even consider taking a more demanding position knowing that her teenage daughter will soon be a mother who will need all the help and support she can get. The discussion seems to be over when you launch one last volley. 

You mention that this is a historic opportunity and that due to her age and the timing of the offer it’s very unlikely that it will come around for her again. Furthermore, if things go well this position could lead to becoming the CEO of the company where she could do a great deal of good for families just like theirs and be a strong witness for the gospel of Christ. One of the group, a stay at home mother with a similar family situation looks you straight in the eye and with strong conviction declares that God has already told the church how mothers are to make a difference in this world. They do so by staying home, loving their husbands and raising the next generation of believers who will be salt and light in our country. With that the discussion ends and you prepare to tell your friend that the vast majority of those he’s asked about this have counseled that her primary calling is to remain at home raising her children. And in light of her present family situation it would be unwise and perhaps even unbiblical to make an unnecessary career move that would mandate her spending an even greater amount of time away from them. 

Now brothers and sisters let’s be straight with each another. How many of us would have actually encouraged a woman with a newborn infant, a budding teenager, an elementary aged child and a daughter who will give birth within the next few months to take a promotion that would actually mean much more responsibility and time away from her family? You might say ‘but no one asks how Barack Obama will care for his two small children should he become president’. True they have not and probably still won’t. But it’s been conservative evangelicals who’ve declared with relish that mothers with small children must remain at home with those children if at all possible. We’ve used this as one of the arrows in our quiver in the ongoing culture war with the ‘Liberal elite’. We’ve chided and yes judged those women who put career over family for the sake of pride and position. And that’s what’s made Sarah Palin’s acceptance to be John McCain’s running mate so troublesome. 

The world knows how we feel about the importance of the home and the mother’s role within it. In many ways conservative evangelicals have been the lone voice extolling the virtues of stay at home motherhood. For instance, in a 2006 article by Mary K. Mohler the following statement was one of many used to support the importance and value of stay at home mothers; “We firmly believe that the finest daycare, the sharpest nanny, or even my mom or his mom would not pass our qualifications for one reason: they are not me.  Do we have an inflated opinion here? No, not at all. We believe there is no one on this earth who can love, nurture, and care for our children like I can. God made me the mother of Katie and Christopher. No one else has that distinction.” You can find the entire article here

Over the past thirty years or so there can be no doubt that most evangelicals accepted as gospel that a mother’s place was in the home and not the high powered and high pressured environment of the corporate world. That’s not to say that evangelicals condemned any and all employment outside the home. But to act as if we've championed the rights of moms to climb the corporate ladder armed with a blackberry in one hand and baby bottle in the other is just not true and we know it. But what’s more damaging the world knows it. 

While I have nothing against Governor Palin personally and think she could make a very good vice president I just don’t believe many evangelicals have thoroughly thought through what a Palin vice-presidency and possible presidency might mean for them. In accepting with great zeal her historic choice evangelicals have once again doubled back on what they themselves declared was an unmovable, authoritative scriptural mandate. A generation ago evangelicals claimed that ethnic segregation was the clear will of the living God. When asked about becoming involved in politics they made it equally clear that politics have nothing to do with the gospel and thus should have no place in the church. Now they’re willing to accept a woman who if things work they way many of them hope could end up spending the next four to sixteen years away from her young family. Look folks, we can only cry wolf so many times. If scripture mandates that mothers with young children remain home to raise those children and support their husbands than that goes for vice-presidential candidate Palin just as much as it does for the liberal mom who leaves her infant in daycare so she can continue the climb up the corporate ladder. 

And if we’re willing to accept with little question and no real dissent Governor Palin’s nomination what happens the next time we decide to lecture the country on the biblical view of ’just war’, ’small government’, ’strong defense’ or the right to pack our pistols?  

To Him Who Loves Us…
Pastor lance
 



 

 

10 comments:

LouLove said...

Brother Lance:
Long time no blog with. I am so grateful for your comments, my Brother. You have set the record straight and no one can deny the truthfulness of what you say.

One thing I would like to ask you. Is it just me or does the term "evangelical" only mean white conservative Christian men?

If so, then I am glad, especially since their wholesale buy in to what clearly is a huge inconsistency.

paul said...

I think the inconsistency doesn't have implications for the areas of public policy on which evangelicals have opinion as you mention in the last paragraph of your post so much as in the arena of family values. Granted, I don't follow political discourse very closely, but I don't hear evangelicals "lecturing the country" with the Christian view of war and taxes. (Even on the abortion issue, they seem to appeal more to scientific evidence about the beginning of human life and to broad principles of valuing human life than to the Bible.) At any rate, these are public policy issues on which engagement in the public square is clearly called for--a different category from someone's private decision to try for a demanding job or not. Further, the principles involved are not in question; rather, the question is whether or not Palin is effectively following those principles. While there may be a place for that discussion of someone else's judgment on a private matter in an area of Christian freedom, I don't see that the failure to give that discussion prominence is as destructive to the supposed credibility of evangelicals as you suggest. (I'm not convinced that evangelicals have this kind of credibility with the rest of the nation to begin with....)

Anonymous said...

Bro. Lance, I was wondering if any Christian with a public forum would address the issues you raised. No need to wonder any further (LOL). My wife and I were discussing this the other day. In response to the very issues you raised, Mayor Giuliani asked when was the last time someone asked that about a man. The place exploded with applause. It was sad to see that reaction, especially given the fact that many in the audience would claim to be united to Christ. There's a reason that God's judgments of Eve didn't have anything to do with her eating by the sweat of her face. With that being said, it's just one more reminder that the choice for Pres. isn't as clear cut as I would like it to be.

Anonymous said...

Bro. Lance, I was wondering if any Christian with a public forum would address the issues you raised. No need to wonder any further (LOL). My wife and I were discussing this the other day. In response to the very issues you raised, Mayor Giuliani asked when was the last time someone asked that about a man. The place exploded with applause. It was sad to see that reaction, especially given the fact that many in the audience would claim to be united to Christ. There's a reason that God's judgments of Eve didn't have anything to do with her eating by the sweat of her face. With that being said, it's just one more reminder that the choice for Pres. isn't as clear cut as I would like it to be.

Marlon
(I forgot to include it the first time)

Anonymous said...

Pastor Lance,

Thanks for the thought provoking post on a subject many "evangelicals" don't dare to speak about.

I too see the glaring inconsistencies with this issue. "Evangelicals" have championed the cause of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood for years; there is no denying that. But now have thrown their wholehearted support behind a woman (and a party) who is going against the very principles they themselves have worked so hard to build up.

While "evangelicals" might not be ""lecturing the country" with the Christian view of war and taxes" as brother Paul so eloquently put it, they have definitely been "lecturing the country" on the biblical role of women and their responsibility to raise their children. No one is denying that this is a secular position that Governor Palin is going for, but by that same token you can not deny her God given responsibility to her family.

So by all means Governor Palin go for the prestigious position of VP of the United States; my only request is that the "evangelical leaders" of our day "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong" and not support these actions that clearly go against what they have been teaching us from the Bible for years.

Louie Chism

GUNNY said...

Sometimes there's a conflict between what's best for the family and what's best for the city/state/country, etc.

It's hard to identify those for sure, but part of me thinks we could say that about 93% of the vocations people take, even men.

Yet, there is a difference, at least there could be, between a person taking a promotion that will entail travel and less family time in order to make more money versus in order to serve others.

I don't presume to know all there is to know, but I would hope based on the faith I've heard professed that the Palin family had a long, hard prayerful time of decision prior to give John McCain the thumbs up.

"How many of us would have actually encouraged a woman with a newborn infant, a budding teenager, an elementary aged child and a daughter who will give birth within the next few months to take a promotion that would actually mean much more responsibility and time away from her family?"

I may be in the minority, but I would have counseled a man to weight through the same issues in decision making.

We talk of motherhood being a woman's priority, but the implication seems to be that a man's priority is not one of being a father.

I think for far too long evangelicals have bought into "traditionalism" over biblical Christianity in thinking that children and their tending to was "woman's work" or for the effeminate and families and churches have suffered for it.

Good thought-provoking stuff, though, I must say.

Pastor Lance said...

good thoughts all and thanks for chiming in.

Paul you're right in saying that the inconsistency doesn't necessarily affect public policy. yet i do believe it affects evangelicals desire to speak on issues of public policy. i noticed that Gov. Palin's decision to accept the nomination is being viewed as a private family decision. however i just don't think that's how most evangelicals would have thought of it before hearing of Gov. Palin.

Gunny, excellent point regarding the distinction between public service and private gain. my issue however isn't with Gov. Palin per se as much as its with the general evangelical camps little questioned enthusiam for something that by all counts they would normally speak against.

would we have the same question for a Christian man? probably not. but Gunny did bring up a great point re: how believing men should consider viewing work in a culture that tends to idolize it.

peace
LL

Jacob Young said...

Brother Lance,

I appreciate your post here; it is something I've been mulling over with my friends since she was nominated. While there are fuzzy areas of understanding Scripture's teaching on women in government (as a general teaching, i.e. Is it sinful, biblically, for women to have any authority over men?), there does seem to be clearer teaching in Scripture on the role of mothers.

This said, for me, I've come to the uncomfortable position of thinking that the issues of life and the unborn in this country trump this issue. Not that the issue is resolved, far from that!, but at the end of the day, I see more weight in the issue of abortion than the issue of gender roles. Though at the same time, the issues are tightly nit together; and so continues my discomfort.

In discussing this with friends, someone made a point that I think speaks to your concern here about the evangelical world. He was wondering how the image of Mr. Palin will effect the evangelical world's view of Biblical masculinity. I thought this was an interesting question to be aware of as we see how this election will (potentially) effect evangelicals than just "their guy" getting in office. What are your thoughts about how this image of the executive wife and (essentially) the stay-at-home dad? Will this effect the evangelical understanding of these roles?

Pastor Lance said...

hey brother Jacob,

good thoughts that I hadn't fully worked through. however given that since the middle of last century most of our elections have involved a former or sitting veep in one way or another (2008, 04, 96, 80, 52 and 56 being the exceptions) and her growing popularity with evangelicals and women, a Palin for president candidacy is not completly out of the question. this would mean that evangelicals would be the main supporters of a woman for the highest office in the land and may present a serious challenge to the way we've cast the roles of men and women during the last twenty years or so.

I can certainly understand why evangelicals would support Gov. Palin especially given the reasoning mentioned by Gunny and yourself. I just hope her veep run and potential presidential run will help us to be cautious on what we say and how we say it in the public square.

peace
LL

Anonymous said...

but for so long we have allowed MEN to make all the decisions - and look where the country is.

you need a woman with a heart and feelings to make decisions - not someone so wrapped up in egos and status.

someone that thinks intelligently for the good of all - not the good of oneself.