Opportunity and Significance

So then, how have the various culture warriors responded to Sarah Palin, whose behavior and beliefs seem to fall into both conservative and feminist camps, yet cannot readily be defined by either? As it turns out, the old alignments have for the most part remained intact, yet with some subtle shifts, and the priorities of the right and the left regarding the women issue have been clarified in some surprising ways.

Actual feminists hate Sarah Palin. With one voice. There is no accommodating her in that camp. These are the left-wing, non Bible believing, abortion “choice” fanatics. Adherence to abortion “rights” is their litmus test, and it is enforced as rigidly and religiously as the patriarchal-complementarian (PC) institutions enforce adherence to “male headship,” and by the same means: censuring and ostrasizing all who do not pass the litmus test. This, then, is why feminists in the current culture refuse to acknowledge Feminists for Life as truly feminist (an organization of which Palin is a member)—even though abortion is the only significant point at which FFL breaks ranks with current, orthodox feminism. (There are a number of feminist issues that they don’t directly address, since their main focus is on saving unborn babies from destruction.) Albert Mohler says he cannot understand why feminists (such as Sally Quinn of the “On Faith” blog) are critical of Sarah Palin. After all, isn’t Palin demonstrating distinctly feminist proclivities? Well, Dr. Mohler, this is why.

On the other hand, staunchly PC mainstream evangelicals love Sarah Palin. But not quite with one voice. They offer diverse and somewhat inventive rationales for why a woman may be fit to lead the free world but never a small church congregation. I have surveyed numerous PC responses to Sarah Palin’s candidacy for Vice President. Diverse though the rationales may be, there is one consistent thread: A woman can be as competent as a man in high-level political leadership. Whatever the God-given “difference” may be between male and female, it is not the ability to govern in secular leadership positions. Whew! That is certainly a huge reversal of the traditional view of the difference between men and women. What, I wonder, have become of the PCs who believe that women just don’t have the gift of leadership? That God has not equipped women to rule, and especially not to rule men?

So we now see clearly that the primary concern of both the PCs and the secular feminists is the issue of “abortion rights.” The secular feminists would really like to have a woman in the white house—but not unless she is there to promote the alleged “right” of a woman to kill her in utero child for the sake of her personal convenience. The PCs really want all women to be subordinate and domestic—unless a woman is ready and willing to serve as a pro-life advocate in the White House.....

The Sarah Palin phenomenon seems to have given some PC women permission to express their suppressed yearnings for freedom, opportunity and significance outside the home (yet without dismissing their domestic duties).

Indeed, one must endorse the basic, early concept of feminism—that a woman should have opportunity to serve in a vocation outside the home—if one is to endorse Sarah Palin as a good choice for Vice President of the U.S. This is logically entailed and evidently readily recognized as such by those of the PC perspective.

So, it seems we’re all feminists now. No longer may “feminism” universally serve as the f-word. Its meaning now must be qualified. Sarah Palin is a feminist and a Bible believing Christian and is radically (that is, she lives it out) pro-life. No longer can PCs insist on labeling biblical egalitarians “evangelical feminists”—by by which they have meant “feminists who ‘purport’ to believe the Bible.” Feminism can no longer be snidely and categorically dismissed as “liberalism.” It must finally be recognized that there are strongly pro-life Christians who also want to see women break out of their conservative evangelical subculture and take up their freedom in Christ to speak to and influence the world and the church with the wisdom and talents God has given them.

[via Men and Women: Leaders Together]

Related: Sarah Palin is a Christian feminist. What is a Christian feminist? via Complegalitarian

Pleasing and Placing

Pleasing Each Other

and

"Christian women should know their place."

There, I said it. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that if they don't "know their place" they cannot minister effectively.

Of course, I could also say the same thing of Christian men. They must "know their place" if they are to minister effectively. {continue...}

[via Complegalitarian]

Headings...

Biblical Mandate: Wife Must Give Head

[via daydreamer]

Unnecessary Adversaries

Arguments in which both sides launch aggressive offenses and structure fortress-like defenses can be unnecessarily adversarial. I am not suggesting that such arguments have no place, but let’s acknowledge that their value is vastly over-rated

Stories cover the same territory, but they are testimonialsand it is hard to argue with someone’s testimony {read more}

[via Jesus Creed]

Emerging Context, Essentially Divisive

This sort of division within the church isn’t new…but it is unique. While folks have debated the role of women in ministry before, this is version of that old debate is taking place in an emerging context. It is interesting that most of those who have posted comments are talking about Driscoll versus McLaren…not the CBE versus Grudem/Piper.

I used to be a complementarian. Now I am basically egalitarian–though I have problems with the term. Once, I would have said that the role of women in the church and within marriage was an essential issue (like Driscoll and others would argue). I saw it as a sort of gateway doctrine, that if eroded would lead to much more heinous doctrinal errors. For a while I tried to put it in the “unimportant” pile. Now, after years of struggle, I see it again as an essential issue–an issue of justice that cannot be ignored.

At one point I would have had hope that a discussion like the one you’re suggesting could happen and be fruitful. Now, I am of the opinion that the sort of Christianity Driscoll holds to is often fundamentally different than the sort that I hold to. And while I don’t think protesting is a worthwhile option, I have profound doubts that interested parties would be able to sit down with one another for a meaningful discussion. Both sides of the debate see it as an essential issue–but for completely different reasons. Both sides of the debate see the folks on the other side as “the enemy.”

Perhaps the passages of Scripture everyone involved should investigate aren’t the ones that talk about the role of women, nor the ones that say we should have unity–instead we should all read the Sermon on the Mount, particularly where it says we ought to love our enemy.

[by Mark Van S in this post, emphasis mine]

How Equal is Right?

From the article The Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism by Sally K. Gallagher:

Ninety percent of American evangelicals believe in the ideal of husbands' headship; which for most involves being the spiritual leader in the household and having final authority in making decisions (80 and 53 percent respectively). At the same time, 87 percent believe that marriage should be a partnership of equals--an attitude that is shared by mainline and theologically liberal Protestants as well. This blending of ideals of mutuality and hierarchy within marriage is characteristic of the majority of ordinary evangelicals. Only five to ten percent are consistently egalitarian or consistently hierarchical "complementarians" in how they describe their work and family lives. The large majority emphasize partnership in decision making, and the idea that husbands' headship be demonstrated in service, listening, involved parenting and loving companionship (Gallagher 2003)....

Given the influence of second wave feminism on gender norms within American culture, and given the availability of a discourse of mutuality and partnership within evangelical subculture, and given the pragmatic egalitarianism of most ordinary evangelicals, the question remains: why have the ideals advocated by evangelical feminists thus far failed to transform the culture of husbands' headship among American evangelicals?