In earlier posts (here,
here,
and here),
I spoke at length about the spiritual roots of Barack Obama. I described a
Sunday morning at Trinity UCC in Chicago, the congregation that Rev. Jeremiah
Wright nurtured for 36 years, and the spiritual home of Barack and Michelle
Obama and their daughters from the time of Barack’s conversion to the Christian
faith nearly 20 years ago up until a few months ago. My point: the Obama family’s
spiritual home, despite ill-informed opinion to the contrary, is fundamentally
evangelical in outlook and emphasis. The only reason someone might deny it is
for partisan political purposes.
Sarah Palin is also an evangelical Christian.
Her politics are a little bit different than Barack Obama’s, but not the
fundamental structure of her religious faith. In particular, she has been
active in FCA, the Fellowship of Christian
Athletes. Just watch how partisan opinion-makers will deal with this. They will
paint FCA in extreme, wacko colors. This is nonsense.
One of my friends, a Lutheran pastor in the ELCA - that’s the liberal branch of Lutheranism in the United States – is a product of FCA. Along with his wife, he is a new church planter. Surprise, surprise. That’s how things work in American Christianity, and in politics. The evangelical movement injects its peculiar pathologies into the larger context. But it also injects its idealism and faithfulness into grand and wonderful causes.
Sarah Palin’s became an on-fire Christian in an Assemblies of God congregation (AOG is a large Pentecostal denomination). She and her family currently attend the Wasilla Bible Church - "Bible Churches" are a typically evangelical phenomenon. As this comment
by a “radical Catholic Mom” would suggest, Sarah will go over very
well with mothers who are raising children and are fully employed in the work
force – a rather large demographic. Sarah is also a member of a broad-based
pro-life movement known as Feminists
For Life.
To be sure, the choice of Sarah Palin will
not sit well with elements of the Religious Right. According to those elements,
a woman by definition is not fit to be vice president, not to mention
commander-in-chief of the armed forces should the president pass from the scene.
But there really aren’t that many people who think that way. The choice of Sarah Palin will cause the GOP ticket to lose a
few votes on the right, but has the potential of allowing it to gain many more
in the middle.
In my opinion, Sarah Palin is an inspired choice. It will cause me to take another look at the McCain presidential run. It already has.
A Sarah Palin quote:
"To any critics who say a woman can't think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I'd just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave."
Sarah in April, after giving birth to a son, shown
by genetic testing to have Down's syndrome:
"I'm looking at him right now, and
I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our
world, what is normal and what is perfect?"
UPDATE: Peter Kirk (see comments) thinks evangelicals will not vote for Sarah Palin because she is a woman “doing a man’s job.” But note James Dobson’s remark: “This selection by Sen. McCain is a very encouraging sign for his campaign.” Here is a favorable post by Al Mohler, a Southern Baptist heavyweight, about the Palin family.
For a helpful discussion with important background detail, see John
Podhoretz here.
Molly Alley’s post
and comments thereto demonstrate how McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin has
re-energized his campaign. Here
is David Ker’s take. Notice how he fails to mention that he and Sarah are
fellow AGs. Full disclosure, please. Chuckle. For in-depth background analysis
(and great pics), go here.
Comments elsewhere: here and here.
It kind of smacks of desperation to me, trying too hard to appeal to evangelicals and former Clinton supporters (I can't believe I just connected those two groups in a sentence). Plus there are the issues of lack of experience (there goes that argument against Obama) and ethics violations (one of Biden's strongest areas). Here is a link with analysis: http://www.electoral-vote.com/phone.html
and one about possible ethics violation:
http://www.adn.com/front/story/471366.html
Posted by: Owen | August 29, 2008 at 01:24 PM
Owen,
Thanks for your interesting comments. We'll see how this plays out.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 01:56 PM
Just wait for Obama's team to subtly behind the scenes stir up people like John Piper (who won't allow women to drive buses, so how much less command forces!) and James Dobson to speak against a woman vice-president. They could get evangelicals to stay at home on polling day in their millions. So, while I think this is a good choice in many ways, I think McCain may live to regret it.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | August 29, 2008 at 02:30 PM
Peter,
LOL. Millions of evangelicals in the US who think women shouldn't be allowed to drive buses? Phoney baloney.
Given enough time, I could, however, introduce you to thousands upon thousands of evangelical women who drive buses. Believe me, they will be voting en masse for Sarah.
James Dobson on Sarah Palin: "Gov. Palin's views align with Sen. McCain's own stated position that human life is precious and must be protected. ... This selection by Sen. McCain is a very encouraging sign for his campaign."
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 02:37 PM
I'm seeing some of what you're talking about at this Christian dating site I'm in, John. Some think a woman shouldn't be in that sort of position. "What about her children--how will she raise them when she's working as Vice-President?" one asked. And when one brings up an example of Deborah, they say Deborah only was a leader because the men didn't step forward.
But, overall, the response has been positive. I'm happy when we can combine conservatism and diversity.
Posted by: James Pate | August 29, 2008 at 03:07 PM
James,
Cotton-pickin. What are you doing on a Christian dating site? : )
I'm sure you're right: many Bible-believing Christians, after seeing and hearing Sarah Palin on the stump, will interpret her in light of the prophecy of Joel that Peter cited on Pentecost (Joel 2:28-29) broadly understood, not in light of a prevalent misinterpretation of 1 Tim 2:12.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 03:25 PM
John, I don't know about millions of evangelicals, but I do know what Piper has written, here (p.17):
Mature femininity does not express itself in the same way toward every man. A mature woman who is married, for example, does not welcome the same kind of strength and leadership from other men that she welcomes from her husband. But she will affirm and receive and nurture the strength and leadership of men in some form in all her relationships with men. This is true even though she may find herself in roles that put some men in a subordinate role to her. Without passing any judgment on the appropriateness of any of these roles one thinks of the following possible instances:
Prime Minister and her counsellors and advisors.
Principal and the teachers in her school.
College teacher and her students.
Bus driver and her passengers.
Bookstore manager and her clerks and stock help.
Staff doctor and her interns.
Lawyer and her aides.
Judge and the court personnel.
Police officer and citizens in her precinct.
Legislator and her assistants.
T.V. newscaster and her editors.
Counsellor and her clients.
One or more of these roles might stretch appropriate expressions of femininity beyond the breaking point. ...
But as I said earlier, there are roles that strain the personhood of man and woman too far to be appropriate, productive and healthy for the overall structure of home and society. Some roles would involve kinds of leadership and expectations of authority and forms of strength as to make it unfitting for a woman to fill the role. ...
The God-given sense of responsibility for leadership in a mature man will not generally allow him to flourish long under personal, directive leadership of a female superior. J. I. Packer suggested that “a situation in which a female boss has a male secretary” puts strain on the humanity of both (see note 18). I think this would be true in other situations as well. Some of the more obvious ones would be in military combat settings if women were positioned so as to deploy and command men; or in professional baseball if a woman is made the umpire to call balls and strikes and frequently to settle heated disputes among men. And I would stress that this is not necessarily owing to male egotism, but to a natural and good penchant given by God.
So what do you think Piper will have to say about the prospect of a woman President and Commander-in-Chief? Or of a woman who could easily become one? If he chooses to make an issue of this, don't underestimate his influence, and that of others who might follow his lead, especially if Southern Baptists get on the bandwagon. Perhaps Al Mohler would be more of a key figure there, and I think his views on women are similar to Piper's - he won't let women teach anything in his seminary.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | August 29, 2008 at 03:54 PM
Al Mohler has already not seen fit to criticize Sarah Palin in the past.
Peter, I think you may also misinterpret John Piper.
If anyone finds a pro- or anti- Sarah Palin quote from John Piper or a CBMW type, I will fold it in to the body of the post.
Richard Land, a SBC bigwig, ADVISED John McCain to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate. Simply put, evangelical traditionalists generally speaking do not see Sarah Palin as a threat to their worldview.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 04:02 PM
It will be interesting, one thing McCain achieved with this pick; taking the focus off of Obama's speech.
Posted by: Owen | August 29, 2008 at 04:14 PM
I'm finding it hard to find headlines anymore which refer to Barack Obama's speech - which I thought was too boiler-plate; but I really liked Michelle's speech.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 04:18 PM
I listened to about 80% of Palin's "acceptance" speech this afternoon. Honestly, I like her already more than McCain.
Confident. Articulate. Passionate. That's what I was thinking during her speech. I probably won't agree with a lot of her politics (but I honestly don't know that much about them yet) and yes she is inexperienced in certain matters, but I respect what I hear from her so far and I admire her journey to her present job. Republican women will love Palin and many moderates will be brought to her side. I don't know that choosing her will give McCain a winning advantage ultimately. But I think I can see the qualities that led him to her.
It's going to be an interesting and close race.
Posted by: Alan Lenzi | August 29, 2008 at 07:07 PM
Alan, there's no question that Obama is a better public speaker than McCain (and Hillary) but Palin was pretty good.
And she's AOG! Hallllleeeeeeluyah! I'm feeling an electoral blessing comin' on.
Posted by: David Ker | August 29, 2008 at 07:39 PM
I also like Sarah Palin's stance on creationism in the schools. She doesn't think "creation science" should be taught alongside evolutionary biology. Instead, as I think Hillary Clinton also suggested, schools should be encouraged to teach the controversy.
Not easy to do, I admit, and furthermore, so far as I know, SBL scholars have not yet stepped up to the plate and produced appropriate resources that might be used.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 07:42 PM
I was driving a couple of young women across town today. One young woman, beautiful and intelligent, with an undergrad degree under her belt, was telling me that in her interview to join a ministry training program she was told that she had all the qualifications to be accepted, she was their ideal candidate in every way, except for one thing, she was a woman.
She told me how she was finally accepted since she appealed to the need for leaders for women's ministry, and she will be allowed to lead bible studies for young mothers.
She said that being a woman was a huge problem for her and she was really working through this. How can this be???
Then I dropped off the two young women and turned the car radio on to hear the confident and clear voice of Sarah Palin. I almost burst into tears. Why are women being told that God does not want women?
Posted by: Suzanne | August 29, 2008 at 07:47 PM
I don't agree with Peter that conservatives will react against Palin. Many of them are very happy to have women in secular positions, Piper and Grudem, excluded, perhaps. For some, they feel that they can show how open they are to women in secular leadership, as long as they have a domain in which women are definitely kept out by impermeable boundaries. My prediction is that conservatives will go for Sarah.
Posted by: Suzanne | August 29, 2008 at 08:01 PM
One more thought. I agree totally with Peter's interpretation of Piper and Grudem. He is dead on. It is just that few people actually have any consistency or logic in their views about women. That is where Peter is wrong. He has an expectation that people will behave in a manner that is consistent to their beliefs. Not blinking likely.
Posted by: Suzanne | August 29, 2008 at 08:04 PM
Bright, intelligent women with a calling into the ministry are welcome in my neck of the woods.
If they want to come to Wisconsin, I'll put them in touch with my bishop. After appropriate interviews, whatever further education they need will be arranged for them, plus, most likely, a job as a student pastor starting in the Fall.
If the United Methodist Church (the church of Ben Witherington) is too Arminian-leaning, one might consider the Christian Reformed Church or the Reformed Church of America. Indeed, the number of churches that ordain women and welcome evangelicals is legion.
Among my clergy colleagues, there are a number of former Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc., from backgrounds which do not allow the ordination of women. I understand the reasons why churches struggle with the issue, and would never even to pretend to suggest that a church of which I am not a part should take advice from me on the issue.
I'm just happy to have some former Southern B's and others as colleagues. They bring with them a deep commitment to the Word of God and a flair for evangelism.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 08:05 PM
Consistency is the hobglobin of small minds. Ordinary people tend to get this instinctively. Eggheads like Piper and Grudem, maybe not.
It's obvious that many people read P & G's books without coming to agree with the notion that a woman by definition is unfit to be President of the United States, or drive bus, for goodness' sake. Assuming such a notion is actually taught by them. I have yet to see a convincing quote.
I will watch carefully for statements by Piper and Grudem on Sarah Palin. My guess is that they will support her, but I could be wrong.
UPDATE: I just found a statement by Wayne Grudem noting how God raised up Queen Esther in the context of an op-ed piece for townhall.com in which he declared his support for another candidate (Mitt Romney, during the primaries). So it is NOT true that Wayne Grudem holds to the position Peter Kirk ascribes to John Piper.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 08:17 PM
As an Episcopalian there is plenty of room in my denomination for women clergy, if evangelical all the better. As for Piper I've interpreted his statements as meaning it is harder for a woman in certain circumstances to be accepted as a leader and therefor wouldn't be as good at whatever the job would be. Although I view this as an excuse, it holds true in politics most of the time, strong women make it to higher positions (eg. Madeline Albright or Golda Meir). So based on my interpretation Piper wouldn't have a problem with Palin.
Posted by: Owen | August 29, 2008 at 08:30 PM
I agree with all your points, Owen.
Thanks for commenting here.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 08:34 PM
"[S]chools should be encouraged to teach the controversy" of creationism . . . in social studies as part of a unit on American religious diversity.
Posted by: Alan Lenzi | August 29, 2008 at 09:26 PM
World Magazine, edited by Joel Belz, a former moderator of the PCA (a conservative Presbyterian denomination many people associate with the names of James Boice and D. James Kennedy), has come out with an article in favor of Sarah Palin.
John Piper and Vern Polythress write for World magazine. In sum, there appears to be good reason for thinking that Piper and Polythress will support Sarah Palin without difficulty.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 09:35 PM
Good one, Alan.
Actually, I think the controversy (not creation science) should be taught in biology class as well. Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University and author of one of a widely used intro to biology textbook in universities everywhere, shows the way in his excellent book: Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (2000). I have not yet read his Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul (2008).
Posted by: JohnFH | August 29, 2008 at 09:41 PM
So it is NOT true that Wayne Grudem holds to the position Peter Kirk ascribes to John Piper.
I have listened to some of their sermons online, and read many books and yes, they do hold to the views Peter describes, but just on odd days of the week. ;-)
Posted by: Suzanne | August 29, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Suzanne, you may be right about what will actually happen in the election, but I wouldn't have dared to suggest that most US complementarians are hypocrites, and justify it with words like "Consistency is the hobglobin of small minds"! In any case this is a dangerous strategy for McCain.
John, Queen Esther was not a ruler but the submissive wife of a ruler, so Grudem's endorsement of her by no means implies endorsement of women rulers. Find out what Grudem has to say about Deborah, probably that she only became judge because all the men refused the job, and then consider what that might mean for Palin.
By the way, one of Sarah Palin's daughters is called Piper. I wonder who she is named after? Another daughter is named Willow. Any guesses for her?
Posted by: Peter Kirk | August 30, 2008 at 07:51 AM
Peter,
You are very consistent and logical in your arguments, but I repeat, ordinary people, including myself, are not.
That is, we commit ourselves to grand theories on paper, and then make exceptions in practice.
Or we overlook the fact that Queen Esther was far from being the submissive wife of a ruler, but a great political protagonist in her own right, as you do.
I know Piper and Grudem are on your bad list for a variety of reasons. But you run the risk of treating them in violation of Leviticus 19:18 (the middle of the Torah, literally) as radicalized by Jesus in Matthew 5:43-48.
Guess what? Todd Bentley is on my bad list for a variety of reasons. But, thanks to you, I've learned not to treat Bentley as a cartoon villain, but as a person made of the same timber as I am, thus, not to be taken too seriously.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 30, 2008 at 08:32 AM
Thanks, John. I hope I am not treating Piper and Grudem as cartoon villains. But I did quote at length from Piper, in a book written jointly with Grudem, to prove that Piper at least does not approve of women in government authority. I will be very interested to see comment from these two and others who think like them on Palin as possible VP.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | August 30, 2008 at 08:37 AM
If Palin is AG she comes from a denomination that has always ordained women for preaching and teaching ministries. Their relationship with African Americans however has been problematic from the start.
Posted by: David Ker | August 30, 2008 at 09:06 AM
Thanks for the post, John! Here are Hugo Schwyzer's musings: A Pentecostal in the White House? Some thoughts on Palin’s religious journey.
Posted by: J. K. Gayle | August 30, 2008 at 11:01 AM
the link to the Hugo post
Posted by: J. K. Gayle | August 31, 2008 at 08:03 AM
hmmm. help John. I've made unhelpful redundant attempts at linking to http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/08/30/a-pentecostal-in-the-white-house-some-thoughts-on-palins-religious-journey/. Sorry to clog up the comments!
Posted by: J. K. Gayle | August 31, 2008 at 08:05 AM
John, I think you are right that complementarians won't avoid voting Palin b/c of their theology, but I also think that Peter is right that to live out their theology, they (or at least a particular segment of them) probably *should* oppose Palin. You quoted (well, you mis-quoted) Emerson, who said "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." What you left out is the lynchpin of the quote: whenever you cite this quote, you need to give a reason for why you think this particular act of consistency would actually be foolish. I would think that someone like yourself would tend to support intellectual consistency, so the burden of proof is completely on you to prove that there really is a particular foolishness in being consistent in this context.
Also, please note that the standard complementarian explanations of both Esther and Deborah actually would *not* fit this situation, as there actually were plenty of men out there who could have fulfilled this particular role. As the ultimate dark horse, Palin is obviously not a person chosen precisely because there were no men up to doing the job. If anything, the fact that McCain picked a dark horse female instead of one of the more experienced and available male candidates (I heard Pawlenty's name quite a bit) should (though probably won't) tend to lower McCain in the eyes of the complementarian crowd.
Posted by: Indecisive | August 31, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Kurk,
Thanks for the link.
Indecisive,
You make excellent points. I didn't know the phrase I used had its origins in an Emersonian aphorism. However, the popular version without "foolish" is better, because it is paradoxical.
Paradox, after all, is the name of the game here. Many inconsistencies we live by are only apparent inconsistent.
Since I have intellectual pretensions, yes, I want to puzzle out the apparent inconsistencies in my life and thought. But a lot of people don't have time for that, and if they took the time, they would not be able to figure out why the contradictions in their thought and life are only apparent. It is a paradoxical situation.
The question: is Sarah Palin a living contradiction of complementarianism? There are so many ways one might answer that question. I'm an imp at heart, so I will mention the first reaction that comes to my mind: not anymore.
In other words, conservative Christian women like Sarah Palin redefine on the ground what the boundaries of complementarianism are or will be, going forward.
It's not that simple, of course. In some quarters, there will be a pushback against the idea that anyone who is a full-time mother and fully employed in the workforce outside the home, even a person as winsome as Sarah Palin, is a role model for our daughters.
But my guess is that that kind of pushback will succeed little. It has succeeded little so far.
At the same time, I wish to point out that truly family-friendly policies would make it easier than it is now for a family with young children to make it on one income.
In my extended family, I have a cousin in Phoenix who manages to do that. She is a real estate agent and pulls down six figures. Her husband is a stay-at-home Dad. I asked him pointedly, how does it feel to be the only guy swinging the tots at the playground in the middle of the day? (I know how it feels: been there, done that, and loved it - most of the time.) He answered with perfect sincerity, "It's great." My cuz, however, quickly interjected, "I'm looking forward forward to a role reversal after we have our next baby."
The tax code and most income levels, however, do not easily support such role reversals. Furthermore, flexible and less than full-time working hours are not offered to parents with young children as a matter of course. That's wrong, in my book. Ethically wrong.
Posted by: JohnFH | August 31, 2008 at 03:29 PM
I don't mean to single you out John -- this comment is meant for all who have made favorable comment about Governor Palin.
I do not possibly believe that anyone who is commenting on Palin knows enough about her or her beliefs to make an informed judgment. At best, they are simply reflecting the media tumult that is now coming out. A fair amount about Palin has come out that is personal and irrelevant (her husband's and daughter's behavior). However, it strikes me that if personal crises are irrelevant, so is the fact that she gave birth to a Down's syndrome child -- which you mention -- or that she chose to return to full time work three days after giving birth to that child. To pretend otherwise is simply inconsistent.
Frankly, I could care less about Palin's religious beliefs. However, I wonder why you did not speak about the Evangelical smears against Governor Romney based on his religious beliefs, and yet you are willing to defend Palin's religious beliefs. I suppose that it is easier to defend one of your own.
As far as the wacko factor goes, Palin was apparently a member of the Alaska Independence Party, a secessionist group with which she maintains close ties (addressing their convention this year). Since I know you model yourself after Lincoln, the great anti-secessionist, I have cognitive dissonance in reading your laudatory post.
The election is, of course, not until November. It strikes me that it is premature to make a final judgment on an eccentric candidate whom most of us were unfamiliar with a week ago.
However, in the end, I do think that this selection says a great deal about the decision making process and values of Senator McCain.
(I repeat here my opening remarks -- this comment applies not so much to you as to the many bibliobloggers who have been so free with their opinions about Palin. I will wait a while more before forming an opinion.)
Posted by: Iyov | September 02, 2008 at 03:29 PM
Hi Iyov,
I don't remember saying anything about having formed a final judgment.
I disagree with you that the personal is irrelevant to the political. Of course I realize that Himmler was an excellent family man and JFK and Clinton, in some ways, were not.
But I think that personalia naturally come to have symbolic value in the political arena.
True, gender, the color of one's skin, one's faith or lack of it, whether one is divorced or not or just had an affair (witness the fall of John Edwards), even one's moral values or rhetorical gifts, are not job qualifications or the opposite, for the President or anything else.
Things like one's political philosophy, the ability to communicate priorities and coopt others into acting on them, the ability to see through posturing by others, and identify excellent advisors and forge that advice into realistic policy - these are job qualifications for President.
And yet, notice what Michelle Obama spoke about in her opening speech: personalia (I loved the speech, BTW. Much better than her husband's, which sounded like angry boilerplate to those not among the true-believing Democratic fold). Was she wrong to do so?
Amidst the personalia, we look for clues about what kind of stuff the candidate is made of. I like the stuff Sarah Palin is made of, insofar as I am able to figure that out.
Since I have Alaskan friends, her former membership in a secessionist party does not disturb me. You have to know the territory, I guess. As you must know, some of our best statesmen and politicians belonged to fringe groups in their youth. To be honest, I chalk up that former membership as a plus.
It would bother me if I thought she was less libertarian than that former membership and many other details would suggest. She is hardly a wacko libertarian, but enough of a libertarian to respect the choices of others in a number of important ways.
Posted by: JohnFH | September 02, 2008 at 04:15 PM
John --
Your blog shows a number of serious problems in reproducing links in comments. I notice the problem is showing up in all recent comments (not just mine). It would be nice if you fixed this, or at least warned people about the problem.
Posted by: Iyov | September 02, 2008 at 08:02 PM
Thanks, Iyov, for pointing out the problem. I don't know where the problem lies, but my tech support will get on it in the next couple of days (I hope).
Posted by: JohnFH | September 03, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Peter asked: By the way, one of Sarah Palin's daughters is called Piper. I wonder who she is named after? Another daughter is named Willow. Any guesses for her?
By all accounts that I've read, Piper Palin is named after one of most popular lines of aircraft flown in Alaska.
Willow is an average-sized town (by Alaska standards) in Alaska in the Mat-Su borough (same as Wasilla, from where Ms. Palin hails); it is where the Iditarod sled dog race officially begins.
The third daughter, Bristol, is undoubtedly named after Bristol Bay, some of the richest fishing and crabbing waters in the state.
As far as the Alaskan Independence Party goes, it is a fringe group in political representation (other than when the primary runner-up Republican switched to the party and won the governor's seat), but I will dare say that the independent mindset is innate to Alaskans (other than the johnny-come-lately chechakos). Their motto, "Alaska First, Alaska Always", certainly captures the spirit that I grew up under, which was "Alaskan first, American second".
URL: http://www.akip.org/
I find it still serves my best interests to claim to be an Alaskan when in uncharted territory, e.g. Canada.
Posted by: ElShaddai Edwards | September 03, 2008 at 04:49 PM
The idea that John Piper discourages women from driving buses is completely misguided and a blatant red herring in this debate.
Piper introduces the oft-referenced “bus driver” statement to demonstrate the point that a woman can express biblical femininity in the context of a variety of relationships and roles. He proceeds, then, to list a variety of positions where a woman might reasonably encounter men in a role subordinate to her own. The list ranges from “Bus driver and her passengers” all the way to “Prime Minister and her counselors and advisors.”
If this was all that Piper said, the whole “Piper says women can’t drive buses” line would be utter slander. But Piper does tag on a qualification following the list, and it is this qualification that is grossly misunderstood by those who tout the “bus” line. (Slander? No. Misreading? Absolutely.) Piper qualifies: “One or more of these roles might stretch appropriate expressions of femininity beyond the breaking point.” The phrase “one or more” does not cover every item in the list, and certainly not the most modest item!
Piper is simply clarifying that the list did not intend to make a decisive statement regarding which of these roles are ultimately in tune with God’s design for womanhood. There’s 575-page book to unpack those specifics—it’s called “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Woman,” and Piper’s only on page 50! The purpose of the list was ultimately to explain that women CAN participate in a variety of roles while maintaining a biblical femininity.
Posted by: Cliff Lewis | September 04, 2008 at 07:43 AM
Cliff,
What an interesting blog you keep! Another poetry lover.
Thank you very much for clarifying. Your explanation seems reasonable. It is helpful to have a forthright defense of Piper's point of view on these threads. I hope you continue to comment on posts that interest you.
Posted by: JohnFH | September 04, 2008 at 08:40 AM
Frank Schaeffer has a post saying this:
"Sarah Palin is a member of a theologically extreme church, one that views history as in its "final dispensation" wherein Jesus is about to return and wherein America can help this event along by spurring the apocalypse by goading Israel into a war eternal with its Arab neighbors.
So, our new Republican Fascism is actually Fascism with a twist of nutty Evangelical theology, much like German Fascism evolved with a nutty twist of bizarre superstition and stargazing on the part of Hitler and many leading Nazis who were as enamored by the occult as by politics."
With a bit more hyperbole, Schaeffer goes on:
"We have seen the next Mussolini and she's wearing a skirt. Don't let Palin's "hockey mom" image fool you. Sarah Palin is the face of a post-democracy America, post-constitutional and post-freedom America. She is the home town "little Austrian" vice presidential candidate to a cancer-riddled old man who, chances are high, won't see the end of his first term in office if he becomes president due to illness and old age. The woman who said that we don't need to read people their rights may well be the next president."
If you can stomach Frank Schaeffer, then
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/sarah-palin-americas-lips_b_124213.html
Posted by: J. K. Gayle | September 05, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Poor Frank Jr.
His words say a lot about himself, but nothing at all about Sarah Palin.
Posted by: JohnFH | September 05, 2008 at 06:27 PM
Religious issues aside, John, I am puzzled to hear that you're "inspired" by the choice of a person who allegedly advocates that libraries ban books.
I didn't think the case for this in the NYT was that strong, but I also haven't read anything contradicting it. And if it's even remotely true, that's scary, if you ask me.
Posted by: Angela Erisman | September 07, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Hi Angela,
I read that tidbit about Palin when she was getting started as a politician, too. Angela. If true, in "the education of Sarah Palin," she left that kind of attitude behind. In practice, she is as a politician more of a libertarian than either Obama and Biden.
A social conservative who is also a libertarian and who takes on entrenched interests. It's a combination that defies stereotypes. The combination is a very popular one in Alaska: 80% approval ratings, unheard of, really.
We will soon seen how appealing the combination is to Americans as a whole. I read somewhere that she is already more popular than Obama. If that is true, it is truly amazing.
Posted by: JohnFH | September 07, 2008 at 03:01 PM