Sarah Palin is causing some Southern Baptist Christians to be just a little hypocritical:
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.
Here are one relevant passage from the Christian Bible (it is included in the article itself): “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12). (Emphasis added.)
As Dick Cheney’s tenure has shown, the Office of the Vice President is one that can have a lot of authority. The vice president also has a large staff that, in the end, reports directly to him. Unless Palin would hire a staff comprised entirely of women and interact only with females serving in the federal government, she would be a woman exercising authority over a man.
Southern Baptist Christians, of course, are biblical literalists and fundamentalists, so this would be something they could not endorse. But for the last twenty years, the religious right and political right in the United States have become two sides of the same coin. They always need to be on the same page. If the Southern Baptists would state that a woman serving as vice president would be a violation of a biblical commandment, then that could potentially cost John McCain millions of votes.
In a world in which politics and religion are fused together, political realities usually take precedence over purity of belief. And there is a word for that: hypocrisy.
3 responses so far ↓
jonolan // 2 October 2008 at 5:27 am
It’s not the least be hypocritical. We’re talking about biblical literalism here. The Bible references the Church and the Home (Marriage); Being VP or POTUS is neither.
There’s also differences in the translations of the Bible that have to be considered. Some version use “have” or “exercise” while others use “usurp” when referring to authority in Timothy 2.
Finally, fundamentalists normally look to Titus 2 as opposed to Timothy 2 for instruction in these matters.
Believe me, there’s plenty of room for vileness and worry in the situation. I just think that hypocrisy is a stretch when we’re dealing with literalists.
thefuerstshallbelast // 2 October 2008 at 6:21 am
To be sure, there is some level of hypocrisy here, but I think the issue is more complicated than you’re letting on. They have repeatedly come out and explained why they think it is exegetically justifiable to hold both of these positions. Though I don’t agree with their stance on the submission of women, I have to admit that their hermeneutic is consistent and their answers make sense within the circle of their own reasoning.
That said, just to quibble a bit – as a religion ’scholar’ I have to do this – Southern Baptists are not ‘Fundamentalists’ in the historical sense of the word. In fact, in the 1920’s the SBC lost a large part of its constiuency b/c they wouldn’t take fundamentalist stances on certain theological issues. Furthermore, ‘literalist’ is a loaded term that means nothing anymore except, ‘hey, look at those freak-shows who take the Bible seriously.’ It’s more polemical than helpful.
In the end, though, I think your assessment is correct – there certainly is a level of hypocrisy here – they just can’t see it through their very lenses.
Brett // 2 October 2008 at 9:38 am
I don’t know that I see it as hypocritical, simply because the White House is not a Southern Baptist Church. Paul’s instruction to Timothy deals specifically with church order. Granted, the bible makes it clear the man is to be the leader of the home, whatever that means.
But it’s not hypocritical for a Southern Baptist to vote for McCain/Palin. There are many more contradictions between politics and Christianity than just this issue, but that doesn’t mean we (Christians) can simply pull out of the political realm. Our political system forces us as a society to pick between two candidates. It’s nearly impossible for anyone to agree completely with any ticket, so we must choose between what we think is best BETWEEN THE TWO CANDIDATES.
For the hyper-fundamentalists, the Palin thing could be an issue. But I don’t see them voting for Obama, either.