Head of State, Not of Church

In an opinion piece posted on the “About Faith” forum, a group managed by Newsweek and the Washington Post, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, an influential seminary in the Southern Baptist Convention, defends the position that it is not hypocritical to believe that “a woman could lead a nation, and not a congregation”. This question was raised by the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention asserts:

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation".

Additionally, the SBC asserts that only “qualified men” are called to serve as church pastors: “This conviction was not invented by Southern Baptists. It was, and now remains, the honest conviction held by most Christians around the world, and for good reason.”

Which begs the question: if SBC members believe that it is not a woman’s place to lead a church or to be head of a household, why then would they support a woman in a bid for the (Vice) Presidency? Is an exception being made for Gov. Sarah Palin because her politics are in line with theirs, or could they wholeheartedly endorse any woman’s decision to run for office?

Mohler defends the SBC statements on wifely submission, and on women’s inability to serve as church leaders, by stating that they are drawn from the Bible and are widely accepted among Christians. Because the Bible gives explicit teachings on the issues of women’s roles in the home and church, evangelicals support these positions. However, according to Mohler:

“Our confession of faith does not speak to the appropriateness of women serving in political office. The reason for this is simple -- the New Testament does not speak to this question in any direct sense.”

This line of reasoning seems to make sense within the framework of the SBC assertions, but I don’t believe that it is strong enough to hold up against outside arguments. There are too many logical gaps and questions which remain unaddressed for Mohler’s statement to be accepted at face value. For example, if Palin were to become the President, and thus the head of the nation, under the SBC guidelines, wouldn’t she be ultimately accountable to her husband, and under his leadership? Isn’t the office of President a post with moral and ethical dimensions, similar to a pastor, on a much larger scale?

Additionally, drawing such a distinct line between the role of women in church and in politics seems a bit crass given the religious right’s fervent interest in policy and the national moral agenda; they rally voters around hot-button moral issues with religious implications (and thus are attempting to violate church/state separation). It is opportunistic to embrace Palin because she can (a) further their agenda, and (b) put a compassionate face on a movement which is frequently viewed as patriarchal and in favor of strict gender roles. If there is a public showing of support for Palin, it makes the right seem progressive and stereotype-shattering for embracing a woman in power.

While Mohler’s arguments for supporting a female candidate for the White House are logical within his framework, I do not believe that the support for Palin is motivated by any larger purpose or great desire to see a woman in office. It still seems very hypocritical to deny so much power to women in other aspects of their lives, and then to make a public show of rallying around one particular female candidate who can help to further their interests.

Ave Sarah, Dominus tecum

The American public’s fascination with the intersection of sex, politics and gender has found a new expression during this election with the vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin. In this editorial by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, he presents the Catholic counterpoint to the Evangelical’s warm acceptance of her candidacy. Stevens-Arroyo warns his readers not to indulge in the canonization of Palin, and contrasts her actions, particularly those involving sex, marriage and children, with the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom he considers to be the true role model for American women. Stevens-Arroyo’s accusations against Sarah Palin indicate that neither debates between Catholics and Protestants, nor disputes concerning sex, gender and women’s roles have changed significantly in over a century.

Stevens-Arroyo brackets his article by contrasting the Evangelical and Catholic viewpoints. He begins by noting that Palin left the Catholic church when she was twelve, and argues that her “conversion” from Catholicism to the evangelical tradition may “contribute to the favorable frenzy” surrounding Palin’s nomination. Contrasting the Catholic “natural law” with the Evangelical emphasis on private revelation, Stevens-Arroyo concludes his article by forwarding the argument that Palin’s religious views are dangerous to the American political system.

His comment that “Evangelicals like to boast of an ex-Catholic who renounces our faith” is a reflection on America’s anti-Romanism which began in the late 1800s. At that time, Josiah Strong, a Congregationalist minister, denounced Catholicism for the “irreconcilable difference between papal principles and the fundamental principles of our free institutions.” Over one hundred years and one beloved Catholic president later, a blatant distrust of Catholics is no longer tolerated in the mainstream media. However, as Stevens-Arroyo points out, many Evangelicals still privately maintain the belief that Catholics are not truly Christians, and therefore warmly welcome those who renounce their allegiance to papal authority. In a reversal of Protestant claims about Catholicism, notably Strong’s comment that “the Pope has ‘full and supreme power’ over politics as one of the ‘things which belong to faith and morals,’ ” Stevens-Arroyo argues that today it is Palin’s uninformed version of Christianity which threatens American government.

Continuing his critique of Palin’s “canonization” by Evangelicals, Stevens-Arroyo notes that Evangelicals seems to place more emphasis on repentance after sexual sin than on continuous purity. Moreover, he argues that “the Evangelical fascination with forbidden sexual fruit” has led to more support for Palin because she is considered attractive. He concludes his critique of the evangelical attitude towards gender and sexuality by pointing to Palin’s decision to give a political speech in Seattle after her water had broken as an indication that she values her own prestige more than the health and safety of her child.

A century ago, Stevens-Arroyo’s critiques would not have been unusual coming from the lips of a Protestant minister. The same themes, including lax sexual morals and permitting women to engage in activities which compromised their families, were fiery issues in Victorian era. Morone notes that throughout American history, “there was hell to pay whenever women ventured from the private sphere into the public (or male) realm.” The only difference between Stevens-Arroyo’s arguments and those made in the Victorian era is that Victorians cited Catholics as part of the immorality problem. Stevens-Arroyo reverses that claim, instead blaming Evangelicals for being too lenient on the moral failings of their beloved saint and denigrating the family by holding Palin up as a model for motherhood.

In addition to the long-standing conflict between Catholic and Protestant traditions, Stevens-Arroyo’s opinion reflects genuine concerns about sexual behavior, women’s roles and gender issues. Although his attitude is not reflected as broadly in mainstream culture today, Stevens-Arroyo draws on a historical undercurrent of American society to forward his arguments against Sarah Palin.