The Paris Project

Misunderstanding evangelicals

In Christianity Today's editorial view (reposted at Anderson Cooper's blog), journalists reveal their misunderstanding of evangelicalism when they pose two particular questions. I'm a life-long evangelical who doesn't enjoy being misunderstood, but these days I'm concerned even more with how we're portraying ourselves than how we're portrayed by others.

First question: won't Palin's pregnant teen undermine evangelical support for her ticket? CT says "any" evangelical would see this as a "non-issue" because evangelicals specialize in sin and redemption and recognize that family life is often messy. True, sort of. Evangelicals also specialize in judgment and gracelessness, blaming working women for decisions made by their teens. The theological ideal doesn't explain, excuse, or even fully describe the lived experience of many.

Second question: how can conservatives who believe that only men should lead churches and marriages support a woman as VP? CT quotes Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission as saying that only church and home are "male territory" - God has gifted women to govern and lead elsewhere, and so they should. CT agrees - "Maleness and femaleness, though potent archetypes in church and home, are neither qualification nor impediment in any other endeavor."

Again, true, but only partly. A better answer would be to say that three positions on this question would capture most evangelicals: 1) some -- egalitarians -- say men and women are gifted to serve together in home, church, and society. 2) Others take the compartmentalized approach articulated above, that male leadership is limited to church and home. 3) And others still - the larger portion of evangelicals, in my humble opinion - follow the logic of male leadership in church and home to its natural conclusion. By their created nature, women are designed to serve, nurture, and support. The truth of our created nature is expressed in all spheres, not just church and home. A woman in the White House would push the button and start a nuclear war during her period, or cry during meetings, and the like. Nevertheless, secular women may pursue leadership in society, business and government, but that's because they aren't living according to God's rule book (and look at what happens - they become mannish, angry, or lesbian). If gifted to lead, Christian women should lead other women and children in their own society, or racial minorities of any age or gender in developing countries through missions.

But the best answer of all, in response to those two questions asked by secular journalists, would be for evangelicals to say this: We're in a tough spot here, torn between desiring political power and upholding biblical beliefs. We really, really don't want a Democrat in the White House, maybe even more than we really, really prefer men to be in charge of things. We're willing to re-examine even the beliefs that organize our families, marriages, and churches in order to pursue secular power.

I appreciate evangelical support for women in leadership, but not if that end is reached by spurious means. I believe Sarah Palin is a pawn of the Republican party, being used by powerful men to advance their own agenda, and that she is only valued insofar as she accomplishes that purpose. Maybe evangelicals are wise to support Sarah Palin, because I'm afraid we're in the same boat.