the dangerous middle ground where Palin, Mohler, and I occupy

This is hardly a cheering endorsement from Mohler, though it certainly is an acknowledgement that not all wives and mothers are called to stay at home. It is, however, a clear admonition to not view her as a normal women. She is an exception, like Esther or Deborah, period. She is not so much an example to be followed as she is an exception to the general rule. (molly)
...
Mohler has a consistency problem with this one because Palin professes to be a Christian. Mohler/CBMW teach that Christian women have a 'role'and all that entails that we have discussed here ad nauseum. :o) However, they are also saying that we can separate the civil and spiritual realms for women in leadership. That does not seem to be a problem except that Palin is a Christian woman. Is anyone else not seeing this conumdrum for CBMW? How can they separate the civil and spiritual realm with a Christian woman? You can't. Christians don't have 'realms'. (lin)
...
It is clear that the non-egals want to have their cake and eat it too. (don)

Is CBMW being inconsistent, many ask?

I think it depends on the person speaking. Doug Phillips seems to believe he is more consistent than Al Mohler, but I don't think that matters in light of his views. When you believe that a woman is created for no other purpose than to be a babymama-housekeeper, you've effectively dropped out of reasonable conversation altogether.

Is complementarianism in trouble because of Sarah Palin?

That's funny, and the answer is no. Let me point out that Richard Land (complementarian) was one of the first people to propose naming Sarah Palin for McCain's VP early on in the campaign.

Do I have a problem with consistency as a complementarian?

Well, if I make the kind of errors I've read so far from both egals and patriocentrists, yes. But I haven't. In this previous post, I argued that it is perfectly consistent with my views on Complementarianism that a woman could be a leader in any civil realm she chooses.

To the issue raised that Christians (and certainly complementarians) don't have separate realms, vis a vis a Christian/spiritual realm to a secular realm (and the accusation that complementarians are trying to split life into these two realms): I would contend that this is an incorrect framing of the issue, which is then, incorrectly trying to expose inconsistency in complementarianism.

The idea, 'There is no separate spiritual realm and secular realm for the Christian,' is a theological proposition about how we should conduct ourselves with Christlike integrity wherever we are (not an existential proposition). Al Mohler is not making a contrary theological claim to that. Instead, he is making a simple modal distinction brought up by the case of Sarah Palin. In short, she can wear that hat (whether governor or VP or whatever). As to whether or not there exist separate realms, of course there are--we don't live under a theocracy afterall, and we don't demand that our government be ruled by the Church. This is an argument against a position like Doug Phillips'. That anyone can construe this to be a problem of complementarian proportions is ridiculous.

Is Gov. Palin the exception? Yes, in the sense that I think most women don't have the ability to do what she is doing, including myself. I can hardly find time to read a book much less occupy a public office. But also no, in the sense that she is an exeption because she is exceptional, not because she's bending some rule somewhere to get where she is (which is otherwise closed to women). There is no such rule that prohibits women from exercising public office. Any woman who has the skills to govern effectively and still regard her husband and family properly should be afforded the opportunity to exercise those skills, regardless of whether she is a Christian or not. (I would add, especially if she is a conservative Christian, but that is my bias that we don't need any more liberal pro-abortion politicians hostile to Christianity here in this country). Marilyn did make this point in the combox (much better than I, I think).

For those of you who are salivating at the idea that the issue of Sarah Palin proves that complementarianism as a system of thought is wrong need to aim your guns elsewhere, because you've really missed the point. Some hard complementarians/patriocentrists, like Doug Phillips, are certainly wrong in their views, but their problem isn't complementarianism. It's the refusal in their own hearts to see the full humanity of women.

Sarah Palin is a Christian feminist. What is a Christian feminist?

This question was asked in a recent comment on this blog:

What is a "Christian feminist"?

I am by no means an expert on feminism or Christian feminism, but I'd like to write down a few thoughts trying to define what a Christian feminist is. And then the floor will be open, as always, for comments.

Words often mean different things to different people. That's one reason why dictionaries often have more than one sense listed among the meanings for a word. If we look up the word feminist in a dictionary we typically get definitions such as these:

• of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women; "feminist critique"
• a supporter of feminism
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


• Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and equal rights for women.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist


• A person who supports the equality of women with men; A member of a feminist political movement; One who believes in the social, political, and economical equality of the sexes; Relating to or in accordance with feminism
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feminist

A feminist, then, is someone who believes that men and women should have equal rights. The definition does not say in what areas of life there should be equal rights. The struggle for women to have equal rights has taken different forms depending on what was the focal inequality at any particular time in history.

It wasn't too long ago that women did not have the right to vote (suffrage) in the United States. Women who marched and campaigned for the right to vote were called suffragettes. They fit the definition of feminists since they wanted to be able to vote as men did.

Even before then women did not have the right to own land. Eventually laws were passed that allowed women to own land.

Women have sometimes and in some places not had the right to read or attend school, or at least the right to a higher education beyond, say, the 6th or 8th grade. Today in many, but not all, countries, women have the same right to an education that men do. Feminists call for women to have equal access to education, including higher education.

In many countries, including the United States, women are often not paid the same wages for the same work. Feminists believe that a woman should receive the same wage as a man for the same kind of work.

What, then, would a Christian feminist be? I think the answer would be that a woman who believes in equality for women and is also a Christian would be a Christian feminist. This would not necessarily mean that a Christian feminist would believe that women should have exactly the same jobs as men. I'm sure that there are the same differences of opinion among Christian feminists as there are among the Christian public over whether or not women should be able to have the same roles in the church and home as men do. Some Christian feminists believe that women should be able to be ordained and pastor churches. I assume that some do not.

Sarah Palin is receiving a lot of public attention these days, from the MSM (mainstream media), the Christian media, and bloggers, both Christian and non-Christian. Some, including CBMW, apparently, believe that it is permissible for a Christian woman like Sarah Palin to hold public office, because that is a secular ("civic") job, not a ministry job. Others believe that a woman should have not job at all where she would have any authority over men.

Sarah Palin has been a member of Feminists For Life (FFL) for many years. FFL promotes equality for women as well as the sanctity of life for unborn babies. FFL members seen no contradiction between those two positions, unlike many other people who assume (wrongly, in my opinion) that being a feminist includes the belief that a woman has the right to abort her unborn baby. Sarah Palin is a Christian feminist. Sarah Palin is delighted to break the glass ceiling for the highest offices in the United States, as she mentioned in her speech at the Republical National Convention. But Sarah Palin is strongly pro-life (anti-abortion) and gave testimony to that belief by carrying her Down syndrom son to term this year and valuing and loving him as she loves each of her other children.

When some people hear the word "feminist", the image that comes to mind is of women who called for equal rights for women while some of them made symbolic gestures, such as burning bras, to indicate that they did not want to be restricted by men to "women's work" or roles. They wanted the freedom to do anything a man could do that was physically possible for a woman. Some feminists denounced men, making it sound like they had little need for men in their lives. That, it seems to me, is a distortion of the biblical idea that God has created men and women for each other, to enjoy each other's companionship, to procreate, and to nurture their children together.

Today some people refer to feminists who burned bras and downplayed the need for men in their lives as radical feminists. It may be that any use of the word "feminist" has become so pejorative that some will question whether Christian feminists should call themselves "Christian feminists." If so, what would be a better term to use for someone who is a Christian and believes that women should have the same civil rights as men? I am sure that many Christian feminists are complementarians, believing that husbands have authority over their wives and that women should not have positions of authority over men in the church.

In summary, it seems to me that a Christian feminist is someone who is a Christian and who believes that women should have equal rights to men. Here are some of those rights for which many Christians would agree that women should have equality:

1. voting
2. land ownership
3. protection from abuse
4. equal pay for equal work
5. education, or, in particular, higher education

Some, but not all Christians, believe that women should have equal rights in the following areas:

1. military service
2. church ministry
3. civil authority over male employees
   

Do you have any other ideas about how to define what a Christian feminist is?

Does the term Christian feminist sound like an oxymoron (contradiction in terms) to you?

Kotter and Mohler in Trouble With Patriarchalists, Sarah Palin Raises the Woman Question to a New Height

It has been interesting to watch and read reactions on Palin's candidacy for the VP ticket, particularly because vehemently negative opinions have arisen from both the Far Left and the Far Right. Consider the words of Doug Phillips (of Vision Forum), via an excerpt from this post, which includes chastising Kotter and Mohler for being "semi-complementarian, semi-egalitarian" (because they have said it is not necessarily sinful to vote for Palin).

...The examples used by David Kotter and Albert Mohler to support their contention that female magistrates are according to God’s will are not only an inconsistent and selective use of Scripture and an elevation of the authority of experience, but are also a fundamental violation of biblical hermeneutics. [Full post here]

Scott Brown (of the National Center for Family Integrated Churches [more info on the FIC movement here) continues along the same lines, challenging those who would vote for Sarah Palin when he writes,

People say, “My vote [for McCain/Palin] is a vote against Obama.” But we must remember [voting for Palin is] also a vote for a curse, for blasphemy, for mothers to leave home, for wives to submit to another man, for women to rebel against the authority structure of the universe, for positions scripture limits to men. [full post here]

Interestingly, not all of the patriarchs are against voting for Palin. Douglas Wilson of Credenda Agenda is one who supports Palin and authoritatively says she is not sinning against the Word by pursuing a political calling. Ornaments of Grace, generally behind Vision Forum's thoughts, writes about being called a "so-called Christian," all because she is not sure that Palin is truly in sin. Truly the candidacy of Sarah Palin has stirred up issues of gender roles, period. Is America behind the curve, as In This Storm, a former patriarchalist like myself, suggests, when it comes to being slow to put women in positions of leadership? It would seem so. This CNN video claims that while American men seem to be in support of Palin, American women, by and large, are not. It appears that the radical feminist and the extreme patriarchalist have something in common, whether they like it or not.

Personally, I am thankful for the discussion I hear all over the place, amongst my friends, family, and community members, as well as in the blogosphere. Underlying currents of belief are being forced into the open, and we are all having to deal with our own culturally-derived, personally-derived and Biblically derived presuppositions---more often, a messy mix of all three--- and examine them carefully in the light of day and in the flesh and blood realities of life on planet earth.

----Hat Tip to the Fine Commenters at on this comment thread (at True Womanhood blog) for some of these links.

Colossians 2:19 -- What does the head do for the body?

Today I am checking the translation of Colossians in a tribal language. Right now I am checking Col. 2:19. The translation for this verse communicates the idea that the head tells the body what to do. As a translation consultant, I am required to raise a flag whenever a translation says something that doesn't seem to be in the original text. It seems to me that this verse is focusing on how the head nourishes the body.

Do you agree?

Is this verse relevant for helping define the relationship of the head to the body other times in the New Testament such as in Ephesians 5, and 1 Cor. 11-14?

How might marriages be different if a husband viewed one of his roles as nourishing his wife? Wives, what would you like your husband to do for you that would be nourishing?

Marriage Advice From Dr. Love

Jolly Blogger, a self-described complementarian and a pastor for many years, just hit the ball out of the park with this post on Ten Things I Think About Marriage and the Marriage Relationship.

Yes, I am a Christian egalitarian. Yes, I am recommending a marriage post from a complementarian. Write that factoid down somewhere and keep it safe.

Fighting the deep urge to cut and paste his entire delicious post, I humbly offer a few snippets:

...the Scriptures show that God is comparatively unconcerned about your
marriage and not focused on it much at all.

Granted, I know that you are supremely concerned about your marriage and many
are very focused on making it a good one and my guess is that, if you surveyed
most Christians and churches they would say that the crisis in marriage and
family is one of the most important issues facing the church today.

But a reading of the New Testament doesn't reflect an overwhelming concern
with marriage and the family on the part of it's author (God!).

...

...And for my first thought I'll use the book in the New Testament that gives us the most extensive marriage advice as a basis. That book is Ephesians and it gives us two whole paragraphs on the marriage relationship, along with a very short paragraph on how to be a good Christian kid and one sentence on how to be a good Christian parent. This is a veritable encyclopedia on marriage and family compared to other books in the New Testament.

5. I think I think the first thing to notice is that all of this marital advice comes at the tail end of a long series of expositions and explanations of vital Christian doctrine. The marital advice is just kind of tacked on at the end as one application of the crucial doctrinal matters that precede it. I think it is not too big a stretch to infer from this that understanding all of this doctrine is foundational to understanding our roles in marriage.

Ergo, while it is ok to read a marriage book and/or go to a marriage conference, your time would be better spend reading expositional and theological tomes and going to bible/theology conferences. Again, the marriage stuff is good, but without the extensive biblical/theological grounding you need to apply the marriage advice. Going straight to the marriage advice without taking the extended time to understand the biblical/theological basis will be like putting the proverbial bandaid on cancer.

In closing, here is just one more set of stolen paragraphs:

9. I think I think that many Christian marriages could be enormously
more happy if the spouses would put aside the fact that they are married to one
another and just treat one another as if they were Christians. Galatians 6:10
tells us to do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household
of faith. In other words, of all the relational duties we owe to each
other as humans, as neighbors and as enemies, we are to be especially careful to
fulfill these duties to fellow Christians.

If you are claim to be a Christian and are married to a Christian you owe
your spouse all of the things you owe any other human being, just more so.
In my pre-marital counseling and marriage counseling I try to tell people
that there is no special category of counsel called "marital counseling" it's
all about basic Christian discipleship. This takes me back to my first
point where I say we are missing the boat in marriage and marriage counseling.

[Molly Adds: Read the full post here. Hat tip to Amy at Humble Musings for the recommendation].

David Kotter on women in public office

David Kotter of CBMW's Gender Blog has just blogged about whether or not it is biblical for a woman, such as Sarah Palin, to be in a high public office, such as that of Vice President of the United States. David concludes, as most evangelical Christians in the U.S. seem to be doing:

Therefore we must be careful to not go beyond the teaching of the Bible. The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from exercising leadership in secular political fields.

I agree with David that the Bible is silent on whether or not a woman can hold political office. I also agree with David that the Bible presents examples of women holding political offices. I happen to come from Alaska where we are proud of Sara Palin's public service and convictions.

The connection is even closer for me: my middle brother is the only politician to have ever defeated Sarah Palin in a campaign. He bested her by a few votes in the primary election for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska a number of years ago.

I agree with Governor Palin that there needs to be a great deal of political reform in the U.S. I am glad that she and her family are consistently pro-life, including Sara's not aborting her own Down Syndrome baby and she and her husband supporting their unwed daughter deciding to carry her own baby to term. I suspect that Sara and Todd Palin's convictions about the sanctity of life helped influence that decision. Their daughter made a wrong decision that resulted in conceiving a baby. But it would have been even more wrong, in my belief, to destroy the life produced from that wrong decision. By the way, my brother and Sara are now friends and he is encouraging people to pray for Sara at this difficult time in the life of her family and as she runs for political office. Perhaps you would like to join me in praying for her, as well.

Feel free to comment on Kotter's post here since there is no public commenting on Gender Blog.

Knowledge Puffs Up; Love Builds Up

When I was in college, I was a Religion major at a state university. I was also a conservative evangelical, which meant that I spent a great deal of time contradicting the views of my liberal professors. In the process, I found that their arguments were never particularly convincing, but their most effective weapon was the sardonic sneer with which many of them would dismiss me as a mindless fundamentalist. No one wants to be looked at like they're stupid, and I saw many students succumb to these professors' liberal views not because they had been convinced intellectually, but because they had been intimidated emotionally.

Throughout college, therefore, I saw the truth in Paul's statement that "knowledge puffs up" (1 Corinthians 8:1). As I entered seminary, I wondered if I would ever see an example of an intellectual Christian who exemplified the truth that "love builds up."

My first class in seminary was "Theological Foundations," which was essentially an exposition of the five points of Calvinism. If ever there was a subject which could generate more heat than light, it was this one; and indeed, there was a student in the class who was an ardent Arminian. The class was taught by Dr. Roger Nicole, a charming older French Swiss scholar (and egalitarian!) who addressed every student as "Brozer" and "Seester".

As Dr. Nicole carefully explained the Reformed understanding of divine sovereignty, human freedom, and how they relate to creation, redemption, and all of life, our class's token Arminian would get frustrated and raise a variety of objections and counter-arguments. Now, I knew Dr. Nicole had heard every one of these arguments a thousand times before, and that he could easily have blasted this student out of the water. Yet I watched in amazement as he graciously and lovingly dealt with this young man's objections as if it were the first time he had ever heard them. Dr. Nicole readily admitted the possibility that he could be mistaken in his understanding of the doctrines of grace, he acknowledged that the student's questions were important, and he lovingly constructed arguments which completely demolished those objections.

Dr. Nicole's demeanor was loving and respectful even when the student's comments came across as disrespectful and insulting. Dr. Nicole honestly seemed more interested in winning his brother than in winning an argument. I have no idea whether the Arminian student was ultimately persuaded, but I do know that Dr. Nicole had made it as hard as possible for that student to hate him. Dr. Nicole had shown me the other side of the coin: "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."

In a comment on my last post, Wayne wrote "I suspect that God cares far more about our heart attitudes in these debates than he does about whether or not we can 'win' arguments." I would agree, and I would add that God isn't the only one who cares about our heart attitudes in these debates. The people on the other side care about our heart attitudes, and if we become abusive and insulting, we simply hand them an emotional justification for rejecting our intellectual arguments. The people on our own side, and those who are still undecided, also care about our heart attitudes, and if they see us heaping abuse on our "opponents", they are more likely to sympathize with our opponents' views.

Dr. Nicole had no idea that the way he was dealing with an argumentative student would earn him the respect of someone who would later disagree with his egalitarianism. When I interact with Dr. Nicole's arguments for egalitarianism I do so with the utmost respect, not because of his considerable intellectual stature, but because of his loving demeanor toward a hostile student some sixteen years ago.

Dr. Nicole's winsomeness stands in stark contrast to much of the bile and vitriol I see expressed in this particular debate. Ideological comps and egals often caricature each other's views, indulge in sarcasm and ridicule of the other side, pretend that the truthfulness of their own view should be self-evident to all, and justify their own intractability by pointing to how they've been treated by the extremists on the other side. Such an approach merely makes the extremists on the other side feel justified in their vilification of us, while failing to persuade those in the middle who might otherwise be willing to listen to us. We would all do well to learn from Dr. Nicole (and Scripture!) that "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."