Women in power

From previous conversations, not necessarily on this blog, I know that you believe that a wife ought to be submissive to her husband in accordance with the apostle Paul's words in Ephesians 5: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Or as in 1 Timothy 2: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression

I am not sure what exactly this submitting to the man means to you, but Mennonites also traditionally have believed in the submission of the female to the male. This mean that while, if the men were farmers or something like that, the woman certainly partook and helped wherever she could outside, but that her primary purpose was to raise the children, teach them about God, take care of the garden, and do all the canning and such necessary to survival.

So women worked, but stay-at-home moms' work is often not considered to be "real" work and in my opinion, usually wasn't considered "real" work by their Mennonite husbands. The men did the "real" work.

Growing up in the seventies, I recall listening to many discussions about women in the work force - meaning women working not on the family farm, but in an actual work place. It was heavily frowned upon from several perspectives. One being that the man was seen as not being a good provider for his family, that his wife "had" to work - laziness being almost a capital offence among Mennonites, and then the other being the verses I already referenced - that those women who had a career of sorts were placing themselves in a situation where they were equal to men.

I know this isn't only a Mennonite perspective, but that was the perspective of most Christian denominations at that time.

Which brings me to the current election in the US. Sarah Palin. Apparently admired by many right-wing Christian women, who seem to see no contradiction between in her conservative Christian views, and being a working woman in a position of authority over men.

The women who support her tend to like her because she is against abortion in any circumstances, even rape or incest, and seem to believe that she holds their conservative, small "c" Christian beliefs. And I would assume that one of the fundamental traditional small "c" conservative Christian beliefs would include the belief that the man is the head of the household.

So what's up with that? I don't get it. It's not okay for a woman to have the final say in a marriage but it is okay for a woman to potentially have the final say when it comes to governing a country?

What's the rational here?

I actually heard a Baptist pastor interviewed on CNN some time ago who seemed sincere, not out for the limelight, did not affiliate himself with either candidate and confuse God and Caesar who, in spite of opposing arguments by Christian women on the same show, stuck to the point, which is basically the point I made already. He believes it is clearly written in the Bible that a woman ought not to be in position of authority over a man. He did not mock Sarah Palin. He did not endorse Obama. He made it clear that his duty as a pastor was to remind people what the Bible said, no matter how politically incorrect it might be. And he clearly was of the opinion that in running as VP, or even as Governor, she was not behaving in accordance with traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible.

I was a little relieved that someone made that point since I don't understand how the right wing Christian element, can support her nomination by their own standards, given my understanding of traditional values.

To me it seems clear that either conservative Christians who believe in a wife submitting to her husband, and that the man is above the woman, because he was created first, are playing fast and loose with their own ideas of what constitutes Biblical literalism. In which case it hardly comes as a surprise that conservative Christians lose respect since they don't actually follow any thought through to it's conclusion and then stick by it, come what may.

*I* have no problem with women in politics. But I don't believe that the way in which submission has been interpreted by conservative Christians is correct either. So I'm not contradicting my own views, which they are.

The other point this Baptist pastor made was that while many fundamentalist Christians (this was at the beginning when McCain announced her as his nominee) were ecstatic over her nomination, that actually, Biblically, a woman in power is used as an example of God's disapproval of a nation, not his approval.

Isaiah 3:11: As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

How is this not an example of conservative Christians picking and choosing just how they will interpret the Bible?

If you are interested in a link to the transcript, I could try and look it up on CNN. They have transcripts of a lot of interviews.

So, if you can explain this to me.....

Layla