If Sarah Palin Were a Liberal Democrat . . .

What would be the reaction of conservative, Evangelical Republicans? Or, Republicans in general? That is the question that is lingering in my mind this morning and I believe that the answer has a great deal to do with the public witness of of the evangelical church in America.

Over the past 20 years or so, I have witnessed evangelical leaders, preachers, and conservative Republicans use instances of working, career pursuing mothers and unwed teen pregnancy as examples of family and moral breakdown in our country. Liberal Democrats were regularly attacked for their views on these issues (see Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown in 1992). I found myself in agreement with the principles espoused by the Right, but uncomfortable with the way that these issues were used in regard to party politics. I am ardently Pro-Life and believe that sex should wait until marriage. I believe that a parent's first priority is to their children over their career and I believe that it is best if the mother can stay home with the kids, although I fully understand that that is not always possible financially. I also would not put that on anyone in a legalistic way because people are free to make their own decisions on this issue. That is my opinion and I would not judge anyone for choosing a different course, as long as their children were taken care of.

When Sarah Palin was first announced, I thought it was a good choice.  I greatly respect the work of governors and I did not see the experience issue as being a concern. I also did not think that the fact that she was a woman or a mother of 5, even an infant with Down's Syndrome, would disqualify her. But, I did wonder how she would manage all of these challenges and how conservative evangelicals would view this, because I have always heard a different message from them regarding motherhood and raising children. Then, when it was revealed that Palin's 17 year old daughter was 5 months pregnant, I expected there to be some type of statement about the dangers of teen sex and/or the need for parents to be attentive to their children and "focus on the family." That is what we've heard for the past 20-30 years from evangelicals, right?  I have been surprised.

From a CNN article entitled Evangelicals Rally Behind Palin After Pregnancy News, this is the response of some of Conservative and Evangelical leaders:

"Before, they (evangelicals) were excited about her, with the Down syndrome baby," conservative, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said. "But now with this, they are over the moon. It reinforces the fact that this family lives its pro-life values."

"Fortunately, Bristol is following her mother and father's example of choosing life in the midst of a difficult situation," Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said. "We are committed to praying for Bristol and her husband-to-be and the entire Palin family as they walk through a very private matter in the eyes of the public."

Evangelical leader Richard Land also backed Palin completely. "This is the pro-life choice. The fact that people will criticize her for this shows the astounding extent to which the secular critics of the pro-life movement just don't get it," Land said in a statement.

"Those who criticize the Palin family don't understand that we don't see babies as a punishment but as a blessing. Barack Obama said that if one of his daughters made a mistake and got pregnant out of wedlock, he wouldn't want her to be punished with a child. Pro-lifers don't see a child as punishment."

Most important for Palin, an elder statesman of the movement, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, released a statement lauding the Palins for acting in keeping with the group's policies and practices:  "We have always encouraged the parents to love and support their children and always advised the girls to see their pregnancies through, even though there will of course be challenges along the way. That is what the Palins are doing, and they should be commended once again for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values, but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances.  Being a Christian does not mean you're perfect. Nor does it mean your children are perfect. But it does mean there is forgiveness and restoration when we confess our imperfections to the Lord. I've been the beneficiary of that forgiveness and restoration in my own life countless times, as I'm sure the Palins have," Dobson said.

"The media are already trying to spin this as evidence Gov. Palin is a 'hypocrite,' but all it really means is that she and her family are human," Dobson said. "They are in my prayers and those of millions of Americans."

I am absolutely Pro-Life and am very conservative socially. I am very glad that Bristol is keeping the baby and I know that God forgives and restores and this baby is a gift from God. She and the family gets nothing but grace from me on this. I know that mistakes happen and I don't think that parents are fully responsible for everything that their 17 year old does. All that I ask for is consistency on these difficult issues. Grace is very important here, but so is truth, especially when we are talking about national leadership.

Double Standard?

Here is my question: If Sarah Palin were a liberal Democrat, would evangelicals have the same perspective? If Barack Obama had just selected a first term, liberal female governor from a small Western state who was the mother of 5 with a newborn who had Down's Syndrome and a 17 year old who was 5 months pregnant and not married, would we have the same response? Would we be so quick to defend her or would our political views get in the way of our judgment?

Wayne Smith, a regular commenter here left a link to Dr. Al Mohler's take on this issue. I agree with Dr. Mohler 100% on absolutely everything he said.  He gives a consistent response that is gracious and well thought out. He affirms Sarah Palin's ability to govern, while also saying that this is an issue that we should think deeply about because it does mean something. While we all affirm the choice for life here and in no way condemn Bristol Palin for becoming pregnant, there is also a reason for pause when we think about the family, the role of mothers, and the message that this sends. Dr. Mohler points to a New York Times article that voices the same concerns and reveals that Sarah Palin went back to work 3 days after her Down's Syndrome baby was born. What is our perspective on that? If we just show support without also voicing the concern over an issue that we have publicly expressed over the past several decades, we will come across as being only politically motivated and will lose credibility on these vital issues.

If we apply one standard for conservative Republicans and another standard for liberal Democrats, then we become relativists and we lose our ability to communicate with a culture that often sees us a hypocrites. That is happening in this case, and it is not just because people hate us. They are confused by what seems to be a mixed message on the family and morality. Dr. Mohler gave a very clear response to this issue and I think that we would all do well to think long and hard about what this means, just as he advised. It is things like this that cause and unbelieving world to ask Christians what they think. We should make sure that we give a well thought out biblical answer instead of a politically motivated answer.   

Comments

[wesmith]

Alan,

Voting or supporting any Political Party or Candidates comes down to How and Where they stand on what God’s Word Says.

We are all accountable for what we do in this Life. I always compare everyone to the Highest Standard, Jesus Christ. We all fail and come up short in the comparison, BUT we should never give up the GOOD FIGHT and strive to be more like Jesus Christ.

Wayne Smith

[wesmith]

Alan,

PS: Sarah Palin walk in life has been a little better than most of us, don't you think.

Wayne

[Joe Kennedy]

You're right Alan. When Obama talks about those who are pro-life, he explains that he has no argument with those who are consistent with that belief (meaning pro-life, without narrowing it down solely to abortion, as opposed to being anti-abortion only). There is no good argument against someone who believes in the sanctity of all life, born or not.

In a sense, he is calling us all out on our double standards, hypocrisy, and inconsistency. I see way too much of that in American Evangelicalism... and I wonder if I even want to be associated with it at all.

[Alan Cross]

Wayne,

I am in no way saying that Sarah Palin has not lived a good life. I am also not rejecting her as a candidate. You are right, she is not perfect. My concern is that we take the same approach to Democrats as we do Republicans. It seems that evangelicals are much harsher on the failings of the Left because of their political positions. That harms us in the long run. Truth is truth, irrespective of where we stand on the political spectrum.

Unless we begin to see our own inconsistencies, we will never be prophetic instead of merely being political.

[Alan Cross]

Maybe this is why leadership of conservative evangelicals can't say anything: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26501863/?GT1=43001

"Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could name as his running mate a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania."

"But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates."

_____________________________________

Who might those "influential conservatives" be who were outraged over Lieberman or Ridge? Is it too much to think that they might have been people like James Dobson, Richard Land, and Tony Perkins? If she was their choice, that would explain why they are so solidly defending her when difficult information comes out.

Apparently, Sarah Palin was not vetted at all. This just keeps getting stranger and stranger. This is why it is important that we be prophetic instead of political.

[wesmith]

Alan,

Obama's "punished with a baby" comment sparks protests

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12231

Wayne

[Debbie Kaufman]

Alan: It's not that simple. We raise our children in the way you have spoken of here, but ultimately it's their choice. To watch them closer isn't the answer. It will still happen. I wish it were as simple as simply keeping a closer eye, putting family first. I and my husband did all those things. It still happened to us.

[Steve Austin]

You raise a very interesting point. I might suggest that in our choose-one-or-the-other political system, we may end up looking like relativists in the short term. Another reason many Christians have reacted more quietly to the Palin family events is we feel so assaulted by the heavily biased popular news culture and its obvious choice of Mr. Obama (may his name bring a smile to the Prophet.)

[Chris]

Alan,

You make good points. I suppose the glaring pink elephant is consitency. To be true, it lacks in all politics, left and right. For in politics is the lust for power. We have gone far and wide from our foundations. I wonder with you what the scrutiny would be if the tabels had been turned. It is time we as believers become a God-centered, Christ-mimiking majority and not simply a moral majority.

Chris

[Doug]

Alan -once again a reasoned and balanced essay. May your tribe increase! The sell out of the Religious Right (including the SBC) to the GOP has shattered our credability and silenced our witness. We have gladly traded the halls of power for real, Scriptural authority. When the crowds heard Jesus's "Sermon on the Mount" we are told they were "amazed at his teaching because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law" (Mt.7:28-29). The Pharisees were willing to compromise their message to stay on the "right" side of power. I see Dobson, Land, etc, doing the same today. Sad!

Doug

[Wes Kenney]

I know this will come as a shock to some, but the New York Times was a bit unfair in the way it characterized Gov. Palin as "going back to work" three days after the birth of her son.

One could be forgiven for believing that she simply took off Monday morning for an 8-5 day in the office, as if nothing had happened. The fact is, she attended one meeting on that Monday. And, she took young Trig with her, as she has done most days.

But, if perpetuating that mischaracterization convinces some women to vote against her, as the article seems to indicate it has, then I can certainly understand why the Times would want it out there.

[Ray Simmons]

Alan is right: there is a double standard here. I’ll follow his charge that when there is a double standard, we must turn to the only Standard. Here’s my “well thought out biblical answer”, but I’m definitely open to correction.

We all know that women are created in God’s image as men’s helpmate and should be honored as co-heirs of God’s blessings (Gen 1:27, 5:1, 1 Pet 3:7) And, they are to be loved the way Jesus loves us, sacrificially (Eph 5:25).

Question: If God does not permit women to lead in the first two institutions he created (the family and the church, Eph 5:23, 1 Cor 14:34), would he permit women to lead in the third institution he created (government).

The only women in the Bible to be appointed as the top leader in God’s government was Deborah. The way I understand that, she was appointed when Israel was not walking with the Lord (Jud 4:1) and the men would not lead, as evidenced by the fact they would not even go into battle without Deborah (4:8). Deborah stepped up (honorably) because God appointed her, and she was faithful and capable.

Isaiah Chapter 3 lists the judgments if Israel did not walk with the Lord: removal of food and water, children will govern (side bar: when the Duke of Windsor was asked what impressed him most in America, he replied, "The way American parents obey their children."), people will oppress each other (even family), there will be a proud parade of sin, there will be disaster, and women will rule over them.

I don’t know if we’re in judgment, but a women leading is in the curse column in God’s ledger. That’s the way I read it, but I’m open to correction my application of His revealed Word.

I think we should stand firm and honor biblical womanhood.

[Ray Simmons]

Alan is right: there is a double standard here. I’ll follow his charge that when there is a double standard, we must turn to the only Standard. Here’s my “well thought out biblical answer”, but I’m definitely open to correction.

We all know that women are created in God’s image as men’s helpmate and should be honored as co-heirs of God’s blessings (Gen 1:27, 5:1, 1 Pet 3:7) And, they are to be loved the way Jesus loves us, sacrificially (Eph 5:25).

Question: If God does not permit women to lead in the first two institutions he created (the family and the church, Eph 5:23, 1 Cor 14:34), would he permit women to lead in the third institution he created (government).

The only women in the Bible to be appointed as the top leader in God’s government was Deborah. The way I understand that, she was appointed when Israel was not walking with the Lord (Jud 4:1) and the men would not lead, as evidenced by the fact they would not even go into battle without Deborah (4:8). Deborah stepped up (honorably) because God appointed her, and she was faithful and capable.

Isaiah Chapter 3 lists the judgments if Israel did not walk with the Lord: removal of food and water, children will govern (side bar: when the Duke of Windsor was asked what impressed him most in America, he replied, "The way American parents obey their children."), people will oppress each other (even family), there will be a proud parade of sin, there will be disaster, and women will rule over them.

I don’t know if we’re in judgment, but a women leading is in the curse column in God’s ledger. That’s the way I read it, but I’m open to correction my application of His revealed Word.

In confusing times, I think we should stand firm and honor biblical womanhood.