IMPOLITE TOPICS

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The dramatic rise to fame of Sarah Palin—a woman most of us had never heard of a few weeks ago—demonstrates the enormous power of publicity to create celebrities.

What continues to amaze me more than anything else is how Sarah Palin’s meteoric rise to the role of savior within the Republican campaign requires conservative Christians to ignore any questions about women and authority.

For generations, women have been denied leadership positions because of Bible verses that seem to prohibit female authority over men.

And yet, in one bold stroke, a woman was chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate and her selection was widely hailed by conservative Christian leaders as a brilliant choice.

“Sometimes people can be a little fickle. They’ll go for the newest, hottest thing.” Kari Anderson

In his post from the Republican National Convention, Doug Pagitt reflects on exactly this point.

The most surprising response for me was to the role of a woman as vice-president and as it related to the worldview of religious conservatives. I asked questions about how people who hold that women should not be in spiritual leadership over men (a view called “complementarian”) would respond to having a woman vice-president and potentially president). If you are not familiar with the line of thinking, it goes something like this:

Men and women are created in a relational order. Men are under God and women are under men. This is not to say that women are lesser than men, but just as tools are designed for specific purposes so is gender a guide to relational order. The Bible is used to support this view specifically passages like Genesis 2:7, 21-24; 1 Timothy 2:12-15; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9; Genesis 2; 1 Corinthians 11:8-10; Romans 5:12-19.

This is not a totally fringe view. It is supported by the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, and many independent churches. It is perhaps the most common perspective among the evangelical religious right. Doug Pagitt: Sarah Palin and the Role of Women in Religion and Politics

As I written before, I encountered tremendous hostility as a woman studying for ministry in an Evangelical seminary. The objection against women in ministry was based on obedience to the Bible as the infallible, inerrant word of God. According to this “high view of scripture,” women are forbidden from having authority over men.

Particular Bible verses have been cited and cited and cited some more to argue against ordination of women, to oppose the ministry of women, and to teach submission to male authority in marriage. Pagitt includes these verses in his article.

And yet, all of this opposition to the authority of women to lead men was apparently thrown out the window, swept under the rug, or hidden in the closet in a dramatic display of instant adulation for the barely-known woman chosen to run for the second-highest leadership position in the United States.

Pagitt explains how he raised the question of female authority with the delegates.

I raised some form of this question with the delegates I interviewed. I asked, “Do you think it will be a problem for religious conservatives who hold that women should not have authority over men and who do not allow a woman to be a pastor of a church or teach a Sunday school class with men in it? Will they have a problem with a woman vice-president?”

To a person the response was “Yes, I am sure they will. But they will just need to get over it.”

 
I was fascinated to think that this nomination could actually weaken the complementary view or the view of the president being God’s chosen leader because of the commitment to support the pro-life ticket. It will be quite a dilemma for some religious conservatives who will have to choose between commitments. And there is no doubt that the support for Governor Palin rests squarely on her pro-life stance.  Doug Pagitt: Sarah Palin and the Role of Women in Religion and Politics

Whatever this candidacy says about Sarah Palin, it demonstrates clearly that obedience to the authority of Scripture can be a fickle thing for believers. 

I have observed this fickleness more than once. A firm declaration of authority to Scripture can be replaced by a stronger desire for something else. When this happens, the Scripture that held primary authority is replaced by a higher claim. In the case of Sarah Palin, her resolutely anti-abortion stance was apparently more important than any prohibition against women in leadership.

I watched a similar transformation in a seminary student I got to know quite well. We were in the same preaching class together, and despite his opposition to women in leadership, we became friends.

We sat in the cafeteria one day and he explained his dilemma to me. His denomination ordained women to ministry. All candidates for ordination were required to answer this question: Would you participate in the ordination of a woman? 

This meant that his ordination to ministry required him to agree that he would support the ordination of women. Up to this point in the conversation, the discussion about his “obedience to the authority of Scripture.” And then he said something that brought the real issue to the surface.

At the Christian college he had attended, one of his professors was adamantly opposed to the ordination of women. The professor extracted a pledge from his students who were going to study for the ministry that they would not agree to participate in any ritual that would ordain a woman to ministry. They were supposed to stand firm in their faith and be willing to forgo ordination rather than submit to this “unbiblical” decision by the denomination to ordain women.

Suddenly, I realized that the issue was about something more than obedience to Scripture. It was a highly emotionally charged choice. He said to me. “Please tell me. I want to know. How can I be obedient to Scripture and support the ordination of women?” But I saw clearly that the real issue was that he had made a promise. He could be ordained or he could refuse ordination to uphold the promise made to his professor.

At that moment, the whole issue clicked into a different focus for me. I saw that claims to the authority of Scripture are seldom as straightforward as people claim they are.

That is when I began to see how much obedience to Scripture is a fickle allegiance, based on shifting sands. A non-negotiable, bottom-line commitment to the authority of Scripture can be quickly replaced by allegiance to something else with a higher emotional charge.

Since that moment in the cafeteria, I have seen this again and again. People will cite Scripture as the ultimate authority until they reach a point where what they want conflicts with any sort of abstract notion of biblical authority. At this point, they begin to change their opinion of the meaning of Scripture.

My name for this process is “selective hermeneutics.” Hermeneutics is the process of interpreting what the Bible means. And more often than not, “what it means” depends on what you want. And if what you want changes, “what it means” must change as well.

In the well-known adage from sales, people buy based on what they want and then justify with logic. This same principle applies to the authority of Scripture. It can be breathtaking to watch people abandon avidly held positions to accommodate a new want, and watch them attempt to justify the validity of their new positions with strange logical contortions.

In the case of my friend from seminary, he wanted to be ordained to the ministry. This want was more important to him than his promise to his professor. You will not be surprised to learn that he was ordained to the ministry in his denomination.

What changed for him? It wasn’t that he suddenly changed his understanding of biblical verses that seem to prohibit the leadership of women. What changed is that he had to choose between being ordained and being obedient to his “high view of scripture.” In his case, his desire to be ordained won.

In the case of Sarah Palin, objections to a woman in leadership have been shoved aside—at least publicly—in favor of higher claims of allegiance. In this case, the higher allegiance was to her anti-abortion stance.

I have no idea how this election will turn out, and if Sarah Palin will be elected to the office of vice-president of the United States. I do know that sudden fame is a fickle thing, and will give the last words to Henry Miller.

Fame is an illusive thing / here today, gone tomorrow. The fickle, shallow mob raises its heroes to the pinnacle of approval today and hurls them into oblivion tomorrow at the slightest whim; cheers today, hisses tomorrow; utter forgetfulness in a few months.  Henry Miller.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

Have you watched the video with my original nature photos?  Click here to watch ”Rise Into The Blue.” 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: authority of scripture, Bible, biblical authority, Doug Pagitt, hermeneutics, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, obedience to authority, Republican convention, Sarah Palin, Women And Leadership

When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence?

Any consideration of the relationship between religion and politics in the United States must take into account that most churches, religious organizations, and ministers are tax exempt.

Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business. (“Churches and Religious Organizations:  Benefits And Responsibilities Under The Federal Tax Law” )

Now we come to another fine line. What is the difference between legal and illegal actions by religious organizations with tax-exempt status? This an important question, especially in an election year.

 
Political Campaign Activity

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Individual Activity by Religious Leaders

The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of churches or religious organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under IRC section 501(c)(3), religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions. To avoid potential attribution of their comments outside of church functions and publications, religious leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization.  IRS “Tax Guide For Churches And Religious Organizations”

My intention at this point is to post this IRS material on the blog for future reference as we go farther into the political campaign.

For now, I will include two references to cases when Roman Catholic priests denied communion to church members.

Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied communion.

His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec’s support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

Kmiec was denied communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, yet it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year’s presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights? (“Denied the Rite“)

In Kansas City, Kan., Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has ordered Ms. Sebelius [Governor of Kansas] also an Obama supporter, not to receive Communion after she vetoed abortion legislation riddled with constitutional red flags. The bill in question made it easier for prosecutors to search private medical records, allowed family members to seek court orders to stop abortions and failed to include exceptions to save the life of the mother. Along with many public officials, Ms. Sebelius recognizes the profound moral gravity of abortion. She has supported prudent public policies that have reduced abortions in Kansas by investing in adoption services, prenatal health care and social safety nets for families. But in his diocesan newspaper, the archbishop blasted the governor over her “spiritually lethal” message and her obligation to recognize the “legitimate authority within the Church.” (“Don’t Play Politics With Communion”)

In recent posts, I have been raising questions about the relationships between religion, politics, and the Bible by offering a series of specific, current examples of the collisions between political and religious beliefs.

Behind the specifics of any particular incident, lawsuit, political campaign, or religious organization, the basic challenge is this: the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that we must respect the rights of others whose religious beliefs and practices are different from our own.

It is also important to recognize that any belief about religion comes under the category of religious belief. Atheism is as much a religious belief as belief in God. (For a perceptive commentary on this point, see the comment by John Thomas.)

As our society continues to become more and more religiously, culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse, this means that clashes between religion and politics will grow more and more frequent. The question then becomes a matter of authority. Which authority is the ultimate authority on such matters? Does religious belief trump federal law?  Or does Federal law trump religious belief?

I remember the 1960 presidential election when John F. Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith was a major political issue, based on the question of authority:  Would John Kennedy abide by federal law or be obedient to the authority of the Pope?  

The basic question of authority has not changed, and applies to Roman Catholics who must decide if they are going to follow church teachings or federal, state, and local laws at the risk of being denied sacred rites.

The same question applies to evangelical Christians who treat the Bible as their highest authority. When there is a conflict, do they obey the Bible or the law? 

What happens when churches provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants against federal law, based on a claim that they are following a higher authority? 

Under Martin Luther King, Jr, the civil rights movement was fundamentally a proclamation that a biblical vision of justice carried higher authority than Jim Crow laws requiring segregation by race.

And since the question of Barack Obama’s faith continue to be the stuff of internet urban legends, with endless claims that he is really a Muslim and would take the oath of office on the Koran, what happens when a non-Christian is elected to political office? 

And if we are going to teach the Bible in public schools, are we willing to provide money to teach the Koran in public schools? Will we spend tax dollars to educate Muslims in private Muslim schools?

We might even add to the list, is it really possible for someone in the United States to run for President who claims to be an agnostic or atheist?

I don’t pretend to know the answers to such questions. I know only that religious and political beliefs can never be treated as if they inhabit separate realms. Like it or not, every religious question is also political and every political question is also religious. And in each case, the real question comes down to authority.

When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence? This is the most impolite and the most difficult of the Impolite Topics.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: authority, Authority And The Bible, communion, Impolite Topics, IRS, John F. Kennedy, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, muslim, obedience, obedience to authority, political authority, politics, Roman Catholic, tax code, teach Bible in public schools

What authority in your life is primary? Is it God? The Bible? The government? Some person? An organization? A business? Whom or what do you fear the most? Or to ask the question in a different way, what authority will you obey above all others?

Some Christian churches claim that the central theme of the Bible is salvation from human sin. But if you read the Bible carefully, you will see that salvation from sin is nowhere nearly as important a theme as the question of power. At its core, the Bible is a book about the use and abuse of power and conflicting demands for obedience to authority.

The Bible, taken as a whole, is a study in the relationship between God, government power, and personal obedience. It claims that God is the ultimate authority, but has mixed messages about whether or not human rulers are agents of God’s authority on Earth.

Most of the Bible stories are about these questions of power and the abuse of power and about authority and conflicting claims to authority.  I didn’t learn those Bible stories in Sunday School. Instead, I learned sweet stories about being nice and giving to the poor. Mostly, I learned that I was supposed to be obedient to established authority.

In fact, the stories about Jesus are fundamentally the stories of a man who was acting against the authority of the government with its government-controlled religion. Again and again, Jesus confronted the abuse of power by the religious/political power system. Yet my religious education was almost exclusively about teaching me to obey established authority without question.

For most of us, this is the essence of both religious and public school education. Our lives are one long experience of being told that we must obey some external authority. When we are small, ultimate authority is vested in our parents and teachers and the other big people in our lives. For children, God is just another big person to obey. The idea of God easily becomes a Santa Claus type figure in the sky who is watching to see if we are naughty or nice. 

The older we get, the more complicated the questions about obedience to authority become. We have traffic rules, IRS rules, homeowner association rules to obey. Every where there are rules to follow. Don’t walk on the grass. Don’t litter. Don’t park here. And sometimes the obedience to rules makes the difference between life and death.

I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War and the tremendous personal anguish involved in questions of obedience to authority. In the era of the wartime draft, the government claimed obedience as its right. If it drafted one of its citizens, that young man had no choice. He had to obey or face the consequences.

Military training is fundamentally an exercise in teaching people to obey authority, even at the cost of their lives. This is why there are ranks with visible insignia, and people are taught to salute signs of authority.

While my husband was an officer in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, we lived for three years on an Air Force base in Arkansas. We had a sticker on the front bumper of the car signifying that this was an officer’s car.

I used to drive on and off the base to go to work each day, and always felt a bit awkward each time the guard saluted as I drove back onto the base. Even then I thought it was odd. What was he saluting? I didn’t deserve the salute, because I was not an officer in the Air Force. He was told to salute a sticker. If intelligent people can be trained to salute a sticker on the bumper of a car, think of how powerful the forces of persuasion are to persuade people to kill as an act of obedience to authority.

This blog is named “Impolite Topics.” Most churches have their own list of impolite topics. For many churches, the most impolite of all the impolite topics is the question of power in relationship to the government. These churches tend to be mainstream, established, and practicing traditional religion. In contrast, churches made up of people who feel oppressed or excluded from social power are not so polite on the topics of religion and politics.  The topics of power and confrontation of government abuse of power are no longer impolite topics, but become central to the teaching of the church.
 
In my book, Going Broke With Jesus, I wrote about what Jesus said about money as part of his condemnation of the abuse of power by the government and temple system. One of these stories concerns the temple tax. Matthew 22:15-22 and Luke 20:19-26 tell two versions of a story in which members of the political and religious establishment attempt to trap Jesus with a question about paying the temple tax with a coin with Caesar’s image on it.  Jesus answered with the words: ”Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.

If anyone has any idea that money is simply a matter of personal morality, this episode brings to the surface the relationship between religion and government. This is a story about taxation. But it is about more than taxation. It involves questions of authority on Earth. Do believers obey God or the government? Interpretation of this particular episode goes far beyond money. The Bible verse: “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” is responsible for shameful moments in church history, when Christian churches kept silent while governments perpetrated atrocities.
Going Broke With Jesus, Chapter 9, By Kalinda Rose Stevenson

Religion, politics, and the Bible are completely interwoven with questions about authority and obedience. And so this is the fundamental question: What authority will you obey above all others?

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: authority, Authority And The Bible, Bible, God's authority, Impolite Topics, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, obedience, obedience to authority, religion and politics, Vietnam War