- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (9/5)
- Next Post »Book Review - The Johnstown Flood
Good Saint Sarah
- 09/05/08
- 60
For sheer entertainment value, I think American politics in general, and Presidential campaigns in particular, are about the best bang for my buck, even as a non-American. For little more than the cost of an internet connection I can spend endless hours being amused. This 2008 campaign may be the most entertaining yet. While I rarely use this blog to discuss politics (and especially when I’m as ignorant of a topic as I am with U.S. politics), today I’ll make the rare exception. Over the past few days I’ve bookmarked a whole lot of links and today will try to tie a few of them together.
Sarah Palin is undoubtedly the most electrifying and polarizing figure we’ve seen in U.S. politics for a long, long time. She has completely changed the face of election. A week ago the media could not break away from Barack Obama. Today Sarah Palin is dominating the discussion. She was the perfect foil; if anyone doubts McCain’s smarts, I’d say he has proven himself the wily veteran with this pick. This has become an Obama vs. Palin election. At least for now, McCain is taking a back seat in his own Presidential election campaign. It’s all about Sarah. Chuck Colson’s article on clashing worldviews is interesting reading. “In the life of Sarah Palin, we see the clash of worldviews playing out before our own eyes. Consider every major controversial issue in American politics and culture right now … and somehow, they touch her personally.” Everyone can either love or hate Palin; few are ambivalent.
It’s little wonder that many evangelicals are quickly learning to love her. The little boy Piper Palin spit-shined in front of the nation is living, breathing proof of Palin’s commitment to life—probably the single most important issue to a vast number of Christians. In an age when 90 or 95 out of every 100 children with Down Syndrome are destroyed, Trig is, well, alive. That, in and of itself, is almost miraculous today. Asked about her brother’s Syndrome, Palin’s daughter Willow said, “I don’t care - he’s my brother and I love him.” Trig is exactly who God made him to be and he is a gift to that family.
But the greatest source of Palin’s appeal must be her sheer normalcy. She is exactly the kind of pit bull hockey mom you’d meet anywhere in Alaska (or Canada). She’s so unlike the majority of the politicians who strive for the White House. It seems almost a mistake that she is up on that platform.
People on the Loony Left know they hate Palin but they are struggling with how to hate her. They turned first on her children, insisting that her infant son could not possibly be her own. They smeared her for having a baby in her “old age” (as if they all had their families in their prime child-bearing years) and determined that the baby must be her daughters’. The stupendous stupidity of leveling and believing such a charge showed just how far people would stoop to attempt to discredit her. Of course the controversy was quickly resolved when the McCain campaign announced that Palin’s daughter was pregnant with a child of her own. Perhaps worst of all, she was going to keep the baby and will marry the father. While I read many articles assuring the American public that Palin was lying about being the mother of Trig, I don’t recall reading nearly so many retractions or apologies.
Things got even weirder than this. Liberal feminists (is that redundant?) began to turn on Palin. You would think women would be thrilled to see a woman who is poised to rise higher in government than any woman before her, but this was not the case. While these feminists would have cheered Hillary Clinton as President or Vice President, Palin was not exactly the woman they had in mind. Not the hockey mom, church-going mother of five who is undoubtedly a better shot than Dick Cheney! And not the woman who is a powerful figure while remaining feminine and attractive. Stand to Reason says “One of the things that bugs me about the Feminist movement is it seems to tell women that they have to act like men to be equal to them. And in the process women are no longer feminine and instead take on some of the worst aspects of masculine nature… Gov. Palin seems to have a feminine appeal while displaying her capability and strength.”
And so feminists wondered if she could possibly take care of her family while dealing with her responsibilities as Vice President. The feminists said this! Eventually there was something of a backlash and prominent feminists were forced to speak out. But the damage had already been done—we had seen another example of how far the left is willing to go to discredit this McCain/Palin ticket. They’ll gladly violate their own principles to keep McCain out of the White House. It truly was a shameful week for the press.
Interestingly, while feminists have been asking whether Palin can care for her nation and her family, Christians have been wondering the same. Is it right for a woman to take on a position of such responsibility? Is it right for her to assume a position of leadership? No sooner had Palin been announced than Voddie Baucham wrote a much-publicized article in which he said this: “My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition [in Titus 2] should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.” Baucham believes that the pro-life party is using Palin as a pawn in a move that is distinctly anti-family. Those who know of Baucham will know that he is very conservative when it comes to the role of women (going so far in The Return of the Daughters to suggest that women should probably not go to college).
Other more moderate conservative Christians spoke up. Writing for the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, David Kotter asked, “Does Sarah Palin Present a Dilemma for Complementarians?” He answered very well, saying, “From the outset we must remember that on November 4 the voters will not elect a national minister or pastor in chief. A president is not held to the same moral standards as an elder of a church. While it is a blessing from God to have ethical or even Christian political leaders, the Bible places no such requirements on secular governments. Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world.” Al Mohler agrees, saying “The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility. I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture. Then again, that presupposes that women — and men — have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.”
One blog I appreciated was Amy’s (which has 173 comments and counting). Amy takes issue with the automatic assumption that a woman’s highest calling is to be a wife and mother. “Being a wife and mother is a good and noble thing, but it is not the highest thing.”
And I firmly agree with Amy and Mohler and Kotter. While Christians do want to maintain the focus on the family we have to be careful about stating categorically that a woman has no business running for Vice President. Palin’s decision is one to be made with her family and with counsel from her local church. Beyond that we, as Christians, have to trust her judgment in this kind of disputable matter. Far be it from us to declare that she cannot do both and that she cannot do both with excellence.
The timing of this campaign is interesting since we are likely to be facing an election here in Canada in the weeks to come. Palin is an unique figure and for so many reasons. Her husband is a snowmobile racer, for goodness sake. I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets a few write-in votes in our election.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Comments (60)
Ah, Mr. Challies, you couldn’t be more correct. I’ve watched Mrs. Palin on the news and have been blown out of the water on how she’s on the same page as my family. I mean…REALLY on the same page. And what’s more, she’s a Christian! At time’s she’s seemed better than McCain, but i like ‘em both. Still…i fear that either one of them could become target practice by some crazed anarchist or protester. What are your thoughts on that?
Kathleen M asked, “Can he name any of these ‘leftists’ who were allegedly such big bad meanies to Palin — or do they all remain these shadowy anonymous figments?” Just google “Sarah Palin” under “news” and, voila! You might want to start with the Toronto Star.
I have done a little study on the reformed Two-Kingdoms doctrine. I’d love to see you dive into this doctrine and blog about it. Here are the links I’ve bookmarked
http://delicious.com/annaddison/two-kingdoms
LM writes: “Kathleen M asked, “Can he name any of these ‘leftists’ who were allegedly such big bad meanies to Palin — or do they all remain these shadowy anonymous figments?” Just google “Sarah Palin” under “news” and, voila!” ——————
Still no names? Let us know when you’ve got something other than shadows and strawmen……
KathleenM… I believe LM’s comment (#52) was meant not only to point you toward those names/sources, but also to point out that if you’re not aware of the smear tactics, then you haven’t been paying attention. Suggesting (without a shred of evidence) that Trig was Bristol’s daughter, and that the Palin’s were trying to cover it up? Dragging the teenage pregnancy back and forth through the mud? Calling the Palins hypocrites for deciding not to abort?
My guess as to the reason Tim didn’t list any names is because (if I may be so bold) he didn’t think he needed to.
Alright, let me give you a few names to get you started: Rahul Parikh at Salon.com and Andrew Sullivan’s blog at TheAtlantic.com. After that feel free to head to HuffingtonPost.com or TheNation.com and peruse some of the writings there from earlier in the week. Read the New York Times early coverage in which they erroneously claimed that McCain’s team never vetted Palin. And pick up that issue of US Weekly that has already been mentioned.
Kathleen M,
Barbara Amiel’s article in the Wall Street Journal highlights some of what has been said by feminists this week and shows that Tim was speaking of more than ‘shadows and straw-men”
“Sarah Palin has put the flim-flam nature of America feminism sharply into focus, revealing the not-so-secret hypocrisy of its code and, whatever her future, this alone is an accomplishment. As she emerged into the nation’s consciousness, a shudder went through the feminist left—a political movement not restricted to females. She is a mother refusing to stay at home (good) who had made a success out in the workplace (excellent) whose marriage nevertheless is a rip-roaring success and whose views are unspeakable—those of a red-blooded, right-wing principled pragmatist.
The metaphorical hair stood up on the back of every licensed member of the feminist movement who could immediately see she was a monster out of a nightmare landscape by Hieronymus Bosch. Pro-life. Pro-oil exploration in Alaska, home of the nation’s polar bears for heaven’s sake. Smaller government. Lower taxes. And that family of hers: Next to the Clintons with their dysfunctional marriage, her fertility and sexually robust life could only emphasize the shriveled nature of the one-child family of the former Queen Bee of political female accomplishment.
Mrs. Palin’s emergence caused a spasm in American feminism. Caste and class have always been ammunition in the very Eastern seaboard women’s movement, and now they were (so to speak) loading for bear. Sally Quinn felt a mother of five had no business being vice president. Andrea Mitchell remarked that “only the uneducated” would vote for Mrs. Palin. “Choose a woman but this woman?” wrote Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer, accusing Sen. McCain of using a Down’s syndrome child as qualification for the VP spot.
The hypocrisy was breathtaking. Only nanoseconds before the choice of Mrs. Palin as VP put her a geriatric heartbeat away from the presidency, a woman’s right to have a career and children was a shibboleth of feminism. One always knew that women with views that opposed those of official feminism were to be treated as nonwomen. To see it now out in the open was the real shocker.
The fact that this mom had been governor of a state was dismissed because it was a “small state,” as was the city of which she had been mayor. Her acceptance speech, which knowledgeable left-wing critics feared would be effective, was dismissed before being delivered. She would be reading from a teleprompter. The speech would be good, no doubt, but written for her.
Had she been a man with similar political views, the left’s opposition would have been strong but less personally vicious: It would have focused neither on a daughter’s pregnancy, nor on the candidate’s inability to be a good parent if the job was landed. In its panic, the left was indicating that to be a female running for office these days is no hindrance but an advantage, and admitting that there is indeed a difference between mothers and fathers that cannot necessarily be resolved by having daddy doing the diaper run.
All the shrapnel has so far been counterproductive. The mudslinging tabloid journalism—is Mrs. Palin the mother or grandmother of her Down’s baby?—only raised her profile to a point where viewers who would never dream of watching a Republican vice-presidential acceptance speech tuned in.
Watching the frenzied reaction was dj vu from my years as a political columnist in Margaret Thatcher’s Britain. Modern history’s titan of female political life suffered a similar hatred, fuelled to a large extent by her gender. Mrs. Thatcher overcame it magnificently, but in the end, the fact was that she was female and not one of “them”—a member of the old boys’ club of the Tory establishment—played a significant role in bringing her down.”
While it is awesome to have a decisively pro-life, pro-family Christian candidate on the Republican ticket, does anyone else worry about the continuation of the Hagee influence? And the Neo-Con influence? With Sarah’s faith background in pentecostalism, it is highly likely that she will be lock step with neo-cons, just like Bush, Ashcroft, Huckabee, McCain, and the rest. This also concerns me a great deal.
Is there anything that Reformed Christians can do to get a non-Rapture, non-dispensationalist view out to the mainstream to counteract Hagee/Lahaye/Copeland? To combat this sense of calling that the RNC has adopted to usher in the apocalypse? To put the government back on Christ’s shoulders, while at the same time being the True Isreal that the Bible has called US to be. I mean, we ARE dealing with an entirely antithetical worldview here (with the exception of abortion an gay marriage - which they seem to hook us with every time, don’t they?). I think we make it way too easy for them.
I think that Palin’s youngest daughter is a beautiful testimony to their family and their parenting skills. Did you happen to notice that whenever the camera picked up the family, she was always well behaved and cute as a button (when she was holding her little brother and spit-washing his face). Definitely not a terror who had been neglected by her parents.
“I don’t know which liberal or feminist blogs you’re reading, but your characterization of the “loonly [sic] left” and their reaction to Palin is just dead wrong.”
Tim was correct and the liberal left is looney!
While I share all of the same reservations about Palin’s having to balance motherhood with the vice presidency, I am strongly encouraged by her addition to the McCain ticket. I was not all that impressed with McCain alone, and while I’m sure that his decision to choose her was calculated (her being a woman, when Hillary voters have recently been displaced; her being an uber-conservative, when McCain is not), I still think it was pretty brilliant on his part.
And it is quite humorous to me that the first woman with a true shot at higher office is not a feminist in any sense, and she is staunchly pro-life. I have never understood the implied “truth” that a woman in politics must be pro-choice. If anything, that belief seems to go against what it means to be a woman.