Tribal Church

Text: Matthew 6:9-15

The rainbow scarves fascinated Libby Shannon. Throughout the Assembly, she saw them, hanging proudly over the necks of men, women, and teenagers. People over the age of seventy wore them, as well as those in their twenties, as a witness to their support of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender men and women in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Libby was attending the 219^th General Assembly of the PC(USA) in Minneapolis, a biennial gathering of pastors and lay people, who make decisions on behalf of our two million-member church, which took place a couple of weeks ago. They pray and study together, seeking guidance for their work together and making declarations about social justice issues that will focus our energy and mission.

I also noticed the scarves, even though I was not in Minneapolis. I first saw them hanging from the crochet needles in our Wednesday night dinner and coffee time, as Jean Ackor and other women knitted them at our church. Then I saw them at the General Assembly. I was in my living room, watching the Assembly as it was livestreamed over the Internet. There were many issues discussed and brought before the gathering—motions on gun violence, discussions on Israel and Palestine, initiatives on the environment, and changes to our church government. In all of this, the ones that always garner great attention are around the inclusion of LGBT people. Would our insurance begin to cover gay or lesbian partners? Would we redefine marriage from “a man and a woman” to “two people”? Would the church allow people who are open about their same-gender relationships become ordained?

Our denomination works a bit differently than other denominations. We do not have powerful bishops who decide the will of God and the people. It’s a much more democratic system, with laypeople and clergy represented in our decisions. At the heart of many of these decisions, we would be pointing to a deep cultural shift, one that not only acknowledges same-gender relationships but says that God blesses them.

It ended up that the Assembly approved the insurance coverage of same-gender spouses. They tabled the discussion to redefining marriage. And they removed an amendment to our constitution that would restrict gays and lesbians from being ordained. But since the last action was a change to our church constitution, it needs to be voted on by the Presbyteries (our local bodies) before it becomes ratified. And so the struggle begins again. The amendment will go out to the Presbyteries, and the Presbyteries will vote. In the last years, the vote has failed when it’s gone to the Presbyteries. But every year, LGBT advocates gain a few more Presbyteries than we did the round before.

Libby Shannon is a student who graduated from seminary. She’s young, she’s in her twenties, and she believes strongly that LGBT people should be ordained and that they should be able to marry. Many studies have been done on the religious habits of people in their twenties and thirties, and a lot of us have difficulty filling out the religion section on our Facebook page. There are not many who are committed to a denominational church. So I asked Libby, if we’re people who believe in inclusion of LGBT people, why do we stick around? Why don’t we just leave?

In response, Libby pointed in two directions. She directed my attention backwards and reminded me of all of the women and men who fought this very same battle so that women could be ordained. “What would I be saying to the legacy of those women, if I just gave up? What would I be saying to them, if I didn’t fight for what I thought was right in our church, and just took the easy way out?”

And then she pointed the other direction. She looked to the future and told me about the about the youth group that she worked with. “I’m doing it for them. I’m doing this so that they can have a church that loves everyone, no matter what his or her sexual orientation might be.” I was inspired by Libby’s words. She knew that we are imperfect, earthbound people, but she still had a longing for the ideal and a hope for something better.

I do not want to characterize the struggle in our denomination in terms that are too simplistic (especially since my views are clearly on one side). But to quickly explain what is happening, I will say that there are those in our denomination who point to the six passages in Scripture that condemn same-sex relationships, and see those passages as so important that they feel as if we back off from them, then we are no longer seeing the Bible as a guide for our lives. It is very important for them.

Then there are those, like me, who read about love, marriage, and sex in the Scriptures and we see that relationships have evolved dramatically with culture. As a woman, I cannot point to the authority of the Bible when it comes to marital relationships. I cannot look at the Scriptures and say “Ahhh. That is what marriage ought to be like.” Because when I read about marriage from a women’s perspective (frankly) it’s filled with horror stories. Women are bought and sold like property. There are many wives for every husband. Men have sex with their slaves if they cannot bear children with their wives. Marriages are arranged for political alliances. Kings keep harems of women. There does seem to be one loving relationship in the Song of Songs, but the lovers are sneaking around in that book, and they’re clearly not married. And so, as someone who takes the Bible very seriously, I can’t see it as an ideal authority on love and marriage, between one man and one woman, because I just don’t see it in the Scriptures.

When I point out how oppressive and abusive marriage is for women in the Bible, people can be quick to defend. They say, “Those were cultural practices, so we cannot take modern our view of marriage and superimpose it on an ancient view.”

And I agree. Our cultural definition of marriage has changed since biblical times. So if we cannot take our view of marriage and expect for biblical marriages to live up to our standards, then we should not be taking the biblical standards and imposing them on our culture. Culturally, we believe that loving relationships are between two people who commit themselves to one another. We know that no marriage is perfect, people are earth-bound, but we still hope for the ideal. We know how the world is, but we long for the world as it ought to be.

The struggle reminds me of the time I was reading Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, a story that took place in Savannah, Georgia. In the book, they were going to trial and they were trying to weed out those who might be prejudice against a gay man, and so they asked a series of questions, trying to detect any homophobia. And the last question they asked–the very last litmus test that they pulled out was to ask if they would you mind if their pastor was gay. The lawyer determined that if they said no to that question, then the final barrier was removed.

I wonder if that’s true. And if it is, it puts this struggle into a bit more perspective. Are we trying to remove the last barrier for the next generation? I know that gays and lesbians face discrimination all over our culture. I’m not saying that the struggle is over when LGBT people can be ordained. But I wonder, is that the reason we stay in this historic denomination, even when we know it’s not right? Is it because we know that people are earth-bound, but we still dream and strive for the ideal, the heavenly?

In a strange way, Libby’s words reminded me of Jesus’ prayer, the one that we say every Sunday morning. We read the context for it this morning. Jesus is teaching the disciples how to pray, and he gave them these words. And I always pause at that bit about “On Earth as it is in Heaven,” because I do not know what heaven is like. None of us do. We have ideas of it from the Bible, but really, we don’t even have that many of those. And the authors never experienced it, except through visions. I believe in heaven, and not just because it gives people incredible comfort when their loved ones come to the end of their lives. I believe that in our birth we emanated from God’s love, and in our death we return to God’s love. And there is a very real sense in which heaven is what we wish for and long for, where suffering will melt away.

And so I wonder, as disciples of Jesus, when Jesus invites us to pray, “On earth as it is in heaven,” if we are not being invited to dream a bit. It is as if we are being told, “pray for the perfect world. Even when what is surrounding you is far from perfect, keep hoping and keep dreaming for a world that is.”

Prayer is an incredibly powerful exercise. And one of the most important parts of prayer, is that we verbalize what we want. If you are like me, this doesn’t always come naturally. You know, often times we are taught to be happy with what we have, rather than dreaming of what we want. And it is extremely important to be satisfied with the things that we have, but in the last few years, I have just discovered how important it is to imagine what I want. It is important that we write it down carefully, and ask God for it.

A business is typically not going to be successful if that business does not have a plan. A non-profit organization may not be effective if they do not have a vision statement. A church will flounder if the congregation does not have a mission. As citizens, we will need keep imagining what a just society looks like, and work for that end. And as humans, we may never understand what our purpose is in this life, if we never ask ourselves what we want out of it. Some people have no problem with this at all, but there are many, many people in this world who do not know what they want, especially those who have been historically oppressed. They might feel as if they are at the mercy of everyone else’s desires, and they don’t know how to fight for their own vision of what might be good and right.

This may seem like a completely selfish venture, and it can be. Often it is. I mean, the “prosperity gospel” is unique in our country and history, and it is often born out of selfishness and greed. And I don’t think that the American prosperity gospel is what Jesus had in mind… but it is a wonderful thing to imagine, “What if earth was like heaven? What would that look like? What would a just society look like? What would the world look like if every barrier to God’s love was lifted?” We can imagine it on a global scale and a local scale, and even in a personal sense. What would the ideal state of things, where there is no separation from God’s love, look like? It reminds me of the words of Walter Rauschenbusch, a wonderful pastor and writer from the turn of the twentieth century, who worked with the poor in New York City. He said that our struggles as Christians is “a great revolutionary moment, pledged to change the world as-it-is into the world as-it-ought-to-be.”

The world as-it-is into the world as-it-ought-to-be.

On earth as it is in heaven.

I wonder if that is what keep Libby from giving up on our historic denomination, not content with allowing it to look anything less than God’s unbounded love. I wonder if “on earth as it is in heaven” is the prayer that worked through each stitch, as women and men crocheted rainbow scarves, in the hopes that the next generation will have a church and country that is free from discrimination. Even though they know what the world is, they will continue to work and hope for a world as it ought to be. They will continue to be a witness to Gods love.

It is a prayer of great power, when we begin to pray it. There can be a great humility if we ask God to bless our hopes. Let us go out, with that prayer on our lips. To the glory of God our Creator, God our Sustainer, and God our Liberator. Amen.

13 Comments »

Season Two of God Complex Radio has begun, and Bruce Reyes-Chow had a wonderful conversation with Diana Butler-Bass. Join us as we talk about civility and graciousness.

No Comments »

We just released the first episode of the new season for God Complex Radio! Bruce Reyes-Chow and I have conversations with Brian McLaren, Abby King Kaiser, and Fritz Gutwein.

Please, take a listen and tell us what you think. Bruce, Landon, and I are really excited about it.

7 Comments »

I wanted to give myself six weeks from my shoulder injury before I started blogging again. My doctor said it would take that long to heal. Although I didn’t believe him, he was right. It took that long to heal.

The pain has been gone for a little while. My shoulder just reminds me that something is wrong every once in a while with sharp jabs that last for a few seconds. And I’ve had some overwhelming exhaustion. But, the great news is that I haven’t had any more problems with the shoulder dislocating, so it doesn’t look like I’ll need surgery.

Actually, now the pang I’m feeling is guilt, about writing “great news” on a day like today.

In Haiti, the devastation is overwhelming. People are trying to dig men and women out of the rubble with their hands. I am getting emails from people who don’t know if their friends were caught in the quake. Thousands are dead.

Being a religious person in this sort of situation gives me some hope in humanity, because we find out about the many people who have been working there, trying to make things better for a poor country. Often they are there with a church group, or because of their faith. As soon as the disaster hit, I could think of a number of friends who have dedicated their lives to the people of Haiti.

It’s almost enough to drown out Pat Robertson’s remarks. But not quite.

Are you looking for a way to help? Here is a list of relief organizations that my husband put together. I have a friend and member of our church who has been working with the Quixote Center. I have been impressed with their work. Give and pray. Give and pray.

photo by Jan Sochor

1 Comment »

I’m holding in my hand a thick manuscript. One that needs a whole lot of editing and a summary chapter, but it’s in good enough shape that I feel like I can start blogging again.

Dave Eggers says that if you’re writing a book, an important thing to do is to print out the manuscript, hold the paper in your hand, feel the weight of it. Pay to have it bound, if it’s not going to a publisher.

It’s a good exercise. I don’t like to waste the trees, so I try to do as much electronically as I possibly can, but a couple times in the process, I print it out. I’ve learned to take care of the papers, too. Treat the words with respect. It’s easy for me to let them get lost in the shuffle of school notices and church minutes, let them get dog-eared and coffee-stained, but it’s a vital practice to act as if they’re important thoughts (even when in the midst of editing, I feel like they’ll never be fit for public consumption).

For those of you who write, I’ll update you a bit on the editing process. Because it’s excruciating some days, and wonderful the next day. Right now, it’s difficult, because it all seems out of order, parts of it are bloated, while other parts feel anemic. It kind of reminds me of when I was a kid, and I would find a smelly roadkill possum on some deserted road. In the Florida heat, some of the parts would swell, and others would be all flat….

So, I’m just concentrating on the volume, the quantity, the structure, and trying to feel good about it.

Thanks for your patience, while I concentrated more on it.

There have been some other wonderful developments in our lives around here in the last month, while I was away. I’ve been to the Presbymergent coordinating group gathering (Leslie Scanlon wrote an insightful article on it). I’ve also been with the Disciples in D.C., the Methodists in New Jersey, and the Presbyterians in Pennsylvania, as well as a Fund for Theological Education event at my Alma Mater in Texas.

The most exciting thing that happened was that Michelle Obama came to serve our guests at Miriam’s Kitchen, the breakfast and social service program that’s housed in our church. She wanted to highlight Miriam’s commitment to fresh food and their healthy menu. I was impressed by her warmth and generous spirit. She kept her secret service on their toes as she greeted the homeless men and women. 

Also, Bruce Reyes-Chow–our esteemed Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA)–and I are starting an Internet Radio Show, which you can read about more here. We are incredibly thankful that Landon Whitsitt will be the Program Producer and Heather Scott will be the Tech Producer and Engineer. We’ll be discussing politics, faith, and culture, beginning on May 4 (well… we might talk about those things before May 4, but on May 4 is when we’re going on air). Andrew Sherman came up with the name “The God Complex,” and now we need to think of a tagline.

Any thoughts? The Twitter feedback has been fun:

• God Complex: 2 people with 3 names talking about 1 God with many names (Camille LeBron Powell)
• The God Complex: How We Live in this Earthly Rental Community (Fritz Gutwein)
• The God Complex: WIIFM Alternative Radio (What’s In It For Me) (Zach Sasser)
• God Complex: scrutting the inscrutable (Jim Bonewald)
• God Complex: conversation as complex and inscrutable as God (Jim Bonewald)
• God Complex: it is really not that difficult (Brian Merritt)
• God Complex: We’ve Figured it Out (Brian Merritt)
• God Complex: Easy Cures (Brian Merritt)
• The God Complex: If Years of Theologians didn’t confuse you, we’ll give it a shot (Mark Smith) 
• The God Complex: We Tried The God Simple and that didn’t work (Mark Smith)
• God Complex: you wouldn’t understand. (Brian Merritt)
• The God Complex: It’s Only A Neurosis if the majority think it is (Mark Smith)
•  The God Complex: No Longer a Gated Community (Mark Smith)
• The God Complex: Catch It! (Mark Smith)
• God Complex: Does This Divinity Make Me Look Fat? (Brian Merritt)

Visit Bruce’s blog and join the discussion, and I’ll make sure I post more information when we know it. 

It’s good to be back. Life wasn’t quite the same without y’all.

photo by objecthoag

7 Comments »

A group of us spent the night in my office, which is located a few blocks away from the mall. We put on layer upon layer of clothing, in order to stay warm while we stood in one place for hours. We were pretty peculiar, a group of pastors, plus my daughter. And we were surrounded by an incredible array of people, white hippies wearing Grateful Dead concert souvenirs, New York liberals wrapped in fur coats, young Latinos with cell phones, older African-American women with hopeful histories. Our hearts lifted as Barack Obama was sworn in and they soared when he spoke.

Change is upon us.

Hopefully, there will be immediate policy changes—like the end of torture, health insurance for children, and an implementation of a wiser foreign policy. And there will be hard changes that will take time—like better education for all children, health care for all Americans, rebuilding of our crumbling infrastructure, and environmental stewardship for our exhausted planet.

This event also marked significant cultural changes—like a move from the greed of the individual to the care of the community. With giant corporations begging for bailouts, and huge banks collapsing, we know that we need to do things differently.

What does all of mean for our congregations? What is changing on our religious landscape? Well, there is a new passion for social justice, for living out the words of Jesus. And I cannot help but notice the Joshua Generation—the young Evangelicals who cannot swear allegiance to Christian Right, who are finding their own way.

Newsweek recently had a portrait of a man who represented so many of my friends, as well as myself. We grew up in conservative Evangelical households, but when we became adults, the political alliances that our parents made no longer made sense. The sexism, homophobia, and (sometimes) racism of the Religious Right did not seem to match the ministry of Jesus.

There are a swarm of young Evangelicals who are wandering right now. Twenty-six percent of young Evangelicals support same-sex marriage. They no longer have a spiritual home in the congregations of their youth. So, how are denominations going to respond? Can we begin to open up our doors to a new generation?

I am a Presbyterian. I have been a PC(USA) pastor for ten years and a member for fifteen. I love my denomination, but I am still uncomfortable in it. Often, when I’m around denominational types, things are said that make our denominations inhospitable for people who grew up Evangelical.

I guess I should just spell it out. Because I love my church, I need to let you know that if we want to reach out to a new generation, we will need to learn to accept Evangelicals or ex-Evangelicals. You may not agree with me, you may not have had the same experience, but still, personally people communicate to me regularly, “You’re not one of us, and you never will be.” Sometimes I don’t know exactly how it’s being said, but I’ll try to put my finger on some of the more pernicious habits of the mainline.

In my denomination, many people say, “Well, they obviously don’t know what it means to be Presbyterian.” Wake up, my friends. No one knows what it means to be Presbyterian. We are a small group that will keep getting smaller if we think that everyone needs to know the Book of Order before being able to sit in a pew.

“Christianity has not been a force in our society since the sixties.” Wrong. Mainline denominationalism has not been a force in our culture since the sixties. Evangelicals have been a strong tradition since the birth of our nation, and they grew tremendously in the ’80s. They have been creating think tanks, educational institutions, and grass-roots political movements. And they are Christians too.

“Evangelicals are dumb.” Whether we say it outright or not, this is often our message. I know. I went to Bible College. And while I have friends who went on to do social work and their degrees were seen as an asset, mine has always been seen as a hindrance in my work as a minister. I have an education that allows me to understand inside-and-out the largest religious movement in our nation, and people in my denomination regularly mock me for it.

I can tell you that there were smart people at Bible college, and not-so-smart people in seminary. So, please, can we get over ourselves? Just because we worship in a denominational church doesn’t mean that our IQ is any higher.

I could go on. But I won’t. I’ll just wrap it up by saying, things are changing. And the biggest change on the religious front is that young Evangelicals are leaving their roots. Can we put aside our elitism? Can we reach out to them? If we can, this could be a time of tremendous growth and renewal for our congregations.

30 Comments »

In the midst of the election season, I was asked if I would write a blog post supporting Barack Obama. I had to think about it for a few days. I believe in the separation of church and state, and I would never support one candidate from the pulpit.

But, it was a moment in the election when Sarah Palin had been picked and the Republicans were all energized, which was great. Except then I would turn on the television and listen to “Drill, Baby, Drill!”

After a couple of years living in “cancer alley” in Louisiana, I learned what drilling and processing could do to the environment and people’s health. I could just imagine the earth under the feet of those crowds crying out with a muffled, “Help me. Please.”

You know, there are not that many people qualified to do these jobs, and John McCain had, like, a hundred years of political favors to pay back. Even though I realize McCain stood up to his party, I also knew that he would inevitably be stuck hiring the same advisors who have driven our country into this big, scary ditch. Or, he could find some more beauty queens to hire. Either way, it wasn’t looking good.

I figured that I needed to do what I could, and if that meant writing a blog post, as a private citizen, then I would. So, I did.

Go ahead. You can pick that decision apart.

There is a lot to say about whether pastors should publicly support one candidate. Typically, I would not, because I would not want Christianity tied to one political party, or one candidate. We’ve had an awful lot of that in recent decades. Unlike many of my colleagues (whom I respect deeply), I am not middle-of-the-road. I’m not a moderate. I do not refuse labels. My views are not that complicated, although they are also not the same as whatever the Democrats are cookin’ up in their kitchen at this moment.

I am progressive. I want to see social justice happen in our country. I want people to be fed and sheltered. Men and women, who go to work for forty hours a week, should make a living wage. We have enough resources in our country to ensure that everyone has health care. Children should have equal opportunities, equal education. We should protect the environment. I could go on… but you get the picture, and I’ve spent enough time digressing.

The point of the post was actually not about pastors picking presidents. The point was more about presidents picking pastors. I know we’ve all read more about Rick Warren than we ever wanted to, so I won’t rehearse his views on same gender relationships again. But, the selection of who will lead the Inaugural Invocation and the fury that ensued made me realize what a strange moment in history this is.

Billy Graham, the man who was the “pastor to the presidents,” and, therefore, (some people thought) pastor to the country, is in his nineties. He’s probably not able to swim in the White House pool anymore. He needs to be replaced.

I wonder if Barack Obama realized that he was picking Billy Graham’s successor. I wonder if he should.

Maybe it’s time to go to a new model. I mean, maybe we don’t need a one-size-fits-all-presidents pastor. Maybe half of the presidents didn’t even like Billy Graham, and they just felt obligated to invite him to pray for this or that because it was the custom.

Some people say that Obama has a pastor problem, but shouldn’t presidents be able to go to whomever they want for prayer and spiritual guidance? Why should we assume that it will be the same person for the next fifty years? Can you imagine the pastor for that job? I mean, it’s hard enough to keep a small congregation happy with you, how could you keep a large country happy with you? And what about the strange positions that the pastor might be put in? Anyone remember Philip Wogaman (the man who wrote my ethics textbook) defending Bill Clinton’s sexual proclivities on CNN? Can you say, “Awkward”? Would it even be possible for a president to have a pastor nowadays without the blogosphere getting all in an uproar? 

What do you think?

The photo is of the Billy Graham Library by Carolina Tim. From what I’ve read, I think the barn has an  animatronic milk cow, named “Bessie,” that will lead you in the prayer of salvation. Anyone been there? Is it true?

5 Comments »

Miriam’s Kitchen, the feeding and social services program at Western, was on Anderson Cooper yesterday. They’re doing amazing things, in difficult times.

3 Comments »

I was part of a Christian focus group, where clergy, scholars, and lay leaders gathered to watch and reflect on a documentary about Islam. I shuddered at the portrayal shown in the footage.

I have Muslim friends and work with Muslims students at GW. And if you were to ask me to describe Islam, I would probably focus on submission to God and regular prayer. I would also mention how much I have learned about caring for the environment from Imams in my area.

Yet, the film focused on some of the most radical aspects of Islamic fundamentalism. I shifted in my seat, frustrated by the gaping disconnect between what I saw and the Muslims with whom I work. For instance, there were clerics defending FGM in great length: a practice that most Muslims would adamantly oppose.

When the film ended and the discussion began, someone asked a constructive question: “Is there any way that the labeling could reflect where the cleric or scholar is coming from? I mean, when we watch the news and see that Jerry Falwell is representing the Christian perspective, everyone knows that Falwell is a fundamentalist and that’s not mainstream Christianity.”

I suddenly became even more uncomfortable as I thought: No they don’t.

The truth is, in a new generation, almost twenty percent of college students have never been to church, so they probably don’t understand the wide spectrum of Christianity.

In my denomination, we assume that everyone knows the difference between PCUSA, PCA and EPC, but many people I encounter don’t know the difference between Presbyterian and Pentecostal. And there is a good number of people who see a commentator with Rev. in front of his name and believe that one man stands for a monolithic Christianity.

I always assumed there was some sort of media conspiracy. You know, some plot to make all Christians come off as sexist and war-mongering as possible. We seem to always fight against poverty and want to destroy creation. And there’s no question about it, if you didn’t vote for W, then you’re going to hell.

But, recently, I spoke to a friend who works with the news, and he assured me that there is no media plot to portray Christianity as a group of whacky fundamentalists. He said, “Carol, those are just the people who are quick with sound bites and easily accessible.”

So, is any one else bothered by this? I know that Diana Butler Bass writes about it a lot. What can we do about it? Is there any way that we can begin training media-savvy progressives? Can someone start an on-line think tank for talking points? I’m not saying that we should start a Religious Left, but how about working for some balance in the way that Christians are covered by the media? Why haven’t mainliners been more active in pursuing media coverage?

The photo of Tinky Winky is by Amontillado 42. Unlike Christianity, Tinky Winky’s public image was greatly enhanced by Jerry Falwell.

17 Comments »

I was asked this week: “If you were Sarah Palin, would you have said yes to John McCain?”

I would have hesitated, certainly. I never think about any position without considering my family. And with two pastors in the family, there is a lot to consider. Will my child have the best care possible? Is there enough flexibility in the job so that I can be a mom? How would the church respond to a mom? Would they freak out when she breast feeds in public? Do they like women? Will my child be exposed to a sexist environment, where she constantly hears unfair complaints about her mom? How will that affect her spiritually and emotionally? Does the church expect children to be perfect? Will they look after her and care for her when I can’t, or when there’s no way to hire a babysitter? Are there job opportunities for my husband? Will we have enough income to avoid marital stress?

I could go on and on… but you get the picture. Being a mother does not keep me from working, but it does make things more complicated. There are times when there may not be the perfect answer to all of these questions. And I have often looked at the messiness of our lives, and wondered if I should stay at home. But I know I would be devastated and frustrated, and I have to think about myself as well. As they say in South, “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” Having a working mom might be difficult, but living with a depressed mother certainly is no picnic….

Anyways, we’re not talking here about a pastorate of a 200-member church. We are talking about Vice President and, chances are, maybe even President. And we’re not talking about one child (as is my case), we’re talking about five. One who is five months old with Down’s Syndrome. And one who is five-months pregnant.

I still think I would have taken the opportunity. Perhaps I’m too driven (as may people have said about Palin), but you know why I would have taken it? Because if I was a Republican (I’m not), I would realize that my acceptance would not just affect my family, but it would affect every single family in the United States—even the most conservative ones. Our country has a deep and dark history of social oppression against women, which is largely rooted in conservative Christianity. The acceptance would change all the rules.

According to the rules of many religious conservatives in our country, women should not be in leadership positions outside or even inside of the home. Parents (and especially moms) are responsible for the indiscretions of their children. Abstinence—not birth control—is the only key that will keep young women from pregnancy and (sadly) the poverty that often results.

And in just these short days, we are beginning to see some pliability in the rules. As a woman, I’m delighted to see them changing, especially on the religious front. I love seeing Dr. Richard Land, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, say that a woman can run this country, even though he once signed the dreaded document:

A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect and to lead his family. A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being “in the image of God” as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his “helper” in managing their household and nurturing the next generation.

Hhmmm… now… if a woman can run the country, can she run a church?

I’m delighted that we have a VP candidate who breast-feeds during briefings. Palin’s young daughter is pregnant, and she does not deserve the scrutiny. But idealistic abstinence policies, like the ones that Palin promotes, do deserve serious examination. As do childcare issues, support for women and infants, and family leave policies.

There are things that I don’t like seeing. I don’t like when people assume that Palin’s dumb, because she’s young and pretty (like the quick spin that compared her to Dan Quayle). I don’t like the assumption that she got the job because she’s pretty either.

Most of all, I don’t like her policies and her inexperience. Actually, I don’t know many of her policies, because of her inexperience (and no, I don’t buy the argument that her experience matches Obama’s. I can’t even find much legislation that she’s voted on, and I would certainly never belittle the work of community organizing).

But a couple things are certain: Palin expects that the US can drill our way out of our petroleum dependence. And we don’t know what she thinks on matters of foreign policy, but she promises to be tough. And, as a mom who would love to see my daughter grow up in a cleaner, safer world, I know that I can’t support her. Lipstick or not, I just can’t stomach another pit bull.

Photo’s by Luis Alves

15 Comments »