Evangelicals surprise the media

evangelicalsSally Quinn, the atheist who professed knowing “practically nothing about religion or the internet” when she started the Washington Post/Newsweek religion site On Faith, had a curious admission in her most recent piece. Her essay is about how the news of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy will affect religious voters. She begins by admitting that Sen. John McCain’s pick of Gov. Sarah Palin angered her.

Anger seems to be a dominant feeling coming from the current mainstream media feeding frenzy. I have honestly never seen anything quite like what’s happening here.

I know reporters can get a bit out of control when dealing with their favorite issue (politics) — but I am actually shocked by the way journalists are handling this story. CNN, for instance, showed Barack Obama telling the media that Palin’s daughter should be off-limits — and then went right into a story that used Palin’s daughter’s teenage pregnancy as a hook to condemn abstinence education. It didn’t sit well with many viewers — and even a few of the commentators whose time on air followed the spot denounced it in the strongest terms. The mainstream media notoriously had to be forced to report on John Edwards’ baby drama. But the story of Palin’s daughter has made the front pages of most major papers.

Anyway, Quinn’s piece is a great example of why On Faith is better when it involves actual reporting. After copping to extreme anger and being insulted, she alleges that McCain’s pick will not go over well with “family values” voters. I almost stopped reading after she accused McCain of picking Palin because he’s trying to “win an election.” (Yes, I imagine that political calculation did go into his thinking, Sally.) Anyway, here we go:

And now we learn the 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. She and the father of the child plan to marry. This may be a hard one for the Republican conservative family-values crowd to swallow. Of course, this can happen in any family. But it must certainly raise the question among the evangelical base about whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother.

McCain claims he knew about the pregnancy, and was not at all concerned. Why not? Not only do we have a woman with five children, including an infant with special needs, but a woman whose 17-year-old child will need her even more in the coming months. Not to mention the grandchild. This would inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil. Not only in terms of her job, but from a media standpoint as well.

Nice. Question her parenting skills and push the idea that women must put everything on hold until they have no concerns at home. Yay feminism! She actually goes on to say that women should not get involved in politics until their children are older. It’s like up is down in newsrooms. Anyway, what about her contention that evangelicals won’t support Palin? Here’s the best part:

Southern Baptist leaders like Richard Land and Al Mohler have praised McCain’s choice. But these are the same men who support this statement from the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message:

“A wife is to submit herself 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 the household and nurturing the next generation.”

Okay, Quinn. You’re a reporter. Rather than quote this statement completely out of context, how about you pick up the phone (there should be one near your computer where you typed this piece) and call either of these men and ask them how this statement on marriage relates to women’s work outside the home.

Sheesh. Newsflash: Baptists believe the Bible to be sacred Scripture. Now read Ephesians 5. See how it says Christian marriage is about wives submitting to their husbands as the church submits to Christ? See how it says husbands are to sacrifice everything for and love their wives as Christ did for the church? This is basic Christian teaching. Does it play into whether Land and Mohler support or oppose Palin? I highly doubt it. But maybe you should ask them before you quote them completely out of context. I really don’t get what that statement has to do with Quinn’s story at all.

A far better story came from Associated Press, which discussed how evangelical voters would feel about the pregnancy news:

Key evangelical leaders rallied to Sarah Palin’s support Monday amid news that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, was having a child.

“Before, they 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.” . . .

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.”

The immediate support of these major figures, who offered universal praise for the Palins’ actions after learning their daughter was pregnant, provides the filter through which conservative Christian voters will process the development.

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.

I said it was better — but it’s certainly not perfect. For one thing, I’m pretty sure Grover Norquist is no “key evangelical leader.” And while it’s well and good to get quotes from Land and others, what does it mean that they are the “filter through which conservative Christian voters will process the development”? Is this a reference to Michael Weisskopf’s Washington Post news article that claimed evangelicals were poor, uneducated and easy to command? And why is James Dobson’s statement “most important for Palin”? I don’t get why it would be more important than anything else.

evangelicals soGoneOtherwise, it’s nice to see the media correctly quoting evangelical leaders. Usually they make them seem like dour fussybots intent on condemning everyone for everything. While it is true that they condemn sin — they also emphasize the importance of repentance and forgiveness. That part of the equation tends to be ignored by the press. These folks may take a hard line against sin that is proudly displayed or defiantly defended but they’re not going to condemn a teenage girl who is about to give birth to a child rather than abort it.

In other words, Quinn’s lack of knowledge about evangelicals shows. She should try talking to some and see if they really do match up with her stereotypes. Byron York of National Review has a fascinating piece about how the McCain team actually personally called “40 top evangelical and other cultural conservative leaders” and gave each a chance to respond. York reports that the response was unanimous support for Palin. He then goes to talk to a few delegations about the matter. Not surprising to anyone who knows human nature, some of the delegates speak about their own teenage pregnancies and how it brought them into the pro-life movement.

Another example of advancing stereotypes was found in a New York Times story a reader passed along. The headline and first graph promise tumult in the GOP and the story says that “social conservatives” and “groups that oppose abortion rights” may not continue to support Palin.

But then the article goes on to quote a ton of people and all of them — except for one Democrat — are completely supportive of Palin. The reporter even asks if Palin will be thrown off the ticket — despite the fact that no Republicans seem concerned, not even the evangelical types, and McCain says he knew (along with everyone in Wasilla) and he’s not concerned:

Early reaction among women at the Republican convention to the news about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy was almost uniformly supportive.

“This happens to people in all walks of life,” said Karen Minnis, 54, a state representative from Oregon.

She also said she had no problem with Governor Palin continuing to campaign while her daughter is pregnant and she herself has an infant son. . . .

When Pam Younggren, 61, of Fargo, N.D., was told the news of the 17-year-old’s pregnancy, she shrugged. “Well, she wouldn’t be the first one,” she said.

So the religious voters are not in tumult, as the New York Times claimed. It’s just bizarre headline/lede writing.

I actually think this story provides the perfect prism through which to analyze some evangelicals’ approach to sin, repentance and forgiveness. I think it has to be one of the most misunderstood aspects of evangelicals and would contribute greatly to the public discourse. Unless the media need to keep defining evangelicals who are politically conservative as bogeyman who should be feared by all, that is.

Every time I write about evangelicals, I want to include cover art from Evangelicals, the band. And now I have.

Print Friendly

  • Dan Crawford

    If you think Sally Quinn’s ignorant comments are outrageous, wait until Anna Quindlen unburdens herself.

  • http://religion.beloblog.com/ Jeffrey Weiss

    Um. The thought that some Christian conservatives might object to Palin isn’t *all* an media invention, folks. See this. From Dr. Voddie Baucham, Jr., a Southern Baptist pastor. A nugget:

    I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick.

  • Nathan

    ??

    Rev. Baucham is surely not a house-hold name. And even he notes that he is largely alone on this one: “Everyone from Liberty Counsel to FRC is raving about the political genius displayed by Mr. McCain.”

    Some people will support anything — the question is how representative they are…

  • http://decentfilms.com SDG

    From Dr. Voddie Baucham, Jr., a Southern Baptist pastor.

    Um, who? I get a lot of Google hits for this name, but no Wiki page. I don’t think we’re talking about a “key Evangelical leader” here either.

    Blogger Peter Chattaway makes an interesting connection to the film Juno, a teen-pregnancy film embraced by many pro-lifers:

    What I want to know is why so many people seem to think that her teenaged daughter’s pregnancy is a blow against Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s family-values cred, given that so many pro-lifers were very eager to claim Juno — the movie that supposedly romanticized teen pregnancy — as one of their own only a few months ago. Haven’t pro-lifers proved that they can deal with, and even on some level embrace, this sort of thing?

    Chattaway also quotes Rod Dreher‘s converging observation:

    I can’t help thinking that in the matter of Bristol Palin and her unborn child, many on the left simply can’t stand it that conservatives are failing to live up to the malign stereotypes liberals have of them.

  • http://onlinefaith.blogspot.com C. Wingate

    One has to, um, “like” the way this CNN comment-roundup story characterizes James Dobson as “an elder statesman of the movement”. On the other hand, it does get in a great, epitomizing quote from Richard Land (who I hadn’t heard of and who is not well-identified in the piece); on the other other hand, this is immediately followed by a really clueless statement pushing the hot button of how evangelicals are led around by their noses by their leaders, er, “major figures”. It’s hard for me to tell whether they’re starting to get embarrassed about keeping Dobson’s phone line ringing, or whether they truly believe that evangelicals check with these guys before deciding how to vote. And let’s not get started on the fine distinctions, such as whether someone from the SBC is an “evangelical” as opposed to, say, a fundamentalist

  • Brian L

    Kudos to Mollie.

    Quinn demonstrates her absolute lack of understanding of SBC leaders sense of “family values” as well as the history and purpose of the non-creedal document we call “The Baptist Faith & Message, 2000.” Land and Mohler both love to explain their understanding of issues – it would have been so simple to try a call…

    She also completely misunderstands the “Republican conservative family-values crowd.” Even if (especially if) we granted the worst judgemental, legalistic stereotypes of back-woods Bible-thumpers – social conservatives generally like it when the mother keeps the baby and marries the father. Why would anyone initially assume differently?

    Cheers for the AP article. The quotes therein accurately communicate what I (an evangelical SBC pastor) and others like me have been thinking.

    Someone at the AP “got it.” Quinn missed it big-time.

  • http://www.soilcatholics.blogspot.com Peggy

    I seem to be an odd-ball pro-life conservative. I’m with the media. I don’t understand the cheers. Get the kids quietly married. Then announce the marriage and the pending birth. Everything the liberal media is arguing is what we claim to believe: Palin shouldn’t be running for Veep with a little baby of her own and a teen pregnancy problem to resolve (either through an adoption or marriage of the couple). In any case, Bristol’s situation proves that abstinence works.

  • Brian

    “She begins by admitting that Sen. John McCain’s pick of Gov. Sarah Palin angered her.”

    Nothing new here. It’s pretty breathtaking to see the level of vitriol that is directed towards any non-white-male who dares to be a Republican. Clarence Thomas has been belittled to a degree that cannot be exaggerated. When he’s dead there will be criticism in the media of what they’ve done to him, but not one second earlier. Similarly Condi Rice, Miguel Estrada, etc. And now we see Gov. Palin AND HER FAMILY torn to pieces by the left and the media, and then the media turns around and attacks her for stepping forward and “allowing” her family to be torn to pieces! It’s outrageous. And completely predictable, of course. The media’s just using their power in ways they’ve been frustrated about their inability to do against John McCain. The public knows him, and the media actually has little power to change established opinion, but the public doesn’t know Gov. Palin, and so the MSM has their chance to set the narrative and destroy her.

  • FW Ken

    Reading Sally’s Quinn piece (as much as I could stand) sent my cynicism-about-journalism meter over the top. Now you tell me she’s a real reporter? I thought she was an opinion columnist. I’ve seen sidewalk puddles in August deeper than that woman’s writing.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    FW Ken,

    I have no idea how to properly characterize On Faith, since it has both some limited original reporting and lots of “expert” commentary, but Quinn’s background is as a reporter.

  • Jerry

    I actually think this story provides the perfect prism through which to analyze some evangelicals’ approach to sin, repentance and forgiveness. I think it has to be one of the most misunderstood aspects of evangelicals and would contribute greatly to the public discourse.

    I agree. And not just evangelicals but further, as my comment in another Palin topic illustrated, the societal effects of teenage, unwed pregnancy on the poor.

    This campaign is like nothing I’ve ever seen and I’m in my 60′s so my memory goes back to Eisenhower’s presidency. The role of religion in America has been a critical theme this year from the long forgotten primaries (remember those?) to Obama and now with Palin in the spotlight. Every single hot button religious topic has been thrashed over and over and now we’re on to unwed teen pregnancy.

    Trying to step back and look at what is going on with some perspective, it feels to me like a cooking process: something is being boiled with stuff coming to the surface where it can be skimmed off. I’m sure that the teleological perspective on this process won’t be reported, of course. And perhaps I’m guilty to trying to apply a historical perspective to current events but perspective is one thing we really need.

  • Dan

    Why would the pick of Palin anger someone? I can understand thinking that the pick was ill-advised or disagreeing with Palin’s politics…but anger?

  • http://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com Maureen

    Why were some folks in the UK so angry that Maggie Thatcher was the first female PM? I mean, sure, she did plenty of stuff before and after that to anger them. But a woman like her, being in the position that “should” have been won by a woman in some more approved party, was the problem from day zero.

  • Martha

    Indeed, how dare a politican make a calculated choice in an attempt to win an election? Unthinkable!

    I really think a lot of this reaction is genuinely anger, on the unconscious level of “How dare they do this? This is our platform! They’re supposed to be anti-women and misogynistic, now they’re stealing our clothes!”

    I seriously cannot believe the rumours about Mrs. Palin’s child not being hers but an attempt to disguise a secret pregnancy of her daughter’s being given any kind of consideration by those with pretensions to being proper reporters and journalists; tell me, are there any rumours about Mr. Biden’s children not being his? After all, how do we know he’s telling the truth about that? Good grief, people!

  • Jerry

    I’m puzzled by the characterization of anger as a dominant emotion. Maybe that is the MSM reaction, but from my friends on the far left, it’s not in the least on the radar screen. Besides the expected disdain for her politics and religion, there’s comments about her support for Ron Paul and nicknames being generated by a picture someone found of her wearing an American Flag bikini and holding a rifle (or maybe a shotgun). There will be multiple PhD theses available to social psychologists who analyze the madness from which the country is suffering.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Jerry,

    Someone coined the term “Palinsanity” to describe what’s going on in certain parts of the blogosphere where it’s best not to roll your windows down. And I’m not just talking about Sullivan here!

  • Dave G.

    The anger would be from political operatives. The average Joe or Jane on the street Democrat will simply look for reasons to dismiss her as a viable candidate, in the same way they would on the right if the situation were reversed. Sure, operatives will be angry, this was one clever move in the political chess game. The biggest criticism isn’t really a pregnancy or any potential scandal. It’s her lack of experience. But every time the ‘E’ word is dropped, it is a nail in Obama’s coffin, and his pundits know it. So check on McCain’s part. And that is why those who try to outmaneuver political opponents would be frustrated. Just like a coach is flustered when the opposite coach outflanks his plan.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    I’ve had to delete a few of the more off-topic comments here. Nothing awful, just not on topic.

    Stay focused on media coverage, not the underlying issues themselves, please.

  • http://www.parablesofaprodigalworld.com Raffi Shahinian

    So, should this be a public matter or, as Obama insists, “off limits.” Here’s another (post-Evangelical) Christian perspective, for anyone who might be interested.

    Grace and Peace.

  • Jerry

    Raffi Shahinian, thanks for the link. The question at the bottom of that post is very, VERY apt:

    **UPDATE: I’ve run into a few posts on this issue (here’s one) where the following hypothetical was posed: What if this was Obama’s 17-year-old daughter? I found that to be a fascinating hypo. Think about it.**

    I think the answer is obvious and would separate those who have actual morals and ethics from those who are power lovers.

  • http://reformedpastor.wordpress.com David Fischler

    I’m with the media. I don’t understand the cheers. Get the kids quietly married. Then announce the marriage and the pending birth.

    The reason for the announcement is that there was no chance of keeping it quiet, so they decided to put it out before some reporter could announce the latest “scandal.” It is precisely because of the media fascination with dirty laundry (Don Henley really did get it right) that stuff like this can’t be done without fanfare.

    As for “cheers,” I’m not hearing that so much as satisfaction that the Palins decided to handle the situation in a way that comported well with their professed principles, particularly their pro-life convictions. Most evangelicals, I’m sure, would say that Bristol Palin’s behavior (and that of her boyfriend, of course) was wrong, and not a reflection of their Christian convictions. But the damage having been done, it’s time for repentance and forgiveness.

    I’ve got more to say about Quinn’s piece here.

  • http://jewishjournal.com/thegodblog Brad A. Greenberg

    Bravo, Mollie.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Martha mentioned Joe Biden-So how about applying some of the liberal media’s knife wielding (extremely sexist) attacks on Palin to Biden: Wasn’t he a single parent after the death of his wife?? Yet he continued his political career far from home. Who did care for his semi-orphaned kids?? How did he handle it??? Wasn’t his situation more problematic than Sarah P’s who has a husband who accounts say has been willing to be a virtual house-husband when necessary. So where were the insulting front page stories and wretched interviews and ignorant TV comments about HIS situation.
    Has anyone asked about the illegal antics of two of Biden’s children??? Including million dollar boons arranged by Obama for one of Biden’s lobbyist sons???. Including hedge fund scandals??? Including assaults on police???
    But, Oh my God! a woman has a baby and won’t kill it to cover things up–and the NY Times (that corrupt rag) runs three major stories on Palin’s family situations.
    It isn’t just evangelicals who see the sexist stench coming from the liberal media and liberal Dem partisans. Many of us Catholics also embrace a life-affirming woman and family which is dealing with many of the same situations and conundrums created by the decadent culture we live in –much of it courtesy of the political and media left.

  • Julia

    Sally Quinn was interviewed today about her newspaper piece on CNN. It was appalling. I was at the computer and couldn’t see the screen, but I think the interviewer was Soledad O’Brien. To her credit, she seemed shocked and asked Sally if she really had meant to insult all the working women in America.

    Sally said she hadn’t intended that at all, but, she said, those Evangelicals are different. They don’t like their women working outside the home. She is so certain in her biases that even a CNN anchor couldn’t get her to see what she was doing.

    As to “anger”. Some Democratic women in print and on TV are saying that Palin was nominated solely because she is a woman to go after Hillary voters. That’s why they are angry. They don’t seem to understand that Palin is a perfect match for the maverick McCain; her being a woman is just frosting on the cake.

    I’ve known about Palin for a long time. She was even featured in a Vogue article with the Democratic woman governor of Arizona in February, not to mention all the times VP lists were reported that included her name. That may be another source of the anger you see in reporters. They wrote her off as an impossible and so were unprepared when her name was announced.

    Frankly, when I first read about Troopergate in July, I figured that she was a no-go. Since Friday I have read back issues of the Anchorage paper on-line, finding an article that quotes the state security officer as saying that Sarah did not pressure him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. If I can check out the Alaska newspapers, why can’t reporters in the lower 48 do that?

  • Dave G.

    Stay focused on media coverage

    OK, fair enough. There is media coverage of a teenage daughter of a Republican VP candidate. For one who remembers the 90s, when the Clintons’ (D-President ’92 – ’00) daughter was off limits, and the media declared it was an unforgivable sin to even think about doing anything even slightly critical of anything she did with her private life, I would say the fact that there is any coverage at all is all that needs said.

  • Brian L

    Sally said she hadn’t intended that at all, but, she said, those Evangelicals are different. They don’t like their women working outside the home.

    I’d love to know exactly what she said. CNN does not have a video online. What an apparent mess of misunderstanding.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Suggestion—Some enterprising Republican or conservative in the media should collect many of the furiously hate-filled (frequently clearly sexist) attacks on Gov. Palin that are filling the liberal media and supposedly reputable internet sites. Apparently there is no such sin as slander among some liberals as clearly fallacious stories slop across liberal internet sites and bubble up in the MSM (which should know better).

  • Jeff in Ohio

    These stories prove that the authors don’t understand Forgiveness. The Dobson quote was perfect at explaining it; they still didn’t get it. They call Dobson and Mohler hoping for foaming mouths and hear forgiveness. They interview delegates hoping for cries of anguish and hear forgiveness. I’ll bet if they called Wallis or Fr. Greeley they’d hear forgiveness too.

    This site is predicated on the press not getting religion, but they really don’t get forgiveness, Heavenly or earthly. This Molly is an Evangelical moment for you. Call them up and preach it!

    Jeffrey A. Roberts

  • FW Ken

    Mollie – thank you for the clarity in #10. Of course, now I’ll certainly have to install a new cynicism meter. :-)

    But it’s worth remembering that for every Sally Quinn, there are innumerable good to excellent religion reporters. One suspects, however, that those reports don’t consider ignorance a virtue.

  • str1977

    “CNN, for instance, showed Barack Obama telling the media that Palin’s daughter should be off-limits — and then went right into a story that used Palin’s daughter’s teenage pregnancy as a hook to condemn abstinence education.”

    That was not well articulated but rather mumbled across the screen and not nearly as argumentative but still: it shows that CNN’s pronouncements are hypocritical – and probably Obama’s are too.

  • Harris

    Palin’s social setting also determines how her’s and her family’s stuation is portrayed in the media. Were she from an elite background, then the pregnant teen plays as “out of touch elite…”; were her background “crunchy” then the same teen becomes a sign of decay of family values — hippie values ascendent, etc.; were she black, well, we know that meme. So she’s white, small town, working class — ‘what are kids to do in a place like this,’ goes that meme.

    Having been advanced to the national stage, most of the personal aspects will inevitably be flattened into image. The person (and her family) must disappear in order for the political celebrity to emerge. Say this about Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins — they did the disappearing act to their own evident good.

  • Kelly

    Voddie Baucham is part of the Vision Forum crew. Some of them don’t believe women should even be voting. Because they feel we are supposed to have a household voting system, of course, not because they have anything against women.

  • Pingback: Running Sarah Palin Thread of Hate & Doooom! | The Anchoress

  • MomOfFive

    One of the first things we need to do is talk to our children who are old enough to vote. I am appalled and dismayed that many of them have turned this political cycle into a contest between the old, white man and the young, black man. They do not know what the issues are, or what these candidates believe in. We must educate them as to the judgment, character, integrity and moral fiber of both candidates. Tell them about John’s background: his service to his country, his pattern of putting his country first, his strong belief in what is right and what is wrong, and the courage he displayed against the test of horrendous physical and mental torture he endured to preserve the rights and liberties of every American. Tell them that he, and he alone, has a history of bipartisanship borne out by his co-sponsored bills and his friendship with a major Independent Democrat, Joe Leiberman. Tell them about Sarah Palin, and the moral strength she adds to the McCain ticket. Tell them they, too, need to stand up for what is right and cast their vote for John McCain. Our country’s future is at stake, in more ways than one.

  • Keith

    From R. Albert Mohler:

    Do I believe that a woman can serve well in the office of Vice President of the United States? Yes. As a matter of fact, I believe that a woman could serve well as President — and one day will. Portraits of significant men of history hang on the walls of my library –but so do portraits of Queen Elizabeth I of England and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

  • http://quillandnail.wordpress.com/ B. Minich

    Mohler, as quoted above, came out pretty quickly in saying that a woman could serve well as President, and mentioning his respect for Lady Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth I. He mentioned it on his radio show on the 29th, and in a blog post on September 2nd. It would not have been hard to call him and ask rather than assuming that because Mohler subscribes to the Baptist Faith and Message, he MUST disapprove of a woman president. Reporting requires that you go and ask “so, the Baptist Faith and Message says this. What does that make you think about Sarah Palin in the VP role?” You may disagree with what he says, but you should ask. To not do so is a failure of reporting.

  • http://quillandnail.wordpress.com/ B. Minich

    Oh, and did she really say this?

    “A mother’s role is different from a father’s.”

    And here I thought the media had been pressing the meme for years that a mother’s role shouldn’t be any different than a father’s role!

  • http://www.erud-awakening.blogspot.com Gina

    Who is this Sally Quinn and why is anyone calling her up to ask what evangelicals think, when she has obviously never met any except the ones she conjures in her fetid imagination?

  • Herb Brasher

    B Minich,

    What does the Baptist Faith and Message actually say, and does it preclude women holding political office, or just women holding positions of leadership in a church.

    I’m not Baptist anymore, but belong to a PCA church. I know that R.C. Sproul came out in favor of women as political leaders, but the PCA is strongly against women elders in a church.

    Are you sure you are on solid ground here?

  • Pingback: Crowhill Weblog » Blog Archive » The post thinks this woman should run their “On Faith” section?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X