The strong woman problem for Evangelicals and Republicans

The strong woman problem for Evangelicals and Republicans September 29, 2016

(c) David Hayward, via the Naked Pastor, used with permission
(c) David Hayward, via the Naked Pastor, used with permission

How do leading republicans feel about women? Try this one on for size:

During the debate, GOP pollster Frank Luntz shared a text that he said he’d received from a Republican member of Congress saying Clinton “just comes across as my [b—–] wife/mother.” Totally aside from the fact that defining Clinton’s collected, occasionally funny, performance in a debate where she was constantly interrupted and lied about as shrill or unpleasant suggests that there is literally nothing a woman can do that won’t cause some moron offense, this is an astonishingly nasty thing to say about one’s own spouse or mother.

And what religious voting bloc is solidly, and I do mean solidly, behind Donald for President? Evangelicals, of course. Of the approximately 90 million Evangelicals, it is estimated that 80% of those of voting age want to see a nation led by Donald.

These good people, primarily white with nearly exclusively white male leadership, believe every single word the Bible says. They also firmly believe that the Bible says women must not be in senior church leadership roles and perhaps other leadership roles like President of the United States

A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll makes this clear: those who affirm white male leadership are solidly behind Donald:

Trump’s support is also 27 percentage points higher among voters who reject the idea that men have “too much” influence, compared with those who do. Put together, Trump leads Clinton by a 57-28 margin among voters who say neither whites nor men have too much influence, while he trails Clinton by 52 points among voters who say both whites and men have too much influence (14-66).

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons

Voila! Elect a sexist, racist, unfit, unprepared, emotionally immature man with almost no knowledge of international issues. Furthermore, his documented retaliatory nature offers a frightening scenario of him suggesting the use of nuclear weapons to bomb to smithereens anyone who disses him or in “unfair” to him.

On top of all this, Donald also has a pending rape charge of a then 13 year old girl against him. The lawsuit charges that the rape took place at the home of Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted pedophile. Epstein apparently often hosted Donald at various notorious parties during the 1980’s. The ever-truthful Donald has denied categorically that this ever took place.

Put the two together: should Donald win, Evangelicals can have a chief who will join them in keeping women primarily as sex objects/domestic workers AND help bring the longed-for Second Coming of Jesus by starting the war that will surely lead to Armageddon.

Perfect fit.

This certainly beats electing an extraordinarily well-prepared, knowledgable woman who, formed by her Christianity, has devoted her life to public service primarily as an advocate for women and children.

She will NOT happily push the button to start nuclear wars on a whim.

However, she may push for policies not overly palatable to a fair number of people who have legitimate reasons to be concerned. Many of them find Trump seriously distasteful but will hold their noses and vote for him anyway.

I guess we’re going to have to pick our palatability. As my husband has said, “If he’d just keep his mouth shut, we may be able to put a Republican back in the White House.” But he can’t, or won’t, or both. Donald’s lack of impulse control is becoming the stuff of legends.

Now, there are a number of prominent, well-respected Evangelical theologians who have stepped up and spoken strongly against the current trend of Evangelical lemmings leaping into the abyss of a Donald presidency.

I applaud them and am grateful for them. Philip Yancey, long one of my favorite authors and highly respected Evangelical thought leader, recently said

To choose a person who stands against everything that Christianity believes as the hero, the representative, one that we get behind enthusiastically is not something that I understand at all.

There is so much good to be found in the Evangelical wing of Christianity. I spent a lot of years there and do appreciate the great biblical scholarship that can emerge from them. But until they can get over this “women must stay silent” mindset, they are becoming a dangerous faction for the future of the US.

Again, as I and many others have said: Donald’s candidacy has surfaced two primary issues.

One, the incredible dysfunction of the Republican Party. It’s sad and harmful and rose from unchecked ambition, always a precursor to a fall.

Two: the deep underbelly of our racist, sexist nation too often supported by the church. We’ve certainly made much progress over the past two hundred years but are not nearly where we need to be. And, as seems to be the case grievously often, too much of the Christian church continues to come down on the wrong side of important social issues.


Reader, I married him
Reader, I married him

This is a series of posts about the ongoing saga of a newly married couple with radically different political views. Part one is here. Part two is here. Part three is here. Part four is here. Part five is here. Part six is here. Part seven is here. Part eight is here. Part nine is here.


Browse Our Archives