“Isn’t it a bit ironic that the woman they are elevating to national prominence comes from a Christian tradition that recognizes God’s call of women to pastoral ministry?”

Kevin, some are suspicious over how the clarification is being used. Tony Sisk, a Southern Baptist pastor, remarks here, commenting on the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s recent statements distinguishing between spiritual and political places for women:

“This was a point that complementarians needed to make clear, but I would contend that they have not really done so–until now. Clarifying this nuance about the complementarian position is one that serves the best interests of evangelicalism now; up until this point complementarians have been content with the teaching that a woman’s best place is at home with the children. Am I disagreeing with this statement? Not at all. These are highly personal decisions, ones however that complementarians are all too happy to intrude upon until a woman who can bolster their political party of choice is thrown into the mix.” (emphasis mine)

Moreover, Voddie Baucham, another Southern Baptist minister, sees the endorsement of Palin by conservative Christians as more counterproductive. He writes:

“I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. 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….

In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?”

Some people have even criticized Mohler for being too soft about this issue. (noted here) It seems that the status of women in political and spiritual places is not as separate and equal as it would appear.

The reason why it is not a double standard to forbid a woman to take pastoral leadership in the church and to support her efforts to take the second highest political office int eh country (with a view that she might need to take the highest), is because the standard being applied is the revealed will of God.

God has for reasons not entirely laid out in his word, ordered our ecclesial life in a way which has a distinct and gender based order. He has willed it that women not take roles of spiritual authority over men. He has not revealed that it is his will for the same to be true in our political life.

For a lot of people, especially but not entirely those unfamiliar with the Word of God, any gender based distinction seems patently unfair. This is because in the last 100 years, society has made great strides in advancing gender equality. But for Christians, our authority is not the cultural standards of the day, but in what God has revealed as his will.

I take it as a great vindication of the integrity of the SOuthern Baptists, that they have drawn a line appropriately which allows them to endorse a woman for this important role, whilst maintaining obedience to God in the leadership of their churches.

If there opposition to churches were purely chauvinistic and they truly regarded women as being less capable than men, then they would be opposed to Governor Palin’s nomination. But their careful study of scripture, as well as their godly recognition that God grants generously vast talents regardless of gender, allows them to endorse her.

I hope this clears it up. In this light does it still seem like a double standard? and if so why?

And lets be honest you are clever enough to have figured this out. It is beneath your dignity to take cheap shots at a church that is trying to faithfully live under the authority of the word of God, despite the enormous pressures from both in and outside the church.