By stressing transcultural principles that apply to all people, Obama is inviting a cultural dialog around the issue of objective moral values. He’s doing Christ’s followers a favor in elevating our cultural dialog above the quagmire of relativism. Ours is the responsibility to express the Biblical vision for human value, the coherence of the Biblical diagnosis of reality, and the hope that is in Jesus – who is the Truth!

Although I don’t stay as informed on issues like this as I probably should, my first thought when I read this post was towards missions work. That is, the implications of this thought for evangelism are huge, and these questions must be asked by missionaries all the time, I imagine. Where do we draw the line between something cultural and something more significant? Tough questions.

What to do? As western Christians we can take a closer look at much of what is being preached from pulpits and what is being lived out in Christian community. Gender is too often still defined and divided by roles. 3 new church start ups in my area look great on paper but have all male leadership. The voice of the feminine image of God is still undervalued and our missionaries still reflect this inequity as they bring their version of Christianity to other places. Do we need to look at our black pot before we can truly impact the kettle?
Does anyone know of some other practical ways to raise a loud objection? This is a human rights issue. These laws bring real suffering to millions. This simply can’t be ok with the followers of Jesus.
(Loved the Blue Parakeet, thanks!)

Ellen-
Are you equating the complimentarian view held by many Christians with sharia law?
The oppression of women on the level found in the sharia law is a far cry from the issue of defining roles in church leadership (even if you disagree with the complimentarian view).

Your question is interesting, Scot, because it could be answered on so many levels. “We”, the Church-big-C? “We”, American citizens with the right to lobby our political leaders and influence our government to lean toward those moderate Muslims who are as horrified by this stuff as Christian are? “We”, men and women who can express opinions and try to impact our world through the different way our voices can be heard? If we take our cue from the Great Story, I would think it would be “yes” – all of it, without relying on the political end with too much naivete. And yes, if we don’t look with some humility at the extreme end of what followers of Jesus say, we can be pilloried on “our” own words.

Rick,
I don’t think the divide is as big as you would like to think. Sharia law is an extreme along the same continuum.

For theological perspective from a non-Western evangelical, I suggest everyone pick up “Subverting Global Myths” by Vinoth Ramachandra. His articles on the myths of terrorism and human rights are telling.
Let’s not forget that Afghanistan would not be in this situation if it weren’t for pro-jihad pamphlets provided by the United States in the late 1970s to inspire war against the USSR. Let’s not forget that the technology used by the terrorist was provided by the Mujahadin who were funded by US taxpayers against the USSR. Let’s not forget that the tactics used by Afghani “terrorists” were taught to them by United States military in the late 70s and early 80s.
First, the church should continue praying and sending missionaries. Second, the church should study sharia law…and not from Westerners…to see why Islamic societies embrace it. We need to ask why so many women embrace sharia joyfully. In Yemen, many women gladly submitted to the radical traditions as a protest against the West. Third, the church should rally against the government making rash decisions based on the power of the state which may lead to severe human rights violations. The situation in Afghanistan is a direct result of poor decision making by the Western powers, and due largely to the West’s propagation of radical ideals in order to inspire Afghanis to fight a common foe.
It’s tragic…

Rick: If I might interject, I think what Ellen and RJS are alluding to is the fact that both Sharia law and “complementarianism” as I understand the latter vest ultimate power in male authority. To use a political analogy: The choice between a malevolent, oppressive ruler and a benign, paternalistic ruler who says that on some higher level we’re equal after all, even though he holds temporal power, and that he has my best interests at heart, trust him…is not a very appealing political choice for most of us in the developed world. And just as, in the political realm, we have a choice of representative democracy, in the religious realm many of us affirm equity between genders in the Church, in the home and in society.

I think that positive human-rights change in societies such as those in Central Asia need to be grounded in a grassroots desire for change. As long as it’s perceived that “outsiders” — Westerners, Christians, whatever — are attempting to impose “foreign” values on them, there will be reactionary pushback. And frankly we shouldn’t be surprised at this reaction, given the West’s history of colonialism.
Women’s education is one of the greatest levers, if you will, in facilitating the kinds of practical improvements in common people’s lives — better healthcare for all, better vocational training and choices, greater openness to education in the society, political, legal and economic emancipation of women — that empower them and make them less vulnerable to religious fanaticism. People who are healthy, informed, well fed, able to maintain life aspirations for themselves and their children, who have a sense of self-determination — are less vulnerable to groups like the Taliban. Small-scale economic development is another empowering lever that lifts up individuals, families and whole communities, and again lessens the influence of religious extremists.
I think that Christians are wise in supporting groups like Greg Mortensen’s Central Asia Institute, which seeks to improve education and healthcare in the nations surrounding the Himalayas; the Heifer Project, which helps disadvantaged families around the world become food-self-sufficient and gain extra income potential through selling farm products, and trains aid recipients in agriculture, budgeting and marketing; the Grameen Bank and other financial aid organizations which provide microloans for struggling persons, particularly women, in developing countries, to create home-based businesses, train recipients in money and business management and organize accountability/support groups for these nascent entrepreneurs.

RJS and LutheranChik-
Thanks for the feedback.
LutheranChik said: “The choice between a malevolent, oppressive ruler and a benign, paternalistic ruler who says that on some higher level we’re equal after all, even though he holds temporal power, and that he has my best interests at heart, trust him…”
You said that well and it helps clarify my point. You may disagree with both, but it must be admitted that there is a large degree of difference between the two (including actions and motives, and although there are some extreme complementarians, we should not paint with too broad a brush).
And just for the record, I fall on the egalitarian side of things. I just think we need to be careful in the comparisons.

Rick,
LutheranChik doesn’t catch my issue here – it is not male authority or justice that hits me deepest. It is the essence of being argument. The general position is that the essence of being of female is to be subordinate to the male.
Scot has held many discussions on the topic of women in ministry and they almost always reduce to essence of being, eternal subordination, and who is the clay to speak protest against the potter. I always walk away feeling dirty.
If the essence of being argument is true who are we to complain about the way it works out in a different culture? Have we a leg to stand on?

“Women’s education is one of the greatest levers, if you will, in facilitating the kinds of practical improvements in common people’s lives — better healthcare for all, better vocational training and choices, greater openness to education in the society, political, legal and economic emancipation of women — that empower them and make them less vulnerable to religious fanaticism. People who are healthy, informed, well fed, able to maintain life aspirations for themselves and their children, who have a sense of self-determination — are less vulnerable to groups like the Taliban. Small-scale economic development is another empowering lever that lifts up individuals, families and whole communities, and again lessens the influence of religious extremists.”
LutheranChik,
I agree, but let me push back against you for a moment. In Malaysia, women are very educated on the whole. We have some of the best Islamic universities in the world, and it’s very common to meet women from Saudi Arabia or Iran who come to Malaysia to do their Ph.D. studies. I think it’s a western myth that all Islamic women are uneducated. But, with that said, fundamentalism is growing amongst some highly educated Islamic communities here due to rebellion against the West. People learn of the West through TV and internet. Does YouTube give a good impression of the West with the “Rational Response Squad” and others intentionally desecrating religious practices? Does CNN or the BBC give a good impression of the west with it’s focus on the negative? Does the Western hip-hop culture of the West (which is hugely popular among Malaysian youth) give a good impression? If anything, this latter culture does more to devalue women than anything in Islamic teaching. The church has to stand up and resist these “powers and authorities” in their own culture which has negative effects on how the rest of the world responds to it.

Kyle,
You make excellent points – and I agree, much of our “pop” culture does more to devalue women than any of the other influences.

Kyle: I’d disagree with your assessment that Western society devalues women more than Islamic society. For all the ways in which women are indeed commoditized in our society — it’s not based upon an inherent political/legal lack of rights. At the risk of political incorrectitude, in developed societies women often — for a variety of social and economic reasons — allow themselves to be commoditized, whereas in the developing world women are de facto demeaned and devalued by law, by religion and by custom.
I’d also suggest that persons in developing countries are consumers of lewd, crude, negative Western entertainment for the same reason that these things are popular here — they appeal to the lowest common human denominator. If you get to know people from Muslim countries, you’ll find out that even without Western influences, they have their own ugly underbelly of crudity and debasement…it’s just kept under wraps. So unless you’re suggesting, Kyle, that hypocrisy is a virtue that should be encouraged, I’d prefer to live in an open society where we live with the risks of commoditized crudity and negativity, but have the choice whether or not we wish to be consumers of it.
I would, though, take your point that persons in the Islamic world often get a distorted view of American/Western culture through the lens of entertainment. To me, one way to diminish this would be to educate and empower women and men in those countries to be cultural change agents in their own societies — as is true here, they’re going to have to fight against a universal love of bad taste — but on the other hand they can help to engender pride in their own cultures. And I think we Christians here in the West need to get real about our own appetite for the crude, rude and disrespectful…I think there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Christian community concerning “values” — people who “ain’t it awful” about gratuitous sex and violence and general crudity in popular entertainment, yet load the stuff into their TVs and DVDs and iPods on a regular basis. (I plead guilty to “Dog the Bounty Hunter,” a show I’d hate to see exported to some developing-world country as an example of what America is like.)

i very much appreciate pres. obama adhering to some overarching principles. well, not really. how can he stand so firm on women’s rights while being such a veracious opponent of the human right to life!?! that he can make such a strong appeal to future voters (women) while tossing aside those who will never vote (children in the womb) speaks much more loudly than this supposed stand for women in afghanistan

“If you get to know people from Muslim countries, you’ll find out that even without Western influences, they have their own ugly underbelly of crudity and debasement…it’s just kept under wraps.”
Since I spent part of my life growing up in Yemen, and currently live in Malaysia, I think I can say with confidence that I “know people from Muslim countries” and am not speaking as an ignorant. I’ve also spent time in Oman, Kuwait, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia. I have friends in each…and communicate with them regularly on these types of topics.
My assessment wasn’t “Western society devalues women more than Islamic society,” but that hip-hop culture does. It views women as sexual objects at the pleasure of men. That’s much worse than Islamic teaching.
I agree that there is an ugly underbelly to Islamic culture. I’ve been to Dubai, where Muslim friends of mine claim “Allah turns a blind eye” toward. That’s not my point. The post is about what Americans can do to change it. My suggestion…educate yourselves about why the educated are moving toward fundamentalism, pray and keep sending missionaries, and that the church should rebel against the anti-Christian lifestyle of the West, while the state still claims to be Christian.
“I’d prefer to live in an open society where we live with the risks of commoditized crudity and negativity, but have the choice whether or not we wish to be consumers of it.”
I believe in freedom as well, I’m just suggesting that we become more educated on why educated classes are moving toward fundamentalism. Why are many actively moving away from freedom in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Malaysia?
Unless we educate ourselves about what is really going on, then we will continue to pursue the wrong tactics toward fixing the solution. To quote Khaled Hosseini, “Alas the Afghanistan of our youth is long dead. Kindness is gone from the land and you cannot escape the killings.” Why did this happen? Because Western “liberation” is rebelled against as Western “imperialisation.”

“…shifts toward more sharia law, and the implications for women are nothing short of enormous.”
I don’t think so Scot. Shifting western culture toward more Sharia law would be enormous, which is why we are horrified by it. But is Sharia law such a radical proposition for an average Shiite (and the legislation only applies to the Shia minority) woman in Afghanistan? I don’t think so. We think of how horrendous it would be to have to cover one self and ask permission of a male relative just to go out. But life for these women is in their home. “Going out” is the exception. And as for the sensation the western media made of “legalising the rape of a wife by her husband”… give me a break!

Kyle #16,
And western “liberation” certainly is ideological imperialism, I just wish we would quit giving the idea the misnomer of “democracy”. It confuses all but the moderate elite, who are in on the hoax.
I applaud your urging understanding of WHY educated Muslims are embracing fundamentalism. I think it is an act of solidarity to reinforce an identity that is threatened by the main stream.

Another irony is that Islamic banks that complied with Sharia law have not bourght the toxic assets that are clogging Western banks and causing a global economic crisis.

Let us remember that “marital rape” only became illegal in north America in the last few decades – in Canada as recently as , I believe, the1980′s. And the notion that women shouldn’t refuse their husbands sex (daily if that’s what he wants)
otherwise they may be tempted to sexual sin – I’ve heard that somewhere recently, and it was from somewhere closer to home.

Thanks Kyle – well put.

…and that the church should rebel against the anti-Christian lifestyle of the West, while the state still claims to be Christian.
The state, here in the United States, is not Christian and never has been. We are a secular democracy, by design. Perhaps you’re confusing the American system with European systems with a state church.
To the people commenting about trying to enforce marital rape laws in countries like Iraq: Please tell me your argument is that these countries simply don’t have a developed enough/widely accepted enough idea of human rights to adequately internalize/enforce such a law, and not becase you think that men have some sort of divine/natural right to sex on demand no matter what their spouses want…is that what you mean?…is that, like, a conservative Evangelical norm?

RJS-
“If the essence of being argument is true who are we to complain about the way it works out in a different culture? Have we a leg to stand on?”
That seems to be getting close to a slippery-slope argument, and hinges on a big “If”.
Politically speaking, I don’t think that is position of the United States, so should Obama not speak out on it?
Theologically speaking, Christians do (by and large) complain about the “pop-culture” mindset and its damage to women. Furthermore, not all Christians are complimentarians, so should not some (ie. egalitarians) still speak out?
That being said, I do appreciate all those comments stressing the need to make sure the “plank” is out of our own eye.

Rick,
I do think that we should take a stand – and a consistent stand on such issues, both we as Christians and on a different level the US as a (secular) country.
My initial comment (#6) was simply to point out that I didn’t think Ellen’s connection was entirely unwarranted. Certainly it doesn’t apply to all, but it does apply to some.

This is not an easy question although an important one. Purely Muslim countries probably wouldn?t adhere to ?certain basic principles? upheld by other non-Islamic countries. The problems derives from the Muslim idea of Tawheed or the unity of Allah. In Muslim thinking, to accept principles outside of the Koran, hadith, or sharia law would be construed as polytheism because the Muslim is submitting himself or herself to laws outside of the three listed authorities. Thus one must look in the Koran, hadith, and sharia law for such principles.
Secondly, many Muslims see Muslim women as liberated. Their reference point is not to the current twenty first century idea of women?s rights and or fashion (which is seen as highly immoral, but rather their reference point is to the sixth century, the time before Muhammad. The trick is to go back to Muslim history and to search for the rights that Muslim women have had in the past, but don?t have now.
Thirdly, there is the idea of hope. From the eighth to thirteenth century Islam experienced what it calls the golden age. During this time the Muslim world benefited from the technologies and higher learning of the countries and cultures that they had incorporated into their empire. Many Muslims think, Taliban, Al Qaeda, which is a form of Wahhabism found in Saudi Arabia) that Allah will bless them with another ?golden age? if they purify Islam. A good part of that, in their minds, has to do with how women dress and behave in culture. Once again the West should look to Muslim history to verify how Muslim women were treated during the golden age. What they could or could not do.
What can the church do?
Pray that God would turn their hearts to Christ, also pray that moderate Muslims who are more tolerant of the west would gain power. Pray also that the West does their homework in looking into Muslim law and history in order to work with Afghanistan and not just demand that they succumb to the West?s demands.

It’s interesting to shift this question to other arenas. Social witness policy in my Presby Church USA world tends to strongly favor women’s rights in all cultures. “Women’s rights” in this context includes policies like unrestricted access to abortion. Though not officially part of the agenda, there is also advocacy by some for acceptance of homosexual behavior. Yet when it comes to issues like economic freedom … sound protection of property rights, people freely exchanging goods domestically and abroad, application of technologies to improve productive capacities, etc. … we are talking “Western imperialism that destroys indigenous culture.”
Economist Amartya Sen makes the case that economic life should not be imposed by Western economic powers or by intellectual elites who hold themselves up as guardians of indigenous culture. People in each society should have the freedom to choose their own course.
But that raises a question. With women, what if a culture freely chooses destructive behaviors? As some have pointed out here, many women in some countries favor sharia law. Is it our obligation to save them from themselves? And if a country chooses poorly with economic policy, is it our obligation to save them from themselves?

Michael @ 26, “if a country chooses poorly with…policy, is it our obligation to save them from themselves?”
That also begs the question, who is “we”? If we is the church, the answer is yes. If we is the state…I’m not sure. Because if “save them from themselves” means “obligating ourselves to militarily invade every country that doesn’t meet our standards of liberty and force them to (somehow)”, that’s obviously a recipe for disaster. Whether such a crusade would be right or not, we simply cannot do it.
But…can and should the U.S. use what influence it has to pursue women’s (and other groups’) rights, education, and economic empowerment in areas like the Islamic world and Africa as part of a broader engagement with the world in all areas of human rights, poverty reduction, and mutual security? I think it can. And those things are all wrapped up in each other anyway, so we probably have to.
But we should also be somewhat humble in this, not assuming we have everything to teach and nothing to learn. We are likely to be accused of Western imperialism because, of course, we have been.

Kyle is spot on – thanks for your insights. I grew up in Indonesia and recently spent time in Pakistan, and Obama’s balanced perspective on these issues is one of primary reasons he drew my vote.
Lets also keep in mind that sharia law isn’t all bad. Western press has portrayed it as extremely conservative and damaging, but in reality when an area decides to govern with sharia law it means that it will govern using Islamic law. This still means that the actual historic Islamic law will be interpreted by their modern day law-makers, and therefore sharia law ends up being as conservative or as liberal as the area that is implementing it is. The headlines in Pakistan currently show that the recent government agreement to allow the province to be governed by sharia has left room for the flogging of a young girl – that is the horrific side of sharia law.
I think Obama’s quote and Scot’s posting of it reflect our struggle with the difficulty of our promotion of democracy. Government by the people. So – technically Pakistan acted democratically when they allowed Swat to implement Sharia law – the local area voted it in. It’s a similar conundrum to what happened when the Palestinians voted in the Hamas. Is this a victory of democracy, or a tragedy? Allowing the people to have power doesn’t always end up the way we envision – so how will we react now?

Well said, Travis.

Kacie #28
“So – technically Pakistan acted democratically when they allowed Swat to implement Sharia law – the local area voted it in. It’s a similar conundrum to what happened when the Palestinians voted in the Hamas. Is this a victory of democracy, or a tragedy? Allowing the people to have power doesn’t always end up the way we envision – so how will we react now?”
When most people are poor they have no stake in having good government. When they have had only a succession of thugs for leaders, what would be the advantage of voting for sound government? Better to vote for the thugs from whom I will benefit the most.
However, if broad based economic prosperity begins to emerge, more and more people have an incentive to work for good governance that protects the wealth and community they have built. Democracy follows.
That is why I think the whole Iraq thing was conceptually mistaken, though it may yet pan out. Working for economic freedom and freedom of the press are would be my first two strategies if I were a political leader.

I would like to see equality for women begin at home. Yes, we can own property. Yes, we can keep our children after a divorce.
But let’s go a little deeper. Do American Christian women have the same freeedoms as American secular women? Can we decide if our husbands have overstepped the bounds of love, without having to get agreement from our pastors/elders? Can we protect our children from their Christian father’s abuse? Can we teach/preach in church, even with a seminary degree? Will our Christian brethern defend us if we are slandered by being labelled “feminists” when we protest unfair treatment?
The secular world has given women these freedoms. Can Christians catch up?

The secular world has given women these freedoms. Can Christians catch up?
In mainline denominations like mine we’ve come a long way in “catching up.” While in the ELCA women are still in the minority as pastors, the percentage is growing, and at least in my observation whatever residual resistance to the idea reamins is isolated, quiet, grousing, under-the-radar prejudice rather than overt opposition. And on a lay level I’ve never experienced any opposition to women holding positions of leadership within congregations. I also have not experienced any enabling of male spouse or child abuse; quite the contrary.
My advice to women in denominations that don’t treat them as equal partners in the Reign of God is to keep up the pressure — use the persistent widow arguing with the unjust judge as a role model — and form your own support systems for women in your faith communities; take care of one another; organize.

What I find interesting about Obama’s comment is that it raises the often taboo subject of an objective morality.

I live in the “Bible Belt,” which I am told is the most conservative region in the U.S., yet at forty-nine, I have yet to experience sexism, at least the variety that is malicious. Yes, men make quips about women drivers from time to time, but that is about as abusive as it gets. Women are ordained in my denomination, and while many prefer a male pastor, no one mistreats female clergy. My conservative,evangelical father never told me that there was anything I couldn’t pursue but did insist upon college. Somehow, I have difficulty linking the remnants of past constrictions here with the horrible oppression that Sharia law would be for me. I suspect that most western women, even those who feel that they must treat the legal traditions of various cultures with equal respect, would experience a quick reality check if they found themselves in burkas and would also find that dealing with garden variety male sexists in the U.S.is far less odious than living under the authority of those who legally impose harsh restrictions on women and harsher legal ramifications for violations. I didn’t vote for President Obama, but I do hope that his obvious love and respect for his wife and daughters will inform his position on this issue. Stating his opposition to the consequences of Sharia law for women doesn’t preclude diplomacy.