Many conservative religious groups bar women from becoming clergy. And even in those denominations in which women do serve as clergy, they often face barriers in their careers because they are women. I was asked this week, if I think it’s hypocritical to support a woman’s bid to lead a nation but not to lead a congregation?
Initially, it does seem odd that someone could support a woman as leader of our nation, but not of their own congregation…until one appreciates that not all forms of leadership are the same, and not all leaders draw their authority from the same sources. If one believes that congregational leadership must reflect a certain interpretation of biblical verses or communal history, then it may not be possible for such people to admit women to such traditionally male roles. Ironically in fact, it might be hypocritical for them to embrace women as religious leaders!
Hypocrisy though, is a funny thing, since it’s generally a charge made by people against others, who almost by definition, do not see things as their detractors do. Yet it assumes that they should. That is why, rather than simply seeing difference, those leveling the charge see intellectual inconsistency and moral confusion in those upon whom they have turned their sites. Thus it is a charge given to much abuse and even greater sanctimony on the part of those who level it. So let’s be careful here.

Because those same people accept that in a democracy, political authority flows not from a text but from the citizens of the state, they have no problem with women as political leaders. So while some of us may disagree with their interpretations, they are not guilty of hypocrisy in the usual sense. Though I know this will frustrate all those who can not wait to level the charge of hypocrisy at anyone “stupid enough or sufficiently misogynistic” to think that a women could be a president but not a priest. Sorry, but you’ll have to find some other basis for your moral superiority complex.
However, people who would embrace a woman as their Commander-In-Chief, but not as their rabbi, imam, or minister, may be guilty of hypocrisy in the literal sense of the term i.e. failing to look closely and questioningly enough at themselves, their practices and those of the communities to which they belong. Seeing that there is room for women to contribute in every other area of life, they need to ask if they have done all that they can to empower women in their respective communities.
They need to explore how to remain faithful to their honestly arrived at interpretation which precludes women as equal leaders, without settling for a status quo that fails to integrate the full contribution which women can make. They need to listen to those voices within their community which think that they have not done this sufficiently, and they need to learn from those voices. They may not end up with women as ordained clergy, but I bet they will discover how to expand the roles which women can play in their communities without running afoul of that which they currently believe.
It is this kind of ongoing self-critique, regardless of the specific policy outcomes, which assure we are not hypocritical. And without that ongoing process, by definition, we are – no matter who is standing in our pulpits.