‘Submissive Wife’ Not What Left Thinks it Is
by Deanna MurrayIn Thursday’s FOX News GOP Presidential Debate, a resounding roar of ‘boos’ filled the auditorium when debate moderator Washington Examiner Columnist Byron York asked Congresswoman Michele Bachmann whether she would be “submissive to her husband” if she were elected president.
This question was framed after a comment Bachmann had made a few years back about how she didn’t want to do something her husband had asked her to do (return to school to become a tax attorney), but she buckled down and did it because he asked. She said she was ‘submissive’ to his wishes.
The idea of wives submitting to their husbands is a Biblical-based principle ingrained into fundamental Christians since Paul wrote the words in Ephesians 2:22-24:
“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
The writer of Ephesians, Paul (formerly a soldier known as Saul who persecuted Christians in Rome), was writing letters to churches he supported while he was in prison and during his vast travels to support Christians in the region. He was outlining instructions/guidance to keep the people of the church focused on God in a society not all-together friendly to the Christian faith.
Let’s not forget Christians were being herded up and thrown into arenas and into Lion’s Dens. His words were those of comfort and of unity and were spoken out of a desire to allow Christians a support system. In the social class present back in the day, men were revered as the leader of the home and of the society in which they lived. Therefore, Paul instructed women to listen to their husbands (who were often more educated and world wise than they were) and then in turn, for husbands to support the church as Christ had.
There is still a place for this, but it is different now as times are different and a woman’s role in this society has astoundingly changed.
In our culture, meanings change through the years based on the times and the interpretation. If they didn’t, “gay” would still mean “happy”; “cool” would only mean a temperature and a rainbow would still represent God’s promise to Noah.
Times have indeed changed.
Women have more of a role in this world and in running it and their opinions are respected, acted upon, and continue to make dynamic changes daily.
For someone like me, who actually can’t stand to be told what to do, the word ‘submission’ is pretty much as evil as they come–if a person were to only look at the negative connotation of the word.
Those who want to make Bachmann appear weak because she values her husband’s opinion consider the phrase ‘wives, submit to your husbands’ to mean a woman shouldn’t ever do anything her husband doesn’t sanction, approve of or agree with. She is only as smart as her man says she is; only able to do what her husband says she is capable of and can only make a decision when HE is available to be the deciding party.
The idea of a woman not being able to have her own thoughts or control what she wants to do just because she is in a ‘submissive’ state to her husband is a horrid prison indeed. And what a terrible place this world would be if submission in this sense were the rule of the day for those married.
Leftists want us to believe her commitment to her religion and husband would make her a woman controlled by another – that, instead of Michele Bachmann, President of the United States, all of a sudden we’d have the first co-presidents, Mr. and Mrs. Bachmann, Presidents of the United States.
This simply isn’t true. I applaud Bachmann in the way she explained what submission means to her. She was graceful, dignified and absolutely undaunted by the question.
She spoke of the partnership she shares with her husband, based on mutual respect and collaboration. She further explained, on the Sunday morning talk shows, she doesn’t believe the role of a submissive wife is that of a subservient.
Would she ask her husband for his opinion in matters concerning this country? Of course there would be discussions. But do we really believe former presidents of this country have not discussed national dilemmas with their wives? Collaboration is what we expect. This is why we have a president and not a dictator. It’s why our president has advisors who give him the advice needed–the view of an issue from all angles–in order to make the right decision. And in any strong marriage, a husband or wife will turn to their spouse to get a much-needed, respected perspective.
I might be more hesitant to throw stones at the asking of this question to someone like Hilary Clinton–of course, knowing what we know of Hilary and the relationship she and Bill have now (as well as what they shared in the White House), our country might be slightly better off if the two of them had talked more and kept each other happy…but hey, that’s not how the left sees it.
Dems are still in love with a former president who cheated on his wife, had ‘sex’ with an intern in the Oval office and lied time and time again about it to Congress. But they will throw the fact that a woman, who has consistently achieved national and state-side results and is smart as hell, has a strong, loving, respectful relationship with her husband AND values his opinion? Are we really that gone from understanding the importance of a working, happy relationship?
Does her admission to being a submissive wife make her incapable of running this country? Of course it doesn’t. Her religious beliefs, albeit not for everyone, show she has conviction, moral strength, and most of all guidance from a higher power the founding fathers themselves believed in and trusted. Our country was founded on the faith Bachmann holds true to her heart.
If Bachmann was president, this would be her job. Christian women who believe in the submission to one’s husband make decisions on a constant basis without calling their husbands every five minutes to ask direction. Bachmann would be no exception. Based on the way she has approached her job in Congress, we can assume she would hold true to what she knows to be good, right and constitutional.
Just as they vilified a Bachmann migraine, now the Democrats are trying to demonize the possibility of a female president just because she’s a wife in a happy marriage who happens to respect and value the opinion of the person she’s spent the majority of her life with.
The people of Iowa rebuked this latest attempt at disparagement with Bachmann’s Straw Poll win, but who knows what else the Dems will come up with to throw at Bachmann.
Can we talk about why she prefers a FRENCH Manicure over an AMERICAN Manicure (is it unpatriotic?)? Solid journalism requires asking tough questions of candidates, but when it comes to Bachmann, those left-wing activists parading as journalists will apply every double standard to squeeze her into their template.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
154 Comments
I watched that debate, and observed the reaction of the crowd to that question.
I had the same reaction.
"She spoke of the partnership she shares with her husband, based on mutual respect and collaboration."
I really like that.
I am a dominant, Type A personality.
Personally, if I ever decide to take a mate, it will be one fitting that line above. Someone who is a partner. I don't much like that whole submissive idea. I want someone with the spine to look me in the eye, and tell me when I'm off base.
If I want a subservient, I'll buy a pup.
This was nothing more than a prime example of "gotcha journalism".
The type question I would expect Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson to ask Sarah Palin.
Leftists, forever demonizing Conservatives who happen to have values, morals and principles – especially women, blacks and Hispanics. Is both sad and pitiful to hear what comes out of their mouths. This country is in need of a whole new set of mentors that mirror our Founding Fathers and Constitutional Conservatives of today, IMO.
It's always misunderstood by those who have never actually read it.
Leftists only know how to hear and regurgitate.
Frankly, I have MUCH less of a problem with Michelle Bachmann being "submissive" to her husband than I do Obama being "submissives" to George Soros and Company.
I was watching the debate when Byron asked the question and I still say it was a stupid question and gender biased no matter how you paint it or what Bachmann said years previously. Who has never questioned something a significant other has asked, or done something just because a spouse wanted them to? And why wasn't the question posed to any of the other candidates? Fox News is quickly and obviously turning into just another MSM outlet, after all we all saw how Bill O'Reilly bowed to Obama during the Super Bowl Sunday interview. Make all the points about Byron's question you want it still smells just like something Chris Mathews would have asked.
That passage also goes on to say (paraphrasing), that men are to love and cherish their wives, as Christ loves the church, being willing to lay down their lives for them. What this really speaks to is the bond we are to form as husband and wife, each of us doing that which enhances our marriage and glorifies God through our relationship with one another. Of course, liberal secularists and atheists cannot and will not ever be able to interpret this passage in it's correct context and meaning, since they have wholly rejected God and His Word.
I totally agree and still commend her handling of it with grace. She amazes me how she answers questions under fire — especially really, really stupid questions.
Hey all my leftie friends in search of a submissive partners … I hear Dobermans are WAY obedient … maybe pitbulls.
Progressives have created a moral-less society. We need to get back to fundamental principles, personal accountability, individual freedom and we need to eliminate the propaganda arm of the Progressive movement, the MSM.
Your back channel is off.
Just curious, but was this same question asked of Hillary Clinton when she ran for President in 2008? If Hillary was elected, would we have gotton another 4-8 years of Bill Clinton in the White House?
What’s the big deal, Barry’s submissive to Moochelle.
A man cannot be a man any longer to those on the left. Testosterone doesn't exist, only estrogen and we all should rename ourselves to "Pat" (no offense to those named Pat). The left simply doesn't get it and they try their best to deny ultimate truth's…..
PREPARE PATRIOTS………
DAY OF RAGE COMING SEPT 17, 2011
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag...
In the beginning they were equal, Then came the Fall…Penalties were given to the man, the woman, the Earth, and the Devil (Lucifer).
These Curses (Penalties) will be removed when the Kingdom of God starts up…After the 7 year Great Tribulation is over with. That time period has 21 Curses for those that are Left Behind and The final Re-structuring of the Earth…back to its Original Conditions.
The idea of submission was given to the woman, and Instructions were given to the man as to His Attitudes towards His Wife.
Bachmann was coached up for the debate. Even attempting to redefine the word submissive is an attack to the intelligence of every living being. Let's not fool around here with semantics and acknowledge what she said in the literal sense. Her faith tells her to do as her husband tells her, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
http://awe.sm/5RAfs
Fact #1: Asking her about her personal interactions with her husband are irrelevant and show a lack of intelligence on the part of the press. It was sexist! The press didn't ask the same question of male candidates!
These type of "gotcha" questions have been,…….
heaved at Republicans for years so,……….
if you want to become a Republican candidate for office,……….
ya better be ready.
If not and you are indeed "gotchaed",……..
you need to talk to your staff and get smarter.
Once upon a time in this great nation of ours, an educated person would have a keen understanding of some of the most basic Biblical concepts. Even people who weren't particularly religious would be able to discuss the concepts taught in the Bible with some degree of accuity and recognize it as a great and significant work of literature. The deliberate mangling of the moral fiber of our national conscience is something any American should be outraged about, and this deliberate attempt to marginalize the institution of marraige is but one symptom of a much larger movement to remove all righteousness and subsequently all prosperity as an unintended consequence.
Only a real born-again Christian, filled with the Holy Spirit knows what this means. And only when put it context by "rightly dividing the word" and understanding not only the meaning, but in the original language and text.
Satan can quote the Bible as good as anyone. He is known as "the accuser of the brethren," and justly so.
Taking phrases out of context from the Bible is an old Screwtape trick.
It was Satan, in the garden of Eden, who first twisted and challenged God's words when he spoke to Eve. He has been doing so ever since.
What did Jesus do when Satan tried to tempt Him? He quoted the Bible back to Satan – - nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry, Deanna, but this female isn't submissive to anyone. The biblical verse you cited was one of the reasons I walked out of the Baptist church at the age of 16 and never went back. That particular verse is smilar to some of the misogynist crap I''ve seen in the Koran. The Sunday School teacher tried to tell me I was a second class citizen because I have different genitalia. I'm now agnostic. People can worship the way they see fit. Just don't expect me to follow suit.
In a marraige there must be accountability with your partner and the very implication of the word "accountability" scares the nards out of progs.
Byron York's question to Bachmann was far worst than merely sexist, it clearly showed York's anti-Christian bigotry.
You can bet if Bachmann was a Muslim, York would have never ask if prayer 5 times a day was going to interfere with her duties as POTUS.
Yes indeed.
She handled that with grace and class, as she just as well handled David Gregory on the Sunday Morning show, when he tried the same gotcha routine. She is the epitome of a Lady, and has the smarts to deliver a coup de grace with a smile. I like that immensely. Winston Churchill said (paraphrased) "I like a man who smiles when he fights". That fits.
Funny.
You mention your liberal friends.
I only have two good liberal stories.
Thirty some odd years ago, I had this dope smokin', horse ridin', liberal, Commie, hippie chic of a schoolteacher girl friend who developed an inordinately affectionate relationship with her Doberman. You all's minds can fill in the rest of the blanks.
About fifteen years ago, I got to going with a Hollywood movie star.
She sure enough thought she was something. Everyone else did too as well.
I was the "Token" Conservative for all the limousine liberals to laugh at, at their fancy parties. Take a real cowboy, dressing the part, and just being himself, and Hollywood eats that right up. I got a gut full of that noise and nonsense right quick, and in less than 90 days headed for the hills while I still had my scalp.
Oops.
I just remembered. I have one additional liberal story. A new one.
This past weekend I had some guests from back in the east. They were staunch generational Democrats. After a good meal and a couple bottles of cheap wine, everyone started to loosen up, sitting around a fire talking. I was shocked. Two of these ladies were actually despondent, and both said they were going to switch parties, and vote Republican. I about fell into the fire. These are very level headed, professional people. I was shocked. I asked why, and the short answer was "Obama is an empty suit with no substance, and empty hopes of change"
This tells me one very important thing.
WE, are winning the war of ideology.
WE, are winning hearts and minds.
It will be a long, lifelong struggle, but it is worth it. In ones, and twos, and threes and small handfuls, WE are turning the tide.
Thank you for a good article Deanna.
Precisely!
I have to ask … what is nard? I laughed when i read it but then realized I didn't quite know what it was …
I like Byron York (rhymes with dork). This was a tough as hell question. It wasn't really fair but it was important that a Fox sponsored debate not just toss up soft balls. If Bachman were to become President she will have to deal with China, Russia and Islamic nations. We need to try to evaluate how she would react in a really hostile high pressure environment. The good news is that she seems up to the challenge.
to the left 'submissive' only has sexual connotations…
They cannot understand that both parties submit to the will of The Creator, and then the wife submits to the head of the family, the male. It is an agreed upon partnership that requires both trust- and honor- on both parts. Unlike, say,
ISLAM- which allows women to be 'owned', this agreement can be violated by any abusive behavior.
Ultimately the perpetrator will have big karmic issues, anyway.
But so much of our behavior has been perverted over the last 50 years or so, and now you have more or less mass confusion between the sexes, as Progressivism tries to remove ALL of the differences between men and women.
Both act poorly now. Almost like it was planned…
Correction. Saul (before he became Paul) was NOT a soldier, nor did he persecute Christians in Rome. He was a Jew, of the Pharisee sect, and persecuted Christians in Jerusalem and in Damascus.
Who doesn't coach-up for a debate? And stop acting like you are some kind of expert on what the Scriptures mean.
the Progressive movement has had it's greates succsess in making the relations between men and women purely sexual. This inculcation begins now in pre-school. The whole concept of growing ups as girls and boys, with their unique offsetting balances is now gone, kaput.
They want obedient drones with fealty to the state.
A nuclear family with Christian values will not produce this outcome. It is precisely this reason that marriage, and Christianity is under attack as Progressive enemy#1…
Two of the three interrogators seemed bent on creating sound bites for the next days news cycle.
How worthless was that when we need to be talking about the issues.
You have to give credit to Newt, he gave as good as he got from the 'reporters' intent on Creating News and not
reporting on news. Chris Wallace, no one is voting for you for anything. Quit trying to make a name for yourself
and do the job you're being paid for.
“…this female isn't submissive to anyone…” This isn’t entirely true, for you or anyone. We’re all submissive to the government.
Why are you agnostic? Why not atheist?
I totally hear you on this. I had religion surrounding me my entire childhood. I have broken away from it as an adult, but as a kid I never missed church, went to baptist schools for most my life and also went to a christian college.
It's taken me a long time to finally feel comfortable with what I know about religion — and sharing it is still difficult. When I was writing this piece, all I could think about was that people would think I was a right-wing nut job, christian fanatic. But I felt compelled to write what I knew to be true — even though that verse has ALWAYS made me cringe beyond belief.
What you learned when you grew up has shaped you — and whether you embrace it or not is totally your choice. My decision to not be seriously ingrained in religion now is what it is –but what I know about God and the Bible does rear it's head — especially when I see people put under fire for their faith.
Take it for what it is worth, but I hope you can eventually embrace what you know, forgive those who were absolutely stupid and totally misinformed in what they told you — or maybe you already have in your choice to be agnostic.
I am so glad you wrote and shared your experience. Believe me, this verse I am sure has turned lots of good women away from the church …
That's a good point too. Still, shame on Byron Dork, there were other tough question that could have been ask that would not have attacked her faith.
You know it … just trying to find places where I can interject some points and more importantly get people talking and rallied. Now to just get our message out of the blogs and into the public — MORE than they already are.
It is up to the parents to maintain the strict controls of sexual education of their children. No parent looks forward to that "birds and the bees" discussion…..but it is a must nonetheless. What is scary is that since the educational system has initiated sex education in the schools, parents have viewed this as another reason to look to government to help them raise their children……
I can't help but feel that this decision by some parents, is almost in and of itself, a suttle form of child abuse…..ie: neglect…..
Because, unlike the Apostle Paul, I am skeptical but open to possibilites, especially regarding the mysteries of the universe. We don't know everything, scientists included. As for the government, I haven't taken any orders since I retired from the Army. I'm one of those Tea party supporters who lets the government know that I am not submissive, nor do I tolerate its out-of-control power grabs.
For those of you who voted thumbs down on my comment: try using a little more common sense.
Submission, in this sense, is not blind. It is based on an earned trust that your spouse loves you as no other and has a huge stake in your personal fulfillment – and that trust must be mutual. The model for this loving trust is in how Jesus loved his church.
I don't know how many marriages actually have achieved and/or sustained this level of trusting love. I take Bachmann at her word, though, that her marriage is one of these.
it is EXACTLY that..
These poor little humans have all of their faith and trust in YOU. Not the state. To pawn off your responsibilities to a government run agency is, as Rick Perry would call it 'treachery'.
Child abuse shall suffice, as well…
I agree with you … very good description.
Thank you for acknowledging that she was coached to hide the true intent of her words.
In response to your suggestion that I "stop acting…" Essentially, what you are saying is that if my message doesn't fall in line with what you believe, then I shouldn't express it. The Bible has been interpreted several thousand times over and counting. Why stop now?
Furthermore, if you have to resort to sensationalism to get a point across, then no point have you made.
#occupywallstreet. Bring tent.
and you could try some as well…
You miss the point.
This is not submitting one's will to another human, but empowering the head of the family (there is a head of the family, correct?) with the responsibility of protecting the innocent and vulnerable, and being answerable to HIS master, The Creator.
If it doesn't work for you, fine. That's your opinion. But it is the classic approach to Christian marriage and family, and when practiced nobly it is a thing of beauty…
I respect your honesty here, and your opinion.
Yep.
I know what you're thinking. "You're a guy, what do you know?"
I know about Baptists and I know about Catholics. I know what has been done to Native Peoples all in the name of religion. I know my people were taught that their religion was wrong, and that we needed to convert to the White Mans God. I know that we were sent to the Carlisle Indian School, and were punished for speaking our heathen tongue. I know that we were allowed to go across the pond in the service of our great Uncle Sam, to fight for the Great White Father, and those that survived and came home, still could not buy a drink on the Reservation. Yep. I know a few things. I know, and have heard every excuse under the sun. I have used them all myself, at least twice.
We have all had hurdles to cross concerning this topic. In my life's experience, those who have the greatest struggles with it, those who stray from it the furthest, and search the hardest, and the longest, sometimes come back, full circle and come to terms with many things. In the interim, it can be a long, winding, dangerous, circuitous route. I know I did. Sometimes, it takes being in the right spot, at the right time, at the right place, and having the planets line up in the right manner, for one to have a moment of clarity. An "A-ha!" moment.
The wisest Holy Man I ever met, spoke broken English, only went to the fifth grade in school, and was an Indian. He told me once "Boy, why you runnin' around looking for God? God ain't lost, you are". That was my A-ha moment. It just took twenty years for the impact of the profundity to sink in.
Every question I ever had in my life, the answer was within me. It just takes getting still enough, quite enough, to listen for the still small voice within. Sometimes, that might take fifteen minutes of meditation. Sometimes it might take the better part of the day. Sometimes it might take going to the Mountain for several days, but the answers will come, if you listen.
I haven’t taken any orders since I left the military either, but I make sure my income tax is sent on time. I obey the laws of the land; that is being ‘submissive.’
Apostle Paul experienced a unique situation, actually being knocked of his ride and blinded, and later recovering his sight. That is a life altering event.
I believe in the impossible, but not the improbable.
I don’t thumbs-down honest commentary.
But doncha know that blogs and bloggers are ineffective?
At least that is what Obama implied yesterday.
I was waiting for him to interject "Its a vast, white, right wing conspiracy".
Cowboy, nice to have someone here so full of wisdom! It's appreciated and should be taken to heart. When I told my momma I was gonna write to support conservative issues she literally cried telling me 'you've finally seen the light!' … up until then, I'd been middle of the road …
You're right. It does come full circle if you'll embrace it.
I admire your honesty AND your commitment to your beliefs …
Deanna,
I hope you are staying current with this story.
It is developing minute by minute.
It is going to blow wide open within the next 24-48 hours. http://bigjournalism.com/jdunetz/2011/08/17/the-c...
It will be a big deal.
(Not the article by Dunetz, but read the thread. The story is the MSNBC/Ed Schultz/Al Sharpton story)
I don't think I heard any questions specifically asking the mormon candidates about their faith …
………and folks usually come back around to embracing it.
IF, they are fortunate enough to come through to the other side, and live through it.
The hottest fire tempers the hardest steel.
If she would not have prepared for the debate and have stumbled on questions then your Leftist hide would have accused her of being incompetent. So your statement is disingenuous at best, your objective is to criticize her no matter what, prepared or not. Your argument is very silly, inane and transparent in your bias toward her.
And you said in your original post: no ifs, ands, or buts about it
That is far beyond expressing your opinion, that is pompous and setting yourself up as the all-knowing expert. Nonsense LORD BEDLAM !
And you never answered my question. Who doesn't prepare for a debate? Your glorious Obama maybe? He can't talk to school children without a teleprompter.
One of the main treatise in the Communist Manifesto is destroying the family unit. According to His Ten Commandmnents, family is most precious to Him. Honoring thy father and mother has many ramifications if not followed. Our sexual revolution, NOW, Gay Rights Activist. Single moms, deadbeat dades, etc have succeeded quite well in attaining their goal. How do I measure the success of their endeavors you ask? Just look at the mob violence coming to a neighborHOOD near you. What's even more telling is the rage against accomplished women who have done it all without losing their womanhood, this simply confounds their precepts.
When the left hears the word submission, all they can think of is submission in an S&M context.
You understand Christianity like a spoon understands the taste of food. Get it yet?
"The writer of Ephesians, Paul (formerly a soldier known as Saul who persecuted Christians in Rome), …"
Not a big deal, but I thought I would correct. Saul was formerly a tent-maker in Tarsus, not a soldier, who persecuted Christians in Jerusalem. He was a member of the Jewish Pharisee sect. His conversion experience took place when he was headed for Damascus to persecute Christians, there. He was also a Roman citizen, though he was Jewish. By the time he saw Rome, for the first time, he was under sentence of death and was one of the most important figures in the early Christian faith.
Innards.
Sorry I didn't catch your post. My "correction" to the article is after yours!
"I haven’t taken any orders since I left the military either"
I haven't taken any orders since I got single.
I wouldn't worry too much about that thumby thingey.
I admire your honesty.
My husband and I have a great relationship and I am submissive to my man. We talked about what this meant to both of us before we married. His view was that in the end he makes the major decisions in our life and with that comes the responsibility that if the decision is wrong he made the wrong decisison. That works for me also. He also believes that my opinion is highly respected and he does consider my opinions. If he didn't and only wanted someone who always agrees with him he would have married his girlfriend before me. We don't always agree on things (on many things) but he presents his ideas, I present mine and usually we show each other another point of view that is valid. Sometimes he changes my mind, I can change his mind and when we cant we agree to disagree.
Almost in the same passage of Scripture, men are admonished to, "love your wives as your own bodies." The point of all this is that a marriage is a union of two equal persons. A woman should listen to her husband, and the husband should listen to his wife.
OHHH I knew that! My gramps says it … I just have to get my country back on …. all good.
Perhaps what Bachmann needs most is a dictionary. Apparently so does the author, given this weak attempt to change the definition of the word. And whoever wrote that question for the debate for Bachmann, deserves a slap in the face. Frankly, all the question wrtiers do for that debate. Leave it to Fox to turn a Presidential debate into a Jerry Springer interview.
Lets be real, Bachmann's comment IS highly questionable. She purports to be a very religious person. Add that to the Biblical quote regarding a wife's prerogative to be submissive to her husband, and the fact the meaning of "submissive" hasn't changed, only a fool wouldn't raise an eyebrow or require further clarification for such a comment as Bachmann made. Its equally foolish to assume Bachmann's commitment to her religion and her husband, in this context, wouldn't potentially overshadow an application of reason and logic to decision-making should she become our dear leader.
Seriously, at a time when "compromise" is a dirty word to conservatives, you're trying to argue that "submissive" is okay? Is that not hilarious? There is no better parody than that.
Bachmann's admission to being a submissive wife doesn't make her incapable of running this country, but it does make her ability highly questionable. Simply put, it was a stupid thing to say out loud. But not surprising considering who said it.
amen, brother.
The liberals hate the Church and hate most religions. Yet they want to determine who's a good Christian and want to criticize the Church while they refuse to learn anything about it.
Obviously, liberals think that submission means one thing, which is negative. They hate the idea of being submissive in front of God because it would force them to give up their narcissism. Furthermore, liberals love, love, love the idea of women being submissive to men; they love defending strip clubs, porn, and promiscuity.
Semantics. Liberals love to play with semantics–see Bill Clinton. I've even heard an argument that Obama's 57 States comment was to include US territories. Semantics is still about context, ask a lawyer or a technical writer. [E.g., the word tragedy is abused every freakin' day; technically, tragedy has the characteristic of inverse optimism--see Aristotle and Arthur Miller.]
So true … it's all about taking what you know and then figuring out how it works for you IMHO … sometimes, it's straight up the way you were taught, and others it's paving your own path. For me, it's a little of both … but I appreciate the upbringing I had … wouldn't have me any other way
She stumbles well enough on her own; happy birthday elvis on the anniversary of his death, confusing John Wayne Gacy with the film star.
My objective is not to criticize her, that would suggest that I have a personal vendetta against her. Not the case, I don't agree with her ideology and critical comments made of current policy.
Kind sir, I'm hurt that you would find my arguments silly and believe that I hold bias towards anyone. To be called pompous is quite insulting as well.
In direct answer to your question, everyone prepares. Point being, her answer was an outright lie to appeal to a broader base, but her initial intent was meant to be interpreted in the literal sense.
Lastly, your sensationalism is quite entertaining.
Why would you insult me? Did the scripture tell you to do that?
I'm glad you're entertained, your pomposity is entertaining as well. Now why don't you go back to KOS where your nonsense will be rewarded?
Except that is not what her anecdote related.
She did not say she discussed the options with her husband and ultimately decided to take his advice.
She said she did not want to do something he wanted her to do and ultimately obeyed him based on her religious beliefs.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with having religious beliefs and making life choices based on them.
There is however something very much wrong with a President deferring critical decisions to a spouse on such a basis.
And no, that does not mean she has to constantly run to him for instructions on everything, or just cut to having him run cabinet meetings while she focuses on baking and housekeeping. It does mean that people can reasonably wonder how it will affect her decisions when her husband casually comments on how he would like various policy issues resolved when they are sitting around, relaxing as a family. Indeed those very questions were raised when both Reagan and Clinton were President because of the prominent roles their wives took in national programs.
She used that anecdote to pander to a particular audience and was called on the implications.
When that happens to Obama his defenders scream "gotcha journalism" and people here cheer it.
Double standard indeed.
We can debate was "submissive" means in an evangelical, Biblical context, but Byron York is not a liberal journalist; in fact, he's the antithesis. This is more about establishment GOPers wanting to tamp down tea partiers. How they'll deal with Perry, who is out-crazying even Bachmann, remains to be seen.
Thats awesome.
You say: you could use some common sense too, you're innocent and vulnerable and should submit to your husband so he will protect you, and when you do it will be a thing of beauty.
Yeah, thats common sense. At least it passed for such in 1900.
But really, it isn't common sense and never has been. Its just a form of being submissive to one while claiming dominance over another. But if it works for you, fine, that is your opinion. I just enjoyed the backhanded slaps you gave her as you claimed the mantle of common sense and domination over her. Thumbs up.
One thing that Bachman would find to be really hard to do, is to Lie…..hard for her to do a little "White Lie".
If her husband seems to making an error while having a Christian Persuasion, she would tell him kindly, in a loving way. And vice-versa. Their Souls are knit together.
The Press has attempted to marginalize her with some "Negative Gossip"…Propaganda.
I'm of the same belief system as Bachman; and we are protected by Psalms Ch 91. Obama has more "fear factor" than Bachman has. I'll bet that Bachman has no "Fear Factor" at all. Being baptized as an adult, she has in effect Taken Her Last Rites Ahead of Time…She don't need to have Last Rites read over her, when she dies.
When the men become weakened, the women take over. Obama's Lies are Series, Bachman's Truth is in Parallel.
The biblical persuasion is the Limit to our God-Given Rights and Blessings…blessings listed in DT Ch 28. and N.T.
The LEFT and this writer both do NOT understand submission. A perfect answer for Mrs. Bachman during the debate would have been…. IN MATTERS OF FAMILY AND FAITH I SUBMIT TO MY HUSBAND but in matters of national and political concerns I will depend on the generals and well versed experts on various topics. Now that I've answered the female part of the submission question, I suggest you ask the men on the panel how they fulfill their roles to love their wives as Christ loved the church. DONE This article suggests the old (and false) premise that submission was a cultural thing for "their day", but we are especially enlightened and we don't operate that way anymore. When Mrs. Bachman RE-DEFINED the word submission to mean respect, she shot herself in her evangelical foot. Truth means something to real Christians and you do NOT run around changing words to make them culturally acceptable. She raised the eyebrows of any well versed Bible believing christian but placated the lukewarm, middle of the road church goers who long ago abandoned the thought that the Bible is really true all the time. Sorry Deanna, you got this one way wrong and so did Michelle. I still like her, but re-defining Gods words for us is NOT good policy. P.S. look around at our culture, compare it to a day when women and men both understood their roles in the family and tell me if today's world is better.
People who don't understand Christianity, don't "get" it. It's really so very simple if you do.
A soldier known as Saul??? Please don't try to explain the Bible unless you read it first.
SUBMISSIVE WIVES LIKE:
HILLARY CLINTON?
HUMA ABEDIN?
ELIZABETH EDWARDS?
WE CAN GO DOWN THE LIST OF SILENT AND SUBMISSIVE WIVES IN THE DNC; WHILE THEIR SPOUSES FILANDER THEY KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT LIKE GOOD LITTLE GIRLS.
all that was pointed out is the spiritual aspect; apparently you missed that.
But agnostic and atheists will miss that, it's only natural.
The man must submit to The Creator, and his responsibility is to be kind, and gentle to those entrusted in his care. It was a good practice in 1900, it is a good practice now.
For those who believe, though. Maybe not you so much…
True, liberal philosophy would reject the concept of religion. And what liberals want to do is highlight the hypocrisy of conservatives who claim religiously moral high ground. The bigger they (say they) are, the bigger they fall, and liberals enjoy watching it and giving commentary.
"Submission" has a negative connotation. It is a form of giving up one's individuality. And if you think strip clubs and porn are a form of women being submissive to men, you're really upside-down. Money for sex? Ring it up. It's about money. Women are in firm control in matters of sexuality. As for promiscuity, sure a man trying to bang tons of chicks is trying to enforce his dominance, but its a charade. Women can get laid at the drop of dime whereas men have to work much harder for it.
Don't like strip clubs, porn and promiscuity? Apparently you don't like freedom?
I lost enormous respect for Byron York.
How could I be soooooo FOOLISH to think Byron York was credible. Byron York is credible when Byron York chooses to be credible.
So now we are stuck with IPCC Romney & The Contrived One?
Maybe I’m naïve….but I find it very disappointing the verse being used regarding wives be submissive to their husbands is being distorted to mean “man controls the woman”….”you must submit to the man at his whim”…..because your “faith” tells you so….
I’m sure that was interpreted and practiced to the “T” back in the day….as I am sure there are many who practice it in modern times. But, this goes beyond the mere words…..and misinterpretation is what causes many to denounce their faith, or ridicule faiths that have this or similar doctrine. And those who haven't a clue as to the true principle meaning have contributed to the destruction of this principle out of their own blind bias to what being in a meaningful relationship entails…..
If a real man understands its meaning, and a woman does as well, then you realize what love between a husband and wife really means…submission is not submission in the sense of surrendering someone’s being. It’s becoming one as a spirit….and through this there is a strength that cannot be broken.
When I look into my wife’s eyes and give all of me to her, we submit to each other all that makes us complete. It’s not about sex, it’s not about doing the laundry, not about her cooking while I chill on the couch watching TV, or any other petty comparison. It’s being of one another in God, or whatever your faith of choice is, including a relationship with non-faith as well. It’s empowerment of the relationship and no man, woman, government, or ideology will break that bond. If a husband and wife understand these verses to mean similar or better than what I’ve articulated, they truly understand what love between a husband and wife is meant to be. No riches can touch this. And no man, nor ideology has a right to denouce that from another…..
My take on this scripture has always been this: a marriage is a partnership. When family decisions need to be made, or when it comes to the spiritual well-being of the family, you sit down with your husband and discuss everything in detail. You share your opinions and concerns, you hash it all out, you pray about it together (and fast, if need be), and then you take a step back and let your husband make an informed decision for your family. If it's a decision you agree with, great. If you don't, you pray about it again. If you don't get the same answer your husband did, then you talk about it some more and find out his reasoning and thought process. And then you trust that your husband is making his decision because he loves you and your family, and wants to do what's best for you all.
If it's something clearly wrong, like your husband wants to stop attending church and start spending Sundays at a strip club or something, that's one thing. But when it comes to normal, every day things, you trust your spouse and defer to his opinion, just like he trusts you and defers to you in other matters. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and we all have our roles in the family. Those roles come with different responsibilities, but they're equally important. The husband is not more important to the family or the marriage than the wife is, but neither is the wife more important than the husband. They have to work together, with trust and respect, to care for their families.
Now that's really hurtful. Why do you choose to assassinate my character rather than present facts to support your argument?
"There is still a place for this, but it is different now as times are different and a woman’s role in this society has astoundingly changed."
I wouldn't assume the WHY in which commandments come down from God. Submission is still what wives are to do in a Christian marriage and I honestly don't know any who aren't content with the same definition that it was back then.
I would suggest that Deanna watch the video of Bachmann and see that she BOASTS about submitting – not to God's Word – but to a "vision" her husband had. She also boasts about marrying Marcus, even though she didn't want to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If6ScJ-7MWs
Why am I not surprised.
How about bringing a brain. You may have to share that one brain between the lot of you better it would be better than being brainless.
Just know that if you thugs try that sh!t in my neighborhood, you'll wind up with a shotgun up your @ss. There'll be no passive citizens just taking your crap. This ain't London, sh!tstain.
Even the Devil can quote Scripture. Unless you have been a devout practicing Christian, your "interpretation" means nothing as it is based on lies and deceit and an attempt to bring down Christianity.
It's important to keep in mind that it was Paul of Tarsus, a former Pharisaic rabbi, who exhorted wives to 'submit" to their husbands. It was not Jesus Christ.
Many, many things that Paul said went well beyond the teachings of Christ — and let's also please remember that Paul was not one of the Twelve, and therefore not a participant in the Apostolic succession. He possessed a commanding personailty and superior political skills that he used to "take charge" of the Apostles and the Great Commission, but it is legitimate to be skeptical about anything he said that doesn't have a basis in Christ's explicit teachings as recorded in the Gospels.
Cowboy, that was beautiful. My life took similar turns – and that wise Holy Man was correct – I was lost, not God.
But then I came back. I'll probably never be as religious as some are, but I have gone back to Church, have started teaching my children.
You're lucky. My mom is what I would call the apathetic populist – she doesn't think any side knows anything about anything. She uses "greed" a lot, but not just about politicians, also about corporations. She refuses to understand that I'm a CONSERVATARIAN, not a Republican. In one breath she'll complain about Obama, but when I complain about him, I'm just brainwashed by someone else. Whenever I present her with facts, she says: "How do you know they are telling the truth?"
Basically she believes in no one (except God) and therefore has become that irritating person who'll complain about everything and everyone, but won't do anything about it. She's quick to jump on what I would call the "French Revolution/Russian Revolution" bandwagon – the fight between the haves and the have nots, yet she hates communism (she's Polish and has family still in Poland).
Anyway, again, you're lucky. My mom nearly had a fit when I took off for D.C. for the 9/12 rally, until finally my own Godmother told her that what I was doing was a good thing – I was firm in my beliefs and principles and I was acting upon them and she should be proud.
Anybody think submission is an issue for the current occupants of the white house?????
He's got the mother in-law living with him!!!!
Every time he goes out he gobbles down something he's not supposed to.
Good article. I became a Christian when I was 18 and went to a Christian College just a few month after my new found faith. Women were treated like 2nd class citizens and legalism was the norm. I noticed a lot of the inner qualities that I now had where lacking such as joy, peace and love. It was still good for me to go because I did soak in God's word like a sponge. I just learned to leave off the bad, and hold onto the good.
My husband and I have been married for 15 years. We left the baptist church 8 years ago and haven't been to any church since then. We prefer now to study the Bible ourselves and let the Lord speak to us directly.
I agree in that marriage is a partnership. I also am a strong willed outspoken person and don't like to be told what to do. I'm glad I've got a hubby who doesn't take that verse and twist it for his own selfish purposes. There really are men out there who "love their wives like Christ loved the church." It's a self denying, self sacrificial love that puts the needs of others before his own.
I have seen women who live in marriages where the hubby is a Christian Chauvinist (I guess that's an oxymoron!) and those women are never happy and produce children who walk away from the faith. I've seen this countless times again, and it's sad. But, we do have to remember to do like you said, forgive those involved and not use it as an excuse to chuck God and his Word out of our lives.
I personally can't wait until the question comes up about being subservient to God and Country. Bet the Liberals would go crazy on that one. My family is Christian, and structured in a loving way the bible discribes
This doesn't mean my wife doesn't have a career of which demands that she has education and talents that FAR exceed my own and I make no attempt to put my two cents in unless asked.
and my children have little developing charactors that little if anything I had anything to do with.
But when it comes to home and Church, I do make some deciding factor, most of which are previously discussed and acknowledged by my partner and wife. It's a level of honor and respect in the family which in less than a full study is hard to understand- but in healthy relationships are otherwise natural. Since these days there is no such thing as healthy relationships (ask DR. Phil.) bible study is the next best thing. Start with Proverbs…
PieceACandy told me she loves to go get an abortion because they make her feel clean as a woman.
"But it is the classic approach to Christian marriage and family, and when practiced nobly it is a thing of beauty… "
Well said. Would to God we had more families living this example in America.
Welll said. I wish my ex saw things that way. Underneath it all he expected me to do everything he wanted to do and so there was no deep relationship, no deep bond. I sacrificed, I gave and gave. He gave nothing. Sure I made some mistakes. So did he. I forgave him for his. He never forgave me for mine.
What we have here is an instance of character assassination, confusion with a touch of invoking god.
- Character assassination because you're referring to me as the Devil.
- Confusion because the debate began on the topic of Michele Bachmann redefining the word submissive and it somehow morphed into a debate about Christianity
- Invoking God because that's just what everyone appears to do here
so congratulations, you've gone way off topic and shaped the debate in your favor; arguing faith-based rather than fact-based.
You said the following:
1. "Let's not fool around here with semantics and acknowledge what she said in the literal sense. Her faith tells her to do as her husband tells her, no ifs, ands, or buts about it."
2. "Essentially, what you are saying is that if my message doesn't fall in line with what you believe, then I shouldn't express it. The Bible has been interpreted several thousand times over and counting."
You presented NO facts. Bachmann stated something, she was questioned on it, and gave an answer.
Of course you were the one that brought up the Bible, even if just tangentially at first, and how its been intepreted, and my response was that it has been interpreted by learned people, but also by people who wish to destroy the Bible, what it stands for and Christianity. There are people out there that claim Jesus was a Communist and they take quotes out of context. Therefore, they have ZERO credibility.
That was my point.
I did not call you "the Devil", nancy boy. I merely posted an old saying which basically means that quoting Scripture does not make you win the argument and doesn't mean you understand what it says.
I'm not invoking God. I'm merely making a point that you are only here to denigrate Ms. Bachmann because you have no real understanding of the Bible or Christianity, or frankly of Ms. Bachmann.
I'm completely on topic. You are full of sh!t.
lady, you've gotta use a lot of common sense, right? It is so hard to tell who's telling the truth and who actually believes what they and will act on it … sound bites are sound bites, but true passion I think always shines through.
Maybe we all don't know anything — but I will stand behind and preach on what I know to be true til the day I die … or someone proves me wrong — whichever comes first.
You must be logged in to post a comment.