Skip to comments.What Michelle Bachmann's submission theology really means
Posted on 08/15/2011 6:46:19 AM PDT by TSgt
When the Washington Examiners Byron York asked Michele Bachmann if she was submissive to her husband at the Fox News GOP debate Thursday night, the crowd gasped and booed. Thats because wifely submission -- also known as complementarian theology -- is central to the faith of many evangelicals. Yorks question wasnt about religion per se, but was an attempt to probe whether, if Bachmann became president, America would be getting Marcus' decisions and not hers.
Its common for Christian politicians questioned about their adherence to submission theology to dodge a scriptural explanation, as Bachmann did. After all, while dominionist-minded evangelicals like Bachmann intentionally set out to bring their "biblical worldview" into politics, they recognize that its bad 21st century politics -- especially for a female candidate -- to admit to a theology that could cause the same gasps and boos from voters who would recoil at the image of an obedient wife as president of the United States.
Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL), the target of then-Rep. Alan Graysons "Taliban Dan" ad because of his commitment to submission theology in the 2010 midterm election, similarly refused to explain to his constituents what the theology really is. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, was questioned about his denominations official adherence to it, although he never really explained it either.
Bachmann has reached out to evangelical voters by emphasizing her adherence to a "biblical worldview," but when questioned about it -- particularly about the "biblical" view of gender roles -- Bachmann wasnt a very good evangelist. Whatever happened to proudly expressing her faith?
* Continue reading
On Thursday, Bachmann smiled and talked about how in love she is with Marcus and maintained that their relationship is based on respect. Pundits described it as a "human" moment, a deeply committed spouse describing a loving partnership. But if Bachmann had explained her interpretation of the theology, we would have gotten a lesson in far more than her relationship with Marcus. We would have received greater insight in what her "biblical worldview" means for her understanding of law and policy.
The video that inspired Yorks question is a perfect example of why Bachmann appeals to evangelicals and alarms other voters. She was speaking at Living Word Christian Center, a Minneapolis area megachurch, in 2006. She was running for Congress for the first time, and was describing, in distinctly evangelical terms, her path to politics. Bachmann recounted how as a college student she decided to marry Marcus not because of a "romantic surge," but because God had given her a vision that she was to marry him. God "began to create in us and to perfect for us what his plan was for us," she added. Bachmann the college student didnt want to go to law school, but nonetheless she said God led her to Oral Roberts University, the first "Christian" law school "where they taught law from a biblical worldview." When Marcus told her she should get an additional degree in tax law, she exclaimed, "Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands."
Later, Bachmann added, about her decision to pursue the additional degree at William and Mary Law School: "By faith, I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband."
Submission theology is built around the notion that God has a "design" for men and for women; that they are unique from each other and have their designated, God-given roles. The husband is the spiritual head of the household, the wife his obedient "helpmeet," the vessel for their children, devoted mother, and warrior for the faith. By committing themselves to those gender roles, evangelicals believe they are obeying Gods commands. They see the wifes obligation to obey her husbands authority as actually owed to God, not her husband.
But the obligation falls on the woman to be obedient, even when the husband doesnt love her as evangelicals believe God commands. As Kathryn Joyce, author of "Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement," explained during the flap over Graysons ad:
Submission is a contentious and tricky issue even within conservative evangelical churches. Most churches promoting submission make certain to couple demands for submissive wives with those for loving, servant-leader husbands. But at the end of the day, it's women who bear the brunt of the principle; their obligations are to God, not to a husband who may or may not keep his end of the contract. Accordingly, the message is impressed by countless women's ministries and leaders that women must continue submitting even when their husband doesn't show love, because they owe their obedience, above all, to God.
While not all interpretations of submission theology are alike, and some are far more severe than others, women who have experienced its harsher iterations described it as "I gave up my rights to be who I was" and compared escaping to "getting out of hell."
Regardless of the Bachmanns' relationship, candidate Bachmann's policy initiatives, as they relate to issues like gay marriage, abortion, and funding for Planned Parenthood, stem directly from her "biblical" view of gender roles. "Gods design" for gender roles is not limited to the issue Bachmann usually applies it to (opposition to gay marriage). Gods design, in her view, is for (Christian) men and women to get married to serve God, and for the woman a mother and a fierce defender of the "biblical worldview." Bachmanns worldview, which she sees as under siege by secularists, feminists, imaginary socialists, and other bogeymen, must be defended for future generations. "An arrogant corrupt Washington elite," Bachmann insisted earlier this year, has declared war on marriage, on families, on fertility, and on faith."
In the 2006 campaign appearance, Bachmann talked about how people told her that only a "fool" would spend so much time running for a job with a two-year term. To emphasize how she was obeying God in her quest for higher office and defense of her "biblical worldview," she exclaimed, "youre now looking at a fool for Christ."
I was livid when she was asked this question.
I hate the MSM.
Obama is submissive to a dominant male, too. More than one, probably.
(Note, no personal comment on Rep. Bachmann - I’m just playing with the concept ;-).
yes, the washington examiner’s female questioner
raised a storm that will generate legions of
feminist essays and books on el collegio campi.
What about the Clinton “co-Presidency”?
What about Obama’s sitting in Rev. Wriight’s church for 20 years?
Talking about hating Whitey???
That seems worse than submitting to your husband
I think that was part of the GOP landslide in 1994.
This is why you have so many as single mothers and women who think they’re men.
Only men can be men... period. A man should be head of the household. Do you think those kids in London would be wilding if their fathers were there and disciplined them from the beginning (with the exception of the islayutes)?
Boys are out there with no direction; Not knowing how to be male, a boyfriend, husband, father, provider, protector, etc.. They watch videos with hoochies, naked women, violence and listen to their boys, who also have no clue, on what a man means. Hint: It isn’t being a sperm donor without any responsibility. They go to prison and get turned out. Of course either they will never tell (did what they had to do to survive), will go on the down low (sleeping with a guy on the side, when the women hasn’t a clue... accounts for a lot of the rise of hetero AIDS), or will say “Hey, guess i’m gay”, I can’t be a man after that happened to me... even though I fought or whatever. You ever wonder why prisons never spread out to prevent rampant rape (or at least put a damper on it)? But hey, Hillary and Schumer gave Viagra to inmates in NY; They should have been accessories to rape.
Girls have no clue what a man is. With a father, they know what a man is to be and what to look for in a man (as well as what not... pops will clue her in on that early, he was once a young man).
No matter how great a mom is, they can’t be a dad. There will be a missing piece. God forbid if Manny, Moe and Jack do the revolving doors with mom... then to the son, that’s what women are for and about.
We have the feminization of boys in schools, media; The attempt to squash the Boy Scouts while pushing birth control and feminist memes in Girl Scouts. The forced teaching of homosexuality as ‘natural’, to imprint doubts into kids minds... made easier with no dad around.
We have more than one generation that has no idea what a family/marriage/regular home life means; Their parents probably had no clue either. There’s children that have never set eyes on a church, not for Christmas, Easter, anytime. They think right and wrong is what works for me now... no ethics or morals. Trust me, this is how the red and godless want it. History tells of this beast who pops up under different names.
As Yuri Bezmenov said, the Soviets will have the West so brainwashed that if you show them the truth with their eyes... they’ll deny it.
Here we are.
I don’t think it is unfair per se. What makes it unfair it seems only Republicans are asked about their beliefs.
The REAL Christian position on husbands and wives is that they become ONE. He becomes more “her”, while she becomes more “him”. It is expressed best in this phrase from Ephesians 5: “He that loves his wife, loves himself; for no man ever yet hated his own flesh.” And if a secularist looked into it with an open mind, he would find there the very sort of selfless empathy between two people that the whole civilized world is searching for.
However, the Bible also says that the natural mind cannot comprehend the things of God; hence the rank illiteracy we perceive whenever they try. Even knowing this, though, I still get crazy when they use “quotes” when explaining Christian positions. The quotes always signify “so-called”, which always means the writer is cringing, holding her nose, and saying “dear reader, please don’t think I believe any of these children’s stories”.
I think the best answer when the Biblical view of the family is questioned is simply “show me in history a secular alternative that has led to a sucessful society.”
From the article: “But at the end of the day, it’s women who bear the brunt of the principle; their obligations are to God, not to a husband who may or may not keep his end of the contract.”
This is a lie. The husband is directed to love his wife like Christ loves the Church. Christ literally gave his life in sacrifice for the Church. That is a very heavy obligation for husbands and is owed to wives whether or not their wives submit. Husbands are also responsible to God for how they treat their wives. In other words, wives do not bear the “brunt” of the submission doctrine.
The submission doctrine means both husband and wife serve each other. According to scripture, the husband is supposed to make that decision (and is responsible for it) but a loving husband would first consult and value their wife’s opinions. That should be completely uncontroversial for anyone well versed in scripture, but I suppose leftists can’t accept that someone has to be in charge. That’s not a surprise, because they generally deny God’s authority, too.
article by Sarah Posner, Religious Bigot
Thanks for the idea. I’m going to make a video of Hillary and Bill, all the cheating clips and Hill’s bashing of other women.
Of course, ‘Stand by your man’, will be the soundtrack.
Let’s see what the fembots will do with that.
I forgot, doesn’t count... she was ‘carrying Bill’, you see, not the other way around. /s
She was powerful in stomping down her ravished sisters, because ‘obviously’ they were weak for submitting to him (in most cases not), in the first place. But ummm, Hillary’s not... and... that’s that you chavinist, um, er, pig. /s
Hey, there’s no logic involved.
I’ll get started on the campaign posters. Hillary with a bra in one hand (hold your food down), and a black power fist pick in her hair and a um... device that needs batteries (or Huma), in the other hand. (Kidding Hillary, I really scared of you and don’t want to be found with a 30-06 that I shot myself in back of the head with, cough).
BTW, men should know... even if you are submissive or a fool with a cheating husband, as long as you kill babies you’re in.
Ya think that maybe some lefty out there would give Marcus credit for encouraging his wife to get an advanced degree?
Michele Bachmann’s administration will be the perfect replacement for the atheistic socialist Democratic Party of America administration in office today.
I'd be interested to hear how the writer came to this conclusion, since he stated it with such authority.
Preach it, AliVeritas!
It appears that conservative women make it on their own; Bachman, Palin.
Lib women have to screw themselves into money (sorry for the rude description, but it’s true) so that they can purchase a senate seat...a la Boxer, Pelosi.
And libs have the gall to criticize our women?
Shove it up your collective smelly Obamas, Salon.
IMO the central point to what the Bible teaches of submission is to NEVER NEVER NEVER forget our submission is based upon and springs from submission to GOD. The Apostle Paul ,formerly known as Saul of Tarsus trained a Pharisee—
spoke of “submission” in ! Corinthians,and in the letters to the Called out at Ephessus and again to those at Colosse.
In his letter to the Believers at Corinth I think he spoke of the Household of Stephanus and their missionary work and the submission due such people .Ephesians and Colossians speak of holy matrimony ( submission to God is mentioned )