I'm sure I was not the only one that watched the Debate in Iowa this week. The blog world and the media are still on fire about a question that was asked to Michelle Bachmann about submission. I found the clip in question that they keep referring to.
Is she saying we will get two for the price of one if she is elected?
can’t see video – click here
At first when I heard about her comments I was surprised she would say what she did to a general audience. Then I found out she said them within church walls.
‘…and from there my husband said, ‘Now you need to go and get a Post Doctorate degree in Tax Law . And I said, ‘‘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! ‘
I realize people felt it was sexist to ask the question they did of Michelle Bachmann about submission due to her comments. I don’t agree.
There is plenty of preachers out there that teach an authoritative position in which the husband is the ‘boss’, and you are to respect him in that fashion. The clip in question does bring her position into question. Yes, I realize they wouldn’t use the word ‘boss’ but in essence that is what they teach no matter how much spiritual pixie dust they place on it.
The way she answered the question in this church, and the way she answered the question in the debate were two very different positions.
“but by faith! I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband. “
On the complementarian side of things you do have those that stress more of the authority within marriage, and would very much appreciate what she said about being submissive to her husband. Although we do need to admit the complementarians WILL have issue with her being President due to her gender alone.
Looking back when Palin was running for Vice President there were articles on how will she be able to do her job while being subordinate to men. Keep in mind some feel submission to is ‘men’ in general, and others feel it is just your husband. The fact she was a woman, and would be in a position of authority? They liked she was a Christian, and was given this opportunity. Political issues aside the gender circumstance made many just wiggle.
This week we now have Bachmann whom gave more a complementarian position in the church, but in the debate in Iowa she was more egalitarian in nature.
From what I saw she also didn’t answer the question.
Some of the media seemed satisfied with her response, but I guess they don’t realize that from the complementarian position she gave a very ‘feminist’ response. I can’t see the Bachmann’s practicing the extreme form of complementarians, because of her job or position in the past and present. So does that make her a soft complementarian?
If Michele Bachmann got into the White House, and the big decisions came to her would she defer to her husband’s position of ‘head’ or not? I think most realize that President or not you discuss things with your spouse. To a point they also would have some influence. That’s just common sense. Given that she seems to be complementarian how much ‘weight’ does she give to the authority role for her husband.
As President when she makes huge decisions will she then have to change it due to her husband NOT in agreement?
THAT is what was asked in the debate, and she never answered it.
If elected are we going to be handed Michele as the decision maker, or a person that makes sure her authority is fine with decisions we elected her to make. There is no question in my mind what leadership within the complementarian position would say, but I still don’t know what Michelle would say.
Would Marcus Bachmann be a healthy influence like the President’s spouses past and present? And how rigid are their complementarian beliefs? Respect is a given in a healthy marriage. How much complementarian type of honor would she use as President in regards to husband. How rigid are the roles when it comes to this.
She makes me uncomfortable because she seems to be pandering to both sides.
But Land said there is really only one way of interpreting the concept.
"It's not shared leadership in the end," he said. "In the end, the husband submits himself to his wife by giving himself in sacrificial service to her and she puts herself under the authority of her own husband as unto the Lord. It has nothing to do with equality or inequality of the sexes.
"It has to do with gender roles in a divinely ordained institution called marriage in which God understood there had to be an ultimate authority and the ultimate authority is the husband. And he's going to hold him responsible if that home is not everything it should be."
As for the potential political fallout, David Brody, chief political correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network, said the controversy will help Bachmann.
"My guess is there will be more evangelical support for Michele Bachmann in Iowa because she will be looked upon as somewhat of a victim," Brody said. "I think this will actually be a boon for her. Not just in support in the polls, but probably an uptick in donations as well. ? It just feels like there is a lot of victimization here that the Bachmann campaign may actually get an uptick in money and polling."
Sigh. She is hardly a victim when it comes to this statement. It’s a legitimate question. When Bill Clinton stated during one of his elections how people are getting TWO for the PRICE of ONE? He learned people were not all that crazy about the idea.
When we look at Michele Bachmann’s statement? We have to wonder we will get two for the price of one – in the complementarian format. There is nothing WRONG with the question!
Statements like Land’s above? That doesn’t go over well in understanding her conflicting statements.
Bachmann’s candidacy poses the question of how to accommodate the evangelical worldview of women’s ‘proper’ role with their husbands with what seems to me the inherently feminist notion of a female leader of the free world. I’m just speaking from what I see their point of view, and what the complementarian’s parrot on a regular basis.
Should they ask the other candidates if they have loyalties even close to this subject in their life? YES! They should! Its legitimate as well.
Is showing respect deferring (or submitting) to your husband in everything? Is the husband giving respect to the wife due to the fact she submits to her husband in everything? There is nothing wrong with asking – are we getting two for the price of one!
Submit, How?
If you enjoyed this post and wish to be informed whenever a new post is published, then make sure you subscribe to my regular Email Updates.
Subscribe Now!
Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it:
Related Posts: authority,
biblical roles,
Complementarianism,
Egalitarian,
feminist,
leadership,
submission
0 comments:
Post a Comment