SITE NOTICE | MORE..Church App 50% Setup Sale! For a limited time, get your own church app for either iOS or Android platforms for a one-time setup charge of only $99 (each platform). Simply the easiest way to get your own native app! .. click for more info!
Bachmann Asked if She Would be 'Submissive to her Husband'
In the first Republican presidential debate in Iowa, all of the candidates were asked about their positions on issues and their qualifications, and the topic of marriage came up more than once. Only one candidate, however, was asked about her own marital relationship. The Washington Examiner's Byron York asked Michele Bachmann if she would ‚Äúbe submissive to [her] husband.‚ÄĚ York's inquiry has now become its own debate topic: was the question out of bounds?
York framed his question by asking about Bachmann's own statements on submitting to her husband. Bachmann spoke at the Living Word Church in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, in 2006. Bachmann recounted how she felt God to lead her into law and, eventually, a career in politics....
Angela Wittman wrote: RE: Alan H. Frank from Florida is correct in his comment on this story, and if Mrs. Bachmann were pressing the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ, she would have responded with a resounding "Yes! I am submissive to my husband because Scripture commands me to be and it is glorious." However, she (in my opinion)is trying to appeal to voters and not give the God-haters ammunition. I sincerely respect Mrs. Bachmann and agree with her on most issues, but she is dancing around the most controversial ones.
Thank you for your response Angela. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, but I've been pretty busy. I don't know too much about Mrs. Bachmann, but even if she were chosen by the Republican party to run for president in 2012, I wouldn't/couldn't vote for her. The sad thing is, I am not very impressed with any of the candidates.
If anyone was really pressing the Crown rights of Jesus Christ then they'd be a political dissenter. I've concluded we all(self included) need to spend more time sighing and crying for the abominations that have brought the present judgments upon east and west. Especially since greater judgments hasten. It was helpful to consider the violations of the first table of the moral law in great detail WCF LC Q. 103-121. These sins give evidence to the fact that we do not love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our might; demonstrated by the lack of love for our neighbor. It is second table violations that predominate most of these discussions. The reason for cold or lukewarm love to Christ is we do not understand how high the standard is. If so, we would be filled with awe for what Christ has both saved and continues to save us from. The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak.
8/14/11, I read a pastoral call to prayer and fasting Jan,1634. It was to take place from one Lord's day to the following and the 6 days in between as able, with a list of what was to be mourned for and prayed about in each household. Very different from what I read here. It rebuked my own idea of sober humbling of oneself before a displeased Almighty Sovereign.
Lady_Virtue wrote: If Mrs. Bachmann is submissive to her husband, would she be running for political office in the first place?
and neither would she be twisting Paw's words to make it sound like his bill was anti-life when it was pro-life. Or using her unfortunate miscarriage experience on political platforms.........I just am not seeing the dignity there.
The establishment wants a hawk who will divert attention from the removal of trillions of dollars that is now resulting in a depression and the use of printing money (inflation) to pay for more debts instead of defaulting.
The establishment will promise more wores and the viability of it (and the church will continue to pretend it can be moral and ignore the consequences). While they print money, even if Medicare is not cut, the money will go less and less far. But they will never admit this obvious fact either.
SO O ran on change but gave status quo. This time the establishment is running on status quo, but putting relgious fervor behind it.
They are really going for religious fervor this time around, guess it goes with hard times. People are afraid.
I say, turn to Christ. He is the rock of our salvation.
RE: Alan H. Frank from Florida is correct in his comment on this story, and if Mrs. Bachmann were pressing the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ, she would have responded with a resounding "Yes! I am submissive to my husband because Scripture commands me to be and it is glorious." However, she (in my opinion)is trying to appeal to voters and not give the God-haters ammunition. I sincerely respect Mrs. Bachmann and agree with her on most issues, but she is dancing around the most controversial ones. Now for your question - yes, women who do not understand their God-given roles as wives are for the most part likely to be pro-abort. Before I was "born-again" my attitude was I wouldn't personally have an abortion, but I also wouldn't tell others they couldn't abort. Once I became a Christian I knew deep within my heart that I would have to repent of my former silence and start speaking out against prenatal child-murder; to not speak out is to condone it.
jpw wrote: She is being run because establishment wants a hawk for perpetual action. That's about it.
jpw Are you sure about this? Or just sure in part, in limited understanding?
Could it be something far deeper, something right at the heart of what is wrong in our nation and in our churches today, that we are not right with God, that preachers are tickling ears, that all too much of our praying is only for our own ease and comfort and miles away from seeking the face of God?
Because we have "hollow men" instead of holy God fearing prophets?
I'm sure that most who frequent SA have discerning spirits and can see Michelle Bachmann for what she really is; an evangelical feminist. In my mind, an evangelical feminist is more dangerous than a secular feminist because they have infiltrated the church, spinning their true agendas in evangelical terms.
Both of these ladies are egalitarians and both have deep roots in the word/faith movements; Bachmann attending Oral Roberts university and of course Palin being reared in the Charismatic movement. Egalitarianism of course means that God didn't design different roles for women than men. They couch their true feelings in phrases that inlude mutual feelings and responsibilities between husbands and wives which is what she did.
Why didn't she simply say; yes women are to be submissive to their husbands and obey them as unto the Lord? Wouldn't that have been the appropriate response regardless of the forum she was in? No, her comment was meant to please Evangelical feminists and appeal to secular feminists. Neither group could argue or criticize her comment. Yes a Christian politician.
Angela Wittman wrote: At the risk of being called a "political Christian" I think that the answer Mrs. Bachmann gave was good for the type of public forum she was at. Actually, she is giving the most credible Christian witness of all the so-called conservative candidates on the GOP ticket; and please know I am not one who advocates women in leadership roles. However, she does have my respect even though I can't support her candiacy for President of the US.
I appreciate your stand. I looked at your website for a few minutes and hope to have a more thorough look when I have the time. Your post brought a question to my mind. From a woman's perspective, do you think that a woman who holds to the biblical gender order of authority is less likely to be pro-choice than a woman who holds to gender equality. I think I know the answer, but I am very interested in your thoughts. Frankly, a feminist couldn't give an honest answer to the question - that's why I ask you. If you can recommend a link that deals with that I would appreciate it. I think a lot of women aren't hearing the truth concerning the relationship between abortion and submission.
I'm actually glad the question was asked because it goes to the heart of the matter regarding sex roles in general.
Much as I like both Bachman and Palin I wish that they were men if for no other reason that it might keep many future women from being distracted by carreer goals and away from their primary duties of managing the home and raising the kids.
Only one of my 2 sisters ever got around to having a kid; and were it not for IVF, she wouldn't have been able to have that one because she waited several years after she finished school and established her career (in medicine) before settling down.
Is it any wonder that the birth rate in the Western world is imploding?
At the risk of being called a "political Christian" I think that the answer Mrs. Bachmann gave was good for the type of public forum she was at. Actually, she is giving the most credible Christian witness of all the so-called conservative candidates on the GOP ticket; and please know I am not one who advocates women in leadership roles. However, she does have my respect even though I can't support her candiacy for President of the US.
The previous post brought Acts 12:22 to mind. Ah, the danger of trusting man and not God in and through his word.
Her answer was a half language, she illudes to equality in their relationship. Mutual submission has its place, but if her hushand disagrees with her decision in any area of their life as one flesh, he has the authority from God as long as he himself is subject to Christ, other wise to obey him would be to disobey Christ.
This is not the primary thing to consider, the article is meant to distract from that issue; which is subjection to God. See John Knox's 'Third Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monsterous Regime of Women'