NC Candidate Under Fire for Preaching Wives Submit to Husbands
Democrats were already targeting North Carolinaâs 9th District before incumbent Rep. Robert Pittenger lost his Republican primary in May. And theyâre hoping that past comments from the former Baptist minister who defeated him improves their chances of flipping the seat this fall.
Mark Harris on multiple occasions â as a preacher and political candidate â has said that women should submit fully to their husbands and that he believed homosexuality is a choice. Before venturing into politics, he was a pastor at First Baptist Church in Charlotte.
âI say [to the husband], âHereâs how this works. Youâve got to love your wife with an incredible love that can only come through Christ,ââ he said. âItâs really submitting one to another in a relationship.â
Harris said he did not consider submission to be a matter of one person being inferior to the other....
Dr. Tim wrote: Since Muslims mistreat women, Don, are you suggesting that Christians should ignore the Bible on marital relations?
Thanks for your comment. Iâm not sure what Don was implying, but since he didnât respond to you, I will. As you already know, Muslims consider women to be inferior to men. Christian men consider men and women to be equal in worth, but have different roles and responsibilities.
There is nothing that anyone can do to undo the damage done to gender roles, but we should speak out against it when the opportunity presents itself.
I think they need to visit the mosques in their area, since Muslims preach the woman's complete submission to the man. Note that in Saudi Arabia, considered to be the most perfect Muslim country in the world, only recently allowed women to drive. (Of course, some men in the US might think they are on a slippery slope to much worse things coming up). For Muslims, women cannot be out on their own, period. They must be at home under the control of their father, or their husband. Many Hispanics believe their children should live with their parents until they get married.
Tim, I will tell you right now I voted for the Nebraska state Amendment two ban homosexual marriages. I also supported capital punishmentâ
I'm against "Christians" who are Muslims.
John MacArthur wrote: ...For many in Christian profession today, in politics, in media, lobbying, public intimidation have become the means. Pouring millions of dollars into elections, media events, an almost endless list of political pressure groups, the effort is being made to superficially sanitize America. But the question has to be asked...is this the solution? Is this the Christian mandate?...
...Well let me make a very clear point at the outset here. Morality and religion will not invite or secure the blessing of God. They never have and they never will. A more moral America, a more moral and religious America does not advance in divine favor one inch. A more moral and a more religious America will not escape divine judgment any more than Pharisaic Judaism in Jesus' time escaped the devastating judgment of God in 70 A.D. when hundreds of thousands of Jews were slaughtered by godless Romans. And Jesus warned about that on several occasions....
Jim, if you were honest at all, you'd admit that the reason you don't want Christians running for office is because they will almost invariably vote contrary to your beloved diabolical liberal causes. You rail day after day about Christians getting involved in politics and all the while politics is the only topic that seems to grab your attention. Give it up, pup.
Only a fool or a Muhammadan would think he's going to reform the world through government action:
Romans 8 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.---NASB
Dave Hunt did not have a perfect theology but he was certainly correct about Christian activism! Christians who practice this can be considered most of the time no better than the people who practice what they protest about
Dave Hunt wrote: ....
Today we are also seeing more and more professing Christians who want to become part of the ruling class -- they run for political office so they can then "influence government for Christ." They use the Old Testament examples of Joseph, Nehemiah, and Daniel, all of whom were placed by God in prominent positions in civil government, as justification for political activism today. But what they fail to recognize is that Joseph, Nehemiah, and Daniel did not run for elective political office, but were given offices either reserved or created for trustworthy slaves. Moreover, it is not the calling of God's people in this dispensation to get involved in the political process nor the functions of civil government. We have a higher calling; our citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20). We are strangers and pilgrims (1 Pe. 2:11), sojourners, not settlers (1 Pe. 1:17)....
Ain't that a fact, Dr Tim. Spanking was outlawed as child abuse, and look at how that went...the kids slowly began to take over the household, and holding their parents hostage to the new way of life. The kids learned real quick that they can suddenly do, act, and speak however they choose to because if the parents dare lift a hand against them, a simple 911 call will get them arrested and charged with abuse. Just look at how corporal punishment being outlawed has played a role in the kids gone wild.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."
The Greek word for submit is 'hypotasso.' Which means:-
a] to arrange under, to subordinate
b] to subject, put in subjection
c] to subject one's self, obey
d] to submit to one's control
e] to yield to one's admonition or advice
f] to obey, be subject
This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden"." (Blue Letter Bible site)
Frank, not everyone does as well as you to consider that passages like Phillipians 2:1-11 apply to marriage relationships. Some will grasp onto one verse or another as if it were a crudgel to beat someone into submission. Nay, the word of God is a two edged sword.
If they're bent out of shape over such a little thing as male headship in the home, wait till all these pansies learn that a whole heap of us still believe children need an occasional good old-fashioned whuppin'. That oughta get their sissy britches in a knot.
Why is it that when fundamentalist and evangelical Pastors preach against feminism and for the necessity of married women to be submissive and obedient to their husbands as unto the Lord, they almost invariably assuage their comments by interjecting the duties of married men to love their wives as Christ loved the church and to not treat their wives as inferior or as slaves or objects in response to their submission. The usual sentence goes something like this; ânow men this doesnât give you the right to be dictatorialâ. Or worse than that is the comment that God didnât take Eve from Adamâs foot, so âŚ Some would say these folks are simply teaching the whole council of God. If that is true why is not the converse also true? Why when they teach about the roles of men do they not normally interject the roles of women in any assuaging fashion. Men are to love their wives as Christ loves His church and women are to obey and be submissive to their husbands as unto the Lord. See that wasnât hard at all!
Pastor Harris sounds like a man who can properly exegete Ephesians 5 and 6. A solid understanding of what the Lord designed as the building blocks of society -- the nuclear, one man-one woman married family -- is a solid start to understanding how the rest of society ought to work.
Theodore Roosevelt wrote: The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.