I was glad to hear that Michele Bachmann understands that the Bible says that a Christian wife is to be submissive to her husband, for such is indeed the clear teaching of Scripture. For example:
NKJ Ephesians 5:22-24 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."Given such clear teaching of Scripture, I have to agree that Michele Bachmann should indeed be submissive to her husband. But I wonder why she didn't exactly say that in her response to the question she was asked. I wonder why she instead described her and her husband's idea of submission as a mutual respect between them. After all, wouldn't this sound to the world around her just like their own common understanding of marriage as a mutual partnership with no clear head or leader? And doesn't it sound like she is thus attempting to avoid the connotations of authority that the term submission actually communicates? I certainly think it sounds that way, and I suspect that is precisely why she answered as she did.
NKJ 1 Peter 3:1-6 "Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward-- arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel -- 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror."
But of even more concern to me is the matter of why Mrs. Bachmann doesn't actually live out this Scriptural teaching in a consistent way. After all, how could she possibly live in submission to her husband and still be in authority over him as President of the United States? As I see it, there is no possible way she could do so, and I think the reporter who asked her the question was perceptive in seeking to highlight this very issue.
In addition, I see no way that Mrs. Bachmann could possibly continue to run for public office amid the whirlwind of media frenzy and so much opposition and heated debate and still maintain what Peter described as "a gentle and quiet spirit."
This leads me to think that Mrs. Bachmann could do far more good to publicly recant her words, bow out of the race for public office, resign her place in the House of Representatives, and explain that she is doing so in submission not to her husband, but to Christ. In doing so, she too could find her place alongside Sarah as a truly godly example to women everywhere (1 Pet. 3:6).
Mr. Throop is certainly courageous! He is right, of course. I would think she would lean on her husband's advice pretty heavily if she were president--it seems she has done so all along. That is all she needs to say. The voters may not like that, but, hey, we had Mrs. Wilson running the show for how long? I agree with Keith that she danced around the submission thing by implying it meant mutual respect, only. But I suspect she knows what it means, and tries to live it. As for a role model, she's better than most we women have!
ReplyDeleteWhen I heard her perspective on submission to her husband, I shook my head. She clearly does not understand this clear passage, but has it twisted to fit her egalitarian point of view.
ReplyDelete