Huckabee can go stuff himself
…and other helpful suggestions.
Why is there always tons of stuff to blog about when I can’t? There’s a lot of catching up to do and here is what you’ve been crying yourself to sleep at night waiting for.
Huckabee Can Go Fuck Himself (and can everyone shut up about religion please?)
So I was reading all the stuff about the Great Religious Throw-Down among Huckabee and Romney, the about Huck saying Jesus and Satan were brothers and claiming he knows nothing about Mormonism even though he . My main thought is who gives a shit, and my secondary thought is a Southern Baptist really oughta shut his trap about Mormons, and my tertiary thought, after reading , is that Mike Huckabee needs to be kicked in his nuts by a woman. Me, possibly.
More than 50 evangelical leaders have signed a paper affirming a statement on the family adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in June…
The husband should “love his wife as Christ loved the church,” it says. “He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect and to lead his family.”
The SBC statement also addresses the wife, who is “to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”…
Among those signing the paper, which reads, “I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention,” were:
Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson.
Promise Keepers founder Bill McCartney.
National Religious Broadcasters President Brandt Gustavson.
Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.
I realize lots of fundamentalists agree, and frankly they can all go fuck themselves. If they really think a loving and just God created females to submit to males intellectually and spiritually, that’s their business but it’s my business to suggest they perform impossible sex acts on their own butts. I grew up hearing this shit at church and it was the number one reason I started questioning EVERYTHING I was hearing, when I was about 10 years old.
I just couldn’t buy it because right in front of my face was my mother, who was demonstrably and unquestionably smarter, nicer, more rational, and all around a BETTER PERSON than most of the men at church, especially some of my friends’ fathers, who were some of the most obnoxious retarded assholes I have ever known. And all of us girls and women were supposed to look up to them as our “bosses”? Please. It made me laugh when I was a kid and it still does. The fact that an educated man, today, who wants to be president, actually believes that garbage and publicly says so, is horrifying. So remember when I said I was for Huckabee? NOT SO MUCH. The only thing I’m “for” when it comes to him is the aforementioned nut-kicking.
People Need To Get a Grip About The Weed
So let me get this straight: It’s still considered “wrong” somehow that someone ? Jesus Christ. Can we all grow up sometime soon? There’s not a goddamn thing wrong with smoking pot. I said it and I will always stand by it. I could go on entire raging rants about this if I let myself. My favorite thing is people who have no problem with the legality and judicious (or not so judicious) use of alcohol but think that pot is somehow completely different, in a negative way. I suppose it could be said that alcohol motivates you - to beat your wife, crash your car, start a brawl - while pot can make you too lazy to do those things. Oh fuck it. Truly, I will just have to make a whole post about this some time. It drives me freakin’ BONKERS, the hypocrisy.
Islam Should Be Called a Shitty Religion, If Only Just For Fun (or because it’s true)
Some pundit says he’s to talk smack about Islam but not Mormonism, because the Muslims might kill him. He says “Mormons are the nicest people in the world”. This from a guy who went calling them all kinds of wrong. Not a surprise, after all, you only go after the ones you know can’t hurt you. But that still makes you a pussy.
Rachl Lukis Should Never Be Nominated For Awards
Because I suck! By which I mean, I don’t have a competitive streak and I actually don’t like winning all that much. What? It’s true. I feel sorry for people when I beat them at board games or anything else. When I won the citywide spelling bee in 6th grade, I couldn’t sleep that night because I felt bad that other people had lost because of me. I’m completely serious.
Anyway, as there is surely no way in hell I would win this one, I won’t feel bad at least telling you to go check it out and vote for who you actually like the best for , over at Gay Patriot. Right now, I’m at 3%, which is a comfortable place for me. I like 3%. Personally, my favorite of the bunch is Kathy Shaidle of . I relate to her sass and impudence.
And now I have said my piece. I’m so cold, I don’t even know what I just wrote but I’m going to click “publish” anyway because I’m ballsy that way. Also, the delete key is in a weird position on my new notebook and it’s freaking me out. I don’t make much sense when I’m freaking out about key placement, but maybe you don’t make any sense either.
The Charismatic Catholics tried pulling that “must obey” the man crap on us young confirmation initiates… I laughed out loud in the middle of the conference. Fortunately for me, the hubster was part of the same confirmation class, so he knew what he was getting into with me not obeying.
A person’s religion has no place in politics. Worship as you like, just don’t try to shove it down my throat.
And stop wasting money on the “War on Drugs.” Legalize pot and tax the hell out of it, like government does on cigarettes. Also allow insurance companies to increase premiums on the pot smokers like they do with regular smokers .
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pmI daresay I’ve met dogs who’d make better elected officials than a majority of the GOP candidates running, and better than all of the Democratic candidates running.
And the Oprah/Obama tent-revival……. were I running a conservative talk-radio show, I’d add a South Park-esque “our saviour!” after every mention of Obama (”our saviour!”) I’m surprised the DLC hasn’t started annointing him with oil and singing his praises in hymnal fashion already.
Posted by dfwmtx on December 13th, 2007 at 12:33 pmThat’s why about people’s faith, not less.
Let them keep talking, and let’s keep asking even more questions. Let’s air out all of the special interest groups–religious AND financial–and see what really floats a candidate’s boat. Because, the Koran may condone wife beating, and at some point, a Muslim politician is going to try to explain THAT away, or tacitly go along with it.
Let’s talk about all of the financial holdings of the Mormon Church, too, not just the tenets of their faith. You think Halliburton is something to worry about? Sheeyaahh…
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 12:46 pmWhich is the funniest thing I’ll read all week, I’m sure! Girl, say whatever, just don’t hold back.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pmThe whole thing is laughable….like we’re supposed to give a shit who smokes what, what ridiculous rules are in place for certain people….please….I’m too busy trying to manage my addiction to Oxycontin and cough syrup to worry what Fuckabee is doing and what Mitt (what the hell kind of name is Mitt anyway?) thinks.
We’re all jacked…..grab a good bottle, twist up a fatty and watch some reruns.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 12:50 pmHi Rachel -
Just a different perspective on the whole “wives submit” stuff. It is my understanding that a woman is to “submit” (hate that word) ONLY if her husband is a Godly man who loves her “as God loves the church”. It goes both ways. You’re not supposed to go around submitting like a little mouse to every guy you see. I look up to my husband and solicit (and take!) his advice on things ONLY because he loves me more than his own self and treats me like a queen. If he didn’t, I wouldn’t.
That verse has two parts to it - most people only read the second part about being submissive or subservient or whatever and freak out. IF your husband loves you “like God loves his church” (which, by the way, is unconditionally, deeply, and perfectly) THEN you can feel free to be nurturing and stuff towards him.
*I* don’t see it as a bad thing…but only if it goes both ways.
Oh, and yeah. Huckabee is a clown. I think Mitt has a lot more class - but then again, I’m a die-hard FredHead, who cares what I think.
Posted by Bigasahouse on December 13th, 2007 at 12:59 pmBig
Rachel, while I partially (But not fully agree, even though I was very amused by your post) I have to ask: Why does Huckabee’s position on this matter?
I mean, what could he do as president that would make his views on this relevant? Sign an executive order ordering all wives to submit to their husbands? Huh? I agree that making snide remarks over Romney’s faith is dumb - who really cares if he thinks Jesus and Satan were brothers, or after the Second Coming one of the two holy cities of the Earth will be in Mississippi of all places - because it doesn’t impact how he’d do his job. As long as Romney isn’t trying to get the Capitol moved to Mississippi in preparation for the Big Guy’s return, honestly, why should I care?
I don’t get why you care about don’t care at all some religious views (Romney’s), but you feel so strongly about others (Huckabee’s). Neither of these specific views would or could be enforced by the president, and neither impacts their ability to be president. So why all the fuss?
I’m a bit confused. I don’t really expect Rachel to answer - not because she wouldn’t like to, but because she gets so many comments it isn’t reasonable to expect her to - but I thought I’d post anyway.
Posted by David N. on December 13th, 2007 at 1:04 pmnice spam…
[ed. note: yikes! no kidding. I deleted it but in case anyone’s wondering what ethne is talking about, there was a comment on here for some hardcore tranny action. ewwwwww RL]
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 1:32 pmYou better fix that bad attitude of yours, Rachel. And if you don’t stop dressing so sluttily you might get
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 1:39 pmI, also, for years, felt terrible when I got promoted over someone else, or beat someone else out in some way, et al. I knew I was being ridiculous, but I couldn’t figure out why I was being ridiculous.
Why I was being ridiculous - in briefest outline - comes down to this:
I am not competing with others so much as I am competing with myself: I am competing against my best, to see if I can equal it. The other person is competing against their best.
Where the chips fall - in a contest, or in a job promotion - is just where they fall. Where the chips fall is meaningless. Doing our best is meaningful. Our real contest is against ourself, regardless the strength or weakness of our circumstantially accidental human competition.
If we are giving our best effort, in service to the most appropriate activity, we are being love in action. We cannot contribute more to God, nor to fellow man, than to give our best in the most appropriate activity. Doing our best is love in action.
Which is why I must hurry to vote for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva of 2008. Such a vote is most appropriate action, indeed.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 1:41 pmI’m still waiting for SOME politician to answer the inevitable question about pot by saying “Of course I smoked pot when I was in college. I did a LOT of stupid things when I was that young. I’ll bet you did too.”
Bill Clinton forfeited any chance he ever had at my respect when he fumbled the question the way he did. I don’t insist that a politician tell me the truth about this - it isn’t any of my goddamned business what kin of fool he (or she) was at 18 - but he does need to have an actual answer. “Yes” would be OK. So would “No” (and neither has to be the truth, for me). “What business is it of yours?” would be better still, and I’ve already said what the best would be.
“I didn’t inhale” is simply idiotic.
Posted by C. S. P. Schofield on December 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pmI got married in the church for my in-laws’ sake, but in order to do so I made the pastor take out the “obey” line and had them present us as Monica and Mark OurLastName, and not Mr. and Mrs. Mark OurLastName.
Posted by Monica on December 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI thought the same thing as ethne. You aren’t supposed to submit to all men, you are supposed to find the best one that you can and submit to that one. And if you can’t find one that you are willing to submit to, then you can go be miserable in New York City.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pmWell, I have to admit wholeheartedly … and I’d love to see both “submit” thrown out of the latter … AND … have “provide for and protect” removed from the former.
Especially the way that the courts implement the former … after the marriage has failed.
Man, if the courts treated me the way they’ve treated my stepson through his recent divorce … I’m not sure I could continue to stay lawabiding …
As far as everyone freaking on religion …. I’m a heck of a lot more concerned about the veracity of the candidates … and not where they go to church. Why can’t we concentrate on what they’ve all done in the past (especially Clinton and Obama and their track records) instead of letting the media get us yapping about inconsequential shit?
I have no problem with legalizing grass, as long as we formulate some serious penalties for the adicts that will commit even more crimes to stay stoned. If there was some way to isolate peopel so that they truly only affected themselves, then I’d really not give a crap about what they do. Unfortunately it seems to be a connected world … and I’d really prefer that guy behind the wheel of the loaded 18 wheeler be sober AND unweeded.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pmThe man’s expected to lay down his life, to die a torturous death if need be, for his wife, and you’re upset that she, in turn, is expected to follow him and be faithful?
Demonstrates something about you, but not much about people who believe it.
Posted by Franklin Jennings on December 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pmAs for “you’re only supposed to submit to the BEST man and there must be something wrong with you if you hate that idea”… what makes me quirk my eyebrow isn’t the idea of letting my husband take the driver’s seat, but the notion that that is automatically and in all cases the role of the man, and the “ideal” family structure. Ditto to the man laying down his life to protect his wife- I love him as much as he loves me, and if I thought he was in danger and I could do something about it, you’re damn skippy I would at whatever risk to my own. Yeah, sure, I “submit” to my husband all the time… in the kitchen (he’s a better cook than me), home and auto repair (better handyman), and in financial matters (they put me to sleep). On other issues, it turns around and he follows MY lead, because I’m better at other things. It works very nicely, because neither one of us is particularly concerned with who’s “in power”, just running our mutual life well. What business of it is a church’s to dictate what should be the ideal for everybody based on something as trivial as gender? Marriage does not actually HAVE to be a power struggle, nor is declaring one person or the other to be the designated “leader” the only way to prevent that.
As for “why should we care, it’s not the president’s job to dictate family structure”- it’s not, which is why this one thing wouldn’t make me have to go throw up after voting if it was Huckabee versus just about any of the Democratic candidates. It’s just one of those things that raises eyebrows; not only does he believe it, he went out of his way as a public figure to go on record affirming it. He must feel pretty strongly about it, then, which tells us something about him and how he views the world. As does his willingness to make bizarre Satan-related attacks on a fellow candidate in a debate. Deal-breakers? No. His religion is his own business, and even if he doesn’t feel the same way I doubt he could make much headway in office trying to make it our business. Eyebrow-raisers? Yes.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 4:50 pmWhat I’ve been saying for some time now: if Huck is the nominee, the GOP is doomed and I become a card carrying Libertarian.
Please see .
I would appreciate feedback from the conservative women who read this, especially any who are also Christian.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 5:09 pmOh lord, I am SO relieved you are over the Huckster. He’s a fraud and an ass of the highest magnitude, and I’m thrilled that you’d like to kick him in the nuts. Me too!!
Posted by Redhead Infidel on December 13th, 2007 at 5:09 pmLabrat-
First, let me congratulate you on your strong marriage. In many ways, I think yours is actually a good example of what Paul was talking about in Ephesians 5. Now, before you become convinced that I’m off my rocker, hear me out. The verse that says “wives, submit to your husbands” is Ephesians 5:22. Ephesians 5:21 is “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” No mention of exactly who - because this is a general instruction to believers in the church. Christians are supposed to serve each other, just as Christ served his disciples and the people around him on Earth. This is just doubly important in marriage because it’s more than just a bond of friendship or of brotherhood in Christ.
It seems like every time a discussion of this verse takes place, one person or another will stand up and say “Well, he’s not going to make me do what he wants!” or something to that effect. I say, and I believe what Paul was saying throughout the New Testament, is that when you reach the point where you’re arguing over whether or not you should serve the other, you’ve missed the point entirely. It’s about who can better exemplify Christ - and with that, have a happy and fulfilling marriage - not about who can take advantage of the other. Which is why, based solely on your description, I’d say your marriage exemplifies this principle. (Although I’m sure it’s not perfect - no union of imperfect people ever is. And of course, I’m at least as imperfect as you two, I’m sure) You said “neither one of us is particularly concerned with who’s ‘in power’” which sounds exactly right. When marriage becomes a power struggle then the point has been lost, which sadly I think it has in regards to this passage. It’s not about getting your spouse, or anyone really, to do stuff for you. It’s about serving and protecting and loving one another, and that is really lost when we get into discussions on who is “the boss”.
Just my $0.02.
Posted by David N. on December 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pmDavid N.- well, obviously what Paul thought because he’s Paul is of no relevance to me, but I agree completely with your assessment that the entire point has been lost if people are concerned with who should be more “in submission” to whom. What bothers me is folks who are not only concerned with it, but think it should be based on gender, which it unfortunately sounds like the Convention of Southern Baptists are.
I’ve seen relationships where the woman deferred to the man in almost everything, and they were happy. I’ve seen relationships where the man deferred to the woman in just about everything, and they were happy. I’ve seen relationships where who deferred to whom was entirely situational (like mine), and they were happy. I’ve seen relationships where one or both partners constantly set out to undermine each other and grab control of situations just to have control, or acted like the other couldn’t be trusted to handle things competently, and they were unhappy- with the person who “wore the pants” most often being every bit as unhappy as the one who was most often being undermined. Gender was never the common denominator between happiness and the lack thereof- it was respect and trust. Who had the penis was coincidental.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 5:23 pmPersonally, I like women who are as strong-minded and smart as I am, and who’ll stand up to me and tell me when they think I’m being silly. My best-beloved’s at least as bright as I am (brighter in some areas, less so in others—I probably have her beat at things like foreign languages, of the which I speak two, while she could make me look like a fool at math any time she pleased) and I like it that way. When I go to see her, she does the driving, because she knows the area a lot better than I do; OTOH, in areas where I’m more knowledgable, I take the wheel. No biggie, no problem. And I don’t feel a bit less masculine, nor does she feel any less of a woman.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 5:51 pmMy only exception to that is Islam. Ain’t no way on G-d’s green earth will I ever vote for a Muslim.
After 9/11/01, I don’t trust them as far as I can throw a 300 lb man. (and I’m 5′1″, 107 lbs)
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pmDavid N. beat me to most of what I wanted to say, but I’ll throw in one other thing - the submission to one another, and by the wife to the husband, is not the “you must obey!” tyrannical submission that many feminists have suggested it means - but rather it is, like he said, a mutual respect and attitude of servanthood. And that’s exactly how he wraps it up in 5:33 -
That said, husbands are supposed to be willing to give up everything and die for their wives according to the same passage, so who really got the raw deal here?
Posted by Dan G. on December 13th, 2007 at 6:48 pmDan and David- my issue, as I tried to say earlier but it looks like my comment got et, is the implication of singling out the wife but not the husband for “respect” and “submission”. I absolutely do believe respect and a lot of give rather than take makes a healthy marriage- but I believe it’s no more or less necessary on the part of one gender than the other.
I’ve seen happy, healthy relationships where the woman did most of the deferring to the man, the man to the woman, and both in more or less equal measures depending on the situation. They all worked- but the position of Southern Baptists seems to be that only one of them should.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 7:08 pmBut that’s just it. It’s NOT “on the part of one gender”.
As Dan points out, the Bible says that men are supposed to love their wives “as they love themselves”.
Have you ever met a man who will punch himself in the eye for burning the roast? What about a man who will get drunk and beat himself up when he gets home from work?
I know I’ve never seen it. So why would any good, Christian man do that to his wife if he wouldn’t do it to himself?
If I were to love my hypothetical wife as I love myself, I wouldn’t order her around like a servant, because that’s not the way I would want to be treated. “Do unto others” and all that.
That said, I’d say this Southern Baptist organization has a serious case of “cranial-rectal insertion” if they think the Bible compels wives to be totally submissive, in the modern sense of the word, to their husbands.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 8:02 pmWatch it, Rachel, you’re all the way up to 8%.
With a bullet.
Posted by N. O'Brain on December 13th, 2007 at 8:08 pmAs far as Christian wives ’submitting’ to their husbands goes, I’m with Bigasahouse. That’s the way I’ve always understood it too. Hope it’s not a deal-breaker on Judgment Day because I just can’t do it. I’m accomodating, nurturing, reciprocating, solicitous, loving, etc., but I have never been ’submissive’. I’d like to think it won’t count on a technicality: my husband is a lapsed Roman Catholic who only agreed to being wed in the Church because he knew it mattered to me. I doubt he even knows what a husband’s responsibilities are in a Christian marriage.
As for Huckabee (he of tonight’s sidebar survey), I mostly can’t vote for him because of the name. ‘President Huckabee’ sounds even more idiotic than ‘President Obama’. (And, sweet Jesus, how could any rational conservative look forward to the nauseating sea of I ♥ Huckabee bumper stickers and signage if he gets the nomination?) Fortunately for me, I don’t like him for several other reasons so I’m not faced with the moral dilemma of feeling superficial because of not voting for a qualified candidate simply because of his name.
Posted by gd on December 13th, 2007 at 9:21 pmMightysamurai: I think we might be getting down to some semantic hairsplitting here.
There’s a difference between love and respect. We can love those whom we don’t respect, but it’s not a relationship of equals. What I pointed out is that there is a second emphasis for the wife to submit, and then to respect, that is absent for the men. The Bible recognizes the distinction, as well- or else should we take the instruction to love enemies and sinners in Luke as an instruction to also respect them?
At the end of the day, do I care that much? Well, I’m not a Christian, so no. What I’ll quibble about is whether that particular “ideal” is actually ideal regardless of your religion- in other words, whether it’s rational for women to have a problem with the SBC’s underlining of submission in exchange for love/protection as the ideal family arrangement.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 9:29 pmI think this is where you’re getting hung up.
Whether the “emphasis” is equal for both men and women is immaterial. At the core, both sentences say the same thing.
A woman must love and respect her husband. A man must love his wife as he loves himself.
They may use different words, but they both mean the same thing. Just because the Bible spends more time describing the woman’s duties doesn’t mean she has more of them.
Absolutely.
We should respect them as human beings, and we should respect their legal and natural rights. To do otherwise would be counter-productive to the cause of saving their souls and bringing them to Christ.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 10:01 pmOh, we’re definitely playing word games now, but they’re fun word games, eh?
That’s your interpretation, and the reason there are so many denominations of Christianity is because there are that many different interpretations. Me? I see no reason to assume that “love” and “respect” mean the same thing, or to assume it’s no coincidence that the second order to submit given *specifically* to the wives and that the wrap-up message includes an order to love AND respect to them but only to love for the men- especially after “23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
…And the SBC agrees with that interpretation, which is why I’m arguing against “women shouldn’t have any problem with this”. Obviously, I have no actual quibble with YOU.
The word “respect” means different things in different contexts. Respecting somebody’s rights- or in this context, respecting them as creations of God, with all that entails- is a very different thing from respecting them. I recognize Hillary Clinton as a fellow human being and would never raise a hand to her or otherwise try to forcibly shut her up or shut her down, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think she’s an intellectual and moral vacuum with the ethics of a spitting cobra.
In a marriage, you want your partner to respect YOU, not respect your humanity. That’s what makes decisions on when to lead and when to follow in a partnership easy- recognition of, and respect for, your partner’s abilities and judgement… which have nothing to do with gender. And the lack thereof is what leads men and women alike to try and control their partner for the sake of having control.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 10:18 pmOh boy…Hubby and I had to take a marriage class at the church before we married. One of the funniest parts was the “submission” part. Hubby still likes to bring that up “you’re supposed to obey me” at which point I laugh.
However, in my heart I DO submit to him - as he submits to me - as equals, side by side, partners. It’s about self sacrifice. A partnership together through life.
I adore my hubby even as he drives me nutters.
But my momma taught me to never rely on a man - my dad died when I was 8 - and to take care of myself. I could, but it wouldn’t be nearly as fun as my life with my love. =)
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 10:52 pmLabrat said:
That’d definitely be a problem if that’s what it said, but it doesn’t! If you read the passage in question, it’s clear that both husband and wife are supposed to respect, love, and submit to one another. (Even as believers are supposed to do the same to all believers, just not in quite the same way)
Labrat, I don’t think we actually disagree on anything of substance here. I fully agree that for a serious long term relationship to work, love and respect are necessary for both parties. I think where we disagree is just whether or not this passage, taken as a whole, says that. Now I’m not saying no Christians will not, and have not taken this passage to justify tyranny in marriage, because some have. Any philosophy or idea or religion, no matter how reasonable, can be taken to an unreasonable extreme. I doubt that the Souther Baptists are, on the whole, those people. Honestly, I imagine if you asked Gov. Huckabee about this, his answer would be very similar to the answer I gave above.
I think this is simply the result of a miscommunication. I don’t think we have fundamentally different ideas of what it takes for a marriage to work. I think you’re just reading our scriptures differently than we are, and taking offense at an interpretation that some use, but most don’t. I don’t see why this should be an issue at all, because it’s really isn’t: If husbands are using these verses to tyrannize their wives, they should be dealt with. But since that’s not the mainstream protestant way of using this verse - at least not in American in 2007 - I think it’d be best to give Huckabee, and by extension fundamentalist Christians the benefit of the doubt here.
Posted by David N. on December 13th, 2007 at 10:54 pmRachel,
The particular passage in Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus begins with “Submit yourselves to one another…” - Ephesians 5:21. It has often been passed over and used by some to wrongly call more a man’s mastery over his wife. Clearly the passage concerns each party’s duty to the other. The letter goes on to list some different relationships - Husband/Wife, Parent/Child, Master/Slave. The passage basically affirmed the equality of each individual as a child of God. The idea seemed to be that no follower of Christ should think of themself as more important than any other. I don’t know the context or the thoughts behind the document you referenced, but that is my take on the scripture, in its context. I’m not a Huck fan by any means and wish Fred would start making some sparks.
Posted by Cdr Tim Carr on December 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pmI have been enjoying your blog for a couple of months and was truly saddened at your recent loss. Merry Christmas,
Cowboy
David N- no, I don’t think you and I disagree on the matter of substance. I already said in my response to mightysamurai why I think Ephesians 5 does not represent a command for wives and husbands to submit to one another as equals.
As for whether the Southern Baptists- and Mike Huckabee- believe that- the actual statement reads as follows:
Both Ephesians and the statement above are very explicit in relating the relationship of a husband and wife to the relationship of the church to Christ. The church is not devalued, but it is certainly not equal to Christ: Christ leads the church, and like Christ leads the church, a husband leads his wife. There’s nothing in either about the wife doing any leading of any sort, or of the husband doing any respecting except as he respects his own body- subservient to the judgment of his mind.
The alternative to an equal relationship in which both partners respect each other the same way and submit to their leadership when one partner’s inclinations and abilities is not necessarily “tyranny”. We don’t call a parent with a young child a tyrant unless they act like one- but a parent doesn’t allow themself to be led by the child, nor do they respect the child as an equal. What I’m arguing isn’t that the SBC position (or, presumably, the fundamentalist one) would lead to tyranny of men over women, but that the notion that the only ideal relationship is one in which the man is always in the lead is both untrue and useless.
And no, I don’t think all or even most marriages between Southern Baptists or fundamentalists lead to such a relationship- ideology crumbles in the face of experience, and most people DO marry people they respect as well as love, and most people will defer to a person they both love and respect where appropriate. However, that’s still what the SBC said, and what Huckabee went out of his way- took a political risk, in fact- to endorse.
Edited for nitpicky add: I just wanted to clarify that I’m NOT “offended” by either Ephesians, the SBC, Huckabee, or anyone else here; when I’m offended I use a lot more profanity. I can’t be offended by something I both believe both not to be true and not to be a particular threat to me- but I can think it’s wrong, and argue my position.
Posted by on December 13th, 2007 at 11:35 pmRachel…been a lurker on your site for a long time. I love your rants, sorry you had such a bad experience with church. Don’t mix up God and church, churches are led by fallible humans.
Men are not the enemy, sometimes we even play nice.
Posted by Sluggo on December 14th, 2007 at 1:07 amLabrat -
So basically you’re “upset” (For lack of a better word) by an idea which you say is put forward by a certain bible verse, when that idea isn’t put into practice or supported in the way that “upsets” you except by a few fringe cases that don’t represent not only the whole, but the people we’re talking about? I’m sorry, but why is this even an issue at all, then? If our positions (And presumably Gov. Huckabee’s) on what it takes to have an effective marriage are fairly similar, why should nitpicking over the terms used in a specific verse matter? Especially since you’re the one reading into it the ideology that isn’t, by your own admission, the rule?
What you’re effectively arguing is that the true meaning of a verse is different from how most people, even fundamentalists, interpret it, correct? But why does this matter at all for laymen? (Or the non-Christian such as you - if I err and you are a Christian, then my apologies) That’s something for theologians to debate. I don’t see as how what amounts to “he uses terms I don’t like to describe a practicality I do like” is really relevant in the area of politics and the like.
I dunno, if this is an important issue to you all, then go for it, of course. To me, personally though, it just seems like another little religious thing that doesn’t have a bearing on a candidates fitness for the presidency.
Posted by David N. on December 14th, 2007 at 1:25 amRick Lucas:
Just an FYI, that World Wide Church of God is a freakin’ CULT!
I assume that someone of your background knows of the doctrinal heresy of Armstrongism…
Pretty wacky stuff, I’m told.
If someone approaches you, about going to them kinda Churches. RUN!
Posted by on December 14th, 2007 at 1:58 amDavid N: well, for one thing, the one telling me it doesn’t mean what I read it to mean is you (and mightysamurai), not the Southern Baptist Convention, which on the face of their own statements seem to agree with my interpretation.
Why argue about it at all? Because broader cultural ideas stem out of things like this, like the idea that there’s an ideal prescription for happiness that comes from fulfilling gender roles- dictated by the Bible or by biology. Examining their sources always has merit- and if you’re going to proceed from the idea that something is the Word of God, then I think one should treat it with the idea that the wording matters more, not less; one should theoretically be able to expect the most clarity from God.
Why argue about it if it doesn’t really offend me OR upset me? Because, frankly, I’m argumentative.
Give me a set of words and tell me what their meaning is, and I’ll read it, and if I agree with you, I’ll tell you so, and if I don’t, I’ll tell you why- even though it has no ultimate relevance to me other than that “words mean things, dammit” thing.
Why care about it in a candidate? I don’t, not that much- but every idea a candidate finds worth affirmation is relevant to me in some way, and tells me something about how he thinks- and tells me where I should be watching for in what and how he thinks about other things.
Posted by on December 14th, 2007 at 2:09 amIf one marriage partner is not going to let the other make important decisions (which is how I understand “submit”) like final say on whether they move to a certain city, etc., then you have a democracy of two. It will be over the first time there is a major difficult decision and dilemma.
So, if you think that the man shall not make the decisions, I sure hope that you both have the understanding that in the case of a draw, you have the deciding vote.
Posted by on December 14th, 2007 at 2:20 amI care when a candidate pulls off smarmy shit because it makes him a smarmy shit. Good ol’ Huck presents himself to me as a sanctimonious, smarmy shit. Of course, so do most evangelical Christians.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…I listened to his folksy bullshit, and this trailer-trash refugee (he and his wife pulled a “registry” thing when he left office and he took the drapes…does that sound familiar?) has been slowly and steadily outing himself.
Jimmy Carter in conservative (barely, and only if you look at it from a position that requires your head to be up your ass) drag is the least we need right now.
Posted by ray on December 14th, 2007 at 9:16 amWhy? Because the Bible says so?
Posted by ray on December 14th, 2007 at 9:18 amMen may submit to their wives. Women must submit to their husbands.
Women may love to their own demise (as Christ loved the Church). Men must love to their own demise.
Simple commandments, simple obedience. It has nothing to do with strength of character, or natural inclination. In fact the Bible is clear that God’s commandments run counter to natural inclination by design, because our hearts are wicked. I do it because I’m supposed to, whether I feel like or not, end of story. It’s only for believers, so if you don’t believe, what’s the problem? Your issue isn’t that I believe it, it’s that someone else is trying to hold you to it. Well, I agree that is ridiculous because you are not a believer.
The commandments to husbands and their wives are not conditional upon each other. They are conditional upon your belief of God. I love my wife and would die to protect her whether or not she submits to me. That’s an issue between her and God, though I have the obligation of holding her to that standard, because she has professed her belief. And I don’t see her as my equal, I see her as my better. This is also what the Bible says to do (Phil 2:3-4).
Posted by Dr. Feelgood on December 14th, 2007 at 9:31 amThat was part of my point as well.
If someone tells you that the Bible says the wife must always obey every little thing her husband says, not only is that person wrong, they are vastly outnumbered by people like me and David N. who believe that the wife and the husband are equal partners in a marriage.
Now, that’s not to say the wife shouldn’t sometimes defer to the husband. There are times when the husband is simply better equipped than the wife to make certain decisions. But by the same token, there are also times when the wife is better equipped than the husband to make certain decisions.
If a female accountant is married to a male car salesman, the wife should defer to the husband when it comes to buying a car, and the husband should defer to the wife when it comes to buying stock and investing money.
Posted by on December 14th, 2007 at 10:03 amIn my family, my husband is the Captain of the Ship and I am the Executive Officer. On the big things, the Captain has to decide. You can’t have two captains or you’ll crash the damned boat. On the other hand, the XO (that’s me) runs the whole boat. I do budgeting, finance, doctor and vet appointments, Christmas shopping, vacation planning. I make appointments for my husband to get his cholesterol checked. I make so many decisions I get sick of it.
That’s what El Idiot Huckabee and the Evangelicals completely mess up with their statement about “submitting.” If you don’t have a Skipper/XO thing going, you’re going to end up divorcing. This isn’t a gender specific thing either — I read James Lileks every day and I look at him as the XO of his family. Men who stay at home and raise the kids are not “submitting” to their wives, they are taking on the job of Executive Officer.
Too bad so many women are raised to believe they have to fight over every decision or they are “weak.” They’ve been fed the feminist line and the only thing it does is hurt them and break their families. Me, I’m happy on my boat.
Posted by on December 14th, 2007 at 11:23 amGood post Bonnie!!! You are SO right!
Hubby could not run our ship to save his life. LOL I pay all the bills, I do the shopping, I remind him about birthdays, and in most things get “my” way. But when it comes down to serious decisions, we talk, we fight, we argue, and he makes a decision. I have yet to remember a serious decision made that I couldn’t live with. He would never make a decision that would crash the ship. =)
Posted by on December 14th, 2007 at 11:59 amQuite a few Southern Baptists disagree with the Convention’s official position on the wives-submit-to-their husbands thing. I am not religious, but my wife belongs to the of Raleigh, NC. In 1998, that congregation voted to with the SBC over this issue, and I say “good for them.”
Posted by on December 14th, 2007 at 12:20 pmIf you define ‘love’ as: “Willingly delaying your own gratification for the emotional or spiritual benefit of another person” you have pretty much also defined ’submit’ haven’t you?
Jesus Christ is God, yet Jesus submitted to God the Father by delaying His own gratification (temporarily laying aside His glory) to become a sacrifice for the human race (emotional or spiritual benefit of another person) because He loved the Father.
There is no difference. Loving your wife as Christ loved the church is to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. To submit to your husband is to love him, as Christ submitted to God the Father.
You can’t love without submitting. You can’t submit without loving.
Just my dos centavos
Posted by Harbormaster on December 14th, 2007 at 1:51 pmLet me see if I can re-find my actual point…
Obviously, an exact reading of the Bible is not relevant to me except in that what others who believe it is the Word of God- especially those who believe it is the inerrant Word of God- take from it. So I’m not particularly offended, or upset by it- honestly, I’m not.
But when I give it the same un-influenced-by-belief reading I would give any text, and I apply the same standards of “what did the author mean”, the version outlined by the SBC’s statement is what I would come up with. It looks TO ME like a clear heirarchical analogy (God-Christ-church) applied first to the order of divine authority and then to family authority, combined with a few extra injunctions for different duties/roles for husband and wife. Love each other, serve each other, he leads and she respects his leadership. That isn’t based on my understanding of theology, it’s based on my understanding of English. If anything actually bothers me, it’s the implication that I’m merely being stubborn out of a desire to bash Christianity (I’m not interested in doing so), not giving it an honest reading- and I note both David and MS are no longer arguing with me based on the text, just “this is not what most Christians believe”. Maybe not, but some of them do, as evidenced by the SBC and some of the other people in this thread. The entire argument started due to Huckabee’s endorsement of the SBC version. Some people said “Well, women should have no problem with that”, I disagreed, and said why.
Boiled down, what I’m trying to say is not “OMG the Bible tells Christians that men should rule the family no matter what!” it’s “I’m not just seeing things here, and I’m not the only one either, these other people see it the same way and they view it as the natural order of things”.
Posted by on December 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pmLabRat, you’re right. It is the heirarchical order of things. But it’s not an assessment of value and that’s where the wires seem to get crossed. It’s simply a chain of command, as any of my fellow service members and veterans will instantly recognize. To whom are you accountable? Is this because they’re better than you? I’m sure you’ve worked for people dumber than you before, but that didn’t change your accountability to them, did it?
Wives submit to your husbands, not because they’re better than you, but because God said to do it. Interestingly, if you follows the Bible in total, than the issue largely becomes moot in practice. If I treat my wife better than myself, than she’ll have little trouble submitting to my leadership. Complementarily, if she thinks of me as better than herself, then she’ll naturally submit to my leadership. Either way, submission is a choice, not a personality trait as some have suggested. When both of us are firing on all cylinders, Biblically speaking, our home becomes a happy place and our relationship is indestructable. I follow the Bible because I believe God, but I’m happy to report that His rules make life better. Coincidence? I sincerely doubt it.
A Christian woman who refuses to submit to her husband is in blatant defiance of the Bible, according to your plain English reading. I support that conclusion.
Posted by Dr. Feelgood on December 14th, 2007 at 5:01 pmAh, I see what the problem is.
You’re trying to judge the Bible, a book written 2000 years ago, in a modern context.
Don’t do that.
Posted by on December 14th, 2007 at 5:08 pmAnd Dr. Feelgood proves my point. Sort of.
Anyway, to be less obnoxious to David N. and mightysamurai, I see the other interpretation, too, when I’m NOT being literal. In the time and social context Paul was speaking from, Ephesians 5 is actually very progressive in suggesting women have the same value (if a different role, that precludes “leadership”) as men at all. Suggesting they could have the rationality and strength of character to have authority of their own with their husbands would have been damn near unthinkable in that place and time. However, literalists generally don’t cotton to putting the Bible in “historical context”.
Is Huckabee a literalist? Well, he’s also a creationist, so along with this, signs point to yes.
ETA: Way ahead of you, ms.
Posted by on December 14th, 2007 at 5:11 pmOK, where do these assholes come up with the idea that Jesus and Satan were brothers? Did Mary and Joseph know this? Or, is this just another dummmassed Stephen King-type of interpretation for bright-but-bored “intellectuals?”
Postmodernist reinterpretation. Postmodernist historical revisionism. This is why postmodernism is discredited EVerywhere but . . . in the university.
Posted by DonBodell on December 14th, 2007 at 5:55 pmI’m not a literalist, I’m a literarialist.
If I proved your point it’s only because you’re right
Posted by Dr. Feelgood on December 14th, 2007 at 7:03 pmLabrat -
I see what you’re saying. I don’t necessarily agree, but I understand what you’re trying to say. I don’t see much point in continuing this line of discussion further, though - it’s basically become a “I think x”, “well I think y” sort of debate, which is nice for learning different opinions, but rarely solves anything.
As for Huckabee being a creationist, well, he is in the sense that he believes God created the universe. He isn’t a YEC (Young Earth Creationist), though, which is what most people think of when they say creationist. (A YEC believes the Earth was created in six literal days only a few thousand years ago) Huckabee’s stance on this is effectively “I don’t know how or when God created the universe, I just believe he did, and I don’t think knowing that would make me a better president.” So he’s technically a creationist, but not in the sense that the word is typically used in modern day American society.
If you’re interested in his exact words, you can watch this YouTube clip from a past Republican debate where Huckabee gives his answer. (Which I think is a pretty good answer, actually)
Posted by David N. on December 14th, 2007 at 7:10 pmDavid: Well, it’s a little more than just that- Huckabee also defended the absence of evolution from Arkansas classrooms in 2004 by saying students should be exposed to “alternate theories” and that evolution “isn’t established fact”. However, I agree with him it’s not a relevant issue to the presidency- it’s a lot more relevant to state governership. Whatever damage he’s going to do to science education, he’s already done.
Like I said, it mostly just makes me curious as to just how much of a literalist he is. I still don’t like him much as a candidate, but not because of that- for other reasons that have nothing to do with his religion.
Posted by on December 15th, 2007 at 12:14 amSpend some time researching Mormonism (LDS) and you’ll find it is part of their theology. C.A.R.M. (I think) has very good info on it.
According to the Mormons, Mary knew about this because God came down from Heaven and physically impregnated her. Well, that’s what I read they believe.
Posted by harbormaster on December 15th, 2007 at 12:54 amTie a porkchop to him and equip Ron Paul with knife, fork, and ketchup.
Posted by on December 15th, 2007 at 9:10 am