'Submissive' does not mean Subservient!

Khalsa ji, I have not uploaded an image to go with this story because I have difficulty with it landing in the Spotlight. The story raises some issues that have interest not only for Christianity, but for other religions as well. Suffice it to say I have that character flaw...not wanting to advertise some personalities here at SPN. Apologies.

(CBS News) AMES, Iowa - Appearing on "Face the Nation" Sunday, Rep. Michele Bachmann stood by her comment in Thursday's Republican debate, insisting that when she said wives should be submissive to their husbands, she meant that married couples should have mutual respect.
In 2006, Bachmann said her husband had told her to get a post-doctorate degree in tax law. "Tax law? I hate taxes," she continued. "Why should I go into something like that? But the lord says, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'"

Asked about the comment by CBS News' Norah O'Donnell Sunday, Bachmann reaffirmed that to her, "submission means respect, mutual respect."

"I respect my husband, he respects me," she said. "We have been married 33 years, we have a great marriage...and respecting each other, listening to each other is what that means."

O'Donnell asked Bachmann if she would use a different word in retrospect.

"You know, I guess it depends on what word people are used to, but respect is really what it means," Bachmann replied.

"Do you think submissive means subservient?" O'Donnell asked.

"Not to us," Bachmann said. "To us it means respect. We respect each other, we listen to each other, we love each other and that is what it means."

Bachmann, fresh off a victory in the Iowa straw poll, was also asked about her newest rival for the GOP nomination, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and how her job creation record stacks up against Perry's record. Over the past two years, nearly half the jobs created in the United States were created in Texas.

Asked about her record on jobs, Bachamnn said, "Well, I am a job creator. I am a former tax attorney and I have a post-doctorate degree in tax, years in federal tax court."
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/christianity/36660-submissive-does-not-mean-subservient.html

O'Donnell asked how that amounts to job creation.

"Because I understand how high taxes destroy jobs, and then my husband and I also started our own successful company. We have created jobs and we -- as a job creator myself, I understand how difficult it is to actually make a profit in a business."
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=36660

Bachmann also called for tax reform and the repeal of the federal health care law and vowed to get America's Triple-A credit rating back. Bachmann opposes again increasing the debt limit and says America should prioritizing paying its creditors as well as paying members of the military and entitlement obligations when the limit is reached.

"We will announce to the markets in no case will we default and pay our men and women in the military and make sure all senior citizens that are currently on entitlements get their checks," she said, adding that entitlements will eventually need to be reformed.

Bachmann was also asked about the controversial Newsweek cover of her which featured an unflattering photograph and the headline "the queen of rage," which Sarah Palin criticized in Iowa on Friday. Bachmann said she was focused on other matters.

"Quite honestly when you lose your Triple-A credit rating and when you lose 30 Americans in Afghanistan, a magazine cover is really the least of your problems," she said.

Shortly before Bachmann's appearance, one of Bachmann's rivals for the nomination, fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty, announced he was dropping out of the race following a disappointing finish in the straw poll.

"I have great respect for the governor. I have known him for a long time and I thought he brought a very important voice to the race," Bachmann said. Asked if she was seeking Pawlenty's endorsement, Bachmann replied: "I look forward to talking to him. I -- hopefully I'll be calling him very soon."

In a statement shortly after the show, she said she had called Pawlenty.

"This morning I spoke with Governor Pawlenty to express my respect and admiration for him, and to wish him and his family well," said Bachmann. "Running for the presidency requires enormous self-sacrifice. Governor Pawlenty brought an important voice and ideas to the campaign, and he served the people of Minnesota and our country well. Our party and our country are better as a result of his service and commitment."

See video of the interview at this link http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20092175.shtml

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

I think Rep. Bachmann needs to invest in a dictionary. I looked up different definitions and they all came up with something like this:

The thesaurus gives this:

True, these say nothing about subservient. They also say nothing about rerspect. I wonder how others would feel about a President who describes herself as docile. passive, yielding toward anyone.

My political views are no secret. I describe myself as centre-left. In Canada, I support the NDP. In the USA, that gets me regarded as pretty far to the left. I do not like the Tea Party. I do not like Michelle Bachmann's politics. How I feel about her personally is irrelevant.

However, I do not see how anyone could want someone who regards herself as docile, passive, yielding for President.

And if that's not what she meant, I think the question to ask is, shouldn't the President of the United States of America have a good enough command of the English language that she uses standard definitions when speaking publicly?

Goodness, that's frightening. Either she has a bad command of the English language, or she is her husband's doormat and believes other women should be that way too:
Whatever she wants to call it, getting a degree in something she hates just because her husband told her to is pretty big. There's no telling what sort of idiocy she could perpetrate in office.

Annie, why do you criticize her religious views when all she is doing is stating her agreement with the Bible (which Christians consider to be the inerrant Word of God)?

If you read the entire passages of the Bible that refer to "wives submitting to their husbands" instead of taking words out of their context, you would see that Michelle Bachmann does indeed mean that being submissive to husbands does not at all mean being a doormat...

From the Book of Ephesians, Chapter 5:

²²Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:
²³Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.
²⁴Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.
²⁵Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:
²⁶That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life:
²⁷That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.
²⁸So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. ²⁹For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church:

If you read the entire passage and put the words in the right context, you will see that husbands are also commanded to love their wives. The husbands are the heads of the family, and when a husband loves his wife like Christ loved His Church, he will give up his life for his wife and family. This beautiful marital bond of husband and wife is sanctifying and in this context, you could see how it would be easy for a wife to be submissive to a husband who loved her more than himself; a husband who only wants what is best for her sanctity.

I believe this is what Michelle Bachmann is referring to, and not saying that women should be doormats.

CalKaurji

There are surely many many passages from the bible one could embrace with such vigour, the question is why embrace such a view that is clearly at odds with 21st century living.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=36660

Taken in this context it is the will of the Lord that all christian wives should obey their husbands, not just in matters that are marriage related, but also in personal aspirations and goals.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=36660

Although husbands are also called upon to love their wives, most husbands would do that by default anyway, men are not being asked to do anymore than love, but wives have to obey?

I consider my wife as my absolute equal, I would not have it any other way!, and sikhi encourages this, the above passage sounds more like a father daughter relationship.

None of us are perfect, I know many marriages where the wife has to be strong, as the husband is not, what happens then in a christian marriage, gender reassignment?

Calkaur,

The Bible passage you quoted does not sound like gender discrimination and oppression to you? It sounds that way to me, and not at all beautiful. I am well aware of Christian gender roles, and have always found them wrong.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=36660

Do you remember when Bill Clinton was the President, there was a lot of talk about his wife Hillary really running the show behind the scenes? I suspect the same situation would happen, with the genders switched, if Michele Bachmann were President. Religion or not, I want a President who uses his or her own mind. If I wanted Michele's husband to run the country I would write him in on the ballot.

Dear Harry,
I understand where you are coming from. In the past I would have agreed with your sentiments. However, after taking the time to study the meaning and context of ancient scripture, especially as handed down from the Magesterium (the teaching office of the Church) I now have a better understanding on many things. fficeffice" />

You asked:

I don’t think the word of God will ever go out of style. I understand that the people of the 21st century have become more educated, more liberalized, and more secular but I don’t think that makes the Bible outdated.

By your logic we can assume that since it is acceptable in 21st century living for men and women to dress provocatively by exposing many parts of their bodies in public, then we should be preparing ourselves and our grandchildren to start walking around naked in the next century because that’s where it looks like we’re heading.

If a man truly loves his wife, would it be so hard for her to obey him on what he believes to be in the best interest of his family? If a man truly loves God, then he will love his wife as God commands, and he would never ask of her to obey him in something that is contrary to God's will. We are all called to be holy, and the husband and wife help each other and sanctify each other on their path to heaven.


In the Christian marriage relationship, it is the husband's privilege to portray the headship of Christ over the church by his loving and sacrificial leadership. The wife's privelege is to symbolically represent the church in its submission to Christ, its Head. The husband symbolizes Christ's headship, while the wife symbolizes the submission of the church to her Head. The divinely appointed role of marriage as a symbol of Christ and the church is therefore the basis for the attitudes and behavior of the Christian marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by harry haller I consider my wife as my absolute equal, I would not have it any other way!, and sikhi encourages this, the above passage sounds more like a father daughter relationship.

It is wonderful that you consider your wife your equal, because she is equal to you in human dignity. How many husbands do I know that treat their wives with humiliation? Many. And worse, these men use the Bible in a perverted and hypocrital way to justify their actions. Christianity does not teach that women are to be submissive and men are dominant; it teaches that men and women have different and complimentary roles to play. Moral teaching places obligations on both men and women to treat each other in an ethical and respectful manner. To say that men and women are different and have different roles does not contradict this. In Christianity men and women are both seen as equally important.


I guess in a feministic world, being obedient to one's husband (except in matters of sin) seems to be more painful to one's pride more than anything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by harry haller None of us are perfect, I know many marriages where the wife has to be strong, as the husband is not, what happens then in a christian marriage, gender reassignment?

Here is when our faith in God and a prayerful life is instrumental. We all have our "crosses to bear" and we must reach out to God for His help in carrying those crosses. We have no power to change anyone. Only He can do that by His grace alone.

Annie, you stated:

No, it does not sound like gender discrimination to me. Who are we to tell God what to do? If He wanted, he could have made only "man" or only "woman" instead of "male and female". Or, at least He could have made man with a uterus so he could also bear children. Bue He didn't. He made us the way He did, in His infinite wisdom, to complement each other within our specific roles. We are all equal in dignity, but not all equal in roles.

I found an article online that does a way better job than me to explain this matter. If anyone has the time, I recommend it for reading. Here is the link: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

Peace to all.

I am a Sikh. I am submissive to Akaal Purakh as revealed through Guru Sahibaan. Period.