Huckabee: Goodbye Female Voters

I knew Huckabee and his wife have a Covenant marriage. I didn't know he'd signed this - copy here:

In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: "I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention." What was in the family statement from the SBC?  "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

The ad wasn't just a blanket, "we support the SBC statement," but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."

Comments

[seekeronos]

Heh. This is actually a sound biblical principle. And while this sound principle does work in Christian families... it isn't the smartest thing to advertise to a non-Christian majority nation.

Indeed, it seems that the new calculus on the number of Christians vs. non-christians in the USA seems to suggest that Christians are in the minority (compared to atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists)... a generation or two ago, this would not have even made the news, and such believers might have actually benefited from being "old-fashioned" in their morals.

By hook and by crook, we are heading down the godless Euro-socialist trail. Yet, for now, I would rather endorse the consistently conservative candidate rather than this snake-oil Huckster.

[Phoenix]

""You are right because you recognized that the family was God's idea, not man's, and that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman for a lifetime."

For a lifetime? Does this mean he loses the 60% of divorced men and ex-submissives as well?

[Sara]

And they complain about Mormons? Sheesh. At least the Mormons believe:

"The priesthood is bestowed upon men by God. Once they receive the priesthood, it is their sacred calling and duty to honor and magnify it. Women have been given a different calling. They are chosen by God to be the mothers of men. Is one greater than the other? No, both are equally as important but each has it's own responsibilities and tasks."

Ask most men who has had more influence in their lives, their religious training or their mothers? For Mormon women, they share an equal role, at least publicly, privately women know they hold the more powerful position as the influencer of those men when they were children, preparing them to be worthy of the priesthood responsibilities they will ultimately be expected to carry out. This is why the LDS church spends so much time providing parenting classes and encouraging women to gain a good education. You cannot teach children what you yourself have not learned.

Of course, in today's world where being a Mother is considered to be a second class citizen, it is hard to digest this tenet. The Maureen Dowds of this world do not understand that Motherhood is one of the most sacred gifts of God and THE most important role in the ultimate scheme of things. They see more value in being a Senator or a CEO, than of teaching and raising their children.

This statement of Huckabee's shows a position that sees women as subservient and 2nd class and that just will not fly. It won't fly with me and it won't fly with the majority of women.

[seekeronos]

And this is why perhaps the Founding Fathers were wiser than we, in that in their time, only free, property-owning males were entitled to the franchise.

For better of for worse, we the people decided to admit the gentler gender both to the franchise as well as opportunity to ascend into the halls of power.

This said, one must consider the Scriptural reasons for the natural subordination of women to men: it was Eve who sinned first, then Adam.

Indeed, it is the Woman's desire to have mastery over her men, and this is why today that the roles of men and the gift of fatherhood have been relegated to the ash-heap of Hollywood's mockery, where the typical American male has been continually kicked down and degraded, from the figures of Ward Cleaver and "Father Knows Best" to Archie Bunker and Cliff Huxtable, down to the utterly foolish charicatures of Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson".

And whose fault is this?

It is the man's fault, for failing to assume his proper and God-given place as head of his family, and role of the priest-intercessor, one who labours to provide for the physical welfare of his wife and children, and also to see to it that they learn of and speak of the Lord's lovingkindnesses and of His Saviour, of whom is the Head of the Church, even as the man is the father and head of his family.

I'm sorry ladies - this goes against the ungodly spirit of rebellion which calls the "liberated woman" to own not only her own life, but that of her men as well.

But God set the standards for how husbands and wives *should* be, and *must* be for a family, and indeed a married couple, whom the Scriptures say "cleave together to become one flesh".

For how can the two members of one flesh - man and woman - be joined together unless they walk in agreement with one another, and indeed, together according to God's word?

Now as this touches on the Rev. Gov. Huckabee's statement --- good politics probably dictates that this should NOT be brought up as a piece by promote himself in a nation that has departed from God, and indeed, a nation from whom God may well have departed and proclaimed to be "ICHABOD" (God has departed)... and practically speaking - has lost the vote of any modern "liberated" female who has swallowed the Women's Lib hook, line, and sinker.

Moreover, it is yet another case that the mixture of religion and statesmanship is something entered only at grave risk to the politician involved.

Mike Huckabee is better equipped to be a "Reverend" than he is to be a "President".

In general, I have begun to consider that preachers should not aspire to be politicians - the former is a vocation given by God, whereas the latter - especially in a Republic - is subject more to the follies of men (yet even so, God is the Sovereign by Whose leave Presidents and Senators and all other rule and authority is established).

He should do everyone a favour and withdraw from the race, before he further destroys his reputation and puts his testimony in further risk of shipwreck.

[BD]

Sara:

Before you go off half-cocked ... or even fully cocked .... you should read the entire article:

"The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. … A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. … A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

This text is based on Ephesians 5. Unfortunately, Dan's post leaves out the part about the husband's responsibilities .... EVERYONE leaves out the part about the husband's responsibilities!!!

Yes, in Ephesians 5:22, Paul instructs wives to "submit to their husbands as to the Lord."

If he stopped there, you'd be justified in being angry. But he doesn't:

In Ephesians 5:25, husbands are told to "love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy."

And then, beginning at Ephesians 5:28, Paul writes "[H]usbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

So ... Paul tells wives to submit to husbands who are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, giving themselves up for her.

I can't think of anything more toxic for marriages than the self-centered struggle between husband & wife for control. Under the Ephesians model, that struggle is impossible.

That doesn't mean we are capable of pulling it off - our humanity prevents husbands from perfectly loving their wives as Christ loved the Church, just as it prevents wives from submitting to their husbands.

But pursuing it is better than the alternative, where husband & wife clash over control of the family.

One illustration which I hope helps bring home the point.

Assume [1] A husband & wife who both subscribe to the "we make our decisions together in all things, neither one of us is over the other, etc." model' [2] A situation presents itself which requires a decision - it can't be avoided or compromised, they have to make a "Yes" or "No" decision on something; [3] they discuss it at length and discover they disagree; [4] because they are "equal", neither one of them will back down.

How is the tie broken?

However it's done, what does it say about their "equality"?

Isn't their equality a sham if one of them has a veto?

What's the long-term effect of them pretending there's "equality" when, in fact, there isn't?

[seekeronos]

To expand a little frther on this btw -

the Bible does not provide that women should be "second class citizens" as some feminists think.

Rather, wives can be strong in their role as mothers and providers too - but within a certain sphere that is completely complimentary to the role of the husband.

I recommend reading Proverbs ch. 31 which sheds light on the role of a strong, godly woman.

[Ninjapirate]

I agree 100% with the statement and I think they should ask Huckabee's wife about what it means.

[Sara]

In other words, your idea comes from Paul, the #1 chauvinist of the Bible. Paul doesn't speak for God. Only God can speak for God. When women the given the gift of Motherhood, it does not mean that Eve sinned and Adam remained pure. The sin was Adam's and Adam's alone. Eve's sin was in serving Adam's need to know above her own glory and obedience to God. In serving Adam against God. For this she was punished. She is judged for her own sin, as Adam is judged for his, and we are judged for ours and not for Adam's. And she redeemed herself, whereas we have no proof Adam ever did. She brought forth children and fulfilled one of God's first commandments of "be fruitful and multiply." She praised God at the birth of her son. Did Adam? As I recall he did not. Now I realize that Evangelicals believe they are doomed to Adam's sin, but that is a misinterpretation that has led to the male-dominated society and the subjugation of women in religion and out.

If women do not raise up their men to serve and be dutiful to God they are punished for this. It is their duty to raise up their male offspring to take their place as the spiritual leader of the family, to fail is to fail God, not some arbitrary manmade hierarchy of male dominance. When I pray, I don't pray to my husband, I don't pray to Jesus, I pray to and give glory and praise to God. I believe Jesus was sent to explain to his misguided chosen ones and to bring them back to God instead of believing that adhering to manmade rules would save their day. In order to understand the teachings of Jesus you need to study, not Paul, but the Old Testament. First Century Jews understood Jesus' message because they were well-versed in their own ancient scriptures. How many anti-Semites sit in Evangelical pews every Sunday and take communion and do not understand they are performing a very abridged version of the Jewish Passover meal that wasn't a Jesus invention, but had been practiced by the faithful Jews for generations. God said, "You shall have no other gods before Me." He did not say you will have no other Gods before Me except your husband.

[Sara]

And just to be clear, Paul is the Number One Nanny-stater of all time.

[joeb]

Hillary was asked in a recent interview if in her family growing up "Father knew Best". She repleied that yes in her family that was so.
But that was back in the 1950s and early 60s. Times have sure changed.
Do you think American men are hen pecked?

[Sara]

And one more point and then I'll shut up.

In the Genesis 1:28 quote, it reads: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Please note it says that God blessed THEM, and God said unto THEM. He goes on to tell THEM to have dominion over every living thing. THEM is the operable word, God was speaking to THEM as equals, not as dominate and subservient. It doesn't say to Adam, have dominion over Eve and over every living thing ...

This is really very basic stuff.

[Sara]

I think American men have allowed themselves to be totally emasculated by the militant feminist agenda. They bought into it and abrogated their responsibilities and women being women and with little choice if children were involved were forced to take up the slack. I don't blame men for saying, hey if women are stupid enough to let me off the hook, well heck I'm outta here. When I was growing up, men felt shamed if their wives or mothers had to help support the family. Today, men say take care of yourself, not my job.

This is one woman who doesn't think the women's movement did her any favors. I never asked for their brand of equality. I never wanted to lower my status to be equal with men. I liked it where I was.

As a working Mom, let me tell you, it is hell raising kids by telephone.

[Ninjapirate]

"In other words, your idea comes from Paul, the #1 chauvinist of the Bible."

Please, without Paul there would be no Christianity. Without misinterpreting Paul there would be no latter day birth certificate scavenger hunts. If you want to have a Bible war to discuss your exegesis of Genesis go start a thread on your own blog.

[Sara]

Gee, and here I thought there would be no Christianity without Jews and Jesus. Silly me.

[Sara]

And the Baptisms for the Dead that prompt those scavenger hunts was a practice of the Jews of Paul's time. Paul didn't invent the concept, he preached about it, but it was a practice that long predated Paul. Paul was a writer and spreader of the Gospel, he wasn't the architect of that Gospel, nor the anointed interpreter. He was a rule maker, in a sense, so that those Gentiles, not steeped in Jewish tradition would understand better. But today, we have the ancient texts and teachings available to all of us and can read them for ourselves.

I'll be happy to start a thread on my own blog if anyone wants to continue the discussion, although I'm not sure who died and made you boss.

[jj]

Uh, Sara, Paul was a Jew. And yes, you are silly.

[Sara]

I know Paul was a Jew, wasn't that one of my points. They were all Jews in the early church, a fact that seems to get lost today, although I think more from Catholic teachings over the centuries than Evangelical ones.

[tally]

nothing new here, this is what baptist's have always believed. a morman wife - please, which one? i'd say neither has bragging rights.

[seekeronos]

Paul's writings are as much a part of the accepted canon of the Word of God, that is the Word of God as revealed to men and inspired by the Holy Spirit as Spirit-filled men wrote it down.

Paul makes reference to both the teachings of Jesus Christ as well as to his vast education in the matters of Jewry (as a student of the infamous Gamaliel) particularly the Midrash, and the Torah, and I'd say that his portion of Holy Writ is substantial closer to and in complete harmony with the rest of scripture than the plagiarized quilt-work that is the Book of Mormon as well as the other volumes produced by so-called "Apostles" (apostates is more correct) who dictate the minutiae of Mormon life from Salt Lake City.

God created Adam and Eve to be equal - which they were BEFORE they sinned. God's suborning the women under the headship of the man was an effect of the Curse of the Fall.

And, yes, Eve sinned first, being beguiled by the Serpent, and by Adam's later disobedience, listened to the sinful counsel of his wife over the Commandment of the Living God.

The Woman's sin was listening to her "feelings" and then ruling her husband, and the Man's sin was disobeying God's Word, and rather, obeying her wife's call to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Collectively, this was because they wanted to become "as gods", much as the core LDS teachings state that Temple Married couple can become gods on their own planets.

Same old sickening lie as the old Gnostic and Nestorian heresies, just with slightly different twists.

[BD]

Sara:

I apologize for wasting your time. I thought I was dealing with someone who didn't know what the scripture said, not someone who did and rejects it. Any sort of measured reading of the text doesn't support your "second class citizen / subjugated" characterization.

Paul spoke for God. You may prefer that he didn't, but your opinion wasn't sought on the subject.

[RW]

*****This text is based on Ephesians 5. Unfortunately, Dan's post leaves out the part about the husband's responsibilities .... EVERYONE leaves out the part about the husband's responsibilities!!!****

Not everyone.
Just those who are willing to publicly out themselves as dishonest demagogues (and I'm a Rudy supporter, not a Huckabee fan) who are either ignorant of the bible or willing participants in a campaign to MoDowed the actual text of the bible.

Dan, I don't know what the deal is here & as I said, I certainly am not a Huckabee shill (he's another big gov't Bush Republican to me) but your post is misleading, to say the least. You do yourself no favors by parroting that which I can get from any number of anti-Christian outlets, which I don't consider you or this site to be. Or, to put it more succinctly, Andrew Sullivan couldn't have been more proud of a post like this.

Ouch.

[OK THEN]

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

This is an example of how modern Christian religions have twisted and interprated the mean of scriptures to say what they want. The true interpration tells wifes to submit yourself to your husband. Husbands, sumit yourselves to Christ.

Do you see the difference in the meanings?

This is why the Lord would say in the latter-days

Isa 29:13 ¶ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

[Vince]

The glaring problem is not so much the principle, although it is indeed controversial, the problem is that this is not what needs to emanate from President or be represntative of the Federal Government. This is the responsibility of the the Churches to promote and inculcate this principle, in accordance with their repsective traditions and interpretations of the topic. The biggest disappointment here is the fact that so many Huckabee supporters are confusing the distinct and proper roles of the Federal Government and what is the proper domain of the Church.

[Anonymous]

This is why I don't have a God. Your God always seems to fuck everything up.