1998 statement signed by Huck affirmed: “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband”
posted at 6:30 pm on December 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via Dan Riehl, just the sort of thing you want to have to defend during a campaign, especially when you’re running against a woman with women voters already gravitating to her.
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.
The counterargument, I trust, is that this is a fairly orthodox statement of the Christian view of marriage. Is it? And is Huck going to be able to plead that after having put his name to a statement explicitly affirming this particular bit of doctrine? He’s not in the same relation here, in other words, as a Catholic politician would be to the Church’s gender discrimination, where one can plead disagreement with individual policies while still embracing the larger whole. Huck’s signing up here specifically for wives as subordinates. As much as I agree that Drudge exaggerated his statement about taking back America for Jesus, this sort of thing is going to come up if he’s the nominee and some voters are going to wonder about it if he can’t explain it to their satisfaction, just like some of them wonder about Mormons believing the Garden of Eden is in Missouri. He’s reaping plenty of benefits from his religious stature; these are going to be the costs. Which may explain why he’s reluctant to publish his old sermons.
So much for that. Go see what Kaus has to say about how serious Huck seems to be about the terms of his new hardline immigration policy. It’s almost as if he lifted it from Mark Krikorian for political convenience, not because he really believes in opposing amnesty in all its forms. And with that, I think/hope we’re done with Huck for the night.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
S
I see your point but what’s wrong with Huckabee’s core beliefs about his personal life? He believes that a husband should be the head of the household. Big deal. Household does not equal government.
baldilocks on December 11, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Moses and crew spent how many years in the desert? Crap…
Bad Candy on December 11, 2007 at 7:52 PM
This is because Ron Paul’s blimp is stationary where as Huckabee’s train is going backwards, giving Paul the appearance of moving ahead when actually he’s just a massive gasbag stuck on the ground.
Huckabee should be able to explain this away fairly quickly, its one of the oldest anti-Christian gotcha lines in the Feminazi book.
Still, he wouldn’t have to deal with this if it wern’t for his “God’s candidate” shtick. We may have the same God Huck, but you’re certainly not his earthly Herald.
BKennedy on December 11, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Wow, that was dumb.
Dork B. on December 11, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Yes it is. Ephesian 5 (not 3). But why is this controversial? Looking carefully at the statement, it doesn’t say all women must submit to all men. It says wives to their husbands. And it further qualifies that the husbands must be “servant-leaders” which means that the submission is conditioned by the husbands’ following Christ. No mention of beer or football games as far as I can tell.
Huckabee isn’t marrying the country, he’s running for president. If there is evidence that he will try to impose this standard on other people’s marriages (and there may be), that would be a problem, but having signed a religious document is not such evidence.
I don’t like him, and won’t vote for him. But lets keep the criticism fair.
Amen.
JackOfClubs on December 11, 2007 at 8:03 PM
I’m still trying to get my arms around why it was even necessary to pledge an oath or whatever it was they signed to affirm their belief? My mother used to say that when you have to tell the world how religious and pious you are, you probably aren’t either one.
Did anyone see the young Lt. Colonel that was fired by the military and is now running for office in Florida - FOX News reported it I think? I say we grab him for Vice Prez……..he and Duncan would win this war, would build the danged fence and get on with running this country.
24K lady on December 11, 2007 at 8:05 PM
I think some folks are unclear on this concept.
baldilocks on December 11, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Well this story didn’t take long to get commented on.
Tzetzes on December 11, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Maybe Huck is the only candidate who won’t send Israel down the tubes… and God knows it.
GoodBoy on December 11, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Fox News:
“Mike Huckabee in 1992: No Gays in Military, No Women in Combat, Don’t Kill Saddam”
———————————————————
The Huckster is getting “the treatment” tonight!
Nelsa on December 11, 2007 at 8:14 PM
If Mr. and Mrs. Huckabee are fine with this, and the members of his church are ok with this, then what is the issue?
It is unfortunate that Huckabee has struck such a wrong note already that there can’t be a good discussion of what this part of Christian doctrine really means in today’s world.
pedestrian on December 11, 2007 at 8:15 PM
I remember something from the Smoking Gun about how it’s supposed to work…
Tzetzes on December 11, 2007 at 8:16 PM
On the theological level, my problem with the vow is that man is barely like Christ. Christ doesn’t make mistakes. Man even when he tries hard, still does and let’s face it, in general men don’t try hard enough and often enough for women to told by preachers that the Bible tells them to “submit”.
But on another level that bothers me more, what the Huck is the Governor of the State of Arknasas doing getting involved in affirming Southern Baptist Convention proclamations and and publicly advertising such affirmations in a national newspaper?
I can tolerate the content of Huck’s pronouncement but the latter just confirms for me that Huckabee has no sense of the propriety and place for his religious preaching and, as such, there is no way I could support him, even if he won the nomination.
Dusty on December 11, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Forgot the link to the Fox News story in previous post.
Here it is
Nelsa on December 11, 2007 at 8:18 PM
A cogent point.
Latter day saints (mormons) believe that “The Son of Man hath descended below them all.” If the latter day saint scripture bothers, try this from Luke, “but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.” Effectively the Lord became a servant of (or submitted himself to) all as He suffered for our sins and redeemed us. It is not surprising, then, that He would ask husbands and wives to submit to and serve the other.
Really, I’m just restating what Bryan already said well. It is unfortunate that some would use the least charitable understanding of the passages to malign a presidential candidate. As right2bright said regarding the folk calling Huckabee not a christian, these detractors seem to not understand the faith.
Jens on December 11, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Best to run The High Reverend Huckster out of town quick then before he dumps even more poison in the well.
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Because many people feel that marriage is coming under attack and this is one aspect of it that needs support. This isn’t really the place for it, but I would argue that the high divorce rate is primarily because people enter it with expectations of what they are going to get out of it, rather than what they will put into it. And, of course, “get out of it” is precisely what they end up doing. Emphasizing the servant role of both partners puts the thing in proper perspective as a life-long committment which will not often be easy and will be completely impossible without love and fortitude.
NOTE: Nothing in this comment should be construed as an endorsement of the Huckabee candidacy.
JackOfClubs on December 11, 2007 at 8:19 PM
I think that The High Reverend Huckster is one of those folks.
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 8:21 PM
As a Christian and someone who has made an effort to study the Bible in its original context I’ll put my two cents in here.
I think this part of the Bible has been taken way out of context in recent years, both by camo-wearing, Sarah McLachlan-loving, bald headed feminazis and by 6 foot 0 350 pound boozer men that get home from work and first thing in the house scream “Where’s my dinner?”
Sure, the wife is to submit to the husband. But what was one of the things Jesus did for His apostles? Washed their feet. The husband is to submit to Christ, and through that - to the wife.
I think this sums it up pretty well.
Ryan Gandy on December 11, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Tell your mother to keep her calender clear for the next 5 years.
We may just need to draft her for the Republican Presidential nomination.
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Excellent explanation. People ignore the flip side that Christ gave his life for the church and that is what husbands are expected to do for their wives. I admire a person who can actually put his wives needs in front of is own. Men, before you pat yourselves on the back thinking you do this, imagine the following scenario:
This Sunday it is third and goal with 6 seconds left. The score is 21 to 24. Your wife starts a conversation with you. What do you do? Turn off the TV and give her your full attention, right?
It always struck me as shallow that some politicians can jettison their personal beliefs for political convenience. When pulling the lever, I think a persons character is nore important than a person’s religion. I want to support someone for who they are, not who they project themselves to be. While I do not endorse Huckabee, I fund it refreshing that he is articulate and unapologieic about his beliefs. Same goes for Mitt. Try getting that from Hillary who takes a poll before telling voters what she “believes”
jman on December 11, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Then he’ll win, of course. But until He tells me so in person, I’m voting for Fred.
JackOfClubs on December 11, 2007 at 8:27 PM
BTW, my first quote was from John 13:16.
The actual foot washing is in John 13:5-12.
Ryan Gandy on December 11, 2007 at 8:27 PM
So the NOW endorsement is off then? Give me a break.
I mean my marriage works pretty well without the servant leadership thing thank you, but the idea that a husband should selflessly love and support his wife and he should be the head of his family is not at all outlandish for vast segments of the US population.
And even for those Republican women who do view marriage differently, what is the alternative? There is the Mormon guy with the perfect family — how different do you think his marriage ideal is? Then there is Fred with the replacement wife who is younger then his son, and Rudy with the three wives.
factoid on December 11, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Every time this guy says something stupid he goes up in the polls.
GogglesPisano on December 11, 2007 at 8:31 PM
There is little nuance to this stuff. It means just what it means. It’s a pretty much unbroken train of thought since Adam and Eve, Biblically speaking. Basically, what’s been done is to encapsulate the entire attitude towards women in simple terms.
Krydor on December 11, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Could be. Is he asking 300 million folks to bring him his slippers?
baldilocks on December 11, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Oh, how I wish we were done with Huck for more than just the night.
greggish on December 11, 2007 at 8:42 PM
If you have Tivo, you just put the whole thing on pause.
It’s certainly helped my marriage.
Esthier on December 11, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Well when he was the goobernator of Arkansas, he did ask everyone in Arkansas to give him wedding presents about 20 or 30 years after he got married.
Some of his presents may have been slippers.
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 8:46 PM
A pretty archaic view for most christians. While some women in the church will say “yes, that is true” in the back of their minds they say “that pig”.
This is exactly the kind of thing that will allow Hillary to decapitate him in a general election. It could even be what they mean when they say they could take him.
Bad news all around. This sort of thing could make the evangelicals flock to him and gett him the nomination. But it will kill us in the general.
More depression….thanks HA
conservnut on December 11, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Technically I think so, and while I know plenty of evangelicals who do live this way, it’s not as pronounced as it sounds on paper. Essentially it’s about traditional family roles, and it would be less controversial of an idea 50 years ago. Again the wording makes it sound “extreme”, but the meat of it really isn’t.
That said, I’m all for this hurting his candidacy because the media has hyped him up to wear he seems more likely to be the nominee than just about anyone but maybe Romney, but we know he could never win the general election. Something needs to start knocking Huckleberry back down, and hopefully this will help.
RightWinged on December 11, 2007 at 8:58 PM
I’m a Mitt man, not a Huck fan.
However, it is true that Huckabee is taking a fairly orthodox stance on marriage, one that I agree with as a conservative, Evangelical Christian.
It has nothing to do with importance, class, etc., and everything to do with roles in the family.
Why do people get so offended by this teaching? A few reasons.
One, misunderstandings — Christian submission does not mean being a slave (i.e. Islam). Rather, it is a delegation of authoritative role.
Second, perception — everybody looks at the “wife side” of these verses. Are we neglecting the first part, where a man goes so far as to die for his wife, just as Christ did for the Church? If a man does that, it shows just how important his wife is to him.
Third, the curse upon humanity — check out the curse of Eve in Genesis. To paraphrase, childbirth will be teh suck, and she will desire to control her husband, but the reverse will happen.
Exit question: We often read, with agreement, the news articles posted here about how women like real men, and men like real women (the traditional roles). Why does it become a huge issue when we Christians say the same thing, but from a different vantage point (the Bible)?
HYTEAndy on December 11, 2007 at 8:59 PM
As a pastor, I’ve heard the wishes and pleas of many women… who are longing for a husband who will sacrificially lead her and the family rather than play the goof and leaving her with the grown-up responsibilities, while he plays with his Wii.
All too often men prove the stupid, slothful, stereotype in just about every sit-com on tv.
I have rarely met a woman who wouldn’t gladly submit graciously to a man who will take some responsibility, lead her and love her like Christ.
hashman on December 11, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Thank you for you honesty! I have always assumed that if a man lives up to his responsibilities to God and to his spouse, this is a non-issue for a Christian wife. The “right guy” you mention isn’t barking orders and trying to pull rank. He’s busting his tail to provide for his family’s needs; he’s protecting them and placing their welfare above his own needs and desires. Total commitment. He adores his spouse and makes her feel treasured. He is her partner, not her boss.
So often this discussion focuses only on the sacrifices of the wife, and the sacrifices of the husband are glossed over. I think a lot of women would be willing to submit to the “right guy” - the guy who makes their happiness and well-being his number one priority.
Having said that, this is it for the Huckster. (If the Left doesn’t attack this then he really is the Glass-jaw candidate.) As a Christian, I think that the term Traditional Marriage means more than one man, one woman. Why is it such a leap to concede that each gender has a role within that marriage? Huck’s a well-spoken guy, perhaps he will have an opportunity to explain this “definition of marriage” - although it won’t get him anywhere with the electorate!
Dork B. on December 11, 2007 at 9:05 PM
And y’all wonder WHY the Dems cannot wait to get THIS idiot in the political ring?
Gatordoug on December 11, 2007 at 9:13 PM
So it’s going to be a situation where his grammar school essays are ignored, but the entire Bible will be used against him?
Hening on December 11, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Where are the feminists,they are as quiet
as a lonely loon on a lake,early in the
morning as the mist rises!hehe
canopfor on December 11, 2007 at 9:24 PM
You’re such an intelligent and strong lady. Any man who wins you over deserves your “gracious submittal”. May you find him, and may he get his own slippers, and yours too.
On Mr. Huckabee, it’s disturbing that he signed that as the Governor. There are such good reasons for separation of church/state. Also there’s such a leap from Governor of Arkansas to leader of the free world, especially when the WoT is going on, and will be so for many, many years. Having a preacher in the WH is the last thing the American people will go for, especially after the last 7 years (not saying that Mr. Bush is a preacher, his ‘communication skills’ notwithstanding).
As baldilocks and a few others have said, what happens at home is each’s business. Leaders should simply say “my beliefs are private and I will follow the constitution and the laws of this land”. Mr. Huckabee is too much beyond this threshold. May that be a glorious reality for this country and the world.
Entelechy on December 11, 2007 at 9:28 PM
I wish when Republican’s speak,absolutely no disrespect,
they might have a 5 second delay,because the media are
going to spin it every which way on a sunday.
On the other hand,for Democrats,it’s expected,incouraged
because the media,after a few days will have the Lib
message twisted to their likeing.
canopfor on December 11, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I’m sorry, that just made me giggle.
see-dubya on December 11, 2007 at 9:38 PM
My wise grandma always said “girls, never ask for equal rights becaue you might get them”. There’s no need for feminism. I’ll bring you the slippers, bake you Christmas cookies, tend to you when you’re ill and need attention, if you’re my rock of Gibraltar, earn them and don’t take them for granted, and return the respect, consideration and attention. Earn is the key word. Maintain is the other. Also, no need to beat the drums about it, or sign hosannah letters.
Entelechy on December 11, 2007 at 9:40 PM
see-dubya, I like what your lady said :)
Entelechy on December 11, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Wow. Cherry picking scripture is a real problem for me. It was before I came to Faith and it still is for very different reasons.
Brian summed up what I believe the CORRECT position is on the Ephesians 5 debate. However I also think there’s a little “foolishness” in this thing too(1 Corinthians 1:18).
The Judeo-Christian God has ALWAYS been a revolutionary on the rights of women but it seems that only the Believers get it. Pity that. It frustrates the crap out of me but it is what it is I suppose.
My wife grew up in a very strict Nazarene house hold. She never saw an R rated movie until she met me(corrupting influence at the time). She was a STRONG believer then and now. If I were to even THINK about what some of you believe Huck’s statement means I **WOULD** be on the couch, in the yard…probably buried in the yard actually.
She expects me to seek God and provide spiritual leadership in the family. Should I not, then she most certainly will. Christian families must submit to God first. Christian Husbands should not expect a “subservient” wife. Christian wives are by no means weak, submissive, women and nor should they be. Ephesians 5 simply means submit to the leadership of God and that leadership should be the husband’s responsibility. Christian wives should follow but we all know they are MORE than capable of leading and telling their errant husbands to get the hell outta the way.
Pilgrim on December 11, 2007 at 9:58 PM
i’ve been avoiding this thread because of subject as well as an exuberant 140+ comments. But… who ever in he11 ever, ever thought we could get a Babtist preacher elected to the highest office of the land in this present day?
Griz on December 11, 2007 at 10:43 PM
I think it could easily be done, but that guy had better not showcase his faith instead of his political platform.
Laura on December 11, 2007 at 10:47 PM
and baldilocks, who are you to be asking this question?
If a question is capable of scoring rhetorical points, then isn’t even more important that a good answer be given?
thuja on December 11, 2007 at 11:07 PM
I mean this most sincerely: STFU.
Do you even know what is being referred to?
baldilocks on December 11, 2007 at 11:12 PM
You know what, thuja, I’m going to take that back; not because I care about offending you but because I’m not behaving well in someone else’s space. I retract the STFU, but still wonder whether you even know about what I was discussing.
baldilocks on December 11, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Spoken like a true, skirt-chasing bachelor. :-)
I would wager that what Huckabee uttered would be implicitly taken as indisputable by the vast majority of humanity across a broad sweep of history.
Besides, just because Ephesians Chapter 5 is rejected by today’s elites will hardly deter Christian voters in fly-over country.
On the other hand, regarding non-Christians, I will concede that you have a point.
P.S. Get back to us on this issue after you have been married 20+ years.
sanantonian on December 12, 2007 at 12:03 AM
My favorite line from the Kaus article:
Gregor on December 12, 2007 at 12:27 AM
I always come to these parties late. :(
I’m actually surprised it took as long as it did for someone to make clear the issue in question (or at least its context). And for Bryan to at that. Usually we have someone quick to the punch. But Bryan’s right and this is how my wife and I work in our marriage and it has helped us aplenty. Course I must constantly show I am worthy of that respect just as I have to continually show I was worth marrying. The last thing I should do after reading that verse is sit on my ass and expect my wife to do what I say.
CTDeLude on December 12, 2007 at 12:38 AM
A quick google of Servant leadership, leads to a less than insidious definition.
Defense Guy on December 12, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Way to ruin a perfectly good cat-fight. Sigh…
Hollowpoint on December 12, 2007 at 12:43 AM
“For we all have sinned…”
baldilocks on December 12, 2007 at 1:20 AM
AP:
“As much as I agree that Drudge exaggerated his statement about taking back America for Jesus….”
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I figure it’s just a matter of time before someone steps up to the mic and flat out says Huckabee was busily granting clemancy to folks who found Jesus.
Shoot, the comments from his Arkansas prosecutors are like a road map that nobody’s reading. It explains his bizarre choices a whole lot better than the criteria he floated publicly do. Jack Tapper reports that Prosecutor Lona McCastlain scoped out how to get Huckabee to change his mind in the case of Glen Green, a guy who gives DuMond a serious run for heinous:
If Green’s “repentence” never included any expression of “remorse for his actions” (per Tommy Oliver), what sort of bona fides do we think Huckabee was looking for in the first place? Is it just a fluke that Green’s advocate was a Baptist pastor?
Doubling down here: Is it mere coinicidence that one of Huckabee’s fellow signatories above is Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson?
JM Hanes on December 12, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Bryan:
“I just don’t want all Christian candidates tossed out because of him, and that’s a serious possibility here.”
Hardly! Are there even any non-Christians running? Obama is not exactly reserved about his faith, and it sure doesn’t look like he’ll be out on his ear anytime soon. If I recall correctly, we also knew Bush was born again when we elected him — twice. I think we can safely say this is a Huckabee problem, not a Christian problem.
baldilocks:
“But I couldn’t care less about his personal religious belief about how a husband and wife relate to each other.”
The topic here, however, is his purposefully public religious belief about how husbands and wives should relate to each other. Could his ostentatious remarriage really be anybody’s idea of a personal religious ceremony? Huckabee is the one who seems to have a problem with the separation here.
“He believes that a husband should be the head of the household. Big deal. Household does not equal government.”
Tell that to Huckabee. He apparently believes that countries are like people, so I wonder what basis you have for assuming he doesn’t think of governments as a households. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to hear that he’s made that analogy already, would you? After all, “servant leadership” is what he’s selling, isn’t it?
JM Hanes on December 12, 2007 at 3:18 AM
Are you f*cking kidding me?
Nonfactor on December 12, 2007 at 4:46 AM
Gettin’ to the party late, but I have to say that I believe those of you who defend Mike Huckabee’s position are correct. On the other hand, those of you who defend Mike Huckabee *because* of his position are clueless.
* He was a sitting governor when he signed this document. If that’s not blurring the lines between church and state — and wielding one’s influence as an elected official in an inappropriate way — I don’t know what is.
* Dude has been formally accused about a dozen times (actually, 13, if I’m not mistaken) of serious ethical violations while in office. Hey, where there’s that much smoke… If he walked the walk, Biblically speaking, I could admire him even if I disagreed with him. Unfortunately, he only talks the talk.
* He is so lying about Dumond. The reason — the one and ONLY reason — he brought all his influence to bear on the parole board to release that scumbag was that Dumond’s supporters convinced Huckabee the convict had been ’saved’. Think about it. The man is so ignorant that a simple statement that “I repent — I have seen the light” from a convicted serial rapist compelled him to ignore all those desperate, pleading women whose lives had been destroyed and work to overturn the righteous decision of a jury of Dumond’s peers.
So are these the times that call for naievete??? That demand compassion for those who break the law and seek to destroy us? That should inspire our leaders to undermine the criminal justice system? That cry out for us to ‘turn the other cheek’? My Bible also calls for ‘an eye for an eye’. So does Mike Huckabee’s, but he ignores that part because he’s reading it selectively.
I am the farthest thing in the world from a feminist. However, this is one of the few times I believe they ought to be standing up and screaming bloody murder. And this should be their Exit Question: What does it say about a presidential candidate when he ignored 3 women who lost their souls cause he just felt so damn sorry for one guy who lost his balls?
grits on December 12, 2007 at 5:17 AM
Huckles has stepped into that great divide between Bapto-world and the secular world. Funnnn!
saved on December 12, 2007 at 5:19 AM
Well, Carter always wanted a second term; looks like he finally has a shot at it.
Laura on December 12, 2007 at 8:21 AM
I saw you apologized in a limited way. I do agree that we shouldn’t flame because it makes Hotair look bad. But beyond that, isn’t restoring civility long been articulated as a conservative goal? And aren’t we civil for both other people’s happiness and our own?
Peace be with you.
thuja on December 12, 2007 at 9:15 AM
I have not made up my mind who I will vote for, frankly I am not very excited about any of the candidates. I haven’t read all of the comments, but as a Southern Baptist pastor’s wife I thought I would add my two cents, although I doubt I can improve on Bryan’s explanation of the doctrine.
The husband is the spiritual head of the household. While we believe in personal accountability before God, we believe that God holds the husband additionally responsible for the spiritual and moral well-being of his wife and children. Therefore, he is put in a position of moral and spiritual leadership. Another words he is a steward of his family. The word ’servant’ in “servant leadership” is aimed at the husband, not the wife. He is to model his leadership after Christ.
Christ demonstrated servant leadership when he washed the feet of the disciples. The husband, although steward of his family, figuratively serves his family in a similiar manner. Therfore the husband is actually held to a higher standard of selflessness than is the wife. Even to the point of being ready to die for his wife and children. Rather than being in contentious competition she responds graciously.
If this be ’sharia law’ then make the most of it.
Any fear that Huckabee would attempt to force this doctrine on the country is both paranoid and absurd.
Renae on December 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM
….but someone who believes in servant leadership might not be a bad president.
Renae on December 12, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Well then pastor I’d love to meet the women you know, because I’ve never met a woman who would let a man lead. In fact every woman I’ve ever met under the age of 50 end up rejecting any type of leadership a husband would give, and usually end up cheating.
But yeah lets paint whole groups with a single brush…
Darksbane on December 12, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Came back to this thread out of morbid curiosity - my question is when do you guys ever sleep? I’m impressed. Fascinating responses, and agree with several others that any sitting governor signing a document that expressly blurs the lines between church and state is not someone I would ever vote for. Huck has already thrown out his opinion on unhealthy eating and patting himself on the back for pushing away from the table and losing a few pounds. His record shows many cracks and waffling on issues, just as the other candidate’s records. If we cannot encourage someone to run that is electable, we will face the consequences of that error.
We must elect a president that has integrity, morals, willing to fulfill his oath of office to the American people, and follow the Constitution as written.
24K lady on December 12, 2007 at 2:09 PM
The topic doesn’t magically morph into what you wish it to be. The husband-wife relationship is the topic and it is personal between the two, your above judgment of the sincerity on this topic notwithstanding. That judgment is irrelevant, as is that of the rest of us.
Thank you for your civility.
It may be some conservatives’ goal, but it isn’t necessarily my individual goal in all cases.
Have a good day.
baldilocks on December 12, 2007 at 2:16 PM
If ya train ‘em right from the beginnin’, it doan reeeeally mattah much ‘tall…
s/off
Biffstir on December 12, 2007 at 2:42 PM
baldilocks:
It doesn’t morph into your version of a topic either. I’m sure everyone here has a personal opinion on gender roles in marriage, but you yourself have also chosen tp comment on Huckabee’s “cynical need’ to affirm his views publicly, “as if this belief makes him a better candidate for president,” so it’s not like I’m changing the subject. Indeed, the definition of “servant leadership” kindly provided above by others seems like an obvious nexus for Huckabee. You may believe his views on the subject shouldn’t matter, but I hardly get the impression that Huckabee thinks so.
JM Hanes on December 12, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]