Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« Lawmaker tied to Abramoff will retire | Main | Private military industry expanding »

January 11, 2008

Huckabee calls for wifely submission

Gov. Mike Huckabee reaffirmed that a wife should submit to her husband during last night's Republican debate in South Carolina.

Huckabee tried to soften the blow by saying that the Bible commands husbands and wives to give to each other 100%. He endorsed a far more radical position in 1998 when he endorsed the Southern Baptist Convention's amended statement on the family in a national advertising campaign.

The Southern Baptist Convention revised its core statement of belief in June of 1998 to include an explicit dictate for wives to submit to their husbands. Mike Huckabee and his wife Janet were among the 131 prominent Baptists signed a statement telling the SBC: "You Are Right" about the new family code.

Here's what Huckabee said the SBC was right about:

XVIII. The Family

God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society.

It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.

Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God's unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. 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. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation. [The Baptist Faith and Message]

Am I the only one disturbed from the segue from "the family" to "sexual expression" to "submission"?  If family the forum for Christian sexual expression, and wives are supposed to submit to men on "family" matters...

Marie Griffith and Paul Harvey wrote approvingly of the SBC family resolution in 1998. Their article in Christian Century Magazine notes that SBC's changes were even more radical than the views espoused by leading Christian conservative groups at the time:

The SBC's concern about gender roles is not unlike that displayed by such organizations as the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the Promise Keepers. But the unequivocal proclamation on wifely submission moves the denomination well beyond the ambiguous and frequently conflicting statements on marital relationships made by these other groups.

Griffith and Harvey explain that "submission" in modern-day America doesn't mean that wives must unquestioningly obey orders from their husbands at all time. They reassure us that wives are still allowed to make suggestions and manipulate their husbands into giving them their way:

The meaning of "submission," of course, has changed significantly over time, despite the convention's claim that its resolution exalts the "unchanging Christ." Even among religious conservatives the word does not suggest blind obedience so much as pliant cooperation and acceptance of familial obligations. Research by sociologists, historians and ethnographers has dearly shown that the language of female submission in recent U.S. history has often been intertwined with the language of egalitarianism and, more important, that many women and men who claim to believe in female submission do not actually practice that belief with the literalness that outsiders might suppose.

In most everyday cases, the doctrine of submission entails consulting one's husband in areas that affect the family; it does not prevent attempts at persuasion, influence or even outright manipulation. Such techniques allow women who lack certain forms of social power or authority to get what they want without, it is hoped, seeming overly aggressive, unfeminine or "feminist." While such methods are not directly advocated by the doctrine's supporters, Southern Baptists and everyone else know that they go on all the time in real life.

Huckabee's dodge about mutual submission doesn't fit the SBC code that he endorsed.

If a wife's relationship to her husband is analogous to a man's relationship to God, it seems that "gracious submission" can't be mutual. After all, godfearing Baptist men aren't told to offer advice to God, nor manipulate the Almighty to get their own way. They're just supposed to accept that God knows best, even if His dictates seem ridiculous.

For example, Mike Huckabee's God tells him that he's not a primate, and Huck doesn't give the Good Lord any guff.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Huckabee calls for wifely submission:


Ah yes, you were the one who assumed I found myself to be "in a hole."

You're forgiven your assumptions there. No need to apologize for misinterpreting my remarks, Ben.

Speak plain English all the time and knock it off with the coded messages.

Again, it's the plain biblical text.
Many denominations speak straight from the text, and thus understanding the text IS important.

Thank you for providing me with my first LOL for the day. Nothing more plain than the bible! No contradictions, no room for differing interpretations. Why are there even different denominations?

What translation of the bible do you think provides the most plainness and clarity? Perhaps the Greek of the first written form of the New Testament? I recall that in a religion class I took in college we had to write a paper on one Greek word - its definition, nuances, etc. Plain biblical text. Of course (thunking my head), why didn't I think of that?

They're not about to rewrite the bible just so some of you feel more comfortable, in order to seek your votes. And why should we have to compensate for the younger generation's biblical ignorance, even on a cultural basis?

Who's asking you to? Missing the point again. Once more into the breach dear friends!

No one has barred to door to your church, right? No one has attempted to ban your bible (or the particular re-write of it that you prefer). Many of the rest of us do not want your (or anyone else's) religious tract to become public policy and/or in any way rammed down our throats. You do not advocate that? Wonderful. But Ms. Bayerstein's initial post related specifically to Huckabee and the SBC. Do try to keep up. They're the ones with the theocratic agenda. It's not about seeking votes as much as about maintaining the separation of church and state. Or not.

As for rewriting the bible - it's happened more times than most people can count. Every time someone translates it from one language to another you have mortal men (not women until recently) applying boatloads of interpretation to create another rewrite. And the initial written form in Greek is a product of the Council of Nicea where men (not women) decided what to put in and what to leave out. They worked from about 4,500 fragments of the 4 gospels. But I digress.

I realize no one will re-write the bible to suit me, and as I said, no one asked for that. But if someone were to rewrite the bible I would really like some clarification on the matter of the giant frogs that are going to eat my face off after the rapture begins (Revelation 16:13). Why frogs and not giant mallards? I'm sure that an omnipotent God could whip up some giant mallards just as easily as giant frogs. If you rewrite Revelations and you ask nicely wouldn't God do mallards? After all, I'm the one getting his face eaten so why can't I have a say in the kind of beast that will do the deed? On second thought, I would prefer that an Orangutan bonk me over the head with a blunt object. Would that be possible? Just curious. It never hurts to ask, does it? (Am I going to get smited for this? I'm going to get smited, aren't I?).

Mary (or Hank, I don't care) please keep those laughs coming.

Hey Dock, you don't have to come to this thread if you don't like it.


Actually Mary, if you reread your own writing, you said that I was the one who was angry. You inferred I was having a tough day, as well. That was your fantasy for why, in your fevered mind, I was angry. Not that there's anything wrong with being angry.

And Mary - when Xian attitudes held sway, women didn't have the right to vote. And I certainly don't respect a god who would send his son to die for our sins (talk about submission!!!) Like I wrote, that's rather S&M - if someone told me they wanted to die for my sins, I would say, "please don't."

Don't assume, Mary, that none of us are Xians. I, myself, used to be an Xian, every bit as fervent as you. And I think I'm way more well versed in both testaments than you are, Mary.

Mary, your either/or Bratz vs Xianity meme (sound of Mary furiously googling the term meme) is what's called a false dichotomy. And you have the nerve to
complain about our analytic skills. Sad, Mary, sad.

As for your saying we are all "old testament" that's antisemitic. Again, I repeat, Jesus, the Jew, said he came to fulfill the Leviticus, not replace it. (the sound of "Mary" furiously googleing Leviticus.) As you are a lawyer, Mary, I feel obliged to have to inform you that the translation for Leviticus in English is LAW.

Now I'm going to ask you once again, Mary, if you really are a lawyer, which I'm doubting, what Law School did you graduate from, and am I right in guessing you went to Jerry Falwell's law school? Darling Mary, it's not that I think that Xian women aren't educated, it's that I don't believe you really are an educated Xian woman. You have proffered no evidence, only counter evidence.

Oh, and Mary, one doesn't "submit" a resume; if one is smart, on "proffers" a resume. (The sound of Mary furiously googling the meaning of the word proffer.)

Sad - you forgot to tell Mary that King James, of the King James version of the bible he/she holds so dear, was gayer than Christmas!

First the anger thing. Yes, when Christian fundamentalists and their fellow travelers pervert public policy, e.g. with respect to who gets to marry whom, how science is taught and funded, and in forcing blind, reflexive support for the most radically reactionary factions in Israeli politics, inter alia, I get peeved. I’m not a believer, so I can’t just relax and pray and persuade myself that God will make everything hunky-dory in the end.

Second, biology. For the half million years or so that Homo sapiens has been around, the “family” has usually been a small cluster of people that raise children communally and mostly practice some form of serial monogamy. The business of one man and one woman pairing off for a lifetime to raise children that are exclusively theirs’ hasn’t exactly been the norm ever. Different animals have different life histories. Other than some humans, the only primates that form long-term male female bonds to raise their own offspring together are marmosets and tamarins, and that may have more to do with their unique developmental genetics. Hamadryas baboons practice child abduction, many other primates live in groups in which females compete to copulate with dominant males, bonobos live a life-long fuck fest, and chimpanzees’ sex habits are curiously like our own excepting the males take no part in raising their offspring.

There are almost always exceptions and outliers among mammals in their life histories. If there weren’t, new life histories would never evolve. Generally though, life histories are like any other trait: what you observe most frequently pretty much characterizes the species. Gophers for instance are usually brown, but since they live underground, they’re not usually going to attract a predator’s attention if they’re white or black or any shade in between. And indeed, unusually colored gophers are fairly common, though as a rule gophers are brown. Same with people, as a rule they’re serially monogamous, but exceptions abound and don’t necessarily interfere with survival and/or reproduction and are in no way unnatural.

Ignore above if you think the universe is 6000 years old.

>Hey Dock, you don't have to come to this thread if you don't like it.

Hey, mudkitty, if you give serious consideration to the fact that a reasonable person could find your sprawling yapfests with Mary tedious and antisocial rather than "fun" (not to mention predictable as hell) and seriously try to cut back on them, I promise I will scroll through them without repeatedly pointing out how tedious and antisocial they are.


Clearly, you are an angry bitch.
No apologies for that one either...


I am surprised to find this silliness still going on. May I join in?
Mary, for someone who wrote,"I am not an evangelist, nor have I ever identified that way", you spend a lot of time and effort preaching the gospel to us unbelievers, with a singular lack of success.
I think your failure to persuade us has something to do with how you use the word "submission" -- in a way that is not supported by everyday usage or by any dictionary I could find online or in my home.
Over and over I found "submission" defined in terms of unquestioning obedience, or humble acceptance of authority, or acknowledgement of one's inferiority.
What's more, this is exactly what Paul requires of wives in the New Testament.
Take another look at Ephesians, Mary. Paul assigns to the husband the role of God and master, while the wife is cast as mere mortal and slave. Not much room for give-and-take there, huh?
And your claim that Christians have a significantly different definition of "submission" that they support 10-to-1 is completely unfounded. You have shown no evidence for it at all.
Thanks for a stimulating discussion, Mary, but I think it's time for you to take a hint from Jesus: "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."


So because you don't understand what they're saying and accepting, naturally they must be "wrong."

I'm just trying to convince you... that putting words in others' mouths, then concluding how ignorant they are is... wrong.

Please, don't quote Christian Scripture to me to prove your point. Why do you think you're right about... everything?

Christians have a significantly different definition of "submission" that they support 10-to-1 is completely unfounded. You have shown no evidence for it at all.

Don't be so angry. Not everything can be "proven" sadly, to those bound and determined not to see...

Say... is your r/l name... Alan? *wavin' hi*

Please, don't quote Christian Scripture to me to prove your point.

Christian quotes scripture to make point - ok.
Non-christian quotes scripture to make point - not ok.

Alright, got it.

Take another look at Ephesians, Mary. Paul assigns to the husband the role of God and master, while the wife is cast as mere mortal and slave. Not much room for give-and-take there, huh?

This is CHRISTIANITY, where Jesus (God incarnate) gave up his life for the mortals. And this is what's required of husbands.

Mary - now who's sounding angry (do you know what psychological projection is? Cuz that's what you're doing in spades.) You're the angriest person on this thread. And the most insulting. (I find that typical of Xians. They call a fellow huma a bitch, with a smiley face and a "blessings to ya." The hypocrisy of an Xian knows no logic and knows no bounds.)

And no, not everything can be proven, Mary, but you haven't proven ANYthing. Remember, extraordinary claims (such as gods exist) require extraordinary evidence.

As for the term "submission" Mary, you not only want to rewrite, and interpret the bible for the rest of us, you want to rewrite the dictionary too.


Dock, be my guest. If you want to continue to visit a thread that you, yourself, find tedious, by all means, knock yourself out.

Let's have a look at how defines the word "submit":


verb (used with object)
1. to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively).
2. to subject to some kind of treatment or influence.
3. to present for the approval, consideration, or decision of another or others: to submit a plan; to submit an application.
4. to state or urge with deference; suggest or propose (usually fol. by a clause): I submit that full proof should be required.
–verb (used without object)
5. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another: to submit to a conqueror.
6. to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment: to submit to chemotherapy.
7. to defer to another's judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I submit to your superior judgment.


[Origin: 1325–75; ME submitten < L submittere to lower, reduce, yield, equiv. to sub- sub- + mittere to send]


The one doing the submitting is invariably in a lesser, subordinate role, seeking the approval of another who holds some form of power over them. If that is what your faith requires of you, and it is your decision to live your life in that manner, fine; but to insist that all who disagree are simply misreading the scripture is disengenuous at best.

Well taijaya I was going to submit a response to your comment above, but then I realized how demeaning it would be for me to do that, so...


... she says with a smiley face...says it all, doesn't it.

Non the less, I dedicate this Tom Cruise video to Mary, since she reminds me of him. Same type of crazy.

You, I think, do not wish to understand how others think about their beliefs and these particular words...

Gee, "Mary", the same can be said about you. It's pretty evident that you have no interest in the views of anyone in this thread. You come here only to preach your gospel. It's nice that you still believe slaves and masters can have a great relationship. No one who has any historical knowledge (not fairy tales, but real life) will ever agree with you but you are free to be a wingnut.

Marriage = environment for procreation. Gays and the infertile not invited.

It was suggested above that, as the person who told "mary" to go fuck herself, it should be agreed upon that I was angry.

In a later post I explained that I was merely impatient.

But who are you going to believe? Me, or a host of rational mimics?

And is not the pun lost on everyone?!

"Mary" defends a bronze-age book of fallacies which includes in it a lame story of virgin birth also involving a person named "Mary," I subsequently tell her to "go fuck herself," and no props for the jokester?

Sheesh. Come on, people!

"The Bible" of which you speak, you know, the one that says wives must be submissive to their husbands? Uh, that was St. Paul's missive, not Christ's. Paul is one of the biggest misogynists in the New Testament. Wait. No, he's THE biggest.

"A secular Europe that sees no need for children...?" Talk about ignorant...

Oh, she knows exactly what she's talking about. This one's code for THE MUSLIM HORDES ARE OUTBREEDING US!!!! THEY WANT TO BRING BACK THE CALIPHATE!!!

To sort of get back to the topic, I'd really like to see how Huck's support goes after this. I think that the more that people start getting exposed to his actual beliefs, the more scared of him (and rightly so) they'll become.

Shrimp, corny puns are considered the lowest form of humor, but that's not to say it wasn't humorous.

Oh, she knows exactly what she's talking about. This one's code for THE MUSLIM HORDES ARE OUTBREEDING US!!!! THEY WANT TO BRING BACK THE CALIPHATE!!!

LOL, either that or they've all become Shakers.

Well, from the stuff above and Mary's comment about learning about S&M 101 as preparation to be a good Christian wifey, the only thing I can conclude that she belongs to a *very* creepy cult....

Mary, speaking as someone raised in that tradition - and who bought into it for years - it's a load of horseshit. Being dominated by a godly husband/father who thinks he knows better than you and rules your life and punishes you out of "love" for you is not a recipe for happiness, as the many runaways, suicide attempts, drug/alcohol abuse and worse in those big "happy" Catholic families like ours - which everyone thought were so "happy'n'holy" from outside - demonstrate.

But of course your mindless absolutism won't allow you to allow that, any more than mine would before I stopped shutting my eyes, ears and mind to the cognitive dissonance around me, and saw that *real* respect wasn't compatible with a "divinely-ordained" subordination of women.

And I taught CCD for years, and did a mandatory 4-years of theology at a Christian college, so don't tell me I don't know what the Bible says. In fact, it was teaching it, and trying to prove to my students that no, the Church *wasn't* sexist, that forced me to confront the sexism that I was trying to deny, the more Patristics and exegesis I read, the less I could avoid the truth.

The comments to this entry are closed.