A submissive (or raging?) Bachmann

In case you missed the debate in Iowa last night, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was asked if she would be submissive to her husband.

The question wasn't completely out of left field, since Bachmann mentioned it at a gathering in 2006 when she said she initially hated her husband's idea of studying a degree in tax law. "But the Lord said, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husband," she said. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York asked a question about wifely submission that was quickly booed by the audience.

It's amusing that the egalitarian/complimentarian debates (whether husband and wife more equal in their roles or whether men play a larger role in leadership) are coming up in the presidential election; maybe tomorrow we'll be asking them about their views on eschatology. For instance, if you watch this CNN clip, you'll see the anchor grasping for another interpretations of Ephesians 5:24.

Although I didn't see the question as sexist or completely irrelevant since she did mention it in the past, I hope that her response ("what submission means to us, if that's what your question is, is respect") settles it and we can move on from these kinds of questions to other issues.

The media sexism question came up earlier this week when we saw the Newsweek cover "The Queen of Rage," which provided the art for this post. I'm not going to cry liberal media, but please do check out the previous covers of Sarah Palin and Newsweek head Tina Brown's string of women on the covers (and you thought the Princess Diana cover was odd).

Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post thinks Bachmann needs to get her image under control. "It’s as if someone is dangling a treat (or maybe it’s a line of Scripture) to get her to look at the camera the way a photographer tries to get a kid to focus on class picture day." Yeah, get on that, guys. Brown defends the photo and Bachmann has mostly ignored it.

There really isn't much to talk about the actual Newsweek profile from a GetReligion perspective, except that the magazine attempts to sell the issue with the religiously oriented deck "Michele Bachmann on God, the tea party, and the evils of government." Sadly, the article hardly touches on her faith and we don't learn anything new.

One of the funniest articles this week about Bachmann and faith came from the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Michele Bachmann woos Iowa Christians, attends anti-gay service."

Handing more ammunition to detractors who say Rep. Michele Bachmann has an aggressive anti-gay agenda, the GOP presidential candidate attended a church service in Iowa on Sunday in which the pastor labeled homosexuality "immoral" and "unnatural."

According to NBC News, Bachmann attended a non-denominational church near Des Moines along with her husband Marcus. She was holding her personal copy of the Bible.

A reader sent me this sarcastic message: "What business does a church have talking about what the Bible teaches about sexual ethics??" Are we really surprised by any of this or think it's worth a news story? Also, there's a slight distinction here that perhaps reporter James Oliphant should consider. The pastor said, "We inherently know that homosexual behavior is immoral and unnatural." He did not say the same about homosexuality. While these views may not be shared with the broader culture, they aren't terribly unusual in this context.

Overall, while the media does need to do some scrutinizing and explaining of Bachmann's beliefs and influences, we're seeing some pretty embarrassing coverage so far of her faith and beliefs so far.

Please respect our Commenting Policy