The question posed in the headline has a surprising answer. At least by analogy, Michele Bachmann thinks that if the American people will put their unquestioning faith in her, she will be Jonathan, a figure from the biblical Book of Samuel.
Please, let me hasten to reiterate. I am not saying that Bachmann suffers from a literal delusion that she is the biblical Jonathan. Only that she is inspired by Jonathan and believes that, if the American people will play the role of Jonathan’s very trusting armor bearer, and will make her president, and will put their unquestioning faith in her, she can lead them to great victories over their problems of today, just as Jonathan led the Israelites over the Philistines in the second millennium BCE.
The troubling thing about the analogy — if you take it seriously enough to be troubled by it — is that Jonathan didn’t have a real plan for defeating the Philistines. As the Bible portrays the incident, Jonathan apparently had a feeling or a message of some kind from God that if he would just throw himself at the Philistines, God would provide a miraculous victory of one soldier (and one armor bearer) over an entire army.
Jonathan’s servant, his armor bearer in the story, representing the American people in Bachmann’s analogy, agreed to follow Jonathan. And, although it would be crazy for two men to attack an entire army unless they were confident of divine intervention, it worked out for Jonathan and the armor bearer, according to the Bible, presumably because of divine intervention. By drawing the analogy, Bachmann suggests that a similar leap of faith will work out for the American people if they will unquestioningly follow Bachmann into battle against the problems that beset them, even though the battle plan, like Jonathan’s, is long on faith and a little short on concrete earthly details.
Bachmann laid out this analogy at the RightOnline conference in Minneapolis (which happens to be the most recent occasion on which I covered her live).
At the time, I thought it was fairly strange, at a fundamentally secular event and in the last minutes of a fundamentally secular speech, for Bachmann to launch into a Bible story. We’re not talking a passing reference to a Bible story. No. This was a thorough telling of this relatively obscure tale, which occupied the last five minutes of her presentation, with a final segue into her appeal for support of her presidential candidacy. But in that appeal for support, Bachmann embraced the analogy that made the Jonathan story relevant.
Here’s a superquick summary of the tale, which occurs in the 1st Book of Samuel (and below I’ll append the whole transcript of Bachmann’s telling of it):
It was the time of King Saul, the first king of ancient Israel. King Saul’s army faced Israel’s Philistine enemy. The Philistines had the bigger army, the better equipment and the high ground. King Saul was (quite rationally) intimidated. Saul dithered. (I’m thinking, although Bachmann didn’t make this clear, that in her telling King Saul might represent President Obama, dithering in the face America’s many problems.)
But Saul’s son Jonathan wasn’t afraid and didn’t dither. He said to his armor bearer: let’s attack the Philistines, just the two of us. And the armor bearer said righty-o. I will follow you. And Jonathan set up a little signal that God should give him if God really wanted him to attack. And the signal was given. And Jonathan and the armor-bearer (he is never named in the Bible) attacked and, sure enough, they defeated an entire Philistine army.
Bachmann and me
I often covered Bachmann during her first race for Congress and during the following period. Bachmann often wears her religion on her sleeve. She has publicly called herself a “fool for Christ,” and has claimed to have received direct guidance from God in making major life decisions, including her decision to run for Congress in 2006. Her political success has relied fairly heavily on her appeal to evangelical Christians and there is a legitimate question of how far she can expand her support.
As a secular fellow, an agnostic Jew, I confess this stuff makes me uncomfortable but I have never mocked her religiosity and do not do so now. I support the First Amendment, including its protection of religious freedom. But if Congresswoman Bachmann is a serious contender for the presidency, it’s fair to seek understanding of how her religion affects her thinking and decision-making.
Bachmann’s 30-minute presentation at RightOnline was mostly quite secular. She wants to make Obama a One – Term – President, repeal Obamacare, do away with the entire tax code and make the spending cuts necessary so that the debt ceiling will never have to be raised again. Right at the end, after (inaccurately) asserting that President Obama was trying to force Israel to restore the 1967 borders (she called this one of the most irresponsible things Obama has done), and after asserting to big applause “I want you to know: I stand with Israel,” Bachmann unexpectedly used the Israel reference to slide into the Bible story set in ancient Israel.
She related the story in a different tone of voice — a little sing-songy, a little unctuous — that I have heard her use often when moving from secular to religious matters. If you watch the tape you’ll hear what I mean.
I was taken aback. At first, I just figured it was part of her deal to work some Bible talk into every occasion, maybe one of those dog whistles that you hear about that send a different message to her more religious followers than they send to the rest of us. And I didn’t, at first, attach much importance to the particular story she told, although after googling around on it I now realize it’s a story she has told on other recent occasions.
And here’s what she said:
“I want to call to mind in remembrance a hero of mine. And he’s from ancient Israel. And from history we know, in the recorded annals of time, that this was someone considered more inconsequential, but to me he had an inspiring, powerful story.
“His name was Jonathan. And it was in ancient Israel. His father was king. He was the first king of ancient Israel and his name was King Saul.
“And there was another battle that Israel faced. And that battle was with a group of people called the Philistines. And the Philistines had a position of power. And they were up on a cliff during the time of this battle.
“King Saul looked up on the cliff and he saw that the Philistines far outnumbered the Israelites. And that they were far better equipped and had every possible advantage that they could have against Israel. And so the king pulled back. And the king saw that because of the great advantage that the Philistines had, he waited. He was paralyzed with fear. And he saw certain defeat for Israel.
“But not so his son Jonathan. Jonathan made a secret pact with his armor bearer. And Jonathan turned to his armor bearer. And as he enlisted that support, he turned to that armor bearer. ‘Let’s climb to the top of the outpost where the Philistines stand.’
“And so Jonathan turned to his compatriot, the armor bearer, and he said these words: ‘Come then, we will cross over toward the men and let them see us. If they say to us: “Wait there until we come to you,” we will stay and not go up to them. But if they say “Come up to us,” we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the Lord has given them into our hands.’
“So what did the armor bearer reply? The reply of the armor bearer was one of loyalty and trust. And the armor bearer said this: ‘Go ahead, I am with you, heart and soul.’ And so they climbed.
“And Jonathan and the armor bearer not only defeated the Philistines who were at the outpost, Jonathan and the armor bearer defeated the entire Philistine army.”
Here is where Bachmann explains how the story applies to her candidacy
“It’s all because two men had courage. And they scaled the cliffs. And they took the enemy. And they won the day.
“And it’s my opinion that at this moment in American history, the people of this great nation have that courage and they are longing for a president who will listen to them, and who will lead from the front and not from behind, and who will stand with them and take the cliffs of the problems that we have in this country today
“Because the American people know in their spirit that we can do this. That together we can do this and we can turn this country around. And I am here to ask you today, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, if you are ready.
“Because I want you to know, I’m ready. I’m ready. Will you be with me? Will you do this? Can we go together and scale the heights. I know we can. Together we can do this. Together we can. And together we will. God bless you all. God bless the United States of America.”
At this point, the sound system blared out with “Stars and Stripes Forever” as Bachmann received a raucous ovation.
If you would like to view Bachmann’s entire 30-minute RightOnline presentation, it’s here.
The embedded clip below is only the last 10 minutes or so of the talk and the transition into the Bible story occurs around the 6:40 mark.
A little shaky in her biblical understanding:
(quote)
Jonathan, in Hebrew pronounced yo-naw-thawn, from yeh-ho-naw-thawn, meaning Jehovah-given, was the eldest son of King Saul, and the best friend of the future King David. Jonathan is first mentioned in Bible History after his father’s accession as Israel’s first human king (1 Samuel 13:1-2).
Jonathan was an intelligent and courageous defender of Israel. He led 1,000 men in defeating the Philistines at Gibeah (1 Samuel 13:2-3), along with his armor bearer killed 20 enemy troops in a single ambush (1 Samuel 14:13-14), and was a marksman in archery and slinging. If Saul hadn’t had himself disqualified as king, Jonathan would have been king of Israel instead of David.
Although Jonathan was fiercely loyal to his father, they gradually grew apart because of Saul’s increasingly foolish and erratic behavior. Saul’s command to have Jonathan killed for eating honey after he won a major battle, which would have been carried out if the troops hadn’t refused the order (1 Samuel 14:27-46), and Saul’s repeated attempts to kill David, who Jonathan knew would become Israel’s next king (1 Samuel 23:16-18), caused much alienation between them. In the end, Jonathan became a supporter and ally of David (1 Samuel 20:1-42), while steadfastly remaining at his father’s side (1 Samuel 20:42).
The end came for Saul and Jonathan in battle against the Philistines:
“Now the Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines, and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. And the Philistines overtook Saul and his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchishua, the sons of Saul. The battle pressed hard upon Saul, and the archers found him; and he was badly wounded by the archers. Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and make sport of me.” But his armor-bearer would not; for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword, and fell upon it. And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword, and died with him. Thus Saul died, and his three sons, and his armor-bearer, and all his men, on the same day together.” (1 Samuel 31:1-6 RSV)
(end quote)
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000521.htm
Isn’t it blasphemy to distort the Bible for your own purposes?
Bachmann has used her religiosity and her religion to promote herself in the political arena which makes both her actual beliefs and her sincerity in believing them fair subjects of investigation, comment and debate.
My question is not who does not Bachmann think she is; it’s who does Bachmann think the enemy is? It should be clear now that Bachmann believes many Americans are the enemy, especially liberals or progressives, i.e. those who disagree with her and reject her embrace of theocracy and Dominionism. She’s speaking to people whom she presumes are open to this kind of rhetoric. I’m certain many of them are. The stories of Jonathan and David in the Bible are stories about faith and moving mountains. I get that. The stories of Daniel, Esther and Jonah are among many of people who, facing overwhelming odds against them, put their faith in God and prevailed. But Bachmann’s entreaty to the rabid right-wingers to follow her into battle against the “enemy”, liberals and progressives who are the Philistines, are just another example of Bachmann’s divisiveness. The very thing that disqualifies her as a leader.
And that’s the attitude that got us into Iraq and Pashtunistan.
Did Jonathan first have to get permission from his spouse?
I won’t bother to comment on Eric’s latest stab at Bachmann, it’s not any more insightful than anything any of her legion of obsessed, leftist antagonists have been churning out for years.
Instead, I’d like to know who Eric Black thinks he is.
“Bachmann and Me”? Really, Eric?
Have you ever had anything more substantive than a thirty second confrontation with her? Even her most dedicated DumpsterDiving stalkers don’t presume that sort of familiarity with her, and they’ve sifted through her trash cans!
Instead of wasting time writing smarmy volumes of inchoate delusions, which accomplish nothing more than illustrate the left’s phobia with religious faith and ignorance of religiously faithful people, I suggest the leftists’ time be better spent understanding their own irrational fears and twisted morality.
Speaking as a progressive on the left, I have no phobia for religion. Baptized, raised and confirmed as a Protestant, I have no fear of the Bible, religion or faith. I continue to practice my faith daily.
However, what I do object to is people like you who mock even the idea that people on the left are people of faith. While what Michelle Bachmann speaks to as her faith, doesn’t match up with mine, it does not make me a person without faith nor does it make my friends and relatives on the left people without faith. So instead of painting with broad strokes of cynicism a huge part of out nations population, let’s just stick to discussing the specific issues. Was Michelle Bachmann qualified to become the President of the United States? The voters determined she was not.
Neal and Jon Erik both make relevant points, well-taken.
Distorting religion to suit your own purposes is, indeed, blasphemy, though historically, it’s been done almost from the time of the first recorded religious ceremony.
Jon’s rhetorical question is similarly on-point. Who, exactly, is the “enemy” from which she proposes to save us? What hostile foreign power requires divine intervention on our behalf?
Mrs. Bachmann appears to be a firm believer in the Puritan concept of “the Elect,” an idea that carries with it a whole catalog of political and social prejudices and attitudes, of which sanctimoniousness is merely one of the more annoying.
The founders of this country had very, very good reasons for building a firm separation of church and state into the Constitution, and for incorporating the “establishment” clause into the First Amendment.
Very recent history showed them in the 18th century, and shows us in the 21st, that we should never, ever, trust a religious zealot.
MB needs to speak to her speech coach about her persistent use of “and” to begin sentences.
I’d describe her inflection as that one might use teaching children at Sunday school.
I believe Mr. Swift’s felicitous phrase, “inchoate delusions” applies more appropriately to Mrs. Bachmann–after all, she is the one who presents an extended version of a distorted parable in support of her delusions of persecution and embattlement.
Don’t lecture anyone on faith–especially when you have a dubious grasp of the fundamental text of your faith.
Who is your enemy? Shouldn’t you turn the other cheek?
…and thank you, Mr. Swift, for providing us with your own examples of irrational fear and twisted morality.
It’s not ignorance that makes reasonable people suspicious of those who claim to know God’s will.
It’s history.
If Bachmann thinks she’s Jonathan-in-drag, she needs a flashier wardrobe…or an old fashioned revival tent to peddle her message. So what’s she still doing in politics? She’s over, kaput; washed out on the campaign trail. She doesn’t entertain the media even anymore. She isn’t fun to watch in these serious times. She only fools herself and even then…
I have always found interesting the passage from I Samuel 17:57-18:4 which tells of what happened when David was brought before King Saul after having killed Goliath, the “giant”:
“On David’s return from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul, with the head of the Philistine in his hand. Saul said to him, ‘Whose son are you, young man?’ And David answered, ‘I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.’
When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.”
Although this passage about Jonathan and David might glide right by folks such as Ms. Bachmann, unnoticed and seemingly insignificant,…
to my gay friends, it sounds like love at first sight. This seems especially likely since subsequent passage make it clear that Jonathan was willing to sacrifice almost anything to protect David, even to the extent of risking his right to be king after Saul’s death.
Later in the same narrative, David and Jonathan make a covenant by which Jonathan promises to protect David from his father, King Saul, who is seeking to kill him. In sealing that covenant, Jonathan asks David to swear, not on any of the usual things, but on his love for Jonathan”
“Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life.” [I Samuel 18:17]
Later, when it becomes clear that David must flee, for Saul, indeed, intends to kill him, and will not be turned aside from that intent, we have this scene of tenderness and grief from I Samuel 18:41b:
“David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the LORD, saying, ‘The LORD shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.”
It almost strikes me as “Freudian” that Ms. Bachmann would chose to identify herself with a man who strikes many people, myself included, to have been deeply in love with another man, a man who loved him so much that he protected his life even at the risk of his own right to become king of Israel.
To mr swift, it’s not surprising that left wing commentators may have distorted opinions about Bachmann (of course you personally know her quite well). I have never read an interview of her with someone who didn’t totally agree with her and only lobbed softball questions at her. It would seem that she has something to hide which is probably a fundamental ability to reason with the mind that God gave her. But, oh yeah, that’s an evangelical position, that you are supposed to ignore the evidence of your senses and your reason and rely totally on faith believing the most nonsensical of tales.
“It almost strikes me as “Freudian” that Ms. Bachmann would chose to identify herself with a man who strikes many people, myself included, to have been deeply in love with another man, a man who loved him so much that he protected his life even at the risk of his own right to become king of Israel.”
Greg, have you come to the point where you naturally assume that deep feelings between men *must* include sodomy in consequence?
That is really, really sad.
Some hero, he got passed over to be the next national leader.
Upon hearing of the death of Jonathan and Saul, David composed his famous “How The Mighty Have Fallen” lament, that closes:
“How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! “Jonathan lies slain upon thy high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
“How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!” (2 Samuel 1:19-27 RSV)
Hmmm….
“passing the love of women”?
I’m with Thomas: it’s downright funny that Bachmann chooses to analogize herself with a character that many biblical scholars consider to have been gay: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2011/09/12/the-funny-thing-about-michele-bachmann-and-jonathan/
#5
Irrational fears? Really? Says the guy who fears Muslims, Gays, Cloud Spooks and other gods, loss of the 2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, and a world powered by anything other than fossil fuels.
She knows she doesn’t have the brains, talent or leadership needed to be President so it must either be her looks or Divine Intervention.
She’s said openly that God told her to run so it wasn’t her looks.
Unfortunately, He didn’t tell her she would BE the next President –only to run. God can be cruel like that sometimes.
She preaches a doctrinaire form of Republicanism that appeals to party activists. Sensible Republicans, assuming there are some left, will know Bachmann is unelectable nationally. No doubt Obama is cheering her on.
The Philistines were certainly a beleaguered bunch. As I recall, Samson slew them with the jawbone of an ass. Just sayin’.
Ah, what the heck, the day ‘draweth nye’, or something like that; and in a conciliatory mood…
Bachmann may have lost too many of her armor bearers lately, but she still has the “jaw bone of an ass” as the above commentator so noted…
Biblical scholars and scoundrels make strange bedfellows indeed…
Interesting that Mr. Swift would leap from love to sodomy. At no point did Mr. Kapphahn mention sex, though Mr. Rovick’s quotation might have raised such an inference.
Queen Sisyphus
Another item for a top ten list.
hahaha!
good one, Beryl.
(#20)
Five stars & thumbs up just for using the word “unctuous”.
Another winner from Eric Black. Although Bachmann has become a buffoon and is a pretty easy target.
I can’t resist adding another telling Biblical quote, this one, regarding “sodomy” from the prophet Ezekiel who was a bit closer to the original events than we are today (here, criticizing the leadership of Judea in his own day)
“As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” [Ezekiel 15:48-49]
By this definition, we might almost assume that a certain political party is filled to overflowing with “sodomites.”
It would certainly seem that, at least in the eyes of Ezekiel, as recorded in the Bible itself, the sin that caused Sodom to be burned to a crisp didn’t have anything to do with sex, either.
“Who does Michele Bachmann think she is?”
I think the better question is; Why does Eric Black care so much about who Michele Bachmann thinks she is?
Wacko U.S. Representatives have always run for President. Can you say Kucinich?
This obsession with “Bachmann and Me” is getting kind of creepy.
Greg, I’m guessing you missed this part:
“And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.”
because the entire passage is actually contained in Ezekiel 16:48-50.
Did someone say something about not lecturing when you have a dubious grasp of the fundamental text?
@#27
Yes, they were selfish, self-centered, and they committed rape of angels. THAT was why God smote the Sodomites. But it is clear that each of those things is a separate sin, not requiring the rape of angels to complete the blackness of their souls.
In this day and age, with the absence of angels on which to commit rape, a good number of people commit the other sins of Sodom in the name of God and country, including Ms. Bachmann.
Whatever else we might take away from the Bible, the greatest message (and the one most often ignored by those who profess to live by it) is the message of love, compassion, and humility. Human decency, in the absence of religion, also includes these things. It seems natural, then, that decent people believe in these things. And ironic that Ms. Bachmann, an outspoken “Christian”, does not.
Comment #7 James H wrote: “MB needs to speak to her speech coach about her persistent use of “and” to begin sentences.”
I hadn’t noticed either way but on the subject of “speech coaches” Hillary Clinton seems a very slow “learner”. On the WCCO-TV noon news Hillary was commenting on the latest developments with the Iran hikers.
In a comments that lasted less than a minute Hillary hesitated with a “a” or “ahh” or “umm” a minimum of half a dozen times!
Ahhh, in everyday ummm dealings with ahhh people there is a ummm tendency to ahh, umm not have confidence in ummm someone ahhh hesitates ummm, a lot while ummm speaking.
Maybe I’m misreading all the comments but it seems you all don’t care much for Ms Bachmann. How smart you all must feel. The country is going down the tanks and you put your energy into making a clown of this woman. Yes, you guys do it…not her. Wouldn’t President Obama be an easier target? Job Bill? Yea, right. Another stimulus pkg is more accurate…that won’t work AGAIN.
Tom, you seem to believe that what you call “sodomy” is the only “abomination” listed in the “Mosaic laws.” You’re wrong about that. There are MANY abominations, including a summary statement at the end of the dietary rules (kosher rules).
That cheeseburger you ate yesterday, or shrimp or lobster or clams or pork, makes you guilty of an “abomination” at the same level as those men who lie with other other men “as with a woman.”
But of course you avoid being guilty of any of the multiple abominations spelled out in the Mosaic law by scrupulously following EVERY tenet contained therein, don’t you?
If not, you make yourself a hypocrite of the first order.
Greg–
I think Tom uses a different translation….
Perhaps Tom is working from an inferior translation (such as one of the 17 revisions of the original King James, which, although often poetically beautiful, are based on inferior sources and translate even those sources quite poorly) or one of the even more inferior “paraphrases” or other simplified versions.
In my references to the Mosaic Law, I’m working from the original Hebrew.
Or possibly, like some of the politicians he favors, he’s receiving the word directly from G_d.
Why does she say “U-nine-ed States?”
When she obviously means ‘the Untied States’.
“…you put your energy into making a clown of this woman…”
Um, #32, no one here did that–she did that all on her own.