Candice Cameron Bure
For anyone who is not familiar with Candice Cameron Bure’s name, she is a former, Full House, (1987-1995) TV show star.
Candice, 38, played the role of D.J. Tanner, the eldest daughter on the show. She is also the younger sister of actor Kirk Cameron, who rose to fame playing the role of the older brother, Mike Seaver, in Growing Pains (1985-1992) TV show.
-
- Kirk Cameron as Mike Seaver in Growing Pains
-
- Candice Cameron as D. J. Tanner in Full House
Since most Christian children, living in this secularized world, are left without anyone that they can truly look up to, as a good, public, role model, it is nice to know that Candice, and her brother Kirk, 44, are leading lives that all Christians can truly admire.
Most people are well aware of Kirk Cameron’s story.
Kirk Cameron
In 1986, at the age of 16, Kirk considered himself an atheist, at 17 he became a born-again Christian. He is, to this very day, an outspoken advocate for Christianity and the Christian way of life. His adult life has been defined by his love of God and, his film and lecturing career, has reflected those same priorities.
Kirk has done multiple movies about the Rapture and has worked with the Christian-themed production company, Cloud Ten Pictures. He has also collaborated with Sherwood Pictures, which has produced four excellent faith-based movies, including Fireproof, in which Cameron was the star. Fireproof was the highest grossing independent film of 2008.
The creation of Sherwood Pictures is another inspiring Christian story. It was established in 2002, by Associate Pastor Alex Kendrick (media director), at the Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia.
Kendrick said he wanted to make movies in order to change the perception of movies in the main stream media. He felt there just weren’t enough movies that represented Christian men accurately. He has more than accomplished that task.
If you haven’t seen Alex’s (lead actor in their movies, director, writer and producer) and his brother Stephen’s (director, writer, producer and actor) four movies (Flywheel (2003), Facing the Giants (2006), Fireproof (2008) and Courageous (2011), you have missed a wonderful evening’s entertainment. All four are “must sees.” They are all thought-provoking, inspiring and refreshing experiences to watch!
Candice and Valeri Bure and their Children
Returning to our admirable woman, Candice Cameron Bure, she is, like her brother, a devote Christian, having come to the Christian faith in her 20s.
Candice has been married to former National Hockey League player Valeri Bure for 19 years. (In Hollywood, that’s a miracle in and of itself.) Valeri is Russian and they have three children, a girl and two boys, Natasha (16), Lev (14) and Maksim (12).
Last year, Candice created a media firestorm when she mentioned the word “submissive”, in order to describe her relationship with her husband. The word is routinely mentioned in the Bible, when referring to the ideal relationship of a wife to her husband.
But, in this secularized world, Candice had a lot of explaining to do, to get her critics, in the non-Christian, secularized world of entertainment, to understand that there was nothing “slavish” or “domineering” about the term. It simply meant that she defers to her husband’s decisions on certain matters, just as he defers to her, on other matters.
Candice and Valeri Bure
Mrs. Bure says this scenario routinely occurs at home because she trusts her husband’s experience in areas where she is not as knowledgeable. In other words, she loves him, and he loves her, and they contribute to their marriage as best as each of them can.
More recently, Candice said, “I want my husband to lead.” This too created another non-Christian, secular, media blitz. Again, she explained that the concept is from the Bible. She says that someone has to lead in a marriage and that she has no interest in becoming the “ruler” in her home.
This is especially true, now that she has returned to acting, after an extended hiatus to raise her children. She knows her husband Valeri, who is now retired from professional hockey and runs their vineyard and wine business, has his family’s best interest at heart and will make the best decisions for all of them. For Candice, his taking responsibility for his family’s future, is a great relief.
Candice believes the yin and yang, of a Christian married couple, creates a harmonious home for her children. As Christian parents they refuse to fight in front of their children, believing this just causes undo stress for the children. If there is a contentious issue that arises, they wait to discuss it, quietly, in private.
The Holy Bible
Candice is truly an admirable woman, who has chosen to love and support her family in any way she can. As a Christian women she has learned that there are certain parameters that work best when you are married and have children.
And, as a good Christian mother, who knows her Scripture, she is teaching those same values to her children and thereby becoming an excellent role model for her children, and the world, to admire too.
May Candice Cameron Bure, her loving husband Valeri and her blessed children, continue to find peace and harmony in God’s love and His protective laws.
It's the Women, Not the Men! 
She threw back the shutters and shivered as gooseprickles rose along her arms. There
http://etozapretnoe.ru/page_10504.html
“To be sure, Your Grace. One king might die by chance, even two . . . but three? if
LikeLike
Your point?
LikeLike
Here is an article that I thought you would like to read:
“Mothers: Witnesses to Sacrifice”
LikeLike
Thank you for the link. Very interesting viewpoint. And, I agree, we are losing our battle with evil through radical, second and third-wave “mothers.” How sick is that?
There may be a glimmer of hope for the future. Leonard has said that her 2 teen age sons were embarrassed that their mother wrote dirty books. Maybe they will prevail in their views, as opposed to their mother.
LikeLike
I love this. The submission and leading terms often send the wrong message. If all marriages would simply live by these commands from God, I’m certain they might even last.
LikeLike
You are absolutely correct.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with Jamie. I don’t think having your husband take the lead, leads to a better, more fulfilling life. When your needs are second to your husband and he is the end-all-be-all for how you raise your kids, you lose sight of possibly better alternatives. But I’m a feminist, so of course I disagree.
LikeLike
Your approach will lead to heartache. If you don’t trust the man you are going to marry, enough to let him lead, you should not marry him. Read my post, “Short Essay – Why Would Any Woman Want to Marry a Wimp?”
LikeLike
Your logic is flawed. Egalitarian relationships do not constitute a marriage to a wimp.
LikeLike
Egalitarianism is defined by mediocrity. “We are all the same.” That is hardly an approach that allows each spouse to contribute their best to the marriage. Despite what radical feminism espouses, men and women, are not alike or interchangable. They each have unique gifts that cannot be duplicated by the other spouse just because some radical, second-wave Women’s Studies professor says they can be.
LikeLike
Hahahah okay red pill lady.
LikeLike
Give me the bottle! Before you totally jump ofc the cliff, ask yourself where you think your contentious attitude will find you at 60? Better yet, read my post, “Short Essay – Being Single, Sidelined and 60 Sucks!” I hope you’ll reconsided your choice of a feminist lifestyle because its nothing more than a crap-filled, PC BS ideology, that eats its young.
LikeLike
Yes, because subservience, not empowerment, is so much better!
LikeLike
Do you know how radical third-wave feminism defines female empowerment? Basically, they want you to be a whore. Your are drowning in feminist rot and you don’t even realize it. It will be the death of you! Read my post, “Current EVEntS – Beyonce Bouys the “Bitchy Bimbo” Brainchild, of Bonehead Battleaxes, with her Bouncing Butt”, to see what a snarky joke feminist “empowerment” really is. Get out while you are still young enough to find happiness because you will just remain angry, and defensive, as long as you remain a “feminist.”
LikeLike
I don’t think the alternative is to be in battle mode, one other alternative is called egalitarianism where both husband and wife are co-leaders that take turns making decisions according to the model of mutual submission. It is not ‘he leads and she follows’ but ‘they walk together side by side’
LikeLike
That can still cause a lot of problems. Who’s got the responsibility for what? If those decisions were left up to the feminists, the husband and wife would swap responsibilities. He would be washing dishes and caring for the children and she would be working in the fields. That’s just plain foolish. Neither would be contributing to the family to the best of their natural abilities. That’s why Christianity has given women all of the domestic responsibilities and the men, all of the non-domestic responsibilities. It’s simpler, more efficient and more productiveand there are many fewer arguments when both embrace those natural, and traditional, responsibilitie, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel every new marriage.
LikeLike
The individual with the most useful or best natural ability gets to help out in any given area on the basis of skill, not gender. If girls can learn domestic tasks, so can boys. I cannot tell you how many elderly widows and widowers I have met that lack some of the most basic skills (cooking, cleaning, laundry, car maintenance, finance management, etc.) because it was their spouses area of expertise. Some guys are great with kids and can cook like a chef, some guys hold to ‘if you want it done right do it yourself’ about cleaning the house. My father spent ten years as a bachelor living on his own and he cleaned and cooked with the best of them. It is not about boy chores and girl chores, but about finding what works best for your family. Sometimes it is easier to work together to get it all done in half the time.
LikeLike
I agree. But feminism tells women that domestic chores are below them. They view it is a subservient activity which they are too good for. This is wrong. Caring for your family in whatever capacity you can, is good. And there can be no argument that women are more capable of caring for the domestic requirements of their family, then the men are. Men are more capable of pursuing a lucrative career outside the home. Feminism puts these two natural tendencies at odds with each other, causing unnecessary friction. Of course, if there are no minor children involved in the marriage, then the couple has a right to pursue whatever arrangement they choose.
LikeLike
Feminism gives men and women choice. A great many feminists choose to have children and remain at home, but that does not mean they matter any less than the female C.E.O. who manages her business and family with the support of her husband. Or that a female feminist is more important than a male feminist. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to having a family. Not all women want to marry and have children. Some women want to marry but don’t want children. Some women want to marry and have children. Feminism advocates for them all and for legal protections for all scenarios. Traditional roles weren’t that great for men either. In the recently bad economy, men were laid off of work, lost their houses, their 401Ks, and couldn’t always be certain there was enough food to go around… that is too much pressure to put on one person’s shoulders. Even when there are children in the picture, it is all the more important that responsibilities are shared equally.
LikeLike
Sharing responsibilities “equally” cannot be done. You must choose what responsibility you are going to take on. You can’t both make the bed. That would be a total waste of the husbands time because it doesn’t take 2 people to make a bed and there are things he can do that she can’t, like paint the house. There’s no sense in trying to push “equality” in a marriage. It’s a total delusion. Sure they could swap each other’s traditional responsibilities but that kind of academic, social engineering experiment has been tried, ad nauseum, and it just causes friction, resentment and aggravation. Why bother? It’s simpler to leave well enough alone. Why “fix it”, if it ain’t broke?
My main point is that brainwashing women to believe that their “career” is more important than their responsibilities at home, denies her entire family the “Home Sweet Home” they deserve. No one can create a nest like a woman and trying to be a “superwoman” by taking on the role of “career woman” too, is no different than 2 people making the bed. Unless she’s married a deadbeat loser, she’s got much more important things to do for her kids, at home! Let him be the breadwinner and get back to the work God intended for women, to love, feed and care for their families, sans all the stress.
This pleasant domestic scenario is never discussed by radical, second-wave feminists in a positive light, or for that matter, by anyone. My goal is to get young women to understand that there is another choice besides trying to be a “career woman.”
As far as picking up the pieces, if a husband looses his job goes, if there weren’t millions of feminist “career women” out there stealing the jobs that were traditionally reserved for “family men”, the chances of their husbands being out of a job, or not being able to find a new job, would be dramatically reduced.
LikeLike
42% of all household have two incomes – from both the husband and the wife being the breadwinners together. It would make sense that they also share equally the the responsibilities of being the domestic engineer as well. I think it’s safe to say the days where it was possible for men to be the sole breadwinner and comfortably support their family are gone and they’re not going to come back. Everybody has the right to support themselves, regardless of whether or not they have a family. Everybody has to eat, have clothing, and a place to live – it should not be required for men and women to marry in order to have these necessities fulfilled.
LikeLike
(Sorry for delay. We have a NEW grandchild. Our 7th) To your comment….If they have children they had better marry, unless THEIR parents want to support all of the following generations of their family by themselves. Marriage gets the kids off the payroll. Without it, they are always their parent’s children. Unlike drinking, drugging and hooking up, marriage requires independent behavior, responsible planning for yourselves and your children’s future and maturity. There are no downsides to marriage, only upsides – health, wealth and happiness – are statistically proven advantages to marriage. The only reason women went to work by the droves in the 1970s was because radical feminism told them they should. Once these young baby boomers had gotten an expensive college education (prior to marriage and kids) it was then necessary to get a job, to prove themselves. This became an integral part of their youthful self-image as defined by the feminist 1970s culture. As a result, it would become nearly impossible for them to give it up, even after marriage and children. The govt. caught on to this tread almost immediately and adjusted the tax rates accordingly, thereby making it exceedingly difficult financially for those women to leave their jobs. Their incomes were now a financial necessity in order to maintain the materialistic lifestyle which also espoused during the 1970s. I am advocating that the men be allowed to support and lead their families because it is God’s plan and the most practical, and successful, approach to marriage and raising healthy, happy children. Swapping our God-given gender roles just because some nutty, miserable, non-Christian, female feminist said we should, is a stupid waste of time and TOTALLY pointless.
Despite what our feminized culture promulgates, families do not NEED 6 TVs, 4 cars, annual European vacations, custom draperies, 5 computers, 2 fur coats, 4 nights of take-out, cleaning ladies, diamonds for every finger, lawn companies, designer clothes, weekly pedicures and manicures or 3 dogs. Instead, they need lots of God-given children, a mother home to care for them full-time and a father to protect and provide for them. Without the secular (pagan) obsession with material goods, mother can INDEED, afford to come home. Then, and only then, are the parents truly living by example, contributing their God-given talents to their family, with their children as their principle focus (as it should be), and also doing a spectacular job of Christian living, for today, tomorrow and the future! Everything else is purely feminist BS, shrouded in political correctness, which leads to nothing but a life defined by stress, grief and regret. Only the arrogant would attempt to re-make the wheel and expect an improvement. It’s simply a futile and frustrating pursuit. Egotism, selfishness, materialism and paganism never make for a truly happy life and its time we admit that to our kids, so that they can plan their futures, from the very beginning, accordingly. They deserve no less.
LikeLike
Husband’s leading is really an awesome thing. I have no idea why there is such resistance to the idea. Everybody submits to something, traffic lights, where your girlfriends will meet for lunch, even walking the dog when you don’t feel like it. The alternative is to be in battle mode all the time which seems rather foolish and a sad way to have a marriage. Honest to goodness, most men, given some encouragement and opportunity, lead very well, taking their wives needs into consideration.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more. It sure is a relief when you know your husband’s got your back. It’s the same old story, the irrational ideology of radical, second wave feminism vs. the rational tenets of Christianity
LikeLike