Vicar tells wives to 'submit to their husbands'

[afleitch]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250464/Vicar-outrages-congregation-telling-women-silent-submit-husbands.html

A reverend has come under fire after delivering a 'medieval' sermon instructing his female parishioners to 'submit to your husbands' to make marriage work. Reverend Mark Oden told his congregation at St Nicholas Church in Sevenoaks, Kent, that the behaviour of modern women is to blame for the UK's high divorce rate.

During last Sunday's sermon, the married-father-of-three said: 'We know marriage is not working. We only need to look at figures - one in four children have divorced parents.
'Wives, submit to your own husbands.' His comments came just days after the church's married vicar, Angus MacLeay, issued a leaflet to parishioners saying women should 'be silent' and obey their husbands.

The pamphlet, entitled The Role Of Women In The Local Church, has enraged female members of the congregation, in particular a section called Family Life And Church Family Life.
It reads: 'Wives are to submit to their husbands in everything in recognition of the fact that husbands are head of the family as Christ is head of the church.
'This is the way God has ordered their relationships with each other and Christian marriage cannot function well without it.'

The leaflet - under a section called More Difficult Passages To Consider - continues: 'It would seem that women should remain silent... if their questions could legitimately be answered by their husbands at home.'

Dozens of offended female parishioners have this week cancelled their direct debit subscriptions to the church in protest.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The New Testament is offensive to many Christians

[John Dibble]

Well at least he seems to have read his Bible. It's surprising how many Christians haven't.

[dead0man]

They should be thankful they aren't in that "submit" religion or they'd have a lot more issues with their men.

[afleitch]

The New Testament is offensive to many Christians

I take it you don't believe in equality of the sexes.

[KeeptheChange]

This is what the Bible teaches.  The only surprise here is that someone in the ultra-liberal Church of England believes the Bible at all.  May God bless him.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The New Testament is offensive to many Christians

I take it you don't believe in equality of the sexes.

In terms of eternal inheritance?  Yes, of course I do.  

In terms of this life?  No, not at all.  But not in terms of superiority, rather in terms that the two different sexes are just that - different.  The sexes are made differently and are influenced and motivated differently:  the quickest way to get on a woman’s bad side is to abuse her, but the quickest way to get on a man’s bad side is to disrespect him.  

That is why it is written:

1Pet 3:1 “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.”

The surest way to harden a man’s heart is to confront him with a power struggle, but the quickest way to soften him up is to show respect.  Men understand this and naturally treat their male friends with respect.  Women on the other hand are more motivated by emotional bonds and the love shown to them.

Again, this dichotomy is illustrated in the following verse:

Eph 5:33 “Each one of you [husbands] must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

That is not a statement of inferiority, nor is it saying the wife doesn't have to love her husband, nor is it saying the husband doesn't have to respect his wife....rather it is a statement reflecting the different motivational needs – it is telling the husband how to best meet the needs of his wife and it is telling the wife how to best meet the needs of her husband.  In other words, women are willing to follow leadership if they are loved, and men are willing to love if their leadership is trusted.

Women thrive first and foremost on love and men thrive first and foremost on respect.  That’s self-evident and not just in relationships between male and female, but also in male-bonding and in female-bonding.

Also, the same dichotomy is at work within the relationship between Christ and the church (which is why the Christ-church relationship is compared to a marriage between a husband and a wife) – the church needs the love of Christ more than Christ needs the love of the church.  It’s the love of Christ for his church that motivates the church to willingly follow Christ’s leadership, and it’s the church’s willingness to follow that motivates Christ to display even more love:

John 15 "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you...If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love."

Is this not the teaching of the New Testament?  And if it is, why do we disregard it?  How is it we know better than the New Testament?  What makes us think we can disregard his words and still remain in his love?

[KeeptheChange]

Wow, jmfcst.  That is perfectly stated.

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm more surprised at how many people in his congregation were unaware of those passages of the New Testament.. maybe he should have referenced them. They're right with the time-tested commandments about the right way to treat your slaves.

Alright, alright, low blow. But seriously, people are fools. Worship a book that you haven't even studied? Absurd. That said, times have changed. Men and women both need love and respect, jmfcst, and not everyone in the same amounts. It's very easy to say that all women need x and all men need y, but that's just a generalisation. Today we have wives who do more work around the house and many bring home more bread than the husband. They deserve respect for this. These aren't the 1950's, let alone the 50's.

Interpretation and applicability of Biblical passages change with time. It really is a wonderful book with verses for most situations as society and the human condition changes. But a blanket statement that all women need to "submit to their husbands" is not going to help the divorce rate or make marriages happier. If anything, it will probably anger women, make men even more chauvinistic, and result in an even higher divorce rate because that's not the way the world thinks any more.

[J. J.]

I'm more surprised at how many people in his congregation were unaware of those passages of the New Testament.. maybe he should have referenced them. They're right with the time-tested commandments about the right way to treat your slaves.

Well, my priest has used the same passage.  I doubt it someone named Lula and has her doctorate from Howard is a male chauvinist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It didn't for a few centuries. 

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm more surprised at how many people in his congregation were unaware of those passages of the New Testament.. maybe he should have referenced them. They're right with the time-tested commandments about the right way to treat your slaves.

Well, my priest has used the same passage.  I doubt it someone named Lula and has her doctorate from Howard is a male chauvinist.

I don't necessarily think that chauvinism is to blame for this sort of thing because it relates to religious belief. Christians understand themselves to be "separate but equal" in a sense, so ideas/actions that to them are unacceptable are normal for the rest of the world and vice versa. Chauvinists might cling to the idea for comfort in these days, but I'm giving this vicar the benefit of the doubt that all he has in mind is following his god. That's fine, that's, well, religion. But sometimes a tenant stated spits in the face of very basic assumptions we have in modern, Western society. This is one of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It didn't for a few centuries.  
[/quote]

Which centuries were these? Doubtless it was at a time when divorce itself was seen as a reprehensible act.. likely because of religious beliefs!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Doubtless it was at a time when divorce itself was seen as a reprehensible act.. likely because of religious beliefs!

The main reason why divorce rates in Britain used to be so low had nothing to do with religious belief, but is related to the reason why bigamy rates used to be so high.

[patrick1]

Doubtless it was at a time when divorce itself was seen as a reprehensible act.. likely because of religious beliefs!

The main reason why divorce rates in Britain used to be so low had nothing to do with religious belief, but is related to the reason why bigamy rates used to be so high.

Ha. Reminds me, the officer class really got up to some "scandalous" things during Queen Vicky's reign. That class really ran roughshod for way too long. Its comedic but python and blackadder had em pegged.

[afleitch]

The New Testament is offensive to many Christians

I take it you don't believe in equality of the sexes.

Afleitch is right, of course.  The New Testament is a beautiful book, but the whole "God" thing is a bit outdated and I'm a little sketchy on the miracle stuff.  Christians need to move into the 21st century.  How about a biblical convention that will decide on a new canon that will include Jesus married to a strong, independent woman and the apostles John and Peter being gay lovers?  Just a thought.

With that sort of routine you'll never be taken seriously as a comic

[Torie]

Well my little theory is that a lot of men gravitate to fundamentalist churches precisely in order to try to secure Stepford wives, who have been "trained" to follow the man's lead, in bed and out. There have been some studies that suggest that on average, fundamentalist women do make more satisfying sex partners (I'm serious). Anyway, color my cynical.

[JSojourner]

Well my little theory is that a lot of men gravitate to fundamentalist churches precisely in order to try to secure Stepford wives, who have been "trained" to follow the man's lead, in bed and out. There have been some studies that suggest that on average, fundamentalist women do make more satisfying sex partners (I'm serious). Anyway, color my cynical.

I've a lot to say about this subject, but I need to gather the particular materials I use.   I just haven't the time at present.  Suffice it to say, for the moment Torie, that I am inclined to agree with you.  (Though the eager participation of certain women in their own religious disenfranchisement is not to be discounted.)

Christians for Biblical Equality has done quite a bit of scholarly, original-language research into the whole question of egalitarianism and what the Bible actually teaches.  I tend to regard their work very highly.  I will try to assemble some material but at the moment, I can't put my hands on it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well my little theory is that a lot of men gravitate to fundamentalist churches precisely in order to try to secure Stepford wives, who have been "trained" to follow the man's lead, in bed and out. There have been some studies that suggest that on average, fundamentalist women do make more satisfying sex partners (I'm serious). Anyway, color my cynical.

I've a lot to say about this subject, but I need to gather the particular materials I use.   I just haven't the time at present.  Suffice it to say, for the moment Torie, that I am inclined to agree with you.  (Though the eager participation of certain women in their own religious disenfranchisement is not to be discounted.)

Christians for Biblical Equality has done quite a bit of scholarly, original-language research into the whole question of egalitarianism and what the Bible actually teaches.  I tend to regard their work very highly.  I will try to assemble some material but at the moment, I can't put my hands on it.

well, if the head of woman isn't man, then I guess Christ isn't the head of the church:

1 Corinthians 11:3 "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

Ephesians 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church."

I'm not sure I'm up for another insane twisting of the scripture.

[12th Doctor]

This is a topic I just don't wade into, because most people are wrong, and can't be convinced otherwise.  The point of passages of this type is usually to demonstrate a truism about the nature of the Church, usually that we are all subject to one another, with Christ as our "husband" (the Church is the Bride of Christ, oldest metaphor in the book)  using metaphors that are easily understood by the people of those time periods.  Jmf, and his typical one passage citation out of context again serves us little better than the feminist, anti-Christian one passage citation out of context, but I won't pretend to actually be able to change anyone's mind, nor will I waste my breath going 15 Rounds with jmf and his ultra-literalistic interpretations.

[12th Doctor]

And, jmf, if you feel that this is a universal mandate, as opposed to a cultural, or metaphorical one then tell me, does your wife follow verses 10-16 of the same chapter?

10For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Does you wife wear a head scarf?  Does she have long hair.  She better, because not only would it be unnatural for her to do otherwise, but she might tempt the angels by doing otherwise (a reference to the Book of Enoch).

[12th Doctor]

This is... well, actually this is like much of the bible... but this is like Genesis 1, where people get so caught up over the argument of whether it is literally real or not that they completely miss the central message, which is that God created the world, and saw that it was good.  Certainly, many evangelicals would have a problem with God seeing the world as "good".

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmf, and his typical one passage citation out of context again serves us little better than the feminist, anti-Christian one passage citation out of context, but I won't pretend to actually be able to change anyone's mind, nor will I waste my breath going 15 Rounds with jmf and his ultra-literalistic interpretations.

here are the passages, "out of context" of course....with "out of context" alternating colors to show the changes in whom is being addressed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

doesn't appear to me that "submitting to one another" means that Christ should submit to the church, nor does it mean husbands should submit to the wives, nor does it mean that parents should submit to their kids, nor does it mean masters should submit to their slaves....rather, "submitting to one another" appears to mean just the opposite.

======

another "out of context" example:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

more "out of context" passages:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

---

since I am out of control with being "out of context", here is yet another:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

---

and another:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

---

and another:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

---

and, to answer your query, my household does strive to lift up the word of God and obey it.  My wife and I practice it and teach our kids to do likewise.  We sometimes fail, but we pick ourselves up and try again.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Supersoulty,

I've read the same passages in the Catholic NAB bible, and they read the same.  So, unless you're going to make the argument that parents should submit to their kids and Christ should submit to the church, I don't see how your position holds water.

"Submit to another" does NOT mean everyone is of equal authority, for the passages make clear that we all have our own masters and we all are required to submit to them, but Christ is the only common master we all have in common.

But, I don't need to provide interpretation, for the meaning of the passages is self-evident. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And, jmf, if you feel that this is a universal mandate, as opposed to a cultural, or metaphorical one then tell me, does your wife follow verses 10-16 of the same chapter?

10For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Does you wife wear a head scarf?  Does she have long hair.  She better, because not only would it be unnatural for her to do otherwise, but she might tempt the angels by doing otherwise (a reference to the Book of Enoch).

I didn't notice the passage you posted and assumed you were asking if my wife submitted to me, so let me revise my answer in response to now having understood the question is referring to head scarves....

As I have ALWAYS stated on this forum, I formulate no doctrine unless there are two or three witnesses in scripture saying the same, otherwise I could end up off on a tangent and baptizing people for the dead like the Mormons do.  The passage to which you are referring has no second witness in scripture, either in the New Testament or the Old Testament.  And my wife and daughters all have long hair, though not for religious purposes, for there is no second or third witness to this passage.

But, in regards to submitting to the different authorities, we have many scriptural witnesses.

---

This is... well, actually this is like much of the bible... but this is like Genesis 1, where people get so caught up over the argument of whether it is literally real or not that they completely miss the central message, which is that God created the world, and saw that it was good.  Certainly, many evangelicals would have a problem with God seeing the world as "good".

huh?  are you saying God sees the world as "good" and evangelicals see the world as "evil"?  God saw the world as "good" prior to sin entering into the world...in fact the first thing that God said was "not good" was even before sin came into the world when God saw Adam was alone, so God made Eve for Adam.  God certainly did NOT continue to see everything as "good",  for he destroyed the world in a flood because mankind had become "evil".  

so what are you talking about?  you're mischaracterizing both Genesis and the viewpoint of "evangelicals"

[memphis]

 the quickest way to get on a woman’s bad side is to abuse her, but the quickest way to get on a man’s bad side is to disrespect him.  

I find it quite the other way around.