Anglican Archbishop of Sydney wants women to "submit" to their husbands in marriage vows

Leftwingharpie, I do feel sorry for her, very much so. She's someone who lives to please other people and always puts others' feelings above her own and look where it's got her What makes me feel quite angry though is that she has passed on a lot of this thinking to her daughter, my friend. My friend has married a man who is a tosser dominant, chauvinistic, controlling and my friend seems to feel that he is the most important person in their relationship, her feelings always come second. They have just had a baby because he wanted to be a parent, while she was much more ambivalent about the whole thing. It makes me want to scream and give her a good shake but I know it's her decision and her life. That's her mother's legacy continuing and it will possibly be the same with her own daughter

The Archbishop for instance can fuck right off.

This sort of bullshit is one of the reasons we left Sydney Anglican.

Lotta's friend's mother sounds to have had a lot of oppression in her life. It must have been very restrictive for her to internalise those beliefs as a young woman. If her marriage is now in trouble, that's terrible for her; it's not karma.

Nah, only women read that. But perhaps his wife has been enthralled by it. "How come you don't treat me the way the man does here...?"

That's irreverent isn't it. Even if they're Australian.

Maybe he's been reading 50 shades of Grey ^^

What a load of shite. I love the platitudes in the article/comments that it's ok because the husbands have to submit to ....... to Christ.

Hmmmm ...... who would I rather submit to? An actual human being who demands I make his dinner, wash his socks and who makes major decisions that affect my actual day to day life, or a mythical abstract figure whose words I can interpret anyway I wish to suit my own needs? I wonder ....

this ^

So women should submit to their husbands, and husbands have the more 'onerous obligation' of sacrificing themselves for their wives as Christ sacrificed himself for the church. Assuming that means just a general putting their wives first, rather than literally killing themselves, it seems to me that there has been a catastrophic failure among men, especially among Christian men to live up to this.

In these conservative Christian circles, it's the women who have to do all the sacrificing as well as the submitting. They have to sacrifice their dreams, their goals and subsume themselves in their husbands. The men get to swan around imagining that they're fulfilling their God given husbandly role because they think that if a mad gun man bursts in to the room, they'll happily take the bullet for their wives. I was in church for years and I've seen more heartbreak and anguish caused by these women submit marriages, then I've ever seen happiness and contentment.

blackcurrants, I like your cunning plan I'm pro-gay marriage too because I know that promising to stay together forever is important to some people, and because it is just so important to make society treat gay and hetero couples as completely equal. And I want everyone to have equal opportunities to reject it!

I'm also staunchly in favour of civil partnerships being opened up to hetero couples, polygamous arrangements and platonic arrangements too. Two equal systems for all, so people can choose one or neither, but can make a free choice of their own.

Lotta I am rabidly pro gay marriage for exactly the same reasons as those you state in your 12.23 post ... 'traditional marriage' is dead and gone, a dominant husband and submissive wife has (thank feminism) gone the way of the dodo. But a widespread acceptance and uptake of same-sex marriage will start to wipe away the expectation that marriage should 'look' or 'feel' like a Traditional Patriarchal Ownership Ritual. I get some good-ally points for being a frothingly pro-gay-marriage-activist type, but laughingly tell my gay friends that it's all secretly to further my feminist agenda of destroying the traditional marriage and/or family.

I used to be ambivalent about marriage (perhaps I still am) but I don't think we'll ever get rid of it - far, far better to change what it looks like and feels like, so it's a genuine partnership. And I think same-sex marriages do that.

Which is, of course, why they make the bigots' heads explode - win-win!

I know what you mean Thumbwitch. I have lots of other problems with it too!

I attended a Roman Catholic wedding last year where one of the readings was the bit from Genesis about the woman being created out of Adam's spare rib...at the same ceremony the priest delightedly announced to the groom that he would henceforth be in charge of his bride...I have rarely felt so uncomfortable in my life.

Completely agree with Anniegetyourgun. A disturbing number of people do still have these rigid views about what being a 'wife' means and being a 'husband' means, and it's all rooted in restrictive and archaic ideas about gender. It's part of the reason I want nothing to do with marriage - the whole things seems like it belong to another era and most of society has moved on.

Body. Everybdy should proofread before posting.

What, he wants men to "achieve Christ-like status" by staying celibate, is that it?

What I always listen for in a wedding service is "With my bdy I thee worship". Hardly anyone ever says it.

The thought popped into my head a while ago (as random thoughts often do) that that is quite probably why some people have a big problem with single-sex unions. Because it undermines the two-part hierarchy if one of the partners doesn't have a "natural" position at the top; if both or neither possesses the Dangly Mighty Mace of Office. The man is the natural master, but they're both men, or neither of them are. It's all... equal n shit! Does not compute.

It's not uncommon for women to use 'obey' in evangelical Christian circles. The usually quoted Biblical reference is a two part instruction. Wives should obey their husbands and husbands should love their wives and give themselves up for them as Christ did for the church. The implication is that this is a two way process of sacrifice. HOWEVER I think the modern understanding of using 'obey' does not imply the sacrifice inherent in the Biblical intent and that's whats wrong with this Archbishop's statement. An overwhelming patriarchal society does not give itself up for women. 'Submission' is used to create inferiors not equal partners. I didn't say 'obey', I don't expect my daughters too and I seethed all through one wedding sermon which was based on this passage and stressed the 'obey' and forgot about the 'give yourself up' bit!
I would like to see different wording altogether which recognises marriage as a unit of two equal partners, founded in love and respect to live, raise children if that is their hope and be part of a community living in line with what Jesus taught. To love one another, to love your neighbours, forgive your enemies and to give glory to God.

I think masculine qualities refers to taking the bins out, Lotta.

When XH and I were having our pre-wedding chat, a couple of centuries ago, the vicar asked whether we wanted to use "obey". XH said "yes" and I said "no" simultaneously (vicar tried not to laugh). So why do you not want to use it, he asked me. I replied that I thought a proper life partnership was built on mutual respect and negotiation, not one giving orders to the other, and I was not about to make any promises I did not intend to keep. So why do you want to use it, he asked XH. Well, er, it's traditional, innit, said the arse. We did not use it.

Of course many years later when we were divorcing XH tried to tell me I had promised to obey him. Very selective memory, that man.

''Referring to ''partners'' rather than husband or wife gives no special challenge to the man to demonstrate the masculine qualities which he brings to a marriage'

Masculine qualities??? I would love to hear more - oh no wait, maybe I wouldn't

'Referring to ''partners'' rather than husband or wife gives no special challenge to the man to demonstrate the masculine qualities which he brings to a marriage.'

How ludicrous! And not representative of wider Anglican thinking at all in my experience. I have been to quite a few Anglican weddings and never once heard the bride promise to obey.

To be fair, Peter Jensen is a complete mentalist on most issues.

Lotta: She has been married a long time and recently found out that her husband (this man with 'perfect' judgement just by virtue of being a man )has a long-standing online hardcore porn habit and may well have been unfaithful. Nice. I feel sorry for her but frustrated by the daftness too.

Ah, the perfect symmetry of karma

WTAF? Dear goodness, that is vile and so damaging. I can only hope that no vulnerable young women are being take in by this crap, sadly I imagine there will be some.