BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist

Subject: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 08:35 AM

One of the most conservative sections of a major Australian church, the Sydney/South Sydney diocese of the Anglican Church has raised controversy (once again) by denying it's new wedding vows are sexist. Other dioceses of the Australian branch of the Church of England (headed by the Queen of England!) have managed very ably with women priests & even Bishops or Arch Bishops for years, but this branch stays back in the olden days.


Anglican Church denies new wedding vows are sexist
The Anglican Church says new wedding vows which involve a woman pledging to 'submit' to her husband are not sexist.

Introduced as an alternative to the traditional vows that use the word 'obey', the new promises were written by the liturgical panel of the church's Sydney diocese.

The Bishop of south Sydney, Robert Forsyth, is on that panel and says the choice of the word 'submit' is based on the New Testament which talks about the church submitting to Christ.

"I can see why, if you just came upon this, not having read the New Testament about Christ loving the church, the church responding to him, it would look rather odd, just like the word 'obey' would look rather odd," he said.

"But to understand this you must locate it in its context of the New Testament's deep understanding about man and woman and Christ and his church.

Bishop Forsyth says some couples getting married in the church like having separate vows for men and women.

He says a different version was released last year, but the wording was not popular with parishioners.

"We're happy with this version, where the husband promised to serve his wife, to love his wife, and to protect her and she promises to love and serve and to submit," he said.

"The goal is we want men to give leadership in loving and protecting their wives and women respond to that."

sandra (not responding very well to this new? idea)

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Musket
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 08:46 AM

Aye, and over this end of the planet, we have every Catholic church in Scotland, and apparently many in England too, giving a sermon today saying that Gay relationships are an abomination.

So don't expect their sexist stance down under to be any better. Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry is increasingly irrelevant. I liked the bit about wording not being popular with parishioners. Especially as the whole idea is to tell them what they like, how to think, how to judge others....

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 09:08 AM

It will be something of this nature that finally separates church and state.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 11:23 AM

"Submit, me beauty!"
"No! Nay! Never!"
"Submit to my foul desires!"
"Never!"

Sounds like a good plot for a melodrama...does the groom get to tie her to the railroad tracks if she doesn't submit?

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Elmore
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 11:37 AM

When my current and final wife inquired into becoming a Catholic, they told her she couldn't vote for a pro choice candidate.That was the end of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 12:43 PM

Been reading 50 Shades, have they? Like I said somewhere else, we women aren't fully human to these guys.

Penny (oops, it says the message has to submit!)

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 12:44 PM

Well, whoever said that to her, Elmore was definitely out-of-line, even if he was a bishop.
...

As for Musket's "every Catholic church in Scotland, and apparently many in England too, giving a sermon today saying that Gay relationships are an abomination" I assume he's referring to the "pastoral letter" mentioned in this press release, the text of which it contains - and it doesn't actually say anything along those lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 02:12 PM

Never never would I agree to 'submit' to a husband or any man. My husband is an African muslim, and this has been rather a problem with us. It's not a 'new' idea; in fact it's the traditional and age-old view that women are in some way inferior and should therefore bow to a man's 'better judgment'. In my husband's country of birth, and among muslim women (as I understand it) women must comport themselves at all times with humility and deference. I'm a University graduate and retired teacher.I have an independent income from my pension and own my own house. I see no reason why I should defer, humble myself or submit to anyone! Are these folk living in the Dark Ages?

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 02:47 PM

Eliza, did you not know that was your groom's position
when you said "yes"? Or "I do", or whatever the form may
have been in your ceremony?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 04:38 PM

"Submit" is of course taken from what St Paul wrote about marriage. I've always wondered whether he might actually have been writing tongue in cheek when he advised women to be submissive towards their husbands.

Maybe it should be translated "Wives, let your husband think he's in charge."

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 04:57 PM

Write your own vows.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 05:53 PM

UncleDaveO, oh yes, we were both aware of the cultural differences, and our ceremony was of necessity a civil one in UK, and didn't require promises to 'obey'. My husband has come to accept that women here are equal under the law. But I know it was hard for him at first. He had to get used to the fact I have my opinions and will express them, and that I wouldn't ask his permission to leave the house (as if!!) if I wanted to go out. Also, as I know much more about this country than he does, he has to follow my lead a lot of the time which isn't easy for him. Both my sister and I were brought up to see ourselves as equal to men and were given a good education and encouraged to pursue a career by our forward-looking parents. We were very lucky. I'm a practising Christian (C of E) but would never condone women 'obeying' men. Ridiculous and insulting!!

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: gnu
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 06:46 PM

"Are these folk living in the Dark Ages?"

Ahhh... yeah. Sad innit?

If the shoe fits... ya oughta be kicked in the arse with it.

Although, let's get sommat straight eh? Submitting to the marriage and forsaking ALL OTHERS has it's place... it is a contract in which to be totally devoted to each other and the children. In that alone, "submission" to doing right by your spouse and your children is right as rain. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. Submitting to a spouse carte blanche isn't what I believe is meant by the vows but interpretation is in the mind of vower.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 06:48 PM

". . . interpretation is in the mind of [the] vower."

And their lawyers.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 06:59 PM

ummm, gnu? If I understand correctly, "submit" isn't included in the vow for the groom, just the version for the bride. It might come off as a little strange if it was in both vows, but at least it would be equalized.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 07:16 PM

Oh for the equality days of SISTER FIDELMA'S WORLD.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 07:20 PM

It can't be sexist, because that's the way God wants it:

Heaven Has No Feminine Side

Only Married Women Can Go To Heaven

(just a couple of samples, without comment.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 07:35 PM

It's difficult to argue with that logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: gnu
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 07:37 PM

9.... I live in Canada. Spouses are equal in the eyes of the law.
Lawyers are not. Therefore, don't hire a lawyer.... read.

froggy... it's not? I am outraged! Appalled at least. Well, taken aback somewhat. >;-) ummmm, froggy? buddy? where did you read what you thought I said? BOTH spouses (or more... hey, it HAPPENS but that's another thread) must submit (enter contract) and if the vows of any persuaion don't reflect that, the entity at fault is living in the dark ages. Right, Eliza? >;)

BTW, the law in New Brunswick, Canada regarding marriage licences is totally fucked up. Twenty bucks? Are you shittin me??!! It should be at least one hundred large. And the divorce "licence" should be $20. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 07:38 PM

I've heard a lot of far out things from extreme fundamentaiists, but some of the stuff in John's first link is new to me. Rejoice, all you women who have suffered from penis envy; when you get to heaven, you'll have one of your own!

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: IvanB
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 09:01 PM

I note that Pastor Davis (JiK's first link) quotes Galatians 3:28 but seems to gloss over the phrase "neither male nor female" in his glee over male dominance. After all, since there will be no procreation in heaven, what would be the use of a penis? Given his line of thought, use of a penis for, gasp, enjoyment would be an abomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: gnu
Date: 26 Aug 12 - 09:21 PM

"abomination"? I was told it was called "jerkin off" but abomination sounds a lot classier.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: JennieG
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 12:49 AM

When I read that news item on the weekend I was gobsmacked......we are in the 21st century now, but to some people we haven't left the 19th. It smacks to me of 'the little woman' walking a few paces behind her mate, eyes cast demurely down.

If I were to submit, Himself he would wonder what had come over me......

Cheers
JennieG

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 05:35 AM

I believe it was David Letterman who made a reference a couple of nights back about the hurricane currently being watched - something like

"...hurricane headed for Tampa that may wipe out the Republican National Convention ... offering one more proof that God ...




...





...




is a woman."


John

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: gnu
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:04 AM

Opening day (ceremonies?) of the convention has been cancelled.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:10 AM

It's a sign from God. The Republicans are screwed this election, which they deserve to be, arrogant shits that they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: foggers
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 07:17 AM

As a recovered former fundamentalist Christian, I departed from that clique for precisely these reasons of inbuilt sexism. Women were seen as more base in nature because it was Eve who succumbed to Satan's temptation and then lured Adam down the same path. As a highly intelligent graduate I was told my marriage was in trouble because I was failing to submit to my husband. So instead, I left him and left that church.

And the final irony in my personal tale of escaping fundamentalism was that the landlord whose house I moved into was a lovely, kind, supportive GAY man who was exactly the kind of non-judgemental company I needed during a difficult transition.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 08:26 AM

Good for you foggers! I admire your feistiness and guts. It certainly IS difficult if the woman is well-educated and the man is not. A certain type of man (ie weak!) cannot handle his wife being intelligent and/or qualified. Your gay and supportive landlord is my idea of a truly strong man who can cope with female strength. I'm so lucky in that my church is not one which takes any kind of stand about women and their attitudes and comportment. It's more interested in kindness and welcome, which is how I see God. By the way, I have gay friends who are the most supportive, kind and caring people you could wish to know. They don't have the male chauvinism that some men exhibit. If I'd been forced to 'vow' at our wedding to 'submit' I'm afraid I would have refused and my husband and I would never have been married!

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 08:32 AM

So, what are Anglican women (and presumably men) doing about the Bishop of south Sydney, Robert Forsyth's remarks?

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 08:50 AM

To love and to submit: a marriage made in 2012

part of the article -
But Stephanie and Andrew Judd from Sydney, who used part of the new service when they wed in January, said those who were offended by the word were not placing it in the right context.

''The husband's love is one of sacrificial love, and to submit to that kind of love is not oppressive, but is actually a joy and a great freedom,'' said Mrs Judd, 26, who teaches Christian studies at a private girls' school.

Mr Judd, 27, who is studying to be a minister, said a Christian marriage was akin to dancing: ''The male always leads, even if he's not necessarily the best dancer … as long as you take the definition of male leadership that we're operating on, which is giving yourself up and putting others' interests ahead of yourself.''

Anglicans in an 18th-century frame of mind - Letters to the editor responses to this story

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 08:58 AM

"The male always leads" ....???? Eh??? Who says so? This is making me cross! Men are no better and no worse than women in 'taking the lead'. Having a willy doesn't give a human being superiority over those who don't have one!!! Grrrrrr!!! (Hope my sister doesn't read this thread, I just know she'd explode!)

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 10:37 AM

So, what are Anglican women (and presumably men) doing about the Bishop of south Sydney, Robert Forsyth's remarks?

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Aug 12 - 01:13 PM

The church has long been one of the greatest promulgators of doubletalk.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Musket
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 06:10 AM

McGraw of Harlow.

Sorry, the letter you gave a link to was one that many priests referred to, but either The Catholic Herald is right or The BBC are right. The BBC reported that many priests gave their own more forthright interpretation.

In any event, the letter you linked to was appalling, bigoted, prejudiced and abhorrent. It says that marriage can only be between man and woman as the aim of marriage is children. Doesn't say much for the unfortunates who cannot conceive, those too old to conceive and those who do not plan to have children then.

So.. Let's sum up. Sexist wedding vows, oppression of not only Gay people but anybody who cannot conceive... I feel a Godwin moment coming on...

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 07:37 AM

The Sydney & South Sydney dioceses are amongst the most conservative in Australia.

'Submit' vow could fall foul of the Marriage Act I love that Wilcox cartoon.

Letters to the editor & the best one - How can Sydney Anglican men love their wives ''as Christ loved the church'', that is, in a sacrificial way, considering, when Jesus died, the church did not exist (''To love and to submit: a marriage made in 2012'', August 25-26)? The church evolved after the death of Jesus. His followers made the church. The death of Jesus may have been sacrificial, but it wasn't for the church.

Catherine Walsh Ashfield

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 09:02 AM

My point was that Musket's statement "we have every Catholic church in Scotland, and apparently many in England too, giving a sermon today saying that Gay relationships are an abomination" was not actually correct.

Nor does the pastoral letter actually say "that marriage can only be between man and woman as the aim of marriage is children".

It does refer to "the universally accepted definition of marriage as the union solely of a man and a woman." That is in fact how it has always been defined, as reflected in the terminology involved. A marriage is a contract between a husband and a wife. The legislation which has given formal recognition to analogous contracts between partners of the same sex has not changed that, and provides precisely the same rights and duties.

Football and cricket are both excellent games. Apples and oranges are both excellent fruit. It would of course be possible to attempt redefine the word "football" to cover both sports, and use "apple" to mean both fruits. But I am not sure that it would be a very good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 10:55 AM

Hoorah for Mr Mcgrath.....a good concise post with no weasel words.
Bad legislation should always be opposed.....leave "hatred" out you weasels.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 02:06 PM

"So, what are Anglican women (and presumably men) doing about the Bishop of south Sydney, Robert Forsyth's remarks?"

I worded that terribly. Sorry.

Here it is rephrased.

So, what are Anglican women (and presumably men) of south Sydney doing about Bishop Robert Forsyth's remarks?

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 02:40 PM

It is a smoke screen.
In the UK, civil union gives all the benefits of marriage....yet homosexual activists demand redefinition.....the word....and the word was equality

Is a homosexual couple equal to a heterosexual one?....not in the primary function, to produce children.

Is an infertile heterosexual couple equal to a fertile one?....not in the primary natural function, to produce children.

So the whole equality agenda is based on a sham.
Look at every aspect of nature and equality has never and will never exist.....and calling something a different name will never make it exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 05:15 PM

Not sure what point the last poster is making. It appears to be that I can't get have a real marriage because I had my reproductive organs removed because I had ovarian cancer.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 05:23 PM

And I couldn't either, because I am 80, and my wife, tho younger, is past menopause. Yet Ely registrar, having checked that my first wife was dead, and that Emma was legally free to marry, married us without demur. I think we are married - whatever the precise nature of our relations, which is no business of yours.

Not sure what point you are making here, Ake. Don't entirely believe that you are either.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 12 - 05:48 PM

I think the point being made was that while all kinds of things people do are important, if people don't reproduce, people cease to exist. That means it's got a special kind of importance. That doesn't mean other things aren't important, just not as crucial.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 02:48 AM

My meaning exactly Mr Mcgrath,

Also that although we may all have various talents, none of us are "equal".
The socio/economic system which we labour under ensures that we are very much more unequal, much more so that race, gender, or religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 03:20 AM

So there are 'real' marriage where both partners are fertile, and some other kind of lesser marriage for non-fertile people. Try telling that to someone who's coping with the pain of discovering they can never have children. "oh and by the way, you're not really married"

What an evil world you would have us live in, Akenaton and McGrath. Luckily most people are are kinder.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 03:44 AM

I am truly sorry that you are unable to have children guest.

In my mind marriage is between a man and a woman and involves the creation of a family structure.
If a couple find that for medical reasons they cannot fulfill that function, they are no less "married"
Some choose to remain childless, but as a couple CAN reproduce, they too are no less "married"

At the moment homosexuals cannot reproduce, but I am sure that the horrors of homosexual reproduction will be well within the scope of "Frankensteinian Science" shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 03:52 AM

Please do not use me as an opportunity to spread your poisonous homophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 04:16 AM

I was going to reply to McGraw of Harlow till he went and sat in Akenaton's passenger seat. I accept that it is churlish not to be seen to agree when you do, but in his case, it only encourages the bugger, as you and I both know.

I don't need to add anything here, but of course I will. Not because I want to add to the debate, but that Akenaton and his mates need challenging at every turn till they either have a barbecued donkey on the road to Damascus moment or keep their odious views to themselves. Of course, they can always carry on spewing them out, hurting decent people in the process, but that speaks louder than the words they use...

The primary function of marriage is not, and never has been to have children. The primary function of sex can be to have children,but like marriage, there are other reasons to indulge.

Churches don't define the term marriage, Parliament does. Hence Parliament (or Holyrood Parliament in the present case) is the place to decide.

Churches can decide what they like, what they want and the terms of joining their club, but polite society has already gone too far by allowing them to conduct marriages and then use their bigotry to decide who qualifies.

If I were them, I'd accept that decent people have indulged them thus far. But no further please..

And so called atheists like Akenaton need to decide whether Frankenstein science is an affront to a God they don't believe in or a personal vendetta that needs professional help.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 04:20 AM

If you do not wish to contribute to a thread on "gay marriage" guest, why enter it in the first place?
Why do you not address the issues raised, rather than hurl abuse?
"poisonous homophobia"

The fault lies in the legislation and the "liberal" agenda, not the unfortunate homosexuals who are most affected by this agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 04:32 AM

Frankenstein science is an affront to nature/god.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 05:07 AM

Forget it Ian!

He just doesn't get it, and, given his anti gay bias, he never will.

He spouts about people never having been equal because he has missed the point entirely, which is that people should be treated equally and not suffer discrimination from people like him.

Such "liberal" views are anathema to him because he hasn't a clue what the word liberal really means.

His bigotry is as hard wired as any of those fundamentalist religious nutjobs under discussion, and logic and reason pass him by.

He is truly worth ignoring.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 05:21 AM

Akenaton - this is not a thread on gay marriage, it is a thread on the relationship between husband and wife in heterosexual marriages.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Musket
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 07:25 AM

It is a thread on how churches view what marriage is, which here in The UK and many more countries, is different to how the law sees marriage. So the link to Gay marriage is perhaps pertinent although does go ever so slightly off thread if it becomes the main debate.

You can be married without any church or its vows getting in the way, so on that score, ignore churches if you think them irrelevant. My second marriage was in a hotel, and we came back down the "aisle" to the sound of Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds singing "Into My Arms." Rather pertinent in our case.

My first wedding, as wonderful as it certainly was, did include mumbling religious nonsense that neither of us believed, the vicar knew we didn't believe, and it was purely the tradition that kept us there. (In those days, the alternative was the registry office which in our town was a spartan office in a badly maintained building with curtains up one side, and bloody dismal. At least the church was a wonderful c12th century building.)

We didn't do the "honour and obey" either, and she had to give me a stern look as I was about to challenge the vicar for suggesting it at the rehearsal.

Hotels have better beer, comfortable chairs and ceremony words that actually mean something tangible.

But the end product? You are married, in exactly the same way as if you used a church. Sadly, Gay people are still fighting for that right, and I find that so bloody sad in this day and age, I really do.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 07:34 AM

"So there are 'real' marriage where both partners are fertile, and some other kind of lesser marriage for non-fertile people."

I never said, meant or implied anything like that, GUEST c.g. and I rather doubt if you actually believe I said, meant or implied that.

It's possible to be accurate about points of disagreement, and not just treat discussions as games of conkers. I think it's better to avoid distorting views we disagree with. What's the point in people bellowing out denunciations of stuff the people they are arguing with don't believe? Only too often you get everyone doing that at once in various directions.

I rather like the traditional formal structure in which the idea is you sum up the opponents view, and once that is agreed between the two parties, you then set out to distinguish between points where you agree and points where you disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 09:13 AM

Men & women are different, & so should be their marriage vows- Peter Jensen Peter Jensen is the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney & a very conservative & controversial man.

my favourite bit - When a husband promises to love his wife as Christ loved the church and give himself up for her, he is declaring his intention to be a man of strength and self-control for her benefit and for the benefit of any children born to them. Such qualities, properly exercised in the spirit of self-sacrifice, enhance the feminine and personal qualities of his wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 10:24 AM

That link now says that they do not have any content for "Men and women are different and so should be their marriage vows." Glory, glory halleluia, a truth acknowledged.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 11:41 AM

"If you do not wish to contribute to a thread on "gay marriage" guest, why enter it in the first place?"

"Akenaton - this is not a thread on gay marriage, it is a thread on the relationship between husband and wife in heterosexual marriages."

It might start out as a thread on raising rabbits, but that wouldn't stop Akenaton from trying to turn it into a thread on gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 11:59 AM

Very sorry Frogprince and Sandra. You are correct, Sandra's OP was about the wording of a heterosexual marriage.

The second post from Musket started the "gay marriage" debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 01:08 PM

Yup, my fault.

Look on the bright side Akenaton, it gave you an opportunity to spew out your inane drivel and from your perspective, any opportunity is a good one.

I feel like Albert Ramsbottom poking his stick through the bars of the cage, only this time Clarence the lion is not there because, pillock I am, I accidentally stuck it through the bars of the weasel cage.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 01:38 PM

"I accidentally stuck it through the bars of the weasel cage."

Yes indeed.....from the inside, out.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 02:23 PM

The above was from me.....lest musket feels he is a "victim"..:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: CET
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 07:50 PM

I'm having some difficulty understanding the premise for this thread. "Submit" was introduced as an alternative to the traditional service, which has "obey"? Seriously? The traditional service in the Anlican Church in Australia still has the wife promising to obey the husband? That hasn't been so in Canada since the 1959 revision of the Book of Common Prayer. I consider myself a traditionalist Anglican, but "obey" has not been in the wedding liturgy since I could count past three.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 10:12 PM

thanks to everyone who has posted to the thread

CET - one of the articles said the Anglican service had alternatives to "obey" since 1928? - certainly a long time ago.

Penny - I can't see why the Sydney Morning Herald would no longer have an Opinion piece as newsworthy as this one. Fortunately I still have the paper & can scan the article & post it on my photowebsite.

Looking further I found the article posted on the Herald's stablemate's site Men & women are different, & so should be their marriage vows- Peter Jensen and here it is in case it disappears again! Click on the link to see (but not necessarily read) all the comments - 1000 at the moment

Marriage really matters. Thank God we are talking about it. As Professor Patrick Parkinson said in these pages last week, marriage is ''by far the most stable, safe and nurturing relationship in which to raise children''. However, fewer people are choosing marriage as a way of relating to someone of the opposite sex and fewer people are nurturing children in a family with marriage at its heart.

I can understand that. Individualism leaves us with little reason to join our life to that of someone else. Apart from that, for many marriage has become an arena of suffering, exploitation and disappointment. We choose to bypass it. Yet I would say that we need to go back to biblical principles and understand, improve and support marriage rather than abandon it.

I freely admit that for me, the earthly title and vocation I cherish most is ''husband''. It all began with promises, and each day I try to live out the commitment I made. Marriage is not always easy and I know that for some it proves painfully impossible. But, mostly, making our promises before witnesses and trying to keep them is what works best.

Public promises make a marriage. Marriages are founded on promises of lifelong, exclusive bonding. Provided that the promises commit both man and woman in good times and in bad ''till death do us part'', and that both intend to relate only to each other, the promises are effective in creating the marriage. Husband and wife can certainly make identical promises.
Advertisement

But promises can reflect something even more profound. Since they unite not simply two people but a man and a woman - two different bodies for whom marriage holds different consequences, needs, expectations and emotions - the promises can express these differences, and traditionally have done so.

Many of our young people want to be ''wives and husbands'' rather than simply ''partners'' and in their weddings they come as ''bride and groom'' rather than simply two individuals. They believe that expressing these differences, including different responsibilities, makes for a better marriage.

Both kinds of promise are provided for in the Sydney Anglican diocese's proposed Prayer Book, which has been the subject of commentary this week.

There is nothing new in this - it is the same as the Australian Prayer Book which has been used for decades.

Where different promises are made, the man undertakes great responsibility and this is also the wording of the book, as it has always been. The biblical teaching is that the promise made voluntarily by the bride to submit to her husband is matched by the even more onerous obligation which the husband must undertake to act towards his wife as Christ has loved the church. The Bible says that this obligation is ultimately measured by the self-sacrifice of Christ in dying on the cross.

This is not an invitation to bossiness, let alone abuse. A husband who uses the wife's promise in this way stands condemned for betraying his own sworn obligations. The husband is to take responsibility for his wife and family in a Christ-like way. Her ''submission'' is her voluntary acceptance of this pattern of living together, her glad recognition that this is what he intends to bring to the marriage and that it is for her good, his good and the good of children born to them. She is going to accept him as a man who has chosen the self-discipline and commitment of marriage for her sake and for their children. At a time when women rightly complain that they cannot get men to commit, here is a pattern which demands real commitment all the way.

Secular views of marriage are driven by a destructive individualism and libertarianism. This philosophy is inconsistent with the reality of long-term relationships such as marriage and family life.

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.

Men have to accept the limitations imposed by a commitment to marry. Both husband and wife must exercise self-control and the acceptance of boundaries, although in ways which are somewhat distinctive. My greatest interest in the draft service the diocese has prepared is the high standard being proposed for men.

When a husband promises to love his wife as Christ loved the church and give himself up for her, he is declaring his intention to be a man of strength and self-control for her benefit and for the benefit of any children born to them. Such qualities, properly exercised in the spirit of self-sacrifice, enhance the feminine and personal qualities of his wife.

Each marriage and each era will work this out differently. It is in this context and this alone that the revised marriage service enables a woman to promise submission.

Her submission rises out of his submission to Christ.

It is a pity that the present discussion has been so overtly political. Instead of mocking or acting horrified, we should engage in a serious and respectful debate about marriage and about the responsibilities of the men and women who become husbands and wives. The Bible contains great wisdom on this fundamental relationship.

The rush to embrace libertarian and individualistic philosophy means that we miss some of the key relational elements of being human, elements which make for our wellbeing and happiness. It's time to rethink marriage from first principles. It really matters.

Peter Jensen is the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 03:20 AM

Thank you. But again I could not find the page at the link, which is odd.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 03:24 AM

But I've found comments by googling.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 03:36 AM

In this day and age, both men and women can take resonsibility equally. There should in my view be absolutely NO difference between the marriage vows of a woman and those made by the man. Submission doesn't come into it. Neither does male 'strength'. Both should aim to exercise self-control and boundaries, but where are the 'distinctive differences'? Is a man's self-control different to that of a woman? Are her 'boundaries' not the same as his? We are not talking about couples in a prehistoric tribe here, where the male has to protect his female and children from danger etc. Neither are we talking about his physical strength where he must chop down trees or dam a river in the daily course of life. Women have power, a career, education, financial independence, ambition, responsibility, capability in the same way that men do. Our Church (C of E) has not for many years required any difference between the vows. This is a disappointing step backwards in female emancipation which I fondly imagined to have been completed in the eighties. Evidently I was wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 03:45 AM

For what its worth Sandra....I agree with and admire the article you linked from Archbishop Jenkins.

I think we have ruined your thread, which should have been a chance to discuss the real meaning of marriage...without the politics.

When people have an understanding of what a real marriage involves, the politics become redundant.

My deepest apologies A.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 05:45 AM

we agree to differ, akenaton, thanks for your apology

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 08:54 AM

Of course Catholic marriage services dispensed with "obey" or anything equivalent years ago. Which is realistic.

St Paul's views about stuff like that are interesting, and it's sensible for Christians to take them into consideration. But they aren't rules and regulations which should be taken as binding, just advice from someone worth listening to, living in a very different society.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,Allen in Oz
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 11:44 PM

Sandra

An interesting point was made by a writer to the Herald Editor today, viz. What is the situation for a wife if the husband develops Dementia ? Must she still " submit" to him ?

Religion remains the opiate of the masses I am afraid.

AD

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 12 - 01:08 AM

Re "obey" ~~ it is a leftover from the 1662 revision of Cranmer's Book Of Common Prayer, which remained the standard work in use in Anglican churches until the New Prayer Book of the 1920s, which was still based on it; altho one or two minor revisions had obviously occurred from time to time ~ including an option to omit or replace 'obey'[and the groom would 'endow' her with, instead of sharing with her, 'all his worldly goods']. So there was at least a strong reason for these usages to be chosen by the traditional-minded, even if they both understood them to be just matters of form.

"Submit", on the other hand, with its overtone of BDSM and suchlike [surprised the new ritual doesn't require the groom to swear to 'dominate'!], is not in the same category, as implying a subordinate position within the marriage but with no warrant in previous usage whatever.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 31 Aug 12 - 07:15 AM

I guess the 'obey' came from the notion that woman's sole access to God was through her husband. Without a husband's mediating control, a woman would be a wild Godless creature, just like an animal.

Subject: RE: BS: Church denies new wedding vows sexist
From: Musket
Date: 31 Aug 12 - 10:18 AM

I got off with a few wild godless creatures in my time.

Good fun too.