"It requires the minister to ask of the bride: ''Will you honour and submit to him, as the church submits to Christ?'' and for her to pledge ''to love and submit'' to her husband."
Even more interesting is the following observation by Bishop Robert Forsyth:
"The panel chairman, the Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, said ''submit'' was a deeply biblical word.
''The Bible never said women must obey their husbands but Paul and Peter did say submit, which I think is a much more responsive, nuanced word.'' "
But isn't that a trumping of the English Reformation with We Know Better in 2012? Once the axe is taken to the root of Protestant Anglicanism who knows where the tree will fall! :)
But Paul prefaces the talk of marriage in Ephesians 5 with verse 5:21 as the overarching verse (and the one containing the 'submit' word.) On that basis husbands too are required to submit to their wives. Mutual submission is surely the biblical first base before further discussion of the nuances of husband/wife relationships.
ReplyDeleteIndeed!
ReplyDeleteSome Anglican churches in Sydney teach complimentarianism, whereby men and women have different but 'complimentary' roles. They are created by God as equal in personhood but on the basis of certain biblical passages, males have headship in the contexts of church and marriage.
ReplyDeleteSo I suspect this theology has given rise to the optional new marriage rite.
Perhaps the Sydney Diocese will introduce a marriage rite requiring the minister to ask the groom, "Will you love her and give yourself up for her, as Christ gave himself up for the church?". If so, I will consider the possibility that they're interested in something other than the subordination of women.
ReplyDeleteI think Sydney is in a major muddle on this one, Janice. I am very surprised that someone as savvy as +Robert is agreeing to this. The downstream effects of "submit" are aptly summed up in a story I came across today about a woman who sought counselling from John Piper because she couldn't move from one room of the house to another without her husband's permission. When he asked where on earth the husband got such ideas from, the woman said, From your preaching!
ReplyDeleteThe clear point of Ephesians is that we are to submit to one another. Does any marriage work successfully without that?
One of the beautiful features of von Balthasar’s Trinitarian theology is his insistence on a form of kenoticism through and through for each and every Person. That is, Phil 2:6-11 (in the context NB of 2:1-5 and 12-13) reveals truly the divine nature/form in essence, not as some exegetes have it, only the human being Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThereafter, “male and female” in “the image and likeness of God” reflect, in their own way too, this mutual “lifting up” (ala Fourth Gospel) of each other, the human ectype finding its true prototype in the Trinitarian Deity . That is, in Christ Jesus we may see the effects of the Fall (following Gen 3's curses) genuinely remediated, reinstating Gen 1 & 2. Which is just what Ephesians would have us see writ large, following the NT Catechetical Form, since 5:8-21 explicitly picks this up having introduced it in 4:17-24. Unfortunately many an English translation wrongly begins a new paragraph at 5:21 when it properly concludes the string of participles (vv.19-21) indicating the results of “letting the Holy Spirit fill” us (“you” plural originally) at v.18b. This “mutual submission” is then explicated via three sets of key 1st C social relationships.
Frankly, this thread and the later one re “submittedness” highlight what happens when a fuller, richer biblical scope is not permitted.
As one N.Z. song-writer put it:
ReplyDelete'How bizarre!' But that's Sydney!
A rather important point here, I think, is:
ReplyDeleteHow would this affect the legal situation vis-a-vis the crime of rape in marriage?
Or, could this not possibly happen with a submissive wife?
Janice, the specific call on the husband in the proposed vows is:
ReplyDelete...Will you provide for her and protect her
love and cherish her
as Christ loved the church
and gave himself for her,....
So I look forward to you changing your stance and now acknowledging that "they're interested in something other than the subordination of women"
more than 2 days later and no comment. The facts of the matter appear unassailable but heaven forbid anyone admit they were wrong.
ReplyDeleteHi David,
ReplyDeleteJanice's comment was that if such a vow was introduced she would consider that this wasn't about the subordination of woman.
Now that you have informed her of the introduction of that vow it would be reasonable to take her at her word that she is so considering.
Indeed, that would be reasonable. I fear it would also be naive, but there you go - heaven forbid anyone suggest there was an unreasonable prejudice against Sydney Anglicanism.
ReplyDeleteDavid, sometimes I get caught up with other things I have to do apart from reading Peter's very interesting blog and don't notice that someone has responded to something I've written and is expecting some response from me in return. I have just now noticed your comments the second of which I will not respond to in kind.
ReplyDeleteI have been informed in the last couple of days, by someone with close contacts with Sydney Diocese, that it was considered that the present wording of the groom's vow was "good enough" and is not proposed to be changed. Certainly, none of the reports I could find, including the Archbishop's article in the SMH, gave any hint that this wording would be changed. Now you are saying that my informant's report is incorrect. Perhaps there's some online document containing the proposed wording to which you can refer me. For the moment I don't know who to believe but since you're physically closer to the action I'm leaning towards thinking your information could be more reliable. I hope so.
Janice, the link to the whole document is here [pdf].
ReplyDeleteYou can check that the quote that I made in my comment is the actual text in the liturgy - you'll find it on p81. Once you've done that I'm fully expectant you'll let everyone know that Sydney Anglicans are "interested in something other than the subordination of women".
"Once you've done that I'm fully expectant you'll let everyone know that Sydney Anglicans are "interested in something other than the subordination of women".
ReplyDelete- David Ould -
I'm sure there are many things that (evangelical, not all) Sydney-Anglicans are interested in - besides the subordination of women - but that, surely, is one of them, is it not? Otherwise, why dream up another marriage rite to emphasise their subordination to men?
Thank you for that link, David. The groom's vow is indeed as you say and I will let my informant know. I have to say, though, that I think it very odd that the bride is no longer required to promise to love and protect her husband but only to honour, help, respect and submit to him.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless I'm heartened to see that the Diocese has chosen to require that the groom promise to love (and cherish and provide for and protect) his bride "as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her" even if he no longer has to promise to honour her.
Can I now say that I think the Diocese is "interested in something other than the subordination of women"? I need to think about that more, at least as far as their attitude to relationships within marriage goes. This is not because I have an unreasonable prejudice against Sydney Anglicanism - I was part of it for nearly 20 years, before Archbishop Jensen took over - but because words are important and this choice of words raises its own set of problems.
I'm sure there are many things that (evangelical, not all) Sydney-Anglicans are interested in - besides the subordination of women - but that, surely, is one of them, is it not? Otherwise, why dream up another marriage rite to emphasise their subordination to men?
ReplyDeleteWell, they didn't "dream it up". The words draw directly from our Apostle and they are simply a revision of style but not intent from the 1662 BCP. It was Cranmer who "dreamt up" the concept but, of course, he was merely seeking to reflect Paul's intent in his own language.
Nevertheless I'm heartened to see that the Diocese has chosen to require that the groom promise to love (and cherish and provide for and protect) his bride "as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her" even if he no longer has to promise to honour her
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you're heartened. It's much closer to the Biblical language which is always a good thing.
Concepts such as "honouring" can be embedded in other words and I take the view that Jesus, through His Apostle, has shown us the best words to use to describe marriage.
btw, Archbishop Jensen didn't "take over". He was elected. You make it sound like a palace coup