The Church orders Wives to Submit to their Husbands

[IAN 2411]

Now the question I am asking is, has the church now really lost the plot, in a time when the church is saying that the congregation is very low, were these the right words to say. In a time of sexual equality has this Vicar the right to say these things in public, is he now guilty of bigotry? Is it time to say that the church has no place in modern society, because it is obvious that the church cannot move with the times? Since when have any of Gods laws been higher than the law of the land since the UK repealed capital punishment?

Church orders Wives to ‘submit’


A VICAR has offended his parishioners by encouraging women to "be silent" and "submit" to their husbands.
Vicar Angus MacLeay issued a leaflet to churchgoers saying that women should "not speak" if questions could be answered by their husbands.
The leaflet, entitled "The Role of Women in the Local Church", adds that wives should "submit to their husbands in everything".
It continues: "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 women have cancelled their subscriptions at St Nicholas Church in Sevenoaks, Kent, where married MacLeay is rector after the leaflet was handed out.
Last Sunday, the curate at the same church delivered a "medieval" sermon called "Marriage and Women", telling women to "submit to their husbands" to make marriage work.
Reverend Mark Oden, a married father-of-three, told the congregation: "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."
During the sermon Rev Oden also blamed "modern woman" for the high divorce rates in the UK.
Speaking after it was revealed that many women had cancelled their church subscription and vowed not to return to the church, Rev Oden said he was "passionate" about saving the institution of marriage.
He added: "I am passionate about helping people to have healthy marriages.
"I did not set out to unnecessarily offend people, but I stand by what God has said in his word the Bible."
One female member of the church said she was "disgusted" by the sermon, adding: "How can they talk that way in the 21st Century?
"No wonder the church is losing touch if this is the kind of gobbledegook they want us to believe in.
Advertisement
"I will not be going back to that church and will have to seriously consider my faith if this is the nonsense they are spouting now."
Another, who didn't want to be named, said: "We're supposed to let our husbands talk for us and remain silent?
"What kind of medieval sermon is that — we are not in the 15th Century. I have already cancelled my direct debit to the church."
A spokeswoman for the church today admitted the leaflets had been handed out to the congregation.
She said: "The leaflets were handed out to members of the congregation but Angus is not available at the moment."



Regards ian 2411

[thir]

Now the question I am asking is, has the church now really lost the plot, in a time when the church is saying that the congregation is very low, were these the right words to say. In a time of sexual equality has this Vicar the right to say these things in public, is he now guilty of bigotry? Is it time to say that the church has no place in modern society, because it is obvious that the church cannot move with the times? Since when have any of Gods laws been higher than the law of the land since the UK repealed capital punishment?

Church orders Wives to ‘submit’

A VICAR has offended his parishioners by encouraging women to "be silent" and "submit" to their husbands.
Vicar Angus MacLeay issued a leaflet to churchgoers saying that women should "not speak" if questions could be answered by their husbands.
Rev Oden said he was "passionate" about saving the institution of marriage.


Regards ian 2411

I do not think one idiot is enough to sink the church.

The only reason for a woman to submit to her husband is if she wishes to have a TTTWD relationship with him. It is a choice, not a religios obligation.

As for the high divorce rate, I think it has to do with the whole institution of marriage. It is too frail a construct and not, in my mind, how we are designed to live. We would do much better in larger units.
Just my opinion.

[denuseri]

If that’s how they like to do things in that particular community or church or whatever that’s their business as far as I am concerned. So long as one is in accordance with the laws of one's society and not causing others harm I pretty much believe in do as thou wilt.

If its one asshole going against his religions current interpretation of dogma or biblical lore etc, I am sure that the respective elders of his organization will censure him when they see fit. (Same goes for his government)

As far as the church, well churches come and go, things change, but as for debating weather or not human spiritualism has a place in modern society or not…that points pretty much moot, its here, just like its always been here in one form or another and probably going to stay here (unless forced underground for a while as has happened in some atheist driven communist nations in the past only to re-emerge later), its perfectly natural for some form of spirituality to exist in human beings, one might even go so far as to say its hardwired into us (at least that’s what they are beginning to find out; that most if not all of the behavioral functions of our body and mind's physiology are a direct result of our related anatomical structures).

Regardless of cultural influence, who chooses to submit to whom and when, has always been decided on an individual situational basis and although some biological factors play a much larger role in it than we would most likely wish to admit its still a much more fluid dynamic dependent upon much more than the will of one vicar over his congregation (half of which apparently told him to “go to hell” when they heard him anyway)

[Bren122]

Instead of picking and choosing from the pamphlett it might have been more enlightening to have just put up the whole pamphlett.
FYI, the relevant scripture goes on to explain the duties of the husband to the church and to their wives. Far from being a blanket prescription suggesting that wives totally submit to their husbands regardless of the husband's beliefs or actions, the wife is encouraged to speak out where the beliefs or actions of the husband are against the teachings of the church; so a wife should speak out if she is being abused. Simply because men have interpreted this to mean something other than it says does not invalidate the passage.

[Thorne]

If that’s how they like to do things in that particular community or church or whatever that’s their business as far as I am concerned. So long as one is in accordance with the laws of one's society and not causing others harm I pretty much believe in do as thou wilt.

And what if the men of the community agree, but the women do not? Who do you think gets the choice? Would the men allow the women to leave the church and form their own? I kind of doubt it. "Do as thou wilt" has to apply to everyone, male and female.

as for debating weather or not human spiritualism has a place in modern society or not…that points pretty much moot, its here, just like its always been here in one form or another and probably going to stay here (unless forced underground for a while as has happened in some atheist driven communist nations in the past only to re-emerge later), its perfectly natural for some form of spirituality to exist in human beings, one might even go so far as to say its hardwired into us (at least that’s what they are beginning to find out; that most if not all of the behavioral functions of our body and mind's physiology are a direct result of our related anatomical structures).

Yes, they are beginning to learn that spirituality is an evolved trait of the human mind, possibly incurring some kind of survival advantage. No one's quite sure how, but it does seem true.

But spirituality and faith are not the same as church and religion. Spirituality and faith involve your personal beliefs and relationship with your god, if any. Church and religion are about trying to get everyone to believe the same thing. While good for bringing people together, they are not so good for independent thought. And a weekly community party would be just as good at bringing people together, and probably be much more enjoyable.

(half of which apparently told him to “go to hell” when they heard him anyway)

I suspect this would be the reaction of my wife, as well. I would be more than happy to have her submit and keep silent. Some day, when I'm tired of living, I might even tell her so!

[Thorne]

so a wife should speak out if she is being abused.

What if the abuse is part of the teachings?

Quran 4:34 - "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."

[IAN 2411]

A spokeswoman for the church today admitted the leaflets had been handed out to the congregation.
She said: "The leaflets were handed out to members of the congregation but Angus is not available at the moment."

I’ll bet he wasn’t, he was probably over in the Vicarage getting a hiding off of his very Domme wife. She probably had him by his white collar and was beating his ass with his shepherds crook, and serves him jolly well right for his disrespect. LoL

[MMI]

"Submission is powerful, beautiful, hopeful and courageous"

Actually, I don't think he was being anti-feminist, just trying to apply 1st Century standards to 21st Century life.

How many subs here feel they grow thorugh submission and service? Which of them feels they add something worthwhile to their Dom's life?

... just asking.

If you want to hear the sermon, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of what Rev. Mark Oden says, if you want to comment further, you should, then go to http://www.stnicholas-sevenoaks.org and click on Marriage and Women

You'll need about 25 minutes to hear it all - if you can stomach it. (He sounds like Tony Blair, so that got him off to a very bad start with me!)

[denuseri]

"Submission is powerful, beautiful, hopeful and courageous"

Those words I do agree with in and of themselves though I havent listened to his sermon yet, nor do I intend to..

How many subs here feel they grow thorugh submission and service?


I like to think I have.

Which of them feels they add something worthwhile to their Dom's life?

You would have to ask him that one but I am pretty sure he keeps me around for more than just sucking cock and cleaning the house. lol

[MMI]

You would have to ask him that one but I am pretty sure he keeps me around for more than just sucking cock and cleaning the house. lol

You clean the house too?? If he tires of you, let me know, you can be maid here .... I can get my cock sucked any time ...(I wish)

[thir]

"Submission is powerful, beautiful, hopeful and courageous"

How many subs here feel they grow thorugh submission and service? Which of them feels they add something worthwhile to their Dom's life?

... just asking.

I do not understand what you are saying here - what has BDSM got to do with a religious obligation?

[denuseri]

Perhaps he is implicating a connection between spiritualism and the arts of dominion and submission.

I seem to recall a thread about it not too long ago.

Fiddles around on the back shelves of the scriptorium for a few moments and returns...Ahhh yesh, here it is:

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=19264

<<goes back to sucking cock and cleaning house.

Oh I allmost forgot pssst, MMI, I also cook and do yard work. Winks

[IAN 2411]

<<goes back to sucking cock and cleaning house.

Oh I allmost forgot pssst, MMI, I also cook and do yard work. Winks[/QUOTE]

Surly not at the same time, wow that really is multi tasking.

Regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

I do not understand what you are saying here - what has BDSM got to do with a religious obligation?

Submit to your husbands in not a religious obligation, if that was what you were refering to. It is an outdated command, that has no part in the 21st centuary, when equality of the sexes is abundent. I thought the whole point in life was to go forward in life not to go back.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

If the idea of submision is so outdated ian why do so many people in the world still practice it?

And yes I have had the occassional privelege to suck cock and do other things while scrubbing a floor, vacuming, dusting, and even doing dishes at the same time, though I normally would pause in my labors to focus on the task at hand (or mouth/other opening), I have occassionally been ordered to continue working or multitask as you put it. lol

[IAN 2411]

If the idea of submision is so outdated ian why do so many people in the world still practice it?

I didn't mean that submission was outdated, and as a submissive i know that is not the case. What i was refering
to was a blanket command for women to submit, and that goes against their rights as an equal to do as
they please within the law of the land, but i have to admit only in the free world.

Regards ian 2411

[Bren122]

What if the abuse is part of the teachings?

Quran 4:34 - "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."

What book of the Bible is the Quran? Call me stupid but I thought that Christian Vicars read from the Bible and Muslims read from the Quran? Aren't we just talking about a priest from Scotland?

[Flaming_Redhead]

Now the question I am asking is, has the church now really lost the plot, in a time when the church is saying that the congregation is very low, were these the right words to say. In a time of sexual equality has this Vicar the right to say these things in public, is he now guilty of bigotry? Is it time to say that the church has no place in modern society, because it is obvious that the church cannot move with the times? Since when have any of Gods laws been higher than the law of the land since the UK repealed capital punishment?

I've listened to the sermon, and I heard absolutely nothing going against the Bible. Therefore, they were the right words for the church to say, and unless the UK lacks free speech and freedom of religion, the vicar has a right to say them. The vicar is guilty only of teaching God's word to Christians. Do a Google search on the city of Corinth during the time of Paul. It was a thriving metropolis, bigger than Athens, with many self-made men and women as well as male and female athletes, etc. I don't think times are so different now that what the Bible says is irrelevant. If one is a Christian, there is no law higher than God's law.

[IAN 2411]

Lets get things back into focus, how did God say in the bible that woman had to submit. God never wrote the bible, it was man, and unless this man had some kind of portal to speak with this mythical higher authority, then God never said anything like that. I am a Christian but not by choice, but for all any one of us knows the first half of the bible could have been written by a complete nobody. Even in the 21st centuary the world is still getting these so called priests calling themselves the sons of God, they are all spouting the same rubbish, dont do as i do, but do as i say. Then a few thousand people that are as mad as he is, go and build a comune. Where is your proof that god said all that the Vicar is talking about, and dont say Christ, because him being the son of God is now debateable in the 21st centuary, he could have been an early version of Paul McKenna, an extremely good illusionist. There are healers now that i know of that can with a touch help people in pain, so i will leave that to your own imagination.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

If one is a Christian, there is no law higher than God's law.

And THIS is what scares the hell out of atheists. THIS is what let's men think it's okay to drive planes into buildings. THIS is what let's self-righteous lunatics kill doctors in the guise of saving lives. THIS is what lets parents torture their children instead of giving them medicines.

Anyone who places a god's law above man's law is opening the door to hatred, intolerance and bigotry.

God's law allows you to kill your enemies, right down to the last man, woman and child, saving only the virgins for your own amusement. (Numbers 31:1-18)

God's law allows the owning of slaves. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

It is MAN'S laws which make us civilized.

[Thorne]

I am a Christian but not by choice,

This line intrigues me. Are you being held captive in a church?

But in all seriousness, if this is not your choice, what would your choice be? I was raised a Catholic, but I chose to turn away from the church, from all religions. I would really like to know why you feel you don't have a choice.

[IAN 2411]

I am a Christian but not by choice,

This line intrigues me. Are you being held captive in a church?
But in all seriousness, if this is not your choice, what would your choice be?

I suppose that was the wrong way to say things, I was Christened Church of England Christian.
I have never changed my religion, but I have grown out of it, I am not a firm believer, I have beliefs but they are more Pagan,
and have more to do with the old Gods and nature. No Christianity is not my choice, because that was taken away at birth.

Regards ian 2411

[Flaming_Redhead]

Lets get things back into focus, how did God say in the bible that woman had to submit.

In Genesis, chapter 3 tells of the fall of man. Verse 16 says, "To the woman he (God) said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

In the New Testament, Paul, an apostle of Christ, wrote a letter to the Ephesians on a number of issues, one of them being wives and husbands. Verses 22-24 say, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." He said it again to the Colossians; chapter 3 verse 18 says, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Peter, an apostle of Christ, wrote to the early church on wives and husbands, also; 1 Peter chapter 3 verse 1 says, "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, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives."

God never wrote the bible, it was man, and unless this man had some kind of portal to speak with this mythical higher authority, then God never said anything like that.

In Christianity, it is believed that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It is not merely one book but many books and letters written by many authors over the course of many, many years. It is a miracle in itself that when all the books were eventually compiled together they complimented and agreed with each other.

I am a Christian but not by choice

You always have a choice.

[Flaming_Redhead]

Anyone who places a god's law above man's law is opening the door to hatred, intolerance and bigotry.

It is MAN'S laws which make us civilized.

Frankly, I don't see what the Quran has to do with this thread, but anyway, civilization is as subjective as the god(s) people worship and the laws they obey.

1 Peter, chapter 2 verses 13-14 say, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."

[Thorne]

It is a miracle in itself that when all the books were eventually compiled together they complimented and agreed with each other.

When did this happen? Aren't there two contradictory versions of Creation? Isn't it true that the four Gospels, supposed to be the teaching of four men who actually walked with Jesus, don't agree on so many things?

In truth, the Bible was pulled together by various factions of Christianity from numerous competing beliefs. Those which most supported the powers-that-were remained in the Bible. Those which did not were not only excised but ordered destroyed, to reduce the possiblitly of people thinking there might be other paths to heaven.

[Thorne]

Frankly, I don't see what the Quran has to do with this thread, but anyway, civilization is as subjective as the god(s) people worship and the laws they obey.

While the OP dealt with a Christian Vicar, the idea of women subordinating themselves to men runs through many other faiths. And unless you are claiming that Christianity is the only true religion, and therefore it is only the Christian God's law which must be followed, then the Quran, the Book of Mormon and any other religious text is just as valid a reference as the Bible.

[Thorne]

I suppose that was the wrong way to say things, I was Christened Church of England Christian.
I have never changed my religion, but I have grown out of it, I am not a firm believer, I have beliefs but they are more Pagan,
and have more to do with the old Gods and nature. No Christianity is not my choice, because that was taken away at birth.

Regards ian 2411

It sounds to me like you have, indeed, made a choice. Your belief system has diverged from the Christian church by your choice, has it not? Whether or not you were baptized into the Church of England shouldn't have any bearing on that choice. It may be that you have not yet shaken off the teachings of that Church. I can understand this, as I still find myself struggling against my Catholic training. But I would think that once one decides to abandon one path in favor of another, he has made a choice and severed the ties which bound him.

Out of curiosity, if you were filling out some form of paperwork which asked you to list you religion, what would you put down? I only ask because of my own experiences. It took me a long time before I felt comfortable writing "none" instead of "Catholic". And I could certainly understand if you were reluctant to put down "Pagan".

And please understand that I'm not trying to ridicule or belittle you. I'm truly stunned by the idea that you would consider yourself to have no choice in your religion simply because of an accident of birth.

[denuseri]

One may wish to keep in mind that the religion of christianity in and of itself isnt the original source for the idea of female submission.

Though bashing people for not believeing as one does, does seem to be a common theme through history, and bashing the church, the christian church in paticular seems to be in vogue nowdays.

Dualistic paradoxical wonders of the bible aside...one may wish to keep in mind that not everything being said by the church nor the collection of works they use as cannon is allways wrong for everyone.

If it was they wouldnt have so many followers now would they.

The old testement btw is superseeded by the new testement for many chirstians, and the two laws that Jesus said about having no other gods and loving one's nieghbor as oneself are often looked upon as the only nessesities when you get down too it, becuase with them you dont need to go into any of the others.

The idea of there being a dominance heirarchy relationship dynamic between man and woman is some thing we have brought with us long before the advent of written history or monotheism for that matter.

So its no wonder to me that it was incorperated into the dogma of most of the worlds religions in one way or another once people started writing things down.

And since its probabely biologically hard wired into us somehow to one degree or another, much like most of our other commonalities of behavioral conditions such as a need for spirituality, one shouldnt be so surprised that there are people out there still saying that for a marriage to really work that hierarchy should still be followed.

Further more, one may also wish to keep in mind that white, eruocentric ideals of cultural norms recently developed (historically speaking in the past 100 years) and allowed to dominant ones capitalistic society expoused by the west such as equality in general especially in the form of feminisim etc etc, are not allways shared by the rest of the world as being really nessesary or even desirerable, even by the women of those places you may think your "liberating" by pushing your culture on theirs.

And please don't bother to call us all ignorant or kept in the dark against our will eaither, such derogatory stereotyping isnt going to convience us.

Just becuase we choose to reject your eurocentric ways, especially after having tried a taste of some of them for ouselves and having seen what its brought you in the end doesnt mean we are in favor of them or wrong becuase we choose not to follow them in our own lives or wish to see them forced upon our culture by yours.

[Bren122]

When did this happen? Aren't there two contradictory versions of Creation? Isn't it true that the four Gospels, supposed to be the teaching of four men who actually walked with Jesus, don't agree on so many things?

In truth, the Bible was pulled together by various factions of Christianity from numerous competing beliefs. Those which most supported the powers-that-were remained in the Bible. Those which did not were not only excised but ordered destroyed, to reduce the possiblitly of people thinking there might be other paths to heaven.

The Council of Nicea was organised by Constantine the Great to end the Gnostic Schism that challenged the general teaching of the trinity by claiming that because Jesus was a man he was therefore less holy than God or the Holy Spirit. The first meetings defined the Niscene Creed which was basically a set of rules for what Christians believed in and then the Bible, which had grown to several dozen gospels, was culled of anything that disagreed with the Creed.
The Council was attended by all the Bishops of the Eastern Church and half the Bishops of the Western Church together with three legates from the Pope in Rome; even the Celtic Church of Ireland sent Bishops.
The decline of the Western Church was already in evidence for many of those attending were more administrators then theologians and the discussion was dominated by about six senior Eastern Bishops.
Although keeping two bodyguards for personal protection, Constantine did everything in his power to try and keep it a wholly clerical discussion, even going so far as to send half the city garrison away as a sign he didn't want the bishops to feel compelled to any particular view of his- other than that the Schism be ended one way or the other.
The Western Church was unsatisfied with the outcome and added the Apocrypha to its Bibles. Until the final break between East and West, the Pope maintained the fiction that these were not officially part of the Bible. Because this was a Papal decision the Lutherans and Calvinists ditched the Apocrypha as one of their first acts.

[IAN 2411]

[QUOTE=Flaming_Redhead;846989]In Genesis, chapter 3 tells of the fall of man. Verse 16 says, "To the woman he (God) said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Please explain to me who wrote Genesis? Answer is a man. Now he really had his head screwed on right, he was not going to let his wife get the better of him. How does he know what God said, we are talking about the time when only Adam and Eve were on earth, are you trying to tell me that Adam wrote the bible? If so what on and how.



In Christianity, it is believed that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It is not merely one book but many books and letters written by many authors over the course of many, many years. It is a miracle in itself that when all the books were eventually compiled together they complimented and agreed with each other.

Who told you that the priests? Half the Bible is missing and that is also a belief, what are the same priests keeping from you.


[QUOTE=Flaming_Redhead;846989]In the New Testament, Paul, an apostle of Christ, wrote a letter to the Ephesians on a number of issues, one of them being wives and husbands. Verses 22-24 say, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." He said it again to the Colossians; chapter 3 verse 18 says, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Peter, an apostle of Christ, wrote to the early church on wives and husbands, also; 1 Peter chapter 3 verse 1 says, "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, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives."
Now correct me if i’m wrong, but wasn’t Paul a man? [an early sexist] He was only saying what was written in Genesis, it was nothing new, he was just repeating what another man had written.


Regards ian 2411