Anglican Church playing God again.

[Blue]

Definitely Arch, they apply secular definition to God's words, add what they think is clarification, what will make people obey, take it more seriously etc... And if you really set your mind to it, you can take scriptures out of context and get them to support almost anything you want them to support.

Take my ex parents, they used "And if a man lay with a man as with a woman he shall be stoned unto death." (Lev 20:13) against me big time during the time between my coming out and the legalities of disowning me and me getting my name changed were final. Had to have a protection order against them, and, ended up in a safe house for three months to keep, especially my ex father from physically attacking me until I could get out of the area.

And that is what happens when people twist the Bible to suit their ideas of what it means and justify what they want to do. Same with the wording here, people will twist it to justify abuse, neglect and isolation of the wives who agree to it.

[princealbertofb]

Actually the church is insuring a 'Godly' way of life for its members/believers.

This is really not a thing about going out to undo the past 100 years for everyone. Hell if you don't like the wording of an Anglican Marriage Ceremony, then go to a Justice of the Peace or a Wiccan Priest (jump the broomstick) or whatever other religious vow ceremony floats your boat.

The Churches (plural, there are many) who use the bible as a framework for its system of operation (beliefs) are constantly trying to balance out this modern world with ancient traditions. It isn't easy, its not like a new prophet emerges every generation to set the record straight and amend/parse previous laws and edicts send down from General Operations Director (G.O.D.)

While liberal women have burnt their bras and have taken up careers and the odd fad of wearing pants, the more conservative women actually love the idea of the traditional 'submit to your husband' ideal.

Freedom of/from religion is a two way street. Whilst you may not cotton to the whole notion of women being subject to their husband, I fear that conservative Anglicans do cotton to it, and they should be allowed the same freedom to pursue their religious beliefs as you do to pursue whatever it is your beliefs include.

From the article this is to affect only the Anglican Church, it doesn't appear that other brands of faith or the courts will have to legally change the vows to reflect submission.

Or did I miss that?

I think that, again, the point is being missed that some women who belong to that church and maybe that particular parish may not want their ceremonies to be changed to something as backward as this, but this kind of forces them out of the parish / community if they want to have what they had before. Shall we say that the move doesn't sound all that democratic... but then again, is democracy something churches should encourage or indulge in? Not so sure. I'd got the impression that the Anglican Church was trying to integrate women more in its decisions than before. I may have been wrong.

What appeared to me was that the contract was being very one-sidedly changed to benefit just one gender without necessary consensus.

[princealbertofb]

I don't know, yes it's based in Biblical Ideal but i think that too often in today's world, people do not understand those ideal, or any ideals for a relationship in which one partner has absolute authority and power over the other, all be that by the choice of the one agreeing to submit.

Too many times I've seen people, and more often the man or dominant partner change for the worse after they got married. Mr. Sweet, I'll take care of you and treat you right." becomes "Mr. I'll tell you what to do and how to be and, beat the tar out of you if you don't."

The wording, to me, without the ideals behind it, gives them the opening to do that and, sets it in the minds of both partners that it's okay and that the submissive partner has to accept it.

Yes, IF everyone held to the Biblical ideals behind it, it would be fine but, this is the real world and that is not going to happen. There are some people who will use it as an excuse for abuse and, there are some who will refuse to get out of the marriage because of the vows, even if it kills them. That's where I see a problem.

People who are of a certain faith do not usually go outside of that faith to marry, they accept the vows their faith prescribes, even if it doesn't feel quite right to them. We aren't living in an ideal world where we can trust anyone but ourselves to hold to any ideals. This is asking what I see as under educated, under motivated people to accept an ideal they do not fully understand and, we all know that humans will take such things and twist them into something ugly, perhaps not always intentionally but, they will use their own definitions and, try to act on those definitions, even when it hurts others when they do. And some will do the same intentionally.

To a certain extent, you are probably right that many couple relationships rely on a dominant / submissive dynamic, but this generally pans out in gender roles and who gets to do what... the way most couples engage in their lives is a reflection of what roles each person in the couple is willing to undertake and what acts go with these roles. In effect, if a woman were better at changing a tyre than her man and he was better at cooking a meal, there would be no reason why he shouldn't cook (the best for the couple) while she changes the tyres (the best for the couple too).

Societies have ascribed a certain number of roles for reasons dictated by physical strength, diversity in focus, and societal or cultural expectations, mostly. But women have been known to cope without men and men have been known to cope without men (probably even more so due to widowhood and longer life expectancy).

In the last century (and maybe more so since the 1960s) women have managed to reverse a tendency which was that they were invariably submitted to their husbands because of finances and child-bearing and rearing conditions, but these situations have dramatically changed. I don't see why women would want to return to situations of inequality after fighting so hard to get this equality (an equality that is still not obtained in every aspect of life).

The only de facto inequality that makes sense is the fact that men cannot be pregnant while women can. The fact that males are generally physically stronger, may also dictate the choice of men for jobs that require that sort of strength, but more and more it's machines that do the hard work.

[Blue]

And how often have you seen husbands pull the "Because I'm your husband and, you promised to obey me." card on their unwilling wives? How many wives stay in horrible, abusive relationships because they think their church says the have to stay there?

Submit goes beyond obey, to many that means cower down before, let them use you as they see feet, become a doormat and like it or die trying to like what you hate. That is not what it SHOULD or does mean ideally, but shoulds and ideals are not reality.

We don't need anything form any authority that can be construed to mean someone MUST accept abuse and live in such situations, even if it kills them to do so.