Vicar tells women to 'submit to husbands'

A vicar and his curate have outraged women parishioners by urging women to “submit to your husbands” and allow male members of the familes to speak for them.

By Nigel Bunyan
Published: 1:50PM GMT 12 Feb 2010

In a leaflet issued to parishoners, the Rev Angus MacLeay used passages in the Bible to justify women playing a submissive role in local church life. He urged women to “submit to their husbands in everything”.

Mr MacLeay, a member of the General Synod, is opposed to the appointment of women bishops. He has campaigned vociferously for Reform, an Evangelical group that seeks to reform the Church of England “according to the Holy Scriptures”.


Related Articles
Swinging biker vicar punished after parishioners complain about her wild ways
World Athletics: Great Britain's Lisa Dobriskey celebrates silver in 1,500 metres
Lord Mandelson in "good form" after prostate operation
Shannon Matthews trial: Oddball loner Michael Donovan and the 'Child on Board' car sticker
DNA could be faked by criminals, new study claims
Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger accuses Celtic of inflicting 'harsh treatment?The leaflet he issued It says at one point: “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."

In a section called `More difficult passages to consider', it continues:

"It would seem that women should remain silent, if their questions could legitimately be answered by their husbands at home."

In a sermon days later, his curate, the Rev Mark Oden, a married father-of-three, built on the argument, sparking further controversy.

He told his congregation at St Nicholas Church, Sevenoaks, Kent, that the behaviour of modern women was to blame for Britain’s high divorce rate.

He said: “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.”

The views of Mr MacLeay and his curate are understood to have prompted dozens of women parishioners to cancel their direct debit subscriptions to St Nicholas’s.

One disenchanted female parishioner said she was “disgusted” by the sermon.

“How can they talk that way in the 21st century?” she said. “No wonder the Church is losing touch if this is the kind of gobbledegook they want us to believe it.

"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 woman, who also asked to remain anonymous, said: "We're supposed to let out 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 by direct debit to the church."

The rector was unavailable for comment.

Mr Oden said: “I did not set out to unnecessarily offend people, but I stand by what God has said in his word, The Bible. “I am passionate about helping people

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7221802/Vicar-tells-women-to-submit-to-husbands.html


and here is one comment from a site

Women are not called to submit as beaten slaves but as willing servants. Just as we all serve God, placing His will and desire above our own so too should wives submit to their husbands.

But what do you think?

As willing servant makes sense&not forcefully

Jesus2:

As willing servant makes sense¬ forcefully

willing servants? u still living in the stone age or sumthin?

Mudley313:

willing servants? u still living in the stone age or sumthin?

your mental state needs to be examined for quoting me out of context.When Late Yar adua offered himself as a 'servant' leader, was he 'living in the stone age or sumthin'?

Jesus2:

your mental state needs to be examined for quoting me out of context.When Late Yar adua offered himself as a 'servant' leader, was he 'living in the stone age or sumthin'?

n ur mental state dont need no examination for it is already certified unstable for expecting to have a willing servant for a wife just becos some ancient stone aged jewish men said so in some book of fairy tales

Mudley313:

n your mental state dont need no examination for it is already certified unstable for expecting to have a willing servant for a wife just becos some ancient stone aged jewish men said so in some book of fairy tales

urs needs to be examined for plagiarism on my post.
BTW whats the meaning of a willing servant? Is it wrong for anyone to be one?

Jesus2:

BTW whats the meaning of a willing servant? Is it wrong for anyone to be one?

well, in your book of ancient jewish myths, which condones [size=14pt]SLAVERY[/size], n written by stone aged mysoginist jewish men, it is not wrong

The [size=16pt]slave[/size] was encouraged to become a "proselyte" (doulos) (Exodus 12:44). He might be set free (Exodus 21:3; Exodus 21:20-21; Exodus 21:26-27). The law guarded his life and limbs. If a married man became a bondman, his rights to his wife were respected, she going out with him after six years' service. If as single he accepted a wife from his master, and she bore him children, she and they remained the master's, and he alone went out, unless from love to his master and his wife and children he preferred staying (Exodus 21:6); then the master bored his ear (the member symbolizing willing obedience, as the phrase "give ear" implies) with an awl, and he served for ever, i.e. until Jubilee year (Leviticus 25:10; Deuteronomy 15:17); type of the Father's [size=16pt]willing Servant[/size] for man's sake (compare Isaiah 50:5; Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:5; Philemon 2:7).

Jesus2:

When Late Yar adua offered himself as a 'servant' leader, was he 'living in the stone age or sumthin'?

and there's a clear difference between a public servant n a servant to another (a master; in this case a husband) whether willing or unwilling

Marriam-Webster
Main Entry: ser·vant
Pronunciation: \ˈsər-vənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from present participle of servir
Date: 13th century
: one that serves others <a public servant>; especially : one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer

@mudley313 what are you saying?

Mudley313:

well, in your book of ancient jewish myths, which condones [size=14pt]SLAVERY[/size], n written by stone aged mysoginist jewish men, it is not wrong

The [size=16pt]slave[/size] was encouraged to become a "proselyte" (doulos) (Exodus 12:44). He might be set free (Exodus 21:3; Exodus 21:20-21; Exodus 21:26-27). The law guarded his life and limbs. If a married man became a bondman, his rights to his wife were respected, she going out with him after six years' service. If as single he accepted a wife from his master, and she bore him children, she and they remained the master's, and he alone went out, unless from love to his master and his wife and children he preferred staying (Exodus 21:6); then the master bored his ear (the member symbolizing willing obedience, as the phrase "give ear" implies) with an awl, and he served for ever, i.e. until Jubilee year (Leviticus 25:10; Deuteronomy 15:17); type of the Father's [size=16pt]willing Servant[/size] for man's sake (compare Isaiah 50:5; Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:5; Philemon 2:7).

What has the above got to do with the issue of a wife being a willing servant?

When will u atheist start reasoning like normally people without being sarcastic in ur opinion about all issues pertaining to the bible

Lets view it from a non biblical angle. The topic is 'Are Women To Submit To Their Husbands In Everything'? and the subject deduced is 'willing servant'
Is their any similarity between a willing servant and a slave?

Lets see what the dic and not the bible says about our subject

willing :cheerfully consenting or ready: a willing worker. disposed or consenting; inclined: willing to go along. done, given, borne, used, etc., with cheerful readiness.

---

Servant :One who expresses submission, recognizance, or debt to another: your obedient servant. a person in the service of another.

---

Now willing+servant=a person cheerfully consenting or ready to be in the service of another
Is there any thing that seems like force there or Slavery?

A wife must be a willing servant and not a forceful servant. I work in an organisation. Im a willing servant serving my boss as well as our clients cheerfully and not by force and i get paid my monthly due as and when due. Will u now say im a slave? In everything in life, one person must be on top while another must be a little lower.

Take for instance NL, jesoul and ur fellow athesit manmustwac are servants to us and to seun. In they are willing servant cos no one is forcing them to be moderators.

Lets liken it to husband and wife. A wife should be willing to serve her husband and the children as well as others around her.

Being a willing servant isnt slavery mr mudley.

Mudley313:

and there's a clear difference between a public servant n a servant to another (a master; in this case a husband) whether willing or unwilling

Marriam-Webster
Main Entry: ser·vant
Pronunciation: \ˈsər-vənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from present participle of servir
Date: 13th century
: one that serves others <a public servant>; especially : one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer

My guy, the key word here is servant. the definition i got from dictionary.com is this a person employed by the government is a public servant..

The persons role is to serve the employer the government and the populace. Servant and slavery are not same.

Late yar adua was a public servant and a master like the likes of IBB, Abacha and co but he emphasised on the word 'servant leader' i.e im a leader and will lead by serving. In the context all the definitions that can be ascribed to a servant could also have been assigned to yar adua. yet hes not anyones slave.

---

In summary, that a wife is advised to be a willing servant doesn't mean shes a slave according to the definition of a willing servant.

so, is the husband suppose to be a willing servant to the marriage as well? or only the wife? cos where i'm from, a healthy relationship is suppose to be 50/50

and yea, i understand exactly what a willing servant is. if u read my last post you'd understand what i was driving at. the ancients buy a slave n owns the slaves family n all dat bs, and with time, if the slave is in a position to be freed but is happy wit the masters treatment, he can decide to become a willing servant instead of opting for freedom. dis usually is cos he/she is already used to slave mentality n co-dependent of the master. so there's virtually no difference between a willing servant n a willing slave, the only similarity is they're not forced to take such a role. if thats what u are lookin for in a wife, no qualms. dem full village

women "submitting" to their husbands is the type of term derived from ancient jewish n arab writings like the bible n koran, due to the fact that they were written by ANCIENT mysoginist men who viewed themselves superior to women. but the stone ages way of thinking have far been outpaced by more advanced n humane way of reasoning. so, should the husband also submit to the wife? or its just the wife?

Mudley313:

so, is the husband suppose to be a willing servant to the marriage as well? or only the wife? cos where i'm from, a healthy relationship is suppose to be 50/50

Healthy relationship lets say 60/40 isnt bad. U be guy now. u no sey if u give our women plenty chance they can misuse it at times. Its better we have a slight edge. After all its a mans world and they themselves agree with us

Mudley313:

and yea, i understand exactly what a willing servant is. if u read my last post you'd understand what i was driving at. the ancients buy a slave n owns the slaves family n all dat bs, and with time, if the slave is in a position to be freed but is happy wit the masters treatment, he can decide to become a willing servant instead of opting for freedom. dis usually is cos he/she is already used to slave mentality n co-dependen[/b]t of the master. so there's virtually no difference between a willing servant n a willing slave, [b]the only similarity is they're not forced to take such a role. if thats what u are lookin for in a wife, no qualms. dem full village

If based on mentality well thats relative to the slave with hs/her delusion of equating hs/herself to slave for willingness.

I presume u meant difference as against similarity u have in ur post. I agree with the difference in that a servant should not be forced while a slave may be force

Mudley313:
"submitting" to their husbands is the type of term derived from ancient jewish n arab writings like the bible n koran, due to the fact that they were written by ANCIENT mysoginist men who viewed themselves superior to women. but the stone ages way of thinking have far been outpaced by more advanced n humane way of reasoning. so, should the husband also submit to the wife? or its just the wife?

The answer i gave to the first part should do for this part as well. To have it fair 60/40 or 55/45 is still good.
NB husband to take the larger portion of control.


Hope we can agree that a wife can be a willing servant as against a willing slave?

Yes

the 65/55 % thingy i can agree on but the word "servant" dont sit well wit me, whether willing or unwilling. i can understand serving your country or serving god but serving your husband in marriage, where a couple are suppose to be "partners" is too archaic. how will it feel looking at the mother of your children as your servant, whether a willing or unwilling one

sorry wont wanna get married to a timid chic. me n my girl are more or less parleys/buddies as oppossed to a master/servant relationship

Mudley313:

the 65/55 % thingy i can agree on but the word "servant" dont sit well wit me, whether willing or unwilling. i can understand serving your country or serving god but serving your husband in marriage, where a couple are suppose to be "partners" is too archaic. how will it feel looking at the mother of your children as your servant, whether a willing or unwilling one

sorry wont wanna get married to a timid chic. me n my girl are more or less parleys/buddies as oppossed to a master/servant relationship

Let me join here by saying in the case of marriage it shouldn't be master/servant relationship. because if we go by the post of jesus2 above in a situation of 60/40 or 55/45 power/control sharing deal, that will be almost equal to parleys/buddies like u say u re with ur woman

toba:

Let me join here by saying in the case of marriage it shouldn't be master/servant relationship. because if we go by the post of jesus2 above in a situation of 60/40 or 55/45 power/control sharing deal, that will be almost equal to parleys/buddies like u say u re with your woman

Thks toba. I will say the servant here doesnt mean same thing as a normal steward or domestic staff. Its like an elder to younger brother thing from same blood. where the younger will serve and show respect to the elder

Thks toba. I will say the servant here doesnt mean same thing as a normal steward or domestic staff. Its like an elder to younger brother thing from same blood. where the younger will serve and show respect to the elder

@ bolded: dat i would disagree on. in a healthy marriage with "ur partner", respect should be mutual, not one-sided

Mudley313:

@ bolded: dat i would disagree on. in a healthy marriage with "your partner", respect should be mutual, not one-sided

these stone age bobos aren't trying to hear all that.
who wants to marry a doormat?

Some women like to have control and lead the home, this is what gave birth to some of these scriptures
The issue of submission of the woman has to do with headship in the home. God relates to us through leadership. That doesnt make the woman a slave. A soldier must recognise leadership in the army and obey the instructions of his leader , that doesnt make him less a soldier than his leader .

The woman submits to the man according to the word but that doesnt make her inferior to a man in the society. But as far as her husband is concerned, she ought to play the supportive role.

1 Cor. 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

bawomolo:

these stone age bobos aren't trying to hear all that.
who wants to marry a doormat?

Some men actually want more than a doormat.

Joagbaje:

Some women like to have control and lead the home, this is what gave birth to some of these scriptures
The issue of submission of the woman has to do with headship in the home. God relates to us through leadership. That doesnt make the woman a slave. A soldier must recognise leadership in the army and obey the instructions of his leader , that doesnt make him less a soldier than his leader .

The woman submits to the man according to the word but that doesnt make her inferior to a man in the society. But as far as her husband is concerned, she ought to play the supportive role.

1 Cor. 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

true talk.

@joagbaje

must women become insignificant and second fiddle because they were created for the man, that they must submit to the man?

@joagbaje

so you say a wife must play a supportive role, what about equal roles?

babaearly:

must women become insignificant and second fiddle because they were created for the man, that they must submit to the man?

babaearly:

so you say a wife must play a supportive role, what about equal roles?

As far as leadership in the home is concerned, yes. they ought to submit to the man. There has to be a leader. Leadership doesnt mean perfect. There are areas a woman may be stronger than the man, such as decorations, negotiations or for some, financial management. a good man must recognise the strenght of the wife and submit to her there by delegating her for such. But the woman must learn to make her genius ideas be a suggestion to the man but not to usurp authority over the man . And if the man seems to be wrong and he insists things must go his way, she should obey and talk to God to touch his heart.

Joagbaje:

As far as leadership in the home is concerned, yes. they ought to submit to the man. There has to be a leader. Leadership doesnt mean perfect.

Why should there be this "leadership" matter within any home? Are homes countries or partnership? Why can't there be two leaders? Why can't they both submit to each other in different situations or areas where each one of them is strongest or better informed? Two equal heads, they say, are better than one. Why make the family a hierarchical thing, instead of a more holarchical thing?

Joagbaje:

There are areas a woman may be stronger than the man, such as decorations, negotiations or for some, financial management. a good  man must recognize the strength of the wife and submit to her there by delegating her for such.

Now, you are talking like a real man who is not afraid of women.

Joagbaje:

But the woman must learn to make her genius ideas be a suggestion to the man but not to usurp authority over the man.

The man needs to teach his woman how to table suggestions in a way that is very balanced, so that they won't come of as trying to "usurp" men's precious positions as "leaders" of their homes. And, also, men should learn to bring their ego under control and also do something about their inferiority complexes and fear of women. They should just grow up and stop feeling threatened at the drop of a heart by their wives' initiatives in their homes. In this modern age, men just cannot carry the burden alone, so it is time to grow up and become matured and realistic.

Joagbaje:

And if the man seems to be wrong and he insists things must go his way, she should obey and talk to God to touch his heart.

This is just bad advice of a large magnitude. If the man is wrong and refuses to see it, it is the duty of the wife to take whatever  steps necessary to head off the impending calamity that will result from her husband's myopic state of either bad decision making, or lack of decision making. It is both her duty and her right to not just fold her arms and sit around looking up in the sky for help.

If the sheit hits the fan, she and the children(if there are any) will also get stained. That is why two equal heads are better than one. That is why the two partners have to compensate each other in decision making process. That is why marriage is a partnership.