# Wives Submit to Husbands?



## RoderickE

A church in England preached Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 and immediately many women members were so offended that they quit the congregation. So what does Eph 5:22 and Col 3:18 say that is so offensive?



> * Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. -- Eph 5:22
> 
> Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. -- Col 3:18*



Some of the women congregants said they were "disgusted" by the sermon which was accompanied by leaflets. Further, a woman member asked,



> * "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. 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."*



Before we get into the texts in question, let's look at the responses by some of the women. Clearly the two texts cited, call for wives to submit to their husbands, and these are New Testament texts, not something brought over only from the Old Testament in case someone implies these concepts are "done away with in Christ". But some of the responses by the women show that they want to believe only the things they want to believe about the Bible. This pastor isn't making up some personal concept but rather is merely preaching Christian concepts.

Maybe rather than summarily reject the message, the women should ask themselves, "Yes, that concept is in the Bible, but what does it mean?" Does it mean women are to do whatever their husbands tell them without question? Does it mean women can never talk in Church?

Another woman congregant said:



> * "What kind of medieval sermon is that — we are not in the 15th Century. I have already canceled my direct debit to the church."
> *


Is every sermon we find to be non-contemporaneous with our views to be dismissed as "medieval" or out of touch with modern times? What kind of Faith will we end up with if we impose our beliefs on the Bible rather than having the Bible shape our beliefs and practices?

Now let us look closer at the texts in question. The entire context of Eph 5 is not only submission of wives to husbands but submission of Christians, "as children" to God and submission to each other as a community of saints. Christianity is not a lone-ranger religion despite how it is often depicted as a "personal faith". As a matter of fact, Eph 5:21, one verse before the wives submit to their husbands verse, we read:



> * "[Christians] submitting to one another in the fear of God" -- Eph 5:21*


Is it merely 15th-century gobbledygook for Christians to submit to one another and worse yet in "fear" of God?

Next, let's look at the full context of the wife submission verses.



> * "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." -- Eph 5:22-24*



As you notice, the full context gives us the reasoning behind the concept, that is husbands are the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of Church. When we deny that a husband is the head of the wife do we also deny that Christ is the head of the Church? Keep in mind I am writing this article as a married man, married 20 years. I fully discussed this issue with my wife on more than one occasion and discussed this specific article. And how fitting I write this article one day before Valentines Day. 

But what does in submission to everything really mean? Does it mean, well everything? That wives should just do everything they are told by their husbands without question? Is that how the Church submits to Christ? Do individual Christians, even the apostles themselves just do everything Christ said or did they sometimes question Him. Not question in rebellion or disobedience but in clarification. Now, granted husbands and their judgment is not perfect like Christ's so when a husband is questioned, as Christ was often questioned even by His followers, a husband may need to relent and change his decision.

But before we go on, let me continue the context of the quote, for it does not end with calling women to submit. So often, as my wife pointed out we focus on the fact that the text tells women to submit to their husbands yet we do not hear many sermons preached on what men must do toward their wives.



> * "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her" -- Eph 5:25*



Just how much does Christ love the church? He gave Himself for her. Or more specifically, he was defamed, ridiculed, tortured, and ultimately killed for the Church. How much more self-sacrificing can you get than that? So, the problem is, while we see and understand the Bible calling for wives to submit to husbands, how much do we really understand the kind of self-sacrifice a husband should have for his wife? Does ANY husband really love his wife like that yet we want women to submit like the Church submits (is supposed to) submit to Christ? And quite frankly, there are many husbands that aren't "leading" their wives or their families -- many are off concerned about themselves, their work status, their social status, everything but a self-sacrificial love for their wives. I'm not saying we should then drop the whole thing on both sides, but rather each should strive more to live up to these biblical precepts, realizing we will often fail.

Looking further at the Colossians 3 context, we read:



> * "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them. Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged." -- Col 3:18-21*



Maybe if submitting to your husband is "disgusting" so too is it "disgusting" for husbands to love their wives and not be bitter toward them. Maybe it is "disgusting" that children are told to obey their parents in all things. Maybe it is "disgusting" that fathers are told to not provoke their children?

The point is, while we may find things in the Bible which are sometimes difficult for our human nature to practice, nevertheless as Christians we need to be receptive to what the Word of God is saying and not blame the message on the messenger.

Do some people take the wives submit to your husbands text out of context? Yes, some husbands use it as a license to boss their wives around, forgetting the self-sacrificial role of the husband. Some people want to claim it is merely a culture precept, meant only for those immediate times but no longer for today. Again, so if that is the case, then should husband's loving their wives and children obeying their parents also be cast away as only a 1st-century thing?

Christian marriages fail, Christian families fail when we turn away from the Bible, claiming it is so "medieval" that we pick and choose what to believe and what to practice. If we behave like that, that is no longer a "Christian" marriage or "Christian" family.

So, as the Bible says; wives submit to your husbands, husbands love your wives self-sacrificially and without bitterness, children obey your parents, fathers do not provoke your children but treat them gently. What is so "disgusting" about that message? Why would a Christian become offended by that message? 

The UK article can be read here: Church orders wives to 'submit' | The Sun |News


----------



## au5t1n

The lack of desire to submit is one thing. What I'm more concerned about is how easily they dismiss the Scripture, if they are Christians. The question they need to ask themselves is, "Was I just offended by the way the pastor preached it, or was I also offended by the text?"


----------



## Andres

austinww said:


> The lack of desire to submit is one thing. What I'm more concerned about is how easily they dismiss the Scripture, if they are Christians. The question they need to ask themselves is, "Was I just offended by the way the pastor preached it, or was I also offended by the text?"



I agree with Austin. God's word should offend our wicked hearts. But for the Christian, he/she should take the offense the scriptures cause and allow the Holy Spirit to work sanctification in their life. The women in the article seem to love themselves more than God's truth and this is a most woeful position to be in.


----------



## Galatians220

These women are showing themselves to be stiff-necked unbelievers. It's right and predictable that they would be offended by God's real word. If those verses are preached and expounded upon by a godly minister who cares about his flock, they would always be seen as pearls of wisdom from the Lord Himself by believers and as grossly offensive by unbelievers. Thus it shall ever be.

Margaret


----------



## Jack K

An underlying assumption made by those upset at the idea of wives submitting to husbands is that submission is a bad thing to be avoided. We've missed the fact that in God's topsy-turvy kingdom, Christians submitting to each other is a good thing. We should all be eager to submit where appropriate, even look for such opportunities (Eph. 5:21). Husbands model Christ when they love their wives. But wives also model Christ, who submitted perfectly to his Father, when they submit to their husbands. So there is great honor in Christian submission.


----------



## Rich Koster

Imagine that..... preaching out of the Bible. What's next... asking us to make some sort of commitment to Jesus as Lord (not just Savior)???


----------



## jambo

I think it is symptomatic of a non-Christian society when anything that is found to be offensive in the scriptures is dismissed as being a Victorian or medieval concept that no longer applies today. Even the idea of sin is seen as a leftover from a bygone age. Man likes to think of himself as having outgrown the bible and that he knows best. Although these wives would not submit to their husbands, they expect the church to submit to them.


----------



## Marrow Man

How about submission to God's word and God's will?


----------



## au5t1n

Marrow Man said:


> How about submission to God's word and God's will?


 




Good sir, this is the 21st century! We'll have none of those primitive, _medieval_ ideas around here!


----------



## Scott1

Let's face it, in our fallen nature, nobody wants to submit... to anything.

Husbands don't want to submit to God,
Wives don't want to submit to their husbands,
Children don't want to submit to parents,
Employees don't want to submit to employers,
Citizens don't want to submit to the magistrate,
Particular churches don't want to submit to their vows or constitution on polity,

We live in a time not unlike many others.



> Deuteronomy 12:8
> 
> Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
> 
> Judges 17:6
> In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
> 
> • Proverbs 3:7
> Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
> 
> • Isaiah 5:21
> Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
> 
> Jeremiah 17:9
> 9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?


----------



## Bern

Hi guys,

This is my local Church of England congregation. I feel sorry for the Vicar there, as the papers portrayed it as if he was saying that women have to be like slaves. It was the Sun newspaper which is always exaggerating stories to make them sell. Thankfullly the Lord knows the truth, and if he preached the truth, then God will bless him for it. In my opinion, a pastor is better off without people in the congragation that will not sumbit to the plain teaching of scripture.


----------



## jambo

"But it must be true. I read it in the Sun"


----------



## SolaScriptura

Quite frankly, I'm encouraged... to be in the Church of England and be so staunchly conservative... that's bold... American style! Well done!


----------



## Bern

Yeah, its not common these days for CofE ministers to stand by the scriptures due to pressures from within. Unfortunately CofE has become quite wishy washy now. St Nicks in Sevenoaks is certainly one of the more scripturally sound churches in this area.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Bern said:


> Yeah, its not common these days for CofE ministers to stand by the scriptures due to pressures from within. Unfortunately CofE has become quite wishy washy now. St Nicks in Sevenoaks is certainly one of the more scripturally sound churches in this area.


 
Any chance there will be any reprecusions from the ecclesiastical powers that be?


----------



## Bern

Not sure yet, we'll have to see how its handled. Thankfully the Vicar hasn't issued an apology for what he said... all he said was that he didn't mean to offend people by the way he conveyed biblical truth. I think thats fair enough. There are some CofE churches in my area that are faithful to the bible, but they are getting fewer all the time, and some of those are offshoots from mainstream CofE.


----------



## lynnie

It helps if submission is presented as roles, one to take the pressure as head and one to be the helper, and the preacher stresses that no spiritual, moral, or intellectual inferiority is intended. To be be honest, if I lived in England with the huge influx of Muslims and the problems they are having in some places there with Muslims, I would be very, very, careful how I worded it and explained it, because of the associations with Islamic men and how they view submission. Very sad for the preacher of course, but Islam is coloring the meaning of submission so that women are inferior creatures if not outright vessels of Satan to tempt men.
_
During the sermon Rev Oden also blamed "modern woman" for the high divorce rates in the UK. _

Boo, I'd walk out too. Try putting some blame on wimpy men who have abdicated their roles as head- especially in the prayer closet. I've seen plenty of bad wives and plenty of equally rotten husbands. Blaming only women is just plain stupid.


----------



## SolaScriptura

lynnie said:


> _
> During the sermon Rev Oden also blamed "modern woman" for the high divorce rates in the UK. _
> 
> Boo, I'd walk out too. Try putting some blame on wimpy men who have abdicated their roles as head- especially in the prayer closet. I've seen plenty of bad wives and plenty of equally rotten husbands. Blaming only women is just plain stupid.


 
To blame _only_ women is fallacious. But it must not be missed that everything in our culture - including the law - is against the man asserting himself as the head of the house. Our culture (by that I mean Western culture) has become so feminized that a man can only be the head of a house_ if the woman will let him_. In even the most godly households, where the man is the wise mature and Christ-like leader he is meant to be, if the woman has a change of heart and decides to not submit, there is literaly nothing that he can ultimately do. So while we in this venue like to tell me to be men, that simply will not do when thanks to the culture the woman is the one holding all the cards... she must first be told to LET her husband lead. So in that regard, I can totally see where the preacher was coming from.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## calgal

SolaScriptura said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> During the sermon Rev Oden also blamed "modern woman" for the high divorce rates in the UK. _
> 
> Boo, I'd walk out too. Try putting some blame on wimpy men who have abdicated their roles as head- especially in the prayer closet. I've seen plenty of bad wives and plenty of equally rotten husbands. Blaming only women is just plain stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To blame _only_ women is fallacious. But it must not be missed that everything in our culture - including the law - is against the man asserting himself as the head of the house. Our culture (by that I mean Western culture) has become so feminized that a man can only be the head of a house_ if the woman will let him_. In even the most godly households, where the man is the wise mature and Christ-like leader he is meant to be, if the woman has a change of heart and decides to not submit, there is literaly nothing that he can ultimately do. So while we in this venue like to tell me to be men, that simply will not do when thanks to the culture the woman is the one holding all the cards... she must first be told to LET her husband lead. So in that regard, I can totally see where the preacher was coming from.
Click to expand...

 
With all due respect Chaplain, there is a missing piece in your argument: If the man loves his wife like Christ loves the church then submission will not be an issue. What I have seen is where submission is an issue either the woman is the head of the household or the man is ordering his wife around like she is a subordinate.


----------



## SolaScriptura

calgal said:


> With all due respect Chaplain, there is a missing piece in your argument: If the man loves his wife like Christ loves the church then submission will not be an issue. What I have seen is where submission is an issue either the woman is the head of the household or the man is ordering his wife around like she is a subordinate.



Ok. You can keep thinking that. But I know the culture. I know the way everything in our culture is infected by feminism. You may not like the way it sounds, but the bottom line is that a man can only lead if she will let him.


----------



## Bern

Lynnie, don't forget that the media is almost always biased against Christians. I doubt Rev oden placed all the blame on "modern women"...I suspect highly that he mentioned it while talking about other causes of marital breakdown and general decline in family roles, but some people got offended and the papers got hold of it. It wouldn't be the first time thats happened here.

Ben, to a great extent I think you're right. In fact I know people who have terrible difficulties in their marriage because the guy's wife will not allow him to have control over anything. I also agree with Gail, because a selfish husband makes submission very difficult indeed for the wife. Its a two way thing. I think the main problem in our culture is that many church leaders are afraid to teach on this subject because of incidents like this one involving St Nicks church in Sevenoaks. I seriously think that all couples who are engaged to be married should be put through some sort of pre marriage course before they tie the knot, so they understand what is required of them and why... I think that would solve a lot of the problems some Christian couples have in married life. Usually its the culture dictating the values, and if it goes unchallenged, people may never realise that God expects them to be different.


----------



## lynnie

Bern you are right about the media and I should have assumed that anything they report about Christians is biased.

As far as feminism goes and what men can't do, I'd say you have to take it on a case by case basis. My experience is that some guys will do anything to placate their wives and avoid conflict, and the problem is the wimpy guy. Even when their passivity is leading to damage, they don't want to have a knock down drag out fight if they put their foot down and say "this is how its gonna be sweetie- no, we don't go into debt on the credit cards for that junk, and no, the kids are not going to do that". They'd rather abdicate. You can say the wife won't submit but my position is that if he hasn't initiated good biblical counseling for himself or both of them because the marriage is so bad, he is abdicating headship just on that grounds. He should not let a bad marriage go on w/o seeking some serious help. 

And don't misunderstand me.....I've seen women that are full blown control freaks and I am not trying to blame men primarily. The culture is not just feminized but also emasculated, and the emasculated men are that way by choice, they can't play the victim card, but women can be almost witches even in the church.

Phew, this makes me feel like I never ever want to nag dear hubby about anything ever as long as I live, even if I feel well meaning


----------



## Montanablue

I suppose I'm the odd man out here, but I actually don't feel that our culture is "feminized" at all. (Although I'm not even entirely sure what that means)Perhaps its because I live in Montana, where the cowboy is cool and kids start chewing tobacco at age ten. If anything, at least in my region, I would almost say that we err no the side of encouraging men to be too macho and running roughshod over everyone. But that aside, I agree with Lynnie. I can honestly say that in my experience men that lead with kindness and compassion, respecting the opinions of their family members (even if they don't always go along with everything) rarely have trouble with "control freak" wives or children. It seems that others trying to take over happens either when (a. the man is a tyrant and abuses his authority or (b. he refuses to make decisions or provide leadership, so there's a vacuum.


----------



## Bern

There's plenty of guys over here who are just silly little boys who don't want their lives to change once they get married. They thinkl they can still act like they did when they were 18 years old with no responsibility. A lot of the problems stem from that too.


----------



## SolaScriptura

The "silly little boy" syndrome in a modern context is seen as a cause of women 'needing' to step up. And it may be that now the culture has come to that point. But historically the "silly little boy" syndrome was sympotmatic - or the result of - the women taking the authority.


----------



## kvanlaan

I find it very humbling that my wife submits to me and feel the burden of that responsibility keenly. It is not to be taken lightly.



> I would almost say that we err no the side of encouraging men to be too macho and running roughshod over everyone.



But that is likewise culture (in this case local), not biblical manhood. It is a perversion. Christlike manhood is realizing that we are servant leaders but with authority granted us by God, it is incredibly empowering to realize that my position in our family is God-given and God-authorized. It gives great power and authority but the burden of responsibility is likewise enormous. 

Our culture is feminizing the men to where many 25 year old 'men' are nothing but giant, emasculated children and the women have been taught to be everything a woman should not be. Thankfully, we serve a sovereign God.


----------



## CatherineL

Christian women have a unique opportunity within our current culture to really be authentically different. People really *notice* when a wife is biblically submissive and has a gentle and quiet spirit. They may not know what to call it, but they notice it. 

Kathleen, I'm almost positive that its just that Montana has not been able to be feminized. A last outpost! Come to DC and you will be in for a shock with the girly men. And the women who like their men girly. *shudders*


----------



## Michael

Montanablue said:


> I suppose I'm the odd man out here, but I actually don't feel that our culture is "feminized" at all. (Although I'm not even entirely sure what that means)Perhaps its because I live in Montana, where the cowboy is cool and kids start chewing tobacco at age ten. If anything, at least in my region, I would almost say that we err no the side of encouraging men to be too macho and running roughshod over everyone. But that aside, I agree with Lynnie. I can honestly say that in my experience men that lead with kindness and compassion, respecting the opinions of their family members (even if they don't always go along with everything) rarely have trouble with "control freak" wives or children. It seems that others trying to take over happens either when (a. the man is a tyrant and abuses his authority or (b. he refuses to make decisions or provide leadership, so there's a vacuum.


I know what you mean Kathleen. When I was living in Louisiana and rural Mississippi it would've been hard to imagine what everyone's talking about when it comes to feminization. Actually hadn't even heard of it. But then I moved to the city and then...the suburbs. Somewhere there's a leak in cultural manhood. The difference is unmistakable.


----------



## au5t1n

I agree with Montanablue, but I would add that masculinity can be defined different ways. Yes, the culture has an obsession with teaching boys and men to be "masculine" by chewing tobacco, lifting heavy objects, watching lots of football (not saying that's always bad), and being obsessed with women's bodies and mistreating women, etc. But this is not the same as taking a spiritual role of leadership in the family, being a good shepherd to his children, etc. Our culture has plenty of the former kind of masculinity, but not enough of the latter. In fact, I think the former is the culture's way of hiding the fact that they obviously have lost all real masculinity. It's a facade.


----------



## Michael

Just a thought, but one that I think has some merit. There is an ongoing debate about "life imitating art" vs "art imitating life". I personally find the former to be prevalent in urban and suburban areas, while the latter to be more common in rural settings. This has a good deal to do with the increased erosion of biblical manhood in more dense populations in my opinion.


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> I find it very humbling that my wife submits to me and feel the burden of that responsibility keenly. It is not to be taken lightly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would almost say that we err no the side of encouraging men to be too macho and running roughshod over everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is likewise culture (in this case local), not biblical manhood. It is a perversion. Christlike manhood is realizing that we are servant leaders but with authority granted us by God, it is incredibly empowering to realize that my position in our family is God-given and God-authorized. It gives great power and authority but the burden of responsibility is likewise enormous.
> 
> Our culture is feminizing the men to where many 25 year old 'men' are nothing but giant, emasculated children and the women have been taught to be everything a woman should not be. Thankfully, we serve a sovereign God.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly. And sadly this is the norm and it gives the more um aggressive ladies an excuse to say "we need to be deacons/elders" then the cycle continues ever downward.


----------



## ZackF

Given the times we live in, I am surprised the sermon wasn't condemned as hate speech or at least accused of inciting hate.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Please do not use this forum for relating hearsay or personal grievances.


----------



## calgal

austinww said:


> I agree with Montanablue, but I would add that masculinity can be defined different ways. Yes, the culture has an obsession with teaching boys and men to be "masculine" by chewing tobacco, lifting heavy objects, watching lots of football (not saying that's always bad), and being obsessed with women's bodies and mistreating women, etc. But this is not the same as taking a spiritual role of leadership in the family, being a good shepherd to his children, etc. Our culture has plenty of the former kind of masculinity, but not enough of the latter. In fact, I think the former is the culture's way of hiding the fact that they obviously have lost all real masculinity. It's a facade.



Being a leader is NOT being abusive, not being nasty and not ordering ones wife and kids around nor is it nagging the daylights out of ones husband and disrespecting him in public and in private That never.ever.ends.well. On a more positive note, a friend of ours and a long time minister gave us some very useful advice about practical headship: In their family, they discuss what they want to do and his wife has input in decisions but he makes the final call.


----------



## au5t1n

calgal said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Montanablue, but I would add that masculinity can be defined different ways. Yes, the culture has an obsession with teaching boys and men to be "masculine" by chewing tobacco, lifting heavy objects, watching lots of football (not saying that's always bad), and being obsessed with women's bodies and mistreating women, etc. But this is not the same as taking a spiritual role of leadership in the family, being a good shepherd to his children, etc. Our culture has plenty of the former kind of masculinity, but not enough of the latter. In fact, I think the former is the culture's way of hiding the fact that they obviously have lost all real masculinity. It's a facade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a leader is NOT being abusive, not being nasty and not ordering ones wife and kids around. A friend of ours and a long time minister gave us some very useful advice about practical headship: In their family, they discuss what they want to do and his wife has input in decisions but he makes the final call.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, the world has seen enough of husbands and fathers like your first sentence.


----------



## calgal

austinww said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Montanablue, but I would add that masculinity can be defined different ways. Yes, the culture has an obsession with teaching boys and men to be "masculine" by chewing tobacco, lifting heavy objects, watching lots of football (not saying that's always bad), and being obsessed with women's bodies and mistreating women, etc. But this is not the same as taking a spiritual role of leadership in the family, being a good shepherd to his children, etc. Our culture has plenty of the former kind of masculinity, but not enough of the latter. In fact, I think the former is the culture's way of hiding the fact that they obviously have lost all real masculinity. It's a facade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a leader is NOT being abusive, not being nasty and not ordering ones wife and kids around. A friend of ours and a long time minister gave us some very useful advice about practical headship: In their family, they discuss what they want to do and his wife has input in decisions but he makes the final call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the world has seen enough of husbands and fathers like your first sentence.
Click to expand...

 
Amen. And these relationships result in some really messed up families in the long run.


----------



## au5t1n

calgal said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Montanablue, but I would add that masculinity can be defined different ways. Yes, the culture has an obsession with teaching boys and men to be "masculine" by chewing tobacco, lifting heavy objects, watching lots of football (not saying that's always bad), and being obsessed with women's bodies and mistreating women, etc. But this is not the same as taking a spiritual role of leadership in the family, being a good shepherd to his children, etc. Our culture has plenty of the former kind of masculinity, but not enough of the latter. In fact, I think the former is the culture's way of hiding the fact that they obviously have lost all real masculinity. It's a facade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a leader is NOT being abusive, not being nasty and not ordering ones wife and kids around. A friend of ours and a long time minister gave us some very useful advice about practical headship: In their family, they discuss what they want to do and his wife has input in decisions but he makes the final call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the world has seen enough of husbands and fathers like your first sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen. And these relationships result in some really messed up families in the long run.
Click to expand...

 
I have some friends going through this kind of drama right now, so I know what you mean (apart from having experienced it myself in the past).


----------



## JennyG

This morning the Telegraph (which also ran the original story) has followed up with a would-be humorous take on it by a columnist. It's much too lame to quote


----------



## PuritanZealot

Afraid to say to all you non English folks out there, this is what the Church of England has become now, a total mockery of protestantism. Most of the CofE churches are full of charisamania and the most bizarre people, half of whom I doubt are truly saved. There's a general fear of orthodoxy these days, I professed my desire to start going to my local Strict Baptist Chapel, which has a two hundred year tradition of being Hardline Calvinist and my very good friends delivered a mix of terrifying responses, 'they make women wear head coverings' and 'they're way too strict on the order of service' and so on. Then we read this article in the mail recently and my wife was angered enough to write in. The thing that shocked us the most was the title, 'wives submit to husbands says vicar', no, 'wives submit to husbands says BIBLE'. 
It's this kind of gungho who cares what the dusty old book says as long as i'm saved attitude that is destroying the True Religion. To then read of those blessed covenanters who threw prayer stools at the Bishop of Edinburgh and then tried to stone him to death when he read from the Book of Common Prayer in the pre-civil war times, it makes for sobering reading.
This is just another example of the heretical line the Church is treading, more worrying though is the general attitude of ecumenism in England at the moment, half the Anglicans are moving toward reconcillation with Rome, the other half is merging with the Methodists and the BUGB is merging with the Methodists as well. It's very, very worrying.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

When I forwarded the Sun article to my wife, she asked me what the context was. Is the vicar's sermon online somewhere? What about the leaflet that accompanied the sermon? Do we know if he later preached on the role of husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church? [much tougher job description, In my humble opinion] I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he gave the sermon in it's proper context and biblically, but this is one topic that could be handled poorly.

http://www.stnicholas-sevenoaks.org/resources/sermon-recordings/

The sermon should be on the page above. I don't have the time to listen to it at this moment.


----------



## au5t1n

ericfromcowtown said:


> When I forwarded the Sun article to my wife, she asked me what the context was. Is the vicar's sermon online somewhere? What about the leaflet that accompanied the sermon? Do we know if he later preached on the role of husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church? [much tougher job description, In my humble opinion] I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he gave the sermon in it's proper context and biblically, but this is one topic that could be handled poorly.


 
The OP says leaflets were also handed out. I don't know why, but that raises a red flag for me.


----------



## ZackF

ericfromcowtown said:


> When I forwarded the Sun article to my wife, she asked me what the context was. Is the vicar's sermon online somewhere? What about the leaflet that accompanied the sermon? Do we know if he later preached on the role of husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church? [much tougher job description, In my humble opinion] I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he gave the sermon in it's proper context and biblically, but this is one topic that could be handled poorly.



You and Mr. Snyder above make a good point about attacking things that may not exist.

On the matter of controversy, I find this strange to comment as I have thought of myself as one of the more liberal guys on the PB. I don't agree that every husband-headship or wife-submission sermon has to be a "but" sermon that talks about love of Christ toward the Church or something else. The puritans were known even notorious for expositing a verse or even clause at time when appropriate. Sometimes for emphasis and to break through a cultural cloud a preacher needs the impact of taking one concept at a time.


----------



## Bern

On the church website is a statement by the rector himself, Angus Macleay. Reading that is helpful, as it showshow the papers exaggerate a story just to get people to buy the paper.

Shock! Horror! Church Believes The Bible! - St Nicholas Church - Sevenoaks

I recommend people listen to the sermon online if they wish to comment further on the subject, because having listened to it myself, I don't know how anyone could have disagreed with it! The preacher couldn't have been more careful and diplomatic with his wording than he was... I've heard far more "offensive" sermons than that.


----------



## PuritanZealot

As a Baptist in the UK though you must agree that the CofE has fallen into almost outright apostasy, I went to a friends daughters Dedication Ceremony at my local CofE church last Sunday and it just reminded my wife and I so painfully of why we left. They use a projector for the songs, there's a whole rock band with amps and everything playing the appalling songs, no hymns are sung (except an abominable rehashing of Amazing Grace with a sickening chorus thrown in the middle) and there is general stained glass, carved walls, statues, carvings of eagles and such everywhere. It's just depressing to stand there whilst all these so called Christians throw their hands in the air and grin like loons about the liberal comedy sermon being given, I really fear for their souls.


----------



## au5t1n

From the article Shock! Horror! Church Believes The Bible! - St Nicholas Church - Sevenoaks



> On a different point another strand of headlines speak of the Rector telling women to be silent and of a leaflet written by him being distributed around the congregation in January. The reality is that I have written no leaflets, nothing has been distributed and no-one has ever told women to be silent.



Looks like the leaflets thing wasn't true.


----------



## Bern

Craig, I agree, probably the vast majority of the CofE is apostate, but what percentage I couldn't say. However there are Anglican congregations across the country who do believe the bible and teach faithfully. Even within the congregations which are liberal or teaching false doctrine, there probably are genuine believers that don't really know any different because thats where they have always attended. Thankfully the Lord knows those who are His and no-one will snatch them out of His hand.


----------



## tommyb

I expected rejection by many of the precept being taught, such is the generation we live. What is most discouraging is the complete ignorance, shock and disbelief that it was even in the Bible to begin with. Have they never read Ephesians or heard it preached? Obviously, the question answers itself. I would imagine it's that way with the rest of the Bible. Sad that you can be a tithing church member in England (or anywhere) and have absolutely no exposure to scripture.


----------



## Bern

True Tom, but I think it says more about them than the church leaders. Don't they read the bible in their own time? In England, being a "Sunday Christian" is quite common, especially among CofE members... but perhaps equally among many of the modern arminian charismatic churches, where the teaching is mainly secular humanism packaged to look like Christianity. Hillsong is a good example of this.


----------

