My Submission on Submission

This is going to be a lengthy one. Pour yourself a long drink and settle down.

Another reactionary frenzy of criticism of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is underway here in Australia, triggered by some minor changes to wedding liturgy. I’ll let the Sydney Morning Herald, that bastion of objective reporting when it comes to Sydney Anglicanism, kick us off...

BRIDES will be promising to submit to their husbands under a new marriage vow the Anglican diocese of Sydney is expected to approve at its synod in October.

It requires the minister to ask of the bride: ‘‘Will you honour and submit to him, as the church submits to Christ?’’ and for her to pledge ‘‘to love and submit’’ to her husband.

The service is already being used in some Sydney parishes, under a diocese that opposes the full ordination of women and supports an exclusively male leadership doctrine.

Here’s a couple who have used the vows explaining them…

Of course, this sparked OUTRAGE! How dare they do this? Why this antiquated concept? Why force women to do this? etc. etc. etc.

The usual rent-a-quotes were rounded up for the article:

Kevin Giles, a New Testament scholar in Melbourne, said the subordination of women was exclusively related to ‘‘the fall’’ in the Bible and in 2012 made for bad theology.

‘‘Jesus not once mentions the subordination of woman and says much in contradiction to this. Paul’s comments over the subordination of women fit into the patriarchal culture of the day and are not the biblical ideal. The truth is that happy marriages today are fully equal, and unhappy marriages are ones where one or the other party is controlling.’‘

Muriel Porter, a Melbourne academic and laywoman who writes on Anglican Church issues, said submit was a more derogatory word than obey and had connotations of slavery. ‘‘Frankly I’m horrified,’’ she said. ‘‘It is a very dangerous concept, especially in terms of society’s propensity for domestic violence.’‘

Lots there to respond to - just give me a moment. The next few days of letters in the smh had the expect range of responses from outright criticism to support - even from some who did not agree but commended us for actually standing up for what we believe in. I could  spend quite a while quoting out letters and reactive op-eds but, instead, come with me as I draw out some foundations before returning to a number of the statements of opposition.

Many years ago a minister I was training under made a profound observation that has stuck with me as one of my guiding principles. It was this:

If you don’t understand submission, you don’t understand the Christian life.

As I said, profound. And quite possibly controversial. We were, at the time working through 1 Peter and he had, first and foremost, this is mind:

1Pet. 2:11-13    Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul.  Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority…

The Apostle Peter’s call to submission is universal in scope; all of us to the Emperor or governors (vv13-14), slaves to their masters (v18), wives to husbands (3:1) and so on. Each and every one of us is called to submission in many and varied ways. For Peter this was to “live such good lives” (2:12) and it was grounded not in a simplistic appeal to good order but a far more profound appeal to the submission of Christ Himself,

1Peter 2:20-23 if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

“He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

It is, the Apostle tells us, a profoundly Christian thing to submit for it is to imitate Christ Himself. What becomes immediately apparent as you read through Peter’s argument is that the authority to which we submit does not have to be legitimate or even good  to validate the submission. Peter more than assumes that we may very well suffer as a result of our submission but this is, he explains, the Christian calling. This does not make suffering a good thing but what is does show us is that although we are called to submit in various circumstances this is not the same as an endorsement of the structures within which we submit. Peter is not here commending corrupt governments nor cruel slave masters - quite the contrary! And, in particular, there is a clear statement on the relationship between husbands and wives. Peter is unequivocal on how a husband ought to care for his wife. He urges Christian women to submit to their husbands, even if they fear mistreatment, yet immediately moves to demand that husbands are loving…

1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

So first we might note that the straw man argument consistently put up that the New Testament somehow endorses marital cruelty or slavery is simply unfounded. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here we see Peter is telling Christians to submit despite the unfair nature of what they suffer. There is implicit and explicit condemnation of all abusive behaviour. And yet there is also the radical call to submit nevertheless - just as Christ did.

Hence the comment made to me over a decade ago. Submission is a key part of the Christian life - it was modelled for us by Christ Himself and we are called to emulate that submission, trusting in God that He knows best and will judge justly.

We see the same call to submission in the letters of the Apostle Paul, most famously in Ephesians 5:21-6:8. Here submission (and responsible leadership) is explored in the arenas of marriage, family and servitude/slavery. Of key interest to us here is the section on marriage and the call to wives to submit to their husbands…

Ephesians 5:22–24 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do 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.

the husband is, in turn, called to love His wife sacrificially. This is, of course, highly contentious in our current philosophical climate which cannot countenance any distinction between men and women and which cannot comprehend that a distinction in roles might not mean a distinction in value or esssence. Further, we are acutely aware of much abuse in marriage relationships (not least if, like me, you’re a minister and have the (often sad) privilege of involvement in people’s marriages. We ought always to be aware of this particular danger and yet it is not as though the New Testament authors were ignorant of it. Peter surely had it in mind not only when he called husbands to be considerate to their wives but also when he urged wives,

1Peter 3:6 ...do not give way to fear.

In the context it seems obvious, I would suggest, that their chief fear would be that their submission could be taken advantage of.

Again, rather than the New Testament condoning abuse by urging submission upon us it makes the extraordinary claim that not only is abuse wrong but we ought to submit despite it! Easier said than done, of course, but do not let the jarring nature of what is being said here distract from the profundity of it. In every act of submission by the Christian there is a reflection of Christ’s own loving and glorious submission to the pain and agony of the Cross in the sure hope of a future vindication and a proclamation of the self-giving nature of the gospel sacrifice which each and every Christian draws upon.

The particular interest at the moment, of course, is in the field of marriage and so let’s turn there for a little more detail. Here, again, is one of the statements of opposition recorded by the smh,

Kevin Giles, a New Testament scholar in Melbourne, said the subordination of women was exclusively related to ‘‘the fall’’ in the Bible and in 2012 made for bad theology.

‘‘Jesus not once mentions the subordination of woman and says much in contradiction to this. Paul’s comments over the subordination of women fit into the patriarchal culture of the day and are not the biblical ideal. The truth is that happy marriages today are fully equal, and unhappy marriages are ones where one or the other party is controlling.’‘

It has to be said, statements like this are fairly embarrassing. Giles, who claims to be an evangelical, trots out standard revisionist fare. The argument is palpably false as only a little examination makes clear. Rather than appealing to the culture of his day, the Apostle Paul (the author of Ephesians) has another referent in mind…

Eph. 5:25-31    Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for herb to make her holy,a cleansinga her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himselfa as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.In this same way, husbands ought to love their wivesa as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—  for we are members of his body.

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

Anyone even remotely acquainted with this topic will recognise the citation that Paul makes as his basis for the gender roles he has set out. First we note that the husband is called to sacrificial love, modelled on Christ’s own loving sacrifice. Concepts of domination are utterly alien. Second we see that it draws from the creation account of the first marriage in Genesis 2. The Fall (the account of the entry of sin into the world through Adam’s first sin, and the resulting corruption of the Creation) occurs in Genesis 3 which is (and this is deeply complicated theology which even a New Testament scholar like Giles seems to have trouble with) after Genesis 2.

Now, to be fair to Giles, the account of the Fall in Genesis 3 does contain details of the resulting distortion in the marriage relationship which God instills as punishment,

Gen. 3:16   To the woman [God] said, “...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

The language of “desire” here carries with it the sense of desiring to control. The language of “rule” carries connotations of oppressive domination - everything which our critics accuse us of promoting. But note carefully, these are traits (indeed, outcomes) of our fallen behaviour whereas the New Testament call to rightly ordered gender relationships in marriage draw from the very good created order in Genesis 2 - not the distorted Fallen behaviour of Genesis 3. In this matter Giles is simply incorrect. As for Giles’ comments on Jesus, it is instructive that Jesus Himself quotes from the same Genesis 2 passage that Paul does when He is questioned about marriage (Matthew 19:5 = Mark 10:6-7). He also grounds His understanding of marriage in the Created order.

As for Muriel Porter’s comments,

Muriel Porter, a Melbourne academic and laywoman who writes on Anglican Church issues, said submit was a more derogatory word than obey and had connotations of slavery. ‘‘Frankly I’m horrified,’’ she said. ‘‘It is a very dangerous concept, especially in terms of society’s propensity for domestic violence.’‘

I actually want to agree. Yes, it is a very dangerous concept! That is exactly the point! Submission is so totally absurd in the eyes of the world that it is exactly what it has such revelatory power! As we have seen the Apostle Peter point out it shows the world what Jesus was like and demonstrates a profound trust in God.

But what is also demonstrated here is the consistent rejection of the Bible by those who claim to be Christian. Muriel Porter and Kevin Giles don’t like the word “submit” but it is a profoundly Biblical word. What they communicating is that they really don’t like the Bible. That’s a very troubling position for a “Christian” to be in but it’s where they place themselves. Porter is a particularly prominent example of this kind of double-think for with the one breath she claims to be not only a Christian but also an Anglican and yet with the next she reject the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer.

Remember friends, that this suggested change by Sydney diocese (and it is as yet only a suggestion, it has yet to be fully ratified) is an attempt to make the Book of Common Prayer even more plainly Biblical than it already is. The 1662 BCP, still the constitutional standard for worship in the Anglican Church of Australia, has the following vows in the marriage service,

I N. take thee N. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.

The language of obedience here quite obviously draws from the notions of wifely submission that we have already discussed. The wife is promising to obey a husband who has already promised to love, comfort, honour and keep her. So the proposed Sydney revision of the marriage service in Common Prayer has the wife promise the following in Form 1 of the marriage service,

With God and this congregation as my witnesses,
i name, take you name to be my husband;
to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish and submit to you, as long as we both shall live. This is my solemn vow and promise.

It should be obvious to any honest reader that the only real change is to update the language of “obey” to “submit”. The intended Scriptural allusion, however, remains identical - all that has been updated is the language to better reflect the correct Biblical understanding in current language. We also ought to note that the language of “obey” is retain in the wife’s vow in the first form of the marriage service in the 1978 An Australian Prayer Book  - the only nationally ratified prayer book revision in Australia (p.550 in the 1986 print).

Those complaining about the language of “submission” ought to bear in mind that they are railing against a concept deeply embedded and endorsed in the official prayer books of our denomination. This “change” by Sydney diocese is no such thing. It is, rather, a clarification of a prominent Biblical concept  - one which is endorsed in our constitutionally approved standards of worship.

One challenge remains to be addressed; the legality of what has been proposed. Back to the smh,

DOUBT has been cast over the legality of the Sydney Anglican Diocese’s changes to the marriage vow after an expert in church law said he did not believe the new wedding service complied with federal laws.

...

But Archdeacon John Davis, from the Wangaratta Diocese, in Victoria, who is an expert on the Anglican Church constitution, said the changes not only carried ‘‘unpleasant connotations’‘, but could also be illegal.

Under the Marriage Act a religious ceremony must use a service authorised by the religion’s governing body, which in this case would be the Anglican Church of Australia as the act is a Commonwealth one, Dr Davis said.

‘‘The legal relationship is between the Commonwealth and the Anglican Church of Australia, and not between the Commonwealth and each of the 24 dioceses in the country,’’ he said.

The Anglican Church of Australia has not authorised the change to the wedding vows.

It’s funny how theological liberals play so fast and loose with the rules. When it suits them they will cry foul, when not they will ignore any rule that stands in the way of their relentless march to “progress”. In the matter of the celebration of marriage by authorised celebrants we have to turn to the Australian Marriage Act of 1961 which states the following

MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 45

Form of ceremony

(1)  Where a marriage is solemnised by or in the presence of an authorised celebrant, being a minister of religion, it may be solemnised according to any form and ceremony recognised as sufficient for the purpose by the religious body or organisation of which he or she is a minister.

(2)  Where a marriage is solemnised by or in the presence of an authorised celebrant, not being a minister of religion, it is sufficient if each of the parties says to the other, in the presence of the authorised celebrant and the witnesses, the words:

“I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, A.B. ( or C.D.), take thee, C.D. ( or A.B.), to be my lawful wedded wife ( or husband)”;

or words to that effect.

Now several points need to be made here.

1. The Act only states that the ceremony must be “recognised as sufficient for the purpose by the religious body or organisation of which he or she is a minister.” but does not stipulate anywhere how that body or organisation is defined. Davis claims that it can only be the national church but he also knows very well that the nature of the relationship between the General Synod and the individual dioceses is a vexed question and individual dioceses maintain their constitutional right to do as they see fit, not least Sydney itself. This has already been established in the area of liturgy. General Synod adopted the controversial A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) in 1986 but Sydney diocese did not. Sydney adopted it’s own alternative liturgy Sunday Services which is used by some parishes. The point is this - the use of alternative liturgies has long been accepted in the Australian church.
2. The Act itself stipulates a bare minimum and doesn’t even prescribe exact words! In this context it is utterly ludicrous to suggest that a change of wording from “obey” to “submit” in what the Act itself would regard as a peripheral vow would somehow render the marriage invalid. On the contrary, the Act values intent over form when there is any doubt. So, of particular interest is this,

MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 48

 ...

             (3)  A marriage is not invalid by reason that the person solemnising it was not authorised by this Act to do so, if either party to the marriage, at the time the marriage was solemnised, believed that that person was lawfully authorised to solemnise it, and in such a case the form and ceremony of the marriage shall be deemed to have been sufficient if they were such as to show an intention on the part of each of the parties to become thereby the lawfully wedded spouse of the other.

In other words, the Marriage Act gives primacy to the intent of the parties. Any number of infractions cannot invalidate the marriage.

Davis’ statement is scaremongering at best. The likelihood of this change making marriages illegal is next to nothing.

So where to from here? No doubt this will die down after a few weeks but the comments are instructive. With regards to popular culture we ought not to be surprised. Whilst we might seek to explain ourselves to our society we’re surely not naïve enough to expect to be understood properly, let alone received fairly? Let’s get over that misapprehension.

What is more interesting, however, is the urgency and glee with which some seek any attempt to decry the diocese of Sydney. It is, however, constantly alarming how they will stop at no lengths to do so. The lengths, habitually, turn out to be rejection of not only Anglican norms (on this occasion our long-approved prayer books) but, more fundamentally alarming, the Biblical witness. In the rush to cast stones at Sydney they end up pushing away the submissive example of Christ Himself.

That people who call themselves Christians should so readily reject our only real source of authority in order to also reject Sydney is telling in so many ways.