RSS

Obedience versus submission; is there a difference?

03 Sep

Over in Australia, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney has ruled that in its churches, rather than requiring that a wife promise to ‘obey’ her husband in her marriage vows, she may now choose instead to ‘submit’.  (See here, here, here, here, and here.)  Naturally, the fembots hate the promise to ‘submit’, though one wonders if they’d really prefer if it had been left as ‘obey’…

Is there a difference between ‘obey’ and ‘submit’?  I’m not sure that there is much, though I’m fearful this is a capitulation, however slight, by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney…

Personally, I think that any changes to the vows should be to have them promise to BOTH obey AND submit. ;)

About these ads
 
37 Comments

Posted by on September 3, 2012 in religion, spirituality, The Decline, The Kulturkampf

 

37 responses to “Obedience versus submission; is there a difference?

  1. Gerry T. Neal

    September 3, 2012 at 10:49 am

    This is a strange change. Ordinarily, in this day and age, when language that a politically protected interest group (in this case feminists) finds offensive is changed, it is to something that is bland, silly, or ridiculous, but which omits the original offense. In this case they have changed it to something that intensifies the offense. The only meaning of the word “submit” that would make sense in the context in which they have placed it, omits none of the meaning of “obey” but adds to it the idea of giving in to a power that has conquered you after you had previously resisted. I would like to think this means that the diocese of Sydney has developed a backbone. I suspect, however, that all it means is that they are still politically correct but have now become incompetent at it.

     
  2. Will S.

    September 3, 2012 at 11:02 am

    I’ve always understood the Diocese of Sydney to be one of the most conservative in Australia, and in fact, in most of the white Anglosphere, for that matter; Peter Jensen is known to be fairly culturally conservative, so to speak.

    I agree, it does seem that they haven’t chosen a word that is decidedly milder and less ‘offensive’ to the Left, but one which is almost as guaranteed to annoy the progressives, if not even more guaranteed to do so, than the one that was previously in place.

    I really am not too sure what to think of it, but I hope it means they have grown a stiffer backbone; goodness knows, Anglicans could use more of that, these days…

     
  3. Elusive Wapiti

    September 3, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Is there a difference between “obey” and “submit”?

    I think yes. I’m on board with Gerry Neal here: “Obey” connotes doing what one is told, no matter what. “Submit” implies some level of conscious acquiescence, even if one does not necessarily agree with the decision being made.

    Not knowing much about what drove this change other than what I’ve read here, it seems to me that it is for the better.

    And yes, the feminists would likely have preferred it stay “obey” rather than “submit”. The better straw man to act the foil for their misdirected rage.

     
  4. okrahead

    September 3, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    The language is clearly Biblical… “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” (KJV) Since the language is directly from Scripture I fail to see why a Christian should be bothered by the use of the word “submit”. I suppose you could include both “obey” and “submit” but that seems like overkill. A submissive wife will obey her husband; a wife who does not obey is not submissive.
    If anyone cares, the Greek word used for “submit” is HUPEIKO, which means to “yield” in a military sense. Certainly there is nothing in the language to encourage the feminists.

     
  5. Will S.

    September 3, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    @ EW: That’s a valid distinction, in that submission means a conscious act of will to follow someone, whereas obedience needn’t necessarily. Good point.

    @ okrahead: A valid point, that Scripture enjoins a wife to submit to her husband, specifically using that word. So the Anglican vows, in Sydney, have become more Scriptural. Interesting!

     
  6. Simon Grey

    September 3, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    @Will S.- What Okrahead said. I view submission as obedience within a hierarchy (i.e. one’s position determines one’s reaction and role). Wives are under heir husbands, and are therefore required to submit to their husbands. The same is true for children –> parents, servants –> masters, etc. Those lower in the hierarchy submit to those higher in the hierarchy.

    Obedience, in contrast, is mere compliance (with or without regard to hierarchy). You can obey (comply with) the commands of equals or inferiors but cannot submit to them. You can only ever submit to superiors. Thus, submission is a subset of obedience, and refers specifically to compliance to one’s superior in a hierarchical setting.

     
  7. Will S.

    September 3, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Makes sense, SG. Certainly, the submission that God wishes wives to display towards their husbands, He wishes us all to display towards Him; He desires we acknowledge Him as our Lord, and our superior, therefore, and wishes us to willingly choose to submit to Him, rather than merely obeying Him…

     
  8. David Collard

    September 3, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    I am surprised to hear that the language is in that marriage service still. I suspect that submit just sounds a little less harsh than obey. And sounds a bit more active. The Sydney Anglicans are very bible-based. In other Australian Anglican dioceses, I suspect the feminists have won on this point.

    There has never been any such language in the Catholic service, although the traditional reading has been Ephesians. I know my wife has discussed Ephesians with female friends and understands it well I think. I find that I get better compliance by simply assuming leadership when I want it. I don’t think women like direct appeals to scripture because they seem legalistic.

    Oddly, I was engaged to an Anglican girl once, and she wanted the traditional Anglican language for the wedding (Book of Common Prayer) just leaving out one pesky little world. Needless to say, I thought that was stupid. And deeply irritating. That attitude eventually ended the engagement.

     
  9. Will S.

    September 3, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    “I suspect that submit just sounds a little less harsh than obey. And sounds a bit more active. The Sydney Anglicans are very bible-based.”

    I see.

    “Oddly, I was engaged to an Anglican girl once, and she wanted the traditional Anglican language for the wedding (Book of Common Prayer) just leaving out one pesky little world. Needless to say, I thought that was stupid. And deeply irritating. That attitude eventually ended the engagement.”

    Good for you! She wasn’t worthy of you.

     
  10. infowarrior1

    September 3, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    This passage clears it up:
    1 peter 3:1-6

    Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own 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, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

    Submission means obedience as well.

     
  11. Will S.

    September 3, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    It certainly seems that submission entails obedience…

    And thus, this may not have been a bad move, on the part of the Sydney Anglicans; quite clever, in strengthening the oath, while making it seem milder…

    And that feminists attacked it, is all good…

     
  12. David Collard

    September 3, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    The action by the Sydney Anglicans is a wonderful “sign of contradiction” for Australian society. Men have to learn not to back down. Compromise only encourages feminists. Women don’t seem to know when to stop.

    Pope Benedict did something a bit similar with the words in the Good Friday Traditional Latin Mass in the prayer for the conversion of Jews. He softened the language but kept the intent.

    I probably wouldn’t have minded if my then fiancee had simply wanted a standard modern marriage service. But wanting all the old language with one word, “obey”, left out just seemed dumb and annoying. There was something emblematic of her entire attitude in that. I certainly dodged a bullet with her.

     
  13. Will S.

    September 3, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    “Women don’t seem to know when to stop.”

     
  14. David Collard

    September 3, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    That reminds me of that scene in Social Network where one of the guy’s Chinese girlfriend sets a fire in his room using a scarf he buys her.

    No man should marry a woman unless he can handle the crap that women come up with. I have my wife in line, but it has taken a lot of effort and endurance. It is criminal the way society sends young men into marriage with no idea what women are really like. Mine is good now (breakfast in bed again today) but they are like attack dogs. They must be on your side, under control and loyal. Otherwise you will suffer.

     
  15. Will S.

    September 3, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    “No man should marry a woman unless he can handle the crap that women come up with.”

    Exactly – or unless he wishes to handle the crap they come up with (a guy might well be able to, but feel it’s not worth the hassle…).

     
  16. David Collard

    September 3, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    Yes, definitely. She has to really be worth it. She has to start out feminine, submissive, pretty, devoted. Then, and only then, is she worth the effort. Because they are all utterly perverse.

    At Dalrock, some guy is talking about a wife becoming angry, fat and domineering. That is woman in her feral state. Men civilise women. It is a service, and the woman has to be worth it.

     
  17. Will S.

    September 3, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    Exactly.

     
  18. Will S.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    “Men civilise women.”

    Totally 180 degrees opposite what the culture teaches, but it’s true.

     
  19. David Collard

    September 3, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    You only have to look at women who are “free”, or can act like it because men provide them with an unseen coccoon of protection. The Slut Walk is woman in her natural state. Gross, stupid, irrational, slutty and hysterical.

     
  20. Will S.

    September 3, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Yep.

     
  21. chesterpoe

    September 4, 2012 at 12:10 am

    Women who have not yet been domesticated are dangerous creatures for sure. Not only are they dangerous but also, as was mentioned above, slutty, stupid, and irrational. My sister is a living example; she wants a man so bad but then says that women do not have to listen to men. Then she goes on with the typical feminist crap. Do not even mention anything about good morality; she will flip a lid. These are not women, they are undeserving of such a noble title. They are animals with no self-respect or comprehension of morality. Life is like a game to them – high school never ends.

    To have fun I say things like: “Women belong in the kitchen”, “a woman is a manipulative, sadistic, and conniving creature”, “women are inferior to men”, and the one that always gets her, “you just could not comprehend this sort of thing; you are a woman.” Having a feminist for a sister can be fun sometimes.

     
  22. Will S.

    September 4, 2012 at 12:18 am

    No doubt it must be fun getting to say, “See? I told you so!” when she messes up, too. :)

     
  23. chesterpoe

    September 4, 2012 at 12:24 am

    I usually burst out laughing when I first see her crying after she screwed something up. She refuses to listen so there is no sympathy on my part. But, then again, I am a “heartless person unable to love or be loved”, so who would listen to me anyway? :)

     
  24. Will S.

    September 4, 2012 at 12:27 am

    I wish I had siblings to torment. ;)

     
  25. chesterpoe

    September 4, 2012 at 12:33 am

    She, being five years older than me, is always a good source to find out what not to do. I will always appreciate her for that.

     
  26. Will S.

    September 4, 2012 at 12:36 am

    Lucky you; I didn’t have such a counter-example. :)

     
  27. chesterpoe

    September 4, 2012 at 12:40 am

    My whole family, like most families today, is a perfect counter-example. Only my uncle and I are not part of what he likes to call, “the culture club”. But a sibling serving as a counter-example is always the best kind.

     
  28. Will S.

    September 4, 2012 at 12:49 am

    No doubt.

    I had a cousin who did live with me for four years, who was four years older, so he was kinda like an older brother figure, for that time.

    He was a bit of a partier, while I was more studious, so he was a counter-example, basically.

    Since then, he married a model, who cheated on him, but they’d had a kid or two together, and he took her back…

    He’s still a good counter-example. :)

     
  29. chesterpoe

    September 4, 2012 at 12:58 am

    In a family of counter-examples, being a good example becomes a net negative for your familial relations. I learned that through personal experience. Being the outcast of the entire family would devastate most people but I am an introvert so who gives a darn. Besides, compared to my cousins your cousin is basically a saint.

     
  30. Will S.

    September 4, 2012 at 12:59 am

    :)

     
  31. David Collard

    September 4, 2012 at 1:36 am

    I am the normal one in our family too. Which is scary when you think about it.

     
  32. Will S.

    September 4, 2012 at 2:47 am

    Whoa; that is scary, DC! ;)

     
  33. David Collard

    September 4, 2012 at 4:06 am

    I look very normal on the outside.

     
  34. Carnivore

    September 4, 2012 at 6:36 am

    “Exactly – or unless he wishes to handle the crap they come up with (a guy might well be able to, but feel it’s not worth the hassle…).”

    Sounds like me!

     
  35. David Collard

    September 4, 2012 at 7:17 am

    Carnivore,

    Woman. The most dangerous quarry.

     
  36. Will S.

    September 4, 2012 at 8:55 am

    @ Carnivore: I was thinking indeed of either you or possibly me (not decided).

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 307 other followers