David Ould writes a sumission on submission... and one of his readers rejects the callous nature of his post... and she adds... I attended a church where the minister was trained at Moore college.... And he had not one useful word for abused wives. There is very real violence which has not been addressed by this diocese. Not hypothetical violence, but actual violence.

David Ould writes an article about Peter Jensen's  new submission vows, where David actually agrees with Muriel Porter, in that, submission is a very dangerous concept. However, David  concludes that really Muriel and those who oppose the vows, are basically heretics. David says...

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.

 

I particularly liked David's response to Sue's concerns, when she says...
"You write of 'danger.' Danger, to a wife, to the women I know, means being raped on the kitchen floor in front of the children, being dragged by the hair across a parking lot, putting make up on bruises, lying to friends and family...Don’t use the word 'danger' in this mocking way, don’t make fun of women until you have yourself been beaten. The suffering of women in this way, truly is absurd, because it is suffering for no worthy cause. That is the worst"...and David's response.."So I fear there comes a point where we are beyond you simply misunderstanding me and into the area where you seek to deliberately construe what I write in the worst possible light, despite my attempts to clarify on a large number of occasions. I have no intention of allowing another comment of yours to pass moderation if you continue in this manner."...Well what would you expect from a man who is so ignorant that he can't see the link between  the word SUBMISSIVE and TRAINED , when reading the phrase "a TRAINED gorilla" ...because David would never deliberately misconstrue the words of another?

Sue's initial comment 

September 7, 2012 at 2:03 pm

“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.”
I am shocked by the callous nature of this response. Some women live out their life, with weekly beatings, they die in this misery, they live in despair, numbness and exhaustion. Give your body to thirty years of violence, and then blog about this topic.. Walk in those shoes, suffer the death of Christ on the cross. But if you have not suffered beatings in your own body, then do NOT mock those who do suffer.
The suffering of abused women does NOT demonstrate a profound trust in God. It demonstrates the shame of the church. It should be against the law to teach women that suffering violence is a demonstration of faith.
The callous nature of this post, the irresponsible language, is typical of how some men care about what happens to women. Have you lived a life of submission to violence? Can you speak to 1 Peter from experience? Then do not mock.
I attended a church where the minister was trained at Moore college, and trained in the Sydney diocese. And he had not one useful word for abused wives. There is very real violence which has not been addressed by this diocese. Not hypothetical violence, but actual violence.