Remember, marriage is like a crucifixion, a burden and a weight and a sip of vinegar the only reward ...

The Sydney Anglicans, always determined to paddle against the stream, are making a bit of a splash with Peter Jensen's Fairfax outing, Men and women are different, and so should be their marriage vows.

So far as Jensen goes - which isn't very far - it's the usual gobbledegook, and the usual slaying of demons.

Marriage is under dire threat, and seemingly about to be abandoned, individualism cops a whack, and bizarrely, the role of the male in marriage is to endure a kind of Christ-like crucifixion in stoic silence:

Where different promises are made, the man undertakes great responsibility and this is also the wording of the book, as it has always been. The biblical teaching is that the promise made voluntarily by the bride to submit to her husband is matched by the even more onerous obligation which the husband must undertake to act towards his wife as Christ has loved the church. The Bible says that this obligation is ultimately measured by the self-sacrifice of Christ in dying on the cross.

Yep, for any man getting hitched, why you can feel the nails slicing through the feet and the palms, the side being pierced and the blood flowing, the crown of thorns applied by the relentless harpy, and a drink of vinegar at close of day all that's offered for refreshment.

Why do the Sydney Anglicans always cast the conversation in terms of joyless burden, self-sacrfice, immolation and Calvinist suffering?

This is in complete contrast to the evil view of marriage as a chance to share a little happiness, joy, life and the odd fuck:

Secular views of marriage are driven by a destructive individualism and libertarianism. This philosophy is inconsistent with the reality of long-term relationships such as marriage and family life.

Yep, if you're a secularist, you simply can't get married and enjoy family life, because it will get you involved in an inconsistency time warp.

But if you're a faithful Sydney Anglican woman, you make out like a bandit. Not only does your partner endure a Christ-like capacity for noble sacrifice, in a masculine way, by agreeing to submit, you snap the collar tight and hard around his wayward neck:

This is not an invitation to bossiness, let alone abuse. A husband who uses the wife's promise in this way stands condemned for betraying his own sworn obligations. The husband is to take responsibility for his wife and family in a Christ-like way. Her ''submission'' is her voluntary acceptance of this pattern of living together, her glad recognition that this is what he intends to bring to the marriage and that it is for her good, his good and the good of children born to them. She is going accept him as a man who has chosen the self-discipline and commitment of marriage for her sake and for their children. At a time when women rightly complain that they cannot get men to commit, here is a pattern which demands real commitment all the way.

(uh huh, but which one is Sam?)

I guess it begs the question as to why Christ never got married, and instead preferred to hang out with twelve dudes ...

It is a pity that the present discussion has been so overtly political. Instead of mocking or acting horrified, we should engage in a serious and respectful debate about marriage and about the responsibilities of the men and women who become husbands and wives. The Bible contains great wisdom on this fundamental relationship.

Which, it has to be said, leaves out any wisdom you might derive from Hinduism, or Confucianism. It really is remarkable that a billion plus Indians and a billion plus Chinese have the institution of marriage within their midst, without the benefit of Jensenist interpretations of biblical wisdom. How passing strange ... perhaps it's all the fault of the secularists:

The rush to embrace libertarian and individualistic philosophy means that we miss some of the key relational elements of being human, elements which make for our wellbeing and happiness. It's time to rethink marriage from first principles. It really matters.

Yes it is, those Indian and Chinese libertarian individualists need to rethink marriage from first principles. And if they do, why they might find the instinct to mate and share a life goes back a tad further than the young earth creationism that infuses biblical literalists.

Thus far it's fair to say that it's all pretty much same same, just another tired Anglican outing, resolutely shouting defiance at the modern world, and harking back to a never never land in search of camel-droving tribal wisdom.

What's more interesting is the way the outing served as an opportunity for Jensen to be given a fair old pounding in the comments section.

No doubt it's water off a duck's back, but it was Jensen's supporters in the comments section that attracted the attention of the pond, and should in a sensible world give Jensen a little pause to reflect:

I’m no longer Christian but I agree with the basic premise made by Peter.
I’ve been married twice and they failed because, typical of most women now, my wives put their own wishes above everything; including the welfare of their children.
In all human societies throughout history, women submit to their husbands. In all ape societies females submit to males.
The price for feminism is a lot of failed marriages, children from broken families, a lot of men who don’t trust women and a lot of women who don’t trust men.
Peter is not a dinosaur; feminism is the unnatural belief we have now.

Uh huh. Amazingly rick of Melbourne seems not to understand why, with this attitude, a couple of women failed to submit to his ape charms.

With supporters like this, the intrinsic Jensen message is exposed to the baleful air.

And then there was more predictable biblically based support:

Just after the request to get women to submit to their husbands. God says that men should to submit to Him - by loving his wife as Christ loves the Church ... to give his all life for her, to serve her with everything he has, to give her everything she requires, to support and strengthen her at all times. This is a harder deal on the man than on the woman. God says the weight is all on the man's shoulders. God gives just three verses to the women, then the next nine to the men.
Have a read through Ephesians 5:22 - 33 to get the bigger passage. You can view it here ... http://www.youversion.com/bible/eph.5.niv84

Yep, it's a real burden, a real weight, a huge amount of suffering to be married. And wisely in her infinite wisdom, god short-changed women, giving them just three verses, while she gave nine verses to the men, and the men are long suffering and the women have it easy, and why marriage is little short of a crucifixion considering the hard deal dished out to men and the weight on their shoulders and the sword in their side and the vinegar drink after a hard day's work supporting the little woman and the bawling brawling spawn ...

And so on and so forth.

As the Anglican church in Sydney slides into complete irrelevance - in the last census Anglicans registered the largest fall among big Christian denominations and those claiming 'no religion' now outnumber Anglicans - at least the comedy stylings remain fresh and a marvel to behold ...

Jensen proposes there should be no mocking, but what else can you do when with all solemnity, he proposes that the duty of a man in marriage is to suffer like Christ crucified on the cross.

Does he even begin to comprehend what he's saying?

(Below: we just had to include a dinosaur joke).