<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Inclusive Name</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/</link>
	<description>Blog voices from Christians for Biblical Equality</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:03:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Morna</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/comment-page-1/#comment-90218</link>
		<dc:creator>Morna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=584#comment-90218</guid>
		<description>My choice to take my husband&#039;s name was based primarily on preference.  By birth surname (aka maiden name) is based on a French word that means &quot;traitor&quot; or &quot;treacherous.&quot;  My husband&#039;s surname is Greenwood.  I wanted that name, because that is what I wanted our marriage to be: a green wood, a place of vibrant life.  

However, I asked our pastor to introduce us as Mr and Mrs Shane Greenwood as a symbol of my willingness to join my identity with his, to live one life together.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My choice to take my husband&#8217;s name was based primarily on preference.  By birth surname (aka maiden name) is based on a French word that means &#8220;traitor&#8221; or &#8220;treacherous.&#8221;  My husband&#8217;s surname is Greenwood.  I wanted that name, because that is what I wanted our marriage to be: a green wood, a place of vibrant life.  </p>
<p>However, I asked our pastor to introduce us as Mr and Mrs Shane Greenwood as a symbol of my willingness to join my identity with his, to live one life together.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Silverkors</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/comment-page-1/#comment-89570</link>
		<dc:creator>David Silverkors</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=584#comment-89570</guid>
		<description>Hi!

Me and my wife (try to) live in a egalitarian marriage, when we got married she changed her last name to my family name, but that was only until we did what has become more common here in Sweden. Namely to &quot;invent&quot; your own new last name and take that instead. So we both changed last name now 3.5 into our marriage when we had the money and time to come up with a good last name.

Is this a common practice in other countries as well?

To adress a woman as mrs NN is thankfully not common in Sweden. And here it is considered strange to most people if you would write your wedding invitation to me and my wife with my name first if you know her better.

Sorry for my english :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi!</p>
<p>Me and my wife (try to) live in a egalitarian marriage, when we got married she changed her last name to my family name, but that was only until we did what has become more common here in Sweden. Namely to &#8220;invent&#8221; your own new last name and take that instead. So we both changed last name now 3.5 into our marriage when we had the money and time to come up with a good last name.</p>
<p>Is this a common practice in other countries as well?</p>
<p>To adress a woman as mrs NN is thankfully not common in Sweden. And here it is considered strange to most people if you would write your wedding invitation to me and my wife with my name first if you know her better.</p>
<p>Sorry for my english :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JLP</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/comment-page-1/#comment-89568</link>
		<dc:creator>JLP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:08:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=584#comment-89568</guid>
		<description>In Asia women keep their own names after they get married.  It&#039;s always been that way there.  Women taking their husbands last names is a European tradition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In Asia women keep their own names after they get married.  It&#8217;s always been that way there.  Women taking their husbands last names is a European tradition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary Ann</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/comment-page-1/#comment-89564</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary Ann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=584#comment-89564</guid>
		<description>In response to Comment 89543:  It may be true that Barzillai had taken on his wife&#039;s father&#039;s name, but I think the point is that he still took on his WIFE&#039;s family name and not the other way around.  And more importantly, the point is that there is no biblical injunction or command that says, &quot;Thou shalt take thy husband&#039;s surname when thou takest him as thy husband.&quot;  There is no such command. It is not more biblical, not more godly, and not more Christian for a woman to take on her husband&#039;s name.  And it&#039;s certainly not a sin if she does not.  And if she doesn&#039;t take on his name, it doesn&#039;t mean she loves her husband any less nor does it imply an undermining of marriage.  It&#039;s really a decision between the husband and wife how they want to represent their new family together as one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to Comment 89543:  It may be true that Barzillai had taken on his wife&#8217;s father&#8217;s name, but I think the point is that he still took on his WIFE&#8217;s family name and not the other way around.  And more importantly, the point is that there is no biblical injunction or command that says, &#8220;Thou shalt take thy husband&#8217;s surname when thou takest him as thy husband.&#8221;  There is no such command. It is not more biblical, not more godly, and not more Christian for a woman to take on her husband&#8217;s name.  And it&#8217;s certainly not a sin if she does not.  And if she doesn&#8217;t take on his name, it doesn&#8217;t mean she loves her husband any less nor does it imply an undermining of marriage.  It&#8217;s really a decision between the husband and wife how they want to represent their new family together as one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sonnet</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/comment-page-1/#comment-89560</link>
		<dc:creator>Sonnet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:33:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=584#comment-89560</guid>
		<description>Trevor, 
You wrote: &quot;The church should be a safe place where women can feel comfortable that they can express these feelings of marginalisation on the basis of gender.&quot;

Thank you for understanding.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trevor,<br />
You wrote: &#8220;The church should be a safe place where women can feel comfortable that they can express these feelings of marginalisation on the basis of gender.&#8221;</p>
<p>Thank you for understanding.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LMcC</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/comment-page-1/#comment-89557</link>
		<dc:creator>LMcC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:58:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=584#comment-89557</guid>
		<description>Trevor: Condemn me if you must, but someone had to call him out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trevor: Condemn me if you must, but someone had to call him out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trevor</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/comment-page-1/#comment-89554</link>
		<dc:creator>Trevor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:19:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=584#comment-89554</guid>
		<description>As one of the administrators of this blog I was troubled by the tone that has crept in to the recent comments by Issachar and LMCC in reaction to what they hear the other as saying over this issue. My first response was to simply delete the offending replies but I decided to sleep on the matter and see how I felt about it in the morning. OK, so having slept on it and ruminated on it during the early morning hours these are my thoughts.

Firstly Issachar, welcome to the site. We do have some comment rules here, among them that we are careful to engage in peaceful dialogue and that we don&#039;t speak derisively of other people thereby misjudging their motives. 

Unfortunately you did get a reaction from LMCC but I don&#039;t think you can deny  that you potentially set her up with your closing line, &quot;my guess is that you&#039;re pretty steamed up by now, but I&#039;m not taking the rap for that.&quot; You really threw down the gauntlet there and I really would have preferred that LMCC ignore it.

However, in defense of her, and all of my christian sisters, it does appear that your attitude is one of condescension, or could easily be construed as being so. I would like to suggest that It is impossible for us as males to fully appreciate what it can mean to our personhood to experience the sense of loss and disempowerment attested to by the various female responders to this post.

Granted you, Issachar, have fulfilled all of the criteria that LMCC proferred but one, you are a male. Despite the experiences that you share of numerous misunderstandings, of which you were able to see the funny side, none of them will have devalued you as a person in the same way that a woman feels devalued in our churches and culture. Why, because your religious and culturally accepted rights as a male remain unchallenged. 

Secular society has gone a long way in attempting to address this inequality but the church is way behind, hich is rather sad for two reasons. One, because early attempts at righting these societal injustices were begun by theologically conservative christian women two centuries ago. The other being that Jesus clearly demonstrated, in his earthly ministry, that he was prepared to override the cultural and religious taboos or limitations placed on women. 

It may seem to be a trivial matter to us (men) that women appear to be &#039;moaning&#039; about these injustices, especially when compared to the obvious intensity of suffering being experienced by Christians in other parts of the world. But it is never trivial to be marginalised. As christians in the free world we too can experience the derision of the unchurched but it is sad when christian women feel that same derisive and condescending attitude within the church. We should rather be seen as listening to these whisperings of discontent. Jesus would have listened.

God would have us be honest in expressing our feelings and disappointments. At least then they are out in the open and we, and He, can deal with them. The church should be a safe place where women can feel comfortable that they can express these feelings of marginalisation on the basis of gender. The christian community should welcome expressions of concern with understanding and compassion, not with legalistic rules, roles and regulations. The church is meant to be a reconciling agent, a dispenser of mercy and grace.

Finally Issachar, your point about Barzillai is taken. While it did not overturn patriachy, as such, the one thing that it did do was show that context could be taken into consideration and an adjustment could be made to attempt to right an obvious wrong. The danger with hard and fast rules and roles is that context and culture are ignored inviting a legal solution rather than a grace filled one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As one of the administrators of this blog I was troubled by the tone that has crept in to the recent comments by Issachar and LMCC in reaction to what they hear the other as saying over this issue. My first response was to simply delete the offending replies but I decided to sleep on the matter and see how I felt about it in the morning. OK, so having slept on it and ruminated on it during the early morning hours these are my thoughts.</p>
<p>Firstly Issachar, welcome to the site. We do have some comment rules here, among them that we are careful to engage in peaceful dialogue and that we don&#8217;t speak derisively of other people thereby misjudging their motives. </p>
<p>Unfortunately you did get a reaction from LMCC but I don&#8217;t think you can deny  that you potentially set her up with your closing line, &#8220;my guess is that you&#8217;re pretty steamed up by now, but I&#8217;m not taking the rap for that.&#8221; You really threw down the gauntlet there and I really would have preferred that LMCC ignore it.</p>
<p>However, in defense of her, and all of my christian sisters, it does appear that your attitude is one of condescension, or could easily be construed as being so. I would like to suggest that It is impossible for us as males to fully appreciate what it can mean to our personhood to experience the sense of loss and disempowerment attested to by the various female responders to this post.</p>
<p>Granted you, Issachar, have fulfilled all of the criteria that LMCC proferred but one, you are a male. Despite the experiences that you share of numerous misunderstandings, of which you were able to see the funny side, none of them will have devalued you as a person in the same way that a woman feels devalued in our churches and culture. Why, because your religious and culturally accepted rights as a male remain unchallenged. </p>
<p>Secular society has gone a long way in attempting to address this inequality but the church is way behind, hich is rather sad for two reasons. One, because early attempts at righting these societal injustices were begun by theologically conservative christian women two centuries ago. The other being that Jesus clearly demonstrated, in his earthly ministry, that he was prepared to override the cultural and religious taboos or limitations placed on women. </p>
<p>It may seem to be a trivial matter to us (men) that women appear to be &#8216;moaning&#8217; about these injustices, especially when compared to the obvious intensity of suffering being experienced by Christians in other parts of the world. But it is never trivial to be marginalised. As christians in the free world we too can experience the derision of the unchurched but it is sad when christian women feel that same derisive and condescending attitude within the church. We should rather be seen as listening to these whisperings of discontent. Jesus would have listened.</p>
<p>God would have us be honest in expressing our feelings and disappointments. At least then they are out in the open and we, and He, can deal with them. The church should be a safe place where women can feel comfortable that they can express these feelings of marginalisation on the basis of gender. The christian community should welcome expressions of concern with understanding and compassion, not with legalistic rules, roles and regulations. The church is meant to be a reconciling agent, a dispenser of mercy and grace.</p>
<p>Finally Issachar, your point about Barzillai is taken. While it did not overturn patriachy, as such, the one thing that it did do was show that context could be taken into consideration and an adjustment could be made to attempt to right an obvious wrong. The danger with hard and fast rules and roles is that context and culture are ignored inviting a legal solution rather than a grace filled one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hollie baker-lutz</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/comment-page-1/#comment-89550</link>
		<dc:creator>hollie baker-lutz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:06:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=584#comment-89550</guid>
		<description>Great article; thanks for sharing. This really hit home for me because my husband and I hyphenated both our last names. We, too, wanted a oneness but also wanted to acknowledge the familial ties that made us who we are. For me it was about identity and equality. I don&#039;t think that this is necessarily right for everone but there must be a better system than the unjust one we have now.

What surprises me most is how many people - mostly women - approach me and say, &quot;how&#039;d you get him to do THAT?&quot;. I just have to be polite and let that roll off my back, but truly the implication that I would be so manipulative and he such a push-over can be offensive. It disappoints me that people assume it was all my doing. It is mostly younger women (like myself) who approach me to tell us we&#039;ve done a cool thing.

The other question I get all the time is what to do about kids&#039; names if this caught on. I just sort of shrug and say, the system won&#039;t really change until it gets to the crisis point, will it? :) 

And to Mary Ann: get ready - we receive bills, receipts, and junk mail addressed to every possible form of our first names, previous names, and hyphenation! :) The combinations can be funny. God bless you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article; thanks for sharing. This really hit home for me because my husband and I hyphenated both our last names. We, too, wanted a oneness but also wanted to acknowledge the familial ties that made us who we are. For me it was about identity and equality. I don&#8217;t think that this is necessarily right for everone but there must be a better system than the unjust one we have now.</p>
<p>What surprises me most is how many people &#8211; mostly women &#8211; approach me and say, &#8220;how&#8217;d you get him to do THAT?&#8221;. I just have to be polite and let that roll off my back, but truly the implication that I would be so manipulative and he such a push-over can be offensive. It disappoints me that people assume it was all my doing. It is mostly younger women (like myself) who approach me to tell us we&#8217;ve done a cool thing.</p>
<p>The other question I get all the time is what to do about kids&#8217; names if this caught on. I just sort of shrug and say, the system won&#8217;t really change until it gets to the crisis point, will it? :) </p>
<p>And to Mary Ann: get ready &#8211; we receive bills, receipts, and junk mail addressed to every possible form of our first names, previous names, and hyphenation! :) The combinations can be funny. God bless you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LMcC</title>
		<link>http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/07/an-inclusive-name/comment-page-1/#comment-89549</link>
		<dc:creator>LMcC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:30:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cbeinternational.org/?p=584#comment-89549</guid>
		<description>Not steamed at all, more like semi-amused and semi-feeling very sorry for you. I&#039;m used to condescending people coming on here with no real intention of dialogue, just coming in to sneer and cause trouble. You&#039;re really saying nothing new, although you probably consider yourself quite clever and quite pleased to put those women in their places (wrong on both counts). I also feel deeply sorry for those who need to do that instead of add any really decent dialogue. I mean, why bother when there are so many better things to do?

If you don&#039;t consider the issues many women face with name changes a problem, then go on your merry way and don&#039;t worry about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not steamed at all, more like semi-amused and semi-feeling very sorry for you. I&#8217;m used to condescending people coming on here with no real intention of dialogue, just coming in to sneer and cause trouble. You&#8217;re really saying nothing new, although you probably consider yourself quite clever and quite pleased to put those women in their places (wrong on both counts). I also feel deeply sorry for those who need to do that instead of add any really decent dialogue. I mean, why bother when there are so many better things to do?</p>
<p>If you don&#8217;t consider the issues many women face with name changes a problem, then go on your merry way and don&#8217;t worry about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
