The CBE Scroll

By Ryan and Anna Snyder

In the most recent edition of Mutuality, we wrote an article titled “When We Said ‘I Do,’” which discussed how we tried to tell an egalitarian story with our wedding.  From the making of mutual decisions while planning the ceremony, to the symbol of equality we provided by having both sets of parents walk us down the aisle, to the promise we each made to love, respect, and submit to the other in our vows, we tried to put our beliefs about the equality of women and men on display.  However, as we noted in the article, often we followed more traditional ways of doing things.  Sometimes we wanted to – but often we knew of no other option.

Thus, in the spirit of encouraging conversation, we wanted to discuss a few of the more firmly-entrenched traditions we followed, and ask for feedback about how others might choose differently. We aren’t saying we regret our choices, or criticizing people who choose these paths. We simply want to provide a forum to discuss new ideas, options, and resources for those who want them.

The Proposal

Traditionally, the man enjoys the privilege (or bears the burden, depending on his viewpoint) of planning the proposal – often without any input from the woman at all.  This places sole responsibility for the leading of the relationship with the man while requiring the woman to sit and wait patiently (or not so patiently, depending on her viewpoint), for the man to make one of the biggest decisions of their relationship on his own.  If a couple were so inclined, what would it look like for both him and her to be involved in this decision?  Would it be possible for a couple to sit down together and collectively make the decision to move forward into engagement? Would this method ruin the “surprise” factor of a proposal, and if so, is it a sacrifice worth making?

Talking to Parents

Many men approach the woman’s father (and sometimes both parents) to ask permission to propose. This custom developed because people viewed the daughter as property. The man’s parents and the woman herself are left out of the conversation.  How could the woman and the man honor all of their parents at this stage of the relationship? What would it look like to get away from the stereotype that requires a woman to get her father’s permission to get married, while a man needs none?

Engagement Ring(s)

As in a traditional engagement, Ryan purchased an engagement ring which he presented to me (Anna) when he asked me to marry him. My acceptance and wearing of the ring indicated my commitment to future marriage, which was visible to all. So why, I now wonder, do men not also wear a sign of their commitment? I’ve done some research and found evidence of the growing popularity of male engagement rings, along with other tokens of commitment such as watches. I find giving Ryan gifts highly enjoyable and if I could go back I would have presented Ryan with an engagement ring of sorts, whether at the time of his proposal to me, or another time. What do you think of the tradition of only the woman receiving a sign of the future marriage? What are your thoughts of men wearing a ring? How could a couple better show their mutual commitment to one another?

This list is by no means exhaustive. What other subtle signs of hierarchy do couples face? How could a couple put a belief in equality into practice in those areas?

A book review by Anna and Ryan Snyder

This past fall, when we first learned John and Stasi Eldredge had written Love and War, a book on marriage, our initial reaction was negative, to say the least. Don’t get us wrong, we find the Eldredges’ desire to help people improve their marriages admirable. But having just finished re-reading large portions of Wild at Heart and Captivating, their books on men and women, respectively, we instinctively worried about the advice they would give. The Eldredges often claim God created men and women as almost complete opposites, and as a couple firmly committed to the idea that women and men have more similarities in their humanity than they do differences in their gender, we weren’t clamoring to see this type of approach applied to marriage.

The book, however, exceeded our expectations. At times, we actually found ourselves wanting to like it. Unfortunately, at its conclusion, the negatives still outweighed the positives.

Focusing largely on their own experiences, the Eldredges begin by asserting marriage is “fabulously hard” (p. 13). In fact, given that (1) men and women are complete opposites, (2) we are all broken people, and (3) Satan hates marriage, they say it is a “miracle of the first order” that any marriage makes it all (p. 14). However, despite these difficulties, marriage plays a crucial role in God’s story. We live in a world at war, they write, and God gives us marriage to provide us with companionship, and as a picture of his love. Thus, although marriage is excruciatingly hard, God is on our side.

With all this in mind the Eldredges proceed to discuss a number of important, marriage-related issues. From communication, to sex, to having a shared mission in one’s marriage, they offer input and advice, much of it helpful. For example, they explain how people’s brokenness contributes to problems with their spouse, and they encourage people to embrace the resulting conflict as a way of seeking transformation. Additionally, their discussion of the need for both spouses to seek fulfillment in Christ, rather than each other, was commendable. Much of their advice even borders on being pro-egalitarian; they advise a process of mutual decision-making and encourage couples to exercise authority together in matters of spiritual warfare.

However, despite its good points, we reluctantly found ourselves increasingly frustrated with the authors. Their extreme negativity about marriage was exhausting; a few of the more choice examples include comparing the exchanging of wedding vows to the special forces “vowing their lives to one another as they embark on a perilous mission in dark lands, the outcome of which remains quite uncertain,” (p. 4), and claiming “if you cannot admit the disappointment of your marriage, you have made an idol out of it,” (p. 67). They also resort to stereotypes, often attributing marital difficulties to irreconcilable differences between the genders. Sadly, by persuading men and women they are complete opposites and that marriage is almost impossible, they may well convince them their marriage is irreparable, the exact problem the authors are trying to correct.

The authors also treat Scripture carelessly, taking it out of context and providing incomplete quotations, without indicating they have done so. They use pop culture even more heavily than they use the Bible, reporting that human-made movies and stories prove how God intended the world to be. Also, throughout the book the Eldredges often muffle their own meaning with indirect, unstructured, and hard to follow writing. They are overly repetitive both with unclear and weakly constructed analogies and by restating nearly all of Wild at Heart and Captivating.

When we finished with the book, we were left wondering why our marriage is not as hard as the authors say it should be. We have never contemplated divorce, wondered whether we made a mistake in getting married, or threw our hands up in resignation to the fact that marriage is just so hard. While it is true we have only been married for roughly two years, according to the authors, we should have found ourselves wildly disappointed with our marriage by now, or even contemplating divorce, as they were at this point. Yet, while marriage is sometimes difficult, the overwhelming majority of the time we have found it to be better than we ever imagined.

So why do the authors insist marriage is so difficult? Has this been true of your marriage…or are we abnormal in experiencing a joyful and fulfilling marriage? (We doubt the latter is the case.) Why is everyone – Christians included – so down on marriage? Is this a self-fulfilling prophecy (the old ball and chain, etc.)? What causes divorce rates to hover at 50% both within the church and outside it? What are we missing?

Imagine a sanctuary filled with teachers and students of various ages singing:
            “It’s the child on his wedding day,
             It’s the mommy that gives him away,
             Something beautiful”
A child on his wedding day… given away. Pause for a moment and think about that. Young, teenage boys married off to older, wiser, and more mature women… mothers handing over the care of their sons to other women… sons never allowed to become fully functioning adults but instead, entrusted to the parental-type care of a matriarchal wife who will always decide what is best for her husband. Would you find this strange and alarming? 

While I’m sure that the above, altered version of a currently popular song would sound very bizarre to our ears, the real lyrics seem to invoke a sweet and innocent nostalgia when the gender is reversed. 

Recently, one of my children invited me to attend her school’s weekly chapel where this song was part of the program. As the students and teachers sang, I chose not to sing along because it conjured up images, for me, of immature brides being given away like merchandise. I grasp that for many people it is nothing more than an innocent, sentimental, figurative description of a daddy letting go of his beloved daughter. Because I understand that the musicians are generally supportive of gender equality, I think that they simply did not think through all of the possible ramifications that these particular words could convey. So while I comprehend that these lyrics were just meant to evoke happy memories and to romanticize “traditional” wedding ceremonies, I can’t help to also perceive that these lyrics may work to devalue women. Consequently, it does not leave a beautiful picture in my mind.

There is within present-day Christianity those who glorify patriarchal families which treat women like perpetual children who will always need adult male guardianship. Men are viewed as the analyzing, discerning brains of the family who get to hear directly from God, while women are viewed as the tender, nurturing heart of the family who get to hear their husbands tell them what God’s will is for them. So the choice of the word “child” in this song causes me to picture a childlike bride who still needs adult supervision and guidance from her more mature groom. Personally, I think it would be better if Christian songs conveyed that the bride is a consenting adult on her wedding night.

The “giving away” of the bride, while figuratively representing the daddy “letting go of his little girl,” can also be a stark reminder of girls who are still literally given (or sold) away. Whether figurative or literal, it still expresses that the bride is a possession even if her daddy has cherished her. The groom is not correspondingly “given away” to his bride. Since free human beings are not possessions, then is the bride not fully human or is she permanently enslaved to men? During the traditional wedding ceremony, the bride is usually walked down the aisle by her dad and delivered over to her awaiting groom. No parallel symbolism occurs for the groom leaving his family. Also, it is the cultural norm for the groom to retain his family name while the bride usually loses or “leaves” hers. Compare these cultural traditions with Genesis where we are told that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24 TNIV)

by Mary Ann and Sam

Mary Ann:
Did you know there was a man in biblical times who took his wife’s family name?  In Nehemiah 7:63, a man is mentioned named Barzillai, who had married a woman who was a descendant of Barzillai of Gilead and had taken her family name.  He changed his name to hers!  When a friend first mentioned this, I thought she was kidding.  Isn’t it practically biblical for a woman to take her husband’s name when she gets married? The answer, surprisingly, is no!!  It’s western tradition, but it’s not biblical.

When we first got married, Sam and I really wrestled with the name change (some of you may remember that I blogged about it).  We wanted to be able to represent the uniqueness and individuality which God gave to us both while also representing the oneness.  But how could we represent both of our identities, both of our ethnicities and both of our backgrounds?  He didn’t want me to give up my name.  I didn’t want him to give up his name.  But practically speaking, it seemed much better to have the same last name.

Sam:
In our marriage, there is mutual submission because we believe in Biblical equality (Eph 5:21).  Each spouse has equal footing in all aspects of marriage. We have equal value and equal input in everything. When one of us sees a need, that one fills it. If dishes need to be washed and Mary Ann is tied up, I’ll do them, and vice versa. (Most of the time, we do it together because we love spending that time together.) The same goes for laundry, cooking, cleaning, shopping — everything. We make all decisions together, big or small. If we’re stuck at an impasse, we’ll talk it through until we’re at mutual agreement. I have no desire or need for veto power (which by the way, I think that “veto power” is a terrible idea if you want harmony in your relationship).  I am no better, smarter, privileged, or more valuable than she is, nor she than I. God made us equally in His image, and we are both intrinsically valued.

So because we are equals, when it came to deciding what to do about our last name, I had to humbly ask myself who was I to say that Mary Ann had to drop her last name and take mine? It’s the same effect as asking of myself, would I be willing to drop my last name and take hers? That thought didn’t sit well with me when I thought about it initially, because it made me realize how drastic of a change it is to lose your last name. The dilemma we faced was, whose name would be dropped? We eventually realized that there was a way to not have to drop either last name but, rather, to include them both.

Mary Ann:
Most people (Christians, mainly) don’t really think twice about having the woman change her name.  And if Sam was a lesser man, he might have set his manhood on a need to brand me with his name.  However, his determination in our having an “inclusive name” (he coined that phrase) despite the challenges and difficulties of changing his name (with the California legal system) and whatever flak he may incur from traditionalists has augmented my admiration of him as a man.  Through this journey, I have learned that he is unflappable in his purpose when he is certain about a course of action, he is confident in who he is as one who answers only to God and not anyone else, and he is secure in his manhood.  He has made me adore him even more so than ever, and I am so proud to share a name with him.

A few weeks ago, he and I both officially changed our name.  We both added the other’s surname to our own to make an inclusive name (someone else would call it ‘hyphenated’).

Sam:
We decided on her surname first and then mine because it has a nice ring to it. I like it. Not only does it represent both of our identities, but it also represents our new family — a product of diversity and a blending of two cultures.

Not long ago we were alerted to an article written by the Rev. Dr Marie Fortune on her blog (see FaithTrust Institute) in which it was reported that a key spokesperson for complementarians stated that there were just two options for husbands whose authority was threatened.

“And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority by either being abusive…..or more commonly to become passive, acquiescent and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches”

Dr Fortune writes that this ‘insight’ was prefaced with the opinion that the problem begins with women who ‘rebel’ against their husbands who have been given authority over them by God; once again blaming the victim.

We could assume by these statements that here we have someone who has limited experience with domestic violence and has attempted to excuse behaviours which are obviously ungodly.

The third option of course is for husbands and wives to stand side by side as equal partners, faithful to each other and submitting to one another in love. No abuse here by either person and an opportunity to demonstrate true Christ-like qualities.