The CBE Scroll

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.

I think there’s nothing more important than revision. When God matures us and leads us to a new vision or better understanding, we must revise our way of thinking even if it’s a complete embarrassment to ourselves. Looking back on my life, I can see so many times when I was sure of a thing and then it turned out differently. I don’t have regrets about following Him down those paths because of the lessons I learned as a result of them, but it’s funny how in the end, it was not as I was so convicted about.

For example, having an egalitarian view for marriage and the church is completely different than what I had taught and been so convinced about for so long. Only a few years ago, you would find me teaching that men should lead and women should follow. I taught it quite passionately — but even so, what always bothered me was that it always required so much defending. I saw the difficulty in the position when it came to couples who didn’t fit the mold. What about couples where the wife is the more naturally gifted leader and the husband, the follower? “Well,” it was explained to me, “the wife needs to hold back and give the husband a chance to lead.” That sounded all right to me theoretically (after all, the wife has the opportunity to ‘deny herself’), but in practical terms, I saw that it just meant that the wife would continue to come up with the ideas and visions and then have to prod and persuade her husband toward those ideas. It often becomes a subtle game of manipulation as she convinces him that something was his idea, because if she were to remain silent (in order to not lead), then they would not go anywhere. But as I have seen it, the wife rarely stays silent in this situation. The reality is that most couples end up having a more egalitarian marriage than they would profess. It just wouldn’t work if pure hierarchy was the modus operandi. God really has given women brains, gifts and visions — and without her voicing them, a couple really might possibly miss out on God’s will.

I can see though how despite encountering these real-life obstructions to the complementarian mindset, revision might not take place. When I think of a Christian community which I was involved with for many years, I just think of how its culture is built on the hierarchical way of life, and if things were to change, it could cause the whole structure to crumble.

To revise when God gives you new revelation requires true humility and courage. It means you have to admit you were wrong somewhere — and it means you need courage to step forward in a whole new direction.

In what ways have you had to make revisions in your life as you have followed God in your journey toward biblical equality?

In order to evaluate an ideology it is a good idea to project it to its extreme end to see what it would look like were it brought to its logical conclusions. Most would have to agree, then, that the extreme end of the ‘headship’ model of marriage would be the physical, emotional, and mental abuse of the ‘submissive’ partner by the ‘head.’

It is well-documented that abuse of all kinds and to varying degrees occurs more in homes where the hierarchical model is practised. This model of marriage puts a huge responsibility on the wife to behave in such a way that her husband will be the ‘loving, servant leader’ he is encouraged to be. This, in itself, is nonsense, if the husband can only effectively be the leader if his wife allows him to and encourages him in his role.

What, then, would be the extreme end of the ‘mutuality’ model of marriage? There are no negative aspects to equal love, respect, honour, and submissiveness to one another’s opinions and desires and when the top priority is equal desire to love and obey Christ.

This model of marriage only looks better as the couple learns to esteem one another more, listens to and considers one another, and truly wants the best for one another.

I am amazed that the small part of Ephesians 5 which is translated “as Christ is head of the church” is extended and explained so that a husband is compared to Christ in so many ways.

What is a simple comparison of the type of care which a husband is encouraged to give becomes in some people’s minds the open door to husband as leader, decision maker, initiator, final authority in the home, and the one who must give account of every family member’s spiritual life. The extension of this is the expected response of a wife which presumably is the same as that of the church—submission in everything. If there is not submission “in everything,” then the comparison breaks down at several points.

The church (bride) doesn’t have a say in the decision making of Christ, whose ways are far above human understanding or reasoning.

Christ is not sometimes influenced by the church (bride) to consider that a decision or course of action may need to be reconsidered.

The church (bride) is not responsible for, or influential in, how Christ performs his “headship” role.

The church (bride) can be disobedient, disrespectful, and ungrateful to Christ without any of these attitudes affecting Christ’s innate nature, which is always loving, just, holy, and perfect in every aspect.

The church (bride) is not “equal but different” to Christ. There is no comparison between the creator of the heavens and earth and the church (bride) which is made up of created humans.

These are just a few thoughts on how these comparisons are not consistent with all of Scripture and continue to prop up the view of what God requires of a husband or wife. There are many others related to just this one verse.

Are there any comments regarding these comparisons or further ones which I haven’t outlined here?