Hyphenated last names

[ScottA]

You're not married to her. Trust me, she can "connect dots" quite well. If you're not able to see the Lordship of Christ in ALL things, and that ALL fall under HIS Lordship, then there is something wrong with your biblical perspective, not hers.

"I did not list the things of men, but the things of God. You [she], on the other hand, hold to your own traditions, the very thing she [you] accuse me of."

 

[ImaginaryDay]

"I did not list the things of men, but the things of God. You [she], on the other hand, hold to your own traditions, the very thing she [you] accuse me of."

Red herring

 

[ScottA]

Red herring

Your accusations continue . Meanwhile, I am happy to let God be Judge.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Your accusations continue . Meanwhile, I am happy to let God be Judge.

As long as you get to rule over your wife. Spiffy.

 

[ScottA]

As long as you get to rule over your wife. Spiffy.

The topic is not what we get to do, but what we should do in response to what God has done. I am not speaking against women or for men, but for God. He has shown us His ways...and any form of showing a house divide, is not of God.

But believe and do as you will: A tree is know by its fruit. And why anyone would argue for such a claim to personal identity, rather than come under the lordship example of complete surrender and the laying down of your own life, given by God in His word...is perfectly clear.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

The topic is not what we get to do, but what we should do in response to what God has done.

Fine. And what is it that we should do in response to what God has done?

I am not speaking against women or for men, but for God. He has shown us His ways...and any form of showing a house divide, is not of God.

I agree that He has shown us His ways. A study of Ephesians 5 (the whole chapter) outlines clearly the intent that Paul had for how Christians are to relate to one another in love. Did you know that, culturally, there was no command for husbands to love their wives in the Roman era? Paul's commandment to the Christian husband was new, and against the cultural tide. It was his instruction of submission on the part of the husband. If you study the Greek, the word 'submit" is also missing from vs. 22. It is borrowed from vs. 21, where all are commanded to "submit(ting) to one another out of reverence to Christ". Shall we, then, admonish Paul?

But believe and do as you will: A tree is know by its fruit. And why anyone would argue for such a claim to personal identity, rather than come under the lordship example of complete surrender and the laying down of your own life, given by God in His word...is perfectly clear.

Not as I will, but as Christ, through his word, would have us. "For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3). Our true life may not be in the name of the husband, although some may find cultural identity in that; but, rather, our life is in Christ alone.

 

[ScottA]

Fine. And what is it that we should do in response to what God has done?



I agree that He has shown us His ways. A study of Ephesians 5 (the whole chapter) outlines clearly the intent that Paul had for how Christians are to relate to one another in love. Did you know that, culturally, there was no command for husbands to love their wives in the Roman era? Paul's commandment to the Christian husband was new, and against the cultural tide. It was his instruction of submission on the part of the husband. If you study the Greek, the word 'submit" is also missing from vs. 22. It is borrowed from vs. 21, where all are commanded to "submit(ting) to one another out of reverence to Christ". Shall we, then, admonish Paul?



Not as I will, but as Christ, through his word, would have us. "For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3). Our true life may not be in the name of the husband, although some may find cultural identity in that; but, rather, our life is in Christ alone.

So, then, we agree. Which brings us back to my original point regarding the topic. If we believe as you have outlined above, we can be totally submitted to Christ and the model explained by Paul, of Him being Head over us as our Husband, and by that example taking on the name of the husband in our own marriages, to walk in it, letting His ways shine through us...or hold to our own self-identity, throw a hyphen in there, and give no respect to any of it.

My preference, is to walk in His ways. But, I have no need to condemn anyone who takes a different path, for God has already made Himself clear. Nor was that ever my intention. But if we are to discuss it, as we are here, I am happy to share what is written, even to show the contrast between what is written and what is commonly practiced.

 

[ValleyGal]

My preference is to walk in God's ways, too, but that does not include changing my last name, since it is not in his commands. First and foremost, my husband is my brother in Christ; this is our eternal relationship. As for taking names, all believers are "given" the Christian name, men and women alike. That is the name I wear. It is the name my husband wears. That is name enough.

 

[ValleyGal]

But, I have no need to condemn anyone who takes a different path, for God has already made Himself clear. Nor was that ever my intention.

But you did, accusing those of us who retain our maiden name or previous married name of being disobedient. Rather than come on here and throw around condemnation, try being open to discussion rather than shutting down all the women here with your assertion that you are correct and we are all wrong - and by default, in disobedience.

 

[LinkH]

If you study the Greek, the word 'submit" is also missing from vs. 22. It is borrowed from vs. 21, where all are commanded to "submit(ting) to one another out of reverence to Christ". Shall we, then, admonish Paul?

Which is support for the dilineation view of the passage, and supports the complementarian, rather than egalitarian view.

 

[LinkH]

There is no command, 'thou shalt take thy husbands last name.' We do see in the Old Testament that the children of a marriage of two Israelites are part of the father's tribe, clan, etc. The lineage in scripture goes through the male line. This is similar to the western custom of keeping the male family name, since the name follows the patriarchal lineage.

Other people-groups have different customs. I'm not going to tell my wife's people-group that they are wrong for not following our naming customs or legally changing their last names. Their women probably embrace Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, and I Peter 3 more than your average American woman thee days.

But if the motivation of an American woman not to take her husbands last name is because she doesn't accept her Biblical responsibility as a wife toward her husband because of some kind of feminist philosophy, I see that as a problematic. If a man is dating a young woman who said she wouldn't take his husband's name for those reasons, that's a major red flag, IMO. Whether you pass your family name on to your kids could also be a deal-breaker.

 

[ScottA]

But you did, accusing those of us who retain our maiden name or previous married name of being disobedient. Rather than come on here and throw around condemnation, try being open to discussion rather than shutting down all the women here with your assertion that you are correct and we are all wrong - and by default, in disobedience.

I have only repeated what God has said. By saying what you have said to me, you have said it to God. And since it has now come full circle, I shall leave the matter to Him.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I have only repeated what God has said. By saying what you have said to me, you have said it to God. And since it has now come full circle, I shall leave the matter to Him.

So now you have the audacity to claim you speak for the Sovereign of the Universe....yeah...right.

 

[ScottA]

There is no command, 'thou shalt take thy husbands last name.' We do see in the Old Testament that the children of a marriage of two Israelites are part of the father's tribe, clan, etc. The lineage in scripture goes through the male line. This is similar to the western custom of keeping the male family name, since the name follows the patriarchal lineage.

Other people-groups have different customs. I'm not going to tell my wife's people-group that they are wrong for not following our naming customs or legally changing their last names. Their women probably embrace Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, and I Peter 3 more than your average American woman thee days.

But if the motivation of an American woman not to take her husbands last name is because she doesn't accept her Biblical responsibility as a wife toward her husband because of some kind of feminist philosophy, I see that as a problematic. If a man is dating a young woman who said she wouldn't take his husband's name for those reasons, that's a major red flag, IMO. Whether you pass your family name on to your kids could also be a deal-breaker.

The big issue I see here, is not following after the pattern of taking on the name of Christ (our Husband). If we take the name of Christ, we should also take the name of our earthly husband(s) which He (not I) used as a comparison.

 

[ScottA]

So now you have the audacity to claim you speak for the Sovereign of the Universe....yeah...right.

I said "God"...NOT "the Universe."

 

[ValleyGal]

The big issue I see here, is not following after the pattern of taking on the name of Christ (our Husband). If we take the name of Christ, we should also take the name of our earthly husband(s) which He (not I) used as a comparison.

I wear the name of Christ "Christian" proudly! And I wear the name on my birth certificate proudly. The comparison of Christ as our spiritual husband ends with relational matters. As has been stated numerous times, not all cultures across time even HAVE last names, so wearing the name "Christian" has nothing to do with surnames.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

By saying what you have said to me, you have said it to God.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

So now you have the audacity to claim you speak for the Sovereign of the Universe....yeah...right.

I said "God"...NOT "the Universe."

She said "Sovereign of the universe". Who do you suppose she meant?
"Put on your listening ears" - Judge Judy

 

[ImaginaryDay]

If you study the Greek, the word 'submit" is also missing from vs. 22. It is borrowed from vs. 21, where all are commanded to "submit(ting) to one another out of reverence to Christ". Shall we, then, admonish Paul?

Which is support for the dilineation view of the passage, and supports the complementarian, rather than egalitarian view.

Sorry, Link, but we've been around this block too many times. Happy New Year, btw!

 

[ValleyGal]

My husband is not only intelligent, he is wise and slow to speak... and these are attractive qualities that I am so glad he models to me in our marriage! Thank you, Sweetie!