In the U.S., not taking the mans last name is a display of feminism and rebellion to the submission that is Biblically required.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A new last name!
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
It could be with some. But that is an assumption.
Would you refuse to marry a couple if they were from Spain, Italy, France, Mexico, etc. and maintained those family traditions?
As a kid I knew a few Hispanics. Their mother kept their madien name. But they were also submissive to their husbands (also a part of their custom).
We cannot judge the whole based on a vocal minority.
If they were in USA, yes.
Why?
What I mean is the wife taking the husbands last name is a tradition with some in the US (especially in the Eastern states) but has never been a tradition for all in the US.
I find pastors who insist on their tradition problematic. Pastors should insist on biblical doctrine, not man's traditions.
We view changing the last name as symbolic of following the husband as the head of the household. And that is fine. But it is still just a tradition that began in Britain. I would guess many women who take their husband's last name are not even Christian.
and that I fullly agree!
We (you and I) do. But most Christians do not.
The practice of women taking their husband's last name was implemented as coverture (it was a legal reason, not a Christian reason). But it became tradition here as we grew from British colonies.
The problem with demanding other Christians adopt our secular traditions is it departs from the Bible. A pastor who insists a woman take her husbands last name before agreeing to marry them is a pastor who has drifted from Scripture. He is not worthy of his position.
A pastor's job is to pastor those under his charge in accordance with Scripture. Using his own traditions and preferences as a criteria is counter to the Bible and his duty as a pastor.
Put it another way- would you marry a couple if they did not celebrate Christmas? For many Christians (myself included) this is a day we set adide to think about the Incarnation, about God sending His Son.
Or what if there couple did not wear Christian jewlery? For many Christians this is not only a reminder of their faith but also evangelism. Evangelism is important.
What if there couple wanted to get married at a venue rather than a church building?
What if there bride wanted to wear blue?
What if the couple did not want a flower girl?
What if there woman wore slacks?
What if the couple chose a song other than the Bridal Chorus when she walked down the isle?
There are many opportunities for a pastor to make a wedding about him instead of the couple and God. Demanding the couple follow British common law is just one of them.
Or what if there couple did not wear Christian jewlery? For many Christians this is not only a reminder of their faith but also evangelism. Evangelism is important.
What if there couple wanted to get married at a venue rather than a church building?
What if there bride wanted to wear blue?
What if the couple did not want a flower girl?
What if there woman wore slacks?
What if the couple chose a song other than the Bridal Chorus when she walked down the isle?
There are many opportunities for a pastor to make a wedding about him instead of the couple and God. Demanding the couple follow British common law is just one of them.
1) It's none of my business.
2) The woman has to choose between taking her husband's last name or keeping her father's last name.
3) A hyphenated (a double last name) is its own punishment - it's so long....
My oldest daughter was married twice to the same man (isn't that unbiblical???)
#1 was a military wedding - really just the paper work, with a very short service to insure the military paper work went through.
#2 was the "real thing" - that's the one they celebrate!
Rob
Last edited:
lets turn this question around
She wants to wear white - but - we know (well, you know what I mean)
Do they both agree?
Has it been discussed ?
I would inquire as to why? I would bring up the foundation of their marriage
Maybe its her school colors!
why not?
How important is it?
Is it music to my ears?
Its not about making wedding about me. Rather are they in agreement?
Granted, they may not agree on every last issue - but there does need to be a good connection.
There needs to be a sufficient amount of pre-marital counseling.
Its bad enough when a divorce happens - but its horrible when a Christian couple divorce.
So what if there bride and groom are in agreement with her keeping her madien name?
they better have a good reason
Why?
I mean, you are talking about a secular custom based on British common law. Why should a couple who do not share that custom have to explain to a pastor why they prefer to maintain their family customs rather than adopt his?
I'd say if they offered a reason it better not be a bad one.
How about the inverse? I could see where a groom who finds his surname has been so sullied, or is just plain weird or now sounds like something unsavory, would take the occasion to change it to his beloved's.
Salty, a comparable situation is some churches that you're yoked up with, have gotten the Convention's approval to call/present themselves as 'Great Commission Baptist' rather than 'Southern Baptist'!
Salty, a comparable situation is some churches that you're yoked up with, have gotten the Convention's approval to call/present themselves as 'Great Commission Baptist' rather than 'Southern Baptist'!
Last edited:
Kai
Active Member
Oh... we knew somebody who did that. He wanted a different position in law enforcement but had run-ins with his supervisors. When he married he took her last name (and got the position).
Foxmeister
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't matter to me as a pastor she wanted to keep her maiden name. I could see if she were a doctor, lawyer, or other professional why it would be important to keep the maiden name. I don't see her taking her husband's last name as a sign of submission in a Christian marriage. It's her actions that indicate that submission.
As far as wearing white when not a virgin goes, what difference does the color of attire make? Before Queen Victoria's wedding, there was no tradition of a color a woman, virgin or not was to wear at her wedding. Queen Victoria set that fashion trend when she wore white for her wedding.
As far as wearing white when not a virgin goes, what difference does the color of attire make? Before Queen Victoria's wedding, there was no tradition of a color a woman, virgin or not was to wear at her wedding. Queen Victoria set that fashion trend when she wore white for her wedding.
It is interesting just how many traditions we have from Britan. It .akes sense as we started from British colonies, but we also have people that immigrated from Italy, Spain, France, Chile, Greece, etc.
Marriages are about the union of a man and woman. But marriages are also about cultural traditions.
I see nothing wrong with couples (like my wife and me) who hold the tradition of the wife taking her husband's name. But at the same time I cannot elevate my traditions as superior to the traditions of other people.
The wife taking her husbands last name has absolutely nothing to do with submission or even Christianity. It was British common law (the couple was identified as one legal entity). We inherited that as tradition.
With the rise of feminism it became a matter of submission with some because a relative miniscule number of feminists used keeping their madien name a symbol of independence. Adopting the husbands name became a reactionary belief among some believers.
Throughout the history of the US cultures have not adopted the British custom. They maintained their marriage traditions and customs. It was not an issue until the rise of feminism.
Foxmeister
Well-Known Member
Well stated.