Should a submissive wife....

It is an issue that the couple should decide together. If others don't like it, they should just keep it to themselves - it is none of their business. Again, the problem is probably with the one making any assumption without knowing all the facts and not with the couple. If she rebels against her husband, then she is not submissive.

 

My wife officially took her maiden name as her middle name, but not a hyphenated last name. Her official signature with the middle initial is actually the initial of her maiden name. That being said, I do not believe that there are any biblical mandates concerning the way English names are handled in marriage. As for their testimony, the practice of retaining a maiden name goes against what is considered tradition, and going against tradition could possibly affect one's testimony, not in the eyes of God, but in the effectiveness that one could have had compared to maintaining traditional norms.

 

Since I have some things published under my name as is, if I get married I would probably keep my maiden name for my pen name.

However, I would socially and legally go by my new name.

I personally plan to keep both my given middle name and my maiden surname. (Thus, four names on record.)

 

I think my wife wanted to keep her maiden name, but couldn't pass up on a name like Smith.

What happens within a marriage is between the couple. I think there could be valid reasons for the wife keeping the name attached without the submission issue becoming a factor.

 

I don't see what a marriage custom has to do with being Biblically submissive. Unless the husband insists the wife take his name and she is refusing.

Then HE should refer to the relevant passages on the sin of pride...


MR

 

Keeping the maiden name shows a complete lack of understanding of God's design for human relationships. When a girl is born, she gets her father's name because he is responsible for her care, protection, purity, provision, etc. At marriage, ALL of that duty switches to the husband, thus she takes his name indicating, yes, her submission to him, and his responsibility toward her. She is, in a very real sense, leaving her role as her father's daughter behind and assuming a new lifelong role as the helper of the man who is now her husband. She can't run home to mama and daddy if she decides her husband isn't nice enough to her, etc. To keep the father's name indicates a lack of trust of the husband to perform his duty, a lack of identification with him, or yes, perhaps a lack of submission to his authority. This is why in marriages that I perform, I still instruct the father to say, "I do," when asked, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?" not, "her mother and I do." That last phrase is just a concession to feminism and again shows a lack of understanding of why the tradition exists - it demonstrates a Biblical principle.

 

In the original post, reference was made to the practice of hyphenating the last name. This, I think is very self-centered and short-sighted. Look down a generation or two. Susie Smith-Jones meets Billy Johnson-Brown and they fall in love and marry. Are the kids now Johnson-Brown-Smith-Jones? What about the next generation?

 

I suppose those are good points Greg,

I would add that it was an honor for my wife to take my last name. She was happy to do it too.

 

I think Greg has some good points. But I guess to me it is really a non-issue. The real issue is the relationship of the husband and wife and whether both of them desire to live Christlike, and honor God with their marriage. I think they can do that no matter what the wife's last name is or isn't.

 

Pastor Greg, I never really thought about the "her mother and I do." Wow, good point. I'll keep that in mind. Makes perfect sense because we still refer to the father as "giving the bride away" . . . and if he's not alive, often another male reletive will "give the bride away."

 

PS, PastorG, would you think it would best for the woman to keep her given middle name and not her maiden name at all?

I mean:

Sarah Mary Jones is going to marry Bob Daniel Smith. Would it be best for Sarah to become Sarah Mary Smith as oposed to Sarah Jones Smith?

 

What happens is the couple decides what to do for themselves.

 

I think PastorGreg has put forth some very good points that I had never really thought of.

I am also of the opinion that this hyphenation stuff didn't come along until feminism and was originated to make the woman more independent of her husband.

Although this may be a very small thing, rest assured that many women who do this will not be submissive in other aspects of the marriage. There are always exceptions, but a woman who will refuse to change her last name, or insist on keeping maiden name as well, is a good indicator of things to come in the marriage.

Again, there are many exceptions to this "rule".

Personally, I would not marry a woman who would refuse to take my last name.

Many traditions are good to keep and this is one that I really believe in.

Other people can do what they wish. It's not a major goal of mine to make every woman in America change her last name to that of her husband.

 

Good stuff. I agree.

 

Good stuff. I agree. </font>[/QUOTE]Yep, most excellent post. Very well thought out and well written. I hope that I can just remember all that in the little while before one of mine walks down the aisle. Of course, I have never ever like that "her mother and I do" routine.

 

A wife taking her husbands last name is not mandated in the bible, nor even mentioned. it is a cultural thing, and since it violates no scripture I see no problem with it.
The problem how ever seems to be with noseybodies who make assumptions about people without evidence to back up their assumptions. They should mind their own business, not someone elses.

 

I am curious. And my question is offered in a truly respectful, honest way.

I was 36 years old when I married my husband--my first marriage. I had lived "on my own" for several years after my mother died and my father remarried. Up til that time, until I was about 31, I lived IN MY PARENTS home, but I was the "caretaker" from the time I was about 19 years old. My income substantially supported a disabled father (he developed epilepsy and numerous other problems that often deprived him of ANY normal functioning). I effectively contributed to the "raising" of my brother who is ten years my junior. I subsequently cared for a mother dying of cancer.

A few months after mom's death, my father was fortunate enough to meet a wonderful woman and thus remarried within 2 years of mom's death. During that time period--not by MY choice--my father, brother, and I became estranged. I think it had more to do with the fact that I remind them so much of my mother, and they loved her so much; so I guess it was just much easier to simply not be around me.

To shorten this some....I met and married my husband during the estrangement from my father and brother. I had a lovely small church wedding. Because I could not include my father in the ceremony--and because my mother was deceased, and both my husband's parents were deceased--we merely reserved the front pews "in honor and in remembrance" of both sets of parents....not making an "issue" of my father's absence. NNE walked me down the aisle....no one "gave me away". Other than that, it was a traditional wedding. I gladly took my husband's name--and am honored with it.

Shortly after our wedding, my husband had to have heart bypass surgery. Shortly after that, he was diagnosed with diabetes. Not too long after that, he was hurt in a work related accident and has suffered a disabling head injury. He is STILL my husband--but in many ways, he is NOT the man I married. And I am now HIS caretaker.

Here are my questions:
1--Was my wedding a mockery of--or against the scriptural intention of-- a father passing "the care of" his daughter to her husband?

2--Did I dishonor my father by caring for him and his family when he was unable to?

3--Did I dishonor my father at my wedding?

4--Do I dishonor my husband by being his caretaker and not "submitting" to him now? Bear in mind that he has lucid times--but that he is often QUITE unable to function "normally", much less make the decisions for our household or be my "spiritual leader".

Please understand that I am not asking these questions lightly--or in an argumentative manner. I truly wish to understand this concept as I see it presented here on this BB. I was raised in a Christian home--and when I was young (before my father's illnesses began), we attended a (Baptist) church every time the doors were open. I was saved at nine years old. I was a "good girl" in a very traditional, old-fashioned home. When Dad became ill, I stepped up to the plate and took over the role of caretaker because my mother--ever the "submissive, lean-on-her-husband wife"--was unable to do it. My brother was too young. There were no other family members to turn to. It was ME--and God's strength and love--that got us through as well as we did. During this time, the church we'd attended for years TURNED ITS BACK ON US--no one was there with support of either a financial OR spiritual nature. I do not know why (honestly). And thus is the reason that I personally STAYED AWAY FROM CHURCHES for many years after that--NOT away from God and my Savior--but away from a "house" that pretended/preached one thing but practiced quite another.

So THIS is why I have so many questions about the things I read on this BB since I've joined. There was one thread on here about what "options" an abused wife had. I was stunned to see (at least up to the point that I quit reading) that, although many of the posters on these boards frequently question each others' and everyone else's salvation if they disagree with them on some point of scripture, NNE questioned THAT ABUSIVE HUSBAND's salvation! All the original poster seemed to be concerned with was whether or not the abused wife had the "right" to leave or divorce--making it sound that he would counsel her that God Himself could not make a way for her otherwise.

PLEASE, PLEASE, I am NOT questioning anyone's salvation OR scripture --and I'm certainly NOT questioning God or His right to proclaim anything He chooses-- I simply want to understand this. Please understand that "submission", as I've seen it referred to here in SO many posts, implies that MY ENTIRE LIFE has been a mockery of God's intentions for me! And yet, HE has placed me in the very situations that I have been required to "perform" in these seemingly unbiblical roles!

I have no children of my own, because God chose not to grace me with that blessing. Instead, I care for my husband's grandchildren, my husband, and --once again--my father (God brought us back together with MY bout with cancer). Had I chosen my OWN life's path--rather than gone where God took me--I would have married a high school sweetheart, settled down, had about 6 kids, and gladly been a stay-at-home mom who homeschooled. But THAT is not what God intended for me. No, INSTEAD, I have been the breadwinner in both my father's house AND my husband's. I have been the caretaker in both houses. And it genuinely HURTS me at times to read things as they've been posted here.

And I guess I just want to understand better.

 

Terri,

Phillipians 3:13-15

13. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14. I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

God bless.