Many Christian traditions connected with marriage are considered holy
writ but are not found in the Bible. Rather, they are
remnants of a pagan culture—ancient Athens—which was a radical democracy (for male citizens only),
decidedly idolatrous, and, relevant to the current gender issue, a slave-owning society.
For instance, the practice of women taking their husband’s
names at marriage is not a biblical practice, yet the worst accusation Beverly
LaHaye could find to level against Lucy Stone, a leader of the conservative
wing of women’s suffrage and the first American woman who refused to take her
husband’s name after marriage, is the fact that she refused to merge her legal
identity with that of her husband by taking his name.[1] DeMoss
also criticizes women for not to taking a husband’s name.[2] Today,
within some evangelical and fundamental Christian communities, women who
wish to preserve their own legal identities are libeled as “feminists”—meaning
they are considered to be in rebellion against God and drifting away from
Christian morality.[3]
But how are such accusations
justified when the practice of name changes after marriage can be traced
directly to a pagan culture in which a woman was required to change her name
whenever she changed households, whether
or not the change had to do with marriage? If an Athenian woman’s father
died and she was placed under the guardianship of a maternal uncle, her name automatically
changed to reflect that of her uncle. If her guardian happened to be a
non-relative, the results were the same. Her name changed each time she permanently changed households. At no time during
their lives were Greek women considered autonomous adults, and it did not
matter how many times a Greek woman had to change households, her name changed each
time to reflect that of the male head of household.[4]
There is no scriptural basis for
stigmatizing Christian women who choose not to align themselves with the laws
of ancient Athens. And it is to the scriptures that we appeal as our authority
in these matters.
Women in the Bible, always retained their pre-marriage identities
just as their husbands did. Marriage did not obliterate the individual
public/legal identities of biblical women. Rather, their marital status added to their identities rather than diminish
them. Yet, in spite of biblical evidence to the contrary, female name changes
after marriage continue to be patterned after the laws of a pagan culture that
left its women with no identities aside from that of the males in whose
households they resided.[5]
Even the practice of joining the name of husband and wife through hyphenating
is a legal identity change (usually done by the wife but not the husband), and therefore a compromise with Athenian law which
necessitated an identity change for wives.
Despite these historical facts [which have no connection with scripture], modern women who are not inclined to change their names
after marriage are often pressured to do so from the men they marry, from
pastors and spiritual leaders, from public opinion, and even after marriage, from marked silences
observed at introductions, and from disapproving attitudes and subliminal
messages coming from those closest to them. But where is scriptural precedence
for this? Changing a woman’s name originated as an ownership issue; what is it about the tradition that makes it holy?[6]
The honored tradition of “giving the bride away” comes from ancient Athenian
culture as well, and had everything to do with guardianship, citizenship, social/political success, and material prosperity--and nothing to do with fatherly love. To ensure the production of legitimate offspring, freeborn Athenian
women were literally given away by
their kyrios (lord) through legal
contract. It is oxymoronic that these freeborn women were considered prized
possessions. The reason for this was that only Athenian [male] citizens could
participate in the public life of the polis
(the Greek city-state), thereby ensuring its continuance. Only free-born
Athenian women could provide the polis with these citizens. But the union between a
freeborn Athenian woman and a male citizen had to be of a specific sort in
order for their offspring to be considered legitimate, which was crucial to
citizenship and all future inheritance and opportunity. In order to ensure
legitimate offspring Athenian women had to be transferred from one kyrios to another. [7]
From an Athenian male’s point of view, the real value in
being married to a freeborn Athenian woman was that she was the only source of future citizens. The
success or failure of the Athenian culture, a culture so powerful its influence
is still felt today, hinged upon just one thing—citizens descended from
freeborn Athenian women passed from
one “lord” to another by legal contract. Just so the success or failure of
complementarianism hinges on the women.
Female subjection is the only thing
that can lay claim to making complementarianism work.[8] But just
because a thing can be made to work, does not make it right.
The wives of many Athenian citizens were essentially nothing
more than prized broodmares and head housekeepers.[9] Modern
women would be horrified to be thought of and treated as Athenian women were—human
chattel, property to be bargained for, and transferred from one kyrios to another through contract.[10] Yet
how many blushing brides today proudly listen to the words, “Who gives this woman…?” accepting the lie that
anyone has the right to either keep or give them?
The modern practice of having witnesses at our marriage ceremonies can also be traced to Athenian law where, “The sole purpose of witnesses was to ensure the
recognition of the progeny of the union as legitimate and therefore heirs of
the oikoi (family/household) from
which they had descended.” And quoting Demosthenes, Just writes, “No man in concluding a transaction of such importance…would have
acted without witnesses. This is the reason why we celebrate marriages…and call
together those who are closest to us, because we are dealing with no light affairs (italics added).”[11]
No, the affairs were not light; they were affairs upon which citizenship, inheritance,
livelihood, and social and political status, stood. If an Athenian man or woman
lost their citizenship, or was declared illegitimate (which accomplished the
same), their lives were catastrophically destroyed. The presence of witnesses was
crucial in attesting to the legality of any union between those claiming
Athenian citizenship.
Nineteenth century activists who criticized marriage laws
were not against the institution itself. They were rightfully campaigning
against the “vandal” laws that were associated with marriage.[12] These
laws plundered the properties, obliterated the legal rights, the identities,
and the very legal existences of
women as they entered into matrimony.
The Athenian city-state, from which so much of our language
and cultural traditions originate, was a radical democracy for freeborn men only. More importantly, regarding attitudes and laws concerning women, it was also a slaveholding
society. Some believe, regarding gender, that there is no minor connection
between the intrinsic attitudes of slaveholders and those of sexists. Historian, Roger Just,
wrote: “…lack of self control, incontinence,
physical indulgence, inebriation, sensuality, luxury, are reported as the
natural characteristics not only of slaves and of women but also of the barbaroi who lived beyond the bounds of
the civilized Greek world. It is part of the complex Athenian male
self-definition that barbarians are routinely characterized in their wildness
and in their luxury as being both
effeminate and slavish…It is this
opposition which is crucial, for on it turn the Athenian notions of freedom and
subordination, notions themselves grounded in Athens’ economical structure, in
the fact that it was a slave-owning
society. And here of course is the nexus between politics and the attributes of
gender; it is the opposition between those innately possessed of self-control
and those who lack it that ideologically renders women’s subordinated place
within the social structure of the [Greek] polis
a ‘natural’ one.” [13]
[1] Beverly LaHaye, The Restless Woman, 1984
[2] See footnote #13
[3] “Are you in transition
back to Christian morality, or are you drifting toward selfish feminism?” Beverly
LaHaye, The Restless Woman, 1984
[4] “A woman’s lifelong
supervision by a guardian, her kyrios
(lord), summarizes her status in Athenian law. She was not considered a legally
competent, autonomous, individual responsible for her own actions or capable of
determining her own interests.” Roger Just, Women in
Athenian Law and Life, Routledge, London and New York, 1989
[5] “Women are specified by their relationships with men (Schaps 1977).
Men are specified by their proper names….the normal practice was to refer to a
woman as so-and-so‘s mother, wife, sister, or daughter, and we know the names
of remarkable few of the many women mentioned in law-court proceedings.” Roger
Just, Women in Athenian Law and Life, Routledge, London and New York, 1989
[6] “A wife should no more take her husband's name than he should hers.
My name is my identity and must not be lost." Lucy Stone
[7] “She whom her father, or her homopatric brother or her grandfather
on her father’s side gives…to be a lawful wife, from her the children shall be
legitimate…Plato gives a much more extended list of male relatives who had the
right to give a girl in marriage…” Roger Just, Women in Athenian Law and Life,
Routledge, London and New York, 1989
The transferring kyrios could be her father,
brother, any male guardian, etc…He could also be her husband. Athenian husbands
could, and did, transfer wives to other men.
[8] “If the wife does not
fulfill her responsibility, it is almost impossible for the husband to fulfill
his.” Derek Prince, Husbands & Fathers,
Chosen Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2000
[9] “We have hetairai for
pleasure, pallakai to care for our
daily bodily needs, and gynaikes
(Athenian women married to citizens by engue whose children were legitimate) to
bear us legitimate children and to be the faithful guardians of our households…”
Roger Just, Women in Athenian Law and Life, Routledge, London and New York,
1989
[10] “The marriages of a special class of women, epikleroi, or
‘heiresses,’ …were awarded to their father’s closest kin.” ibid
[11] ibid
“At all
events, the giving of a woman in marriage…involved
an immediate transfer of wealth to the woman’s husband.”(emphasis added) ibid
[12] “Theodore [Weld]
emphatically stated how pleased he was to refute the property laws, of the
time, which transferred the wife’s property to the husband as soon as they
married: “a vandal law,” he called it.” Ellen H. Todras, Angelina Grimke: Voice of Abolition, 1999
[13] Roger Just, Women in
Athenian Law and Life, Routledge, London and New York, 1989
This article is an excerpt from Chapter 6 of, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System.
Woman this is WAR!, examines Bible commentary and translation practices which have historically been androcentric (male centered) and even misogynistic (anti-woman).
These have adversely effected understanding of the scriptures, relations between women and men, the happiness of men and women, and, in general, has hindered the work of the gospel, by forbidding women to preach, pastor, or serve as elders or deacons. The book chronicles the early history of the women's rights movements, as well as the role of church leadership in aggressively suppressing both women's rights and the historical record of Christian initiatives within the movements.
Through the complementarian movement, many of the same arguments used to support the institution of slavery, are still used today in suppressing the rights of Christian women. This book documents identical arguments used by Christian leaders against both movements and is an unparalleled resource for all who desire an in-depth study of gender equality from a historical and Christian perspective.
This book traces history of women’s rights, much further than usual, to the very first feminists…who were Christians—godly women, who brought the issue of women's rights to the forefront as they struggled to alleviate the suffering of others, and found they were hindered in doing so for no other reason than the fact of their sex. This work, provides valuable historical insight into Christian initiatives in the movements for women’s rights, that are rarely included in Christian literature.
Woman this is WAR!, examines Bible commentary and translation practices which have historically been androcentric (male centered) and even misogynistic (anti-woman).
These have adversely effected understanding of the scriptures, relations between women and men, the happiness of men and women, and, in general, has hindered the work of the gospel, by forbidding women to preach, pastor, or serve as elders or deacons. The book chronicles the early history of the women's rights movements, as well as the role of church leadership in aggressively suppressing both women's rights and the historical record of Christian initiatives within the movements.
Through the complementarian movement, many of the same arguments used to support the institution of slavery, are still used today in suppressing the rights of Christian women. This book documents identical arguments used by Christian leaders against both movements and is an unparalleled resource for all who desire an in-depth study of gender equality from a historical and Christian perspective.
This book traces history of women’s rights, much further than usual, to the very first feminists…who were Christians—godly women, who brought the issue of women's rights to the forefront as they struggled to alleviate the suffering of others, and found they were hindered in doing so for no other reason than the fact of their sex. This work, provides valuable historical insight into Christian initiatives in the movements for women’s rights, that are rarely included in Christian literature.