Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Kim,

Here are some examples of the basic way of surnaming a married woman:

[snip]

Notice in each case, that the "second name" to describe who this woman is identifies the woman with her husband; this is the function of our surname, and reflects Eve's identity as Mrs. Adam, and the church's identity as the Mrs. The Lamb.

Thanks for correcting me. (That's why I added "right?" at the end of my sentence. I guess I should edit it to say "wrong!")

Originally Posted by Kim G

Originally Posted by Archlute

I always get a kick out of the false dichotomy brought about when people attempt to argue that something is either cultural and therefore of little consequence or biblical and therefore we should take it more seriously. Culture is never neutral, it is either more biblical or less biblical in how it has been influenced. Dismissing something as being unimportant to change/reclaim under the guise of it being "merely a part of Western culture, etc." shows more the negative impact of modern missiology than it does a Christian view of culture. That view would say, "It is both Western and correct, because the Western view is, in this instance, founded on a Christian view of life while the Asian culture is wrong at this point, because it is a cultural practice founded on principles that are devoid of Christian knowledge."

I understand what you're saying. However, you can only take it so far. What you are presenting I would consider a "false dichotomy"=everything is either Christian or non-Christian. In ancient Asia, women wore pants and men wore robes. In the West, men wear pants and women (traditionally) wear skirts. Neither is a Christian vs. non-Christian view of life. It's just . . . clothing styles. Same with types of food eaten, traditional music styles, etc. Unless maybe you wouldn't consider this neutral.

In the Bible, I would have been called Kim, daughter of Ken. Upon getting married, I STILL would have been Kim, daughter of Ken, not Kim, wife of Josh, right? So maybe the biblical precident is that the daughter retains the name of her father.

No, you would still have been called Kim, the wife of Josh; see Gen. 24:15, 36:10, etc.

Guess I got there a bit late.

Kim,

I took it as a question, and my response more of an answer than correction, but thanks for confirming your intent

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Kim G

Thanks for correcting me. (That's why I added "right?" at the end of my sentence. I guess I should edit it to say "wrong!")

Hate it when that happens!



It is nice when two responses are the same though...

Originally Posted by Archlute

Guess I got there a bit late.

Not that it realy mattered to me at the time, but when my wife and I married, she took my name and kept her middle name dropping her maiden name entirely.

She's quite comfortable with that discision and as we have grown more covenantal over the years she finds it to be appropriate as she is no longer under her father's headship but mine.

Just the way things have worked out in the Jacobs' household anyway.

Johnnie Cochranesque

Is that one in the lexicon yet?