Marital Vows That Can Sustain
by Steve Watters on 06/26/2009 at 8:06 AM
When couples get married, does it matter what vows they repeat? In a column for the Wall Street Journal last week, David Lapp, of the Institue for American Values, talked about the plans he and his fiancée had for customizing their wedding vows.
I told him [their pastor] that we planned to write our own vows. He dismissed my idea and directed us to the Book of Common Prayer (published in 1549) for the vows he thought we should exchange. The vows there are more formal, and hardly original: "to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." My sensibilities were offended. "Don't you know this is our wedding?"
Lapp follows this story with what I found to be an intriguing thought:
...let's imagine for a moment that, instead of reciting the oath that his 43 predecessors have taken, President Barack Obama had insisted at his inauguration on personalizing it, perhaps replacing "I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States" with the more flexible "I will try as hard as possible to do the job of president of the United States." That sounds a little more natural and honest, he might have argued: How does he know if he'll always be able to live up to his word? Besides, he might have stated, "The traditional oath is what every other president has said. I want mine to be original."
We, the people, would have been outraged -- and rightly so. The very specific words our Constitution requires the president to recite demonstrate the gravity of the obligations he assumes. They can't be reduced to the whims of one person.
He goes on to say:
Like the presidential oath, the traditional marriage vows -- whether Catholic, Jewish or Protestant -- typically ask a marrying couple to make specific pledges: as the Catholic marriage ceremony puts it, "I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health." And for how long? "I will love and honor you all the days of my life." The words of religious marriage vows are direct and uncompromisingly clear.
Lapp also includes a story I hadn't read before that has been rolling around in my head ever since:
In 1943, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a letter to a young bride and groom, reminding them that "it is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains your love."
Will your marital vows be direct and clear enough to help you sustain love?
1. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:32 AM on Jun 26:
1
A couple deciding they want non-traditional wedding vows is not comparable to an elected offical deciding he/she wants to take a non-traditional oath.
A couple has a right to choose specific vows for their own wedding and if the ceremony officient doesn't like the particular couple's choice of vows, then he/she can certainly decline to perform the marriage ceremony.
2. Dan H. said the following at 8:39 AM on Jun 26:
2
I went to a wedding not that long ago and my wife and I were struck by how truly meaningless the vows this couple exchanged were. The concepts of "til death do us part", "for better _or_ for worse", "in sickness _and_ in health" were never even broached. I found that rather sad since even in the short time my wife and I have been married, we've referred to those parts of our vow in reassuring each other of our commitment to our marriage.
3. Dan Gill said the following at 8:56 AM on Jun 26:
3
There might be just a little bit of difference between the vows of marriage and the oath of office for the President, don't you think?
I see no real reason to keep the vows in the Common Book of Prayer. Folks were married before those were written and managed quite well. The ideas of the vows in the Common Book of Prayer are very good and should be a part of anyone's vows. But it's not scripture, folks.
4. J. said the following at 9:16 AM on Jun 26:
4
Building on what Dan Gill (#3) wrote, brides and grooms who are married in Greek Orthodox ceremonies traditionally do not recite vows. I believe this is true for other Orthodox churches as well (e.g., Antiochian and Eastern).
5. Pak said the following at 9:25 AM on Jun 26:
5
I don't think Steve is trying to equate the vows of marriage to that of the oath of office for the President but rather show the level of commitment that is required for both. Just as the oath of office requires the President to "faithfully execute the Office of the President...", wedding vows requires the husband and wife to recognize the level of commitment to one another, hence "in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, etc...".
6. Rachael said the following at 9:26 AM on Jun 26:
6
It might be nice if I had our vows kind-of easily accessible to act as a reminder or if I somehow reflected upon them from time to time.
Or at least it would be good if I were to at times reflect upon the spirit of the vows, even if the exact words were not memorized or are not exactly remembered...
7. Kathryn said the following at 10:05 AM on Jun 26:
7
I think there is a difference between a presidential vow and a marriage vow, because honestly one deals with tradition and one deals with God. People would be upset with Obama for ignoring American tradition because he is meant to be a symbol of that longevity.
The only reason we as Christians feel like untraditional vows are wrong is because we think they are disrespecting marriage. Just because a person doesn't use the same language as the Common Book of Prayer doesn't mean they are not taking those vows extremely seriously.
I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian and we don't even have vows in our ceremony. The ceremony consists of a Crowning and Betrothal and no where in the ceremony do you exchange traditional vows. The idea that you are standing before God in a crowd of witnesses getting married implies your silent acknowledgement and commitment to each other. You only state at the beginning of the service that you are not committed to another man or woman, and that you enter freely into the sacrament. Are spoken vows a necessity? The Orthodox Church rarely gives canonical divorces and so Orthodox Christians approach their wedding knowing that their marriage will last not only to their death; but even in the eternal Kingdom of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Your act of entering the marriage sacrament is your vow.
"O Eternal God, who brought into unity those who were separated, ordaining for them an unbreakable bond of love, who blessed Isaac and Rebecca making them heirs of Thy Promise; Do Thou Thyself bless these Thy servants, N. and N., guiding them in every good work."
It is truly a most beautiful service. If you would like to read the service, I've included it below:
http://www.geocities.com/canonical_orthodox_2000/betrothal-crowning.html
May God bless all those who enter into marriage.
8. DEH said the following at 10:48 AM on Jun 26:
8
My husband and I didn't write our own vows, but we didn't use the traditional vows either; we used what the pastor used for many ceremonies and that he recommended. I'm ashamed to admit that I don't remember the exact words, but there was a great focus on making Christ the center of our relationship. I truly liked the vows we recited, but at the same time, I often wish we had said the traditional ones because they are so meaningful. We have gone through times of illness and our share of "for poorer," even though we didn't specific promise those things. Does it matter to my level of commitment? No, only to my level of sentimentality.
If we were to renew our vows, though, I think I would request the traditional set this time.
9. BDB said the following at 11:06 AM on Jun 26:
9
Well, yes, the marriage vows are different than the oath of office. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of America's Nuclear Weapons. It's important that only people willing to execute what the oath says seek the office.
Interestingly enough, military officers, police officers, legislators, notaries public, and (based on what I've read of Tom Clancy) CIA officers - all take basically the same oath as the President, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic.
I remember my grandparent's 50th Wedding Anniversary. They had simple programs with the (old) vows printed inside. I remember thinking that there's no reason to mess with something that works. Two weeks ago, they celebrated their 70th anniversary.
10. Stephanie said the following at 11:09 AM on Jun 26:
10
I’d rather folks be free to create whatever vows mean something to them, rather than take the traditional vows when they don’t truly mean or believe them. My husband and I took fairly traditional protestant vows, the ones our pastor always uses. It’s been nice to attend weddings of our friends, and hear the same vows said. After one such wedding, my husband requested that we print them out and frame them, so we can see them regularly and be reminded of what we pledged. http://stevishabitat.com/ceremony.php
11. smithr said the following at 11:25 AM on Jun 26:
11
And remember, the oft-maligned President Obama appeared able to recite the oath of office . . . but was tripped up by the Chief Justice of the United States, who I recall was reading the oath to him, line by line at that. And to end the squabbling about whether he was actually President of the United States because of the flubbed oath not being licit, it was redone later. Has he been charged with impersonating the president during the time between the two administrations of the oath? Words matter. And you can't trust the judiciary, it would seem. Of course, it was simply the sort of slip anyone can make - - - however, he who is faithful in small things will be trusted with great things.
12. Lis said the following at 11:27 AM on Jun 26:
12
Everyone I know who has been married in my church wrote their own vows. I think it makes it much more personal for the couple to write their own words rather than reciting the same thing that everyone else says. It gives them a chance to share what is on their hearts on that special day.
13. BDB said the following at 11:35 AM on Jun 26:
13
Oh, it just struck me how the Presidential oath IS similar to wedding vows.
All those millions of sworn officers and legislators and notaries are taking an oath that is built on the President's oath. The act of taking the oath is a reminder that they are part of something larger than themselves. In the same way, when someone is sworn in as a juror or a witness by a court clerk - the Clerk of the Court is often a constitutional officer.
So, in the same way, taking the "old" marriage vows is a reminder to the couple that they are part of something larger than themselves, something that carries responsibilities that are common to the responsibilities others have taken on.
Fun Fact: Calvin Coolidge took the Presidential Oath first when it was administered by his father, a notary public, after Harding's death in the middle of the night. He re-did it later after returning to Washington D.C.
14. Victoria said the following at 11:52 AM on Jun 26:
14
Wow, this is so true. The traditional vows really do say it all, while so many 'custom' vows cross over into trite sentimentality that is just emotional fluff and no substance. (No offense to anyone who has written their own wedding vows. I'm just sayin'.)
15. farmer Tom said the following at 12:06 PM on Jun 26:
15
Really??? Lets compare,
Now the traditional vows from the Common Book of Prayer
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.
(the vows)(I edited for length)
M. WILT thou have this Woman to thy wedded Wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?
I N. take thee M. to my wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.
Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.
FORASMUCH as M. and N. have consented together in holy Wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth either to other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving of a Ring, and by joining of hands; I pronounce that they be Man and Wife together, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Seems that the wedding vow is a far more serious and Biblically based vow than that of the office of President. Yet we force the Presidents to all use the same vow. Much of what is said in the traditional vow is direct quotes of Scripture.
Far too many people treat getting married as some sort of opportunity for personal expression. If you're into personal expression, get a few more piercings, another tattoo and a butch hair cut. Leave the wedding vows alone. Maybe the marriages in this nation would be a little more successful if they focused a little less on personal expression and a lot more on what Scripture has to say about marriage.
16. Holly said the following at 12:07 PM on Jun 26:
16
"it is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains your love."
That's a great vow/quote!
17. Fisayo said the following at 12:24 PM on Jun 26:
17
God who knows the number of hairs on each head takes every vow seriously. Either in the case of 2 anonymous lovers in a church or a President taking an oath in front of millions on TV, radio and at the venue. Having the vows(the way they are) are a kind of standard so that everyone knows what they are called to in a christian marriage. Making your vows might seem personal but i think it might sometimes show how irreverent people view marriage. The Bible likens marriage to the institution of the church and Christ. That's a pretty powerful picture.
18. Craig M. said the following at 12:45 PM on Jun 26:
18
Here's the problem with you free-spirited types who want to write your own vows. If you're anything like the average person, you're not a very good writer. The result of these "personalized" vows-writing experiments is always some treacly, substance-less parody of a scrawled poetic sentiment in the back of a high school yearbook. The average person, on his or her own, cannot hope to capture with any articulation (much less eloquence) the great substance, the civic and spiritual content, that is effectively expressed in the time-tested traditional vows.
Of course, no one wants to tell the blushing bride that her rhyming cadence or "cute" sentiments about "always feeding each other cookie-dough" are a ridiculous basis on which to found a meaningful married life; that sentiments dominated by the feelings of the moment and a desire to express individuality as it exists at a certain age, in a certain context, at a certain time, will prove woefully inadequate to tide her and her beloved through a devastating disease, the loss of a child, long absence during war, periods of disaffection. We are too "nice" to want to offer such obvious truth to a man or a woman on "their" day.
19. Tami said the following at 1:40 PM on Jun 26:
19
In truth, I don't take much issue with people who write their own vows (except when they remove all aspects of commitment out of them... which is sort of defeating the purpose of a vow in the first place, IMO...).
But supposing someone wants to add a personal touch to the ceremony: maybe a tribute could be read before the traditional vows? Or a song sung? I've seen that done, and I didn't think it took away from anything. And all those couples are very committed. :)
Either that, or share the words during the reception.
20. Elizabeth (from Canada) said the following at 2:02 PM on Jun 26:
20
I was reading these posts and was reminded of a different vow I took a few years ago - my profession of faith in front of my church (baptised as an infant, I professed faith as an adult, as is usual in my denomination). I re-read this vow every year around the time I first took it, to remind myself that I professed faith in Christ before His people, and that I submitted myself to the leadership and discipline of my church. It's good to be reminded of that sometimes... And as for wedding vows, I think that it often is a result of seeing a wedding as just for the bride and groom, rather than as part of the community. I'm not totally against individual vows, but I prefer the traditional ones, because they are well-written and remind one (because of the age of them) that marriage is bigger than one couple - it's something that God has ordained since the beginning (not that I'm claiming the traditional vows are that old!).
21. Celebrindal said the following at 2:06 PM on Jun 26:
21
I think that if a couple wants to recite their own wedding vows, they should do so in addition to, rather than instead of, the traditional vows. Making your commitment personal is admirable. However, it can be easy to miss or de-emphasize important aspects of the marriage commitment. The strength and durability of traditional vows help to keep you focused on the seriousness of the commitment and remind you that the marriage covenant is a sacred one that was instituted by God in the beginning. On the other hand, adding your own personal touch can provide a memorable way to recapture the feelings you had on your wedding day. In any event, certain aspects of the marriage commitment (such as lasting until death) need to be addressed, whether the vows are new or old.
22. Jo said the following at 2:06 PM on Jun 26:
22
I think it's a valid point, that vows like this aren't present in every cultural tradition. But if you are going to do Western-style vows, I think you should be prepared to accept the traditional ones. If people are prepared to accept them, what reason would they have for wanting to change them...? I have to be honest, when I hear of people writing their own, it makes me wonder if they're trying to avoid something in the traditional ones - and that makes me wonder if they understand the full gravity of what marriage is. I think a good compromise would be to add a personal bit afterwards or something, then you'd have the best of both worlds.
I think additions can be lovely, actually. I went to a wedding between two good friends of mine; the bride was previously married and had two daughters. When the groom made his vows, he also promised to take them on as his own children, which I thought was absolutely beautiful.
23. ayako said the following at 2:12 PM on Jun 26:
23
I personally like very traditional wedding vow. There' just something very sacred about it. I'm not saying "personally-written" ones are not sacred, but going simple seems to be a very good idea here, at least to me.
I just witnessed my dear friend's wedding vows. Creative and fun in so many other ways (outdoor, beach...), I was, for some reason, very glad to hear them say the traditional vow.
I agree with BDB #13, that people are expressing themselves when they say their own vows. I would, personally, want my wedding to be little more about God than about myself. Maybe I just like the traditional way.
24. brx said the following at 2:18 PM on Jun 26:
24
Re: Steve Watters, farmer Tom [#15];
Given humans' sinful nature, I wonder if the words of the vows really do make a resulting difference? Presidents still resign and people who say the traditional words still get divorced.
So, it would be interesting to know what the % divorce rate is of marriages in which custom vows were used vs. % divorce rate of marriages in which traditional Jewish/Catholic/Christian vows were used.
I wonder if Barna Group has research data to mine for that statistic. Anyone got the connection to find out?
If peope who create custom marriage vows tend to have a more flexible attitude in giving each other allowances, then perhaps their divorce rate might actually be lower than the traditional vow sayers???
25. James said the following at 2:33 PM on Jun 26:
25
I don't think it should be alone up to the couple who is getting married what vows they take.
Marriage is God's institution, not man's. The marriage ceremony is the taking of vows before God and witnesses to enter into the union that God had created and ordained.
Therefore, I think that the vows ought to be chiefly decided upon by the pastor officiating the wedding. Hopefully, he is the couple's pastor, and in charge of their spiritual care. Therefore, he is the one best qualified to judge whether a set of man-made vows are appropriate for the union of marriage which God has created and ordained.
Our primary audience in a wedding is the Lord. Remember that. It's not about what the couple believes, but what God has created and what it means. The vows ought to reflect that. If the couple does not believe those things, then they ought not to get married. It is God's institution after all.
26. Ronnica said the following at 2:51 PM on Jun 26:
26
That comparison would only hold true in more liturgical churches. As for most protestant churches, that comparison would only work if the traditional vows were found in the pages of the Bible, which of course they aren't. My pastor encourages couples to write their own vows, not to make it easier, but to strengthen them. "For better or for worse" can be trite, but vowing "I will never divorce you" (as many of my friends have) as some teeth to it. People can still break them, of course, but a pastor who is counseling in a struggling marriage can say, "Remember when you promised never to divorce your husband?"
27. brx said the following at 2:51 PM on Jun 26:
27
Re: Craig M. [#18];
Wow, that was a beautifully flowing and articulate comment with slightly humorous and sarcastic spice. If for some spur of the moment reason in a certain context I decide that I'd like custom vows, I'll try to enlist your writing skills!
Grace, peace & adventure
28. kaj said the following at 2:54 PM on Jun 26:
28
Ironically, The Book of Common Prayer was produced by the Anglican church (i.e. Church of England), founded by King Henry VII, someone who did not take marital vows very seriously.
29. Ronnica said the following at 2:57 PM on Jun 26:
29
Reading through the other comments, it seems like many are struck by how emotional and fluffy custom vows can be. I'm sure that is the case frequently, but I have had a different experience on the matter as most of the weddings I have attended have been God-centered. The custom vows I've heard draw from specific scriptures and principles on marriage, not from emotional sentiment.
30. kaj said the following at 3:00 PM on Jun 26:
30
Clarification: The Church of England was founded by King Henry VIII. The BoCP was introduced during the reign of his son, Edward VI.
31. Ronnica said the following at 3:02 PM on Jun 26:
31
#18: No one said that the couple had to write the custom vows. I had a friend who attended another friend's wedding several weeks before her own and asked the earlier bride for a copy of the vows so they could use them. I believe they were originally written/influenced by our pastor. They're the same ones I would like to use one day. They weren't cutesy, just vows with modern language and teeth to them (I will not divorce you, I will put my relationship with Christ first, and my relationship with you second before all other earthly relationships).
So true, kaj (#28).
32. Sarah Liberty said the following at 3:06 PM on Jun 26:
32
Regarding the institutions of marriage and government, one of them is God-designed. Another is Man-designed.
I take the marriage vows more seriously than that of the President.
33. BDB said the following at 3:11 PM on Jun 26:
33
Looking here at my copy of the Book of Common Prayer I'm surprised by how short the actual marriage ceremony is. Farmer Tom above actually quoted almost the whole thing. The vows are simply:
[Name]will you have this man to be your husband; to live together in the covenant of marriage? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, be faithful to him as long as you both shall live?
(And repeat for husband)
Gosh, notice how now one is talking about their feelings? Hard to believe these vows have worked for centuries, huh?
And there is a vow for the rest of the community, too:
Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage?
I mean really; if people want to be creative in their wedding, isn't it enough to do so when assembling the PowerPoint slide show?
34. BDB said the following at 3:28 PM on Jun 26:
34
In case you're wondering why I have a copy of the Common Book of Prayer, it's something that was suggested by one of my Bible professors. For those of us from churches that don't have liturgical traditions, many of the "order of service" outlines are very handy. They're really not statements of doctrine. (OK, it does have the Nicene Creed, which is pretty basic.) And they are all nicely organized into a book the size of a travel Bible, making it easy for a Chaplain-oriented person to carry with them.
Besides, you never know when you might need to minister to the sick, be asked to offer a prayer, or bury someone at sea.
35. Marci said the following at 4:18 PM on Jun 26:
35
Marriage is something that God created. Does it really matter if we say the traditional vows or not? God will still hold us to His standard of marriage. No one is going to be able to say, "Oh yeah, God, I didn't include that I wouldn't get divorced in my vows, so I'm going to go ahead and do that now."
36. MarkS said the following at 5:01 PM on Jun 26:
36
For whose benefit is the vow/oath/promise? I would argue that the real vow you've already made when you decided to marry. God will hold you to the vows you whispered in her ear on her daddy's porch.
But the real purpose of the ceremony, is to tell the world "hey guys, we're married". What does that mean? Why are we not gonna get dicorced? Why are we not gonna have affairs? Why are we not gonna kill each other? Why are we gonna raise good kids?
I've thought too much (for a guy) about my future wedding and think it should be such a powerful display of Christ. It should leave no doubts that it's a 3-way marriage. So why not pray the vows? After all it is not a vow to her but to Him. Why not pray them together, alternating or in unison, to show the togetherness? And why not spend an hour? You could say "to love, honour, obey....and to teach and learn from, to support and lean on, to laugh with and cry with......" illustrating the pervasive nature of you one-fleshness.
Or you could just recite the same ol' vows as everyone........
37. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 5:35 PM on Jun 26:
37
I echo what some of the other comments have said: Why is it that traditional marriage vows are so often re-written to *soften* or *relativize* the promises in the traditional ones?
The focus is often shifted from what we, as husbands and wives, are charged to do before God in marriage, to how we "feel" about our spouse, or how we will "do our best" to live up to the marriage vows.
This shift is often, seemingly at least, a not-so-subtle embrace of postmodern thinking and a move away from absolute Biblical commands of obedience to God, embodied in sacrificial love (specifically in fidelity and selfless service) to one's spouse.
38. Charlotte said the following at 6:05 PM on Jun 26:
38
#33 BDB - great point that no one is talking about their feelings in the traditional vows!
I went to a wedding a couple of years ago and was quite shocked and saddened by the flimsy vows the couple took, including phrases like 'I love you SOOO much' and 'you rock my world' etc. I was apprehensive about whether the marriage would last anyway, and true enough it has broken up in the last couple of months :(
39. skp said the following at 9:09 PM on Jun 26:
39
Actions speak louder than words. And vows are just words. If you aren't going to keep them it doesn't matter what vows you repeat.
40. Kate said the following at 9:11 PM on Jun 26:
40
I'm ok with traditional sounding vows, along as there is no obey.
41. Maggie said the following at 9:33 PM on Jun 26:
41
When a friend of mine got married last year, the pastor told her that he had stopped allowing couples to write their own vows because he found that many of the custom vows lacked the essential elements of wedding vows. (I would assume that would be to address commitment to one another, and to Christ, until death.) The vows he was hearing were based too much on personal feelings. He had a few options of traditional vows, and the couple could choose. It was a beautiful service.
I have always liked the Book of Common Prayer service for its simplicity. Of course, my opinion may have been influenced from watching the wedding scene in Pride and Prejudice too many times. :-)
Craig M. (18), you are so right! Sometimes I hear these really emotional/cheesy vows (and wedding speeches), and I really wish they had been saved and shared in a more private moment....
42. Rachel said the following at 10:01 PM on Jun 26:
42
Using traditional marriage vows helps reinforce the concept that the couple did not invent marriage and cannot define for themselves what it means and what its obligations are.
I'm intrigued by comment #26 about vowing "I will never divorce you." It means that same thing as "Till death do us part," but the second is familiar while the first is startling and therefore sounds stronger.
43. Keith said the following at 10:09 PM on Jun 26:
43
Didn't Jesus instruct us in Matthew 5 not to take vows at all? The truth is that vows do not make people more likely to do what they say they will do. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that people can remain faithful in marriage, and Jesus Himself said "apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).
Also, is there any Biblical support for the practice of making wedding vows?
44. Jo said the following at 11:19 PM on Jun 26:
44
"My pastor encourages couples to write their own vows, not to make it easier, but to strengthen them. "For better or for worse" can be trite, but vowing "I will never divorce you" (as many of my friends have) as some teeth to it."
Oooh, I do like that.
45. Sara said the following at 2:30 AM on Jun 27:
45
I left the bulk of my comment on facebook, but I do want to mention that this was a Great article with a lot of good points! I believe in a combination of traditional vows and customized vows myself, but I am so glad it was actually brought up as a topic of discussion! Go Boundless!
46. Lauren T. said the following at 10:29 AM on Jun 27:
46
If I'm ever married I hope to take the traditional vows simply because there's something very special about acknowledging that while THIS marriage is between me and my husband and God, we're part of a much bigger picture. I wouldn't complain about people who want to write their own vows (I'd want to memorize mine rather than repeating them every few words), but I agree there's a tendency to over-personalize things. People can focus on themselves and their uniqueness rather than on God and the institute of marriage he created. Not that it always happens (as previous posters have noted, there are people who seriously research and craft strong Christian vows) just that it's a possibility.
For the sake of discussion, it's also a definite problem that people just rattle off traditional vows they've heard a hundred times before and don't take seriously. It's merely tradition, not heartfelt and meant.
The non-traditional vows I've witnessed were so absurd I had trouble not laughing, which is a terrible thing during an event that's so important. It wasn't quite to the scale of "feeding each other cookie-dough", but it was close. By comparison, hearing the traditional ones gives me chills and fills me with awe.
47. Mark said the following at 1:29 PM on Jun 27:
47
The difference between the traditional vows and hypothetical "custom" vows of the President is that one is a promise to do and the other is a promise to try, which is "more flexible."
Why is everyone assuming that custom wedding vows are "more flexible" and full of sentimental fluff? My wife and I wrote our own vows together. We based them on Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3, which was likely the same inspiration for the traditional vows. We also took inspiration from the traditional vows but replaced all the "richer or poorer" and "in sickness and in health" language with "regardless of circumstance." That's actually less flexible than the traditional vows. Just because you choose to use custom vows in your wedding doesn't mean they're less binding or "more flexible."
48. Tiffany said the following at 2:06 PM on Jun 27:
48
While I think Steve brings up a good point concerning the significance of wedding vows, I do want to point out that there is a significant difference between the presidential oath and wedding vows, which I don't think anyone has pointed out so far in the comments, although David Lapp mentions it in his article. The words of the presidential oath are dictated by the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1, last paragraph). Because the words of the oath are dictated by law, no one is at leisure to change even one of them. Wedding vows are different in that they vary from church to church, as has been pointed out by several commenters above.
The significance of specifying the words the president says when he takes office is important because it helps to maintain the identity of that office throughout the centuries. It is important that it is made clear at the beginning of every term what things the president will make his top priorities - faithfulness to his office, and upholding the Constitution. These are things that a president must promise, and if he doesn't like that idea, then he should refrain from seeking the office of president.
Marriage vows vary from church to church, and that's fine. What I think is important is that every marriage ceremony communicate the same things that the Bible says belong to every marriage, among them faithfulness to one's spouse for life. Whether that includes spoken vows as most Christian marriage ceremonies do, or an unspoken understanding, as in an Orthodox ceremony, is not the point. The Constitution defines the office of president, and the Bible defines what marriage is. In both cases, the ceremony is/should be designed to communicate these un-negotiable commitments.
49. Leah said the following at 10:40 PM on Jun 27:
49
I don't think it matters what vows you say, as long as they're saying the same thing: that you promise to stick together through thick and thin til you die. I've come across several versions that say the same thing, just a different arrangement of words, sometimes people add in extra.
If the bible dictated vows to be said, then yes of course we should stick to those. But it didn't. Indeed, I don't believe it instructs us to say any vows (I could be wrong there). Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't say vows - church leaders have established many beneficial and helpful traditions, and wedding vows are one of those. But when it comes to human traditions, not biblical ones, it shouldn't be a major issue if people want to tweak them a bit.
The presidential oath thing is a bit different. The constitution - America's 'bible' - instructs that certain words be said, and so the president should adhere to that, just like if the bible instructed wedding vows, couples getting married should adhere to that.
And in relation to Craig M's very unfair and unfounded statement: I've been to a few weddings where people have personalised the vows, without dropping the sentiments from the original, traditional ones. Sometimes it's the same thing but in more modern language. Sometimes it's just adding extra. And I can assure you that my minister would not marry a couple if he thought their vows were too fluffy, airy-fairy, emotional and ungrounded. He'd make them change the vows or tell them to find someone else to marry them.
brx (24) suggested If peope who create custom marriage vows tend to have a more flexible attitude in giving each other allowances, then perhaps their divorce rate might actually be lower than the traditional vow sayers???
Oh, that's just laughable. Think about this. For hundreds of years, couples have been saying the same traditional vows. And not getting divorced. However, if we look at the last 50 years, personalised vows have been on the increase... as has divorce.
I'm not saying there's necessarily any correlation there. But I'm pointing out there's even LESS chance that there's a correlation between those who say traditional vows and those who divorce.
Ronnica (26) - I don't think including the words "I will never divorce you" are especially helpful in wedding vows. For starters, Jesus has given us legitimate reasons to divorce. Now, that's not to say that we enter into marriage thinking there's an 'out' if we want one. Not at all. I just don't think the words "I will never divorce you" carry any more weight than "til death do us part".
ayako (23) - what makes you think our traditional wedding vows are any more inclusive of God than personalised ones? Did he dictate those words? No. They were just made up by some men hundreds of years ago. I'm not saying they're bad - they're not, I said them at my wedding - but they're not somehow more holy or Godly than a carefully thought out, biblically-guided personalised vow.
Not to mention, I bet most churches these days don't actually use, word for word, the original vows included in the Book of Common Prayer.
50. BDB said the following at 12:28 AM on Jun 28:
50
The fundamental question is an important one:
Do choices matter?
[Disclosure: on the facebook quiz I came up as Menno Simmons, who was a Dutch Theologian contemporary with Calvin and Arminius, but with slightly different theology. His followers became Mennonites.]
A determinist may point to statistics and say that the children of alcoholics are more likely to become alcoholics. A free-will oriented person will note that quite a few choose to be tea totallers instead.
Anyway, the question of determinism vs. free will affects what you think about vows.
Those holding to a firm deterministic world view probably don't think that vows matter or affect the outcome. The outcome just happens. Determinists may also believe that divorce just "happens" like weather. For that matter, they may believe marriage just "happens" and they don't need to take any action to get there.
Those who believe in free will put a lot more emphasis on the choice. Like Arminius, they may believe that a human being can reject God's grace and choose hell - the choice is theirs to make. Vows then become very important, because they constrain the choices they intend to make in the future. They choose to be kind to their spouse because they promised to - even on the days they don't feel like it. Those who believe in free will will also likely tell someone that if they want to be married, they need to do something about it.
This determinism/free will debate ranges through all academic fields, not just theology. Many in Philosophy, and the social sciences (Psychology, Economics, Management) are adamant that human choices are always constrained by outside factors, thus free will doesn't truly exist. As academic disciplines attempt to make themselves "scientific," they move towards study on those things that can be measured quantitatively so that the deterministic relationships can be identified.
Those of us who study leadership and political philosophy tend to fall on the free will side. Reading biographies is an excellent way to identify specific turning points in someone's life; where they faced a specific decision and chose one path over another. And the world changes in response.
I suspect that the more biographies you read, the more convinced you will be that choices matter.
51. BDB said the following at 12:33 AM on Jun 28:
51
I believe that the reason marriage vows are Biblical are precisely because they are asking God to hold them accountable for keeping them.
Look at the specific text of Matthew 5:33-37:
33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
So, Christians are admonished to say "Yes" or "No."
What is the actual vow in the ceremony?
"I will." or "I do."
That's pretty darn close to "Yes" or "No," isn't it?
More specificially, no one is asked to swear by the Temple that they will keep these vows, or any of the other things Jesus warns against. So clearly, the simple "I do" passes muster for the New Testament.
It also passes muster for the Old Testament, which says that God will require those that break the vow to suffer the consequences. Though I note that no one seems to promise any consequences in their vows...
52. Kathryn said the following at 3:00 AM on Jun 28:
52
check it out, there's another Kathryn (#7) of the same spelling on here. Hey Kathryn, could you chuck your second initial behind your name please? I.e. Kathryn S.
This is the Kathryn from Australia :)
I think the institution of marriage has declined in society - that is, people think less of it. If people don't go into marriage expecting that they'll stick together until death, they'll end up reciting what is for them, a lie.
A non Christian mate of mine went to a wedding of a non Christian couple who'd been living as if married for a few years. He could recognise the hollowness of the traditional vows taken. I don't see any Biblical mandate for vows. But if I am married, I will take ones that reflect the solemn nature of the lifelong commitment before God that I am entering.
53. Anstice said the following at 6:12 AM on Jun 28:
53
BDB (34)
"Besides, you never know when you might need to minister to the sick, be asked to offer a prayer, or bury someone at sea."
My sentiments exactly! Especially the part about the sea..
54. Paul said the following at 7:02 AM on Jun 28:
54
As I see it, the concept or wording of vows isn't laid out in scripture. As I read it, consummation seems to be a far more important! :-o
That said, the understanding of marriage’s nature was more of a shared community thing, although it did vary by location & time period. For example, at that time when Paul was writing to the Corinthian church about marriage, there were 4 types of marriage that were undertaken in that region, each with a separate name, rules and eligibility.
In light of this, and given the current age where the understanding of what marriage is has been attacked on every side, while vows may not be laid out in scripture, I think that where they are used it is vitally important that they convey to all what marriage means, and what it is a symbol for. This is also true of the broader marriage ceremony.
After all, marriage is a blessed earthly union, but it is also a profound mystery, pointing to Christ's relationship to His church, His bride. While earthly vows are, sadly, breakable, Jesus' commitment to us never faltered, and never will.
55. farmer Tom said the following at 7:30 PM on Jun 28:
55
40. Kate said,
Consider this passage Kate,
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
Tell ya what Kate, maybe we can consider letting you leave out obey, if you agree to call you betrothed lord!!!
But the better solution would be to submit yourself to Scripture and the teachings of Peter by publicly acknowledging your need to obey your husband!
56. Gerstin said the following at 11:28 PM on Jun 28:
56
Better to make promises you can keep. Couples ought to consider the following vow:
"I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health for the next five years"
Such contracts could of course be renewed, much like the leases on an apartment. This way there's less hypocrisy, guilt, broken promises, and self-deception. Too often kids are getting married just to have sex without guilt and to secure the acceptance of their church and families. Their vows carry all the bravado and delusion of Peter's promise to Jesus.
57. Leah said the following at 1:23 AM on Jun 29:
57
Keith (43) - I think you're confusing the definition of 'vow'. We use the word 'vow' in several ways. Jesus was trying to say that 'yes' or 'no' should be no less binding than a promise/vow - to put it another way, a promise or vow should not be held any more important or binding than someone simply saying "I will do xyz".
However, these days we have used the word 'vow' to describe that simple action of committing to do something - eg. "I will do xyz". It's the same as "letting your 'yes' be yes and your 'no' be no".
Kate (40) - what do you mean that you're ok with traditional vows, as long as there's no obey?
58. Lady Akofa said the following at 6:06 AM on Jun 29:
58
Wow, marriage vows! Words are important, but I don't think it matters whether they are traditional or personalized vows. What really matters are the intentions & commitment of the couple to glorify God in their lives and marriage EVERY SINGLE DAY after the marriage ceremony.
Marriage is for life. The president sits for a period of time. Presidential oaths and marital vows are definitely two different things.
59. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:05 AM on Jun 29:
59
Leah (49): You're quite right that many people don't use the BCP variant exactly - not only is the language arcane, but the woman vows to obey her husband, and I suspect many are uncomfortable with that these days . . .
Also, the service only includes the man giving the woman a ring, and not the other way around; it seems most men wear rings these days in keeping with the modern convention.
60. Ronnica said the following at 7:48 AM on Jun 29:
60
Leah (#49): perhaps "I will not divorce you" carries no more weight than "til death do us part." But it is in the English language as we use it today and is more active, while "til death do us part" is more passive.
61. Ashley Harris said the following at 11:20 AM on Jun 29:
61
Gerstin,
Are you serious? I hope you're kidding.
First of all, Peter was reinstated by Jesus after his denial-- a clear and strong statement that apart from God's grace to us we are unable to fulfill our promises to Him or each other. God did sustain Peter to live a faithful life and die a faithful death. The same way that when two sinners enter into a marriage covenant with a Holy God, HE sustains them to keep that covenant. Marriage is, afterall, a picture of Christ and the church.
My fiance and I are currently writing our vows. And yes I know there has been quite a lengthy discussion on that topic. So I'm taking a risk putting these out here but I want to make a point that is more important than some commenters' criticism. (We did not actually write them but rather took them from other vows. We wanted vows that reflected Biblical gender roles and reverence for marriage.)
Part of our vows read:
"I hereby bind myself to you, no matter what you do, no matter who you become. I make this covenant with you as a lasting promise. I will not divorce you."
I sometimes get nervous thinking about vowing not to divorce Brian. Because I think "What if Brian does ____?" And then I remember that marriage is not a covenant between just Brian and me but also with God Almighty. In 33 days I will make that vow knowing the third party, God Himself, will be the one who sustains our vows.
62. Bethany said the following at 11:30 AM on Jun 29:
62
For what it's worth, the vows in the BCP were only slightly altered from the Catholic version, from which they were based. They have very little to do with King Henry. I don't know how long Christians have been saying vows very similar to the standard BCP ones, but it goes back farther than 500 years.
I love the traditional vows. Every wedding I attend now reminds me of the vows I made to my husband, and typically I am blown away by the gravity of the vows we made. Esp. the part during the exchanging of the rings, which is something like, "With all that I have and all that I am, I honor you, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Wow. Amen.
63. Kate said the following at 11:39 AM on Jun 29:
63
55. farmer Tom said,
But the better solution would be to submit yourself to Scripture and the teachings of Peter by publicly acknowledging your need to obey your husband!
I won't marry a guy who wants me to obey him. Women said that in days where a wife was thought of as property to her husband. A husband who needs to hear his wife promise to be obedient to him doesn't sound like a husband who loves loves his wife as much as himself.
64. Craig M. said the following at 12:49 PM on Jun 29:
64
Leah--the point is that by and large, an individual's attempt to re-write the traditional wedding vows falls short. I'm a criminal attorney--I write and speak for a living, so I'm pretty okay at it. I could probably string together a few good paragraphs about, say, the sacrifices of Americans at Gettysburg in the Civil War if I put my mind to it. But I'd fall short of Lincoln. The traditional vows have a beauty, substance, gravity and eloquence to them that is hard to match even if one's intent is to express the same general ideas. This is particularly true when those marrying are lousy writers--and most people are lousy writers.
65. Masha said the following at 1:04 PM on Jun 29:
65
In the Jewish wedding THERE ARE NO VOWS. No vows at all. None.
The bride and groom drink from a glass of wine. The groom puts a ring on the bride's finger and says "With this ring you are wedded to me in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel." The bride circles the groom seven times while the seven blessings are recited. The groom breaks a glass. Mazel tov. Finito.
The bride doesn't say a single word under the marriage canopy and the groom only says that one line.
There are NO vows.
Stop trying to invent a continuity where there isn't one. The seven blessings are not vows. Vows are a Christian invention.
66. ayako said the following at 1:58 PM on Jun 29:
66
Leah, (49) I guess I needed to clarify that I "personally" like the traditional vows, that's all. I never said traditional ones are more holy or Godly. But just like you said - some men created them hundreds of years ago. And people have been saying those vows for years and there's reason for that. Nothing against personalized, well-thought bible based vows. At the end of the day, it's just a matter of preference. And you're right, God didn't dictate those words - but neither did He command us to exchange wedding rings.
67. BDB said the following at 3:12 PM on Jun 29:
67
Kate (#63) wrote:
>>I won't marry a guy who wants me to obey him.<<
Oddly enough, years ago, I had a woman tell me she was OK with that one. I didn't ask, and wasn't thinking about it, she just blurted it out. (A little confusing, frankly.)
Elisabeth Elliot's advice to men is to pay attention to whether or not a specific woman is willing to accept his leadership. If not, proceed no further and let her go.
The corollary for women is similar: Why would you want to marry a man whose leadership you are unwilling to accept?
68. Ted Slater said the following at 3:13 PM on Jun 29:
68
Masha -- I've done a bit of research, and I'm finding that Jewish wedding ceremonies do seem to include expressions of commitment (AKA, "vows"). The Ketubah (or ketuvah), for example, is an ancient marriage contract that "outlines the [groom's] various responsibilities -- to provide his wife with food, shelter and clothing, and to be attentive to her emotional needs. Protecting the rights of a Jewish wife is so important that the marriage may not be solemnized until the contract has been completed."
This seems to be the specific wording that the groom pledges in that document: to "work for you, honor, provide for and support you, in accordance with the practices of Jewish husbands who work for their wives' honor, provide and support them in truth." That really sounds a lot like a vow to me, written, not spoken.
I've asked a Jewish friend of mine for more info, as I'm admittedly pretty uninformed about Jewish wedding ceremonies.
You wrote that the groom says to his bride: "With this ring you are wedded to me in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel." That last phrase implies commitment to certain biblical guidelines, which sounds like a "vow" to me.
Why are you so opposed to the concept of "vows," Masha, a term that simply means "a solemn promise"?
69. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 3:18 PM on Jun 29:
69
Kate (#63),
Two questions for you-- are you a Christian, and do you believe the Bible to be the word of God which Christians are to follow? Farmer Tom posted a passage from Scripture that speaks positively of women obeying their husbands. The passage mentions, as one example, Sarah obeying Abraham and calling him lord. Nowhere in this passage is there *any* implication that Christian women obeying their husbands is an era-bound or culture-bound concept.
Christian marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ and the church. The husband loves his wife radically, sacrificially, laying down his life for her, as Christ did for His Bride, the church. The wife respects and obeys her husband, as the church is to obey Christ.
Of course, unlike Christ, an earthly husband is still a fallible sinner, so a Christian wife should never follow her husband into *sin* but should always obey God first. In other respects though (other than sin, that is), the Bible does teach that a Christian wife is to obey her husband. This is clear from 1 Peter 3:5-6, and from other Biblical passages which teach on the nature and structure of the marriage relationship.
The question here for Christian husbands and wives is, do we follow what we, in and of ourselves, want to do, or do we follow the Bible's admonitions? It is certainly not always easy for a Christian wife to obey her husband (although he can and should help to *make* it easier by loving her well). It is also not always easy for a Christian husband to love his wife as radically and sacrificially as Christ loved the church. However, both of these are what the Bible commands, respectively, for wife and husband.
70. Tami said the following at 3:34 PM on Jun 29:
70
A Ketubah can be really, really artistic and beautifully designed and rendered, too. I get the sense that many people hang them in their homes. The idea speaks to the whole concept of remembering the vows well after the ceremony.
I remember this because I was a docent in my university art museum and we showed one, crafted by a well-known regional artist, and it was clearly meant for display.
71. Tami said the following at 3:58 PM on Jun 29:
71
BDB (67) makes a good point. If you can't trust a guy, or if you think he makes poor decisions, why marry him?
Under most (but yes, not all) circumstances, a wedding in and of itself is not going to suddenly make a person change his or her character. A controlling nature is a controlling nature, and can generally be sussed out at some point before the vows are spoken.
If a man is going to be a dictator in your relationship, constantly forcing you to do things against your will, you generally *can* tell this *before* you get married.
And ideally, two believers would be seeking God's will together, and so (hopefully!) two people would be of one mind.
72. Lauren T. said the following at 4:08 PM on Jun 29:
72
If I can't bring myself to vow to obey the man I commit myself to, I shouldn't be marrying him.
73. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:51 PM on Jun 29:
73
Tami (71) brings up a very good point: marriage does not, in and of itself, change character. It seems in general to expose the character that was already there, even if that character wasn't particularly visible beforehand.
The "vow to obey or not" argument has been going on a long time - it makes an appearance in Laura Ingalls Wilder's book "These Happy Golden Years", where (if I remember correctly) Almanzo notes that the women who do vow to obey generally don't actually do so in practice.
74. Lauren T. said the following at 5:08 PM on Jun 29:
74
And Laura says, "I could never obey a man against my better judgement". One place where I disagree with one of my favorite authors.
75. Kate said the following at 5:50 PM on Jun 29:
75
Yes Christopher, I am a Christian. I just don't believe that a women is to promise to obey her husband. The man is the head of the family, but it is not the same relationship as a parent and child.
76. Leah said the following at 8:49 PM on Jun 29:
76
ayako (66) - and I would never tell a couple they had to exchange rings if they didn't want to ;) That is my point exactly - traditions established by man, while often helpful and beneficial, are never compulsory. That includes many traditions that people- especially Christians - often view as vital; traditional vows, rings, white dresses, churches, 100% human bridal parties.
Kate (63) - My husband would expect me to obey him if he ever gave me a direct order. That is part of the respect that God commands women have for their husbands. In turn, I expect him to love, cherish and protect me.
My husband has never given me a direct order. It has nothing to do with the husband viewing his wife as his property, but a part of looking after her. Yes, men might abuse that. They shouldn't, and if they do, they are in the wrong and will have to answer to God. But I imagine, that if my husband were to ever give me a direct order, it would be for the good of our family, and in an unusual circumstance where he has good reason to believe I am not informed enough to make a good decision.
This doesn't give men the right to order their wives around. They have been ordered, by God, to love and protect their wives. They should, wherever possible, include their wives in joint decisions. But if I were ever in a circumstance where I, for some reason, am not informed enough to make a good decision, I would hope that I'd trust my husband in his decision and obey that.
And I can't remember if obedience to my husband was even a part of our vows :P
77. Trevor Dolby said the following at 6:21 AM on Jun 30:
77
Lauren T. (74): Yes, that always seemed a bit odd - after all, obeying your husband when you agree with him is a bit pointless :) It's only when you don't agree that obedience becomes important.
78. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:29 AM on Jun 30:
78
Look folks, a person can be forgo the word "obey" in the wedding ceremony and still be a "Christian!"
If you personally disapprove it's the same thing as pets in the wedding party:
DON'T ATTEND THE CEREMONY.
It's up to the couple and the officient to negotiate the particular wording of the wedding ceremony.
79. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:51 AM on Jun 30:
79
Comment 76 sounds contradictory.
First you state that your husband would expect you to "obey a direct order" then you proceed to state that he does not have "right to order his wife (i.e. you) around", indeed you declare that no husband has that right.
Could you please clarify.
80. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 10:41 AM on Jun 30:
80
Kate (#75),
Thank you for replying to my comment. In the context(s) of your being a Christian and of your comments on this thread, what do you think of 1 Peter 3:5-6?
This passage speaks very positively of Christian wives
obeying their husbands-- to the point of actually employing the word "obey." How do you reconcile this Biblical reality with your view on the subject?
We aren't dealing with Old Covenant regulations here (such as those in Leviticus)
which have been replaced by the New Covenant. This New Testament passage from Peter appears to be intended to apply to *all* Christian marriages of *any* era.
81. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 10:51 AM on Jun 30:
81
Louise from Chicago (#78),
To my knowledge, no one is saying that if a professing Christian women refuses to promise to obey her husband in marriage, that this means she is *not* a Christian.
The question is, in light of clear Scriptural admonitions (in both the Old and New Testaments) for believing wives to obey their hubands, if a wife *refuses* to make such a promise, upon entering into marriage, is she being *consistent with, and obedient to,* her profession of faith?
82. Trevor Dolby said the following at 11:19 AM on Jun 30:
82
I think Leah (76) was trying to express the idea that husbands shouldn't boss their wives around in a micro-managing way, and that the obedience thing is important mostly with large decisions.
There seems to be great nervousness these days that husbands will turn into "control freaks" given half a chance :)
83. Louise from Chicago said the following at 11:47 AM on Jun 30:
83
Comment 81, your comment 69 implied that the lady in question (Kate) was not a Christian.
If that isn't the meaning you intended so be it, but that is how I read it.
84. Kate said the following at 12:02 PM on Jun 30:
84
I have talked at length with my boyfriend about this vow to obey. It is just not a good word to describe a marriage relationship. In the bible, children are to obey their parents, I can not imagine that is how a wife is to relate to her husband. Also, I have never been to a wedding officiated my a minister from my denomination that included the word obey. I think the marriage relationship is more like the couple in O Henry's story, The Gift of the Magi, in which husband and wife both self-sacrifices for the other.
85. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 12:10 PM on Jun 30:
85
Louise from Chicago (#83),
You wrote that my comment (#69) implied that Kate is not a Christian. At the very beginning of this comment though, I specifically asked her if she is a Christian.
The question was not rhetorical, but neither did it imply an already-known answer, for my part-- which is why I asked it.
86. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 12:18 PM on Jun 30:
86
Kate (#84),
In your comment, you write: "I have talked at length with my boyfriend about this vow to obey. It is just not a good word to describe a marriage relationship."
If "obey" is not a good word to use, in reference to a Christian wife and her husband, then why does Peter use *exactly* that word in 1 Peter 3:5-6, which speaks of the Christian wife's proper attitude toward her husband?
As Christians, are we to think that our words and ideas of marriage are more appropriate than those of Scripture?
87. Kate said the following at 1:02 PM on Jun 30:
87
Christopher (#86),
Why doesn't Ephesians 5 use obedience to describe the relationship between a wife and a husband?
88. Louise from Chicago said the following at 1:04 PM on Jun 30:
88
Comment 86, for crying out loud why don't you just leave the poor lady alone.
She stated she doesn't want "obey" in her wedding vows.
That's between her, her fiance, the officient, and God.
89. Kate said the following at 1:10 PM on Jun 30:
89
33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
I think that is pretty much a summary of the relationship between a husband and wife. Peter was using Sarah as an example. Do you really think wives are to obey their husbands in the same way children are to obey their parents?
90. BDB said the following at 2:17 PM on Jun 30:
90
Kate (#89) I would like to refer you to Elisabeth Elliot's Let Me Be a Woman which gives a fuller treatment to the subject and related issues. I would recommend against building a theology on just one verse.
There is a very important question of submitting to authority. It's easy to submit to leadership when we agree. It gets hard when we disagree. But if we decide that we, ourselves, are the final authority in all situations, then we are putting ourselves on the throne.
Jesus' specific command was that we die to ourselves and to our desires. That means giving up what we want. He did not say that it would be easy, he said that it would be worth it. Insisting that we ought to always be in control and get what we want is indeed a sinful attitude.
If you're afraid of being told to do something specific, you should discuss that item long before you marry someone. If your trust in someone is so low that you believe he will order you to do the wrong thing, why would you want to marry him anyway?
Because there are men who will never tell you to do anything. They will simply be passive and abdicate all leadership. You'll never have to obey them. But when the chips are down, and there's a serious issue that requires a decision and action, these men will simply avoid facing it for as long as they can. Whether it's a child with serious health problems or a kid on drugs, they will gladly abdicate the full weight of fixing the problem to you.
91. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 2:18 PM on Jun 30:
91
Louise (#88),
As Christians, we are supposed to encourage each other to "think God's thoughts after Him)-- to think Biblically. That is what I am encouraging Kate to do here. I would ask for the same from her (or from any other Christian), if she were to discern that I am thinking unBiblically here-- which she does discern, even though we disagree on that matter! :-)
This is a matter of genuine Christian love and care between brothers and sisters in the family of God. I don't see Kate as trying to control my thinking and choices here, any more than I am trying to control hers. We're simply trying to think and converse about these issues Biblically. Surely, that is a good thing for Christians to do?
92. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 2:38 PM on Jun 30:
92
Kate (#87 and 89),
Obeying one's husband, as a Christian wife, is certainly not the same thing as a child obeying his/her parents. Understanding the difference is a matter of carefully studying Scripture's teaching on the different kinds of relationships that exist within family and within marriage.
I will describe my (hopefully Biblically-informed!) thinking on this subject in a way that is very close to home for me. I am currently courting a Christian woman whom I respect, cherish, and adore. If we were to marry, I would *not* tell her what to do, as a parent must *sometimes* tell a child. If we were to disagree on an important issue for our future, I would want to carefully, lovingly *listen* to her thoughts as she expressed them. If we differed, I would also want to *seriously* consider that she might be right, and I might be wrong. I would want us to pray about the decision together.
Ultimately, only if I were very clearly convinced, according to *Biblical* principles, that I was right, would I ask her to "obey" me-- to consent to my decision, hopefully lovingly so. By the time that we *ever* reached that point, I would hopefully have shown her so much respect, care, and gentle love that it would be much easier for her to obey me, despite our disagreement on the decision. (Remember that I would have already seriously considered, and prayed about, the fact that she might be right. These matters are not "light" ones to me.)
I am under no illusion that it would be always be easy for her to obey me, if we were to disagree on a serious issue. As I wrote above, as we each want to follow God and His teaching in the word, our major and minor agreements will hopefully be many and our *major* disagreements, at least, will hopefully be few! (This is part of the purpose of pre-marital counseling though!)
To be clear, I would want my love to have what *she* desires in as many cases as possible, as long as it would not be seriously spiritually or physically harmful for her or our children. Again, as we are each trying to follow God, as individuals and as a couple, I would hope and pray that our abiding desires would not often conflict seriously with God's desires for His children, as revealed in His word.
93. FutureMrsLarijani said the following at 2:45 PM on Jun 30:
93
As one who is going to say wedding vows in the not to distant future, let me say that I think the "obey" thing isn't bad.
A wife obeys her husband in a different way than a child obeys their parent, but she still obeys - or is supposed to anyhow.
A child is lacking in life experience and the "because I said so" reasoning has some merit (although it should be used sparingly, if at all).
A wife should be "obeying" her husband because he's her God-given leader. A few months back, I was in a conversation with a married couple about submission. At one point the wife said "It's nice because sometimes you can say 'It's all your fault'." We all chuckled, knowing that no man is infallible.
A man has to have the fortitude to admit something goes wrong. If the wife - however difficult it may be - lets things go awry in the spirit of submission and deference, hopefully the man will exercise the necessary fortitude to fix it.
I think obeying your husband is important. It's not saying that you are less intelligent or less valuable. I think, often, it requires a great deal of foresight and discernment to obey. You have to be able to see the consequences that will come from not obeying and the unraveling that could possibly come about in the home.
It's not a blind following. Often, it's fully knowing where things are headed - for better or worse - that a wife still obeys her husband trusting that God is the One in charge of it all.
Seriously, people - especially you believers out there - stop thinking that this is "I'm just as smart and my opinion matters just as much" attitude.
It's not about whether or not your opinion matters. It's about whether or not you are imitating your Savior. As the Son defers to and obeys the Father, so the wife defers to and obeys her husband.
I think many of you are suffering from CRD.
94. Louise from Chicago said the following at 3:01 PM on Jun 30:
94
I haven't the faintest idea what "CRD" means but I'd be willing to bet that most commentors on this blog are totally ignorant of the meaning of "BYOB."
95. Tami said the following at 3:06 PM on Jun 30:
95
Furture Mrs. Larijani:
Welcome to the blog ;)
You wrote:
"I think many of you are suffering from CRD."
What is CRD?
96. Jo said the following at 3:06 PM on Jun 30:
96
Somehow I'm reminded of the parable Jesus told about the two brothers (I think), one of whom promised to do some work and the other one refused - but then later on it was the brother who had refused that actually went and did the work.
Making a vow has value, but it's the action that really matters. If one wife vows to obey her husband but in fact fights with him over important decisions, and another prefers not to use the word obey but genuinely respects her husband and in the end trusts him enough to defer to him in important decisions, who has done right?
Now for a woman, the inclusion of the word obey might make her think very seriously about whether she could honestly vow obedience, and whether that is required of her Biblically. But for a man, perhaps the concept of sacrificial love should do the same thing. I suspect there are just as many men who vow to love and then don't put their wives first, as there are women who balk at the idea of having to obey.
Just a thought.
97. Kate said the following at 3:12 PM on Jun 30:
97
(#90)I would recommend against building a theology on just one verse.
What i meant by quoting that verse is that is the summary at the end of the verses about marriage in Ephesians. No where in that passage does it say that a wife is to obey. The only place it says about a wife obeying is in Peter, and it is only in one verse. So I could say the same thing, you can't build a theology on one verse. Like I have said earlier, my denomination does not use obey in the marriage ceremony. Rather the husband and wife should try to act servant like to each other. Many churches no longer use the word obey and for good reason.
98. Tami said the following at 3:16 PM on Jun 30:
98
Louise! Of course, it's Bring Your Own Bible. ;)
99. Craig M. said the following at 3:18 PM on Jun 30:
99
FutureMrsLarijani has it right. Those of you trying to throw out the word "obey" because it happens to be the same word used to describe the relationship between parents and children are being willfully deceptive and self-deceptive. A Colonel in the Marine Corps obeys his Commanding General. The Secretary of State obeys the President. The President obeys the Supreme Court (in some circumstances). A Christian obeys Christ. A child obeys his father and mother. Each one of these is a different relationship, and the nature of the obedience contemplated by the use of the word "obey" varies greatly depending on the nature of the relationship.
But just because a Colonel can rightfully expect not to be treated like a child (or a Private) he still owes a duty of obedience to his Commanding General. The details of that obedience are vastly different from the details that would apply were he a Private. But the use of the word is still appropriate. You try to dismiss the entire concept of a wife's obedience to her husband by equating all obedience to the blind subservience appropriate to a child. That's simply disingenuous.
Oh, and this from Kate (#84) is just wonderful:
"I think the marriage relationship is more like the couple in O Henry's story, The Gift of the Magi, in which husband and wife both self-sacrifices for the other."
Well gee, I guess if Kate thinks that's how a marriage relationship should be, we can just throw out all of that biblical stuff that directly insists on leadership and submission. I have some ideas about other biblical commands that I "think" should be different too. Isn't religious democracy great?
100. IMO said the following at 3:23 PM on Jun 30:
100
Bring Your Own Beer