Feet Washing after engagement?

[xReems]

So, I have this one Facebook friend whom I met through one of my ex-friends. We don't really talk now but she's turned fundie lite on her views. Anyways, one of her friends from church is extreme with her Christian beliefs (without the skirt wearing and waiting until marriage to kiss) recently got engaged this past weekend. I was flipping through the professional photos of the proposal and, at first, it seemed sweet--rose petals leading up to a bench near a garden with a bouquet of roses on the bench. However, towards the end, I saw a picture of them praying, still normal, and then a photo of her fiancé washing her feet in this bucket of water, followed by another prayer. I've heard of some Christians washing feet during the wedding ceremony but never during engagement.

Is there a particular meaning behind the feet washing after the engagement? I've heard of it but don't know the exact meaning behind it.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Never heard of it during engagement either, but I recall feet washing was supposed to show Christians were humble to each other, so it probably ties into wifely submission somehow.

[Kishiria]

Never heard of it during engagement either, but I recall feet washing was supposed to show Christians were humble to each other, so it probably ties into wifely submission somehow.

Except he was washing hers. Which strikes me as rather risque' for that crowd, although if it means that as her husband he'll serve her as the apostles served the Church or something that's sort of nice.

[Wolfie]

So, I have this one Facebook friend whom I met through one of my ex-friends. We don't really talk now but she's turned fundie lite on her views. Anyways, one of her friends from church is extreme with her Christian beliefs (without the skirt wearing and waiting until marriage to kiss) recently got engaged this past weekend. I was flipping through the professional photos of the proposal and, at first, it seemed sweet--rose petals leading up to a bench near a garden with a bouquet of roses on the bench. However, towards the end, I saw a picture of them praying, still normal, and then a photo of her fiancé washing her feet in this bucket of water, followed by another prayer. I've heard of some Christians washing feet during the wedding ceremony but never during engagement.

Is there a particular meaning behind the feet washing after the engagement? I've heard of it but don't know the exact meaning behind it.

Professional photos of the engagement?

Never heard of foot washing during a proposal, but the meaning behind it isn't as corny as some might think- it is basically a way to show service and respect to another person by washing something that isn't really a pleasant thing to do. There are many examples of it in the New Testament.

[TudorRose]

At the Last Supper, Jesus washed the disciples' feet.

With the emphasis fundie couples put on "the husband is head of the wife in the same way Christ is the head of the church," footwashing at engagement would drive that point home. I guess.

[xReems]

Professional photos of the engagement?

Never heard of foot washing during a proposal, but the meaning behind it isn't as corny as some might think- it is basically a way to show service and respect to another person by washing something that isn't really a pleasant thing to do. There are many examples of it in the New Testament.

Yep, the girl's fiancé hired a professional photographer to take pictures of the whole proposal from a distance. That's where I saw a picture of her fiancé washing her feet after she said "yes."

[Miggy]

Dusty roads + sandals = dirty feet. In biblical times when you arrived at someones house a servant would wash your feet before you entered the main part of the house. Jesus washed the apostles feet as a sign that although he was the son of God, he came to serve man. Generally, we are taught that we should follow his example and serve others.

The husband washing the wifes feet is common in many wedding ceremonies where there is a tradition of male leadership in the marriage. It is a way of reminding the man that Jesus lead by serving and so the husband must lead by serving his wife. (It is quite sweet and completely different to the whole patriarchy/quiverful idea.) I have never heard of it in an engagement.

[CrazyCatLady]

this is fairly common (in some circles). i went to a religious university, and many engagements happened to include foot washing. I get the meaning, i just find it rather odd. thankfully, my husband did not touch my feet when he proposed :lol:

[valsa]

It is a way of reminding the man that Jesus lead by serving and so the husband must lead by serving his wife. (It is quite sweet and completely different to the whole patriarchy/quiverful idea.)

Actually, the husband being the leader of the wife is kind of the definition of "patriarchy" (even if he is doing so "by serving")

[genericJname]

From the context of my old lifestyle, that would have sounded so godly and romantic. Now it just makes me laugh. :lol:

[ilovetchotchkes]

He was washing HER feet?

Ok, knowing what I know of Christianity, i'm GUESSING they're not going to be "head of household=guy" stuff simply because he's symbolically "serving" her. At least we can hope right?

Its totally not for me, (I think its weird as hell) but hey.... whatever floats their boat....

I honestly think foot washing of one's spouse should be confined to : "You're 8 months pregnant and have asked me to do this because you've been barefoot all day and can't reach".

[aubrietta]

My friend is a Seventh Day Adventists and in her church they do foot washing on a regular basis, calling it the "ordinance of foot washing" or the "ordinance of humility"

[dawbs]

My friend is a Seventh Day Adventists and in her church they do foot washing on a regular basis, calling it the "ordinance of foot washing" or the "ordinance of humility"

Mennonite groups (at least some of them) consider it an important ceremony (I won't say 'sacrament' because I can't remember what their wording is, but similar to sacrament) too--it's done similar to how communion is in many churches.

In theory, it wouldn't make him head of household, but in practice, doing stuff to 'show' your servitude tends to be protesting to much, IME>

[luckylibrarian]

The husband washing the wifes feet is common in many wedding ceremonies where there is a tradition of male leadership in the marriage. It is a way of reminding the man that Jesus lead by serving and so the husband must lead by serving his wife. (It is quite sweet and completely different to the whole patriarchy/quiverful idea.) I have never heard of it in an engagement.

:roll: Male leadership in the marriage = patriarchy. It may look "sweet" to some, but it's patriarchy nonetheless. I think it's more dangerous than the overt patriarchy we see from Doug Phillips and Bill Gothard. Your post proves that much.

[fluttershies]

If I remember rightly, the Coptic Church also has ritual footwashing ceremonies.

I can't quite decide how I feel about the whole headship thing...I mean, intellectually it should skeev me out but I find myself liking it in spite of myself. :roll:

[Grace]

I know I've mentioned before when this topic comes up that I grew up in a church/faith where foot washing was a big part of our traditions. Because we often did this at our church and at church camps and district meetings etc I don't find it creepy or weird or sinister. At my current church we usually do a foot washing during Holy Week before Easter. It actually does make me uncomfortable just because I have a big problem looking at/touching other people's feet or having them touch mine. But I suck it up and participate because it really is beautiful in the moment.

In our service this year it was very much about the fact that we believe we can not live our lives fully as Christians unless we do so in Community with one another. And we can't do that unless we humble ourselves to one another and be not only to serve others but allow them to serve us. That's the one I have the hardest time with so it was really meaningful to me to allow someone that I trust and look up to to touch my feet as a way to tell me that she will be there for me.

ETA: if my husband had suggested washing my feet when he proposed to me I think I would have tried to go along with it because of what he would clearly have been trying to say, but I probably would have just giggled a lot.

[valsa]

I can't quite decide how I feel about the whole headship thing...I mean, intellectually it should skeev me out but I find myself liking it in spite of myself. :roll:

It's not only intellectually skeevy but morally as well. Deciding that one person always is the leader of another person simply based on the configuration of the genitalia of the two is disgusting. Can you imagine yourself saying "I can't quite decide how I feel about the whole white racial superiority thing...I mean, intellectually it should skeev me out but I find myself liking it in spite of myself." Because what you've said here is no different.

[missbrooklyn]

So they can't front-hug each other, but they wash each other's feet before marriage? Sounds like a foot fetishist's dream.

[fluttershies]

It's not only intellectually skeevy but morally as well. Deciding that one person always is the leader of another person simply based on the configuration of the genitalia of the two is disgusting. Can you imagine yourself saying "I can't quite decide how I feel about the whole white racial superiority thing...I mean, intellectually it should skeev me out but I find myself liking it in spite of myself." Because what you've said here is no different.

Uh, it is different. Racial differences are superficial ones only and don't matter. The differences between men and women are more significant than that.

In any case, it's only how I feel about a future marriage *I* may have, I don't think male headship is a requirement for all marriages (and indeed, since I may not be marrying a man it might not feature in mine, and it might not even if I do marry a man). I'm just trying to work out how I feel about it, not demanding that others agree with me or do as I do.

In your (general you) job, you probably work under a supervisor or someone else who is above you in terms of rank - that doesn't mean that they're better than you. Leadership is entirely different to superiority. Superiority may well include leadership, but leadership/followers can happen between complete equals. I mean, you (again, general you) would never assume that the President got elected because everyone thinks s/he's morally superior, or that a high-ranking army officer got there because s/he is better than everyone else. There has to be a leader/follower in most aspects of life, so why is a voluntary arrangement (and of course it should be voluntary) along those lines in marriage so wrong?

[valsa]

Uh, it is different. Racial differences are superficial ones only and don't matter. The differences between men and women are more significant than that.

Using the criteria of being a man or a woman to decide leadership is absolutely no different than using the criteria of being white or black (and no, differences between men and women are not more significant. There are no wholly unique characteristics that only apply to one gender) Being male, female, white, or black has absolutely nothing to do with who would make a better leader.

In any case, it's only how I feel about a future marriage *I* may have, I don't think male headship is a requirement for all marriages (and indeed, since I may not be marrying a man it might not feature in mine, and it might not even if I do marry a man). I'm just trying to work out how I feel about it, not demanding that others agree with me or do as I do.

In your (general you) job, you probably work under a supervisor or someone else who is above you in terms of rank - that doesn't mean that they're better than you. Leadership is entirely different to superiority. Superiority may well include leadership, but leadership/followers can happen between complete equals. I mean, you (again, general you) would never assume that the President got elected because everyone thinks s/he's morally superior, or that a high-ranking army officer got there because s/he is better than everyone else. There has to be a leader/follower in most aspects of life, so why is a voluntary arrangement (and of course it should be voluntary) along those lines in marriage so wrong?

The bold part is a bunch of bullshit weaseling. Headship is patriarchy. Patriarchy is males being superior. Period. And there are not leader/followers in most aspects of life, especially not aspects of life between equals. A marriage does not need a leader and a follower, it needs two equals working together. Like a friendship or a business partnership. To compare marriage to an employer/employee or military commander/subordinate relationship has implications that I don't think you've even bothered thinking through. Also, though I've known of a few high-ranking military commanders who got to where they were through shady means, most of them get promoted because they are better than the other candidates.

You want to let your future husband order you around like you work for him? Good for you. But don't try to church it up as being any other than 1) a kink (Dom/sub) or 2) the fact you don't want to have to act like a fully functioning adult who has equal responsibility for maintaining your marriage.

[fluttershies]

Using the criteria of being a man or a woman to decide leadership is absolutely no different than using the criteria of being white or black (and no, differences between men and women are not more significant. There are no wholly unique characteristics that only apply to one gender) Being male, female, white, or black has absolutely nothing to do with who would make a better leader.

The bold part is a bunch of bullshit weaseling. Headship is patriarchy. Patriarchy is males being superior. Period. And there are not leader/followers in most aspects of life, especially not aspects of life between equals. A marriage does not need a leader and a follower, it needs two equals working together. Like a friendship or a business partnership. To compare marriage to an employer/employee or military commander/subordinate relationship has implications that I don't think you've even bothered thinking through. Also, though I've known of a few high-ranking military commanders who got to where they were through shady means, most of them get promoted because they are better than the other candidates.

You want to let your future husband order you around like you work for him? Good for you. But don't try to church it up as being any other than 1) a kink (Dom/sub) or 2) the fact you don't want to have to act like a fully functioning adult who has equal responsibility for maintaining your marriage.

I don't understand how headship = superiority when leadership =/= superiority. Headship and leadership are the same thing. Marriage is not the same as friendship - otherwise spouses would just be friends with benefits and nothing would mark it out as a unique relationship.

Maybe you've just had some terrible bosses, but I've never had an employer or someone higher up than me in the workplace order me around like you've described. They just have the final word. A good employer/employee relationship requires working together as persons of equal importance too! An employee absolutely has equal responsibility for maintaining a good working relationship as an employee does, so your second point doesn't hold up. Just like both employer and employee keep to the terms of their contract, so should a husband and wife. As for kink, it has nothing to do with sex so that also doesn't work for me (although obviously it does for other people).

As for differences between male and female, obviously there are biologically and for me personally (all of my perspective on this is just for me personally and I don't have a problem with other people doing things differently), the Bible says there is, so...there is. I realise this wouldn't be good enough an argument for you, but it's good enough for me. Since it doesn't harm anyone else what I do (and I would not expect any children of mine do it this way, that's up to them to decide) it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of it but me.

[Elle]

When a man does it, he's leading by serving (and creating indebtedness). When a woman does, it's submissive. Both boil down to

Man > Woman.

[Kaylee]

I don't understand how headship = superiority when leadership =/= superiority. Headship and leadership are the same thing. Marriage is not the same as friendship - otherwise spouses would just be friends with benefits and nothing would mark it out as a unique relationship.

Maybe you've just had some terrible bosses, but I've never had an employer or someone higher up than me in the workplace order me around like you've described. They just have the final word. A good employer/employee relationship requires working together as persons of equal importance too! An employee absolutely has equal responsibility for maintaining a good working relationship as an employee does, so your second point doesn't hold up. Just like both employer and employee keep to the terms of their contract, so should a husband and wife. As for kink, it has nothing to do with sex so that also doesn't work for me (although obviously it does for other people).

As for differences between male and female, obviously there are biologically and for me personally (all of my perspective on this is just for me personally and I don't have a problem with other people doing things differently), the Bible says there is, so...there is. I realise this wouldn't be good enough an argument for you, but it's good enough for me. Since it doesn't harm anyone else what I do (and I would not expect any children of mine do it this way, that's up to them to decide) it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of it but me.

The difference is a person can report a boss who misuses his authority or can get another job, and there's no company policy that says this 50% of employees will always be bosses and supervisors while that 50% never will (ie, gender division). It's a whole lot harder to get away from a husband who misuses his authority, especially because most groups that are pro-patriarchy are also anti-divorce and many people will turn on the woman regardless of the circumstances.

Even with choosing a leader, the idea that the man has to lead all the time, 100% in every situation, and the woman never is supposed to even if she may be more qualified or make better decisions in a certain area is what most people have a problem with. Yes, there are gender differences, but a lot of people take this to an extreme in patriarchy and ignore individual strengths and weaknesses.

I'm pretty much complementarian, especially so in my own life, but there are a lot of people who take advantage of male headship and it seems like often the nice guys you think never would can end up being some of the biggest jerks, control freaks, and abusers once they are married and behind closed doors. Most people here have either seen it in real life or ead enough blogs to know how often it happens and don't want to see you set yourself up to be taken advantage of by commiting to the idea.

As far as the foot-washing thing. I've heard it mentioned before, but don't know anyone else whose done it. It is related to the idea of servant leadership, because of Jesus washing the disciple's feet, and the idea that the husband should lead by serving and placing his wife and family's needs above his own. Even most of the hardcore patrio-centrists give lip service to this teaching, but it tends to be ignored in practice, especially when their is an emphasis on wifely submission but not much teaching on servanthood and sacrifice directed toward men.

[childerowland]

In your (general you) job, you probably work under a supervisor or someone else who is above you in terms of rank - that doesn't mean that they're better than you. Leadership is entirely different to superiority. Superiority may well include leadership, but leadership/followers can happen between complete equals. I mean, you (again, general you) would never assume that the President got elected because everyone thinks s/he's morally superior, or that a high-ranking army officer got there because s/he is better than everyone else. There has to be a leader/follower in most aspects of life, so why is a voluntary arrangement (and of course it should be voluntary) along those lines in marriage so wrong?

I hate this argument and am always hearing it in complementarian circles. :evil:

My manager is my manager because of the skills and experience she's built up over her career of 30+ years and because, through a rigorous interview process, she was deemed to be the best candidate for the job by an interview panel. Managers are managers (ideally, obviously this is not always the case) because they have the relevant knowledge and experience and have worked their way up to the position. Maybe in ten or so years I will have worked my way up to her position. Job roles in the workplace are flexible, not set in stone. That's not the case in the complementarian/fundie universe, where men are simply assumed to be great leaders by virtue of their being men; they don't earn the position.

Secondly, my manager is NOT my manager outside of work. Her leadership over me occurs solely in very specific context - the workplace - and is a question of her job status being superior to my job status, not her being superior to me as a person. If she tried to tell me to do something outside of the office I'd be under no obligation to do it. However, in a complementarian marriage, women can't stop being women. They are considered to be always under their husband's leadership. The leadership/subordinate roles are based on them as people, part of their human identities and yes, it does indicate that women are inferior in some way if they *as people, as women* are perpetually subordinate to their husbands.

Thirdly, managers in the workplace are necessary because yes, some situations, particularly those involving numerous people and time-sensitive issues, require a leader. But the idea that there needs to be a leader in a marriage - i.e. a pairing of two people - is saying that women need their own personal leader! Why? Because we're too stupid? naive? irresponsible? indecisive? to work things out with our male partners? We need to be told what to do? It's incredibly offensive.

[fluttershies]

The difference is a person can report a boss who misuses his authority or can get another job, and there's no company policy that says this 50% of employees will always be bosses and supervisors while that 50% never will (ie, gender division). It's a whole lot harder to get away from a husband who misuses his authority, especially because most groups that are pro-patriarchy are also anti-divorce and many people will turn on the woman regardless of the circumstances.

Even with choosing a leader, the idea that the man has to lead all the time, 100% in every situation, and the woman never is supposed to even if she may be more qualified or make better decisions in a certain area is what most people have a problem with. Yes, there are gender differences, but a lot of people take this to an extreme in patriarchy and ignore individual strengths and weaknesses.

I'm pretty much complementarian, especially so in my own life, but there are a lot of people who take advantage of male headship and it seems like often the nice guys you think never would can end up being some of the biggest jerks, control freaks, and abusers once they are married and behind closed doors. Most people here have either seen it in real life or ead enough blogs to know how often it happens and don't want to see you set yourself up to be taken advantage of by commiting to the idea.

As far as the foot-washing thing. I've heard it mentioned before, but don't know anyone else whose done it. It is related to the idea of servant leadership, because of Jesus washing the disciple's feet, and the idea that the husband should lead by serving and placing his wife and family's needs above his own. Even most of the hardcore patrio-centrists give lip service to this teaching, but it tends to be ignored in practice, especially when their is an emphasis on wifely submission but not much teaching on servanthood and sacrifice directed toward men.

Oh sure, I absolutely agree with you regarding men taking advantage of it. But I am firmly pro-divorce and would most certainly not marry anyone who was anti-divorce. I would say that for me it is so, so hard to get rid of complementarian ideas because of the first church I attended which had a huge impact on me (I wasn't even raised in the church). It's taken me almost 10 years to get rid of any homophobic (and therefore self-loathing) ideas I had, so I honestly don't know if I could ever abandon complementarianism completely, given that it's not distasteful in the same way. In any case, I am years away from marriage so this could all change.