The following is part 3 in a series considering the ways in which Vanuatu finds itself in a somewhat precarious position culturally, as it straddles the fence between the old ways and the new. I will repeat the opening paragraph of the first post, and then share the rather mixed up scenario surrounding the concept of marriage in Vanuatu.
History records that Europeans first made landfall in these isles back in 1606 (at which time the archipelago was known as the New Hebrides), but “Westerners” didn’t begin immigrating until the mid-1800s (primarily as missionaries and farmers seeking plantation land). In 1906, the English and French initiated a dual condominium government presence in Vanuatu. Then, during the Second World War, hundreds of thousands of American troops passed through Vanuatu. These influences, along with the general progression of the world-society, have contributed substantially to the current state of the Vanuatu’s otherwise very traditional culture. It would seem that the country now finds itself in a rather precarious position, perhaps not unlike a prepubescent teen caught between the two worlds of childhood and adulthood. This all makes for an interesting “mix.” In this series of posts, I want to share some of the ways in which locals (especially Christians) are struggling to sort out where they fit in these mixed up parts of societal life.
With people from other cultures come other traditions. One of the greatest difficulties for a missionary to a foreign land is to determine what of his teaching is truly biblical and what is merely cultural (because, based on one’s own experience alone, the two are practically inseparably joined). I have talked previously about the introduction of physical adornment and language practices, and now want to consider the introduction of marriage customs.
Thankfully, the once commonly accepted practice of polygamy has all but died out in Vanuatu, so we have not had to deal with that (*yet). But perhaps you can imagine our confusion when someone introduces us to their “husband,” only to subsequently inform us that they are not yet “married.” Huh? Don’t those sort of go together? For starters, Bislama is somewhat like Greek in that there are not different words for man and husband, or woman and wife - rather, context determines the meaning. Nonetheless, “man blong mi” (i.e. the man that belongs to me) still clearly indicates the idea of “husband.” So, can a couple actually be “husband and wife” without being “married” to one another?
The confusion stems, I believe, from at least two sources. First, early missionaries (circa mid-19th century) brought with them a sacramental view of marriage that says the joining of two people must of necessity be exercised by church leadership, and therefore cannot be enjoined by the non-clergy. Second is the fact that centuries-old traditions that have lost practically all cultural-relevance (due in large part to the Westernization of the people) are stubbornly held on to by many.
Thus, an otherwise committed couple is viewed as not married so long as they fail to submit to a “blessing marriage” ceremony performed by a church official. Furthermore (and sometimes in conjunction to this failure), some couples are viewed as unmarried unless and until the husband pays the customary bride price to the woman’s family. Traditionally, the price was paid in items deemed valuable under the custom economy (e.g. woven mats, kava, yams, pigs, etc.), but with time currency became the norm (though obviously much less accessible). While the government has set a limit of 80,000 vatu (approx. US$850) for the bride price, families still regularly set an amount as high as 200,000 vatu. Especially for those sustenance farmers living in the village, this is a practically impossible standard to meet. And since there are practically no repercussions for beginning a family together without paying the bride price, a majority of modern couples simply choose to fall into the “husband-and-wife-but-not-yet-married” category.
The question is, are these couples married or living in fornication? If married (i.e. joined together by God), then they need to understand that fact and speak accordingly - “we are married.” If fornication, they need to married (again, joined by God), but the mixed up culture has so obscured the definition of marriage that folks sometimes assume it to be practically unattainable. Confusion abounds.
The antidote is, of course, teaching what the Bible says about marriage, no more and no less. But even that is easier said than done when you are teaching in the face of centuries of tradition (both foreign and domestic, secular and religious). It can be enough to make your head spin! And I haven’t even mentioned the difficulties associated with the fact that male-initiated adultery, teenage fornication, and rampant divorce have become so expected as to now be culturally acceptable. Sin is, indeed, an ugly and damaging thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment