Non-consensual child brides

[Pergamum]

How do I answer this appeal to first century Jewish culture?

Beating your wife is open sin which I have been adressing. Arranging a marriage is not sin in and of itself. If the man is having intercouse before she is of age this is sin. Remember the Jewish culture in the 1st century...they occasionaly would arrange the marriage then the man would gather funds and give to the family the they woul wait to have intercourse until she was of age. The ____tribe___ dont get that. That is what I have been preaching on. The proper time line is now but if you wrong them arranging a marriage they are not going to see this as a sin. Im just asking you to take things slow and allow the Gospel to help this

Didn't First Century Jewish girls consent?

What is the permissible timeline to see the eradication of child brides?

If I consent to one child bride and say it is okay for now, don't I share in this sin? I have never yet consented to such a thing. We've housed girls in my house to shelter them.



My answer I gave was:

If Esther is, indeed, a little girl promised to an older man to be raised up to be his wife and she truly does not consent and has fled because of her fear towards him, and we support turning her back over to her "husband", or we are silent, or we then squash any mention of her because to do so would make the __tribe___ look like savages...I do not believe God will hold us guiltless.

 

[Pergamum]

The response I was given just now saying that a child bride is not sin:

Jewish culture at the time of Christ had arranged marriages where the father of the bride arranged the pair.

The father would speak to the daughter but that was a formality. The father and bridegroom would sign a document called ketubah. Then he would wait to have intercourse until she was ready. They would have sex while the familu waited outside as a proof of marriage, consumation, and virginity.

You know I agree with you but this culture of arranging fits many biblical periods. And as westerners we are shocked because we are used to an "I do" from both sides. This did not start till late 3rd or 4th century

Looking at Jewish custom and the contract (the Ketubbah), however, I find that:

(1) the betrothal was to be on year and no more,
(2) no living together could happen prior to the wedding,
(3) the woman had to consent. And
(4) the minimum age was higher than the tribe demands.

So, overall, it seems a poor analogy to say that the tribal customs are much like the ancient Jewish custom of the Ketubbah Betrothal Arrangement. followed in Jesus' day. The ancient Jews, too, would have condemned this tribe's practices.

 

[py3ak]

I think I can appreciate a desire to make sure that one is not reacting from culture shock rather than genuinely righteous indignation. It's also true that your opposition to the practice won't make it stop all at once. And Christians are not revolutionaries. But all of that being granted, is it truly the best gospel witness when a little girl flees for refuge only to be sent back to what is at best a terrifying situation? Does Deuteronomy 23:15-16 have anything to say to this kind of situation? I don't mean to be blinkered to strategic concerns and the quest for harmonious relationships with the various tribes, but I would have a hard time not hearing the words, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me if I sent her back (Matthew 25:45).

 

[Logan]

Pergamum, I just wanted to make sure you noticed the Gouge quotes from earlier. Because of post-collision I didn't want them to be missed.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

Is there any way to get official arbitration between you and the other missionaries? Could the various mission boards and/or denominations come to some agreement so that you can work out the best solution for the tribe and the outside world?

 

[Pergamum]

Pergamum, I just wanted to make sure you noticed the Gouge quotes from earlier. Because of post-collision I didn't want them to be missed.

Yes, I have read all comments with interest (and much gratitude). Thanks. Send more thoughts as you see fit.

 

[Pergamum]

Is there any way to get official arbitration between you and the other missionaries? Could the various mission boards and/or denominations come to some agreement so that you can work out the best solution for the tribe and the outside world?

That would likely be even worse. The state of broadly evangelical missions today is not the best and culture often trumps gospel concerns.
"Arbitrations" are rarely "discussions" - but usually end up being the parties leveraging weight and power rather than theological acumen.

For instance, one couple is trained by Wycliffe (actually we all are, but they worked more closely with them) and in the years past (2009-2014 mainly) there was the controversy when Wycliffe translators (with full permission from their org) began taking out the phrase "Son of God" in some bible translations to Muslim audiences (I've started past posts on this topic here on the PB). So I am not in favor of any compromises here or "decision by broad consensus" if that means condoning child brides or agreeing to return them.

 

[Pergamum]

New developments:

-The teacher was persuaded by one of the western missionaries to take down her post from Facebook. I do not agree. The rationale was that we don't need to "make the people look like Savages" but are to love the people. The teacher wrote an apology to me for posting the picture and the prayer request in the first place, but I told her no apology was needed and that as long as the info was correct, not to be silenced but feel free to post prayers for situations like this because they are clearly sinful and need to vanish from the culture. Just double-check the facts first. The little girl, it turns out, didn't just come into the village but has been residing there in the village for several weeks (only this week being brave enough to approach the teacher), the other village kids still maintain she came to the village after running from her jungle home and her situation of being put into a man's house. The story is consistent with many others in the culture. This is the common way many marriages are done...all parties agree.

-I now get 90% agreement from the other missionaries...they say so, anyway. From one party, I've initially gotten the "This is not a sin issue, but a cultural issue" response twice. And then when I have pushed the non-consensual child bride aspect, they then replied, "Well...I agree with all you write. I'd also like to see some aspects of their culture changed as well. But why post anything negative about the people."

So they lead with the "not a sin" argument and then, when countered, they dig in with the "well, just don't criticize the culture" argument. I think I find this switch to be most infuriating. Again, I am not a Press Secretary. I am obligated to be accurate and honest, but not to hide a culture's sins.

-From the other party, my friend, I got a reminder that marriage need not look Western (true), but I hope he sees that the child-bride aspect is clearly sin. But again, I received the "we cannot publish this too much or make the people look bad" line, and so I am still disappointed. He has agreed to commit with me to try to slowly end the practice. But even one girl returned or willingly given over to this practice is too many and I will never be a willing party to it.

He also still maintains a rough parallel between these tribal marriages and ancient jewish marriages. And if God was patient then, so we should also be patient now to see this practice slowly eliminated (an argument I've made and I agree with concerning the current polygamy in the tribe...it will die within the next generation. We discourage it, but is hasn't been a top priority).

When examining First-Century Jewish marriage customs, yes, people got married earlier. Yes, the betrothed girl (after signing the Ketubbah) went and lived with her fiancee for a year (no more) and then came together for a joyous wedding ceremony and the marriage was consummated (with that part of the ceremony involving witnesses to show that she was a virgin). But this tribe is not doing the Ketubbah. The analogy breaks down easily. The families are arranging unions, yes. But the girl is not asked to sign or consent or to give any sort of voice, as in the Ketubbah. The little girl goes to live much longer in the betrothed's house for more than a year. The minimum ages of 12.5 and 13 for both girl and boy are not honored, and the little girl is often much younger than that. And there is no ceremony signalling initial consummation after the wedding, showing the bride's virginity before this point...and thus there is no ritual safeguard which keeps the older man from violating the girl before the time after first menses. The missionary family to the south may maintain that tribal taboo is enough to keep the man off the little girl until after the first menses, but she is solely under his control as he waits out her biological clock and in his home every night and he knows what she will be used for later and has that in mind as he waits and there is none to stop him in the isolation of the jungle. And worst of all, there is no true option for the bride/betrothed girl to "opt out" or even to "consent." In the ancient Jewish Ketubbah, the bride could not set the terms, but yet she still signed and consented for the marriage to go forward (which shows that she had to be old enough to be able to consent). But for this tribe, the little girl has NO voice, and is not heard at all (unless she runs away or protests..and then she is a disobedient daughter ruining her family's careful social arrangements). Most of the time the little girl is merely resigned to her fate and has no advocate on her behalf. She is treated as a trade-good or a commodity is treated, a property to be disposed of by the larger family unit. Therefore, NO, this tribe's marriage customs are NOT like the ancient Jewish way of arranging marriages (The Ketubbah).


About the desire to silence any criticism of the culture: The British missionary magazines publicized the need to ban child-brides in India. William Carey wrote against many societal evils to include suttee and child brides. The secular anthropologist working in my region publishes many articles on gruesome aspects of the culture, even mentioning this topic and infanticide, and violence. So, why must I be silent? If I make the tribe look bad...well, are they not already bad?

I am tempted, instead of being silent, to publish a local language tractate on this topic and distribute it as broadly as possible to the people and to the indigenous church structures.

 

[Pergamum]

I can imagine you'd be deeply troubled!

It's a heartbreaking situation for the girl. Obviously living in those environments people have to find a way to keep functioning around such tragedies, and sometimes the way is by being desensitized to what's happening. And, of course, one can always reflect that it's perfectly possible she won't be any better off in a different situation. But that seems very likely to tend towards acquiescence rather than just patience.

As for the other missionaries, perhaps they think they've made their concern clear, but I'm not sure they have. Is the remark about sharing negative information arising out of a concern of government reprisals? 9th Commandment issues? Making missionary work in general more difficult? Or is it mostly about not being an imperialist/elitist, etc.? Is there agreement that the culture needs to change and disagreement over the pace of change and the strategy to attain it?

Ruben,

You asked:

Is the remark about sharing negative information arising out of a concern of government reprisals? 9th Commandment issues? Making missionary work in general more difficult? Or is it mostly about not being an imperialist/elitist, etc.? Is there agreement that the culture needs to change and disagreement over the pace of change and the strategy to attain it?

It may be all of the above. Do not criticize those whom you are trying to bless. The tribe doesn't have Facebook to defend themselves even if we talk about them (they have no way to answer). We are likely to judge them overly harshly, even as we delight in and exalt our own culture and its traits and are impervious to local self-sins. It may color other people's perceptions of the tribe and do them injustice. Our job is to bless and love and not to criticize, to give and not to destroy their culture. Missionaries in the past have painted tribal peoples as primitives, etc.

 

[py3ak]

It may be all of the above. Do not criticize those whom you are trying to bless.

I would answer this one with Acts 3:26.

The tribe doesn't have Facebook to defend themselves even if we talk about them (they have no way to answer).

This seems like the best argument. But it's an argument for circumspection with names and details, rather than total silence on a given point.

We are likely to judge them overly harshly, even as we delight in and exalt our own culture and its traits and are impervious to local self-sins.

Every culture has too much sin and not enough holiness. But that doesn't leave us in a relativistic swamp where we can not seek change for anything.

It may color other people's perceptions of the tribe and do them injustice. Our job is to bless and love and not to criticize, to give and not to destroy their culture. Missionaries in the past have painted tribal peoples as primitives, etc.

I suspect there is some legitimacy to these concerns. But it also seems to me that there may an under emphasis on the fact that missionary endeavor is also warfare. You are seeking to take every thought captive to Christ; you are wrestling against spiritual wickedness in high places; you are pursuing the reign of love. Why would any of that mean that you cannot request prayer? Prayer is a vital armament in our spiritual arsenal. And where there is warfare there will be confrontation. You can't build harmoniously on whatever is good in that culture to bring them to Christ. The law must expose their sin, and the gospel bind up their wounds. You are not there to destroy their culture, but as ambassadors you are not there chiefly to preserve it, either. If they embrace Christ in large numbers, the culture will change; that's no tragedy. The same thing would happen in Holland or the US.

 

[MW]

From one party, I've initially gotten the "This is not a sin issue, but a cultural issue" response twice. And then when I have pushed the non-consensual child bride aspect, they then replied, "Well...I agree with all you write. I'd also like to see some aspects of their culture changed as well. But why post anything negative about the people."

I tend to agree with this counsel. The citizens have a vested interest; a foreign missionary can only offer advice, and it must be seasonable so as not to hinder the specific work of the gospel. So far as church authority is concerned, the apostle says, "what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within."

 

[Pergamum]

The government is only now becoming active in our area.

It has always been the hallmark of Christians to end societal ills (the slave trade, wife-burning, child brides in India, foot-binding in Japan).

Some of these tribal families attend the church services, though they are not saved.