# Non-consensual child brides



## Pergamum

Asking for advice here:

Scenario: Okay, so our school teacher in the village posted this picture and explanation via Facebook today (forgive her English...it is actually quite impressive)"







> "Her name is Esther..
> She is arround/maybe 4 or 5 years old. (Not sure since ___ people not make a note of their own birth date)
> And u know what? She is MARRIED! ��
> Actually a lot of children (girls) here are married. Some of'em are paid with pig/benanas by an adult man. They wait the litle girl until 10-15years old then the adult man will bring her to his house. (Its ____ tradition here)
> 
> So, this Esther..
> She is paid and become the second wife. Altough she's so sooo young and innocent, the guy who paid her brought her to ___ (his house in a forest and far from ____ village)
> 
> But few days later, Esther escaped back to ____ village and said she was so scared.
> Oh poor Esther..
> Today she peeked arround classroom and i greet her to come inside. My students told me her stories..
> Oh i pray and wishing for this beautiful esther will become a wonderful one, true believer and growing up to be a Godly woman.
> Isn't she lovely?  "



In reply, our co-partnering Dutch missionaries in the southern dialect a day's travel south replied defensively:



> Arranged marriage is not sin. Most of the people in the world have arranged marriages. And the divorce rate is much lower than in marriage out of love. In ____ culture it is done to prevent sin. It is also the culture to wait with sex until the girl is physically mature enough.



This family is a very effective missionary family and are the best experts on the local language in the world. We have a good relationship. However, two or three times in the past 5 years now they have taken strong offense at any distaste expressed for the current tribal practice of child brides being negotiated for between clans. They've made it a point to defend this practice now 2-3 times....not calling it "the non-consensual taking of child-brides" but framing the conversation around the biblical legitimacy of "arranged marriages." I've pulled and deleted information off the web at least once due to their requests and insistence that such a practice is "biblical." However, my team in the north uniformly abhors this practice and seeks its demise.

After some thought, I have responded:


> Both parties in a marriage should marry by mutual consent, not merely the consent of bartering relatives. The marriage of unwilling child brides is a practice that should die. You say they may marry to prevent sin, but adultery is still common, so it isn't preventing much. If you want to go on record as defending the forced marriage of unwilling child brides against their wills, that is up to you. Arranged marriage is not sin if all parties consent, but clearly this is not the case here. Also, by physically mature enough, if this means the first menses only, then we still have the widespread cultural practice of 40 or 50 year old men initiating intercourse with 11 or 12 year olds. A lower divorce rate versus widespread wife beating and polygamy is hardly an improvement.



I have been accused of seeing these local marriage arrangements in an overly negative way. Marriage customs, after all, often ensure social harmony among and between clans. Among older girls, strong disagreement with the proposed union may sometimes lead to its cancellation, however, showing that it is often a distasteful thing to those able to protest. 

The anthropologist who studied my tribe affirms that most women given over in marriage as young children describe themselves as being “impossibly frightened of the man” to whom she has been betrothed, until she grows used to him. 

Though I readily confess that marriages need not look “western” in order to be biblical, nevertheless, any form of non-consensual union with those who can only be deemed “still children” (even when the larger clan is happy to arrange such a marriage) should be discouraged as incompatible with the principles of Christianity. 

Practically, there are still too many infant and mother deaths. Much of this is due to young, malnourished early-teenaged women giving birth to weak infants.

In Genesis 24, when Abraham’s servant arranged a bride for Isaac, it is clear that Rebekah was not without choice (verses 57-58); 57 “And they said, We will call the damsel, and enquire at her mouth. 58 And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go. And in Genesis 29, though the marriage between Jacob and Rachel was arranged, a mutual love and desire for such a union on the part of both parties was obvious.

In the past we've sheltered a young girl in my home despite threats of our bodily harm because she was 11 and an older man wanted to take her. When she turned about 15 she consented herself to a marriage. In some sermons, I have scolded the people for treating women like commodities to be traded.

*My questions:* I want to preserve peace with this other Western family downriver. How aggressive should I be in opposing child brides? Am I allowed to treat this as adiaphora when young girls clearly fear being handed off to a stranger? Do I focus on the Gospel and let the details iron themselves out slowly (as in polygamy...it often takes a generation to see its decline after the gospel enters), or should I actively campaign to end this practice? It seems like Mary may have been 14-16 at her pregnancy, but these children are traded/married/exchanged at 5-8 and the marriage consummated after the first menses (it is claimed to be after the first menses and there are taboos to enforce this...though I believe pre-menses sexual contact is also likely to occur). In addition, many of these girls are the second wife anyway. 

What are the reasons why women must consent to marriage? And at what age may they consent? Most of us would admit that the Western modern standard is older than in OT times. 

The WCF states, "It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to GIVE THEIR CONSENT." but how does the WCF prove that consent must be given by both parties? And if this family is Dutch Reformed, is there a similar statement in any Dutch Reformed confession which says something similar to the Westminster here?


Thank you.


----------



## johnny

Pergamum said:


> How aggressive should I be in opposing child brides?



I would be doing a Terminator 2 on this one.

If a missionary is basically accenting to polygamy then it's time they came back home.
And I think the scriptural references you gave speak for themselves, Yes (((GO HARD)))

Of course It's easy for myself to make a statement like this as I have nothing invested in it.
So yes, also be wise as a serpent, your wittness for Christ in this country is important.


----------



## Pergamum

johnny said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> How aggressive should I be in opposing child brides?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be doing a Terminator 2 on this one.
> 
> If a missionary is basically accenting to polygamy then it's time they came back home.
> And I think the scriptural references you gave speak for themselves, Yes (((GO HARD)))
> 
> Of course It's easy for myself to make a statement like this as I have nothing invested in it.
> So yes, also be wise as a serpent, your wittness for Christ in this country is important.
Click to expand...


The issue is not primarily polygamy but non-consensual child-brides (young girls being arranged in marriage regardless of their own desires, i.e., they have no say).


----------



## johnny

Pergamum said:


> The issue is not primarily polygamy but non-consensual child-brides (young girls being arranged in marriage regardless of their own desires, i.e., they have no say).



I think the scriptures you posted are relevent for an argument against non-consensual child brides and I'm sure an even stronger case can be made against this practice which even the world finds offensive. I will be interested to see what other material is uncovered on this thread, and also, any Puritan writers who may have dealt with this previously.


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> The issue is not primarily polygamy but non-consensual child-brides



Just wanting to make sure I understand what you are saying. You seem to have as much problem with the 'non-consensual' as you do with the 'child bride'. Do you consider the two different issues to be equally bad?


----------



## Parakaleo

A few thoughts on this from me.

(1) Sex with children and polygamy are reprehensible and should be strongly condemned by all believers.

(2) In God's Word, the day of a wedding is expected to be a joyous occasion for all parties. Believers should aim for all involved to be well-satisfied and content with a marriage going forward (just as we see in Gen. 24), but one or another person not being happy about it does not mean it should not go forward. There are any number of ungodly reasons why a daughter might be unhappy about it. Does this mean marriage arrangements should be discontinued, even though her father, her head, desires it to go forward? Should she not rather exercise faith and submission to her father's wishes, as long as they do not cause her to sin?

(3) Because the Scripture speaks of "giving daughters" in marriage (even Christ states it this way), and because of the principle found in God's Word of the father's headship over the household, Christian marriage should involve a transfer of headship from father to the groom. *Now I ask you, who bears the greater responsibility in giving consent to the union, the father or the daughter?* If one of my daughters makes a foolish decision against my counsel, or without my knowledge, I can hardly be blamed for it. If one of my daughters makes a decision that I, as her head, blessed, sanctioned, and publicly affirmed--and it is foolish--I bear the responsibility for that far more than she does. That's how headship works.

(4) If the father bears greater responsibility for understanding and discerning the fitness of the union, why should his consent matter less than his daughter's? In some cases, the loving father considers the happiness of his daughter and calls off the arrangement. In other cases, the loving father considers the holiness of his daughter and the most loving course of action is to insist that the arrangement goes forward.

(5) Again, believers should desire and aim for great rejoicing to accompany the union of man and woman in marriage. Perhaps this should be the thrust of your words with these Dutch missionaries, and among those to whom you minister: the happiness and rejoicing that Scripture presents as normative for all parties when entering into marriage; how this reflects the union of Christ with His church. That unmixed joy and elation should always be the aim of believers in arranging marriage.


----------



## Pergamum

Edward said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not primarily polygamy but non-consensual child-brides
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just wanting to make sure I understand what you are saying. You seem to have as much problem with the 'non-consensual' as you do with the 'child bride'. Do you consider the two different issues to be equally bad?
Click to expand...


Child brides are usually non-consenting. But yes, the clan exchanges items to put the girl into the man's house at 5-7 and when she reaches menses, he can initiate sex with her. The phrase here is, "I have raised her up to be my wife..." and the man is often in his 30's and she age 7 or 8 when she goes into his home, and in some cases 45 or 50 year old men have traded items for 8 year olds. The little girls are usually frightened of the men at first until they get used to him. And many older girls fight and run. There are taboos against initiating sex before the first menses, but I am not sure this always holds and asap after first menses is still not the most ideal time to be bonded for life. In addition, these little girls are often the second wife of the man, but the polygamy issue is a separate issue that we are working on over time.


----------



## Pergamum

Parakaleo said:


> A few thoughts on this from me.
> 
> (1) Sex with children and polygamy are reprehensible and should be strongly condemned by all believers.
> 
> (2) In God's Word, the day of a wedding is expected to be a joyous occasion for all parties. Believers should aim for all involved to be well-satisfied and content with a marriage going forward (just as we see in Gen. 24), but one or another person not being happy about it does not mean it should not go forward. There are any number of ungodly reasons why a daughter might be unhappy about it. Does this mean marriage arrangements should be discontinued, even though her father, her head, desires it to go forward? Should she not rather exercise faith and submission to her father's wishes, as long as they do not cause her to sin?
> 
> (3) Because the Scripture speaks of "giving daughters" in marriage (even Christ states it this way), and because of the principle found in God's Word of the father's headship over the household, Christian marriage should involve a transfer of headship from father to the groom. *Now I ask you, who bears the greater responsibility in giving consent to the union, the father or the daughter?* If one of my daughters makes a foolish decision against my counsel, or without my knowledge, I can hardly be blamed for it. If one of my daughters makes a decision that I, as her head, blessed, sanctioned, and publicly affirmed--and it is foolish--I bear the responsibility for that far more than she does. That's how headship works.
> 
> (4) If the father bears greater responsibility for understanding and discerning the fitness of the union, why should his consent matter less than his daughter's? In some cases, the loving father considers the happiness of his daughter and calls off the arrangement. In other cases, the loving father considers the holiness of his daughter and the most loving course of action is to insist that the arrangement goes forward.
> 
> (5) Again, believers should desire and aim for great rejoicing to accompany the union of man and woman in marriage. Perhaps this should be the thrust of your words with these Dutch missionaries, and among those to whom you minister: the happiness and rejoicing that Scripture presents as normative for all parties when entering into marriage; how this reflects the union of Christ with His church. That unmixed joy and elation should always be the aim of believers in arranging marriage.



Thanks Blake,


About point 1. What if the culture says she is not a child after first menses? Even if this is age 11? John Calvin and Gill (commenting on I Cor 7 I believe) speak of the "flower of her age" as being 12.5 to 20 years old.

About point 2: The WCF in chapter 25, paragraph 3 says that marriage must be between consenting pesons:

Here is what I've wrote to others about this issue:



> For most Reformed believers who hold to either the Westminster Confession of Faith or the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, we are confessionally bound to oppose all non-consensual marriage unions, for chapter 25, paragraph 3 says: "It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment TO GIVE THEIR CONSENT; yet it is the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord" and the proof-text for this paragraph is the example of Rebekah in Genesis 24: 37-38, showing her able and willing consent to such a marital union, "And they said, We will call the damsel, and enquire at her mouth. 58 And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go."



I am not against arranged marriages per se, but I see many dangers in them. For instance, if the parents do not listen to the daughter's wishes then the daughter can fight the potentially bad bond and she would be disobedient, or silently submit to a potentially life-ruining bond. 

In the case of this small little girl, her fleeing her husband's home may create social disharmony between the clans since goods were exchanged for her. This means that to pity her is bad, since she is disobedient. A good daughter would submit. BUT...who wouldn't pity such a girl? It seems unnatural to support the trading of young girls like commodities.

Yes, I like your point that marriages should be times of joy for all parties.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude

A couple thoughts from me:

1. On the issue of balancing consent and headship, I'd say you're at the very least right to point the people you're ministering to toward greater respect for the dignity of their daughters. It sounds like the culture does not on any level balance the two considerations (dignity and consent on the one hand; headship and authority on the other), it merely treats women as commodities. If nothing else, there is a severe disrespect and oppression of women and girls in the culture that ought to be corrected. The verses you cited seem awfully clear to me that the fathers respect their daughters' input on the matter, even if Scriptural principles also guide fathers to sometimes override the wishes of daughters.

2. On the issue of abstention from sex until menstruation, how is that guaranteed? You say there is a cultural taboo, but it seems to me that 1) without accountability there can be no guarantee that it happens, and 2) if it is sinful to consummate a marriage, there should be no marriage; why not a betrothal rather than a marriage?

I recognize the necessity of treading lightly in cross-cultural contexts. But I think your Dutch missionary neighbors are sacrificing the dignity of the female sex in the name of tolerance.


----------



## py3ak

Matthew Henry on Numbers 36:6
_Let them marry to whom they think best._ As children must preserve the authority of their parents, and not marry against their minds, so parents must consult the affections of their children in disposing of them, and not compel them to marry such as they cannot love. Forced marriages are not likely to prove blessings.​
Johannes Wollebius, _Compendium Theologiae Christianae_, XI (3) VI., 241
Therefore, just as it is the first requirement of filial respect to seek the consent of parents, so it is the first requirement of paternal natural affection not tyrannically to prevent a morally acceptable marriage, nor to force children into an unwelcome one.​
In bartering the little girls for goods, are the parents acting in keeping with the Golden Rule? If not, that might be one angle of approach.


----------



## Pergamum

William Carey and the British missionaries, in a very highly publicized fashion, sought to end child-brides in India as part of their missionary work. 

This situation in my region is not merely a matter of arranged marriages between young adults (like Gen 24)...this is child-bride-ism. The barter of girls to cement clan relationships (or to merely gain stuff).


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> Matthew Henry on Numbers 36:6
> _Let them marry to whom they think best._ As children must preserve the authority of their parents, and not marry against their minds, so parents must consult the affections of their children in disposing of them, and not compel them to marry such as they cannot love. Forced marriages are not likely to prove blessings.​
> Johannes Wollebius, _Compendium Theologiae Christianae_, XI (3) VI., 241
> Therefore, just as it is the first requirement of filial respect to seek the consent of parents, so it is the first requirement of paternal natural affection not tyrannically to prevent a morally acceptable marriage, nor to force children into an unwelcome one.​
> In bartering the little girls for goods, are the parents acting in keeping with the Golden Rule? If not, that might be one angle of approach.



Ruben,


So it sounds like Henry and Wollebius agree with me. That is good. Aside from Gen 24 and the example of them asking Rebekah what she thought in verse 37 and 38 are there any other scriptural proofs that we must ask the consent of the children before we marry them off? Reason and human compassion seem to say as much, but are there any proof-texts other than Gen 24?


----------



## Logan

Gouge (Domestical Duties) has quite a bit to say about parents' duties in providing marriages for their children---too much for me to type up here. Some brief things are:



Gouge said:


> Two cautions are to be observed of parents in providing marriages for their children:
> 1. That the match which they provide be meet: so said God when he was about to provide a match of Adam, I will make him a hel meet for him (Gen 2:18). Therefore the match provided must not be too near of kin, of a contrary religion, of too unequal an age, of too great disparity in estate (see Treatise 2, Part I, Section 9 and 10). These things will hinder love, and cause disdain and hatred of one another.
> 
> 2. Though the match may seem meet in the parent's eye, yet he may not force his child thereto. Could a fitter match ahve been found out for Rebekah than Isaac? Yet Rebekah's friends asked her consent (Gen 24:57). I deny not but parents may use all manner of fair means to move their children to yield to that which they see good for them: but if they cannot move them to yield, to refer the matter to God, and not against their children's minds to force them. When God had made a most meet match for Adam, he brought her to the man: namely to see how he would like her. For the nearest bond of all is between man and wife; a man must leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife (Gen 2:22); man and wife must always live together: great reason therefore that at the first joining them together there be a mutual liking of one another, lest ever after there be a perpetual dislike: and though the authority of parents ought in this case to be enviable, yet a middle course is so to be held, as the parties may willingly with a mutual consent join themselves together.





Gouge said:


> The extreme in the excess is, when parents through a covetous desire to get great and rich matches for their children, marry them before they be of years of discretion to like or dislike, to know what is meet or unmeet; or able to perform even the essential duties of marriages (see Treatise 2, Part I, Section 2): seldom do such unlawful marriages prosper.



He gives the balance to this section in duties of children, where children are to respect the wishes of their parents as much as possible.



Gouge said:


> Ripeness of years is absolutely necessary for consummating a just and lawful marriage: wherefore as God at first made Adam of full age, so when he sought out a wife for him, he made her of full age too: he made her a woman, not a child (Gen 2:22). Where the Apostle advises her parents to take care for the marriage of their children, he puts in this proviso, if they pass the flower of their age (1 Cor 7:36). Childhood is counted the flower of age. While the flower of the plant sprouts, the seed is green, unfit to be sown.



He later counts flower of age to be 12 for female and 14 for male, by civil law, yet he believes this is the absolute minimum and that it is beneficial to wait, until after about 20.


----------



## Pergamum

*New Developments:*

(1) The Dutch missionary who defended these arranged marriages replied back that "I agree with everything you say." But then went on to say, why share any bad information about this tribe publicly, what is the purpose? So the offense remains, but they've now switched reasons.

This has been the tactic once in the past as well. Three years ago I stated my abhorrence of child brides in a blog article published on a Christian website. This Dutch Reformed family took strong offense and said that the practice was cultural and not unbiblical and could be defended from the Old Testament. I pushed back. Then they changed tactics and said a few days later, "Well, this doesn't need to be posted publicly anyway" and said that no bad traits of the tribe should be shared publicly to demean the peoples. As if my job is a Press Secretary for the tribe instead of merely reporting true and accurate info. So three years ago I relented and took down that public posting about child brides. 

Now, this week, the very same progression has occurred. I posted the teacher's picture of her with the little girl who ran away from her arranged marriage and I stated my own abhorrence of this practice. They respond that such a practice is not sin, but is cultural. I push back. And then they respond that we should not be sharing this info publicly anyway. 

Furthermore, a clarification was added by another person that, "The tribal man gave money to the family of the little girl. Then she called this man Mr. or Father... she does not call him husband..." And I am not sure what to think of this justification, because this is no true justification. If I (as a 40 year old man) adopted a 5 year old girl as my daughter and she called me father and then I added her as a second wife and start having sex with her at age 11, this wouldn't make things better, but worse and doubly sinful. So I need to investigate the rationale why this strange justification was given, because families do not trade daughters for trade-items except for later marriage. And on the small chance that he is adopting her to give as a wife to a son, this adoptive process seems not to justify the scenario but to create a scenario of "in-law incest" in the very least if he were to marry an adopted daughter to a biological son. But in all probably the man traded for the girl so she could become his own wife at a later time, as is the custom.

(note: in other regions of this province, when a kid is an orphan sometimes Christian relatives will adopt the kid to raise them and send them to school. I can pray that this is the case and that the teacher got her facts wrong. But the girl's family is alive, and the girls of this region rarely go to school (this is only now happening a little at present), and this has all the signs of an arranged child-marriage).


So...I am deeply troubled to say the least.


----------



## py3ak

Peter Lombard, _Sentences_ IV:XXVII.3.1



> The efficient cause of marriage is consent, and not just any kind, but one expressed in words, and not of future but of present effect.



This is proved by Peter with the following citations:

Ibid., IV:XXVII.3.2



> That consent makes a marriage is proved by the authorities below.--
> ISIDORE: For Isidore says: "Consent makes marriage"
> NICHOLAS: Also Pope Nicholas: "In accordance with the laws, let consent along suffice of those whose joinings are at issue; if it alone should perhaps be lacking in their nuptials, all other things, even if celebrated together with coitus itself, are vain."
> CHRYSOSTOM: Also John Chrysostom: "It is not coitus that makes marriage, but the will; and so the separation of bodies does not dissolve it."
> AMBROSE: Also Ambrose: "It is not the deflowering of virginity that makes marriage, but the conjugal pact."
> From these words, it is clear that it is consent, that is, the conjugal pact, that makes marriage; and from that time on there is a marriage, even if carnal joining has not preceded or does not follow.


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> Peter Lombard, _Sentences_ IV:XXVII.3.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The efficient cause of marriage is consent, and not just any kind, but one expressed in words, and not of future but of present effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is proved by Peter with the following citations:
> 
> Ibid., IV:XXVII.3.2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That consent makes a marriage is proved by the authorities below.--
> ISIDORE: For Isidore says: "Consent makes marriage"
> NICHOLAS: Also Pope Nicholas: "In accordance with the laws, let consent along suffice of those whose joinings are at issue; if it alone should perhaps be lacking in their nuptials, all other things, even if celebrated together with coitus itself, are vain."
> CHRYSOSTOM: Also John Chrysostom: "It is not coitus that makes marriage, but the will; and so the separation of bodies does not dissolve it.
> AMBROSE: Also Ambrose: "It is not the deflowering of virginity that makes marriage, but the conjugal pact."
> From these words, it is clear that it is consent, that is, the conjugal pact, that makes marriage; and from that time on there is a marriage, even if carnal joining has not preceded or does not follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So no consent = no true marriage, but a form of bondage or possession as a person would own an animal or thing? That sounds very good and simple and self-evident in a way. Thanks for the quote.


----------



## py3ak

Thomas Aquinas, _Summa Theologiae_, Supp.XLV.1:



> In every sacrament there is a spiritual operation by means of a material operation which signifies it; thus in Baptism the inward spiritual cleansing is effected by a bodily cleansing. Wherefore, since in matrimony there is a kind of spiritual joining together, in so far as matrimony is a sacrament, and a certain material joining together, in so far as it is directed to an office of nature and of civil life, it follows that the spiritual joining is the effect of the Divine power by means of the material joining. Therefore seeing that the joinings of material contracts are effected by mutual consent, it follows that the joining together of marriage is effected in the same way.


----------



## py3ak

James Ussher, _Body of Divinity_:



> *What is required in the entrance?*
> 1. That the persons be joined in wedlock, meditate of the end of Matrimony: that it is ordained for procreation sake, and for their own mutual comfort and preservation, not for fulfilling of lust only.
> 2. That they use prayer for a blessing upon them.
> 3. That they look to the degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity prescribed.
> 4. That they look that either of them be free from any former Contracts.
> 5. That they be of the same Religion.
> 6. That they have consent of Parents, and those which have charge over them. For Parents have as great interest in their children, as in any of their goods.
> 7. That there be due consent likewise betwixt themselves. Where Parents must have a care to marry them, when they have understanding and discretion.
> 8. That due respect be had to the age of the parties.
> 9. That there be espousals before marriage; and that the parties espoused join not themselves together before the marriage be confirmed by the prayers of the Congregation. According to the example of Joseph and Mary, Mat.1


----------



## py3ak

John Brown, _An Essay towards an Easy, Plain, Practical, and Extensive Explication of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism_ (on the 7th Commandment):



> *Q. When is marriage lawful?*
> When it is contracted, with consent of their parents, between one single man and a woman come to years of discretion, duly distant in affinity and blood, and of the same religion.
> *Q. May parents force, or without good reason oppose their children's inclinations to marriage?*
> No.


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> Ruben,
> 
> So it sounds like Henry and Wollebius agree with me. That is good. Aside from Gen 24 and the example of them asking Rebekah what she thought in verse 37 and 38 are there any other scriptural proofs that we must ask the consent of the children before we marry them off? Reason and human compassion seem to say as much, but are there any proof-texts other than Gen 24?



Yes, and as you can see, not just those two. It seems to me that the whole stream of thought on this topic in the Church at large has been that the most central requirement for marriage is the consent of the parties to be joined. Scottish law recognized that _entrance into marriage_ rested on the consent of the parties, though _the conditions of marriage_ did not. In other words, we can't stipulate that this marriage will only last for 7 years, or that the husband will not protect his wife, or etc. (See _The Journal of Jurisprudence_, 20.13.)

More specifically, the Reformed folk quoted above seem to suggest that the way to conceive of this is that parents and children each have veto power over a candidate for marriage, and carefully warn parents not to use that veto power unwisely, much less to force an unwelcome candidate on their child (so I don't think they would wholly agree with the view Blake Law expressed above). Ussher carefully clarifies that one needs age and discretion in order to be able to consent; until one reaches years of discretion, consent to marriage is incapable of being given.

I think you could also mention Numbers 36:6. Although it was an unusual situation, clearly these women were expected to be involved in choosing their husbands. 1 Samuel 25:39 suggests that Abigail's consent to marry David was requested. Again a different situation, but Mary consented to become the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:38, 45). Deuteronomy 24:2 may give authorization for a woman who has been put away to become the wife of another, apparently at her own discretion. Although it was not for the soundest of motives, Saul gave Michal to David in part because Michal fancied him. Clearly there were situations of slavery, or where someone was treated as a slave, and the consent of the woman was not sought. But I think that denial of personal agency does reduce the woman to the status of an owned thing, rather than a person under authority.

More Matthew Henry (on Deuteronomy 24:5)


> It is of great consequence that love be kept up between husband and wife, and that every thing be very carefully avoided which might make them strange one to another, especially at first; for in that relation, where there is not the love that should be, there is an inlet ready to abundance of guilt and grief.


----------



## py3ak

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?


----------



## Pergamum

I am actually getting flak from several other missionaries. 

First, they say is not sin but only culture. 

Then they defend "arranged marriages" and the "marriage of young girls" but do not mention that these arranged marriages are not of willing females of at least 12.5 to 20 years of age, but are 5-7 year olds, and many are non-consenting.

Then they say, "She is going into the home not as husband yet, that is for a later time. She calls him father now...not husband." Yet, this makes the situation doubly gross and disgusting, for if she first enters the home in the fashion of an adopted daughter, to initiate sexual intercourse after the first menses is abhorrent. How would people view that in the West?

If I keep saying, YES, YES, it is sin. Then they say, "We should not broadcast this sin or publish anything about it, for fear the people will look bad."

So, I respond that we are not Press Secretaries for the tribe but we have a duty to report the truth of what is transpiring. Missionaries all across the globe report both the good and the bad. 

Perhaps now we are at an impasse, I don't know.


----------



## py3ak

Then it sounds like their goal may just be for you to be quiet and not make waves. Otherwise it's hard to understand why they would shift the grounds of the argument? If the practice is not wrong, then broadcasting it is not exposing a sin but reporting an anthropological and cultural reality.


----------



## Pergamum

They are influencing this teacher who posted about the young girl, informing me:



> In the future I asked her [the teacher] to not post about child brides. This is a huge issue and I dont want to paste a wrong picture to Westerners. In fact I dont agree with posting about this topic. Westerners will draw quick conclusions when they no nothing about the situation here. Better just to post "Pray for Esther [the little girl] to follow Jesus."



I don't agree with this silence. The teacher was moved to pity and gave the info to others (including church mates) to pray. Seems perfectly legit to me as long as she has the facts correct. And it appears she probably does (we are verifying all things now).


----------



## Miss Marple

Terminator 2, I agree


----------



## Miss Marple

"arranged marriage" is not the equivalent of "child molestation."

One can be for "arranged marriage," properly done. Properly done, it would never involve the marriage, or the rape, of a child.

And if it's a child, it's rape, whether the poor thing is "married" or not.

It's a perversion of the concept of marriage which is so very biblically critical.

Just wow, to excuse this.


----------



## Pergamum

Miss Marple said:


> "arranged marriage" is not the equivalent of "child molestation."
> 
> One can be for "arranged marriage," properly done. Properly done, it would never involve the marriage, or the rape, of a child.
> 
> And if it's a child, it's rape, whether the poor thing is "married" or not.
> 
> It's a perversion of the concept of marriage which is so very biblically critical.
> 
> Just wow, to excuse this.



If the man waits until the first menses and the girl is resigned to stay within his home without fleeing, I suppose consent is assumed? She learns what is expected of her and complies?


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> They are influencing this teacher who posted about the young girl, informing me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the future I asked her [the teacher] to not post about child brides. This is a huge issue and I dont want to paste a wrong picture to Westerners. In fact I dont agree with posting about this topic. Westerners will draw quick conclusions when they no nothing about the situation here. Better just to post "Pray for Esther [the little girl] to follow Jesus."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this silence. The teacher was moved to pity and gave the info to others (including church mates) to pray. Seems perfectly legit to me as long as she has the facts correct. And it appears she probably does (we are verifying all things now).
Click to expand...


So Westerners can't be trusted to learn the facts and understand realities on the ground. But apparently neither can teachers from the coastal areas? I can appreciate a desire for discretion, but sometimes light shining in dark places turns up very uncomfortable facts. The bugs are there, whether you turn over the rotten log or not....


----------



## Pergamum

At what age can it even be said that a young girl can be considered competent to consent? 

It would appear that under 10 years old, a girl cannot consent due to an inability to consent. Child molesters could "groom" young kids into actions to the molester's liking, but if a little kid is coaxed into sexual behaviors at that age, this is no true consent and there is no moral guilt for this simply because they know no better. 

How much more if one is told to go live in his home and be under his authority and it is 6 hours walk back home through jungle? What recourse does she have? She has no determination of her own.


----------



## py3ak

I can't imagine that a child is capable of consenting to marriage until she is of marriageable age.


----------



## 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

Logan said:


> 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

Mr. Bultitude said:


> 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

py3ak said:


> 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

Pergamum said:


> 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. 



Pergamum said:


> 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.



Pergamum said:


> 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.



Pergamum said:


> 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

Pergamum said:


> 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.


----------

