Should a religion really grant parents that much control?

[DiscussingTheTopic]

In the Baha'i religion all 4 parents (man and woman's) have to agree to the marriage for it to be allowed (unless one is dead, etc.)

This holds true even if the parents are not Baha'i

I have heard true stories where 1 of the parents was a racist so he would not let them get married on the basis of skin color.

There are numerous dilemmas with this way of doing things.

I think if the parents are racist they might not be fit to advise who their children marry.

Do you think that sometimes people should disregard their parents control over who they marry and possibly think about changing religions if the religion allows the parents racism to control their marriage partner?

By the way, I do not endorse the Baha'i religion. I have known people who are Baha'i for several years and a lot of the stuff in this video lines up with what they told me and had in literature they showed me on multiple occasions. I am not trying to put random unsubstantiated slanderous accusations about the Baha'i, but they simply talk about a lot of worldwide things being part of God's plan if you listed to them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnske4UYJgo

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Re: Should a religoin really grant parents that much control

DTT,

The ultimate authority is Christ and he delegates that rule through mediators in each era of history.

So, when a child sees such a problem it would be great if an evangelist could show him or her or all involved the gospel of grace that brings freedom. So in short yes, one should always in every case embrace Christ as the Lord and thus change from any religion to this religion and relationship with the Lord.

But, just because I know it will come up somewhere in someone's mind, if not in yours already, what should one do in this case if the parties involved are not believers and they remain in their faith?

Outside of Christ and in the pagan sphere the individuals would have to make this decision weighing in a lot of factors. But, if all of the parents are against it then the reasons why the children are for it would have to be weighed in light of all of the factors. How old are the children? Are the parents otherwise reasonable people? Or are they insane and abusive in many ways with racism being just one of the epxressions?

Furthermore, for those who read Greek and study it there is an interesting set of words used for children in the Bible. The English versions use "ch ild or children" to convey all three terms but behind the three terms there are nuances of meaning.

One Greek word, huios means child of God or a child of any age (young or adult). Teknon means little one or infant. Paidion means the youth (what we would describe as a teenager today). I may have two of those backwards as I'm not in front of my Greek text at the moment. But in any case, my point is an adult child (huios) would have more room to make a decision than would a paidion or youthful child. For example, suppose that the two who desire to cleave together are 30 years of age and living on their own already. That would make a difference than if the two were 15 or 16 or 17 and still in need of parental support. And again going back to the rationale of the parents which has to always be considered. Out right rebellion by any child is not biblical. Yet neither is it required in all cases at all times in the absolute sense for one to submit to parents when children come of age. When one embraces literal interpretation of the Bible we see that it becomes clear: the Bible never says the parent is one flesh with the child and never is the parent called the Head of the adult child. In other words, the very nature of the relationship is to show that the parent to child relationship is temporal, not permanent and binding forever.

The key in these situations has to do more with the wisdom, purpose of the heart, and totality of factors involved than a one size fits all rule, especially when the children are adults. Younger children would create a little bit a different situation but as they get older the purpose and nature of the relationship changes between a parent and child (son or daughter).

Could write more but in a hurry.....

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Re: Should a religoin really grant parents that much control

So if the daughter is living on her own and the father is a self proclaimed Christian but a racist and he refuses her to marry a good man because of his skin color, nationality, cultural upbringing (but not immoral behavior), etc. and does not give any legitimate reason to refuse marriage.

If the daughter is living on her own, it is perfectly fine for her to disobey her parents and marry the man?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Re: Should a religoin really grant parents that much control

Well that depends DTT. Does the lady in her conscience believe she is under that man's authority? If so then no she should not marry. But if she has placed herself, either by choice or by default, under the authority of some other leader (elders, state government, brother, mother, or other relative) then she can follow that leader.

Remember the golden rule of the law: "love, which is defined as, doing what is in the best interest of another." The law of Christ is not designed to condemn. It is rather designed to empower in grace. Even the law of the old covenant, the justice covenant, was designed to show justice which is also good as well, just not with as much glory as the covenant we are now in where grace brings the higher glory (see 2 Cor. 3).

Thus, the law about order and proper relational transfers (1 Cor. 7) where the authority figure grants or agrees to a union, that law is so there is objective guidance by others in the equation. This coincides with Song of Songs whereby others were watching the relationship develop and thus input was there by people who could be objective. That is the primary reason for an authority overseeing a relationship develop and develop into a union.

Don't get caught up in stressing a law just for the sake of law. Make sure you grasp the love principle behind the law. Ask why is this a law and look to find the way the law can benefit another person for their good and you'll generally come away with the right spirit of the law. That is where the Pharisees and modern days legalists go wrong with the law of God. They don't see the intent and purpose of the law. And don't make the error of inserting into 1 Cor 7 the idea that it must be a father. The actual inspired words there does not say father because God in his omniscience inspired the text exactly and knew that others might be in that role other than a father. It may be a brother, older sister, mother, elder or eldership, or another relative, or though not preferred for the Christian, even the secular state government.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Re: Should a religoin really grant parents that much control

Well that depends DTT. Does the lady in her conscience believe she is under that man's authority?

I like the modern Roman Catholic perspective of conscious which is something similar to the following

the conscious needs to be corrected to be in line with the truth when it is wrong and that one should train or educate their conscious to be more correct and less incorrect.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Re: Should a religoin really grant parents that much control

Don't get caught up in stressing a law just for the sake of law. Make sure you grasp the love principle behind the law. Ask why is this a law and look to find the way the law can benefit another person for their good and you'll generally come away with the right spirit of the law. That is where the Pharisees and modern days legalists go wrong with the law of God. They don't see the intent and purpose of the law. And don't make the error of inserting into 1 Cor 7 the idea that it must be a father. The actual inspired words there does not say father because God in his omniscience inspired the text exactly and knew that others might be in that role other than a father. It may be a brother, older sister, mother, elder or eldership, or another relative, or though not preferred for the Christian, even the secular state government.

I am talking about other people who have missed the point of that law. Do not confuse me with the people I am talking about (if that is what you did, if not I apologize.)

The 4 parents thing is not even a Biblical law it is a Baha'i law. So I am NOT suggesting the 4 parents thing, I am against the 4 parents thing.

I think those men and women would be a lot better off if they were willing to marry someone their parents forbid, if it is in their best interest.

I am not trying to be "judgmental" in a bad way, I am just hoping those people get help and become liberated from the overburdening control their parents have over their lives.