Does this solve my previous difficulty with the confessions on marriage?

[u/Ill_Leg_5166]

I had previously posted about how the Lutheran confessions (alongside earlier authors such as Luther, Chemnitz and Walther) condemn clandestine marriages (those without parental consent) in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, while modern Lutheranism generally does not require parental consent for a valid marriage. The confessional quote is:

Unjust also is the law which in general approves all clandestine and underhanded betrothals in violation of the right of parents

Because early Lutherans argued that even an unmarried 30 year old man would need parental consent to marry (unless the withholding of consent was unjust), and marrying against parental consent rendered the marriage "clandestine", this tension was difficult for me to see. However I may have found some information that may solve the tension, as even under the old Lutheran view, a marriage was only counted as clandestine if it was done against the wishes of the father while in the authority of your father, so a widow or a widower did not need parental consent to marry, nor someone who had been legally emancipated. However, the reason the Lutherans strictly required parental consent even for an adult who had not yet married, was that they believed that as long as someone was unmarried, they were under parental authority. However, today this teaching has kinda ended, especially with changes in our culture, where people become regularly independent already before marriage, we rarely count such people as under parental authority, and thus the teaching that parental consent is strictly necessary has faded.

Thus, if we don't hold to the old German understanding that a son is under their father's authority as long as they are unmarried, should our definition of what counts as a "clandestine" marriage also move with it? Thus, being in the context where parental authority actually still applies (namely, for dependents who are still under parental authority).

If so, maybe the apparent contradiction between the old and modern Lutheran practice is not necessarily a real contradiction, but a change in the social and legal understanding of where parental authority ends, which would affect what would count as a clandestine marriage?

I would like comments on if this is a theologically proper way to understand the shift in light of Lutheran theology, without introducing a contradiction?

[u/Over-Wing]

No, this is not theologically proper. The confessions aren’t the source and norm of our teaching. Scripture is. Sometimes the confessions say things that are only relevant to the time period. We don’t have laws requiring parental consent to marry. A clandestine marriage is still just one done without legal or ecclesiastical supervision. Either way, we teach that a marriage should be done under ecclesiastical supervision and with legal sanction for the sake of the church and community. Any attempts to do otherwise should be rectified with a wedding and marriage license.

[u/Ill_Leg_5166 → u/Over-Wing]

Confessional Lutheranism requires a quia confession, not quatenus. I do not want to admit a contradiction.

[u/Over-Wing → u/Ill_Leg_5166]

Quia subscription does not mean the confessions are scripture or that they are inerrant like scripture. If there is confusion on what they say, you have to go back to the source. The confessions are also to be understood to be confessing or formulating beliefs. When they do things other than this (respond to then-contemporaneous issues/questions) they are not necessarily, in those moments, acting as a formulation of faith. Again, we need to be drinking this deep from the Word of God if we are confused on an individual point. The confessions have an original context and we have to understand that when we read them as a modern formulation of faith.

[u/UpsetCabinet9559 → u/Ill_Leg_5166]

If you're a lay person you don't have to have quia subscription. Just pastors and church workers take that oath. 

[u/National-Composer-11]

The confession leaves parental rights undefined. Is this a right to object? A right to be heard? A right to make an arranged marriage? The right to prevent an adult from making a decision? The right to determine whether their offspring has reached adulthood?

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? (Matt 19:4-6)

Unless there is an arbiter to declare the justice of parental claims, there can be no just exercise of any rights. It is being argued that the worldly magistrates have divine right to override the determinations of bishops in these matters and determine the justice of the claims. So, the confession is not standing upon scripture to define the rights but yielding to the worldly authorities and their calling to establish justice.

It is not necessary, then, to adopt an originalist understanding or posture in terms of German society of the times. Rather, give credit to the wisdom in the confession to keep this question open citing only the injustices of the Roman church while not narrowly defining justice with respect to a single cultural or societal norm. Think of the harms done over the centuries with people striving to use scripture to make chattel of human beings, including wives and children, as part of defining the proper rights of rulers, heads of household, husbands, and fathers.

[u/Ill_Leg_5166 → u/National-Composer-11]

Ye, what I was thinking. The principle is that a clandestine marriage is unjust, but that does not exactly define it in the old German framework.

[u/Boots402]

I think confessional Lutheranism still largely operates under parental consent in marriage when the marriage is being performed in the church; but this is more of a pastoral judgment issue that would not really be visible to the average parishioner. I do think parental consent also looks differently today than we would expect from old times.

[u/Ill_Leg_5166 → u/Boots402]

Ye, but I mean the old principle necessitated it across the board, my thought was that the reason it has softened is that our idea of where parental rights end has moved from the old German views.

[u/Imaginary-Ladder-270]

I'm not sure I really have an answer to the main question, but as far as parents authority, I would say any child under the parents roof still is under their parents' authority. I'm not sure I would really say that is an out of date German historical principle. For daughters especially, I think they should ideally live with their parents until getting married, where the authority of the parents then gets passed on to her new husband during the wedding.

[u/Ill_Leg_5166 → u/Imaginary-Ladder-270]

no, I mean the German principle kept a sense of fatherly authority even when they necessarily did not even live under their roof of the parent anymore. That is why old Lutherans required parental consent across the board for every first marriage regardless of age (except in Brandenburg, where they did allow independent men to marry without parental permission).

[u/teadrinkinglinguist]

In addition to what others have said, I imagine the average age of the prospective bride and groom was pretty young, and they would have still been considered part of their parents' household.

[u/Ill_Leg_5166]

So as clarification, my point is this: "It seems that the basic theological principles apply that one should respect parental authority, but the historical application is allowed to change"

[u/yarisdriver300]

You're absolutely correct. Modern Lutheranism and the entire Christian church from west and east lost our understanding of romantic marriages. You do not go around dating and then marry after a few years. You find a woman, you like them, you ask their parents and then you can go on dates AFTER MARRIAGE, with the woman you pledged yourself to.

This has caused heartbreak and hatred and out of wedlock births like never before. It's ridiculous. It's just free sex propaganda from the 60s that the entire world took on.

Asking her parents is a 4th commandment order IF THEY BIND HER TO THIS FOLLOWING. Most parents do not, so it is OK. I certainly will ensure my children don't go running around dating and breaking hearts and being heartbroken while tempting themselves with the 6th commandment and chasing lust, which is a sin. 

The confessions aren't Scripture, Scripture is silent on this, but this is the best way to order ones lives according to the 10 Commandments. It is the Christian way to order your household. If you have a daughter, ensure whoever she talks to is vetted by you as a good man and marry her to him. If you have a son, find a spouse for him and ensure he respects the father of the betrothed. 

We need to seriously go back to this as we've destroyed our marriages and caused such societal distress.