Birthright??

[Gabby]

Because of men being the "first born" (first created) I see them as having the "Birthright" in this life and the responsibilities that go along with it.

I would like to hear your opinions on the idea of men having the birthright (whether you agree with that statement or disagree) and what that means for men. What responsibilities does a birthright bring with it? If there is a birthright that comes along with being a man, are our boys being raised with the knowelge needed to know on how to act accordingly to that birthright?

chris

[NeilUnreal]

Most birthright concepts are probably based on the fact that in pre-urban societies, wealth depended on tangible assets like real estate and property, and status was based on family association. Families also tended to be large.

If the family property were split, say, eight ways in the first generation, 64 in the second, etc., pretty soon everybody would down to about one square foot of property. In nomadic cultures, the land might not be settled, but their were grazing rights and water rights to be divided. The ability, and sometimes the right, to procreate was based on wealth and title, so “cadet” branches of the family tended to have fewer goods and fewer heirs.

Likewise, assuring the passage of specific family social statuses based on birth order, etc., prevented ascendancy squabbles, and allowed the members of the family to be properly groomed for their respective roles as they were being raised.

I patriarchal societies, the bulk of wealth and prestige passed to the eldest son. In matriarchal societies, I’m guessing it was most often the eldest daughter. This makes sense, both since the first child seems special in many ways, and it meant that the oldest child was groomed to replace the parent early – important in societies with lower life-expectancies.

U.S. law specifically acts against birthright becoming a social and financial factor in our country. Socially, we have no hereditary titles, and we idealize the “self-made” man or woman. Financially, we have large inheritance taxes. In any case, we base our wealth and prestige on things that are more portable and individual than many traditional societies.

(England and other countries also have a long history of moving away from hereditary entitlement laws. For example, the detrimental affects of hereditary “entailment” have been recognized and criticized for at least a couple of centuries.)

Probably the most important factor associated with birthright in America in the last 200 years has been the tendency for the older children to act as surrogate parents while the actual parents work. Older siblings are also important in the social conditioning of younger siblings. This means that in practical terms, older children acquire special status in the family which may persist through life. And this is probably the only significant meaning for modern Christians -- that older siblings can help instruct and be role models for younger siblings.

So the notion of “birthright” is mainly a practical concept, though much of the practicality of the pre-industrial forms of it no longer exists.

-Neil

[Gabby]

oh My bad. :blush: my communications skills are sorely lacking.
Sorry NeilUnreal
I was thinking not of material things but of the spiritual. Spiritual leadership has been given to men as a responsiblility, I believe. I believe it follows in line with the idea of the "first born birthright". In the OT the first born would have had special responsibilites to God and really to the rest of his family in a spiritual sense, right? Things that only a first born could do in the temple, being considered the head a family and how that pretains to decisions making and sacrifices ect.

I hope I've made myself a bit clearer.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

chris

[NeilUnreal]

In the OT the first born would have had special responsibilites to God and really to the rest of his family in a spiritual sense, right?

In a strictly Christian sense, my opinion would be no, there is no inherent birthright. The birthright responsibilities of older siblings, either male or female, are based on their incidental position of authority as assistants to the parents in caring for and socializing younger siblings.

Jesus was born into a society with a strong tradition of birthright, and God chose to act within that tradition and to respect the message it conveyed to Jesus' contemporaries. But it ends there. Under Christ, there is no spiritual birthright; everyone is an individual.

However, I do think its very important to stress to older children their responsibilities towards their younger siblings, and I don't think it's wrong in a Christian context to offer an older sibling the chance to be a kind of "Godparent" towards the younger siblings. In this sense, there is nothing wrong with instilling in them a sense of birthright as a special responsibility they have by virtue of accidental birth order. However, in a pluralistic society, I don’t think it should be based on the sex of the child.

-Neil