<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Let's turn your scenario around to one that is also very realistic. A man divorces his wife for adultery but the court awards custody to her, according to the national statistics 94% of the time. Are the children, in your estimation to obey their father rather than their mother, even though the civil authorities working under the influence of the Feminist agenda deem the mother the "best" parent? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Hi Pilgrim. First, just to address a point in your previous post, I share your lament over the current policy of viewing the mother as the a priori proper custodian of the children, as the courts do today. It seems as though unless she can be proven to be a total lunatic, say, a Republican or something [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img], she will be awarded custody and this practice is unbiblical. I believe that unless it can be shown that a man has deserted his family or is otherwise unfit to provide care for the children, then he should be awarded custody as the head of household. That will be sure to make me unpopular with a good number of women today. [Linked Image]<br><br>So to get to your specific question, if the father has not abandoned, deserted, or otherwise forfeited his right to command his children then the child needs to obey him as their lawful head, even if he is not living in the household. Two examples that come to mind are desertion (as objectively discerned by church discipline) and giving a child up for adoption. There may be others as well. Hence, I believe in the case that you have presented, the child is still obligated to obey the father because he has not deserted or forfeited his headship. The sticky point comes when there is a disagreement between the mother and father when she has "lawful" custody. Now you have the potential for the child to be disobeying the civil authorities if the mother is her legal guardian. I would still have to side with the father here in all likelihood, but hopefully he would have the wisdom not to command something that is unnecessarily disruptive to the peace and order of the home.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] There is another thing about this whole thing that is really bothering me. It is this idea of "lawful authority", which smells like some kind of Theonomistic covenantalism. Does this "lawful authority" notion supersede the NATURAL relationship which children are born into by God's providence? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Not sure what you mean in identifying my current thinking with Theonomistic covenantalism, but it does appear to me that there are cases when the natural relationship is superseded by subsequent events that alter the lawful jurisdiction of the natural parents. As I mentioned previously, if a child were adopted then I would say that he needs to obey his adoptive parents even if the natural ones come along in 5 years and start trying to be the parents again.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Is a man or a woman no longer a child's parent because of some act of sin or in so many cases, especially in regard to men/fathers, the real innocent party due to a bigoted order of a pagan Judge and domestic judiciary?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>In the manner you have presented it, I would say no. I would also direct you to my post to Linda for any additional clarifications.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br><br>