Saint Ambrose, (c. 340 – 397), postulated the existence of an innate Interpreted Law-System "written on the heart,” an  internal law-system which informed all peoples how to live.  To my surprise, the existence of such an innate Universal Law-System manifested itself when I asked a group of Chácobo fathers a question which received a completely counter intuitive answer.

 

That question was: “Would you guys prefer to have sons or daughters?” Every man in the group, without exception,  answered: “Sons, of course. They would help us.”   But how was this possible when their “jabi” aka customary law compelled sons to be the “helpers” of their wives’ parents after marriage?

 

Interpreting their collective response using the constants of a natural law perspective advocated by saint Ambrose, it was clear they had diverged from a Divine Interpretative Law System structured in the unconscious mind and revealed in the Bible.  In place of Natural Law Principles regarding the structure of marriage, they laid down a set of marriage rules which compelled their sons to a), be the food suppliers for their wives’ families, b), to live in a different house or room from that of their wives, and c), to call their wives’ parents “raisi,”  the ones I serve in exchange for conjugal rights to their daughter. 

 

In exchange for a wife, the wife-seeking bachelor promised his potential in-laws to be their primary food supplier and handyman.   In turned they promised to provide him a roof over his head, all the beer he could drink, and meals provided by his mother-in-law.  Once the terms of the covenant were accepted, they called each other “raisi.”

 

As we witnessed sons-in-law leave fathers and mothers and move to the village of their in-laws, we witnessed the canceling  of the structure of  individuality. The ascribed duty of every Chácobo son-in-law was to be his wife's parents food supplier and handy-man. As such, he became an important member of the Chácobo household-of-five.. 

 

In so doing, they canceled the covenantal "one flesh" principle of husband-wife stated in Genesis 2:24 and replaced it with the biological "one-flesh" principle of  mother-daughter, a cultural form selected to satisfy a particular need.  In the process, they created a new type of family, one which classified cross-cousins as “brothers” and “sisters.” The new family type they created is illustrated below.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

In this regard, philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd pointed out, "As soon as in the internal marital union the symbolic respect for the husband as head of the community has been lost, we are confronted with a subjective infringement of the internal law of marriage.”

The Chácobo "infringement of the eternal law of marriage" produced a new family type, a type in which no husband served “as the head of the community.” Mothers-in-law covertly ruled.  

 

The Biblical idea that a husband should serve “as the head of the community” had been lost long before we arrived on the scene. And to declare openly that “husbands should lead” in today’s environment would be classified as “hate speech.”  There exist no Divine meanings, that is, words to which are attached meanings which are fixed and constant.

 

According to Chácobo way of living,  any father who had all daughters would live well; any father who had all sons and no daughters would suffer.   Yet, surprisingly, even though the tribe manifested a matrilineal bias, all these men preferred to have sons.

But why would these fathers prefer sons?  It was contrary to the way they were "nurtured" or raised as sons. Every son was socially "nurtured" into believing that in exchange for conjugal rights to the daughter of a potential father-in-law, it was his moral duty to leave father and mother and move in with his in-laws and become their primary source of food. 

 

Instead of their in-laws saying, "Become "one-flesh." “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it,” their message was: "Reject the ‘one-flesh' principle of husband and wife. Reject the idea that every wife should be her husband's "helpmate."  "Don't you realize that our life-way has been socially structured to satisfy our need for manioc beer, fish, and wildlife" "To manufacture the beer, daughters must remain home after marriage to help their mother's manufacture the beer. The moral duty of every son-in-law is to his in-law's food supplier.

 

The function of marriage for the Chácobo was to satisfy existential needs. Through marriage, each family was provided a son-in-law whose duty was to supply the household (father, mother, sons, daughters, and in-coming sons-in-law) with fish and game and food from his garden.  The matrilocal marriage rule canceled any possibility of sons-in-law from setting up independent households where the “one-flesh” principle of husband-wife could flourish. 

 

But the cost of structuring a society with forms that are antithetical to the structure of individuality, the structure of marriage, and the structure of the nuclear family was the loss of male leadership, human freedom, and creativity. The form had unconsciously maimed Chácobo society. When we arrived, they were a leaderless, dying culture.

The forms they created for satisfying their need for food and beer was the American equivalent of having food stamps. Chácobo families relied on sons-in-law whereas many American families rely on food stamps, government housing, and medicare.

 

But the cost was the loss of superordinate-subordinate structuring, male leadership, human freedom, and creativity. The form had unconsciously maimed Chácobo society. 

​

The Effect of Having All Daughters and No Sons

Fathers having daughters would acquire sons-in-law who would provide them with fish and wildlife and extra food from their gardens. Pity the fathers who had no daughters and only sons. They would eventually lose their sons at marriage. Without daughters his poor wife would have to make the beer alone unless she could find an orphan to help her.  He alone would be providing the fish, game, wild life, and manioc needed for the survival of his family. Without a food provider, life would be very difficult. 

​

Yet, for some reason, by giving preferences to sons over daughters they unconsciously were voting for a social arrangement that would slowly destroy their needs-based social security system.  If sons were so important, then why would they release them to serve their in-laws? 

 

So I replied saying:: 

“If I were a Chácobo, I would prefer having all daughters.  That way I could acquire

all your sons who, upon marriage to my daughters, would supply me with  fish and

wildlife as well as food from their gardens. In addition,  my wife and my daughters

would supply me with all the beer I needed. I would never lack.  In the meantime you

men, as fathers, would never have a raisi (son-in-law) to provide you and your poor

wives with a steady supply of meat and your wives would lack daughter-helpmates

to help make the beer.   Instead, you would all be raising sons to serve me because I

have all daughters."  

​

Strangely, the thought that their sons would eventually be leaving father and mother to serve their in-laws had never occurred to them. 

​

While my answer made sense to them, I also asked myself: Did their collective response  provide evidence for the existence of an internal Rule or Universal Concept "written on the heart" stating that men should have a headship role in the nuclear family, a role their environmentally shaped rules of life denied them?  If male headship was a universal, then it was obvious that certain cultural forms had "infringed on the internal law of marriage" and were suppressing its expression in marriage.

​

Their collective response indicated that they, as a society, had the capacity to cancel a Divine meaning and replace it with a meaning shaped by their environment.  It also implied they were incapable of deleting from consciousness Divine Meanings attached to forms common to all.

 

In this case, their reply revealed the existence of an innate Interpretative System structured in their unconscious minds. In the words of editor-in-chief of Pravda, V. Afanasyev, "Phenomenon [their response] is the outward, direct expression of essence, the form in which it is manifested.”

​

Afanasyev, the editor of Pravda, was partially correct. Their triggered response could also be the expression of non-essence, a cultural form that was in fundamental opposition to the universal. He failed to recognize that sinful man had the capacity to "suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Romans 1:18).

​

Convictions.

1. When I asked the question: “Would you guys prefer to have sons or daughters?”  the "triggered" response was "sons." Their unexpected responses revealed the existence of Universal Principles which were not learned

2. By canceling an important Universal Truth that existed "within them,” that "the husband is head of the wife" (Ephesians 5:23), they became a maimed society, a society without leaders. 

3. Ambrose was correct when he stated the “All men live under natural law.”  It is also a law which depraved minds seek to cancel.

​

Gilbert Prost

June 24, 2016