Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (Gen. 2:24).

It may not be clear from first reading why this passage is relevant for family finances. But there are few passages in Scripture that are more closely related to family finances. This is because there is always the problem of the intergenerational transfer of wealth. This is the issue of inheritance.

When a couple marries, this passage makes it clear that they are to separate from the parents -- presumably the parents of the new husband. They are two leave geographically.

In some traditional cultures, a system of patriarchalism exists. A father keeps his sons and their wives under the same roof. As soon as families from these cultures arrive in a western society, this practice ends. Sons and their wives will not remain under the roof of the patriarch. If they are under this roof, it is because they have inherited the house, and the father, who once owned the house, is a guest in what was formerly his house.

One of the most important benefits of increasing per capita wealth is that this enables newly married couples to set up their own households. This enables them to obey the law that is set forth in this passage.

MOVING BACK HOME

We have seen in recent years a phenomenon which used to be common, but for one generation became less common: the return of young adults to their parents' homes. The reason is financial. The cost of housing rose very rapidly, and the young adults did not enter permanent careers after graduation from college. It became less expensive for newly graduated college students to return to their parents' households. This is not a universal phenomenon, but it has received considerable publicity. But alas, when sons marry, they still leave the household of their fathers.

The issue here is one of authority. When the head of a household is paying for those under his jurisdiction, he expects to receive something in return. He expects to be able to lay down the law and to have those under his jurisdiction follow his law. This arrangement becomes increasingly difficult with adult sons. Nevertheless, they remain dependent upon their fathers' money, and for that reason, they find themselves in a difficult position. They want to assert their independence, but this independence requires financial independence.

There is an old saying: "When you take the king's shilling, you do the king's bidding." When you receive financial support on a regular basis from someone who has long exercised legitimate jurisdiction over you, you are not in a strong position. You are not in a position to say that you are an independent person and that you deserve space. You do not deserve space. You deserve whatever you can fund on your own.

SUBSIDIES AND DEPENDENCE

When young married couples become dependent upon regular financial support from parents, they compromise the law that we find here in Genesis. While they may not be under the geographical jurisdiction of the parents, they are under their economic jurisdiction.

Parents know that they cannot lay down the law to the children, and they also want to help financially. This puts them in a difficult position. If the children are not good managers of money, and the parents intervene in order to provide funding, you can be sure that the parents do not want to see their money tossed down a rat hole. They do not wish to subsidize the lifestyle of a newly married couple, when the couple has no understanding of household budgeting.

The parents feel that they are being exploited. They resent the fact that they are giving money away to their children, and their children do not have enough sense to learn how to manage a household budget. This can only lead to resentment on both sides. The children resent the interference of the parents, and the parents resent the inefficiency of the children.

The parents may continue doing this for a long period of time, but this is unhealthy for both families. The parents are sacrificing their capital, which ought to be set aside for their retirement years, and at the same time, the children are becoming dependent upon an outside source of income. If they are not good budgeters, they will become permanently dependent upon this income. They will expect it, and they will spend in terms of it. At some point, when the parents' funding ceases, the children will not have developed the skills of self-discipline and household management that are necessary for success.

Parents feel guilty about not funding their children when they see that the children are in financial difficulties. At the same time, they do not wish to subsidize bad habits. They recognize that if the flow of funds continues, but the recipients do not change their patterns of behavior, the children may never learn the skills that are necessary for long-term financial success.

At some point, the parents will not be able to afford to continue the subsidy. Either they will not have sufficient retirement income to finance two families, or else they will die. If they die, and the inheritance money is transferred to spendthrift children, their children will be in worse shape when the inheritance money runs out than they would have been if they had never inherited a dime.

This is why a new couple should not depend in any way on financial support from parents. Sometimes, parents will be overly generous in order to maintain some degree of control over the newlyweds. They may not be self-conscious about this, but this is what the result will be over time. Money does not come with no strings attached.

The children will become responsible for the parents in the parents' old age. The children hope that the parents will not waste resources while they are still able to earn an income in the work force. So, children would be unwise to accept anything more than token payments from the parents, because the parents are in effect transferring the inheritance early.

If parents continue to do this, the children should use the money to prepare for that time when the parents will become dependent upon them. It is best not to begin accepting money in the first place. It is also good not to offer money in the first place. The new family should be allowed to make its own way in its own way. This is how young couples develop the financial skills necessary to become truly independent.

Aging parents want confidence that their children will be in a position to support them, should it come to that, when the parents are feeble. They want to see that their children are capable of managing their own households. This is why it is unwise for parents to give anything more than token amounts of money to newlyweds.

I am not referring here to emergencies. If the husband should lose his job and not be able to find work, it is legitimate for the parents to offer to lend money to the couple during the interim. I do not think it is a good idea for the parents to give the money. It should be a financial transaction based on an understanding that there will be a repayment at some point. This transaction should be in writing. It is better for young couples to owe money to parents than to run up a large bill on a credit card.