A New Looh at Christian Marriage
387
A New Look at Christian Marriage
G A R Y J. Q U I N N T h e discussion of marriage can become rather f o r b i d d i n g a n d g l o o m y when, as often happens, it bogs d o w n o n an analysis of various marital difficulties. T o o often we are taken u p with w h a t is w r o n g w i t h m a r r i a g e rather t h a n w i t h w h a t is right with it. I t h i n k that there have been m a n y of us w h o have been influenced by theologians like J o h n Calvin, a very i m p o r t a n t a n d creative thinker, but one w h o h a d a rather one-sided view of marriage. Consider his c o m m e n t a r y on First Corinthians, C h a p t e r 7, in w h i c h he says: "Marriage is a r e m e d y ordained by G o d to h e l p o u r weakness a n d is to be used by a n y o n e w h o does n o t possess the gift of continence. ''1 With this k i n d of " e n t h u s i a s m " a b o u t marriage, it is easy to see w h y m a n y Christians have c o m e to t h i n k of it as little m o r e t h a n an institution for cripples. Such negativism is not present in m u c h of today's theology, w h i c h stresses the positive values of marriage. Marriage is conceived of as a sacrament, w h i c h means an e n c o u n t e r w i t h God. T h u s it is a way in w h i c h h u m a n beings can meet G o d a n d share in divine life. T h i s emphasis on its joy and goodness casts u p o n m a r r i a g e a light very different from that in w h i c h it is seen in terms of interpersonal p r o b l e m s or as a remedy for concupiscence. With such diverse attitudes w i t h i n Christianity, there are m a n y w h o GARYJ. QUINN, PH.D,, is a lay theologian on the faculty of Notre Dame University teaching at St. Thomas Aquinas Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
388
Journal of Religion and Health
are asking w h a t the authentic Christian attitude toward marriage is. I w o u l d like to take u p this question by s h o w i n g h o w the Christian idea of marriage was formulated a n d h o w it has been developed d o w n to our own time. In the ancient Christian C h u r c h of the second century there was a great controversy over the m e a n i n g and value of marriage. One g r o u p of "pseudo-Christians," the Gnostics, rejected marriage outright, claiming that it was sinful. T h e i r position was based on a dualistic v i e w p o i n t which saw spiritual things as good and material things as evil. T h e y argued, therefore, that marriage a n d procreation, w h i c h bring material, bodily creatures into existence, are evil. Some of these Gnostics were ascetics, c o n d e m n i n g all sexual experience whatsoever. Being "Christians," they were able to find New Testam e n t s u p p o r t for universal virginity. In d o i n g so, they very often took passages out of context, but it seemed to make little difference to them as long as they could find some s u p p o r t in Scripture. For example, they used Luke, Chapter 14, w h i c h contains the parable of the K i n g d o m of God being like a great b a n q u e t given by a m a n w h o invited m a n y guests. T h e guests, however, refused to come. T h e one w h o made the excuse that, "I've married a wife and therefore c a n n o t come," was cond e m n e d by the Gnostics, n o t for refusing to come to the banquet, but for marrying a wife! T h e y also used Matthew, Chapter 6, w h i c h runs: "Do n o t lay u p for yourself treasures on earth that rust a n d m o t h corrupt." This, said the Gnostics, prohibits procreation because w h a t is born into the world is certain to be corrupted. There were other Gnostics who, a l t h o u g h they too c o n d e m n e d procreation and marriage, were sexual libertines. T h e y said that Christian freedom gave rights to all kinds of sexual liberties so l o n g as procreation was avoided. T h e y treated sex as a sacred religious mystery w h i c h they t h o u g h t w o u l d bring them to the K i n g d o m of God a n d so participated in religious orgies that became the scandal of the Christian world. They, too, could find support in the New T e s t a m e n t for w h a t they were doing.
A New Look at Christian Marriage
389
It is interesting how they did this. One text they used was Matthew, Chapter 5, Verse 42, which goes: "Give to anyone who asks." Related to this Gnostic attitude was a general indifference to infant life in the ancient world a m o n g pagans. Parents often had no concern for procreation unless they desired an heir. T h e Romans c o m m o n l y drowned unhealthy infants and those born after their father's will was made. It was not unusual for u n w a n t e d children simply to be abandoned to die or to be killed outright. It was in this atmosphere of Gnostic sexual asceticism, wild libertinism, and pagan indifference toward life that the Church was forced to work out its doctrine of marriage. T h e task was not accomplished easily, because it was difficult to base an a r g u m e n t on Scripture. At this time the Old Testament was under attack by various segments in the Christian c o m m u n i t y and the New Testament presented its own kind of problem. After all, the New Testament did praise virginity, and it was difficult to answer the Gnostic a r g u m e n t that if virginity is good, marriage must not be good. Then, too, the New Testament was being used by both Gnostic groups spoken of above, almost always out of context; but this m e a n t that any text brought to the a r g u m e n t supporting marriage could be countered by any number of other texts by the Gnostics. As it happened, it was Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century who worked out a doctrine that was to have great influence in the formulation of the orthodox Christian teaching on marriage. Clement, a m a n of great erudition, argued the goodness of marriage not from Scripture so m u c h as from his knowledge of Greek and R o m a n philosophy. He centered his teaching on the Stoic doctrine of natural law. According to this thinking, marriage is good because procreation is good, and procreation is good because it is the first and obvious purpose of the sex organs. Since whatever is natural is good, m a n can learn the purpose of sex from observing the natural activities of other creatures. T h u s what is true for the animals is also true for man. When m a n uses sex for procreation, he is using it in a n a t u r a l and good way. By such a r g u m e n t a t i o n Clement
390
Journal of Religion and Health
was able to u p h o l d the value and m e a n i n g of procreation a n d marriage. Clement's position became substantially that of such theologians as Origen, w h o was so influential in Eastern Christianity, a n d Augustine, w h o was so influential in Western Christianity. A n d thus it became the orthodox Christian teaching on marriage. A l t h o u g h Clement's teaching was accepted, it seems he h a d a h i g h e r regard for marriage than most of the other C h u r c h Fathers. Quasten, the patrologist, says that Clement really t h o u g h t more h i g h l y of marriage than he did of virginity, a n d in this Clement was u n i q u e . T h e vast majority of the C h u r c h Fathers were influenced more by ascetical Gnosticism and Manichaeanism. T h e y claimed that marriage was good, because of the natural law argument, but that virginity was better. J o h n Chrysostom, for example, said that virginity renders mortals like angels; Gregory of Nyssa, "A virgin is deified"; Ambrose, "A virgin married God." Jerome extolled virginity even w i t h i n marriage. T h e ideal model of marriage for Jerome was the marriage of Mary and Joseph, w h o he claimed had never experienced sexual intercourse in their whole lives. Of course, there was some a r g u m e n t about this a n d there still is. There was one p o i n t in his life w h e n he wrote a scathing attack against the denial of the life-long virginity of Mary and Joseph. I think that Jerome had trouble seeing any good in marriage at all. It is said that he kept the married from receiving the Eucharist for several days after p e r f o r m i n g w h a t he called the "bestial" act of intercourse. T h e o n l y excuse he could find in one of his writings for the goodness of marriage was that procreation produces more potential virgins. He said, "I extoll marriage, I praise wedlock because it gives me more virgins. ''2 Then, there was Augustine, w h o had a rather one-sided view of sex. Augustine was able to connect sexual intercourse with the transmission of original sin, a teaching which threw a rather d i m light o n the subject of sex and marriage for more than a t h o u s a n d years in the West. Augustine's influence is still with us in the traditional ideas of both marriage and original sin. His attitude, together with those of other Fathers, n o t including Clement, was carried on by the medieval Cathars, a k i n d of
A New Look at Christian Marriage
391
dualist sect, later by the Jansenists, the Puritans, a n d others right d o w n to our o w n time. L o o k i n g back we can see today that the C h u r c h teaching on marriage was formulated in a dualistic atmosphere that c o n d e m n e d procreation and marriage, and that the C h u r c h preserved the value of marriage by a p p e a l i n g to natural law. T h i s was the Church's way of u p h o l d i n g the sacredness of life. T h e C h u r c h weathered the storm of dualism, but was influenced by it, as we can see by m e n like Jerome and Augustine. T h i s historical fact explains, in part, why the theology of marriage has often had a rather negative cast. Marriage is permissible, b u t virginity is m u c h better. Marriage has a second-class status. What, then, are the sources of the recent theological d e v e l o p m e n t in the direction of a more positive view of marriage? O n e very i m p o r t a n t source is renewed interest in the Bible. Clement, in his time, used natural law p h i l o s o p h y to u p h o l d the goodness of marriage. Today, especially in R o m a n Catholicism, we are witnessing a revival of biblical theology, which allows us to g r o u n d the marriage doctrine on Scripture more than on Greek philosophy. T h i s is a very significant development, since it throws some interesting light on the nature of Christian marriage. In the Bible, marriage is n o t f o u n d e d on natural law a r g u m e n t s (that marriage is good because procreation is good), but rather u p o n the idea of the covenant between God and his people. T h e classic n o t i o n of covenant appears in the Book of Exodus, where G o d makes the covenant with his people at Sinai. What h a p p e n s here is more than the m a k i n g of a legal contract, a l t h o u g h it does have a legal form. George M e n d e n h a l l has p o i n t e d o u t that the pattern of this covenant is the same as that of an ancient Hittite suzerainty treaty. 3 A l t h o u g h it has a legal form, the basis of it is what the Hebrews called hesed. Hesed connotes the idea of m u tual respect, kindness, love, loyalty, a n d fidelity. A m o n g the Hittites there were a n u m b e r of these contracts or treaties made between kings and vassals, which had a legal form but did not d e p e n d u p o n a legal form for validity. Rather the soundness or validity of the treaty depended u p o n the attitude of the partners. T h e k i n g showed hesed for his vassal
392
Journal of Religion and Health
and the vassal responded in like m a n n e r toward the king. Mendenhall says that the Sinai covenant is also based on this idea. T h e Sinai covenant, then, is really a relationship based on attitude more than on legality. It has a legal form but it does not depend u p o n it; rather it depends u p o n the inner relationship that exists between partners. T h e covenant has an invisible, really a spiritual foundation. T h e bond between God and Israel consists primarily of spiritual, interpersonal contact. T h e meaning of the covenant is graphically illustrated by the eighthcentury prophet, Hosea. Hosea shows how Israel's covenant is like his marriage, i.e., God's relationship with Israel is like the prophet's relationship with his wife. Although Hosea's purpose was to describe what the covenant is, in so doing he gives us deep insight into his idea of marriage. In the story his wife becomes a harlot, but he continues to love her and to hope for her return. Hosea's response resembles God's treatment of idolatrous Israel. Just as his wife is r u n n i n g after strange men, so is Israel r u n n i n g after strange gods. But neither Yahweh nor Hosea rejects his partners. Instead, they wait for their return and are willing to have a reconciliation. T h e fundamental character of this marriage, a n d also of the covenant, is the u n d y i n g fidelity, the steadfast love, that underlies the relationship. Hosea's love, like Yahweh's, is not conditional; it remains open to the unfaithful partner under the most painful circumstances. T h e book, then, shows that this relationship is founded not on externals, not on legal documents, not on verbal agreements, although they are there, but on the interior attitude of hesed or love. This idea is continued in the New Testament. One of the best texts is found in Paul's letter to the Ephesians, where Paul says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church; and wives are to love their husbands as the Church loves Christ. Marriage here is understood in the way Hosea understood it, on the basis of the spiritual relationship of love. Note the analogy between God and Israel in Hosea and between Christ and the Church in Ephesians. These are the models of marriage, and they are founded on the love relationship, not on legality or natural law.
A New Look at Christian Marriage
393
I a m aware that feminists do not easily accept these models because they seem to p u t w o m a n in the inferior role. Paul says in Ephesians that the w o m a n should recognize the h u s b a n d as head of the house a n d :obey him. But in defense of the biblical idea it s h o u l d be remembered that in both Hosea and Ephesians the h u s b a n d is described in a sacrificial role. Hosea endures suffering for the sake of his wife, a n d Paul presents Christ as the example of the sacrificial love of the husband. Of course, hard-core feminists w o u l d n o t be convinced that such facts justify "male d o m i n a t i o n , " a n d it is true that there has been some prejudice against the female sex d o w n t h r o u g h the ages. There are some interesting texts from ancient times about w o m e n . W o m a n has been called "a sickened sheass," "the devil's gateway," "a hideous tapeworm," by some very influential people. In more recent times, we have such passages as this one from Schopenhauer: "Only the male intellect befogged by its sexual urge could regard as beautiful the undersized, narrow-shouldered; broadhipped, short-legged sex.'4 It is t h i n k i n g like this that has caused m a n y w o m e n to lose respect for feminine characteristics a n d to try to imitate men. Karl Stern has been a careful observer of this p h e n o m e n o n . He says that traditionally the "feminine" has been associated with w h a t is poetic, receptive, intuitive, mysterious, a n d warm; while the "masculine" has been associated with the aggressive, rational, scientific, a n d stoic. 5 Because of male prejudice against w o m e n the w o m a n ' s cry for equality has very often become a cry for sameness. W o m e n w a n t to be the same as men. F e m i n i n e characteristics are rejected; masculine characteristics are emulated. This, I think, is a great tragedy for marriage as well as for society. As Stern says, what we need is respect for the "feminine," for the fact is that poetic insight, intuition, warmth, etc., are indispensable in h u m a n life. It seems to me that these are critical needs today, in marriage as well as in society at large. W o m a n m u s t regain her dignity in order for us to strike a p r o p e r balance between the scientific or male characteristics and the poetic or female characteristics. Another way of seeing this p r o b l e m is to consider the interplay be-
394
Journal of Religion and Health
tween love a n d power. Stern claims that all h u m a n relationships can be reduced to one of these two. In this context, to love m e a n s to r e n o u n c e power over someone. T h i s seems to be almost totally m i s u n d e r s t o o d today. Power is a m a s c u l i n e virtue, a n d it is so often u n d e r s t o o d to m e a n control over others. Love is the f e m i n i n e virtue, a n d so often u n d e r stood to m e a n weakness, submission, obedience. T h i s is the idea that Nietzsche h a d of Christian love. H e said that in Christianity everything that manifests strength, power, affirmation, shock, is a n evil; o n l y the emasculated m a n is virtuous. 6 T h i s is a distortion, a serious distortion, but at least it explains w h y w o m e n w o u l d w a n t to reject their role as lovers a n d seek power. In marriage the stress s h o u l d be o n love rather t h a n power, for both partners. W h e n each is striving for control of the relationship, g e n u i n e love plays n o part. Gabriel Marcel has said, "All temptation m a y be a t e m p t a t i o n toward power. ''7 W h a t it m e a n s in marriage is that each person m u s t constantly fight the t e m p t a t i o n to try to control the other member. T h e p o w e r struggle between the sexes m u s t be replaced by the practice of love, m e a n i n g by love the biblical n o t i o n of concern for the well-being of the other. T h e d y n a m i c s of love a n d p o w e r are therefore not alien to the biblical n o t i o n of m a r r i e d love. A n o t h e r d i m e n s i o n of the biblical c o n c e p t of m a r r i a g e is its tendency to counteract the dualistic pessimism that sees sex as dirty or sinful. Sex can be an expression of love in the biblical tradition. S u p p o r t for this is f o u n d in the Canticle of Canticles, a series of r o m a n t i c little p o e m s that connect sex w i t h love. ( T h e f o l l o w i n g passages are slightly edited). In one passage, the b r i d e g r o o m says to his bride, " Y o u ravish m y heart, m y promised bride, w i t h a single one of y o u r glances . . . . H o w delicious is y o u r love . . . . h o w fragrant y o u r perfumes, a n d the scent of y o u r garments is like the scent of Lebanon. ''s (In those days L e b a n o n was k n o w n for its cedar trees, n o t for its Arab guerrillas.) T h e bride says of her husband, " L e t h i m kiss me w i t h the kisses of his m o u t h . Oh! that he w o u l d bring me into his i n n e r rooms." A n d to h i m she says, " D r a w m e in y o u r footsteps, let us r u n . . . . H o w right it is to love you! ''9 T h e w h o l e tone of this p o e m is sexual. Here sex is associated w i t h love, n o t procreation,
A New Look at Christian Marriage
395
and there is nothing dirty or sinful about it; it is simply an expression of love. In recent years official Christian teaching has begun to recognize more fully the value of love in marriage. Whereas formerly sex and marriage were seen in terms of concupiscence and procreation, today there is growing awareness of the positive values to be experienced in married love. This has been particularly true in R o m a n Catholicism and is reflected in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. T h e document Gaudium et Spes contains the following inspiring passage: " T h e biblical word of God, several times, urges the betrothed and the married to nourish and develop their wedlock by pure conjugal love and undivided affection. This love the Lord has blessed with gifts of grace and charity. Such love, merging the h u m a n with the divine, leads the spouses to a free and mutual gift of themselves, a gift proving itself by gentle affection and by deeds. It pervades the whole of their lives." 10 This spirit, which pervades the teachings of many c h u r c h m e n and theologians today, does not by any means deny the natural law argument for marriage, but shifts attention to the biblical basis. Such emphasis explains the centrality of love in this new theology. In addition to the Bible, there are important nontheological sources supporting the significance o f love over procreation in marriage. E. O. James, after spending years studying marriage customs from the most primitive times down to our own, questions the validity of the historical, established idea that procreation is the purpose of marriage. For James, procreation does not exhaust the purposes of marriage. Other animals procreate, he says, but marriage is peculiar to m a n k i n d because it fulfills not only the biological requirements of the species, but also the conditions of h u m a n personality. This means that marriage is not just a biological event, but iS an interpersonal relationship. This sounds very m u c h like the biblical idea of marriage, based on hesed and agape. One essential characteristic of biblical love is fidelity or steadfastness. It is therefore to be distinguished from the conventional idea of love, understood in terms of infatuation, emotion, sentimentality, or sex.
396
Journal o] Religion and Health
Married love cannot depend u p o n such attractions; it must depend finally upon fidelity. In the following quotation, Emil Brunner uses the term love in the conventional sense: "It is true," he says, "that marriage springs from love, but its stability depends not on love but on fidelity. Only by means of fidelity does the natural become personal. ''n Fidelity is what insures contact between the partners on a personal level, and this is the essence of marriage. He goes on to say that marriage based on sex attraction rather than on fidelity is always accompanied by the fear that the attraction may fade and thus that the marriage may fade and be dissolved. The only true marriage is the marriage of fidelity; this is indissoluble. Other significant notions about marriage are discussed by Nicholas Berdyaev. Berdyaev criticizes the Church Fathers for giving us the idea that procreation is essential in marriage, while failing to see the significance of love. It resembles a cattle-breeding mentality more t h a n Christian spirituality. (He may be somewhat unfair to the Fathers, in view of their struggle with dualism). He also criticizes the R o m a n Catholic Church for viewing marriage too legalistically. For Berdyaev, marriage is eternal and indissoluble when its essence is spiritua ! love rather than social convention or legal documents. "Marriage and family which are not based u p o n love (the spiritual bond of fidelity) must be recognized as legal and economic institutions determined by law and social convention. They must be distinguished from the sacrament of marriage and decisively pronounced to be neither sacred nor mystical in their significance. Only love, real love, that leads to the Kingdom of God is sacred. ''12 Marriage, then, does not depend u p o n procreation or any kind of legal document, but u p o n a bond of love. Love is what makes it a sacrament. This kind of argument leads in the same direction contemporary theology is pointing; toward greater attention to the biblical basis for marriage. Such emphasis does not deny natural law or legality in regard to marriage, but gives priority to love. In summary, I think it is fair to say that the Christian perspective on sex and marriage is changing somewhat. In early Christian times, the Church upheld the goodness of marriage against dualism by means of
A N e w Look at Christian Marriage
397
the n a t u r a l law doctrine. But this doctrine did n o t recognize the significance of love in marriage. It focused o n the procreative p u r p o s e , w h i c h made biological a n d legal c o n s i d e r a t i o n s - - t h e m e c h a n i c a l , external m a n i f e s t a t i o n s - - a l l i m p o r t a n t . C o u p l e d w i t h this w e n t a n u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t the goodness of sex experience. In recent times the biblical revival in t h e o l o g y has been an i m p o r t a n t factor in d r a w i n g o u r interest a w a y f r o m the o u t w a r d signs of m a r r i a g e to the inner, spiritual d i m e n s i o n s of the m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e biblical n o t i o n of love has been recovered as a f o u n d a t i o n of marriage, w h i c h gives sex a n d marriage a q u a l i t y of joy a n d goodness heretofore n o t present. T h i s e m p h a s i s has h e l p e d to balance the theological negativism of the past, a n d has c o n t r i b u t e d to the elevation of m a r r i a g e to its r i g h t f u l place as a clear m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the central t e a c h i n g of Jesus, the teaching on love.
References
1. Calvin, John, Commentary on the Epistles o] Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich., W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1948, Vol. 1, p. 269. 2. St. Jerome, "The Letters of St. Jerome." Mierow, C., trans. In Quasten, J., and Burghardt, W., eds., Ancient Christian Writers. Westminster, Md., Newman Press, 1963, Vol. 1, p. 152. 3. Mendenhall, G., "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," Biblical Archeologist, 1954, 17 (3), 56-74. , "Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law," loc. cit., 1954, 17 (2), 28. 4. Schopenhauer, A., Parerga and Paralipomena. In Stern, K., The Flight ]rom Woman. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1965, p. 112. 5. Stern,op. cit., pp. 14, 41,277, 285. 6. Nietzsche's idea is found in Nietzsche, F., The Will to Power, 2nd book, "Criticism of Religion." Edinburgh, T. N. Foulis, 1910. See also "The Antichrist." In Kau[mann, W. A., ed. and trans., The Portable Nietzsche. New York, Viking Press, 1954, p. 565 ft. 7. Stern,op. cit., p. 281. 8. The Song of Songs. Jerusalem Bible. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & Co., 1966, Ch. 4:9-11. 9. Ibid., Ch. 1:1-4. 10. "Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes). In Abbott,
398
Journal of Religion and Health
S. J., Walter M., ed., The Documents of Vatican H. New York, Guild Press, 1966, Part II, Ch. 1, pp. 252-253. 11. Brunner, E., The Divine Imperative. Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1947, p.357. 12. Berdyaev, N., The Destiny of Man. New York, Harper & Row Torchbook, 1960, p. 235.
387
A New Look at Christian Marriage
G A R Y J. Q U I N N T h e discussion of marriage can become rather f o r b i d d i n g a n d g l o o m y when, as often happens, it bogs d o w n o n an analysis of various marital difficulties. T o o often we are taken u p with w h a t is w r o n g w i t h m a r r i a g e rather t h a n w i t h w h a t is right with it. I t h i n k that there have been m a n y of us w h o have been influenced by theologians like J o h n Calvin, a very i m p o r t a n t a n d creative thinker, but one w h o h a d a rather one-sided view of marriage. Consider his c o m m e n t a r y on First Corinthians, C h a p t e r 7, in w h i c h he says: "Marriage is a r e m e d y ordained by G o d to h e l p o u r weakness a n d is to be used by a n y o n e w h o does n o t possess the gift of continence. ''1 With this k i n d of " e n t h u s i a s m " a b o u t marriage, it is easy to see w h y m a n y Christians have c o m e to t h i n k of it as little m o r e t h a n an institution for cripples. Such negativism is not present in m u c h of today's theology, w h i c h stresses the positive values of marriage. Marriage is conceived of as a sacrament, w h i c h means an e n c o u n t e r w i t h God. T h u s it is a way in w h i c h h u m a n beings can meet G o d a n d share in divine life. T h i s emphasis on its joy and goodness casts u p o n m a r r i a g e a light very different from that in w h i c h it is seen in terms of interpersonal p r o b l e m s or as a remedy for concupiscence. With such diverse attitudes w i t h i n Christianity, there are m a n y w h o GARYJ. QUINN, PH.D,, is a lay theologian on the faculty of Notre Dame University teaching at St. Thomas Aquinas Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
388
Journal of Religion and Health
are asking w h a t the authentic Christian attitude toward marriage is. I w o u l d like to take u p this question by s h o w i n g h o w the Christian idea of marriage was formulated a n d h o w it has been developed d o w n to our own time. In the ancient Christian C h u r c h of the second century there was a great controversy over the m e a n i n g and value of marriage. One g r o u p of "pseudo-Christians," the Gnostics, rejected marriage outright, claiming that it was sinful. T h e i r position was based on a dualistic v i e w p o i n t which saw spiritual things as good and material things as evil. T h e y argued, therefore, that marriage a n d procreation, w h i c h bring material, bodily creatures into existence, are evil. Some of these Gnostics were ascetics, c o n d e m n i n g all sexual experience whatsoever. Being "Christians," they were able to find New Testam e n t s u p p o r t for universal virginity. In d o i n g so, they very often took passages out of context, but it seemed to make little difference to them as long as they could find some s u p p o r t in Scripture. For example, they used Luke, Chapter 14, w h i c h contains the parable of the K i n g d o m of God being like a great b a n q u e t given by a m a n w h o invited m a n y guests. T h e guests, however, refused to come. T h e one w h o made the excuse that, "I've married a wife and therefore c a n n o t come," was cond e m n e d by the Gnostics, n o t for refusing to come to the banquet, but for marrying a wife! T h e y also used Matthew, Chapter 6, w h i c h runs: "Do n o t lay u p for yourself treasures on earth that rust a n d m o t h corrupt." This, said the Gnostics, prohibits procreation because w h a t is born into the world is certain to be corrupted. There were other Gnostics who, a l t h o u g h they too c o n d e m n e d procreation and marriage, were sexual libertines. T h e y said that Christian freedom gave rights to all kinds of sexual liberties so l o n g as procreation was avoided. T h e y treated sex as a sacred religious mystery w h i c h they t h o u g h t w o u l d bring them to the K i n g d o m of God a n d so participated in religious orgies that became the scandal of the Christian world. They, too, could find support in the New T e s t a m e n t for w h a t they were doing.
A New Look at Christian Marriage
389
It is interesting how they did this. One text they used was Matthew, Chapter 5, Verse 42, which goes: "Give to anyone who asks." Related to this Gnostic attitude was a general indifference to infant life in the ancient world a m o n g pagans. Parents often had no concern for procreation unless they desired an heir. T h e Romans c o m m o n l y drowned unhealthy infants and those born after their father's will was made. It was not unusual for u n w a n t e d children simply to be abandoned to die or to be killed outright. It was in this atmosphere of Gnostic sexual asceticism, wild libertinism, and pagan indifference toward life that the Church was forced to work out its doctrine of marriage. T h e task was not accomplished easily, because it was difficult to base an a r g u m e n t on Scripture. At this time the Old Testament was under attack by various segments in the Christian c o m m u n i t y and the New Testament presented its own kind of problem. After all, the New Testament did praise virginity, and it was difficult to answer the Gnostic a r g u m e n t that if virginity is good, marriage must not be good. Then, too, the New Testament was being used by both Gnostic groups spoken of above, almost always out of context; but this m e a n t that any text brought to the a r g u m e n t supporting marriage could be countered by any number of other texts by the Gnostics. As it happened, it was Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century who worked out a doctrine that was to have great influence in the formulation of the orthodox Christian teaching on marriage. Clement, a m a n of great erudition, argued the goodness of marriage not from Scripture so m u c h as from his knowledge of Greek and R o m a n philosophy. He centered his teaching on the Stoic doctrine of natural law. According to this thinking, marriage is good because procreation is good, and procreation is good because it is the first and obvious purpose of the sex organs. Since whatever is natural is good, m a n can learn the purpose of sex from observing the natural activities of other creatures. T h u s what is true for the animals is also true for man. When m a n uses sex for procreation, he is using it in a n a t u r a l and good way. By such a r g u m e n t a t i o n Clement
390
Journal of Religion and Health
was able to u p h o l d the value and m e a n i n g of procreation a n d marriage. Clement's position became substantially that of such theologians as Origen, w h o was so influential in Eastern Christianity, a n d Augustine, w h o was so influential in Western Christianity. A n d thus it became the orthodox Christian teaching on marriage. A l t h o u g h Clement's teaching was accepted, it seems he h a d a h i g h e r regard for marriage than most of the other C h u r c h Fathers. Quasten, the patrologist, says that Clement really t h o u g h t more h i g h l y of marriage than he did of virginity, a n d in this Clement was u n i q u e . T h e vast majority of the C h u r c h Fathers were influenced more by ascetical Gnosticism and Manichaeanism. T h e y claimed that marriage was good, because of the natural law argument, but that virginity was better. J o h n Chrysostom, for example, said that virginity renders mortals like angels; Gregory of Nyssa, "A virgin is deified"; Ambrose, "A virgin married God." Jerome extolled virginity even w i t h i n marriage. T h e ideal model of marriage for Jerome was the marriage of Mary and Joseph, w h o he claimed had never experienced sexual intercourse in their whole lives. Of course, there was some a r g u m e n t about this a n d there still is. There was one p o i n t in his life w h e n he wrote a scathing attack against the denial of the life-long virginity of Mary and Joseph. I think that Jerome had trouble seeing any good in marriage at all. It is said that he kept the married from receiving the Eucharist for several days after p e r f o r m i n g w h a t he called the "bestial" act of intercourse. T h e o n l y excuse he could find in one of his writings for the goodness of marriage was that procreation produces more potential virgins. He said, "I extoll marriage, I praise wedlock because it gives me more virgins. ''2 Then, there was Augustine, w h o had a rather one-sided view of sex. Augustine was able to connect sexual intercourse with the transmission of original sin, a teaching which threw a rather d i m light o n the subject of sex and marriage for more than a t h o u s a n d years in the West. Augustine's influence is still with us in the traditional ideas of both marriage and original sin. His attitude, together with those of other Fathers, n o t including Clement, was carried on by the medieval Cathars, a k i n d of
A New Look at Christian Marriage
391
dualist sect, later by the Jansenists, the Puritans, a n d others right d o w n to our o w n time. L o o k i n g back we can see today that the C h u r c h teaching on marriage was formulated in a dualistic atmosphere that c o n d e m n e d procreation and marriage, and that the C h u r c h preserved the value of marriage by a p p e a l i n g to natural law. T h i s was the Church's way of u p h o l d i n g the sacredness of life. T h e C h u r c h weathered the storm of dualism, but was influenced by it, as we can see by m e n like Jerome and Augustine. T h i s historical fact explains, in part, why the theology of marriage has often had a rather negative cast. Marriage is permissible, b u t virginity is m u c h better. Marriage has a second-class status. What, then, are the sources of the recent theological d e v e l o p m e n t in the direction of a more positive view of marriage? O n e very i m p o r t a n t source is renewed interest in the Bible. Clement, in his time, used natural law p h i l o s o p h y to u p h o l d the goodness of marriage. Today, especially in R o m a n Catholicism, we are witnessing a revival of biblical theology, which allows us to g r o u n d the marriage doctrine on Scripture more than on Greek philosophy. T h i s is a very significant development, since it throws some interesting light on the nature of Christian marriage. In the Bible, marriage is n o t f o u n d e d on natural law a r g u m e n t s (that marriage is good because procreation is good), but rather u p o n the idea of the covenant between God and his people. T h e classic n o t i o n of covenant appears in the Book of Exodus, where G o d makes the covenant with his people at Sinai. What h a p p e n s here is more than the m a k i n g of a legal contract, a l t h o u g h it does have a legal form. George M e n d e n h a l l has p o i n t e d o u t that the pattern of this covenant is the same as that of an ancient Hittite suzerainty treaty. 3 A l t h o u g h it has a legal form, the basis of it is what the Hebrews called hesed. Hesed connotes the idea of m u tual respect, kindness, love, loyalty, a n d fidelity. A m o n g the Hittites there were a n u m b e r of these contracts or treaties made between kings and vassals, which had a legal form but did not d e p e n d u p o n a legal form for validity. Rather the soundness or validity of the treaty depended u p o n the attitude of the partners. T h e k i n g showed hesed for his vassal
392
Journal of Religion and Health
and the vassal responded in like m a n n e r toward the king. Mendenhall says that the Sinai covenant is also based on this idea. T h e Sinai covenant, then, is really a relationship based on attitude more than on legality. It has a legal form but it does not depend u p o n it; rather it depends u p o n the inner relationship that exists between partners. T h e covenant has an invisible, really a spiritual foundation. T h e bond between God and Israel consists primarily of spiritual, interpersonal contact. T h e meaning of the covenant is graphically illustrated by the eighthcentury prophet, Hosea. Hosea shows how Israel's covenant is like his marriage, i.e., God's relationship with Israel is like the prophet's relationship with his wife. Although Hosea's purpose was to describe what the covenant is, in so doing he gives us deep insight into his idea of marriage. In the story his wife becomes a harlot, but he continues to love her and to hope for her return. Hosea's response resembles God's treatment of idolatrous Israel. Just as his wife is r u n n i n g after strange men, so is Israel r u n n i n g after strange gods. But neither Yahweh nor Hosea rejects his partners. Instead, they wait for their return and are willing to have a reconciliation. T h e fundamental character of this marriage, a n d also of the covenant, is the u n d y i n g fidelity, the steadfast love, that underlies the relationship. Hosea's love, like Yahweh's, is not conditional; it remains open to the unfaithful partner under the most painful circumstances. T h e book, then, shows that this relationship is founded not on externals, not on legal documents, not on verbal agreements, although they are there, but on the interior attitude of hesed or love. This idea is continued in the New Testament. One of the best texts is found in Paul's letter to the Ephesians, where Paul says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church; and wives are to love their husbands as the Church loves Christ. Marriage here is understood in the way Hosea understood it, on the basis of the spiritual relationship of love. Note the analogy between God and Israel in Hosea and between Christ and the Church in Ephesians. These are the models of marriage, and they are founded on the love relationship, not on legality or natural law.
A New Look at Christian Marriage
393
I a m aware that feminists do not easily accept these models because they seem to p u t w o m a n in the inferior role. Paul says in Ephesians that the w o m a n should recognize the h u s b a n d as head of the house a n d :obey him. But in defense of the biblical idea it s h o u l d be remembered that in both Hosea and Ephesians the h u s b a n d is described in a sacrificial role. Hosea endures suffering for the sake of his wife, a n d Paul presents Christ as the example of the sacrificial love of the husband. Of course, hard-core feminists w o u l d n o t be convinced that such facts justify "male d o m i n a t i o n , " a n d it is true that there has been some prejudice against the female sex d o w n t h r o u g h the ages. There are some interesting texts from ancient times about w o m e n . W o m a n has been called "a sickened sheass," "the devil's gateway," "a hideous tapeworm," by some very influential people. In more recent times, we have such passages as this one from Schopenhauer: "Only the male intellect befogged by its sexual urge could regard as beautiful the undersized, narrow-shouldered; broadhipped, short-legged sex.'4 It is t h i n k i n g like this that has caused m a n y w o m e n to lose respect for feminine characteristics a n d to try to imitate men. Karl Stern has been a careful observer of this p h e n o m e n o n . He says that traditionally the "feminine" has been associated with w h a t is poetic, receptive, intuitive, mysterious, a n d warm; while the "masculine" has been associated with the aggressive, rational, scientific, a n d stoic. 5 Because of male prejudice against w o m e n the w o m a n ' s cry for equality has very often become a cry for sameness. W o m e n w a n t to be the same as men. F e m i n i n e characteristics are rejected; masculine characteristics are emulated. This, I think, is a great tragedy for marriage as well as for society. As Stern says, what we need is respect for the "feminine," for the fact is that poetic insight, intuition, warmth, etc., are indispensable in h u m a n life. It seems to me that these are critical needs today, in marriage as well as in society at large. W o m a n m u s t regain her dignity in order for us to strike a p r o p e r balance between the scientific or male characteristics and the poetic or female characteristics. Another way of seeing this p r o b l e m is to consider the interplay be-
394
Journal of Religion and Health
tween love a n d power. Stern claims that all h u m a n relationships can be reduced to one of these two. In this context, to love m e a n s to r e n o u n c e power over someone. T h i s seems to be almost totally m i s u n d e r s t o o d today. Power is a m a s c u l i n e virtue, a n d it is so often u n d e r s t o o d to m e a n control over others. Love is the f e m i n i n e virtue, a n d so often u n d e r stood to m e a n weakness, submission, obedience. T h i s is the idea that Nietzsche h a d of Christian love. H e said that in Christianity everything that manifests strength, power, affirmation, shock, is a n evil; o n l y the emasculated m a n is virtuous. 6 T h i s is a distortion, a serious distortion, but at least it explains w h y w o m e n w o u l d w a n t to reject their role as lovers a n d seek power. In marriage the stress s h o u l d be o n love rather t h a n power, for both partners. W h e n each is striving for control of the relationship, g e n u i n e love plays n o part. Gabriel Marcel has said, "All temptation m a y be a t e m p t a t i o n toward power. ''7 W h a t it m e a n s in marriage is that each person m u s t constantly fight the t e m p t a t i o n to try to control the other member. T h e p o w e r struggle between the sexes m u s t be replaced by the practice of love, m e a n i n g by love the biblical n o t i o n of concern for the well-being of the other. T h e d y n a m i c s of love a n d p o w e r are therefore not alien to the biblical n o t i o n of m a r r i e d love. A n o t h e r d i m e n s i o n of the biblical c o n c e p t of m a r r i a g e is its tendency to counteract the dualistic pessimism that sees sex as dirty or sinful. Sex can be an expression of love in the biblical tradition. S u p p o r t for this is f o u n d in the Canticle of Canticles, a series of r o m a n t i c little p o e m s that connect sex w i t h love. ( T h e f o l l o w i n g passages are slightly edited). In one passage, the b r i d e g r o o m says to his bride, " Y o u ravish m y heart, m y promised bride, w i t h a single one of y o u r glances . . . . H o w delicious is y o u r love . . . . h o w fragrant y o u r perfumes, a n d the scent of y o u r garments is like the scent of Lebanon. ''s (In those days L e b a n o n was k n o w n for its cedar trees, n o t for its Arab guerrillas.) T h e bride says of her husband, " L e t h i m kiss me w i t h the kisses of his m o u t h . Oh! that he w o u l d bring me into his i n n e r rooms." A n d to h i m she says, " D r a w m e in y o u r footsteps, let us r u n . . . . H o w right it is to love you! ''9 T h e w h o l e tone of this p o e m is sexual. Here sex is associated w i t h love, n o t procreation,
A New Look at Christian Marriage
395
and there is nothing dirty or sinful about it; it is simply an expression of love. In recent years official Christian teaching has begun to recognize more fully the value of love in marriage. Whereas formerly sex and marriage were seen in terms of concupiscence and procreation, today there is growing awareness of the positive values to be experienced in married love. This has been particularly true in R o m a n Catholicism and is reflected in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. T h e document Gaudium et Spes contains the following inspiring passage: " T h e biblical word of God, several times, urges the betrothed and the married to nourish and develop their wedlock by pure conjugal love and undivided affection. This love the Lord has blessed with gifts of grace and charity. Such love, merging the h u m a n with the divine, leads the spouses to a free and mutual gift of themselves, a gift proving itself by gentle affection and by deeds. It pervades the whole of their lives." 10 This spirit, which pervades the teachings of many c h u r c h m e n and theologians today, does not by any means deny the natural law argument for marriage, but shifts attention to the biblical basis. Such emphasis explains the centrality of love in this new theology. In addition to the Bible, there are important nontheological sources supporting the significance o f love over procreation in marriage. E. O. James, after spending years studying marriage customs from the most primitive times down to our own, questions the validity of the historical, established idea that procreation is the purpose of marriage. For James, procreation does not exhaust the purposes of marriage. Other animals procreate, he says, but marriage is peculiar to m a n k i n d because it fulfills not only the biological requirements of the species, but also the conditions of h u m a n personality. This means that marriage is not just a biological event, but iS an interpersonal relationship. This sounds very m u c h like the biblical idea of marriage, based on hesed and agape. One essential characteristic of biblical love is fidelity or steadfastness. It is therefore to be distinguished from the conventional idea of love, understood in terms of infatuation, emotion, sentimentality, or sex.
396
Journal o] Religion and Health
Married love cannot depend u p o n such attractions; it must depend finally upon fidelity. In the following quotation, Emil Brunner uses the term love in the conventional sense: "It is true," he says, "that marriage springs from love, but its stability depends not on love but on fidelity. Only by means of fidelity does the natural become personal. ''n Fidelity is what insures contact between the partners on a personal level, and this is the essence of marriage. He goes on to say that marriage based on sex attraction rather than on fidelity is always accompanied by the fear that the attraction may fade and thus that the marriage may fade and be dissolved. The only true marriage is the marriage of fidelity; this is indissoluble. Other significant notions about marriage are discussed by Nicholas Berdyaev. Berdyaev criticizes the Church Fathers for giving us the idea that procreation is essential in marriage, while failing to see the significance of love. It resembles a cattle-breeding mentality more t h a n Christian spirituality. (He may be somewhat unfair to the Fathers, in view of their struggle with dualism). He also criticizes the R o m a n Catholic Church for viewing marriage too legalistically. For Berdyaev, marriage is eternal and indissoluble when its essence is spiritua ! love rather than social convention or legal documents. "Marriage and family which are not based u p o n love (the spiritual bond of fidelity) must be recognized as legal and economic institutions determined by law and social convention. They must be distinguished from the sacrament of marriage and decisively pronounced to be neither sacred nor mystical in their significance. Only love, real love, that leads to the Kingdom of God is sacred. ''12 Marriage, then, does not depend u p o n procreation or any kind of legal document, but u p o n a bond of love. Love is what makes it a sacrament. This kind of argument leads in the same direction contemporary theology is pointing; toward greater attention to the biblical basis for marriage. Such emphasis does not deny natural law or legality in regard to marriage, but gives priority to love. In summary, I think it is fair to say that the Christian perspective on sex and marriage is changing somewhat. In early Christian times, the Church upheld the goodness of marriage against dualism by means of
A N e w Look at Christian Marriage
397
the n a t u r a l law doctrine. But this doctrine did n o t recognize the significance of love in marriage. It focused o n the procreative p u r p o s e , w h i c h made biological a n d legal c o n s i d e r a t i o n s - - t h e m e c h a n i c a l , external m a n i f e s t a t i o n s - - a l l i m p o r t a n t . C o u p l e d w i t h this w e n t a n u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t the goodness of sex experience. In recent times the biblical revival in t h e o l o g y has been an i m p o r t a n t factor in d r a w i n g o u r interest a w a y f r o m the o u t w a r d signs of m a r r i a g e to the inner, spiritual d i m e n s i o n s of the m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e biblical n o t i o n of love has been recovered as a f o u n d a t i o n of marriage, w h i c h gives sex a n d marriage a q u a l i t y of joy a n d goodness heretofore n o t present. T h i s e m p h a s i s has h e l p e d to balance the theological negativism of the past, a n d has c o n t r i b u t e d to the elevation of m a r r i a g e to its r i g h t f u l place as a clear m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the central t e a c h i n g of Jesus, the teaching on love.
References
1. Calvin, John, Commentary on the Epistles o] Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich., W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1948, Vol. 1, p. 269. 2. St. Jerome, "The Letters of St. Jerome." Mierow, C., trans. In Quasten, J., and Burghardt, W., eds., Ancient Christian Writers. Westminster, Md., Newman Press, 1963, Vol. 1, p. 152. 3. Mendenhall, G., "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," Biblical Archeologist, 1954, 17 (3), 56-74. , "Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law," loc. cit., 1954, 17 (2), 28. 4. Schopenhauer, A., Parerga and Paralipomena. In Stern, K., The Flight ]rom Woman. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1965, p. 112. 5. Stern,op. cit., pp. 14, 41,277, 285. 6. Nietzsche's idea is found in Nietzsche, F., The Will to Power, 2nd book, "Criticism of Religion." Edinburgh, T. N. Foulis, 1910. See also "The Antichrist." In Kau[mann, W. A., ed. and trans., The Portable Nietzsche. New York, Viking Press, 1954, p. 565 ft. 7. Stern,op. cit., p. 281. 8. The Song of Songs. Jerusalem Bible. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & Co., 1966, Ch. 4:9-11. 9. Ibid., Ch. 1:1-4. 10. "Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes). In Abbott,
398
Journal of Religion and Health
S. J., Walter M., ed., The Documents of Vatican H. New York, Guild Press, 1966, Part II, Ch. 1, pp. 252-253. 11. Brunner, E., The Divine Imperative. Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1947, p.357. 12. Berdyaev, N., The Destiny of Man. New York, Harper & Row Torchbook, 1960, p. 235.
