Luther offers Church a way out of its dilemma concerning same sex marriage.

The debate over same sex marriage has divided not only society but has also deeply divided the church.  The two positions seem to be intractable.  As a result of the votes by the Lutheran Church and congregations, congregations and individual members have left the church in significant numbers.  The Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC) is haemorrhaging as members and congregations leave.  The debate within the church has been complicated as one side presents the argument in favour of same sex marriage largely in terms of rights while the other side claims that their position is scriptural and accuses the church of abandoning scripture.  Tragically both sides believe God is on their side, but for very different reasons.  At the moment there seems to be no way of bridging the divide while the leadership of the church has dissolved into silence.  Luther, I believe, may offer the church a way out of this dilemma.

Luther makes it clear that marriage is not a sacrament but a rite.  He also is clear that marriage is a social issue and belongs to the realm of creation and therefore the responsibility of the temporal authorities.  He is emphatic that the Church cannot and should not make rules, or canon laws, concerning marriage.  He believes that the church has no right to impose its laws on society.  His position does not mean that marriage is not created by God.  For him marriage is part of the created order and it like the rest of creation, is to be managed by the temporal authorities and not the church.  God has placed temporal authorities over creation and thus also over marriage.  This position is a radical departure from that of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the Protestant churches.  Even though his position on marriage is about 500 years old, it comes as something refreshingly new for the church.

The debate to define marriage within society is a perfectly legitimate activity according to Luther.  Society is the sphere where rules and laws concerning marriage are to be enacted.  The problem for society that affects its understanding of marriage is that there have been significant changes in the area of sex.  A major change that has not been fully appreciated by the church took place in 1960 when the US government approved the use of the birth control pill.  With the introduction of the Pill the function of sex changed.  Humankind was now in a position to avoid or at least delay one of the basic biological functions of sex, namely to propagate the species.  The Pill and other forms of birth control allowed sex to become a recreational activity.  Anyone who lived through the 1960s and 1970’s is aware of the change of attitude to sex when slogans such as “Free Love” were bandied about.  A significant outcome of the so-called sexual revolution was that love and sex became separated.  TV shows have picked up on this phenomenon, and in some ways legitimatized it, with the so-called “one night stand.”  As these changes became part of the social understanding of relationships the understanding of marriage changed.  This change is reflected in the steep increase in the number of couples who decide not to get “married” but rather live in a common law relationship.  The British Columbia government has noted this change and in March 2013 they brought in a new law that states that after 2 years together the couple are referred to as spouses and that if there is a separation then the usual divorce laws apply to the division of property.  Ironically Mark Shields on the PBS Newshour (March 29, 2013) noted that it is the gay community who are now lobbying most aggressively for marriage. 

Given Luther’s position that marriage is the responsibility of the temporal authorities, what is then left for the Church?  To accept Luther’s perspective on marriage means that the Church is going to have to give up on certain issues and positions and define much more clearly its place in society?  One major issue that the Church needs to acknowledge is that it cannot legislate for society.  The church in the West and particularly in the USA has persisted in holding a belief that its values and beliefs are to be those of the whole society.  It has sought to encourage the temporal authorities to legislate its position for all citizens.  The pursuit of this goal has been to bring together a disparate group of churches.  The “right wing” of the Church who in the past could not accept the Roman Catholic Church as being Christian and the Roman Catholic Church which believed that it was the only Christian Church has now found common ground.  Ironically some conservatives and fundamentalists are putting forward a position on marriage which comes very close to a sacramental understanding. 

The problem facing these two church groups is that there is a deeper issue driving them.  This coalition has a view that was rejected in Europe with the Reformation and the rise of independence movements.  The Roman Catholic Church has obviously not given up on the concept of the Holy Roman Empire in which the church was the pre-eminent power in Europe.  It assumed that the civil authorities would obey their demands and make their beliefs and policies the law of the land.  This is not dissimilar to the position held by some conservatives and fundamentalists.  In the USA Calvinist theology has shaped much of the church.  There seems to be echoes of Calvin’s Geneva in the attempts of some evangelical and fundamentalist to legislate their beliefs and values for society as a whole.  These two groups have now found common ground around a number of issues, marriage being one, in seeking to have their beliefs and values legislated for the whole of society.  They have difficulty in imaging a society in which the church is not the dominant force.  The outcome of this approach has been that the church has become the hand maiden of the state and the clergy its servants.  The tragic outcome has been that the church has had its credibility seriously compromised.  In a recent UK poll only about half of those polled trusted the clergy to speak the truth (http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2013/03/31/uk-poll-points-to-mistrust-of-clergy-lack-of-moral-leadership)

Luther offers a way for the church to deal with the confusion surrounding the debate over marriage and particularly the issue of same sex marriage in the church.  His view is very simple.  For him marriage is the sole responsibility of temporal authorities.  The church he claims has no right to enact any canon laws to regulate marriage, a view that runs counter to the way the church has been addressing the issue.  To accept Luther’s view means that the church needs to take step back from the course it has been blindly following and acknowledge that the best it can do is address issues to its membership and not to society at large.  The church needs to give up its pursuit of imposing its views and beliefs on society and let society make its decisions about marriage and leave responsibility for this issue with the temporal authorities.  By entering the social debate the Church has allowed this social issue to wreak havoc among its members.  The implication of following Luther’s proposal means that the church must step away from the debate concerning same sex marriage.  For Luther this debate belongs in the temporal realm and not in the Church.  But here Luther’s understanding of life as paradox assists the members of the church.  In a paradox two opposites are held in tension and when they are held together there one finds the truth.  However, when one side of the paradox is stressed to the exclusion of the other, then that side of the paradox becomes false.  Paradox has been fundamental to Lutheran theology and is one of its greatest assets.  Paradox, for example, is at the centre of Lutheran theology of the bible, the sacrament of the altar and the Christian life as being fully saint and fully sinner.  Christians live constantly a paradoxical life in the world.  According to Jesus his followers are in the world but not of the world.  Christians are members of both realms.  As important as it is for Christians to be a member of the Church, it is equally important that they participate in the state and engage in societal debates.  They do this as responsible Christians and not as agents of the church who seek to impose the will of the church on society.  By failing to live in the paradoxical tension of being citizens of two realms and trying to merge the two, the church has opened itself up letting the world enter into its realm.  The disagreements of society have now morphed into conflicts in the church, for example the same sex marriage issue.  Issues that are the responsibility of the temporal authorities have been adopted by the church with tragic results for the church and its members.  Ignoring the paradoxical nature of the Christian life and resolving the tension of the paradox in one direction has had serious implications for the church.  If the Lutheran Church had only listened to Luther!

What then is the place of the church in the married life of members?  If the church adopts Luther’s stance, does it leave the church without a credible place in the lives of couples?  Where do same sex couples fit into this new stance of the church?  Note that the questions address the church and its members and not society and its actions.  The church in parts of Europe has already done this work. In some countries couples have a civil marriage ceremony but then those who so desire, return to the church for a blessing.  But what does it mean to bless a couple? 

Blessing, I believe, has to do with covenant.  The bible describes a number of covenants God has with the people of Israel and through those covenants God offers God’s blessing on the people.  Covenant is more than a legal contract binding of two parties: the biblical covenants are at its heart about relationships.  In the covenant God promises to be the people’s God and the people promise to be God’s people.  The people covenant to live lives shaped by God’s promises and promise to serve God by serving the world.  Luther described this latter aspect of the relationship with God in his interpretation of the first commandment that we “fear, love and trust God above everything.”  According to George Forell, Luther’s ethic is best described in terms of “faith active in love (Galatians 5:6).” 

By turning the issue of marriage over to the temporal authority the church is free to invite all couples, which includes same sex couples to come to the altar and enter into a covenantal relationship with God, one another and the community.  The essence of the covenantal relationship is agape love.  It is the love of God for us as expressed in the life, death and resurrection of God’s son, Jesus the Christ.  Entering this covenant with God, the couple is called upon to live that agape love in their relationship with one another.  This covenantal agape love shapes the life of the Christian in all his or her relationships.  As the Christians way of life it honours and respects God and in the marriage relationship, the other.  In Christ there is no distinction in how this love is expressed in relationships by the Christian since according to Paul there is neither “male nor female (Galatians 3:27).” 

To invite couples to the church for a blessing is to invite them into a covenantal relationship.  To be blessed by God is an expression of the covenant which the couple seek by coming to the church.  They, with the help of God, seek to live out in their relationship this agape covenantal love with one another.  This covenantal agape love is expressed in relational terms as trust.  It has always interested me that the Lutheran vows do not emphasize love, but trust.  Not only does the couple promise to trust one another, but they promise to trust till death parts them.  Trust is the essence of a covenantal marriage relationship whether of heterosexual or homosexual relationships.  For the Christian it is not the legal documents required by the state that constitutes marriage based all too often on a rather shallow romantic love but covenantal trust.  The promise, with God’s help, to trust to death is important is essential since trust can never be subject to conditions.  To set a limit on trust is to undermine it from the moment of promise.  To promise to trust the other for 5 years will cast doubt upon the relationship since one will never be sure that one can trust the other the next day.  When relationships are built upon trust rather than a romantic sense of love then there is a freedom in the relationship that allows a person to be angry and upset with the other and probably not feel very loving toward the other, but a person can still, in spite of those feelings, trust the other.  Couples coming for counselling when there has been an affair the one who has not had the affair would nearly always state that, not love, but trust has been broken.  At its deepest and most profound meaning, covenantal agape love is expressed as trust. 

A covenantal relationship with God and with one another is a dynamic relational process which at times can be very messy.  The problem for the Christian is that the old Adam must die.  Luther commented that in baptism the old Adam is drowned only to find that he can swim.  Whether in Israel’s covenantal relationship with God or a married couples relationship with one another there are times in which the old Adam and Eve swim to the surface creating problems.  In the life and death of Christ we see the depth to which God goes to deal with our old Adam and Eve by offering forgiveness and acceptance and the restoration of trust.  In Christ we identify the very essence of healthy relationship processes in which trust can be restored through confession and forgiveness.  Forgiveness is a process at the heart of a covenantal relationship of love.

By freeing the church from the societal process concerning laws about marriage, the church has the option of inviting all who desire to enter into that covenant to come to the altar.  Since the church no longer has anything to do with marriage and the laws concerning marriage, it is open to invite all couples, both heterosexual and homosexual to enter into a covenantal relationship with God and one another.  Such an invitation is an expression of the church’s hospitality rooted in God’s hospitality to all.  By leaving the questions concerning marriage to the temporal authorities as Luther suggests, the church would no longer be distracted and would be free to focus on its mission and ministry in and to the world. 

It would appear that Luther offers the church a way of thinking about its response to all married couples without having to enter into the debate.  His position expressed about 500 years ago is both profound sublime.  Unencumbered by the divisive and conflicted debate surrounding marriage the church is free to be again the heart, arms and feet of Jesus in and to the world.  What Luther suggested was similar to a proposal put to the churches by the Province of Alberta in the early 1980s.  At that time when I served on the National Council of the former ELCC we received a letter from the Government of the province of Alberta requesting input from churches.  The Province was trying to deal with problem of licensing clergy to officiate at marriages.  There was a growing demand for marriage licences from an increasing segment of the population belonging to other than Christian world religions.  But the Province was also dealing with a proliferation of smaller Christian’s communities who were also demanding marriage licences for their religious leaders.  The Province was not sure how to proceed with these demands.  They presented the churches with two options.  The first was that everyone have a civil marriage and then could go to a church if they so desired, and the second option was to continue with the present system.  The national council of the ELCC voted to support the first option but the reactivity from churches in Alberta made the government maintain the existing licensing system.  This, I believe, was most unfortunate not only for the government but also for the church.  The first option which would have been consistent with Luther’s understanding that marriage is a matter for the state.  If this proposal was accepted it would have made a clear distinction between the role for the state and that of the church in marriage.  By rejecting this option the Church and state continue to be tied together in an unhealthy and unholy alliance.  Furthermore, the Church has become embroiled in the controversy of same sex marriage and its mission and ministry seriously compromised.

Marriage: An Evolutionary-Christian Perspective

One of the most divisive issues in the Church is the nature of marriage.  With the battle lines clearly drawn between the groups there is a lot of emotion but little of substance.  The two main positions are what some call the “traditional” view of marriage while the other side proposes that society has undergone such significant changes that new definitions are now required.  Each side in the debate believes that their position is Christian while some would claim to hold to the biblical understanding of marriage.  These positions are so polarized that there is little space for debate and both have threatened that if their view does not prevail they will leave the Church.  The sides in the debate have not clearly defined marriage, its history and function.

The problem for the church is that it is stuck.  It has consistently asked the same questions and consequently received the same answers.  As a result there have been few new insights into the nature and function of marriage.  The discussion in the church has ignored the evolutionary and biological roots of marriage.  By turning to new areas of knowledge new questions can be posed and thus new insights gained.  What can we learn about marriage from evolutionary and biological sciences?  How have cultures and religions influenced these emotional processes that are part of humankind’s evolutionary heritage?  What does the Judeo-Christian heritage add to the evolutionary and biological understanding of marriage?

Committed to a natural systems theory which looks to evolution to assist in its understanding of relational phenomenon, I offer the following position as the basis for a practical theology..

Marriage and Nature

“Marriage is a cultural universal; it predominates in every society in the world” (Fisher, 1992, 65).  According to Friesen the roots of marriage must be sought not in culture, but in biology since “A behaviour is biology if it appears in all cultures” (Friesen, 1993, 6).  This emotional, or evolutionary, basis of marriage is shown by its universality.  Cultural practices reflect the means by which humankind manages these underlying emotional processes (Fisher, 1992, 66). 

From a biological perspective marriage assures the human species’ that it has a future.  The sex drive, which is not limited to humankind, is the way nature seeks to assure the propagation of the species.  While in other species there are biological processes which have evolved to manage and regulate the sex drive, in the evolution of humankind these processes have either been lost or weakened.  As a result humankind has had to develop social processes, such as marriage, to manage the biological drives.

The survival of a species depends on the survival of the offspring.  Since human infants are extremely vulnerable, their survival is enhanced when there are two committed parents.  Biologists have noted that “where paternity certainty is low, males tend to invest little” (Forsyth, 1986, 1993, 102).  In those species where fertilization is external there is little commitment to nurturing the offspring and the question of paternity is of little importance as these males focus more on the competition that facilitates the continuation of their genetic line (Forsyth, 1986, 1993, 16).  “From the female’s viewpoint, internal fertilization gives her more control of who does the fertilizing and when” (Forsyth, 1986, 1993, 16).  For males, internal fertilization means having to deal with sperm competition (Forsyth, 1986, 1993, 17).  Internal fertilization means that only the female knows with certainty that the child she bears is hers.  When the male is certain of his paternity, his investment in his offspring tends to be higher.  Marriage then functions to assure males of their paternity and promote the benefits of parental investment.  Monogamy, which also functions to assure paternity, also increases male parental investment in their offspring.  By having both parents invest time and energy in defense of breeding grounds, and the care of the young, the survival chances of the offspring increase, (Goldsmith, 1991, 44) and, if successful, is referred to as “reproductive success” (Goldsmith, 1991, 44).

Marriage and Pair Bonding

According to Goldsmith, “The concept of differential parental investment holds the key to understanding various mating systems: monogamous, polygamous, and more rarely, polyandrous” (Goldsmith, 1991, 55).  Monogamy, which refers to having one spouse at a time, is according to Fisher, “natural” (Fisher, 1992, 72). 

Marriage and the Emotional Unit

Marriage is about the union of two emotional units and the creation of a third unit which remains attached to the two originating units.  This systems understanding of marriage closely parallels the African understanding.  Marriage is not simply the uniting of two individuals but the union of two families.  This concept of marriage as a union of two groups or nations has been, in the past, the basis for political unions. 

Marriage is also the union of two unresolved attachments since each partner brings their functional position in the family of origin, as well as all the unresolved attachments issues, which include those between the previous generations, into the new relationship.  This complicates the marriage relationship.

Marriage and Differentiation of Self

The choice of a spouse according to Bowen theory is more an emotional than a thoughtful process.  People choose a spouse who is at the same level of differentiation as themselves (Kerr, 1988, 225).  This underlying emotional process is common to all cultures including those cultures in which the parents choose the spouse for their children.  The choice of a spouse, whether by the individual or family, is influenced by the level of differentiation of the family and that of the child who is marrying. 

Marriage and Cut-off–Divorce

Fisher cites studies that indicate that divorce is an integral part of human relationships:  “Almost everywhere in the world people permit divorce” (Fisher, 1992, 101).  The pervasiveness of divorce leads her to state that there is a “…cross-cultural pattern of decay” (Fisher, 1992, 112) in marriage.  She also notes that studies indicate that the divorce rate peaks around the fourth year of marriage (Fisher, 1992, 109, 112, 152), which she believes is connected to the time it takes to wean a child (Fisher, 1992, 152; 327).  She further notes that “…divorce is common in societies where women and men both own land, animals, currency, information, and/or other valued goods or resources and where both have the right to distribute or exchange their personal riches beyond the immediate family circle” (Fisher, 1992, 103).  This is particularly evident in matrilineal and hunter-gatherer societies such as the !Kung (Fisher, 1992, 103).  In an agrarian society the land becomes an important and integral part of the family life.  The farmer’s wife no longer had her own resources, and she and children were expected to support the family farm.  Fisher notes that agrarian societies tended to be more conservative than hunter-gatherer societies and that divorce is less acceptable if not prohibited since the wife and children are needed to maintain the farm (Fisher, 1992, 72).

Divorce is often the means by which couples bind their anxiety and manage the reactivity and emotional attachment in the relationship.  It is a form of emotional cut-off.  “Divorce. . . can be conceptualized as the tendency to cut off from significant others during times of discomfort, decreasing such discomfort for the short-term for at least one person at the expense of increasing the breakdown of family relationships” (Maloney, 1990, 4). 

A Systemic Practical Theology of Relationships and Marriage

Marriage as a Universal Practice

A credible theology of marriage needs to take the biological factors that shape the function of marriage into account.  The fact that marriage is a universal phenomenon that finds some form of ritual expression in all cultures (Fisher, 1992, 65) attests to its biological roots (Holt, 1996 Spring/Summer, 53).  While cultural marriage practices may differ, they all seek to address and regulate the underlying biological relationship processes that are a part of humankind’s emotional system.  

The Function of Marriage

In an earlier section a number of functions of marriage were identified.  One function is to assist in creating and managing relationships for the propagation of the species.  This is still the view of the Roman Catholic Church and is the basis of its opposition to any form of birth control.  “Our surest way to posterity, however, is through mating. In fact, all of our human rituals concerning courtship and mating, marriage and divorce, can be regarded as scripts by which men and women seduce each other in order to replicate themselves—what biologists call reproductive strategies” (Fisher, 1992, 63).  Marriage also deals with the biological process of sexual selection.  In nature, sexual selection assists with choosing a suitable mate.  In other species it may involve singing of particular songs, dances, and variations in plumage, as well as the colour and size of the male.  It is also operative in human mate selection and influences courtship and marriage practices.  These practices associated with marriage offer a form of management of the sex drive since the constraints found in other species have either been lost or become non-functional in humans.  Humankind is further assisted by the evolution of the brain which allows humans to develop restraints, such as cultural practices such as marriage, to manage these powerful emotional relational forces. 

As mentioned previously marriage practices function to ascertain paternity.  A particular concern or males when fertilization is internal that only the female of a species knows for sure that the offspring is hers.  As a result nature has developed complicated mating patterns by which males try to assure paternity.  In some species, and in human society, when the male is assured of his paternity there is a greater likelihood he will invest energy into the care of his young and remain monogamous.  Studies done among the Yanomamo of Venezuelan rainforest and in rural Midwestern United States “… reveal that on the order of 10 percent of children were not fathered by the male who believes and acts as if he were the father” (Forsyth, 1986 1993. 105).

Males of many species exhibit parental behaviour, although most are not monogamous. Male parental investment occurs in two forms: (a) direct care, such as feeding young, carrying infants, baby-sitting, sleeping in contact with young, grooming young, retrieving, and/or playing with young; (b) indirect care, such as defending resources, stockpiling food for infants, building shelters for young, helping pregnant or nursing females, marking and/or maintaining a territory, defending and patrolling borders of a range, expelling intruders, and/or calling to drive competitors away (Kleiman and Malcolm 1981; also see Hewlett 1992) (Fisher, 1992, 334). 

Marriage, particularly monogamous marriage, is a cultural process by which males are likely to be  assured of their paternity.  But as Helen Fisher pointed out, monogamy is not to be confused with fidelity (Fisher, 1992, 63) and monogamy does not mean one wife for a lifetime, but rather one wife at a time.  Polygyny, which is permitted in some societies, is another cultural strategy to deal with issues of paternity and the care of the offspring.  Polygyny provides a reproductive advantage to males (Fisher, 1992, 69), but does not provide the same advantage to females.  Yet even where it is permitted, polygyny is only practised by five to ten percent of the men (Fisher, 1992, 69). 

Marriage practices function to provide a secure and stable environment for the raising of offspring.  The Western assumption that marriage is about two people has led to added stress for parents.  Unlike the Western belief that marriage is about two people uniting, the African understanding of marriage is that it involves the uniting of two families or clans (Ma Mpolo, 1987, 99).  From this perspective the extended and multigenerational family, which includes the ancestors, becomes a significant support system for the couple as they raise their children and the stress is dissipated throughout the extended family. 

Marriage was also us in the political realm to establishment and secure political alliances between nations.  In 1 Kings 3:1 Solomon forms an alliance with the Egyptians by marrying Pharaoh’s daughter.  The same process is described in other passages as well; 1 Kings 4:11, 11:3, 11:19 and in 2 Kings 8:27.

A Lutheran Perspective on Marriage

Luther was aware that one of the primary functions of marriage was to manage biological processes.  He identified two central functions for marriage.  The first function is to propagate the species which he refers to as “… a most excellent one inasmuch as it preserves the species” (Luther, 1958, 168).  He described marriage also as a nursery where children are equipped for citizenship “… to govern church and the state” (Luther, 1968, 190).  Marriage for him had other functions as well.  One of these was to manage the innate problem of lust. 

Marriage is necessary as a remedy for lust, and through marriage God permits sexual intercourse.  Not only does He cover the sin from which we are unable to abstain, but He also blesses the union of the male and the female (Luther, 1961, 48). 

Even though marriage may not always be successful in overcoming lust, it could at least confine and control it (Luther, 1958, 168).  Leupold has written concerning Luther’s view of marriage,

Marriage, according to Luther, is an institution both secular and sacred.¹ It is secular because it is an order of this earthly life. In fact, it is the basic order for the preservation and propagation of the human race. It is not essential for the kingdom of God. It has not been instituted by Christ and is no sacrament, for it has no special command or promise from him. But as Jesus pointed out, its institution goes back to the beginning of the race and to the first human couple, when God himself joined Adam and Eve in wedlock (Leupold, 1965, 110).

For Luther, marriage was neither specifically Christian nor religious and he stressed this point by insisting that the marriage of his own forebears was valid even though they were not married in the church.  Marriage, Luther insisted, was part of the created order, and was therefore not subject to canon law.  The regulation of marriage was the responsibility of the temporal order.  He believed that the church should not legislate concerning marriage, especially as it pertains to non-Christians. 

No one can deny that marriage is an external, worldly matter, like clothing and food, house and property, subject to temporal authority, as the many imperial laws enacted on the subject prove. Neither do I find any example in the New Testament where Christ or the apostles concerned themselves with such matters, except where they touched upon consciences, as did St. Paul in I Corinthians 7 [:1–24], and especially where unbelievers or non-Christians are concerned, for it is easy to deal with these and all matters among Christians or believers. But with non-Christians, with which the world is filled, you cannot move forward or backward without the sharp edge of the temporal sword. And what use would it be if we Christians set up a lot of laws and decisions, as long as the world is not subject to us and we have no authority over it (Luther, 1965, 265)?

This does not mean that even though marriage was not a sacrament and belonged within the created order, that it could be denigrated.  “Marriage should be treated with honor; from it we all originate, because it is a nursery not only for the state but also for the church and the kingdom of Christ until the end of the world” (Luther, 1958, 240).  Even though it is the responsibility of the secular state to regulate marriages, Luther asserted that it was instituted and ordained by God and thus a holy estate and a calling.  For Christians it is a higher calling than most other callings.  Luther wrote, “For marriage was divinely instituted, and the life of married people, if they are in the faith, deserves to be rated higher than those who are famous through miracles” (Luther, 1961, 210).  He also wrote, “For after the doctrine of the Gospel and faith, which is the proper doctrine of the church, marriage should be honored and respected above all” (Luther, 1968, 190).  Luther’s understanding of marriage is based on his understanding that God comes to humankind in nature and marriage. 

To Luther, it is this institution by God that makes marriage sacred, a divine and holy order. It does not—like the sacraments—nourish and strengthen faith or prepare men for the life to come; but it is a secular order in which men can prove theft (sic) faith and love, even though they are apt to fail without the help of the Word and the sacrament (Leupold, 1965, 110).

Marriage practices vary greatly between cultures and religions.  By adopting and amending the prevailing cultural marriage rituals and practices, religions have made their contribution to the understanding of marriage.  According to Luther the Christian contribution is the acknowledgement and affirmation of God as Creator in marriage (Luther, 1964, 243).  He further believed that Christian marriage is the seeking of God’s blessing and non-sacramental presence in the marriage union.  “Therefore a marriage should be brought about in such a way that we have God present” (Luther1964, 298).  Both acknowledgement of God as Creator and God’s non-sacramental presence at weddings is affirmed by Jesus’ presence at the wedding at Cana when he changed water into wine (John 2).

Marriage and Covenant

A significant contribution of the Judeo-Christian tradition to the understanding of marriage is the covenantal relationship between God, the couple and the community.  This covenantal aspect of marriage means that a Christian marriage is never simply about two people getting married.  This covenant aspect of marriage includes the promise of God’s blessing, the promise by the couple to be faithful to one another and the promise of support from the family and community.  In Christian marriage the covenant affirms a profound sense of belonging, not just to the families, but also to the community of God’s people.

This covenantal promise and blessing assures the new family of God’s presence as the One who can provide them with courage to face the vicissitudes of life.  Since the marriage relationship is not anxiety free, the couple is assured of God presence as a resource who can ground them in the midst of chaos and turmoil.  Luther’s advice to couples who are facing crises is, “Why do they not call upon the Creator of both sexes, who is both the Author of marriage and the best Counselor in marriage” (Luther, 1964, 243)?  Luther was aware that what has been referred to as the ‘honeymoon period’, the period of intense togetherness and closeness, comes to an end.  “During the first year, of course, everything is delightful and charming; that time is spent in laughter and caressing” (Luther, 1964, 221).  The value of the covenantal relationship with God is that in the midst of crises Christian marriages are ones in which “… grace reigns and sin is made weak” (Luther, 1964, 243).  Lest Christians become too serious about marriage, Luther said that even though it must be entered into with all earnestness, this does not preclude it from being a place for laughter and intimacy.

If practical theology is to be an adequate resource for the church in its discussion about marriage then it needs to start with the premise that marriage has its roots in humankind’s evolutionary heritage and is therefore neither Christian nor non-Christian.  The focus of practical theology is therefore on the relationship aspect of marriage, relationships with God, each other, family, community and nature.  The essence of the relationships for Christian marriage is, then, God’s covenantal gracious love.  According to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, agape love is a thoughtful love.  Agape love informs a Christian marriage and shapes the togetherness of the relationship.  When a marriage reflects God’s agape love then there is respect for the individuality of the other.  This love is the antithesis of a love that expects sameness in relationships and which experiences the other’s difference and individuality as a threat.  Agape love does not demand or pursue fusion in relationships.  Instead of resorting to blaming the other, agape love leads to greater responsibility for self in the marriage relationship.  Agape love supports each individual’s move to greater differentiation of self.  In such a marriage each spouse is free to choose to submit to the other—not out of a sense of duty or obligation but out of love.  An anxious push for togetherness in marriage embodies the threat of placing the other under the law and transforms trust into obedience.  The Gospel brings freedom to relationships.  Paradoxically, when the individuality of each member of the family is respected, then a full and free sense of belonging and community is created whether in the family, church or in community.

Marriage is never a private matter that involves only the bride and the groom.  The marriage relationship includes their relationship with God, the extended and multigenerational family as well as the community.  Luther understood this broader context of marriage and  condemned “… clandestine betrothals and marriages” (Luther, 1968, 193).  The problem is that all too often wedding is often confused with marriage.  The wedding is an event.  Marriage is a powerful force and process that creates a union, not just of two individuals, but of two families, clans and even nations. 

Luther was concerned that a marriage partner needs to be someone who shares the values and beliefs, not just of the bride and groom, but also of the whole family which includes the previous generations.  To illustrate this concern, Luther points to the disastrous consequence for the Israelites when Jeroboam married Jezebel, a Syrian, who did not share the values and beliefs of the Israelites (1 Kings 16).  This concern connects with the concept in Bowen theory that spouses choose mates who are at approximately same level of differentiation as themselves.  The level of differentiation of self is shaped by the level of all family members including the past generations.  There is the potential for less anxiety and reactivity generated in a marriage, and families, when spouses are at approximately the same level of differentiation. 

Practical theology has largely ignored the emotional processes that shape marriage.  This has led to marriage practices in the Church that are disconnected from the traditional culture and its particular understanding of marriage.  When encountering non-Western cultures the church has often insisted that the only valid understanding of the wedding and marriage was that of the Western church.  In some Lutheran Churches marriage practices have taken on aspects of canon law which is counter to Luther’s non-sacramental understanding of marriage.  It needs to be affirmed that for the Lutheran Church marriage is not a sacrament and the church should beware of developing canon laws relating to marriage.  All too often a theology of marriage is presented that reinstates it in the realm of salvation. 

Let the authorities and officials deal with them, except where their pastoral advice is needed in matters of conscience, as for example when some marriage matters should come up in which the officials and jurists had entangled and confused the consciences, or else perhaps a marriage had been consummated contrary to law, so that the clergy should exercise their office in such a case and comfort consciences and not leave them stuck fast in doubt and error (Luther, 1967, 317).

For Luther marriage practices were adiaphora.  Luther writes,

Many lands, many customs, says the proverb. Since marriage and the married estate are worldly matters, it behooves us pastors or ministers of the church not to attempt to order or govern anything connected with it, but to permit every city and land to continue its own use and custom in this connection. Some lead the bride to the church twice, both evening and morning, some only once. Some announce it formally and publish the banns from the pulpit two or three weeks in advance. All such things and the like I leave to the lords and the council¹ to order and arrange as they see fit. It does not concern me.
But when we are requested to bless them before the church or in the church, to pray over them, or also to marry them, we are in duty bound to do this. For this reason I have desired to offer this advice and form to those who do not know anything better, in case they should desire to follow our custom in this matter. The others who know all about it, that is, who do not know anything, but think that they know all about it—well, they do not need this service of mine, except to correct and improve it. But let them take good care lest they do anything the same as others, or they may be thought to have to learn from others. And wouldn’t that be a pity (Luther, 1967, 11)?

A Lutheran pastoral understanding acknowledges that marriage has developed within a broad context that includes the biological, emotional and cultural dimensions of life.  I believe that only when marriage is discussed within this broad context will new insights be gained which can inform the church marriage practices.  The Lutheran Church needs to affirm that marriage is not a sacrament but a rite and that wedding practices are adiaphora.  For Lutherans marriage belongs to the order of creation and therefore any regulation or law is a function of the temporal authorities.  

References

Fisher, Helen. (1992). The anatomy of love: A natural history of mating, marriage , and why we stray. New York: Fawcett Columbine.

Friesen, Priscilla J. (1993 Summer). Marriage: Differentiation and togetherness. Family Center Report, 14(3):4-6.

Forsyth, Adrian. (1993). A natural history of sex. Vermont: Chapters Publishing Ltd. (Original work published 1986).

Goldsmith, Timothy H. (1991). The biological roots of human nature. New York: Oxford University Press.

Holt, Roberta B. (1996 Spring/Summer). Gender and Bowen theory. Family Systems: A Journal of Natural Systems Thinking in Psychiatry and the Sciences, 3(1):52-63.

Kerr, Michael E. and Bowen, Murray. (1988). Family evaluation. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Leupold, Ulrich. (1965). Liturgy and Hymns Luther’s Works. (Vol. 53). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Luther, Martin. (1958). Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 (Vol. 1). George B. Schick, (Trans.). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Luther, Martin. (1960). Lectures on Deuteronomy. (Vol. 9). Richard R. Caummerer (Trans.). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Luther, Martin. (1961). Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 15-20. (Vol. 3) (George V. Schick, Trans.). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Luther, Martin. (1964). Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25. (Vol. 4). George V. Schick (Trans.). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Luther, Martin. (1964). Lectures on Galatians. (Vol. 27). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House. (Original work published 1519, 1539)

Luther, Martin. (1967). In Robert C. Shultz (Ed.) The Christian in society III. (Vol. 46, pp.258-319). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Luther, Martin. (1968). Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 26-30. (Vol. 5). George V. Schick and Paul D. Pahl (Trans.). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Maloney-Schara. Andrea. (1990 Winter). Divorce as adaptation. Family Center Report, 11(1):4.