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)?
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.
