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.