In a world where marriage has been, over several generations; purposively and systematically weakened, subverted, and finally rendered meaningless; it is tempting to yearn for the comparative situation of traditional Christian marriage - for its legal clarity and moral strictness.
Yet the Christian churches (excepting the CJCLDS) have, in my opinion, seriously trivialized the spiritual potential of marriage.
And for a very long time.
I take my example from The Book of Common Prayer, the Church of England Solemnization of Marriage:
This is absurd! To justify marriage between two individual persons in terms of a (to my mind) exceedingly dubious and opaque comparison with a supposed "mystical union" between Christ and "his Church"!
This is to "explain" the simple with the complex; the experiential with abstraction; the clear with the opaque.
I cannot imagine that anybody who was doubtful about the validity or necessity of marriage would be persuaded by this - or would even understand what was meant by it. The analogy merely opens a can of worms rather than explaining anything.
After all; what is this supposed mystical union of Christ and Church (which does not feature in the Fourth Gospel)? Exactly who is the MU between - I mean, what counts as "his" Church, and what is excluded? To be specific, which actual people of which particular Church can confidently be asserted to be parts of this mystical union?
And given the gross corruption and dissent of all the Christian churches - who and what self-identified Christian institutions, and which parts of which institutions - ought to be ignored, and in what respects?
...which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee;
This is bizarre. Is it seriously suggested that the institutions of marriage is justified because Jesus attended a wedding, and there performed a miracle?
Using such an argument, all sorts of things might be justified.
..and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men:
Commended by St Paul? Well, if at all, only in the most grudging and negative way. Paul regards celibacy as the highest state, and did not allow marriage any positive spiritual value.
and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
Prudent advice, and nothing to disagree with here, but it would apply to life in general (e.g. eating and drinking) and any major life decisions (like choosing a job or purchasing a house) - and does not help explain why marriage might be "a good thing"
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
The difficulty is that this is first a biological justification merely; and secondly a sociological one - and alternative arrangements for procreation and raising children might be (and indeed are) proposed.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
See above. This is an appalling non-justification - and contains the assumption that the avoiding sin (double negative theology) ought to be our primary motivations.
If this were true - ultimately, it were better not to have been born, or to die before having the chance to sin.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
Unobjectionable, so far as it goes; but nothing spiritual about it - merely a matter of expediency; nothing to do with salvation or theosis.
I regard such feeble advocacy and rationalization of marriage as a symptom of very deep and widespread spiritual problems.
This represents a pitiful and significant inability to explain or advocate a thing that has been so obviously, to for so many people, as one of the most wonderfully positive and desirable things in human existence.
It strikes me as evidence of a grossly inadequate theology that (even) rigorous and honest traditional Christian churches at their best have failed so badly to make explicit the spiritual value and desirability of something that has often been directly experienced and known.
Here here! I wrote a few of my own notes. It's quite funny how the 'COE Solemnization of Marriage" resembles a comment on the value of gloves "aren't they wonderful for keeping the hands clean?"
ReplyDeleteHear, hear! The spiritual fruit of marriage is so great that it manifests in every culture, usually with frequency and reliability, regardless of the culture’s other shortcomings. It’s like the Advanced Placement track for virtue, even without children. With children, the potential for growth is almost inexpressible. There are many paths of course, but it’s no surprise to me that the vast majority of people find the most growth through marriage and child-rearing. The idea that that is merely a detached sort of training, an analogy rather than the real thing, beggars belief.
ReplyDelete@S - Yes. I am not making a specific point about the traditional CofE; just that it is "my" church, and the Book of Common Prayer were the words by which I was married - my point is meant to apply right back to the early church as recorded , and shortly after the ascension of Jesus. Of course, I understand the Fourth Gospel, specifically, to be describing and advocating a Very different understanding of Jesus and marriage than that which the churches made of it.
ReplyDelete@Mia - Yes, the potential for spiritual growth is the thing - in other words, marriage as a positive and creative path. This kind of marriage is far from universal, but it isn't all that unusual, either.
ReplyDeleteThere is a sense in which I recognize man-woman marriage as a model of man-Christ “marriage” (though still not the very abstract church-Christ “marriage”) i.e. the individual transformation that takes place after death. That is that the core of any successful marriage is a sustained willingness to be remade. That would obviously help prepare the soul for the final great remaking before entering heaven. However, since the soul is also actually and eternally changed by the man-woman marriage itself such that the soul that finally enters heaven is different than it would otherwise be, not just more likely to end up there, then it must mean more than just that.
ReplyDeleteI almost see it as a failure to take seriously the *physics* of heaven let alone the metaphysics. Most married people wish something about their spouse would change, so here is a situation where your spouse is now PERFECTED both physically and spiritually…and you’re telling me you’ve lost interest? Bah, what nonsense.
When I was married, we requested the "traditional" service: the vicar said that he didn't recommend the Book of Common Prayer, as some of the wording was unedifying, "after all, you two are not 'brute beasts', are you!" So we had the Alternative Services Series One Order of Matrimony which is almost exactly the same as that contained in the Prayer Book as proposed in 1928, ie. traditional language but revised to remove the uncouth remarks. I understand this is what you tend to get these days if you ask for the "traditional" service.
ReplyDelete@william a - Well, that's another matter.
ReplyDeleteEarly versions of the BCP had the woman promise to be: “bonny and buxom in bed and at board” which (perhaps unfortunately) does not quite mean what modern usage would suggest it to mean!
But indeed, in an ultimate sense, I have near zero confidence in *any* marriage rites and legal agreements as of here-and-now and in any general sense. People can and usually do promise almost anything without it meaning anything; and the law has long since done its best to ignore or subvert the explicit, witnessed contract.
Marriage until death means nothing much in practice, and when Mormons marriage is sealed for *eternity* the couples nonetheless get divorced at a high frequency - albeit a lower frequency than those who marry for life.
The tragic fact is that humans in this mortal life are simply not able to make future-binding commitments - no matter what - even when they try their real best (which is seldom), and are living in a basically honest and stable society that will endeavour to enforce good behaviour for the right reasons (which is not the case).
So although there are prognostic danger signs and negative predictors and many ways of weakening and worsening marriage (most of which are long since active and in-place); the situation is not symmetrical and there is no positive formula that can even theoretically "work" - and stricter definitions, piling up legal detail, and more/harsher sanctions cannot be the answer.
So that even though anti-marriage is evil; as of now it is wrong to make the general statement that marriage is good.
This is what is so hard to grasp and accept - the past will not (because cannot) be our good-future; and indeed there is no formula for a good future - goodness will always arise form unique individuals. And this is not an excuse but a fact of existence.
I don't think the liturgy is trying to "justify" marriage, but rather kist a bunch of things they found in the Bible about marriage.
ReplyDelete@PO - A rather fine distinction, I feel - the list presumably has a purpose. But anyway, the marriage service is merely illustrative of a very deep and ancient problem in Christian theology/ doctrine etc.
ReplyDelete