Marriage: has it had it?

This discussion paper by Stephen Ibbotson was produced for the 'Living Room' - an occassional series at Altrincham Baprtist Church, where controversial or topical issues can be aired in a safe but challenging environment.

Context & questions

1) Changing patterns of cross-gender relationships – Stats from 2001 Census & Social trends.

• There has been an increase in cohabitation in Great Britain . Among non-married women aged under 60, the proportion cohabiting more than doubled from 13 per cent in 1986, which is the first year data are available on a consistent basis, to 28 per cent in 2001/02. For men it also more than doubled over the same period from 12 per cent to 25 per cent. In 2001/02 the prevalence of cohabitation was highest for women aged 25 to 29; for men it was highest for those aged 30 to 34.

• Higher proportions of divorced people in Great Britain cohabit compared with other marital statuses: 34 per cent of divorced men and 30 per cent of divorced women lived in a cohabiting relationship in 2001/02. Women who cohabit tend to be divorced or single. Cohabitation may be transitional for some, leading to marriage, and most cohabiting couples go on to (or expect to) get married. However, in 2001/02, 13 per cent of people aged 16 to 59 had had a least one cohabiting relationship that did not lead to marriage; this was more likely among those aged 25 to 39 than the rest of the population.

• Attitudes towards partnerships also differ with age. According to the British Social Attitudes survey in 2002, the proportion who agreed or strongly agreed that 'married people are generally happier than unmarried people', generally increased with age. Over four fifths of 18 to 44 year olds agreed or strongly agreed that 'it is alright for a couple to live together without intending to get married'; this was double the proportion of those aged 65 and over. However, the proportions who agreed or strongly agreed that 'divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can't seem to work out their problems', increased with age.

2) Common attitudes are often felt to be hostile or corrosive to traditional patterns of marriage – denigration of marriage as ‘only a bit of paper’; relationships seen as personal lifestyle choices rather than an expectation upon couples.

3) What pastoral issues are involved e.g. For Christian parents who have children adopting pattern of cohabitation? When and how do parents ‘recognise’ such partnerships? Is there a point in such parents insisting that when offspring enter their home with partners, they are made to sleep separately? What does this communicate? For the Church. How are such co-habiting partnerships to be viewed? For seekers, those attending church, for members?

Historical & biblical features

It is of interest and relevance to think about biblical teaching on marriage in Paul’s letters in the light of contemporary cultural practices.

• Weddings in Roman Empire in NT times were the conducting of the bride by torchlight to groom’s house. There could be formal ceremony in which marriage was pronounced but the legal signing of contract was central.

• A true Roman marriage could not take place unless both bride and groom were Roman citizens, or had been granted conubium — permission to enter into a Roman marriage. Given that in Rome it is estimated a third of population were slaves, significant numbers of unions between a man and a woman would have had no legal standing or formal social recognition.

• Unions between a man and a woman in Roman society could be iustum matrimonium (a legitimised registered marriage by legal contract). These were marriages between free people. Roman law never recognized monogamous sexual relationships between slaves. Such relationships were termed contubernia and had none of the legal consequences of legitimate marriages.

• So it is quite likely that some unions in the churches with which Paul dealt had no legal & certainly no state recognition as we would understand it. Paul, as his Gentile mission broke away from the specifically Jewish/biblical culture, recognised and ‘christianised’ marriages that were contracted within a Romano-Greek culture. He threw a cloak of Christian understanding over such existing forms of relationship and gave them a specific theological understanding e.g. Eph 5:22-33. The same is true of other writers e.g. Peter et al (1 Peter 3:1-7; Hebrews 13:4). We certainly should not presume there needed to be a religious or state ceremony of a Christian nature to constitute a marriage.

• It is interesting to note a provision of Callistus, an early bishop of Rome (217-222). He declared one type of contubernia relationship was marriage in his eyes even if it was without legality in Roman law. It was the specific instance where a woman of higher social rank could ‘marry’ a slave or freeman provided the union was life-long and monogamous.

Points for consideration

• Patterns of marriage vary across time and culture and the Church cannot and does not have to be tied to any particular form of marriage in order for marriage to be seen as validly constituted. We should be alert to the particular culture in which we are called to live out Christian marriage, where romantic notions of love are the only criteria for marriage.

• Marriage is understood biblically as a pattern (I use this more general word than ‘ordinance’ which is sometimes used) of creation not merely pertaining to the church and to believers. Therefore the Church has an interest in the conduct of marriage in wider society, but the nature of such an interest needs careful definition and understanding.

• Our first responsibility is to nurture the Christian understanding and practice of marriage amongst our own community, and in this to be a witness to God’s kingdom. Our first task is not to uphold or defend a general ethic for the whole of society, but to attend diligently to our own practice of marriage. We have a concern and interest in seeing our way of marriage practiced as widely as possible, but we should not have an expectation that this will be the case.

• Therefore our role is never to judge relationships that have a different pattern to our own but to respect such relationships and to bear witness as we can to the way of marriage that arises from our Christian faith and discipleship.

• We may well be experiencing a cultural transition in the pattern of marriage within our own culture and we should not be alarmed or surprised by the erosion of traditional patterns of marriage.

• Is there a core understanding of what constitutes a Christian marriage? It has personal and social dimensions. First it is the inward commitment of man and woman to live faithfully and monogamously together for their lifetime, open to the sexual fruitfulness God made inherent to this relationship. But second, because it is by nature a social commitment – that is, it is more than just a decision of two individuals to live together in a certain way for a certain time – it requires a social recognition by a third party. This would normally be expressed in state/legal registration, but it is possible to conceive differently i.e. the legal aspect is not strictly an essential element of marriage, but the social recognition element is. However, the legal element is beneficial, because it clarifies the social and legal obligations being entered into.

• Normally I could not conceive of a Christian marriage being closed to the gift of children. This does not mean that married Christians can’t conceive such a thing – it may be a couple’s chosen and preferred option. Leaving aside medical and natural (age) reasons, I would assume that there is malfunction here either spiritually and/or emotionally. It may be childless but such is not God’s intention for marriage. Marriage should normally be open to the gift of the ‘other’ in the form a child.

• God’s blessing of fruitfulness is inherent within marriage (Gen 1:28 ). However blessing is not inherent within marriage per se. Just because a union is that of marriage does not mean it will exhibit ‘blessing’. ‘Blessing’ is found within a healthy and right ordering of the relationship within marriage. Therefore it is quite possible to find relationships that are more ‘fruitful’/‘blessed’ that are not marriage relationships.

• In passing, this is the main reason why I personally cannot conceive the Church blessing ‘homosexual’ unions or ‘marriages’. The fact that some homosexual relationships exhibit faithfulness is good and to be encouraged, because it benefits the individuals involved and those affected by that relationship. But this does not demand or require Church ‘blessing’ even if the state were to come to a position of recognising homosexual marriages. Christians who see faithfulness alone as the essence of a marriage relationship open the door to the Christian blessing of homosexual relationship. But this strikes me as muddled thinking that has sold out to individualistic liberal values. The sex act is linked with procreation and our technical ability to separate the two through contraception does not negate a Christian commitment to keeping sex and procreation together. Homosexual relationships are sterile and cannot come under the blessing of God, which is for fruitfulness.

• We must remind ourselves first (and surprisingly for many Christians) marriage is not an absolute of God’s Kingdom (Matthew 22:23 -33). Singleness can be argued as having priority as an expression of discipleship (Matthew 19:12 ). However it is a relationship in which we learn to live in love and faithfulness. In marriage we learn what faithfulness is.