Love and marriage

Very good, Richard. I’m listening to the interview as I write this… very interesting.

On a more serious note - though not on same-sex relationships (if anyone wants 1800+ words of my views on that one, see my “Ten Propositions on Same-Sex Relationships and the Church” at Faith and Theology, rather on marriage: Richard is incontrovertibly right about its multifarious cultural locations and social practices which the church has tried to control, regulate, and interpret in correspondingly various ways. Watersheds include the Roman impact on Jewish customs, the teaching of Augustine, the medieval ideal of courtly love, the Reformation, the Industrial Revolution, and the ceremonial theory of marriage, the new-fangled idea that marriage begins with a wedding, which is only a couple of hundred years old. Nor should it be surprising that the contemporary conjugal scene is in such flux, what with the liberation of women and the advent of contraceptives, as well as the decline in infant mortality.

As for a theology of Christian marriage, it has been rightly said that there is no such thing, there can only be a Christian theology of marriage. For marriage is a universal human relationship that is given with ceation, not the church. And indeed even Rome teaches that the thing that makes a marriage Christian is not that it is is solemnised in church (nb: “solemnised”, i.e. publicly authorised, not inaugurated), let alone by an officiating minister - the couple themselves are the ministers - but simply that the consenting couple (it is consent that makes a marriage) are Christian (or even just the bride or groom - cf. I Corinthians 7:14), wherever the wedding occurs. Karl Barth: “A wedding is only the regulative confirmation and legitimation of marriage before and by society. It does not constitute marriage.” Of course Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy add another dimension to marriage, the sacramental - Edward Schillebeeckx calls marriage “a secular reality that has entered salvation” - but even its sacramental nature dogmatically depends only on the fact that it is a covenant between two baptised Christians.

A useful little take on marriage in context is Duncan Dormor, Just Cohabiting? The Church, Sex and Getting Married (2004), the main thrust (!) of which, historically “highly unoriginal” as the author concedes, “is a call for a renewed understanding that becoming married is a process that may take place over months or perhaps years, and that cohabitation can come to be seen as a natural part of the process.”

I don’t believe marriage HAS changed over the centuries. There is a big difference between living together and being married. Scripture expressly says that licentiousness (sex before marriage) is a sin. It only makes sense that living together promotes that behavior which is sin.

Also, the concept of the Puritan statement you quoted you took out of context. Actually the concept of “terrying” was done at the woman’s parents house. The Puritans allowed the man to stay in the house but put restrictions outlawing sex and contact while at the womans parents house. Remember the statement quoted was in reference to a women who were living with their parents and were already engaged (or from the statement quoted beomce engaged). This was allowed for safety when it was extremely cold or late at night for safety sake. The couple was allowed to stay at the woman’s parents house all together.

Scripture makes it clear that marriage is between a woman and and a man. You mentioning Romeo and Juliet does not mean that what they did was right in light of Scripture. Also, Scripture doesn’t place an age limit on marriage. However, it does mention that the families need to give a blessing for the proposed marriage.

To say or imply that this statement I said is “hate-mongering” is really strange. Why should the church be forced to agree with marriage of same-sex couples when the whole concept of homosexuality goes against Scripture in light of Romans 1, 1 Cor 6, Levitcus, etc.? Who is to say that the “contemporary cultural context” is right? I say that what is going on is predicted by Christ when He talked about the last days being like Jonah, Noah and the like. It seems to me that the current culture is getting worse not in the actions of sin because the same sin actions occurred in the past as today but in the area of public condoning of sin with no remorse.

Yes, the concept has always and forever will be between a woman and a man. When I said they don’t change your examples don’t support your premise that they changed Biblically. No where in Scripture does it give age limits on when to get married. However, there is a biblical basis for having families “bless the marriage” and thus begin the “engagement”. Also, when one truly understands the details and the context of the Puritan example you gave you can see that premarital sex was NOT condoned ever in Puritan communities. In fact Scripture has always never condoned premarital sex, adultry, homosexuality and has always defined marriage as between a man and a woman. When one understands that then one can see how marriage has been consistent over time among biblically consistent communities.

Also, Romeo & Juliet, while the work of Shakespere is wonderful and I personally enjoy Shakespere, I would not say that morally Romeo & Juliet is Biblical by any means. They weren’t married and they obviously had sexual intercourse.

I just don’t by your “strawman” falacious arguments with regard to the so-called “changing” of marriage. When I said marriage hasn’t changed I was focusing on the biblical foundations. The consistent foundations have never changed and the concept of marriage should stick to those biblical foundations.