"If marriage is sacred, then theological teaching should hold the key to a good marriage. If marriage is secular, it might not be so."
OK... overall great piece. Challenging too because I am a young man who certainly leans more to a traditional (I don't think I want to say quite "Catholic" or "Orthodox") view on marriage, but I think I might disagree with you especially in the quote above, and I say I think because I'm not quite sure what you mean, so I need some help. If by sacred you mean you mean "holy things" and by secular you mean "common things" then isn't marriage automatically holy just by being "less common" than singleness?
Or perhaps by sacred you mean ordained by God, which would also mean that marriage is sacred. The state did not create one man and one woman in Eden, neither did the church, but God did.
Or maybe by secular you just mean all life outside of church life, which I think would be a stretch to call all of human existence outside of the time spent in a church building "secular life," but even then I'm not so sure you can say marriage is secular. In Matt 23:17 challenges the Pharisees by calling them "fools" (yeah, I forget sometimes that Jesus is a beast) and asking them "which is greater the gold, or the temple that has made the gold sacred?" I think marriage is like the gold here. I mean I'm 20 years old and not married so literally 0 authority here, so take my words with more than a grain of salt, but here's the one case I see you being correct, but even then not ALL marriages are sacred. Some are. Some are made sacred by the Priest or Pastor blessing the marriage in the eyes of God and other witnesses. There are marriages that are secular here, the one's that are done in a courthouse by a judge rather than a pastor in front of witnesses.
Let's just say that you meant the third case because that's pretty much the only way I see there being secular marriages. Still by having this statement here it seems like you are saying "if anything is sacred, then correct theological teaching should fix it if it's broken." Do you really believe this to be true?
If salvation is sacred then correct theological teaching about one's salvation should save someone?
If sanctification is sacred then correct theological teaching about one's sanctification should sanctify them?
John, you're puzzling through important questions, and I might not be helping with my rhetoric! To explain "secular": In the Middle Ages, and other times when Christianity was ascendant, "secular" did not mean anti-God or liberal, or secularist. It literally meant "not religious," and "of this age." For example, in the Middle Ages, a religious priest was one who lived in a monastery; a secular priest lived in the village or city, interacting with people, as they went about their secular work.
Martin Luther and the Reformation taught the church that Christians can serve God just as much in a secular occupation, like barber, as in a religious one, like a priest/pastor. (Luther famously corresponded with his barber about how to pray.) One aspect of the Protestant embrace of secular life was a reaffirmation of the good of marriage, including allowing pastors to marry.
I'm saying that we shouldn't want to reverse that by coveting the Catholic idea that marriage is a sacrament or an ordinance of the church.
The other piece is about theological v. secular teaching. I mean that, if marriage is part of human life, common to believers and unbelievers, then Christian marriages work according to the same rules as everyone else's. (By "common" I don't mean numerically frequent; just the same for everyone.) I might think that the real problem with my marriage is that I'm not praying enough, or memorizing enough Bible verses, or that my wife and I aren't obeying Ephesians 5 enough. But it might be that, as the psychologists the Gottmans say, I keep criticizing my wife. I might even be criticizing in spiritual terms, with Bible verses and all. But according to secular psychology, criticism is one of the four horsemen that kill marriages.
That's all! Just don't over-spiritualize problems.
I should also say this is a corrective. Focusing on Christ and forming a Christian marriage was my focus at your age. Now, I'm ten years married, and I'm learning not to OVER-spiritualize. Thanks for reading!
Exactly! Secular versus religious was a distinction within the Christian life, and between vocations. The Reformers argued that it cut across all of life and all of the vocations.
Wait this is super helpful! Thank you for your clarification and grace and patience with me haha! I really do enjoy your stuff! I've never understood secular as "of this age" and the piece makes more sense because of it! Thanks
Thanks Joel! I’m coming to think that we should get legally married in the courthouse and be covenantally bound to each other as husband and wife at a feast around the Lord’s Table where there is no need to sign a civil document or license but only submit to the Host. In so doing, this enables us to render in good conscience unto Caesar that which is the State’s prerogative, and unto God that which his sacred call. The secular is made sacred, made holy, in those who are His holy, set-apart people. A people called to live among and be a gospel witness to the Triune God among any and all partnerships that the law allows.
The book is a history of different theological conceptions of marriage and how they were formally expressed in legal structures.
So, the notion of marriage as sacrament takes its origin from Augustine, and is further elaborated in medieval theology and canon law. From there, the spiritual import of "sacrament" is replaced with the language of "covenant" in the Calvinist tradition, while Lutheran theologies emphasized the notion of marriage as a pre-political social estate. The English Reformation took things a slightly different direction, analogizing marriage with the commonwealth. The enlightenment (especially in the Isles) secularized marriage entirely, reducing it to a mutual contract dissoluble at will, a notion which lives on in Anglo-American law.
Witte is a master of legal/cultural history—anything he writes is worth reading!
If I could register one criticism of the book, it's that his history tends towards Whiggery. If you're a social conservative, it will probably rub you the wrong way—especially the epilogue. Far more gratifying to conservatives (like myself) to read the history as a narrative of social decline, whether or not that's the case.
> Accordingly, Christian and civil marriage do not differ in kind. Marriage is an ordinance of creation, not redemption. It is rightly administered by the civil magistrate as much as by a minister of the church.
How much is not supposed to be viewed in terms of Jesus then?
> But this is precisely to take a “low view” of the secular, too low because God made the secular and natural realm. The natural realm is as such theonomic; it already displays God’s rule, through governance by his natural law.3 It does not need the superimposition of grace, of sacrality, to make it into something that gives us contact with the divine.
Then is secular liberalism theonomic? I'm not seeing the grounds for anything being sacred if everything in nature is meant to be secular. Creation was made through Christ. I don't see why we're supposed to look everywhere else for what nature is.
Rest of the verses:
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Good to have another analytic philosopher in the mix! I'm not arguing that "everything in nature is secular." I'm resurrecting the traditional meaning of "secular" which was a category within Christendom, referring to non-religious activities.
Secularism or secular liberalism, Rawls for example, holds that nature and common life need to be founded on metaphysical neutral, procedural grounds. My notion of the natural and the secular are not metaphysically neutral. They are realities that, of themselves, give evidence of and glory to their Creator.
"I don't see why we're supposed to look everywhere else for what nature is." Then why are you studying philosophy? :) Better answer - because that's where nature is! Why would we refuse to read God's book of nature? And "Creation was made through Christ" - Creation was made through the second person of the Trinity, but Christ, the God-man, becomes Incarnate subsequent to/within creation. It was human nature as it already existed that the Son assumed. (Contra Barth, who says that we learn what human nature *is* with Christ's Incarnation.)
It is into the context of nature, and our empirical human knowledge that God provides special revelation through his prophets and his Son. Special revelation assumes natural revelation as its context.
Hey I'm happy to be here. I'm into analytic enchantment. In any case the metric for nature is God. I understand nature by my relationship with God. The hope God laid for all of humanity is in creation was fulfilled in Christ. It's by that we have connection to nature. There's a replication crisis in science due to empiricism not connecting us to nature. It's something else bridging the gap (whenever it's bridged).
In any case, I'm not sure what the line is supposed to be for nature by itself vs Christ? Why can't we know human nature as God revealed it? We're not following mosaic covenant for marriage. Why does it revert?
Since you gave a comment, I get a question: why is secular liberalism not protestantism?
I keep returning and turning over the Matthew 19 passage on marriage, divorce, eunuchs.
In vs 11, after the disciples complain about marital fidelity, Jesus says, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given." And at the end of vs.12 when Jesus is talking about the alternative of being a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven, he says, "The one who can accept this should accept it.”
These make me wonder if Jesus is making a distinction between the "secular" conditions of marriage and singleness, and a higher Kingdom calling to "those to whom it has been given." Is he giving two discipleship options which are indeed only specific to his disciples? that of a sacred calling of life-long marital fidelity (to honor God, not live comfortably), or a sacred calling of singleness for the sake of God's renown (not a personal or earthly king's renown)?
And if so, while there may be elements of our kingdom-calling that are exemplary and reasonable for all peoples (e.g. generally, folks should see that faithfulness and monogamy are good things, and that living intentionally as a single person for something beyond yourself is worthwhile), but that there is a radical shape to these sacred callings, and it is imprudent to overly normalize such things and pretend that they aren't almost other worldly??
"The one who can accept this should accept it" is like "Let the reader understand" in Daniel, haha.
I think the radical, almost other-worldly character of Christ's New Commandment/relativization of creation ordinances, etc. - cuts across all Christian lives. But I do think it can show up in some lives in a much more radical way. For the married, "Let those who have wives live as though they had none." For the unmarried, it may be a choice or simply their lot (which can become their vocation) to be "a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven." This is certainly the relative truth in the Catholic distinction of celibate, sacred vocations from secular ones.
But I think we're nearing the truth - in my view, not everyone is called to sell all their possessions. But some people are. In particular, the rich young ruler, given the chance to become one of Jesus' posse of disciples, was called to do so. But everyone is called to treat their possessions like they are just the "unrighteous wealth" of this age that we wield for the sake of ours and others' eternal good.
Well it’s a little more complicated than saying Catholics view marriage as a sacrament while Protestants view it as secular because that blurs the lines on what is really being said. You’re also conflating “secular” and “natural” which are two totally different things. Secular comes from a liberal anthropology meaning that whatever is secular is an invention of the state, which is a social contract we create as individuals so it is something we create prudentially and can be modified in any way (this logic was then used to include “gay marriage” by people like Andrew Sullivan as it was thought to prudentially include “homosexuals” in marriage). This is the Protestant view because Protestants reject traditional metaphysics and anthropology. Marriage being “natural” and flowing from natural law presupposes a traditional anthropology, where we are rational animals who are coupling creatures and in order to couple together we create lifelong unions to primarily create and educate children. This is why the Church insists that divorce is impossible because once a couple is married (inside or outside the Church) then it’s “until death do you part” because using your reason you came to the decision to marry. This view even deals with your point about marriage being hard because Christ also provides the sacrament of Matrimony to give us specific grace to elevate our nature and actual stay in a committed marriage.
In general, I very much agree with your comments. To be secular does not mean an absence of transcendent meaning. My response to the advice that marriage should be undertaken primarily as a means of personal sanctification, is to point out the absurdity of using that same logic when choosing a job. Yes, my job will play a role in my sanctification, but this is of secondary importance to other issues (such as income, match with personal talents, impact for the kingdom etc).
One issue that I have been thinking through lately, is the difference between the biblical notions of tribe, nation, and empire as they relate to the authority for marriage. I am currently leaning toward the belief that the tribe is the locus of authority for the establishment of marriages, rather than at the level of the nation or empire.
I don't know quite how this fits into this debate, but one of the best pieces of premarital advice I ever received was from a friend who told me, "God didn't create marriage to make you happy. He created it to make you holy." Having that view, that the difficulties and trials of marriage are worth persevering through because they ultimately can redirect us back to God and his grace, prevented a lot of disillusionment.
I might argue that the same applies to work. What is a Christian to do with their job/career does not provide those characteristics that they might seek? At some point you are kind of stuck in the career/industry you are in, and the only solution is to go to the Lord and pray that he will use the trials you experience to make you more like Him and give you the grace to respond to them in a way that glorifies him.
edit: I don't mean for this analogy to be too dogmatic -- one way marriage and work differ is that if you just start a career or job and decide you don't like it, there's nothing wrong with trying to go another direction, but there is some point at which there exists prudential wisdom/practical necessity in staying where you are even if it's not providing you with the challenge, interest, or financial gain that you might have imagined it would, because your other options at that point are likely going to be worse.
I don't know enough to know whether this means I view marriage as sacramental or secular, but I certainly believe that it's been one of the most powerful means God has used in my life for my sanctification.
Thank you for the engagement. I'm glad that your friend's advice has helped you in your married life. I agree that marriage is hard, costly, and still worth it.
To clarify, one of my issues with the "everything in life, but especially marriage is primarily meant for my sanctification" sentiment, is that it simply doesn't work in community. For example, if the primary purpose of marriage is sanctification, then why not encourage healthy people to marry invalids, beautiful women to marry poor ugly men, honest men to marry their dishonest girlfriends? These would be very sanctifying situations, if they occurred post-marriage, but very few would pressure someone they love to willfully enter these kinds of relationships. But on the other hand, if the primary purpose of marriage is personal sanctification, then why not encourage the path that most requires the sacrifice for another? My simple response is that the assumption underlying the questions is broken from the start.
I agree that "God didn't [primarily] create marriage to make you [or me] happy." That also doesn't mean that God created marriage primarily to sanctify us through the death of our own desires, hopes, and ambitions. Maybe marriage is neither for my happiness nor my sanctification, but is about something outside the self, entirely? Just my thoughts!
I appreciate this line of inquiry. As a "communitarian", I find myself recognizing that all intentional relationships are sanctifying experiences. Yet, this common teleology of sanctification ends up reducing our vision do our individualized experiences of spiritual growth and character development, rather than a communal concern that asks, how can WE as a community of disciples most grow into the image of Christ? Yes, personal character is vital, but the corporate holiness and activities of love in and abounding out of our Christian fellowship are the manifestations of the Spirit of Christ in US that I think are our more central to our telos. In this regard, we begin to ask, would X, Y, or Z marriage help the community, not just the couple, in its calling and purpose? For example, I could ask, "would partnering with person A be more fruitful in this age if we were married? and procreating? or adopting? or unmarried as celibates? and living near? or living far? etc. This is the type of discernment I wish could be invited more intentionally.
I'm not sure your reasoning works for a few reasons. First, the idea that marriage is about something outside of the self seems to be contradicted by the Genesis account of the creation of Eve. In as much as the creation of Eve for Adam is God "creating marriage", I think it's clear that it was created for the benefit of the human person. So then the question becomes, "What kind of benefit?"
There are some interesting implications here about marriage and procreation I think. God sees that it is not good for Adam to be alone and so he creates Eve to be a companion to him. He then instructs the two of them to fill the earth and subdue it. I would read this to suggest that procreation is a secondary good in marriage. God didn't see that it was not good that Adam couldn't produce offspring and so he created a wife to bear him children; he saw that it was not good that Adam was alone and so he created a companion for him. But that's a little beside the sanctification point.
"If the primary purpose of marriage is sanctification, then why not encourage healthy people to marry invalids, beautiful women to marry poor ugly men, honest men to marry their dishonest girlfriends? These would be very sanctifying situations, if they occurred post-marriage, but very few would pressure someone they love to willfully enter these kinds of relationships."
Is it common in your experience that believers ever "pressure" one another to enter into situations where it is expected that great suffering will occur? It is not in mine. I have a friend who has been a lifelong missionary in Chad, living in one of the most impoverished and remote parts of the world. He's experienced all kinds of challenges, from afflictions in the health of his kids, to threats from political instability. Certainly, nobody pressured him to take on this calling. And blithely walking into suffering without "counting the cost" is no guarantee of sanctification. It can just as easily result in failure and bitterness. That doesn't discount that this is what suffering is "for" (Romans 5:3-4, "Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.") but its ability to play out in the believer's life as it would be intended is of course dependent on his response to it.
Likewise, nobody is going to pressure a man to marry a woman who he learns has ALS. But if he discerns a calling to walk with her through that in marriage, then surely the sanctification that may experience in that journey is a huge part of God's intention for that marriage in his life. If not for this person's sanctification, and the comfort of the afflicted wife what would you say that such a marriage would be "for"? I think that the role of community in such a context is to provide counsel, support, and encouragement to this man so seek after his calling, but at the end of the day that discernment of his calling is his alone.
Some good comments. But I think we are talking past each other (which is the nature of any comment section even that belonging to the great and glorious substack).
"If marriage is sacred, then theological teaching should hold the key to a good marriage. If marriage is secular, it might not be so."
OK... overall great piece. Challenging too because I am a young man who certainly leans more to a traditional (I don't think I want to say quite "Catholic" or "Orthodox") view on marriage, but I think I might disagree with you especially in the quote above, and I say I think because I'm not quite sure what you mean, so I need some help. If by sacred you mean you mean "holy things" and by secular you mean "common things" then isn't marriage automatically holy just by being "less common" than singleness?
Or perhaps by sacred you mean ordained by God, which would also mean that marriage is sacred. The state did not create one man and one woman in Eden, neither did the church, but God did.
Or maybe by secular you just mean all life outside of church life, which I think would be a stretch to call all of human existence outside of the time spent in a church building "secular life," but even then I'm not so sure you can say marriage is secular. In Matt 23:17 challenges the Pharisees by calling them "fools" (yeah, I forget sometimes that Jesus is a beast) and asking them "which is greater the gold, or the temple that has made the gold sacred?" I think marriage is like the gold here. I mean I'm 20 years old and not married so literally 0 authority here, so take my words with more than a grain of salt, but here's the one case I see you being correct, but even then not ALL marriages are sacred. Some are. Some are made sacred by the Priest or Pastor blessing the marriage in the eyes of God and other witnesses. There are marriages that are secular here, the one's that are done in a courthouse by a judge rather than a pastor in front of witnesses.
Let's just say that you meant the third case because that's pretty much the only way I see there being secular marriages. Still by having this statement here it seems like you are saying "if anything is sacred, then correct theological teaching should fix it if it's broken." Do you really believe this to be true?
If salvation is sacred then correct theological teaching about one's salvation should save someone?
If sanctification is sacred then correct theological teaching about one's sanctification should sanctify them?
John, you're puzzling through important questions, and I might not be helping with my rhetoric! To explain "secular": In the Middle Ages, and other times when Christianity was ascendant, "secular" did not mean anti-God or liberal, or secularist. It literally meant "not religious," and "of this age." For example, in the Middle Ages, a religious priest was one who lived in a monastery; a secular priest lived in the village or city, interacting with people, as they went about their secular work.
Martin Luther and the Reformation taught the church that Christians can serve God just as much in a secular occupation, like barber, as in a religious one, like a priest/pastor. (Luther famously corresponded with his barber about how to pray.) One aspect of the Protestant embrace of secular life was a reaffirmation of the good of marriage, including allowing pastors to marry.
I'm saying that we shouldn't want to reverse that by coveting the Catholic idea that marriage is a sacrament or an ordinance of the church.
The other piece is about theological v. secular teaching. I mean that, if marriage is part of human life, common to believers and unbelievers, then Christian marriages work according to the same rules as everyone else's. (By "common" I don't mean numerically frequent; just the same for everyone.) I might think that the real problem with my marriage is that I'm not praying enough, or memorizing enough Bible verses, or that my wife and I aren't obeying Ephesians 5 enough. But it might be that, as the psychologists the Gottmans say, I keep criticizing my wife. I might even be criticizing in spiritual terms, with Bible verses and all. But according to secular psychology, criticism is one of the four horsemen that kill marriages.
That's all! Just don't over-spiritualize problems.
I should also say this is a corrective. Focusing on Christ and forming a Christian marriage was my focus at your age. Now, I'm ten years married, and I'm learning not to OVER-spiritualize. Thanks for reading!
My understanding is that “secular” originally referred to Catholic clergy that ministered in the world as opposed to living in a monastery.
Exactly! Secular versus religious was a distinction within the Christian life, and between vocations. The Reformers argued that it cut across all of life and all of the vocations.
Wait this is super helpful! Thank you for your clarification and grace and patience with me haha! I really do enjoy your stuff! I've never understood secular as "of this age" and the piece makes more sense because of it! Thanks
Thanks Joel! I’m coming to think that we should get legally married in the courthouse and be covenantally bound to each other as husband and wife at a feast around the Lord’s Table where there is no need to sign a civil document or license but only submit to the Host. In so doing, this enables us to render in good conscience unto Caesar that which is the State’s prerogative, and unto God that which his sacred call. The secular is made sacred, made holy, in those who are His holy, set-apart people. A people called to live among and be a gospel witness to the Triune God among any and all partnerships that the law allows.
Key reading on this history is John Witte's book, "From Sacrament to Contract."
Oh boy, I want to hear more! I've read some good things from Witte.
The book is a history of different theological conceptions of marriage and how they were formally expressed in legal structures.
So, the notion of marriage as sacrament takes its origin from Augustine, and is further elaborated in medieval theology and canon law. From there, the spiritual import of "sacrament" is replaced with the language of "covenant" in the Calvinist tradition, while Lutheran theologies emphasized the notion of marriage as a pre-political social estate. The English Reformation took things a slightly different direction, analogizing marriage with the commonwealth. The enlightenment (especially in the Isles) secularized marriage entirely, reducing it to a mutual contract dissoluble at will, a notion which lives on in Anglo-American law.
Witte is a master of legal/cultural history—anything he writes is worth reading!
https://www.amazon.com/Sacrament-Contract-Second-Marriage-Tradition/dp/0664234321
If I could register one criticism of the book, it's that his history tends towards Whiggery. If you're a social conservative, it will probably rub you the wrong way—especially the epilogue. Far more gratifying to conservatives (like myself) to read the history as a narrative of social decline, whether or not that's the case.
> Accordingly, Christian and civil marriage do not differ in kind. Marriage is an ordinance of creation, not redemption. It is rightly administered by the civil magistrate as much as by a minister of the church.
How much is not supposed to be viewed in terms of Jesus then?
> But this is precisely to take a “low view” of the secular, too low because God made the secular and natural realm. The natural realm is as such theonomic; it already displays God’s rule, through governance by his natural law.3 It does not need the superimposition of grace, of sacrality, to make it into something that gives us contact with the divine.
Then is secular liberalism theonomic? I'm not seeing the grounds for anything being sacred if everything in nature is meant to be secular. Creation was made through Christ. I don't see why we're supposed to look everywhere else for what nature is.
Rest of the verses:
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Good to have another analytic philosopher in the mix! I'm not arguing that "everything in nature is secular." I'm resurrecting the traditional meaning of "secular" which was a category within Christendom, referring to non-religious activities.
Secularism or secular liberalism, Rawls for example, holds that nature and common life need to be founded on metaphysical neutral, procedural grounds. My notion of the natural and the secular are not metaphysically neutral. They are realities that, of themselves, give evidence of and glory to their Creator.
"I don't see why we're supposed to look everywhere else for what nature is." Then why are you studying philosophy? :) Better answer - because that's where nature is! Why would we refuse to read God's book of nature? And "Creation was made through Christ" - Creation was made through the second person of the Trinity, but Christ, the God-man, becomes Incarnate subsequent to/within creation. It was human nature as it already existed that the Son assumed. (Contra Barth, who says that we learn what human nature *is* with Christ's Incarnation.)
It is into the context of nature, and our empirical human knowledge that God provides special revelation through his prophets and his Son. Special revelation assumes natural revelation as its context.
Hey I'm happy to be here. I'm into analytic enchantment. In any case the metric for nature is God. I understand nature by my relationship with God. The hope God laid for all of humanity is in creation was fulfilled in Christ. It's by that we have connection to nature. There's a replication crisis in science due to empiricism not connecting us to nature. It's something else bridging the gap (whenever it's bridged).
In any case, I'm not sure what the line is supposed to be for nature by itself vs Christ? Why can't we know human nature as God revealed it? We're not following mosaic covenant for marriage. Why does it revert?
Since you gave a comment, I get a question: why is secular liberalism not protestantism?
I keep returning and turning over the Matthew 19 passage on marriage, divorce, eunuchs.
In vs 11, after the disciples complain about marital fidelity, Jesus says, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given." And at the end of vs.12 when Jesus is talking about the alternative of being a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven, he says, "The one who can accept this should accept it.”
These make me wonder if Jesus is making a distinction between the "secular" conditions of marriage and singleness, and a higher Kingdom calling to "those to whom it has been given." Is he giving two discipleship options which are indeed only specific to his disciples? that of a sacred calling of life-long marital fidelity (to honor God, not live comfortably), or a sacred calling of singleness for the sake of God's renown (not a personal or earthly king's renown)?
And if so, while there may be elements of our kingdom-calling that are exemplary and reasonable for all peoples (e.g. generally, folks should see that faithfulness and monogamy are good things, and that living intentionally as a single person for something beyond yourself is worthwhile), but that there is a radical shape to these sacred callings, and it is imprudent to overly normalize such things and pretend that they aren't almost other worldly??
"The one who can accept this should accept it" is like "Let the reader understand" in Daniel, haha.
I think the radical, almost other-worldly character of Christ's New Commandment/relativization of creation ordinances, etc. - cuts across all Christian lives. But I do think it can show up in some lives in a much more radical way. For the married, "Let those who have wives live as though they had none." For the unmarried, it may be a choice or simply their lot (which can become their vocation) to be "a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven." This is certainly the relative truth in the Catholic distinction of celibate, sacred vocations from secular ones.
But I think we're nearing the truth - in my view, not everyone is called to sell all their possessions. But some people are. In particular, the rich young ruler, given the chance to become one of Jesus' posse of disciples, was called to do so. But everyone is called to treat their possessions like they are just the "unrighteous wealth" of this age that we wield for the sake of ours and others' eternal good.
Well it’s a little more complicated than saying Catholics view marriage as a sacrament while Protestants view it as secular because that blurs the lines on what is really being said. You’re also conflating “secular” and “natural” which are two totally different things. Secular comes from a liberal anthropology meaning that whatever is secular is an invention of the state, which is a social contract we create as individuals so it is something we create prudentially and can be modified in any way (this logic was then used to include “gay marriage” by people like Andrew Sullivan as it was thought to prudentially include “homosexuals” in marriage). This is the Protestant view because Protestants reject traditional metaphysics and anthropology. Marriage being “natural” and flowing from natural law presupposes a traditional anthropology, where we are rational animals who are coupling creatures and in order to couple together we create lifelong unions to primarily create and educate children. This is why the Church insists that divorce is impossible because once a couple is married (inside or outside the Church) then it’s “until death do you part” because using your reason you came to the decision to marry. This view even deals with your point about marriage being hard because Christ also provides the sacrament of Matrimony to give us specific grace to elevate our nature and actual stay in a committed marriage.
In general, I very much agree with your comments. To be secular does not mean an absence of transcendent meaning. My response to the advice that marriage should be undertaken primarily as a means of personal sanctification, is to point out the absurdity of using that same logic when choosing a job. Yes, my job will play a role in my sanctification, but this is of secondary importance to other issues (such as income, match with personal talents, impact for the kingdom etc).
One issue that I have been thinking through lately, is the difference between the biblical notions of tribe, nation, and empire as they relate to the authority for marriage. I am currently leaning toward the belief that the tribe is the locus of authority for the establishment of marriages, rather than at the level of the nation or empire.
I don't know quite how this fits into this debate, but one of the best pieces of premarital advice I ever received was from a friend who told me, "God didn't create marriage to make you happy. He created it to make you holy." Having that view, that the difficulties and trials of marriage are worth persevering through because they ultimately can redirect us back to God and his grace, prevented a lot of disillusionment.
I might argue that the same applies to work. What is a Christian to do with their job/career does not provide those characteristics that they might seek? At some point you are kind of stuck in the career/industry you are in, and the only solution is to go to the Lord and pray that he will use the trials you experience to make you more like Him and give you the grace to respond to them in a way that glorifies him.
edit: I don't mean for this analogy to be too dogmatic -- one way marriage and work differ is that if you just start a career or job and decide you don't like it, there's nothing wrong with trying to go another direction, but there is some point at which there exists prudential wisdom/practical necessity in staying where you are even if it's not providing you with the challenge, interest, or financial gain that you might have imagined it would, because your other options at that point are likely going to be worse.
I don't know enough to know whether this means I view marriage as sacramental or secular, but I certainly believe that it's been one of the most powerful means God has used in my life for my sanctification.
Thank you for the engagement. I'm glad that your friend's advice has helped you in your married life. I agree that marriage is hard, costly, and still worth it.
To clarify, one of my issues with the "everything in life, but especially marriage is primarily meant for my sanctification" sentiment, is that it simply doesn't work in community. For example, if the primary purpose of marriage is sanctification, then why not encourage healthy people to marry invalids, beautiful women to marry poor ugly men, honest men to marry their dishonest girlfriends? These would be very sanctifying situations, if they occurred post-marriage, but very few would pressure someone they love to willfully enter these kinds of relationships. But on the other hand, if the primary purpose of marriage is personal sanctification, then why not encourage the path that most requires the sacrifice for another? My simple response is that the assumption underlying the questions is broken from the start.
I agree that "God didn't [primarily] create marriage to make you [or me] happy." That also doesn't mean that God created marriage primarily to sanctify us through the death of our own desires, hopes, and ambitions. Maybe marriage is neither for my happiness nor my sanctification, but is about something outside the self, entirely? Just my thoughts!
I appreciate this line of inquiry. As a "communitarian", I find myself recognizing that all intentional relationships are sanctifying experiences. Yet, this common teleology of sanctification ends up reducing our vision do our individualized experiences of spiritual growth and character development, rather than a communal concern that asks, how can WE as a community of disciples most grow into the image of Christ? Yes, personal character is vital, but the corporate holiness and activities of love in and abounding out of our Christian fellowship are the manifestations of the Spirit of Christ in US that I think are our more central to our telos. In this regard, we begin to ask, would X, Y, or Z marriage help the community, not just the couple, in its calling and purpose? For example, I could ask, "would partnering with person A be more fruitful in this age if we were married? and procreating? or adopting? or unmarried as celibates? and living near? or living far? etc. This is the type of discernment I wish could be invited more intentionally.
Good stuff!
I'm not sure your reasoning works for a few reasons. First, the idea that marriage is about something outside of the self seems to be contradicted by the Genesis account of the creation of Eve. In as much as the creation of Eve for Adam is God "creating marriage", I think it's clear that it was created for the benefit of the human person. So then the question becomes, "What kind of benefit?"
There are some interesting implications here about marriage and procreation I think. God sees that it is not good for Adam to be alone and so he creates Eve to be a companion to him. He then instructs the two of them to fill the earth and subdue it. I would read this to suggest that procreation is a secondary good in marriage. God didn't see that it was not good that Adam couldn't produce offspring and so he created a wife to bear him children; he saw that it was not good that Adam was alone and so he created a companion for him. But that's a little beside the sanctification point.
"If the primary purpose of marriage is sanctification, then why not encourage healthy people to marry invalids, beautiful women to marry poor ugly men, honest men to marry their dishonest girlfriends? These would be very sanctifying situations, if they occurred post-marriage, but very few would pressure someone they love to willfully enter these kinds of relationships."
Is it common in your experience that believers ever "pressure" one another to enter into situations where it is expected that great suffering will occur? It is not in mine. I have a friend who has been a lifelong missionary in Chad, living in one of the most impoverished and remote parts of the world. He's experienced all kinds of challenges, from afflictions in the health of his kids, to threats from political instability. Certainly, nobody pressured him to take on this calling. And blithely walking into suffering without "counting the cost" is no guarantee of sanctification. It can just as easily result in failure and bitterness. That doesn't discount that this is what suffering is "for" (Romans 5:3-4, "Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.") but its ability to play out in the believer's life as it would be intended is of course dependent on his response to it.
Likewise, nobody is going to pressure a man to marry a woman who he learns has ALS. But if he discerns a calling to walk with her through that in marriage, then surely the sanctification that may experience in that journey is a huge part of God's intention for that marriage in his life. If not for this person's sanctification, and the comfort of the afflicted wife what would you say that such a marriage would be "for"? I think that the role of community in such a context is to provide counsel, support, and encouragement to this man so seek after his calling, but at the end of the day that discernment of his calling is his alone.
Some good comments. But I think we are talking past each other (which is the nature of any comment section even that belonging to the great and glorious substack).