A reader has asked more about the question of the church allowing sexual relations outside of marriage. A good question and a fair one considering the assertions I made in the last blog entry on sex.
First, I would like to state what I did not mean - I DID NOT mean that the church has sanctioned promiscuous or casual sexuality. The church has always looked on sexuality either with suspicion or as a blessing that should be carefully used. The idea that sex is neutral and has no spiritual baggage of any kind is a modern assumption that does not fit in with the tradition. Yes, I'm sure Cardinal Richelieu encouraged (and participated in) casual sex, but abberative political machinations by clergy do not count as forming the normative tradition.
The problem actually is not sexuality, it's marriage. Marriage has not always been looked on in a positive light in Christian tradition. Paul recommended celibacy, due to the fact that he felt the return of Christ was immanent (1 Cor. 7:25-40). Marriage was a civil contract that initially had no place in the church so the church only looked on marriage as a sacrament gradually, beginning in around the third century and taking marriage over completely from the state by the 11th.
The reasons for marriage have vastly changed over the course of Christian History and our theology has never really caught up. The three "goods" of marriage, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church are fidelity (fides), the procreation of children (proles) and the union of the parties in the marriage (sacramentum). These goods remain similar today, but are re-ordered from just a a few centuries ago. The graphic below shows a comparison between the Elizabethan English BCP of 1552 and the modern American BCP of 1979. (BTW, for you Prayer Book Society folks, the 1928 rite does not contain the goods of marriage, but a canon was passed in 1949 that required couples to sign a consent to the goods of marriage in the order presented in the 1979 BCP. In this case, the '79 represents a return to an older Anglican tradition. )
(Click for a larger version)
This shows how the three goods are re-ordered and worded differently. The 1552 reflects an older teaching of Christian moral theology, namely that the bearing of children is the first good of marriage (bonum proles). This does not have to do with any specific scripture other than the command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. It has to do with the fact that in times between the extinction of silphium and modern contraception, sex went hand in hand with conception. If you had sex, you were most likely going to get pregnant. Therefore, sex was associated with procreation. Also, in ancient times, procreation was necessary to maintain one's status in society. Even men who were noted for their homoerotic appetite in ancient times took wives in order to procreate. To not do so would have held severe social consequences. In modern Roman Catholic moral theology, the point of sexuality is procreation, so any sexual act that does not have the possibility of procreation (oral sex, masturbation) or hampers procreation (contraceptives) is sinful.
What is important to note, is that in this model, the final point is PROCREATION, not SEX per se. If the main good of marriage is children, then a childless marriage is pointless. (Note that I am not saying this - I am explaining another point of view) Therefore, if procreation is not possible, marriage is not desirous. It is for this reason that at different times in Christian History, the church has either actively promoted or passively accepted sexual relations outside of marriage. Often, this was within the bounds of betrothal. As the Wikipedia article points out, this was fairly common in American Colonial practice.
"In most cultures, the betrothed couple is expected to spend much time together, learning about each other. In some historical cultures (including colonial North America), the betrothal was essentially a trial marriage, with marriage only being required in cases of conception of a child. In almost all cultures there is a loosening of restrictions against physical contact between partners, even in cultures which would normally otherwise have strong prohibitions against it. The betrothal period was also considered to be a preparatory time, in which the groom would build a house, start a business or otherwise prove his readiness to enter adult society."
(A side note here - anyone who thinks that Colonial America was a deeply religious place that we can draw values of faith and family from should read Awash in a sea of Faith by Jon Butler. We are more religious now than ever - certainly more than our early American forebears.)
This practice is still carried out among some very traditional Anabaptist sects in Holland, where it is traditional for the male to enter the house of his betrothed through her window and have intercourse with her (sometimes with the parents in the next room!) Marriage only happens if conception occurs, because the whole point of marriage is children. If no conception occurs, then there is no reason for marriage.
It is my understanding that in modern Roman Catholic annulment practice, consummation is not sex per se, but is conception. It would be possible for a couple to get an annulment on the basis that the marriage was never consummated if there are no children. This simply reflects this traditional understanding of the goods of marriage.
Now, if you will look at the American '79 version, Children are listed as the third good, and then only "When it is God's will." (This was suggested as early as 1551 in Bucer's Censura as a better reading of Genesis 2:18) The sexual revolution and the evolution of modern contraception has separated sexuality from procreation in a way that it has never been separated before (at least since pre-Christian classical times.) We haven't caught up. Many people still believe in the idea that procreation is the main good, only they have transferred the emphasis from the conception itself to the act that causes the conception, namely sex.
In my reckoning, this is dangerous. Modern marriage is no longer seen as something primarily to raise children, although that good is still there. It is something entered in for "mutual joy" (and note, that means MORE than sex - don't oversimplify it) and for "help and comfort." This is a lot less tangible than children and actually involves a much larger commitment to maintain. More is expected from marriage than simply children. Therefore, maintaining an ethic that looks at marriage as little more than a "Sex License" to avoid sin will in the long run harm the institution of marriage by encouraging naive (read "horny") people to enter into it for the wrong reasons. Over 50% of our marriages end in divorce, and the divorce rate is no lower among Christians than it is in the general population (some studies say it is slightly higher).
Paul said that people who "burn" should get married. That made sense at the time since marriage was about procreation. I would tend to say that since that is no longer true, if a couple came to me to be married because they wanted to have sex but had serious relational problems, I would: 1. Question whether sex would help the relationship at all and 2. Probably not marry them, even if they were going to have sex. I would not feel that they could fulfill the two first goods of marriage (fides, sacramentum) and so therefore would see no reason to bless it sacramentally. Sex in and of itself is simply not a good reason to marry - but all too many people get married for that reason. What might be a minor sin is converted into a major one by sacramentalizing a lie.
It is also important to note the word "bless." In Western Sacramental Theology, a clergy person does not "marry" two people. They perform the sacramental rite themselves. I simply add a blessing. The sacrament is an "outward and visible sign" of something that has already occurred in the couple - something that happens at a prior time probably only known to God. The marriage ceremony declares publicly and in the sight of the church that we are sure that a sacramental union has taken place, but the marriage took place before hand.
Therefore, I think we have to be careful about condemning all pre-marital sex. Many young couples I have known have been in a "betrothal" state for a while, sometimes co-habitating, sometimes not, usually for financial or educational reasons. These relationships are marked by monogamy, fidelity, mutual joy and comfort, and usually include a sexual component. Most of these who are active Christians end up marrying one another and have good marriages.
Who am I to judge? I will continue to uphold that sexuality is best expressed in relationships that are marked by fidelity, monogamy and commitment and that marriage is the normative Christian expression of that, but I think we have a lot of work to do around defining marriage, especially if some people are concerned about "defending" it against percieved attackers. I'm not sure if we all agree on what is being defended.
David+
I'm a single dad of 2 age 2 and 5. I recently came across this article and have been reading along. This is a greate site and contains fantastic contents. Your site contains a lot of valuable information as well.
http://www.singledadfinancialhelp.com/
Posted by: Dokemion | March 06, 2011 at 10:50 PM