Christian Marriage, Is it an outdated concept?

1. Introduction
The Church has for centuries traditionally upheld the belief that Christian marriage is the right and normal relationship which men and women should seek to obtain, and that it is the only right foundation for secure family life and true intimacy (sexual and otherwise) between the sexes. This belief, though once virtually universal in Western society, has gradually died out as more "permissive" attitudes have emerged and other standards have gained currency. Faced with this shift in popular belief, the Church must seek to reconcile its teaching with the views of modern society. It must ask the question: "Is the concept of Christian marriage outdated?" To answer this question, it is necessary to first examine the biblical basis for the teaching of the Church.

2. Marriage as a Creation ordinance
In the first chapter of Genesis we read: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."1 Since humans are created in the image of God as male and female, it follows that a man or a woman alone does not fully constitute the image of God. As Kasper notes:

The sexual difference clearly forms an essential part of humanity's created being. Humanity as such does not exist. It exists only as man and woman. It is only in togetherness that human existence can be fulfilled in the fully human sense. This mystery between man and woman is, in the Bible, the image and likeness of God's covenant with man and the reproduction of his love, faithfulness and creative power. In this way, an almost inestimable value is given to marriage.2

It can also be argued that God's creation of humans in two sexes (with the result that man and woman can only truly constitute God's image together) reflects the fact that God, as a trinity, himself exists in constant close fellowship and community (though there is no explicit support for this view in the text of Genesis, which does not develop a trinitarian doctrine). Since God is not Deus solitarius but Deus triunus, Barth argues, he cannot be mirrored in a homo solitarius.3 It is therefore clear that man and woman were intended to reflect God's image together, and need each other for this purpose.

Genesis chapter two further elaborates on this relationship between man and woman: "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called "woman", for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."4 This passage gives two aspects of the formation of a marriage relationship:

a. "...a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife..."
Stott indicates that this "leaving" has a public element.5 This being the case, it can be argued that the other aspect of the exclusive male-female relationship ("becoming one flesh") follows only after public recognition of the new status of the man and the woman as independent of parents and united as a couple. This public recognition is conferred today by a marriage ceremony, which fulfils this requirement of public recognition and approval.

b. "...and they will become one flesh."
"Becoming one flesh" sets the seal on the permanence of the marriage relationship, and is commonly believed to refer to sexual intercourse. This is partly true, as intercourse represents the physical aspect of "becoming one flesh" and, indeed, is the act by which this state is brought about. However, the term "one flesh" may be understood in wider terms as "the coming into being of a unitary existence, a complete partnership of man and woman, which cannot therefore be broken up without damage to the partners in it."6 Since the two partners have become a unity in this way, the relationship must be made permanent to avoid the damage which would be inflicted upon both partners if it were dissolved.

So we see in the Genesis accounts that man and woman need each other to be "complete", and that this completion involves becoming "one flesh" within the protection of a permanent relationship which can only come about as a result of the partners being united in a publicly recognised way, which today takes the form of a recognised marriage ceremony. Marriage, therefore, is a "creation ordinance", part of God's perfect plan for human beings which was instituted before the Fall of Man. It is therefore "God's gracious gift to all humankind."7

3. The theological aspect of Christian marriage
As has been demonstrated above, the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman is a representation of the covenant between God and his people. In the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, the metaphor of marriage is frequently used to describe the relationship between God and Israel, perhaps the most graphic illustration being in Hosea 1-3 where we see the living example of Hosea's adulterous wife used as a metaphor of Israel's unfaithfulness to God. In the New Testament, marriage is used by Paul as an image of the relationship between the Messiah and his Church.8 Both the Old and New Testaments present the covenant between God and his people as exclusive and permanent; this can also be understood to be the case for marriage. Just as Israel gives itself to God (and vice versa) under the terms of the Old Covenant, so a husband and wife give themselves to each other. This reciprocal giving implies that a husband and wife no longer belong to themselves, but belong to each other in a very real sense.9

God evidently takes the marriage covenant seriously, since the Bible attests that he himself is a witness to this covenant.10 This immediately elevates the status of the marriage covenant above that of merely a human contract, giving it a divine element. This, along with the element of reciprocal giving and belonging, supports the permanent status of marriage.

4. Contemporary alternatives to marriage
The Christian view outlined above, that marriage is a lifelong, exclusive covenant which constitutes the normative relationship between a man and a woman, is now a minority view in Western society. Marriage is increasingly seen as an expensive waste of time, an outdated concept which has no real significance. Surely, it is argued, it is much better for a man and a woman to cohabit than to marry. It costs less, and the only real difference is that there is no piece of paper to say that they are "officially" a couple. Many people don't even go as far as cohabitation, preferring the "freedom" of sexual promiscuity. For those who do marry, marriage is not necessarily seen as permanent, because the option of divorce is open to them should they wish to get out of it (for almost any reason, it seems). Let us consider these alternatives separately:

a. Promiscuity
Those who are in favour of promiscuous relationships argue that "casual" sex is fun, and prefer to be sexually active without the responsibility and commitment which a long-term relationship would involve. This represents a self-centred, hedonistic view of sexuality. Though promiscuous sex is undoubtedly pleasurable in a physical sense, it falls short of God's design. As the Genesis account shows, sex is designed to take place within a permanent relationship, as part of two people growing together and becoming "one flesh". If the two become "one flesh" by the act of intercourse, what implications does this have for a promiscuous person? Surely becoming "one flesh" with a succession of partners is emotionally (and perhaps spiritually) destructive. As John White states:

"Each time that sexual relations spring from casual encounters, something of their healing and life-giving nature is destroyed. The body is not meant for immorality but for the Lord (see 1 Cor. 6:13-20). God designed us to learn in the body and through the body the intimacy of a close personal relationship. The body is not designed to benefit us from sexual relationships Outside commitment. Such relationships enslave and destroy."11

In view of this, promiscuity is not an acceptable alternative to Christian marriage.

b. Cohabitation
Those who reject promiscuity may nevertheless propound cohabitation as an acceptable relationship for a man and a woman. The argument for this is that cohabitation is no different from marriage apart from the lack of a ceremony and a certificate. Many Christians would seek to use the example of Genesis, used above, to justify cohabitation; their argument is that the biblical concept of marriage is when a man and a woman "join their lives by mutual consent"12, and that cohabitation is therefore the same as marriage in God's eyes. However, this reasoning does not take account of the whole of the Genesis account, which clearly involves the necessity of public recognition of the new status of the partners as one unit. Perhaps more importantly, if marriage is a mirror of God's covenant with his people and God acts as a witness to the marriage covenant, then a highly important aspect is missing from the relationship of the cohabiting couple. This relationship does not reflect God's covenant, since there is no covenant here; therefore God cannot act as a witness between the man and the woman. This must surely mean that cohabitation does not have God's blessing. It could also be contended that, since there is no permanent, binding agreement of faithfulness between cohabiting partners, a degree of security is missing from the relationship. Either partner is free to terminate the relationship at any time, if he or she wants to. In view of these points, it can be seen that cohabitation is a very poor substitute for Christian marriage.

c. Secular marriage
There is a distinction between Christian marriage and the kind of marriage which is commonly practiced in Western society. Whereas Christian marriage is based on the biblical principles outlined above, and involves reciprocal self-giving, secular marriage is not. In the eyes of modern society, marriage is little more than cohabitation. It is too often a relationship between two self-seeking individuals, rather than a true unity. Secular marriage is further debased by the ease with which divorce can be, and too frequently is, obtained. The idea of marriage being a permanent, indissoluble bond is no longer current. The result of this is that secular marriage lacks the security and stability of Christian marriage, since it is not founded on biblical principles. Therefore even marriage as commonly practiced in contemporary Western society is no substitute for a Christian marriage which is founded on biblical principles.

5. Conclusion
From the Bible we can determine that marriage is a creation ordinance, part of God's plan for humanity, and is bound up intricately in what it means to be a fulfilled person, made in the image of God. It involves the two basic components of the man and the woman leaving parents and forming a new unit (which involves a public recognition, i.e. a marriage ceremony in today's terminology), and becoming "one flesh". It is a reflection of the communitarian existence of our triune God, and of his unique covenant relationship with his people. God himself acts as a witness between the husband and wife of the covenant they have made with each other, thus setting the divine "seal of approval" on marriage. All this being the case, marriage must surely be seen as God's ideal for male-female relationships. Though Christian marriage is very much out of vogue in contemporary society, the alternatives cannot measure up to the standards set in the scriptures. The beliefs of contemporary society, however widespread, must be treated by Christians as secondary to the Word of God, and so the obvious conclusion is that the concept of Christian marriage is not outdated, but is still very much a part of God's plan for humanity.

Endnotes
1. Genesis 1:27, New International Version.

2. W. Kasper, Theology of Christian Marriage, 26.

3. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics volume III,4, 117.

4. Genesis 2:23-24.

5. John Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today, 289.

6. H. Seebass in C. Brown (ed.) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 678; as cited in David Atkinson, To Have and To Hold, 79.

7. Stott, Issues, 285.

8. Cf Ephesians 5:22-33.

9. Cf 1 Corinthians 7:4.

10. This is alluded to in Proverbs 2:17 and Malachi 2:14.

11. John White, Eros Defiled, 21.

12. Helen Oppenheimer, "Marriage", in James F. Childress & John MacQuarrie (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics, 367.

Bibliography
Atkinson, David
To Have and To Hold, London: Collins, 1979.

Barth, Karl
Church Dogmatics volume III,4, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961.

Kasper, Walter
Theology of Christian Marriage, London: Burns & Oates, 1980.

Oppenheimer, Helen
"Marriage", in James F. Childress and John MacQuarrie (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics, London: SCM Press, 1986, 366 - 368.

Stott, John
Issues Facing Christians Today, London: Marshall Pickering, 1990.

White, John
Eros Defiled, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.