In Part II we will examine the origins of the marriage relationship.
Much of the material for this series has been excerpted from Ye shall be as gods which succinctly frames the opposing Christian and humanist worldviews with regard to human relationships in general and marriage specifically. [Johnson, Chapter 20, American Family – Marriage and Family.]
As one reflects on how humans have organized themselves over time, there is and has been a great diversity of societal forms in various cultures and periods of history. However, underlying this variety is a structured order or arrangement that reflects the “creational givens.” One of these givens is that the family structure is a societal institution established by the creator. And the family structure consisting of “…a father, mother and children living together in bonds of committed caring is not an arbitrary happenstance; nor is it mere convention that can be dismissed when it has outlived its usefulness.” This ordered family structure is a part of the human constitution and is ingrained in man’s nature in all of its facets—biological, emotional, social and moral. This structure allows for variety but sets definite boundaries, i.e., lines that cannot be crossed without being in opposition to the divinely structured order of the family. [Wolters, p. 96.]
The ordered family structure flows from God and is described in Genesis 1:27 which states, “God created man in his own image…male and female he created them…” Their characters and roles are distinct, but both are created in His image. Therefore, the roles of husband and wife and father and mother (monogamous married couple living with their children) are not societal constructs from which we are to be liberated. True human fulfillment is attained when men and women are faithful to the foundational principles of family.
Through the millennia the molding and shaping of marriage and family progressed, not with changes to the basic structure but in the fleshing out of its bones. By our very nature, men and women are a “pair-bonding” species. From such comes reproduction and nurturance. Parents shape the moral understanding, behavior, feeling, and worldview of their children. Most importantly, “The family is where ‘socialization’—the generational transmission of moral and cultural values—takes place.” The home was the basic organizing unit of humankind—a father, mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring. The home became part of the extended family, then village, community, and ultimately state. Society arose from the success of the home, and without the stable home a civilized society would have been impossible. [Bennett, pp. 44-45.]
The cultural universals of marriage and family provide for the needs of society, and across the millennia economic and political considerations played a major role in selection of marriage partners. [Coontz, p. 7.] Society grew and stabilized through marriage and family and a network of extended family (relatives and friends) in which there are reciprocal expectations, obligations, and responsibilities. In this larger sense, marriage was more than just commitment between two people. It is a ceremonious and formal union in which two families celebrate the marriage and the consequent “entanglement” of the families. Each family rises in status or affinity with the other as well as having reciprocal claims on each other. With status and affinity comes the motivator to right conduct by not bringing dishonor to the family. Another basic need of society is the establishment of rules for sexual conduct. The family supports monogamy between the husband and wife. To such is born children that have status as family. Without monogamy the family tends to dilution and disintegration through “…loss of legitimacy, social identity, legal recognition, cultural tradition, and an estate.” In both the nuclear and extended families, marriage provides the best arrangement for the nurture and protection of children, the impartation of respect for the authority of parents, and the recognition of obligations to the elder members of family. In other words, the cultural universals of marriage and family are the means whereby generational transmission of moral and cultural values is most effectively achieved. [Bennett, pp. 44-45, 174-178.]
The seedbed of what are considered to be many of the ethical qualities of the modern nuclear family that were critical to its development in Western civilization lay in the tribal society of ancient Israel, but the nuclear family as we know it was not a product of that society. Characteristics of ancient Israel that are in conflict with definition of the modern nuclear family include polygamy and the keeping of concubines among certain classes and the wealthy, arranged marriages (for economic, political, and social reasons), and the lack of legal and property rights and status for women. However, from the Hebrews we received two outstanding contributions to the development of the modern nuclear family: their commitment to family life and making marriage the focus of human sexuality (and opposition to infidelity and homosexuality). Where the Hebrews opened the way, Christianity would continue the moral refinement of marriage and family. As Western civilization was Christendom, we must recognize the importance of Christianity and its inestimable impact on our understanding of marriage and family.
In Christianity, the marriage relationship was of such importance that it is described in terms of Christ’s relationship with the church (His bride). With the new definition of marriage and family in the New Testament came a remarkable elevation in the status of women. In the first century world, women were of low social standing in virtually all cultures. They were considered inferior to men and responsible for sexual sin. But, Jesus’ attitude and example during His earthly ministry became the definitive model for our understanding of male-female relationships, marriage, and family life. Paul’s teachings on the relationship of men and women, marriage, and family added texture and detail to Jesus’ ministry. Both men and women were held accountable to the same standards of morality. The vows of marriage were meant to be permanent with divorce allowed under very limited circumstances.
With Christianity the understanding of the divine concept of marriage and family came into full view. But it would take another 1,500 years before “…permanent, monogamous marriage had triumphed, and home was more comforting and more private.” [Bennett, pp. 45-50, 53.] In Part III we turn our attention to the nature of marriage under the Christian and humanistic worldviews.
Larry G. Johnson
Sources:
Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 307-308, 310-312.
Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985, 2005), p. 96.
William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 44-50, 53, 174-178.
Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a History, (New York: Penguin Group, 2005), p. 7
